Tag Archives: war

The True Flag, by Stephen Kinzer. America is an Imperialist, Warrior Nation


By Dom Nozzi

April 18, 2017

The True Flag, by Stephen Kinzer, focuses on the lynchpin years of America’s fateful (and in my opinion, ruinous) decision to transition into an imperalist, interventionist, alleged “world policeman” nation starting about 1898 in the battles between the anti-imperialists (led by Mark Twain) and the imperialists (led by Teddy Roosevelt). Ever since then, those opposed to imperialistic intervention (the anti-imperialists) have been pejoratively labeled as naive, timid, weak isolationists.

I am quite proud to consider myself to be a non-interventionist. I believe it is criminal, inhumane, unrealistic, and unsustainable for the US to be a global policeman.

Most of the world now rightly looks upon the US as a Black Hat Bully. As Chomsky says, the US is, by far, the leading terrorist nation on earth. As such, the US is the leading20137256237522734_20 creator of terrorist actions by others throughout the world.

As Derber so importantly points out in The Morality Wars, nearly all infamous Empires in world history (Rome, Nazi Germany, the Soviets, etc.) firmly believed and proclaimed that their violent military interventionism was to promote freedom, democracy, security, justice, morality, and civilization. In almost all cases, this was simply a cover for grabbing natural resources, obtaining cheap labor, or opening up markets for corporations. This method of using morality as a cover for conquest has been a US tactic in nearly all US wars in history up to the present day.

By the way, the US has been at peace for only 21 of our 241 years as a nation.

The following are excerpts from the last chapter of Kinzer’s book.

“For generations, makers of American foreign policy have made decisions based on three assumptions: the United States is the indispensable nation that must lead the world; this leadership requires toughness; and toughness is best demonstrated by the threat and use of force. A host of subsidiary assumptions undergirds this catechism: the United States is inherently virtuous; its influence on the world is always benign; it must often intervene overseas because the risks of inaction are too high; its ideals are universal and can be exported; it welcomes support from other states but may act unilaterally when it chooses. Rather than see in the world a wide spectrum of forces, beliefs, cultures, and interests, Americans often see only good and evil. We rush to take the side of good. This usually brings trouble…

…we intervene because we see bad situations, not because we have a clear plan to improve them. At moments of crisis or decision, emotion overcomes sober reasoning – and emotion is always the enemy of wise statesmanship…

…History’s great counsel to the United States is that it should more carefully weigh the long-term effects of its foreign interventions…

…The United States has not discovered the magic formula that can produce happiness and prosperity everywhere…[Interventions]…are not soberly conceived, with realistic goals and clear exit strategies. Many ultimately harm the target country while weakening the security of the United States.

Violent intervention always leaves a trail of ‘collateral damage’ in the form of families killed, towns destroyed, and lives ruined. Usually these consequences are called mistaken or unavoidable. That does nothing to reduce the damage – or the anger that survivors pass down through generations.

The argument that the United States intervenes to defend freedom rarely matches the facts on the ground. Many interventions have been designed to prop up predatory regimes. Their goal is to increase American power – often economic power – rather than to liberate the suffering…

…Interventions multiply our enemies. They lead people who once bore no ill will toward the United States to begin cursing its name…Americans are shocked and incensed when that passion leads to violent counterattacks. They should not be. The instinct to protect one’s own and to strike back against the attackers is older than humanity itself.

American intervention overseas is hugely expensive. The United States spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined, including trillions of dollars to fight foreign wars. Meanwhile, American communities decay, infrastructure ages and withers, schoolchildren fall behind their counterparts in other countries, and millions go without housing, jobs, or health care. Even worse, at least symbolically, are the lifelong plagues that haunt many combat veterans. War brings ‘collateral damage’ to Americans as well as foreigners…

…The United States was once admired for its refusal to fight imperial wars or impose its will on distant nations. Today, many people around the world see it as a bully, recklessly invading foreign lands, blowing up entire societies, and leaving trails of destruction and conflict. They associate the name ‘United States’ with bombing, invasion, occupation, night raids, convert action, torture, kidnapping, and secret prisons…

…countries [battered] by foreign intervention find ways to take revenge. It comes in the forms from mass migration to terror attacks. These are bad results of assaults that we believed would have no bad results. We were foolish to presume that no matter how awful American or European interventions were, their effects would not reach the United States or Europe. The developed world – the invading world – is not an island or an impregnable fortress. Intervention takes a toll at home as well as abroad.”

“Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death.” — Bismark


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Spiral: Trapped in the Forever War

By Mark Danner, published 2016

Review by Dom Nozzi

January 30, 2017

I just finished reading a powerful, highly disturbing, infuriating and depressing book. Spiral, by Mark Danner, lays out the criminal and exceptionally self-perpetuating downward spiral of the so-called American War on Terror. Danner shows how the “war” continuously induces more and more fear amongst Americans. And how fear is the most effective means that elected officials have to convince voters that our corrupt, militarized government is justified in ramping up, without end, a global forever war. The “war” 41h2vikpal-_sy344_bo1204203200_moves us further and further away from the publicly alleged objective of “making us safer” by endlessly recruiting countless new “terrorists” who have made a lifetime vow to engage in violence in retribution for American violence (even the hawkish Donald Rumsfeld asked if “we [are]…killing… more terrorists…than…the radical clerics are recruiting…”). The fear so sharply escalated by the “war” has led large numbers of Americans to passively accept things now routinely engaged in by the US that throughout history have been considered barbaric: torture, starting wars of aggression, indiscriminately killing countless civilians, spending way more than the next several world military powers combined, and engaging in invasive domestic surveillance of all Americans. There is no end in sight for American forever wars being conducted in so many places today. Neither major party in the US seems to have any interest in ending the murderous boondoggle.

The self-perpetuating nature of these forever wars reminds one of the bursting-at-the-seams US prison system, which is so harsh and retributive that it has become a crime factory ensuring that upon release, prisoners will soon re-offend and be imprisoned again.

In my view, all of us alive today will live for the rest of our lives with a much greater fear of violent extremism (such as domestic lone-wolf bombings and mass shootings) than any previous generation. The great irony is that this increased fear and increased number of terrorist incidents domestically and internationally is the direct result of America engaging in what is now a 14-year (and counting) “war on terror” to make us “safer.” Another irony in all of this: Noam Chomsky is correct when he notes that the US has become the most prolific terrorist nation the world has ever seen. Had we not engaged in this shockingly counterproductive “war,” our future would have been significantly safer.  Instead of making us less safe and substantially increasing the incidence of worldwide terrorism, our nation could have had spent those trillions of war dollars to actually improve our lives rather than worsen it. Money that instead of being used to kill a huge number of mostly innocent people, could have been used to create a national passenger rail system, provide free college education, create much cheaper or free national health care, fund a lot more scientific and medical research, repair infrastructure, and so on.

Excerpts from this sobering book:

“…nearly 33,000 people worldwide died from terrorism in 2014, an increase of 35 percent over the year before – and of 4,000 percent since 2002.”

“Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” – President Barrack Obama, [Nobel Peace Prize winner] September 30, 2011

“[America now routinely engages in] warrantless wiretapping…Extraordinary rendition. Unlawful combatants. Indefinite detention. Targeted assassination. Extrajudicial killing. Enhanced interrogation techniques. Torture. …once unthinkable [these tactics have become] quietly accepted weapons in an endless war.”

“…the reality of [Obama’s] years in office have turned out to be more complicated. Guantanamo remains open. The military commissions go on. Torture goes unpunished [“We must look forward, not backward”]…he sent drones to kill thousands, including many civilians. Americans, believing themselves to stand proudly for the rule of law and human rights, have become for the rest of the world a symbol of something quite opposite: a society that imprisons people indefinitely without trial, kills thousands without due process, and leaves unpunished lawbreaking approved by its highest officials…Even as ‘core’ al Qaeda has been battered and reduced, al Qaedism, the ideology, has thrived…powered by the outrage of young Muslims over Western imperialism, torture, drone attacks…this very plentitude means the odds against those charged with stopping attacks grow ever longer…successful lone-wolf attacks [in the US are] increasingly likely.”

Ordinarily, I’d advise everyone to read this essential book as soon as possible, but as the author notes in his concluding remarks, it seems today that most Americans would hardly bat an eye if they were to learn a lot more about American atrocities and self-defeating actions in the “war on terror.” Indeed, Americans became so apathetic, cynical and callous during Obama’s two terms of office that I suspect most Americans these days would, if anything, applaud upon learning that the US behavior was now similar to the North Koreans, the Chinese, the former Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany. After observing how both major parties seemed to want to aggressively step up the “war on terror” in the 2016 presidential campaign — despite the enormous number of books, essays, investigations, and news reports showing its failures — the author asks “[w]hat if you tear off the veil and no one gasps, no one cringes, no one even blinks? What if, apart from a handful, the public mostly yawns and turns the channel?”



Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Did Leftists Oppose Hillary Clinton Due to White Privilege?


By Dom Nozzi

November 7, 2006

A common charge I heard from supporters of Hillary Clinton when they learned that I, a political leftist, was opposed to Clinton, was to claim that my opposition was due to my “white privilege” status. In other words, I was able to overlook the horrible things that her opponent, Donald Trump, would do to minorities and lower-income folks — if he were elected – because it would not affect me nearly as much as those groups.

Over and over this charge was unfairly directed toward those of us on the left who refused to vote for Hillary.

Why unfair?

Because Hillary and her supporters must explain how it is okay that Hillary, as Secretary of State and Senator (and now in her statements as a presidential candidate), strongly pushed for Kissinger-like warfare in the Middle East and Central America.gty_david_petraeus_hillary_clinton_jt_140209_16x9_608

That bombing killed tens of thousands of innocent Muslims, Blacks/Browns, and single mothers in the Middle East and Central America. Those people are just as human and deserving of life and freedom from US aggression as those in the US.

But wait, there’s more.

Hillary has supported NAFTA, TPP, deregulating Wall Street, fracking, and deportation of women and children back to Central and South America. She seemingly has no sympathy for Israeli aggression/apartheid for the Palestinian women and children (and Muslims). Her policies have destroyed many Black/Brown, Muslim, Hispanic, and single working mother lives with her full-throated support of the ruinous war on drugs. As Secretary of State, she intervened on behalf of the corporate garment industry exploiting defacto slave labor and had the rate changed back to 31 cents.

In sum, she is at least partly responsible for many deaths of Hispanic, Black/Brown, Muslim, and single women, and as an apparently callous multi-multi-multi one percenter millionaire, the economic policies she supports have financially crushed those same groups.

Seems to me, given this sordid laundry list I just summarized, it is those who support Hillary who are more appropriately labeled white, privileged white people in a bubble who have no qualms about crushing Hispanics, Blacks/Browns, Muslims, or single mothers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Middle East Blowback


By Dom Nozzi

July 3, 2016

After spending 15 years and trillions of military dollars to obliterate Afghanistan and Iraq (and a number of other places in the Middle East) over the past 15 years (and counting), US presidents and the US military have made the US much less safe.

We are certain to see “blowback” (violent retaliation for wrongs suffered at the hands of the American military) from understandably enraged people from the Middle East throughout the US for the rest of our lives.

We are periodically seeing violent shootings in the US committed by US veterans who have returned from the Middle East and appear to be suffering from PTSD or other forms of war-related mental disorders. This sort of blowback is, of course, not the traditional lblowback of foreigners who have attacked America in retaliation, but US citizens who have served in the US military. This “internal” blowback was something America continues to suffer from the Vietnam war.

I am certain that we will see a lot of blowback for a long, long time. The past 15 years of military misadventure is one of the most tragic, counterproductive mistakes in US history. A terrible loss of life and money.

And because it has made us less safe, it can also be rightly called a gigantic boondoggle. The only “beneficiaries” are those in the military and surveillance industries, who have been greatly enriched.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

A Progressive Responds to the Hillary Clinton Bullies

By Dom Nozzi

October 14, 2016

I have been bashed, beaten up, shamed, shunned, ridiculed, patronized, attacked, and bullied by my many sanctimonious friends on the political left during this 2016 presidential election. Here are some of my responses to their questions, comments, and arguments.

“We Should Organize and Hold Hillary’s Feet to the Fire AFTER the Election”

The left needs to learn from history. Too often, when the left was urged to vote for Obama and other Dem prez candidates who were centrists or a bit right of center, we have been told to “organize and oppose AFTER the ‘moderate’ Dem is elected.” What happened after we were told this about Obama and he was elected? The left opposition to war and Wall Street corruption (etc.) disappeared. There has been almost zero opposition to Obama on his aggressive, interventionist, warmongering ways from the left. When a Dem is elected prez, they always get a pass from Dems on the right wing things they do. I am certain the anti-war left will NOT organize to oppose Hillary on her militarism (which in some ways makes her much more dangerous than Trump, since both the Dems and Repubs will support her militarism). Electing Hillary will continue to silence the anti-war left and the anti-wall street left, who have been shamefully silent under Obama. Fear is a losing strategy for the left. I am unwilling to perpetuate that by voting out of fear of the opponent. By voting for a “kinder, gentler” Republican (Hillary). The left needs to be honest about Hillary’s right wing flaws NOW. The left needs to criticize her NOW. IMO, it is naive, given history, to expect the opposition from the left to be there after she is elected. Don’t hold your breath on that happening. It won’t. We will not be able to reform the 2-party system by continuing to vote for a major party candidate. It is a recipe for moving Dem candidates further and further to the right. Hillary, for example, is by far the most right wing Dem prez candidate in my lifetime (if not ever). Lesson for the DNC if Hillary is elected: Keep nominating right wingers for prez, since Hillary shows it is a successful strategy.

You Will Be Responsible for Trump Winning!

The responsibility for Trump winning rests with the Democratic National Committee, which worked hard and possibly unethically to nominate HIllary, a Republican. Responsibility also resides w/ Democrats who voted for a Republican (Hillary) who polls far worse against Trump than do folks like Bernie — in part because she has a Republican agenda and therefore has no way to mobilize her Democratic base except to terrify voters about Trump. As has been pointed out, every time Hillary speaks she goes down in the polls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJyDjB0_DI

In Florida, Bush won the votes of 308,000 Democrats, that is 12 times more Democrats than Nader’s mere 24,000. Gore also lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother voting. For about one million Florida Democrats it was: Vote Bush or don’t vote. If one percent of any of those categories had voted for Gore he would have easily won Florida.

An important (main?) reason why Bush (who was a pathetic, moronic candidate) won in 2000 is that the Dems nominated a boring, slightly right of center candidate (Gore) who failed to energize his progressive base. If Trump beats Clinton, the responsibility will lay mostly with the Democratic Executive Committee (which unethically tipped the scales toward Clinton) and for those who voted for Clinton in the primaries. Clinton polls worse in a matchup w/ Trump than many/most/all Dems who ran in the primaries. Why? Because of her extreme corruption, her hawkish beliefs, and her long list of Republican views. It is no wonder that Clinton is the most unliked Democratic prez nominee in decades (if not ever). It is no wonder that here in liberal Boulder, I see almost no Hillary campaign signs in front yards (a sure sign that a lot of folks on the left will be holding their nose and voting for a lesser evil).

Do You Oppose Hillary Due to Her Personality Rather than Her Politics?

I don’t care one whit about personalities. It is Hillary’s long list of right-wing policies that disgust and repel me. Like Obama, it appears that many progressives will look the other way with Hillary. In this case, not because of skin color, but because of gender (and being a Dem). If the Dems are supporting someone who has taken a long, sordid list of right-wing policy positions, I don’t want to have anything to do with the Dem Party or its candidates.

You Are Throwing Away Your Vote!

I refuse to throw my vote away on Hillary, who does not support ANY of my top 20 issues. I also believe there is much we need to fear about the significant damage that Hillary can do: She is likely to be even more of a warmonger than Obama (which is astonishing, given that Obama has been the biggest militarist prez in US history). She is in bed with Wall Street, which means our economy, our jobs, and our financial viability are in great peril. She is a cold-hearted Drug Warrior, which means millions will continue to go to and languish in prisons. She supports fracking and off-shore oil drilling, which is very bad news for climate change. She supports Citizens United, which is very bad news for our democracy. Lesser evil voting still gives us evil. And in this case, less evil is VERY evil. We should all be terrified of the fact that millions of Dems will vote for Republican Hillary. In sum, just think of the damage Hillary can do!

In my opinion, throwing away your vote is when you vote for a candidate who shares few if any of your values. On my list of the top 15 or 20 issues, Hillary does not support any of them. She scores a zero on my top issues. Voting for Hillary is therefore throwing away my vote. Voting for Hillary also sends the message that I think the 2-party system is fine and dandy. It also sends the message that the Dem Party should keep nominating Republicans like Hillary in the future.

When I vote, I vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone. I am sorry that so many Dems have for so long only voted AGAINST someone: Voting against Bush, against McCain, against Romney. In each case, we are supposed to be scared of the Repub. Pay no attention to the Repub behind the curtain who is claiming to be a Dem. On my top 15 to 20 most important issues in America today, Hillary fails to support any of them. She scores a zero on my card. No surprise, actually, since she is actually a Repub. How can Dems vote for someone who is clearly a Repub? And please answer w/o trying to terrify me about Trump. I’m also sorry about how many people have gotten caught up in the manic hysteria our media is inducing about Trump. I’m much more worried about a Hillary presidency when it comes to nukes and other forms of warfare. Why are allegedly pro-peace folks on the left not vigorously opposing warmonger Hillary? And instead wanting to vote for such a militarist? Why is the media not blasting her on that (and being in bed w/ Wall St and Big Pharma) on a daily basis? Is that not their job?

Your Voting for a Third Party is a Form of White Privilege!

I have read this argument several times in the past and am not at all sympathetic to it. For example, it is absurd to think that voting for multimillionaire 1%er Hillary is supportive of lower income folks. It is absurd to think that voting for Hillary, who has been utterly corrupted by millions of Wall St/Banker money (and has been exposed as admitting her corruption by WikiLeaks) will be good for lower-income folks. It is absurd to think that voting for warmonger Hillary (who is supported by most right-wing war hawks because Trump is too much of an isolationist) will be good for the lower-income folks who are being killed and PTSD’d in US wars of aggression. It is absurd to think that non-straight folks are okay with a woman who has had a long career of opposition to LBGT rights. Here are more details on my own thoughts: https://domdangerous.wordpress.com/…/hillarys-campaign…/

Clinton Cash (a book and documentary movie) is devastating. If even a fraction of it is accurate, it indicates a level of corruption on the part of Bill and Hillary Clinton that is head-in-the-sandbreathtaking, and exposes a shocking level of hypocrisy — their “liberal” statements seem to be easily thrown out the window when big money is offered to them. Upon leaving office, Bill and Hillary inform us they are broke. Today, they have amassed something on the order of $200 million. The book and movie indicate that this money looks very dirty.


Why Are You and Millions of Others on the Left Are Not Voting for Hillary?


You Are Only Voting for Prez and Not Working for State and Local Races!

My political work? Ever since I was of voting age, I have read an enormous number of books and articles about politics/candidates/issues. I do that throughout each year, regardless of whether we are in an election year. I very often talk w/ friends, family, and others about my political views, their views, and the merits of views. I regularly vote for the candidates at the state and local level who are most similar to my values. This election, for example, I will vote for a Green Party candidate for the CO US Senate. I ALWAYS vote and am ALWAYS registered. I will promote the Green Party and other parties/candidates after the election by reading as much as I can about the candidates/parties, and talking w/ candidates, friends, family, and others about politics. In other words, I do far more political work than 99 percent of those who only vote for major party candidates (nearly all of that 99% know almost nothing about the candidates they vote for because they don’t pay attention to political info).

Dom asks Hillary bullies: How Do You Get Dems to Vote for Repubs?

How do you get millions of Democrats to vote for a right wing Republican? Terrify them about the opponent of the right wing candidate. And make the right wing candidate a woman (so that the “Identity Politics” folks vote for the person regardless of their politics). I believe this is the Hillary and DNC strategy this year.

Don’t You Fear Electing Trump?

Voting out of fear is a Republican, right-wing agenda. Which helps explain why the Dems have nominated the most right wing candidate in my lifetime. The Dems are now the “kinder, gentler” Republicans. Who would have thought, 40 years ago, that the Dem party would be more supportive than the Repubs on war, more supportive of drug enforcement, putting way more than our fair share into NATO, more supportive of the Israeli govt, getting the vast majority of corrupting Wall St lobbying dollars, and giving Wall Street a free hand? In each of those categories, many of the Repubs are left of the Dems. Seems like there are two candidates but only one party — the corporate war party. Oh, I forgot: Hillary has worked with children in the past! That forgives everything. Not.

And for the record, there is much to fear about a Hillary presidency.

We Need to Keep Criticizing Trump as a MONSTER Over and Over again!

Can we please stop talking about Trump? We all know he’s a fucking idiot and I don’t care to hear anything more about him. Instead can we talk about how corrupt Hillary is, and always has been, so that we can hold her accountable for when she unfortunately becomes President? Everyone seems to have forgotten just how corrupt she is. And even with BBC’s and CNN’s recently published leaks of Hillary accepting money from Wall Street no one seems to be talking about it. Why? Doesn’t it bother you that she’s a liar, thief and crook just like most politicians before her? Doesn’t it bother you that she was on the Board for Walmart from 1986 to 1992 and served as their legal advisor? Doesn’t it bother you that she accepted money from Monsanto, Goldman Sachs and foreign dictators that give no basic human rights to their citizens? Doesn’t it bother you that she is OKAY WITH FRACKING AND DOESN’T WANT TO BAN IT!? Doesn’t it bother you that she’s been involved in scandal after scandal since day one?  — Virgil Mathias IV on Facebook, October 10, 2016

Trump is Far Worse Than Hillary!

Hillary is far more corrupt than Trump due to the massive campaign contributions she has gotten. Indeed, an important reason why Trump has gotten so many votes is that many find it appealing that he is using his own money much more than accepting campaign contributions.

If I were forced to choose between Trump and Hillary, I would, without hesitation, vote for Trump (note that I am likely to vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie Sanders). No question about it. Trump is way better than Hillary on a number of issues that are extremely important to me. For example:

  1. He wants to be neutral regarding Israel. Hillary supports the Israeli government unconditionally.


  1. Trump has not been corrupted by huge sums of dollars from Wall Street or military contractors. Hillary has been corrupted to an extreme extent.


  1. Neoconservatives who are extremely hawkish are flocking to Hillary and rejecting Trump (accusing him of being an isolationist). Examples: Max Boot…


  1. The NYT says Hillary is the only hawk left in the prez race (as of May 2016). http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/
  2. A long list of those on the far right are backing Hillary. Many on the far right despise Trump – not so much because of his sexism or racism but because on many issues, he is far to the left of the Republican (and Democratic) party.



  1. Trump would legalize marijuana in all 50 states. http://thenationalmarijuananews.com/2016/06/donald-trump-i-will-legalize-marijuana-in-all-50-states/ Hillary is a drug warrior. http://marijuanapolitics.com/make-no-mistake-hillary-clinton-is-a-drug-warrior/
  2. Trump thinks the US pays way more than its fair share of NATO costs and thinks we need to re-evaluate the alliance. Hillary wants to maintain the status quo with NATO. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/

Hillary Clinton is Not a Republican!

I disagree.

  • She supported the Iraq war (and likely has no desire to end the endless Afghan war, or the many other Middle East wars the US has gotten involved in). As Secretary of State Hillary used Bush/Cheney-style false intelligence as justification for levying of militarist aggression on Libya. In other words, she fully supports the ruinous “War on Terror,” which would more accurately be called the “War to Endlessly Fund the Pentagon & Create More People Who Hate the US.”
  • She supported the Patriot Act in 2001, and regularly supports other domestic spying proposals and civil liberties violations.
  • She was, according to the NYT, by far the biggest militarist and interventionist of all presidential candidates in 2016 (she is, unsurprisingly, supported by many nationally prominent Republican hawks, including Kissinger).
  • She was instrumental in fomenting a right wing coup in Honduras. Now, indigenous rights activists are being murdered by the regime.
  • She claims to be in support of immigration but as Secretary of State called for the deportation of children who were refugees from the murderous unrest in central and south America.
  • She supported NAFTA; the Clinton’s “Two-For-The-Price-Of-One” presidency’s so-called Welfare reform act — The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) — an act that cast more women and children into poverty than any event since the Great Depression.
  • She has been corrupted by huge sums of money from military contractors. Combined with her militaristic views, she is highly likely to pour even MORE money into the obscenely bloated Pentagon than Obama did (Obama set all-time US records for money going to the Pentagon). The US ALREADY spends more on the military than the next 8 nations in the world who spend the most on the military).
  • She supports the death penalty. She termed minority youth “super predators” while shilling for the Clinton administration’s Jim Crow 2.0 omnibus crime bill i.e., Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 — a racist piece of legislation that was the origin of the U.S. prison industrial complex. She reaped rewards for that years later when the largest private prison industry financed her senate campaign and both her presidential runs.
  • She served as a shill, lawyer and lobbyist for Walmart, Tyson foods, and the environmental destructive practices of the Arkansas timber industry. As a reward she was given a cushy spot on Walmart’s board, a paid position that requires no work, just the use of her name on letterheads.
  • She unconditionally supports the Israeli government.
  • She supports the US continuing to spend a disproportionate amount of funding on NATO (way more than other members of NATO).
  • She is a strong supporter of the utterly failed, ruinous war on drugs.
  • She is silent on the pressing need to revitalize passenger rail in the US.
  • She supports the Keystone XL pipeline.
  • As Secretary of State she organized the multinational corporate engineers for TPP, the trade deal that will kill the environment when combined with TiSA and TTiP and CETA, all of which Clinton helped organize, even though she is dodging it for campaign purposes.
  • She supports offshore oil drilling.
  • She supported the 2006 border fence legislation.
  • In the primaries in 2016, she raised over $20.3 million in Super PAC dollars, and $38.8 million in large donor contributions, including from Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and the for-profit medical lobby.
  • Her personal net worth is $21.5 million. The Clinton family now has something on the order of $200 million. She is, in other words, clearly a 1 percenter.
  • When she ran for president in 2008, she supported the second amendment, stood by her vote in support of the Iraq war, and opposed same sex marriage.
  • As a Young Republican, she worked for Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign.
  • When the minimum wage was raised in Haiti to 61 cents an hour, the U.S. Department of State, under Madame Clinton, intervened on behalf of the corporate garment industry exploiting defacto slave labor and had the rate changed back to 31 cents.
  • She supports fracking.
  • She opposes reinstating Glass Steagall (or other Wall St regulations). She supported much banking deregulation that crashed the global economy in 08; moreover, the Clinton family has grown wealthy due to the quid quo pro involved.
  • Hillary is a great example of a “Rockefeller Republican” from the 70s. http://www.salon.com/2016/08/21/clinton-isnt-the-perfect-gop-nominee-but-she-is-the-conservative-option-for-2016/?source=newsletter

I have not had a single lesser evil voter take the time to respond to any points on the above list (makes me wonder if it matters to lesser evil voters that Clinton is a right-winger, as not responding implies agreement with the accuracy of the list). One problem with the above list is that Clinton is infamous for changing her position on issues regularly to suit political or monetary interests. Therefore, it is relatively difficult to know where she stands from day to day. When one looks up “flipflopper” in the dictionary, there should be a drawing of her. One person told me it was unfair to refer to Clinton supporting Goldwater, as views change over the course of 50 or 60 years. But where Clinton stood in 1964 is of possible importance, as most of us don’t change our political views radically from our teen years to our adult years (and when views change from teen to senior years, they tend to move toward more conservative). Sure, it is possible Clinton no longer harbors Goldwater views, but it is unlikely that she has utterly rejected all of them (for example, she seems to be a Goldwater person when it comes to warfare). Another reason to consider her Goldwater support in 1964 is that it would dovetail with many of her current Repub views, and help explain her often Repub value system.

Summary: Lesser Evil Voting is Evil

The one thing worse than electing Trump as president is for millions of Democrats to vote for a Republican.

There is a noticeable lack of campaign signs in the front yards of politically progressive Boulder, Colorado this year. I’m confident that this is largely or entirely due to the fact that many Clinton supporters are embarrassed to be voting for a Republican (Clinton). Many/most Dems are voting for Clinton not because they are proud to do so, but because they are afraid of Trump. That is a sign that our two-party system is broken.

To those millions of Democrats who are voting for the “lesser evil” Republican in the 2016 presidential race: Would you vote for Trump if his opponent was Adolf Hitler? If not, why not? Trump is clearly a lesser evil than Hitler. How about Mitt Romney vs John McCain? Would you vote for one of them if those were the major party candidates?

I am utterly done with voting for a lesser evil (having to vote for a DINO like Hillary). Lesser evil voting has resulted in the Dems becoming increasingly right wing and perpetuates the downwardly spiraling shift to the right. Having to choose between a Right Winger and an extreme Right Winger is no choice at all. Certainly not what a democracy should offer. Hillary is more of a military interventionist than Obama (compared to Bush, trump-hillaryObama ramped up military spending — setting records for military spending in US history — ramped up drone warfare, continued torture, and intervened militarily much more than Bush). Not that I would ever vote for Trump, but unlike Hillary, Trump is a military isolationist — which explains why neo-cons HATE Trump and consider him to be an anti-Christ that will take a wrecking ball to the conservative movement (quoting Robert Kaufman).

If one considers Hillary’s positions on a number of issues, she is right of many leading Repubs over the past few decades.

If you pick the better of two shit sandwiches, you will keep being offered shit sandwiches. — Unknown

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Why I and Millions of Others on the Left Will Not Be Voting for Hillary Clinton

By Dom Nozzi

September 21, 2016

For my entire adult life, I have been firmly on the left, politically.

In 2008, I voted for Obama because I was convinced that his views were adequately consistent with my own. In his two terms of office, however, it turned out that his views are generally “Republican Lite.” See, for example, https://domdangerous.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/americas-two-party-electoral-system-is-broken/

I am very disappointed in him. And in my being fooled by him.

Hillary Clinton is not even being coy about her remarkably right wing views. She is far more to the right than even Obama.

 Hillary Clinton is clearly a DINO (Democrat in name only). I utterly refuse to vote for a right-winger, and despise the counterproductive idea of voting for a lesser evil. I have had no choice but to vote for the lesser evil for my entire life. What has “lesser evil” 12107265_440026862867494_513858007444231262_nvoting done for the political left? Since 1976, Democratic presidents have moved further and further to the political right. Republican presidents have also moved further and further to the political right. Seems like a losing game for those on the left.

Perhaps my most important issue is seeing that the US stop its seemingly endless “War on Terror.” Actually, it is the “War to Endlessly Fund the Pentagon & Create More People Who Hate the US.” Obama has been, by far, the most militaristic president in US history, given his ramping up or starting countless interventionist wars of aggression in the Middle East that have no end in sight. A huge number of Middle Eastern cities have been brutally bombed and leveled during the Obama years, and millions of civilians have been killed or made homeless – thereby creating a huge increase in the number of “terrorists” who will hate the US for the remainder of their lives. Obama has adopted military budgets that are far higher than any previous president, has continued the unforgivable US subsidies and transfers of weapons (and many other forms of support) to the militaristic and genocidal Israeli government, continued the use of torture and keeping Guatanamo Bay detention camp open, and has substantially ramped up the criminal drone warfare program (a form of assassination without trial responsible for killing many innocents). Ironically, Obama has been the first president in US history to be given a Nobel Peace Prize despite his being the most warmongering president in US history, which in my mind, utterly destroys the credibility of the Nobel Committee.

Hillary Clinton has been the most militaristic presidential candidate in the 2016 presidential nomination process and promises to perpetuate and further ramp up this vote-against-the-repub-maybe-next-time-we-can-vote-for-changeendless, ruinous warfare. If her rhetoric is to be believed (and I have no reason to disbelieve her on this, given her track record as Secretary of State), she will be far more militaristic than a President Trump – particularly because Democratic presidents are given a free hand to do anything militarily (no matter how uncalled for), because unlike a Republican president, both Republican AND Democratic House and Senate members fully support aggressive militarism when done by a Democratic president. Hillary Clinton indicates she will be even more of an Israel lapdog than Obama. For these reasons alone, it is exquisitely shameful that anyone on the left would vote for Hillary. See, for example, http://www.salon.com/2016/05/08/we_cant_vote_for_either_one_on_world_stage_clinton_and_trump_present_different_but_serious_dangers/

Hillary Clinton has been substantially corrupted by huge sums of lobby dollars from Wall 10421236_688936084581901_5921515919292941306_nStreet and military contractors. In the primaries in 2016, she raised over $20.3 million in Super PAC dollars, and $38.8 million in large donor contributions. See, for example, http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/hillary_clinton_is_wall_streets_preferred_candidate_financial_execs_pouring_millions_into_her_campaign_to_defeat_trum/?source=newsletter

Neoconservatives who are extremely hawkish are flocking to Hillary Clinton. See, for example, http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/hard_line_right_wing_war_hawk_max_boot_applauds_hillary_clinton_in_op_ed/?source=newsletter

In May of 2016, The New York Times stated that Hillary Clinton was the only military hawk left in the presidential race. See, for example, http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/


A long list of those on the far right are backing Hillary Clinton. A large percentage are doing so because of her many right wing views. See, for example, http://www.salon.com/2016/04/26/a_progressive_in_name_only_charles_koch_joins_a_long_list_of_right_wingers_who_have_lauded_hillary_clinton/

Hillary Clinton intends to aggressively continue the ruinous War on Drugs. See, for example, https://www.merryjane.com/news/want-marijuana-legalized-then-donald-trump-is-your-best-option

Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war. This position alone should be a deal-breaker for any thinking person.

Hillary Clinton supported the Patriot Act in 2001. Again, this alone should be enough to convince anyone on the left not to vote for her.

Hillary Clinton supports the death penalty.

Hillary Clinton supports the US continuing to spend a disproportionate amount of money on NATO (way more than other members of NATO).

Hillary Clinton is silent on the pressing need to revitalize passenger rail in the US.

Hillary Clinton supports the Keystone XL pipeline.

Hillary Clinton supports border fence legislation.

Hillary Clinton supports offshore oil drilling.

Hillary Clinton’s personal net worth is $21.5 million.

When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, she supported the second amendment, stood by her vote in support of the Iraq war, and opposed same sex marriage.

As a Young Republican, Hillary Clinton worked for Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton supports fracking.12743867_239722933028750_4058262213410045470_n

Hillary Clinton opposes reinstating Glass Steagall (or other Wall St regulations).

Hillary is a great example of a “Rockefeller Republican” from the 70s. See, for example, http://www.salon.com/2016/08/21/clinton-isnt-the-perfect-gop-nominee-but-she-is-the-conservative-option-for-2016/?source=newsletter

Clinton Cash (a book and documentary movie) is devastating. If even a fraction of it is accurate, it indicates a level of corruption on the part of Bill and Hillary Clinton that is breathtaking, and exposes a shocking level of hypocrisy — their “liberal” statements seem to be easily thrown out the window when big money is offered to them. Upon leaving office, Bill and Hillary inform us they are broke. Today, they have amassed something on the order of $200 million. The book and movie indicate that this money looks very dirty.


Polls show that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Republican candidates such as Donald Trump by a far larger margin than Hillary Clinton. This is in part because millions of people on the political left – including me – will stay home (or vote for a Third Party politifact-photos-hilberniestarkdifferencecandidate such as Jill Stein) and not vote for Hillary Clinton. With a largely right wing agenda, Hillary Clinton is having enormous difficulty trying to motivate those on the left to vote for her. Given her shockingly right wing platform, she is utterly failing to energize the left wing base. She and her supporters have only one tool to energize the Left (since her -agenda is so right wing): Terrify them by repeatedly beating the drum about how the WORLD WILL END IF TRUMP IS ELECTED.

See, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msiBZwqLhzA

A good essay on why it is better to vote your conscience rather than a lesser evil: http://ivn.us/2015/12/21/discredit-two-party-system-vote-conscience/

Another: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/clinton-trump-president-lesser-evil/

Another: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ralph-nader-bernie-sanders-lesser-evilism-20160620

Another: https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/resist-lesser-evilism/

democrats-to-the-leftI am utterly done with voting for a lesser evil (in this case, dems-promise-to-move-to-left-after-electionhaving to vote for a DINO like Hillary). Lesser evil voting has resulted in the Dems becoming increasingly right wing and perpetuates the downwardly spiraling shift to the right. Having to choose between a Right Winger and an extreme right winger is no choice at all. Certainly not what a democracy should offer.

Who would have ever guessed, 30 years ago, that in 2016, the Democrats are the war-monger party, the everything-is-fine complacency party, the corporate-funded party, and the Drug War party?

What lesson does the Democratic Party learn if Hillary Clinton wins? We can continue to nominate a Republican as a presidential candidate and win the election.

Hillary’s Popularity is Abysmal

Donald Trump may be the most awful, disgusting, terrifying presidential candidate in history. Every derogatory term imaginable is used against him endless. He is a racist! A misogynist! A sexist! A bully! A moron! A molester! A fascist! And yet despite all this, in late September he was neck and neck with Clinton in polls. http://www.dailywire.com/news/5361/can-trump-beat-hillary-here-are-latest-polls-james-barrett#

Given the hideous characteristics of Trump, one would think that even a high school dropout dog-catcher would be ahead by double digits. This can at least partly be explained by the fact that Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most disliked Democratic presidential candidate in history (for good reason, in my opinion).



Possibly most worrisome of all for Hillary Clinton is that she has very low approval ratings among the “millennial” generation (which is our future, by the way).


A question for “lesser evil” voters on the political left: If Hitler was running against Trump, would you vote for Trump? He is clearly less evil than Hitler.

People wonder why I am not sufficiently terrified of Donald Trump. Why I am not so afraid 13709857_10154383469821602_8787425651648583412_nof Trump that I see, like all reasonable people, the essential need to vote for Hillary Clinton, even though “she is not perfect” (that is like saying that winters on the North Pole are a bit chilly).

Frankly, I am far more terrified of the fact that millions of people on the political left will vote in November for a Republican: Hillary Clinton.

It is painfully clear from the above that Hillary Clinton is on the political right. Her views match quite well with mainstream Republican views from, say, the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

So the dilemma for Hillary Clinton and her supporters is this: How to convince those on the political left to vote for a mainstream Republican such as Hillary Clinton? It will certainly not be effective to trumpet her views, as they are so clearly on the political right. The only tactic left — and its a shamefully manipulative one — is to scare the hell out of those on the political left: “Would you rather vote for a Republican? Or (gasp!) an insane, ignorant, violent, racist fascist???”

Another fear-mongering tactic that I am so very tired of hearing from Democrats is the scare tactic used for the past several elections: “We must vote for the admittedly flawed Democratic candidate because a Republican president will nominate horrible Supreme Court nominees!!” We are to believe, in other words, that the Democratic Party, which is now so blatantly corrupted by Wall Street dollars, Corporate dollars, and militarism dollars will nominate “good” Supremes.

Millions on the political left — including me — are leaving the Democratic Party. We will never again vote for a Democratic presidential candidate until the corporate and militarism corruption of the Democratic Party ends. Hillary Clinton is a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. Corrupted by millions in campaign contributions, she is a corporate and military puppet. We will not look the other way and vote for such a candidate out of fear. We are done with voting AGAINST someone. Voting against someone, rather than FOR someone, is, ultimately, a losing, failed political strategy. It has no real power to energize the base voters.

Unfortunately, fear is all that remains for Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

I am sorry to inform such fear-mongers that I won’t be scared into voting for a Republican. Shame on those on the political left who are voting for Hillary Clinton out of fear. And then trying to shame the millions of us on the political left who will either vote for a Third Party candidate or not vote at all.

When the only “choice” is for the political left to vote for a Republican or a Nazi, the only reasonable option is to send a message by not continuing to play the game of “lesser evil” voting that the political left has been forced to play for decades.

It is time for the political left to draw a line in the sand and refuse to vote for a Big Business and Big Military candidate simply because the opponent is claimed to be terrifying.

These video clips from Jimmy Dore are all worth watching:


Filed under Politics

Overthrow: A Review

By Dom Nozzi

I just finished reading a book written in 2006 called Overthrow, by Stephen Kinzer.

I highly recommend it.

overthrowHow many of us know of the shameful, sordid history of our US government overthrowing leaders in Hawaii, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan? How in nearly all cases, we did so to secure access to resources, or were doing the bidding of multi-national corporations which desired continued easy access to such resources? How in each case, we cloaked our attack not on such exploitative reasons, but based on the false claim that we are doing so to “liberate oppressed people,” to “bring democracy and freedom,” to “stop a dangerous tyrant,” or to “help people who could not govern themselves”? How most all of the nations we overthrew became much worse off during and after our “regime change” actions?

Many of us, the author points out, believe such fairy tales of our “bringing democracy and freedom” because of the common belief in “exceptionalism,” where the US is seen to be inherently more moral, godly and just than all other nations, and therefore a country that can only do right and never do wrong.”

A friend responded to the above by saying, “Don’t we already know this?” To which I replied with the following…

In The New American Militarism, Andrew Bacevich notes the terrifying reality that America has now reached a political consensus: The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats are now flag-waving supporters of ramped up and never-ending US militarism, which clearly shows that the majority does NOT already know this (unless most of us are barbarians, and support such aggression even though it is in support of multi-national corporations rather than our security).

In Morality Wars, Charles Derber finds that cloaking barbaric “gunboat diplomacy” as bringing “democracy and freedom” has been in existence for many centuries for nearly all empires, and few, if any, societies were able to see through the hysteria and deception. I see no evidence, to this day, that the vast majority of Americans (including most Democrats) oppose wars of aggression by the US. The majority of Democrats and Republicans have cheered Obama adopting the largest military budgets in US history, as well as his many wars of aggression, and there seems to be a near political consensus that US aggression is justifiable.  Where, for example, is the outrage about Obama’s drone war, his on-going war of aggression in Afghanistan (which a HUGE number of liberals and feminists heartily support as a way to bring “democracy” and “women’s rights” to that ravaged nation), his saber rattling over the Ukraine, and his military action in Libya (which most Democrats supported)?1280511495

If “we” Americans already knew this, why did we re-elect one of the most warlike presidents in our history (Obama)?

Or maybe by “we” you mean you and me?

PS – I’m one of the most well-read people I know, and I knew only a tiny amount about the awful US history since 1898 of orchestrating regime change. I would say over 99 percent of Americans know nothing about that history. Most of the Overthrow book was news to me. Maybe I’m a moron, but maybe not. The book sickened me to the point where I am both utterly ashamed to be an American, and startled that educated citizens continue to vote for major party US presidential candidates, given how many wars of aggression presidents of both parties have called for over the past century.


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics