“I will fight to end the military industrial dominance of our government with its endless greed and killings, end our dependence on fossil fuels by 2050, providing single payer healthcare for all as a right not as a privilege and break up the Big Banks and power of Wall Street that has been stealing resources from our children and grandchildren.”
The Trump administration unveiled its $4.1 trillion budget Tuesday. The plan includes massive cuts to social programs, while calling for historic increases in military spending. The budget proposes sl...
My takedown on Bill Maher's piece about liberal purists is simple:
While you're in your dressing room jerking off to yourself there are honest intellectuals fighting to further this country who are fucking funny too.
We get you are at times like the Alex Jones entertainer for the 420 crowd, but you've sold out so many times against Muslims, Black Lives Matter & Transgender you have lost your credibility with the people your helped once spawn.
Calling everyone a fucking idiot is your punch line and insignia. You start a show kissing John Kasich's ass. Are you fucking kidding me? While our country is losing healthcare, going to wars and raping the poor, you're normalizing, conflating and making a shit ton of dough.
Then you close your show attacking how organic, locally grown, cucumber buying liberal purist have no fucking common sense. Bill, you went 8 years being very selective with your attacks on Obama while you protected the very liberal richest of the rich.
You helped to grow Vice into a multi-million dollar media group that protects the very dumbing down you call fucking idiots. It's coverage of foreign policy and wars is a propaganda tools for the NeoCons, NeoLiberals and RIch MotherFuckers.
How about getting into the streets the weekend of 19th and 20th of May instead of preforming in Las Vegas at the Mirage where you can jerk off to God knows fucking what in Real Time? ... See MoreSee Less
AS someone who had the opportunity to run for U.S. Senate in Colorado, I am personally sorry that I didn't somehow to more to get Amendment 69 to give us universal healthcare. Today is a very sad day for me. The Senate may not pass the House's plan, but Michael Bennet will not fight as hard as I could because he get's money from the Insurance Industry and Healthcare. We need to put pressure on Michael to stop taking money from Corporations. If there are any sit ins at Cory Gardner's offices or anyone else's please let me know. Call Cory. ... See MoreSee Less
I highly recommend this to anyone interested in understand the fundamentals of our Foreign Policy & Intelligence Agencies. It's about 2000 words of 50 years of policy. Here is the section of the manuscript to my interviews with Daniel Ellsberg where he describes how the American Imperial Empire works like any other Empire in ways of Foreign Policy and Covert Agencies. The full audio interview linked here. This is from Chapter 2 arnmenconi.com/liedtodeath/ What's new for me to realize is that our government is not a government with a covert operations agency named the CIA. It's a government within, which has a covert foreign policy, which is different from what it says and for reasons I'll come back to in a minute--well, different from what it says, the actual policy is covert. It's lied about with evidence, not just by assertions, in plausible ways that will convince people of the lies. That is not just because it has a covert operations agency, the CIA, which on its face would seem to be at odds with democracy. Because democracy, in principle, is the sovereignty of the public, the public has to be informed as to what the alternative policies are, what they're doing, so forth. If you have an agency that lies to the public isn't that contradictory to democracy? Well, yeah, people sort of indicate, but in a dangerous world, you have to have that, okay? You have to have it because you need to do things that can't be acknowledged because they're criminal. They're against our ideals, they can be described as evil or murderers, but whether they're not--they're in a better cause, they're for our benefit, they're lesser evils, but they are illegal even in our domestic law--and international law-- so we have to lie about them. Now, people understand very well that in war, you do things that are not legal in peacetime, right? It's understood. You do them to your enemies for your benefit, for your security. So you kill people, but it's not murder; In peacetime it would be murder, but in wartime, it's not murder. People understood that when you're fighting a dangerous enemy, you've got to fight dirty, especially if he's dirty, and maybe if he doesn't fight dirty, he may be very strong and we have to fight dirty. We can't be bound by legality, okay? That's almost universally accepted, in every country, not just in ours. In wartime: no rules. You don't go by Marquess of Queensberry rules in wartime. What about in peacetime? Well, those emperors have not pretended to democracy or legality. They don't have anything to apologize for if they do whatever, bound by constraint in peacetime or wartime. They say "the king rules by divine right and whatever he does is what God wanted him to do," basically, or at least wants him to do to stay in power. Okay. What about, however, an empire that is democratic at home, that does pretend to legality, rules, and rule of law at home, and what are called democratic virtues and democratic popular sovereignty, and so forth, let's call it a liberal empire... ***** Now what I'm saying is, the U.S. had a covert foreign policy. The foreign policy is not what the President or the State Department says it is. It is not ever what the public affairs officer says it is. The policy is always different from that. But I'm saying much more than the fact that I used to think--I've learned much more than that--that it has a covert component. That's well-known. They don't understand that it means not just secret, but lying and explicitly lying. Anything secret, if it's very secret, has to be protected by some lies, such as, if somebody asks you, "Do you know of this report which you've just read or written?" and you have to say "No," because existence of that report is secret. So to keep that secret, you have to lie about what you know and what you think and so forth, but I'm saying more than that: A covert policy is not merely secret, it's lying from start to finish. ***** I conceive of the American foreign policy as being in the service of covert empire. Covert in two senses, and first, let me say that the word covert means not only secret... Or sometimes synonymous with clandestine, but clandestine in particular sounds like secret operations; operations that you keep secret from the public. That includes a lot of military planning, for example, which has to be secret from the enemy, but covert implies that it's not merely secret, but that it's accompanied by a cover story; a false account. A false account of every aspect of the policy, which is meant to deceive the domestic public; not merely foreigners and not merely adversaries, and may or may not be known to allies on a secret basis, but to deceive them as to what the policy is, what the targets are, what you're trying to achieve, what the interests are that press toward this policy, and what the means are, and above all, to conceal who is running it. In the first place, it's to conceal the fact that your own country...I'll talk now about the U.S.: That the U.S. is responsible for events and for operations. The cover story is meant to imply that some agency other than the U.S. government is involved here. It might be a U.S. corporation, but more likely, it's a non-American element of some kind; sometimes called false play, false fray, where you pretend to be some other army altogether, if it's a military operation. In general, it's happening outside the direction of the U.S. government, when in fact, it is being financed, planned and directed by an agency of the U.S. government. Second, even more secret is the fact that it's run by the President--at the top, that it is controlled by civilian authority, and is not a rogue operation by a U.S. agency. Above all, it must be dissociated from the White House. Even if it does come out that the first cover story is misleading and it was after all an American initiative, there are other cover stories and cover stories within cover stories that imply that it is not the President. If it is found to be American at all, it's American other than the President, so the President will not be accountable for this policy, will not have to defend it to Congress, will not have to run on it, if he has another election coming up. His party will not be held accountable for it, and he will not be held before history to be accountable for it. Now, why that's so important, I'll come to in a moment, but the point here is that when I call it covert, or when they call it covert, what they mean is above all, the President must not be credited or blamed for this policy, and in general, the U.S. is not to be blamed altogether, if possible. If they are running it that means you have to prepare a series of falsehoods. That means you don't merely swear people to secrecy. You don't merely keep the documents relating to this--like a military plan--under lock and key, and make them known only to people with security clearances who are very reliable, et cetera, and the smallest number of people altogether. All of that is true. It is secret. But it goes beyond that. It means that in this case, you absolutely prepare and plan misleading evidence as to who is running this, and what it is and why they're running it, so that if it is known, as it may often be known that something has happened here; some people have acted, you have evidence, false evidence, or misleading evidence, that it was someone other than the people who actually were running it, which starts with the President. The Church Report brought out a lot of this stuff including, in particular, the Mongoose Operation, the regime change operation in 1962 under Kennedy. That came out--if anyone wanted to look it up? It came out in 1976. He did a series of reports. The commission worked in '75, '76 and some of his reports including I think the assassination report, may have come out in '75. Some came out in '76. Then there was a Pike Report at the same time. Otis Pike in the House was doing a similar investigation and that report was never officially released but was leaked to Daniel Shore who gave it to me so it is available, the Pike Report. Okay. These were major exposés of our covert operations late in the game in '75. That was a congressional investigation and the only real and big investigation of the intelligence community that there ever was, and it led to the setting up of the so-called oversight committees, which essentially now have operated ever since as public relations arms of the intelligence community. They have been totally co-opted. They are black holes of information as far as the public is concerned and in general, they defend the intelligence community just like so many regulatory agencies are captured by the industries that they supposedly regulate. In part, by offering them great jobs, big jobs in food and drug administration or what is it, the- FCC. The trade representatives for the president I have just noticed, nearly all become major lobbyists afterwards for the trade associations. Likewise, the intelligence community--basically lobbyists in the government and then later, after the government, work for the intelligence community... ***** We don't have a foreign policy that uses, in part, covert operations in peacetime as in wartime. In wartime, every country has covert operations, whether they're an empire or not. In peacetime, empires have covert operations for a variety of reasons. But it goes beyond that. The purposes of those covert operations, the purposes of our foreign policy in general are different from what we say. They are not to improve our national security. To a large extent, they endanger our national security by tolerating or provoking or promoting threats to literally our existence. Without our foreign policy, there would not be 5,000 Soviet missiles aimed at us that could destroy the world, including us, any day. Those wouldn't exist if our foreign policy was different, and if our foreign policy was aimed primarily at preventing the United States from facing an existential--by which I mean survival, physical survival to the last human--If it were aimed at preventing threats to our physical survival, it could easily had been oriented toward preventing the resistance of what at one point was about 30,000 Soviet weapons. That existence is collateral accepted by our policy, it's the price of our foreign policy, which is for our own benefit. It's not based on insecurity, it is not oriented toward democracy in the underdeveloped worlds, it is against democracy generally, with a few odd exceptions where democracy does serve our purposes. It is not for independence, no, our policy is aimed at buying dependence and assuring that these people are dependent on us and not independent. If they act independently, we change their leadership. Regime change is another word for an imperial policy. Clausewitz said--he's often quoted as saying, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." I studied Clausewitz, by the way, when I was in the military. That's a misquotation. It's a bad translation. A better translation of Clausewitz is, his book being titled "On War... ... See MoreSee Less