On: "Let's wrench power back from the billionaires," by Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders has published an article entitled, "Let's wrench power back from the billionaires." Here's my take on it.

Bernie Sanders image

Bernie Sanders

It's not a question of whether but how. Do we do it by reforming from within or by taking over from without? Will Bernie have convinced enough people in time that the powers that be won't be able to shut him out of the next big race within?

We've all been witnessing firsthand the consistent, incremental marginalization of the more radically progressive elements of society starting with the most radical. I've watched as more and more people and outlets have been given the Tom-treatment (as I was marginalized long ago, well before them and even some of them because I wasn't always PC but rather principled, at least in my view). This process is old news to me.

We've seen Google, Facebook, and Twitter falling into line under neocon dictates, neocons who aren't simply going to rollover and play dead when Bernie makes another run at it.

Bernie has never made it clear that he will go third party if those powers that be abuse/cheat him, his campaign, and thereby his followers and supporters. Until he does that, I don't see how he'll takeover and really pull off a truly revolutionary change in the economic and political system. I understand his strategy and tactics of getting young economic progressives in the doors at whatever level of office they can, but will that be enough in time? I don't see it.

Of course, Trump's economy is going to turn sour, but will that happen in time too? I don't see that either. Even if it does, will the Clinton-wing, which is still right there, make the right moves in the face of it? How could they and remain Clintonites/corporatists?

There are other considerations, especially foreign policy regarding the right-wing Zionists Bernie has yet to really go after. Then there's the Russiagate nonsense too, but these are the reasons I'm so marginalized including by the left, perhaps even more than by the right. It's probably a toss-up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Turkey In Syria: Donald Trump, You Are Playing With Fire and Will Burn If You Don't Heed

The video below is important analysis of what's really going on in the area. However, the danger Erdogan poses is highly underestimated.

He's going in whether Putin and/or Trump tell him not to: that it would be totally counterproductive and won't remotely accomplish what Erdogan is falsely propagandizing (pretending to himself) it will. Also, what Trump is really up to is not even known at this point by Trump.

He has just crossed into territory where his deliberate madness doesn't have the method he intended even before deciding to run for office.

This is the biggest foreign policy event of Trump's administration so far and will set things in motion that Trump will not be able to control for the duration. He has made a huge error allowing the neocons to completely take over. His Presidency is going to go down in worse flames than his biggest detractors have even imagined if he doesn't completely reverse course, if he doesn't come right out and say and not flip-flop about it that the Syrian people alone will decide their next President and that if that's Assad, so be it: that's democracy.

Tom1

Tom Usher

Obama switched on Libya (admitting it was his worse decision). Obama flipped on the "red line" nonsense and made a chemical-weapons-ban deal with Assad. He also flipped on Iran and stopped lying that Iran had a nuclear-weapons program but rather made a fantastic deal with Iran (the best that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances). Those were all things I advocated Obama do, and he did them. The Iran deal he has said was his best moment in foreign affairs, and it was.

Trump is going to have to switch on Assad and really mean it whether he wants to or not or go down due to his own blunder. There is no other choice. He better hear me. You better get it through to him.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Poor: "National Security Strategy of the United States of America, DECEMBER, 2017"

I read the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America, DECEMBER, 2017" last night. It's a mixed bag loaded with falsehoods.

Tom1

Tom Usher

  1. It's wrong on economics, as it promotes thoroughly discredited trickle-down.
  2. It's wrong on climate, as it promotes more carbon-fuel burning.
  3. It's wrong on Iran, as it calls Iran a huge terrorism supporter (which it definitely is not).
  4. It's wrong on Russia, as it denies the Crimeans' overwhelming free-and-fair referendum to join Russia and as it hypes false-propaganda (unsubstantiated accusations) concerning the Russian government "meddling" in other countries.
  5. It's wrong on Venezuela, as it supports neoliberal-economic policies and practices against the duly elected, social-democratic government there.
  6. It's missing the point on North Korea, as it doesn't properly assign blame for North Korea's reactions to regime changes (coups) orchestrated and/or supported by the US against other nations. (Though it does say that such coups and support for them will no longer be US policy or practice.)
  7. It doesn't condemn the election fraud by the right-wing government of Honduras, which lack of condemnation is stark hypocrisy since the US supports dictators such as the Saudis and also supports right-wing-Zionist land theft, and worse, against Palestinians and against international law to which the US is signatory and expressly bound therefore by our own US Constitution.
  8. It doesn't condemn the Saudis' war crimes against the Houthis of Yemen, which war crimes the US greatly facilitates via weapons and ammunition supplies, etc.
  9. It's wrong on defense spending. It's particularly wrong on nuclear weapons. International arms reduction and elimination is the right approach.
  10. It's wrong on supranational government, even though it pays some lip service to the United Nations. Thoroughly democratic international government is the right approach.

Those are just some of the most-glaring highlights.

It's a really poor strategy. It's the result of decidedly shallow thinking, low moral-standards, and PSYOPS aimed against foreign and domestic targets.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment