What Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law Might Say at Thanksgiving Dinner

November 24, 2015

Dave Johnson

Campaign for America's Future

ourfuture.org 

Here’s something (not) to look forward to: Thanksgiving dinner with your family in the time of Trump.

This week you’re heading home to spend quality time with your family. Of course, your right-wing brother-in-law (RWBIL) is going to be there, spouting off quotes from Trump and Rush and fully Foxified. Actual facts will not be present at this table and would not penetrate the Drudge-shield if they were, but conspiracy theories will abound. Brace yourself.

Starbucks Is Anti-Christian 

Don’t be surprised if your RWBIL immediately gets right in your face, loudly proclaiming, “Merry CHRISTMAS,” with an emphasis on “Christmas” and jumping on you if you dare say, “Happy Holidays.” He has not just finally gone crazy, there’s a (crazy) reason he will be doing this. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of that crowd are telling him (and telling him and telling him and telling him – you know how they repeat things) that Starbucks is anti-Christian because their traditional, seasonal red cups are … red this year. But they took off the snowflakes and Santa Clauses, etc. So obviously Starbucks is part of the liberal “war on Christmas.”

The right-wing cure for the “war on Christmas” is to make everyone say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays,” and feel all victimized if they don’t. People who are Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, vegetarian, etc. – they are obviously all liberals.

  

Climate Change Is A Hoax 

Your RWBIL is absolutely going to claim that climate change is “a hoax.” You see, it’s snowing somewhere, so obviously the planet could not be warming. In fact, these days it’s possible you are having one of those once-a-century storms again this year, which, to him, proves that the climate is not changing. All of those scientists who say the climate is changing are getting money from “the government” which is of course paying them to “destroy capitalism” by impeding oil company profits.

This year there’s a good response. You see, it turns out that Exxon’s own scientists were warning management that their product is helping to cause our planet to warm “catastrophically,” and that if this continued it “could eventually endanger humanity.” But Exxon chose not to tell this to its investors or the public. Instead the company and others funded a massive campaign to use the “tobacco model” to turn people against their own government and deceive people into thinking the “science is uncertain” and the “jury is still out,” or even that “climate change is a hoax.”

So let your RWBIL know that even Exxon’s own scientists are warning that we must stop putting carbon into the atmosphere.

  

Economic Stuff

Your RWBIL is going to claim that “tax cuts increase revenue,” taxes and government “take money out of the economy,” and that budget cuts (which actually take money out of the economy) and the resulting layoffs of teachers, police, and other public employees will “create jobs.” Just roll your eyes at these. It won’t do any good at all to look at what actually happened when right-wing governments have done these things, actual facts will not penetrate the “Fox Effect” and the “Drudge Shield.”

Here is one you can try, though. When your RWBIL says that so many people are on food stamps and other public assistance because they are lazy and don’t want to work, and then says the “real reason” the unemployment rate is low is that the “Obama Economy” is so bad that people have given up looking for work. You can just ask him, “So which is it? Are there jobs that people won’t take, or is unemployment really higher than they are reporting?”

You can also ask if all those people would still be on assistance if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour.

Refugees 

OK, I have bad news for you on this one. Thursday might be a very unpleasant day if the subject of refugees comes up. You’ve probably seen or heard what is going on – the Republican Party has taken a very, very, very dark turn in recent weeks. In the past conservatives have expressed anti-immigrant sentiments, saying things like they bring in “diseases.” Remember how they even turned on Central American children who were fleeing violence at home?

But since the Paris attacks (the attack on Beirut doesn’t count) the right has turned in a scary new direction. First they began to demand that the country turn away refugees fleeing from ISIS – bad enough. Even “moderate” Jeb Bush has said that we should only allow “Christians” to enter the country. Chris Christie said not even orphans under age 5 should be allowed in. 

Then they began to turn on Muslims already living inside the US. Front-runner Donald Trump called for closing down mosques and making Muslims “register” for a “database” to “track them” – and be issued a special ID that identifies them by religion. Second-place Ben Carson echoes this. Rubio said we need to close down any place where Muslims gather.

To understand this dark turn, here are a couple of examples of the stuff saturating the right-wing echo chamber:

Your RWBIL likely reads online conservative outlets that are carrying anti-Obama and anti-Muslim trash like this which appeared Tuesday from the conservative mainstay publication Human Events, “Exposed: Obama’s Love for Jihadis and Hate for Christians“:

Obama recently lashed out against the idea of giving preference to Christian refugees, describing it as “shameful”: “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” loftily added the American president.

Accordingly, the administration is still determined to accept 10,000 more Syrian refugees, almost all of whom will be Muslim, despite the fact that some are ISIS operatives, while many share the ISIS worldview.

Your RWBIL probably has also seen a very dark propaganda video (or one like it) circulating on the right. Warning: This video has a similar theme to the 1940 Nazi propaganda video “The Eternal Jew.” Refugees are depicted as violent, parasitic hordes of “military-age” males, swarming over barriers and infiltrating society with the goal of taking over.

The video is titled, “With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations.” Again, before you watch it be warned that it is foul, racist propaganda. But RWBIL is likely to have been exposed to it. Donald Trump appears at 13:36 to say the refugees are “prime-time soldiers.” Just watch the next few minutes after that to get an idea of what has gotten into RWBIL’s thinking.

What To Do? 

There is no point trying to respond. The Foxification, Drudgery and Rushitis is strong in that one. Saturday Night Live ran a comedy skit with one suggestion: 

Bring along some Adele on your phone and turn it way up when RWBIL starts talking. But what do you say when you don’t have Adele?

Wingnut Week In Review: Ugly Americans

November 20, 2015

Terrance Heath

Campaign for America's Future

ourfuture.org 

In the worst of times, we need leaders who call us to heed “the better angels of our nature.” In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, right-wing media, officeholders, and candidates have instead embodied the term “ugly American.”

"Ugly American” is a pejorative term used to refer to perceptions of loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless, ignorant, and ethnocentric behavior of American citizens mainly abroad, but also at home.

We’ve been here before. Too many times, in fact. The world is reeling from yet another senseless terrorist attack, and the loss of so many lives. The terrorist attacks in Paris, for which ISIS/Daesh has claimed responsibility, did exactly what terrorist violence is meant to do. They inspired fear.

Coming without warning, striking where people were most vulnerable and unguarded, how could they not inspire fear? From across the Atlantic, it’s easy for Americans living in a post–9/11 reality to imagine ourselves in the places of the Paris victims, going about our lives — attending a sporting event, going out to dinner, enjoying a concert, going out for a drink — when deadly violence suddenly breaks out.

Americans may have become inured to the reality that random gun violence may break out in such places, and massacres may happen in our schools, workplaces, shopping malls, and movie theaters at any time. Terrorist violence is of another order, however. They may seem random, but terrorist acts are usually planned, and carried out with specific victims in mind, and the clear intention to send a message to those targeted: You are not safe anywhere, at any time.

Whether ISIS/Daesh planned and facilitated the Paris attacks or merely claimed credit for it afterwards, its intention goes far beyond just inspiring fear. Fear is merely one face of an emotional coin. The other is anger. They are a powerful combination when people cycle from one to the other, like a spinning coin, and incredibly destructive.

ISIS/Daesh knows this, and that’s why it wants to keep us cycling between fear and anger, until both spin out of control. There is nothing easier, at a time like this, than giving way to fear. This week, in response to the Paris attacks, right-wing media, Republican presidential candidates,and GOP officeholders gave ISIS/Daesh exactly what it wants.

Worse were the right-wing attempt to wrap their vilification of Syrian refugees in “good heartedness” and “compassion.”

• On Thursday House Republicans passed a bill that would suspend the Syrian refugee program. Senate Democrats hope to block the measure, and President Obama has promised to veto it.
• Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) used the Paris attacks to introduce a bill to delay the implementation of the USA Freedom Act, which passed in June and will curtail the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance program.
• Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that the US may have to take extreme measures, including requiring Muslims to have national ID cards and be registered in a database.
• Former Florida governor Jeb Bush and GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush said that the US should only accept Syrian refugees if they are Christian. However, when a reporter asked just how refugees would prove they’re Christian, Bush was stumped, could offer no explanation.
• Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson compared Syrian refugees to dogs, at a campaign stop in Alabama, where he suggested blocking possible terrorists from entering through the Syrian refugee program was like handling a rabid dog. Just because you want to get rid of a “mad dog,” Carson said doesn’t mean you don’t love dogs, and that shutting out refugees doesn’t mean America doesn’t have compassion.
• Presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R, Texas) said that its impossible to vet Syrian refugees because, “There’s a religious philosophy in Islamism that encourages them to lie to carry out Jihad.”
• In February 2014, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) declared that no Syrian refugee should be allowed to enter the US, and that it could be done without risking national security.
• Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) called admitting Syrian refugees to the US “cultural suicide.”
• Anti-immigrant activist Tom Tancredo posted pictures of corpses in Paris to Facebook, to gin up anti-Muslim sentiment.
• Radio host Laura Ingraham railed against President Obama’s “anti-American” “call for compassion,” for those fleeing Syria. Only a conservative could come up with the idea that compassion is an “anti-american” notion.
• In a disturbing rant posted on his website, right-wing Christian activist Theodore Shoebat said that those who were killed while attending an Eagles of Death Metal concert during the Paris attacks are “worshippers of the devil” and “got what they deserved.”
• Fox contributor Bo Dietl offered “safety tips” for dealing with terrorism, including bacon-enhanced hollow point bullets. “I also put bacon in my hollow point bullets so when I whack the terrorists, he ain’t going to the 72 virgins,” Dietl added.
• It’s not just Republicans. The Democratic mayor of Roanoke, Virginia invoked the shameful history of Japanese internment during World War II, in defense of his decision to ban Syrian refugees to settle in his town.
• Tennessee Republican state Rep. Glen Casada urged his state to deploy the National Guard to “gather up” any Syrian refugees in the state and “politely take them back to the ICE center and say, ‘They’re not coming to Tennessee, they’re yours.’”
• Texas Republican state Rep. Brian Babin sponsored a bill to defund the resettlement program, which he calls “insane” and suggested restricting it to Christians only. Babin defended his bill against criticism that it flew in the face of his own religion’s story, saying “Mary and Jesus didn’t have suicide bomb vests strapped on them, and these folks do.”
• Rhode Island Republican state Sen. Elaine Morgan wrote in an email that, “we should set up [a] refugee camp” to keep Syrian refugees “segregated from our populous.” Morgan also suggested that the refugees, who are mostly women and children, should stay and fight a civil war instead of fleeing.
• WordNetDaily columnist Burt Prelutsky wrote that the US should “bomb Mecca off the face of the earth, not concerning ourselves in the least with collateral damage, letting the Muslims know once and for all that our God is far more powerful and, yes, vengeful than their own puny deity.”

There are always consequences for this kind of rhetoric. Muslim communities across America are on alert for misguided retaliation after the Paris attacks. And with good reason. An FBI report released the week showed that while the total number of hate crimes in the US declined last year, hate crimes against Muslims increased by 14 percent. Since Friday, the DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has reported a spike in calls about anti-Muslim incidents. Mosques and Moslems in at least eight states have reported vandalism at religious centers and violence against individuals.

• Shots were fired at a mosque in Meriden, Connecticut on Sunday night, and local police have turned the investigation over to the FBI.
• An Eiffel Tower was spray-painted outside a mosque in Omaha, Nebraska.
• In Texas, a man carrying an American flag was arrested after walking onto a mosque and wiping his boots on prayer rugs while screaming obscenities at worshipers.
• Vandals hurled dog feces and ripped apart a Koran at a mosque in Pflugerville, Texas.
• A Syrian refugee family scheduled to arrive in Indiana this week, after already waiting three years in Jordan to enter the US, were quickly diverted to Connecticut, after Indiana officials demanded the family arrival be suspended or directed to a state that would accept them. Indiana governor Mike Pence could give no specific reason why the family was barred from resettling in his state.
• A Muslim community meeting in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, had to be broken up by sheriff’s deputies when a two men arrived and began shouting down a presentation to update members about the building of a new mosque. The men, who refused to leave, shouted at those gathered that, “every one of you are terrorists.”
• An Uber driver reported that a passenger who mistook him for a Muslim attacked and threatened to kill him.
• A Florida man was arrested after leaving voicemail messages threatening fiancé against a mosque in Pinellas County, Florida. Martin Alan Schnitzler warned, “This act in France is the last straw. You’re going to f*cking die,” and threatened to firebomb the building and “shoot whoever’s there on sight in the head.”

This is what ISIS/Daesh wants. It wants the western world to turn against Muslims. It wants westerners to be hostile to Muslims in their midst. ISIS/Daesh wants us scared, angry, and lashing out. ISIS/Daesh wants Muslims to feel alienated and isolated from the communities where they live, because of a belief that Muslims will then have nowhere left to turn but to ISIS/Daesh. Recruitment well be a lot easier if all they will have to say is, “See? We told you so. They are not your friends. These are your enemies. These are enemies of Islam.” And, no, Ohio governor John Kasich’s proposal of “a new government agency to push Judeo-Christian values around the world,” wouldn’t do much to counter that alienation. (How it would even get past the First Amendment?)

Nicholas Henin was held hostage by ISIS/Daesh for 10 months, and knows them better than any politicians or pundits. After the Paris attacks, Henin wrote that it is our unity ISIS/Daesh fears most, not airstrikes.

Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned toward finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance, is not what they want to see.

Why France? For many reasons perhaps, but I think they identified my country as a weak link in Europe; as a place where divisions could be sown easily. That’s why, when I am asked how we should respond, I say that we must act responsibly.

There were some hopeful signs, from leaders who stood against this madness. French president Francois Hollande led by example, announcing that France is still committed to welcoming 30,000 refugees. Though he noted that “some people say the tragic events of the last few days have sown doubt in their minds, Hollande said that a ”humanitarian duty“ to help those fleeing extremist violence in the Middle East need not conflict with ”our duty to protect out people.” Hollande said refugees would undergo thorough security checks.

President Obama blasted Republican candidates and governors for their panic-fueled, uninformed, fearful reactions to the Paris attacks, and their refusal to admit Syrian refugees. The president made these comments during a press conference with Philippines president Benigno Aquino.

“When candidates say we should not admit 3-year-old orphans, that’s political posturing. When individuals say we should have religious tests, and only Christians, proven Christians, should be allowed, that’s offensive and contrary to American values.”

“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric coming out of here in the course of this debate. ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there’s war between Islam and the West, and when you start seeing individuals in position of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative. It’s counter-productive, and it needs to stop. And I would add these are the same folks who suggested they’re so tough that just talk to Putin or staring down ISIL (will work) … but they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion. First they were worried the press was too tough on them in the debates, now they’re worried about 3-year-old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.

[youtue=https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV1nLI6ql05xGoT7KpV6m19qQPfMUgDbV&w=640]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (R-Mass.) took to the Senate floor to denounce efforts to block refugees seeking asylum:

“We are not a nation that delivers children back into the hands of ISIS murderers.” She added, “It is easy to proclaim that we are tough and brave and good-hearted when threats feel far away—but when those threats loom large and close by, our actions will strip away our tough talk and reveal who we really are.

• Oregon governor Kate Brown stressed in a Facebook post that her stye would continue to follow the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty. She later tweeted, “Clearly, Oregon will continue to accept refugees. They seek safe haven and we will continue to open the doors of opportunity to them.”
• In a letter to Republicans urging him to Refuse Syrian refugees, Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf wrote: “We must not forget that those fleeing Syria—and other places in crisis—are families, elderly, and orphaned children seeking to escape a daily life that includes the same horrific violence that occurred in Paris…Our commonwealth can be a safe haven for refugees.”
• Minnesota governor Mark Dayton called statements from his fellow governors who seek to bar Syrian refugees “ludicrous”: “I think it’s showmanship on the part of the governors…I want to protect the people of Minnesota every bit as much those governors want to protect the people of their states. To stand up there with swagger, and say ‘I’m going to prevent the wrong people from entering my state’ to me is just ludicrous.”
• Washington governor Jay Inslee stated that he would not be joining the list of governors refusing to admit refugees to their states.
• Republican combat veteran Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.) laid into his party for its stance on Syrian refugees. “If we use our passions, anger, and fear to snuff out her flame by xenophobic and knee-jerk policy, the enemy wins,” Russell said on the House floor. “We have played into their hands, period.”
• Fox News contributor Juan Williams called out host Sean Hannity for “inspiring fear and discrimination against” Muslim refugees.

Sanders vs Trump - Hope vs Fear

Robert Reich. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

23 November 15
readersupportednews.org

 
t’s instructive to compare Bernie’s rally in Savannah, Georgia last night with Donald Trump’s rally in Birmingham, Alabama on Saturday. Two southern states, two populist aspirants for the presidency, two immense crowds. But the two events and the two candidates couldn’t have been further apart.

Trump channels the anxieties of Americans into fear and hate. 

Bernie channels them into hope and tolerance. 

Trump told the white, middle-aged crowd he’d seal America’s borders against Mexicans and Muslims. 

Bernie told a diverse, young crowd he’d make public universities tuition-free and reduce incarceration.

At Trump rallies, black protesters are kicked and beaten by Trump’s white supporters. At Bernie’s rallies, protesters are respected and heard. (Yesterday, Trump said of the treatment one black protester got in Birmingham, “maybe he should have been roughed up…. This is not the way Bernie Sanders handled his problem, I will tell you, but I have a lot of fans and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy, a troublemaker, looking to make trouble.”)

Trump's right-wing populism poses a clear and present danger to this nation.

Bernie's left-wing populism offers the only practical way forward.

Rarely in American history has the choice been this stark.

What do you think?

Comments

+8 # Billy Bob 2015-11-23 13:07

What I think is that Trump won't end up being the Republican candidate. And, the real thing we should fear is another Republican who feels and acts (politically) exactly the same as Trump would have, without being so overtly obnoxious as to come right out and admit what he plans to do to this country.

Rubio, or Bush, etc. would be just as dangerous to this country, but they just have the intelligence to be slightly more subtle about it.

 

+1 # REDPILLED 2015-11-23 14:11

It's curious that Reich never tackles the problem of the U.S. Empire, especially how it will make the populist promises of Bernie Sanders difficult, if not impossible, to carry out.

"Empire abroad entails tyranny at home" warned Hannah Arendt. The U.S. National Security Police State will have little left in its budget for needed social welfare programs, repairing crumbling infrastructure, or adapting to catastrophic climate disaster.

 

0 # dbrize 2015-11-23 14:35

Quoting REDPILLED:

It's curious that Reich never tackles the problem of the U.S. Empire, especially how it will make the populist promises of Bernie Sanders difficult, if not impossible, to carry out.

"Empire abroad entails tyranny at home" warned Hannah Arendt. The U.S. National Security Police State will have little left in its budget for needed social welfare programs, repairing crumbling infrastructure, or adapting to catastrophic climate disaster.

And also curious that he sets this as a Sanders/Trump meme and doesn't even mention that Sanders is incapable of combating "Trumpism" unless he defeats "Clintonism".

Hillary Clinton who if anything, is in the pocket of the MIC/international banking cartel/war party as much as any candidate on either side. Going back to Serbia, moving forward, she has always chosen war, intervention and bombing.

The shadow government will be ecstatic to welcome her into the WH.

If Reich, fears Trump, he should also fear a future with Clinton in control.

 

+2 # lpain@effectiveassets.com 2015-11-23 14:18

Trump is appealing to white, mostly male voters who are terrified at the looming prospect of losing their white privilege which has protected them from their inadequacies for so long. This is more about fear than the old, sixties-style prejudice. Pathetic.

American Socialism and Capitalism Blend Perfectly

Socialism is a word a lot of citizens fear, but Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, military and other social programs administered by the U.S. government are all socialistic aid the U.S. uses.

Published: November 22, 2015 | Authors: Michael Payne | NationofChange | Op-Ed

How many times have we heard the dire warnings about socialism and what would happen if those socialists ever took control of this country and its government? Well, I have news for all of those who may be living in fear and paranoia of that possibility; socialism is alive and well in America and has been for some time.

How can that be? Well, for now, let’s set aside Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and other social programs administered by the U.S. government. Instead, in this article we’ll concentrate on two of the most powerful entities within this government, the consortium made up of the U.S. military and the defense industry corporations who work together splendidly.

First we have the capitalist sector of America, the massive defense industry corporations who make the weapons of war that enrich their bottom lines. Then we have the U.S. military which takes this weaponry and uses it in the pursuit of its agenda of endless war. Together they form that large and successful consortium that is continuously funded by American taxpayers and administered by the U.S. government.

Yes, we constantly hear many Americans condemning socialism and how terrible a system it is and yet the gigantic U.S. military organization that stretches across this entire planet is a living example of socialism in America. And there is no question but that the vast majority of the American people are solidly behind it.

A typical definition of socialism is, “an economic concept that advocates public/government ownership and management of all resources. Well, that’s it; that’s exactly what the U.S. military is and here is why:

Those who serve in the military have government-guaranteed jobs as long as they don’t violate certain rules and regulations. There are no unemployment rolls, those who follow reasonable rules and stay out of trouble will not lose their jobs; and their jobs cannot be outsourced.

The U.S. military is fully funded by American taxpayers and administered by the government.

Its members and families are provided with free base housing and those living off base are given allowances to help cover their housing costs. They receive free health care, including eye care and dental benefits.

Most members are provided with an education by attending various military schools where they receive sophisticated electronic training and acquire other high-level skills that they can use when and if they decide to go back to civilian life.

All members can receive a pension if they remain in the military for the time required.

Members can take part in the Food Stamp program and they can use the money in base commissaries where prices are considerably lower than those in civilian stores.

Those who qualify can receive up to $500 per month under the FSSA, the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance Program. In recent years, military members have received over $100 million annually from that program and that cost continues to increase.

Now let’s shift our attention to the capitalism element of this close, tight-knit relationship. Actually this specific sector of American capitalism, the defense industry, has a socialist element built into it because these corporations depend greatly upon a steady stream of military contracts from the government. We might accurately describe it as a quasi-capitalist/socialist industry; these corporations are, in effect, receiving a form of government welfare. In fact, if it were not for the government most of them would not exist or would be in a different business.

While capitalism and socialism, in theory, are like the difference between night and day this military/corporate alliance dispels that concept in that these two entities totally complement each other; they pursue intertwined objectives and work in unison to maintain the vast U.S. military empire.

Here are some concrete examples of how this capitalistic/socialist consortium operates and how it has advanced its agenda of endless war at the expense of the America taxpayer; also how it has wasted hundreds of billions and trillions of taxpayer dollars, a great portion of which is badly needed for America’s domestic needs.

We hear politicians constantly talking about waste in government, but they can’t seem to grasp the fact that the biggest area of ongoing waste is to be found in military spending. So let’s talk about our national debt and how military spending contributes so greatly to its constant growth. The U.S. national debt was $5.7 trillion in 2000; then after the Bush War on Iraq and the Afghan War, which together cost over $3 trillion, plus the many instances of other wasteful military spending,  this debt now has reached $18.5 trillion, an increase of $12.8 trillion or, if you can believe it, 325% in less than two decades.

And here are more examples of wasteful military spending:

The massive Baghdad embassy that cost $750 million; why in creation did those in Washington think they needed to construct the world’s largest embassy in such a small country?

The vast military empire of 700 bases with some form of military personnel in 150 countries. Why do we need 179 U.S. military bases in Germany, 109 in Japan, 85 in S. Korea, 58 in Italy, 37 in Puerto Rico and bases in 74 other countries?  1900 in Djibouti, 950 in Chad, 900 in Gabon, 2000 in Mali, 80 in Burkina Faso and troops in Senegal, Niger, Kosovo, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Guinea, Honduras, Peru and in numerous other countries? And that’s only a part of the entire network of bases and installations.

The F35 fighter jet program which was initiated in 2001 and which has cost $396 billion to date will, if continued to conclusion, end up costing over $1 trillion. And the worst part of it is that the development of this fighter jet has been plagued by a myriad of problems involving software/ navigation, weapons delivery accuracy, flight control problems, reliability issues with their avionics processors, landing gear, thermal management systems, ejection seat assemblies, cockpit display electronics unit, seat survival kits, igniter-spark in the turbine engines, and on-board oxygen generating systems.

While this country’s national infrastructure worsens every day and would need at least $1 trillion to bring it up to acceptable levels Congress has put this important need on a back burner because, for years, those funds have been earmarked for use in other countries where our military has been in action. $109 billion was spent in Afghanistan on its infrastructure and, additionally, $60 billion was squandered in reconstruction in Iraq.

Several hundred billion have been spent on the construction of over 500 military bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan, almost all of which are now either in the hands of those governments or under the control of terrorist factions. Military equipment that cost billions was left in Iraq when U.S. troops pulled out and ISIS gladly accepted this gift from the U.S. government which they proceeded to use to good advantage in Iraq and Syria.

In what has been called biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve took place in 2004 when nearly $12 billion in $100 bills was flown into Iraq in huge cargo planes and, then, it just seemed to disappear. It supposedly was intended to be distributed among Iraqi ministers and U.S. contractors but after numerous investigations it was never determined who the actual end recipients were.

While all these boondoggle type projects represent a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars they have consistently been a great boon to the defense industry and to various civilian and military contractors. Their return on investment has been fabulous while the ROI of the American people is ZERO! Kind of like a Ponzi scheme, the definition of which is “a scam investment designed to separate investors (in this case, the American people) from their money.”

We badly need to unravel our twisted priorities. It is imperative that America be strong and stable domestically if we wish to continue to maintain a powerful, effective military. To do so we must have a strong domestic foundation; a strong society, economy, infrastructure, system of education, adequately funded research and development, and health care to list just a few. That’s not been happening as we pour massive amounts into the military and have little left for our important domestic needs.

Now why exactly should there exist this fear of socialism?  One of this country’s most effective forms of socialism, the U.S. military, provides safety and security for its people by guarding them from attacks by foreign enemies. Then when Americans retire they receive Social Security and, if they so choose, they can join Medicare. So we can conclude that America’s form of socialism is alive and well and dwells among us.

CEOs Get Raise. Seniors and Vets Deserve One Too

Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Getty Images)

By Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren's Blog

10 November 15
readersupportednews.org

 
hree weeks ago, the Social Security Administration made a quiet announcement.

Next year, for just the third time since 1975, seniors who receive Social Security won’t be getting an annual cost of living increase. Neither will millions of other Americans whose veterans’ benefits, disability benefits, and other monthly payments are pegged to Social Security.

Two-thirds of retirees depend on Social Security to pay for the basics, to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads – but seniors who usually get a small boost on January 1st won’t see an extra dime next year. That’s why today, I’m introducing the Seniors and Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act – a one-time payment equivalent to a Social Security benefits increase of 3.9%. 

Why give seniors and veterans a 3.9% Social Security boost? Well, times are tough for America’s seniors – but they aren't tough for everyone. According to recent data, CEOs at the top 350 American companies received, on average, a 3.9% pay increase last year.

But here’s the kicker: taxpayers like you subsidize huge pay packages for CEOs through billions of dollars in giveaways, including a crazy loophole that allows corporations to write off obscene executive bonuses as a business expense for “performance pay.”

Our new SAVE Benefits Act would give seniors and veterans a benefits boost without adding a single penny to the deficit simply by closing that performance pay loophole. In fact, closing that tax loophole would create enough revenue to give seniors and vets this 3.9% emergency boost and still have money left over for the Social Security Trust Fund to help extend the life of Social Security.

Think about what this change would mean. A one-time 3.9% Social Security payment is worth about $581 a person next year – a little less than $50 a month. For someone barely scraping by on a $1,250 Social Security check each month, $581 would cover almost three months of groceries, or a year’s worth of out-of-pocket costs for a Medicare beneficiary’s prescription drugs. According to an analysis, that little boost could lift more than 1 million Americans out of poverty. That’s a big deal.

This is about choices. We have the money to do this – only right now that money goes to fund a loophole that benefits corporate CEOs. We could use exactly that same money to help out seniors and vets – and make the Social Security system more stable. For me, it’s pretty straightforward: Our spending should reflect our values.

Carson Announces Detailed Plan to Google Syria

Credit Photograph by John Locher/AP

DES MOINES (The Borowitz Report)—In a major foreign-policy announcement on Wednesday, the Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson unveiled a detailed plan to Google Syria.

Speaking in Iowa, the retired neurosurgeon told an audience of supporters, “Any responsible policy on Syria must begin with a fact-finding mission, and such a mission must begin with Googling.”

He said that “Google holds the key” to many questions about Syria. “Where is it? Who lives there? How many square miles is it? These are all things that have to be pinned down,” he said.

Carson, who leads several Republican Presidential polls, said that while his search for answers would start with Google, he would “not rule out” seeking information at Wikipedia and beyond. “No Web site should be taken off the table at this time,” he said.

In closing, he said that he had “no plans” to Google Egypt, since he was already extremely well versed in that nation’s history.

What Socialism Means to Bernie—and You

Socialism is not a "frighteningly alien worldview," it's merely another set of ideas for organizing society to protect and uplift every human being. Here is what you need to know about socialism as Bernie Sanders puts it.

Published: November 9, 2015 | Authors: Joe Conason | NationofChange | Op-Ed

Once upon a time, socialists running for president in the United States had to explain that while they had no chance of actually winning an election, their campaigns were aimed at “educating” voters — about socialism. 

As a successful politician twice elected to the U.S. Senate and showing very respectable numbers in most presidential primary polls, however, Bernie Sanders needs no such excuse. He assures voters that he is running to win and there is no reason to doubt him. But win or lose, his campaign nevertheless is proving highly educational for Americans perplexed by the meaning of “socialism.” Or as Sanders sometimes specifies, “democratic socialism,” or the even milder “social democracy.”

Since the advent of the Cold War, and even before then, the multifarious meanings of the S-word were hidden behind the ideological and cultural defenses erected against communism. The Soviet dictatorship and its satellites claimed their authoritarian way was the only true socialism — and conservatives in the West seized that self-serving claim to crush arguments for social justice and progressive governance. American politicians of both parties embraced the blurring of socialism with communism, rejecting both.

But that narrow definition of socialism was always wrong. To accept it meant to ignore fundamental realities, both contemporary and historical — such as the bolstering of the Western alliance by European democracies that called themselves socialist or social democratic, all of which had adopted programs, such as universal health care, denounced by American politicians as steps on the road to Communist serfdom. Decades later, of course, those same countries — including all of Scandinavia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom — remain democratic, free and open to business.

As for the United States, Sanders might recall that this country once had a thriving Socialist Party, which elected mayors in cities like Milwaukee and even sent two of its leaders, Milwaukee’s Victor Berger and New York’s Meyer London, to Congress.

Their movement enjoyed not only electoral victories but also a strong record of municipal reform and reconstruction. They built sewers to clean up industry’s legacy of pollution; they built public housing; they ensured delivery of publicly owned, affordable water and power; and they cleaned up local government.

But between the triumph of the New Deal and the devastation of McCarthyism, the political space for American socialism virtually vanished. Before they were relegated to the margins, however, the socialists strongly influenced the direction of American social policy.

Long after the various socialist parties had faded, their heirs continued to serve as the nation’s most insistent advocates for reform and justice. Socialists (and yes, communists), were among the leading figures in the civil rights, labor, and women’s movements. It was a remarkable 1962 book by the late, great democratic socialist Michael Harrington, “The Other America,” that inspired President Kennedy and his brothers to draw attention to the continuing shame of poverty in the world’s richest nation. When Ronald Reagan warned in 1965 that Medicare was a hallmark of “socialism,” he wasn’t far from the mark — except that 50 years later, that popular program has liberated older Americans, not enslaved them.

Now Bernie Sanders has taken up the old banner in a political atmosphere where more voters — and especially younger voters — are receptive to calm debate instead of hysterical redbaiting.

Certainly Hillary Clinton, whatever her view of Sanders’ ideology, understands social democracy: When her husband was president, the democratically elected socialist leaders of Western Europe were his closest international allies. In her first book, “It Takes A Village,” she highlighted many of the same social benefits in France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries that Sanders discusses today.

So Clinton knows very well that “socialism,” as her primary rival uses that term, is no frighteningly alien worldview, but merely another set of ideas for organizing society to protect and uplift every human being.

It is long past time for the rest of the American electorate to learn that, too.