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.

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.

They Are Miscalculating

The media is reporting on the increasing risk of recession, based on Wall Street predictions. Or should I say manipulations?

By saying “recession” or “slowdown”, they are miscalculating at best, misrepresenting conditions at worst.

“Recession” is an interesting word. There is no universal definition as to what economic conditions constitute a recession or what constitutes a depression. Talk to different economists and you will get different criteria. None of those definitions establish complete collapse of an economy. They will use the term, “economic crisis”, even when that “crisis” lasts for years. Look at the conditions in Greece. Look at the conditions in Venezuela. In both of those countries, the economic conditions have basically been inflicted on those countries. For Greece, the conditions were imposed by creditors. For Venezuela, the conditions have been caused by US sanctions and seizure of assets.

Stock market decline. On 8/23/19 the DOW was down by over 600 points again. Which means we are quickly approaching a drop of 2000 points in less than three months. While the general economy has been suffering for years, the stock market, meaning rich investors, has been riding high through it all. We have been hearing how well the economy is doing but when you talk to real people on the street you hear a far different story.

Media complicity. With the 2020 election coming up, the media who touted the strength of the economy has changed their tune drastically. Now corporate economists are all getting on one page, stating a recession is eminent. A recession has been eminent for years, they just haven’t told you so. They haven’t told you so because they are complicit in the conditions which are leading us into a recession/depression/collapse. If they told you it was coming, they would lose advertising from financial firms. Where economics are concerned, most Americans do not want to hear the truth. They want to hear what makes them feel secure, safe, happy, superior to their neighbors and other countries.

What the media doesn’t say. Of course, most of the media are run by neoliberal oligarchs. They oppose Trump, yet have wanted to capitalize as much as they could from his tax cuts and reduction of the interest rate. Now they have received their tax cuts, further interest rate cuts are not promised and will not amount to much if they happen. Thus, at this point they feel confident in attacking Trump and claiming a recession is going to happen if the current trade war continues. They neglect to tell you the recession/recession/collapse will occur even if the trade war completely stopped right this minute.

That neglect is fully intentional. The timing of the gradual revelation of the economy receding is intentional. Had they previously mentioned the economy weakening, you would have seen exactly what we are seeing right now and will see accelerating rapidly, which corporate media is literally instigating- for people to withhold money from savings and reduce spending. This accelerates the process of economic slowdown. If this had happened in 2017 or even 2018 the slowdown would have occurred much sooner than now. Which would mean that much of the blame could have been laid at the feet of the Obama administration.

Diverting your focus. Much of the blame does fall on the Obama administration. However there are more things to consider. Any earlier revelation would have meant that the GOP tax cut would not have occurred. Increases in defense spending would have either not happened or would have been far less. The focus of media reporting would have had to center on the economy, rather than Russiagate. Have you even noticed that the media focus has so suddenly shifted to the economy and racism now that Russiagate is effectively over? It’s not like anything has drastically changed economically or socially since Mueller testified before CONgress. The exact same things are happening. The only thing that has changed is how the media reports on it.

It’s not the tariffs. The media has built up the rhetoric claiming the economy was doing well and even expanding while manufacturing declined and we have seen record numbers of retail closures. We have seen mass layoffs and the Labor Participation Rate has dropped severely. Student loan defaults hit a record high in 2018. Vehicle sales have been down for years, which led to layoffs in the auto industry. It had nothing to do with tariffs. If the economy were truly doing well, tariffs would cause some inflation but virtually nothing else. So tariffs are not helping but they are nothing but an excuse.

What is the goal? To understand what the goal is, one need do nothing more than look back to 2008/2009. How did Obama deal with the recession? He bailed out the auto industry and the big banks using taxpayer money. That’s what Wall Street is counting on again. They got their tax break, interest can’t go much lower than it is now. Republican and Democratic administrations deal with economic recessions differently. Republicans cut taxes on the rich, using trickle-down economics as a rationale in spite of two decades of Reaganomics proving it false. Democrats bail out the same entities who got the tax breaks. Republicans are also likely to reduce social support programs, while Democrats increase spending on those programs. So the goal is to repeat this process. Allow or even force the crash to occur, then expect to be bailed out. You pay, they collect.

No social spending increase would be enough. In distant history, the increases in social support by Democrats was much greater than in recent years. By 2021, any increase would have to be truly massive if it had any chance of recovering the economy. No increases in social support spending which will be suggested at this point and by the current parties will be sufficient to recover from where we are heading this minute. The national debt is already so high that it would be unrealistic to even expect social spending increases which could have an effective impact.

Wars and past recoveries. There are other factors involved in economic recovery in this capitalist system. Those factors no longer exist nor can they exist. Past recoveries from major economic downturns were coupled with major wars. Those wars allowed for the forced expansion of US markets into other countries. There are no more countries for the US to expand into any more. It doesn’t matter what we manufacture when there is no market for the goods produced. It will not be possible to destroy the manufacturing capacity of China, Russia, India, Mexico and other countries without doing so much damage as to make the planet uninhabitable. So they will remain competitors on global trade. Threats against allies no longer work, as those allies each benefit from global trade and the lower prices brought by competition.

Automation. Increasing production capacity no longer means creating jobs when too much of the work is done by robots and automated systems. I’ve written about automation many times but the concept is simple. Automation does not create jobs, it eliminates jobs. That’s the whole point of automation. It reduces cost of production by the process of eliminating incomes, so fewer people can afford even the lower prices. Past technological advances nearly all created or were incorporated in the creation and expansion of new industries. In the past 20 years or more, what we have witnessed is the automation of existing industries. There have not been any actual new industries since the dawn of the internet and social media.

Major miscalculation. Other than being bailed out, there cannot be any goal in the revelation that the economy is declining. Ultimately, the rationale involved is the concentration of wealth into even fewer hands than what we see now. However, what they are not taking into account is the actual collapse of the economy. This is something we can see coming under current conditions. The decline of the economy is not just national, it is global. Reduction in income have led to reductions in consumer spending (retail decline) in nearly every country. That results in decreased production, which means reduced freight. Reduced income and spending means less taxation. At every level more jobs are lost.

Decades in the making. Right now we cannot prevent what is coming. It has been decades in the making. When it finally does happen it will appear to be sudden but anyone who has paid attention has been able to see it coming for at least the last decade. Not only is it eminent, it is intentional, hence the gradual concentration of wealth and reduction of rights. Both major parties are complicit while blaming one another. Keep in mind it was a Democratic majority under Obama that bailed out the banks, indicted not one person, enacted a corporate welfare program for health insurance and made the GWB tax cuts for the rich permanent. Both sides increase “defense” spending every year. Both sides approved the Trump tax cut for the rich. Both sides voted to suspend the debt ceiling until July 2021. Republicans cut social spending, Democrats restore a fraction of that spending, moving ever further to the right. One step forward, three steps back in a continual dance theater performance.

What they do not count on. While the rich are counting on the concentration of wealth, what they do not take into account is the ultimate response. We have seen revolutions in world history where the oppressed masses rose up to seize the accumulated wealth of the elite. This is becoming a very real scenario under the circumstances forming right now. They may have the idea of creating a global modern form of feudal system, which is what exists to a degree right now.

However, even as we bemoan educational standards, we now live in a world with the highest level of education in world history. We also have the best communications in world history. That combination of factors make today far different than any time in the past where large masses were oppressed. We, the people, have more advantages in our capacity to fight back than at any point in history. We don’t need violence and that would be counter-productive. We can turn off corporate media completely. We can call and write elected officials and media, tell them they do not represent our views. Boycott support for candidates who take corporate money. We can pull money out of corporate investments and buy precious metals.

Most of all, we can talk to each other. Stop attacking one another and instead talk about issues. Leave names out of the discussion unless it involves policies. Stop closing our eyes, ears and minds to the flaws in candidates. Stop making excuses. Stop voting AGAINST and know what we vote FOR. Our unity is what is feared most by the oligarchy.