Anarchists: The Best Example Of Your Ideology Is Libya Today

I keep hearing people who claim to be ideologically left, yet continually espouse such sentiments as not voting, eliminating parties and outright eliminating government. This is more dangerous thinking than everything we are currently facing today.

Many, if they apply a label to themselves, call themselves Anarchists. Merriam-Webster defines Anarchy as, “ a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority”.

Of course, they will attempt to apply the third definition, which is, “ a Utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government”. We’ll get to that.

Many also adhere to Libertarianism, which I have raged against previously, pointing out clearly that Libertarians are NOT, I repeat NOT Progressives.

Libya is the best example of anarchy and capitalism. If you want to know what Anarchy and unrestricted capitalism looks like, look at Libya today, since the US-orchestrated destruction of the Qaddafi government. They have no elections and no viable government. They also have open slave markets in the streets, lack of food, lack of water, armed gangs running the streets. Unrestricted capitalism means unrestricted. That means anything and everything is for sale. Including human freedom and life. If you cannot pay, your freedom and perhaps your life will be surrendered. Because of lack of government, lack of laws, lack of law enforcement, your freedom and your life may be forfeit even if you DO pay. After all, who is there to insure that your abductors or abusers hold their side of that bargain?

Define no government. Those who call themselves Anarchists or Anarcho-Socialists (aka Libertarian Socialists) have an objection to the existence of a centralized government, especially one which controls the economy. In general, they protest against the collection of taxes. Meaning any existing government would have to be self-funded. In other words, only those who could purchase their way into office would hold office. They claim that all humans should be self-governing and they toss in the Socialist label to try and legitimize their claims that this would be freedom or “liberty”. Their ideas would serve to empower the rich and the most brutal in society. Why would anyone think that the rich and violent would not threaten and control anyone opposing them? That already happens right now!

Their labels are oxymorons. No matter which label they choose to apply to themselves is self-contradictory. You cannot be in favor of social liberties while denying funding or oversight to the very programs which provide for the welfare of the people, especially the young, elderly, poor and chronically ill. What they propose is survival of the privileged. Not very social, is it?

A Socialist government still needs a central government. Understand something. Any time you gather a group of people together, including civilians, to define rules of conduct in any way, you have created laws and regulations. Those laws must include penalties or there is nothing to stop anyone from violating those laws. Without defined laws, courts and means of enforcement, what results is mob rule and vigilante justice. Without laws and a system to enforce those laws, who protects the general public? Who stops businesses or anyone from selling unsafe medications and medical equipment? Who enforces food safety? Environmental protection? Worker safety? Consumer finance protection? Child labor laws? Wages?

Who saves capitalism? Opposing a government basically means opposing safety, security and the general welfare. It also means opposing capitalism itself. In 2008/9 it was inadequate financial regulations which led to the financial collapse. Who did capitalists turn to? Who saved them? The government. Right this minute, the Federal Reserve is creating roughly $180 billion PER DAY to bail out unstable private banks which would otherwise collapse. Those banks became unstable by placing money in risky investments. What are the banks doing with the money loaned to them? Bailing out the risky investments, of course. In all honesty, without government, what stops banks from taking your deposits and closing their doors?

Don’t vote? If you choose to not vote, that is your personal choice. You have chosen to silence your own voice which could at least be used to help raise the chances of increased ballot access for third and fourth parties. So do not act like not voting is making a statement. That is passive-aggressive whining. It is highly unlikely that there ever has been or ever will be one candidate for any office that you agree with absolutely. It is a matter of balance and priority. If you don’t see anyone you like running for office and you want to be so much of an activist, get out and run for office yourself. Instead of sitting on your ass criticizing, put yourself on the line and be the one being criticized. Be the one trying to find the balance needed to improve things. Be the one to offer solutions, not just complaining about problems.

Revolution? Anyone who reads my writing knows I absolutely oppose violent revolution. That kind of violence always gets out of hand and causes harm. The ones who advocate violence have some fantasy that they will be immune to that violence. There’s nothing humanitarian about their ideas. Does any of this mean that I do not expect violent revolution to occur in this country, at least in limited pockets? I fully expect that to happen. Does that mean I will shy away if it comes down to an outright physical confrontation between varying factions, including the government against the people? I will be right there if and when it happens.

However, IDEAS are what are truly revolutionary. Knowledge, truth, peaceful negotiation. Unity across party lines is revolutionary and what the oligarchy truly fears. We will not gain that unity by attacking one another using labels and contrived divisions between us. We will not gain that unity by violence. None of us can expect to agree on all points with all people or even most people. We have to be dynamic in our allegiances by joining with one group for one goal and another group for another goal, etc. Not only can we accomplish more that way but we gain stronger bonds with a wider variety of people. We build COMMUNITY.

Yes, we absolutely need changes to our system. That’s not a question. We need a system which bails and benefits the people, not the banks, not the corporations, not the warmongers. Let the ones throwing money into failed investments fail. Only then will they learn their lesson.

Banding together is anything but anarchy. Banding together as some propose for the purpose of destroying the government with no viable alternative is mob rule. Destroying the government would result in mob against mob, gang against gang. Which is not very Utopian, is it?

Pt 2- Universal Healthcare Would Have To Be Adopted Gradually

I really did not think I was going to have to write a follow up on this one. I should have known better. So, this follow up is really to address the contradictions I have encountered from the left.

Some have claimed that because I am stating that universal healthcare would have to be phased in that I am in some way against universal healthcare. The first thing that is obvious about that argument is that they have not read my writing, including the entire first article. They claim they did, of course but if they did, the indication is worse. It means they are arguing for the sake of feeding their addiction to conflict. I made it very clear on too many occasions to count just how much I am in favor of universal healthcare, so their arguments hold no water at all.

Rational approach. Every single thing that I write comes from a rational perspective. In this case, I have not only formally and informally studied economics for over 30 years but have direct experience with basically everything involved. I have been a nurse for over 25 years. I have written medical protocols. I have worked as a subcontractor for multiple insurance companies and the longest position in that respect I resigned from because of my own ethical objections to changes in criteria which denied needed imaging studies. Lastly, I have been writing about politics for years. Thus, I know politics, economics, medicine, medical protocols and the insurance/medical funding processes.

Compassionate approach. Not only is everything I write rational, it is also humanitarian in nature. My detractors on the first article are still absolutely set on the idea that insurance company employees would be able to transition directly and immediately to a government universal healthcare system. That would not happen. It could not happen. It is all but impossible.

Location, location, location. First, detractors are making the completely erroneous assumption that new jobs will be created in the same cities in which they currently exist. That would not happen in the majority of cases. There may be a select few jobs available in larger cities created but not enough to replace all the jobs which would be lost by a long shot. Maybe they think workers can simply pull up their entire lives and relocate to where the new jobs are created. Leave their homes, their families, their friends and all that they know for the sake of a paycheck. A few may be willing to do this but they will be an extreme minority. That thought process also takes no account of what that would do to the housing market. So, who is thinking about the direct welfare of those workers and their families? Me or my detractors?

Money is not healthcare. Detractors have said to me that insurance is not healthcare. I agree. Know what else is not healthcare? Throwing money at the problem. I explained in detail the challenges of training, building and expanding systems, contracts, staffing, etc. Just funding is not enough. Throwing money at a problem does not make it go away. The moment that universal healthcare passes, I explained that the stock market will plummet. Perhaps they think this only has implications for rich investors. However, it would definitely affect the average American who has a diversified 401k. People could lose a significant portion of their life savings within hours. Just funding would not create the needed systems and medically trained personnel needed to provide the care and services required. Who is thinking about the average American with retirement accounts and the lapse in services? Me or my detractors?

Staffing, education and licensing. I covered this in the first article but let me repeat it. Medical training takes years. Implementing universal healthcare will place a heavy burden on the system we currently have. Waiting times will lengthen and there is already insufficient staffing in many geographic areas. Yes, you can increase pay/bonuses/benefits but then you merely move the shortage from one place to another. More people will have to be trained and licensed. Would you want your family member in a hospital which was still accepting patients at half the minimum staffing levels? I have been a nurse long enough to have had 14 patients on a surgical unit, 40 patients in inpatient hospice with one CNA, over 60 in a nursing home or skilled nursing unit, over 300 patients one time in a long term rehab unit. Those are the kinds of things that led to the nursing shortage and almost made me leave nursing. Do you want that back? Who is thinking about patient safety and who is not? Me or my detractors?

Overburdening. One thing is absolutely true. Before you can train people into a new system, the system has to exist. While those opposed to me claim workers can be trained into the existing system, the Medicare/Medicaid system is not created or equipped with the resources or even protocols needed for a universal healthcare system. However, let’s say the protocols and computer systems existed. What happens then is that you overburden the current workers with training new employees. Even after a person is trained, they have to have their work overseen and reviewed for accuracy for weeks or months. That includes for fraud, waste and abuse. During this time, the processing time for claims would be extended considerably. Perhaps taking weeks or months. So, who is thinking of the people who are actually ill, acutely or chronically during this period? Me or my detractors? Who is thinking of the stress level placed on already overworked government employees? Me or my detractors?

Offshore effects. Not many Americans have any realization as to how much of their medical claims process takes place in other countries. Yes, your private medical information is sent to other countries on a daily basis. I know this because of my experiences doing preauthorization for medical imaging studies. One big reason for this is that the insurance companies pay workers in other countries far less than domestic workers. I have also worked in medical facilities that send imaging studies to Australia to have reports written. That’s so they do not have to keep a Radiologist PhD on staff at all times. Now, while I strenuously object to our medical information being sent to other countries, I accept the fact that the workers in those countries rely on that employment for an income. An immediate change to universal healthcare would leave them without an income with no warning. So, who is more compassionate to those workers? Me or my detractors?

Probationary period. One cannot deny that implementing universal healthcare would be harshly scrutinized and criticized by capitalists. That includes the capitalist media who make many many billions per year hosting advertising for insurance and drug companies. So, how would they be reporting on this transition? If we suddenly had tens or hundreds of thousands out of work, waiting times and processing times extended to months, a stock market crash and seeming incompetence all along the way? Do you remember how much of a problem it was to bring the ACA online? The problems with the government portal? How many times the system crashed? The processing time to get people enrolled? Do you remember how the media reported on every single tiny problem? The absolute fact is that capitalists would be seeking any and every excuse to declare universal healthcare a failure. That is ALL they would report on all day, every day. While probably blaming Russia, of course. So, who is thinking of how imperative it is that universal healthcare be implemented in a way that considers all that can go wrong, plans for exceptions and has contingencies in place? Who sounds like they want it to be successful, me or my detractors?

Too many of my detractors are completely driven by emotion. That emotion is unreasoning, uncompromising, compulsive and selfish. As a nurse, I am trained and experienced in applying critical thinking to achieve results which are based on emotion, compassion, caring. As a nurse, I am also absolutely no stranger to setting my own emotions aside while applying that critical thought process or even doing what the patient wants when my own choice would be far different.

I am very much in favor of Socialism and my writing displays that. However, as a reasoning person I also think clearly that transitioning in that direction must be done gradually and with extreme planning. We cannot throw one system out completely without having a new system already built to replace it. That is the equivalent to learning you have lung cancer and the doctor’s response is grabbing a scalpel and removing your lungs with no anesthesia, no transplant organs. “Well, we have funding for it!” How would that work for you?

The whole point is that using critical, rational thinking to detail exactly HOW things can be accomplished effectively with the fewest complications does not lack compassion or emotion in the least. You would not want someone performing surgery on you or administering medications to you when they have no knowledge on the procedures. It doesn’t matter how much emotion they put into it, certain things take knowledge, planning and education. Your FEELINGS don’t matter if you sabotage the system you implement while causing very real danger to the beneficiaries of that system. If we cause more problems than we solve, we doom that system before it ever gets off the ground.

Care enough to THINK.

In Praise And Criticism Of The Green Party

I have stated many times that my preferred part is the Green Party. For some while, I have also promised to detail why I am for the Green Party in general, yet will likely not vote GP this election.

First, my praise.

The GP has the most extensive, Progressive, detailed, transparent party platform of any party at all. If you care to read it, be ready to spend some time. I really encourage you to do so. Each section goes into extreme detail and it will take hours to read the whole thing. This is especially impressive because it demonstrates how issues are woven together and must be viewed as such. Their platform can be found here: https://www.gp.org/platform

The GP is the most fervently anti-war and most humanistic party you can find. No other party comes close as far as human and environmental rights versus capitalism. I truly cannot praise the party platform enough because it is lucid, not based on special interests and tries the absolute hardest to work toward equality, peace, fairness and justice.

Now, my criticism.

My first criticism of the GP is to agree with many others who have criticized the GP previously and currently. The GP has a very big problem with organization. Rather than having a true national party, they have a collection of independent state parties which act autonomously. This is especially puzzling for a party that has such comprehensive views on rights as a nation. This also tends to call into question their ability to function as a national organization for the benefit of the country should a GP candidate be elected.

My second criticism is based on this specific election. This election cycle has been rife with accusations of unfair treatment of candidates. Multiple presidential candidates from the GP have filed formal complaints and press releases stating that the GP has suppressed certain campaigns and promoted a limited number of others. I can attest that this is true because I looked at the GP list of candidates months ago and several times over several months. During that time, I never even saw these candidates listed on the official GP website as active candidates. If the GP is basing party backing of specific candidates on monetary fundraising or something similar, that negates everything in their platform.

I also think the GP needs to move up their timing of naming their nominee. For a party that gets insufficient media coverage, it becomes more important for the party to unify behind a single voice. There is no single spokesperson for the GP. As noted above, they are not a national party, so a single spokesperson is next to impossible to name. For years, we considered Jill Stein the leader and spokesperson for the GP but she has bowed out of this election cycle. Thus, operating on a similar time frame as the two major parties really does not work. Delaying the naming of a nominee simply means that each candidate and the party as a whole suffers from lack of attention.

Right now, Howie Hawkins appears to be the most likely nominee. Hawkins has many very good policies which I agree with. In theory. However, Hawkins is basically a Marxist. I actually support Marxism as a concept. However, this country is far from being evolved enough to adopt Marxism at this point in time. This becomes even more crucial a concept to contend with after the petty, delusional Russiagate McCarthyism we have been dealing with for the past 3+ years. Trying to run someone that far to the left with no transition period would likely lead to civil war. Just think how corporate media would react to his campaign and/or presidency!

I’ll cover Marxism and this country in another article.

Hawkins is also a propagator of the Russiagate myth, so I rather fail to see how he can claim to be anti-war. Nobody who promotes Russiagate is anti-war. Nobody.

So, while the Green Party is the most socially Progressive party with the most well considered and constructed platform, this election cycle holds little or no hope for them. Sadly, I find it likely that they will lose ground this cycle compared to 2016. I’ll say that I am still donating to the GP. However, they need to organize themselves better and learn from their mistakes. It literally appears that they are engaging in some form of wishful thinking where elections are concerned. Their strongest suit is in critical thinking, so it’s a tragedy they are not applying it in this way. Socialism is an expansive concept which cannot be broken down into smaller state parties functioning separately from one another. Doing so leaves the door open for high chances of infiltration and corruption by external forces with little oversight or accountability. A national party is more likely to be able to gain ballot access in all states while gaining some level of media coverage. Yes, of course that media coverage by corporate sources would be intentionally negative but name recognition is important. Just look at Trump’s coverage in 2015/16 for evidence of that point. Until they slow their policies to graduated implementation, revealing the successive steps over time with success at each stage and form a more cohesive and defined structure, the GP will remain very low on the ballot.

What Happens When A Student Defaults On a Federal Student Loan?

Right now we are seeing the highest rate of defaults on federal student loans in the history of this country. This situation is unsustainable on many levels.

What happens when a student defaults on a federal student loan?

First, take a look at what the term “federal student loan” means. The term refers to a student loan which is backed by a guarantee by the federal government. In other words, the US federal government promises the bank that they will be reimbursed for the loan, even if the student defaults on the loan.

If you have ever been at risk of defaulting on a student loan or entered an agreed upon period of nonpayment due to some form of hardship, you know the steps that occurred. First, your loan is sent to a federal office. What you may not know is that the federal office at that point pays the bank for the balance of the loan and they assume the balance for a period of time. This is generally considered a “rehabilitation period”, during which no additional interest accrues on the loan.

At the end of that period, the loan is farmed back out to lenders. You have no control over what lender picks up the loan, so you may get the same lender back or a different lender.

If you are then unable to maintain the payments on the loan after all deferments have been used up, the loan is considered in default by the lender.

At that point, a federal office again assumes the balance of the loan, paying off the bank. This is when real problems begin.

Once the status on the loan is considered to officially be in default, the federal government will take any means necessary to collect the balance of the loan, in addition to interest, fees and penalties. Those steps can include placing a mandatory lien on a percentage of your paycheck, seizing your tax refunds, and in extreme cases they can seize your bank account assets, investment accounts, Social Security payments and more.

Disability, age and even death does not stop collection efforts. If you are married and die, your spouse becomes responsible for the balance of the debt. So any funds left to your estate can be seized. If that is insufficient, your spouse’s Social Security or pension can be penalized until paid in full.

Once you default on a federal student loan, the negative mark on your credit rating is basically permanent. It does not roll over in 10 years as other debts do. It follows you for life. Declaring bankruptcy does not apply to federal student loans at all.

In cases where the government is unable to collect the balance of the loan, the federal government (meaning you, the taxpayer) assumes the balance of the loan.

This is the extent to which the federal government goes to insuring the profits of corporate banks. Meanwhile, very little protection is offered to the student/borrower. If a school fails before the course is completed, that does nothing to erase or lessen the debt owed by the student. With no protections regarding age, extended illness or even death, you can understand clearly that your money is worth more than your life to our government.

I have explained in recent weeks how the Federal reserve (which is not a government entity, yet determines federal national debt) is bailing out banks right this minute. Banks which are at risk of failing due to taking on risky investments. By the time the Repo Market bailout ends, the risk to the federal debt will exceed $4 trillion, which is far more expensive than paying off all student loans would cost.

The unbalanced system in favor of banks and rich investors, backed by the government, with the US government acting as a collection agency on their behalf, is one of the biggest reasons to take universal adult education seriously. Add this to the benefits to the general economy in terms of disposable income translated to consumer spending which would create jobs and it simply makes sense. Right now the interest applied to decades of student loan debt does nothing for the economy, it creates virtually no jobs at all. It merely serves to enrich the already rich. The debt lessens the ability of borrowers to qualify for mortgages, apartment rental agreements, vehicle loans and often disallows a borrower from being able to afford medical care. In many cases, it impacts food security for the borrower. This is a loan shark system of the highest degree which needs to end.

There is absolutely no excuse that “the richest country on earth” cannot afford universal adult education at the 2–4 year degree level for our citizens. Not when nearly every other developed country has such a system in place. There is no other country, has never been another country, with this level of student loan debt, this level of bankruptcy for what amounts to basic needs and services for our own citizens, only to prop up the profits of the privileged.

I Am The Revolution

I am the Revolution
I am Anonymous
I am Antifa
I am anti-media
I am anti-corporate
I am for an establishment but changing the one we’ve had for decades
I am all races
I am all genders
I am all sexual orientations
I am all religions
I am all nationalities
I am against war
I am non-violent by choice, not by fear
I am your ally
I am your defender
I am your friend
I am your neighbor
I am not going away
I am not backing down
I am the Revolution
I have been doing this my whole life
And I am just getting started

People Rise As Capitalism Collapses Globally

Corporate media of late has focused intensely on the protests occurring in Hong Kong. Yet they don’t mention the numerous protests happening around the globe. The focus on Hong Kong is meant to be indicating some form of Western victory, while not much mention is made of the fact that there are counter-protesters in favor of China.

Right now there are protests happening in many countries. Some are violent, some are not. Nearly every single one has a basis which boils down to an objection to capitalist systems. There are currently protests occurring in France, Venezuela, Honduras, Ecuador, Brazil and Chile, all of which have had extensive violence involved. Meanwhile in the US we have protests by the UAW (United Auto Workers), backed up by the AFL-CIO. More protests occurring against General Electric. In recent years, Mexico has seen a rising tide of protests for various reasons, some financially based, others against police violence and corruption.

It is not a debatable point that most corruption is in some way rooted in capitalism. Political and police corruption often happen because of bribery by unlawful or unethical entities seeking to make a profit. From direct bribes of police or public officials to turn their heads as crimes are committed to lobbying for favorable legislation in return for campaign donations or post-political-office positions at high salaries, all of it equates to the same thing.

Many union leaders over the years have been investigated and/or convicted of corruption and racketeering. The leaders walk away with massive profits while the workers they are supposed to represent have wages stagnate and benefits slashed.

Interestingly, public officials in the US, elected or appointed, who act against the welfare of much larger number of citizens are basically never indicted or even investigated for their corruption.

The size, scale and geographic diversity of all these protests are a clear indication that the people of the world have had enough of the decades of oppression imposed upon them by capitalists. People have had their comfort, their emotions, their health, their welfare, their children, their very existence brought into doubt or completely sacrificed for the benefit of the wealthy. While the wealthy on average are apathetic or even sadistic in their regard for the middle class and poor.

There was at one time something of a balance where the poor could attain a comfortable middle class status and the middle class could attain some level of wealth. That balance has been destroyed because for the extremely wealthy, enough has not been enough. Today it is far more likely the middle class will fall into poverty than attain any level of wealth. While those already in poverty could well fall invisibly and silently out of existence.

Most of those rising up and those not yet rising up are not seeking any extreme level of wealth. Merely comfort and security. Most are happy working for what they have, as long as what they earn is not claimed by the rich as a birthright. There is nothing abnormal in wanting your labor valued enough to make a living wage, have medical care without bankruptcy or education without decades of debilitating debt.

The absolute biggest reason capitalists gain control of socioeconomic systems is because of common election funding systems. In countries where election funding is primarily through public funding, such as the US, candidates for office make promises and incur debts to “donors” who fund their campaigns. Anyone who denies that quid pro quo exists in such a system is either willfully ignorant or is a direct beneficiary of that system. Thus they have no desire to change such a system.

The only alternative to public funding is government funding with transparent controls. In the US, that would include equal funding for at least the top four parties, not two. Combined with equal access to all state ballots and debates. Ranked choice voting would be a logical and necessary component of such a system.

Another major reason for capitalist control of socioeconomic systems is corporate lobbying. Right now there are at least 8 lobbyists in DC for every member of CONgress. Government officials go through a rotating door between elected/appointed office and corporate executive employment. Lobbying and the rotating door are closely entwined. The rotating door must be closed and corporate lobbying should be declared a criminal offense with mandatory prison sentencing for lobbyist and lobbied officials. All debate on legislation should be public with no closed door events, no private communications which do not involve tightly defined issues of national security, such as weapons design.

Fighting for such changes against the beneficiaries of the current system will be a true fight. The corporate media will absolutely be against such changes, seeing that they are some of the most prolific profiteers of our current system. This means this fight will be fought tooth and nail at the grassroots level. It is not something we can take lightly. This issue is gaining ground slowly and each one of us can help with it.

The other option is going to be violent protests as we are seeing in other countries right this minute. JFK said, “He that makes peaceful revolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable.” We are standing at the edge of that choice right this minute. It will not take much to push us over. In Chile, all it took to push the country into chaos was imposing a tax on internet based phone calls. Americans are far more passive than Chileans are. However, we cannot put off action on these issues any longer or we seal our fate of sinking into violence. It may begin in isolated events but will spread nationally very quickly. Many believe they would be immune from the effects of such violence. I expect the violence here would be far worse, considering the apathy common in the American populace and the number of firearms in this country. Trying to impose gun control at that time would make it infinitely worse.

So, your choice. Peace through submission? Peaceful revolution? Or violent insurrection? Shall we burn our cities to the ground? Anyone in favor of violence I reject outright. Anyone offering passive-aggressive criticism with no viable alternative is useless. Those who choose to not decide will merely leave that choice to others.

Yes, Tulsi IS More Progressive Than Bernie

Yes, I did a video on this subject but it had very few views. So I guess I will put it in writing and bring in even more points to consider.

Many Bernie Sanders supporters absolutely insist that he is the most Progressive candidate. No, he is not. By a long shot. He is simply the only candidate they have paid any attention to. It is willful ignorance and cult mentality. The very thing they wish to criticize in others. They believe he can do no wrong or that any wrong he does has been forced on him.

I have said many times that if Bernie has been threatened or forced in some way, that means he was controlled, is currently controlled and will remain controlled. Even if elected.

None of this means I think Tulsi is perfect. My personal preference is Hunter of the Green Party. However, as far as the two major parties, Tulsi is absolutely the most Progressive candidate. You need only do two things to understand this:

1- Read their policies objectively.

2- Understand the difference between policies and talking points. The more vague any statement is, the more it is a talking point, not a policy. Both candidates have areas in which their policy pages could be far more specific, so they come across as talking points.

With this in mind, let’s take a comparative look at the policies between Bernie and Tulsi. Anywhere quotes are offered, the quotes stated are copied and pasted directly from their websites, so you can look these things up and confirm them as you go.

Healthcare. The one which most Bernie supporters focus on solely and all else is fluff. Universal healthcare.

Bernie: “ Joining every other major country on Earth and guaranteeing health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program.”

Tulsi: “Too many people in this country are getting sick without the care that they need. As president, I will work to ensure all Americans have quality healthcare incentivized to increase health and prevent and heal disease.”

Also Tulsi: “If you look at other countries in the world who have universal health care, every one of them has some form of a role for private insurance.”

BOTH are for universal healthcare. When you look at these two, many believe Tulsi does not endorse universal healthcare. She has made it clear since 2016 that she absolutely does. It is also believed that Bernie opposes supplemental health insurance. Yet there is no indication he would oppose such a thing.

Supplemental coverage is in all countries with universal healthcare. It is fact that nearly or all countries that utilize universal healthcare have some form of supplemental health insurance. Don’t believe me? Healthcare Triage on YouTube did an entire series comparing universal healthcare in the countries that offer it. The channel is very much favorable toward universal healthcare and the series is expertly, professionally, objectively done. https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage

Medications. Both candidates have virtually identical stances on medication prices.

Bernie: Allow Medicare to negotiate with the big drug companies to lower prescription drug prices with the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act.

  • Allow patients, pharmacists, and wholesalers to buy low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries with the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act.
  • Cut prescription drug prices in half, with the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, by pegging prices to the median drug price in five major countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan.

Tulsi: “No one should be forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying for life-saving medication. But that’s exactly what’s happening to millions of Americans as a result of Big Pharma’s chokehold on Medicare. They’ve managed to buy access into Congress, barring the government from negotiating cheaper prices for consumers, so they can continue to price-gouge those trying to buy life-saving medication and rake in profits at the expense of the American people.”

Foreign Relations. This is where these two candidates part ways most severely. You can read their entire pages but here I will focus on the most crucial differences.

Bernie: Work with pro-democracy forces around the world to build societies that work for and protect all people. In the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, democracy is under threat by forces of intolerance, corruption, and authoritarianism.

Tulsi: I think it’s important, for the sake of our country’s national security, to keep the American people safe, and in the pursuit of peace, for our president and commander in chief to have the courage to meet with leaders of other countries — whether they be adversaries or potential adversaries — in order to achieve peace and security.

Why are these statements different? If you are old enough, think back. Matter of fact, think of now. What are the words, “pro-democracy forces” code for? Haven’t we heard these words before? What followed? What Bernie is saying is that he will work with countries that are already our allies, that bend to our will in worship of the American Empire. Otherwise, he will oppose them. Oppose how? Those options are really limited, aren’t they? Sanctions which kill or military force tend to be the only options available once you remove diplomatic relations with those you disagree with.

Tulsi has already clearly demonstrated that she is willing and ready to meet with foreign leaders with whom we do NOT agree for the purpose of diplomatic relations. Force and threat are used as final options. Bernie has not made any statements even alluding to such an approach.

Why is this important? If you want universal healthcare, improvements in the economy and social support programs, military spending MUST be reduced. The military budget is used as THE biggest excuse for ripping money away from or saying we cannot afford these programs. To reduce military spending, it is MANDATORY we strive for peace with other countries. Tulsi makes it clear that she would divert those funds from military spending to social spending.

“..democracy is under threat..” These are highly troubling words by Bernie. They indicate clearly that he is continuing to push Russiagate and will follow it right through with Ukrainegate, both of which are nothing but cover stories for corruption of DNC elite.

Elections. Both have similar policies regarding election rights. However, Tulsi is the only one who mentions implementing an auditable paper trail.

Criminal Justice Reform. Both have similar policies on criminal justice reform, including legalizing marijuana, ending for-profit prisons, stricter penalties for white collar crime and ending cash bail. (I have heard Sanders speak on these subjects but ending cash bail is not on his policy page.)

Wall Street Reform. Both have similar policies regarding reinstating Glass-Steagall and breaking up “too big to fail” banks. I will state Sanders has some more Progressive policies regarding public banking, capping interest rates and controlling ATM fees.

This guide is not meant to be comprehensive. It is intended to encourage voters to actually read the policy pages of the candidates and listen closely to what is being said and WHAT IS NOT BEING SAID. When I say “Do Your Research” I MEAN IT. I am telling you to go straight to the source, as you should be doing, any way.

In all cases, stop allowing corporate media or biased pundits tell you what to think. Get out of the echo chambers. If you want actual progress, you have to think critically about what that means.

Would I support a ballot that has both of them on it in the general election? Yes but ONLY with Tulsi as president and Bernie as VP. NOT the other way around.

Don’t Silence New Voices

I had someone try to criticize my work a few days ago. Their criticism was something along the lines of, “We have other people already saying this! What is this, some kind of self promotion?”

Yes. As a matter of fact it is.

Here is my problem with that criticism. He is attempting to silence new voices on the Progressive Left. It is most likely that he never actually read the article he was commenting on, so he was intellectually lazy.

Each new voice makes us stronger. Each new voice adds new dimensions, new perspectives, new colors. It takes many voices to comprise a chorus. Each voice is not the same, yet ideally they are singing the same song.

Many of the voices on the Progressive Left are new voices. How long ago was it that you first heard of Jimmy Dore? Aaron Mate? Caitlyn Johnstone?

One problem with the Progressive Left is that often, the material can be based on the same source material. It becomes a matter of one original piece of material with each layer adding commentary. Sometimes it literally becomes a commentary on a commentary on an original piece.

Am I criticizing anyone? No, these are some of my favorite sources. Like I stated above, each voice adds to the chorus, lending depth, strength, volume, new notes. Each is valuable, each is beautiful. Is each voice perfect? Not always but they create beauty in their harmony. Listening and joining in is what strengthens us.

There is a difference in my own material, whether written or video. Most of my material is completely original. When I wrote a 4 part series explaining why and how universal healthcare is best, that was original. Nobody else had or has done that in such detail that I have seen. When I went through the Mueller Report line by line, all 448 pages and dismantled it, revealing flaw after flaw, deception after deception, the entire series was original. When I went through the Trump-Ukraine transcript with the actual transcript in the video, that was original. I may occasionally mention materials by other content producers but it tends to be a short mention with accreditation, not a commentary on that single piece.

Some things that I feel make my content valuable is my own knowledge. Beginning over 30 years ago, I have formally and informally studied economics, management, marketing, psychology, sociology and medicine. I have never really stopped studying any of them in some way. I am continuously trying to learn more on one subject or another. If any content producer claims to know everything (to a degree they no longer have to keep learning) on such complex and interconnected subjects, they are absolutely delusional and should not be trusted. Information and practices change over time. Economies, societies and cultures are evolving directly in front of and all around us on a daily basis as we adapt to a changing ecological environment and technological advances. Medical criteria changes over time while medical technology advances so quickly that medical professionals are mandated to continually take continuing education classes for license renewal. Oh, shit. That’s something I need to do.

One big thing about new voices is that new independent voices rarely have a budget for advertising. If they have financial backers before they gain any popularity, you cannot consider them independent, can you? So we are forced to promote ourselves. For some of us, that’s not how we want to spend our time and effort. It takes away from time for research and writing. Often while we have our own lives to attend to.

Independent content producers don’t mind and often enjoy interacting with our (polite) audience members. If you ask independent producers a question, you typically get a personal response in a short time frame. We recognize ourselves as part of a global community where thoughts, words and actions matter and can have drastic, life saving or life destroying consequences. It is not a matter of ego. We do what we do not for money but because we genuinely care and are committed to our causes.

Try that with corporate media. The most you will get will be a form response by a low level staffer. If you are not ignored completely and after you are attacked by the cultist hordes for questioning the absolute perfection and omniscience of the corporate propagandist who deigns to lower their spiritual standing enough to impart their wisdom through their benevolence to the soiled masses. How dare you imply that their wisdom is not complete and flawless? Be thankful for the improvement in your miserable existence which they bestow upon you from their corporate heavenly throne!

I and other independent content producers truly appreciate the quotes, shares and every single penny of donations which are afforded to us by our audience. We do not feel it is “owed” to us, as our corporate counterparts openly state. We do not feel we are above questioning, we simply insist on valid points being made when we are questioned. If you want to spew hate speech, take it to the corporate staffers. We independents have better things to do with our time and higher goals to reach for.

Seriously, if you don’t have a taste for my content, scroll past it. If you have valid and rational critiques to offer, I am all ears. If your complaint has it that I am exactly like other content producers, you have not read my content, this I absolutely know. If your complaint is that I am too different or not bowing down to the status quo, you are missing the entire point. If you complain that I am not predictable enough, that does not mean I am not consistent. If you wish to attempt to validate your existence through hate speech, I will definitely invalidate your existence when I block you. That’s one of my consistencies. I refuse to argue for the sake of argument.

Yes, Bernie Had A Heart Attack

On Wednesday, 10/2/19, Bernie Sanders had an episode of chest pain. He was rushed to an ER and received two cardiac stents.

There has been debate among those with cognitive dissonance, some claiming that he did not have a heart attack. I can absolutely assure you he did.

I have many years experience in cardiac and emergency medicine, including ER, ICU, Cardiac Critical Care, Intermediate Critical Care and Telemetry. The sequence of events lead to one conclusion and one conclusion only.

On experiencing chest pain, Sanders was taken to an ER where he received an EKG, lab work including Troponin which tests for damage to the heart muscle, a chest xray to rule out lung problems causing the pain. He may have had a 2 dimensional echocardiogram or chest CT to identify which vessels were occluded and to what extent. Then he was taken to the Cardiac Cath Lab, where they inserted a long catheter into his femoral vein and two cardiac stents were placed via that catheter. He was kept on complete bed rest for a number of hours to prevent bleeding at the groin insertion site and allow recovery while direct pressure was kept on the groin site.

At this point, he is on statin drugs for cholesterol and possibly blood thinning medications.

When he restarts his campaign, it will be with a reduced pace.

Many people return to normal activity after a heart catheterization and MI (Myocardial Infarction, the medical term for heart attack). However, one must keep in mind that being a president or even campaigning for president is not what most of us can consider “normal activity”. Being president is a position which includes immense stress and ages any person. Becoming president at this particular point in history would be the most stressful position any president has ever encountered.

Like it or not, this in conjunction with his age brings into question Sanders’s physical capacity to maintain the position of president at this point in time.

This is one of my greatest fears. His supporters will still continue to support him. Or they will not. This will be used against him by the media on both sides. I expect to see his poll numbers plummet.

So the question becomes, who will people now support? You either move left or right. If Progressives are not moving left to support either Tulsi or the Green Party, they will move to the right. Which is exactly where we do not want to go.

In all ways, the Green Party is to the left of Bernie and have had many of “his” suggestions (which from him are suggestions, NOT policies) on their party platform since 2014. Yet none of those ideas are new, they have been around longer than anyone reading this has been living. Many of “his” ideas have been around longer than Bernie has been living. So STOP calling them “his ideas”. Just because you haven’t heard of something before does not make it new!!

In many ways, especially the most important ways, Tulsi is far to the left of Bernie. I will detail that in an upcoming video this weekend.

EVERY other candidate, no exceptions, stands to the right of Bernie. This is my greatest fear. Bernie is far enough to the right, no matter how his supporters engage in wishful thinking to say otherwise. Yet any other candidate will continue the march to the right which the DNC has perpetuated for nearly 30 years. Most people today don’t even grasp how far right the DNC and Establishment candidates are because centrism has been so constant for so long that their memories fail to recall any party being on the Left or they are too young to have seen it at all. So it has become too difficult to imagine what being a Leftist really is for the majority of people today.