Tulsi Gabbard and HR 246

Anyone that has studied the Israel and Jewish lobby influence in D.C. ought to know that anyone running for president in the U.S. cannot possibly be honest during their campaign if their views oppose the Jewish influence and want a shot at the White House. It can't happen, period. Does Tulsi Gabbard know this? How could she not know it?

Is this why Tulsi voted for HR 246 which seeks to destroy the BDS movement? Did she compromise her ethics in order to remain a viable candidate in 2020, or is she that ignorant that she actually believes the bullshit in this resolution and voted for it in good faith?

HR 246 is stinking pile of blatant lies. Following are a few excerpts from the text of the resolution along with my comments:

Whereas the democratic, Jewish State of Israel is a key ally and strategic partner of the United States;

Any knowledgeable and honest person knows very well that Israel has never been an ally of the U.S.. Israels fingerprints are all over events that have hurt the U.S. and other countries in many ways and it is Israel that is driving much of the destabilization in the Middle East. From the attack on the USS Liberty, to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and many incidents between, Israel has never been an ally of the U.S. people, much less the Palestinians.

Whereas since Israel's founding in 1948, Congress has repeatedly expressed our Nation's unwavering commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;

Ain't that the truth!

Whereas American policy has long sought to bring peace to the Middle East and recognized that both the Israeli and Palestinian people should be able to live in safe and sovereign states, free from fear and violence, with mutual recognition;

This is a total lie. In fact it is the U.S. and Israel that are largely responsible for creating turmoil and terrorism in the Middle East through the financing, training and equipping of terrorists and the balkanization of these countries. The wars in the ME are being fought largely for the benefit of Israel, but are being paid for with the blood of U.S. soldiers and who knows how many civilian lives at this point.

Whereas support for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians has long-standing bipartisan support in Congress;

Bullshit! The congress and the senate are largely staffed by, or bought and paid for by Jewish Zionists who have zero interest in a two state solution.

Whereas cooperation between Israel and the United States is of great importance, especially in the context of rising anti-Semitism, authoritarianism and security problems in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa;

What is the reason for the alleged anti-Semitism? No one ever asks the critical question as to why the Jews have been kicked out of approximately 67 countries prior to Hitler and persecuted in as many more. Could it be because they behaved badly, or is it that everyone was somehow born with an anti-Jew gene?

Whereas the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) targeting Israel is a campaign that does not favor a two-state solution and that seeks to exclude the State of Israel and the Israeli people from the economic, cultural, and academic life of the rest of the world;

So it's OK if the U.S. government imposes sanctions that lead to the deaths of millions of men women and children, but the people of the U.S. shouldn't be allowed to boycott Israel in an effort to stop the violence Israel inflicts upon the Palestinians?

Whereas the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is one of several recent political movements that undermines the possibility for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by demanding concessions of one party alone and encouraging the Palestinians to reject negotiations in favor of international pressure;

Israel has been at this for 70 years and what has the U.S. or the U.N. accomplished? Nothing. The real message here is that the U.S. government (not the people) consider Israel to be an ally and they don't want you or i messing up that relationship. Terrorism is bad if the country engaged in it is not an ally, but when it emanates from Israel or Saudi Arabia, both of which slaughter women and kids, then it's fine and dandy.

Whereas the founder of the Global BDS Movement, Omar Barghouti, has denied the right of the Jewish people in their homeland, saying, "We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.";

What right do the Jews have to Palestine? Palestine is not their homeland and their alleged god is not a real estate agent.

Whereas the Global BDS Movement does not recognize, and many of its supporters explicitly deny, the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination;

Does self-determination include stealing other people land and claiming it as your own? Slaughtering children? Bombing schools and hospitals?

I don't know why Tulsi voted for this self-evident tripe, but she will lose supporters as a result. As an anti-interventionist, anti-neocon candidate, Tulsi has no chance whatsoever of being treated fairly by the mainstream media and so her campaign dollars are being spent largely on social media. That being the case, why is she not standing against Israel apartheid? Why is she turning her back on a lot of people who know the truth about the Jewish state, including those in the global BDS movement?

A look at Andrew Yang, pres. candidate, 2020

Andrew Yang seems to be a popular democratic candidate for the presidency in 2020, second to Tulsi Gabbard. I took a brief look at Andrew and his platform and these are my thoughts…

The number one, most important item to me is war and the influence of the Jewish lobbies (AIPAC) in U.S. politics and culture. The "spreading of democracy" (illegal regime change wars) must stop and AIPAC must be forced to register as the foreign agent it actually is. Andrew however seems to be far more concerned with automation and giving people free money than he is with the destruction of peoples lives through endless war, much less holding those responsible accountable.

Personally i'm largely for automation, especially when replacing human jobs with machines results in people not having to do menial, garbage jobs that cause misery in their lives and don't enrich the development of our species. Money aside, who wants to work in the greasy McDonald's kitchen, or sit in a truck for up to 14 hours a day, or pick up stinky trash, or work as a robot in a Nike factory all day? All of these demeaning jobs and many more can be automated, some very easily, however this of course leads to the problem of paying ones bills and so a universal income may be a worthy stop-gap solution along the path to a better society.

Automation is a very real, current problem that must be faced and it must be addressed now, not tomorrow, however automation is far from the most pressing of the problems we face in my opinion as well as from a logic perspective. Millions have had, and are having their lives destroyed as a result of the U.S. empire and its senseless, illegal and immoral regime change wars and other foreign meddling. Millions of civilians have been slaughtered, displaced, or have had their leaders forcibly replaced with corrupt criminals who are sympathetic to U.S. foreign policy and much of this turmoil in the middle east has been influenced by Israel. Why isn't this problem at the very top of the list for Yang?

I listened to about half of the interview of Yang by Rogan to get a feel for the guy and observe his body language. My impression is that he seems fairly genuine, though he also seemed to intentionally dodge a few questions and Rogan rarely asks any hard questions. Yang spent his time revealing his thoughts on automation, citing a lot of statistics. He stated that he's a data driven guy and indeed he seems more like a human calculator that a well-rounded human being. I see a huge difference in Yang when i compare him to Tulsi Gabbard who seems to have a genuine interest in serving the interests of the people, which fits with the apparent fact that woman are generally more service-to-others oriented than men.

Looking at Yang's policies page at yang2020.com, it appears to me to be a laundry list of sweet candy issues that were carefully selected to attract young voters rather than tackling most important issues we face as a country and as a species.

the most prominent item on Yang's list seems to be the establishment of a universal basic income, followed by Medicare for all. There is barely a mention of the disastrous U.S. foreign policy which is responsible for a large chunk of the mess this country has inflicted upon not only itself, but many other countries over many decades. When asked by Rogan how a universal income would be financed, Yang rattles off yet more statistics and "unpacks" more data and it all sounds good and logical on its face, however he failed to mention that the cost could be completely covered, and then some, by simply eliminating the military-industrial complex.

Yang lists 106 policies on yang2020.com and while many or most of them would be attractive to most people, few are actually important relative to the immense real world problems we face. They're things that might be nice to have once you get the important stuff out of the way.

End Bidding Wars for Corporate Relocation, Head of Culture and Ceremony, Make Washington, DC, a State, Make Puerto Rico a State, The Penny Makes No Cents, Extend Daylight Saving Time All Year, Support for the Arts, Zoning, Making Taxes Fun, Empowering MMA Fighters, etc..

Empowering MMA fighters and making taxes fun? Are you f'ing kidding me???

Compare Yang's laundry list of benign and occasionally insulting policies to Gabbard's policies:

Campaign Finance Reform, Criminal Justice Reform, Environment, Foreign Policy, Glass Steagall/Big Banks, GMO Labeling, Net Neutrality, Regime Change War, Saudi Arabia & Yemen, Sex Trafficking, Syria, etc..

Neither Gabbard nor Yang are particularly knowledgeable regarding various issues such as climate change or the legality of the IRS, but at least Gabbard is sitting at the big peoples table whereas Yang seems to be happy drawing graphs in his sandbox.

As a current major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, Gabbard has been deployed twice to the middle east and has unfortunately witnessed the cost of war firsthand. Yang, on the other hand, has no military experience nor seemingly much of an interest in the most pressing problems we face. In Yang's Foreign Policy First Principles page, he opens with the following tripe:

While America has undoubtedly made mistakes, we've been a positive force in world history, leading to the spread of peace, prosperity, and democracy. Presidents from JFK to Ronald Reagan maintained strong relationships with allies while sending clear and honest messages to those who would work against us.

America has been a "positive force in world history"? This sounds a whole lot like something an establishment shill would say. Where has the U.S. "spread democracy"? When it slaughtered millions of native Americans? In Iraq? Libya? Syria? Venezuela? Iran? Cuba? Japan? Germany? Maybe i hold an incorrect definition of democracy that has been radically altered without my knowing. Maybe bombing wedding parties and journalists and civilians and prosecuting whistleblowers is the new form of democracy.

Government in and of itself is a problem. It will never be a solution, at least not while it resembles anything close to its current form, and in this light neither Gabbard nor Yang nor anyone else are answers to the problems created by government and the deep state. We're stuck with government for the time being however and, as such, i see Gabbard as the best candidate at this point. She has everything going for her except her anti-regime change war policy which of course the "defense" industry funded legacy media cannot possibly support, so don't expect to see a lot of her on the boob-tube. She is a 'she' for one, and unlike the ugly parasitic psychopathic bitch that is Hillary, Gabbard is a physically attractive one and that by itself just might be enough to sell some of the sex depraved couch potatoes. She's also a democrat which, given her anti-establishment and anti-war policies, ought to be attractive to an awful lot of democrats who, for some dumb reason, think there's actually a difference between a democrat and a republican. She's attractive to a lot of republicans for the same reasons. More than anything else, Gabbard appears to be a genuine human being and people can sense that when she speaks. She can't speak all of the truth on the trail to the White House (i haven't heard her say much about Israel for example), but i think she does a pretty good job of speaking the truths she can and the truth is, this country is screwed up to an extreme in every way from education to foreign policy.

I don't know how much of an impact a Tulsi Gabbard or a Ron Paul could possibly have in a system that is so completely corrupt, dysfunctional and criminal in nature as is the cesspool that is government today, but it's looking to me like there's no one else that is both electable and has an interest in taking on the system for the benefit of us all instead of herself.

And that's my $.02 for what it's worth.

Body Language – Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll

I've been watching the videos by Bombard's Body Language for a while and they have made me realize how crucial body language is to determining whether one is being deceptive. What people say is only half of the picture. How they speak, and what they do while they're speaking is the other half.

In her latest video, Bombard analyzes yet another "woman" (i have to use that term loosely in this instance) that is accusing Donald Trump of rape. While i am no fan of Trump whatsoever, it is blatantly obvious that this moron is lying through her teeth about being raped and laughing at the same time. Her deception is so obvious that one need not have studied body language at all in order to detect her bullshit. Have a look for yourself…

32 Tips for Navigating a World Full of Lies

Thirty-Two Tips For Navigating A Society That Is Full Of Propaganda And Manipulation – Caitlin Johnstone

For as long as there has been human language, humans have been using it to manipulate one another. The fact that it is possible to skillfully weave a collection of symbolic mouth noises together in such a way as to extract favors, concessions, votes and consent from other humans has made manipulation so common that it now pervades our society from top to bottom, from personal relationships between two people to international relationships between government agencies and the public.