If Hillary is innocent of any wrong doing the simplest way to put the email issue to rest is to give up her emails; release them to the public, no holds barred.
I think that would happen only in one's dreams since Hillary has fought anyone and everyone who wanted a peek tooth and nail to this very day.
Why such a fuss if she has nothing to hide?
There's a simple answer to that question and most logical thinking eople know it.
The FBI has obtained a warrant to search the emails found on a computer used by former Congressman Anthony Weiner that may contain evidence relevant to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, according to law enforcement officials.
One official said the total number of emails recovered in the Weiner investigation is close to 650,000 — though that reflects many emails that are not in any way relevant to the Clinton investigation. Officials familiar with the case said, though, the messages include a significant amount of correspondence associated with Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s estranged wife.
The agents investigating Clinton’s use of a private email server knew early this month that messages recovered in a separate probe might be germane to their case, but they waited weeks before briefing the FBI director, according to people familiar with the case.
FBI Director James B. Comey has written that he was informed of the development Thursday, and he sent a letter to legislators the next day letting them know that he thought the team should take “appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails.”That missive ignited a political firestorm less than two weeks before the election. Almost instantly, Comey came under intense criticism for his timing and for bucking the Justice Department’s guidance not to tell Congress about the development. And his announcement means that Clinton could have to contend with the news that the FBI has resumed its investigation of her use of a private email server — without any real clarity on if its investigators will actually find anything significant — up to and beyond Election Day.
Hillary likes to claim that anyone exposing corruption in politics is
not only disrupting her campaign but a threat to our democracy and that
is usually followed with some outrageous claim that the Russians are
behind it.
What she is really saying is that exposing
corruption in Establishment politics is a threat to the "Plutocracy"
which she happens to be the darling of.
When FBI
Director Comey announced that he was taking another look at Hillary's
emails it was tantamount to turning on the lights in a room full of
cockroaches. And, as is usually the case, not all of them are able to
disappear in the cracks.
First it was DWS, then
Podesta, now Uma and her perverted husband that have the light shinning
on them and in turn on Hillary's crony riddled campaign.
Only
this time it's not the Russians who Hillary loves to blame but our own
FBI and it's what looks like not so corrupt Director.
The heads of all those who are subservient to the Establishment are exploding. God forbid the Director is doing his job!
FBI
Director James Comey is facing criticism for turning the agency's
attention to newly discovered emails that could be linked to Hillary
Clinton, again focusing on the former secretary of state just days
before Election Day.
Former prosecutors and former Department of
Justice officials are questioning what Comey hopes to accomplish by
announcing the investigation so close to the election.
Comey notified members of Congress that the FBI was again looking into Clinton's use of a private email server. As NPR reported
Friday, Comey's decision followed the discovery of emails that "came to
light in the course of an unrelated criminal investigation of Anthony
Weiner," who is being scrutinized for sexting an underage girl. But, as
the the Associated Press reported,
it's "unclear what the emails contained, who sent them, or what
connection they might have to the yearlong investigation the FBI closed
in July without recommending criminal charges."
It appears that the FBI Directory can't be "handled" as easily as as the AG (Lynch) and that he puts the country welfare ahead of politics, much to the chagrin of the Establishment.
On Friday, James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting independently of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to Congress saying that the F.B.I. had discovered e-mails that were potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. Coming less than two weeks before the Presidential election, Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations, and not taking any action that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he felt compelled to do otherwise.
Comey’s decision is a striking break with the policies of the Department of Justice, according to current and former federal legal officials. Comey, who is a Republican appointee of President Obama, has a reputation for integrity and independence, but his latest action is stirring an extraordinary level of concern among legal authorities, who see it as potentially affecting the outcome of the Presidential and congressional elections.
“You don’t do this,” one former senior Justice Department official exclaimed. “It’s aberrational. It violates decades of practice.” The reason, according to the former official, who asked not to be identified because of ongoing cases involving the department, “is because it impugns the integrity and reputation of the candidate, even though there’s no finding by a court, or in this instance even an indictment.”
Will someone in Hillary's inner circle betray her and come clean about Hillary's dark empire?
Who
better than Huma "Weiner" Abedin who many look upon as a victim of
treacherous villains like her sexual predator spouse and one of the most
mistrusted presidential candidates in history?
In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton
had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She
planned a quiet year, basking in sky-high approval ratings and enjoying a
respite from the media spotlight as she laid the groundwork for a
second presidential run.
Then Carlos Danger happened.
Anthony D. Weiner,
the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was running
for mayor of New York when news broke that he had continued to exchange
lewd messages with women online after the practice cost him his
congressional seat. This time, he used the embarrassing Spanish-inspired
moniker.
The tawdry story line and Ms. Abedin’s closeness to
Mrs. Clinton made the events explode far beyond New York, dragging Mrs.
Clinton’s name into messy headlines about penis pictures, Mr. Weiner’s
descriptions of his sexual appetites and his online paramour named
Sydney Leathers.
Now, with Mrs. Clinton seemingly on the cusp of
winning the White House, Mr. Weiner, who once described himself as “a
perpetually horny middle-aged man,” has pulled her into another drama.
Federal investigators looking into his sexual messaging with an underage
girl stumbled upon thousands of emails potentially pertinent to the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.
Why waste millions in taxpayers money to pry them from the death grip Hillary and her allies have on keeping them hidden?
And then, to add insult to injury, blame others like the FBI for withholding them from the public.
A slick maneuver to be sure but one most "thinking" people can see right through.
The
emails are being withheld from the American public because Hillary and
an army of lawyers fight tooth and nail to block any and all attempts to
have them released.
All Hillary (and Huma) have to do
do with this fresh batch of emails is release them to the public. Do
the right thing. Be transparent. After all she claims she has nothing to
hide, did nothing wrong.
It looks like the Russians are getting credit for outing the corruption that plagues our political system.
Hillary would also like Americans to believe that if they don't vote for her they are traitors, collaborating with the enemy (Russians) as one of her inner circle cronies points out;
..I'm not happy about being hacked by the Russians in their quest to throw the election to Donald Trump.— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) October 7, 2016
What is worrisome here is that the US is unable to effectively clean up it's own house.
Why has the DOJ and the FBI not taken the lead in weeding out the corruption?
The perpetrators, on the other hand, are hoping that American voters are dumb enough to buy into the absurd defense that the Russians are the bad guys for exposing the truth.
Here's a sample of the Hillary team effort to discount the truth;
While the Clinton campaign hasn't outright disputed the contents of the emails, they have not yet confirmed their authenticity. Podesta did take to Twitter questioning the veracity of some of the emails, though he didn't specify which ones. He wrote that he didn't have the time to verify which emails are true and which are fake, and he also blamed Russia for the hack, claiming the country has been issuing cyber attacks as a means to "throw the election to Donald Trump."
1. While I'm in pretty good company with Gen. Powell & Amb. Marshall...— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) October 7, 2016
2. ...I'm not happy about being hacked by the Russians in their quest to throw the election to Donald Trump.— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) October 7, 2016
3. Don't have time to figure out which docs are real and which are faked...— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) October 7, 2016
Just in case voters forgot or were not of voting age back then it was not too long ago that we had the Clinton's in the White House and there was a lot more going on than talking dirty in a locker room.
As the following narrative from the Special Prosecutors report vividly conveys; unlike Trump, Bill Clinton was more of a man of action than words. A sexual predator of sorts.
So let's be honest folks. If Hillary; after all of the humiliation and emotional abuse she endured, and all the Clinton fans who are willing to let her and Bill return to the White House, can forgive and forget, then they surely should be able to extend the same courtesy to Donald Trump who never even got to first base.
Ms. Lewinsky testified that Wednesday, November 15, 1995 -- the second day of the government shutdown -- marked the beginning of her sexual relationship with the President.(146) On that date, she entered the White House at 1:30 p.m., left sometime thereafter (White House records do not show the time), reentered at 5:07 p.m., and departed at 12:18 a.m. on November 16.(147) The President was in the Oval Office or the Chief of Staff's office (where Ms. Lewinsky worked during the furlough) for almost the identical period that Ms. Lewinsky was in the White House that evening, from 5:01 p.m. on November 15 to 12:35 a.m. on November 16.(148)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President kissed. She unbuttoned her jacket; either she unhooked her bra or he lifted her bra up; and he touched her breasts with his hands and mouth.(160)Ms. Lewinsky testified: "I believe he took a phone call . . . and so we moved from the hallway into the back office . . . . [H]e put his hand down my pants and stimulated me manually in the genital area."(161)While the President continued talking on the phone (Ms. Lewinsky understood that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator), she performed oral sex on him.(162) He finished his call, and, a moment later, told Ms. Lewinsky to stop. In her recollection: "I told him that I wanted . . . to complete that. And he said . . . that he needed to wait until he trusted me more. And then I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn't had that in a long time."(163)
Both before and after their sexual contact during that encounter, Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked.(164) At one point during the conversation, the President tugged on the pink intern pass hanging from her neck and said that it might be a problem. Ms. Lewinsky thought that he was talking about access -- interns were not supposed to be in the West Wing without an escort -- and, in addition, that he might have discerned some "impropriety" in a sexual relationship with a White House intern.(165)
White House records corroborate details of Ms. Lewinsky's account. She testified that her November 15 encounters with the President occurred at about 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., and that in each case the two of them went from the Chief of Staff's office to the Oval Office area.(166) Records show that the President visited the Chief of Staff's office for one minute at 8:12 p.m. and for two minutes at 9:23 p.m., in each case returning to the Oval Office.(167) She recalled that the President took a telephone call during their sexual encounter, and she believed that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator.(168)White House records show that after returning to the Oval Office from the Chief of Staff's office, the President talked to two Members of Congress: Rep. Jim Chapman from 9:25 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., and Rep. John Tanner from 9:31 p.m. to 9:35 p.m.(169)
D. November 17 Sexual Encounter
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had a second sexual encounter two days later (still during the government furlough), on Friday, November 17. She was at the White House until 8:56 p.m., then returned from 9:38 to 10:39 p.m.(170) At 9:45 p.m., a few minutes after Ms. Lewinsky's reentry, the President went from the Oval Office to the Chief of Staff's office (where Ms. Lewinsky worked during the furlough) for one minute, then returned to the Oval Office for 30 minutes. From there, he went back to the Chief of Staff's office until 10:34 p.m. (approximately when Ms. Lewinsky left the White House), then went by the Oval Office and the Ground Floor before retiring to the Residence at 10:40 p.m.(171)
Ms. Lewinsky testified:
We were again working late because it was during the furlough and Jennifer Palmieri . . . had ordered pizza along with Ms. Currie and Ms. Hernreich. And when the pizza came, I went down to let them know that the pizza was there and it was at that point when I walked into Ms. Currie's office that the President was standing there with some other people discussing something.
And they all came back to the office and Mr. -- I think it was Mr. Toiv, somebody accidentally knocked pizza on my jacket, so I went to go use the restroom to wash it off and as I was coming out of the restroom, the President was standing in Ms. Currie's doorway and said, "You can come out this way."(172)
Ms. Lewinsky and the President went into the area of the private study, according to Ms. Lewinsky. There, either in the hallway or the bathroom, she and the President kissed. After a few minutes, in Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, she told him that she needed to get back to her desk. The President suggested that she bring him some slices of pizza.(173)
A few minutes later, she returned to the Oval Office area with pizza and told Ms. Currie that the President had requested it. Ms. Lewinsky testified: "[Ms. Currie] opened the door and said, 'Sir, the girl's here with the pizza.' He told me to come in. Ms. Currie went back into her office and then we went into the back study area again."(174) Several witnesses confirm that when Ms. Lewinsky delivered pizza to the President that night, the two of them were briefly alone.(175)
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had a sexual encounter during this visit.(176) They kissed, and the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's bare breasts with his hands and mouth.(177)At some point, Ms. Currie approached the door leading to the hallway, which was ajar, and said that the President had a telephone call.(178) Ms. Lewinsky recalled that the caller was a Member of Congress with a nickname.(179) While the President was on the telephone, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he unzipped his pants and exposed himself," and she performed oral sex.(180) Again, he stopped her before he ejaculated.(181)
During this visit, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President told her that he liked her smile and her energy. He also said: "I'm usually around on weekends, no one else is around, and you can come and see me."(182)
Records corroborate Ms. Lewinsky's recollection that the President took a call from a Member of Congress with a nickname. While Ms. Lewinsky was at the White House that evening (9:38 to 10:39 p.m.), the President had one telephone conversation with a Member of Congress: From 9:53 to 10:14 p.m., he spoke with Rep. H.L. "Sonny" Callahan.(183)
In his Jones deposition on January 17, 1998, President Clinton -- who said he was unable to recall most of his encounters with Ms. Lewinsky -- did remember her "back there with a pizza" during the government shutdown. He said, however, that he did not believe that the two of them were alone.(184) Testifying before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, the President said that his first "real conversation" with Ms. Lewinsky occurred during the November 1995 furlough. He testified: "One night she brought me some pizza. We had some remarks."(185)
E. December 31 Sexual Encounter
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had their third sexual encounter on New Year's Eve. Ms. Lewinsky -- by then a member of the staff of the Office of Legislative Affairs
-- was at the White House on Sunday, December 31, 1995, until 1:16 p.m.; her time of arrival is not shown.(186) The President was in the Oval Office area from 12:11 p.m. until about the time that Ms. Lewinsky left, 1:15 p.m., when he went to the Residence.(187)
Sometime between noon and 1 p.m., in Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, she was in the pantry area of the President's private dining room talking with a White House steward, Bayani Nelvis. She told Mr. Nelvis that she had recently smoked her first cigar, and he offered to give her one of the President's cigars. Just then, the President came down the hallway from the Oval Office and saw Ms. Lewinsky. The President dispatched Mr. Nelvis to deliver something to Mr. Panetta.(188)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she told the President that Mr. Nelvis had promised her a cigar, and the President gave her one.(189) She told him her name -- she had the impression that he had forgotten it in the six weeks since their furlough encounters because, when passing her in the hallway, he had called her "Kiddo."(190) The President replied that he knew her name; in fact, he added, having lost the phone number she had given him, he had tried to find her in the phonebook.(191)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, they moved to the study. "And then . . . we were kissing and he lifted my sweater and exposed my breasts and was fondling them with his hands and with his mouth."(192) She performed oral sex.(193) Once again, he stopped her before he ejaculated because, Ms. Lewinsky testified, "he didn't know me well enough or he didn't trust me yet."(194)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, a Secret Service officer named Sandy was on duty in the West Wing that day.(195) Records show that Sandra Verna was on duty outside the Oval Office from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m.(196)
If there's "just smoke and no fire" as Hillary says then why are the people surrounding her taking the 5th when asked to testify in public and/or granted immunity by the FBI and DOJ?
That kind of behavior usually indicates there are crimes involved.
A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.
Republicans have called for the department to investigate the deletions, but the immunity deal with the specialist, Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go far. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the House oversight committee, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton, her lawyers or the specialist obstructed justice when the emails were deleted in March 2015.
Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the investigation. The other was Bryan Pagliano, a former campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for answering questions about how he set up a server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of state in 2009.
The F.B.I. described the deletions by Mr. Combetta in a summary of its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s account that was released last Friday. The documents blacked out the specialist’s name, but the law enforcement official and others familiar with the case identified the employee as Mr. Combetta. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing matters that were supposed to remain confidential.
If the way Hillary was feeling today was "great" I would hate to see her when she's not feeling so good.
Here again, being truthful; which would probably go a long way in making her more likable, is just not in her genes.
Had a video of her being carried into a van not appeared the public would again be left with another load of BS to mull over trying to figure out who the real Hillary is.
Hillary Clinton fell ill during a New York memorial service marking the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and video of her unexpectedly early departure showed her buckling and stumbling as she got into her van.
The video, circulated on Twitter, appeared to show the Democratic presidential nominee leaving the commemoration at Ground Zero. Flanked by several Secret Service agents who are regulars on her detail, Clinton can be seen leaning against a security bollard while agents prepare to help her into a black van. As she steps forward, Clinton can be seen falling as agents help lift her into the van.
A campaign spokesman confirmed that Clinton had suffered from overheating and left the ceremony early.
"Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen," spokesman Nick Merrill said. "During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter's apartment and is feeling much better."
The incident quickly renewed attention to Clinton's health. Her rival, Republican Donald Trump, has for more than nine months questioned her condition, saying that she doesn't have the "strength" or "stamina" for the presidency and accusing her of being "exhausted" and sleeping too much.
Neither Trump nor his aides responded immediately for requests for comment Sunday. But the attacks have intensified in the past month as unverified and often debunked theories about Clinton's health have floated around the Internet. And Sunday's incident prompted an avalanche of speculation on social media.
One individual familiar with the incident confirmed that Clinton felt ill and wobbly at the event.
And a former agent said that the detail’s movements show they had not planned for her to leave that early and had to make up some rushed security plans on the fly. The detail leader, normally in charge of sticking by her side at all times, had to leave her momentarily to open the door of her van.
These super rich, super spoiled Millionaires, Billionaires and the legions of minions that pander to them are mad as hell and are not about to let the American people take back America.
Bernie Sanders came after them but they were just too big to take down and in the end brought him to "heel" as Hillary would say.
But there is still one guy they have not been able to buy who is out of their control and they are going berserk looking for ways to end him and the real possibility that Main Street American voters could turn the tables against them and dismantle the cozy plutocracy they have created for themselves.
So far nothing has worked and it's not because of a lack of trying; using the mainstream media to bombard the 24/7 news cycle with everything they can conjure up, no matter how petty or silly.
America is no longer a country “by the people, for the people,” but a plutocracy. The new doc ‘Meet the Donors’ exposes our broken political system and the uber-rich pulling the strings.
There’s the belief that somehow the whole system in Washington is not on the level—that it’s tilted against the ordinary citizen. And the reason people have that view is because they’re right: it is tilted against the ordinary citizen and it does favor the rich.”
The film comes courtesy of Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. There is a brief showdown between Pelosi Jr. and a right-wing lobbyist who took out vicious attack ads against her mother that showed the former House Speaker as a city-destroying Godzilla-like monster. Despite the family ties, this remains a fairly nonpartisan examination of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how the American political system is no longer a democracy but rather a plutocracy. The American public’s mounting frustration with this corrupt system has, in part, led to the rise of populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Late last year, The New York Times published a terrifying study on how just 158 wealthy families have provided nearly 50 percent of the funds raised for presidential candidates with their eye on the White House. They were mostly white, rich, older, and male, and hailed from the finance and energy sectors.
“Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.”
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision changed the playing field, allowing both nonprofit and for-profit corporations to be treated as people, thereby prohibiting the government from regulating their political expenditures (coincidentally, this whole hullabaloo was over the right-wing nonprofit Citizens United’s desire to air a propaganda film, Hillary: The Movie, just prior to the 2008 general election). This led to the creation of super PACs, or political action committees—vessels that individuals, corporations, and other organizations can pour large sums of money into in order to influence elections, typically via attack ads. Conservative strategist Karl Rove notoriously oversaw super PACs that spent over $300 million on Republican candidates during the 2012 election year.
This is an example of the sh-t load of crazy-making rhetoric the media floods the 24/7 news cycle with.
It's gotten so bad that Trump can't even fart without someone sounding a "breaking news" alert.
In the last two weeks, Donald Trump has slandered the family of a dead soldier, committed treason by inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email account, admitted he lied about receiving a letter from the NFL, saw an Air Force mother get booed at one of his rallies, claimed Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine even though they already have, refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan’s candidacy, falsely accused a fire marshal of limiting his crowd for political reasons, tossed a baby out of a rally, and called Hillary Clinton “the devil.”
Hillary just can't help herself when confronted with reality that doesn't fit her version of it.
Hillary Clinton on Sunday insisted that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American public regarding her handling of emails containing classified information were truthful, but this was disputed by host Chris Wallace.
“The emails… I want to ask you about just one aspect of them, and that’s what you told the American people,” Wallace said to the Democratic nominee on “Fox News Sunday.”
Fox then played three separate clips in which Clinton said she did not send or receive any classified material via email.
“After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true,” Wallace said to the former secretary of state.
“Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to, in my view, clarify,” Clinton responded. “Director Comey said that my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
“I was communicating with over 300 people in my emailing. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe that what they were sending was classified,” she added. “Now in retrospect, different agencies come in and say, well, it should have been, but that’s not what was happening in real time.
“But in a congressionally hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public,” Wallace said.
Fox then aired footage of the congressional hearing when Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey. “There was classified material emailed,” Comey said.
Now that Establishment has shuffled Bernie off the stage and into history's dumpster the power brokers are hoping to be able to go back to business as usual and we can rest assured that Hillary will be more than happy to oblige them.
For a brief moment in this years political circus it looked like the average American had a chance to regain a tiny bit of what has been lost (stolen) by the "Billionaires and Millionaires" Bernie was so good at making hay out of.
The message Bernie sent us was articulated years ago by none other than a comedian who some might suspect Bernie took some lines from.
President Obama and his now heir to be Hillary Clinton like to boast about how great America is; the implied unsaid part of the message is, don't complain, it makes us look bad.
Both Obama and Clinton are trying to distract us from what the truth is because neither he or his heir apparent want to admit that the Democratic Establishment has failed miserably in delivering what has been promised over and over again when they ask to be elected and then disappear into the mist of history the day after they take the oath of office.
Rest assured there is a select group of Americans that Obama and Hillary are speaking to who can declare that America has been great to them. But that's a very small and select group which ironically include the Clinton's who joined the "millionaire club" by pandering to it's members.
So, is America great? Well, it depends on who you ask;
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS ONCE THE PARTY OF THE NEW DEAL and the ally of organized labor. But by the time of Bill Clinton's presidency, it had become the enemy of New Deal programs like welfare and Social Security and the champion of free trade deals. The end result is that the party which created the New Deal and helped create the middle class has now become “the party of mass inequality.”
The first piece of evidence is what’s happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.
The elephant in the room that neither Obama or Clinton want Americans to pay attention to is;
Wealth inequality can be described as the unequal distribution of assets within a population. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation.
Defining Wealth
We equate wealth with “net worth,” the sum total of your assets minus liabilities. Assets can include everything from an owned personal residence and cash in savings accounts to investments in stocks and bonds, real estate, and retirement accounts. Liabilities cover what a household owes: a car loan, credit card balance, student loan, mortgage, or any other bill yet to be paid.
In the United States, wealth inequality runs even more pronounced than income inequality
America is great to the 1%
The share of America’s wealth held by the nation’s wealthiest has changed markedly over the past century. That share peaked in the late 1920s, right before the Great Depression, then fell by more than half over the next three decades. But the equalizing trends of the mid 20th century have now been almost completely undone. At the top of the American economic summit, the richest of the nation’s rich now hold as large a wealth share as they did in the 1920s.
The 21st century has not been kind to average American families. The net worth — assets minus debts — of most U.S. households fell between 2000 and 2011. Only the top two quintiles of the nation’s wealth distribution saw a net increase in median net worth over those years.
The rich don’t just have more wealth than everyone else. The bulk of their wealth comes from different — and more lucrative — asset sources. America’s top 1 percent, for instance, holds nearly half the national wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds. Most of the wealth of Americans in the bottom 90 percent comes from their principal residences, the asset category that took the biggest hit during the Great Recession. These Americans also hold almost three-quarters of America’s debt.
The most visible indicator of wealth inequality in America today may be the Forbes magazine list of the nation’s 400 richest. In 1982, the “poorest” American listed on the first annual Forbes magazine list of America’s richest 400 had a net worth of $80 million. The average member of that first list had a net worth of $230 million. In 2015, rich Americans needed net worth of $1.7 billion to enter the Forbes 400, and the average member held a net $5.8 billion, over 10 times the 1982 average after adjusting for inflation.
Inequality is skyrocketing even within the Forbes 400 list of America’s richest. The net worth of the richest member of the Forbes 400 has soared from $2 billion in 1982 to $76 billion in 2015, far outpacing the gains at either the Forbes 400 entry point or average.
America is not so great to the middle class
The great shrinking of the middle class that has captured the attention of the nation is not only playing out in troubled regions like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep South, but in just about every metropolitan area in America, according to a major new analysis by the Pew Research Center.
Pew reported in December that a clear majority of American adults no longer live in the middle class, a demographic reality shaped by decades of widening inequality, declining industry and the erosion of financial stability and family-wage jobs. But while much of the attention has focused on communities hardest hit by economic declines, the new Pew data, based on metro-level income data since 2000, show that middle-class stagnation is a far broader phenomenon.
The share of adults living in middle-income households has also dwindled in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and Denver. It's fallen in smaller Midwestern metros where the middle class has long made up an overwhelming majority of the population. It's withering in coastal tech hubs, in military towns, in college communities, in Sun Belt cities.
The decline of the American middle class is "a pervasive local phenomenon," according to Pew, which analyzed census and American Community Survey data in 229 metros across the country, encompassing about three-quarters of the U.S. population. In 203 of those metros, the share of adults in middle-income households fell from 2000 to 2014.
Pew defines middle-income households here as those making between two-thirds and twice the national median household income. For a three-person household in 2014, that means an income between about $42,000 and $125,000. The fact that median incomes have declined over this same time frame also means that the bar to get into the middle class is actually lower now than it was in 2000. Pew's metro-level data are also adjusted for household size and local cost of living.
The shrinking middle class is in part a reflection of rising income inequality in America, and of the same underlying and uneven economic forces that have fueled the rise of Donald Trump. And as the middle class has been shrinking, median incomes have fallen, too. In 190 of these 229 metros, the median income dropped over this same time.
As the middle class has shrunk, Pew points out, the lower and upper classes in America have grown in size and significance. In some metros, the middle class is dwindling primarily because families are falling out of it and into the lower class. The share of households in this bottom tier has skyrocketed since 2000, for instance, in Goldbsoro, North Carolina, a railroad junction with an Air Force base.
America is terrible to the working poor;
(the majority of which are non-white)
The Great Recession deepened the longstanding racial and ethnic wealth divide in the United States. The typical white family held a net worth six times greater than the typical black family at the end of the 20th century. That gap has now doubled. The wealth gap between white and Hispanic households has widened as well.
The billionaires who make up the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans now have as much wealth as all African-American households, plus one-third of America’s Latino population, combined. In other words, just 400 extremely wealthy individuals have as much wealth as 16 million African-American households and 5 million Latino households.
Democrats will say, not all hope is lost. The Working poor just need to be patient.
In Congress, 53 progressives, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin and others, are backing legislation for a $15 federal minimum wage by 2020 and the gradual elimination of the subminimum tipped wage. While action on the minimum wage at any level is unlikely
This flicker of hope might resonate with teens and 20 year olds, but not so much for the 65 and older Americans.
More older Americans – those ages 65 and older – are working than at any time since the turn of the century, and today’s older workers are spending more time on the job than did their peers in previous years, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of employment data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In May, 18.8% of Americans ages 65 and older, or nearly 9 million people, reported being employed full- or part-time, continuing a steady increase that dates to at least 2000 (which is as far back as we took our analysis). In May of that year, just 12.8% of 65-and-older Americans, or about 4 million people, said they were working.
The relatively strong presence of 65-and-older workers is found across age brackets: 65- to 69-year-olds, 70- to 74-year-olds, and those 75 and older. All are working at higher rates than they did in May 2008, the only age groups about which that can be said.
Though we took the current analysis only back to 2000, an earlier Center report noted that the labor force participation rate (that is, workers and those actively seeking employment as a share of a group’s total population) among older adults began rising in the mid-1980s, after declining for more than three decades.
Not only are more older Americans working, more of them are working full-time. In May 2000, 46.1% of workers ages 65 and older were working fewer than 35 hours a week (the BLS’ cutoff for full-time status). The part-time share has fallen steadily, so that by last month only 36.1% of 65-and-older workers were part-time.
America is a disaster zone to the poverty striken
In 2010, the poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four.
15.1%15.1 percent— just over 46 million Americans— were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007.
27.4%Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent.
45.8%45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children.
28.0%In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour).
18-25 Workers earning poverty-level wages are disproportionately female, black, Hispanic, or between the ages of 18 and 25.
1.8x The United States spends less on social programs (16.2 percent of GDP) than similarly developed countries (21.3 percent of GDP), has a relative poverty rate (the share of the population living on less than half of median household income) 1.8 times higher than those peer nations, and has a child poverty rate more than twice as high.
Almost 50 million people in the U.S. are poor using the supplemental measure, compared to the 47 million using the official measure.
Food stamps (formally known as SNAP) keep about five million people out of poverty, according to the supplemental measure.
Without Social Security more than half of all Americans 65 and over would be in poverty. (Both supplemental and traditional poverty measures include Social Security benefits.)
Under the supplemental measure, which includes cost-of-living differences, poverty is much higher in expensive states like California and New York, and lower in places like Alabama and Kentucky.
The poverty rate for children goes down under the supplemental measure and it goes up for those 65 and older. That's because the supplemental measure includes the impact of out-of-pocket medical expenses (which are high for senior citizens) and of certain government benefits that go disproportionately to children.
In other supplemental-poverty-related news, a study out of UC Berkeley finds that using the supplemental measure is especially useful in identifying the most serious cases: families that are chronically poor.
That was the question a lot of concerned government officials had when Rajiv was given a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) by Hillary Clinton.
“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.
Fernando’s lack of any known background in nuclear security caught the attention of several board members, and when ABC News first contacted the State Department in August 2011 seeking a copy of his resume, the emails show that confusion ensued among the career government officials who work with the advisory panel.
Fernando himself would not answer questions from ABC News in 2011 about what qualified him for a seat on the board or led to his appointment. When ABC News finally caught up with Fernando at the 2012 Democratic convention, he became upset and said he was "not at liberty" to speak about it. Security threatened to have the ABC News reporter arrested.
It was soon revealed that even though Rajiv was not qualified for a seat on the ISAB he was definately qualified to be labeled a crony of Hillary's as demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands of dollars he pumped into Hillary's campaigns and, more importantly hundreds of thousands of dollars he "donated" to the Clinton Foundation which is more and more begining to look like nothing more than a money laundering machine for "bribes for favors" which Hillary and Bill are notorious for.
Fernando's history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific -- and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.
It also goes a long way to explain why Hillary would need a private email server in order to conduct these seedy deals outside government oversight.
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show. Among those with whom Fernando served on the International Security Advisory Board was David A. Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and former Sen. Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel.
“It is certainly a serious, knowledgeable and experienced group of experts,” said Bruce Blair, a Princeton professor whose principal research covers the technical and policy steps on the path toward the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. “Much of the focus has been on questions of nuclear stability and the risks of nuclear weapons use by Russia and Pakistan.”
The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to “S”; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State.
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.
A State Department photograph shows the 2011 International Security Advisory Board. Rajiv Fernando is seated on the far left of the image.more +
Fernando’s lack of any known background in nuclear security caught the attention of several board members, and when ABC News first contacted the State Department in August 2011 seeking a copy of his resume, the emails show that confusion ensued among the career government officials who work with the advisory panel.
“I have spoken to [State Department official and ISAB Executive Director Richard Hartman] privately, and it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of,” wrote Jamie Mannina, the press aide who fielded the ABC News request. “We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the Board. I think it’s important to get down to the bottom of this before there’s any response.
“As you can see from the attached, it’s natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members,” Mannina wrote, referring to an attachment that was not included in the recent document release.
Fernando himself would not answer questions from ABC News in 2011 about what qualified him for a seat on the board or led to his appointment. When ABC News finally caught up with Fernando at the 2012 Democratic convention, he became upset and said he was "not at liberty" to speak about it. Security threatened to have the ABC News reporter arrested.more +
Fernando's expertise appeared to be in the arena of high-frequency trading -- a form of computer-generated stock trading. At the time of his appointment, he headed a firm, Chopper Trading, that was a leader in that field.
Fernando's history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific -- and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.
The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show. Among those with whom Fernando served on the International Security Advisory Board was David A. Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and former Sen. Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel.
“It is certainly a serious, knowledgeable and experienced group of experts,” said Bruce Blair, a Princeton professor whose principal research covers the technical and policy steps on the path toward the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. “Much of the focus has been on questions of nuclear stability and the risks of nuclear weapons use by Russia and Pakistan.”
The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to “S”; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State.
“The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,” wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to Mannina, the press aide. “Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”
Mills, a former deputy White House counsel, was serving as Clinton’s chief of staff at the time, and has been a longtime legal and political advisor.
Four minutes later, Boese wrote to his boss, Richard Hartman, to alert him that Ellen Tauscher, who was then the Undersecretary for State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, would be meeting with Mills to devise a response to the ABC News request.
“Sorry this has become a headache,” he wrote.
Hartman wrote the next morning to say he would “come up and brief you... about where Raj Fernando stands and the ABC News investigative journalist inquiries. You do need to hear about it.” Separately, in an email to another official, Hartman noted that it was "Cheryl Mills, who added Mr. Fernando’s name to the list of ISAB nominees."
When ABC News sent a follow-up inquiry about the qualifications of another board appointee, Massachusetts state Rep. Harold P. Naughton, Jr., Boese wrote to Hartman to say the department would have a far easier time explaining Naughton’s credentials. “The case for Rep. Naughton is an easy one. We are on solid ground,” he said.
By this point, Fernando himself had been looped into the discussion. He and Hartman exchanged emails, but the entire text of Fernando’s letter was redacted by the State Department prior to its release.
Twice, Mannina was instructed to stall with ABC News, before Mills sent a public statement. It announced Fernando’s abrupt decision to step down.
“Mr. Fernando chose to resign from the Board earlier this month citing additional time needed to devote to his business,” it reads, noting that membership on the board was required to be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.”
“As President and CEO of Chopper Trading, Mr. Fernando brought a unique perspective to ISAB. He has years of experience in the private sector in implementing sophisticated risk management tools, information technology and international finance,” the statement says.
The statement was emailed to ABC News two days after Fernando’s resignation and four days after the initial ABC News inquiry.
Fernando’s letter of resignation to Clinton says he “intended to devote a substantial amount of time to the work of ISAB in furtherance of its objectives. However, the unique, unexpected, and excessive volatility in the international markets these last few weeks and months require[d him] to focus [his] energy on the operations of [his] company.”
Additional emails collected from Hillary Clinton’s personal server only hint at her possible involvement in Fernando’s selection to the board. The records request for documents about Fernando’s appointment produced a chain of correspondence from 2010 with the subject line “ISAB” -- or International Security Advisory Board. In those, Mills writes, “The secretary had two other names she wanted looked at.” The names are redacted. Mills then forwarded the response to “H,” which is the designation for Clinton’s personal account. Three minutes later Clinton forwards the email chain to another State official and says simply, “Pls print.”
The Clinton campaign declined requests from ABC News to make Mills available for an interview. Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill deferred to the U.S. State Department, which issued a statement saying the board’s charter specifically calls for a membership that reflects “a balance of backgrounds and points of view. Furthermore, it is not unusual for the State Department Chief of Staff to be involved in personnel matters.”
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesCheryl Mills, former State Department chief of staff under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attends a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing in Washington, Oct. 22, 2015.more +
Fernando did not respond to messages left by ABC News at home and mobile numbers listed for Fernando, nor to a letter left at the office of his current business.
Today State Department spokesperson Mark Toner told reporters that Fernando had been fully vetted, but Toner said he could not speak to his specific qualifications. When asked if he came from a security background, Toner said, “I don’t believe so.”
“I apologize, I don’t have his [resume] in front of me,” Toner said. “All I know is that the charter does lay out or stipulate that [they're] looking for a broad range of experiences. It’s not unimaginable that a businessman, an international businessman, might bring a certain level of expertise or knowledge or experience to such a job.”
The State Department’s website lists former members of the ISAB, but Fernando’s name is not among them. Toner was unable to explain why the name was missing and when asked if the list was comprehensive, said, “Apparently not.”
As is customary with a new administration, the make-up of the board changed substantially when Clinton took over the State Department, according to Amb. James Woolsey, who served on the panel from 2006 to 2009. But the seriousness of its mission remained the same.
He said the board’s primary purpose was to gather an array of experts on nuclear weapons and arms control to constantly assess and update the nation’s nuclear strategy.
“Most things that involve nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy are dealt with at a pretty sensitive basis -- top secret,” he said, noting that participants meet in a secure facility and are restricted in what materials they can discuss.
That is not typically the realm of political donors, Woolsey said. Though, he added, it would not be impossible for someone lacking a security background to make a contribution to the panel. “It would depend on how smart and dedicated this person was... I would think you would have to devote some real time to getting up to speed,” he said.
Fernando is now a board member of a private group called the American Security Project, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan organization created to educate the American public and the world about the changing nature of national security in the 21st Century.” He also identifies himself online as a member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and says he's involved with a Washington think tank.
And he continued to donate to Democrats, and to Clinton. He emerged as one of the first “bundlers” to raise money for Clinton’s 2016 bid. And in July 2015, he hosted a fundraiser for Clinton at his Chicago home. Fernando has also continued to donate to the Clinton Foundation. He now is listed on the charity’s website as having given between $1 million and $5 million.
About six months after Fernando resigned from the State Department advisory board, he was invited to attend a White House State Dinner, honoring the British Prime Minister. And this summer Fernando will serve as a super delegate at the Democratic National Convention. According to Chicago media reports, he has committed to supporting Clinton.
ABC News' Andrea GonzalesPaul contributed to this report.
The following emails were obtained by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act, and were provided to ABC News. ABC News has arranged the emails in chronological order. Scroll through the emails below or CLICK HERE to open them in a new window.
If there's anyone that deserves to be trolled it's Hillary. Given her uncanny ability to dodge the facts and obsessively lie about everything and anything she is accused of being guilty of there's no way to take her on but to drop down to a level that she operates on.
An example of how nasty Hillary and the Establishment that supports is, is how Bernie has been treated; going as far as even using Obama and Warren to try and crush the movement he represents.
A recent photo on the front page of the LA Times (owned and operated by corporate goons) says it all. You know what they say about a picture being worth a 1,000 words.
A tired - beaten old man being escorted out the door by a tired and badly bruised black man who is desperate to save what little there is of a legacy battered by the Establishment; both right and left.
The media; bought and operated by the Billionaires and Millionaires Bernie scoffs at are consistently hard at work creating images that depict Sanders as a lost cause; and they are very good at it.
These insidious forces are frightened of the Bernie supporters because they are made up of the youngest and the brightest America has to offer and are way too informed and tech-savvy to be easily swayed. These pumped up Millennials want a future they can believe in an it's certainly not what Hillary and the Establishment are dishing up.
The powerful and far-reaching presence the Bernie Sanders campaign has on social media, and the enthusiasm of young Sanders supporters online, many of whom have been labeled trolls, “Bernie Bros,” “BernieBots,” and — more egregiously — sexists and racists by Democratic partisans and the corporate media over the past year. Sanders has such a passionate online base that David Brock and the Clinton campaign felt it necessary not only to pay legitimate trolls to attack them, but to make bogus generalizations intended to discredit the entire movement.
Throughout the primary season, a narrative has formed — thanks in large part to an uncritical media’s willingness to accept unsubstantiated reports (like chair-throwing and other violence in Nevada) — that Sanders supporters are a bunch of sexist, brutish, violent, and even racist white male trolls and serial harassers (the last charge, which has been exploited by influential journalists and establishment figures to evade any substantive criticisms, is perhaps the most troubling, for the very reason that it undermines people who are genuinely harassed online — which is a very real problem, especially for women and people of color).
Of course, there are indeed anti-Clinton/pro-Bernie trolls on social media — you’d be hard pressed to find any political movement that doesn’t have its share of trolls and assholes, and anyone who thinks their side is troll-free is either naive or self-absorbed. As The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald recently put it on Twitter: “Self-centered people always think their own group is free of trolls because they’re never targeted by them.”
Interestingly enough, polling data indicates that Clinton supporters have been more aggressive than Sanders supporters on social media and the internet, while — not surprisingly — Trump supporters have been the most aggressive by a long shot. A poll supported by Craigslist.com founder Craig Newmark found that 57 percent of Americans say Trump supporters are very aggressive and/or threatening online, 30 percent say the same for Clinton supporters, and 16 percent for Sanders supporters (while 68 percent say Sanders supporters are not that aggressive, 52 percent for Clinton supporters, and 30 percent for Trump supporters).
Unfortunately, “troll” and “harassment” have become terms that are now impulsively hurled by Democratic partisans at anyone who criticizes or disputes their opinion or a claim they’ve made, whether on social media or in a publication. Accusing someone of harassment — even when the person is making a valid argument (admittedly, sometimes substantive arguments can be made in a rude or condescending manner, but is being rude or impolite harassment?) — is an easy way to avoid their argument and discredit them in the future.
Bernie's campaign has given voice to countless Americans who are hell-bent to take back our country.
It has changed our nation and our politics—hopefully forever. Now it's up to all of us. To you and me and the courage and grit it's going to take to fulfill the promise of this historic moment.
Why do Republicans (and the media) frequently mention Hillary and say little or nothing about Bernie when reporting on General Election match-ups?
Republicans believe that Hillary will lose the election regardless who she runs against in November. Her loss is almost guaranteed because she will lose the Independents and Crossovers who will cast their votes for "anyone but Hillary."
They see Hillary as the gift that keeps on giving when the GOP attack dogs begin to feast on her. The baggage she carries is "huuuge" (as Bernie would say) and her opponents will have a field day tearing down her (and her husbands) reputation(s). The theme is obvious; can she be trusted? Is she honest? And, there's plenty of evidence to support that she loses on both counts.
There's her secret email accounts that she shared classified information. There's the secret speeches she made to Wall Street bankers who make up the bulk of her donor base. There's the hundred of millions of dollars her and Bill have pulled in for doing nothing more than peddling their influence and connecting power brokers.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, scares Republicans because he comes to the race with almost no baggage and is unshakable when it comes to his position on the issues Americans care about; the economy, healthcare, education, the infrastructure, income inequality, immigration, and political corruption. These are issues Republicans would rather not talk about because they; as well as Establishment Democrats, are a part of the problem and have no solutions.
In a General Election Bernie not only wins the votes of the majority of Millennials who are coming out in droves to vote for him, but also Independents and Crossovers that his message rings true with.
High turnout was reported among Democrats in all three states, with voters waiting hours in line in a few locations and some complaining that officials had not opened enough caucus sites or polling places.
Even after Arizona was called for Clinton, Sanders urged voters to stay in line, hoping to narrow the delegate gap in a state in which Democrats award them proportionally. In fact, Clinton’s Arizona margin narrowed as the night wore on—and Sanders’s dominating performances in Utah and Idaho allowed him to claim the majority of delegates who were up for grabs on Tuesday.
With Donald Trump on track to become the Republican nominee, Sanders has highlighted polls that show him beating the New York businessman in a general election by a wider margin than Clinton.
“There is no question that you are looking at the strongest Democratic candidate,” he said Monday.
His campaign team has repeatedly described the primary calendar as skewed in Clinton’s favor for the first half of the nominating contests and expect Sanders to pick up steam in western states, such as Washington, which holds its Democratic caucuses Saturday.
“We’re at halftime here, and we agree we’re behind, but we think we’re going to win this game,” said Sanders strategist Tad Devine last week.
Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, expressed frustration with the sentiment that Clinton was already locking down the nomination, calling it a “media drumbeat to essentially disenfranchise half of the Democratic voters.”
The media makes banner headlines about notorious Mexican Drug lords who invade the US peddling their nasty drugs with little or no mention that there is an enormous "demand" from Americans for these drugs. Why such a big demand you might ask?
It turns out that the reason(s) for the drug epidemic can be laid at the door of our very own "home grown" medical doctors who, are defacto drug dealers for none other than Big Pharma.
How did doctors, who pledge to do no harm, let the use of prescription narcotics get so out of hand?
As it turns out this cozy relationship between doctor(s) and drug manufacturers has existed for decades but the boom came in the prescribing of narcotics by outpatient doctors, driven partly by the pharmaceutical companies that sold those drugs. Between 1999 and 2010, sales of these “opioid analgesics”—medications like Vicodin, Percocet, and OxyContin—quadrupled.
By 2010, the United States, with about five per cent of the world’s population, was consuming ninety-nine per cent of the world’s hydrocodone (the narcotic in Vicodin), along with eighty per cent of the oxycodone (in Percocet and OxyContin), and sixty-five per cent of the hydromorphone (in Dilaudid).
As narcotics prescriptions surged, so did deaths from opioid-analgesic overdoses—from about four thousand to almost seventeen thousand.
Studies have shown that patients who receive narcotics for chronic pain are less likely to recover function, and are less likely to go back to work. The potential side effects of prescription narcotics include constipation, sexual dysfunction, cognitive impairment, addiction, and overdosing.
When patients receive narcotics for long periods, they can even become more sensitive to pain, a condition called hyperalgesia. (J. David Haddox, the vice-president of health policy at Purdue Pharma—the manufacturer of OxyContin—acknowledged “opioid analgesics have sometimes been associated with diminished pain relief in the face of increasing doses.”)
What’s more, no medication reliably eliminates pain in all patients, and narcotics are no exception. And there isn’t good evidence that the prescription of narcotics to treat chronic, non-cancer pain is effective over long periods: most studies of prescription narcotics last only twelve to sixteen weeks.
