by rawclyde !
we’re jus’ sittin’ here
my ego & i, lookin’
out the window, seeing
history roll by
under the blue fading
into a dim-lit night
rosey on the horizon &
i’m feeling alright
whoa, bus driver, whoa
i’ll be steppin’ out right here
there’s a room up there
with a chair saying “wait” for me
god almighty have mercy
look at what’s in front of ye
a journey into the sky above
fueled by her love
(text copyright clyde collins 2019)
blame the editor
by Tom Luongo
Strategic Culture Foundation
August 2, 2019
The second debate among Democratic hopefuls was notable for two things. The lack of common decency of most of them and Tulsi Gabbard’s immense, career-ending attack on Kamala Harris’ (D-Deep State) record as an Attorney General in California.
Harris came out of the first debate the clear winner and Gabbard cut her down to size with one of the single best minutes of political television since Donald Trump told Hillary Clinton, “Because you’d be in jail.”
Gabbard’s takedown of Harris was so spot on and her closing statement about the irresponsible nature of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy was so powerful she had to be actively suppressed on Twitter.
And, within minutes of the debate ending the media and the political machines moved into overdrive to smear her as a Russian agent, an Assad apologist and a favorite of the alt-right.
Now, folks, let me tell you something. I write and talk about Gabbard a lot and those to the right of me are really skeptical of her being some kind of plant for Israel or the establishment. If she were truly one of those she wouldn’t have been polling at 1% going into that debate.
She would have been promoted as Harris’ strongest competition and served up for Harris to co-opt.
That is not what happened.
No, the fact that Gabbard is being smeared as viciously and baselessly as she is by all the right people on both the left and the right is all the proof you need that she is 1) the real deal and 2) they are scared of her.
When Lindsey Graham tweets about Tulsi Gabbard twice after a debate, when the Washington Post neocons like Josh Rogin are attacking her, you know she’s got their panties in a bunch.
You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is beginning to get worried.
Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will come after her with everything they have.
In the past week she’s destroyed Kamala Harris on national TV, sued Google for electioneering and signed onto Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What does she do next week, end the Drug War?
Tulsi Gabbard is admittedly a work in progress. But what I see in her is something that has the potential to be very special. She’s young enough to be both passionately brave and willing to go where the truth takes her.
And that truth has taken her where Democrats have feared to tread for more than forty years: the US Empire.
The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of US politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.
The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it’s quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.
That is Gabbard’s crime. And it’s the only crime that matters.
When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy.
Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise.
And the response to her performance at the second debate was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. It’s also easily countered. Gabbard will face an uphill battle from here and we’ll find out in the coming weeks just how deep into Trump Derangement Syndrome the average Democrat voter is.
If she doesn’t begin climbing in the polls then the Democrats are lost. They will have signed onto crazy Progressivism and more Empire in their lust to destroy Donald Trump. But they will lose because only a principled anti-imperialist like Gabbard can push Trump back to his days when he was the outsider in the GOP debates, railing against our stupid foreign policy.
No one else in the field would be remotely credible on this point. It’s the area where Trump is the weakest. He’s not weak on women’s rights, racism, gay rights or any of the rest of the idiotic identity politics of the rest of the Democratic field.
He’s weakest on the one issue that got him elected in the first place, foreign policy. Hillary was the candidate of Empire. Trump was not. It’s why we saw an international conspiracy formed to destroy him and his presidency. Now that same apparatus is mobilized against Tulsi Gabbard.
That’s good. As a soldier she knows that when you’re taking flak you are over your target. Now let’s hope she’s capable of sustaining herself to push this election cycle away from the insanity the elite want to distract us with and make it about the only thing keeping the world from healing, ending the empire of chaos.
i serve her
as she requests
“composed of absense”
in the name of jehovah
& holy sophia
day of the dead art
Tulsi Gabbard ~ candidate for u.s. president
by Andrew O’Hehir
June 27, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard is not going to be the Democratic nominee, let alone the next president. But the congresswoman from Hawaii, who is an outlier among the two dozen Democrats running for president and something of a pariah in her own party, made a case for herself in Miami on Wednesday night. She was there to talk about American imperialism and the doctrine of endless war, a topic nearly everyone else in both political parties is eager to avoid.
Sometimes marginal, no-hope candidates are just dead weight…
But sometimes they serve as prophets without honor, pushing neglected issues to the forefront or forcing a political party to confront its blind spots and internal contradictions. Consider the roles played by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich in Democratic campaigns of yesteryear…
Like many of those people, Gabbard is perceived as something of a weirdo, especially by other Democrats. That’s not entirely wrong — but it’s also a defensive reaction. She projects a disconcerting vibe of self-possession, or even zealotry, that makes her seem to be living on her own planet. Social media wags suggested during Wednesday night’s debate that Gabbard resembles one of the robotic hosts on “Westworld,” whose programming is starting to glitch out. That’s cruel and unfair, but it captures something.
I’ve heard Gabbard described as a cult leader, a grifter, an anti-feminist or misogynist woman, an apologist for war criminals and a hopelessly naive nutjob. She has certainly had a peculiar life history and a peculiar political career: She used to be a right-wing eccentric who opposed abortion and LGBTQ rights, and is now something of a left-wing eccentric. She represents a state in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that remains largely disconnected from political discourse on the U.S. mainland. She is the first Samoan-American ever elected to Congress, and also the first Hindu. (She has no South Asian ancestry: Her mother, a white woman from Indiana, is a Hindu convert.)
But those facts and those characterizations need to be balanced against the fact that Gabbard is also a major in the Army National Guard who served two tours of duty in the Middle East, the first of those in Iraq during 2004 and 2005, when the U.S. occupation was rapidly falling apart.
In other words, no matter what the other candidates on the debate stage thought of Gabbard, they all got out of her way while she tore apart Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, who was making some incoherent chickenhawk case for staying in Afghanistan till doomsday — and appeared not to understand the difference between al-Qaida and the Taliban:
Ryan attempted to strike back after the debate, attacking Gabbard for her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but the damage was done. Ryan had no chance before that moment, and has less than none now. (As far as the Assad meeting goes, no doubt it was a political error — but Gabbard’s point, which was that any peace agreement in Syria required engaging with his regime, has been borne out as 100% correct.)
There was a huge spike in search traffic for Gabbard’s name after the debate, probably because most viewers had no idea who she was. She also won an “instant poll” conducted late on Wednesday night by the Drudge Report, a data point that is meaningless in terms of the Democratic race, but still tells us something.
That something might be that Gabbard is a creature of the intersectional zone where the anti-imperialist far left meets the isolationist far right, along the lines of Glenn Greenwald’s appearances on Tucker Carlson’s show. But it’s actually bigger than that: It’s the fact that Americans across the ideological spectrum do not want “regime-change wars,” to use Gabbard’s phrase, and are at least dimly uncomfortable with our nation’s global reputation as a blundering, untrustworthy imperial superpower.
Donald Trump exploited those facts in 2016 to make Hillary Clinton look (with some justification) like an old-line war hawk. His own understanding of foreign policy was and remains an incoherent blend of contradictory fantasy worlds — on one hand, America First isolationism; on the other, unquestioned global dominance — but he had enough sense of the public mood not to give Mike Pompeo and John Bolton the war they wanted with Iran.
So in a sense Gabbard just did the Democratic Party a huge favor by exposing one of its worst internal failings. No one besides her in the 2020 field is likely to talk about war-and-peace issues unless they have to — and as Tim Ryan made clear, whenever they do it’s likely to go south fast. But if the Aloha State oddball’s moment of internet fame compels the party to confront the fact that the old foreign-policy orthodoxy of soft-focus imperialism and ever-widening secret war is massively unpopular, morally bankrupt and financially ruinous — and that there’s no way to create a more just world without changing that — she may have done more for human history than anyone else on that stage.
Andrew O’Hehir is executive editor of Salon.
by Larry Seligman & Robbie Gramer
June 21, 2019
The U.S. and Iranian governments moved to de-escalate tensions recently after the two nations reached the brink of war, with President Donald Trump confirming that U.S. forces were “cocked & loaded” to retaliate against Tehran’s downing of a U.S. military drone.
Trump called off the planned attacks on three separate sites in Iran just 10 minutes before go time, after learning that the strikes would kill 150 people, the president said in a tweet Friday morning. “Not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone,” Trump wrote. “I am in no hurry.”
The crisis underscores how Trump’s hard-line approach to Iran is butting up against his goal of extricating the United States from costly conflicts in the Middle East. On the one hand, the Trump administration resurrected America’s confrontation with Iran and raised the specter of war by withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal, alienating European allies that support it, and pushing Iran into a corner with crippling sanctions. On the other hand, Trump, a longtime critic of the Iraq War, has vowed to draw down the United States’ costly and decades-long involvement in conflicts in the Middle East.
Fred Fleitz, a former advisor to John Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor, told Foreign Policy that he believes that by holding off on strikes for now Trump is “creating every opportunity for a peaceful resolution.”
“This is a president who was elected to get us out of war,” Fleitz said. “He doesn’t want war with Iran.”
The internal debate leading up to the aborted strikes reflects a national security team torn in opposite directions, as hard-liners like Bolton reportedly push for action and military advisors urge caution. Trump’s last-minute decision to abort the strikes appears to be a clear defeat for the administration’s hawks, particularly Bolton.
The decision on whether to strike Iran reportedly came down to a debate between Trump and Bolton, with officials such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence, and incoming acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper playing the role of “swing votes.”
“The president has maximalist objectives, and he’s not prepared to pay a maximum price,” said Suzanne Maloney, an expert on Iran at the Brookings Institution.
She also said the crisis could drag on as the United States keeps its chokehold on the Iranian economy with crippling sanctions. “The Iranians don’t simply want to avoid a military strike. What they want to do is deter the president from imposing economic pressure,” she said. “That’s their end goal, and they haven’t achieved their end goal at the moment.”
The last-minute stand-down came amid disputed reports of diplomatic outreach between Washington and Tehran to avert war. Iranian officials told Reuters that Trump sent a message to Tehran through Oman on Thursday night saying he wanted to begin talks and avoid conflict. But another Iranian government spokesperson denied the report as “absurd,” and a senior U.S. administration official told the Washington Post that it was “a complete lie and propaganda from Iran.”
Pompeo, a staunch Iran hawk, has left open the prospect for talks with Iran in recent weeks, even as he condemned it for allegedly orchestrating a series of attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz. “Our policy remains an economic and diplomatic effort to bring Iran back to the negotiating table at the right time, to encourage a comprehensive deal that addresses the broad range of threats,” Pompeo told reporters on June 13 after two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman were targeted. The Trump administration blamed Iran for the attacks, an assertion backed up by some U.S. allies, while Iran denied any involvement.
In a sign Tehran is also moving to de-escalate, Iranian officials told Reuters that they had refrained from shooting down a manned military plane accompanying the RQ-4 Global Hawk downed on Thursday. Downing a manned aircraft—reportedly a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft that carries a crew of nine and costs more than $250 million—would have been a dramatic escalation that crossed the red line Trump has set for taking military action against the regime: a dead American.
“With the U.S. drone in the region, there was also an American P-8 plane with 35 people on board,” Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the aerospace division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, was quoted as saying by Iranian media. (According to the U.S. Navy, the P-8 has a crew of nine; this discrepancy is likely a mistake.) “This plane also entered our airspace, and we could have shot it down, but we did not.”
The very fact that the drone—and potentially the P-8—got close enough to Iranian air defenses to get shot down indicates that U.S. military commanders were preparing for the possibility of an attack, said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago specializing in international security affairs.
“Updating an attack plan doesn’t mean you are going to attack,” Pape cautioned. “But this is happening in the middle of a crisis where the use of force is [on the table]. This cauldron is brewed for miscalculation.”
It also indicates that the range of Iranian air defenses is greater than the U.S. military anticipated. Commanders in the region may now ask for additional electronic warfare assets to suppress hostile air defenses, said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners.
The incident “suggests there will need to be a rethink of operating airborne surveillance systems within range of Iranian air defenses, as well as broader questions about survivability of these sorts of platforms in contested environments,” Callan said.
The purpose of the proposed extension is to obtain a small studio or rabbit hole for rent & settle at last here in Yuma, be it the will of God. I’ve saved up enough carrots to do this, thanks to earlier extensions. Now I can find a rental ~ the present season being “perfect” for this action. But here’s a wrench perhaps tossed into the works ~ I’m requesting a 4-day pass first.
You see, I had a doctor’s appointment to which to go in Prescott, but the VA cancelled it & sent me a notice that they did so. I’ve got to never-the-less take 4 days off the chapel floor before hopping forward ~ for health reasons & to organize my gazelle ambition. So I am requesting this pass & an extension.
My purpose in coming to the mission this time around was to cease paying my entire social-security check each month to a landlord in Prescott & instead contribute to a charity & save carrots for a hightail hop in Yuma where it is cheaper.to.live...So.far.so.good……………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………….