That seems about right. Seeing the ability of Ronald Reagan to wheel
and deal with the backing of Wall Street and international
corporations, the Democrats, straight from defeat, took a long look at
the likes of Jimmy Carter and hitched their wagon to the Pot of Gold
at the end of the Wall Street Rainbow.
But in truth, the downfall began with the rise of corporate power.
United, corporations held more money and could buy far more influence
than could even the most powerful Union. Back when the Working/Middle
Class was organized in opposition to the individual company, it was a
much more balanced struggle. But while the business leaders moved to
form a strong confederacy of corporations, the working class continued
to mount a battle against individual companies. Labor was actually
saved by the Second World War. Our national attention was focused on
building a massive war machine. A strong labor force was central, and
also profitable to those business' involved in producing war machines,
etc.
But following the war, business' began once again to mount a frontal
attack on Labor. It took them up to the time of Ronald Reagan, but
the groundwork was being carefully laid from Harry Truman, forward.
But, just for the sake of perspective, ask yourself just when those so
called "Golden Years" that we all dream about returning to, just when
did they exist?
In one sense, it is not just the Democratic Party that has abandoned
the People. The Working Class, itself has exchanged its original
dream of, "A job, A Home and A Family", for a dream of sudden wealth.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/22/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The experts are saying that the abandonment started about 35 years ago.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:38 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Miriam Vieni
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief
Already Advocating for More Bombing and Intervention
With a roll of drums, a blare of trumpets and a 21 gun salute, I, Carl
Jarvis, being of sound mind and turned stomach do hereby part all
connection
with the Democratic Party.
I further state that the Democratic Party abandoned me, and the entire
Working Class somewhere in the late Twentieth Century, becoming evident
with the election of Bill Clinton.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/22/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greenwald writes: "Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department
official whom Defense One calls "the woman expected to run the
Pentagon under Hillary Clinton,' this week advocated for 'sending more
American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the
Obama administration has been willing to commit.'"
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More
Bombing and Intervention By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
22 June 16
Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense
One calls "the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary
Clinton," this week advocated for "sending more American troops into
combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration
has been willing to commit." In an interview with that outlet,
Flournoy "said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar
al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more American
boots to fight the Islamic State in the region." She had previously
"condemned the Obama administration's ISIS policy as ineffectual,"
denouncing it as "under-resourced."
This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called "limited
military coercion" to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what
he called "limited airstrikes in Iraq" - and they're still continuing
almost two years later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy
created - "military coercion" - for creating a "no-bomb zone" that
would entail "a declaratory policy backed up by the threat of force.
'If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff
means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian
assets,'" she said. Despite D.C. conventional wisdom that Obama is
guilty of "inaction" in Syria, he has sent substantial aid, weapons,
and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS targets in
Syria.
Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or
no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising - which Hillary Clinton
herself has previously advocated - would risk a military confrontation
with Russia.
Obama's defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last
December that the policy Clinton advocates "would require
'substantial' ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of
a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces."
Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly likely to be Clinton's
defense secretary is clearly signaling their intention to proceed with
escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is horrifying, but no
rational person should think that U.S. military action will be
designed to "help Syrians."
It's long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far
more militaristic path than even Obama forged - which is saying a lot
given that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven
predominantly Muslim countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has
implicitly criticized Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and
she has vowed more uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to
Netanyahu. Just yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders's
appointees in the Democratic Platform Committee meeting over Israel
and Palestine, with Clinton's supporters taking an even more hard-line
position than many right-wing Israeli politicians. Clinton was the
leading voice that successfully convinced a reluctant Obama to involve
the U.S. in the disastrous intervention in Libya.
Her past criticisms of Obama's foreign policy were based
overwhelmingly in her complaints that he did not use enough military
force, including in Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: "That
Mrs. Clinton is more hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone
who watched a Democratic primary debate in 2008. . She favored
supplying arms to moderate Syrian rebels, leaving behind a somewhat
larger residual military force in Iraq and waiting longer before
withdrawing American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
during the historic protests in Cairo."
Pro-Clinton outlets recently manufactured an utterly stupid and
misleading "scandal" (using shallow right-wing themes) over the fact
that Bernie Sanders, by committing the crime of continuing his
campaign against Hillary Clinton, is "costing the taxpayers" $38,000 a
day. Maybe these same intrepid journalists could spend a little time
calculating the "cost to American taxpayers" from the massive,
bellicose, bloody wars and bombing campaigns their favorite candidate
is explicitly advocating and, beyond that, the ones she's likely -
based on her "hawkish" history - to start. That might be worth doing
given that the costs of Clinton's military actions will be many, many
magnitudes greater than the costs of Sanders' security protection that
have so upset their frugal fiscal sensibilities.
But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war
and killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one
thing Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline,
completely ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders' Secret Service costs
to Hillary's kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they've
invented the most embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to
ensure they don't have to talk about it. But now Clinton's
almost-certain defense secretary is already - months before she's in
power - expressly advocating more war and bombing and dangerous
interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton foreign policy - at
least for those who assign any value to lives outside of American soil
- much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/22/hillary-clintons-likely-pentagon-c
hief-a
lready-advocating-for-more-bombing-and-intervention/https://theinterce
pt.com
/2016/06/22/hillary-clintons-likely-pentagon-chief-already-advocating-
for-mo
re-bombing-and-intervention/
Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More
Bombing and Intervention By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
22 June 16
ichele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense
One calls "the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary
Clinton," this week advocated for "sending more American troops into
combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration
has been willing to commit." In an interview with that outlet,
Flournoy "said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar
al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more American
boots to fight the Islamic State in the region." She had previously
"condemned the Obama administration's ISIS policy as ineffectual,"
denouncing it as "under-resourced."
This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called "limited
military coercion" to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what
he called "limited airstrikes in Iraq" - and they're still continuing
almost two years later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy
created - "military coercion" - for creating a "no-bomb zone" that
would entail "a declaratory policy backed up by the threat of force.
'If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff
means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian
assets,'" she said. Despite D.C. conventional wisdom that Obama is
guilty of "inaction" in Syria, he has sent substantial aid, weapons,
and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS targets in
Syria.
Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or
no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising - which Hillary Clinton
herself has previously advocated - would risk a military confrontation
with Russia.
Obama's defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last
December that the policy Clinton advocates "would require
'substantial' ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of
a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces."
Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly likely to be Clinton's
defense secretary is clearly signaling their intention to proceed with
escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is horrifying, but no
rational person should think that U.S. military action will be
designed to "help Syrians."
It's long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far
more militaristic path than even Obama forged - which is saying a lot
given that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven
predominantly Muslim countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has
implicitly criticized Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and
she has vowed more uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to
Netanyahu. Just yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders's
appointees in the Democratic Platform Committee meeting over Israel
and Palestine, with Clinton's supporters taking an even more hard-line
position than many right-wing Israeli politicians. Clinton was the
leading voice that successfully convinced a reluctant Obama to involve
the U.S. in the disastrous intervention in Libya.
Her past criticisms of Obama's foreign policy were based
overwhelmingly in her complaints that he did not use enough military
force, including in Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: "That
Mrs. Clinton is more hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone
who watched a Democratic primary debate in 2008. . She favored
supplying arms to moderate Syrian rebels, leaving behind a somewhat
larger residual military force in Iraq and waiting longer before
withdrawing American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
during the historic protests in Cairo."
Pro-Clinton outlets recently manufactured an utterly stupid and
misleading "scandal" (using shallow right-wing themes) over the fact
that Bernie Sanders, by committing the crime of continuing his
campaign against Hillary Clinton, is "costing the taxpayers" $38,000 a
day. Maybe these same intrepid journalists could spend a little time
calculating the "cost to American taxpayers" from the massive,
bellicose, bloody wars and bombing campaigns their favorite candidate
is explicitly advocating and, beyond that, the ones she's likely -
based on her "hawkish" history - to start. That might be worth doing
given that the costs of Clinton's military actions will be many, many
magnitudes greater than the costs of Sanders' security protection that
have so upset their frugal fiscal sensibilities.
But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war
and killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one
thing Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline,
completely ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders' Secret Service costs
to Hillary's kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they've
invented the most embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to
ensure they don't have to talk about it. But now Clinton's
almost-certain defense secretary is already - months before she's in
power - expressly advocating more war and bombing and dangerous
interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton foreign policy - at
least for those who assign any value to lives outside of American soil
- much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
