Peace Before Healthcare Is Mandatory

We keep hearing how we cannot afford universal healthcare because we “MUST” keep paying for bombs.

Then the bombs never stop. 

Which candidate is actually MOST in favor of real steps toward peace?

Look at policies and history. Not talking points.


https://youtu.be/ZryNBKKZ-8Q

Policies- Tulsi Gabbard

I am writing this because too many people seem actively averse to actually looking up the candidates pages and reading the policies for themselves. Maybe if those policies are written in a different form, those policies will be better portrayed.

One of the first things to remind people about with Tulsi Gabbard is that she is the one candidate who actively stood up against election fraud in the 2016 primary. She stepped down as vice chair of the DNC to do so. The candidate she supported in that case has been completely silent as she has suffered media silence and dishonest tactics by the DNC to exclude her from debates.

So here is your chance to get acquainted with her policies and stances.

Universal healthcare-

Tulsi is in favor of universal healthcare. She has stated that she has the goal of eliminating corporate involvement in primary care medicine, while reserving a role for insurance companies for additional levels of care beyond basic universal care. This is similar to policies in most countries that have universal healthcare.

She proposes a policy whereby the government can negotiate lower drug prices with drug companies.

Foreign policy-

She has foreign policy experience of six years on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.

Tulsi is in favor of using diplomacy rather than force against other countries who are adversaries, present or potential.

She states a policy of being against wars for regime change and diverting the trillions spent on warfare back to supporting our own citizens for education, healthcare, infrastructure and environment.

She has cosponsored bills to declare it to be a high crime should the president initiate wars without Congressional approval and prohibit the president from engaging in ongoing wars in other countries without prior approval by Congress in the form of a formal declaration.

Another bill is intended to stop the US from arming terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS or affiliated groups or individuals.

Nuclear weapons-

Tulsi states policies which reduce the risk of nuclear confrontation by the use of diplomacy and continued observance of the INF treaty which Trump has withdrawn from.

She cosponsored a bill for the US to have a formal no first strike policy. This would be the first time in US history that the US would have such a policy.

Ending the drug war-

Tulsi is in favor of legalizing marijuana, at least for medical purposes, ending the federal criminalization of marijuana. She has already submitted a bill to that effect, along with a separate bill directing the VA to conduct a clinical trial for cannabis use for chronic pain and PTSD, among other uses.

Criminal Justice Reform-

Tulsi proposes policies meant to offer alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenses, such as marijuana use or minor possession.

She proposes ending the cash bail and for-profit prison systems.

She has cosponsored a bill intended to promote evidence-based rehabilitation for prisoners.

She cosponsored another bill to collect and study the effects of state legalized marijuana programs.

She cosponsored another bill, “Trafficking Survivors Relief Act- To provide for the vacating of certain convictions and expungement of certain arrests of victims of human trafficking.”

Gun laws/control-

Tulsi supports background checks for all gun purchases, closing the gun show loophole, reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, banning of bump stocks and banning domestic violence perpetrators from owning firearms, for which she introduced legislation.

She voted against the Concealed Firearm Reciprocity Act.

Adult education-

Tulsi supports free adult education and cosponsored a bill to that effect, “ College for All Act of 2017. This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to establish a grant program to eliminate tuition and required fees: (1) for all students at community colleges and two-year tribal colleges and universities, and (2) for working- and middle-class students at four-year public institutions of higher education (IHEs).”

She also cosponsored this bill, “Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2015, allowing the discharge of private educational loan indebtedness without the need to show an undue hardship”.

Elections-

Tulsi supports expanded voter registration, paper trails, limits on removing voters from rolls, making election day a federal holiday, prevention of gerrymandering and admission of Puerto Rico and District of Columbia as states.

Social Security-

Tulsi proposes taking back part of the money spent on the military and tax breaks for the rich to protect Social Security.

Wages and profits-

Tulsi supports reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, separation of banks from securities businesses and removal of PAC’s from the election process.

She supports increasing the minimum wage.

Environment/Green Energy-

Tulsi is in favor of investing in renewable energy, which creates long term, living wage jobs while reducing the cost of energy, in addition to reducing the cost of cleaning up the damage caused by pipeline leaks, spills, etc.

She is in favor of ending subsidies to oil/gas/coal companies, which should not be subsidized to begin with.

She wants to end subsidies to agribusiness conglomerates.

She wants to hold major corporations financially accountable for the environmental damage they cause.

She supports a ban on fracking and offshore drilling.

She supports holding nuclear energy providers responsible for the safe transport and storage of nuclear waste.

This is a short list of her stances and policies. For years I have encouraged voters to be informed on the policies of all candidates, not pick one and not even bother learning the policies of other candidates. To learn more about Tulsi’s stances and policies, look up her YouTube channel and visit https://www.tulsi2020.com/record

No, you can NOT call yourself a Progressive if you do not know the policies of all Progressive candidates. You can NOT call yourself a Progressive by supporting a name without knowing your other options.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

I am an independent writer with no corporate sponsors or backing. The only income I make from my writing comes from views. At least I have reached the point where it makes more than it costs me! lol! (Not by much.)My writing is done in between full time (and overtime) nursing, shared custody of my brilliant daughter and mundane existence.

I have opened my new website which is intended to be a central listing of protests and political rallies across the US. It’s still a work in progress but is functional. You can find it at http://RallyAndProtest.com

Please consider becoming a patron on Patreon. I try and average at least 20 articles a month, so a $1 a month donation would come down to 5¢ per article to support independent, non-corporate writing. My Patreon page is here.

If you care to share articles with those who do not have Medium or Patreon accounts, I also post most of my articles on my own website, which has no advertising and I pay for with income from writing. My website is at https://issuesunite.com/ and all articles can be shared freely. You can always quote me, no attribution required. My goal is spreading information and awareness. The whole point is building a better, more peaceful, more equitable world for us and future generations.

Russia Offers To Sell Hypersonic Missile Technology To the US

Vladimir Putin recently made the offer to sell their hypersonic missile technology to the US. Not only the technology but missiles built with that technology.

The US refused.

So, one has to question why Russia would make such an offer, seeing that they are portrayed continuously as being so aggressive militarily? Another question is why the US would refuse such an offer?

I’ll address the second question first. The US refuses the offer for very obvious reasons. First, so that our government can continue to portray Russia as an aggressor. Second, US corporate military contractors would stand to lose money from doing research and experimentation to recreate the wheel. The technology exists and is being offered for sale to our government in completed form. They would rather drive up debt on taxpayers than buy it from an “adversary”.

So, why would Russia offer this technology for sale to us? Putin himself said it, to stop the arms race. If we are both equal in technology, there would be no arms race. It is a diplomatic move which is unparalleled and unprecedented.

Russia has made it clear for decades that the only reason they bother with nuclear weapons is to maintain a balance of power, so the US does not go unchecked in our dominance. Russia publicly states that they have a “no first strike” policy in place. That their nuclear weapons are solely for defense.

The US is the only country on the planet that has ever used a nuclear weapon against an adversary. Our most recent Nuclear Posture Review stated that the US government policy on the use of nuclear weapons includes use as a response to conventional warfare. So, while Russia’s nuclear weapons are defensive, ours are decidedly offensive. The most recent mission statement of the Pentagon states that the purpose of the US military is to “maintain our way of life”. Meaning our military is in place to maintain dominance in trade, not as a defense against military intrusion or aggression.

I have pointed out the advantage of hypersonic weapons before. Namely, that they do not have to be used with nuclear warheads. They make formidable weapons with no warhead at all. A hypersonic missile is delivered with so much velocity that it could penetrate all the way through an aircraft carrier with no warhead at all attached. Attach a conventional warhead and it would obliterate the carrier in the example.

Another advantage to hypersonic weapons is that they cannot be accurately detected by radar. Even if a radar system spanning massive distances were implemented, it could only project a stable flight path. Several problems with that. Russia states their hyspersonic weapons are highly maneuverable and can change flight paths easily, so a stable flight path is unlikely. In addition to the fact that any countermeasures would have to reach an even greater velocity than the fastest weapons ever developed, be able to track and maneuver at least as well as the hypersonic weapon and be able to do so in a time frame which prevented the missile from reaching the target. All of which sounds distinctly unlikely.

One major thing to note is that Russia’s offer has not been and is not likely to ever be reported on by corporate media. Their advertisers wouldn’t like it and it doesn’t fit the “fear Russia” narrative.

Taking all of this into account, what we already know becomes even more clear. Nothing about our government response has to do with peace or security. If our peace and security had any consideration at all, this offer would be accepted and it would lead to more diplomatic efforts. This refusal is based entirely on keeping Americans terrified and hateful while maintaining corporate profits, no matter the cost.

It’s Not Personal

Too many people take things personally which they absolutely should not.

Economics. If someone is pointing out the problems with our economic system, that is not a personal statement. It really doesn’t matter in the least if you have benefited from this system, when there are obvious signs this system is about to collapse, you need to pay attention. Because those signs are all around you. Just because you have profited from this system does not mean the system is viable or will remain so.

Political parties. If someone is pointing out that a political party is corrupt, it is not personal. It is fact. Both major parties have corruption built in not as an anomaly but as their core structure. You cannot deny this. It has been proven in absolute terms. You can scream and yell and cry but facts are facts. Both parties are slaves to WAR Street and you know it. They do not represent you. To keep cheering for your preferred cult when they all work for the same masters while opposing the American people is not delusion, not you being deceived, it is insanity. You are making a conscious choice against your own best interests out of fear. Yet all your worst fears have come true day after day, incrementally getting worse over years. It is remaining in an abusive relationship because they are telling you that you cannot do better without them.

Candidates. If someone is telling you that a politician or candidate is not who you want them to be, it is not personal. That politician is not you, is it? If it is you, we need to talk. NOW. So, if you are not that candidate, why do you define yourself by them? You’re not married to them. You don’t owe them anything. They owe you! They are not your leader, they are your representative, your employee. Or supposed to be and therein lies the problem. Too often they are supposed to represent you and they do not. Wake up to it, realize it, admit it and stand up against that behavior. You pay for it every day of your life in ways you cannot imagine.

Corporate power. The only people who should be supportive of corporate power at all in this country are the executives and shareholders of a corporation. Anyone and everyone else should be opposing the stranglehold that corporations have on this country, on our freedom, on our environment, on our basic human rights, on our children’s and grandchildren’s futures. From how much you get paid (or don’t get paid) to the poisons in our air, water and food to the wars we wage and pay for to lack of medical care without bankruptcy and beyond, they rip the power of the people from our hands. Why the hell would you support that?

The media. Some people will literally fight to claim that the “news” source they read/watch/listen to is accurate. The thing to note is that the people who claim this never confirm what is being reported. They don’t even demand sources most of the time. Unless it is about something they do not want to hear. Long as they agree with it, they will believe anything being said. Most of you reading this are not associated with the media as anything but a spectator. So, why are you defensive of it? Why are you so loyal to your preferred media source/s? Because you think they are in some way loyal to or honest with you? If you do not confirm their accuracy, you have no way of knowing how accurate or honest they are. Even then, is the way they present the information biased? You can bet on it.

Question yourself. None of this is intended to make you doubt yourself. It is meant to make you question the narrative being presented to you and the people presenting it. They are all selling you something for their own profit. Examine it. Follow the money. Verify information for accuracy. Look at policies from different angles. Listen to different voices, even ones you do not agree with. (As long as those voices have verifiable facts or rational questions which warrant answers.) Don’t do things out of habit or pure emotion. That is how we got to the condition we are in now. If we continue doing the same things, can we expect different results? Or just more of the same?

If you want change, it has to begin with you. Be the change you want to see.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

I am an independent writer with no corporate sponsors or backing. The only income I make from my writing comes from views. At least I have reached the point where it makes more than it costs me! lol! My writing is done in between full time (and overtime) nursing, shared custody of my brilliant daughter and mundane existence.

Please consider becoming a patron on Patreon. I try and average at least 20 articles a month, so a $1 a month donation would come down to 5¢ per article to support independent, non-corporate writing. My Patreon page is here.

If you care to share articles with those who do not have Medium or Patreon accounts, I also post most of my articles on my own website, which has no advertising and I pay for with income from writing. My website is here and all articles can be shared freely. You can always quote me, no attribution required. My goal is spreading information and awareness. The whole point is building a better, more peaceful, more equitable world for us and future generations.

Human Rights Records Do Not Stop At The Border

Lots of people try and claim moral superiority for the US in relation to Russia and China regarding human rights records. In each case, they attempt to use histories dating back at least 27 years, typically far more.

Do these countries have distant histories of human rights abuses? Yes, they do. However, they fail to look at the human rights records of the US even from that time frame. If one wants to look at old human rights records, then we have to look at the US history of genocide of Native Americans, slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, Japanese internment camps, women’s rights and the abuses they suffered, forced sterilization, frontal lobotomies, electroshock therapy, involuntary imprisonment of women in asylums based on their husband’s word, seizure of private property for corporate interests (DAPL), the civil rights movement…

Getting the point here?

Yet ancient history is not the point of this article. The point of this article is the apparent belief by many people that when you discuss the human rights records of a country, that such record should be limited to inside a country’s borders. Nothing could be further from the truth. Human rights are humanrights.The term has no geographical boundaries attached to the meaning.

Nor are human rights records limited to governmental actions. That record can be even more related to government inaction in the face of known abuse or suffering at the hands of non-government entities. From the Pinkerton massacre at Homestead to Dow Chemical poisoning the Ohio River and thousands of abuses in between and happening now.

The US government has a long, storied history and present of direct and indirect involvement in the abuse and outright murder of millions of people around the globe. From our entry into WWI under false pretenses to the decimation of North Korea to the blatantly false circumstances that took us into Vietnam and Iraq, regime change operations by our military and CIA in dozens of countries dating back at least as far as the early 50’s. Even earlier when we look at the Panama Canal and invasion of Hawaii, the Hidalgo Treaty and who knows what else? Talk to a real historian who is not a propagandist.

Right now we are actively bombing 8 countries and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia who is conducting outright genocide in Yemen in the worst human rights situation globally since Cambodia. We have actively supported the Saudi regime for decades while in full knowledge of their abuse of human rights, with imprisonment and mass public decapitations of dissident journalists, oppression of women’s rights which continues with US corporate created cell phone apps which track women’s movements so they can be reported to authorities if they attempt to escape abuse with a single button. Do our politicians and corporate media scream to the heads of the Saudi royals? Or make weak, failed attempts at ineffective sanctions? Is anyone (and I mean anyone) calling for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia?

Those claiming American moral superiority over other countries fail to consider any of this or the fact that most of this history has been for the sake of capitalist interests. They will point to Stalin or Mao but never remotely realize that the US has killed multiple times more people than Stalin and Mao combined. There is no way to accurately count the death toll of the United States because the numbers will always be hidden, distorted, diverted, blamed elsewhere and that moral imperative always claimed.

It is always telling that our corporate media never opposes any military action. They attempt to whip up support for the next war and the next and the next. They don’t bother mentioning our current military actions as a comprehensive statement. The bombing of 8 countries mentioned above, the military forces in 50 African nations, the millions starved by our typically sanctions. Yet we hear endlessly how we need to intervene in Venezuela because Maduro is a tyrant.

Corporate media does not broadcast the reports coming back with video from Progressive journalists on the ground in Venezuela at this moment. Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal, Abby Martin. Their video evidence shows the lack of violence, the store shelves full of items corporate media claims do not exist in the country, the rallies in protest against US intervention. They don’t mention the humanitarian support being provided by less affluent countries who are not trying to seize rights to Venezuelan oil. European countries, Mexico, Russia, China are all providing support without any suspicion of them attempting to sneak in weapons for the opposition to enact a coup. An opposition which is known to have used violence against civilians, including burning people alive. Corporate media does not mention that Venezuela has the lowest rate of homelessness in the western hemisphere. Can’t talk about that, can we?

The US truly has no right at all to dictate ethics or morality to other countries. Americans have no right to believe we are the “good guys” or that the governments that oppose us are worse than our own. Especially when many of those countries have universal healthcare and adult education while we do not. To include Russia and China. Countries that spend more money on their own citizens than on warfare by magnitudes of ten. Countries that have lower rates of homelessness and lower prison populations than ourselves. Countries that often have US sanctions limiting the options available to them to provide for their citizens.

It’s time to define the human rights records of all countries by how they treat not only their citizens but how they treat human beings in general. Define human rights by each country’s actions as a whole. Define human rights by the divide between rich and poor, free and incarcerated, treatment of the ill, housed and homeless, diplomacy versus war, free versus oppressed, freedom of speech and press to include corporate censorship. Because human rights should include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, medical care, shelter, security, freedom of dissension, food security, political freedom of affiliation even if that includes Conservatism or Communism. Human rights records do not stop counting at your border and you cannot treat citizens of other countries as you see fit for your own greed.