Christopher DeGroot:
In our time, the only challenge for someone who’s peddling nonsense is to keep up a steady supply for the public’s insatiable appetite. Not that our most powerful citizens aren’t happy to satisfy the national hunger. Thus, on July 8 in D.C., at the annual gathering of Christians United for Israel, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a characteristically manipulative religious speech in order to inspire fellow Christians to go to war with Iran, one of Israel’s many enemies. Speeches were also given by televangelist blowhard John Hagee, by Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, by Vice President Pence, and by National Security Advisor John Bolton. In other words, by every member of Trump’s inner chamber of Zionist hawks.
…
More central to the Zionist cause, though, are the useful Christian idiots. Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, and John Hagee—men whose Christianity is perpetually for sale, like a whore on the corner—keep the gullible evangelical crowd in its subservient, “philo-Semitic” place. An easy task, that, as these persons believe the recreation of Israel is part of biblical prophecy that will lead to Armageddon and the second coming of Christ.
The Christian intellectual right, too, is transcendentally dim. Far from seeing the Zionist problem, far from understanding politics in a coldly rational and strategic sense, one whose only goal is victory, the Christian intellectual right is now diverted by a vague Catholic integralist fantasy, the more diverse and inclusive the better.

Posted by: Cochore | Aug 8 2019 12:27 utc | 104

Posted by: Knight | Aug 8 2019 3:16 utc | 71
On August 14, 2002, Amy Goodman interviewed former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni on the radio and television program Democracy Now. During the interview, Aloni said:
Question: Often when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called anti-Semitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?
Shulamit Aloni: Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BEVLD6YHsc
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-GCXtnXkAAcgg8.jpg
Video and full transcript below:
https://israelpalestinenews.org/israeli-minister-called-accusation-anti-semitism-trick-silence-criticism-israel-video/

Posted by: Brian | Aug 8 2019 13:46 utc | 106

Stever @1
Jimmy Dore is great and his criticism of MSNBC is spot on but ….
the left is being delusional in their support of Tulsi Gabbard because:

>> Gabbard says she wants end “wasteful regime change wars”. She’s not against all wars – she’s just fighting the last war (so to speak). In fact, since she’s still in the reserves, she stands ready to serve in the next war when called upon.
>> Gabbard has denounced Assad as a dictator. Although the Left touts her “courage” in meeting with Assad, she blames Assad for the war, not the countries that colluded to initiate the war and sponsor a jihadi proxy army.
>> Gabbard cites her desire to eliminate the “threat” of North Korea nukes but goes along with the establishment consensus that USA is an innocent victim of a deranged dictator.
>> Gabbard is a member of a duopoly Party that supports the military build-up, the new Cold War, and Israel’s regional hegemony (seemingly, whatever the cost).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 8 2019 14:16 utc | 108

Brian #109
Skripal:
A different take.

Posted by: Evelyn | Aug 8 2019 14:23 utc | 110

Jackrabbit @110
Weren’t you the one who voted for Obama, then voted for Trump, and then voiced support for Kamala Harris?
How come you’re only motivated to criticise Gabbard (who has at most only 3% in the polls) but seem neutral on the other candidates (although you appeared quite sanguine about Kamala Harris)?
You seem a bit stuck in a rabbit hole of your own making!
Have you actually done anything about that people’s movement you talk about? Have you joined Cynthia McKinney’s PowerCells movement yet? Or, if that’s not up your street, started a movement of your own?
You know so little about Tulsi Gabbard that you can’t even see her real vulnerable area. Do some proper research, ignore the rubbish, and you’ll find it, then you might have something worthwhile to say!

Posted by: ADKC | Aug 8 2019 14:31 utc | 112

USA clout, control by force, influence, even soft power, is being dissipated into scattered endeavours and thus wasted, as no over-arching goals exist, > no solid plan.
The neo-libs are obsessed with Russia. On the surface a lame story (interference in the election, Wikileaks, etc.) to justify Killary’s loss, it goes far deeper.
Obama faked sympathy for Russia (Nobel Prize!), or changed his mind around 2013 when Russia showed it would support Assad – after the Lybia debacle Russia swore Plus Jamais.
Dems have taken up the Clarion of Russia-loathing, aligning to, or influenced/more by, some of their Anglo brothers across the pond. Russia appears a neat fabricated ‘enemy’, scape-goat, punching ball, as it will not react unless seriously, murderously provoked. Recall, Ukraine (Nuland, Biden ..) was an Obama-Biden + EU effort.
The neo-cons are obsessed with Iran, a branded enemy of allies Israel and KSA (allies is perhaps not the best term!), .. Real men go to Tehran. However invading Iran cannot happen as the ‘allies’ would be attacked with some devastating success, world commerce would stop, deplorables in the US would be thinking about special shooting ranges, and Iranians would resist very effectively. Second, they want to control the back-yard, see Venezuela, which isn’t working out well…
Trump, nationalist-supremacist, is obsessed with China, as the no. 1 rival set to become the ‘next’ hegemon, a view that is not crazy. Yet, as his bid to ally with Russia to prevent this was scotched, he continues.. and appears to be fighting economic war as a first step.
The various factions of the US PTB are fighting behind the scenes. Previous, such quarrels were part of the game and could be managed or indulged in (because of strength, abundance..) No longer. I feel the Epstein case is also a symptom.
The Chinese surely know all this, and have just said they will no longer buy US agri products. At all. They are abandoning the pretense of negotiations about tariffs and reacting stiffly.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/china-agriculture-us-economy.html
In the UK, the fight(s) are over, one faction has won, more in part II if time.
(see also psychohistorian 55)

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 8 2019 15:04 utc | 114

Evelyn @111
“Of COURSE Scotland Yard (and UK “intelligence agencies”) assess Putin as having approved the March 2018 Skripal attack.”
Actually, Scotland Yard has said nothing of the sort – it’s the Guardian’s slippery headlining which makes it seem they have. What the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Neil Basu, actually said, presumably in response to a question asking what police were doing about Putin’s (supposed) involvement was:
“You’d have to prove he [Putin] was directly involved….
“In order to get an EAW, you have to have a case capable of being charged in this country. We haven’t got a case capable of being charged.
“We’re police officers, so we have to go for evidence. There has been a huge amount of speculation about who is responsible, who gave the orders, all based on people’s expert knowledge of Russia. I have to go with evidence.”
They “have to go for evidence” – and by implication, there is none, and the police know it.

Posted by: Hope | Aug 8 2019 15:21 utc | 116

Brian@109
You appear to be spreading disinformation of the crudest kind. What are your motives?
h@117
“As for Tulsi, the woman was raised in a cult. Enough said.”
Not so. You were probably brought up in a cult yourself (I know that I was but the cult in question, Anglican Imperialism, is rarely recognised for what it is).
The importance of Tulsi’s candidacy is very simply that its central message is opposition to wars of the sort that the ruling cult in the Empire believe to be necessary to their retention of power. And that is just about all that matters about her at this time. Those who are intent upon examining in enormous detail every aspect of her personality and her past appear to believe that she is likely to be propelled into the White House next autumn.
That is not going to happen, and not least among the reasons is the fact that she cannot even rally those who oppose the wars that she opposes to her side.
The Left in the United States has two parts: those who are keeping an eye on others claiming to be on the same side. And people looking for well paid employment with minimal work involved.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 8 2019 15:33 utc | 118

USA. Dems need to show, amply display, that a plurality of opinion-s can be expressed, claim a voice, some platform, and that the contest for the chosen candidate for the Prez. election is ‘fair.’
A genuine struggle!
Via some kind of legit procedure. In this way, mopes are mobilised into a competition of opinion(s) on many trivial topics, and some important ones, e.g. health care, war, fracking. Often horribly divisive, thus weakening of the Party as a whole – Divide to rule within the party! (As no real positions are taken.)
Gabbard is there to present the anti-war talking points (got Trump elected, so it has to be present as an opinion..) but imho not more. — She may be quite sincere, other topic.
Overall, it looks like the Dems will prefer to lose to Trump, as before.
(Had Sanders been selected 2016 he might just have won..)
The nominee will be, as things stand now, Biden or that Buttig chap, ha ha, imagine Biden with Buttig. as VP proposal.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 8 2019 15:52 utc | 120

bevin – the New Yorker expose has never been challenged, factually, by Gabbard, which tells me they got their basic facts correct. Here’s a reprint from Hawaii Free Press for those interested – Tulsi Gabbard’s Krishna Cult
Oh and nope on being raised in a family who went to Church every Sunday. Raised Christian but not via ritual.
And yes, Gabbard’s consistent foreign policy stance on being anti-regime change wars is a dollop of sunshine that stands out in an otherwise staid field of Leftie candidates.

Posted by: h | Aug 8 2019 15:58 utc | 122

truth seeker @100–
“Marijuana is the drug most often linked to crime in the United States, the U.S. drug czar said Thursday…”
I call Bull Shit! to that! Alcohol is by far the #1 “drug” linked to crime. Drug’s in “” because few recognize it as one, just as caffeine–which is the #1 drug used–isn’t recognized for what it is actually.
It seems at times that the lessons provided by the Prohibition of Alcohol were never learned and that the overall prohibition of numerous drugs is an honest mistake by well meaning people. A closer look flips that interpretation on its head as the lessons were well learned and applied to other drugs as a means of social control and as a way for the “security services” and their mafia allies to make lots of money to use in their black operations. A look at how Harris exploited the last years of marijuana’s illegality in California is an excellent case study proving the overall point.
Addiction is a social disease with a medical basis. Racism is a social disease with a political basis. Gun violence is also a social disease with ties to the other two. All could be mitigated and mostly erased IF the political will existed to do away with what their existence provides to those in power–keeping the polity from attaining solidarity. A quick look at the rest of the world and how it behaves shows that these three diseases are almost unique to the Outlaw US Empire–thus their political essence.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 8 2019 16:09 utc | 124

In addition to planning 9/11, could the Mega group have been handlers for the Mega source?
The Mega source being Bill Clinton?

Posted by: Zack | Aug 8 2019 16:17 utc | 126

willie @97–
Thanks for your kind comment!
I’m fortunate to have the time thanks to my life’s overall context and recent reduction in responsibilities. It might be called a retiree’s hobby.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 8 2019 16:27 utc | 128

Evidence Of CIA Meeting HK Protest Leaders? China Summons US Diplomats Over Viral Photo
“There were reports suggesting Julie Eadeh is a trained subversion expert at the US consulate in Hong Kong. Her meeting with HK protesters would be evidence of US inciting and instigating the riots in Hong Kong. Is she under the direct order of former CIA chief Mike Pompeo?”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-08/evidence-cia-meeting-hk-protest-leaders-china-summons-us-diplomats-over-viral-photo
“(Julie) Eadeh joined the State Department in 2002 as a PresidentialManagement Fellow, and served in the Bureau of Democracy,Human Rights and Labor. She joined the Foreign Service in2004 and has also served in Riyadh and Beirut. She speaks Arabic, French and Spanish. She is part of a tandem couple, married to David Ng. They will head to Shanghai via Chinese-language training beginning this summer (2008).”
https://www.afsa.org/sites/default/files/julyaugust2008fsj.pdf

Posted by: Krollchem | Aug 8 2019 16:56 utc | 130

Krollchem 131
Im just going to post this, you beat me to it !
The other day, HK ‘freedom fighters’, led by Martin Lee, Jimmy Lai etc, were seen meeting with a mysterious gweilo in a plush hotel .
And…
JOshua Wong was also caught meeting with JUdie Eadeh of Murikkan consulate, in a hotel suite.
Eyewitness say Wong was grovelling like he’s meeting the big boss.
where else in the world could CIA/MI6 gloat about such ‘freedom’ in organising color rev. ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve26Ol6utT0

Posted by: denk | Aug 8 2019 17:38 utc | 132

“This is why U.S. is easy target for criticism and shunning, and why every other nation contracts them to handle dirty work they don’t want to do themselves…”
“every other nation” might be a fine euphemism for Israel, but if the criticism is due and it comes easy the better. In this forum though it will also be easy to rebalance such credit towards Occupied Palestine regional and global criminal conduct. Feel free.

Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Aug 8 2019 18:27 utc | 134

Notheonelyone
Its down now, but if it does come back, check out 8chan. It is an unmoderated image board, where one particular board (/pol/) has been hijacked by real ubermench, next level shit. They groom young incels, its very dark, and the campaign is probably funded. The boy in question had a direct mainline to some very hardcore conditioning, by directly communicating with guys like Tarrant of Christchurch fame…
The fact that it has been taken down is suspicious. as hell,

Posted by: dan | Aug 8 2019 19:13 utc | 136

h @123
I know you are just a troll but your link doesn’t work so you need to up date your cut & paste resources. You also lie; the cult smear has been challenged and debunked by Gabbard and a number of other people. Just do some research and you will find this out (as you well know).
Here’s a link to an article debunking the cult smear.

Posted by: ADKC | Aug 8 2019 19:47 utc | 138

@ h | Aug 8 2019 15:05 utc | 116

I don’t recall who was questioning the El Paso shooters manifesto, but I read yesterday the manifesto was posted AFTER the shooting. So, your instincts may be spot on.

That was me. And to make things much worse, the plot thickens to the viscosity of 500 weight gear oil. Because there are now (as linked in a comment above) Hispanic witnesses that saw four shooters.
Also linked earlier is a piece by Paul Craig Roberts about “An Invitation To Tyranny”, in which PCR explains what the new FBI doctrine really means.
We are already in breach of this new doctrine that alleges that anybody doubtful, or dissenting any ‘official story‘ can now be pre-emptively and indefinitely incarcerated without trial. You probably know the legislation. It has its roots in the ‘Notstandsgesetze’ (Patriot Act).
It appears that this new doctrine was published just in time for the most recent shootings. Question those and off we go.
It irks me when people get all riled up when I state that the US has already turned into a Fascist Military Dictatorship. One indicator being the declaration of ‘antifa’ a domestic terror organization.
When will people understand that the only domestic terror organization is the US regime itself – mastering the art of psychological projection as it was taught to them by Bernays.
No, no one can make stuff like this up. It is a conglomerate of dystopian science fiction turned reality.

Posted by: nottheonly1 | Aug 8 2019 20:06 utc | 140

NOBTS @136–
As you see @140, I’ve read and commented on that comment. And if it weren’t for your comment, I’d never have read it since somehow I missed it initially. I’ve never seen that moniker at the bar before, and a search says that was its first comment. Hopefully, the commentator will again emerge from lurking and join the discourse over Gabbard as s/he clearly has an educated opinion worthy of consideration.
juliania @61–
I searched Sanders’s Twitter and found nothing new over the past 3 weeks. Nor was anything new found searching internet. Aside from this completely wrong statement issued last January, Sanders has only called for no military intervention and new elections, but hasn’t really challenged Trump’s illegal, immoral policy. If something was said by him during the debates, I must profess ignorance not having watched them.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 8 2019 20:22 utc | 142

ADKC @132
The points you raise against Gabbard don’t mean anything.
You’ll have to do better than that. I’m not the only one that has voiced concerns.
You only attack one candidate (Gabbard) …
I’ve been critical of Sanders also, probably more so than Gabbard.
These are the false hope candidates that the Democratic Party has allowed to run to placate anti-war and anti-capitalist sentiment. They have no chance of winning. Sanders already showed us his true colors when this “populist” refused to attack Hillary on character issues (“Enough with the emails!” LOL.).
… who is not even within reach of the front-runners.
Yup. No chance.
Negative campaigning is effectively supporting the candidates you don’t attack.
How much more clear can I be than when I wrote @118: I’m also against sheepdog Sanders and ALL the duopoly candidates.
… you’re unreasonably stubborn. Despite giving you every opportunity to walk back your championing of Kamala Harris you just won’t do it.
What you term “championing of Kamala Harris” was just enjoying the turmoil caused by her attack on Biden. I clarified that within hours of your confusion about my remarks. I’ll say it again: I’m not supportive of Kamala Harris or any other duopoly candidate.
This is another example of your mis-characterizing my position. I said repeatedly that I believe that I don’t trust duopoly candidates, that the electoral system needs to change, and that direct democracy might be the best means of doing so because many people can agree on such a system.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
It’s clear that your a fan of Tulsi Gabbard. It would be much more constructive if you just tell us what you like about her and why her critics are wrong instead of attacking those that are skeptical of her.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 8 2019 21:21 utc | 144

karlof@140
By the way if you are an aficionado of dancing, let’s see Bernie dance to “Hugo Chavez: a dead communist dictator”

Posted by: NOBTS | Aug 8 2019 21:28 utc | 146

Jackrabbit @145
You have been critical of Sanders in the past but in the current period you have been attacking Gabbard almost exclusively and barely attack Sanders. The other candidates you don’t attack at all.
As you should know by now it is policy not the candidate that I am interested in. Gabbard’s policy of ending regime change wars is the one I am interested in. If American’s choose not to vote for this policy and instead vote for a clear war candidate such as the new Rambo-Trump or a Democratic war supporting alternative (as they seem likely to do) then…
Or Americans may surprise me!
I was not confused about your remarks about Kamala Harris – you clearly thought she was something she wasn’t. You don’t attack both Gabbard and Harris; you only attack Gabbard and are merely not supportive of Harris.
If you believe Gabbard to be worst than Harris then that would be fair enough, but I don’t believe you do therefore your positioning is perverse.
Biden is a corrupt war monger who profited greatly out of the Ukrainian conflict but you have no problem with that or are completely ignorant of what is open knowledge. Yet Biden leads the polls. Harris is associated with Clinton and will follow a pro-war agenda (just like Hilary would have) – again no problem for you.
In Ukraine there was an election recently were the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians voted for a comedian because they believed he would bring an end to the war and peace with Russia. Zekensky may end up betraying his voters but that vote still means something and can’t be ignored.

Posted by: ADKC | Aug 8 2019 22:01 utc | 148

I posted a link to the recently published book, How to Hide an Empire, and have just spent some time at the author’s Twitter. His tweets are mostly focused on history as might be expected. Starting 25 June, he has a number of entries dealing with WW2 Internment which was far more brutal and widespread than even I knew. Fortunate for those of us interested, he organized them all into this one thread. It doesn’t take much time to absorb and you’ll learn why you were never taught any of that in school.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 8 2019 22:11 utc | 150

ADKC @149:

Biden is a corrupt war monger … but you have no problem with that …

You’re still at it!
How many times do I have to say that I’m not supportive of ANY of the duopoly candidates?
Stop shooting the messenger.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
You tell us like Gabbard because she’ll end “regime change war” but to me that phrase is meaningless. Take Iran, for example. Will Gabbard object to war with Iran after a false flag? I doubt it.
Have you seen how she defines “regime change war”? Basically its war that USA doesn’t win / can’t win so it wastes US resources. She underscores that definition when she says (frequently): “wasteful regime change wars”.
The problem is, US citizens are ALWAYS told that USA will easily prevail whenever a war is conducted.
How is Tulsi any different than other political hacks that were/are against war, like:

Gen. Colin Powell was against dumb wars (remember the “Powell Doctrine”?) – then he helped to start one.
Obama was against dumb wars (encapsulated in the phrase: “don’t do stupid stuff”) – he did his dumb wars covertly.
Trump is against dumb wars (critics screamed “isolationist!”) – but he’s occupying Syria, antagonizing Iran, Venezuela, and Russia and conducting trade war/embargoes that could lead to war. It feels very much like we are at the brink of a world war.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 8 2019 23:07 utc | 152

karlof1@153
Alas, aren’t these polls commissioned by the DNC? I believe they were said to have been rigged for Hillary in 2016, I doubt if they have been un-rigged since then. On the, admittedly narrow, street that I frequent the buzz is about Tulsi.

Posted by: NOBTS | Aug 8 2019 23:24 utc | 154

Juan Guaido (random guydo)declares himself interim governor of Puerto Rico!

Posted by: nomdenonymous | Aug 9 2019 0:27 utc | 156

Below is a Xinhuanet link that I like for calling out empire and the take away quote
Absurd remarks reflect typical U.S. hypocrisy
The take away quote
”
In recent years, the United States has also developed a new disease — “withdrawal addiction.” It successively withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Iran nuclear deal and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
”

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 9 2019 0:47 utc | 158

ADKC
1) This isn’t a mainstream blog. Some here can’t vote in a US election. Some here are already disenchanted with US politics. And others here already support Gabbard for the reasons you’ve laid out: she’s the best of the bunch on what matters to those that are strongly anti-war.
If you are really passionate about Gabbard, you should find more mainstream blog to advocate for her.
2) You don’t seem to understand the scam that’s being played.
You’ve got the choice of an anti-war candidate because there’s a large enough group of people that hold anti-war sentiments that a democratic option has to be allowed. Otherwise, some anti-war people might go off and start an ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT. And that’s exactly what the pro-military, pro-Israel establishment want to avoid, isn’t it?
In any case, for Gabbard to win, you and your anti-war friends must contend with others who feel equally strongly about electing an African American President, or a socialist President, or a female President, or a gay President, etc.
Can you get those good folks to change their priorities? The establishment knows that you will fail to do so. Just as THEY will fail to get you to change your priorities. They’ve done the polling, they’ve done the math, and they own the media.
When the election is over, the DUMB LOSER LEFT will loudly moan they supported the right candidate – whether he/she be gay, anti-war, socialist, etc. – and the duopoly will start a new campaign to convince everyone to focus on the NEXT phony election because “Democracy Works!”.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
One last thing…
Why don’t other candidates support Gabbard’s position on “wasteful regime-change wars”? On it’s face, it makes so much sense. Why doesn’t Gabbard demand to know why they DON’T support her position? Especially from Joe Biden, who has had a voice in foreign policy for over two decades? Biden voted for the Afghan War, the Iraq War (infamous AUMF), and was VP when Obama Administration reneged on Obama’s campaign pledge to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, supported a Jihadi proxy army in Syria, and ‘regime-changed’ Ukraine (opps, that doesn’t county for Gabbard because it didn’t fail!).
If Gabbard is serious about her anti-war views, there’s no better person to bring the fight to than Biden. But she hasn’t. Instead, she helped Biden (!) by attacking Harris at the last debate after Harris and Biden once again exchanged words. This, despite the fact that Gabbard may soon lose the chance to confront Biden because her poll numbers are so low that she may be excluded from future debates.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 9 2019 2:27 utc | 160

@157
It’s “Random Guy Doe” Latin cousin of John and Jane.

Posted by: NOBTS | Aug 9 2019 2:54 utc | 162

@156 adkc.. i agree with your last line.. that is how it looks to me… but regarding all the rest, i mostly see it like @158 lurk and @160 jackrabbit… you might want to read what karlof1 has to say.. he was going to campaign for tulsi, but changed his mind for a few reasons and now favours sanders… i don’t live in the usa, so i don’t get to vote, but from my point of view, voting for sanders is a waste of time.. in fact, i know this isn’t popular, but voting at this time seems like a waste of time.. the usa electorate – when they are not fighting among-st themselves are really being given a horrible set of choices – and i can understand why some won’t vote.. my view is seen as defeatist, but i have a lot of faith that something else is going to happen to upend this present state of affairs.. voting at this point looks like rationalizing going to war..

Posted by: james | Aug 9 2019 3:20 utc | 164

Evelyn @124
The Guardian has a disturbingly high incidence of such misleading headlines/opening paragraphs – disturbing because they all mislead in the same direction. I should start compiling them.

Posted by: Hope | Aug 9 2019 4:24 utc | 166

@153 Precisely. Shes an Adelson plant to help elect Trump 2020.

Posted by: j | Aug 9 2019 8:45 utc | 168

Jackrabbit @161
You’re right that Gabbard should be opposed to Biden but the debates so far have, by design, not addressed foreign policy (AFAIA) and are obviously being very controlled.
This is Gabbard’s published position on regime change wars:
“As president, I will lead this country to bring about a bold change in our foreign policy that bends the arc of history away from war and towards peace. That stops wasting our resources, and our lives on regime change wars, and redirects our focus and energy towards peace and prosperity for all people. The time is now to give up the gunboat diplomacy of the past, and instead, work out our differences with communication, negotiations, and goodwill”
As you can see it differs from your particular perverse interpretation of the phrase “wasteful regime change wars”.
This blog is not as far outside the mainstream as you imagine it to be and I’ll continue to post here, if I may, including against some of your posts when you are mistaken or relying on poorly researched points that don’t support your arguments.
(Do you remember when you were completely wrong about Ukraine and Manafort; you just leapt on some points – just repeating what you had read in the mainstream press – that you felt supported the argument and hadn’t made any effort to research the issues, even though it actually undermined your Trump theory. As I recall I had to explain to you how, if as you suggested, Manafort was working for the Russians, then Russiagate, by implication, must be true and that would mean Trump wasn’t a Deep State selected candidate – you really should have thanked me for that; instead you just went radio-silent.)
I’m not against you commenting against Gabbard, I just wish you’d come up with better-researched points; as I have already stated you (and many others) have completely missed the area where she is really vulnerable (I’ll balance this, so you don’t get excited, by saying all candidates – all humans – have vulnerabilities) – this would be a discussion on a subject worth having, you just need to do some proper research.
You are right, I would see Gabbard as being the best candidate on anti-war and foreign policy issues. But I am waiting to see what Gabbard says about Russia and China. It is obvious that Gabbard has attracted an unusual amount of trolling; no other candidate experiences this. The attacks on Gabbard can be quite unrelenting and overwhelming on “more mainstream” blogs – these are obviously coordinated attacks because they just recycle the same allegations and smears again and again. This could be because the establishment fear Gabbard or they are creating a fake opposition candidate – but, we’ll never know and speculating on such matters (sans proof) is a true rabbithole.
Unfortunately, you’re entirely mistaken if you think the absence of an anti-war candidate in the Presidential election would lead Americans to go off and start an anti-war movement; that is just wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the cost of wars (both in terms of cost and lives) would have to be significantly greater before there is likely to be any meaningful anti-war movement.
As I have stated on many occasions Americans collectively are very weak and if they do not manage to express some kind of peaceful, anti-war vote in the election then they are f**ked.
Harris was the war establishment’s top choice. If Gabbard has sunk her chances then you should thank her. Biden, if he is selected, will lose to Trump. Biden is a weak, corrupt nothing; there is a belief that he is keeping the seat warm
for an October surprise, either Clinton or Obama – this would, of course, be ridiculous!
You talk about a scam and say that I am unaware. But I have posted on this thread about my suspicions that the US domestic terrorist incidents are Gladio events, yet very few on this non-“mainstream” blog appear to wish to discuss this or its implications. Gladio events are essentially about manipulating the population and getting them to align (including to vote) with the way TPTB wish.
Also, my belief is that the US has a very sophisticated system for manipulating the US population and are able to “read” the collective reactions in something very close to real-time. The US has undertaken huge research on behaviouralism, psychology, etc. and this is likely married to NSA surveillance and big data techniques. So, given that a huge amount of resources are expended on the NSA and they never actually achieve anything like stopping individual terrorism, and no-one comes up with a convincing explanation of what the NSA actually do, then the obvious conclusion is that they are monitoring the entire population, not with a view to finding individual wrong-doers, but with the intention of manipulating and controlling the US population as a collective body. There is evidence of the techniques I have alluded to but no evidence, or even speculation, that they are used in the way I suggest.
So, don’t think for a moment that I don’t see the election as a manipulation. But, I don’t think for a second that American’s shouldn’t vote and you yourself have stated that you will vote for a third party candidate. The point of difference is that you imagine that the third-party candidate is outside the “scam” when, IMO, they are equally part of the “scam”.
And the reason I think that Americans should vote (even if it is just to spoil the ballot paper by writing “no more war” accross the ballot paper*) is that the collective expression matters. Not voting will have no effect.
* electronic voting system prevent this type of expression which is the main reason there should be a return to paper ballots.

Posted by: ADKC | Aug 9 2019 10:23 utc | 170

@ADKC 171 Not voting will have no effect.
Hypothetically, what do you think would occur if nobody, except the politicians voted? Virtual ties everywhere across the heartland!? (even their family’s find them too disgusting to elect)

Posted by: aye, myself & me | Aug 9 2019 10:53 utc | 172

131,133#
So,if the Chinese really want to stop protests in HongKong,those persons should be taken out,or arrested for instigating uproar.

Posted by: willie | Aug 9 2019 11:25 utc | 174

William Gruff | Aug 9 2019 11:13 utc | 174
Impressive!Opposite to most commentators who spent their lives as viewers only you seem to have practical experience in doing politics. Is it like this? Just being curious.

Posted by: Hausmeister | Aug 9 2019 12:12 utc | 176

add to 178
They have also found a way to crowd-finance this movement and found a way to communicate without the big media companies. This is a sea change.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 9 2019 12:31 utc | 178

If anyone wonders about whether they should laugh or cry my opinion and recommendation is that it’s better to laugh.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 9 2019 12:58 utc | 180

Tulsi wants to end Syria and Afghan wars and would immediately free Assange, Manning and pardon Snowden if President.
That’s all I need to know to say she’s head and shoulders better candidate than anyone else.
Sadly she will not make it to September debates as DNC is picking and choosing which polls count towards the required ones and they will not count her polls > 2%.
All we can hope for is Bernie or even Warren to grab her as their VP

Posted by: Comandante | Aug 9 2019 13:17 utc | 182

Holding our breathes…
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1159820230262235138

Posted by: Mina | Aug 9 2019 13:47 utc | 184

@Mina #186
I wonder: Salvini’s actions in Italy are very convenient for all those EU leaders under fire due to mass refugee influx.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 9 2019 13:57 utc | 186

@ADKC #182
I really question the “anti-war” credentials of Gabbard, given that she joined the Afghanistan conflict many years after it kicked off and volunteered for Kuwait as a military police … a few months after Abu Ghraib broke.
Gabbard really seems more like an Obama to me: sounds good, but would not execute on difficult policies. Even has the “never before was President” card of being a woman.
Of course, the above statement applies to pretty much the entire Democrat Presidential wannabe pool.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 9 2019 14:02 utc | 188

Kimberly Breier has renounced:
Responsável pela América Latina no governo Trump renuncia
She hasn’t disclosed the reason(s) for her exit.

Posted by: vk | Aug 9 2019 14:34 utc | 190

Major Renovations Coming to ‘Fortress North America’…
Canadian, US Military Leaders Agree on Framework to Retool NORAD
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norad-canada-us-military-1.5240855
“…Word of the understanding comes as two Canadian CF-18s and two American F-22 Raptors intercepted two Russian TU-95 Bear bombers which pressed close to North American airspace on Thursday…”

Posted by: John Gilberts | Aug 9 2019 14:46 utc | 192

Hey psychhistorian. Xymphora’s August 9 post, which touches on China’s Public Banking system, will make your mouth water…

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 9 2019 15:01 utc | 194

ADKC @ 182 says:
Not voting is not a protest vote and, in the current context, is a vote for war
no dude, not voting is not voting. voting, on the other hand, and in the current context, is most certainly a vote for war, and even if yours and Gruff’s theory is valid (which i doubt, because though things do change, it’s fundamentally not because of anything politicians say), on our present timeline, i’d posit that such baby steps to hopefully someday perhaps change the narrative somewhat will be preempted by far more pressing matters.

Posted by: john | Aug 9 2019 15:09 utc | 196

Maxwell is cooked
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1159840441862197253

Posted by: Mina | Aug 9 2019 15:33 utc | 198

William Gruff said @174 – “So does it matter in the slightest if Gabbard truly has any intention of ending the empire’s wars or not? No, that’s irrelevant. What matters is the campaign based upon the claim that she wants to end the wars, because if that is successful in attracting a base in the US population it will do for anti-war sentiment what Sanders’ campaign did for the Medicare-for-All and free college issues. It will put ending the wars and “interventions” on the table for national public discussion. That is a prerequisite for building a movement to end the empire’s attacks around the world.”
So, let me see if I understand what the end goal folks are championing with regards to Gabbard’s campaign. I preface this understanding b/c conservatives/libertarians I follow via Twitter have been very supportive of Gabbard’s anti-war, anti-regime change stance for similar reasons.
What Gruff states and AKDC concurs with is strategically using and building on Gabbard’s regime change wars/’interventions’ message to the forefront of the electorate, making it a top tier issue, forcing the public/voter to have a long overdue discussion on the profound implications of current foreign/military policy.
With Gabbard in the running for dem nomination she has created a bully pulpit from which to galvanize her voters to build on and spread her message to a larger audience.
As her message begins to take root, opportunities to grow into a movement may present themselves along the way.
It is this movement that will then energize the electorate to work towards making said foreign policy discussion a top tier issue with the end goal being regime change/intervention policy ending, which I believe, could be wrong here, is repealing the Patriot Act and cutting funding to CIA for covert operations (generalizing the latter).
Do I have this right?
If so, isn’t this pretty much the strategic playbook employed by every democratic political presidential candidate these days? Sanders strategy is by no means new, but it is impressive. In essence he’s the CEO of his own foundation selling a product which just so happens to be a political one. The beauty of his model is that he is literally accountable to no one as in a board of directors for example – kitchen cabinets do not serve an oversight role. Btw, I only use Sanders as an example here b/c Gruff did.
Just my opinion here, but until Citizens United is fully repealed, any shot at holding pols accountable for any campaign promises will depend on that individual being true to their stance. So Gabbard must stay in the game, so to speak, to fully realize the success of her message. It’s a long game she must be willing to play here. Ron Paul’s demand for a full audit of the Federal Reserve was years and years in the making and he didn’t have the political benefit of Citizens United at his back.

Posted by: h | Aug 9 2019 16:08 utc | 200