you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jesus 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Part 3

And what about Sanders economic outlook? He is very pro-Keynesian, advocating big government and big government spending.

This plays right into the hands of big oligarchical communist government where people become so dependent on the state. It’s like the state is the centralized engine of society and society can not function without it. Top down power to the max. One could even see the move to a cashless society behind him too. Do we really want more federal government? Could they collapse the economy with him as president to role out a new form of distorted socialism? Or would Trump be the fall guy?

Sanders does not talk about the Federal Reserve, CIA, or any of these rogue entities which as really at the root of the problem. I do not see how anyone is going to solve anything without talking and tackling these issues. Sanders does none of these things.

Obama was a wolf in sheeps clothing, lest we fall for another, like many did with Trump. Appearing as one of us, rallying the people only to turn the other way. If Obama, a pupil of Saul Alinsky could turn around and do everything he said he would not, why would Sanders not do the same? It is a true and tried campaign, will the people fall for it again?

If they plan for Trump to win, then the media could always be purposely rolling out Sanders very slowly so as to appear he is not part of the establishment.

We have to understand the powers that be evolve their plans. I think all real truths know too, that in the end we will save ourselves. No one can do it for us. Especially not a president of a corporation who refuses to acknowledge the 9/11 false flag atrocity event, which was part and parcel of instilling deliberate fear and trauma in the American mind so as to pass unconstitutional legislation, impose preemptive warfare and initiate the 'Global War on Terror' fraud that is still being waged today.

Bernie Sanders says $3 billion/year in "aid" to Israel

"isn't a heck of a lot of money..."

Bernie Sanders was on a kibbutz in Israel the same year Kennedy was assassinated by Mossad and the CIA.

Bernie completely ignores the fact that Uncle Sam provides Israel with billions in "aid" and loan guarantees.

In 2016, Bernie said he was the only candidate with;

“personal ties to Israel...”

...having spent time there on a kibbutz when he was younger.

Naturally, he supported a “two-state solution,” and praised Israel’s “commitment to civil rights and the rule of law.”

Certainly the Israeli press is fond of Bernie and Trump. Either way, those billions will continue to flow in.

On gun control, Sanders is staunchly against the 2nd amendment and would outright ban rifles including the ar-15; an always reliable and most widely used rifle for home defense, whereas Trump, although making it appear that he is pro-gun has done more for the gun control movement and security niche market than Obama. As Trump once stated:

First, you take the guns away, and then go through due process.

So, Sanders does not sound like he cares too much about the 2nd amendment, but is that not the case with most Zionists?

Sanders would be invited by the CFR to “articulate” his positions on foreign policy issues.

-Rejoin JCPOA

-Two-state solution

-KSA part of the solution

-UN sustainable development

-Threaten Russia w/ sanctions

-Stay politically engaged in Afghanistan

Like Max Blumenthal, Benjamin Norton, Michael Tracey and the other leftist Zionist gatekeepers, including the likes of Noam Chomsky, all who whitewash Israel's involvement in 9/11, propagandizing the official government sanctioned narrative, also promote the falsity of the Free Syrian Army state department propaganda.

Sander's writes:

Nearly 1 million refugees—nearly half of them children—are under threat as Syrian troops advance on Idlib.

Sanders is either naive or deliberately toeing the state department and Likudnik line in maintaining the same old regime change lies as experienced in Iraq and then Libya.

The threat most pressing is the presence of known ultra-violent Wahhabist militants, who refused an amnesty from the Syrian government and chose instead to accept the buses provided to go to Idlib. Many of them remain active. Some of them even bombed said busses with women and children on board, in a case of what CNN and Fox News called, laughably, a "hiccup."

Many are also Wahhabi jihadists connected to US proxy countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE and Qatar. Ignoring them is not an option, which is what all the leftist gatekeepers seem to be swell at doing. Toeing these state department talking points, maintaining the 'Blowback' perception management narrative all whilst ignoring the publicly available documents proving Da'esh and the the Salafist principality in the region are exactly what the western powers desire illustrates a profound lack of geopolitical knowledge or a reluctance to rock the boat -- a reluctance, a people surely do not want in a leader.

And what about imperialism? Is Sanders truly anti-war? He surely presents himself as such but has voted in favor of almost every single U.S. military intervention in the last two decades. So, much for being anti-war!

Sanders exclaims, as a politician, that he did his best to stop American foreign policy wars.

An article in on Sanders war record reads:

Vermont was one of the largest recipients of Defense Department weapons contracts, such s the General Electric Plant in Burlington, which produced gatling guns for death squads. When peace activists planned to block the gate to the GE factory on June 20, 1983, Sanders refused to support them and had them arrested.

According to an article by the Vermont Vanguard Press, Sanders:

“viewed his key constituencies as the unions and the poor. Bread and butter’ economics framed his analysis, pushing long-term issues such as peace conversion to the margins of society.” Even during his “radical period”, Sanders was only opposed to militarism unless it affected the jobs of American workers.

Sanders’ long-standing support for the F-35 fighter jet, which at 1.5 trillion dollars is the most expensive program in military weapons history.

He'd rather have that industry come to Vermont to create jobs. That, right there, is the reality he so chooses, and illustrates his obvious reluctance to rock the boat. He is in this way maintaining the status quo and can be seen, in this light, far from progressive.

Sanders’ lobbying has paid off since he managed to persuade Lockheed Martin to place a research center in Burlington and get 19 F-35s stationed at the city airport.

In the 90's during the reign of the Clinton and Bush Sr. administrations, Sander's foreign policy views paralleled the neoconservative doctrine rather than the George H. W. Bush Sr. doctrine. The latter was opposed in many ways to the neoconservative doctrine of intervening in Iraq, partly due to Bush being an oil man, in which many oil companies were in good standing with Iraq at that time. It too, should be noted that there was a Mossad hit on Bush for withholding aid and weapons to Israel. In fact, Bush was one of the first presidents to advocate for the 'one state solution,' that the Likudniks, neoconservatives, Zionists and labor leftist Zionists like Sanders opposed. That in and of itself could be seen as a very progressive stance from such a conservative figure.

Therefore, although Sanders was against the First Gulf War in 1991, he voted for the Iraq Liberation Act and another resolution linked below:

...that supported American measures to overthrow Saddam Hussein, all in accordance to the neoconservative doctrine.

Jeffrey St. Clair noted for Counterpunch:

These measures gave congressional backing for the CIA’s covert plan to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad...

[which the (neo-Trotskyite) Zionist neoconservatives desired]

Continued: well as the tightening of an economic sanctions regime that may have killed as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. The resolution also gave the green light to Operation Desert Fox, a four-day long bombing campaign striking 100 targets throughout Iraq. The operation featured more than 300 bombing sorties and 350 ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, several targeting Saddam Hussein himself.

In voting in favor of these sanctions and interventions, Sanders is a direct accomplice to the deaths they caused.

  • In 1996, he voted in favor of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act.

"...imposes sanctions on persons exporting certain goods or technology that would enhance Iran’s ability to explore for, extract, refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum resources, and for other purposes.”

  • In 2001, he voted to extend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act.

  • In 1998, he voted in favor of extraditing black revolutionary Assata Shakur to the United States in order to face “justice.”

  • Voting in favor of American bombing in Kosovo in 1999.

[–]Jesus 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Part 4

When antiwar activists occupied Sanders’ office in 1999 due to his support for the war, he had them arrested. Sanders’ backing for air strikes in Kosovo led one of his advisers, Jeremy Brecher to resign in disgust, writing:

“Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take?”

According to the

In fact, there is no limit to the amount of violence that Bernie Sanders is willing to support.

Three days after the September 11 attacks [an Israeli and 5th column neoconservative false flag], Bernie Sanders showed that even “democratic socialists” could rally behind the flag.

  • He voted in favor of H.R. Res. 64, Authorization for Use of Military Force that provided a blank check to neoconservative lackey President George W. Bush. [...] Less than a month later, the United States launched military actions against Afghanistan...

    [Afghanistan was not on most of the neoconservatives radar, William Kristol in a Harvard conference exclaimed, "who gives a crap about Afghanistan," illustrating that the neoconservatives were after Iraq, Palestine, Iran and Syria, whilst the US military and the UNOCAL company were after Afghanistan in order to erect a pipeline which for years the Taliban disputed.

Only one day after the 9/11 attacks, Fred and Don Kagan called in to give their recommendations of how America should respond. Throughout the conversation they seem completely disinterested in Afghanistan or Bin Laden. Don says "as long as we go after the actual perpetrators our job is going to be next to impossible" and that "Afghanistan is a distraction". Afghanistan is hurriedly brushed aside by both so they can shoehorn in their preferable target for a US military response : Palestine and Iraq.]

...[regarding Afghanistan intervention] which over the course of the last 18 years have led to thousands of deaths and devastated the country. The Global War on Terror marked the beginning of Sanders’ support for the war budget and appropriations to the military in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. and 2008.

When the Bush Administration geared up for the Iraq War in 2003, Sanders did vote against authorizing the use of military force. This is something that Sanders and his supporters point out as reflecting his antiwar record.

However, this is a clever bait and switch.

Just as American troops put their boots on the ground in a war that would kill hundreds of thousands, Sanders voted in favor of a resolution expressing support for the military. While Sanders has verbally opposed the Iraq War as illegal and wrong, this amounts to nothing but hot air since he regularly votes for military funding. If the war is illegal and wrong, then so is voting to fund it.

Clearly, this was a carefully coordinated political tactic, similar to what Tulsi Gabbard did with her 'Stop Arming Terrorists' bill. In the latter case, Gabbard could promote her anti-war stance by presenting legislation which she knew would never pass, whilst at the same time have various military contractors back her and overtly speak in favor of the neoconservatives at various Likudnik backed and pro-Israeli conferences. In Sanders case, his game theory is even more overt. Sanders will continue to use his nay vote against Iraqi intervention' as political leverage. Knowing that his die-hard followers will ignore his past and present record of militarism and war, even votes in favor of policies enacted on Iraq thereafter, thusly maintaining the war effort, Sanders can effectively lie by omission. A progressive in the Woodrow Wilson sense? Yes!

And what about:



Elizebeth Warren

Ocasio-Cortez, by remaining silent on the very real U.S. military build-up and the machinations to topple Maduro, she is thusly complicit in America's exploitive foreign policy agendas. She too, has taken a neutral stance on Israel, possibly because she has marrano Jewish origins and has spoke openly to various pro-Israeli organizations.

In an odd turn of events, Pamela Anderson tweeted in February of 2019:

[Ocasio-Cortez] openly supports US intervention to Venezuela and supports US military and big corporations she claims she’s fighting against…

Hmmmmm — Pamela Anderson


A timely tweet, indeed, but hypocritical, considering the Pamela Anderson Foundation has given millions in aid to pro-Israeli causes, directly bolstering the Likudnik regime. Just another Kabuki theater conundrum. Thanks Pamela and remind Assange why Netanyahu and the Israeli government thanked him for his work or why Iran is listed in Wikileaks more than any other state. Might we be witnessing a massive limited hangout campaign? You be the judge.

And what about Warren, the less progressive option on the left, who like Sanders, supported the corporatist Hilary Clinton.

Well Warren just voted for a defense budget that is higher than the one that Donald Trump requested.

This bill authorizes $700 billion in defense funds. This includes $640 billion for the Pentagon and an additional $60 billion for military operations in countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This bill increased military spending by $80 billion, which far surpasses the increase requested by America First President Trump ($54 billion). There were 8 no votes (against 89 yes votes) and three abstentions, but Warren was not one of them. The defense policy bill (National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA) has passed 56 years in a row and inclides the repealment of the Smith-Mundt Modernization act of 1948, replacinf it with thr Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, thusly legally permitting domestic propaganda and psychological operations.

The article on continues:

Therefore, ratifying a bill that takes more taxes from workers and funnels it into foreign wars, leading to more deaths of innocent people, sponsors Israel’s war against the Palestinians ($705 million), and invests additional hundreds of millions in anti-Russian military build-up in Ukraine and the Baltic ($600 million).


We touched on Sander's views on Israel in the preceding paragraphs of which we will now go into more detail. It is clear to anyone with eyes to see that Sanders is a liberal left-leaning Zionist, akin to the Labor Zionists who oppose the right-wing Likudnik Zionists on certain domestic and social issues. The securization of Israel and the whitewashing of its crimes abroad -- both sides-- one overt, the other covert sit among themselves downing Tabbouleh maintaining the status quo both in Israel and in America.

Sanders, unlike Bush Sr. opposed a one state solution. Ultimately, Sanders views are in support of the Apartheid regime.

According to, Sanders:

...despite offering some criticism of Israel, he was more concerned with Palestinian responsibility for the ensuing violence than anything else. He also emphasized his support for Israel: “You need to protect the state of Israel. That’s clearly and absolutely right.”

According to Doug Enaa Greene, an independent historian:

[Sanders] was not just in terms of words, but by votes to provide billions in military hardware and aid to the Apartheid state in 1997, 1999, 2004. When Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006, Sanders voted in favor of imposing sanctions in order to remove them from power. He has also voted for resolutions in favor of Israeli military actions against Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2014. At a town hall meeting on Gaza, Sanders was heckled for defending the Israeli actions, telling the audience to “shut up.”

It is true that Sanders has expressed opposition to the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and even refused to attend a speech by the Israeli Prime Minister in 2015, this remains empty symbolism. He has said that the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories is motivated in part by anti-Semitism.

He supported Obama’s military actions against Libya, sanctions against Russia, providing a billion dollars in aid to the far right Ukrainian government in 2014, and supported arming the Saudi Arabian monarchy to fight ISIS.

Nothing in Sanders’ runs for President in 2016 or 2020 indicates any change in his support for American imperialism. He has refused to end the drone program.