O little Town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by
Yet in the dark streets shineth
The everlasting light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight
Bernard “Bernie” Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont. A Democrat as of 2015,[5] he had been the longest-serving independent in U.S. Congressional history. Sanders has been the ranking minority member on theSenate Budget Committee since January 2015.[6] He is a candidate forPresident of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Sanders was born and raised in the borough of Brooklyn, in New York City. He graduated from the University of Chicago in 1964. While a student, Sanders was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League and an activecivil rights protest organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality and theStudent Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.[7][8] In 1963, he participated in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech.[7]
After settling in Vermont in 1968, Sanders ran unsuccessful third-partycampaigns for governor and U.S. senator in the early to mid-1970s. As an independent, he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont’s most populous city, in 1981. He was reelected three times. In 1990, he was elected to represent Vermont’s at-large congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1991, Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He served as a congressman for 16 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. In 2012, he was reelected by a large margin, capturing almost 71% of the popular vote.
Sanders has long been critical of U.S. foreign policy, and was an early and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War. He rose to national prominence following his 2010 filibuster[9][10] against the proposed extension of the Bush tax cuts. A self-described socialist[11][12] and democratic socialist,[17] Sanders favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particularly those instituted by the Nordic countries.[21] He is a leadingprogressive voice on issues such as income inequality,[14] universal healthcare, parental leave, climate change,[22] LGBT rights, and campaign finance reform.[23] He is also outspoken on civil rights and civil liberties, and has been particularly critical of mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act,[24] the NSA surveillance programs,[25] and racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.
SO THIS SITE IS BACKING BERNIE SANDERS,
NOT PERFECT BUT HONEST ,BUT NEITHER ARE THE REST NOT PERFECT ,NOT HONEST.WOULD YOU TRUST YOUR TEENAGE CHILD IN TRUMPS HANDS ?
TOMIE JONES SAYS -OK USA RUNNING ISIS WHICH MEANS ISRAEL ,MOSSAD, ARE INVOLVED AND RUNNING ISIS.OH YOU CAN BET CAMERON BRITAINS PRIME MINISTER IS IN ON THE DEAL AS WELL.YES PET ZIONIST, CONSPIRACY ALERT ,
In a press conference at the Valdai Discussion Club 2014 in answer to a question to a United States Journalist, President Vladimir Putin addressed his concerns regarding the US and their role in the middle east and ISIS. Although the film footage of the press conference has been banned, Live leaks released a copy of the press conference to the public. The words of Putin are transcribed below word for word from the video originally provided by Inessa S.
The press and mainstream news has been avoiding this information. It is a scathing , diplomatic account of Russia’s position on the politic behavior and actions in the middle east regarding Syria and ISIS, as well as a reprimand to our press who have failed to do their job.
Putin’s complete oration to the US Journalists:
First point. I never said that I view the US as a threat to our national security. President Obama, as you said, views Russia as a threat, but I don’t feel the same way about the US. What I do feel is that the politics of those in the circles of power, if I may use those terms, the politics of those in power is erroneous. It not only contradicts our national interests, it undermines any trust we had in the United States. And in that way it actually harms the United states as well.
Undermined trust, with the understanding that they are one of the global leaders in politics and in matters of the economy.
I can stay silent on many things, but as I always say, and Dominic here has mentioned it, “one sided actions” in the continuous search for the next “alliance” and coalitions which are predetermined – this is not a method that seeks to discus and agree on mutual grounds of understanding. These are one sided actions. They are carried out all the time. They lead to crises.
I’ve said this before, another threat that President Obama mentioned was ISIS. Well who on earth armed them? Who armed the Syrians that were fighting with Assad? Who created the necessary political information and climate that facilitated this situation?
Who pushed for the delivery of arms to the area? Do you really not understand who is fighting in Syria?
They are mercenaries mostly. Do you understand they are paid money? Mercenaries fight for which ever side pays more. So they arm them and pay them a certain amount. I even know what theseamounts are. So they fight. They have the arms. You can’t get them to return the weapons of course, at the end.
Then they discover elsewhere pays a little more…so they go fight there. Then they occupy the oil fields.
Where ever in Iraq, Syria, they start extracting the oil and this oil is purchased by somebody. Where are the sanctions on the parties purchasing this oil?
Do you believe the US does not know who is buying it? Is it not their allies that are buying oil from Isis? Do you not think the US has the power to influence their allies? Or is the point that they indeed do not wish to influence them?
Then why bomb ISIS? In areas they started extracting oil and paying mercenaries more in theose areas the rebels from “civilized” Syrian opposition forces immediately join ISIS, because they pay more. I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics. It is not grounded on facts, in the real world.
We must support civilized, democratic opposition in Syria. So you support, arm them, and thentomorrow they join ISIS. Can they not think a step ahead? We don’t stand for this kind of politics of the US. We consider it to be wrong. It harms all parties, including you (USA).
When it comes to the consideration of our national interests I would really like it if people like you (US journalists) who posed the questions, would one day head your government. Maybe then we can somehow reverse the situation.
If that doesn’t happen, I will at least ask you to deliver my messages to your government. To the President of the United States, the Vice President, and all other relevant people. Tell them that we do not want or look for any confrontation whatsoever. When you start to consider our national interests in your actions, any other disagreements we may have they will self-regulate. This needs to be done, not just talked about. You must consider the interests of others, and you must respect other people.
You cannot “squeeze” others having considered only the benefits that you require from whatever… in economies, in your military activities, in everything. Look at Iraq the situation is terrible. Look at Libya and what you did there, that got your ambassador murdered.
Was it us that did this?
You even had a security council decision to establish a no fly zone. What for? It was so that Gaddafi’s air force couldn’t fly over and bomb the rebels. This wasn’t the smartest decision, but okay… what did you proceed to do yourselves? You started bombing the territory. This is in clear contravention of the security council resolution. It is even outright aggression over a state. Was it us that did this? You did this with your bare hands.
And it ended with the murder of your Ambassador. Who’s fault is it? It is your fault. Is it a good result that your Ambassador was murdered? It is actually a terrible catastrophe.
But do not look around for somebody to blame when it is you making these mistakes. You must do the opposite; rise above the endless desire to dominate. You must stop acting out of imperialistic ambitions. Do not poison the consciousness of millions of people like there can be no other way but imperialistic politics.
We will never forget our relationship when we supported the US in the war of independence (civil war). We will never forget that we collaborated in both world wars as allies. I personally believe that the geo strategic interests of Russia and the US are essentially the same. We must focus on this interrelationship.
Written by Dianne Marshall
The following video was translated by Inessa S . A grateful thank you to Inessa S. for all her effort to get this news out to the people.
In 2014, President Obama named the three major threats to US national security; ISIS, Russia and Ebola (because spiraling national debt, unequal distribution of wealth, over-incarceration, climate change etc are less pressing issues.)%)))
It would be fair to say that Russian politicians took much offence to being placed in this list, next to a terror organisation and a disease.
In relation to this statement, Putin answers a number of questions from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club, late 2014.
I’m not affiliated to them but I encourage those interested in Eurasian politics to follow Valdai on Facebook, for truthful insights with leading experts.
Jeremy Corbyn will respect the views of his party members by declaring Labour party policy is opposed to airstrikes in Syria. In keeping with his inclusive agenda, however, he will allow MPs afree vote on the issue in parliament.
The decision to make the official position of the Labour party an anti-bombing one is based on a poll the party initiated last week. Labour members were emailed and asked their views about the potential airstrikes. The poll attracted almost 110,000 replies, with around 75% opposed to bombing Syria.
Canvassing members on this important issue, and more to the point, listening to their responses, make for a refreshing change to the way political decision-making is usually done in the UK. It is also desperately needed after the rampant disrespect Tony Blair showed for the public and for parliament, when he ignored one million people marching on the streets in opposition to the Iraq war.
And it is, after all, citizens who will suffer the consequences of military action. Members of the public will be the people who fall victim to retaliatory attacks, if they take place. The public will also be the ones asked to bear more cuts to services, when too much money has been blown on bombs.
The free vote that has been given to Labour MPs regarding these airstrikes should then take the views of their citizens into consideration. As representatives of their constituents, and in particular their party members, their consciences should be firmly aligned to the wishes of those who elected them. It seems this message is already hitting home with some MPs. According to an article in The Guardian, a senior Labour source said:
Labour MPs seemed to have become more wary of backing military action over the weekend for fear of “marking their card” and getting singled out as targets for possible de-selection by activists.
Note the choice of words here. ‘Activists’ are those MPs fear, meaning citizens who are active in the political sphere. Jeremy Corbyn was elected on a huge mandate largely due to the fact he encouraged ‘active’ engagement in politics by the public. As The Canary recently highlighted, this has resulted in Corbyn being voted the most popular political leader in the UK in Ipsos-MORI’s latest poll. MPs would do well to learn from his example, but as Corbyn recently said himself:
I feel there are some people who haven’t quite got used to the idea the party is in a different place.
The Labour party are also demanding a delay on the vote for airstrikes in Syria, and a two-day debate on the issue, to give time for their concerns about David Cameron’s proposals to be addressed. Clarification has been requested about how strikes would actually strengthen Britain’s security, who exactly Cameron is suggesting would take control of Daesh’s territory once freed from their control, and how the bombing would contribute to a political settlement in Syria.
In fact, Corbyn has consistently advocated for a political and diplomatic settlement for the situation in Syria. This would include a negotiated arrangement for governance in Syria, which is currently being debated by a coalition of world powers. It would also require seeking to sever the supply line of money and arms to Daesh, in which Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar have alreadybeen implicated.
Most importantly, the consequences of Britain joining the coalition of nations making airstrikes – already involving eight countries – on Syrian civilians need to be seriously considered. As Corbynexplains here:
One war doesn’t necessarily bring about peace, it often can bring yet more conflict, more mayhem and more loss.
It seems the Syrian people agree. The Observer recently published opinions on the possible UK airstrikes from Syrians, and one woman from Raqqa – one of the places Cameron wants to target– had an unequivocal message to send:
Absolutely no, please tell the British parliament
Surely it is incumbent on the UK to listen to the people whom we insist we are trying to save, just as it is on MPs to heed the views of their constituents. After 14 years of the ‘war on terror’, attacks have escalated by 6,500% and much of the Middle East lies in ruins. We should explore avenues that do not go through the barrel of a gun, and applaud the anti-bombing stance Labour have taken. After all, in a democracy, it is what their citizens have asked for.
ALERT ALERT CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT !Wait this is conspiracy incontrovertible facts are you going to arrest us if it is facts still ?what do you say pet zionist, oh and of course global warning is all israel’s fault as you blame us for all problems so we blame israel.let us face facts if the zionist jews were not there there would not be a problem.people living side by side all races and creeds in peace .love thy neirbour not exterminate as the zionists are doing.so problem solved zionists out all the rest in .Yes i know i am being simplistic but peace and co existance .not zionist greater israel domination.
Increasingly, on the social media, the better informed people are drawing analogies between Zionism and Nazis, between Hitler and Netanyahu, in what must be the biggest ongoing Godwin of all time. Also 43 Nazi genocide survivors and over 200 decendants have signed an open letter and taken an advert in the New York Times accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. One Auschwitz survivor, Hajo Meyer, said “If we want to stay really human beings, we must get up and call the Zionists what they are: Nazi criminals” and that hate of the Jews by the Germans “was less deeply rooted than the hate of the Palestinians by the Israeli Jews” and “The brainwashing of the Jewish Israeli populations is going on for over sixty years. They cannot see a Palestinian as a human being”. This is deeply troubling, so before we go any further it is worth making a few very important points.
Now we have have got that clear we should look at the various areas where comparisons can be drawn. But first remember the scale, Israel has just 8 million people and is just 8,000 square miles. Nazi Germany at its height contained hundreds of millions of people and encompassed a great deal of Europe.
There is far more, in fact there is easily a book or two in this. The article above contains many links that provide evidence and background reading. Please click through these if you want to build a broader picture for yourself. You can build your own ideas of how similar Nazism and Zionism are, but the facts above seem very compelling. Also remember that Zionism is not Judaisim and that anti-Semitism is always utterly unacceptable It is bad enough for our planet that Zionism is so shamefully racist against Palestinians. They seem to have no moral compass.
There are some inside Hollywood, who are trying to wake up the world – Donald Sutherland is one of them.
Hollywood actor, Donald Sutherland just dropped a bombshell on the military industrial complex. Sutherland, who plays President Coriolanus Snow in the blockbuster movie series Hunger Games, was recently asked what the movie was really about – he held no punches in his answer.
“If there’s any question as to what it’s an allegory for I will tell you.
It is the powers that be in the United States of America.
It’s profiteers.
War is for profit. It’s not “to save the world for democracy” or “for king and country.”
No, bulls**t.
It’s for the profit of the top 10%, and the young people who see this film must recognize that for the future ‘blind faith in their leaders,’ as Bruce Springsteen said, “will get you dead.”
Those who are awake to the war machine, and have watched the movies or read the books, have undoubtedly seen the underlying anti-establishment theme within. However, those who do not notice it should heed Sutherland’s words.
It is no question that war is for the profit of very few people. In fact, as the famous, two-time Medal of Honor recipient, Major General Smedley Butler of the USMC said:
“WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?”
Sutherland does get one thing wrong, however, and that is the percentage that he assigns to those who profit from war. It is nowhere near 10% as he states. Those who profit from war, as Smedley Butler points out above, are a tiny group of people. The ruling elite. More like the .0001 %.
It’s the weapons manufacturers, the arms dealers, the inside politicians, and the state itself. Everyone else involved in war, including those who die for it, are merely pawns. They are cogs in the machine whose only purpose is to spread death and destruction.
Please share this article and video so that others, who may have missed the point of this movie series, may see its true purpose – calling out the elite for the criminals that they are.
This article originally published on October 7, 2015 is of utmost relevance in understanding the action taken by Turkey to down a Russian jet fighter over Syria airspace. (GR. Editor. M. Ch.)
One Russian plane may even indeed have slightly crossed the border [in October] while maneuvering. But the real reason why the U.S. military official and Turkey claim the above “violations” is because Turkey unilaterally “moved” the Turkish-Syrian border five miles south:
Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.
If Syrian rules of engagement would “move” its northern border up to the Black Sea would any plane in eastern Turkey be in violation of Syrian air space? No one would accept such nonsense and that is why no one should accept the U.S.-Turkish bullshit here. Russian planes should not respect the “new” Turkish defined border but only the legitimate one…
Russian planes in Syria “violated Turkish air space” the news agency currently tell us. But an earlier report shows that this claim may well be wrong and that the U.S. pushes Turkey to release such propaganda.
Reuters (Mon Oct 5, 2015 7:54am BST): Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace
A Russian warplane violated Turkish airspace near the Syrian border on Saturday, prompting the Air Force to scramble two F-16 jets to intercept it, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.The Foreign Ministry summoned Moscow’s ambassador to protest the violation, according to an e-mailed statement. Turkey urged Russia to avoid repeating such a violation, or it would be held “responsible for any undesired incident that may occur.”
AFP (10:20am · 5 Oct 2015): Turkey ‘intercepts’ Russian jet violating its air space
Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.
…
Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.
Here now what McClatchy reported on these air space violations in a longer piece several hours before Reuters and AFP reported the Turkish claim:
ISTANBUL – A Russian warplane on a bombing run in Syria flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space, Turkish and U.S. officials said Sunday.
…
A Turkish security official said Turkish radar locked onto the Russian aircraft as it was bombing early Friday in al Yamdiyyah, a Syrian village directly on the Turkish border. He said Turkish fighter jets would have attacked had it crossed into Turkish airspace.But a U.S. military official suggested the incident had come close to sparking an armed confrontation. Reading from a report, he said the Russian aircraft had violated Turkish air space by five miles and that Turkish jets had scrambled, but that the Russian aircraft had returned to Syrian airspace before they could respond.The Turkish security official said he could not confirm that account.
So it is the U.S., not Turkey, which was first pushing the claims of air space violation and of scrambling fighters. The Turkish source would not confirm that.
But how could it be a real air space violation when Russian planes “flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space”. The Russian planes were flying in Syrian airspace. They “may have crossed” is like saying that the earth “may be flat”. Well maybe it is, right?
Fact is the Russians fly ery near to the border and bomb position of some anti-Syrian fighters Turkey supports. They have good reasons to do so:
The town, in a mountainous region of northern Latakia province, has been a prime route for smuggling people and goods between Turkey and Syria and reportedly has functioned as a key entry for weapons shipped to Syrian rebels by the U.S.-led Friends of Syria group of Western and Middle Eastern countries.
One Russian plane may even indeed have slightly crossed the border while maneuvering. But the real reason why the U.S. military official and Turkey claim the above “violations” is because Turkey unilaterally “moved” the Turkish-Syrian border five miles south:
Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.
If Syrian rules of engagement would “move” its northern border up to the Black Sea would any plane in eastern Turkey be in violation of Syrian air space? No one would accept such nonsense and that is why no one should accept the U.S.-Turkish bullshit here. Russian planes should not respect the “new” Turkish defined border but only the legitimate one.
It would also be no good reason to start a NATO-Russia war just because such a plane might at times slightly intrude on the Turkish side due to an emergency or other accidental circumstances. Do we have to mention that the U.S., France, Britain and Jordan regularly violate Syrian airspace for their pretended ISIS bombing? That Turkey is bombing the PKK in north Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi government? What about Israels regular air space violations over Lebanon?
But what is this all really about? Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S. stationed some Patriot air defense systems in Turkey to defend Turkey and its Islamist storm troops in north-Syria. These systems were announced to leave or have already left. Are these claims about air-space violation now an attempt to get these systems back into Turkey? For what real purpose?
MASSIVE NUMBERS OF THE BRITISH DEMAND THAT NETANYAHU BE PROSECUTED FOR MASS CHILD MURDERING AND A BANK OF OTHER WAR CRIMES!
NETANYAHU = MOST EVIL AGENT OF THE ROTHSCHILDS MAFIA!
 |
| During the 1930s the Daily Mail were big supporters of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. |
“But it was the absurdly unrealistic scene showing a mixed-race middle-class family in a detached new-build suburban home, which was most symptomatic of the politically correct agenda in modern Britain. This was supposed to be a representation of modern life in England but it is likely to be a challenge for the organisers to find an educated white middle-aged mother and black father living together with a happy family in such a set-up.”
The idea that there is no such thing as a happy mixed-race family is deeply racist and reeks of the kind of ethnic purity obsessions of the Nazis that won such praise from the Daily Mail in the 1930s.
After yet another storm of criticism the Mail sneakily removed the offending page from their website, however an archived version of the article can be seen here.
It is bemusing that so many people continue to read such filth and even more bemusing that 53% of their readership is female. When one tends to think of the kind of bigoted reactionary idiot that might read the Daily Mail the mental image that pops to mind is one of a badly tattooed, incoherent and sweary bloke, however the majority of people reading the Mail’s reactionary bile are actually women!
circusbuoy 
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, glad to see you posting.