Recent Updates Page 3 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Julie Driscoll 11:35 pm on April 11, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie Sanders represented our interests even when the whole world wasn’t watching 

    Bernie early lifeAll of the reasons the mainstream media and the political establishment have given us that Hillary Clinton is the “inevitable” candidate or the “most electable” candidate or the “most experienced” candidate are wrong.  Her unfavorable ratings are in double digits, second only to Donald Trump, while Bernie Sanders is the only candidate with a net positive favorable rating.  Her chronic and shameless inconsistency on her policy positions, from guns to gay marriage to trade deals, even to abortion, is legendary, while YouTube has an array of videos documenting Bernie Sanders’ fights against the “system” and on behalf of us for decades, long before the whole world was watching.  Whatever the outcome, Hillary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI for what is, at best, the worst judgment in the world for her use of a private, secret, shady email server, and what is at worst possible crimes.  Neither poor judgment nor criminal activity speak well for someone seeking to occupy our nation’s highest office.  That matters.  And despite Clinton’s dismissive attitude toward the FBI’s investigation into what she did with her emails, and despite her haughty confidence, it’s not, as she recently claimed, just a routine “security review,” not when people close to her are being granted immunity.

    Don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  Don’t consign this country to four or eight years of business as usual, politics as usual, to the leadership of someone whose primary loyalty lies with those big players who financially fueled her rise to power.  Don’t give the Establishment what it wants, which is to maintain the status quo, where power brokers lobby for deals, politicians sign on, and we pay the price.  Don’t vote for Hillary Clinton, a candidate who’s so deep into the dark money, so entrenched in the nether regions of the upper echelon – a place you and I can’t even imagine, let alone ever reside in – that she can’t even envision what our lives are like, let alone take steps to alleviate our pain.  Don’t vote for a candidate who measures peoples’ worth based on what they can do for her financially or politically.

    Is there such thing as a perfect candidate?  No.  Do we largely pick our poison?  Sure – but not this time around.  This time, we have a chance, there’s actually a window of opportunity, to vote for Bernie Sanders, someone with rock solid integrity and commitment who has represented our interests behind the scenes for decades – even when the whole world wasn’t watching.  When he took to the Senate floor to rail against the Panama trade agreement, when he stood against the Iraq war, when he marched for civil rights and for workers’ rights, when he proposed legislation to protect our pensions and when he has fought to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour so millions can be lifted out of poverty, he was speaking for us, because it was right, and not because it made for a good sound bite.

    Hillary Clinton is by all measures the scariest candidate on either side of this election cycle.  The powers that be on the Dem side want to convince us that we have to vote for her, or we risk a Trump or a Cruz or a Kasich.  You know what?  I know what they stand for.  I don’t like it, but I know it.  With Clinton, there’s a constant question mark.  As she’s clawed her way up in politics, she’s left a trail of rule-breaking, rumors of corruption, the scent of dark and mysterious money flowing every which way, clear quid pro quo deals and a refusal to believe that facts and truth matter.  Hillary Clinton has no moral compass.  Her every act and word is calculated for either financial gain or gaining another rung on the power ladder.  She won’t release her Wall Street speeches because she knows they will simply reinforce every notion we have always had of her – that she says one thing and does another.

    Once Hillary Clinton lost Michigan, she also lost interest in Flint’s plight.  If she sees the black vote veering toward Bernie Sanders, and believes it’s lost to her, she’ll lose interest in the mothers of the slain young black men who she’s now using as political props.  Her deplorable Sandy Hook attacks on Bernie Sanders backfired, and she’s likely to distance herself from that lawsuit – and the parents of those slain children – as well.  We should judge her, ethically and morally, for her callous use of grieving people to score political points.  We should judge her, as a fellow human being, for viewing people as just so much flotsam and jetsam in her quest for power.

    Integrity and character aren’t fluid things, but Clinton missed that memo.  Every single move she makes is calculated for politics, to curry favor.  She wouldn’t even take a bite of a damn piece of cheesecake in New York because she was afraid of how it would play to those watching.

    Bernie Sanders says what he thinks – about Israel, about Wall Street, about the Sandy Hook parents’ lawsuit against the gun manufacturers, about how he views Hillary Clinton’s qualifications – even when it’s not popular.  He doesn’t stop, think, and stick a finger in the air to test the political winds before speaking.  He’s articulate and passionate and real.  He’s everything she isn’t, and she’s everything that he has spent a lifetime fighting against.

    We cannot let Hillary Clinton get the nomination.  This is our one shot to tell the Democratic establishment what we think of their efforts to decide for us who our nominee will be, to tell the media what we think of their slights to Bernie Sanders during this primary season, what we think of the corporations who own Hillary Clinton.  We have a chance, and we can’t blow it.

    Supporters of Bernie Sanders don’t believe he’s a perfect human being; instead, we know that he’s the perfect candidate for us, at this time, in this economic environment.  We know that he’s who he says he is and that two months, three months, six months into his presidency, he’s not going to be in the tank for Wall Street or making deals on behalf of corporate America.  We know this. Nobody – NOBODY, not even her most ardent supporters – can say the same thing about Hillary Clinton.

    We deserve our revolution.  We’ve suffered enough at the hands of those like Hillary Clinton who put politics before people.  We need to demand that we won’t accept less than we are owed, and that even if Wall Street got away with literal murder and crime, we won’t stand behind someone who has slithered behind the scenes, giving speeches to the tune of 3/4 of a million dollars, to assure them they’ll have a friend in the White House.

    Sanders bird

     
  • Julie Driscoll 11:54 pm on April 9, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    For Bernie, 8 wins in a row ain’t chopped liver – and it’s high time for the superdelegates to catch on 

    Bernie Sanders just won Wyoming tonight, making it eight straight victories, and not just by a couple of votes, either.  Wyoming Democratic Party executive director Aimee Van Cleave said that being a Democratic in red Wyoming is “electrifying.”  Bernie seems to have that effect on people.

    And then there’s the New York thing, where Bernie has whittled about 30 points out of Clinton’s lead – he’s within 18 points of her now.  In California, he’s only six points behind Clinton.

    Okay, sour grapes’ers, talk to me about the math – no, actually, don’t.  We won’t talk about the math until we get to the open convention, because that’s when it comes important because that’s when superdelegates vote.  Already there’s some movement in the superdelegate arena, the flipping from “inevitable” Clinton to the highly popular – and winning – Bernie Sanders. Uncommitted Minnesota superdelegate Rep. Rick Nolan has felt the pressure from Sanders supporters, with some querying whether he will be reelected if he pledges for Clinton when Sanders won over 60% of the state.  After rumors started that he’s in the Clinton camp, he squelched them in a big fat hurry, releasing a statement that he hasn’t endorsed anybody yet.

    I’m saying, screw the math, for now.  If you read the media headlines, you’ll catch the theme:  Bernie is in the process of trying to “poach” (definition: take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way) Clinton’s superdelegates.  Odd phrasing, if you ask me:  What exactly makes them hers?  Sanders supporters are working hard to bring pressure to bear on superdelegates to flip from Clinton to Sanders, particularly in states where he’s won big.  They argue, and I agree, that a superdelegate can individually vote any way he or she likes, but when it comes to casting a vote as a superdelegate, it is incumbent upon them to follow the state’s lead.  I sit here, this election cycle, and wonder why the superdelegate thing hasn’t given me pause in the past; it seems odd.  When I read that Kansas City, Missouri superdelegate Sly James has pledged to Clinton regardless of the state’s vote, it made my spidey sense tingle.  As ivn.us noted, “. . . [M]any of the superdelegates who have stated that the will of voters is inconsequential to who they will support at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia make it sound like they were appointed with the explicit purpose of supporting Clinton.”

    Here are a few particularly glaring examples of the failure of superdelegates to vote the way their electorate dictates:

    • Let’s start with Michigan, where Sanders won in an upset, 61-38.  How come none of the Michigan delegates are in the Sanders camp, with seven being in the Clinton camp and the rest still undecided?
    • In Minnesota, where Sanders beat Clinton 61-38, only two superdelegates are in his camp; twelve are for Clinton and one is undecided.
    • In Wisconsin, Sanders beat Clinton 56-43, and yet six superdelegates are for Clinton, one is for Sanders, and the rest are undecided.
    • Sanders creamed Clinton 79-20 in Utah, so it should be a no-brainer that Utah’s superdelegates would be on board – but alas, two are still in the Clinton camp, despite the clear message from voters.
    • Sanders beat Clinton 59-40 in Colorado, but none of Colorado’s superdelegates are on Bernie’s list – eight are pledged to Clinton, and four are still undecided.
    • Sanders won by a 78-21 landslide in Idaho, so you’d think that all of the superdelegates would get the hint.  You’d be wrong.  One is still in the Clinton camp, and one is still undecided.
    • 81-18 is what most people would call a definitive win – that’s what Sanders beat Clinton by in Alaska.  So someone explain why only one superdelegate has pledged to Sanders, while two are in Clinton’s pocket and one is still undecided.
    • Sanders beat Clinton 69-30 in Hawaii, again, a quite definitive statement about what the state’s voters think.  Explain, then, why six superdelegates are still pledging to Clinton, only two to Sanders, and why the others can’t seem to make up their minds.
    • All but one undecided superdelegate for Democrats Abroad are pledged to Clinton, despite Bernie Sanders beating her substantially, 70-30.
    • Sanders won 72-27 in Washington, but you couldn’t tell it by the superdelegate count:  Not one has pledged to Sanders, ten are pledged to Clinton, and the rest of the bunch are wishy-washs who can’t make up their minds.
    • 61-38 in Minnesota, that’s what Sanders won by.  And yet, here we are, with eight pledged to Clinton, three pledged to Sanders, and one still uncommitted.

    There’s more, much more, but that’s just a random assortment of blowout Sanders wins followed by incredibly undemocratic actions by superdelegates who refuse to follow the electorate’s lead.  I’d highly suggest that we all follow this website closely, SuperDelegateList.com, which is complete with contact information for the Clinton hacks, the reluctant or the fence-riders in the superdelegate arena.

    Sanders Supporter Creates Superdelegate ‘Hit List’; Superdelegates Not Amused

    To Bernie Sanders supporters the idea that Democratic superdelegates – elected officials and other party elites who can vote however they wish at the convention – could tip the nomination to Hillary Clinton seems terribly undemocratic. And so, they’re trying to convince superdelegates, officially known as unpledged party leaders and elected officials, to change their allegiance.

    The role of superdelegates is enormous, given that Clinton cannot win the nomination without them – and they need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that being bought by Clinton, acting out of fear of the Clinton thug brigade, or trading a vote for a favor isn’t going to play this time around.  We’re not going to allow them to decide for us who the best candidate is, when the voters have already spoken.

     

    Superdelegates

     
  • Julie Driscoll 9:06 pm on April 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    A charismatic, energizing speech by Bernie Sanders, a man with a vision 

    Sanders Victory

    We’re not satisfied with half a loaf, and we’re surely not satisfied when someone is telling us that our ideals are pie-in-the-sky, idealistic and unrealistic.  If you don’t have a vision, you stall – Bernie Sanders has a vision, and we’re with him.

    Thanks to U.S. Uncut for this:

    If we were here in this beautiful auditorium 5 years ago, not a long time from an historical perspective, and someone were to jump up and say, you know, I think the $7.25 minimum wage is a starvation wage and it has to be raised to $15 an hour.” If someone stood up and said that 5 years ago, the guy next to him would say, ‘You’re nuts! 15 bucks an hour? You want to more than double the current minimum wage. You’re crazy. Maybe, maybe, we can get up to 8 or 9 bucks an hour, but 15 bucks an hour? You’re dreaming. Too big.’ Sound familiar? ‘You are unrealistic. It can’t be done. Think smaller.’

    . . . But then what happened is fast-food workers went out on strike… and I was very proud to join with those workers in Washington. And they went out and told Americans we can’t live on $7/hour, you gotta raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. And they fought and fought. Then Seattle, Washington, 15 bucks an hour. Los Angeles, San Francisco, 15 bucks an hour. Oregon, 15 bucks an hour. And in the last several weeks, in both California and New York, both governors signed legislation for 15 bucks an hour. My point is that, yes, we can change the status quo when we think big and when we have a vision.

    . . . I am not naive. I know the power of Wall Street, and their endless supplies of money. I know that corporate America will shut down plants in America and move to Mexico or China if they can make another $5 in profit… I know about the corporate media that will give us all the information we need, except what is most important for working families. I know about all of that.

    But this is what I also know. I know that history is about when people stand up and say that status quo is not acceptable, we will not have children working in factories, we will not have working people on the job who have no power over those jobs. We will not continue to have segregation, or racism, or bigotry. We will not have women unable to vote or go to the schools they want or do the work they want. We will pass gay marriage in 50 states across this country.

    So that is what I have learned from history, is that when we are prepared to think big, when we are prepared to take on the greed and recklessness of Wall Street, when we stand together and we don’t let the Donald Trumps of the world divide us, whether we are born in America or abroad, whether we are Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, when we stand together, whether we’re gay or straight, male or female, yes we can create a government that represents all of us, and not just for a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.

    Bernie Sanders Just Destroyed His Critics Who Call Him ‘Unrealistic’

    After his decisive win in Wisconsin, Bernie Sanders delivered a fiery speech in Laramie, Wyoming, destroying all of his critics’ arguments. Throughout the speech, Sanders made distinctions between the message of his campaign and Hillary Clinton’s as one of vision and boldness vs. a continuation of the status quo.

     

     
  • Julie Driscoll 8:23 pm on April 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Clinton’s going scorched earth against Bernie, and the media’s her co-pilot 

    Hillary So Qualified I

    I started out wanting to talk about Clinton’s Sandy Hook comments about Bernie Sanders (which went all kinds of bad), but suddenly I was distracted with Clinton’s camp bemoaning the negativity of the Sanders campaign, and the media’s blazing headlines that Bernie was so very mean to her and that he will be so, so sorry that he called Clinton “unqualified.”  We’ll talk about the substance of that in a minute, but first, where was the media outrage when Clinton surrogate Chelsea Clinton said Bernie Sanders wanted to take healthcare and the CHIP program away from Americans?  Where was the media outrage when Clinton cavalierly trotted out Sandy Hook families to essentially paint Bernie as wanting to arm mass killers?  Where was the media outrage when Clinton accused the Sanders camp of lying about her record on fossil fuels?  Where was the media outrage when Clinton said that most of New York’s guns come from Bernie Sanders’ state of Vermont (which even a delegate admitted was a lie – in fact, according to the ATF, only 55 out of the 7,686 firearms recovered and traced in New York in 2014 were from Vermont), when she has tried valiantly to paint him as damn near an NRA enthusiast?  Where was the media outrage when Clinton said that Bernie was against the auto bailout?  Where was her media backlash for such completely unforgivable lies?  Right after Clinton lost Wisconsin by double digits to Bernie Sanders, after losing 6 prior primaries, the Clinton camp (after pledging party unity), decided that its patience was at an end with this dogged, persistent, winning opponent, and decided that party unity could be ditched until later so they could launch attacks now.  Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, warned Clinton about destroying party unity in order to satisfy her ambition to become president (and of course, that statement was met with cries of “sexist”).

    And here comes the media, with its headlines decrying Bernie Sanders for “going negative” by calling Hillary Clinton unqualified, despite the fact that (in a move similar to her 2008 camp leaking the rumor that then-candidate Obama was a Muslim and refusing to deny outright that he wasn’t) Clinton refused to say in a national interview that Bernie was qualified.  Although asked three times, Clinton refused to acknowledge that Bernie Sanders was qualified to be president – and yet, the Washington Post fact-checker dude insisted that Bernie was “putting words in Clinton’s mouth” by claiming she said he was not qualified.  Here’s the exchange:

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: We’ve been talking about Bernie Sanders’s New York Daily News interview. I want to start with that and ask you, in light of the interview, in light of the questions he had problems with, do you believe this morning that Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be president of the United States?

    CLINTON: Well, I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions and I look at it this way. The core of his campaign has been break up the banks and it didn’t seem in reading his answers that he understood exactly how that would work under Dodd-Frank, exactly who would be responsible, what the criteria were. And you know, that means you can’t really help people if you don’t know how to do what you are campaigning on saying you want to do.

    SCARBOROUGH: So is he — so is he …

    CLINTON: And then there were other very …

    SCARBOROUGH: Is he — I know there are a lot of examples of where he came up short and the interviewers were having to repeat questions. So the question, and I’m serious, if you weren’t running today and you looked at Bernie Sanders, would you say this guy is ready to be president of the United States?

    CLINTON: Well, I think he hadn’t done his homework, and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions. And really what it goes to is for voters to ask themselves can he deliver what he’s talking about, can he really help people …

    SCARBOROUGH: What do you think?

    CLINTON: Can he help our economy? Can he keep our country strong? Well obviously, I think I’m by far the better choice and …

    SCARBOROUGH: But do you think he is qualified? And do you think he is able to deliver on the things he is promising to all these Democratic voters?

    CLINTON: Well, let me put it this way, Joe. I think that what he has been saying about the core issue in his whole campaign doesn’t seem to be rooted in an understanding of either the law or the practical ways you get something done. And I will leave it to voters to decide who of us can do the job that the country needs, who can do all aspects of the job, both on the economic domestic issues and on national security and foreign policy.

    For the cheap seats, refusing to acknowledge that Bernie Sanders is qualified, while simultaneously highlighting his perceived shortcomings, is another way of saying what she didn’t have the balls to say outright (and Bernie, in fact, did):  “No.”  But the media wasn’t having it, oh, no.  She didn’t really say that, therefore he shouldn’t blast her!

    Chicago Tribune:  “With charge of being unqualified, Sanders takes the wrong swipe at Hillary Clinton”

    Business Insider:  “Bernie Unloads on Clinton:  I don’t think you’re qualified”

    TPM:  “Not good, not good at all”

    CNN:  “Is Bernie Sanders taking the low road?”

    RealClearPolitics:  “McCaskill:  Calling Hillary Clinton unqualified is like fingernails on a black board to most women”

    As noted by the Washington Post,

    Warren Gunnels, a senior adviser to Sanders, justified the phrasing by pointing to two items: a Washington Post headline and a quote in a CNN article.

    The Washington Post article had this headline: ‘Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president.’

    The CNN report included this sentence: ‘The campaign’s deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified.’ The sentence appeared before a description of a campaign missive that Reynolds had written, drawing attention to a problematic interview that Sanders had with the editorial board of the Daily News.

    ‘Senator Sanders believes there are serious differences in this race that show who is best qualified to be president,’ Gunnels said. ‘It’s remarkable that Secretary Clinton could suggest Senator Sanders isn’t qualified to be president in the morning and then fake outrage at her own statements that same evening.’

    Gunnels also expressed outrage at an email Reynolds sent to supporters drawing attention to Sanders’s ‘not qualified’ comments. ‘This is exactly why so many Americans do not trust Hillary Clinton or her campaign,’ he said.

    Hillary Clinton is one of the most devious politicians of our time.  She levels attacks then cries foul on her opponent.  She pretends to be a victim while hurling slings and arrows.  Her 2008 campaign against then-candidate Obama was a disgrace.  Her campaign, to date, against Bernie Sanders – despite his refusal to attack her on her email scandal or the Clinton Foundation and its trail of dirty money – has been rife with blatant lies, mocking taunts, and barely veiled innuendos designed to smear him while purportedly leaving her hands clean.  We are not fooled.  We know who she is.  And we’re cheering Bernie Sanders on, because it’s become glaringly apparently that he’s sick and tired of her.  She’s showing herself to be the snarling, vicious person we always knew she was – and when her back’s against the wall, she’s like a cornered possum.

    Nothing in her background qualifies her to be a progressive, people-minded president; Bernie Sanders is right.  She took oodles of Wall Street money, which has left her beholden, and refuses to disclose her speeches.  She has lied about fossil fuel money and refuses to take the pledge against it.  She feigns interest in the black community when her history screams the opposite.  She drags victims of tragedies around with her on the campaign trail to portray herself as caring.  She rushed to Flint, Michigan, and its cause until she lost the state and lost interest.  She’s a grifter, and unqualified to lead this nation.  Her unfavorability ratings are second only to Donald Trump, with good reason.  And, not surprisingly, she is, at least peripherally, tied to the Panama Papers through more than one cozy connection.

    Where there’s dirty money and dirty politics, there’s a bread crumb trail leading to Hillary Clinton’s doorstep.  “Unqualified” barely scratches the surface of this deplorably dishonest woman.

     
  • Julie Driscoll 11:16 pm on April 5, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie Sanders wins – again – and the Clinton Media Network tweaks 

    ExcusesWI primary results

    Tonight, Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin, by double digits.  Does it significantly change the delegate count? Depends on how you’re viewing it.  Does it change the tenor of the race?  You bet.  Does it put more wind at Bernie Sanders’ back going forward in the next half a dozen primaries?  Absolutely.

    Except, the mainstream media hasn’t caught on yet to this phenomenon.  They’re stuck in repeat mode, making excuses and having sads.

    The Daily Beast:  Bernie Sanders Wins Wisconsin, Changes Nothing

    Slate:  Bernie Sanders Claims Big Win in Wisconsin, Faces Tough Road Ahead

    Mashable:  Bernie Sanders will probably win Wisconsin.  It won’t matter much.

    Washington Post:  Sanders wins in Wisconsin, keeping alive his improbable bid for the nomination

    Politico:  Sanders blows by Clinton in Wisconsin: He’s won seven of the past eight contests, but will it matter?

    And then there’s Fox, just about the only major network to report this:

    Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin: It’s about authenticity, stupid

     

     
  • Julie Driscoll 8:47 pm on April 5, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    The Panama Papers: Sanders opposed the Panama trade deal, Clinton loved it, and her shit just got real 

    Bernie WI

    Once again, like with the Iraq War (which he opposed and Clinton supported) and myriad disastrous trade agreements, Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was on the right side of an issue, while Hillary Clinton was, again, on the wrong side.  A little back story (not too detailed) about the Panama Papers – but first, a word from Bernie Sanders issued today:

    I predicted that the passage of this disastrous trade deal would make it easier, not harder, for the wealthy and large corporations to evade taxes by sheltering billions of dollars offshore. . . I wish I had been proven wrong about this, but it has now come to light that the extent of Panama’s tax avoidance scams is even worse than I had feared . . . My opponent, on the other hand, opposed this trade agreement when she was running against Barack Obama for president in 2008. But when it really mattered she quickly reversed course and helped push the Panama Free Trade Agreement through Congress as Secretary of State. The results have been a disaster.

    About that back story, as reported by U.S. Uncut:

    The 11.5 million documents, which came from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca and were leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), expose how the upper end of the 1 percent utilizes shell companies and gray areas in tax law to stash untold billions of dollars in overseas tax-free accounts. The leak was so massive, it took an army of 400 journalists working for an entire year to sift through the documents. At least 140 world leaders from 50 different countries were implicated in the leaks.

    Bernie Sanders saw this coming from a mile away. On October 12, 2011, Sen. Sanders took the Senate floor to denounce the Panama trade pact, shooting down the conventional arguments in favor of the deal.

    ‘Panama’s entire economic output is only $26.7 billion per year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the US economy,’ Sanders said at the beginning of his speech. ‘No one can legitimately claim that approving this free trade agreement will significantly increase American jobs.’

    As we all know, where there’s dirty money, you’ll find Hillary Clinton.  And we’re already potentially following the dirty money right to her campaign’s doorstep:

    A firm with ties to senior members of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign registered to lobby on behalf of a major Russian bank just weeks before a massive leak exposed the bank’s role in a web of secret financial dealings that have enriched members of Russian president Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

    The ‘Panama Papers’ are being called ‘the Wikileaks of the mega-rich.’ Corporate documents leaked from the law firm Mossack Fonseca show how world leaders have used offshore tax havens to hide their involvement in lucrative companies and business deals around the world.

    Among those companies is the Russian Sberbank, whose U.S. investment banking branch recently enlisted the services of the Podesta Group. According to its lobbying registration form, the firm will work on banking, trade, and foreign relations issues.

    One of the three lobbyists working on the account is Tony Podesta, a bundler for the Clinton campaign and the brother of campaign chairman John Podesta, who co-founded the firm.

    I’m sure, if asked, Clinton will back and duck and do the “what email scandal?” routine – and while it doesn’t implicate her directly in this dirty money, it sure as hell speaks to her crony’ism with folks who are neck deep in dark money.  If she heeds her own words (which, you know, she never would, because rules and integrity are for other people), she should, in fact, be judged by the company she keeps.

    In 2011, Bernie Sanders took to the Senate floor to oppose the free trade agreement with Panama, saying,

    . . . why would we be considering a trade agreement with Panama?  What’s going on there?  Well, it turns out, Mr. President, that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens.  And the Panama Free Trade Agreement would make this bad situation worse . . . .

    Boom!

    Watch:

     

     
  • Julie Driscoll 6:06 pm on April 3, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Clinton “feels sorry” for millennials, because she thinks they’re idiots 

    As most in the free world who follow politics know, Hillary Clinton had a mini public meltdown on the rope line recently when a climate change activist politely confronted her on the boatloads of money she’s accepted from the fossil fuel industry, and asked her to take the pledge to reject future fossil fuel money in her campaign (a pledge, incidentally, that Bernie Sanders signed without hesitation).  Instead of politely explaining to the activist whatever her latest “truth” is about the fossil fuel money fueling her campaign, her frayed “Feel the Bern” nerve snapped, and she responded with this:

    I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies. I am so sick. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.

    Watch:

    For the record, this isn’t the first time Clinton has been approached by climate change activists, who are not, despite her assertion, sent out like drones by the Sanders camp.  As the Greenpeace activist, who was on the receiving end of Clinton’s true colors showing, noted,

    Today, I said to Hillary, ‘Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?’ I was genuinely shocked by her response. But I want to make sure we are focused on the issue at hand: asking our candidates to take a stand to fix our democracy. Rejecting fossil fuel money sends a strong signal.

    Greenpeace, 350 Action, and dozens of concerned activists have been attending events, rallies, debates, and fundraisers for many months asking Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money in her campaign. This is by no means the first time that we asked her the question. In fact, last night, more than  40 activists gathered outside of a Clinton Fundraiser at the Dakota, asking Senator Clinton to come out and talk to the people she is fighting for.

    She did not cross the street to talk to us.

    To be clear, we are talking about more than just individual contributions from oil and gas employees. According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign.

    But apparently, Clinton is having a sad because millennials aren’t buying into her particular brand of lies and bullshit and cozy relationships with all the Big Corporate Takers in society – including Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry, Big Pharm, you name it.  But again, Clinton has Bernie Sanders under her skin in a big way, and she just can’t keep the lid on her temper any longer.  In an interview on Meet the Press, Clinton expressed astonishment that anyone could possibly prefer Bernie Sanders to her, and, in the most condescending manner imaginable, said,

    I’m just not going to — I feel sorry, sometimes, for the young people who, you know, believe this. They don’t do their own research. And I’m glad that we can now point to reliable independent analysis to say, ‘No, it’s just not true’ . . . .

    Way to go for the youth vote, Hill.  Well played.  And you know, it is true, the fossil fuel stuff – despite the mainstream media’s attempts to “fact-check” it in Clinton’s direction.  Clinton, in replying to the activist, was relying on federal election law that, as noted by Politifact, “Neither Clinton nor Sanders — or any other presidential candidate, for that matter — can accept money from fossil fuel companies (or any other corporation). That would be illegal under federal campaign finance laws.”  Not so fast, though – technically, no, candidates can’t take money from the “industry” itself.  However, as Politifact also noted,

    So all the money in the coffers comes from individuals. The limit for this election is $2,700 per candidate per election (the primary and general election count separately). Political action committees can donate $5,000 per election to a candidate . . . According to the latest tallies from Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton’s campaign has received $307,561 from people who work for oil and gas interests so far in the presidential race. Sanders has received nearly six times fewer dollars — $53,760 . . . But in Clinton’s case, that doesn’t include “bundlers,” a fancy name for fundraisers who collect money from individual donors and bundle the money together for a campaign.  A bundler might, for example, arrange to have each executive from an oil company, along with each adult member of his or her family, give $1,000 per person, which is bundled together and given to the campaign. It’s legal because the individuals aren’t violating the per-person limit.  The Huffington Post article from July 17, 2015, cited by Sanders found that ‘nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.’ It links to 40 registered lobbyists but only offers details on some donors who still work for the industry.  However, the Greenpeace report says that when you add in the bundlers’ donations (lobbyists with some alleged tie to the fossil fuel industry), Clinton’s total rises to nearly $1.8 million. The fossil fuel industry’s share of the Clinton coffers goes up to 0.8 percent.  The Greenpeace report goes a step further to include $4.25 million going to Priorities Action USA, the super PAC that supports Clinton.  But it’s a stretch to draw a direct line between those super PAC donations and Clinton’s campaign. Under federal law, the candidates have no control over super PAC spending.

    If we think for one millisecond that the dark side of the Clinton camp – specifically, David Brock & Co. – isn’t in regular contact with her Super PACS, well, we haven’t been paying attention to the Clintons (or Brock, for that matter) for the past, oh, four decades.  As we know, breaking rules isn’t a big deal in the Clinton realm, and in fact, the more rule-breaking they can get away with and stay a step ahead of the law, the cockier they get.  But even getting past that, her response was over the top, and it’s become clear that she’s burning pissed about this Sanders guy who’s stealing her youth vote, stealing her working class vote, steadily impeding on her minority vote, and winning, winning way more than she ever dreamed he’d win – and in far bigger ways than she ever imagined.  Her frustration is palpable, and not only demonstrated by her baseless attacks on her rival, Bernie Sanders, but also in the way she’s handling the public.

    It’s pretty amazing, actually.  Clinton has managed to offend two major groups she’s courting, millennials and climate change activists, in one weekend of frayed nerves, frustration that her vision of her coronation is delayed, and a long, grueling primary against a guy who’s bringing thousands and thousands of people to his rallies when she can’t even fill a gymnasium.  Try as she might, she can’t quite contain her fury that she’s not the Chosen One.  It’s now beginning to show, publicly, in YouTube/Twitter-worthy sound bites.

    Nobody deserves this come-down more, and as this primary surges forward, we’re going to see more and more of the real Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail.  I’m predicting that, week by week, her mask will drop and the American public will be horrified at what lies beneath it.

    The Greenpeace A.E. Bates thermal airship flies over Seattle, Washington, with Mount Rainier in the background on March 25, 2016 urging Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money in her campaign. The Democratic caucuses are March 26, 2016. Photo by Marcus Donner/Greenpeace

    The Greenpeace A.E. Bates thermal airship flies over Seattle, Washington, with Mount Rainier in the background on March 25, 2016 urging Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money in her campaign. The Democratic caucuses are March 26, 2016. Photo by Marcus Donner/Greenpeace

     
  • Julie Driscoll 8:55 pm on March 28, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    The Clinton Camp’s sad, desperate rhetoric about Bernie – just to avoid debating 

    Chicken

     

    Oh, you know, this is rich, this stern admonishment from the Clinton camp that Sanders needs to watch his tone if he wants another debate with her (and here’s a little tip:  If you’re trying to win the youth vote and the hip vote and sit at the cool kids’ table – as Clinton clearly is – adopting a school-marmish tone to go along with the school-marmish look is probably not a sharp idea). According to Clinton’s Chief Strategist, Joel Benenson, Bernie Sanders’ pointed attacks on Clinton’s very vulnerable record rises to the level of “a very negative campaign.”  Hey, whines Benenson, Bernie Sanders doesn’t get to decide, okay, when the debates are going to be, especially when he’s being extra mean to them.  So there, blah.  No, Clinton is pissed – like telling her Secret Service detail to “fuck off” pissed – that she hasn’t been able to take a leisurely stroll to the convention, without all these pesky questions and challenges from her opponent, a 74-year-old Democratic socialist, about her Wall Street speeches and her flip-flops on trade and her vote for the Iraq war and her lobbying in the 90’s for mass incarceration.  She thought it’d be a sweet walk in the park to get the nod, and a sweep in the general, and she could be right back where she thinks she belongs, hobnobbing with the elites while eyeing the peasants from on high.  Hillary Clinton has, from the beginning, viewed Bernie Sanders as beneath her, and she and her camp view him and his supporters both as beneath her now.  That’s why she’s so pissed – no, actually, enraged – and why her people are whining about Bernie’s “negative campaign,” why she somehow believes that her opponent isn’t supposed to bring up anything negative about her.  I suppose she believes that he, along with her sycophants, is just along for the ride to sing her praises.  The fact that Bernie hasn’t sung her praises and, in fact, is doubling down on her failings and exploiting her weaknesses, has the Clinton camp chasing its tail.

    News flash:  Bernie Sanders is serious, and so are his supporters, and he’s in it to win it.  And this smells like fear.

    But let’s suss this out.  What exactly is Bernie Sanders supposed to stop talking about?  Is he supposed to back off her quarter-mil Wall Street speeches, quit asking her to release the transcripts? Is he supposed to pretend her vote for the Iraq War never happened, pretend that she hasn’t mightily flip-flopped on trade, that she’s only recently begun to embrace gay marriage, that she was for Keystone XL before she was against it (kinda like Palin’s Bridge to Nowhere), that her pledge to rein in Wall Street is shaky, at best, given the fact her hand is extended for its money most of the time, that her role in mass incarceration in the 90’s was a little “mistake” that she’s now sorry for and promises won’t happen again?  So what, a man who’s running on the platform of a corrupt campaign finance system is supposed to ignore her $353,400 a seat fundraising events, never comment on the millions she’s raising from corporate raiders?

    The Clinton camp is on a slippery slope indeed when it attacks other candidates – particularly an upright, gentlemanly candidate like Bernie Sanders – on the whole negativity thing.  Hillary Clinton has never run a clean campaign in her life.  Her race against then-candidate Obama in 2008 was legendary in its racial overtones and viciousness.  During this campaign cycle, Clinton has attempted to paint Bernie Sanders as a one-trick pony, a single-issue candidate (despite his decades-long career in activism and politics), recently alluding to him as the “flavor of the month;” she tried to accuse Sanders of supporting vigilante group the Minutemen; last month, her barbed attacks on Sanders – even trying to hang the “sexist” banner on him – caused even her minions to break out in a sweat; during a debate, Clinton accused Bernie of running a “smear” campaign against her (for no reason other than that he has highlighted her close ties to Wall Street, and implied that would influence how she governed – which it would); Clinton has dishonestly attempted to tell voters that Bernie Sanders would dismantle healthcare (a smear that’s as ludicrous as it is not well thought out); she’s unleashed her attack dog and hit man, David Brock, to run hit pieces against Bernie at the Hillary PAC-O&O, BlueNationReview; Clinton and her Dem vagina voters in Congress, such as Claire McCaskill, implied that Bernie Sanders is a communist (little deja vu here, as Clinton in 2008 desperately tried to smear President Obama as a Muslim); Bill Clinton, on the stump, called Sanders dishonest and said “you can’t be too careful with the facts” (coming from the guy who famously said, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”); Bill Clinton also took aim at Bernie’s supporters, portraying them as so menacing and frightening that he claimed Hillary Clinton’s supporters have to blog under pseudonyms; even Chelsea Clinton has gotten into the act, claiming that Bernie Sanders wants to “dismantle Obamacare.”  Let me put it like this:  When it comes to cheap shots, it’s a family affair.

    Sanders spokesperson Michael Briggs made it clear that the “coronation” Clinton was aiming for is not in the works:

    Sen. Sanders has never run a negative ad in his life . . . Some people this year wanted a coronation instead of a campaign in which we debate our rigged economy and corrupt campaign finance system. But despite what the pundits and establishment politicians wanted, our grassroots supporters are giving us a political revolution. I can see how that might put Mr. Benenson in a bad mood.

     

     

    Clinton and her camp can keep avoiding press conferences and debates and denying Bernie’s victory laps and his burgeoning popularity, and they can keep trying to link Bernie Sanders with the “negativity” rhetoric, if they wish.  I can only imagine that a lot of heads are exploding in the Clinton camp right now.  There’s no other explanation for this desperate attempt to claim it’s Bernie Sanders’ fault if Clinton refuses a New York debate.  Clinton’s requirement that Sanders change his “tone” before she’ll agree to debate him has more than a passing similarity to her promise to release her Wall Street speech transcripts if everyone else does:  She doesn’t want to debate and she ain’t gonna release those speeches, so she thinks she’s being slick by arbitrarily attaching requirements to ensure she won’t have to do either.

    This pathetic play out of the Clinton camp is not a good look.  Memes and tweets (#tonedownforwhat) are popping up all over.  But Kelly Riddell of the Washington Times has this figured out:

    This is after Mr. Sanders said he wasn’t going to make an issue of her ‘damn emails,’ hasn’t touched Benghazi and has avoided the Clinton Foundation — and many of the pay-to-play schemes the Clinton family has been accused of — almost entirely. But he did sweep Washington state, Hawaii and Alaska on Saturday.

    They’re gonna need a bird.

     
    • Laurel Kornfeld 10:18 pm on March 28, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      If she can’t handle Bernie, who has kept the email issue off limits and stuck to issues, how will she possibly handle Donald Trump, who has vowed to politically attack her every single day during the general election campaign and does not have any of the boundaries that Bernie has?

    • Florence Ferguson 12:54 am on March 29, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Hillary Clinton is afraid to debate bernie Sanders because she loses more votes every time she does. She has lost every debate. Corpution does make one weak in debates, and she is one sick corrupt puppy.

  • Julie Driscoll 9:19 pm on March 27, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie Sanders: Doin’ This Forever 

    At a recent rally, Hillary Clinton alluded to Bernie Sanders being the “flavor of the month” . . . but he was out on the streets, protesting, working for civil rights, working for fairness in housing, long before it was vogue – and long before Hillary Clinton decided that being uber-liberal was cool.  This song has been out there for a while – but when I heard the chorus, and many of the lyrics, I thought of Bernie Sanders, someone who’s always fighting the good fight, working to make it, to make things better.

    I’ve been doing this forever, I won’t ever go away, I don’t ever fail, I just find another way

    I’ve been doing this forever, this is what I want to be, when you think of great, I’ma make you think of me . . . .

    I made this video about Bernie Sanders – because he’s been doin’ this forever (and a shout-out to Chicago/Atlanta rapper Mpulse – a millennial Bernie supporter – for use of the track):

     

     

     
  • Julie Driscoll 12:50 am on March 27, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie Sanders has blowout wins – and the Clinton coalition is gearing up for scorched earth 

    Sanders bird

    Michigan, Utah, Idaho – and now Washington and Alaska – have been blow-out wins for Bernie Sanders.  Are his supporters idiots?  Nope.  Do we believe he can win?  Yup.  Do we know that Clinton and the establishment media is going to pull out every dirty trick in the book to beat this Vermont Democratic socialist back?  You bet.  Do we care?  Not a bit.  You know why?  I’ll tell you.

    Clinton isn’t the only one facing a “glass ceiling.”  President Obama had a glass ceiling, and he crashed right through it.  Bernie Sanders has a glass ceiling as well:  The Establishment.  That Establishment includes the mainstream media, the Clinton coalition, career Democratic politicians, even civil rights icons who know Bernie Sanders is the real deal but choose, instead, to downplay his contribution to keep a seat at the table.  This is what Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, have been up against.  But we don’t care – because we know that all Bernie Sanders wants to do is help people in this country.  He has no other motivation, no other agenda, nobody’s buying him, and he has earned his seat at the table with his consistent hard-line commitment to us.

    But Hillary Clinton is coming for Bernie, make no mistake.  The Clinton machine doesn’t take losing lightly; just ask the Obama campaign from 2008.  Clinton is very adept at dirty politics, and very practiced at deception.  This ain’t her first rodeo.  As noted by the Huffington Post in an article entitled “Like Obama in 2008, Bernie Sanders is Experiencing ‘Dirty Politics’ from Clinton’s Campaign,’ in 2008, the Obama campaign investigated the same types of voting irregularities we’ve seen this cycle:

    David Plouffe, in a succinct statement appended to a released quotation from his boss, Barack Obama, said the Obama campaign was investigating more than 200 reporters of irregularities in Nevada.a

    ‘We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.’

    . . . Sound familiar? Every single one of the voting irregularities Plouffe complained about in 2008 have been experienced by the Bernie Sanders campaign . . . While David Plouffe complained of ‘200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites,’ Bernie Sanders has also witnessed the same Clinton campaign strategy, without the support of anyone within the Democratic Party. At least Barack Obama had part of the Democratic establishment backing him, while Bernie Sanders is viewed as an outsider to many establishment Democrats.

    Clinton is really just dusting off her 2008 tactics against then-candidate Obama and tilting her dish toward a new target.  In 2008, she painted Obama’s ideology as naive, belittled his foreign policy experience, tried to play up the “experience gap” between the two of them (with her, of course, as the expert, and he the fledgling).  She race-baited, joined Republicans in working the “guilt by association” angle – she basically went full-on “kitchen sink.”  In all of these scenarios – in 2008 and today – she has denied and attempted to conceal her own nefarious associations and actions, has perched in her glass house while gleefully lobbing stones.  In 2008, Obama’s campaign head David Plouffe said that Clinton was “one of the most secretive politicians in America today” based on her refusal to release her tax returns.  Today, it’s her Wall Street speeches and cronyism with Wall Street hucksters and secret emails.

    There have been allegations, already, of voter suppression, of shady dealings with caucuses, with coin tosses and lost ballots.  This all has Clinton’s grubby little paws all over it – and if the past is the best predictor of the future, the Clinton gang is going to do whatever it takes to pull this out; and as we know, ethics don’t figure into it.  But Clinton & Co. didn’t count on Bernie Sanders, on his rock-solid integrity, his lack of an Achilles heel, his supporters’ unyielding and undying support, and – of course – the money that keeps on rolling in to support him.  They didn’t think that, once again, they’d be facing a candidate with such rock star qualities that Bernie is at times eclipsing even then-candidate Obama in his magnetism.  They didn’t count on Bernie’s refusal to buckle under to the Establishment’s message that it would be best for him to drop out and cede the race to their chosen nominee.  They didn’t count on his pledge to take this race to the convention, to fully and finally challenge the Establishment that has attempted time and time again to derail his campaign.  They didn’t count on running against a gentlemanly, above-board candidate who has managed to put massive dents in the Clinton brand without resorting to low-blow tactics.  They didn’t count on the kinds of blow-out wins we’re seeing.  And the Clinton camp sure as hell didn’t see the bird coming.

     

    BN-ES563_Bill_G_20140925183104

     

    I’m not a religious person, and I don’t believe in “signs from above.”  But when that little bird lighted on Bernie Sanders’ lectern at a recent rally, it seemed prophetic somehow.  Of all the places it had to go, that little bird made it into that venue and clearly chose where it wanted to land.  It’s like nature itself dropped by to give Bernie props.

    Many people are saying the bird was a sign from above, but what I think is that it’s one more peculiar twist in this race that the Clinton camp didn’t count on, couldn’t foresee, and can’t even begin to guard against.  As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The good man is the friend of all living things” – and that is what the Clinton camp can never overcome.

     
    • Isabel Cruz 9:33 pm on March 27, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      From my heart, I’m giving all that is possible. Living on a Disability check, my children and I are dedicated to seeing our dreams come true, with you leading us to SOCIAL JUSTICE!!

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Skip to toolbar