1.6K
[su_spoiler title=”Please share this article as widely as you can. ” open=”yes” style=”fancy”]
Mena Beaumont
Mena Beaumont, a member of TGP’s Facebook group just brought this to our attention.
Except she is NOT challenging power with her voting record. The latest…she voted with her party on anti bds.
Beware. Things aren’t always as they appear. She has her backers. That’s how she got in.
“Compromises”
In just 6 months Ocasio has:
- 1. Wholeheartedly endorsed Nancy Pelosi, one of the most corrupt people in the history of Congress and praised war criminal, John McCain as “an unparalleled example of human decency”.
- 2. Voted to fund ICE on her first week on the job after calling for the abolition of ICE as one of the central points of her campaign,
- 3. Voted in favor of HR 221 – a bill which criminalizes boycotts to Israel under the false pretense of nominating a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act – a composite bill that would give Israel billions of dollars and “combat” the campaign to boycott Israel over its human rights violations among its measures.” AOC however voted against the so-called House “anti-BDS” resolution (HR 246). This is certainly confusing, for while HR 221 clearly supports and implies the criminalisation of criticism and actions against Israel, categorising such as “anti-Semitic”, the anti-BDS rsolution is more forthright, condeming all boycotts and hostile campaigns against Israel. This resolution Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, along with the rest of her friends in the “Squad”, all voted against.)
- 4. Voted for HR 676 – the NATO Support Act which reaffirms US support for NATO and rejects any attempts to withdraw from this international criminal alliance.
- 5. Voted for HJ Resolution 30 to reject a proposal to lift Apr. 2018 sanctions imposed under CAATSA to Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
- 6. Manufactured consent for regime change in Venezuela by perpetuating the “Maduro bad man” imperialistic non-sense that she claims to oppose and said she would follow the Democratic Party’s leadership in regards to Venezuela.
- 7. Backed H.R.1616 to subsidize new gas infrastructure in Europe and Euroasia – a handout to the fossil fuel mafia (so much for that New Green Deal)
- 8. Backed legislation containing a prohibition against the IRS offering on-line tax filing- a handout to tax service companies
- 9. Voted for $738 billion for the military, a record amount for the Pentagon.
Can anyone please explain how these actions are radical or revolutionary in any shape or form?
—Raúl Fernández-Berriozábal
[/su_spoiler]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
3 comments
This article is false on the 2 items that I checked. AOC voted not for but against the FY 22 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021293
That was not $738 billion, it was $767.6B: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57471
I object to the editors’ acceptance of articles that make allegations that aren’t linked to their sources, the documentation. Any such articles should be rejected immediately. I usually find that articles that don’t link to their evidence are loaded with falsehoods. In the present case, it took me years to getting around to checking this one out. Checking out the allegations in an article that doesn’t link to its sources is very time-consuming, an insult to the readers. Usually it hides either dishonesty or sloppiness. Please don’t burder your readers with such.
Of course, ink-on-paper articles cannot link to their sources, which is one reason I avoid reading them. Videos and “talking heads” likewise are not trustworthy, unless the presenter is someone whom the listener knows from extensive prior experience regarding that presenter is both honest and careful. Only online written articles can actually put the reader in control by providing links to the sources. Therefore, that’s by far the best way to present information. And any submitted article that fails to take full advantage of this unique feature of online written articles (links to its sources) should be automatically written-off by editors — it isn’t even worthy of being considered. This article by Mena Beaumont is an example of that.
The commenter seems to forget that this publication enjoys the services of no paid editors, that it operates on probably 1/billionth the budget of the New York Times; and that it operates in an ocean of data which is immensely difficult to verify to the degree the commenter thinks is needed to convey the direction of truth about any subject, in this case, AOC’s fraudulence as an agent of radical change. Furthermore he also forgets that truth about a particular subject, truth enough to make decisions as to where we stand, does not need to be footnoted ad infinitum, and that written sources or their equivalent can also be doubted. For example, just about 95% of the extant literature on the Soviet Union or communism in general available to the ORDINARY Western reader is flawed, sneakily tendentious or outright false. This vice is certainly found throughout academia itself, as the commenter, a historian of notable perception, has even written a book denouncing the countless falsehoods encountered in the so-called social sciences under the current bourgeois regime. Further in this vein, it’s worth recalling that even academic stars, such as “sovietologist” Tim Snyder, “Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University” have built a career on a virtual mountain of distortions and deceptions but which conveniently fit the biases of the Western power elites.
“AOC’s fraudulence as an agent of radical change” is a topic that interests me but as soon as I spot-checked an article which asserts that hypothesis and found both of the allegations false, I not only have no reason to trust the truth of the allegation but also have reason to trash the article’s writer as being not trustworthy and therefore not worth reading that writer in the future. I don’t have time to spot-check articles that fail to link to their sources, but now, years after that article was published, I finally did, a bit of time to do that research on my own — to check out what the two facts actually are and whether or not those facts confirm or disconfirm that writer’s article. Why did you publish that untrustworthy article instead of demand its writer to link in it to its sources? By doing so, you have affirmed in your site’s audience’s minds the allegation “AOC’s fraudulence as an agent of radical change“ by using false allegations and so deceiving your readers into believing it on the basis of falsehoods. I don’t know whether that allegation (which you take as fact though it is instead an hypothesis which might be false) is true, but now I do know that that writer falsified in order to allege it, and that you defend both her sloppiness, inconsiderateness, and maybe even lying, in order to deceive your readers into believing this hypothesis, which might be false, but which you now insist is true. I don’t know about AOC, but now that I wasted so much time trying to find out about AOC by reading this writer at this website, I do know something about that writer and about your website. I hope that this site will decide that it erred to have published that author who fails to provide links to her sources. That writer cannot be trusted by intelligent readers, and now the question is whether your site’s editor can be, but your reply indicates your answer to that: No, this site’s editor cannot be trusted by intelligent readers, unless this site’s editor will greatly improve his criteria for accepting and for rejecting submitted articles. No such writer as Mena Beaumongt should be considered by this site unless and until that writer will link to all sources for all allegations that might reasonably be doubted. I meet that standard; some others do, but Mena Beaumont does not. And, so far, you do not.