AMERICA NEEDS A MULTI-PARTY DEMOCRACY

Occupy Deathstar

TO ANYONE WITH EARS TO HEAR AND EYES TO SEE, THE 2016 PSEUDO-ELECTION DEMONSTRATED THAT FOR OUR REPUBLIC TO REMAIN FREE AND A DEMOCRACY, WE NEED MORE THAN TWO PARTIES TO CHOOSE FROM IN ELECTIONS.

 

In the 2016 Democratic Party primaries, the level of vote-rigging, voter fraud and general hacking of machines and votes reached an unprecedented level that would have put even Boss Tweed to shame. It was not the Russians, as the CIA and the Corporate Media would have you believe who did it–it was the corrupt Neo-Liberals of the DNC who were guilty.

There were numerous online bloggers and a few remaining honest journalists present to document that fact, if one were willing to hunt these sources down online. Of course, if your source of news is the Corporate Media–the so-called Mainstream Media–you would have heard or seen none of this primary fraud. Thanks to Bill Clinton’s “reform” of the laws governing media ownership in the ’90’s, the United States went from about fifty different news and media sources down to five. The information highway, so-called, is controlled by a handful of Corporate conglomerates, who in turn have the fingers in the military-industrial government pie.

Stuffing-The-Ballot-Box

Case in point: the Washington Post, currently being lionized in the movies for releasing the Pentagon Papers in the 70’s, (which exposed the lies, collusion and fraud which the Pentagon and CIA engaged in to gin up the Vietnam War), was bought by Jeff Bezos with money obtained from a lucrative contract with the CIA. The WaPo then proceeded to shill for Hill and when Bernie Sanders became a serious threat to her coronation, began churning out attack pieces on Sanders, propaganda disguised as news, at a furious pace. In one day alone they vomited 18 attacks. Hillary, Wall Street’s choice for Democratic Party candidate, had the money, the power and the media behind her, as well as the CIA pulling propaganda strings behind the scenes. Yet still she lost to what is generally agreed as the worst POTUS in US history (sorry Millard Fillmore & James Buchanan you were bad, just not this awful). With the WaPo in the back pocket of the CIA, don’t look for it to ever do an expose such as they did with Watergate and the Pentagon Papers in the ’70’s.

trump_wedding_clintons 2006

As the DNC and Podesta emails proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not only was the Democratic primary rigged in advance, the Clinton machine–with Mainstream Media collusion–actually promoted the Trump candidacy in the GOP primaries. They called it “the Pied Piper” strategy: engineer the worst possible candidate into the role of GOP presidential candidate and the voters of the United States will be forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

Kevin & Bill sexperts in league together
Pervs of a feather fly the Lolita Express together to Jeff Epstein’s Under-Age Fantasy Island. The one with the hidden video cameras to use to blackmail the rich and famous later.

Despite many non Clinton dems urging for HER to go out and campaign in the contested states, Hillary and her acolytes were so sure she would win by a landslide they not only did not actively campaign in the field where it was most needed, they went out of their way to insult and degrade the Sanders wing of the party, which arguably was more than 50% of Democratic Party stalwarts. Well, as we know too well, the American electorate, given the choice of two evils, chose what they perceived was the lesser evil–Trump!

 

Bill Clinton & Harvey Weinstein
Two sexual predators compare notes and gloats.

I would like to gloat over the monstrous hubris of the Clintonites, but unfortunately the entire country–the entire world–is having to suffer the consequences. The Clintons, with their billions of graft and “donations” extorted from third world strongmen and dictators (including Vladimir Putin), can sit back and roll in their ill gotten money; most Americans however will suffer from the dangerous incompetency, the meanness and arrogance of Bill Clinton’s golfing buddy and fellow sex perv, Donald, “grab pussy” Trump.

Thomas Nast dead elephant and Donkey over cliff

There are many causes of how the American political system became so dysfunctional and in future articles I will delve into some aspects of the decline of Democracy and death spiral our Republic seems to be in. But for the present, let me just state the obvious: had the American public been presented with viable alternatives to the Hillary-Trump axis–or Wall Street Blue vs Wall Street Red as one pundit framed it–we would certainly be far better off for the next four to eight years.

Clowns to the left Jokers to the right

Third parties have arisen, but generally they have never attempted to build a party infrastructure county by county that can deliver votes in congressional elections. Once every four years for a charismatic candidate is not enough to turn the Republic’s death spiral around.

What America needs to restore democracy is not three, but at least four and perhaps even six legitimate parties, each of which would appeal to a broad swath of the American electorate. Most issues today are framed in a left vs right duopoly, as if there were no middle ground between either camp.

How many right to life advocates would argue that, if a woman’s life were in immanent danger due to a pregnancy, that she should be made to die rather than to save her life? Conversely, it is estimated that as many as 80% of all gun owners are for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the mentally ill, career criminals and terrorists. What they are not for is to have their constitutional rights taken away.

Most Americans, no matter what their declared party affiliation is, often take a variety of stands on a variety of issues: yet the two oligarchic parties restrict our choice to Column A and Column B. Bernie Sanders, a self avowed Socialist, was able to work with Ron Paul, a Libertarian, to force the Federal Reserve to do an audit of its holdings, revealing millions of dollars unaccounted for. That is an example of how independent politicians with different political philosophies can work together for the common good.

Ron & Bernie the political Odd Couple
politics makes for strange bedfellow, but at least they’re not underage.

It may be hard to fathom today, but the Republican Party started as a party whose rank and file were composed of Socialists of one ilk or another. Karl & Abe Book

The Republicans of the 1850’s and 1860’s not only abolished slavery, but redistributed millions of acres of land to the landless, set up a system of FREE higher education, had government intervene in building a transcontinental transportation system (a socialistic program if ever there was one) and many other reforms we now take for granted and don’t even recognize their socialistic origins.

 

 

The Democratic Party used to be the party of the working man and woman and under FDR and the New Deal, farmers, laborers and common folk in all parts of the country looked to the party of Jefferson and Jackson to defend their rights and expand democracy.

Since the mid-eighties, however, that party has been taken over by plutocrats disguised as liberals–the so-called Neo-Liberals–who are definitely NOT Liberals but who are basically Wall Street operatives in sheep’s clothing. More and more, Neo-Liberals’ main goal is to maintain control of the party–and the flood of money coming in from lobbyists and special interests–and less and less with actually winning elections. After all, their logic goes, who are union workers and minorities going to vote for–the Republicans?  With at least 40% of the electorate now identifying themselves as independent, clearly the answer is: NONE OF THE ABOVE

Bernie resistance.

We desperately need more than these two old and corrupt parties to choose from.  If comic book heroes can dwell in a multiverse, so too can the American voter. The electorate can handle more than two choices for not just the Presidency, but the House and Senate and, especially, for state and local offices. The Duopoly–that cabal of rich plutocrats who pretend to be for democracy but who really wish to keep American voters in the thrall of Wall Street–don’t want to give the voters a real choice at the polls. To be sure, those Americans who remain brainwashed by the Left-Right delusion, may think they are voting “Conservative” or “Liberal” when they go to the polls, but how often do they find that what they thought they were voting for never comes to pass?

Reality Pill
THE WORLD THAT HAS BEEN PULLED OVER YOUR EYES TO BLIND YOU FROM THE TRUTH

Wall Street Red and Wall Street Blue will continue to function for a long time to come, but many of the people now part of either party are not happy with their masters and if they were presented with viable alternatives, gladly bolt the failed duopoly that serves neither their needs nor their values.

In future articles I will go into detail as to what these parties should look like. Bear in mind, I do not necessarily subscribe to the values of such parties; but there are large numbers of Americans who would and whose voices would be best heard outside of the stifling political strait-jacket that now exists of Democratic v. Republican tickets. In a true democracy we do not always get what we want; but we are given clear and honest alternatives to choose from.

Delacroix Liberty at the Barricades
DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING?

In the past, America has had other parties than the Democrats and the Republicans and in some cases we had a genuine multi-party Presidential election. The one time we had a four-way Presidential election, the choice of the voting was arguably one of the country’s greatest Presidents: Abraham Lincoln.  We need more politicians like him today–and a multi-party system is the way to do it.

 

Theodore-Roosevelt

 

 In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt left the corruption of the Republican Party to form the Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party, the best expressions of the Progressive political movement in the 20th century. He beat the GOP candidate in the popular vote, but lost to Woodrow Wilson, a virulently racist Democrat, who pretended to be Progressive but was anything but, and who later dragged America into a war to defend Wall Street & London Bankers’ financial investments.

Advertisements

FUCK NEOLIBERALISM

The following is a guest column by Australian academic Simon Springer, a geographer/anarchist. The title of the essay leaves little doubt about his attitude towards the pseudo-progressive ideology that currently infects the Democratic Party and which, under different disguises, is rapidly enslaving much of the world. It is not too much to say that unless the Democratic Party purges itself of this malicious Corporatist infection, it is likely to go the way of the Whig Party; hopefully some party which is truly on the side of working men and women will replace it. We don’t need two parties dedicated to enriching the 1% at the expense of the rest of the country; in the best of all scenarios, the GOP would also wither away and be replaced by a party more in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. This essay does not discuss Neo-Liberalism’s evil twin, Neo-Conservatism, but I gather from his other published works that professor Springer is not a fan of that poison apple either. This essay is republished through Creative Common license and I claim no ownership or copyright of it. I do not necessarily agree with all the author’s opinions, but I believe his views are worth airing on as many forums as possible. You can contact the author through the Academia.edu portal or via his website.  

Fuck Neoliberalism

Simon Springer

Department of Geography, University of Victoria simonspringer@gmail.com
Abstract: Yep, fuck it. Neoliberalism sucks. We don’t need it.
Keywords: fuck neoliberalism; fuck it to hell

Fuck Neoliberalism. That’s my blunt message. I could probably end my discussion at this point and it wouldn’t really matter. My position is clear and you likely already get the gist of what I want to say. I have nothing positive to add to the discussion about neoliberalism, and to be perfectly honest, I’m quite sick of having to think about it. I’ve simply had enough. For a time I had considered calling this paper ‘Forget Neoliberalism’ instead, as in some ways that’s exactly what I wanted to do. I’ve been writing on the subject for many years (Springer 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015; Springer et al. 2016) and I came to a point where I just didn’t want to commit any more energy to this endeavor for fear that continuing to work around this idea was functioning to perpetuate its hold. On further reflection I also recognize that as a political maneuver it is potentially quite dangerous to simply stick our heads in the sand and collectively ignore a phenomenon that has had such devastating and debilitating effects on our shared world. There is an ongoing power to neoliberalism that is difficult to deny and I’m not convinced that a strategy of ignorance is actually the right approach (Springer 2016a). So my exact thoughts were, ‘well fuck it then’, and while a quieter and gentler name for this paper could tone down the potential offence that might come with the title I’ve chosen, I subsequently reconsidered. Why should we be more worried about using profanity than we are about the actual vile discourse of neoliberalism itself? I decided that I wanted to transgress, to upset, and to offend, precisely because we ought to be offended by neoliberalism, it is entirely upsetting, and therefore we should ultimately be seeking to transgress it. Wouldn’t softening the title be making yet another concession to the power of neoliberalism? I initially worried what such a title might mean in terms of my reputation. Would it hinder future promotion or job offers should I want to maintain my mobility as an academic, either upwardly or to a new location? This felt like conceding personal defeat to neoliberal disciplining. Fuck that.

It also felt as though I was making an admission that there is no colloquial response that could appropriately be offered to counter the discourse of neoliberalism. As though we can only respond in an academic format using complex geographical theories of variegation, hybridity, and mutation to weaken its edifice. This seemed disempowering, and although I have myself contributed to the articulation of some of these theories (Springer 2010), I often feel that this sort of framing works against the type of argument I actually want to make. It is precisely in the everyday, the ordinary, the unremarkable, and the mundane that I think a politics of refusal must be located. And so I settled on ‘Fuck Neoliberalism’ because I think it conveys most of what I actually want to say. The argument I want to make is slightly more nuanced than that, which had me thinking more about the term ‘fuck’ than I probably have at any other time in my life. What a fantastically colorful word! It works as a noun or a verb, and as an adjective it is perhaps the most used point of exclamation in the English language. It can be employed to express anger, contempt, annoyance, indifference, surprise, impatience, or even as a meaningless emphasis because it just rolls off of the tongue. You can ‘fuck something up’, ‘fuck someone over’, ‘fuck around’, ‘not give a fuck’, and there is a decidedly geographical point of reference to the word insofar as you can be instructed to ‘go fuck yourself’. At this point you might even be thinking ‘ok, but who gives a fuck?’ Well, I do, and if you’re interested in ending neoliberalism so should you. The powerful capacities that come with the word offer a potential challenge to neoliberalism. To dig down and unpack these abilities we need to appreciate the nuances of what could be meant by the phrase ‘fuck neoliberalism’. Yet at the same time, fuck nuance. As Kieran Healy (2016: 1) has recently argued, it “typically obstructs the development of theory that is intellectually interesting, empirically generative, or practically successful”. So without fetishizing nuance let’s quickly work through what I think we should be prioritizing in fucking up neoliberalism.

The first sense is perhaps the most obvious. By saying ‘fuck neoliberalism’ we can express our rage against the neoliberal machine. It is an indication of our anger, our desire to shout our resentment, to spew venom back in the face of the noxious malice that has been shown to all of us. This can come in the form of mobilizing more protests against neoliberalism or in writing more papers and books critiquing its influence. The latter preaches to the converted, and the former hopes that the already perverted will be willing to change their ways. I don’t discount that these methods are important tactics in our resistance, but I’m also quite sure that they’ll never actually be enough to turn the tide against neoliberalism and in our favour. In making grand public gestures of defiance we attempt to draw powerful actors into a conversation, mistakenly believing that they might listen and begin to accommodate the popular voice of refusal (Graeber 2009). Shouldn’t we instead be done talking? Here is the second sense of ‘fuck neoliberalism’, which is found in the notion of rejection. This would be to advocate for the end of neoliberalism (as we knew it) in a fashion advanced by J.K. GibsonGraham (1996) where we simply stop talking about it. Scholars in particular would discontinue prioritizing it as the focus of their studies. Maybe not completely forget about it or ignore neoliberalism altogether, which I’ve already identified as problematic, but to instead set about getting on with our writing about other things. Once again this is a crucially important point of contact for us as we work beyond the neoliberal worldview, but here too I’m not entirely convinced that this is enough. As Mark Purcell (2016: 620) argues, “We need to turn away from neoliberalism and towards ourselves, to begin the difficult – but also joyous – work of managing our affairs for ourselves”. While negation, protest and critique are necessary, we also need to think about actively fucking up neoliberalism by doing things outside of its reach.

Direct action beyond neoliberalism speaks to a prefigurative politics (Maeckelbergh 2011), which is the third and most important sense of what I think we should be focusing on when we invoke the idea ‘fuck neoliberalism’. To prefigure is to reject the centrism, hierarchy, and authority that come with representative politics by emphasizing the embodied practice of enacting horizontal relationships and forms of organization that strive to reflect the future society being sought (Boggs 1977). Beyond being ‘done talking’, prefiguration and direct action contend that there was never a conversation to be had anyway, recognizing that whatever it is we want to do, we can just do it ourselves. Nonetheless, there has been significant attention to the ways in which neoliberalism is able to capture and appropriate all manner of political discourse and imperatives (Barnett 2005; Birch 2015; Lewis 2009; Ong 2007). For critics like David Harvey (2015) only another dose of the state can solve the neoliberal question, where in particular he is quick to dismiss non-hierarchical organization and horizontal politics as greasing the rails for an assured neoliberal future. Yet in his pessimism he entirely misunderstands prefigurative politics, which are a means not to an end, but only to future means (Springer 2012). In other words, there is a constant and continual vigilance already built into prefigurative politics so that the actual practice of prefiguration cannot be coopted. It is reflexive and attentive but always with a view towards production, invention, and creation as the satisfaction of the desire of community. In this way prefigurative politics are explicitly anti-neoliberal. They are a seizing of the means as our means, a means without end. To prefigure is to embrace the conviviality and joy that comes with being together as radical equals, not as vanguards and proletariat on the path towards the transcendental empty promise of utopia or ‘no place’, but as the grounded immanence of the here and now of actually making a new world ‘in the shell of the old’ and the perpetual hard work and reaffirmation that this requires (Ince 2012).

There is nothing about neoliberalism that is deserving of our respect, and so in concert with a prefigurative politics of creation, my message is quite simply ‘fuck it’. Fuck the hold that it has on our political imaginations. Fuck the violence it engenders. Fuck the inequality it extols as a virtue. Fuck the way it has ravaged the environment. Fuck the endless cycle of accumulation and the cult of growth. Fuck the Mont Pelerin society and all the think tanks that continue to prop it up and promote it. Fuck Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman for saddling us with their ideas. Fuck the Thatchers, the Reagans, and all the cowardly, self-interested politicians who seek only to scratch the back of avarice. Fuck the fear-mongering exclusion that sees ‘others’ as worthy of cleaning our toilets and mopping our floors, but not as members of our communities. Fuck the ever-intensifying move towards metrics and the failure to appreciate that not everything that counts can be counted. Fuck the desire for profit over the needs of community. Fuck absolutely everything neoliberalism stands for, and fuck the Trojan horse that it rode in on! For far too long we’ve been told that ‘there is no alternative’, that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’, that we live in a Darwinian nightmare world of all against all ‘survival of the fittest’. We’ve swallowed the idea of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ hook, line and sinker; when in reality this is a ruse that actually reflects the ‘tragedy of capitalism’ and its endless wars of plunder (Le Billon 2012). Garrett Hardin’s (1968) Achilles’ heel was that he never stopped to think about how grazing cattle were already privately owned. What might happen when we reconvene an actual commons as a commons without presuppositions of private ownership (Jeppesen et al. 2014)? What might happen when we start to pay closer attention to the prefiguration of alternatives that are already happening and privileging these experiences as the most important forms of organization (White and Williams 2012)? What might happen when instead of swallowing the bitter pills of competition and merit we instead focus our energies not on medicating ourselves with neoliberal prescriptions, but on the deeper healing that comes with cooperation and mutual aid (Heckert 2010)?

Jamie Peck (2004: 403) once called neoliberalism a ‘radical political slogan’, but it is no longer enough to dwell within the realm of critique. Many years have passed since we first identified the enemy and from that time we have come to know it well through our writing and protests. But even when we are certain of its defeat, as in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Occupy Movement, it continues to gasp for air and reanimate itself in a more powerful zombified form (Crouch 2011; Peck 2010). Japhy Wilson (2016) calls this ongoing power the ‘neoliberal gothic’, and I’m convinced that in order to overcome this horror show we must move our politics into the realm of the enactive (Rollo 2016). What if ‘fuck neoliberalism’ were to become a mantra for a new kind of politics? An enabling phrase that spoke not only to action, but to the reclamation of our lives in the spaces and moments in which we actively live them?

What if every time we used this phrase we recognized that it meant a call for enactive agency that went beyond mere words, combining theory and practice into the beautiful praxis of prefiguration? We must take a multipronged approach in our rejection of neoliberalism. While we can’t entirely ignore or forget it, we can actively work against it in ways that extend beyond the performance of rhetoric and the rhetoric of performance. By all means let’s advance a new radical political slogan. Use a hashtag (#fuckneoliberalism) and make our contempt go viral! But we have to do more than express our indignation. We have to enact our resolve and realize our hope as the immanence of our embodied experiences in the here and now (Springer 2016a). We need to remake the world ourselves, a process that cannot be postponed.

We’ve willfully deluded and disempowered ourselves by continuing to appeal to the existing political arrangement of representation. Our blind faith has us waiting endlessly for a savior to drop from the sky. The system has proven itself to be thoroughly corrupt, where time and time again our next great political candidate proves to be a failure. In this neoliberal moment it’s not a case of mere problematic individuals being in power. Instead, it is our very belief in the system itself that epitomizes the core of the problem. We produce and enable the institutional conditions for ‘the Lucifer effect’ to play itself out (Zimbardo 2007). ‘The banality of evil’ is such that these politicians are just doing their jobs in a system that rewards perversions of power because it is all designed to serve the laws of capitalism (Arendt 1971). But we don’t have to obey. We’re not beholden to this order. Through our direct action and the organization of alternatives we can indict the entire structure and break this vicious cycle of abuse. When the political system is defined by, conditioned for, enmeshed within, and derived from capitalism, it can never represent our ways of knowing and being in the world, and so we need to take charge of these lifeways and reclaim our collective agency. We must start to become enactive in our politics and begin embracing a more relational sense of solidarity that recognizes that the subjugation and suffering of one is in fact indicative of the oppression of all (Shannon and Rouge 2009; Springer 2014). We can start living into other possible worlds through a renewed commitment to the practices of mutual aid, fellowship, reciprocity, and non-hierarchical forms of organization that reconvene democracy in its etymological sense of power to the people. Ultimately neoliberalism is a particularly foul idea that comes with a whole host of vulgar outcomes and crass assumptions. In response, it deserves to be met with equally offensive language and action. Our community, our cooperation, and our care for one another are all loathsome to neoliberalism. It hates that which we celebrate. So when we say ‘fuck neoliberalism’ let it mean more that just words, let it be an enactment of our commitment to each other. Say it loud, say it with me, and say it to anyone who will listen, but most of all mean it as a clarion call to action and as the embodiment of our prefigurative power to change the fucking world. Fuck Neoliberalism!

 Acknowledgements

I owe my title to Jack Tsonis. He wrote me a wonderful email in early 2015 to introduce himself with this message as the subject line. Blunt and to the point. He told me about his precarious position at the University of Western Sydney where he was trapped in sessional hell. Fuck neoliberalism indeed. Jack informs me that he has since gained employment that is less precarious, but seeing the beast up close has made him more disgusted and repulsed than ever. Thanks for the inspiration mate! I’m also grateful to Kean Birch and Toby Rollo who listened to my ideas and laughed along with me. Mark Purcell motivated greatly with his brilliant delight in thinking beyond neoliberalism. Thanks to Levi Gahman whose playful spirit and support demonstrated an actual prefiguration of the kinds of ideas I discuss here (“Listen Neoliberalism!” A Personal Response to Simon Springer’s “Fuck Neoliberalism”). Peer reviews from Farhang Rouhani, Patrick Huff and Rhon Teruelle demonstrated tremendous unanimity giving me reason to believe that there is still some fight left in the academy! Special thanks to the translators Xaranta Baksh (Spanish), Jai Kaushal and Dhiraj Barman (Hindi), Ursula Brandt (German), Fabrizio Eva (Italian), anonymous contributor (French), Eduardo Tomazine (Portuguese), Haris Tsavdaroglou (Greek), Sayuri Watanabe (Japanese) and Gürçim Yılmaz (Turkish), as well as Marcelo Lopes de Souza, Myriam Houssay-Holzschuch, Ulrich Best, and Adam Goodwin for helping to organize the translations. Finally, thanks to the many people who so kindly took the time to write to me about this essay and express their solidarity after I first uploaded it to the Internet. I’m both humbled and hopeful that so many people share the same sentiment. We will win!

References

Arendt, H. (1971). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.
Barnett, C. (2005). The consolations of ‘neoliberalism’. Geoforum, 36(1), 7-12.
Birch, K. (2015). We Have Never Been Neoliberal: A Manifesto for a Doomed Youth. Alresford: Zero Books.
Boggs, C. (1977). Marxism, prefigurative communism, and the problem of workers’ control. Radical America, 11(6), 99-122.
Crouch, C. (2011). The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Malden, MA: Polity Press
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1996). The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It): A Feminist
Critique of Political Economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Graeber, D. (2009). Direct Action: An Ethnography. Oakland: AK Press.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.
Harvey, D. (2015). “Listen, Anarchist!” A personal response to Simon Springer’s “Why a radical geography must be anarchist”. DavidHarvey.org. http://davidharvey.org/2015/06/listen-anarchist-by-david-harvey/
Healy, K. (2016) Fuck nuance. Sociological Theory.
https://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf
Heckert, J. (2010). Listening, caring, becoming: anarchism as an ethics of direct relationships. In Franks, B. (ed.). Anarchism and Moral Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 186-207.
Ince, A. (2012). In the shell of the old: Anarchist geographies of territorialisation. Antipode, 44(5), 1645-1666.
Jeppesen, S., Kruzynski, A., Sarrasin, R., & Breton, É. (2014). The anarchist commons. Ephemera, 14(4), 879-900.
Le Billon, P. (2012). Wars of Plunder: Conflicts, Profits and the Politics of Resources. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lewis, N. (2009). Progressive spaces of neoliberalism?. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 50(2), 113-119.
Maeckelbergh, M. (2011). Doing is believing: Prefiguration as strategic practice in the alterglobalization movement. Social Movement Studies, 10(1), 1-20.
Ong, A. (2007). Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(1), 3-8.
Peck, J. (2004). Geography and public policy: constructions of neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 28(3), 392-405.
Peck, J. (2010). Zombie neoliberalism and the ambidextrous state. Theoretical Criminology, 14(1), 104-110.
Purcell, M. (2016). Our new arms. In Springer, S., Birch, K. and MacLeavy, J.
(eds.). The Handbook of Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge, pp. 613-622.
Rollo, T. (2016). Democracy, agency and radical children’s geographies. In White, R. J., Springer, S. and Souza, M. L. de. (eds.). The Practice of Freedom: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Shannon, D. and Rouge, J. (2009) Refusing to wait: anarchism and tntersectionality. Anarkismo. http://anarkismo.net/article/14923
Springer, S. (2008). The nonillusory effects of neoliberalisation: Linking geographies of poverty, inequality, and violence. Geoforum, 39(4), 15201525.
Springer, S. (2009). Renewed authoritarianism in Southeast Asia: undermining democracy through neoliberal reform. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 50(3), 271276.
Springer, S. (2010). Neoliberalism and geography: Expansions, variegations, formations. Geography Compass, 4(8), 1025-1038.
Springer, S. (2011). Articulated neoliberalism: the specificity of patronage, kleptocracy, and violence in Cambodia’s neoliberalization. Environment and Planning A, 43(11), 2554-2570.
Springer, S. (2012). Anarchism! What geography still ought to be. Antipode, 44(5), 1605-1624.
Springer, S. (2013). Neoliberalism. The Ashgate Research Companion to Critical Geopolitics. Eds. K. Dodds, M. Kuus, and J. Sharp. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 147-164.
Springer, S. (2014). War and pieces. Space and Polity, 18(1), 85-96.
Springer, S. (2015). Violent Neoliberalism: Development, Discourse and Dispossession in Cambodia. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Springer, S. (2016 a) The Anarchist Roots of Geography: Toward Spatial Emancipation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Springer, S. (2016 b) The Discourse of Neoliberalism: An Anatomy of a Powerful Idea. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Springer, S., Birch, K. and MacLeavy, J. (2016) An introduction to neoliberalism. In Springer, S., Birch, K. and MacLeavy, J. (eds.). The Handbook of Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge, pp. 1-14.
White, R. J., and Williams, C. C. (2012). The pervasive nature of heterodox economic spaces at a time of neoliberal crisis: towards a “postneoliberal” anarchist future. Antipode, 44(5), 1625-1644.
Wilson, J. (2016). Neoliberal gothic. In Springer, S., Birch, K. and MacLeavy, J.
(eds.). The Handbook of Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge, pp. 592-602.
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.

How Comey Conned the Cons

“A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich” Sol Wachtler

Hillary Dumpty

Imagine you are James Comey and you are told by your superiors (in this case the Attorney General Loretta Lynch) in no uncertain terms that you are not to recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton.  The fix is in, the case is rigged; the system is corrupt.  We all know this by now, unless you are a driveling idiot or some dumb-ass pseudo-Progressive with head in the sand who supports Hillary Clinton.  You have spent the last year or so carefully building and ironclad case.  What do you do?

There were two options: one, to do the right thing; defy your superiors and hand them a recommendation to indict the most corrupt Secretary of State in American History.  This would cause Hillary Clinton to bow out of the Presidential race and Bernie Sanders becomes nominated the Democratic Presidential candidate.  The other is, you do as told, betray all professional integrity and allow the equivalent of a Mafia Don to run for the most powerful political position in the world. We now know that Comey took the second course, paving the way for Crooked Hillary to be the “presumptive” nominee.  The 94 dollar question is: why?

BILL & HILL MAKE BONNIE & CLYDE LOOK LIKE PENNYANTE CROOKS

Several answers come to mind.  First, you want to retain your job and would prefer not to end it prematurely, even if you do it by blackening your own reputation in the law enforcement world.  The last time someone stuck by their prosecutorial guns was during Watergate, the so-called “Saturday Night Massacre” when the Special Prosecutor investigating Nixon’s wrong-doing got too close to the truth and Nixon ordered him fired: the Attorney General refused and he was fired as well.  But for all his wrongdoing, President Nixon was not 1/100th as corrupt as Hillary Clinton, nor as rich, nor as powerful. It is also possible that Slick Willie at that airport meeting threatened Loretta Lynch with some juicy blackmail if his boss Hillary didn’t get off; the blackmail certainly extended throughout the Obama administration and perhaps to the FBI as well.

Secondly, Comey, if you do do the right thing and recommend prosecution, you, a Republican, will have just handed the Presidency to the Democrats.  Hillary Clinton, who is so incompetent she couldn’t even type a simple email without violating the Espionage Act, has only managed to stay ahead of outsider Sanders in the primaries by outrageously overt cheating that a first grader could recognize.  Unfortunately, these days we have reporters who do a worse job of reporting the news than a first grader could do.

Handing the nomination to an HONEST Democratic candidate like Sanders will mean Bozo the Billionaire Trump’s candidacy will go down in flames, and as much as the GOP hates him, they lust after power more.  So give the fools in the DNC and the White House what they want: Hillary gets a pass, a get out of jail free card, and the Republicans will likely win the White House.

BILL & HILL CON ARTISTS

But notice what Comey did, that devious little devil: he prefaced his whitewash with a virtual catalog of all the indictable offenses Hillary committed with regard to the Private Email servers.  Comey did not recommend prosecution, true, but he made it clear to anyone who is not a Hillary troll that she was GUILTY AS HELL.  Now, if the Democratic Party had an ounce of integrity left–Hell, an ounce of common sense left–they would dump Hillary Clinton at the Convention on July 25 and go with the one man who represents all the things the Democratic Party stood for before the Clintons and the NeoLiberals corrupted it–the FDR New Deal programs that made postwar America the most powerful, most prosperous nation on earth.  So Hillary gets her nomination and will struggle to stay even with Trump the Billionaire Buffoon; and if the polls go too far in her favor, Comey’s people have a mountain of incriminating documents ready to leak to the press at any time.

Moreover, if by some miracle Hillary, the Capo di Tutti Capi, does win the Presidency, everyone seems to have forgotten the reason Hillary put all her communications on the Private Server to start with: to hide the BILLIONS of dollars worth of graft that she funneled through the CLINTON FOUNDATION.  The reason the FBI criminal investigation has taken so long is that they have been following all the threads of corruption outward from the emails to the pay for play graft that Hillary was at the center of.

Clinton Inauguration Day

The Emails are like the tip of an ice-burg visible above the waterline; the bulk of her illegal activities have been hidden in that pseudo nonprofit and they all revolve around the complex money laundering schemes of the Clinton Foundation. My guess is that not only the Clinton Crime Family will go down once the Foundation’s crooked dealings are exposed, but most of the Party Establishment as well.  If Hillary gets into office, the hearings and investigations leading to her impeachment will make Watergate look tame by comparison.

Convict Hillary

There is a Chinese proverb: be careful of what you wish for; you just may get it.  FBI Director Comey has given the corrupt Democratic Party Establishment exactly what they wanted: now watch them choke on it.

Hillary_Queen_Peasants_C4P

 

WHAT IS A POLITICAL CONVENTION FOR IF NOT TO CHOOSE A CANDIDATE?

Hillary Dumpty

The question of what is the purpose of a political convention may seem a trifle simplistic to modern media pundits, but as three generations of teachers—and Democrats—in my family were want to say, there are no stupid questions; just stupid answers.  So to all the politically savvy “experts” in the media and the Democratic political establishment nationwide, I recommend that you seriously consider—or reconsider—your own answer to this question, as well as my own answer below.

Thomas Nast dead elephant and Donkey over cliff
The GOP is a dying beast but can still do great harm; meanwhile, the Democratic Party establishment seems bound and determined to follow Hillary Clinton over the precipice.  Their convention in July is the place to correct their mistake.

For a number of years, the presidential convention has simply been one giant publicity event, a raucous but essentially meaningless cheerleading rally for the pre-anointed candidate of the respective political party.  We now have a prolonged and incredibly expensive process for selecting a presidential candidate, a process which is neither designed to choose the best possible person for the job, nor even the most electable candidate; and if the current Democratic Presidential nominating process is any guide, it is also not reflective of the wishes of the rank and file members of that political party, but the cynical will of a small circle of political bosses and their financial handlers.  

Traditionally, the purpose of a presidential political convention has been to select a candidate; how the candidate was chosen has varied over the years, but in essence the convention was the medium through which this was done.  Caucus, primary or smoke filled room have all been methods for selecting a suitable candidate; but the purpose has always been to choose the best person for the job, not to acquiesce to the political operative most acceptable to the billionaire class.

 

Hurricane image royalty free
The Democratic Party is traveling straight into the Perfect Storm with #CrookedHillary and can’t see it.  Only the nomination of Bernie Sanders can save the day.

Since the late 1970’s, the leadership of the Democratic Party—the party of Jefferson and Jackson, the party of the common man, the working man—has transformed it into a “me too” party, mimicking the Republican Party, perhaps a little less austere and still giving lip service to American workers but in fact undermining them at every turn, but has been gradually abandoning the values of FDR and the New Deal, the very programs and values that had made the Democratic Party the dominant political party for half a century; the programs and policies that had not only reformed a broken economic system, but ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity for most Americans. 

Mind you, the wealthy also benefited from the economic programs of the New Deal, since we are a consumer economy and the more money American workers have, the more they spend. 

The reverse, however, is not true: giving the wealthy undeserved tax breaks and various “corporate welfare” schemes to not result in wealth trickling down to the American worker.  They never have and never will: Trickle Down economics, or whatever label you rebrand it with, is a proven failure and just a con to rob the middle class of their wealth and transfer it to the top 1%.  What is a billion dollars in political contributions when it will return you in 100 billion in tax breaks, government subsidies and assorted outsourcing and off-shoring schemes?

 

Stuffing-The-Ballot-Box
The only way Hillary has gotten the primary wins she has was by out and out cheating.

 

Bernie Sanders portrays himself as a “Democratic Socialist” and that is fine if he wishes to characterize his solid New Deal derived programs and policies in those terms.  Perhaps all these years the Democratic Party should have been more forthright to the American people about all those “socialistic” programs which created wealth and prosperity in this country.  Those programs, and a strong Union movement, created the record postwar prosperity we enjoyed between 1945 and into the 1970’s.  Perhaps then the Repugnican NeoCons would never have gotten to first base with their vile economic voodoo even in the Republican Party. 

 

Now both the GOP NeoCons and the DINO Democrat NeoLibs are attacking Social Security and Medicare as “entitlement programs” that need to be cut to balance the budget.  Even Ronald Reagan laid it out in simple terms that, while Social Security is technically in the Federal Budget, it DOES NOT contribute to the deficit; it is fully funded by the American people and their employers. YES IT IS AN ENTITLEMENT: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THAT MONEY BECAUSE YOU PAID INTO IT YOUR ENTIRE WORKING LIFE, NOT THE BILLIONAIRES!  However, every American should be aware that over the years Social Security has been raided by the Republicans and some Dems as a giant slush fund to finance Billionaire tax cuts and otherwise unfunded wars (like Hillary’s Iraq War).  So, no Social Security is not “going broke” but the Billionaires and their Congressional toadies have been stealing from the till and need to put the money back,

Reagan Defending Social Security: reagan

Bernie Sanders Defends Social Security

bernie-sanderssmiling
Why is this man smiling? Guess.

However, to learn what the Repugnicans and the NeoLib Democrats have been doing with your Social Security money, listen to this radio show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqxMCjZxXYM

 

Hillary Clinton is a DINO—a Democrat In Name Only—and she and her fillandering husband have worked very hard to transform the Democratic Party in the Republican Light Party.  Even many progressives in the party—and they are fewer every year—are largely afraid to cross the Clinton Crime Family or run too strongly against the NeoLiberal lies that the Clinton organization has made the new party dogma.

 

Delacroix Liberty at the Barricades
aux la barricades in July and take the Democratic Party back from the Oligarchs, America.

 

The Democratic Party needs to get back to its roots; nominate Bernie Sanders, move heaven and earth to get money out of politics and push through financial reforms and all the regulations that were put in place after the “free market” bankrupted America.  The only reason these safeguards were removed was because of sheer greed.  During World War II, FDR proposed a Second Bill of Rights, also known as the Economic Bill of Rights.  Call it Socialism if you wish—but bear in mind the Pilgrims and the Puritans were socialists too and they never heard of Karl Marx.  Karl & Abe Book

 

Needless to say, all the phony trade treaties like NAFTA, the TPP and the upcoming TTIP and some 45 or so other scams to benefit multi-national corporations all need to be repealed and renegotiated into FAIR TRADE plans, where corporations are excluded and American workers benefited.  Then, and only then, can this nation come back from the precipice and begin to return to a prosperous and just society.

 

Unless the Democratic Natonal Convention in July does its true duty and nominate Bernie Sanders as their standard bearer, our nation is headed for an even bigger financial collapse than we experienced in 2008.  Hillary Clinton is a large part of the problem—her and the Republican NeoCons—and it is hard to say which would be worse, her or Trunp.  If Hillary is nominated, there is a strong chance the Democratic Party will go down to defeat; if she wins, it is almost certain she will be impeached.  Whatever vestige of Democracy we have is on the verge of disappearance.  The Democratic Convention can reverse this dangerous situation, but not if it nominates the worst candidate they have had since the era of Boss Tweed.

Hillary vs Bernie on Panama Trade Agreement

 

IF YOU STRIKE ME DOWN….

Bernie Wan Kanobi

After the brazen voting fraud displayed in the New York Primary, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton Machine would pull out all the stops to cheat their way to victory on the April 27 “Super Tuesday”  (It seems like Super Tuesdays are becoming more frequent than “Trials of the Century.”). The signs were all there in Pennsylvania that the same criminal behavior Hillary’s minions practiced in the Big Apple would be on display in PA: forged absentee ballots, hacked electronic voting machines, mysteriously purged voter rolls.  Yesterday, one county alone had 900 registered Democrats “missing” on election day; another district had Hillary Clinton handbills on prominent display inside the polling place–that was caught on video–and the poll workers refused to remove the deceptive ads, which were made to look like paper ballots.

hillary_queen_usa

Queen Hillary’s coronation seems virtually assured, at least that is what all the corporate media pundits keep telling us.  In her arrogance, however, Wall Street Hillary, when asked whether she would meet the Sanders people “halfway” and adopt some of their reform agenda, shut down any talk of compromise.  She wants Sen. Sanders to bend the knee and pledge unquestioned allegiance to her and turn over her forces, “for the sake of party loyalty.”

You would think, at the very least, that by now Hillary and her Corporatist lackeys would have grasped what the Sanders Campaign is all about, even if they hated what it stood for.  While we all admire Bernie Sanders for his integrity and honesty, he has not attracted the mass following that he has simply on that alone.  Nor can his popularity be attributed to his charisma or youthful good looks.  No: first and foremost, people have responded to his message of reform and progress.

Bernie Sanders agenda is not just about breaking up the big banks and bringing the Banksters to account for their crimes: but also to create more & better paying  jobs; taking money out of the election process and protecting voting rights; stopping the TPP and repeal the other phony free trade deals that have savaged our economy; universal health care; strengthen and enlarge Social Security; free public university education; rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; make primary and secondary public education public again and not a “profit center” for corporations; end the “Prison Industrial Complex” and stop imprisoning minority groups for petty infractions of the law; the list goes on and on.  As Bernie has emphasized over and over, this is not about one person or one election.  It is about a fundamental reform of America, a nation which has been ravaged by the bad economics of the GOP and their DINO allies in the Democratic Party ever since the 1980’s.

Occupy Deathstar
Occupy Deathstar Protesters

 

Hillary Clinton’s greed for Corporatist money is only exceeded by her lust for power.  Her and the DINO establishment, who have lost far more elections than they have ever won, cannot fathom, it seems, that Bernie Sanders is running on principles, not for personal gain.  Even if he were to sell out his ideals, simply for some political appointment, his mass movement will not troop along dociley and tow the Corporatist line, as Hillary and the other corrupt Establishment Dems want.

Help Us Bernie-wan

While there are still several primaries to go and it is still important for every reform minded individual to still turn out and vote for Bernie, we all need to recognize that the Sanders candidacy is not the end, but the end of the beginning (as Churchill once put it)!

Mark my words, there is a bitter convention fight looming, not for the nomination, but for the reform planks that Sen. Sanders advocates to be put into the Democratic Platform.

Wall Street Hillary’s backers do not want any genuine reforming of the financial system, or of the corrupt electoral process that they control, not to mention any of the other Progressive planks we so desperately need enacted.  The DINO’s will fight tooth and nail to keep any real and meaningful reform planks out of the platform.  Hillary wants nice sounding nostrums, to be sure; and she will promptly betray even those if elected. But any serious and sincere programs of Progressive reform, reforms that the American electorate could get behind? Oh No, God forbid that her real constituency, the 1% that is in currently in control of both parties, should be offended by the Democratic Party Platform.

Delacroix Liberty at the Barricades
La Lutte Continue!

 

After the Democratic Convention, whatever its outcome, all those who have united behind the banner of Bernie Sanders must realize that the real work, the real struggle, the real campaign, has only just begun.

 

 

 

 

The Empire struck back yesterday.  They will continue to do so all through this electoral year and beyond.  Through all of their evil machinations in BOTH parties, remember, we are a Rebel alliance, not just one man and not just one race.

Bernie_wan_Kenobi
The Rebel Alliance needs YOU!

 

There will be other battles ahead and new Jedi Gekkai of all ages, races, genders and creeds will be needed to succeed.  Perhaps even new political parties will be needed to break the stranglehold that the Corporatists have on on our nation–on the world–and if that is what it takes, that is what it takes.  The Republican Party, which was once a party of social justice and economic reform, was begun by handful of idealists gathering in a one room schoolhouse.

Fighting Bernie

The road is long, the road is hard, but the destination is worth the effort.

Yoda & Darth HILLARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Force of Progress be with you.

Is Donald Trump a Clinton Stalking Horse?

trump_wedding_clintons 2006
Trump and the Clintons have long been close allies; Trump may have started his candidacy as a favor to Bill and Hill, but there is no honor among thieves, even billionaire thieves.

 

In politics, a stalking horse is a public figure who either tests a concept or mounts a challenge against someone on behalf of an anonymous third-party.  For example, Eugene McCarthy served as an insurgent candidate in the 1968 Campaign in an attempt to unseat President Lyndon Johnson’s and keep him from running for a second term.

When he had a strong showing in the New Hampshire primary and proved there was a substantial sentiment for ousting the sitting President, Bobby Kennedy stepped in to mount a bid for the nomination, stealing McCarthy’s thunder. Kennedy was succeeding all the way to the California Primary, until he was murdered by yet another “lone assassin” (sic) in June of 1968.

In the case of McCarthy, he may not have realized he was doing Kennedy’s dirty work in going up against a very powerful sitting President and so his role as stalking horse may have been unwitting.  Kennedy operatives had convinced McCarthy to run and the Senator took the political risks while Bobby Kennedy watched on the sidelines; nevertheless, McCarthy was a Stalking Horse nonetheless.

In the present run for the White House, it has long been apparent that Donald Trump since the earliest phases of his candidacy was not behaving like a normal candidate and seemed, in fact, to be doing just about everything he could to be outrageous and get himself eliminated from the running, even as he disrupted the whole Republican primary system.

Before the race began Jeb Bush was Wall Street’s chosen Republican candidate, just as Hillary Clinton still is on the Democratic side.  In truth, Bush was eminently electable, not only being a moderate with broad appeal to the general electorate, but with a built-in appeal to Hispanics, a key Democratic demographic.  His wife is Mexican and he speaks fluent Spanish; certainly, as candidate he could easily have won against Hillary’s version of Wall Street Corporatism.

Of course, insofar as the billionaires who run our country were concerned, either candidate was acceptable–so long as Wall Street retained control of the political system.  However, after eight years of dog-whistle race-baiting and immigrant hating, the GOP establishment had made Bush’s primary run a much harder one, having enabled racists and right wing extremists to speak openly without fear of criticism.  So, despite all the money behind Jeb Bush, his candidacy went nowhere.  Instead, Trump did not just blow up Jeb’s run, but the Republican Party’s whole scheme.

Out of the blue in comes Trump, all full of piss and vinegar, to upsets the whole Repugnican game.  Already a media celebrity, The Donald comes out with one outrageous statement after another and the Great Unwashed eat it all up.  Although Donald Trump is a billionaire many times over, he is not, nor has he ever been, beholden to Wall Street or multi-national corporations for his wealth or candidacy.  His wealth was the result of real estate dealings, not manufacturing or international trade, which is why he has been willing to call out NAFTA and the TPP for the Corporatist scams they really are.

For all those not familiary with New York City and its rather unique cultural and social mix, Donald Trump, despite his billions, has always been looked down on by the Manhattan money crowd as a brash outsider.  He hails from Queens,  one of the Outer Bouroughs, which has always been regarded with disdain by the elite, not just of Wall Street, but of Manhattan in general.  An oil sheikh with a dozen wives would be more warmly greeted by the Manhattan elite than this Outer Bourough upstart–and that is regardless of whether they are left or right, Democratic or Republican.

In fact, the very large chip on Donald Trump’s shoulder with regards to Wall Street and the Manhattan elite may be a large part of his appeal to all the of blue collar and redneck Republicans who have propelled his insurgent candidacy forward.  The fact that Trump has come out solidly against the disasterous trade deals, like TPP, that have cost America millions upon millions of jobs, plus his rhetoric about creating jobs, is also something that resonates with working class voters, just as it has with Bernie Sanders supporters.

That Donald Trump has disrupted the GOP primary game is not in dispute; what some may find controversial is that, at least initially, he was doing so to aid the Clinton candidacy.  While this may seem a stretch to some, consider the facts: Donald Trump has long been on friendly terms with Bill and Hillary, donating to their cause (themselves) and it is no secret that the Clintons attended his wedding in 2005 his latest wife.  Hardly the actions of avowed enemies, no?

CNN recently posted an interesting video which contrasts Trumps current rhetoric against his earlier opinions of the Clintons dating back not only to 2008, but all the way back to the 90’s.  It is clear that his current criticisms of the Dynamic Duo, Bill & Hill, is a recent creation and almost certainly an artificial animosity, of a kind with Hillary’s opposition to the TPP and her alleged taking her friends on Wall Street to task.

While the 1% had the election rigged for their chosen candidates from the beginning, it seems obvious that the Clinton Machine had other ideas in mind.  They had no intention of running against a serious Republican contender, such as Jeb Bush, who conceivably have won the election.  In steps their old friend The Donald.  To him it was not about money–unlike the Democratic politicians they have bought and paid for across the country, Trump doesn’t need the Clinton’s cash. In fact, the Donald has been a generous donor to the nefarious Clinton Machine over the years.

No, Donald joined the Republican primary just for the fun of it, to see how much mayhem and confusion he could cause against the Wall Street establishment that has always looked down on him.  Trump’s candidacy resembled nothing so much as the scenario from the classic Mel Brooks movie The Producers. Two con artists decide to produce the worst play they could find, knowing that nobody ever questions the finances of a flop.  So they produce “Springtime for Hitler” assured that the play will close on opening night.  Well, guess what, like Springtime for Hitler, the Trump candidacy has become a runaway hit.

Trump being Trump, loves being the center of attention and being an egomaniac feeds on being the center of attention. What better forum for him than running for President? Now, with the success of his candidacy, all bets with his old friends the Clintons are off.  Trump still spews politically incorrect invectives, but one has to wonder is this just for media attention, or is Trump still trying to sabotage his Republican Presidential hopes?  The Donald may well be in it to win it now; only time will tell. But just as the Clintons have pulled every dirty trick in the book against the Sanders candidacy, so too have they sabotaged the entire Republican electoral machine in their avarice and hunger for power.

In their evil genius, one must concede the Clinton’s brilliance, even as one recognizes the massive corruption they have wrought on the Democratic Party.  The level and brazeness of the Clinton voting fraud perpetrated in the Democratic primaries far exceeds even Karl Rove’s vote rigging in the general election of 2oo4.   As far as the Republican Party is concerned, it was already thoroughly corrupt; the GOP’s only hope is if Hillary Clinton’s Corporatist presidency explodes in her face just as Nixon’s did due to Watergate.

Thomas Nast political cartoon
The Party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt long ago sold out to corporate interests; now the Clinton’s Stalking Horse, Donald Trump, is wreaking havoc with the hollow shell.

 

FRAUD IN WYOMING FLIPS IT TO CLINTON

ballot-box-thumb1
Caucuses do not normally allow absentee voting, yet in Wyoming hundreds of “surrogate” ballots appeared magically on caucus day.

 

Although the mainstream media covered Senator Sanders landslide win in Wyoming and the subsequent skewed delegate apportionment in favor of Hillary Clinton, what is not being covered is the emerging evidence of egregious vote manipulation and fraud by the Clinton Machine.

Senator Sanders racked up an impressive 56% win to Clinton’s 44%, yet after the fuzzy math was done by the Democratic Party establishment, out of the states’ 18 total potential delegates, Hillary Clinton received 11, in effect reversing the decision of the caucus goers.  Even deducting the 4 super-delegates, who are uncommitted and are expected to vote for whichever candidate has the most committed delegates coming to the convention, that still means Clinton netted half of the delegates. Sanders nets 40% of the caucus delegates despite a respectable lead?  This peculiar math was commented on even by Joe Scarborough and the other political commentators on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

“I’m sorry,” Joe Scarborough exclaimed after reviewing the facts, “that’s a crushing victory!”

Unfortunately, Joe, you don’t know the half of it.  Laramie County is the state’s capital and more populous than most of Wyoming, a rural state.  The caucus turnout in Laramie County was heavy, with the attendees overwhelmingly in favor of Bernie Sanders: 689 to Clinton’s 111. But magically, 620 absentee ballots suddenly appeared on the day of the caucus in favor of Hillary Clinton! 

Bear in mind, Wyoming is a caucus state, where the candidate is only chosen by those voters who are attending in person NOT by either electronic vote and still less by absentee ballot.  Surrogate voting is only allowed in the caucus under rare and extenuating circumstances. 

So how is it that that so many persons in this one county suddenly developed La Grippe or, say, absent on military duty? Such a skewed surrogate vote is statistically IMPOSSIBLE—at least in an honest election. 

The MSNBC reporter in the field, Kristen Dahlgren, reporting from Laramie, observed that “clearly there were clearly a lot more Bernie Sanders supporters here at the caucus.”  When she asked Democratic Party official and Clinton loyalist Kathy Karpon whether she was surprised at the big Hillary vote, when so many attending the caucus were clearly for Bernie, she slyly responded that she was not surprised “because we knew we had the surrogate ballots out there.”

Over at CNN (a network owned by a major Clinton donor) a Clinton flack was dispatched to provide spin control to avoid any embarrassing questions about the peculiar results coming out of Wyoming.  The Clinton stooge claimed that, unlike the 82% or 86% votes coming out of the other western caucuses, Wyoming was held down to a 12 point lead by Sanders because, he alleged, of Wyoming’s “onerous vote-by-mail rules” that anyone filing a surrogate ballot had to have voted as a Democrat in the 2014 mid-terms.  That, he said, was their “secret sauce.”  The only problem with this excuse is that it is a total fabrication: a quick glance at state Democratic voting rules reveals no such mid-term restriction.

The “secret sauce” in Wyoming was Clinton minions’ ballot stuffing and egregious voter fraud.  Reports have been trickling out of other states of voting irregularities and sabotage, all pointing to a concerted campaign of vote fraud on the part of the Clinton Machine.  This has largely gone unreported by the mainstream media and so far the Sanders campaign has been reluctant to investigate the reports and file official complaints, perhaps out of fear of being accused of “sour grapes.” 

 

Stuffing-The-Ballot-Box
Evidence of voting irregularities are emerging in primary states but have yet to be adequately investigated.

 

Rigged elections are a serious issue. Wyoming is a small state in so far as numbers of delegates go; but because of that, the Clinton dirty tricks were more obvious than in a bigger electoral state.  Wyoming is not an isolated case.  There is a trail of fraud and manipulation attributable to the Clinton Campaign since at least the Massachusetts primary.  The Democratic establishment may fear that the Clinton money machine will come to an end if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, but the looming Clintongate scandal may well explode in their well-heeled Wall Street funded faces, just as Watergate did to Richard Nixon and the Republicans.