Featured Post

The white-Left Part 1: The two meanings of white

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

@DrJillStein now claiming @realDonaldTrump is less of two evils

While most of Jill Stein's surrogates have been arguing that appearances to the contrary, Hillary Clinton is as bad as Donald Trump, the candidate herself is now claiming that a Clinton presidency would be worst than a Trump presidency. If that isn't a pro-Trump argument, I don't know what is. Patrick Tomlinson, writing in The Hill, 21 September 2016:
Speaking of the possibility of a Trump Presidency, Stein made the stunning claim that Donald Trump, despite the unbridled awfulness of his agenda, would actually be the “less dangerous” choice for President compared to rival Hillary Clinton, because he doesn’t know how to work the levers of government and would be held in check by Congress.

Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that Trump knows how to manipulate the levers of politics at least well enough to become a candidate for President on a major party ticket. Can anyone name an example of a time in history when a xenophobic demagogue leading a populist movement has seen their power diminished upon winning national office? Because that’s not typically how that particular story ends.
The argument that a Trump presidency won't be that bad because congress will limit his power has been one of the basic themes of the Jill Stein campaign from the beginning. We have already seen where H. A. Goodman and Carmen Yarrusso did this. Now, not only is Jill Stein making this argument herself, she is doubling down by making the further argument that Trump will actually be less dangerous because he has less experience with Washington ways. Never mind that he has captured the leadership of the Grand Old Party with more than century of experience with Washington ways and a legion of experience operatives at his disposal.

Also, notice how little consideration is given to Donald Trump's plans to build a wall on the Mexican border, deport thousands of workers, ban Muslims, or institute a national stop and frisk? Jill Stein doesn't want to shine light on the white nationalist aspects of the Trump campaign any more than the Trump campaign does. So again the Green Party is leaving the concerns of non-whites at the back of the bus. In order to convince voters to make a protest vote for Stein, they have to argue that it really doesn't matter whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becomes the next POTUS. This leads to a need to demonize Clinton at every turn, while papering over Trump's white nationalist foundations and fascist tendencies.

Finally, knowing that many already know that the Green Party is trying to hide the truth about Trump, and won't buy their argument that Trump is no more dangerous than Clinton, they fall back on their faith in the system. They ask us to forget about the many things POTUS can do on his own authority, like issue Executive Orders and launch nuclear weapons!

Now Jill Stein is taking Ralph Nader's argument that Trump "doesn’t really know much about anything," and is "basically wondering how he ever got to the top of the Republican Party" one step further by claiming he is such a fool that it will be less dangerous to have his finger on the nuclear trigger than that of Hillary Clinton.

Either the Green Party has sold it soul in pursuit of 5% and millions in tax payer money that it will bring, or it really does want Trump to be our next president, in any case this treachery will be documented and remembered.

My other recent posts relating to this unique election cycle:
Did Dishonest Jill Stein change her Syria statement on the sly?
Republican support for Green Party @DrJillStein is emerging
Why "Jill not Hill" is a pro-Trump slogan
Donald Trump can only win if Jill Stein stays in

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Did Dishonest Jill Stein change her Syria statement on the sly?

Green's Jill Stein first posts:
US should be working with Syria, Russia, and Iran to restore all of Syria to control by the government rather than Jihadi rebels. 
Then deletes this unconditional support for the murderous Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his allies that are currently doing this to Aleppo:
Without comment!

Even after all I've written critiquing Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's support for fascist dictators, this tweet from Patrick Strickland surprised me because its hard to imagine a worst position on Syria. It is a complete betrayal of the Syrian people, who have already paid such a high price to be rid of Assad. It promises much greater suffering in their future. It represents no solution to the Syrian refugee crisis because they will refuse to return to a Syria run by Assad. It blames the United States for all of their suffering and calls upon our government to collaborate with their mass murderers:
But when I went to the link to validate it, I couldn't find that quote at all. Instead I found this:
Jill Stein on Syria

Jill Stein made the following statement on Syria in a 9/15/16 interview with RealClearPolitics:

The situation in Syria is complicated and disastrous, with an all out civil war in Syria, and a proxy war among many powers seeking influence in the region. US pursuit of regime change in Libya and Iraq created the chaos that promotes power grabs by extremist militias. Many of the weapons we are sending into Syria to arm anti-government militias end up in the hands of ISIS. In Syria it’s extremely difficult to sort out this complicated web of resistance fighters, religious extremists and warlords with backing from regional and world powers.

The one thing that is clear is that US meddling in the Middle East is throwing fuel on the fire.

I call for principled collaboration in bringing a weapons embargo to the region, freezing the bank accounts of countries that continue to fund terrorist groups, promoting a ceasefire, and supporting inclusive peace talks. The region is extremely complicated.

The best thing we can do for Syria, the Middle East and the world is to de-escalate this conflict, and involve as many of the players as we can in that de-escalation.
This statement doesn't contain the phrase that was highlighted in the tweet. So why did the tweet link to it? Was somebody putting words into Jill Stein's mouth? Was someone trying to make her really terrible position on Syria even worst? Or laying a trap? Still Google search insisted it should be found on that page:


What is going on here? This only happens when a document has been changed and Google's cache still holds the original version. Then I found the original in Google's cache:
Stein Opposes Obama’s Troops on the Ground in Syria

Calls for Middle East Arms Embargo, and for US Allies to Stop aiding ISIS

November 2nd, Lexington, Massachusetts

Jill Stein, who is seeking the Green Party nomination for President, said today that she opposed President Obama’s recent decision to put American troops on the ground in Syria.

“After the catastrophic failure of regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the last thing that the U.S. should be doing is trying to orchestrate regime change in Syria. To stop ISIS we should lean on our allies Saudi Arabia to cut off funding and for Turkey to close its border to jihadi militias. We should convince our allies to stop buying Isis oil on the black market. And we need to enact an arms embargo on the Middle East rather than effectively arming all sides,” noted Stein. It is estimated that the U.S. has supplied 80% percent of the weapons in the area.

“By establishing a weapons and ammunition embargo to the Middle East, we can effectively disarm ISIS. We should work to engage Russia to jointly sponsor this weapons embargo,” added Stein.

Stein said the US should be working with Syria, Russia, and Iran to restore all of Syria to control by the government rather than Jihadi rebels. Collaboration could lead to real success against ISIS. And it would stop the flow of refugees that is reaching crisis proportions in Europe.

Stein noted, “By putting U.S. troops on the ground, Obama has set up a tripwire for drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict. If U.S. personnel are embedded with Syrian rebels, and Russia bombs the rebels, then Russia could inadvertently kill Americans, creating a dangerous international incident. The US would have political cover to provide ground-to-air missiles to “protect American lives”. By destabilizing Syria, Obama opened the door to ISIS. Now he is forced into a policy that is doomed to failure. He is funding radical militias who are anti-democratic and unfriendly to the United States. And he is asking Americans to die to support those militias.”

Middle East expert Stephen Zunes points out that empirical studies have demonstrated repeatedly that international military interventions in cases of severe repression actually exacerbate violence in the short term and can only reduce violence in the longer term if the intervention is impartial or neutral. Foreign military interventions increase the duration of civil wars, making the conflicts bloodier, and the regional consequences more serious, than if there were no intervention. Such military intervention often triggers a “gloves off” mentality that dramatically escalates the violence on all sides.

As Medea Benjamin recently pointed out,
“If you look at the results of U.S. intervention, it’s been to take a relatively isolated place like Afghanistan, where there were extremists, and now spread them out to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, northern Africa.”
So what she has done here is simply "disappeared" the original, probably because it was embarrassingly honest about her support for the murderous Assad regime, and replaced it with a much milder, shorter version. This could be seen as a positive change except for the fact that it has bee done unscrupulously. She has done these "1984" totalitarian "edits" on her website before. As I reported in How Jill Stein was for Brexit before her Orwellian attempt to say otherwise, which prompts this suggest: If you see something on Jill2016.org that you might want to return to, its not enough to bookmark it. She changes content without acknowledging the changes, so you had better take a screenshot as Patrick wisely did. That way you will be in a position to confront Jill Stein if she claims to never have posted something she later became embarrassed by and changed without notice.

Since she has zero chance of winning, we don't have to concern ourselves with the question of how would such an unethical person handle federal records. Would they still be just redacted, with embarrassing info whited out like now:


Or would be be filled with fabricated info in the spirit of Hitler's Germany or Stain's Russia?

My other recent posts relating to this unique election cycle:
Republican support for Green Party @DrJillStein is emerging
Why "Jill not Hill" is a pro-Trump slogan
Donald Trump can only win if Jill Stein stays in

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Republican support for Green Party's @DrJillStein is emerging

The GOP website says Sean M. Spicer "has served as RNC Communications Director since 2011, and in February of 2015 added the duties of Chief Strategist." So why is the Republican's chief strategist tweeting for Jill Stein?
He's followed the Stein campaign from the beginning. In September he started to show his support:
Looking at who retweeted and liked his tweet, we can see that some of Trump's most deplorable white nationalists are also Jill Stein supporters. 

Gary's avatar is the logo of Trump's personal protection militia. Why does the Hitler lovings Lion Guard want to see more of Jill Stein CNN?

I wonder how many Green Party progressive have re-tweeted his Republican tweet.


Jill Stein meet your newest supporters. In "The Green Party and Syria," Louis Proyect writes that many Jill Stein supporters are "backing the Syrian equivalent of General Francisco Franco’s fascist military in Spain." Are US fascists now returning the favor?



Jill Stein loves Sean Spicer
@DrJillStein liked his tweet but I guess she was ashamed to re-tweet it. If the Greens agree with the Republicans that more publicity for Jill Stein is a good thing, they should re-tweet it. I wonder how many of those 59 retweets are from Republicans and how many are from Greens. I wonder what how many Jill Stein "supporters" generally are really Republicans when they are at home; and I wonder if Jill Stein likes his tweet would she refuse his money?

Moishe is on #TrumpTeam and promotes LyingCrookedHillary.com which is paid for by the RNC.


The next obvious question is: Is this Republican putting any money where his mouth is?


My other recent posts relating to this unique election cycle:

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Why "Jill not Hill" is a pro-Trump slogan

The election in now less than 5 weeks away. The poll numbers are what they are, roughly: Hillary Clinton 42%, Donald Trump 41%, Gary Johnson 9% Jill Stein 2%. Can we agree that we face a binary choice here and that the election of 8 November will pick either Clinton or Trump to be the next President Of The United States [POTUS]? If that is the case, then the question of who will be the next POTUS has only two possible real-world answers and, binary or boolean logic can be applied.

Binary logic works like this: Say a question only permits True/False answers, then NOT True is the same as False. In binary math 1 == NOT 0.  Wikipedia describes the NOT operator as follows:
NOT (negation), denoted ¬x (sometimes NOT x, Nx or !x), satisfies ¬x = 0 if x = 1 and ¬x = 1 if x = 0.
In a binary, or two outcome election, and that is what we face in 2016, Never Clinton equals support for Trump.



The US Green Party disagrees. They don't see being for Jill Stein, or even anti-Clinton as being pro-Trump. Those that are planning to vote for Jill Stein can say they don't want to use their vote to choose the lesser of two evils when they can use it to build a truly progressive party, and help the Greens get a small taste of the federal treasury. Those may be valid arguments but, like saying the ballot is put to better use lighting a cigar, they are arguments for using the election as a self-service opportunity, rather than for its intended purpose which is to give citizens some small say over who the next POTUS is.

It doesn't matter what the Greens hope to get out of the election, what the United States will get out of the election is our next POTUS. Since that is the point of the election, the effects of Green Party participation should be judged, first and foremost, on its effect on the final outcome which will be a President Clinton or President Trump. It is only the votes for those two candidates that need to be counted to determine the next president. For the purpose of that finding, there is no real need to tally write-in votes for others, or votes for Johnson or Stein. Those votes, like the ones that weren't casted, represent citizens who "elected" to let other voters decide who the next POSTUS will be.

The Libertarian candidates are said to take votes equally from both Clinton and Trump. If that is true, then their effect on the final outcome will also be neutral. The same can't be said about the Green Party candidates. They are clearly trying to appeal to the more progressive voters and take them out of the presidential decision making process. This means voters that otherwise would likely vote for Hillary Clinton.

When confronted with this practical effect of the Jill Stein campaign, that it is a spoiler campaign in support of Trump, they argue that isn't true because many of the citizens they are winning to vote for Stein wouldn't vote for Clinton anyway or are new voters, but this argument is betrayed by their main campaign slogan which is clearly aimed, not at Trump voters or Johnson voters, new voters, or those who don't vote. It is aimed at those that would vote for Hillary Clinton and is asking them to drop their vote into the Jill Stein bin. This is a call even the Republicans can get behind, as we shall see in our next post.

If this election remains as close as it is, Donald Trump can't win without Jill Stein's help. The Greens are saying they don't see any real difference between the two candidates when the main differences are on the white nationalist question, and every person of color knows this deeply. Therefore this can be no program for building a multi-national party in the United States. Its a program for keeping the Green Party white, small and ineffective. It may even give us President Trump as a consequence. That's why our new, let us say "request," that is a much more pleasant word, is this:

Hey Jill, take a chill pill. End your campaign now!

My other recent posts relating to this unique election cycle:
Does Donald Trump's secret plan to defeat ISIS involve using nukes?
Why doesn't "What's the Triad?" trump "What is Aleppo?"
Green Party Jill Stein's campaign in context
What should the Green Party do?
Greens could give White House to Trump as poll numbers even
Why Green Party's Jill Stein should drop her presidential bid
Amy Goodman should address this extremely important statement by her guest
How Jill Stein Tweets for Trump
HuffPost item shows how @JillStein campaign whitewashes @realDonaldTrump
Trump tells his '2nd Amendment people election will be stolen to prepare for insurrection
Trump didn't threaten Hillary, he threatened violent insurrection
Meet Green Party's Jill Stein, Putin sock-puppet & Assad apologist

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Code Pink's Medea Benjamin backs racist anti-Saudi legislation


President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was an insult to the families of those we lost on 9/11 and I congratulate the Congress for righting that terrible wrong.

– Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

To be sure their are many reasons to oppose Saudi Arabia, as Medea Benjamin said on Democracy Now Friday when talking about the congressional override of Obama's veto of a bill allowing US citizens to sue Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 attacks. She enumerated many of them in her opening comment which also articulated her support for its passage:
I think the significance is that, finally, we have an example of the U.S. Congress putting the U.S. citizens above the relationship with the Saudi government. And this is significant because, year after year after year, Congress has done nothing to stop arming to the teeth the Saudi government—$115 billion worth of weapon sales under Obama alone—a government that treats its own citizens with tremendous repression, beheads peaceful dissidents, treats women as minors their entire lives, has millions of foreign workers who are treated like indentured servants, and spreads this intolerant, distorted version of Wahhabism around the world. And the U.S. is not only arming the Saudi government, but is directly involved with the Saudis in the devastating war that’s going on in Yemen. So this sort of opens this issue up to much larger questions.
Those human rights violations pale in comparison to those of the Assad regime and its Russian partners. Still they deserve to be acknowledged and corrected, but this law addresses none of that and is even likely to fall short of its proclaimed goal of winning compensation for victims of 9/11. Medea Benjamin knows that, hence the last sentence to justify her support. Just how she expects it to do that is far from clear because this bill only serves to muddy the waters.

Its real purpose is to blame Saudi Arabia as a whole and the Saudi government in particular for 9/11, and to support a variety of Islamaphobic conspiracy theories. Even Medea Benjamin, on Democracy Now, in saying that 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, omits the inconvenient fact that while they might have held Saudi passports, most were Yemeni and had many good reasons to be hostile to The Kingdom. Five were from Asir Province, a poor region of Saudi Arabia that borders Yemen. Four others came from a cluster of three towns in the Bahah region. These are places never heard of by those that are blaming the Saudi government, and not the US government, for nine-eleven. These details would only obscured their racist message that those who struck us on 9/11 are representative of a people or culture and not just a terrorist organization. In Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes, Victoria Clark writes:
Given that impoverished Yemenis were far less likely than wealthy Saudis to be granted the US visa that were a sine qua non of the operation, the fact that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi rather than Yemeni passport holders is not surprising.
As Medea Benjamin knows better than most, because she has done some great work exposing Saudi crimes in Yemen, Yemenis have every reason to be hostile to The Kingdom and join a group promising its overthrow, even while operating with its passport. There have been many claims from the conspiracy theorists that 9/11 was a false-flag operation and to the extent it is blamed on the Saudi government, that is certainly the case.

This bill was introduced in the first year of Obama's presidency and written in such a way that he would need to oppose it to protect US sovereignty from suits over its much greater crimes. Medea Benjamin justifies her support because she hopes it will be used this way, but it won't. That is not its purpose. Its main use has been, and will continue to be, as an weapon for the right wing.

This bill is more agitation for "The War on Terrorism." The larger propaganda motive of this bill is to promote the view that Saudi Arabia is responsible for al Qaeda, and with it, the bigger Islamaphobia picture that all Muslims are somehow responsible for Daesh, and what the white nationalists threatening to take state power in the United States insist be called Islamic terrorism.

The main sponsor of this bill has been Congressman Peter King who is well known for racist and extreme right-wing views. He has long been leading the anti-refugee & anti-Muslim charge on Capital Hill. He has even accused Wikileaks of supporting terrorism. If he comes up with a bill to that effect will Medea Benjamin support that too?

The vital truths that are being hidden by these racist lies is that 1) it is The Kingdom that is the main target of al Qaeda, and 2) Daesh has murdered far more Arabs and Muslims than white people. This law is a product of the same bowels that have given us the Trump campaign. Its purpose is to blame all Muslims for the acts of a few and is a part of this rising right-wing current. By supporting this bill as she does, Medea Benjamin is joining Junior Trump and his bowl of Skittles.



What Medea Benjamin likes most about this bill is that it puts Americans first. The Alt-Right Breitbart people now running the Trump campaign, also strongly support this law. When President Barack Obama vetoed the bill last Friday Breitbart News reported:
Obama Protects Saudi Arabia, As Islamic Officials Admit Funding Jihad

By Lee Stranahan
26 September 2016

President Barack Obama used his veto power on Friday to protect the Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia from lawsuits by families of the victims of the 9/11 Islamic atrocity — just as the kingdom has begun admitting that it has been funding jihad terrorism for decades.

The jihad admission came in an article titled ‘We Misled You’: How the Saudis Are Coming Clean on Funding Terrorism, written by Zalmay Khalilzad, a D.C.-based former senior official in President George W. Bush’s administration. More...
These are the same people that have long claimed that Obama is a Muslim and the he and Hillary Clinton created ISIS. Zalmay Khalilzad was Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, and is the only leading neo-con who is Muslim. Recently he introduced Donald Trump when Trump gave his big foreign policy speech. He is a Muslim that has long supported the worst policies of US imperialism towards the Islamic world and now he is fully on board the Trump train with all its anti-Arab, anti-Muslim baggage.

This isn't the first time Medea Benjamin has found herself aligned with Trump:

Of course, Trump is talking about a massive increase in the US military budget and threatening massive bombing in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, even the use of nuclear weapons, but Medea Benjamin will support him where she can.

I think she has developed this fanatical focus on Saudi Arabia because it allows her to avoid the Syrian conflict, which for her is the conflict between doing what is right and what is popular on the Left. It also supports Assad's and Putin's agenda, which sees Saudi Arabia as a big backer of the Arab nationalist movement against Russian backed Arab dictators like Mummar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad.
Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria