Are the same "liberals," "progressives" and "leftists" who sold us
Obama under false pretenses now using Bernie Sanders to draw people fed
up with Obama back into the Democratic Party?
Bernie Sanders is talking about some kind of "political revolution" when what we need to be talking about is "power."
Taking political and economic power out of Wall Street's hands.
We need some kind of massive anti-monopoly people's coalition to challenge Wall Street for political and economic power.
First things first; power has to be taken away from Wall Street.
Did you read this article about Bernie Sanders and his trying to decide if he wants to run for president?
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/03/10
I got so sick of people sending this article to me I sent this out:
The article says,
Though he acknowledged running outside would be the "more radical" approach, Sanders certainly seemed unconvinced it was the wisest one. Creating a third-party movement, he said, "has been talked about in this country for decades and decades and decades, from Eugene Debs forward—without much success. And I say that as the longest serving independent in the history of the United States Congress."
This is not true: "...without much success..."
In fact, there have been tremendous successes.
We have to use the historical facts to push this falsification of history out of our heads. When people took the initiative to build grassroots/rank-and-file political parties and anti-monopoly movements there has been tremendous success. The most successful, the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. Very sectarian, extremely sectarian leftists--- leftists have to be the catalyst for any kind of working class based progressive people's party--- have prevented an honest assessment because they don't want to acknowledge the truth that at a grassroots and rank-and-file level, Socialists and Communists can--- and have--- worked together even when their national leaderships have been engaged in the most despicable dog-and-cat fights.
Socialists and Communists didn't agree to set aside their differences as they built the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party--- instead, they agreed to have organized public debates about their differences; debates organized by the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Association which drew even more people into the Association and the Farmer-Labor Party.
This crap about "spoiler" is part and parcel of the "lesser evil" theory fabricated to elect the very evil Harry "Atom Bomber" Truman.
Democrats are responsible for their campaigns, not us. Since 1948 they have been running "bait and switch" campaigns... feeding voters a populist message to get elected; serving Wall Street's interests once elected.
For years Hubert H. Humphrey and his side-kick Orville Freeman worked in all kinds of clandestine and dishonest ways to undermine, weaken and finally destroy the Farmer-Labor Party. The destruction of the Farmer-Labor Party didn't come easy; it took massive governmental repression under the auspices of the Communist Control Act authored by Hubert H. Humphrey to silence the Farmer-Labor voices but even despicable acts like this couldn't completely silence Farmer-Labor voices inside the merged Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party as evidenced by my election to the Minnesota DFL State Central Committee in the face of a well organized anti-Communist, red-baiting campaign. These bastards win only when the left retreats. And I would point out that leading members of the Minnesota Green Party have been engaged in this red-baiting, too.
What really makes me sick is when I hear these Democratic Party hacks and the foundation-funded opportunists these hacks so effectively manipulate calling us "spoilers." Humphrey and Freeman worked in cahoots with the Dies Committee headed by the fascist Democrat Martin Dies to destroy the Farmer-Labor Party with anti-Communist governmental repression as they simultaneously worked with the racist, anti-Semitic Republican Harold Stassen to defeat the most honest politician in the history of Minnesota politics--- socialist governor Elmer Benson... talk about your goddamn "spoilers."
Without the Socialist and Communist Parties we never would have had the New Deal; there wouldn't be the State Bank of North Dakota; there wouldn't be Civil Rights legislation; there wouldn't be mass industrial unions--- and I could go on and on. Bernie Sanders talks like a man with a paper asshole when he says things like "without much success" in talking about third party initiatives.
If a third party in the process of running to get elected, but failing to win, did nothing BUT win a Minimum Wage that is a real living wage the campaign would be worth it.
In this long, long article the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party is never mentioned and the only mention of PEACE was a brief mention in relation to the Gene McCarthy campaign--- and, of course, it was Gene McCarthy's own anti-Communism that did him in, too.
Let's be clear here. The Farmer-Labor Party is not being overlooked because these writers don't know about it; it is intentionally not being mentioned because a lot of what passes for "progressive" and "alternative" media is still mired in anti-Communism.
Just where does Bernie Sanders stand on the Israeli-Palestinian question? Where is his voice when it comes to all these dirty imperialist wars?
Bernie Sanders says he wants to hear from progressives; quite frankly, I don't believe he wants to hear from anyone except for Democrats. And, quite frankly, he sounds more and more like a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton with the objective of keeping liberals, progressives and leftists trapped inside of the Democratic Party.
I never heard of a socialist who didn't advocate for a National Public Health Care System; what's the big deal? It isn't even controversial. It is based on the model of public education.
And just where does Bernie Sanders stand on the Minimum Wage? Is "cost-of-living" at all relevant to the issue of the Minimum Wage?
What kind of socialist fails to advocate for a Full Employment Act that would mandate the president and Congress to attain and maintain full employment?
The Wal-mart backed Clintons spoiled our chance for single-payer universal health care.
The Wall Street backed Clintons spoiled our chance to reap a huge Peace Dividend from which we could more than fund every single universal job-creating social program anyone could ever dream of.
The Clintons spoiled the lives and livelihoods with their corporate backed welfare "reform."
How come we have such a difficult time placing this "spoiler" issue in its proper perspective?
How come we fail to note that it is the creeps working under the guise of being "leftists" who shoved Obama down our throats with the lie that "Obama is a liberal with a progressive agenda" who now think it best for Bernie Sanders to run in the Democratic Party primaries?
You know what?
I think Bernie Sanders should run in the Democratic Party Primary, too, because that is where Democrats belong.
I haven't even looked at The Nation and Time Magazine articles referenced for this article, yet.
The word "peace" never comes up in the Time Magazine interview. There is mention of Afghanistan but apparently Bernie Sanders doesn't have any disagreement with Obama or Clinton on Afghanistan.
Doesn't anyone feel uncomfortable supporting someone for whom peace isn't even a major concern?
The struggle for a Peace Dividend has to be a main component of any progressive platform.
Not one word about peace or drones in The Nation article, either.
Come on, really; how can anyone support a guy who is given a lot of ink in both Time Magazine and The Nation and peace is not even worth a mention in either interview.
Usually what happens is people first grapple with the question of how to take political power away from those in power. In our situation this is Wall Street which makes it kind of easy to also talk about the need to take both political and economic power away.
This idea of taking political and economic power away from Wall Street isn't even all that controversial among the general public.
Figuring out "how" to do this is the main problem.
Thanks to Occupy Wall Street everyone has figured out that they hate Wall Street... and pretty much why.
I wrote him and called his office on this single-payer issue asking him to explain his own health care scheme. He wouldn't respond. I was told: "We aren't familiar with the details... the person in charge of that will get back to you. No one ever got back to me. I called three times and no one would answer my questions. I'm glad to hear Vermonters want to keep him in the Senate working for them because anyone who claims to be, not only a progressive but a socialist on top of that who not so much as mentions the need for peace, doesn't speak for me.
What I found interesting about the Time Magazine and The Nation interviews is that The Nation interview didn't mention anything about the wars where at least Time brought up Afghanistan.
There has been this trend among Democratic Party hacks to talk up this "economic populism" while failing to take note that the Military-Industrial Complex, militarization, these wars and the vast network of U.S. military bases on foreign soil--- all part of the same imperialist system which is integral to Wall Street's never-ending greedy drive for maximum profits--- all this squandering of our national wealth is never considered part of the cause of all of our economic problems.
I begin to sense when this isn't brought forward that some kind of Democratic Party hacks of one sort or another are doing the talking and writing.
Winning the peace and a huge PEACE DIVIDEND is central to solving this country's economic problems.
It is mind-boggling that Bernie Sanders would participate in two important interviews with a third major article written about these interviews and the need to "beat swords into plowshares" doesn't even come into the conversation.
How do we explain this?
After all, what has been Obama's and the Democrat's Achilles's Heel which these Democratic Party hacks work overtime to conceal and cover up? Is it not that Obama and Clinton are worthless Wall Street imperialist warmongers? Isn't this their "dirty little secret?"
Bernie Sanders is talking about some kind of "political revolution" when what we need to be talking about is "power."
Taking political and economic power out of Wall Street's hands.
We need some kind of massive anti-monopoly people's coalition to challenge Wall Street for political and economic power.
First things first; power has to be taken away from Wall Street.
Did you read this article about Bernie Sanders and his trying to decide if he wants to run for president?
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/03/10
I got so sick of people sending this article to me I sent this out:
The article says,
Though he acknowledged running outside would be the "more radical" approach, Sanders certainly seemed unconvinced it was the wisest one. Creating a third-party movement, he said, "has been talked about in this country for decades and decades and decades, from Eugene Debs forward—without much success. And I say that as the longest serving independent in the history of the United States Congress."
This is not true: "...without much success..."
In fact, there have been tremendous successes.
We have to use the historical facts to push this falsification of history out of our heads. When people took the initiative to build grassroots/rank-and-file political parties and anti-monopoly movements there has been tremendous success. The most successful, the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. Very sectarian, extremely sectarian leftists--- leftists have to be the catalyst for any kind of working class based progressive people's party--- have prevented an honest assessment because they don't want to acknowledge the truth that at a grassroots and rank-and-file level, Socialists and Communists can--- and have--- worked together even when their national leaderships have been engaged in the most despicable dog-and-cat fights.
Socialists and Communists didn't agree to set aside their differences as they built the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party--- instead, they agreed to have organized public debates about their differences; debates organized by the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Association which drew even more people into the Association and the Farmer-Labor Party.
This crap about "spoiler" is part and parcel of the "lesser evil" theory fabricated to elect the very evil Harry "Atom Bomber" Truman.
Democrats are responsible for their campaigns, not us. Since 1948 they have been running "bait and switch" campaigns... feeding voters a populist message to get elected; serving Wall Street's interests once elected.
For years Hubert H. Humphrey and his side-kick Orville Freeman worked in all kinds of clandestine and dishonest ways to undermine, weaken and finally destroy the Farmer-Labor Party. The destruction of the Farmer-Labor Party didn't come easy; it took massive governmental repression under the auspices of the Communist Control Act authored by Hubert H. Humphrey to silence the Farmer-Labor voices but even despicable acts like this couldn't completely silence Farmer-Labor voices inside the merged Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party as evidenced by my election to the Minnesota DFL State Central Committee in the face of a well organized anti-Communist, red-baiting campaign. These bastards win only when the left retreats. And I would point out that leading members of the Minnesota Green Party have been engaged in this red-baiting, too.
What really makes me sick is when I hear these Democratic Party hacks and the foundation-funded opportunists these hacks so effectively manipulate calling us "spoilers." Humphrey and Freeman worked in cahoots with the Dies Committee headed by the fascist Democrat Martin Dies to destroy the Farmer-Labor Party with anti-Communist governmental repression as they simultaneously worked with the racist, anti-Semitic Republican Harold Stassen to defeat the most honest politician in the history of Minnesota politics--- socialist governor Elmer Benson... talk about your goddamn "spoilers."
Without the Socialist and Communist Parties we never would have had the New Deal; there wouldn't be the State Bank of North Dakota; there wouldn't be Civil Rights legislation; there wouldn't be mass industrial unions--- and I could go on and on. Bernie Sanders talks like a man with a paper asshole when he says things like "without much success" in talking about third party initiatives.
If a third party in the process of running to get elected, but failing to win, did nothing BUT win a Minimum Wage that is a real living wage the campaign would be worth it.
In this long, long article the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party is never mentioned and the only mention of PEACE was a brief mention in relation to the Gene McCarthy campaign--- and, of course, it was Gene McCarthy's own anti-Communism that did him in, too.
Let's be clear here. The Farmer-Labor Party is not being overlooked because these writers don't know about it; it is intentionally not being mentioned because a lot of what passes for "progressive" and "alternative" media is still mired in anti-Communism.
Just where does Bernie Sanders stand on the Israeli-Palestinian question? Where is his voice when it comes to all these dirty imperialist wars?
Bernie Sanders says he wants to hear from progressives; quite frankly, I don't believe he wants to hear from anyone except for Democrats. And, quite frankly, he sounds more and more like a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton with the objective of keeping liberals, progressives and leftists trapped inside of the Democratic Party.
I never heard of a socialist who didn't advocate for a National Public Health Care System; what's the big deal? It isn't even controversial. It is based on the model of public education.
And just where does Bernie Sanders stand on the Minimum Wage? Is "cost-of-living" at all relevant to the issue of the Minimum Wage?
What kind of socialist fails to advocate for a Full Employment Act that would mandate the president and Congress to attain and maintain full employment?
The Wal-mart backed Clintons spoiled our chance for single-payer universal health care.
The Wall Street backed Clintons spoiled our chance to reap a huge Peace Dividend from which we could more than fund every single universal job-creating social program anyone could ever dream of.
The Clintons spoiled the lives and livelihoods with their corporate backed welfare "reform."
How come we have such a difficult time placing this "spoiler" issue in its proper perspective?
How come we fail to note that it is the creeps working under the guise of being "leftists" who shoved Obama down our throats with the lie that "Obama is a liberal with a progressive agenda" who now think it best for Bernie Sanders to run in the Democratic Party primaries?
You know what?
I think Bernie Sanders should run in the Democratic Party Primary, too, because that is where Democrats belong.
I haven't even looked at The Nation and Time Magazine articles referenced for this article, yet.
The word "peace" never comes up in the Time Magazine interview. There is mention of Afghanistan but apparently Bernie Sanders doesn't have any disagreement with Obama or Clinton on Afghanistan.
Doesn't anyone feel uncomfortable supporting someone for whom peace isn't even a major concern?
The struggle for a Peace Dividend has to be a main component of any progressive platform.
Not one word about peace or drones in The Nation article, either.
Come on, really; how can anyone support a guy who is given a lot of ink in both Time Magazine and The Nation and peace is not even worth a mention in either interview.
Usually what happens is people first grapple with the question of how to take political power away from those in power. In our situation this is Wall Street which makes it kind of easy to also talk about the need to take both political and economic power away.
This idea of taking political and economic power away from Wall Street isn't even all that controversial among the general public.
Figuring out "how" to do this is the main problem.
Thanks to Occupy Wall Street everyone has figured out that they hate Wall Street... and pretty much why.
I wrote him and called his office on this single-payer issue asking him to explain his own health care scheme. He wouldn't respond. I was told: "We aren't familiar with the details... the person in charge of that will get back to you. No one ever got back to me. I called three times and no one would answer my questions. I'm glad to hear Vermonters want to keep him in the Senate working for them because anyone who claims to be, not only a progressive but a socialist on top of that who not so much as mentions the need for peace, doesn't speak for me.
What I found interesting about the Time Magazine and The Nation interviews is that The Nation interview didn't mention anything about the wars where at least Time brought up Afghanistan.
There has been this trend among Democratic Party hacks to talk up this "economic populism" while failing to take note that the Military-Industrial Complex, militarization, these wars and the vast network of U.S. military bases on foreign soil--- all part of the same imperialist system which is integral to Wall Street's never-ending greedy drive for maximum profits--- all this squandering of our national wealth is never considered part of the cause of all of our economic problems.
I begin to sense when this isn't brought forward that some kind of Democratic Party hacks of one sort or another are doing the talking and writing.
Winning the peace and a huge PEACE DIVIDEND is central to solving this country's economic problems.
It is mind-boggling that Bernie Sanders would participate in two important interviews with a third major article written about these interviews and the need to "beat swords into plowshares" doesn't even come into the conversation.
How do we explain this?
After all, what has been Obama's and the Democrat's Achilles's Heel which these Democratic Party hacks work overtime to conceal and cover up? Is it not that Obama and Clinton are worthless Wall Street imperialist warmongers? Isn't this their "dirty little secret?"
