Once upon a time there was a definable bloc within the the Democratic party that was highly skeptical of American military engagements. No more. From Chris Hedges at chrishedges.substack.com:
The Democratic Party has become the party of permanent war, fueling massive military spending which is hollowing out the country from the inside and flirting with with nuclear war.
Democratic Dark Side – by Mr. Fish
The Democrats position themselves as the party of virtue, cloaking their support for the war industry in moral language stretching back to Korea and Vietnam, when President Ngo Dinh Diem was as lionized as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. All the wars they support and fund are “good” wars. All the enemies they fight, the latest being Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, are incarnations of evil. The photo of a beaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris holding up a signed Ukrainian battle flag behind Zelensky as he addressed Congress was another example of the Democratic Party’s abject subservience to the war machine.
The Democrats, especially with the presidency of Bill Clinton, became shills not only for corporate America but for the weapons manufacturers and the Pentagon. No weapons system is too costly. No war, no matter how disastrous, goes unfunded. No military budget is too big, including the $858 billion in military spending allocated for the current fiscal year, an increase of $45 billion above what the Biden administration requested.
The historian Arnold Toynbee cited unchecked militarism as the fatal disease of empires, arguing that they ultimatley commit suicide.
There once was a wing of the Democratic Party that questioned and stood up to the war industry: Senators J. William Fulbright, George McGovern, Gene McCarthy, Mike Gravel, William Proxmire and House member Dennis Kucinich. But that opposition evaporated along with the antiwar movement. When 30 members of the party’s progressive caucus recently issued a call for Biden to negotiate with Putin, they were forced by the party leadership and a warmongering media to back down and rescind their letter. Not that any of them, with the exception of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have voted against the billions of dollars in weaponry sent to Ukraine or the bloated military budget. Rashida Tlaib voted present.
Tulsi Gabbard as Ron DeSantis’s running mate? You never know. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:
This isn’t the biggest news of the week but it may turn out to be so if I’m right about what this means and where it leads. Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard formally left the Democratic Party in a public announcement this morning on Twitter.
Here’s Gabbard’s full statement:
I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are…
…hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.
I believe in a government that is of, by, and for the people. Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party does not. Instead, it stands for a government of, by, and for the powerful elite. I’m calling on my fellow common sense independent-minded Democrats to join me….
…in leaving the Democratic Party. If you can no longer stomach the direction that so-called woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country, I invite you to join me.
It’s hard to see the Democrats doing much right during this presidential campaign season. From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:
For the moment, it seems, the Democratic Party’s actual anointed candidate for president is Senator Harris (CA), due to the obvious disability of her running mate. But such a boldfaced shuck-and-jive has never been tried before in a national election. Do you suppose the DNC honchos really believe they’re putting one over on the voters?
It remains to be seen whether this hustle will withstand the moilings and toilings of next week’s national convention — itself shaping up to be a massively peculiar event conducted by texts, emails, phone calls, Zoom meet-ups, smoke signals, and perhaps rioting here and there to emphasize the party’s dedication to the violent overthrow of cultural norms.
The real action may spool out this pre-convention weekend as all concerned grok the awful prospect of Joe Biden fumbling and stammering through an acceptance speech, confounded by the voice in his earpiece vying with the text rolling on the teleprompter. Poor Joe will come off for what he really is in this eerie twilight of his long career: a thousand hair-plugs in search of a brain. Such a pitiful display would reveal the cynicism (or reckless stupidity) of the party’s game so far this year. It will invite epic disarray in the ranks. Will they allow it to happen?
It’s easier to start a wildfire than it is to control or suppress it. From the Saker at unz.com:
I have to say that I am amazed that so many folks on the Left seem to think that the current riots in the US are a spontaneous rebellion against police violence, systemic racism, and history of persecution and exploitation of Blacks and Indians, etc. As for the violence, looting and riots – they are either excused as a result of some kind of righteous wrath or blamed on “infiltrators”. In my previous article I tried to show how the Democrats and the US media tried to instrumentalize these riots and to use them against Trump’s bid for reelection. I accompanied the article with a carefully staged photo-op of US Democrats “taking a knee” in solidarity (as if the leaders of the Democratic Party gave a hoot about Blacks or poor US Americans!).
What I did not mention was how the US (and even trans-national) corporate world backed these riots to the hilt. Here are just a few examples of this:
Amazon, Bank of America & Sephora:
And it is not only in the USA. Check out what Adidas in Germany has been up to:
It is amazing that a professor at UC Berkeley, of all places, would release, even anonymously, a letter criticizing Black Lives Matter. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
Update (06/13/2020): U.C. Berkeley’s history department has issued a statement regarding the anonymous letter, and instead of addressing – or inviting a vigorous debate over its content, Berkeley’s response validates one of the letter’s core claims that dissent outside “a tightly policed, narrow discourse” is not welcome.
“An anonymous letter has been circulating, purportedly written by a @UCBHistory professor. We have no evidence that this letter was written by a History faculty member,” the UC Berkeley History department tweeted Friday evening,” adding “We condemn this letter: it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.”
An anonymous letter has been circulating, purportedly written by a @UCBHistory professor. We have no evidence that this letter was written by a History faculty member. We condemn this letter: it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.
I wouldn’t count on the Democratic Party vanishing. We should be so lucky. From Renée Parsons at off-guardian.org:
DNC Debate Oct 15 2019; Westerville, OH, USA (Meg Vogel/The Enquirer via USA TODAY NETWORK)
Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to boycott the October 15th Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to the surface as never before.
If so, those revelations are long overdue.
It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.
Can the Democrats squelch Tulsi Gabbard like they did Bernie Sanders in 2016? From Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.org:
No wonder Democratic Party bosses and mainstream media are trying to bury presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard. She is the only candidate, perhaps the only politician in the US, who is telling the American public exactly what they need to know about what their government and military are really up to: fighting illegal regime-change wars, and to boot, sponsoring terrorists for that purpose.
It didn’t come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:
“Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011… along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and cheer-leading this regime-change war.”
Just as salient as the title question, will somebody destroy the Clintons and lock them away? From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:
History is full of ironies, and perhaps it will suit the irony gods for The Donald to take down the Republican Party and the Clinton dynasty to destroy the Democratic Party.
Let’s start by stipulating my bias: I would cheer the collapse of both self-serving, venal political parties, which have stood by for decades as the rich have become immeasurably richer and the politically powerful few have disempowered the many. The transparent “populist” bleatings of both parties–“we serve the people!”–sound increasingly like stale, pathetically disconnected from reality Soviet-era propaganda.
Let’s say I’m a relatively disinterested observer other than my fervent wish that both corrupt, self-serving parties slide into the dustbin of history, the sooner the better.
The Republicans were hijacked by Donald Trump and given a binary choice:accept Trump as their candidate and have a chance of winning, or reject him and guarantee losing. After surveying the wreckage left by the Bush dynasty and Romney’s loss, the Repubs swallowed their distrust and distaste for The Donald and chose winning over losing–the easily predictable choice for all politicos.
The Democrats are catering to a diverse array of groups, but mainstream white voters isn’t one of them. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:
In the last presidential election, the Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, dismissed the white American working class as the “Trump deplorables,” “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.” Now Nancy Pelosi wants the House of Representatives to censure President Trump for sticking up for America and its white core population.What more proof do we need that the Democratic Party does not represent the core population of America?
We hear a lot from Democrats about “white supremacy.”Yet whites are the only people who are unprotected by racial quotas and preferential treatment in university admissions, hiring, and promotions.Whites are the only people unprotected by prohibitions against hate speech.Any hurtful thing can be said about white people—and is.White people are the only people who can be arbitrarily fired for speaking their mind or simply stating truths that Identity Politics, or some black person, doesn’t want to hear.
White people still have to listen to demands from blacks for reparations for slavery as if those currently alive, white and black, have had anything to do with slavery.Indeed, scholars have concluded that as many or more white Americans alive today are descendants of white slaves as blacks are of black slaves.What about reparations for descendants of white slaves?
In those long ago times, slavery was a fact of life, not something that white people did to black people. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the supply of black slaves in the New World originated in the black Kingdom of Dahomey which sold black captives from the black king’s slave wars first to Arabs and then to Europeans.
The ACLU could plausibly have opposed Brett Kavanaugh on the grounds that he’s weak on civil liberties. Instead, it argued that the presumption of innocence should be thrown out, Ford believed, and Kavanaugh rejected. From Alan M. Dershowitz at gatestoneinstitute.org:
So why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against that judicial nominee? The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor.
The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil liberties.
The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen’s office was raided by the FBI and his clients’ files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.
When the ACLU’s national political director and former Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, “People have funded us and I think they expect a return.”
President Trump greeting Brett Kavanaugh and his family. Why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against him? (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, it is appropriate to look at the damage caused by the highly partisan confirmation process. Among the casualties has been an organization I have long admired.
SLL HAS MANY OF THE SMARTEST AND BEST INFORMED READERS ON THE INTERNET. IT REQUIRES TIME AND EFFORT TO MAINTAIN THE SITE AND FEATURE THE ARTICLES YOU WANT TO READ. PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A PAYMENT AS COMPENSATION FOR THE VALUE YOU RECEIVE FROM SLL. THANKS.