"We've pushed Russia into a dangerous alliance with China and Iran. The Russians and Chinese can outmanufacture and outgun us with 21st century arsenals including drones, hypersonic missiles, and cyberwarfare. During the 20th century, nobody in the world could match Amearica's production capacity, but that was before we de-industrialied our nation. Our country no longer has the industrial base to fight and win a global war.
Republic and Democratic trade agreements for the last few decades have transferred our manufacturing base to China and other nations. A single Chinese company now makes 75% of the drones on Earth. It's a simple thing for the Chinese to shift that industrial capacity to military production."
Tulsi: “One day after I went and did an interview warning the American people about the dangerous and costly consequences to our country if Kamala Harris were elected as president and commander-in-chief, warning the American people about how she would try to mask her insecurity and weakness by projecting strength as a commander in-chief using my brothers and sisters in uniform as pawns, launching a new war, or dropping a bomb here or there so that she could say "You know what I'm strong, I'm tough…”
"One day after I issued that warning, I was added to a secret Domestic Terror Watch List called Quiet Skies. Political retaliation at its best.... which not only is meant to try to bully and intimidate people like me, but the bigger effect is that it sends a chilling message to anyone who is paying attention, that if you speak out against us if you challenge our power and our policies and our greed and ambition for more power, then you, too, will be punished."
And then she says:
“Do you mind, Bobby… Can I... (asking the audience): How many former Democrats or Independents Libertarians we got here in the room tonight? (APPLAUSE) Awesome, thank you. So you know what we're talking about!"
RFK Jr: "Yeah ... the Democratic party that that we were raised in, the Democratic party of John Kennedy or Robert F Kennedy doesn't exist anymore. The Democratic party that I grew up in was the party of Peace, it was against war. My father died, running against the Vietnam War. My uncle spent a thousand days in office fighting against his military industrial complex. His intelligence apparatus to keep our country out of War it was the party of constitutional rights, of civil rights including especially beginning with freedom of speech it's now the party of censorship and it's the party of war."
"And you know Kamala Harris said in this extraordinary speech that she did in front of the democratic convention which was filled with this pugnacious belligerence, this promise to make America the dominating military power in the world. And this is what's got into gotten us all into all the trouble."
"Before her, immediately before she went on, we had an ex CIA director Leon Panetta, speak at the Democratic Convention. This is not the Democratic party that I grew up with. I would never do that. It was all kinds of military generals speaking at that convention. The Democratic party in recent days, including Vice President
Harris, has touted the endorsements of Dick Cheney and and John Bolton, and 225 other neocons who have endorsed Harris against Trump."
"Well those people are the people who bought us the Patriot Act. They brought us the Surveillance State. They brought us the Censorship State. They brought us the torture regimen, the extraordinary Renditions they brought us the Iraq War, the biggest foreign policy debacle in the history of our country."
"And they have not… Dick Cheney has not changed his mind about those policies. None of them have. They still believe that those were all good things for our country. So when they endorse the Democratic party, it's not because they've changed. It's because the Democratic party has changed radically." [Applause]
"Our party was a party of Tolerance, and today the Democratic party is the party of hatred and Division. And you know, I have many many old friends, most of my old friends are Democrats, and I don't I don't hate them because they're supporting Harris. I think they're wrong, I don't I think it's a bad choice, but I don't hate them for it. I don't consider them deplorable, but they consider me deplorable for supporting president Trump. We ought to be able to talk with each other without hating each other."
"The Democratic party prided itself on on on being able to win debates, and to be able to have conversations with journalists and enunciate a vision and defend their records. Now we have a Democratic Party candidate who won't go to unscripted interviews, who cannot explain her policies."
"And you know, I like what Tulsi said about if you want to know the difference between the Democratic party and the Maga movement, look at the State of California. The the state that I live in now this the state that has the highest homeless rate. Half the homeless people in our country live in California."
"To me, the greatest City in our country was San Francisco and today it's a ruin. It is the state with the worst second worst education, it's literally, it was the top education system in the country now it's 49th out of 50th. There's a million people a year in California who are leaving the state. They have run out of U-Haul trucks, and Kamala Harris was instrumental in in creating that situation."
"The Democratic party that I grew up with, was the party that defended the most vulnerable people in this country, and today it's the party that is… it's the party of the rich the super rich."
"It was the party of the firefighters, the cops, of Labor. We had, this year, this extraordinary inversion happening where you had Sean O'Brien who I talked to a few minutes ago, who's the head of the Teamsters Union and he told me to send his love to Donald Trump! While while they had military leaders and CIA leaders talking at the Democratic Convention, you had Sean O’Brien, the head of the Teamsters Union, talking at the Republican convention."
"And the Democratic party, when I was a kid, the Democratic party owned very little money. It was… it had.. usually the contributions were half to a third of what the Republicans raise. And presidential races today… it's a complete inversion."
"In 2020, roughly 50% of the people in this country voted for Democrats, according to what we're told, and and roughly 50% voted for the Republicans. But the 50% who voted Democrat owned 70% of the wealth in this country. The 50% who voted Republican own 30% of the wealth."
"And if you look at the campaign Finance… I was looking at the reports for both parties on the way over here tonight on the way, on my drive from Phoenix, and the Democrats have outraged the Republicans 2 to one or 3 to one in the race. And it's not because with enthusiasm… we get much bigger crowds than they do. We have much more intensity than they do [Applause]. There are none of the surrogates for vice president Harris, who can put together a crowd like this, a standing room only crowd with 3,000 RSVPs we got to this event. They can't do that."
"What they have is money, and this (the Republican party) is the opposite... it has become, this has become the party of the working class, of the working poor, [Applause] of Main Street, of small business people."
"Kamala Harris's brother-in-law, who is her campaign manager her Finance director, has taken leave of being the general Council for Uber - one of the most anti-union anti- labor organizations in this country. They are on this side of big tech and and the intelligence agencies because that they are all linked. And I'm scared of those people running our country, that terrifies me."
"We were the party of peace. Now the Democratic party is the party of War. They're the party that gave us Ukraine. They're the party now that is threatening to put missiles into Russia, to the Kremlin, to Mainland Russia and start World War III."
"My uncle did everything in his power to avert a conflict with Russia, including doing something nobody ever did, but to have direct contact with Khrushchev. They exchanged 26 personal letters. My uncle put a hotline in the white house so he could talk directly to Khrushchev… the white house. Today nobody's talking to Putin. Nobody's talking to the Russians, nobody's listening to what they're saying about the red lines that we are creating."
"And it's really….they've brought us now to the brink of nuclear war. We're closer to nuclear war than any time that we've been since 1962. And it's terrifying for me. The leadership in the white house if there is a nuclear exchange, 5 billion people will die. A full-blown nuclear exchange with with Russia and China would be over … World War III would be over in 73 minutes and 5 billion people around the world would die. And you know, all of the worries about climate and everything else are dwarfed by the worries of nuclear war. And they have us right at the brink."
"So, it's a different party and we've had this extraordinary inversion, now, and this is now the party of the values that I cherish." [Applause].
MAHA Town Hall with Charlie Kirk (Plays at Part 1)
MAHA Town Hall with Charlie Kirk (Plays at part 2)
Reclaim America Tour with Robert F Kennedy Jr. Tulsi Gabbard + Zachary Levi in Dearborn, MI
Why Kamala Harris Getting Elected Makes A Major War More Likely
VFX Artist Reveals the TRUE Scale of NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS
Robert F. Kennedy's "Mindless Menance of Violence" Speech
RFK Jr. Explains How He Deals With Anger and Resentment
Stop Pouring Weapons into the Ukraine War
Send message to your Lawmakers
Aggressive and Reckless
The Biden administration and the US Congress are acting in an irresponsible and arrogant manner toward Russia over Ukraine. They act as if they intend to push Russia to the breaking point and expect something good to come from it. This is madness!
Historical Precedent?
In July 1961, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan to President John F. Kennedy for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. The military men assured the President of victory because the Soviet Union would lose 130 million people, while the United States would lose "only" 30 million. JFK stormed out of the room and remarked to his Secretary of State Dean Rusk, "and we call ourselves the human race?"
Has the mentality of the military brass of the 1960s taken over the thinking of our elected officials today? It appears that way, and it is horrifying.
Send a Message
Use the form below to send an email to your federal lawmakers.
Simply click on the button that says, "Edit and Send Email"
The form guides you through finding your representatives and lets you send a pre-formatted message. You can customize the message in any way you like.
Please take action on this burning issue today, before it's too late.
Every person should see this video below. Kennedy understand how Nato and the Military Industrial Complex works. You can see more vides on THIS PAGE.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Explains How The Ukraine Russia War Started
BREAKING NEWS: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Gives Unvarnished Take On US's Role In The War In Ukraine
RFK JR Calls Out THE SWAMP, Says No To War Profiteers In Cabinet Positions
RFK Jr on Putin and War in Ukraine | Robert F Kennedy Jr and Lex Fridman
Democrats Are the Real Party of War
Between the fall of Mosul to ISIS militants, the POW trade with Taliban officials and the revelation that almost every phone call made in Afghanistan since the US invasion has been recorded by the NSA, this month has seen politicians and journalists briefly (and perhaps reluctantly) turn their attention back to the chaos produced by American warmaking.
Since Obama’s election, few Americans have wanted to talk about Afghanistan, our longest war ever, now in its thirteenth year, nor the continuing violence in Iraq, which has claimed over 4,000 lives in 2014 to date. Liberal pundits have remained similarly quiet on Obama’s drone wars in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Syria, while cheering the attack on Libya. Meanwhile anti-war and feminist sentiments have been deployed to organize “grassroots” campaigns demanding further U.S. intervention in central Africa and Nigeria against Joseph Kony and Boko Haram.
Many of the liberals who rally around Obama and the flag probably don’t actually have a principled opposition to war. But what about those who do? They are trapped in the cognitive dissonance produced by one of America’s fundamental political falsehoods: that the Democratic Party is opposed to war.
The young anti-war activists who put their hope in Obama in 2008 can perhaps be forgiven this mistake. Coming of age under Bush, whose swaggering cowboy belligerence seemed to define modern conservatism, it was possible to believe the Democratic party—riding a wave of victories in 2006 midterms built almost entirely on opposition to the Iraq war—would recognize why they were elected and change the direction of the state. After all, in the massive wave of anti-war protests in 2003 many Democrats came out and marched together against the invasion. By betraying his anti-war supporters, however, Obama was part of a much richer Democratic tradition then he would have been if he had actually ended the wars.
An adept lawyer and legal scholar, Obama didn’t technically violate a promise about leaving Iraq. On the campaign trail he never said he would end the Iraq war immediately on gaining office, only that he would start ending it immediately, the kind of technically-not-lying he excelled at in 2008. In playing three-card monte with anti-war sentiment, Obama imitates no-one so much as Democratic predecessor Woodrow Wilson, who was narrowly reelected in 1916 on the slogan “he kept us out of the war.” Strictly speaking, this was true, but Wilson had also spent 1916—against the will of a powerful, mobilized and largely forgotten peace movement—preparing and expanding the armed forces. Within five months of his reelection, the United States entered World War I.
Indeed, all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations. Harry Truman, a Democrat, is still the only world leader to use a nuclear bomb on a population. And with the exception of World War II, where almost all anti-war sentiment collapsed after Pearl Harbor, these wars were entered over the objections of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But while the presence of that left wing has guaranteed that anti-war liberals rally to the Democratic side, it not yet stopped a Democratic administration from going to war.
What about the way that war has been used throughout the 20th century to stomp on Civil liberties? Certainly the Republicans hold more responsibility for the Cold War and “patriotic” repression? It’s true that we tend to think of right-wing nationalist “Cold Warriors,” of Joseph McCarthy sneering at Hollywood screenwriters or Reagan yelling at Gorbachev in absentia. But blocking out the role the Democrats played in the Red Scare is a victory of liberal historicism, nothing else.
McCarthyism’s founding political act was an executive order by Harry Truman creating the “loyalty review boards” for federal employees. Under the review boards’ auspices, mere suspicion of any communist leaning was grounds for firing and blacklisting. And it was Democrats who founded and first staffed the infamous House Committee of Un-American Activities (HUAC). These organizations were the legal backbone and administrative agents of McCarthyism.
Furthermore, many of the more extreme strategies of McCarthyism go back to the first Red Scare of 1917-1920. Coordinated by the FBI’s predecessor (the Bureau of Investigation), the Committee on Public Information (Woodrow Wilson’s war-propaganda branch), and Wilson’s attorney general Mitchell Palmer (of Palmer Raids fame), Democrats gave the Federal government extraordinary legal powers to repress radical groups. The first Red Scare saw anarchists, communists, peace activists, immigrants and labor organizers targeted with arrest, detention, deportation and vigilante violence.
But the Democratic Party wasn’t only at the heart of the anti-communist witch hunt and its attendant restrictions of free speech and civil liberties. It is Truman’s administration that developed the doctrine of Containment that would set the bloody and disastrous course for the Cold War to come. And while JFK may have prevented nuclear apocalypse in the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was his administration’s hawkish deployment of missiles in Turkey, alongside their botched invasion of Cuba that brought the crisis to a head. Meanwhile, it was Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford who began the détente with China and the USSR, an easing of military tensions that Nobel peace-prize winner Jimmy Carter would end in a cynical (and failed) reelection ploy.
Considering the bloodthirsty militarists that make up today’s party, it can be hard to remember that for most of the 20th century Republicans were (at least avowedly) isolationist. Which is not to say that Nixon, Eisenhower, or Teddy Roosevelt weren’t all proponents of imperialism and violence. But since Reagan, the Republican right has come snarling out of its isolationist bunker. Ronnie and both Bushes started foreign wars of choice, each bigger and more deadly than the last. The aggressiveness with which Republicans have wrapped themselves in a blood-drenched flag since then encourages us to falsely project that kind of positioning backwards into the past.
Similarly, the Democratic Party’s domestic policy has been generally more progressive than the Republican Party’s, although there are major exceptions. For instance, when it comes to attacking the social safety net and deregulating international trade, Democrats are much better at pushing it through; see Clinton “reforming” welfare and de-regulating the financial industry, or Obama passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The (relative) progressive positioning of their domestic policy, along with the vulgar patriotic chest-thumping of Republican populism, and the fact that, when they’re out of power, Democrats loudly and publicly oppose war on principle, are all used to produce a false history of Democratic opposition to military intervention and war. But in fact, whenever they get a chance to vote on it, a majority of Democrats in power turn out to be hawks.
This is not to say that Republicans are in any way preferable to Democrats. Rather that the narrative that the Republicans have historically been the party of war, and Democrats all peace-loving doves, is an absurd fiction, one that both parties benefit from. And it’s a false narrative that keeps winning the Democrats the votes and loyalty of people who should know better.
It’s important to face this fact squarely: in the 20th century, it was the Democratic party that was the more aggressive pursuer of foreign wars. You can make whatever claim you like about historical contingency, necessity, or immediate context. None of them should convince anyone that the Democrats, as a party, are opposed to war. They’re not even more opposed to war than Republicans. They are a party of warmongers.
Many of those young anti-war Obama voters learned a hard lesson: when you put your faith, energy or activism into electing Democrats, no matter what domestic policy you support, you’re also putting your weight behind militarism, a crackdown on civil liberties, and foreign wars of aggression. Perhaps the most surprising thing about Obama’s wars, ultimately, is how, despite it all, many continue to hope for change from the Democratic Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment