Bernie vs Tulsi: How to Identify Controlled Opposition Part 3
On the Issues
Big Tech
Tulsi: Tulsi sued Google for $50 million. She attacked big tech censorship and interference. Twitter constantly removes likes from her tweets, including every one she has made in support of Assange.
But Big Tech interference doesn’t just threaten to suppress her voice, but the voices of any supporter who the company deems worthy of censorship. I, along with many Tulsi supporters I interact with, have had to re-like her “Queen of warmongerers” tweet countless times as have many others. If a presidential candidate can be censored, anybody can.
(1/2) If anyone needed further evidence that Facebook is censoring political speech, they provided that evidence themselves by deleting Elizabeth Warren’s post calling for breaking up Facebook and Amazon...
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 13, 2019
(2/2) Facebook proved the charge that they are undermining Free Speech. If Facebook will censor my speech, then they will censor yours as well. This is why we must stand up for free speech—whether we agree with the content of that speech or not.
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 13, 2019
When CEO Jack Dorsey gave a max donation to Gabbard after the first debate (which she won) and people were criticizing Dorsey for the donation, Michael Tracey joked that jack was a "Assad-loving white nationalist compromised by Putin". It is worth noting this was Tulsi's only billionaire donor. Trace would go on to say
I've interviewed Tulsi about social media censorship several times and she's maintained that Jack's company should be treated like a public utility and subject to greater government regulation, so I'm not sure what the conspiracy is supposed to be here
Michael Tracey (@mtracey) July 16, 2019
Continuing,
If there's any reason to be suspicious, it's that Jack is a billionaire, but of course that's generally not what people are suspicious of: it's the usual agglomeration of Russia/Assad/stealth right-winger nonsense
Michael Tracey (@mtracey) July 16, 2019
Bernie:
In the first debate, after Warren presented and defended the idea of “breaking up big tech”, Sander’s had called for anti-trust regulators to “take on these huge monopolies”... but he doesn’t seem to be willing to take them on himself. As The Hill reported, “Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a fellow progressive who has made opposition to concentrated corporate power a centerpiece of his campaign, did not explicitly say he is behind Warren's plan.”. Sander’s partial support of Warren in calling for the break up of Big Tech shouldn’t hold much weight when Warren would later tweet,
“The stakes of this election are too high. We need to fight the spread of false information that disempowers voters and undermines democracy. I’ll do my part—and I’m calling on my fellow candidates and big tech companies to do their part, too.”
Sanders has specifically called for Facebook to do more to combat “Russian misinformation” . In his statement, Bernie said the following:
"The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia’s plans to once again meddle in our elections and in our democracy,"
"After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddling in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn by Donald Trump. Meanwhile, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has shown again and again his total disinterest in taking even basic steps to stand up to Russian interference."
“It is nothing short of reckless for Facebook to continue enabling and profiting from election interference done through advertising that contains lies, falsehoods, and misleading information," the Vermont senator said.
Ro Khanna, who Bernie appointed as top advisor to his campaign in febuary of 2019, would go on to tweet:
I made it clear that there is zero tolerance for Russian interference.
Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) February 22, 2020
We need to trust our intelligence agencies, and tech companies must prevent disinformation and propaganda campaigns. https://t.co/OXKFUKjKIM
We should "Trust our intelligence agencies, and tech companies?" To "Prevent disinformation and propaganda campaigns"? This is either ignorant incompetence or malicious manipulation. We should trust the CIA and other intelligence agencies with a long history of lies and propaganda campaigns of their own, to exert control over the flow of information on the media platforms used by the mass majority of the public? Why are Bernie and his surrogates normalizing and encouraging such Orwellian measures?
Sure, he has not condemned the big tech community for censorship as Tulsi has. He certainly is not Suing Google for 50 million. But the worst part is that he and his campaign did not keep to neutral apathy to censorship, which is bad enough, but Sanders and his surrogates literally advocated and called on Big Tech companies to do more, in cooperation with our intelligence agencies, as if they were not interfering enough already. Again, being silent on such an important issue to our democracy is bad enough as a democratic candidate, but quite actually pushing for the issue to be normalized and open to greater abuse is in stark contrast to Gabbard.
Assange
Tulsi: The day Assange was arrested she would tell CNN's Jake taper,
"I think what's happening here is, unfortunately, it is some form of retaliation coming from the government saying, 'Hey, this is what happens when you release information that we don't want you to release,' " Gabbard said on "The Lead." "And I think that's why this is such a dangerous and slippery slope, not only for journalists, not only for those in the media, but also for every American that our government can and has the power to kind of lay down the hammer to say, 'Be careful, be quiet and fall in line, otherwise we have the means to come after you.' "
That same day she would also tweet out,
The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price.
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) April 11, 2019
Other (censored) tweets on Assange would include
Charging Assange under the Espionage Act will have a srs chilling effect on our most fundamental rights of freedom of speech & freedom of the press. Every American—certainly every journalist—must strongly condemn this anti-democratic act by the Trump Adminhttps://t.co/4JkBGJCFk9
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) May 24, 2019
Trump’s decision to charge Assange under the Espionage Act will have a serious chilling effect on our freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It also undermines our democracy by keeping crucial information from the American people that they deserve to know. pic.twitter.com/D3olp2JS4J
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) June 5, 2019
Assange is a critical issue for first amendment rights, with the government outright saying first amendment rights don't apply to foreigners in defense of Assange's prosecution, admitting it IS an issue of freedom of press. More than that, it is a human rights violation. Censoring, intimidating, or jailing journalists is an issue of freedom of press.
Psychopathically manufacturing consent by defamation and slander in order to get away with caging someone mentally torturing them for telling truths about the government that the government doesn't like...this is an issue of freedom for all of the "free world" along with everyone else. While Assange was an Australian citizen, he is being tried for breaking an American law, but as referenced above, its been argued in court for his extradition case that the freedom of press doesn't extend to him.
"WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson gave a brief statement to the press after the latest court hearing for Julian Assange’s extradition case in London today, saying the Trump administration is arguing that the First Amendment of the US Constitution doesn’t provide press freedom protection to foreign nationals like Assange."
'We have now learned from submissions and affidavits presented by the United States to this court that they do not consider foreign nationals to have a First Amendment protection,' Hrafnsson said.
'Now let that sink in for a second,' Hrafnsson continued. 'At the same time that the US government is chasing journalists all over the world, they claim they have extra-territorial reach, they have decided that all foreign journalists which include many of you here, have no protection under the First Amendment of the United States. So that goes to show the gravity of this case. This is not about Julian Assange, it’s about press freedom.' ”
This is another way of the US saying, "while our jurisdiction spreads globally and American laws are defacto international laws, but only our citizens can have rights to attempt to protect themselves from such massive overreach. And even then... these rights are privileges, and we are constantly working on convincing the majority to give consent to these rights being stripped. Sometimes we just say fuck it and call shit classified and tell the public its not in the interest of "national security" to let them know that their rights are being infringed, or their taxes funding unabated war crimes. If it weren't for those damn meddling kids like Assange and Snowden then we would have gotten away with it too. No, but seriously, they will be punished and made an example of, American citizen or not."
If governmental agencies can turn a hero into a villian and get away with slowly torturing him for years, they can get away with anything - especially with mainstream media and big tech a their disposal to help manufacture consent. We need systems such as Wikileaks to bring the truth to light on these corruptible institutions, for without them, there would be no medium for whistleblowers to safely share information that is in the public’s best interest to be public. We would be in the dark.
Assange’s prosecution is a precedent being set that anyone who serves as a medium for sources leaking information, a crucial aspect of journalism, can be deprived of their human rights and liberty for reporting the truth. When you boil it down its really as simple as that. Assange is being made an example of, and his prosecution represents more than just one man. There is a reason Assange supporters will be heard to say "We are all Assange".
"Now what does Bernie have to say on Assange?" > - a democratic voter might have asked during the primary season.
Bernie: * Crickets Chirp * ... and *Chirp * ... and chirp...indef.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate who has unequivocally and specifically said she would drop charges against #Assange so we can have a #FreeAssange
Constituent 🌺🎗️⏳ (@808constituent) February 2, 2020
Demand your candidate, Reps and Senators do the same or vote for someone in who will.#TulsiForPresident https://t.co/US93B6HZVz
Tulsi Gabbard strongly and publicly supports whistleblowers such as Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. She says she will drop all charges, and that whistleblowers should be protected. Bernie Sanders has shown himself afraid to take such stances.
Terrence McNulty (@TerrenceMcNulty) January 30, 2020
The Hill would publish an articled titled, "Sanders’ Snowden Response Proves He Doesn’t Want a 'Revolution'". The author, Evan Greer would write:
"Last night at the Democratic presidential debate, leftist favorite Bernie Sanders clarified his feelings about National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.
'I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American public ... he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that,' Sanders said...
... To read between the lines: Bernie thinks Edward Snowden did the right thing, but hey, laws are laws. If elected, though, it sounds like he’ll make sure Snowden gets a really nice jail cell.
Bernie was quick to point out that what Snowden did was illegal, and that he should face the consequences for it. Instead of calling for stronger legal protections for whistleblowers, or offering to pardon Snowden if elected, he called for the former NSA contractor to come home and face trial in a country with a dodgy record of imprisoning and prosecuting whistleblowers, dissidents, activists and journalists. ...
... Sanders has based his campaign on the premise that the United States’ political and economic systems are so flawed that we need a “revolution,” but when a thorny question like Snowden comes up it becomes clear that what he’s really calling for is a changing of the guard.
While the rest of the article is pure gold, I already have quoted too much from it. Moving on to hammer in the point, Prominent Assange advocacy group, Action4Assange, would publish a piece titled "Bernie Sanders’ Silence On Assange Raises Serious Questions". Steve Poikonen, who authored the piece, wrote that "Bernie, to the casual observer, is THE candidate for the average American who has long suffered under unfettered capitalism and a media complicit in perpetuating false narratives in support of the status quo.
So why the hell won’t Sanders say Julian Assange’s name out loud? "
"Action 4 Assange’s own Taylor Hudak published the first and only complete list of presidential candidate statements on Julian Assange. The totality of Bernie’s remarks are contained within this tweet, written 44 days after Julian was dragged from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London"
Poikonen would strongly conclude the piece by writing, "Bernie Sanders has made Medicare For All a cornerstone of his campaign. His apparent refusal to comment on Assange leaves a deeply concerning question to fill that silent space. Are you willing to trade press freedom for health care? "
One last piece before moving on to the next section, lets look at how Sanders has treated Chelsea Manning. Andre Damon would publish a piece for WSWS titled, "The guilty silence over the jailing of Chelsea Manning". Damon would write:
"It has been ten days since a federal judge imprisoned whistleblower Chelsea Manning for refusing to testify before the secret grand jury in Virginia, which is preparing an indictment against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
None of the dozens of professional moralists employed by the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal who make it their business to publicize 'human rights' violations to promote US imperialist interests have written a single column protesting the imprisonment of Manning.
The Democratic Party has likewise said nothing. There has been no protest from any significant Democratic politician, including from the party’s so-called “progressive” wing. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have not spoken in Manning’s defense. Phone calls and emails by the WSWS asking for clarification to the offices of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez were not returned.
The complicity of the Democratic Party in the jailing of Manning is bound up with its pro-imperialist politics. The Democrats have waged their opposition to Trump on the most right-wing basis possible, criticizing the administration for not taking a hard enough position against Russia, denouncing any retreat from war in the Middle East, and elevating the intelligence agencies into supposed paragons of democracy." ....
Damon would tie the Manning issue in with censorship, circling back
"In the name of fighting 'fake news,' dominant sections of the political establishment—led by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party—have demanded the suppression of left-wing, critical and independent online media. The technology monopolies have been enlisted by the state to police and censor oppositional statements and political viewpoints.
Sanders’ silence on the jailing of Manning—and his silence on the continued persecution of Assange—is of particular significance, as the Senator has ample cause to defend Wikileaks, given that the organization exposed the fact that the Democratic National Committee sought to rig the 2016 primary and disenfranchise his supporters within the Democratic Party."
The point is that Sanders has not only been disgustingly silent on the issue of whistleblower protection, but he's even played a proactive role in the Russagate narrative used to smear not only Assange, Snowden, and Manning... *but his own campaign and movement. When the "Russia is boosting Sanders campaign" narrative ran though the new cycle, he didn't defend the integrity of his movement and campaign, he ran with it and told Putin to stay out. Maybe it was smart tactically, I'm not an expert political strategist. But it felt wrong.
He has even promoted the idea of big tech censoring in the name of battling "Russian disinformation campaigns", which ultimately winds up hurting information and activist campaigns on a plethora of issues including the persecution of whistleblowers that Sanders is so frustratingly silent on. Hell, censorship would come for his own supporter base, make no mistake about it. So no Bernie voters, Tulsi supporters who valued freedom of speech and press didn't owe you or your candidate a vote. You and Bernie were expected to earn it by taking up the right side of history and defending our freedoms of press and speech.
Now lets move on to some foreign policy. You know, the area of policy that the president has virtually total control over, and little to no checks and balance on anymore? Progressives need to be reminded that the president can have all bills stopped by congress, and executive orders only go so far constitutionally. But nobody can tell the president that he cannot, lets say, end sanctions, or withdraw troops. The Commander in Chief is almost indisputably the most important role of the president. So lets take a look at the differences between Gabbard and Sanders on how they approach foreign policy.
I love bernie, but **most of his supporters pay little attention to his foreign policy. Only touting the few times he gets it right (Iraq/Iran) but ignoring the many times he gets it wrong.**
Cory Scott 🌺 (@coryascott) February 16, 2020
As president, he has way more power over foreign policy than domestic
Venezuela
Tulsi:
The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela. Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don't want other countries to choose our leaders--so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) January 24, 2019
Now lets see what Bernie tweeted the same exact day Gabbard tweeted the above.
Bernie:
The Maduro government has waged a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election many observers said was fraudulent. The economy is a disaster and millions are migrating. 1/3
Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 24, 2019
The thread continues:
Now let it be said that while the last tweet in the Sanders thread above sounds anti-interventionist, the first two certainly didn't and sought to be complicit in the "Maduro is an evil dictator" narrative. Likewise he has done nothing to condemn against the starvation sanctions waged against Venezuela's economy, particularly the oil industry, which compromised more than 95% of the country's exports at the time - the lifeline of the entire country's economy and its ability to import food and medicine. Now lets go back to what Tulsi has said on Venezuela.
It’s about the oil … again.
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) January 29, 2019
Bolton just exposed real motive for intervention in Venezuela: "We're in conversation with major American companies now...It would make a difference if we could have American companies produce the oil in Venezuela. We both have a lot at stake here."
Bernie's foreign policy wasn't exactly on the right side of the issue...accusing Trump of not doing enough.
Apparently massive sanctions turned to full blown embargo and seizing all of the Venezuelan government's assets they have control over, including CITGO, wasn't enough.
What does Sanders have to say about sanctions? Lets ask his twitter account.
In the short history of his twitter account's usage of the word "sanctions", he mostly is supporting their use against Russia and North Korea. While he has made statements against their use on Iran, he has said nothing on Venezuelan or Syrian sanctions. Not a word. And while twitter isn't the only way to make statements, I have not once heard or seen Bernie condemn sanctions, in all my years of asking Sanders supporter's for a case of such. Regardless, if it's that hard to dig up.... Now, here is what Gabbard has said on sanctions.
In the context of Venezuela, she tweeted:
“Coercion, whether military or economic, must never be used to seek a change in government in a sovereign state. The use of sanctions by outside powers to overthrow an elected government is in violation of all norms of international law,” warns UN expert. https://t.co/MwMsjwvHhZ
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) February 1, 2019
Regarding sanctions in general, she has also tweeted:
Too many politicians think the only way the US can be “engaged” with other countries is by blowing them up and strangling them with economic sanctions. I will end long-standing regime change policy & lead with a foreign policy based on negotiations, diplomacy, & cooperation. pic.twitter.com/LPe1NDPUAp
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) June 28, 2019
... are achieving the stated goal or undermining it. Too often US sanction policies are made based on emotion, a whim, or political motives, and without a clear objective. They end up most negatively impacting innocent civilians who struggle to merely survive.
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) July 28, 2020
Everything we do should have a clear objective & oversight to make sure our policies are achieving that objective. I passed a bipartisan amendment into the House NDAA that would mandate an annual report on the humanitarian impacts of sanctions and assess whether US sanctions ... pic.twitter.com/yMipQfkPJi
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) July 28, 2020
She has more tweets condemning sanctions but I think the point has been reiterated enough for now. It is worth noting, its not just twitter where she speaks against sanctions. For those who listened to her speaking during her campaign, sanctions often came up in her dialogue, and she was very vocal on the issue. Sanders, in contrast, was not. To wrap up this comparison between the two and their tones on Venezuela, lets look at one more tweet from Sanders and look at a a few more from Gabbard, who has more statements to draw from.
Sanders:
The people of Venezuela are enduring a serious humanitarian crisis. The Maduro government must put the needs of its people first, allow humanitarian aid into the country, and refrain from violence against protesters.
Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 23, 2019
Tulsi:
Oil lobbyists have “unprecedented access” to Trump’s administration—meanwhile Pence/Bolton continue their crusade for regime change in Venezuela, the world’s richest oil reserves. The height of swamp politics. #PeopleBeforeProfits #ServiceBeforeSelf https://t.co/jlbip5u8tV
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) April 4, 2019
The root cause of mass immigration on our southern border is our history of US military intervention in Latin America that left countries destroyed. Before we talk about a wall, we need to end our ongoing threats of intervention - this time in Venezuela. #SOTU
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) February 6, 2019
Throughout history, every time the US topples a foreign country’s dictator/government, the outcome has been disastrous. Civil war/military intervention in Venezuela will wreak death & destruction to Venezuelan people, and increase tensions that threaten our national security. pic.twitter.com/vQBdLUAyAc
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) May 13, 2019
To conclude, Bernie was silent on condemning sanctions and while he said he didn't support interventionism at the same time he supported the interventionist narrative used to justify intervention and was silent on calling out economic warfare via sanctions as a form of intervention. Gabbard, on the other hand, was straightforward in condemning all forms of interference in Venezuela's democracy.
When Tulsi says stay out of Venezuela, she doesn’t just mean militarily, but also refraining from seeking to influence regime change through economic warfare, mostly crippling sanctions, which many have appropriately referred to as economic terrorism, as they undeniably target and starve the general population, not the high-ranking bureaucrats the establishment is seeking to oust. As Caitlin Johnstone points out in her article, “Starvation Sanctions are Worse Than Overt Warfare”, there is little accountability and sympathy for the tragedies brought on by economic Warfare,
“Yet these deaths have received virtually no mainstream media coverage, and Americans, while they strongly oppose attacking Iran militarily, have had very little to say about Trump’s attacks on the nation’s economy. The economy which people use to feed their children, to care for their elderly and their sick.
I am not saying that starvation sanctions are more destructive or deadly than overt military force in and of themselves; what I am saying is that the overall effect is worse, because there’s no public accountability for them and because they deliberately target civilians.
When economic warfare is waged against a population, it is almost always due to a high level of support for the government, which Western powers are trying to erode, so they enact sanctions intending to put the population into such a state of desperation that they feel they have no choice but to submit to the will of US imperialism and overthrow their own government in order to put an end to, or even just alleviate, the country’s suffering.
Syria
Tulsi
I have already comprehensively covered Tulsi's position on Syria, in an article titled "How and Why Tulsi Gabbard is Held to a Higher Standard (Part One)".
To briefly showcase Tulsi's position, let me reference some "key points" from her official website's page on Syria.
Bernie:
Now let us take a rough look at Bernie's stance on Syria, starting with an official statement on his website.
His call for the international community to do something about the crisis we as a country have facilitated by funding jihadi insurgents for years is in stark contrast to Gabbard's reminders that we had been funding Jihadi rebels linked to al-Qaeda and that it would be better to do nothing than to further fuel the civil war. Hell, she even proposed a bill called the "Stop Arming Terrorists Act" which has 14 cosponsors backing it at the moment of writing.
We were all lied to. We were told that Saddam had WMD, was working w/ Al Qaeda & that this posed a threat to the American people. But not only have we not gone after Al Qaeda, they are stronger than they were on 9/11 #TULSI2020 #DemDebate https://t.co/cl7xcK02rV pic.twitter.com/ckdQvIQMp8
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) August 1, 2019
.@realDonaldTrump instead of going to war with Russia and Syria in order to protect the al-Qaeda-Turkish alliance, you should focus on the war against the Coronavirus. #StandWithTulsi pic.twitter.com/Uk7TGeF1km
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 1, 2020
The point ultimately of this part is to say that Bernie is not only a weak anti-interventionist, but is really an interventionist posing as an anti interventionist.
Here is Senate resolution 85 of the 112th congress, sponsored on March 1st, 2011. The same day, it would be cosponsored by Bernie Sanders along with 9 other senators, then go on to pass the senate. This bill would be the formal initiation of the overthrow of Ghaddafi.
Gabbard Supporter's, many of which are disenfranchised ex-Bernie supporters, have made numerous graphics to give a visual representation of what could be called Bernie's "98%" effect, where Bernie and his supporters focus on the few times he got it right, but neglect to acknowledge the times he procedurally voted with the establishment. Two of these graphics can be seen below.
If Bernie could not assimilate Tulsi’s progressive stances into his own platform, why should Tulsi supporters have assimilated into Bernie’s camp when Bernie refused to fight for us and the issues we care about? While Tulsi was on par with Bernie’s domestic issues regarding healthcare and education, Bernie failed to meet her on advocating for freedom of speech on social media by challenging big tech censorship, or for freedom of press by supporting Assange, nor did he on challenging intervention and sanctions in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran...just to name a few key issues.
The end of this piece will finish with part 4