Mediaboss Marketing

It seems that people who identify themselves as progressive democrats are hellbent on solidifying a tendency which I continue to resist despite the seeming avalanche of proofs which they and their democratrepublican limiting mentalities continue to shove in my face. The most prominent message within and as a result of these unwanted assaults is their desperately dissolute and unrelenting insistence that you can be in two places at once. Their cynical lie and delusional belief which they continue to shove in my face consistently elicits a laugh out of me because I have no way to comprehend how they say so many ridiculous variations of the same, tiring, corporately-enabling joke.

I really want to continue to be sympathetic and I really want to believe that most so-called progressive democrats are trying to find and support integrity. The problem for me however is that they are more than willing to be enablers of what they say they oppose and that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

There are a few very recent events by which so-called progressives have once again led me to the precipice of cynicism and I am responding because I do not want to be pushed into that hole which they and those they say they oppose have continued to enlarge. I have no hope that my words will change anything in their corporately capitalized system of militarized disintegration, but despite this, I would want these words to be used to help us all find integrity. I address this mainly at those who identify as progressive because, unlike the majority of so-called americans, they seem to be somewhat capable of comprehending how the corrupt corporate church of Wall Streets Washington and its allied predators are unrelentingly driving us all toward Hell on Earth.

With the current display of bickering and unsubstantiated accusations between Elizabeth Warrens campsite and the campers who cling to Bernie Sanders, the echoes of Warrens multiple embraces of Wall Streetian talking points have been arising from my memory. The memories of Sanders repetitions of some similar talking points are less pronounced, but they are also resurfacing. Both of these candidates are lacking the necessary distance from the triangulating deceitfulness and warmongering of their chosen party. How many times does Bernie Sanders need to be stabbed in the face by people he prefers to label as his friend and why do he and his devotees insist that they must have allegiance to what is obviously a predatory corporate front party? Living in the 1930s democrat image as if it is a current reality is a form of self-sabotage.

After the blatantly corrupt charade debate wherein the whores at CNN clearly tried to destroy the message which Sanders has done the most (among the D.C. power lust infected) to promote as a calling card, there has been a sort of troop surge where the leaders of so-called progressive organizations are insisting on unity within the followers of Warren, Sanders, and their party of choice. These leaders are making it abundantly clear that they believe that their supposed nation is on the verge of 2016. I would argue that every election has been a repeat of 1980 and that, as long as they cling to the democratrepublican pretense of opposition parties, 1980s mindgames will remain the dense mass of dead weight which will keep us all drowning and on fire.

The only message that the democrats have at this point is the same message that they used in 2016 to help elect Donald Trumps corruption.

They insist that defeating Trump is their highest priority and that this is why and how the democrat pretense must unite in promoting some lousy candidate who has as much in common with Trump as they can posses and simultaneously try to give the impression that their candidacy is somehow a breaking away from what they are a part.

Another troubling aspect of recent events is that the glaring lack of integrity which is Michael Moore has now resurfaced and is appalled at the bleeding which the democrat side of the GMO whale of corporate domination has deliberately inflicted on itself.

There remains one possible impossibility.

This is where I remove myself from the gaping cynicism of exceptionalist crap which infuses the democratrepublican lousiness. Those who consider themselves to be progressive MUST repudiate both the fraudulence which is the republican party and the fraudulence which is the democrat party.

Staying within either side of this freakish bipartisan monstrosity will only keep us all swirling around and into the sucking hole of 1980s deceits and dissolution and it is this which will keep humanity and the planet burning as we drown.

Refuse to put up with the crap any more and unite behind an effort to build a real opposition party. Doing so will help us all escape the cynical, debilitating, deceitful, arrogant lousiness which are the democrats and the republicans. Those who tell you that you can be in two (or three or more) places at once are not trustworthy. Winning for your team at whatever costs and forming dubious unions has never been a sign of integrity.

I am sure that some will accuse me of numerous derogatory and totally unfounded affiliations because of their rampant desperation, but that is to be expected by people whose claims of being progressive are also unfounded when they allow themselves to succumb to the power of corporately owned fraudulence under what they reduce to being a guise of being 1930s democrats.

More here:
Uniting Progressives Instead of Democrats - CounterPunch

The House of Representatives recent impeachment hearings, and their vote passing the two articles of impeachment were spectacular shows of partisan politics, pure political theater, and represented, in stark terms, the dictionary definition of dishonesty.

Hillary Clinton represented the progressives highest hopes and expectations to assume the mantle from Obama, and to push further the progressives government can do it all agenda. Lose the 2016 election? Lose to Donald Trump? Youve got to be kidding, ha ha ha. Hillary has got this in the bag. The tiara she so obsessively wanted and felt she deserved will finally be placed on her head, hail Hillary. Then the unthinkable happened. The earth trembled, Hillary will not take the oath of office. That honor will be bestowed on who? Donald Trump? This just cant be.

The voters made an unforgivable mistake, and it must be corrected post-haste. Before Trumps inauguration, i.e., just two days after the election, progressive talking heads and politicians began talks of possible impeachment, conjuring up theoretical scenarios in which Donald Trump could be removed from office. Impeachment was always their goal. New York magazine reports, the operatives in charge of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee included a question about support for impeachment in the private national poll they ran every month to inform their strategy.

Trumps call to the president of Ukraine never cited a quid pro quo. The article of impeachment assumes he did. The prior Ukraine government was corrupt, and Joe Biden and his son may have illegally profited from this. Progressives apparently think that because Joe is running for the Oval Office, Trumps scrutiny into possible corruption on Joes part is to gather dirt on his opponent for personal gain. So, because Joe is running for office, he is off limits? Does this place him above the law? The progressive left seems to think so. Incidentally, Joe Biden, as vice president, boasted, (weve all seen the video), of actual quid pro quo which may have uncovered corruption on his part and that of his son. How is it that he is still in contention for the Oval Office? His quid pro quo is OK?

And obstruction of Congress? The courts are to decide if Trumps exercise of executive privilege is warranted or not. Obama could have been impeached for the same reason when he invoked executive privilege in the Fast and Furious scandal. If President Trump had defied a court order to turn over documents, this would make for a stronger case. But that hasnt happened. Progressives have harmfully lowered the bar for impeachment to the level of we simply dont like this presidents policies and him personally. So we will impeach. This is not government of, for, and by the people.

The ludicrous and most dishonest aspect of this whole affair is when the progressives so solemnly cloaked themselves with the Constitution, and the homage they paid to our founders. This is the party that rejects the principles of our founding because our Founding Fathers were white men and slave holders. This is the party that wants to amend the First Amendment in order to outlaw hate speech, cripple the Second Amendment or abolish it altogether, eliminate the Electoral College, or implement the National Popular Vote initiative, eliminate equal States representation in the Senate, stack the Supreme Court, install living Constitution minded justices. Recall Nancy Pelosis response when she was asked if the individual mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional? Her response? Are you kidding, are you kidding. Progressives invoke the Constitution when it serves their purpose, otherwise they do all they can to circumvent it at every turn. What they want to accomplish will eviscerate the Constitution. They are authoritarian.

Recall Lois Lerners silencing conservative voices during an election season with the illegal use of IRS powers. Samantha Powers unilaterally unmasking, on a daily basis, hundreds of names in secret intelligence reports during the 2016 election season. Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates, refusing the carry out President Trumps immigration order. Hillary Clinton and the DNC using foreign sources to fabricate dirt on her opponent in order to influence the election in her favor. And the most egregious of all, the unlawful use of our national intelligence and law enforcement powers against a duly elected president. The Obama Administration was corrupt through and through.

Power is the progressives North Star. Their need to grab the handle, and move the levers of power is just as profound as the need for all of us to breathe.

Manny Montes lives in Auburn.

Here is the original post:
Manny Montes: Power is the progressive's North Star - The Union of Grass Valley

Back in the 1980s, my A-level politics essays were all about whether we would ever see another Labour government. Then Labour won three general elections. In the early 2000s, the Tory party was called a busted flush now the Conservatives have a large parliamentary majority.

The conclusion: nothing is certain, and there must be a future path back to a non-Tory government. This will involve luck, but also a decent amount of design.

Two main obstacles block that path.

First: the Scottish problem. The last Labour government held 41 Scottish seats; today the party has one. The SNPs rise has helped the Tories in two ways. Tory opposition to independence detoxifies them for unionists; and more importantly, the SNPs strength in Scotland blocks a UK Labour majority. The Tory trump card is that the only alternative to a Conservative majority is a ragtag Labour-led coalition, with the nationalist tail wagging the dog and demanding the dismantling of the UK.

Lets call the second obstacle the rural problem. Labours brand is toxic in much of the West Country, city commuter belts, rural Wales, North Yorkshire, Cumbria and most constituencies centred on market towns with a rural hinterland. This toxicity is tied to a sense that Labour cant be trusted on the economy or is too extreme to be in power.

In the right circumstances, the Liberal Democrats could win these seats (in North Cornwall, Lewes and Hazel Grove); after the 2019 election results, we are again second place in many. However Labour, pursuing an unattainable majority, fought them with sufficient energy for the Conservatives to slip through the middle. Until the Tories become vulnerable in these places again, they will keep winning.

The Scottish and rural problems are gifts granting the Conservatives a clear message and strategy for maintaining a majority for years to come. These two problems require, I believe, three solutions all hard to achieve. Lets start with the hardest: defeating the SNP.

I really like many of the SNPs MPs at Westminster. Indeed, Labour and Lib Dems in England tend to think broadly warm thoughts about the Scottish Nationalists, who are largely centre-left social democrats. But to achieve a non-Tory UK government we must defeat them comprehensively.

Might Scottish independence solve the problem? If Scotland leaves the UK, the Tories can no longer frighten the electorate with talk of an SNP-driven coalition of chaos. But for people who love their country and want to preserve our union this is unthinkable and would hand a huge advantage to the Tories (given that at present 53 of Scotlands 59 MPs are non-Tories), possibly paving the way to eternal Conservative rule.

I havent got an oven-ready plan for beating the nationalists. I simply say, progressives in England and Wales must recognise the SNP is Boris Johnsons secret weapon. Perhaps the plan starts by seeking to convince progressives in Scotland that they are vital to stopping the Tories, and they can only do that within the UK.

If you are a Scottish non-Tory, join the fight and ditch the SNP wholesale. Stop being tempted by the rickety lifeboat and help us achieve a mutiny that wrests lasting control of the ship from the evil Tory captain!

The second solution: detoxify Labour. At present, Labours brand is so terrifying that it pushes voters into Conservative arms (which is one reason why the Lib Dems also struggled to win seats in 2015, 2017 and 2019).

Solving this rests on the character and image of Labours new leader. Party members must overcome their obsession with ideological purity at the expense of winning power. I, too, am repulsed by the notion of power without principles: but if you care about people in need, you cant fixate on principles without power. Labour must learn how to win again. For the sake of the country.

The third solution I hope I can affect: deploy the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems dont currently look like displacing either big party, still less like a government in waiting; but despite the election disappointment, we are in our healthiest position for a decade.

In 2015 and 2017, along with most of our seats, we lost vote share to the extent that we slipped from second to third place or worse in dozens of constituencies. Our 2019 silver lining is our return to second in around 100, mostly Conservative, seats. If we win many of those, then the Conservatives lose their majority. The path to a progressive majority is clearer.

The three solutions are connected. The Lib Dems chances of winning these seats are hugely enhanced by the SNPs defeat and Labour detoxifying.

Bluntly, the enemies of a progressive, united Britain are the nationalists and the Tories. To fight them we need to develop humility and self-awareness and learn to work together.

Lets start with my party. The Lib Dems must accept that Labour provides the main vehicle for defeating the Conservatives in most areas. Labour must accept that their brand is a huge asset to the Conservatives, and that, across swathes of the country, the Liberal Democrats have the best chance of defeating Conservatives.

Labour and the Lib Dems need to accept that co-operation is necessary and desirable. We must then collectively deploy a ruthless will to win, in order to do the good we can only do in power.

Tim Farron is the Liberal Democrat MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale. He led the party between 2015 and 2017

Read the rest here:
The three things progressives must do to defeat the Tories in the next election - The Guardian

The health insurance industry is donating big to Democrats even amid criticism of the industry and growing calls for Medicare for All from the progressive wing of the party.

Four big insurance companies Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health and Cigna and their employees have given about $4.5 million collectively in campaign contributions in the 2020 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Just more than half about $2.3 million of that has gone to Democrats, including to some of the partys top-tier presidential contenders. The Center for Responsive Politics totals are based on Federal Election Commission data through the third quarter of 2019 and include money from the companies and their PACs, owners and employees and their immediate families. These companies and employees have been giving big, on both sides, in recent cycles.

Historically the industry has given to both sides of the aisle, but the contributions to Democrats are a troubling issue for some progressives and health advocates, who want the party to do more to rein in private insurers and reform the health care market. They worry the contributions will make it harder for Democrats to take a tougher line on insurers despite calls for change.

Insurance companies are using their money to try and influence not only Republicans but Democrats as well. The problem is that they control the whole system, Paco Fabian, director of campaigns at the progressive group Our Revolution, told The Hill.

Theyre influencing both sides and theyre doing it so that regardless of who wins, they continue to influence politics and policy.

Health care reform and the role of insurers has become the center of a fierce fight in the 2020 Democratic primary, with Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersBiden alleges Sanders campaign 'doctored video' to attack him on Social Security record Sanders campaign responds to Biden doctored video claims: Biden should 'stop trying to doctor' public record The Memo: Sanders-Warren battle could reshape Democratic primary MORE (I-Vt.) pushing his signature Medicare for All proposal that would get rid of private insurers. Former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden alleges Sanders campaign 'doctored video' to attack him on Social Security record Sanders campaign responds to Biden doctored video claims: Biden should 'stop trying to doctor' public record Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger pens op-ed in defense of Biden: 'I stuttered once, too. I dare you to mock me' MORE, though, has criticized Sanders as well as Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenThe Memo: Sanders-Warren battle could reshape Democratic primary Environmental activists interrupt Buttigieg in New Hampshire Pence to visit Iowa days before caucuses MORE (D-Mass.), who favors a more measured transition to Medicare for All by first passing legislation for optional government health insurance.

Biden has sharply attacked Medicare for All, saying it would be too costly and unrealistic. Biden and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Peter Buttigieg (D) have instead pushed plans that give people the option of a government-run health plan without making coverage mandatory.

Sanders last year even urged fellow candidates to reject contributions from the health industry, including insurers.

But the centers numbers show the top-tier candidates having received contributions from companies and employees.

Blue Cross Blue Shield and its employees, for example, have given more than $24,000 each to Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders and more than $16,000 to Warren, according to the centers numbers. President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump's newest Russia adviser, Andrew Peek, leaves post: report Hawley expects McConnell's final impeachment resolution to give White House defense ability to motion to dismiss Trump rips New York City sea wall: 'Costly, foolish' and 'environmentally unfriendly idea' MORE received more than $4,000.

UnitedHealth Group and its employees have given more than $25,000 to Sanders, nearly $20,000 to Biden, nearly $15,000 to Buttigieg, nearly $14,000 to Warren and more than $6,000 to Trump.

Cigna and its employees gave more than $8,000 to Buttigieg, $7,500 to Biden, more than $7,000 to Sanders, $5,500 to Warren and more than 3,300 to Trump.

And CVS Health and its employees have given $33,000 to Sanders, $20,000 to Buttigieg, about $12,000 to Warren, more than $9,000 to Biden and $5,000 to Trump.

The Biden campaign denied a request for comment, and Warrens and Sanderss campaigns did not respond to The Hills request.

We are proud to have the support of more than 730,000 Americans who have already donated to our campaign and the only promise any donor will ever get from Pete is that he will use their donations to defeat Donald Trump, Buttigiegs campaign said in a statement, adding that the candidates Medicare for all who want it plan would enact some of the boldest, most progressive changes.

Overall, the industrys contributions highlight its strength and influence with both parties.

Insurance companies and their employees understand that hedging their bets and giving money to both Republicans and Democrats is a smart way to stop any kind of health care reform, including, but not limited to, Medicare for All, Lisa Gilbert, vice president of legislative affairs at Public Citizen, told The Hill.

Insurers are so monied that they can outspend proponents exponentially, so there is no reason to choose sides.

Blue Cross Blue Shield and its employees have donated nearly $2 million so far in the 2020 cycle, and 54 percent of that has gone to Democrats, according to Center for Responsive Politics numbers.

UnitedHealth Group and its employees have donated nearly $1.3 million in the current cycle, with 54 percent going to Republicans.

Cigna and its employees, meanwhile, have contributed only $625,000 so far with 52 percent to Republicans and 47 percent to Democrats. And CVS Health and its employees have donated only about $610,000 so far, with 56 percent of that going to Democrats.

We make donations across the political spectrum and to elected officials from both major parties. Donations are by no means a blanket endorsement of an elected officials position on every issue, a spokesman from CVS Health told The Hill.

Cigna told The Hill it had no comment, and Blue Cross Blue Shield as well as UnitedHealth Group did not respond to The Hills request for comment.

Others noted that the insurance industry does not have a notably partisan workforce, unlike the technology industry whose workforce tends to embrace many liberal causes and is often found in blue states.

Margarida Jorge, executive director of the Lower Drug Prices Now coalition, noted that employers of insurance companies dont necessarily oppose Medicare for All.

A lot of people who are working in the health insurance industry and in health care at large actually have really progressive stances on health care and want to see less profit in the system, she said. Just because someone works for an insurance company doesnt mean they share the political ideology of the company.

Still, watchdog groups say those contributions will make it harder for Washington to enact health care reform, regardless of the 2020 outcome.

For years, the status quo of industry has been to line the pockets of elected on both sides of the aisle, said Kelly Coogan-Gehr, assistant director of public and community advocacy at National Nurses United, a union that represents nurses.

Over the past year, we have seen an increasingly aggressive effort on the part of the insurance industry and the health care industry in general to consolidate and to get organized around fighting Medicare For All.

Continue reading here:
Progressives raise red flags over health insurer donations | TheHill - The Hill

It's a conundrum: Thousands of young people - mostly students - have been demonstrating in Iran in recent days. They are protesting the unnecessary killing of their friends on the Ukrainian passenger plane shot out of the sky by the regime last week.

Videos aired in recent days show the majority of these students walking past American and Israeli flags placed on the ground by the authorities precisely for them to tread on.

Yet the protesters did the opposite and even expressed fury at the few who did step on the flags.

Iranian protesters largely walk around the American and Israeli flags rather than tread on them (Video: Twitter)

They have managed to maintain their free and independent thinking despite existing under a brainwashing regime. How?

Let's imagine this happened at UC Berkeley, where many students would love to trample all over these flags.

After all, hatred of the United States and Israel has become part of the identity for those who appear to be progressive and enlightened. Yet it is precisely Iranian young men and women who refuse to participate in such a display of hatred. Hope is not lost yet.

But let us not be deceived; they are not in the majority. There are more young people who choose to stay at home than there are young people who take to the streets. After all, these are demonstrations by hundreds, maybe thousands, not millions. These are protests of the brave.

But what a stark difference between the protesters in Iran and the radicals on campuses in the West. In the West, the radical avant-garde is characterized by a hatred of the West and Israel, whereas Iran's avant-garde is characterized by a hatred of the ayatollahs.

And while the Western avant-garde enters into coalitions of hate with jihadists and anti-Semites, the Iranian avant-garde abhors such dalliances.

Authorities fire tear gas at protesters in Tehran

(Photo: AP)

When the radicals in the West hold rallies of solidarity with the Hamas regime, Iran's protesters demonstrate against the regime's investments in Gaza.

"Is Iran the only adult in the room?" read a headline a few days ago on the website of feminist-radical-leftist movement Code Pink, whose leaders have already held talks with Hamas and the Taliban.

Iran, the article went on to explain, did indeed bomb two Iraqi bases hosting Americans, in Al-Asad and Irbil, but actually made an effort not avoid harming human life. It is only a matter of time before these radicals propose giving Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the Nobel Peace Prize.

But what about the thousands of protesters killed in Iran and Iraq by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and pro-Iranian militias?

Please, dont confuse these people with facts. The most important thing is to raise another cry of outrage against Donald Trump, who ordered the eradication of Qassem Soleimani, while simultaneously calling for peace with the ayatollahs' regime.

The problem is not the difference between Iran's protesters and Western radicals; when it comes to the West, the issue is much broader.

For it was Barack Obama, John Kerry and Federica Mogherini who legitimized the dark regime in Tehran.

Former EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

(Photo: AFP)

Not only did they never offer support to the brave protesters against the regime, they even saved it with the 2015 nuclear agreement.

They gave Soleimani the green light to continue his imperialist subversion. They released billions of dollars that gave a vigorous boost to Iran's industry of suppression and death.

Thanks to the nuclear agreement we got more weapons for Hezbollah, more development of ballistic missiles, more arms for the Houthi killers in Yemen.

The gap between Barack Obama and Code Pink is far narrower than it seems. Jodie Evans, one of the founders of the organization, was a fundraiser for Obama.

The president continued to meet with her in the White House even after she met with members of the Taliban. And the women and men of Evans' coterie are unable to utter a single word of support for the valiant protesters in Tehran.

For them, the problem is Trump, not the ayatollahs. The statements that they do make are mainly on lifting the Iranian sanctions.

One has to ask how it is that the West produces so many useful idiots, willing propaganda agents of the dark regime, while in Iran itself there is a generation of young people who are fighting against this reign of terror and for freedom and human rights.

Why the hell are Western progressives turning their backs on the brave young people of Iran?

We are used to this phenomenon when it comes to Israel, where progressives support a boycott of the Jewish state and the removal of sanctions on the Hamas regime in Gaza.

And they are not operating in isolation. They receive funding from the European Union as a whole and European countries separately.

This is the paradox of the radicals: progressives supporting the black-hearted and the racist.

They oppose those who are fighting evil elements, and now they are turning their backs on the Iranian protesters.

Go here to read the rest:
The duplicity of Western progressives - Ynetnews