Imagine there are no Clintons/
It’s easy if you vote/
No GOP too/
No TPP Before Us/
No NAFTA as well/
You may call him a dreamer/
but He’s not the only one/
Come and vote for Bernie/
And then we will all have won.
Imagine there are no Clintons/
It’s easy if you vote/
No GOP too/
No TPP Before Us/
No NAFTA as well/
You may call him a dreamer/
but He’s not the only one/
Come and vote for Bernie/
And then we will all have won.
If you haven’t heard by now, the Clintons have wealthy friends; VERY wealthy friends. And they show their friendship in many ways, but mostly through giving them money; LOTS of money. No secret here. Also no secret is that Bill and Hillary will do just about anything for their friends; change their vote in Congress, steer lucrative government contracts their way; make sure they get nice shiny new bombers and missiles and other military hardware that her foreign friends think they may like to play with. Friends like that you can’t put a price tag on except, actually, you can.
Through the Clinton Foundation, Super PACs, Shell Corporations in the Cayman Islands and any number of other dodges and subterfuges that elude even the most diligent forensic accountants, Bill and Hillary shift money around the nation and around the world like your grandpa shifts checkers on a checkerboard. Because I like to keep it simple, however, today let’s just look at the top dozen contributors to Hillary’s current primary election campaign. Now this is the list as reported a short while back, so no doubt the list has grown much bigger and the rankings may have changed since last reported. It also does not take into account speaking fees, super PAC money, Clinton Foundation donations, in kind donations, influence peddling, or any other back door ways of obtaining lucre, filthy or otherwise. So these contributors, whom I call the Dirty Dozen, are but a small tip of the iceberg of the Clinton Cash Machine. In fact, I have every confidence that these same donors are also giving far more money through other avenues than straight to her campaign; but like I said, I wanted to keep it simple.
So here they are, The Dirty Dozen:
Now, on this list are the usual suspects: Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan, Morgan Stanley; and considering how much they give Goldwater Girl Hillary an hour to speak at their meetings (where are the transcripts Hillary?) these are, comparatively, modest sums for getting THEIR CANDIDATE elected. Of course, as noted before, these are the outright campaign contributions, not any of the dark money donations.
Of special note is the fact that one these big money donors is Time Warner, the media conglomerate, whose subsidiary is CNN, the cable news giant. So, when the CNN folks pretend to be objective and then give Bernie fifteen minutes of news coverage to hours for Hillary, we should not be too surprised. Also, when they have a conga line of “commentators” asking why Bernie just doesn’t give up and cede the race to the heir apparent to the throne, this too should be taken for the simpering attempt to control the message in this election that it is.
Time Warner, along with other media giants, is a BIG (or as Trump would say HUUUGE) backer of the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP, that really awful giveaway to multinational corporations which will undermine national sovereignty (and all local laws the corporations don’t like) as well as transfer more high paying US jobs overseas to nations where they’ll become starvation wage jobs, as well as further hurting the US balance of trade and indirectly increase the Federal deficit. So once Slick Hillary assumes the mantle of power, expect the TPP deal to slide through like a case of diarrhea due to Asian Flu. Did I mention that this and other so-called “Free Trade” deals have nothing to do with trade and are anything but free?
At the top of the list is EMILY’s List, a Pro-Choice, pro-Gay and Transgender, pro-Democratic Party, Feminist organization, dedicated to getting women elected to public office. They bill themselves as a Progressive. So, at first glance Emily’s List is a perfect fit for Pro-LGBT, Pro-Progressive, Vote for Me Because I’m a Woman Hillary. No Progressive Democrat, male or female, could quibble with this group donating to get a Democrat elected, right? Wrong.
According to one media pundit, “basically every Democratic woman candidate is petrified to speak publicly about EMILY’s List’s shenanigans.” Evidently, whenever they give to a candidate’s race, there is an unspoken requirement that they hire a certain media consulting firm, whose president just happens to be the wife of EMILY’s List Campaign Director! The donated money must be spent on the beltway media firm, whose performance is reported to be something less than stellar and who some candidates have blamed for their losing the election.
Apparently liberal candidates are forced to go along with the scam because EMILY’s List is working hand in glove with senior Democratic Party officials to fleece candidate’s campaigns. Obviously, a few high powered party establishment operatives are benefiting from this scam at the expense of the Progressive wing of the party; I wonder who they could be, Bill and Hillary?
More curious on the Dirty Dozen list is the University of California, weighing in at more than three quarters of a million dollar donation. It is ethically dubious even for a private university to contribute to a political campaign; it is even worse for a PUBLIC university to do so. A “Fact Sheet” distributed by U. of C. in fact denies that the school makes any political contributions or funds any political action committees. They do, however, say that “sometimes organizations that track campaign contributions, such as http://opensecrets.org, take the official data provided by the FEC about campaign contributions and report by demographic breakdown, such as by industry or employer” and UC characterize such listings as “misleading.” So technically, no, the University of California did not directly give; but some pundits note that there is a “revolving door” between political lobbyists and government officeholders and the members of UC administration and the University does “track” bills in Congress as well as any Executive Branch’s proposed rules and regulations which may affect the university and higher education in general. Also, there are political operatives who do “bundling” of UC employee contributions, plus there is the dark world of PACs, who are legally separate from their beneficiary organization, but who unofficially coordinate their activities with it. So the truth here is, let us say, somewhat murky.
Then we have the big money law firms. Hillary is a lawyer; they’re lawyers; what could be more natural, right?
Up near the top is DLA Piper, a GLOBAL multinational law firm, with offices in over 30 countries; it is the largest law firm in the world with billions in revenue; virtually every lawyer in the firm is a multi-millionaire. Just a bunch of poor ol’ country lawyers. It should come as no surprise that its legal staff has included, not just US senators and cabinet members, but former Prime Ministers and other high international Muckey-Mucks. According to the watchdog, Above the Law, “the firm makes for great copy; there’s always something funny, ridiculous, or salacious going down over there.” This includes accusations of over-billing its filthy rich clientele (no tears here over that) and the firm’s involvement with a fossil fuel executive who claimed to be working for the CIA in order to get into the panties of two Khazakh women, whom he had “rescued” from a brothel (or was it a seraglio?), as well as more serious scandals over the years.
Skadden Arps is perhaps not so colorful as DLA Piper, but it too is an international law firm with tentacles firmly in the Washington establishment, doing lobbying for major corporations and with a notable tilt towards Democratic politics. Love ya Hill baby.
Paul, Weiss is another lobbying law firm with headquarters in New York City but major offices in Washington and overseas. Besides buttering up pols such as Bill & Hill, they do entertainment law and manage corporate mergers and takeovers, in addition to the occasion pro bono good deed, such as representing detainees held in durance vile in Gitmo.
Kirkland & Ellis is similarly a heavy hitter law firm who do entertainment and corporate law; they went to bat for BP when the oil giant polluted the entire Gulf Coast and got some of its workers killed in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fiasco. They didn’t clean up the heavy crude, but did try to clean up the legal mess for their multinational client. They trend toward Dems, being a major backer of Obama in 2008 and have their own PAC to distribute additional largesse. Apparently they want to get in Hillary’s good graces before she becomes the Anointed One.
There are, of course, very many more law firms and lobbyists on the Hillary hit list; we have only looked at the tip of the iceberg here. Where the real influence peddling with Bill & Hill goes on is in the murkier nether regions of the Clinton empire, namely the Clinton Foundation and the spiders webs of PAC’s and other organizations. Of course, as the email and Panama Paper scandals unfold, more will be revealed; that’s when the real fun begins.
As one Repugnican pundit has observed, on the campaign circuit Hillary Clinton travels around with two jets; one for Hillary and her entourage, and one for her baggage.
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.”
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.
Let us be very clear about Hillary Rodham Clinton: she is eminently qualified to be CEO of a multinational corporation that steals land from South American peasants, gets cozy with Third World dictators and manipulates Wall Street derivatives and other obscure financial scams that could crash the economy. She is also well qualified to speak before Mega Banks and Banksters for a quarter of a mil a shot. But, unless you want the Middle Class to shrink even more, want bad Trade deals that undermine our national sovereignty and ship millions more good paying jobs overseas, and think it’s fantastic that we send disproportionate numbers of Blacks and Hispanics to jail for long stretches for acts that are not even illegal in Europe, then no, Slick Hillary is not qualified to be President of the United States.
While Hillary Clinton is as glib and slick her husband Bad Boy Bill, and in many ways a brilliant (albeit untrustworthy) politician, do not imagine for one minute that this country will be any better off than if a Repugnican is elected POTUS. Rather than just randomly rant, let me highlight just a few issues with HRC:
So, when Hillary Clinton slams Bernie Sanders for being “unqualified” or inexperienced and therefore unfit to be President of these here United States, it really is enough to make one laugh–if I weren’t crying at the prospect that she may well get the nomination. And if she does, God help us all.
In our discussion of Pilgrim and Puritan Socialism in our previous essay, we of course simplified what are sometimes nuanced issues, and in this medium we rarely footnote all the sources which relate to a subject. However, if one looks at various pop articles and secondary sources relating to the subject of early New England socialism, you will find a distinct bias to those articles. Largely penned by Conservative Christian apologists, they strain to emphasize what a failure these early efforts at communal economic organization were and interpret it as the triumph of Capitalism over Socialism.
First off, modern Conservative Christians stand in relation to Christianity in the way National Socialists stand in relation to Socialism—while they may sound the same, in the main it’s in name only.
Another thing to consider is that Capitalism did not exist in the seventeenth century; Capitalism was a by-product of the growth of industrialization, which did not really begin until the late eighteenth century and came to the fore in the nineteenth. Mercantilism was the dominant economic system of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and even at the beginning seventeenth century England still retained many vestiges of Medieval Manorial economics, such as the open field system. So, to a certain degree, discussing “Capitalism” versus Puritan socialism is irrelevant and anachronous. Apparently, some modern Conservative dogmatists feel threatened by the fact that their forefathers were not as ideologically pure as they.
That being said, there were other factors at work, especially in the Plymouth Bay Colony, that I did not go into in part 1. Not all the colonists on the Mayflower were coming to the New World for religious liberty or enamored of Biblical economic justice; seventeenth century sources refer to “adventurers and planters” and clearly the Congregationalists were not among the “adventurers” in the group.
So, the more secular settlers were of course unhappy about the austere communal (or “communistic”) system initially set up, where all their resources (mostly food) were stored in one communal warehouse and everybody shared work duties according to their ability and resources were shared equally. To a large extent this austere form of socialistic practice was out of necessity. The colonists did not land until November of 1620, far too late to plant any crops; many were already suffering from diseases such as scurvy due to the long sea journey and were too sick to pull their own weight as far as work was concerned. As it was, the settlers had to steal parched corn from the nearby Indians due to lack of food. Half of the colonists died that first winter; more, maybe all, would have died had they not pooled their resources and instead practiced “rugged individualism.”
Even after the first winter, the colonists tried to plant crops unsuited to the harsh New England climate and it wasn’t until the Native Americans (who most definitely were practicing a form of tribal communism) taught the immigrants how to plant native crops and cultivate them, that the food shortages truly disappeared.
It should be noted that Jamestown, which did not practice communism or socialistic economics at all, had an even worse time of it at the start because everybody did try to do their own thing (mainly looking for gold and trying to enslave the local tribesmen) and they were so short of food at one point that they started digging up corpses from the ground and engaged in cannibalism. That is what “Capitalism” (sic) resulted in. So, from a comparative viewpoint, the Pilgrims early form of communistic austerity was relatively successful. However, as their governor, William Bradford, noted, many were far from happy with such a strict economic regimen and after the initial hard times, in 1623 loosened discipline to where land was parceled out to individual families, although ownership was still held in common by the colony as a whole.
So, was Pilgrim socialism successful? The modern ideologues would have you believe it was a failure; but bear in mind the colony had been set up as a proprietary charter from the start and owed money to the financial backers of the colony in England, who expected their investment back within a certain time. The colony was set up as a communal endeavor from the beginning, with the profits from the colony earmarked to pay back the investors, after which there would be a division of the assets among the colonists. In fact, despite all the hardships and delays, the Plymouth colonists did pay back the investors, after which there was an equitable division of the assets of the colony among the surviving colonists. So, while the “socialist experiment” did not continue on, neither was it a failure.
The situation could best be likened to the Lutherans of the Amana Colony of Iowa; they too set up a religious commune, which included both agriculture and manufacturing; eventually they sold the manufacturing rights to a corporation—which is why you can still buy Amana refrigerators to this day. The Amana commune did not continue, true; but I would hardly call it a failure. Much the same could be said of the Plymouth Colony and, with somewhat different circumstances, the Puritan’s economic experiment. Today, about 35 million Americans claim ancestry from the Pilgrims; despite the challenges and hardships, I would say that is something of a success story.
AS CRUCIAL AS NEW YORK IS FOR SLICK HILLARY, WE ALL KNEW HER MEDIA HACKS WOULD GO ALL OUT TO DISCREDIT BERNIE SANDERS. WELL ITS BEGUN.
The New York Daily News (aka The Daily Planet–you know with the tabloid with the big globe in its lobby) had an interview with candidate Bernie Sanders. Actually, hatchet job would be a better description. The tack they took was a classic from the Republican playbook; they “Swiftboated” him.
In case you are too young to remember, back in 2004, nearly half the country was already soured on George W. Bush, the Vietnam Era playboy who had his Daddy pull strings to get himself into the Air National Guard to avoid going to Viet Fucking Nam. Running against draft dodge George was Senator John Kerry, a war hero who was awarded the Purple Heart five times–FIVE TIMES==but who was painted as a liar and a coward by GOP shills. Well, enough of the public bought that lie that King George II won re-election. So, the evil genius GOP hacks and their media lackeys took Kerry’s strong point and by repetitive lying and misrepresentation, turned that strong point into his weak point. That is, in essence, what the Hillary hacks at the NY Daily News have tried to do in their interview.
If anything, Bernie Sanders has gone into too much detail about what he will do when elected President. His critique of the Washington establishment is as deep as it is broad and by his avoiding large donors and super PAC money, he has walked the walk as well as talking the talk. He also has made no secret that he intends to rein in Wall Street at the earliest opportunity. This we all know.
So what does Hillary’s shill at the Daily Planet do? Why attack Bernie as being shallow and having no plan as to what he’s going to do, of course! In regard to how Bernie would break up the big banks, they badgered him to cite chapter and verse as to EXACTLY he would go about doing that, on the surface of it a perfectly moronic question.
As President, the POTUS does not give specifics as to how his policies are carried out: that’s what his cabinet and their departments are supposed to do. How do you go about going after the banksters who committed massive fraud and nearly destroyed the world economy? How do I prosecute thee? Let me count the ways.
There are dozens, possibly hundreds of ways to go about reining in the Banksters and their mega banks; but first you have to get elected. Then appoint Elizabeth Warren to your cabinet and I GUARANTEE she will find a way or three; or four, or more.
Another so called “Gotcha” by the Hillary shill was on Sanders notable lack of enthusiasm for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Neo-Fascist policies. Because Bernie, a NEW YORK JEW doesn’t go along with rubber stamping the failed policies of the extreme right wing parties in Israel and tacitly approves of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem (which EVERY previous US president has at least given lip service too) this is supposed to be a negative. Bernie Sanders grew up seeing the adults in his neighborhood with the concentration camp tattoos; he is pro-Israel, he is A JEW; but he does not support the failed policies of extreme right wing Israeli governments who have chosen to intervene in the internal politics of the United States big time.
That being said, it is true that foreign policy is not Bernie Sanders strong point. We must contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s VAST experience in foreign policy: such as approving a trade agreement with Panama to enable her billionaire friends to dodge taxes and launder money; voting for the Iraq War; pushing President Obama to intervene in Libya (Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi); and, of course, the sterling success of our intervention in Syria. And let us not forget the looming TPP deal, which will lose us millions more in trade deficits and jobs, but enrich her billionaire multi-national corporatist friends. So yes, Hillary is a foreign policy “expert” and Bernie is not. He just believes in fairness, justice and peace.
Well, mark my word. The New York Daily Planet hatchet job is just the opening salvo in the Hillary Media campaign to keep New York voters from finding out the truth about Brooklyn born Bernie and their carpet-bag former senator.
When the movie hit the screen, my gut feeling that it was basically a piece of Republican propaganda disguised as a fact-based adventure film. However, although I wrote a manuscript detailing the history of early twentieth century Libya, my knowledge of the current situation there is limited. I came across this blog entry by a native of Benghazi that is intelligent and eloquent and I feel deserves a wider readership. So if there are any out there who want reality instead of hyperbole I think you will find this post of interest.
Benghazi just can’t catch a break. As if an all-out war isn’t enough, the city is being vilified nation-wide by those who see the war as a misdirected endeavor, and the people of Benghazi are being accused of, yes, destroying their own city! I won’t point out the insensitivity and blatant ignorance of this stance. If you’ve been reading this blog over the years, you’ll be familiar with the slippery slope that led our city to the circumstances it’s in today. The war is horrific and it’s hurting us, but it was also an inevitability brought about by the same people currently pretending like there were other options.
One of the very first incidents that sparked the descent down this slope was the killing of American ambassador Chris Stevens. This event launched the start of Benghazi’s international vilification, as pundits and citizens alike decried the Libyan revolution and the international intervention that bolstered it. “We shouldn’t have…
View original post 864 more words