Saturday, February 27, 2016

VOTERS SAY; HEY HILLARY! SHOW ME THE TRANSCRIPTS!

Come on Hillary! Don't be one of those regular politicians who's afraid to be transparent by hiding something from the people she wants votes from. Voters deserve to know what Hillary told Wall Street bankers that was so valuable they paid her huge sums of money to deliver them.



Along with the $44.1 million the industry has donated to back her campaigns, she personally earned more than $3.7 million for delivering paid speeches to banks and other financial services firms since leaving the State Department in 2013, personal financial disclosures show.

Those payments have dogged her on the campaign trail. During the CNN forum Wednesday night, Clinton struggled to explain why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs to deliver three speeches to the bank.

“That’s what they offered,” she told moderator Anderson Cooper, adding: “They’re not giving me very much money now, I can tell you that much. Fine with me.”















Even as Hillary Clinton has stepped up her rhetorical assault on Wall Street, her campaign and allied super PACs have continued to rake in millions from the financial sector, a sign of her deep and lasting relationships with banking and investment titans.

Through the end of December, donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial services firms had given at least $21.4 million to support Clinton’s 2016 presidential run — more than 10 percent of the $157.8 million contributed to back her bid, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by The Washington Post.

The contributions helped Clinton reach a fundraising milestone: By the end of 2015, she had brought in more money from the financial sector during her four federal campaigns than her ­husband did during his ­quarter-century political career.

In all, donors from Wall Street and other financial services firms have given $44.1 million to support Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and allied super PACs, compared with $39.7 million in backing that former president Bill Clinton received from the industry, according to campaign finance records dating back to 1974 that have been compiled by The Post.

Nearly half of the financial­sector donations made to support Hillary Clinton’s current presidential run have come from just two wealthy financiers: billionaire investor George Soros, who gave $7 million last year to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, and hedge-fund manager S. Donald Sussman, who gave the group $2.5 million.

Most of their money was donated in December as Clinton was taking an increasingly tough stance toward the industry in an effort to blunt the populist appeal of her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

“I believe strongly that we need to make sure that Wall Street never wrecks Main Street again,” she declared at a campaign stop in West Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 24, adding: “No bank is too big to fail, and no executive is too powerful to jail.”

[Inside the Clinton donor network]

Clinton’s success at raising millions from major Wall Street players — even as she blasts some of their most lucrative practices — shows how she continues to benefit from relationships she and her husband forged over decades.

As Sanders has put her on the defensive about her Wall Street contributions, Clinton has responded that the campaign money does not influence her approach to regulating the financial industry.

Clinton points to her proposals to rein in the sector — such as a new risk fee on large financial institutions and increased penalties for financial crimes — as evidence that she cannot be swayed.

“She believes that the measure of our success must be defined by how much incomes rise for hard-working families, not just CEOs and money managers,” said campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin. “The hundreds of thousands of people who have supported Hillary’s campaign know that’s what she’s fighting for.”

Earlier in the campaign, Clinton tried to explain her connections to the industry in part by noting that she “represented Wall Street” as a U.S. senator from New York. In one debate in November, she appeared to suggest that campaign donations she received from financial services firms came in response to her support for New York City after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

As Sanders’s excoriations of Wall Street have helped him gain traction, the former secretary of state has sought to ramp up her own rhetoric, matching his tone of outrage and indignation.

 “I’m really proud of my plan, that it is driving the Republicans and Wall Street crazy,” Clinton said in Dover, N.H., on Wednesday, adding: “They know that I know how to stop them from ever hurting us again.”

Clinton has called out specific companies such as Pfizer and Johnson Controls for conducting “corporate inversions” — a merger with a foreign counterpart for tax benefits.

“On the tax code, they call that an inversion; I call it a perversion,” she said Wednesday. “And I’m going to go right after that!”

At the same time, however, Clinton continues to collect money from financiers who are benefiting from some of the deals she decries. Among those who have raised at least $100,000 for her campaign is Blair Effron, a founding partner of Centerview Partners, a boutique investment firm that played a role in the Pfizer and Johnson Controls inversion negotiations. A Centerview spokesman declined to comment.

In December, Effron attended a joint fundraiser for Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee held at the Manhattan home of Blackstone Group President Hamilton “Tony” James and his wife, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal. The featured guest was legendary investor Warren Buffett, and attendees included Byron Wien, a vice chairman at Blackstone; Wesley Edens, co-founder of Fortress Investment Group; and Cliff Robbins, chief executive of Blue Harbour Group.

Clinton’s reliance on such figures for financial support alarms some on the left, who are already wary of the ties she and her husband have to Robert Rubin, the former Goldman Sachs co­chairman who became Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary.

Hillary Clinton’s tougher rhetoric and regulatory proposals are “commendable,” said Jeff Hauser, who leads the Revolving Door Project, a foundation-funded effort that has joined Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in calling for presidential candidates to commit to appointing independent regulators at the Treasury Department and other agencies.

But, Hauser said, she “has to decide whether she wants to fully commit or have one foot on the reform wing of the Democratic Party and another on the Wall Street wing.”

[From ‘dead broke’ to multimillionaires]

Clinton scooped up Wall Street donations during her first Senate run in 2000, turning to Rubin and investment banker Roger Altman, who served in her husband’s administration, to introduce her to key players.

Since that first race, the financial sector has been among the top industries that have supported her, a Post analysis found last year.

With the $21.4 million that Wall Street has given for her current White House bid, Clinton is on track to quickly exceed the nearly $23 million that she raised in her three previous campaigns combined from the PACs and employees of banks, hedge funds, securities firms and insurance companies, according to the latest Post analysis.

That’s in part because this is the first time Clinton is running in the era of super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations from individuals and corporations. So far, financial-sector donors have given $17.4 million to her allied super PACs, the analysis found.

But Clinton is also leaning on Wall Street to help finance her campaign directly as she tries to stay ahead of Sanders’s robust online fundraising operation, which brought in more than $20 million in January.

Sanders jabbed at Clinton for attending a fundraiser in Philadelphia at the office of investment firm Franklin Square Capital Partners days before the Iowa caucuses. The event included a special acoustic performance for donors by Jon Bon Jovi. A spokeswoman for the firm declined to comment.

Meanwhile, two other finance industry fundraisers that were set to take place before the New Hampshire primary have been rescheduled for later dates. The campaign declined to say why.

Clinton was originally supposed to attend an event in Boston organized by Jeannie and Jonathan Lavine, the managing partner of Sankaty Advisors, an affiliate of Bain Capital, according to details obtained by the Sunlight Foundation’s Political Party Time. The fundraiser has been rescheduled for a later date that the campaign would not reveal.

In addition, a New York fundraiser billed as a “Conversation With Hillary,” co-hosted by Matt Mallow, chief legal officer for the asset-management firm BlackRock, originally scheduled for Jan. 28 has been moved to Feb. 16.

The next day, Bill Clinton will headline a fundraiser in New York hosted by real estate investor Bal Das and Valérie Demont, a lawyer who heads the U.S.-India practice at Pepper Hamilton, specializing in international mergers and acquisitions.

A BANK YOU CAN TRUST


Bernie has sponsored legislation to let the Postal Service find innovative new ways to shore up its finances. Sanders proposed that the U.S. Postal Service offer banking services—“postal banking”—which was provided until 1967.

Simply put, the Post Office would offer basic banking services to customers—like low-interest savings accounts, debit cards and even some simple types of loans. The USPS already takes in more than $100 million in revenue each year by selling postal money orders.

“One of the ways that I think we can help not only the U.S. Postal Service, but help a lot of low-income people—if you are a low-income person, it is, depending upon where you live, very difficult to find normal banking. Banks don’t want you,” Bernie continued, “And what people are forced to do is go to payday lenders who charge outrageously high interest rates. You go to check-cashing places, which rip you off. And, yes, I think that the postal service, in fact, can play an important role in providing modest types of banking service to folks who need it.”

An estimated 68 million people live in “bank deserts,” areas without access to financial services. The banks don’t want to serve these people because they’re mostly poor, leaving them to be gouged by check-cashing shops and payday lenders.

Postal banking could save low-income families thousands of dollars per year, AND provide a new revenue stream for the Post Office.

HOW MANY ROBES DID SCALIA HAVE IN HIS CLOSET?





When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died 12 days ago at a West Texas ranch, he was among high-ranking members of an exclusive fraternity for hunters called the International Order of St. Hubertus, an Austrian society that dates back to the 1600s.

After Scalia’s death Feb. 13, the names of the 35 other guests at the remote resort, along with details about Scalia’s connection to the hunters, have remained largely unknown. A review of public records shows that some of the men who were with Scalia at the ranch are connected through the International Order of St. Hubertus, whose members gathered at least once before at the same ranch for a celebratory weekend.

Members of the worldwide, male-only society wear dark-green robes emblazoned with a large cross and the motto “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes,” which means “Honoring God by honoring His creatures,” according to the group’s website. Some hold titles, such as Grand Master, Prior and Knight Grand Officer. The Order’s name is in honor of Hubert, the patron saint of hunters and fishermen.





HILLARY IS BEING PILLORIED

The Clinton dynasty have the same problems as the Bush dynasty. They both carry a lot of "baggage" and a sh-tload of it is being unpacked on social media. 

Fortunately for America, JEB! is in the wind and the Republican party continues it's free fall into wherever Donald Trump will take them. Republican voters are angry at the Republican Establishment and it shows at the polls. 

The Clintons, on the other hand still have the full support of the Democratic Establishment (big money) and both have joined forces (along with the mainstream media) to shore up defenses against any "grass root activists" that would threaten the status quo. 

Democratic voters are not so angry, but very passionate and that is also showing at the polls. Despite great odds Bernie Sanders has continue to eat away at the once dominant lead Hillary was endowed with and it's taking it's toll on her and her campaign. Early signs are her change in rhetoric which has now begun to morph into Sanders sound bites. 

It is also appearing in the ways some voters are calling Hillary out on her, and her ex-president husband's history when it comes to how they weakened the civil rights movement during Bill's POTUS years. 

Black Lives Matter activist Ashley Williams interrupted Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night at a lavish private fundraiser in South Carolina. The young woman accused the presidential candidate of hypocrisy for supporting “tough on crime” laws that led to mass incarceration of black Americans.







Williams held up a sign reading “We have to bring them to heel,” recalling a line from Clinton’s 1994 “super-predator” speech, which has been widely characterized as racist. Secret Service promptly forced the Black Lives Matter activist to leave the wealthy, almost all-white fundraiser.



Activists uploaded a video of the protest to YouTube under the name #NotASuperpredator, with a caption linking to the article “Why Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve the black vote” by legal scholar Michelle Alexander, author of the prominent book “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness.”


On Thursday morning, the tag #WhichHillary began trending on Twitter, as thousands of people criticized Clinton for constantly shifting positions and for what they see as her hypocrisy.


BILLIONAIRE SAYS ECONOMY IS JUST FINE; SURPRISE!



Coming from Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on the planet (around $80 billion) I can't disagree with him. For him, and those wealthy enough to invest in his money pot I imagine everything is just fine.



Did Warren feel the effects of the 2008 crash? Did he lose his home(s)? Did his retirement nest egg vanish?



From where Warren and the rest of the 1% sit; all is well and continues to get better. But, let's get down to earth now and the picture is not so bright, regardless of what Warren says. And, asking people to stop complaining is what any good capitalist would do.







In 2015, Berkshire's net worth grew $15.4 billion, or 6.4%, the "Oracle of Omaha" said. In the wide-ranging letter, Buffett, who preaches investment in a diversified collection of companies rather than securities, remains an optimist despite complaints about the 2% pace of economic growth.

"It’s an election year, and candidates can’t stop speaking about our country’s problems (which, of course, only they can solve). As a result of this negative drumbeat, many Americans now believe that their children will not live as well as they themselves do," said Buffett, 85. "That view is dead wrong: The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history."

He added that "for 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. America’s golden goose of commerce and innovation will continue to lay more and larger eggs. America’s social security promises will be honored and perhaps made more generous."



So, for the rest of Main Street America let's consider what Bernie Sanders has to say about our economy;


The more we listen to and read about Bernie Sanders, the clearer it becomes that there is one central theme we need to understand about him on which almost everything else rests. It is what he clarified in the last Democratic debate.

In all due respect, you’re missing the main point. And the main point in the Congress, it’s not the Republicans and Democrats hate each other. 
That’s a mythology from the media. 

The real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.

Notice that he didn’t say that “Republicans are owned by big money.” Sanders believes that ALL of Congress is owned by big money. That’s what he means when he says that the system is rigged. His view is that the gridlock we are witnessing right now is not a result of ideological differences. It is because big money is in charge and that makes Congress oblivious to the needs of the American people.  It’s why he thinks the only way to change things is via a revolution of the people.

When it comes to this central belief of Sanders, it is not something new for him. Thirty years ago when he was Mayor of Burlington, VT, here’s what he told the LA Times:

I think from one end of this country to the other people are ripe for political revolution. Fifty percent of the people do not bother voting in the presidential and statewide elections. The vast majority of those not voting are low-income people who have given up on America. The whole quality of life in America is based on greed. I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.

We are demonstrating in Burlington the peoples’ contempt for conventional old-fashioned Democratic and Republican politics. The good news here is that the two-party system and corporate establishment are not invincible.




THE ESTABLISHMENT OLIGARCHS ARE FEELING THE BERN



Bernie is taking on the Establishment head on. 



The following message is one of many that are specifically targeted at the super rich who throw money into a corrupt political system that they select candidates who will do their bidding. 



There are those who have tried to take on the Establishment and either failed at the starting gate or were only able to push back a little, but not enough to stop it. 



Bernie Sanders believes the time has come for Americans to retake our country and he's asking voters to give him the opportunity to do it; 



“I like to give on a scale where I can see impact...” - David Koch

Earlier this year, a number of Republicans flew to California to make fundraising pitches to more than four hundred wealthy conservative donors attending a private conference hosted by the Koch brothers.

It’s worth taking a moment to ask the question, who are the Koch brothers, and what do they want?

The Koch brothers are the second-wealthiest family in America worth $82 billion. For the Koch brothers, $82 billion in wealth apparently is not good enough. Owning the second-largest private company in America is apparently not good enough. It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process.

This issue isn't personal for me. I don't know the Koch brothers, but I do know this. They have advocated for destroying the federal programs that are critical to the financial and personal health of middle class Americans. Now, most Americans know that the Koch brothers are the primary source of funding for the Tea Party, and that’s fine. They know that they favor the outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and that’s their opinion. It’s wrong, but that’s fine as well.

But it is not widely known that David Koch once ran for Vice President of the United States of America on the Libertarian Party ticket because he believed Ronald Reagan was much too liberal. And he ran on a platform that included the following:

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws…”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

In 1980, David Koch’s presidential ticket received one percent of the vote from the American people. And rightly so. His views were so extreme they were rejected completely out of hand by the American people.

But fast forward almost thirty-six years, and one of the most significant realities of modern politics is just how successful David Koch and the like-minded billionaires attending his retreat have been at moving the Republican Party to the extreme right. The ideas above that were dismissed as downright crazy in 1980 are now part of today’s mainstream Republican thinking.

The Koch brothers, and billionaires like them, have bought up the private sector and now they’re buying up the government. It’s up to us to put a stop to them, but it will require all of us standing together with one voice on this issue.

Here’s the truth: The economic and political systems of this country are stacked against ordinary Americans. The rich get richer and use their wealth to buy elections, and I believe that we cannot change this corrupt system by taking its money. If we’re serious about creating jobs, health care for all, climate change, and the needs of our children and the elderly, we must be serious about campaign finance reform.

So far in this election, less than four hundred families have contributed the majority of all the money raised by all the candidates and super PACs combined. According to media reports, one family will spend more money in this election than either the Democratic or Republican Parties.

This is not democracy. This is oligarchy.

We must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and I will not nominate any justice to the Supreme Court who does not make it abundantly clear that she or he will overturn that decision. We need legislation that requires wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going. And more importantly, I believe we need to move towards the public funding of elections.

Our vision for American democracy should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful.


What Bernie’s liberal critics miss: Attacking him as “unrealistic” is making a huge error

Friday, February 26, 2016

WHO OWNS YOUR CANDIDATE?

The political Establishment and those that operate in it have for all intent and purpose been bought by those who operate the machine and you can be sure it's not representing the voters.



The following graph is stark and revealing because it is a forewarning to voters of who has been bought by special interests and who is representing the voters;




The 2016 race started early with a large field of potential candidates, some of whom acted very much like, well, candidates — making appearances in early primary states, vying for commitments from big donors and assembling teams that could quickly pivot and become campaign staff. Meanwhile, constellations of groups working on behalf of each of the most serious White House hopefuls – including leadership PACs, super PACs, 501(c)(4) dark money outlets and more – cropped up like spring flowers, all but inviting spending records to be broken.

Darker bar represents outside money; lighter bar represents candidate committee money)


Hillary Clinton (D)$57,748,407

$130,443,637
Outside groups

Campaign committee
Ted Cruz (R)$46,726,605

$54,661,506
Outside groups

Campaign committee
Bernie Sanders (D)$44,968

$96,311,423
Outside groups

Campaign committee
Ben Carson (R)$13,807,549

$57,860,505
Outside groups

Campaign committee
Marco Rubio (R)$34,313,903

$34,652,654
Outside groups

Campaign committee
Donald Trump (R)$1,894,509

$25,526,319
Outside groups

Campaign committee
John Kasich (R)$6,729,311

$8,648,890
Outside groups

Campaign committee
Jill Stein (3)$0

$300,421
Outside groups

Campaign committee

Thursday, February 25, 2016

HOT AIR GAZETTE: HILLARY HAS A "ROMNEY" MOMENT - OOOOOPPS!

It was only a $500.00 a plate event; not the $50,000 Romney bash by far, but one person who anted up wanted more than a meal and was promptly booted out. Why? Because the question was not on the talking points list, leaving Hillary in the wind.



















Two sources detailing a statement Hillary Clinton made concerning her advocacy in favor of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, have the potential to cause a major tide shift away from Clinton by and among African American voters. 


The sources are:

Antonio Moore "Hillary Clinton Should Ask for Black America's Forgiveness Before She Asks for its Vote". http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary-clinton-should-as_b_9238064.html
-and-
"Lessons From the O.J. Simpson Case for the Presidential Race and the Nation’s Racial Divide," by Marjorie Cohn. http://www.globalresearch.ca/lessons-from-the-o-j-simpson-case-for-the-presidential-race-and-the-nations-racial-divide/5508521

The Clinton statement is:

“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended that way, but first we have bring them to heel.” 

That is a politically charged statement, to put it no more forcefully than that.

DT! THE DEMOCRATS TROJAN HORSE

I've said it several times already; Trump is the best thing to happen to the Democratic party since FDR. In a few short months Trump has been able to decimate the party Establishment and after throwing millions of dollars into a train load of part clowns they have not been able to make a dent in the Trump anti-establishment bulldozer.



Why? The answer is written on every bathroom wall in every campaign office across the country on both the Republican and Democratic sides. Voters are just plain disgusted (and rightly so) with the status quo and Trump is a clear alternative.



Donald Trump is well on his way to the 1,237 delegates he needs to be the GOP nominee 





Democrats need not worry about winning in November if, as it appears, Trump wins the nomination because they have the secret weapon to defeat him; Bernie Sanders.


In a fundraising email, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver cited polling data that shows Mr. Sanders beating Mr. Trump, the GOP’s White House front-runner, by a significant margin.


The email specifically cited a Huffington Post poll average that shows Mr. Sanders beating Mr. Trump by 10 percentage points, while Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. Trump by just four percentage points.

A Real Clear Politics average of all polls also shows Mr. Sanders defeating Mr. Trump handily — 47.5 percent to 41.5 percent.

“The truth is, it’s going to take more than establishment politics and establishment thinking to beat Donald Trump,” Mr. Weaver said in the email, repeating the “establishment” line that the Sanders campaign often has used in attacking Mrs. Clinton.

“But together, we are building something unprecedented,” Mr. Weaver continued. “That is why we’re doing so well in the polls, and why we’ve seen grass-roots enthusiasm unmatched by any candidate on either side of this primary. Only Trump comes close. And that is why what we are building is what will be required to defeat him.”

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

VOTERS GIVE REPUBLICANS A LOSS IN NEVADA

The voters have spoken and it wasn't what the Republican Establishment wanted to hear. The Republican party with all it's cash was unable to  persuade voters to pick a candidate from their pack.




On Tuesday night, Trump mocked pundits who argue that all it will take to knock him out of the race is the consolidation of mainstream Republicans behind a lone rival – most likely Rubio or, should the Florida senator falter, Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

“They keep forgetting that when people drop out, we’re going to get a lot of votes,” Trump told a few hundred supporters at his celebration at the Treasure Island casino.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

HILLARY ORDERED TO UNPACK MORE BAGGAGE

When conversations about who is the best Democratic candidate to run against a Republican one should keep in mind how much baggage they are carrying with them. No doubt the Republicans are paying attention and hope that Hillary will take the prize because in their eyes, she's a gift that keeps on giving.



The campaign will be a barrage of Hillary this, and Hillary that, and Hillary this, and Hillary that, that will last all the way through November. That doesn't bode well if the Democrat Establishment wants a clear path to the White House.



U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system - The Washington Post

HILLARY ORDERED TO UNPACK MORE BAGGAGE

When conversations about who is the best Democratic candidate to run against a Republican one should keep in mind how much baggage they are carrying with them. No doubt the Republicans are paying attention and hope that Hillary will take the prize because in their eyes, she's a gift that keeps on giving.



The campaign will be a barrage of Hillary this, and Hillary that, and Hillary this, and Hillary that, that will last all the way through November. That doesn't bode well if the Democrat Establishment wants a clear path to the White House.



U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system - The Washington Post

Monday, February 22, 2016

SCALIA REDUX

It's understandable that the eulogies were somewhat exaggerated. The system must be preserved before anything else; even the truth.



The following piece comes from someone looking on the other side of Antonin Scalia.



ESTABLISHMENT RIGGED TO "SELECT" HILLARY

Bernie may well win the popular vote but lose the nomination to Hillary. How? What happened to the "one-person-one-vote" doctrine of the democratic process?



It seem the Establishment has built in safeguards created to prevent what the DNC chairperson  called, "grassroots activists" from threatening what has long been cronyism exploited by big money interests who buy favors in return for cash.



Here's how it is playing out in the 2016 Democratic primaries;



Lobbyists are not only staffing and financing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they’re also tipping the nomination process in her favor by serving as so-called superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention.



Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic primary by more than 22 percentage points and by doing so, earned 15 delegates to Clinton’s 9. So it came as a shock to many observers when Clinton, despite losing the second biggest rout in state history, walked away with the same number of delegates.



That’s because Clinton had the support of six New Hampshire unpledged delegates — better known as superdelegates — consisting of prominent elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee, who have the same power as the delegates chosen by voters. An Associated Press survey found that superdelegates nationally overwhelmingly supported Clinton.



There are 712 superdelegates in all, which is about 15 percent of the total delegates available and 30 percent of the total needed to win the nomination. If the nomination process is close, superdelegates may effectively pick the party’s presidential nominee, potentially overriding the will of voters.



The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:



Jeff Berman, well-known for his delegate-strategy work in the past, is being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to organize her delegate-counting effort while himself being a superdelegate. A “top lobbyist” at Bryan Cave LLP, Berman previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company Geo Group and as a lobbyist helping TransCanada build support for the Keystone XL.


Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheen’s firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshire’s Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.


Joanne Dowdell, another New Hampshire superdelegate, is the senior vice president for global government affairs at News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News. Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators.


Superdelegates Jill Alper, Minyon Moore, and Maria Cardona are officials at Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Alper and Moore are Clinton advisers who have raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Dewey Square Group, as we’ve reported, was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage. The firm has previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.


Jennifer Cunningham is the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that provides a variety of services, including advertising and direct lobbying of public officials. In recent years, SKDKnickerbocker helped a coalition of corporate clients lobby the Obama administration on a tax cut for overseas earnings; lobbied for weakened rules governing for-profit colleges; and helped a food industry group undermine Michelle Obama’s nutrition guidelines for foods marketed to children. Recent records show that the firm is providing consulting work for Independence USA PAC, the Super PAC backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg.


Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos’ current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines.



Emily Giske, also a lobbyist in New York City, is registered to work on behalf of Airbnb, Yum Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell), Pfizer, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.



Although they make up only a small proportion of the superdelegates, the presence of lobbyists in such a potentially decisive role adds fuel to the critique that the Democratic Party is influenced by monied special interests.



In recent months, the DNC quietly repealed rules instituted by Barack Obama that banned lobbyists from donating to the party.



Friday, February 19, 2016

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ HAS HER "ROMNEY" MOMENT

 We have all heard Mitt Romeny on tape, writing off 47% of the Electorate and branding them losers. What he said was vicious and volatile but expected from a Republican pander to people who paid $50,000.00 to listen to that garbage



It's not something one would expect from a Democrat,let alone the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.

The topic was "super delegates" and the question  DWS was asked in a CNN interview was;
“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.


Her response was remarkably both candid and alarming;


“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained. 



Grassroots activists? Is that DNC code for Bernie Sanders?






Because of this system, the Washington Post points out, Sanders could technically win the primary election, earning a majority of the 1,670 delegates determined by actual voting, but still lose the Democratic Party’s nomination, if Clinton gets most of the party’s 712 unelected unpledged delegates.



Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.


Thursday, February 18, 2016

DNC CONFIRMS SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST "GRASS ROOTS" CANDIDATES

You have to say one thing about the Democratic Party Establishment; they have got "big balls" even if  the chairperson is a woman.



The hot potato was "super delegates"



Because of this system, the Washington Post points out, Sanders could technically win the primary election, earning a majority of the 1,670 delegates determined by actual voting, but still lose the Democratic Party’s nomination, if Clinton gets most of the party’s 712 unelected unpledged delegates.



Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.

The question asked of the chairperson in a CNN interview was;
“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.


Her answer was;

“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained. 


Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists” - Salon.com



Fortunately for voters there is one "grass roots" candidate the DNC Establishment is not going to be able to stop; Bernie Sanders



Sanders supporters demand that superdelegates follow 'the will of voters'

FRANCIS; PEOPLE THAT WANT A WALL (70% REPUBLICANS) ARE NOT CHRISTIAN

The question was about Trump, but the answer applies to the majority of Republican (70%) who want the wall.


As far as voters are concerned – and not just Republicans - Donald Trump has a winning formula for fighting illegal immigration.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters agree with the GOP presidential hopeful that the United States should build a wall along the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration. Seventeen percent (17%) of GOP voters disagree, while 13% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Ninety-two percent (92%) of Republicans agree that the United States should deport all illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony in this country. Only four percent (4%) disagree.

Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border; 37% disagree, and 12% are not sure. Eighty percent (80%) support the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11% are opposed.


Wednesday, February 17, 2016

ARE YOU A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR ?

I think the question is moot. The real choice is between the Establishment or the Anti-Establishment candidates. In 2016 it boils down to two candidates; Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump both who's ideology is diametrically the opposite, but both of which represents an alternative to a political Establishment that offers little or no choice on how we are governed.



The establishment holds all the power and panders to those who hire them to exert it. It's no wonder that so many Americans don't vote. They have no one who will represent them to vote for. What we are witnessing in 2016 is about to change all that.



Remember the age-old question, what do all those with power want? More power. As such, two monopolies have dominated American politics for over 150 years-the Democratic Party, founded in 1828, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854. Together, they form a political cartel, or an association of political parties with the purpose of maintaining concentrated power and restricting or repressing competition. Throughout the past century its loosely managed agreements, often wholly unofficial, but embedded deep within its standard operation, have been the quasi-coordinated production, distribution, and enforcement of a set of normalized choices which reflect only the range of needs of private corporate power.

Essentially, to solidify and gain greater control, the two parties staked out a set of positions within a predetermined and standardized framework which express the basic ideas of the status quo. This way any "new" solutions about what might be possible tend toward ideas which pose no serious danger to the framework itself, which produce reforms only capable of gutting radical resistance while leaving the underlying problems intact. Any outliers are assimilated or positioned to enhance the strength of current institutions. In other words, all ideas must first be filtered through the umbrella of the Democrat-Republican cartel, which dictates the pedigree of ideas both old and new, and therefore severely limiting any competition from threatening its hegemony. (see; 
How the United States' Two Major Parties Helped Destroy Democracy)



Whether you realize it or not there is very little space between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to "rigging" the system. Both of these Establishment parties use the same tricks and strategies to secure the special interests of those that hire them.



Thanks to both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Main Street Americans are wising up and it shows when both sides are much more apt to support the "Anti-Establishment" under dogs.



Sanders and Trump only took on the label of Republican and Democrat because it's the only way to play in a rigged system.



It's surprising that Establishment Republicans are only now noticing that their people are flocking to Trump. Even when he bad mouths their standard bearers and get's booed off the stage he still remains the #1 choice.



It's no surprise that Bernie is burning the Democratic Establishment as bad as he is given how poorly they do in representing people who vote Democrat. Even though Hillary Clinton may be qualified to run for president she is sorely unqualified when it comes to representing voters vs special interests who's money she has no problem taking.



What's different about 2016 is that Americans have a real choice; be they on the left or right of the political stage.  Many Americans who stayed at home in previous are out in force for the first time and they are having an impact on the Establishment that will reverberate for may years regardless who the winner is in November 2016.

NEED A PHOTO ID? GO TO VOTER.ID.GOV

Sorry. There's no such link; just trying to make a point and suggest that maybe there should be a site that anyone who wants to vote could go to and get a photo ID with little or no fuss or muss.



It's really simple. Much like filing an income tax return, or applying for a credit card. All that would be required is having a social security or tax id number, and access to a cell phone camera and the internet.  Oh! and the government creating a site to which you could log on to fill out a short form, submit your SS# and photo and voila! You get your ID in an email or your mail box.



Now why didn't Republicans (or Democrats) think of that?



Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states. - The Washington Post

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

VOTERS ARE USING THE "H" & "T" WORD

Words like "honest" "trustworthy" are used sparingly in politics. Not surprising given the amount of "canned" BS that spews from the mouths of most main stream Establishment politicians who, as Marco Rubio so eloquently demonstrated are "scripted" by their donors to say  (and repeat over and over again) what they believe voters want to hear. That's the nature of the beast and Republicans and Democrats alike are conditioned to respond that way even, as in Rubio's case, it sounds "robotic"



So, why are these words coming up at the voting booths these days?


As Hillary Clinton faces increased scrutiny for her use of an unsecured personal email server while secretary of state, the Democratic presidential candidate continues to struggle to win voters over on the basis of trust.

The wide majority of Democratic primary voters who focused primarily on the trustworthiness of candidates backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, according to exit polls reported by ABC News.

Specifically, one-third of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters focused on the candidate who they believed to be most honest and trustworthy. Ninety-two percent of these individuals voted for Sanders, while 6 percent backed Clinton for the nomination.

Overall, Clinton lost the primary race to Sanders by 22 points.

Clinton’s honest rating, along with her poll numbers, has taken a hit since it was revealed last March that she used personal email to conduct government business while at the State Department. The Obama administration recently confirmed that nearly two dozen emails on Clinton’s server contain top secret information. Clinton has insisted that she never sent nor received information marked classified on her private email.

Clinton’s campaign has dismissed the controversy surrounding her email as the result of partisan efforts to damage her presidential ambitions. The FBI is currently investigating her email setup, which the agency formally confirmed for the first time in a letter earlier this month.

More than a quarter of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire said they focused on the candidate who “cares about people like me,” according to exit polls Tuesday. Eight-in-10 of these voters backed Sanders, while 18 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.

Sanders beat Clinton among most demographic groups Tuesday, including women. Sanders dominated among Democratic voters under the age of 30, winning 84 percent to Clinton’s 15 percent. Sanders was similarly successful among younger voters in the Iowa Democratic caucus last week, where Clinton narrowly beat him.

During a speech from New Hampshire Tuesday night after the results were announced, Clinton acknowledged that she has “work to do” among younger voters. Her campaign has sought to minimize the importance of the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary, instead putting emphasis on states that vote in March.

While Sanders beat Clinton among most demographics , Clinton did prevail among those ages 65 and older and those belonging to families who make over $200,000 annually, according to the New York Times.


WHERE BERNIE STANDS ON CIVIL RIGHTS

It's not on a bridge going for a photo-op or a long winded speech about doing something. Bernie, for the lack of a better label, is a "mover and shaker" and has been in the civil rights causes for many years;



It isn’t that minority voters dislike Senator Bernie Sanders. They just aren’t familiar with him.

Sanders’ presidential campaign seems to be hitting its stride, based on polls coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire. But while he gains traction among those early primary voters, he is failing to generate enthusiasm — or even name recognition — with one key Democratic voting demographic: minorities.

As Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, told The New York Times:


“We’re reaching out, but it’s no secret that Bernie represents a state that is heavily Caucasian, and his decades of work on issues of importance to African Americans aren’t known amid the national conversation on race that is underway.”
In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last week, 95 percent of nonwhite Democratic voters said they could see themselves supporting Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton for the party’s nomination, but only about one-quarter of respondents said they could see themselves voting for Sanders.



Democratic Presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) chats with supporters during a visit to his Iowa campaign headquarters on June 13, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) chats with supporters during a visit to his Iowa campaign headquarters on June 13, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Bernie addressed his relatively anemic support among African-Americans during an interview with George Stephanopoulos Sunday:

“I have a long history in fighting for civil rights. I understand that many people in the African-American community may not understand that.
“But I think the issues that we are dealing with, combating 51 percent African-American youth unemployment, talking about the need that public colleges and universities should be tuition free, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure. These are issues that should apply to every American.”
 The struggle for Sanders, who as a college student organized sit-ins against segregation and attended the 1963 March on Washington, is to make his views known to African-American communities quickly enough to have an impact on the election.

Sanders intended to do just that with an audience in Charleston, S.C., but he postponed that event after the deadly shooting there earlier this month. And when he spoke to a crowd of Latino government officials from across the country in Las Vegas in June, the Los Angeles Times reported that the room was about half-empty. 




Mariachi musicians sing and play serenadas as they go from house to house to encourage people to come to vote on election day in the predominantly Latino Sun Valley district of Los Angeles on November 6, 2012. (Photo: JOE KLAMAR/AFP/Getty Images)

Mariachi musicians sing and play serenadas as they encourage people to vote on election day in Los Angeles on November 6, 2012. (Photo: JOE KLAMAR/AFP/Getty Images)
Matt Barreto, a pollster who focuses on Latino voters, told the Los Angeles Times:

“His name recognition in the Latino community is somewhere in between zero and extremely low. And you’re not going to win an election without Latino support.”

Demographics are not necessarily destiny; but unmarried women, minorities and millennial voters will make up a majority of the total electorate for the first time in 2016, according to pollster and former Bill Clinton advisor Stan Greenberg.
What voters need to do is get to now Bernie and then decide who's on their side. 
Sanders has a 50-year history of standing up for civil and minority rights, as he told the attendants of Netroots Nation after he was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. Of course, it’s understandable that they want to bring attention to the movement. Killings of people from Ferguson to New York City to Los Angeles to Atlanta have finally brought important issues like police brutality, systemic racism, mass incarceration and militarization of the police into the center of national dialogue.

It is up to all candidates for the presidency, including every Democrat, every Republican and independent candidates, to address these issues in a forthright manner and to do outreach and communicate with communities that are besieged by these problems. Although his events in Phoenix, Houston and Dallas, where he loudly condemned police brutality and racism were a start, Sanders owes it to pay attention to these activists and listen to the concerns of marginalized groups whose civil rights have historically been suppressed. Sanders does have a record of fighting on these issues, and it should be only natural for him to be able to comfortably address them before a diverse audience.

Here are 20 ways Sanders has stood up for civil and minority rights, starting in the early 1950s up to the present year.

HEY JEB! YOU CAN'T BUY YOUR WAY INTO THE WHITE HOUSE

Jeb and I agree. Donald Trump may not be able to insult his way into the White House but he needs to be reminded that he's not going to be able to buy his way into the White House with the bank roll he receives for pandering to his billionaire-millionaire "donor" base. There's no doubt that Jeb! wants millionaires and billionaires in front row seat in his White House. 





The enormous fundraising success that Bush showed in the first half of the year has long since subsided, with new donors slow to join a campaign that has languished. The campaign has had little success with grass-roots fundraising, leaving it highly dependent on wealthy donors. And the establishment figures who flocked to back him in the spring have grown jittery as winter nears.





The candidate, who once talked of the importance of campaigning with “joy in your heart,” now projects an air of bewildered resignation.

“There are two types of politicians,” Bush said during a brief appearance Thursday outside Geno’s Chowder and Sandwich Shop. “There are the talkers, and there are the doers. I wish I could have done a better job talking on the stage. I wish I could talk as well as some of the people on the stage — the big personalities. But I’m a doer.”



If the polls are correct I'm not sure JEB! knows what he's doing.





WHAT BERNIE KNOWS ABOUT OUR ECONOMY

Let's start with saying that there are a large number of "economists" that agree with Bernie's views of the American economy; why it remains severely damaged and is rigged to protect only the "millionaires and billionaires" that broke it.



Financial experts, academics, and economists from across the nation are officially endorsing Bernie Sanders’ proposal to break up big banks and bring justice to Wall Street.

In a speech earlier this month in the heart of New York City’s financial district, Sanders outlined his plan to reform Wall Street that included, among other things, passing a new law similar to the Glass-Steagall bill of the 1930s that would separate commercial banking from investment banking — effectively breaking up the biggest Wall Street banks into smaller institutions. Sanders also pledged to take action to cap ATM fees at $2 per use, make usurious interest fees illegal, levy a sales tax on all financial transactions on Wall Street to discourage speculative trading, and bring criminal charges against the banking executives responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. Here’s video of the full speech:



Among the 170 economists and professors backing Sanders’ plan are former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, professor James K. Galbraith of the University of Texas, and John Miller of Wheaton College. Other experts listed on the sign-on letter teach at top universities like Harvard, Cornell, and Cambridge (UK). Also included is a former member of U.S. Congress, a former researcher for the Federal Reserve Board, and even a former associate at Goldman Sachs, as well as numerous financial advisors and wealth management experts.