Monday, November 23, 2015

Bernie Sanders wins foreign policy debate hands down despite propaganda



The media has been presenting the Republicans and most hawkish Democrats including Hillary Clinton as being far superior on foreign policy than any one who speaks out against one war after another, who they label as "Doves" or "weak on defense," for decades.

They repeat this over and over again!

Like any good propaganda if they refuse to allow peace advocates to tell the public the full truth, at least in the mass media, this portrayal seems very credible to many people that don't check the facts.

There's just one problem with this image.

It is based on lies; and if people start to scrutinize it will fall apart quickly.

The simplest way of refuting it is to simply ask why they haven't been able to keep us out of war one time after another. Another simple point is tracking all the times our so-called allies that we have armed in the past keep turning those arms against us, although listing the details will take more time.

But Bernie Sanders began that in the most recent debate, and a closer look will easily indicate that the reason we keep winding up in one war after another is that our actions, often presented as "strong on defense" often come back to haunt us; and in many cases it hasn't had anything to do with "defense" or "defending democracy" at all.

JOHN DICKERSON: Senator Sanders, you said you wanna rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous date you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?

BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you're gonna see countries all over the world-- this is what the C.I.A. says, they're gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you're gonna see all kinds of international conflict.

But of course international terrorism is a major issue that we've got to address today. And I agree with much of what-- the secretary and-- and the governor have said. Only have one area of-- of disagreement with the secretary. I think she said something like, "The bulk of the responsibility is not ours."

Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely. And led to the rise of Al Qaeda-- and to-- ISIS. Now, in fact, what we have got to do-- and I think there is widespread agreement here-- 'cause the United States cannot do it alone. What we need to do is lead an international coalition which includes-- very significantly-- (UNINTEL) nations in that region are gonna have to fight and defend their way of life. ... Oh I don't think any-- I don't think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now. ...

I think that was one of the worst foreign policy plunders in the modern history of United States. ....

BERNIE SANDERS: I think we have a disagreement. And-- the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq, if you look at history, John, you will find that regime change-- whether it was in the early '50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile or whether it was overthrowing the government Guatemala way back when-- these invasions, these-- these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue I'm a little bit more conservative than the secretary. Complete transcript in context for Democratic Debate


Bernie Sanders listed a relatively small sample of the tyrants that the United States has supported in the past who later turned against us, one way or another; however the traditional press is very selective about the way they report them, often reporting that we previously supported tyrants only briefly and repeating that they hate us over and over again without reminding people why they hate us.

Iran is one of the most blatant examples. In the late forties or early fifties the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), now BP, negotiated a deal which served their best interests and the best interest of Iran's leadership at the time but not the best interest of the people. After Mohammad Mosaddegh with the help of the Iranian parliament they attempted to negotiate a better deal for the people but the AOIC refused to cooperate and they voted to nationalize their own oil resources then the CIA and the British Secret Intelligence Service carried out the 1953 Iranian coup d'├ętat installing the Shah who abused and tortured his own people while giving multinational oil companies a great deal. Instead of supporting democracy as U.S. propaganda often claims they were suppressing it, as they have done in many cases.

This of course eventually led to the Iranian Revolution which was backlash against the United Stated previous support of a tyrant and in the eighties they alternatively supported both Iran and Iraq during their war arming both sides at one time or another prolonging their war resulting in enormous atrocities which the traditional media rarely ever reports in this country but the Iranians will never forget.

This is standard operating procedure in one country after another. A closer review of the most reliable sources clearly indicates that the United States hasn't been fighting to defend the free world since WWII as their propaganda indicates but to prop up one tyrant after another. The Vietnamese signed a declaration of independence so they could rule their own country but when the French abandoned their efforts to suppress them the United Stated invaded; the United States armed Saddam H7ussien and Manuel Noriega before deciding they were our enemies; they armed the Mujaheddin before they became the Taliban and AL-Qaeda; and many other examples including in 2013 when they were exaggerating the atrocities committed by Assad as an excuse to arm rebels and one of the groups they armed became known as ISIS or ISIL in 2014 although that wasn't the name they chose for themselves.

Hillary Clinton was involved in this as Secretary of State and she supported the Iraq war as senator which helped create the quagmire that led to the rise of what we now call ISIS or ISIL. Hillary Clinton has been strong supporter of the traditional foreign policy practices that routinely arm one tyrant or rebel organization after another even when they routinely turn against us.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand has begun to acknowledge that these tactics have been backfiring for a long time. His claim that Climate Change will inevitably lead to instability is also true, although if many people don't look into the details it is easy to ridicule. Environmental destruction, related to Climate Change or not, has been escalating for decades, although the mainstream media hasn't reported on the full extent of the damage unless it happens in areas where people have political clout. This creates a growing area where enormous amounts of people are disenfranchised and desperate so they can't support themselves the way they have in the past.

Just one of many examples that have been reported recently is the so-called Somali pirates that have resorted to kidnapping and are often labeled terrorists. What the media rarely ever mention is that many of the pirates are former fishermen who can no longer fish due to over fishing or pollution by multinational corporations with the support of the western world including the U.S.

Many of these so-called terrorists are doing the same thing that the United States routinely does, retaliating for atrocities committed against them, although the media rarely puts much emphasis on that. When the United States drops bombs on countries around the world it terrorizes the local population; however since they have influence with the media we don't call this terrorism.

Amazingly, at times Hillary Clinton occasionally even seems to think it is hilarious when our enemies are defeated and tortured to death like when she famously said, while laughing, "We came, we saw, he died."



Are we supposed to consider this the more rational alternative to Republican insanity?

This isn't an isolated blunder, she makes so many it is hard to keep track of them, including in 2008 when she said “I remember, particularly, a trip to Bosnia where the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire,” regarding her 1996 trip to Bosnia. She quickly claimed that it was an innocent mistake; but it is hard to imagine how she could have "mistakenly" come to that conclusion, which of course happened long before Brian Williams became famous for making stuff up.

However when people are part of the establishment like Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton they can keep coming back but those that oppose it need to gather grassroots support for decades before getting any coverage and even then the media still tries to portray them as fringe.



Hillary Clinton once said, “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.” ("60 Minutes" Interview, 1992); and of course she was right but they're also tired of the media providing more phony candidates that expose scams and lies only to participate in them once they get into power.

Hillary Clinton said this because it was good politics but since then she has an incredibly long history of lying and supporting corporate interests as bad as the people she criticized.












Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Conclusive evidence of Alien Abduction??



Barney and Betty Hill

I'll keep my comments to a minimum on this one; but take a good look at these pictures and ask yourself one question; can this be explained without either direct or indirect influence from aliens abducting people?

If your answer is no then what we have here is conclusive evidence of Alien Abduction!



Travis Walton



Dan "Potatoe" Quayle



Bob "Viagra" Dole who says, "We know it's (tobacco) not good for kids. But a lot of other things aren't good. Drinking's not good. Some would say milk's not good."




George "Rats" Bush



Dick "Dark side" Cheney



Sarah "can actually see Russia, from land, here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska" Palin



Christine "Not a Witch" O'Donnell



Sharron "Second Amendment Remidies" Angle



Carl "I'll take you out" Paladino



Michael "I'll throw you off this fucking balcony" Grimm



Rand "bit of a crowd control problem (stomping protester for disagreeing)" Paul



Mitt "Corporations are people" Romney although at least 47% if not over 90% might disagree



Herman "999" Cain



Rick "Oops" Perry



Michele "John Wayne Gacy" Bachmann



Newt "Family Values" Gingrich asking for divorce while wife is in hospital bed.



Rick “do not euthanize me” Santorum



Allen "threat to the gene pool" West “This is it. I’m going to count to five again, and if you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to kill you.”



Ted “It is the job of a chaplain to be insensitive to atheists” Cruz

A False for his claim that "the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws, almost without exception … have the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates."



Todd "legitimate rape" Akin



Mike “weird spice, kitchen-cabinet cure” Huckabee



Bobby "Stop being the stupid party" Jindal unless ...



Chris "Teacher hating Bridgegate" Christie



JEB “(Poor) People Need To Work Longer Hours.” Bush



Marco "God has blessed the Republican Party" Rubio



Carly "fully formed fetus" Fiorina



Scott “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe (including ISIS?)” Walker



Ben "Grain Storage" Carson





Donald "Show me the birth certificate we're going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" Trump



Hillary "often confused" Clinton

Even if you don't think this is adequate evidence for Alien Abduction it should raise serious doubts about whether the media coverage is more absurd and insane for UFOs or for the politicians that are expected to lead our country, or at least the ones the media is actually willing to cover.

The political leaders that do get elected routinely authorize bombing around the world and selling more weapons than any other country and other countries routinely retaliate, often with the weapons sold to them by us and after the Paris Attack instead of discussing this they argue over whether they should call them "Radical Islam."

Is any sane person really going to consider that more rational than Alien Abduction theories?










Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein may be reformers but Hillary Clinton is a Corporate puppet



George Stephanopoulos tried to trap Bernie Sanders into supporting the corporate duopoly again this week; and Bernie Sanders may have partially played into this again but if he doesn't stop the establishment from rigging the primaries for Hillary Clinton the grassroots support he has stirred up shouldn't believe that Hillary Clinton will represent them, especially when they have another option with Jill Stein.

But even if we didn't have Jill Stein to support the biggest threat to our democratic process isn't the so-called terrorists that the me4dia has been trying to warn us about for years if not decades; it is the duopoly that only covers candidates that collect enormous amounts of bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions who routinely make one promise after another to the public to get elected then break almost every one of them once they get elected so they can serve the interests of their campaign contributors regardless of what voters want.

Less than one percent of the population controls more than ninety, if not ninety-five, or more percent of the media; and they use it to repeat their ideas over and over again without mentioning many of the most important issues, which is an extremely effective propaganda tactic. As a famous quote ironically attributed to Vladimir Lenin often says, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it seems to.

The establishment keeps telling the public that the first requirement to being elected president is to collect enormous amounts of money, which essentially means that unless e4stablishment candidates accept bribes they can't get covered by the media, although they don't mention that part.

George Stephanopoulos repeated his efforts to reinforce the corporate duopoly again this week in the following excerpt; and this is typical of the way the corporate media is trying to rig the election for either Hillary Clinton or one of their other corporate puppets. Support for Bernie Sanders should be based on his support for the Grassroots; if he endorses Hillary Clinton, a corporate puppet then real grassroots voters should abandon this endorsement and either support Jill Stein or another Grassroots candidate.

MARTIN O’MALLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that when President Obama was running for reelection, I was glad to step up and work very hard for him, while Senator Sanders was trying to find someone to primary him. I am a Democrat. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I'm not a former Independent, I'm not a former Republican. I believe in the party of Franklin Roosevelt, the party of John F. Kennedy. How do you respond to what Martin O'Malley said on Friday night?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, let me -- let -- let me respond. I am proud of the fact that that I am a longest serving Independent in the history of the United States Congress. That's what the people of Vermont voted for. I made a decision in this presidential election that I will run as a Democrat. I am a Democrat now.

And what I am going to do as the Democratic nominee, if we win this thing -- and I think we have a good chance to do that, is to create a new and different type of Democratic Party, to involve millions of people, George, who have given up on the political process, working class people and young people who today say you know what, the economy is rigged, nothing I can do about it. The campaign finance system is corrupt, big money controls what's going on.

What I am trying to do, with some success, is bring out large numbers of young people who are saying, you know what, we're going to recreate America. We're going to transform America and create an economy that works for all of us, not just the billionaire class. We're going to get rid of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and create a vibrant democracy, so that we don't have the lowest voter turnout of almost zany major country on Earth, but one of the largest and strongest voter turnouts.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what about this issue of trying to gin up primary opposition to President Obama last time around?

SANDERS: No. No. Look, this is media stuff. What ends up happening -- I do and have done for years a radio show every single Friday, with Thom Hartmann. Somebody asked me years ago, do you think there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama?

And I don't know exactly the words that I -- I'm not sure -- what's wrong with a primary situation? ......

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- you would be talking to people a bit about having primary opposition.

SANDERS: Well, the answer is I worked very hard to see Barack Obama elected. He came to Vermont to campaign for me in 2006. I worked for him in 2008. I worked for him in 2012.

And listen, I think under incredible Republican obstructionism, Obama and Joe Biden have moved this country forward in a way that leaves us a hell of a lot better than we were when Bush left office.

Do I have disagreements with Barack Obama?

Was in on the floor for eight and a half hours saying no, we should not be giving any more tax breaks to the wealthy?

Do I disagree with him on TPP?

Yes, I do. .....

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also started to express your differences with -- with Hillary Clinton more and more.

But is it really right for you to tell "The Boston Globe," quote, "I disagree with Hillary Clinton on virtually everything."

Don't your agreements far outweigh your disagreements?

SANDERS: Well, there's -- that's -- well, the answer is yes and no. Yes, we do agree on a number of issues. And, by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day.

But having said that, we have very significant differences. And the key difference is I see a nation in which we have a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality. Almost all of the new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.

I see a political system which is corrupt, where super PACs are able to receive huge amounts of money from millionaires and billionaires.

I think if you look at my history and what I am saying in this campaign, we need a political revolution. We need to stand up to the top 1 percent. We need to transform American politics and the way we do economics.

But, by the way, George, if I may, we need to have a media more interested in the issues facing working class people and the middle class rather than political gossip.

So do I agree with Hillary Clinton on this or that issue?

Of course I do. But I think on issues, for example, like Wall Street, you know, I believe that these guys who drove our economy into the ground, destroyed so many lives, I think at the end of the day, what we have to do is re--- reestablish Glass-Steagall. We have to break up these huge financial institutions. That is not Hillary Clinton's position at all.

You know, I was there on the TPP from way back. That was -- Hillary Clinton took a little while to get there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Sanders, thanks very much for joining us this morning. Complete article


This isn't the first time that George Stephanopoulos or many other media pundits have attempted to reinforce the lesser of two evils where corporations control candidates from both parties; the first time that he had Sanders on his show after announcing he asked him if he would support the Democratic candidate imp[lying that he had little or no chance of winning. They've been trying to rig the election for Hillary Clinton for years by presenting her as the inevitable nominee since the last election at least without any input from voters.

The best informed voters have made it clear that they're not happy with the media trying to rig the elections which is why Bernie Sanders is doing so well. I fell for this same scam at least to some degree with Bill Clinton and the more I know about what he did during his presidency the worse it is. He made it much easier for the media to consolidate and did an enormous amount to enable corporations to increase their influence over the education system with either advertising or Charter Schools, both of which are disasters.

He also did an enormous amount to escalate the prison industrial complex and maintain a permanent state of war, although it didn't always seem quite as extreme as the Republicans.

By the time Barack Obama came along I recognized he was using the same scams so it wasn't surprising when he abandoned one promise after another.

Bother Bernie Sande5rs and Jill Stein have done much better speaking out against corporate corruption than Hillary Clinton and not only has she demonstrated with her actions that she'll betray the public one one issue after another like her husband with her actions she's also collecting an enormous amount of money from the corporations she pretends she's going to stand up to.

Bernie Sanders has repeatedly said that no president, including himself can get anything done without support from the grassroots. This is almost certainly true but it also means that he'll have to continue supporting the grassroots to keep them on board.

Even with support from the grassroots on many issues Barack Obama sided with corporations one time after another unless under enormous pressure to give a token amount on one issue here and there.

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she is no better, and will fight the grassroots tooth and nail before keeping even a couple promises she is making now.

Many of the most important promises are recent flip flops clearly made only for the duration of the campaign.

If we have to choose between Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein that will be the best choice the public has had in a long time and we'll benefit from hearing from both of them. If not it should be clear that either one of them would be far better than falling for the lesser of two evils every time and watching it get worse every time regardless of which one wins!!

Also, although Bernie Sanders still appears to be the best chance for a grassroots candidate to win the office one major aspect of reform is that all candidates should be presented to the public and they should agree to fill out the closest thing to a job application available and for now that is the Project Vote Smart questionnaire which Bernie still hasn't filled out. He filled out the previous one as a Senator so that is better than many presidential candidates, or at least one covered by the media, but support for reform should include filling out this application making it easier for voters to compare and know which candidates refuse to fill it out relying on propaganda instead. Apparently Jill Stein hasn't filled out the updated one either which is unfortunate; I'll have to ask both of them to reply again.

As I've said the application process should also be controlled at the grassroots level and Project Vote Smart also needs to be held accountable but even if they're not fixing all their problems right away they're still the best application available and it shouldn't be up to the candidate to turn them down until they do improve. Both the candidates and the institutions that control the job application process need to be accountable to grassroots, if we're going to become a real democracy.