More Evidence Sanders’ Supporters Responsible for Trump Presidency

More evidence that Berniebots gave the presidency to Trump.

Trump won Michigan by 2,279,543 votes (47.6 percent), according to the certified results — 10,704 more than Hillary Clinton’s 2,268,839 (47.4 percent).

Jill Stein, Green Party, won 51,463 votes (1.1 percent). Those are ‘protest votes‘. Hillary would have won Michigan with 11k of those 51k+ votes.

History will condemn these stupid, STUPID people for the atrocities Trump will unleash on this nation and the world.

Bernie Sanders Lost the Primaries: He Moves Towards the Sunset of the Gods

[See  my 2019 Update on Bernie Sanders (he is still trying) ]

There is an update to this post as a result of the presidential elections: “Sanders: I’m Willing to Work With Trump”.

Also, as I predicted somewhere else, the pseudo-left is now accusing him of being a ‘democratic right winger’. During the elections Sanders was a demi-god, but after he helped in the coup against the people of this nation, now he is ‘trash’. Can’t say I didn’t warn you.

Bernie is, for all practical purposes, gone: he lost.

And the (rightfully) angry millennials who raised him to Sage status and put the fear in Hillary’s and the DNC’s hearts, they lost with him.

At the end of his magical mystery  tour, Bernie leaves the millennials behind in the same condition in which he found them when he boarded them into his coach: disorganized, with no future and no movement.

Actually, he left them in worse situation, for now they are angrier and feeling betrayed by just about everybody. Theirs is a sense of not-belonging, of not being wanted, a sense of being alone born of a not-yet-matured sense of having been manipulated by politicians.

Sanders is 70+ years old and owns a fancy multi-million dollars home to retire to after the dust settles down. His millennials have nothing. He benefited financially from the millions of $27 donations: his wife derived a juicy salary as campaign manager paid from it. Everybody got richer at the top of his campaign HQ…the millennials got the joy and pride of becoming $27 poorer for him.

Bernie’s house.

bernie

Rachel Maddow at Bernie’s.

Sanders is going nowhere but to retirement, he will not be part of anything millennials do from now on; maybe he stays in the Democratic party, maybe not. He didn’t even support progressives down ballot because it was all about him.

But millennials are not going to complain about him (bless their hearts). Why?

Because they know that theirs was a symbiotic relationship with Sanders: they raised him and, in exchange, he paid them with a vivid-dream, a new form of Hope and Change: ‘doing the revolution’. The millennials refused to listen to anyone but beloved Bernie. Anyone who didn’t join them or who dared to ask questions about his political record was immediately cursed and publicly humiliated a la Trump.

And the American Left joined them in the dream because they are political zombies. They have nothing else to do but drawling for the millions of followers Sanders has and trying to drag the youngsters into their lairs: the Green party and any of the assorted decrepit socialist tombs passing for ‘workers party’. (I’m not too fond of the Left any more, does it show?)

Hinting Betrayal

The first missed hint that they were being had by Bernie was how quickly Sanders dropped the word “socialist” from his speeches. He made the MSM feel safe to prop him up with free coverage, and leave him unvetted so he could be their attack dog against Hillary Clinton. It was a repeat of what they did in the 2008 primaries, they propped unvetted Obama and attacked Hillary with a painful barrage of misogynistic articles. The word ‘socialist’ is now reserved by the media as an adjective – not an idea -to show how a ‘socialist’ almost defeated evil Hillary.

The second hint at betrayal was how quickly Sanders re-focused his campaign away from attacking the oligarchs towards attacking Hillary Clinton as the evil, powerful witch who has corrupted EVERYBODY; she decided every presidential decision –  Obama’s and Bill’s – with her scary feminist power. Gone were the ‘substantive’ class struggle analysis. It became a campaign to destroy Hillary so Bernie could be the nominee.  Instead of attacking the oligarchs, WS, the pharma, or even Trump, he attacked the DNC as the evil ‘establishment’ controlled by Hillary who has caused all the problems of the world.

First I have to win the nomination, I have to put all my energies into winning the nomination; later we can talk about how to do the political revolution.

Third hint: no talk about creating a third-party or how to ‘do the revolution’. If the DNC is such a corrupt place, the dream of ‘reforming’ it makes no sense. Better start a new workers party from scratch. But Sanders promised the DNC he wouldn’t do that; and the millennials don’t want to hear any criticism of their beloved Leader.

Sanders will talk to his millennials tonite; only then we will know how correct or incorrect my observations about his campaign are. Which way will the millennials go is yet to be seen. They may vote for Trump, but don’t expect them to join any of the American Left’s groups. Hopefully they will create something new to replace the old leftist debris.

Either way, Bernie’s campaign was a majestic run towards the sunset of the gods.

Update: In promoting his new book, Sanders promised in October to be a “thorn” in Hillary’s government. I wouldn’t count on it, it was just for promoting his book. He continues to be part and parcel of the “establishment”.

Mourning Sanders’ Revolution

It’s safe to say that the ‘hope’ of the daydreaming angry youngsters of marching into the democratic party to ravish it from inside and build…something, we are still waiting to find out what were they trying to build there, that hope is gone.

The dream that Sanders could become the president of the USA has rudely awaken to reality. What started as ‘I’m here to raise the issues’ became ‘I’m here to be the president of the USA’. No one noticed the transition, therein the beginning of the delusion.

What did they achieve while they were there ripping Hillary Clinton (HC) to pieces instead of putting their energy into building a movement outside of the paws of the oligarchy? Well, they achieved another unnecessary bout of disillusion and disappointment; and possibly giving Trump the presidency.  Next comes the depression.

But…but…I told you this would happen to you; I have been saying it since January in my blog for those of you who found me at the WaPo. You only have yourselves to blame for your sadness and hopelessness. Expect to go through the same process four years from now because you haven’t learned the lesson that, for leftists, there is no place inside the duopoly. You criticize it and then march into it behind the next charismatic leader  vying for personal power.

As I said in this blog recently, the left is already casting blame on Sanders for their disappointment, refusing to look into their own sorry leftists selves. Yes, I’m pretty much frustrated and it shows; but can you blame me for that?

Don’t blame Sanders, I never blamed him for what I knew was to come. The only reason the left can’t look into itself to evaluate their participation in these primaries is because there is no leftist movement. Only people who are organized can look into how they are doing; unorganized followers don’t have to do that.

So the call is for you, leftists, individually. Look at why you keep following charismatic leaders of the establishment.

As for Hillary…she never said she is doing a revolution. She is offering policies, Sanders promised a revolution, a bumper sticker slogan with nothing to back it up. I can’t follow that. But I can vote for HC and try to do work outside the democratic party to build a third-party. I will not attack her and then find myself with no alternatives against Trump. Any leftist or progressive who thinks that Trump is a better option should be ashamed of calling him or herself a ‘progressive’.

Neither can I follow leftists whose misogyny is so patent that they find common ground in it with Trump. That leftists’ misogyny is so 1960s.

I’m reading articles at the Brookings Institution, the think-tank of the oligarchy. It shows the elite is organized, maybe divided, but they put their money and effort to advance their goals. They know how their globalism has destroyed the middle class here. They are planning to put some band aids to the system.

The left has nothing, no organization, no vision to counter the oligarchs; only personal attacks on one woman whom they have stigmatized as the sole cause of the destruction of the middle class.

You, the left, is offering nothing to the middle class. When you start offering something, call me.

Hillary Clinton greets supporters during a rally in Wilmington, Del., on Monday.

Larry Summers: Presidential Elections Crisis Evidence That Globalism May Have Run Its Course

Introduction
Why Is Trump Causing A Crisis In The GOP?

Summers: Primaries Are Evidence Globalism Has Plateaued
What Is To Be Done? Weathering the Global Storm
Managing The Consequences Of Globalism
Summers’ Veiled Threat To Americans: Ostracize Trump or Else…
Conclusion: The Left’s Distorted Thinking

Introduction

I read in Black Agenda Report a comment  by Glen Ford about this primaries cycle similar to those found in other leftists blogs:  that the duopoly (the two-party system) is bankrupt, destabilized to the point of near collapse due to Trump and Sanders’ campaigns challenging each respective  party’s owners. In Ford’s words:

What makes this election season different is the crisis in the duopoly system, itself: the possibility that the U.S. corporate-controlled electoral arrangement might be shattered beyond repair by irresolvable fractures in both the Republican and Democratic camps, creating more space for a broad left politics in the United States.

He also says there:

On the Republican side, the fate of the duopoly hinges on whether the GOP’s corporate leaders will choose to coexist in the same party with Donald Trump, an unpredictable billionaire who cannot be counted on to support perpetual U.S. military occupation of the planet and race-to-the-bottom global trade deals.

Rest assured Glen, the elite will avert the crisis. As I will show in this post,  they are working on it as we speak.

Missing from Ford’s and the other leftists’ analysis is the why: Why is it that the oligarchy cannot handle run-of-the-mill entertainment mogul Donald Trump, allowing him to ‘sequester’ the GOP? Sanders is in the other party doing what Trump is doing in the GOP: he too is ‘denouncing’ the elite. But the democrats seem to be handling him better; the impending doom for them is not as palpable as in the GOP. I know, evil-Hillary has him by the neck.

But Sanders has never attacked the globalists directly.  His mantra has been  against the “0.1% of Wall Street and against Hillary Clinton as the evil witch who has corrupted our nation’s good CEOs. As of late his has focused exclusively on her. He has stated his support of globalism. That’s why he has not directly associated voter anger with globalism as Trump has; that’s why he (and HC) is not a threat to the elite. I’m not endorsing him, for crying out loud!

But I think there is something else: the constant on both parties is that which Ford dismissed in his article: ‘voter anger’.

angry - Copy

Since March 1 I have been writing (inartfully, for sure) in this blog (here, here and here) about the relation between voter anger, Trump, the globalists and Larry Summers, and as it so happens, not only the relation exists, but it should have been taken into account by the left long time ago. Had they done that, they would have saved themselves from the embarrassment and disappointment at getting sucked into the Sanders ‘revolution’ day-dreaming campaign and falling for Trump’s pseudo-anti-globalist ‘rebellion’.

Why Is Trump Causing A Crisis In The GOP?

I will discuss Larry Summers’ two recent articles that illuminate the real causes behind this presidential election cycle crisis. Let me frame the conversation.

I argued, in the posts links above, that this electoral crisis is due mostly to voters anger, an outcome  of globalism, and that the elite sees these elections as the evidence that they have inflicted as much pain and disruption as the  middle class and the global humanity are capable of withstanding without rebelling. I also suggested that the Trump effect, the disruption of the GOP’s order, is not due to his anti-globalist position, as the left has suggested.

Trump’s crime has been daring to open for public discussion the crimes of the globalist elite, inciting the anger of the middle class against the elite. Of course, that is Trumpism, i.e., opportunism; he just wants to get those votes, he is part of the ‘billionaire class’.  The regular people is not allowed to discuss the evils of globalism anywhere, least of all in their presidential elections. Trump opening the discussion merely for winning votes is the ultimate betrayal to the elitist class to which he belongs.

aim - Copy

Image from somewhere in the internet.

So let’s see what is it that Larry Summers wants Trump to stuff it.

Summers: Primaries Are Evidence That Globalism Has plateaued

What follows is based on these two articles:(a) Global trade should be remade from the bottom up
April 11th, 2016, and (b) Larry Summers: Donald Trump is a serious threat to American democracy March 1.

There is nothing surprising about these elections to the elite because they are watching the effects that their rapacious greed is having on humanity. Larry Summers made the diagnosis: the political crisis that is this presidential election cycle is  merely a symptom...of the success of globalism.

This [globalization] has proved more successful than could reasonably have been hoped. [On article (a)]

Summers is sort-of paraphrasing Trump: globalists have had so much success that they are saying “please, no more success”. But, seriously, Summers et al globalists are listening  to your complaints:

They read the revelations in the Panama Papers and conclude that globalisation offers a fortunate few the opportunities to avoid taxes and regulations that are not available to the rest. And they see the disintegration that accompanies global integration, as communities suffer when big employers lose to foreign competitors. [(a)]

poor - Copy

For Summers, the evidence that  globalism has plateaued, overachieved, is in our current presidential elections. The oligarchs have taken notice of the importance of this elections cycle:

Elites can continue pursuing and defending [global] integration, hoping to win sufficient popular support — but, on the evidence of the US presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. [a]

Yet a revolt against global integration is under way in the west. The four leading candidates for president of the US — Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — all oppose the principal free-trade initiative of this period: the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Proposals by Mr Trump, the Republican frontrunner, to wall off Mexico, abrogate trade agreements and persecute Muslims are far more popular than he is. [a]

candidtes - Copy

That last phrase, “far more popular than he is“, it says it all.

So there you have it: the elite is watching you and understands better than you do yourselves from where that anger is coming. How do they know that the damage has been done? Let’s just say… they know:

The core of the revolt against globalintegration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense, not wholly unwarranted, that it is a project carried out by elites for elites with little consideration for the interests of ordinary people — who see the globalisation agenda as being set by big companies playing off one country against another. [a]

So our dysfunctional presidential primaries show that the people are angry at globalization and can’t take it any longer. What is the elite to do to help us?

What Is To Be Done? Weathering the Global Storm

Globalism plateaued and there’s no way to convince the masses that it should be protected: the damage is beyond repair.

Elites can continue pursuing and defending integration, hoping to win sufficient popular support — but… this strategy may have run its course. [a]

The inevitability of popular unrest due to globalism having plateaued will result in a situation like that scene in the God Father were the mob went underground for cover after Michael killed Sollozzo: it was a “hiatus”.

This is likely to result in a hiatus in new global integration [a]

The elite will then concentrate on:

efforts to preserve what is in place while relying on technology and growth in the developing world to drive further integration. [a]

Like the God Father’s mob, the elite is weathering the storm.

solloazo - Copy


Managing The Consequences of Globalism

Voters fight with each other defending/attacking Trump and Sanders/Clinton: but Larry Summers knows how childish their fights are because he knows that they are fighting the wrong enemy. He also knows that they can be like an elephant walking in a ceramics store. The elite knows that the unmanaged anger will lead to chaos. So manage the anger they will.

Much more promising is this idea: the promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. [a]

Larry Summers doesn’t go deep in this article about how he envisions this “managing” of the consequences of globalization, except to say this:

This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonisation agreements, where issues such as labour rights and environmental protection would take precedence over issues related to empowering foreign producers. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions that escape tax or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did. [a]

One thing I can take from that quote: that our lives, our jobs, our unemployment, our education and entertainment, our housing…it has all been managed for us for a long long time, and will continue to be managed for us today. The solutions, the bandages or the profound alternatives to move away from this crisis will come from them.

They will use the MSM to ‘educate’ us, to influence our opinions, to tell us how to run our lives because, to them We the people are like children having a bad temper tantrum and who need to be disciplined. But he is afraid of the unruly children:

I have had a strong point of view on each of the last ten presidential elections, but never before had I feared that what I regarded as the wrong outcome would in the long sweep of history risk grave damage to the American project. [b]

Summers’ Veiled Threat To Americans: Ostracize Trump or Else…

soon - Copy

Thus Summers proceeds to give a warning to the American middle class, a veiled threat of what will happen to you if you don’t behave:

The United States has always been governed by the authority of ideas, rather than the idea of authority. Nothing is more important than to be clear to all Americans that the tradition of vigorous political debate and compromise will continue. The sooner Donald Trump is relegated to the margins of our national life, the better off we and the world will be. [b]

Did you see it, or am I misinterpreting that quote? Those two quotes tell a story: The elite will not allow you to disrupt their status quo, they  have no patient with you, so you will be better off ostracizing the Donald, not only from the campaign, but from our “national life”; and “the sooner” you do it, the better for you. If you elect Trump, you will be governed by “the idea of authority”, there will be no more compromises. But it is not Trump’s idea of authority: it’s the elite’s.

This veiled threat has been used before: by Bush Jr. in 2009 when he threatened to use martial law if the people refused to bail out the big financial and insurance corporations criminals.

Another thing that will “remain in place”, according to those quotes,  is the elite’s privilege to avoid paying taxes. Summers recommends to the elite to devote as much of  their financial and political resources to protect the “trillions that escape tax…” as they will devote to trade agreements.

Conclusion: The Left’s Distorted Thinking

These primaries are special. The reason the duopoly is in crisis is not because of Trump or Hillary; both parties are in crisis because of the middle class’ anger, because globalism has reached its peak.

In times of turmoil, it is expected that opportunist politicians will try catch the big fish out of the dark waters. Trump and Sanders are those politicians. Hillary Clinton? Well, you have wasted your energy on her: she is not the one running as the revolutionary or socialist. You chose to follow two of three of the worse evils. Instead of seeing what I have described here, you engaged in vilifying a woman as the sole corrupt element in the ‘establishment’. With all due respect, that is so male of you.

The oligarchs are as deep in this crisis as we are. But they are organized, they have traced their course and goals, they have a VISION. What does the left have?

Well, they are united in their Hate-Hillary fest. You allowed your emotions and, often, misogyny to take control of your mind. Your hatred lead you  to publicly consider the most shameful thought a leftist can have: voting for Trump. The amount of energy spent on vilifying HC was at least 3x higher than that spent on Trump, and 10x higher on advocating for Sanders. Your hatred distorted your thinking, made you forget that Trump could NOT POSSIBLY be the anti-globalist he has claimed he is: it was all an act. You forgot that he is a member of the elite; if he wins, he will bend over to the military and oligarchs bigger than he is.

The left has nothing to offer to the middle class. Well, maybe the Green Party does. Go cast your vote for whoever…

At the end of this elections cycle, we will end up exactly where we started: in the hands of the oligarchs.

Why aren’t we talking about Sanders’ foreign policy more?

 Election 2016
Bernie Sanders’ Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad
Why aren’t we talking about Sanders’ foreign policy more?
By Michael Arria / AlterNet
May 13, 2015

In his resignation letter to Sanders, former staffer Jeremy Brecher explained the Clinton administartion’s position at the time. “While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or partially-NATO forces into Kosovo,” wrote Brecher, “…The refusal of the U.S. to endorse such proposals strongly supports the hypothesis that the goal of U.S. policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction.”

Brecher’s note to Sanders closes with a set of rhetorical questions, “Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take? My answers led to my resignation.”

The attack on Kosovo is hardly the extent of Sanders’ hawkishness. While it’s true he voted against the Iraq War, he also voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. More recently, he voted in favor of a $1 billion aid package for the coup government Ukraine and supported Israel’s assault on Gaza. At a town hall meeting he admitted that Israel may have “overreacted”, but blamed Hamas for the entire conflict. After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel’s actions, he told critics: “Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

Brecher’s entire letter to Sanders can be read below. The bombing of Kosovo killed between 489 and 528 civilians.

May 4, 1999

Congressman Bernie Sanders
2202 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC, 20515

Dear Bernie,

This letter explains the matters of conscience that have led me to resign from your staff.

I believe that every individual must have some limit to what acts of military violence they are willing to participate in or support, regardless of either personal welfare or claims that it will lead to a greater good. Any individual who does not possess such a limit is vulnerable to committing or condoning abhorrent acts without even stopping to think about it.

Those who accept the necessity for such a limit do not necessarily agree regarding where it should be drawn. For absolute pacifists, war can never be justified. But even for non-pacifists, the criteria for supporting the use of military violence must be extremely stringent because the consequences are so great. Common sense dictates at least the following as minimal criteria:

The evil to be remedied must be serious.

The genuine purpose of the action must be to avert the evil, not to achieve some other purpose for which the evil serves as a pretext.

Less violent alternatives must be unavailable.

The violence used must have a high probability of in fact halting the evil.

The violence used must be minimized.

Let us evaluate current U.S. military action in Yugoslavia against each of these tests. Evil to be remedied:

We can agree that the evil to be remedied in this case — specifically, the uprooting and massacre of the Kosovo Albanians — is serious enough to justify military violence if such violence can ever be justified. However, the U.S. air war against Yugoslavia fails an ethical test on each of the other four criteria.

Purpose vs. pretext: The facts are incompatible with the hypothesis that U.S. policy is motivated by humanitarian concern for the people of Kosovo:

In the Dayton agreement, the U.S. gave Milosevic a free hand in Kosovo in exchange for a settlement in Bosnia.

The U.S. has consistently opposed sending ground forces into Kosovo, even as the destruction of the Kosovar people escalated. (While I do not personally support such an action, it would, in sharp contrast to current U.S. policy, provide at least some likelihood of halting the attacks on the Kosovo Albanians.)

According to the New York Times (4/18/99), the U.S. began bombing Yugoslavia with no consideration for the possible impact on the Albanian people of Kosovo. This was not for want of warning. On March 5, 1999, Italian Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema met with President Clinton in the Oval Office and warned him that an air attack which failed to subdue Milosevic would result in 300,000 to 400,000 refugees passing into Albania and then to Italy. Nonetheless, “No one planned for the tactic of population expulsion that has been the currency of Balkan wars for more than a century.” (The New York Times, 4/18/99). If the goal of U.S. policy was humanitarian, surely planning for the welfare of these refugees would have been at least a modest concern.

Even now the attention paid to humanitarian aid to the Kosovo refugees is totally inadequate, and is trivial compared to the billions being spent to bomb Yugoslavia. According to the Washington Post (4/30/99), the spokeswoman for the U.N. refugee agency in Macedonia says, “We are on the brink of catastrophe.” Surely a genuine humanitarian concern for the Kosovars would be evidenced in massive emergency airlifts and a few billion dollars right now devoted to aiding the refugees.

While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or partially-NATO forces into Kosovo. Such proposals have been made by Russia, by Milosevic himself, and by the delegations of the U.S. Congress and the Russian Duma who met recently with yourself as a participant. The refusal of the U.S. to endorse such proposals strongly supports the hypothesis that the goal of U.S. policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction.

Less violent alternatives: On 4/27/99 I presented you with a memo laying out an alternative approach to current Administration policy. It stated, “The overriding objective of U.S. policy in Kosovo — and of people of good will — must be to halt the destruction of the Albanian people of Kosovo. . . The immediate goal of U.S. policy should be a ceasefire which halts Serb attacks on Kosovo Albanians in exchange for a halt in NATO bombing.” It stated that to achieve this objective, the United States should “propose an immediate ceasefire, to continue as long as Serb attacks on Kosovo Albanians cease. . . Initiate an immediate bombing pause. . . Convene the U.N. Security Council to propose action under U.N. auspices to extend and maintain the ceasefire. . . Assemble a peacekeeping force under U.N. authority to protect safe havens for those threatened with ethnic cleansing.” On 5/3/99 you endorsed a very similar peace plan proposed by delegations from the US Congress and the Russian Duma. You stated that “The goal now is to move as quickly as possible toward a ceasefire and toward negotiations.” In short, there is a less violent alternative to the present U.S. air war against Yugoslavia.

High probability of halting the evil: Current U.S. policy has virtually no probability of halting the displacement and killing of the Kosovo Albanians. As William Safire put it, “The war to make Kosovo safe for Kosovars is a war without an entrance strategy. By its unwillingness to enter Serbian territory to stop the killing at the start, NATO conceded defeat. The bombing is simply intended to coerce the Serbian leader to give up at the negotiating table all he has won on the killing field. He won’t.” (the New York Times, 5/3/99) The massive bombing of Yugoslavia is not a means of protecting the Kosovars but an alternative to doing so.

Minimizing the consequences of violence. “Collateral damage” is inevitable in bombing attacks on military targets. It must be weighed in any moral evaluation of bombing. But in this case we are seeing not just collateral damage but the deliberate selection of civilian targets, including residential neighborhoods, auto factories, broadcasting stations, and hydro-electric power plants. The New York Times characterized the latter as “The attack on what clearly appeared to be a civilian target.” (5/3/99) If these are acceptable targets, are there any targets that are unacceptable?

The House Resolution (S Con Res 21) of 4/29/99 which “authorizes the president of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with the United States’ NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” supports not only the current air war but also its unlimited escalation. It thereby authorizes the commission of war crimes, even of genocide. Indeed, the very day after that vote, the Pentagon announced that it would begin “area bombing,” which the Washington Post (4/30/99) characterized as “dropping unguided weapons from B-52 bombers in an imprecise technique that resulted in large-scale civilian casualties in World War II and the Vietnam War.”

It was your vote in support of this resolution that precipitated my decision that my conscience required me to resign from your staff. I have tried to ask myself questions that I believe each of us must ask ourselves:

Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take?

My answers led to my resignation.

Sincerely yours,

Jeremy Brecher

Bernie Sanders And The Left’s Inability to Learn From Recent History (Part 2)(Reviewed)

In my earlier post I talked about the left’s willingness to buy into  mystic candidates who use their charismatic persona to hide their true class identity: minions of the oligarchs, pawns to manage the ‘establishment’.

Now I describe what I saw about Obama in 2008, the real Obama, not the charismatic leader, which presaged to me the yuuge disappointment the left was walking into by supporting him.

Obama’s Campaign Was Not A Movement (This was added recently.)

First, you must keep this in mind: to be a movement there must be participation by the rank and file in the decision process of that group. Following a charismatic politician doesn’t constitute ‘a movement’, at least not from the leftists’ point of view. Ask yourselves, what happened to that Obama ‘movement’ after he won? Take your time. Now answer this: Did his followers had any input in his campaign, any decision-making right to influence the issues, or what to do after he won? Did he keep the movement alive after he won?

The Real Obama Was All Over the Place

Most of what follows happened in the period of 2007-2008. I gathered this information  from the comfort of my little apartment; there’s no reason the left didn’t see their political debacle  coming.  I saw it. I can’t put everything I had here, this is a lot. I hope it makes sense. Feel free to comment; no insults, please.

Let me start with the most evident sign in 2008 that Obama was going to be the capitalists’ hammer to the working class: his membership at The Hamilton Project. (All quotes are from my old blog.)

The Hamilton Project was formed  in 2006 by the DLC “to blunt the political demands for protectionism…and the group was willing to take on entrenched Democratic interests such as teaching unions.”[sirotablog]

Politico.com says that the project was created “for softening the impact of globalization without interfering with international trade…with an eye to fiscal austerity and balanced budget”.

A Tiny Revolution.com described them more appropriately: “The members of the advisory council of The Hamilton Project include numerous investment bankers. They’re people who should naturally be Republicans, but just can’t bear having to hang out with Pat Robertson”.

Robert Rubin, one of the main creators of the Hamilton Project, “demanded during the debate over CAFTA that congressional Democrats back off their efforts to include labor, human rights and environmental protections in the pact. [Lou Dobbs, CNN, 3/2005]

In the words of Politico: “Oh sure, the group [THP] claims it is going to look at critical issues like income inequality – but you can be sure they will look at the issue without looking at issues like “free” trade that are fueling that inequality. Because make no mistake about it – this move today [the creation of THP] is nothing more than the beginning of a frontal attack by Corporate America on the progressive movement, using the Democratic Party as an all-too-transparent cloak of legitimacy”.

Barack Obama was a willing partner of that plan. Did his presidential economic policies aligned with that discussion in 2008? Of course, he protected the globalists. He was ready for it:

“This Is Not a Bloodless Process”:

“…there are real consequences to the work that is being done here [THP]. There are people …who have seen their jobs eliminated…Some of that, then will end up manifesting itself in the sort of nativist sentiment, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment…This is not a bloodless process.”

About health insurance and CHANGE:

“If we’ve got a winner-take all economy…then our tax policies can help cushion the blow [to the losers] through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they’re not losing their health care as well. That actually makes for a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change.”

The messiah of “change” was working to make that change less probable by making workers “less resistant to change”.

It doesn’t get more capitalist than that. Obama was invited by and became a member of The Hamilton Project (THP) in 2008. You probably recognize Robert Rubin’s name; a pal to Bill Clinton and Obama. He was Obama’s economic adviser who got his protégés, Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, into the White House.

Don’t point your guns at Hillary yet. We still have to deal with Sanders, later.

Obama Never Promised Anything to Black America

I said before that Obama was groomed for his first presidential bid. His first book, Dreams of My Father, was re-published four years before the 2008 primaries, with a new introduction tailored to introduce him to white America, letting them know they should not be scared of him as a Black man because..he feels he has nothing in common with African-Americans. He would offer something “finer” than “African bloodlines”.

In it he made clear that race was not going to be part of his campaign or presidency. That’s why he seldom made reference to his race during the primaries or the presidential campaigns…and why issues of the Black community had no place in his presidency, only when they were brought by crisis that could not be ignored because they were plastered all over the MSM.

His book was an account about how he went to the Black community to find out if he shared a Black experience with them and came out realizing he didn’t…because he is unique:

“I can’t even hold up my experience as being somehow representative of the black American experience…”

“learning to accept that particular truth – that I can embrace my black brothers and sisters, whether in this country of Africa, and affirm a common destiny without pretending to speak to, or for, all our various struggles – is part of what this book is about.”

“Communities [Black] had to be created…This community I imagined was still in the making...I believed that it might, over time, admit the uniqueness of my life. That was my idea of organizing. It was a promise of redemption.

“…notions of purity-of race or culture-could no more serve as the basis for the typical black American’s self-esteem than it could for mine. Our sense of wholeness would have to arise from something more fine than the bloodlines we’d inherited.”[He doesn’t say what that might be.]

The “fine” was his uniqueness, his messianic persona: he was above race. His bloodline was not ‘fine’ enough.

There was much more there; I still wonder if the left read the book or just skimmed over it. The lack of policy during his presidency to address the problems of African-Americans was anticipated there in the book.

The Black Community is like the loving, committed spouse, willing to ignore immediate needs so their partner can conquer the world. But at the end of the day, something must be delivered.” [http://brothers.yourblackworld.com/2008/02/tavis-smileys-haterology-on-barack.html]

He promised nothing to AAs, and delivered nothing to them. The same guy from brother.yourblackbrother.com quoted above, later called Obama “Barack Obama: the Kunta Kinte of 2008” blasting him for throwing every Black leader under the bus. And Obama’s speech on father’s day didn’t help much, either. I’m sure you remember it.

Obama was not vetted by the left, period.

How Obama’s Allure Crossed Class Boundaries

This is one piece of information that I found doing the research on him in 2008 that alerted me about his deceitfulness, from his own mouth:

BO said in an interview with Cathleen Falsani (Chicago Sun-Times, 4/2004) that

“The nature of politics, you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Often that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith the more potentially dangerous it is”

What he described there, four years before the primaries, was more than mere salesmanship: it is tested cult psychology. He presented himself  as a blank screen, provided a few coded words (‘hope’, etc.) to guide you and, dutifully, you would  fill in the blanks with your own dreams and values. Obama was a collective illusion. African-Americans filled that blank screen with their dreams of freedom and of being treated with dignity; they thought it was him promising them ‘redemption’, even though he seldom spoke about race during the campaigns.

The labor movement also projected their dreams into the Obama blank screen:

“Just wait until we have a Labor Department under President Obama.” shouted Congresswoman Jan Schakwosky in a labor movement’s rally in Chicago in 2007.

Obama even said that Blacks would benefit ‘indirectly’ from his presidency because he was going to make ‘everybody’s lives better.

And it was by being a “blank screen” that everybody fell for him, including the kings of the MSM and the communists. From my other blog:

This is Rupert Murdoch gushing over Obama:

He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida…..but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.” [the Huffington Post]

Frank Chapman, CPUSA supporter, hailing BO’s victory in the Iowa caucuses:

Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary “mole”, not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”

It never occurred to the communist experts in class politics that if the oligarchs were supporting him, if one of the kings of the MSM,  the instrument with which the people are brainwashed daily , was so enamored with him, something was not kosher. They simply bought into the mainstream collective delusion.

But there was plenty of evidence showing that he had a conservative-republican leaning.

“Some of Obama’s peers question the motives of this second-year law student. They find it puzzling that despite Obama’s openly progressive views on social issues, he has also won support from staunch conservatives…criticism from fellow black students for being too conciliatory toward conservatives and not choosing more blacks to other top positions on the law review.”

Did BO’s message of hope made Wall Street speculators grow a heart?

Of course not. Finally, I said this in 2008:

Obama’s “coalition of the willing”, as I dub this coalition of extreme right and left wing political elements supporting his bid for POTUS, contains in itself the seeds of self-destruction. Ask yourself, How can the interests of deep pocket capitalists coincide with that of the Marxist left, the black nationalist and separatists, the NOI (Nation Of Islam), and the “organized working class” actively supporting BO? Or this equally interesting question: why do the leftists perceive BO as their ally despite his frequent flip flopping on economical and war issues?

I had more in my 2008 blog. The point being that, for those who see Obama’s administration as a betrayal of his promise for “hope and change”, you only have yourselves to blame for having been doped. What he really was, it was written all over the wall.

Next post: Sanders and Hillary.

Bernie Sanders And The Left’s Inability to Learn From Recent History (Part 1)

hope

This “Real Hope” acknowledges they were had by their first populist-charismatic leader. So, they try the same recipe… again .

I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008 over Obama, and I will vote for her over Sanders. For all those Obama-fans, this post may not be of your liking, for I will compare the reasons I had for not voting for him with the reasons I have for not voting for Sanders. The reasons are similar because Sanders is a repeat of what I, may I say,  correctly saw back in 2008.

Let me say something about me: I am not a ‘pure’ democrat; I have voted dem only because there are no viable alternatives to the two-party system. Also, I have been tested in the ‘revolution’ since 1972, having been in the pro-independence movement in Puerto Rico and in the different people’ struggles here in New York City since I moved here in 1982. Thus, I’m speaking as a leftist, not as a member of the democratic party.

When Obama started running in the 2008 democratic primaries, I, like everybody  else, was moved by the possibility that a black man, and a ‘progressive’ at that, had a real chance of making it to the top. But because I had learned not to trust politicians and to research their records instead of taking them for their words, I went and did my research on Obama.

Of course, I was torn because I was also interested in having the first woman running, also with a chance, for the presidency. Her I knew better, most of us did. She was not perfect, but neither has  been any male president of the US.

Soooo, as I started finding reliable info online about Obama not mentioned in the campaign, mostly from interviews he gave,  his appeal to me started to look ‘iffy’, and then things got to the point of ‘oh, no, not you’. The info I found was so damning (in particular his speech at the elitist Hamilton Project think-tank), in my view, that for the first time I opened a blog, me who is not good at English grammar, to share what I had found. The blog is still out there: ‘the obama nightmare’, and so is my grammar. The blog’s title says how bad was what I had found. I will give details at the end of this ‘series’. Let me first present more common-sense material that should have been a clue since day one of their campaign to the left about who these candidates represent.

The Messiah and The  Saint

pure

Both of them: through the primaries with no record and not vetted. Implied in a saintly image is the unstated rule that what this saint says is true and should not be questioned. That’s why ‘berniebots’ get enraged when anyone questions Sanders’ record or don’t support him.

Obama’s campaign was imbued, like Sanders’ today, with that air of mysticism. Idealization of these two politicians is an understatement.

saints

Real votive candles.

You probably remember that the Obama campaign painted a halo around him. He himself spoke of his ‘movement’ as capable of ‘parting the waters’, figuratively speaking, of course?

heal

Obama’s nomination victory speech.

Sanders, we see him portrayed as ‘the only one who tells the truth’, he never lies (despite having been a politician since the 1980s), his record in Congress shows (despite it haven’t been vetted by the MSM nor by his followers) shows that he has only supported bills protecting the downtrodden, and he has never received money from the elite (although it comes indirectly).

the truth

But is he?

All of this is enough to make anyone a SAINT, which is why his followers adore him and pay obeisance to him. Of course, his recent trip to the Vatican and brief meeting with His Sanctity The Pope solidified that saintly image of Sanders. Now Sanders’ statements are taken as “moral economy” and in tune with the Pope’s. How can you argue against him without coming across as a despicable jerk?

As an experienced leftist, I learned not to follow politicians who gladly promote themselves as above the rest of humanity. When I see one doing it, I know he is not only a fake, but a liar and dangerous for the ’cause’.

There should be nothing more anathema to any leftist worthy of calling himself or herself so, than supporting…

  • un-vetted party-establishment candidates,
  • who gladly represent themselves to the working class as mystics
  • and who peddle campaign slogans like ‘hope’, ‘change’, ‘revolution’ and ‘socialism’ with no record of having worked for it in the past.  A job in Congress doesn’t count as working for ‘socialism’, at least not yet.

So, a pitch for sainthood was the first clue to me that Obama, as Sanders today, was working for the oligarchs. But here they are, the American left, drinking the sacramental wine, again.

Populist Candidates For the Downtrodden

Obama ran a populist campaign just as Sanders is doing today (and Trump, but that’s another story). Obama was groomed for his role (as discussed in the other blog) and ran knowing from day one that his was going to be a populist campaign. Sanders, however, was caught by surprise; he didn’t expect the success he is having, no one did.  He just wanted to bring the issues important to the angry youngsters so they would come to the party and stop being so angry; seriously.

The point is that after 9/11 the oligarchs came out of the shadows to take direct control of power. They knew that their cut throat capitalism and thievery was going to destabilize the economy and create anger in the working class; that their thievery could not be hidden anymore. So, they needed new politicians, men who were seen as outside the ‘establishment’, populists who would bring the discontented and the oppressed back into the two-party system and neutralize their righteous anger there. That was Obama first, and now Sanders.

What I have just said can not be new for leftists and socialists. We know what the establishment parties do and for whom they work. As for ‘neutralizing’ the anger…many leftists and socialists agree in that it was Obama who killed the anti-war movement, and the Occupy movement too. How he did it? Well, you can’t argue with your saints, especially when they come at you with the police state to throw blessed peppered spray over your head.

Tomorrow, Part Two: Reel them in and Hillary’s ‘Via Dolorosa’

I will get into the details I had found  about  Obama that made me think he was a bad ‘event’ for the left and the working class.