The main domestic forces for rigging election proved to be DNC and intelligence agencies.
The main foreign forces in rigging Us election are governments and intelligence services of three states: Israel, UK and Saudi
Arabia.
Electronic voting allow the facade of democracy to be turned into a tool of oppression. Electronic voting machines do not
have a paper trail, so in those cases the verification if voter fraud occurred is impossible. Theoretically election rigging
in case of electronic voting is much simpler and more efficient than with paper ballots.
The USA does not allow foreign observers to verify the absence of
irregularities during the voting.
Another problem is paradoxically the voters:
The greatest challenge to 21st–century democracy is that uninformed voters are being replaced by misinformed ones. Alexander
Nix put it well, during that Channel 4 sting operation, when he said of propaganda that: ‘Things don’t necessarily need to be
true, as long as they’re believed.’
Uninformed voters often stay home. Misinformed voters turn out...
The British government had a well-oiled, coordinated, worldwide strategy during World War II for
generating and disseminating rumors, which it called "sibs," short for sibilare, the Latin word for
whisper or hiss. Many of the sibs were silly or outlandish—for example, rumors that man-eating
sharks from Australia had been deposited in the English Channel to consume downed German aviators—but British
intelligence took them extraordinarily seriously.
"The object of propaganda rumours is in no sense to convey the official or semi-official views of
H.M.G. [His Majesty's Government] by covert means to officials in the countries concerned,“ read one
classified wartime report. “It is rather to induce alarm, despondency and bewilderment among the enemies,
and hope and confidence among the friends, to whose ears it comes.”
New sibs were approved by an organization called the Underground Propaganda Committee (UPC), which met
weekly in London during the war. While rumors spread in Europe by word of mouth, in the U.S., they were
disseminated through a network of friendly reporters and, starting in the spring of 1941, by the Overseas News
Agency, a news service that received subsidies from, and was controlled by, the BSC.
ONA articles appeared in newspapers around the country. Especially prior to Pearl Harbor, these stories were
picked up by newspapers in Germany, Japan and occupied countries.
... ... ...
The BSC operations in the U.S. weren’t all frivolity and fake news; many were much more serious.
Using undercover agents, the BSC conducted a yearlong investigation of a scheme by congressional staff to insert pro-Nazi
propaganda into the Congressional Record and to use congressional franking privileges to distribute it. The BSC then coordinated
media exposés of the franking scandal and supplied federal prosecutors with information on the pro-Nazi plot, resulting in
several convictions.
Elsewhere in Washington, the BSC targeted the embassy used by the Vichy French, illegally tapping its phones, burglarizing
embassy property and deploying a female operative to seduce Vichy officials. That intel was then used as the basis for a series
of newspaper articles revealing Vichy diplomats’ efforts to help Nazi Germany—stories that the BSC then arranged to be printed
under the byline of an American journalist. The resulting public furor severely curtailed the Vichy government’s American
activities.
Published on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 by
The Nation
The Sunday Washington Post headline said it all. Echoing a theme that is finally being picked
up by print and broadcast media that for too long has neglected the dramatic problems with this country's
systems for casting and counting votes, the newspaper's front page announced: "Major Problems At Polls
Feared: Some Officials Say Voting Law Changes And New Technology Will Cause Trouble."
Following a disastrous election day in Maryland that was defined by human blunders, technical glitches,
long lines and long delays in vote counting so severe that some contests remain unresolved almost a
week after the balloting, the Post declared that, "An overhaul in how states and localities record
votes and administer elections since the Florida recount battle six years ago has created conditions
that could trigger a repeat -- this time on a national scale -- of last week's Election Day debacle
in the Maryland suburbs, election experts said."
... ... ...
What appeals about Bonifaz is the seriousness of his uphill campaign, a seriousness that is highlighted
by the candidate's commitment to a Voters' Bill of Rights that ought to be the platform on which progressives
stand as they address this country's democracy shortfall.
Bonifaz's Voters Bill of Rights promises to:
1. Count every vote
The right to vote includes the right to have our votes properly counted.
We must ensure that every citizen's vote will be counted. This includes a guarantee of open and
transparent elections with verified voting, paper trails, hand-recorded paper ballots, and access to
the source codes for, and random audits of, electronic voting machines. It also includes a guarantee
that we the people, through our government, will control our voting machines -- not private companies.
2. Make voting easier
We should enact election day registration here in Massachusetts, removing the barrier of registration
prior to Election Day. Seven states have election day registration. They have a higher voter turnout
in their elections and have no evidence of voter fraud. We should be encouraging greater participation
in the political process, starting with election day registration.
We should also ensure absentee voting for all, allow for early voting, and remove other barriers
that make it difficult for people to vote.
3. End the big money dominance of our electoral process
In a democracy, public elections should be publicly financed. In Maine and Arizona, publicly financed
elections have enabled people to run for office who would never have dreamed of running under a system
dominated by big money interests. We, as voters, need to own our elections, rather than allow the process
to be controlled by the wealthy few.
We also need to enact mandatory limits on campaign spending. In 1976, the Supreme Court wrongly
struck down mandatory campaign spending limits for congressional elections. Massachusetts should help
lead the way with campaign spending limits for our elections.
4. Expand voter choice
Instant run-off voting: Voters should be able to rank their choices of candidates, ensuring majority
support for those elected and allowing greater voter choice and wider voter participation.
Cross Endorsement Voting (Fusion voting): Voters should be able to cast their ballots for major
party candidates on a minor party's ballot line, placing power in the hands of the people and broadening
public debate on the issues of the day.
Proportional Representation: Voters should be allowed their fair share of representation, ensuring
that majority rule does not prevent minority voices from being heard.
5. Ensure access for new citizens and language minorities
The right to vote does not speak one specific language. It is universal. No one should be denied
the right to vote because of a language barrier.
6. Level the playing field for challengers
Redistricting reform -- Incumbent legislators should not have the power to draw their own district
lines. We must transfer this power to independent non-partisan commissions and create fair standards
for redistricting, thereby promoting competition in our electoral process and improving representation
for the people.
7. Ensure non-partisan election administration
The Secretary of the Commonwealth must be a Secretary for all of us, regardless of party affiliation.
The Secretary should not be allowed to serve as a co-chair of campaigns of candidates. To ensure the
people's trust in the integrity of our elections, the Secretary must conduct the administration of elections
in a non-partisan manner.
8. Make government more accessible to all of us
Democracy is not just about our participation on Election Day. We need to participate every day
and our government needs to be accessible to us every day. This means a government that is open and
transparent, that encourages people to make their voices heard, and that enlists citizen participation
in addressing the major issues of our time.
9. Amend the US Constitution to ensure an affirmative right to vote
One hundred and eight democratic nations in the world have explicit language guaranteeing the
right to vote in their constitutions, and the United States -- along with only ten other such nations
-- does not. As a result, the way we administer elections in this country changes from state to state,
from county to county, from locality to locality. The Secretary of the Commonwealth must fight for a
constitutional amendment that affirmatively guarantees the right to vote in the US Constitution.
John Nichols is the author of
Jews for
Buchanan (The New Press), an account of the Florida recount fight following the 2000 presidential
election, and numerous articles on America's dysfunctional electoral systems.
The DNC takes Deep State to a whole new level. They have this thing called "Superdelegates",
which has veto power over the little people.
The SJWs and Bernie bots may be too dumb to know who their real daddies are, but the
Superdelegates know exactly whose ring they need to kiss to regain power: the same globalist
capitalist Davos scums who now have Trump exactly where they want him, between their legs
sucking up while busy implementing their agendas of endless wars and endless immigration.
The Superdelegates will never let things get too far with the socialists, they're good for
entertainment, to give off the pretense of a real race. I'm betting my money on Kirsten
Gillibrand -- Dems know if there's a woman who could beat Trump, she needs to be a blonde.
Uncle Joe has too many skeletons in his closet. It's just a matter of time before the
cockroaches come out of the woodwork and #MeToo him into the orbits.
Weren't
superdelegates people who, in the era before cars, would represent groups who are unable to travel to the voting stations
(long distances).
The superdelegates have the "right" to change the vote because their candidate could die while the
superdelegate is traveling. or any major development.
When they return to cast the vote they have a choice.
In the 21st
century it is unacceptable to keep such traditions and policies.
"... Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly stayed on-message. ..."
In regards to the Hillary v Bernie question, it also didn't help that the primary vote was
wildly skewed by so-called 'superdelegates,' who don't actually commit their votes until the
DNC convention, but were being counted by the media as having already voted for Hillary,
which made it appear to many of the uninformed that Bernie didn't have any chance of winning,
which may have been intended to keep Bernie supporters home on primary day under the
assumption that Hillary was unbeatable.
As sensible as your suggestions may be, what you're calling for would require at least three
constitutional amendments to be practical - including scrapping the first amendment.
Maybe we should strive towards attainable goals instead?
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad. Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
Progressive believe in inclusion and if that is "moralistic rhetoric" then so be it.
The litany goes "round and round.
Hillary Clinton:
" you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of
deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you
name it!
"Barack Obama:
"Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the
presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion "
Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him
in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly
stayed on-message.
The typical scheme of politic life in US under neoliberalism is as following:: candidate for
President promises something reasonable, like to end foreign wars and improve the sliding
standard of living of the middle class and/or cut outsourcing and offshoring. Gullible voters
elect him. He governs as worst of his predecessors and start cutting benefits for the middle
class and workers. . In two years voters start realizing that they were deceived and elect House
or Senate or both from another party, not realizing that the difference is minimal, if exists at
all.
This cycle of election fraud can continue indefinitely.
Notable quotes:
"... "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party." ..."
"... The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A "Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. ..."
"... Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988 ("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya. ..."
The US Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term
elections, dealing a serious blow to President Donald Trump.
While the GOP is poised to add to its Senate majority, yesterday's election was the best
midterm result for the Democrats since 2006. They flipped dozens of Republican-held seats,
including some that they were not expected to win (e.g., IL-06, OK-05), and with those gains
voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party. It is normal for the
president's party to lose seats in the first midterm following a presidential election, and
Democratic gains were in line with pre-election predictions. The striking thing about this
year's result is that the president's party has lost so much ground despite relatively good
economic conditions. Republicans had an extremely favorable Senate map, and despite that they
barely managed to eke out a win in Texas of all places. It was not as thorough of a repudiation
as the GOP deserved, but it was a significant rejection all the same.
The president's poor approval ratings and his unimpressive record to date have further
dragged down a Republican Party that wasn't very popular to begin with. Americans seem to lose
patience with unified government fairly quickly. Yesterday voters gave the Democratic Party an
opportunity to put the president in check and hold him accountable for his overreaching and
illegal wars. Trump and his officials should expect to face much more rigorous oversight and
scrutiny from relevant Congressional committees, and Trump's haphazard and incompetent conduct
of foreign policy should run into much stronger resistance from the Foreign Affairs and Armed
Services Committees. Trump won't be able to count on the leadership in the House to roll over
for him over the next two years, and he and his Cabinet members are likely to be facing one
investigation after another.
Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no
confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon.
I voted for him in 2016, but I lost confidence in him as he started doing favors for Wall
Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead of doing the job we hired him for, the job he
promised to do during the campaign: deport the illegals, stop immigration and foreign work
visas, get us out of the Middle East, rebuild US infrastructure, i.e. "America First".
Yesterday I voted against the only national GOP politician I could get my hands on. He
lost, and I'm glad, especially because he was a Tea Party Republican who betrayed our Tea
Party principles by voting for Trump's out of control deficit spending and for more stupid
Mideast wars.
We've got a lady Democrat now, but she looks fairly sane. We'll see. The problem with
Democrat politicians is that a lot of them only pretend to be normal until they get to
Washington.
I am no Trump fan, but what is going to change? It will still be a do nothing Congress. The
wars will still go on and the health-care dilemma will still be ever-present. It is sad that
the past 2 years have been wasted. Even if the Republican Congress could not do something about
health-care due to the size of the problem, they could have at least done something about
infrastructure, immigration, and these dumb wars. The failure is just as much Paul Ryan's fault
as it is Trump's. I watched last night with far more interest than 2016 and am amazed that so
many old Boomers were elected given the supposed youth movement. It never occurred to me that
there are alot of Septuagenarian war-mongers who should have retired a decade ago still
receiving votes. The Democrats took the House, but what is left of this nation is toast
regardless.
"Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no
confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon."
How much of this was national in nature is unclear. Many of the republicans that lost were
"Never Trump" advocates or very "lukewarm" at best. I think this reflects more failure on the
local level to turn or translate the positives into something beneficial locally.
I am just surprised the Republicans managed to lose the house given the economic numbers
(though I remain deeply distrustful of them -- given exports) and what has been repeated
stumbles by democrats.
Texas, is a perfect example. While Sen Cruz was not a never Trumper, he was mild fair in the
president's corner. His election was about him, not the president. And I think the vote
reflected less confidence in his leadership. Neither Texas nor Sen Cruze are as conservative as
believed or at least not as they once were considered. Unfortunately, what carried him over the
top was ethnicity, not his leadership.
It's probably too early to tell, just how big a factor the president was in the election or
how much change will result. Thus far, the establishment that existed previously remains
despite the presidential election that was intended to reshape or at least curb its self
serving appetite --
Given the the money at play -- it is doubtful that that things are going to change much. Now
that I put at the admin door step. Because his folded a lot against the reasons he was elected,
during the last two years.
Re: "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his
party."
And with what promises did the Democrats win those votes? Why with the bogus "Medicare for
All" and the equally bogus "Free College Education for All".
The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of
health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A
"Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the
pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. Too bad the MSM in love with Nitwit
Newbie Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too stupid to connect the dots.
And higher ed is unaffordable simply because it's also over priced. Using government
subsidies to sustain a bankrupt higher ed model amounts to re-arranging even more deck chairs
on the Titanic.
The Democrats are the Party of Free Lunch and Free War. While the Republicans are the Party
of Free War and Free Lunch.
@SteveM
The fact is that any "solution" to health care that has any integrity to it is a single payer
solution. That's also probably the only solution that reduces, as you accurately state, the
pathological per capita health care cost.
And to be clear, in terms of fiscal viability, the party of reducing taxes and raising
budgets is currently and has been historically the GOP. The current administration has picked
up that baton as well.
One final thing, I wouldn't count out Ocasio-Cortes as a nitwit. I've been reading her white
papers and following her evolution and she makes 95% of the current GOP crop seem like
toddlers. Yes, her idealism will backfire hard as it always does. But what's the other option?
Endless corrupt cynicism? She's impressive. I'm pulling for her to stay focused and do
well.
Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988
("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then
immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch
what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is
no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of
Dubya.
The alternative to Ocasio-Cortez style state worship is the simple wisdom that governments are
neither efficient nor effective at delivering what she proposes.
While this and the previous post on the US elections may well be right that the
republicans and trump will retain their majorities, the posts omit major factors playing a
determining role in these ev
While this and the previous post on the US elections may well be right that the republicans
and trump will retain their majorities, the posts omit major factors playing a determining
role in these events..
1. Gerrymandering.. supposedly creates about a 5% advantage to the republicans. 5% in a
2-party system is almost a landslide. even this article downplaying the role of
gerrymandering includes this line,
2. Voter-suppression. indications are that this may create and even bigger bias than
gerrymandering. it includes numerous tactics, in florida the felon-dienfranchisement tactic
alone suppresses 1.4 million majority black voters. it may be difficult for naive people like
me to imagine the mindset of the vote-suppressors, this excellent short article by meghan
tinsley, sketches the historical origins of these tactics, e.g.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/meghan-tinsley/civil-rights-and-voter-suppression-in-us
" The end of federal support for Reconstruction in 1877 ushered in the Jim Crow era, wherein
southern states waged a relentless campaign of racial terror against empowered black
citizens. From the outset, disenfranchising black citizens was a priority: the Black Codes
enforced severe penalties for minor 'crimes', such as vagrancy, and permanently barred
convicted felons from the vote. As these tactics spread, those who imposed them became
increasingly brazen about their purpose: in 1884, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld felon
disenfranchisement as an effective means to "preserve the purity of the ballot box".
With the entrenchment of segregation in the late nineteenth century, felon
disenfranchisement, combined with poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses,
effectively disenfranchised virtually all African-Americans in Southern states...
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, hailed as the single most important
legislative achievement of the Civil Rights Movement...
The effects were immediate and wide-reaching: whereas only seven percent of eligible
African-Americans in Mississippi were registered to vote in 1964, the number had jumped to
sixty-seven percent by 1969. Ostensibly colourblind policies, including laws that would
require citizens to present state-issued photo identification before voting, were blocked
because they would disproportionately prevent African-Americans from voting."
4. Electronic vote flipping. this has the least hard evidence, but there are anecdotes, even
in this election, of voters in texas ticking straight democratic slate options but finding
that the machine had entered their senate vote for ted cruz. There are also anecdotes in
earlier elections of vote tallies flipping suddenly, of electronic data not being recorded or
being erased before it could be checked and analysed etc. For those inclined to pooh-pooh
such reports, here is a troubling article on the 2012 mexican elections,
The Democrats' progressive wing claimed victory on Saturday after 'Superdelegates' lost the
ability to vote on the first ballot of the party's nomination process
"... The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness). ..."
"... The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn up the temperature with some nuclear fire. ..."
"... This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse them of "aggression." ..."
"... The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between men and women. ..."
"... "We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish and hazardous endeavor. " ..."
"... And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the "Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify. ..."
"... The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend, not just nationally, but world wide... ..."
The faction that used to be the Democratic party can be described with some precision these days as a three-headed monster driving
the nation toward danger, darkness, and incoherence.
Anyone interested in defending what remains of the sane center of American politics take heed:
The first head is the one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold during the campaign
that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the "intel community" -- especially
the leadership of the FBI -- to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented. The "doctors" of this
Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later
that the malady was actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr.
Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign,
and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case, Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous
-- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges -- for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic
instead of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New
York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded
with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness).
The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support
arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists
in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn
up the temperature with some nuclear fire. They are apparently in deep confab with the first head and its Russia collusion storyline.
Note all the current talk about Russia already meddling in the 2018 midterm election, a full-fledged pathogenic hallucination.
This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse
them of "aggression." We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression.
We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state.We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish
and hazardous endeavor. The sane center never would have stood for this arrant recklessness. The world community is not fooled, though.
More and more, they recognize the USA as a national borderline personality, capable of any monstrous act.
The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human
nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication
of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between
men and women. Those differences must be abolished, and replaced with chimeras that enable a childish game of pretend, men pretending
to be women and vice-versa in one way or another: LBGTQetc. Anything BUT the dreaded "cis-hetero" purgatory of men and women acting
like men and women. The horror .
Its companion is the race hustle and its multicultural operating system. The objective has become transparent over the past year,
with rising calls to punish white people for the supposed "privilege" of being Caucasian and pay "reparations" in one way or another
to underprivileged "people of color." This comes partly from the infantile refusal to understand that life is difficult for everybody,
and that the woes and sorrows of being in this world require fortitude and intelligence to get through -- with the final reward being
absolutely the same for everybody.
"We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust
up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a
foolish and hazardous endeavor. "
And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the
"Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into
a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify.
I was talking to someone, who knows a lot about the 'inner workings' and we were discussing, not only the US, but Europe's
situation as well.
The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend,
not just nationally, but world wide...
"... Here's a more apt headline: "Petulant elites throwing tantrum at prospect of their votes not being 10,000x more powerful than regular peasant votes." ..."
In the face of fervent
opposition from Democratic elites who " think their vote is more
important " than the will of the party's base , the Democratic National
Committee's (DNC) Rules and Bylaws arm
cleared a major hurdle in the fight to curtail the power of superdelegates on Wednesday by
approving a plan that would end their ability to cast votes for the presidential candidate on
the first ballot at the party's convention.
"The activists that have been concerned that superdelegates will overturn the will of the
voters should feel good about this," DNC member Elaine Kamarck said in a statement
.
While the plan to gut the influence of superdelegates -- who have been free since 1984 to
put their weight behind any candidate no matter how the public voted -- has received broad
support from Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as an important first step toward making
the party's process more "
open and transparent ," establishment figures who stand to lose power if the plan is
implemented are staging a last-minute " revolt
" to block the rule change.
As investigative reporter Alex Kotch noted in a Twitter thread on
Wednesday, at least two of the Democratic insiders who are clinging desperately to their undue
influence as superdelegates happen to be corporate lobbyists -- a fact that Politico neglected
to mention in its reporting on the party elites' "longshot bid to block the measure."
"They don't realize it but they're proving the point of Sanders and everyone else who's
opposed to superdelegates," Kotch writes. "Many prioritize corporate interests over those of
everyday people and thus automatically support the less progressive candidate."
Two of the three superdelegates who are opposed to the Sanders plan:
One is a health care lobbyist
Another is a former lobbyist
The U.S. Rep quoted in the article who's opposed to the change, Gerry Connolly (Va.),
accepts a bunch of corporate PAC money from good corporate citizens like Northrup Grummon and
AT&T. https://t.co/s7KWJGWEGq
Responding to Politico's story on the superdelegates' last-ditch attempt to undermine the
push to curtail their power, The Humanist Report offered an alternative headline:
Here's a more apt headline: "Petulant elites throwing tantrum at prospect of their
votes not being 10,000x more powerful than regular peasant votes."https://t.co/oUlaXY9jLt
-- The Humanist Report (@HumanistReport) July 11,
2018
Wednesday's vote in favor of the plan to ensure superdelegates cannot overturn the will of
voters on the first ballot of the presidential nomination process was the final step before the
proposal heads to a vote before the full DNC next month. "Any attempt to derail the rules
changes at the summer convention is thought to be a long-shot," concluded Astead Herndon of the
New York Times.
"... Obviously, redistribution is the main problem for neoliberal capitalists. In the 50's and 60's the west had the redistribution capitalist formula with capital controls and high taxes on the very rich which forced them to spend profits on expanding productive enterprises that produced jobs and benefits/wages that reduced corporate profits and corporate taxes, and a healthy middle class with spending power allowed their businesses to grow. ..."
Secure transaction histories provided by blockchain (same technology as Bitcoin)
allows for internet-based direct democracy.
Under such a system, there will still be the need for government services like police, fire,
inspection, schools, etc. but many (all?) of these can be outsourced. Auditors can report on
their compliance/progress. Auditors can be themselves be audited, and a "government" that is
responsive to the people would also support whistle-blowers instead of f*cking them over.
Direct democracy could greatly increase efficiency of public services and make government
respond to the people instead of oligarchs and industry groups.
Defense? LOL! What is popularly termed "Defense" is offensive to the intelligence of any
critical thinker.
Jackrabbit'I don't know much about blockchain but blockchain democracy sounds good.
Defense as in a force that only defends a country's sovereign territory, not this so called
defending a country's interests which is no more than a politically correct term for
aggression.
Diplomacy as a first line of defense.
"Socialism is clearly based on two fundamental precepts: empowering the long-oppressed
with democratic rights, and massive state-organised economic redistribution, which is
anathema in capitalism. Thus, socialism is both a structure of government and an economic
policy. Therefore, Iran certainly has socialism."
This might be the clearest definition of socialism I have read.
Obviously, redistribution is the main problem for neoliberal capitalists. In the 50's
and 60's the west had the redistribution capitalist formula with capital controls and high
taxes on the very rich which forced them to spend profits on expanding productive enterprises
that produced jobs and benefits/wages that reduced corporate profits and corporate taxes, and
a healthy middle class with spending power allowed their businesses to grow.
Globalism coupled with neoliberalism ended the Golden Age and those countries who try and
reproduce social justice and reject globalism and free trade are sanctioned as enemies, or
even worse, attacked or subject to regime change
1.Human societies are complex abstract systems.
2.The system is a set of rules (thus abstract) that govern how members of the society
interact with each other, in order to collectively provide the necessities of life.
3.Government is the body (i.e. group of people) accepted by the members of the society at
large to tend the system (i.e. to develop it, manage it, operate it, change it as required,
etc.). Without a government there is no system, and no society.
4.Societies work best when the rules are set up to maximize the aggregate benefit of all
members. This is best achieved when the members of the society collectively (i.e.
democratically) choose the people (i.e. government) who develop and manage the rules that
govern them.
5.Large societies require large complex systems. High societal performance requires high
levels of complexity.
6.To function effectively, very large, highly complex abstract systems requires that
authority be distributed throughout the system, and be based on the person's role within the
system.
7.The most important function of societal governance is to organize the production and
distribution of the necessities of life for the society's members, i.e. the economic
system.
8. For those parts of the economic system that are not natural monopolies, markets are very
effective tools for economic planning and organization.
9.Markets are, by definition, a set of rules. Markets work best when the rules are set by in
an unbiased fashion to provide a fair playing field for all participants.
Some thoughts on what has gone wrong in the U.S.
1.The members of the U.S. society no longer collectively choose their leaders. Because the
democratic system has been corrupted by money, a very small, very wealthy elite (many of them
not even American), limit the choice to those who will serve the interests of the elite. The
U.S. has turned into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'. The turning point was the election of
Ronald Reagan in 1980.
2.This 'Oligarchic Dictatorship' works for the benefit of the elites, not the aggregate
benefit of the society as a whole. Thus the system (while optimized for the few) is, in
aggregate, sub-optimized.
3.Dictatorships are based on centralized authority, where as complex systems require
distributed authority. The U.S.' oligarchic dictatorship, unable to handle complexity, tries
to simplify the entire political-economic system. The result of trying to simplify the
system, in order to make it compatible with centralized authority, is a system that
increasingly fails to meet the needs of the people and is unable to effectively change and
adapt as required to changing circumstances.
4.Market deregulation has not changed the fact that the markets are, by definition, a set of
rules. It has only changed who makes the rules, from the government to market participants
themselves. And in this case, as always, the 'Golden Rule' applies - he who has the gold
makes the rules. And when market participants make the rules themselves, for the benefit of
themselves, markets always tend towards monopoly. The U.S. economy is no longer a 'Market
Economy' but rather a system of serial monopolies.
What can be done to redress the problems?
Until the people of the U.S. reclaim their democracy – Nothing!
The U.S.' system of government is not the problem. The problem is that the system has been
hi-jacked and turned from a democracy into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'.
How much time and study have gone into the observations posted just in this one thread. Many
Americans I meet just aren't able to investigate that much. I find most people in the small
american town that I live in, are just intersted in exchanging banal pleasantries, which
isn't too bad in its own way, but provincial perhaps at best.
And amongst all the current epoch's american instiutionally educated I feel there is a
lack of some indefineable quality of "experience," which I just don't have the wisdom to
grasp in its entirety, but I kind of think of it as some people, if they can't see it
directly, they just aren't capable of comprehending it. If you were to try to explain it to
them, in the manner of these posts, they would become irriated or bewildered, or think you
were eccentric .
Unfortunately, it's this same principal used by individuals and corporations, governments,
which is, if they don't tell you, it won't harm you and you won't ever know. It's here where
there's a problem I think, because it's been my experience that to be kept in the dark, is
far more harmful, then it is to have delusions upended, as painful as that might be.
PS
The US is at 16 on the CPI Corruption Perception Index for 2017. But keep in mind perception
is something that can be manipulated. I think the US should be lower and and cheer when it
moves lower because it could mean more are getting the idea of the nature of the beast. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017
Curtis , Jun 30, 2018 9:50:17 AM |
78b4real , Jun 30, 2018 10:02:35 AM |
79
@55 Peter
"It is not so much a delegating of authority but having someone to mediate between views
and find a solution that is acceptable to all."
Respectfully, it is absolutely a delegation of authority. When that delegation is not
tightly constrained to one particular issue it will be usurped by corrupt individuals. IMO
elections are good for one purpose only and that is to identify the psychopaths among us who
should not ever be allowed near the reins of power.
@57 Jen
"A national government is needed to approve going to war (or using diplomacy instead of
war...
Your premise is based upon what I am arguing against, the existence of an entrenched
government. While I fully concede that genie will not be put back in the bottle any time
soon, it is government that allows the greed and evil of a few to disrupt and complicate the
lives of the many.
All individuals are ultimately responsible for their own well being and safety. To depend
upon the actions of others when your life or livelihood is threatened is foolish.
It is not possible to dismiss my argument using examples that exist today under an
entrenched government.
Criminals are released from prison every day and relocate to new communities (or not) and
continue their crimes. Vendettas between families are commonplace everywhere today. Crips,
bloods, the mexican mafia, ms13, etc are present in almost every city in the usa. Just an
FYI, but I have found that beating the shit out of people who invade my space has been very
effective. It also dissuades others from trying the same. I live in a rough neighborhood, and
this is simply a fact of life for me.
It is the laws of the 24/7 rule makers which allows them to strengthen and prosper.
A 'new' bridge recently collapsed in Miami killing and I can guarantee you, "No one could
have foreseen" and there will be no consequences for those whom profited in its construction.
This under existing government.
I appreciate your response, (you are one of my favorite posters) but I believe you along
with the majority are too dependent on a structure that does not ever have your best
interests at heart.
@59 Ashley
"When I talk to Anarchist friends they ALWAYS go silent when I mention railways
and..."
I would say to you I have no problem with people who want railways building them and
maintaining them. Should I choose to ride one, I would gladly purchase a ticket. I see no
contradiction or hypocrisy in such. What I would object to is people who have no intention of
utilizing it, being forced to subsidize it, lose their homestead in its construction and
again being forced to subsidize it when the inevitable mismanagement of said train (due to
greed) causes it to become unprofitable.
Hillary 'lost' six BILLION during her stint at state.
The Pentagon cannot account for between 6.5 and 21 TRILLION dollars of taxpayer money.
Americans are subject to prison should they decide the government has not been a good
custodian of their funds and decline to contribute any longer. They will take everything you
have acquired and everything you may acquire in the future should any "free" american take
this decision and act upon it.
@69 Russ
"Thomas Paine was right in the first place when he pointed out that the vast majority of
people would be better off without governments and other trappings of centralized
civilization, which of course are designed to subjugate the many to concentrate wealth,
power, and luxury for the few."
This.
@71 Lysias
(another of my favorite posters)
" Most state positions were occupied by citizens chosen by lot for limited terms"
This would only slow the corruption not curtail. Now if "violation of the public trust"
became a capital offense with public execution becoming mandatory upon conviction a democracy
might have a chance to succeed. It really is that simple. I think Thomas Jefferson may have
mentioned something about that...
@all
It was not my intent to hijack this thread.
To get back on topic, it should have been apparent to any thinking individual that Obama
and Congress failure to prosecute the bush/cheney regime would lead to a continuation of the
war crimes they unleashed. It is called precedent, and when Obama decided to look forward
rather than reinforce the rule of law, he left the door open for a recurrence of torture by
American soldiers. I can assure you that the full story is not being told, in regard the
torture and disappearance of people in Yemen. Especially with trump stating that he has no
qualms about using such means.
In a similar instance, congress voted to retroactively legalize illegal warrantless
surveillance by the telecoms in 2007. I was not surprised when Snowden revealed the extent to
which this process had grown. It is the same with the torture of Yemen people. It is the
corruption that is inherent in people which gravitate to these positions. Hillary not being
prosecuted for running her private server, (too many people do not understand the difference
between using a personal email address and running a personal server) and I am certain that
there is some other (non) surprise coming in the future by another government official for
doing something similar or more extreme. Comey has already been found to have been using a
gmail addy for government business.
It is their nature and will be proven time and time again. Also people, these are only the
things they do which become known. Can you imagine what they are doing and have done that
remains secret?
b4real
PeacefulProsperity , Jun 30, 2018 11:45:16 AM |
80
All roads of evil in this world lead to the City of London, as some of the commenters have
already pointed out here on many occasions. The US is only the muscle man taking orders from
the Brutish Crown Corporation and its peado-satanic "elites".
The butcher of Iraq, with Nazi family roots, gen. Schwarzkopf was knighted by Her fucking
"Majesty" for his services for the global empire in destroying that ME country, just as many
US commanders, officials before him and after him. Iran's P Mossadegh was removed by the CIA
on orders by the BP, one of the most evil companies in the world. Much more sinister, dark
company is SERCO, a name that only few people hear from the MSM:
At the same time the US is being managed by the British agents who monitor and influence,
often shape, manage, distract the public opinion as needed: Frost, John Oliver, Simon Cowell,
any more.
London have always been a cozy, safe home for many "divide and conquer" radical propaganda
agents of the Empire: SOHR, Chowdhary, Qardawi, Osama bin Laden, Khomeini, Muslim
Brotherhood, many more...
The most densely populated by millionaires, billionaires and security cameras.
That's were global trade of oil, finance "engineering", gold manipulation have been taking
place.
Rooted in John Dee necromancy, Jewish Kabala, Francis Bacon group (aka "William
Shakespeare") created anglosphere, in opium wars,...
Trump will end this Brutish anti-human global empire, that's why they are so hell-bent on
destroying him...
Kudos for great reporting and comments!
PS Germany lost the last game in World Cup on purpose, they did not want to win, look
carefully again - something's up on the global geopolitical stage...
astonishing .. the "liberal" media MSM or the corporate establishment press has always
gone along with all the coverups. Babyl-on. on torture.
.. a recent poll showing US citizen support for torture that proved the misinformed
nature of the public responding to the poll..... karlof, 30.
MSM (W, particularly Anglo, but not only..) is 100% on the side of the most hateful and
sadistic parties / entities / orgs. / crowd. Simultaneously, a driver, motivator and a
mirror.
This stance has infected and brainwashed USA citizens, who per their history and mind-set
-- free market, revanchard immigrants, genocide, slavery, opportunities for incredible
exploitation - have lost what one might call an 'integrative' mind set, where 'integrating'
ppl in to *join* (as in the original touted melting-pot which wasn't what it was purported to
be) is no longer of any value, interest.
Concurrently, collectivism (might be called community solidarity or other friendly terms,
not argh communism!) is reduced to local contact on specific issues (protecting a park),
p-to-p efforts (food bank, donations to charity) or very weak and useless pol moves.
Individualism and tribalism (the two actually go together) leave no room for any general
societal schemes - including anarchism! weird.. -- > empathy becomes limited to close
friends and family accompanied by the adoption of purely functionalist reasoning, very
reductive, sketchy, as all other view-points are eliminated, scotched.. (A leads to B to C
etc.)
Torture is good because it forces confessions that can save other lives. Separating
families is necessary, it deters others from coming. Prisons need to be expanded, evil
violent robbers, rapists shouldn't freely roam the streets, etc. Yes and even family bonds
are subject to exclusion, blame, hate, violence
I upped the traits to make a point. You all get the picture.
"Third world people look to the government hoping
to able to apply for a benefit and, of course, they do receive certain benefits of the
government.
Really? That's funny, everywhere I've looked throughout my adult life I've seen the rich
and big corporations looking to the government for benefits, and hoo boy do they get
them.
"Third world people look to the government hoping to able to apply for a benefit and, of
course, they do receive certain benefits of the government. Really? That's funny,
everywhere I've looked throughout my adult life I've seen the rich and big corporations
looking to the government for benefits, and hoo boy do they get them.
I certainly agree that the richies have increasingly had the inside track on government
economic support, however the poor people in Mexico still hope and expect that the government
will provide them with benefits, as it has in the past.
"The education policy of President Lázaro Cárdenas's six-year term
originated scholarships and opportunities to underprivileged youth, underscoring an implicit
belief that the last Indian in the sierra is a Mexican as well, and that a person of humble
origens might become President of the Republic, or a great man or woman of letters, or a
creator or a collaborator of enormous importance to the Mexican nation.
The rural normal schools were founded to help the poorest among the poor to gradually rise
from the miserable pains of marginalization to better living conditions for themselves and
their families. The mission of these schools was the instruction of their students in
theoretical-practical knowledge of biology, literature, history, mathematics, and pedagogy,
to train and prepare the normalists to alphabetize the population; so to speak: to liberate
it. In those years, wherever a normal school was opened, it became a modernizing agent, it's
mission was to teach future teachers to plant the alphabet and other basic forms of social
knowledge in the arable population, with the expectation that their future students might
become morally free."
...
What can be done to redress the problems?
Until the people of the U.S. reclaim their democracy – Nothing!
The U.S. system of government is not the problem. The problem is that the system has been
hi-jacked and turned from a democracy into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'.
Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 30, 2018 8:34:19 AM | 74
I agree with much of what you wrote to support this conclusion however, it seems that The
People in AmeriKKKa would rather whinge about their govt than take action to reform it. The
fact that they swallowed the indigestible trope that McCain is a War Hero, without a whimper
of protest, suggests that Wimpiness is alive and well in the US of A.
The UK's victims of Oligarchical Dictatorship (and the subject of this thread) on the
other hand, don't take kindly to being treated like docile obedient morons. And this latest
example of Criminal Executive Malfeasance will be angrily discussed and added to a growing
list of similar outrages.
If revolution comes to AmeriKKKa it is more likely to come from without, rather than
within. If the Brits kick up a big enough stink about what their govt thinks it can get away
with then AmeriKKKans will notice and begin to realise they are in the same boat. When
Americans wanted Britain's jackboot removed from their neck, the Revolutionary French were
happy to oblige. Funnier things have happened than the looming prospect that AmeriKKKans will
be inspired, by Brit efforts to remove a home-grown jack-boot, to do likewise to relieve
their own frustration.
Revolution doesn't have to be violent. It can be achieved by citizens uniting behind an
effort to 'encourage' the govt to adopt a shortlist of reforms which will grant citizens the
right to have grievances considered, acknowledged, and rectified by govt.
Switzerland has such a system. Here's a brief summary...
Switzerland has a tradition of direct democracy. For any change in the constitution, a
referendum is mandatory. For any change in a law, a referendum can be requested by the
people. In addition, the people may present a constitutional Popular Initiative to introduce
amendments to the federal constitution. The people also assume a role similar to the
constitutional court, which does not exist, and thus act as the guardian of the rule of
law."
"Defense" becomes a racket as soon as it prompts others to increase THEIR "defense". The
only answer to guns is more guns. It is a self-licking I've cream cone that is exploited by
neocons, Zionists, MIC, and others to the detriment of everyone else.
Security forces are, by their nature, non transparent and therefore subject to corruption.
Proper governance would REMOVE incentives for corruption. Examples: legalize drugs,
prostitution, and gambling; create strong, respectful alliances, and deal fairly with other
countries.
Absent adequate safeguards, security forces will quickly grow to a size where they serve
themselves FIRST. Serving powerful elites is part of that.
We now have the technology to fundamentally change how we are governed. The establishment
will fight that change tooth and nail.
PS Even the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is a protect racket. You must believe (as
proved by donations and other visible support) or you will go to hell or be accused of being
a witch or devil worshipper.
We have to understand and come to grips with the fact that we are now ruled by a corrupt
establishment. It is composed of many groups that have gotten cozy with each other: mafia,
"cartel", industry groups whose foot soldiers are "lobbyists", CIA, MIC, neocons, oligarchs,
etc. each has a grip that is reinforced by the others.
AFAICT, Direct Democracy offers the only way to break the pervasive, pernicious grip that
they collectively hold on society.
I thought the biggest club was the disenfranchised, Jackrabbit@88.
According to some comments above only the very few enlightened atheists rise above the
fray, us dumb unwashed peons who believe everything we hear, see, read. Well, good for you,
but good for the rest of us as well. We are not so dumb as you make out. We are not as you
have characterized us. We actually think! We actually make up our own minds, and lots of what
we think and decide for ourselves comports with what you think and decide! And in addition,
for goodness sake, some of us have faith. I know it's hard for you to fathom, but I assure
you it is so.
The few are those currently in control, who have wrested power away from the people and do
not serve them, the ones who refuse to let the truth be told, such as the PM in the UK, as
the report makes Some folk suppose Americans are brain washed, revealing their own
shortsightedness. One might say that about the citizens of any country, if all you see is
what the media of that country presents to you.clear. It really has nothing to do with
religion or the lack thereof, or even with the mass media.
Sorry, should have been "as the Report makes clear." And erase the 'clear' at the end of the
penultimate sentence. (Hiccup occurred with copy and paste.)
@ PeacefulProsperity | Jun 30, 2018 11:45:16 AM | 80
OT:
"PS Germany lost the last game in World Cup on purpose, they did not want to win, look
carefully again - something's up on the global geopolitical stage..."
Sounds interesting. I looked carefully again but could not see anything mentionable. could
you please be a bit more specific?
Decades back, the
KUBARK Manuael from 1963 a CIA torture training manual, was made public. It includes all
the techniques that so "outraged" the US Congress when CIA torture was revealed during the
Bush II regime, and are now "outraging" the British Parliament today.
But of course, not only were these torture techniques not new in 2005, they were not knew
in 1963 either. The "arts" of torture extend back to prehistory, but can fairly be described
as having become a science during the Nazi era.
A woman named Gudrun Burwitz recently died at age 88. If the name doesn't ring a bell,
perhaps it would help if we referred to her by her father's family name. For she was the
daughter of top Nazi, Heinrich Himmler, Commander of the SS (Schutzstaffel), and claimed to
be the author of the entire racial cleansing, "Final Solution," Holocaust program.
We are also told that Himmler somehow took a poison pill while in prison awaiting his
execution, thereby "cheating justice." But this is about his daughter and the thread that
leads to the Report on British torture.
Ms. Burwitz never disavowed Nazism and defended her father's reputation. She remained
prominent in far-right politics throughout her life. She was reported to be a prominent
member of Stille Hilfe (Silent Help), a secretive group known to provide legal and financial
support to former SS members. She was also known to attend other neo-Nazi events and rallies
before her death.
Oh, and she did hold jobs, too. She worked at BND (West German Secret Police/Intelligence)
headquarters during the time the organisation was under the control of Reinhard Gehlen. Nazi
General Reinhard Gehlen, of course, had headed the Russia Desk in the Oberkommando der
Wermacht (OKW - Hitler's Supreme Headquarters). Later, he had been recruited by OSS/CIA
Director Allen Dulles in the closing days of WW II and brought to service in the US.
@ b4real with his call for some level of anarchism
Do you agree that humans are community oriented beasts at some level? What do you call
that level of organization and how does one scale it...or is that a bad idea to you?
Is it anarchy all the way down?
I am fine to move this to the next open thread and feel some responsibility for my ongoing
contextualization of stuff.
I agree that the Internet provided an awesome medium for the spread of information, much
of which had only been available to readers of low-circulation alternative sources. We were
witness to a "Golden Age" of largely unrestricted information flow.
And that is why the Internet in Europe and the US is being clamped down. Private companies
people relied on, like youtube and facebook are deleting accounts and "throttling" traffic.
Google is "deranking" sites such that some have seen traffic drop by 75%. "Net neutrality"
has been overturned, so all of this and more is about to become much worse in the US.
A reminder for those who sometimes fall into a Pollyanna hopefulness.... as bad as our
Western internet censorship is becoming, it's still a beacon of freedom compared to what
China already has.
Jen @57. Thanks for interjecting some real world examples into the theoretical "utopian"
government/no government ideas being floated.
I'd add that internet voting has not shown itself to be trustworthy. Right now Estonia (or
e-Estonia as it's now calling itself) is establishing an entirely internet-based life way.
Everyone gets a bio-ID card. All financial transactions will go through that card, as is
voting, medical records, education, etc. etc. etc.
Is this really "hack-proof?" If/when someone's entire life is hacked, will we even be
allowed to know it happened?
China is developing their "social score" system similar to e-Estonia. In their case,
they're bragging that whatever black box is keeping score will have the authority to prevent
people from purchasing property, or boarding a train, or going to school, or voting or really
anything at all.... all based on some algorithms programmed by some faceless bureaucrats.
Back to the "Venus Project" which someone linked earlier, such high-tech autocratic
societies may be a big improvement for most people's lives. Maybe I'm some sort of Luddite to
prefer things like paper ballots, filled out in ink and hand counted multiple times with
observers from any interested parties.
But that still looks like a technology that isn't broken, and so doesn't need to be
"fixed."
@ Daniel
When in China I could not access anything google. Google browser, google search, google
blogs. As I mostly used yandex everything else was fine. I could access all western
propaganda and alternative news/blogs that were not on a google platform. I take it google
was blocked because they were heavily involved in color revolutions and regime change
operations.
Peter AU 1. I think you're reading too much literalism into the folk tales written down by
bronze age nomads as they took up an agrarian lifestyle. You might enjoy the book, "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. He is
a bit too "evo/psych"" for my tastes, but overall his description of the current
understanding of the archaeological, anthropological, paleographical and historical evidence
is quite well presented.
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been
in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The first meeting apparently took place in early July 2016, shortly before
the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was
in contact with the FBI throughout the election and continued to be so after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only
disclosed recently.
The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That
placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016,
Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order
and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working
on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was
paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current
officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general
title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained
at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons belonging to involved the campaign team of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that
the Trump Dossier cannot be verified
.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the
precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director
Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now
know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together
a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier
was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the
basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress
because of the failure of the Justice Department and the FBI to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application
to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened , if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign,
taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court
so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her
misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the
document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the
FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it
was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he
was having an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when
Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's
former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague
Alex Christoforou has
reported on some
of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such
a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports
one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according
to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs.
If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics
of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has
to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously
sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it, and I am sure that
it is the one which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become
so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that
it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it.
If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the
testimony to Congress of Carter Page
that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in
the 2016 election which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year the
top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me
here ) also all but confirms that it was
the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 which supposedly 'proved' that
the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the
Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close
to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame when questioning witnesses about their supposed role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain
all the surveillance warrants the FBI obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private
server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the
FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there also has to
be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump
administration at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the
US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person
who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened
and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages
being spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable
why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive in order to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the
second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the
focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during
the election as the primary focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation
– ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance
of US citizens carried out during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently
cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan
are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes
(recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman
Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming
majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
Currently in the USA only nationalist politicians display some level of courage and
authenticity. That's why they attract people.
The problem with superdelegates in Democratic Party is just the tip of the iceberg of the "Clinton transformation" of the
party. The Part is
now neoliberal party that have nothing to do with the democracy. At best it would qualify as a
moderate Republican wing.
Notable quotes:
"... This endless compromise won't work. The odds of the Dems intentionally trading their Big Money Corporate Supporters like Monsanto for the Working Class is somewhere between slim and none, at least in my lifetime. ..."
"... If the superdelegates were limited to currently serving Democratic members of Congress, currently serving Democratic state governors, and current or former Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents, it would be a huge improvement. ..."
"... No lobbyists, no big city mayors, and no state party bosses (unless they are also in one of the other permitted categories). ..."
"... I suppose it doesn't help that I watched the Truman & Wallace episodes of Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" last night. But even before that I've been haunted by the image of shadow on the steps of Sumitomo Bank in Hiroshima, Japan. Recalling that image, the DNC's betrayals of the American people, and the short-sighted and self-serving actions of those who rule us -- detailed in trivialities by Norman Solomon -- combined these give fuller meaning to the comment Bernie Sanders made about those who rule us and their greatest concern about their place on the Titanic. ..."
"... Team D cares not a whit for its voters, but it cares very much for the concerns of big donors. ..."
"... under the new rules, those superdelegates would have to tie their votes on the convention's first ballot to the outcome of primaries and caucuses. In 2016, all superdelegates were allowed to support either candidate. ..."
"... In other words, will the practice of Clinton or the Clintonites locking the superdelegate vote up early just be merely reshaped by this process, with a new sheen of faux democracy, rather than inhibited? ..."
"... This is why the comment above by Quanka is astute: You have to tell the Democrats (and Republicans) that you won't owe your vote to them. And that you are going to burn down the party if it doesn't serve the commonwealth. ..."
"... See my post below when it comes out of moderation; Our country does have a progressive/populist tradition, but everything possible is done to erase it from contemporary memory. Now buried to memory is the history of the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and even the Reform Republicanism of the early 1900's (Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette for instance). ..."
"... I hate to tell you, but the New York City subway actually costs $2.75. Another testament to the neoliberal con game, as practiced by the Metropolitan Transit Authority. ..."
"... What is ironic about this issue of superdelegates is that the so called "Democratic" party has them and the party of the elite, the Republicans, do not (well, they do, but at a much smaller % and they are required to vote for whoever won their respective state primary). What is also ironic is that the reason the Dems came up with this system was to prevent blowouts in the election. Carter and McGovern had gotten trounced. The feeling was that "wiser" heads, i.e. experienced politicians could steer the party toward a more electable candidate. And how did that work out for them? First time superdelegates voted in 1984, Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states to Reagan. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is run by a bunch of careerist hacks. This is why the GOP is actually more "democratic" (and got hijacked by Trump): because it's not run by careerist hacks who are more concerned about protecting their rice bowls than they are about being responsive to the electorate. These hacks got paid a billion dollars to run the losing 2016 campaign -- they "won" the election by their self-serving metric, and now get to pay themselves to "resist" the administration that they caused to be elected through their self-serving careerism. ..."
"... And now with current 'RussiaGate' nonsense and the rest of it, and all the wars, including the genocidal destruction of Libya, and some other things, I can never again vote for a Democrat, and I won't vote for a Republican either. I voted for a Socialist once but those votes were not counted because he could not satisfy the requirements to get on the ballot -- petitions and registering in over 200 districts in the state. No one decent gets through the machine. ..."
"... The DNC's Unity Commission's behavior confirms that the real goal of the leadership of the DNC is exactly the opposite of the name of the commission. So what is their real goal? To prevent the emergence of a progressive majority. In fact, this has been their goal for decades; and in fairness, they have been very successful in realizing it to the detriment of the majority of We the People. ..."
"... While I was at the post office, I had a conversation with a longtime friend who is now in the Arizona House of Representatives. She just got elected last year. Even though she is officially a Democratic Party member, she ran as a progressive and that's how she rolls in the House. Get this, she spent this morning addressing a conservative youth group and they loved it. Compared to what they usually hear from politicians, they found her speech refreshing. It was all about balanced policy, and if she posts a video, I will share it. Perhaps the DNC will pay attention. ..."
"... I approve of bringing up this suppressed history of our country's leftist, progressive, socialist, even communist strands, not to mention the multi racial and class political alliance, social organizations, and very frequently personal connections including marriages. Don't forget that the power structure used propaganda, legislation, the law, and armed mobs that often especially, but not only, in the South with rope necklaces, lead poisoning, or if you were "lucky" multi-decade prison terms, or just merely having your home/church/business burnt. This has never really stopped. Like when Jim Crow continues by other means, so did the anti-organization. Chicago, Detroit, the South,etc. Sadly, the black misleadership also help, albeit without the violence, after MLK and others, were no longer a problem. ..."
"... So centuries of poor whites, blacks, native Americans, religious leaders, even some business leaders and some upper class people, struggling together, usually dealing with violence and murder have been dropped into the memory hole. ..."
"... Some days I just want to start screaming and not stop. ..."
The Report is fair, but supporting things like reduction of Super Delegates from the
mid-700s to mid-200s is wrong! Complaining about lack of democracy within the Party means
getting rid of them altogether! That's just one small example.
This endless compromise won't work. The odds of the Dems intentionally trading their
Big Money Corporate Supporters like Monsanto for the Working Class is somewhere between slim
and none, at least in my lifetime.
It is a good start. If the superdelegates were limited to currently serving Democratic
members of Congress, currently serving Democratic state governors, and current or former
Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents, it would be a huge improvement.
No lobbyists, no
big city mayors, and no state party bosses (unless they are also in one of the other
permitted categories).
I can't point to any particulars -- but I felt something disingenuous about Norman Solomon
-- something 'off'. An even meaner thought came to mind as I listened to his complaints and
details of the DNC machinations -- Norman Solomon would be perfect to work for unity in the
Green Party. He could make theater of herding the Green cats and accomplish nothing in
particular.
I suppose it doesn't help that I watched the Truman & Wallace episodes of Oliver
Stone's "Untold History of the United States" last night. But even before that I've been
haunted by the image of shadow on the steps of Sumitomo Bank in Hiroshima, Japan. Recalling
that image, the DNC's betrayals of the American people, and the short-sighted and
self-serving actions of those who rule us -- detailed in trivialities by Norman Solomon --
combined these give fuller meaning to the comment Bernie Sanders made about those who rule us
and their greatest concern about their place on the Titanic.
But this time the DNC has no dying Roosevelt to tack a Truman onto.
Aye! and you can't burn a thing down by continuing to send it money, or lend it undying
support, or by continuing to vote for their horrible lesser evil moderate republican
candidates.
I quit the damned party as loudly as i could in november 2016 emails to all and sundry,
chewing them all new ones, as it were.
i never heard a word back, of course and the AI that runs the damned thing keeps sending
me emails begging for cash; and surveys,lol which i send back to them with my chicken scratch
all in the margins with my outrage and my considered opinions. i assume all that goes unread,
as well. perhaps if i incorporated and obtained a po box in the caymans or pulau or
somewhere
Short-term (2018)–Norman Solomon is right. Only the Democratic party is in a
position to defeat the rightists. In the longer term, Howie Hawkins's recent argument for a
new, genuinely working-class party is more convincing to me. It's a lot more work,
though.
The DNC may be becoming irrelevant, but individual Democratic politicians can monetize
their current positions as they stock their personal lifeboats before the Bernie Sanders
mentioned Titanic goes down..
Instead of thinking short term and trying stay in the Dim party real left wing people need
to take the long term view and start a new party which will be the only way forward.
In the draft proposal, a special national party commission calls for keeping some 400
members of the Democratic National Committee as automatic delegates to the convention.
But under the new rules, those superdelegates would have to tie their votes on the
convention's first ballot to the outcome of primaries and caucuses. In 2016, all
superdelegates were allowed to support either candidate.
And yet
Cohen and other Democrats stressed, however, that commission members have been busy
circulating amendments ahead of the commission's weekend gathering in metro Washington.
So, which superdelegates will remain and with what actual
constraints, and how far does this move the system away from the status quo? In light of
Solomon's interview, I do wonder about actuarial sleigh-of-hand here. Is there a way of
affecting a likely purge of 2020 Sanders/"grass-roots" aligned superdelegates now? Is there a
way of suggesting that the superdelegates must vote as the states' primaries/caucuses (thus
defanging them) but then not actually imposing any real penalty of these "party elders" and
such? (Will 2020 be about "unfaithful superdelegates voting their conscience against the
party rules for the greater good"?)
In other words, will the practice of Clinton or the Clintonites locking the
superdelegate vote up early just be merely reshaped by this process, with a new sheen of faux
democracy, rather than inhibited?
The report itself is worth reading. I downloaded it a while back when Lambert and Yves
first posted it.
Solomon gets Moore wrong. Moore is not a neo-fascist or fascist. Moore represents some
very deep-seated religious ideas that are prevalent in the South and in the border states.
When Naked Capitalism and other sources report a bishop of an African-American church making
rather ambiguous comments about the rock with the Ten Commandments, we see an ancient
religious attitude emerging:
Yet as many Southerners point out, the South has a progressive / populist tradition. And
where are the Democrats? To me, this is part of the thorough corruption of the party and its
deterioration into a fan club. Too many Democrats are looking for fascists and Rooskies.
People are fleeing the party, and various Democrats living the "Don't know much about
history" aspect of U.S. culture are desperately trying to pin the fascist label on people.
And what is the solution being offered? Fly in Jon Ossoff? He didn't live in the
congressional district where he ran anyway, going counter to another deeply held U.S.
tradition, that you live in your district.
This isn't about "smart" or not smart thinking. This is about people being so thoroughly
corrupt in their thinking that they can only frame questions corruptly and give corrupt
answers. Maybe I'm being hard on Solomon, but looking for Benito Mussolini in Alabama is
wrong history, wrong metaphor, wrong diagnosis, wrong meme.
Next up? The question and and answer of "gentle" "entitlement" "reform." Corrupt from its
very inception.
This is why the comment above by Quanka is astute: You have to tell the Democrats (and
Republicans) that you won't owe your vote to them. And that you are going to burn down the
party if it doesn't serve the commonwealth.
See my post below when it comes out of moderation; Our country does have a
progressive/populist tradition, but everything possible is done to erase it from contemporary
memory. Now buried to memory is the history of the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the
Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and even the Reform Republicanism of the early 1900's
(Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette for instance).
Watt4Bob: You refer here and below to the states along the inland sea, in a sense, the
rather eccentric Great Lakes States. I'd add:
–Chicago agitators and the Haymarket "Riot" (which the police caused)
–The United Auto Workers (Flint strike among others).
–Unions and Youngstown.
–Jane Addams and her own ideas about building community and building peace.
–The Milwaukee Socialists and the mayoralty there.
–The whole rambunctious structure (if it's a structure) of neighborhood associations in
Chicago, where many of those involved in the Harold Washington campaign got their start.
–Henry Gerber, the Society for Human Rights, and the first agitation for acceptance of
gay people, 1924, Chicago. Who even knew that midwesterners thought about politico-sexual
themes?
Yes, there is very talented group of people here who simply have to cut down on the
distractions and get back to work.
Socialism was actually a powerful movement -- with elected officials -- all throughout the
Upper Midwest during the so-called Progressive Era and the 1920s. Part of this was a result
of German settlements; any Midwestern town with a significant population of Germans
(especially from Hamburg) had a strong socialist impulse. Often this was manifest in the
elected officials, but even where the Socialists didn't win elections, they were able to
influence policy.
I have little patience for the so-called "Democrats" who, as you said above "don't know
much about history".
Thank you for bringing those points up. I'd say that buzzwords like fascist and Nazi are
bull horned (as opposed to Republican dog whistles) only as a means to distract from actual
policy issues (vis-a-vis Bernie), but I wonder if it is the case that even the most cynical
Clintonites believe their own BS at this point. These narratives have taken on a life of
their own.
I don't think Norman Solomon has bad intentions. If anything he is appealing to pragmatism
and reason too strongly in a political environment that is unreasonable. Bernie does a much
better job at blowing the emotional horn just enough to fit the political zeitgeist while
maintaining an engine of actual policy issues to move his political machine. Historically,
this has always been a successful strategy for socialists, Americans love fire-brands.
As far as Norman's claims of fascism I just don't see how tossing around those terms adds
any strategic value to the political struggle against the right. It just comes across as
preaching to the choir. We (the left) all know Moore is an ass, calling him fascist doesn't
make that any more evident. The trick is trying to understand why he is still viable
politically to a significant number of people despite being an ass. This was the mistake made
with Trump. To loosely paraphrase Adolph Reed, calling something fascist or Nazi and $2.25
will get me a ride on the subway but it does nothing to develop action to counter right wing
agendas. The normalization of the right (Republicans) does not occur because they have
"better ideas" (their current tax bill shows they aren't even trying to appeal to 99% of
society) it is because the current left option in the USA (Democrats) are offering
no ideas , or certain members are not allowed to express ideas because of corporate power and
corporate-supported political power. Assuming I am directing this at the DNC, then who is
actually supporting the so-called fascists?
As goes fascism in the United States, I don't really think anyone has a good
definition. Some see it as a politics that are largely aesthetic as opposed to based on
discourse or debate. Some see it as a marriage of corporate power with state power with
police and military supremacy. By those two measures I think the USA is already deeply
fascist. Though it seems by the current measures, the only thing that make someone
unequivocally fascist (or Nazi) is their being a bigot. This simplistic view of fascism is an
insult to history, and all the people that either died fighting fascism or were sacrificed at
its political altar.
I hate to tell you, but the New York City subway actually costs $2.75. Another
testament to the neoliberal con game, as practiced by the Metropolitan Transit
Authority.
What is ironic about this issue of superdelegates is that the so called "Democratic"
party has them and the party of the elite, the Republicans, do not (well, they do, but at a
much smaller % and they are required to vote for whoever won their respective state primary).
What is also ironic is that the reason the Dems came up with this system was to prevent
blowouts in the election. Carter and McGovern had gotten trounced. The feeling was that
"wiser" heads, i.e. experienced politicians could steer the party toward a more electable
candidate. And how did that work out for them? First time superdelegates voted in 1984,
Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states to Reagan.
I think a little history would be useful at this point to help us understand that we've
been this way before.
As concerns the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party which later merged with the Minnesota
Democratic Party to form the DFL, which has lately devolved, IMO, Wellstone and Franken not
withstanding, to much more closely resemble the party of Clintonism than the party of the
young Hubert Humphrey.
The Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party emerged from the Nonpartisan League in North Dakota
and the Union Labor
Party in Duluth, Minnesota, on a platform of farmer and labor union protection,
government ownership of certain industries, and social security laws.[2] One of the primary
obstacles of the party, besides constant vilification on the pages of local and state
newspapers, was the difficulty of uniting the party's divergent base and maintaining
political union between rural farmers and urban laborers who often had little in common
other than the populist perception that they were an oppressed class of hardworking
producers exploited by a small elite.
That 'divergent base' thing ring a bell anyone?
"The farmer approached problems as a proprietor or petty capitalist. Relief to him meant
a mitigation of conditions that interfered with successful farming. It involved such things
as tax reduction, easier access to credit, and a floor under farm prices. His individualist
psychology did not create scruples against government aid, but he welcomed it only as long
as it improved agricultural conditions. When official paternalism took the form of public
works or the dole, he openly opposed it because assistance on such terms forced him to
abandon his chosen profession, to submerge his individuality in the labor crew, and to
suffer the humiliation of the bread line. Besides, a public works program required
increased revenue, and since the state relied heavily on the property tax, the cost of the
program seemed likely to fall primarily on him.
At the opposite end of the seesaw sat the city worker, who sought relief from the
hunger, exposure, and disease that followed the wake of unemployment. Dependent on an
impersonal industrial machine, he had sloughed off the frontier tradition of individualism
for the more serviceable doctrine of cooperation through trade unionism. Unlike the
depressed farmer, the unemployed worker often had no property or economic stake to protect.
He was largely immune to taxation and had nothing to lose by backing proposals to dilute
property rights or redistribute the wealth. Driven by the primitive instinct to survive,
the worker demanded financial relief measures from the state."
The upper-midwest was fly-over land long before the Wright brothers, and it makes perfect
sense that the the Minnesota Farmer-Labor, and its predecessor, the Non-Partisan League of
North Dakota should sprout here, where the effects of elite neglect/abuse and the related
Great Depression had left We the People feeling mis/unrepresented by the two
national parties.
Of course it's good to remember that Hubert Humphrey, and the Minnesota Democratic party
did not embrace the populist revolt until it had been successful on its own, in electing
multiple Minnesota Governors, Senators, and Representatives in the 1920-30's, but embrace it
they did, and from 1944 until the 1970's, the DFL stood for something a bit more than the
local franchise of the National Party.
I strongly encourage you to follow the links in the quotes above, you'll find the history
of, among other things, the Bank of North Dakota, still the only state-owned bank in the
country, founded in 1919 to allow ND farmers to break the strangle-hold that banks in
Minneapolis and Chicago held over the farmers of the northern plains, and demand of working
people for free, universal health-care.
So far, the Democratic party, sadly, including the DFL, seems dedicated to putting down
the populist revolt by its neglected base, but with some hard work maybe this time around we
can figure out how to shorten the time between being resisted and being embraced.
The enemies are perennial, so are the solutions, but populism did have a season of
successes in the first half of the 20th century, and there is no reason to think it couldn't
happen again.
Remember too, the Non Partisan League of
Alberta Canada, and was one of the principal champions of universal healthcare that Canadians
now enjoy.
I think incumbent Governors and Congress members have earned the right to be a super
delegate by virtue of having won their own election. Their re-election will be affected by
the top of the ticket.
If Repubs had been blessed with super delegates, would Trump have still won?
July 2016, after the primaries were over, the WaPo, that bastion of Dem estab groupthink,
suggested the GOP adopt super delegates to avoid another surprise primary outcome. And we see
how well not having super delegates turned out for the GOP.
"There are probably a few missteps I am forgetting. Priebus's spinelessness may well
result in an irretrievably divided party, not to mention a humiliating loss in a critical,
entirely winnable election. Priebus's successor had better learn some lessons from 2016. He
or she might also consider using super delegates. It turns out party grownups are needed.
This cycle they've been AWOL."
The Democrat Party is run by a bunch of careerist hacks. This is why the GOP is
actually more "democratic" (and got hijacked by Trump): because it's not run by careerist
hacks who are more concerned about protecting their rice bowls than they are about being
responsive to the electorate. These hacks got paid a billion dollars to run the losing 2016
campaign -- they "won" the election by their self-serving metric, and now get to pay
themselves to "resist" the administration that they caused to be elected through their
self-serving careerism.
They're not going to let go of the self-licking ice cream cone that the Democrat Party has
become until their comprehensive election losses make it obvious to the Wall Street Wing that
they're wasting their money. That day may be coming soon; however, the current coup d'etat in
Washington may render a party of $27 donors irrelevant
This: "until their comprehensive election losses make it obvious to the Wall Street Wing
that they're wasting their money. "^^^
A similar sentiment was included in all of the flurry of angry emails i sent hither and
yon when I quit the demparty right after the election. ie: the current course of pleasing the
donors is unsustainable if they continue to chase off their own base. what are the donors
paying for?
one would presume a voice in gooberment .meaning won seats,lol.
without voters, why would any self respecting conglomerate continue to shell out dough to the
demparty?
of course, all the hippie-punching and other abuse of their base makes perfect sense if the
demparty is, in truth, a ringer party for the oligarchs a pressure relief valve, like on the
side of a water heater
if, in other words, they pretend to be the "opposition" and "for the people"(tm) so all
us'n's don't go rabid and Wobbly.
This seems a more and more likely explanation every week.
Perhaps old age and failing memory is to blame, but I can't remember not hearing the
nonsense arguments of 'vote for the lesser of two evils and reform from within', and the fear
mongering about the right or Republicans winning. (Republicans used to have sort-of 'liberal'
members, like Lowell Weicker, who would make current Democrats look like fascists -- well, a
lot of them are really ). It never worked and everything just gets worse.
And now with current 'RussiaGate' nonsense and the rest of it, and all the wars,
including the genocidal destruction of Libya, and some other things, I can never again vote
for a Democrat, and I won't vote for a Republican either. I voted for a Socialist once but
those votes were not counted because he could not satisfy the requirements to get on the
ballot -- petitions and registering in over 200 districts in the state. No one decent gets
through the machine.
I've given up on both parties, and their phony elections -- there are no solutions there.
What is needed is to see through the games and destroy the machine. Not easy but there is no
other way. Solomon is part of the machine, and the so-called 'progressives' are not
progressive. We are at the point where the only possible solutions are radical -- striking at
the root. The collapse of the empire and capitalism (corporatism -- just a larval stage of
fascism) is coming one way or another because it is not sustainable -- and that which cannot
be sustained will not be. It's like how slavery and feudalism reached a point where they
could no longer survive as dominant systems, nor returned to as such (similar to how the gold
standard, or non-tech agricultural society can not be universally restored). The writing
finger moves on.
We can either see how the global wind of history and culture is blowing and intelligently
move ahead with it, or we can destroy ourselves. The action must be on the streets, in the
workplace, from the masses, in collective consciousness, and world wide. Democrat shills like
Solomon and clowns like Trump should be ignored as symptomatic noise.
The DNC's Unity Commission's behavior confirms that the real goal of the leadership of
the DNC is exactly the opposite of the name of the commission. So what is their real goal? To
prevent the emergence of a progressive majority. In fact, this has been their goal for
decades; and in fairness, they have been very successful in realizing it to the detriment of
the majority of We the People.
Thank you for shining the light on this latest episode of their actions for their
financial benefactors.
Just got back from running errands. While I was at the post office, I had a
conversation with a longtime friend who is now in the Arizona House of Representatives. She
just got elected last year. Even though she is officially a Democratic Party member, she ran
as a progressive and that's how she rolls in the House. Get this, she spent this morning
addressing a conservative youth group and they loved it. Compared to what they usually hear
from politicians, they found her speech refreshing. It was all about balanced policy, and if
she posts a video, I will share it. Perhaps the DNC will pay attention.
it's really not possible for the leaders at the national level of the Democratic Party
to have a close working relationship with the base when it's afraid of the base.
And strangely, this is a big reason for why after three plus decades, I am no longer an
active member of the party. If you treat the majority of American nation as dangerous,
deplorable, or at best just dumb, please don't be shocked when people start either start
ignoring you, or just try to get rid of.
I approve of bringing up this suppressed history of our country's leftist,
progressive, socialist, even communist strands, not to mention the multi racial and class
political alliance, social organizations, and very frequently personal connections including
marriages. Don't forget that the power structure used propaganda, legislation, the law, and
armed mobs that often especially, but not only, in the South with rope necklaces, lead
poisoning, or if you were "lucky" multi-decade prison terms, or just merely having your
home/church/business burnt. This has never really stopped. Like when Jim Crow continues by
other means, so did the anti-organization. Chicago, Detroit, the South,etc. Sadly, the black
misleadership also help, albeit without the violence, after MLK and others, were no longer a
problem.
So centuries of poor whites, blacks, native Americans, religious leaders, even some
business leaders and some upper class people, struggling together, usually dealing with
violence and murder have been dropped into the memory hole.
Some days I just want to start screaming and not stop.
As readers know, I'm a big fan of paper ballots[1], and the recent Election in Virginia
gives me a chance to explain why. (The "recount" phase -- erroneously named, as what's been
happening is
resolving absentee and provisional ballots -- seems to have culminated with the
Republicans keeping control of the Virginia House by a whisker, 49-51 .) First, I'll do
that, and set up two requirements that any system for counting votes in a democracy should
meet. Then, I'll look at Virginia's "Back to the Future" transition from digital voting to
paper ballots.
From Brad Friedman's essay on " Democracy's Gold Standard" (with numbering added), a set of
requirements for voting systems suitable for a democracy:
Last March, the country's highest court found that secret, computerized vote counting was
unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the country was Germany, and the Constitution violated by
e-voting systems was the one that the U.S. wrote and insisted Germans ratify as part of their
terms of surrender following WWII.
Paul Lehto, a U.S. election attorney and Constitutional rights expert, summarized the German
court's unambiguous, landmark finding :
"No 'specialized
technical knowledge' can be required of citizens to vote or to monitor vote counts." There is
a "constitutional requirement of a publicly observed count." "[T]he government substitution
of its own check or what we'd probably call an 'audit' is no substitute at all for public
observation." "A paper trail simply does not suffice to meet the above standards. "As a
result of these principles, 'all independent observers' conclude that 'electronic voting
machines are totally banned in Germany' because no conceivable computerized voting system can
cast and count votes that meet the twin requirements of being both 'observable' and also not
requiring specialized technical knowledge.
If you go through this set of requirements, you'll see that hand-marked paper ballots,
hand-counted in public, meet every one of them. You will also see that digital voting systems,
no matter how designed or implemented, cannot. They cannot, especially, meet requirements #1
("no specialized technical knowledge to monitor") and #2 ("a publicly observed count"). The
first requirement ensures that the voting process is not riggable by insiders with technical
expertise (native, or hired); the second ensures that the actual voting is not rigged on
election day. These are important requirements for a functioning democracy.
On September 24, hundreds of thousands of volunteers will be handing out ballots, checking
voters' names against lists, and counting votes once the polling station closes. The entire
process is open to the public Every citizen is allowed to watch and monitor the entire
counting process; and in effect, the volunteers monitor each other.
No specialized technical knowledge
[T]he volunteers open the ballot box, take out the envelopes and remove the ballot slips.
They sort the ballots according to a pre-arranged system, decide on whether the votes are
valid or invalid, and count the votes – reading out each vote aloud, which is noted in
writing in a log.
At the end, the number of ballots is compared with the number of people who voted in that
particular polling station.
Now, let's turn to Virginia. It's worth noting that Virginia's move back to paper is being
applauded
across the political spectrum . From the centrist Daily Banter ,
a summary of the history:
It wasn't until 2014, when the state experienced a myriad of problems on Election Day,
that Governor Terry McAuliffe proposed
an overhaul of the state voting system. By 2015, the Virginia Board of Elections decertified
the use of WINVote, but they were still
stuck with other DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) systems. This past summer, at a
DefCon conference in Las Vegas, computer scientists staged a "Voting Machine Hacking
Village" to prove the instabilities of DRE, which included a single password for all
machines, physical ports to insert malware, and reliance on outdated software that had not
been updated since the mid-2000s.
In emergency meeting, Virginia elections board votes to scrap all touch-screen voting
machines
The Virginia State Board of Elections voted Friday to discontinue use of all touch-screen
voting machines throughout the state because of potential security vulnerabilities, forcing
22 cities and counties to scramble to find new equipment just weeks before voting begins for
the November gubernatorial election.
Behind closed doors at an emergency meeting in Richmond on Friday afternoon, the board
heard about specific vulnerabilities identified after a cybersecurity conference this summer
in Las Vegas, where hackers showed they could break into voting machines with relative
ease.
In an interview, Elections Commissioner Edgardo Cortés acknowledged that the short
time frame could put localities under the gun. However, 10 of the 22 localities that still
use touch screens, either as their primary voting method or for more limited uses, have
already begun buying new equipment, Cortés said. That leaves 12 that will have to
start from scratch, but Cortés said the rapid swap is "doable" and worth the "hiccups"
that may come with new equipment.
(The Banter points to "Russian targeting of last year's presidential election" (whatever
that means)
as do
others , but if the threat of Russia hacking was a necessary cause for the Board's
decisionl, it was certainly the DefCon that was the proximate one).[2] In any case, the Board's
decision was taken September 8, and by Election Day, November 7, the transition was complete
with no reported problems, which shows you the advantages of adopting simple, rugged, and
proven systems. Here is how the system works, as described in a press release from
Albemarle County :
The Albemarle County Department of Voter Registration and Elections wants to alert voters
that a new, digital scan voting system will be used in all County voting precincts in the
upcoming November 3, 2015 general election. The previously used "touchscreen" voting machines
have been replaced by the new voting systems as a result of the Commonwealth of Virginia's
mandate which requires jurisdictions move toward the use of digital scan technology.
With the new system, voters will mark paper ballots at marking booths, and then deposit
the marked paper ballots into a digital ballot scanning machine, which will read the ballots,
and drop them into a secure ballot storage bin. When the polls close on Election Day, at 7
PM, the election officers at the voting precincts will obtain the tabulated totals of votes
from a results report that will be printed by the digital scanning machine. After the
election, the paper ballots will be kept in secure storage for a period of one year, to
ensure a voter-verified paper trail in the event of a recount.
Recall our two requirements. Can the Virginia System be said to meet them?
1) Public observation. Yes and no. Yes, because the ballot is handmarked, and dropped in the
box in public. No, because the ballots are counted in the innards of the optical scanner. (This
can be mitigated by storing the ballots for recounts later, if needed.) And no, because the
actual running of the count from the scanners does not take place in public, nor (AFAIK) the
integration into the totals of provisional and absentee ballots.
2) No specialized technical knowledge. Yes and no. Yes, because clearly paper ballots are an
improvement in every way from the horrid touch screens. No, in the same that once again, the
innards of the optical scanner must be relied upon. (This could be mitigated, depending on the
choice of vendor, by dealing with an actual scanner industry, as opposed to a bunch of tiny,
sketchy outfits purveying custom, proprietary software.)
In summary, and IMNSHO, there should be no digital determination or intermediation of
voter intent whatever ; why should we trust the scanner software engineers, or those who
run them? There's no reason to, any more than there's reason to trust the engineers or
operators of mechanical voting machines.) Virginia's ballots are indeed hand-marked, but they
are not hand-counted in public.[5]
With these strong caveats, Virginia's hand-marked paper ballots were well-received by the
public, and that's progress. WAVY :
At a voting precinct at the Chrysler Museum in Norfolk, voters said they had no issues
going back to pen and paper.
"It goes back to the old days, you know, we've been voting a long time, so we remember
when they didn't have anything but paper ballots," said voter Winston Whitehurst.
Voter Kevin Rafferty said he enjoyed the switch.
"It works. I understand. At least if we're having to spend some time on it, we're the only
ones in control, perhaps is the idea. Nobody else hacking on in I guess is their theory so
hopefully it's safe," he said.
"You can't hack paper," a man training a group of Hopewell poll workers on the new
[optical scanning] machines said.
(But you can hack the scanners -- using "specialized technical knowledge" --
and you can social engineer any process where the ballots are not hand-counted in public.)
Conclusion
Of the two requirements, the ability to monitor election results without technical expertise
is needed to prevent chicanery by those who structure the voting process. And the public count
is needed to prevent chicanery on election day by those who inspect and count the ballots.
Paper ballots can and do meet these requirements. That's why most Western countries use them,
and why many other countries have returned to them, after experimenting with digital systems.
Virginia's re-adoption of hand-marked paper ballots is a step forward, not backward.
NOTES
[1] For those who are concerned that paper ballots prevent ranked choice voting, Maine advocates disagree : "Ranked choice
voting is designed to work with paper ballots."
[2] The idea that "foreign invaders" (as the
Christian Science Monitor puts it) are the main threat for election theft seems very odd to
me. Surely domestic operatives are, or at least should be, the main concern?
[3] I vividly recall a Quebec referendum where the Quebec "scrutineers" rejected a seemingly
overlarge number of "No" ballots. But because the process was public, and not part of an
algorithmic black box, the scrutineers could be called out. Although Canada does use electronic
voting at the municipal level, the stakes are lower.
[4] Hilariously, a Google search on "How many countries use paper ballots" directs me to a
WikiPedia page on "Electronic voting by
country." 26 are listed. There are 195 countries.
[5] The convenience of election officials seems to bulk large in these disucussions; they
don't want to be
"up all night counting paper." Well, if the Germans (and the Canadians (and the Brits)) can
make that investment in democracy, why can't we?
Just an added note here to say that in Ireland, which uses Single Transferable Vote, the
law states that the election candidates can appoint Counting Agents , known as Tallymen during
the vote. They observe the opening of voting boxes and keep a tally during the count. As this
allows them to get a good feel for voting patterns, it eliminates another potential source of
fraud, box stuffing during or after the vote.
The Tallymen are so skilled they can often provide a very accurate result hours before the
final result (vote counting is much more complex for STV). There is no interest at all from
political parties for electronic voting because tally information is more fine grained than
final totals (as it is box by box rather than district by district) and so provides each
party with very valuable statistical information.
Same in Canada but we call them "scrutineers" or monitors (at least in Ontario). I worked
as an election official a while back (I think it was at the last provincial election) and one
of the scrutineers raised a big stink because the number of votes were not the same as the
number of people who voted. I left around 10 pm and I heard they were there until midnight
trying to resolve this. It was pure schadenfreude for me because I wasn't selected as one of
the vote-counting electoral officials but was just a lower-paid electoral assistant who
barred people from entering the building from the wrong door and gave directions to the
correct entrance. "Serves those idiots right for not picking me" was what I was thinking when
I left.
In France, the process is basically the same as in Germany. An interesting note, that I
don't see mentionned, is that once the public count is done and the number of votes matches
the number of voters, ballots are destroyed (except blank votes). A very sensible step as the
whole process is fraud-proof and ballots could be tampered with afterwards.
In this sense, there are no recounts (except the basic maths check). You can only report
to the courts irregularities in the process and there will be a new election if enough
polling station were affected to swing the election.
And the process is generally not too long. The average seems to be between one and three
hours so it's almost always done way before midnight (British seems to take a very long time,
if anyone cares to explain to me why ?). Of course, it helps a lot that we don't elect a
whole bunch of people on the same night (no lieutnant-governor, judges, sheriffs ), it's
always one election at a time with a dozen choices at most (and half the time it's only two
because of the two-round system).
Having used a number of different systems as I moved around the state of Maryland*, my
favorite system was hand marked ballots that were scanned by machine at the voting place. My
observations follow.
Old fashioned lever machines: They haven't made them for years, so there was always a
shortage of machines which led to long lines. Despite the fact that people are familiar with
them, they are an un-auditable black box like electronic voting machines.
Punched card machines. They always seemed physically a little difficult to operate and a
slight misalignment could result in a miscast vote. But there is a recountable paper trail
and only one or two scanners is required for each polling place.
Electronic voting machines. They're a completey un-auditable black box. They DO have the
advantage of being easier to adjust for people with limited vision and other handicaps. Each
voting station requires a separate machine, which means either greater expense or longer
lines compared to other systems. My guess is that programming the ballots into them probably
costs almost as much printing ballots and is more difficult to spot errors or fraud.
Hand counted ballots: The difficulty with hand counting ballots is that it is error-prone
and slow.
Paper ballots and digital scanners would seem to be the best system that I have used with
several caveats. You have to manually recount a random sampling of polling places to check
for systemic fraud in the setup of the scanning machines. You have to have a good system to
deal with errors and complications. How do you void ballots that have been mis-marked by
accident? You have to make SURE that they aren't added to the tallys. You have to have a
system for contested/contingent voting, a way to segregate and maintain those ballots until
the eligibility of the voters is determined.
*It used to be that every county chose the vote system separately
You have to manually recount a random sampling of polling places to check for systemic
fraud in the setup of the scanning machines.
That is an excellent suggestion however getting officials on board is not so easy. Our
state got new optical scan machines in all larger precincts a few years ago and since they
had never been used I made the same suggestion you did to our city council and asked for a
random audit. They refused and told me that by state law the city was not allowed to do an
audit just because they felt like it and the only way a recount could be done was if an
election was close enough to be within the mandated threshold needed to trigger one. If they
were correct about our state law, the state has actually made it illegal for cities to check
the accuracy of the machines they use. That would need to be changed in order for your
proposal to work.
I do still prefer handcounted paper ballots – I did get to participate in a hand
recount eventually and it was a LOT quicker than you might expect.
The other issue is cost – it would be a LOT cheaper to pay people to count by hand
than to replace millions of large pieces of aging machinery every decade or so.
Maybe, but machines can't determine voter intent on paper ballots nearly as well as humans
can. Our city uses these optical scanners and as noted last election season, we had a close
race that triggered a recount that I participated in. The human beings actually counted
more ballots than the machines did, as the machines didn't count those that were
filled out improperly (circles not completely filled out, or checked rather than filled in,
etc). Rough estimate, we were able to count approximately 2% more votes then the scanner
did.
If we're going to keep pretending we still have a democracy here in the US, everybody's
vote deserves to be counted in every election. The only way to do that is count paper ballots
by hand.
The FIRST TIME I heard that they were going to use IT technology for voting I thought they
must be kidding. It is so obviously wrong ON THE FACE OF IT that I have always suspected the
motives of those making that decision (although I suppose I should´t be too surprised
at human laziness being a motivating force!). Anyway, it is to me just another sign of the
dumbing down of America that this whole topic needs any discussion at all!!
Voltaire would have loved political position that the machines were perfect and unable be
hacked until Chavez-Venezuela bought voting machine manufacturer
Clinton conflates Virginia's switch to paper ballots with her claims that Russia hacked
into voter rolls and possibly went even further. This is Clinton speaking about it on Monday at the Atlanta
stop on her book tour.
So maybe we're finally getting some benefit from the claims that the Russians were able to
manipulate the election results in the United States! In reality, it's Republicans and
Democrats who manipulate election results in the U.S., but I'll accept a victory, even if
it's for the wrong reasons.
Exactly! Clinton applauds the reduced risk of paper ballots, but of course has to muddle
it all up with the dreaded Russian threat. I swear, Clinton can't help but link almost
everything to Russia now -- listening to her is like plaing a constant game of 6 degrees of
Kevin Bacon, except it's 3 degrees and its Russia.
One would think that governments would require that any software to be used in a public
election must be open source – not proprietary – and that it and its application
be open to public audit.
Vendors unwilling to comply can take their sales people elsewhere. If vendors are hard to
find, governments could join together in providing seed money for any number of parties to
develop and maintain the necessary code.
This is the sort of change that should be part of any elections improvement commissions,
not that the likes of Kris Kobach and his commission have in mind anything but voter
suppression. The use of proprietary software in a public election is as appropriate as a
cordon of watch dogs, lighted torches, or police cars outside a voting center.
"Making the source code available" for a critical system makes a good sound bite, but in
reality has a number of substantial problems:
o There is no guarantee that the compiled code in the box is the same as the purported
source code made public. Even technical experts would have a very hard time confirming this,
since the code in the box has been compiled down to machine instructions whereas the source
code is normally in a high level language.
o The process of building (compiling and linking) the code introduces myriad opportunities
for bad actors. E.g., code can include conditional sections or definitions that can be built
in various ways. The build process itself invokes other programs that themselves can be
hacked. Building also normally brings in third-party libraries of uncertain provenance, and
for which the source is typically unavailable.
o Inspecting realistic industrial software for *inadvertent* problems, called a code
review, is a big effort (many man weeks) and requires people with the requisite skills (often
arcane) and expertise in the problem domain. Inspecting code for *deliberate hacks* would be
much harder, and could well miss hacks anyway depending on the skill of the hacker.
Relying on public source code for security is a very weak reed and should be avoided
altogether if at all possible.
Fair enough. But why would proprietary code be better? I mean what stops a private vendor
from doing this, but without public oversight? I mean to say "public code" in what ever form
could be a start.
XXYY was not supporting proprietary code. I believe he was pointing out that "open source"
does not have sufficient integrity for e;ections, thus closed source (proprietary code) is
worse.
After the 2000 election, congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Among the
provisions of the bill, money was given to states and counties to upgrade their voting
systems. Most of these new systems came online in the mid 00's.
Now that it has been around a decade, the generation of machines purchased with the help
of federal money are getting long in the tooth. The average person changes their cell phone
every 2-3 years, so a touch screen machine machine over a decade old feels especially ancient
to a technophile.
There will be a trend toward paper ballots with this next generation. More states have
added tougher paper trail requirements on DRE (touch screen) voting machines. and there is a
lack of federal HAVA money available to states and counties to buy top-of-the-line DRE
machines with paper trails. Vendors for this generation are pushing hybrid systems that allow
a voter to input their choices onto a touch screen, then the machine prints out a paper
ballot which (theoretically) removes ambiguous choices and allows disabled people to vote
without assistance. But ultimately, if a jurisdiction is going to a paper system anyway, why
spend more money on expensive hybrid machines that will break down in another ten years? I
anticipate a push to paper ballots with optical scanning tabulation machines in the medium
future.
and states can – do take away driver licenses – I.D. "legally" determining who
gets to vote, by the hundreds of thousands, even over issues having nothing to do with
driving, and primarily affecting the poor:
In my town, we have big election night parties at the downtown bars while volunteers go to
the polling stations and phone back the preliminary results which are posted in the front
windows or on the front doors.
A lot of politically connected people would have trouble sleeping the night of the
election if they didn't have the results.
In my town's municipal election last week, it seems almost a tenth of voters were confused
by the design of the ballot and circled their choice rather than filling in the bubble.
Since we're in Massachusetts and all elections use Scantron ballots and tabulating
machines, any circled ballot was marked "blank" the same as ballots where no notation was
made.
A lot of people, including quite a few first-time and infrequent voters, and voters with
eyesight issues, were disillusioned by the fact that their votes would not be counted. Some
were shocked the ballots are not in fact counted by hand.
"... the DNC agreed to let the Clinton campaign control the party's finances, strategy, donations, and staffing decisions in exchange for the Clinton campaign's financial help. ..."
"... At a time when many people and many voices are calling for unity within the Democratic party, it was really disturbing to see that there was kind of a purge of party officials from both the at large committee, as well as the executive committee within the DNC. That really had one common thread of the people who were booted out of those seats that they had held. Some for decades. The commonality was that these were people who had either supported Bernie Sanders for president or supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair, or both. ..."
"... Getting rid of the non democratic superdelegates who make up one third of all of the votes cast that a nominee needs to secure the nomination, and to secure open or same day registration primaries so that again, open the doors. Let's let everybody in and get involved in the process. ..."
"... In Roger Stone's book, The Making of the President 2016 ..."
"... Every piece of what we've learned so far, unfolding over months, is as bad as or worse than we had thought: The DNC works to engineer a Clinton/Trump match-up, the combination most likely to assure a Democratic loss . It vehemently denies that it is tilted favorably toward Clinton -- which turns out to be true, in a technical sense, because it is controlled by Clinton. ..."
"... Debbie will be the sacrificial lamb. Still waiting for anyone in the mainstream to publish the name "Awan". ..."
"... she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now, beginning with leaving the DNC in protest over its unethical practices ..."
In
this Real
News Network interview , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) responds to former interim chair
Donna Brazile's revelation that the Clinton campaign had effective control of the DNC. Gabbard
was a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee until February 28, 2016, when she
resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary.
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. During the 2016 Democratic
primary, supporters of Bernie Sanders complained that the Democratic National Committee was
plagued by internal corruption, and rigging the nomination for Hillary Clinton. Well today, the
former interim chair of the DNC has come out to say exactly that. Writing for Politico, Donna
Brazile details a scheme wherein the Clinton campaign effectively took over the DNC. Facing a
major funding shortfall, the DNC agreed to let the Clinton campaign control the party's
finances, strategy, donations, and staffing decisions in exchange for the Clinton campaign's
financial help.
But, this did not happen after Clinton became the nominee. In fact, this agreement was made
in August 2015, months before a single primary vote was cast. Among many things, this meant
that the DNC was able to act as a money laundering operation for the Clinton campaign. Tens of
millions of dollars in donations to state democrats across the country ultimately was kicked
back to Clinton headquarters in Brooklyn, well, earlier I spoke to someone who has been a
prominent vocal critic of the DNC process from the start. Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard
represents Hawaii's second congressional district. She was vice chair of the DNC until February
2016 when she resigned to endorse senator Bernie Sanders. I spoke to her about Donna Brazil's
revelations. Congressmember Gabbard, welcome. Your response, what we've heard from Donna
Brazile today.
TULSI GABBARD: I was not surprised to read what she was detailing in what was printed today.
This was something that when I was vice chair of the DNC I didn't have knowledge of the
details, but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time
AARON MATÉ: I want to quote more from Donna Brazile. She writes "If the fight had
been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which
one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the
party's integrity." She's referring especially to this financial arrangement in which the
Clinton camp gives the DNC money but in exchange, the DNC hands over control of basically every
single decision. Your thoughts on that? Were you surprised by her revelation?
TULSI GABBARD: Again, this is not something I wasn't privy to the inner workings of how
these decisions were made, because at that time the decisions were really ultimately coming
from the chair of the DNC. But I had heard some concerns from folks from different state
parties actually. Executive directors and chairs and people who were involved in the grassroots
organizing and trying to again increase involvement in the process. Their concerns around this
joint fundraising agreement that Donna Brazile talked about in her article and her book was
that the funds that were being raised through this agreement were not actually benefiting the
party, but they were kind of being used as a pass through for lack of a better word. Their
concerns again were about getting more support for the work that parties do on the ground and
grassroots organizing. Turning out the vote, going and knocking on doors. Doing all the things
that happened on the ground in states all across the country. Again, this was not something
that I was terribly surprised by in reading that Donna detailed, but it's something that hasn't
been laid out in the way that she has in this way.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah. She provides a figure when it comes to the money element. She says
that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%, half of 1% got
to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the Clinton campaign.
What kind of difference do you think that made on the election outcome when it comes to
democratic efforts at the state level?
TULSI GABBARD: It's hard to say. I can't exactly quantify that. But I do know that some of
the state party officials who I had spoken to at different times during the campaign had
actually expressed these concerns and decided not to sign onto this joint fundraising agreement
for that specific reason. They saw at that point, look we're not going to be used by anyone's
campaign. If you want to talk about how to help strengthen local parties, let's have that
conversation, but this was clearly not an effort in that direction.
AARON MATÉ: You recently spoke out about some more decisions by the DNC at the
national level, in terms of their staffing of key committees. Can you comment there on what you
were most upset by, and your thoughts on what should be done?
TULSI GABBARD: At a time when many people and many voices are calling for unity within the
Democratic party, it was really disturbing to see that there was kind of a purge of party
officials from both the at large committee, as well as the executive committee within the DNC.
That really had one common thread of the people who were booted out of those seats that they
had held. Some for decades. The commonality was that these were people who had either supported
Bernie Sanders for president or supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair, or both. If the message
is that we're going to get rid of people who may have dissenting opinions, or may be calling
for different kinds of reform or retaliating for positions that they've taken this is not the
direction that the democratic party should be going in. The democratic party should be going in
the direction of openness, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, which is why I've been
calling for two major but very basic kinds of reform. Getting rid of the non democratic superdelegates who make up one third of all of the votes cast that a nominee needs to secure
the nomination, and to secure open or same day registration primaries so that again, open the
doors. Let's let everybody in and get involved in the process.
She says that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%,
half of 1% got to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the
Clinton campaign.
Great dot-connecting. Incredible irony that HRC's diversion of funds from swing states to
her high-spending campaign was one of the proximate causes of her losing the electoral
college.
Yep. Here in Maine, where the state party was part of the Victory Fund kick-back scheme,
Trump ended up winning one of the state's electoral votes (Maine allows splitting by
congressional district) -- the first time a Republican took a Maine electoral vote since
1988.
The link at the FEC was dated 9/16/15 and shows only 32 states and the Democratic Party of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Open Secrets shows 38 states eventually signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund shows 38
states (Iowa, NJ, Del, KS, NM and SD added), with each participating state a "beneficiary" of
around $3M. Nada to the Democratic Party of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537
These $3M expenditures pale to Hillary for America ($120,822,326), DNC Services Corp
($55,639,930), Bully Pulpit Interactive ($40,881,995), and Chapman, Cubine et al
($25,432,057).
Incidentally, I was not able to track these funds at the Oregon Secretary of State with
Orestar, the online tool to search campaign finances. As I looked closely at the filings, it
appears the FEC requires expenditures by (not contributions to) the Democratic Party of
Oregon to federal political committees be recorded. I only see ~$275K contributed back
(aggregated expenditures) to "Democratic Party of Oregon Federal Account" and "Democratic
Party of Oregon Forward Oregon Transfer Down Acct." in the 2015 and 2016 calendar years
(though an additional $123,404.48 has gone to Democratic Party of Oregon Federal Account in
2017).
"Open Secrets shows 38 states eventually signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund shows 38
states (Iowa, NJ, Del, KS, NM and SD added) "
Oh, so that's why the KS Dem party officials claimed they couldn't afford $20k for
a mailer for Thompson in the KS-04 special election race this spring . A race he almost won,
without that help!
So for Wisconsin at least, it is not true that the state party made anything (even half of
1 percent) from the "joint" fundraising. Clinton took all but $4700 of the proceeds AND took
another $282,000 from the state party.
She says that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%,
half of 1% got to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the
Clinton campaign.
Just like Charles Koch, she just wanted her fair share; all of it.
Tell me please, how is this different from republican efforts to exterminate Obama Care by
de-funding every bit of its supporting infrastructure?
Whether it was Hilary's intent to exterminate the Democratic party or not, the effect
seems quite similar.
At first, I didn't think that he was anything more than your classic identity politician.
Then I needed constituent service. Matter of fact, I needed it a couple of times. Let me tell
you, his staff aced it. They were that good.
As far as I am concerned, Raul has my vote for as long as he wants to stay in office.
Finally one shoe has dropped. The second one about to drop is that the DNC emails were not
hacked by Russia in any capacity, directly or indirectly by the Kremlin, whatever. They were
most probably leaked. HRC started the Russia hysteria when she called President Trump a
pupped of Putin in one of the debates. This is only one small example of her manipulative
arrogance.
Every piece of what we've learned so far, unfolding over months, is as bad as or
worse than we had thought: The DNC works to engineer a Clinton/Trump match-up, the
combination most likely to assure a Democratic loss . It vehemently denies
that it is tilted favorably toward Clinton -- which turns out to be true, in a technical
sense, because it is controlled by Clinton.
The establishment Democrats accuse
Sanders of not working for down-ballot Democrats while the DNC is siphoning money from the
states to help Clinton's campaign. "Maintaining ties to Wall Street makes economic
sense for Democrats and keeps their coffers full," one "pollster and senior political adviser
to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000" helpfully assures us two weeks ago in the NYT , except when it
doesn't, such as when Donna Brazile discovers, to her horror, that the party is, fact, broke,
probably due, in no small part, to paying consultants -- like the one writing in the
Times -- whose expertise has led the
decimation of the party. (And, on top of all that, the DNC, professing "unity," purges
long-time members who supported Bernie Sander or Keith Ellison and appoints anti-minimum wage
lobbyist Dan Halpern to the Finance Committee.)
Every part of the story turns out to be a colossal train wreck -- and all this
from establishment/élite types who spent the entire campaign season reminding everyone
else that they knew what was realistic, pragmatic, achievable, so on and so forth.
It's unreal, really.
" but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time"
===================================
Why does this remind me of Harvey Weinstein?
its like deja vu or something
I think we have to go back and find out who 'endorsed' Harvey. How many? And we go back, research and publish the names of those who knew, and yet still endorsed
Hillary.
To be fair to Rep. Gabbard, the excerpt published by Ms. Brazile clearly indicates that
Rep. Wasserman-Shulz (DWS) was not keeping the rest of the DNC leadership fully informed of
relevant business and financial arrangements.
If Brazile's account is accurate, the question arises, why did the DNC board tolerate that
situation for so long, given their legal responsibilities? Given the anomalous behavior by
DWS, you have to wonder how the DNC board could have been comfortable in their roles, and why
action wasn't taken against DWS earlier. That leads one to a suspicion is that there was an
outside force supporting (controlling?) DWS and intimidating the others.
Ah yes, but Brazile's account is a self-serving CYA attempt to get ahead of a story that
was obvious as it was happening to anyone paying attention 18 months ago. Notice no mention
of passing debate questions from CNN to Clinton ahead of time. It undercuts your "bombshell"
if you have to say "it was rigged and I helped"
Debbie will be the sacrificial lamb. Still waiting for anyone in the mainstream to publish
the name "Awan".
Nearly a year after the Nov 2016 general election, this issue is finally beginning to be
elevated. Senator Elizabeth Warren also responded affirmatively to a question about whether
some primary elections were rigged against Sanders on PBS Newshour yesterday evening.
Somewhat related in terms of the scramble to get ahead of the Den estab breakdown: In an interesting coincidence the recent meeting of the AFL-CIO saw labor leaders say it's
time to stop automatically giving Dems support.
"The time has passed when we can passively settle for the lesser of two evils," reads
the main political resolution passed Tuesday by delegates. Lee Saunders, chair of the
AFL-CIO's political committee and president of AFSCME (link is external), and Randi
Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (link is external), introduced
the resolution. They lead the labor federation's two largest unions. Convention managers
yoked the resolution to another measure it also approved discussing a labor party, though not
by name. "
Many AFT members were very unhappy (understatement) when Weingarten announced support for
Hillary without first polling members. AFT lost a lot of members over that. I'm not sure this
isn't a PR scramble by labor leaders to keep their jobs, instead of any real change in
outlook. But it's an interesting data point about the current state-of-play.
AFT member here. I was livid about the sham endorsement "process" that happened; it was
rushed through, months before the first contest, with absolutely no consultation from the
rank and file. Weingarten's infamous text messages about the National Nurses Union basically solidified
for me that she's nothing but pond scum. She's not a teacher, she's an attorney. And clearly,
not a very clever one, at that. I am obligated to be an AFT member, and if I were only to
become a "partial" member I'd still be paying about 88% of the dues anyway. I still support
my AFT local.
The national AFT and its pathetic misleadership can go to hell.
If it's any consolation, your situation appears to be the norm with the long-established
unions. Their clearly-stated bias aside, the World Socialist Web Site covers labor disputes
and has shown over and over that the mainstream unions have sold their rank-and-file out.
Ironically, just this week I read where an activist group has done some major housecleaning
at the Teamsters -- and it only took them 41 years.
During the primary, the outrage among SEIU members when their Fearless Leader not only
announced for HRC but tried to pretend it was "what our people want" by posting to Facebook
photos of a half-dozen blue-shirted members heading out to knock on doors. It didn't go over
well.
Did Senator Warren admit that her refusal to endorse Bernie was bought by the Hillary
Victory Fund? In other words, does this indicate that the great fighter against Wall Street
corruption was bought off by Wall Street?
Was Massachusetts one of the participating states? She wouldn't have made any friends
there exposing the money-laundering, if so. And had Clinton beaten the odds and won, she
would have been toast, especially given she has a huge target on her back painted by the GOP.
The Clintons notoriously hold grudges, and have long memories.
The Margot Kidder piece in Counterpunch linked to in Montanamaven's
comment lists 31 of the 33 participating states. Massachusetts is one of them. (It's not
clear which are the other two states or why they aren't listed.)
I remember reading these things back then, and trying to forward them to HillBots I knew.
Without exception I was poo-poo'ed as a
tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorist-berniebro-whiner-misogynist-right-wing-conspiracy-member.
I'd love to say 'I told you so' to those peeps, but most of them are now fully occupied
looking under their beds for Russkis. :/
Not that I know Joseph Cannon, but check out his Cannonfire site .hysteric hysteria, deny,
RUSSKIS!, Brazile is a liar!!!, deny again, MORE RUUUUSSSKKKIIIIS!!!
to me it seems to be the 'I'm With Her' version of a Trumpsters pizzagate rantings .I
dunno, maybe I am missing something and my brain has already been washed and taken over by
Cyrillic Control Mechanisms
I read about this on Politico yesterday. Donna Brazile? This is the lady who leaked debate
topics to Clinton and was fired from CNN, right? It makes you wonder why she is writing about
this now. Opportunism in order to sell books? Revenge on Clinton? Or does she sense the wind
changing direction in the Democratic party?
Personally I think Donna Brazile, via her story and book, is trying get her version out as
she probably knows the Clinton Mafia will throw her under the bus as this story is finally
getting legs..with or without Donna Brazile's revelations.
As I've noted before her name is Mud with CNN, noone wants her to be a talking head. And
Clinton can no longer shelter her. What does she have left but airing the dirty laundry and
hoping for a payout?
Donna Brazile is wrong that this was not illegal, but only unethical. The Hillary Victory
Fund was set up to evade the campaign financing laws. There is a legal limit on how much an
individual can give to a candidate. Hillary's big donors had reached those limits. She
directed her donors who had exceeded the legal limits on direct contributions to her to give
to the DNC and state parties with the agreement that those entities would funnel the money
back to her.
That would seem to me to be evidence of intent to violate the law.
RICO? Would seem the big donors had to know what they were doing as well. But then I
recall the recent lawsuit where the party claimed it could do anything and the judge
agreed.
There is just no good reason for a party to operate in such a manner. Complete financial
transparency in real time whilst functioning in a democratic process among binding terms with
real membership seems to be the least people should expect.
All of which is why I am a member/participant of no party and find the process
illegitimate across the board. It really does come back to it's not just if you win or lose,
but how it's played.
" If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before
the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act
." -- Donna Brazile
I, too, beg to differ. Naturally a perp doesn't see their own twisted actions as
criminal.
But the basic principle behind campaign finance laws is transparency. Both the D and R
parties receive extensive direct and in-kind government financing, such as the free primary
elections which states run on their behalf. Consequently they are obliged to provide an
accurate accounting of funds received and paid.
Does anyone think Robert "Torquemada" Mueller couldn't indict both Hillary and Donna
Brazile on a whole laundry list of federal offenses, if he were actually looking for gross
electoral wrongdoing?
Re "Naturally a perp doesn't see their own twisted actions as criminal."
Remember Brazile is famous for complaining that people were trying to "criminalize
behavior that is normal", when they complained about the blatant pay-to-play behavior
revealed during the election.
Slightly off topic: The neolib Dem estab has just discovered – much to their
surprise, no doubt – that's it's one thing to run the neoliberal economic playbook on
the deplorables, but quite another thing to run the neoliberal playbook on their own
establishment's finances and organization, each for their own personal benefit.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit because federal court wasn't, in his opinion, the proper
channel for seeking redress, not because he agreed with the DNC's assertion it wasn't
required to abide by its charter.
"But not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC's charter or heard the statements
they now claim are false before making their donations. And not one of them alleges that they
took action in reliance on the DNC's charter or the statements identified in the First
Amended Complaint (DE 8). Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing."
People who knew and did not speak, would they be accessories?
From Wikipedia:
Knowledge of the crime[edit]
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had
actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there
must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the
criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses
a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory
offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.
I believe you are most correct & thanks for altering the direction of the
comments.
The support for Sanders was a resonate echo of
support many of us felt for President Jimmy Carter.
How far we have traveled is well acknowledged when you see that Sanders lost.
For the purposes of the Naked Capitalism readers, who are studying how real money is
captured & used by the Jet Setter Classes, here we have a Politico so entrenched
her Unit used coercion & tricks to take for themselves all of the main tool, money,
required to make the Democratic Party a real Party.
(I refuse to see Hillary Clinton as the First Woman Nominated for the Presidency, &
consider her & her husband Bill, the Clinton Unit.)
I do chalk it up to the Clinton Unit's long & destructive influence as law makers &
breakers. What the Unit is about is clear when you look at their history in Haiti. We are to
get the leadership & economy same as the Haitians get.
The leak that in many cases there was no sincere link at all between what Clinton Unit II
said, and what she really believed & intended, meant we were to get another cipher.
"Look out kid/They keep it all hid. -Bob Dylan, comes to mind.
After Obama it is clear that the Democratic Party is and will be in the pocket of the
pirate parasites of the US Financial System.
The revolution has to take place below the jet setter classes stranglehold on who writes
the checks for what. (I'd be interested in knowing how much of whose money paid for the
Clinton Unit's Boeing.)
In the end we as a bunch of honest people who like justice in that form it takes in the
day to day demonstration of good ethical moorings, liked how Sanders got the money for his
campaign.
The Clinton Unit by taking money from down ballot candidates crippled the necessary
revolution being attempted by those actually fighting to strengthen the nation.
Is there a large and notable set of organized people who vote, lining up behind Tulsi
Gabbard as the next Great Hope of the Mope (GHOTM)? Able and willing to go to the mat for
her? Trusting that she is not just another screen on which people can project their
images?
Got to have leaders, don't we? Because most of us just go along, go along, go along But
leaders are just other flawed humans, so easy to corrupt and failing that, to remove from the
game board by other means Too bad the Occupy model, whatever that actually was/is, seems not
to work effectively, especially against the organized on the other side of the crowd-control
technologies
I don't think people learned/practiced an occupy model for the most part. Folk were
expected to bite off more than they could chew in due haste. Remember the media immediately
asking what are your demands before people could figure out wtf was going on beyond we are
the 99 percent? Establishing a new practice was of course difficult to do while wondering if
you would be busted for just being there. Like the problems with parties people just keep
rolling with what they know (top-down), hammering their familiar square peg in a round hole
– rather than attempt/establish new process.
We really have no idea what a democratic process looks like.
Trusting that she is not just another screen on which people can project their
images?
Always a valid concern, but she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now,
beginning with leaving the DNC in protest over its unethical practices.
And also, it's not up to her, is it? That screen thing is not about what she is, it's
about what people do. On a practical level, that move that Gabbard decries -- killing off
local party organizations -- is truly a step the wrong way. Real citizens have more to do
than just project their images.
she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now, beginning with leaving
the DNC in protest over its unethical practices
That isn't why Tulsi Gabbard resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.
She resigned because the person in that position is supposed to remain neutral in
presidential primaries, and she decided she wanted to publicly endorse Sanders.
In other words, she was following the party rules. This separates her from all those DNC
officers who stayed on board while putting their thumbs on the scale for Clinton.
In order to survive, you have to trust SOMEBODY! Whom do you trust JT? I get what you are
saying and agree 100%, but what next? I think that is the meaning of accountability. You have
to trust someone and make that trust the basis for your life. Screw me over and you are out.
Mopes are mopes because they keep placing their trust in the wrong place or for whatever
social reason, don't have an option.
The twisted logic of Margaret Thatchers now famous line-" there is no society", is a case
in point. The entire quote is,"I think we've been through a period where too many people have
been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with
it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.'
They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything
except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after
ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too
much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone
has first met an obligation."
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the champions of Neoliberalism and the recasting of
the Divine right of Kings as a means of ordering society. The Market is Supreme, the Noble
Families (Corporations and Insiders, the 10%, are in direct communion with the divine, and
the rest of us need to worship and obey. We have no power because we have not earned it. It
is a recasting of the Feudal order. But what she fails to articulate is the obligation of the
system to the people? In her ideology, there is no reciprocal obligation. The systems owes
nothing. It is a system where the powerful hold control and the subjects are held in check by
blind faith.
Thatcher is right for the wrong reasons. Trust starts with the family and successful,
healthy families have a better chance of surviving over time due to the natural support they
provide. But she takes for granted, or is totally blinded by her own history. The Feudal
order failed for a reason. It breeds war and corruption. It thrived on ignorance and
violence. Offer a different vision, and the power center shifts.
Leadership is important as everyone knows. With proper leadership, much is possible.
Leadership is achieved when guided by some vision or goal. Is it any wonder why individuals
that can communicate a vision of brotherhood and solidarity are killed or marginalized by
Authoritarians? Where collectivism is shunned at every turn. How the meaning of family values
is cynically turned on its head.
Obligation is right. What is screwed up is how obligations have been distorted, and
continue to be distorted in a capitalist system. If you believe in social evolution, then the
strength of the family unit can serve as the fundamental immortal unit that provides the
basis for continued human existence. It is a buffer against the excesses of the capitalist
system. It is the source from which positive change will come. Support the family unit by
guaranteeing affordable housing, healthcare, and work. A basic income firmly grounded in
social contribution. What institutions are left that have not been corrupted by the
Neoliberal disease?
The problem making inroads is that the current political power still thinks this is a
game. It is not. The first duty for people who desire a better world for themselves, their
families, and their future generations need to see the obligation to protect the commons,
their families being the basic unit connected to a larger whole.
By destroying the middle class, capitalists have sown the seeds of their own destruction.
How many people are willingly going to walk into bondage? The promise of Neoliberalism is
failing and the mopes/masses know it- they live it. They just don't know where to turn. It is
a slow motion grinding into dust.
Communities are begging for relief. The organizations that need to be constructed are ones
that allow people to extend themselves out into the world and take risks, at the same time,
providing them with the assurance and concrete reality that if they fail, there is a place or
institution that will not let them perish. Capitalists buy loyalty. Individuals in their club
always fail upwards. No one is EVER left behind.
There is nothing to prevent other groups from achieving that same sense of solidarity
except fear.
The same is true of the Republican party -- nationally it's owned by the Koch brothers and
other billionaires, and locally, pretty much the same. Neither organization is going away in
the near future.
The most powerful aspect of the last election cycle is the eye opening role that money
plays in politics. Everyone knows the fundamental influence money has, but the false
narrative that has been acting for decades was finally turned on its head. Namely, that large
sums of money are needed to compete in the political process and only by funneling that
capital flow into the pockets of corporate entities can anything get done. Sanders campaign
proved without a doubt that self financing is possible and money alone is not enough to carry
victory. Its who controls that money, and what can be done with it, are the important
factors. Money didn't win the election for Trump, corruption did.
The lies and crookedness of the existing power structure has been laid bare and only the
completely uninformed still believe it or are directly paid off by the process. No wonder
silence and an outside forces- RUSSIA- must be deployed. There is nothing left to mask the
class warfare. This process reminds me of rats fleeing a sinking ship, and good riddance-
they all need to drown or just scatter away into obscurity.
But until those money flows can be directed towards the commons, the corruption will not
be driven out of our society. Democracy will die.
The silence and obfuscation on these important developments just highlight the crisis
capitalism, as a system, is facing and how the existing political structure is incapable of
dealing with the problem. The level of corruption is the problem, along with the extent lies
and misinformation are needed to maintain control. It is dysfunctional.
Once again, the rallying cry is for a social guarantee. A guarantee for work, healthcare,
housing, and a basic standard of living. Neoliberalism says no to all the above. Their
worldview is that there are no guarantees. Only competition where the strong prevail and the
weak perish. Boiled down once again to the fight between socialism and capitalism. Third way
politics is no longer functional. Hard choices must be made.
But what is the source of that power? Physical strength? Intellect? Mind control- the
ability to convince others? All of the above? The mind returns to social evolution. Forces
trying to maintain the status quo and counter forces seeking to alter the system. The
constant tension of forces exerting pressure until something gives. The faults and cracks are
everywhere. What holds it together is the peoples willingness to exert pressure where they
are directed to by their leadership. There is a crisis of leadership.
Finally, people are waking up to the notion that following crooks and thieves does not
make their lives better or secure. The nation needs leaders who are not cynical opportunists,
here in America and around the world. As the Trump administration makes painfully obvious,
America's standing in the world diminishes in proportion to its level of naked corruption. We
have become that which we professed we were against. The next true Revolution must be that
Scoundrels cannot run the world. Yea, I know Utopia. But if you can't dream about Utopia what
do humans have? All that comes to mind is a capitalist nightmare. ( As seen from the
Bottom)
Just as the Soviet Union collapsed in a breathtaking short time, the Rube Goldberg
construction that is todays capitalist system might meet the same speedy end. Just as the old
guard soviet apparatchiks held on for dear life, supporting a known failed experiment due to
their privileged position, if feels like the capitalist system is headed for a similar fate.
A quick, catastrophic failure instead of a slow, incremental adjustment. A failure brought
about form outside forces and the system not being able to deal or cope.
Donna Brazile can now make money revealing how she and the Democratic party screwed over
working people in this country and lied to the constituency she was supposed to serve. If
this helps people understand how they are fundamentally mislead, if only indirectly and
unintended, all the better. Its NOT about the money alone, it shows what the cynical
manipulation of money makes you become.
Re "Once again, the rallying cry is for a social guarantee. A guarantee for work,
healthcare, housing, and a basic standard of living. Neoliberalism says no to all the above.
Their worldview is that there are no guarantees. Only competition where the strong prevail
and the weak perish."
One cannot get a government controlled by special interests and large corporations to
provide social guarantees that are worth a damn and won't be corrupted. Indeed, the heart of
the problem is that the New Deal guarantees and post-Depression regulations (e.g.
Glass-Steagall), or even the earlier antitrust laws, have all been eroded.
There is a historical American worldview, not neoliberal, but also not "Third Way", in
which there are no Big Brother guarantees, yet there is strong social protection of those in
need. It contains a greater level of self-reliance, in the sense that one does not place
one's hope in corruptible governments as the solution. And yet not self-reliance, because it
trusted in neighbors to help neighbors. And it also renounces personal greed as a prime
motivator. The pioneers had this worldview – self reliance with a recognition of a
common interest, and thus a moral duty, leading to a willingness to help others, building an
entire nation, one barn raising party at a time, so that their children would have a better
life.
I am no historian, but gut experience informs me that what you are talking about is a true
American sentiment. The desire for individual freedom struggling simultaneously to forge a
lasting social bond with your fellow countrymen. At its heart, our nation was formed in the
embrace of a contradiction. The promise of freedom connected to the chains of bondage. The
age old dilemma of the rights of the rulers over the ruled. Freedom was sought above all else
and the historical opportunity presented itself for a great experiment. Open land available
for occupation, far from a ruling power, devoid of a powerful local social force.
The delusion, and betrayal, is the fact that reconciling this contradiction is no longer
the driving force of American politics. Neoliberal ideology has short circuited the political
system- on should we say, perfected it in that the ruling elite in America never intended to
share power with the unwashed masses. With the destruction of a functioning two party system,
even the pretense cannot be upheld any longer. Without a viable opposition party, the power
of private property can do as it pleases- and is doing it.
In America, we just had lots of space to spread out into and put off the day of reckoning.
Well, that day has arrived.
You mention barn raising, but that is an Amish tradition, to my limited understanding, the
Amish rejected American culture and wished to separate themselves from the broader culture to
ensure that their values could be preserved. It is an honest attempt to live christian
values. They are a-political and want to be left alone. I can't say much for other christian
denominations other than they are connected at the hip to capitalist values. That is not
working out so well on a cognitive dissonance level.
The cooperation that you speak of is more along socialist lines. And once again on an
intuitive level, most sane and healthy human beings, this is their normal state. The default
desire is to aid a person in need or to take satisfaction from assisting your neighbor
instead of abusing them. This natural human desire is prevented from becoming embodied in a
political force because that would spell the end to individual opulence, and we can't have
that. Charity is acceptable, a natural state of care and social equality is unacceptable.
The question is can you have a secular society that is dedicated to human care? Or a
theocratic society that does not become bogged down in religious dogma. American Democracy
seemed to point in that direction but appears to have stalled out due to resistance and lack
of trying.
Big Brother guarantees is code language for destroying the social responsibilities
embodied in New Deal legislation. Functioning Democracy is supposed to protect from
corruption by being able to vote the crooks out. This becomes impossible when the crooks take
control of the government and citizens are convinced that their government itself is the
problem. You have the revolving door policy that we see today. National government captured
by special interests.
Until a two-pronged attack can be instituted on a large scale- communities taking care of
one another along with demand for honest representation by the government, only small scale
resistance will be possible. Evil and hardship will prevail.
As far as a greater level of self-reliance and not placing all one's hopes in corruptible
governments I definitely think that's what the radical labor movement aimed at, a lot of
bottom up left movements do, just have limited power these days. This is fighting back to
reclaim the wealth the 1% (or 1% of the 1%) have captured.
Charity likely doesn't even work with such inequality for several reasons: Although you
can always give a dollar to a homeless person, charity fails to do that much good when almost
all of the wealth in a society is controlled by fewer and fewer people to a greater and
greater degree. A bunch of paupers can only do so much in helping each other (except in
trying to fight to reclaim the wealth from the 1% of the 1%). They can't do much else when
the very few control the businesses, the agriculture, own most of the property and use their
charity (Bill Gate's charity as it were) as a means of control (whatever little good it may
or may not also do).
Has this happened in other elections? Is this a first? The counterpart of this story is
the nuts and bolts of how the U.S. press is controlled by various interests.
This is a story which should not disappear down the memory hole.
" This was something that when I was vice chair of the DNC I didn't have knowledge of the
details, but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time"
Boy, is there a big question mark hanging over THAT. Apparently she didn't respond to the
rumors by asking impertinent questions. And if the vice-chair didn't know who really owned
the joint, it was a purely ornamental office. Rather like Ellison's now.
Brazile said in her Politico article that even she had a hard time finding out what was
going on. She said she couldn't even issue a press release without an okay from Brooklyn.
I knew the cat was in the bag the moment nearly all of the super delegates publicly
supported Hillary Clinton before a single primary was held. (Are you listening, Sen. Shumer?)
I also knew it had to be a quid pro quo because it was obvious they were doing it for
campaign money for their re-elections. A lot of this appeared in print long before Donna
Brazile "discovered" the affirming document. This, and the way Bernie supporters were treated
at the convention, is why I will never give the DNC a penny.
Tulsi seemed a bit tongue tied on some questions in her position and not knowing what was
going on? Not credible to me.
She gets credit for quitting and endorsing Bernie, and big credit for anti war, but she does
not have history as a progressive, though moving in that direction.
Similarly Liz is no progressive irrespective of anti bank position, though similarly inching
in that direction.
Both want to move up, seem to be sensing changing winds.
If Bernie runs, who would he pick? Both usefully female, but neither brings any ev's he won't
get anyway. Tulsi brings looks and youth and she endorsed Liz better at treasury, and she
might be happy there.
I think Liz would be a great Treasury Secretary. As for Bernie's VP pick, I think that
Tulsi would, ahem, appeal to a certain portion of our male electorate.
I also think that he could also do well by choosing Nina Turner as his VP. Unlike Tulsi,
whose oratorical style puts me to sleep, Nina knows how to sign, seal, and DELIVER a
speech.
Gabbard is a co-sponsor of all 4, and Jayapal is a co-sponsor of all but HR1587. I believe
you that Gabbard isn't always progressive, but she does pretty well most of the time, and
(for now) she's better than Jayapal on the very dangerous issue of antibiotic overuse.
I don't know people taking positions on things that aren't likely to pass isn't all that.
Ok if enough Dems were on board and they controlled congress or some Reps were AND they had a
president who wouldn't veto then maybe Medicare for All etc. Even getting enough Dems on
board to pass it even if they had the majority is a long way from where we are now.
However a constitutional amendment is in a whole other category of unlikely than that as
the requirement to get one passed are super majorities we are never going to see. So some of
the former may be difficult and mostly grandstanding at this point, but I really regard the
last as impossible.
Another way to take a public position is to refuse to co-sponsor high profile bills such
as these. People in the PACs notice if a member of Congress co-sponsors something that they
don't like, or if the member chooses to avoid co-sponsoring it.
Of course none of these bills will pass in the current Congress. However, it is important
to get some momentum for them so that they will have a greater chance in future Congresses,
and co-sponsorship is a way to generate some of that momentum.
HR676 has been introduced in every Congress since 2003, and this is the first Congress in
which it has gained more than 100 co-sponsors. HR1587 has also been introduced since 2003,
although it has always had a different bill number. Its number of co-sponsors has gone up and
down.
Perhaps too many people are paying too much attention to Trump's twitter account, and not
enough attention to the wonkish reality of how bills can become laws. People need to push
their Representatives to support these bills.
DNC has long stood for Democratic National CLUB not Committee. Under Perez, I see little
evidence of movement toward a "democratic" "committee." This is not about Anti-Sanders it is
apparently about maintaining Clintonism when the electorate wants more progressivism. DNC is
pushing many of us to vote for a qualified Republican over a Clintonite Democrat. That is
very stupid – very sad.
Good laws make a good society, bad laws make a bad society. Good people make better laws
than bad people.
All people are good, but some do more bad, sure, go ahead and think of it that way.
I only get to vote for people.
"The Democrats, the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to
talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with
economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." Steve Bannon
It's not often your opponent does you the favor of telling you why you are losing. I
pissed away some money on the Democrats last election (not because I liked Hillary; I just
despise Trump). What I got for my money was four or five emails a day asking for more money.
That and the ignominious, gut-wrenching loss. Many of the emails were from Donna Brazile and
almost all of them were about identity politics issues, usually tsk-tsk'ing some nasty thing
Trump said about one group or another. I remember thinking how dumb this was. They already
had the identity politics voters and getting them to turn out was going to be a ground game
play. While they sang to their choir, Trump and Bannon were out energizing an aggrieved white
middle and working class, which could have been Hillary's. Non-stop ads with Trump's ugly
face on the screens of Pennsylvania and Ohio saying "you're fired" would have been good.
Every time the Democrats waxed indignant about an identity issue, they lost some more
aggrieved white voters, who took the message as further confirmation that the Dems really
didn't care about them and their problems. Trump walked right in. Comey's timing, the
Russians, etc all mattered, but net net the Democrats gave Trump the win. The top of their
organization is full of people who seem to be better at identity politics than anything else,
except maybe backstabbing. They're crap at strategy.
I strongly encourage those who have Democratic friends and relatives to be sure that those
friends and relatives have seen the article by Donna Brazile. Don't be afraid to be a pest
(although I do recommend politeness). Many of those friends and relatives will be voting in
primaries next year, and they need to know what is happening in the Democratic party.
It doesn't just indict Hillary, although that is what gets the focus, it is a condemnation
of Obama as well for leaving the Dem party in so much debt. So Obama as well sacrificed the
Dem party for his own campaign. By slightly different means (running up debt rather than
funneling money) but to the same end. What a self-seeking bunch, to the destruction of even
their own party, the Dem top ticket has been (yea cheeto is no better, but that's it's own
thing).
DNC Bylaws state that the Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national
officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and
evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process.
Since that obviously didn't happen, I would assert that Hillary being the Democrat nominee
is null and void.
When they rig an election, everyone participates in the election (voting or running) is a
victim.
Even people watching it become victimized (like the quiz shows in the 1950s, TV viewers
were victims).
(So, you, me and all the other guys had the primary election stolen.)
And if Donna Brazile tells you it's rigged, it's not up to you, but up to all of us, to
absorb the insider information (you can't withhold all those secret details) and to decide on
the verdict.
"The victory fund agreement was signed in August 2015 and widely reported during the
course of the campaign, amplifying the friction between Sanders and the DNC that had already
been fueled by disagreements over the primary debate schedule and access to the party's voter
database."
oh well then nothing to see here, let's just go back to bashing russia.
Wasn't Brazile the one who said that while the DNC is supposed to be neutral, she was
working on behalf of Clinton over Bernie? So as we all knew, then and now, grifters gotta
grift and Brazile is no better than anyone else at the DNC who keeps failing upwards and
being rewarded for her part in the grift.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
Posted by BeauHD
on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @03:00AM from the nick-of-time dept. Following the
DefCon demonstration in July that showed how quickly Direct Recording Electronic voting equipment
could be hacked, Virginia's State Board of Elections has
decided it wants to replace their electronic voting machines in time for the gubernatorial election
due on November 7th, 2017.
According to The Register, "The decision was
announced in the minutes of the Board's September 8th meeting: 'The Department of Elections officially
recommends that the State Board of Elections decertify all Direct Recording Electronic (DRE or touchscreen)
voting equipment."
From the report: With the DefCon bods showing some machines shared a single hard-coded password,
Virginia directed the Virginia Information Technology Agency (VITA) to audit the machines in use
in the state (the Accuvote TSX, the Patriot, and the AVC Advantage).
None passed the test. VITA told the board "each device analyzed exhibited material risks to
the integrity or availability of the election process," and the lack of a paper audit trail
posed a significant risk of lost votes.
Local outlet The News Leader
notes that many precincts had either replaced their machines already, or are in the process of
doing so. The election board's decision will force a change-over on the 140 precincts that haven't
replaced their machines, covering 190,000 of Virginia's ~8.4m population.
"... In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true -- that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent, ..."
"... The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton's favor, but the court's authority to intervene in a court of law is limited. ..."
"... "The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party's nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction." ..."
In June 2016, a
class
action lawsuit
was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former
DNC
Chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential
primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid
admitted
in July 2016, ""I knew!everybody knew!that this was not a fair deal." He added
adding that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The
lawsuit
was filed to push the
DNC
to
admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially
with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.
On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch,
dismissed
the lawsuit
after several months of litigation in which
DNC
attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to rig primaries and select
their own candidate. "
In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their
allegations are true -- that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton
and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,
" the court order dismissing the
lawsuit stated.
The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. "The Court must now decide
whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly
impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair's conduct!the keys to entering
federal court. The Court holds that they have not." The court added that it did not consider
this within its jurisdiction. "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing
'only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'"
The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton's favor, but the
court's authority to intervene in a court of law is limited.
"The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the
Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It
assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they
devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party's nomination and opposing other
Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while
publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore
concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction."
At this time, it's unclear if the attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit, Jared and
Elizabeth Beck, will pursue other legal recourse regarding the 2016 Democratic primaries.
"... Chairperson, the designated Vice Chair as provided for in Article Two, Section 12(b) of the Bylaws, or the next highest ranking officer of the National Committee present at the meeting shall preside. Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation asmay be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process. ..."
In June of 2016 Jared and Elizabeth Beck filed a lawsuit in Florida against the DNC, (Wilding
v.s. DNC Services Corporation) known mostly online as the #DNCFRAUDLAWSUIT. The case has
slowly wound its way through the courts but has picked up steam in 2017 as court transcripts
and allegations of intimidation have become public.
The plaintiffs have filed a class action suit on behalf of three classes of people,
arguing that the DNC must return all donations given in the 2016 cycle to Bernie Sanders
Donors, DNC Donors and Democrats in general. Why? They claim the DNC defrauded donors in the
2016 primary by failing to remain neutral during the contest. Article 5 section 4 of the
DNC bylaws state
s:
CHARTER
Chairperson, the designated Vice Chair as provided for in Article Two, Section 12(b)
of the Bylaws, or the next highest ranking officer of the National Committee present at the
meeting shall preside. Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall
receive such compensation asmay be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the
Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of
the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct
of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and
evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be
responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National
Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential
nominating process.
Beck and Beck cite the hacked emails from Wikileaks as evidence of Democratic Party
leaders tampering with the primary process.
(facebook.com)
286
Posted by msmash
on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:01PM
from the
stranger-things
dept.
On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's
Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer
science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign
should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election
.
Later he wrote, "Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the
results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation
is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was
hacked. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely
explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new
publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on
Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former
Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we
still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why
still the case for paper ballots is strong
. From the article:
Halderman
also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that
senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases
in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic
National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not
attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to
anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian
state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading
fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just
ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his
own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling
that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start
kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following
Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the
Russian government interfered with election results. There is little
disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely,
by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all
results be audited, as they already are in some states including California.
Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens
next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.
As the Worm Turns!
For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them
against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!
Since recounts that overturn the vote totals seem unlikely, it appears the Clinton
campaign's Plan B is to use any evidence of tampering that it can pin on Russia to
lobby electors to change their votes to Clinton when the Electoral College meets in
state capitals on Dec. 19.
Finding evidence of hacking of election computers that can somehow be blamed on
Russia could be crucial for the Clinton team in their effort to convince electors to
change their vote.
Laurence Tribe, a well-known and connected Democratic lawyer, has offered to
defend pro bono any elector who breaks the law by changing their vote to Clinton. And
there are plans to mount a constitutional challenge against the 26 states that
legally bind the electors' to their state's popular vote.
Jill Stein's willingness to provide cover for 'the Russians hacked the election'
recounts is interesting ...
Exhibit A in Stein's petition is an affidavit from Professor J. Alex Halderman, a
professor of computer science at the University of Michigan, who alleges that Russia
hacked the election.
Exhibit B from Stein's petition is an article from Wired Magazine about Russia's
alleged role in the hack.
Exhibit C is a New York Times article quoting DellSecureWorks, a private security
firm, saying Russia was behind the hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Exhibits D through G - meaning all of Stein's exhibits - are on alleged Russian
hacking. One article is about an alleged attempted Russian hack of the 2014,
post-coup Ukrainian election.
... although I think it unlikely that 'the Russians hacked the election' it does look
likely that the authors of that 'meme' managed to get Jill Stein to carry their water
for them. Why did she do that? Did she even read the petition - that drew $7 million in
funding overnight - before signing it? What does it say about her if she didn't? What
does it say about her if she did?
What does it say about her that she went for such a lose-lose proposition?
Can an actual run on the electoral college be in the works? Can that be the
'reasoning' behind Jeff Bezos' ProPornoTeam?
Correct. Many of the people (me included) who voted Green for obvious anti-Clinton reasons
were also very suspicious of Trump. So Green made sense. But all of these people now feel utterly
betrayed by Stein's greed or fronting for the Clintons. Why no New Hampshire recount? So good
job Stein, you just destroyed the only credible left alternative while the Dems are mortally wounded
on the their left flank and the Clinton mob are taking resumes for a new sheepdog to get the wayward
Sandernistas back into their stinking little corner of Hillary's big tent where they belong.
...This recount is serious business. The Greens don't have the organizational aptitude or money
to have accomplished what needed to be done within days. That indicates that Democrats/Clinton
cronies are behind this. And
the Clinton press corps have been engaged as well.
Now Stein has allowed the dems to buy her ass, one has to wonder -
why? Debs is dead at 60.
Because carreerism, because her position was always to get ahead in a major
party (not Repub. obviously), to capitalise on her popularity.
Many Greens are like that all over the OECD world. They get 'splinter support',
often quite high in votes, using seductive discourse, to then join the Top Brass
promoting "renewables" using all kinds of inclusive and enviro-friendly, vague but
marginal, leftist discourse, avoiding the 'economy' and 'real numbers' and for
that matter deeper politics e.g. "sustainable communities" , "sharing", "grass
roots initiatives", "husbanding energy", "respecting traditional ways of life",
"integrating people", "developping solar", "promoting electric cars" and
forbidding plastic bags, etc. etc.
The powerful party apparatus integrates them as a 'voice' for whatever is the
gout-du-jour memes and everyone, including the dominant energy conglomerates are
all happy. The person earns potentially well a lot.
Sorry to be so cynical and negative but I have seen Greens do this time and
time again.
I don't hate or dislike Jill Stein. Just, that is the general trend and from
what I have seen (maybe superficial) she is not different from the mold.
"... I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines. ..."
"... The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots. ..."
"... After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size. ..."
"... What we found is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count, they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are. ..."
"... We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through around 12K ballots in about 5 hours. ..."
"... The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure that everyone's vote is actually counted. ..."
Regarding recounts, when the total vote difference is in the single digit thousands in large states
where hundreds of thousands or more votes were cast, the candidates shouldn't have to ask for a recount,
it should be mandatory*.
I've been asking my city to do a recount to verify the accuracy of the machines for several years
and was told that the state law would not allow for a recount simply for accuracy's sake (unbelievable!)
and the only way for a recount to happen would be after a close election.
Well my significant other stood for election in a city race this year, and how ironic, came within
about 50 votes of winning and we got to ask for a recount! This was an odd race where voters chose
two out of seven candidates for the two open seats. One candidate won by a clear margin and 2nd and
3rd place were separated by about 50 votes. I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when
all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and
we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were
potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time
around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines.
The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing
which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to
make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots.
We found quite a few where
people 'x'ed or drew a line through the circle rather than filling it in according to instructions
and others where people had voted for one candidate, crossed it out, and then voted for someone else.
We suspected these were the types of ballots that the machines were not able to count.
Also when
I had served as an election clerk several years ago I noticed that the ticker on the machine that
is supposed to count the number of ballots fed into it would not count a ballot if it was fed into
the machine too quickly after the previous one so this may have been another reason some ballots
didn't get counted the first time.
There were also reports on election day that some machines temporarily
malfunctioned (one had been accidentally unplugged) which may have caused other votes not to be counted.
After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually
pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what
the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size.
What we found
is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count,
they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people
simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are.
We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer
however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks
who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through
around 12K ballots in about 5 hours.
The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after
the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure
that everyone's vote is actually counted.
* Lest anyone accuse me of trying to get Clinton in, I say all of this as someone who would rather
be shot in the face by Dick Cheney than cast a ballot for any of the Clinton's or their spawn, legitimate
or otherwise.
"... Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted of election fraud, going back to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting from a single "miscalibrated" machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. ..."
[Response to Ulysses' comment] This begs the question of whether those votes were cast or counted
accurately. In my early days of learning about election fraud (particularly at the Black Box Voting.org
website and discussion threads), a topic that came up time and again was that there was extensive
history of election fraud associated with union elections. IIRC, as electronic voting machines
were being actively promoted, one of the avid supporters of using these methods was trade unions.
Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted
of election fraud, going back to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also
discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting from a single "miscalibrated"
machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. Richard Hayes
Phillips in his lectures
and book about the theft of the OH 2004 election (and thus the presidency) describes with
detail how one of the methods used was altering the punch cards or sending voters to the wrong
precinct machine, so their ballot would end up with undervotes or overvotes and not be counted.
It would be interesting to know about the election procedures for that union election, particularly
the Canadian vote. Was it on machines? Paper? How secure was the chain of custody of the ballots?
It seems to me that early voting should be abolished, voter photo ID SHOULD BE required by
law in all states.
Also to keep things as clean as possible there should be a media "NO FLY ZONE" on polling outcomes
until ALL POLLS are closed in all states.
So much wag the dog it is just disgusting.
Praying for justice.
roddcarlson -> Scuba Steve •Nov 8, 2016 1:16 PM
The early vote (aka the mail in ballots) were compromised. Right the FBI kept sacking the Dems
with mail in ballot forms, it must've been like a drug bust all those voting confetti sitting
there like paper dollars. Dems crying you are hindering our right to vote! Hopefully the later
day voting goes in our favor, but considering Soros electioneering electronics machines with no
way to track it may not.
If we lose the vote then America is cooked literally. But the vote was cooked books if it does
happen, so we won't be judged for that. What we as a nation may be judged for is severe apathy
and embracement of things for our personal gain years earlier where it was obviously wrong. We
should have never let these politicians get away with things like Iraq after learning there were
no WMD. Or free trade that was exporting our manufacturing base to every totalitarian government
abroad. Or our keeping up with the Jones by bigger and bigger mortgages we could barely afford
the old one. Or uncontrolled immigration. We should have put our foot down a long time ago and
made these uppers fear like Vietnam the whole thing was unstable and going to capsize on their
butts.
But I can pretty much tell you that Americans (true ones) aren't guilty of this electioneering.
The invader Mexicans and other parasites think they are somehow going to get on top of this thing.
You know I still love them to this day. I remember falling down some stairs carrying a heavy desk,
while some legal Mexican American citizens came and picked me up and then helped carry the desk
too. So I'm not judging people individually based on their skin or ethnic background, I however
am not foolish to say there is a problem of means here either. Hope all the invader Mexicans like
Mexico II where they get to live out of cardboard boxes and railroad cars, because they killed
the American host and now get their very own Mexican culture that is wholly immoral here too.
Well don't worry because you get a taste of this Hillary invasion as well, with your nemesis the
Muslims she is going to import in here. You see parasite never stop loving bigger problems for
the host.
If we lose this election white people need to start taking care of their own. I've had many
races that were my best of friends, and I'm not at all going to say I hate those people I will
never hate them. But the white people are under attack by a systematic attempt to dispossess them
from people like Soros. We still hold the reigns of economic power, even in our weakened state.
We can still peacefully (hopefully) use that power to say no to the 3rd world takeover of our
country.
Again early vote may mean nothing given the found stuffed cheated ballots at Dem headquarters.
But do not think that we accept this NWO takeover, we've overlooked many previous incursion that
has let it get this bad but no more even with a Hillary win.
jcaz -> Ghost of PartysOver •Nov 8, 2016 12:02 PM
Bullshit.
The line I stood in this am was Trump up and down- everyone unhappy with the prospect of more
of the same corrupt shit.
Not buying this story.
Ghost of PartysOver d jcaz •Nov 8, 2016 12:14 PM
It is really pretty easy to understand. Wall Street, including all the Hedge Funds, Banks ....
have bought and paid for HRC. They control her. Wall Street will get what it wants which is more
of the same; market manipulation, inside dealings, payoffs, lack of perp walks. You name it. This
is a very good scenario for those bastards. Hence markets will rally.
Trump on the other hand will lock those bastards up. Markets will fall.
Pres HRC means outstanding next QTR reports and of course bonuses. Any illegal activity will
be met with a slap on the wrist (Corzine ring a bell)
Pres Trump means reigning in the the crap and the next QTR report will not be so rosy. And
bonuses will be much, much lower. Any illegal activity will be met with a perp walk.
This important article was first published by Global Research in
November 2004 in relation to the 2004 presidential race.
A 'president' who takes office through fraud and usurpation can
make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.
Imagine the sensation that would have ensued if a United States
Senator had declared, less than three weeks after the 2004 U.S.
presidential election, that "It is now apparent that a concerted and
forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse was enacted with
either the leadership or co-operation of governmental authorities."
The story would have made banner headlines around the world.
As a matter of fact, on November 22, 2004, BBC News attributed
these very words to Republican Senator Richard Lugar. However, Lugar
was speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee-and he was referring, not to the U.S. presidential
election of November 2, but to the Ukrainian presidential election of
November 21, 2004.
The primary evidence for Lugar's charge of electoral fraud is a
striking divergence between exit poll data and official vote tallies.
As it happens, wide divergences of just this kind have also been a
feature of two other important recent elections: the Venezuelan recall
referendum over President Chávez's mandate held on August 15, as well
as the U.S. presidential election of November 2. In all three cases
there is substantial evidence of fraud-though the dishonesty appears
to be very differently distributed. In brief: the Venezuelan election
was clean and the exit poll flagrantly dishonest; the Ukrainian vote
tallies and exit polling seem both to have been in various ways
corrupted; the American election, despite the Bush Republicans' pose
as international arbiters of integrity, was manifestly stolen, while
the U.S. exit polling was professionally conducted (and though it was
subsequently tampered with, accurate results had in the mean time been
made public).
Hugo Chávez's landslide victory in August was a surprise only to
the hostile U.S. corporate press, which had represented the Venezuelan
election campaign as a dead heat: the last opinion poll prior to the
referendum in fact showed Chávez leading by a wide margin, with 50
percent of registered voters to the opposition's 38 percent. In the
official tally, Chávez won 58.26 percent of the votes, while 41.74
percent were cast against him. International observers, including the
Organization of American States and the Carter Center, declared that
the election had been fair: in ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter's words,
"any allegations of fraud are completely unwarranted" (see Rosnick).
But on election day the leading New York polling firm Penn, Schoen
& Berland disgraced itself by releasing (before the polls closed, and
hence in violation of Venezuelan law) a purportedly authoritative exit
poll, with a claimed margin of error "under +/-1%," according to which
Chávez had been defeated, gaining a mere 41 percent of the vote to the
opposition's 59 percent. The exit polling, it emerged, had been
conducted-though not in Chavista neighbourhoods, where the pollsters
did not venture (Gindin [15 Aug. 2004])-by an opposition group named
Súmate, which had been formed to agitate for a recall referendum, and
whose leadership had been implicated in the 2002 anti-Chávez coup.
Súmate appears to have been largely funded by the U.S. National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has been aptly described as "the
CIA's 'civilian arm'" (Chossudovsky [28 Nov. 2004]), and by the CIA
itself (see "Súmate"); in the period leading up to the election,
Venezuelan opposition groups like Súmate received altogether more than
$20 million from the U.S., including over $3 million funneled through
the NED (see
www.venezuelafoia
).
As had been understood prior to the event (see Stinard [10 Aug.
2004]), fraudulent exit polling was part of a concerted U.S.-backed
project of delegitimizing and destabilizing the government of a
geopolitically important oil-producing nation. Had the election been
less of a landslide, and had it not been conducted with what appears
to have been scrupulous correctness, the plan might have succeeded.
Ukraine is likewise recognized as a country of pivotal geopolitical
importance (see Aslund [12 May 2004], Chin [26 Nov. 2004], and
Oliker); it is a key element in the U.S.'s Silk Road Strategy for
domination of central Asia (see Chossudovsky,
War and
Globalization
, pp. 65-75). Here the election results were much
closer, and have been more vigorously contested. Viktor Yanukovych,
the candidate favoured by Ukraine's Russian neighbours, was declared
the winner, with 49.4 percent of the vote to the Western-leaning
Viktor Yushchenko's 46.7 percent. But Yushchenko and his
party-supported by a growing chorus of Western commentators and
governments-have cried foul.
While the Ukrainian exit poll figures publicized in the Western
media do support claims of electoral fraud, the exit polls themselves
are not above suspicion. The most widely disseminated claim has been
that an authoritative exit poll showed Yushchenko to have won the
election with a 6 percent lead; Yanukovych's governing party would
thus have stolen the election, fraudulently swinging the vote by 8.7
percent. According to better-informed reports, however, two distinct
exit polls were conducted. One of these, organized by the right-wing
U.S. think-tank Freedom House and the U.S. Democratic Party's National
Democratic Institute (NDI), and carried out by the Kyiv Democratic
Initiatives Foundation (see Vasovic), perhaps as part of a group
calling itself the Exit Pollconsortium (see Kubiniec), found that
Yushchenko won 54 percent of the vote to Yanukovych's 43 percent. (It
may be this poll that is referred to by the University of British
Columbia's Centre for Public Opinion and Democracy in its claim that
"an exit poll conducted by independent research firms" showed
Yushchenko to have won by 54 to 42 percent.) The other national exit
poll, based on interviews rather than questionnaires, was conducted by
Sotsis Company and the Social Monitoring Center, and gave Yushchenko
49.4 percent of the vote to Yanukovych's 45.9 percent.
It is not my purpose to attempt an unraveling of the complexities
of the Ukrainian election. The British Helsinki Human Rights Group has
challenged the validity of the exit polls, claiming that in at least
one city the exit pollsters were open Yushchenko supporters, and did
not observe proper methodological protocols (see "Ukraine: 2nd
Round"). While Western observers have reported major irregularities in
the government's conduct of the election, Michel Chossudovsky and Ian
Traynor have on the other hand adduced strong evidence of
interventions in the Ukrainian electoral process by U.S. governmental
and quasi-governmental agencies that resemble the same agencies'
interventions in Serbia, Georgia, Belarus, and Venezuela. The voter
turnout figures of 96 percent recorded in Yanukovych strongholds in
eastern Ukraine are strongly indicative of fraud; so likewise may be
"the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine," where
the British Helsinki Group observed that Yushchenko's opposition party
"exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many
places." I would like merely to suggest that the interview-based exit
poll which gave Yushchenko a 3.5 percent lead over Yanukovych-and
hence indicated an irregular swing of 6.2 percent in the latter's
favour-is more likely to have been properly conducted than the exit
poll which was organized by Freedom House and the NDI, and which may
well have been marked by Súmate-type improprieties.
Let us turn to the American presidential election, where the same
kind of data has encouraged similar suspicions-though thanks to the
soothing ministrations of the U.S. corporate media, with nothing
resembling the massive public outcry in Ukraine. George W. Bush was
hailed the winner on November 2, with 51 percent of the vote to John
Kerry's 48 percent. But there are good reasons to be skeptical of the
official vote tallies. The last wave of national exit polls published
on the evening of November 2-polls which appear to have been duly
weighted to correct for sampling imbalances-showed Kerry, not Bush,
leading by 51 to 48 percent (see 'Mystery Pollster'). A divergence of
6 percent between weighted exit polls and the official numbers is a
strong indicator of electoral fraud.
At the decisive point, moreover, the divergence between the exit
poll results and the vote tally was wider still (see S. Freeman [21
Nov. 2004]). Prior to the election, political analysts identified
Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as the three key swing states: the
candidate who carried these states, or a majority of them, would win
the election.
Bush won Florida, with 52.1 percent of the vote to Kerry's 47.1
percent. (This tally, by the way, diverges by 4.9 percent in Bush's
favour from the state exit poll, which gave Bush a paper-thin 0.1
percent lead.) Kerry won Pennsylvania, with 50.8 percent of the vote
to Bush's 48.6 percent. (Here again the vote tally differs in Bush's
favour from the exit poll results-this time by 6.5 percent.)
That left Ohio as the deciding state, the one on which the national
election results depended. George W. Bush won Ohio, according to the
official vote tally, with 51 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 48.5
percent. The divergence in this case between the vote tally and the
exit poll, which showed Kerry as winning by 52.1 percent to Bush's
47.9 percent, is fully 6.7 percent.
Is it possible that these three divergences in Bush's favour
between exit polls and vote tallies could have occurred by chance? I
wouldn't bet on it. Dr. Steven Freeman of the University of
Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics has calculated that
the odds against these statistical anomalies occurring by chance are
662,000 to 1 (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]).
Or are exit polls perhaps just not as reliable as people think? Dr.
Freeman has an answer to this question as well. In the last three
national elections in Germany, the differential between the exit polls
and the vote tallies was, on average, 0.27 percent; and in the last
three elections to the European Parliament, the differential in
Germany was 0.44 percent (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]). Professionally
conducted exit polls are highly accurate-which is why they have been
used (in some cases more honestly than in Venezuela and Ukraine) as a
measure of electoral integrity in places where improprieties have been
anticipated. The U.S. exit polls were conducted by Mitofsky
International, a survey research company founded by Warren J.
Mitofsky, who as the company's website proclaims "created the Exit
Poll research model" and "has directed exit polls and quick counts
since 1967 for almost 3,000 electoral contests. He has the distinction
of conducting the first national presidential exit polls in the United
States, Russia, Mexico and the Philippines. His record for accuracy is
well known" (see "National Election Pool").
The fact that Mitofsky International systematically altered the
U.S. presidential exit poll data early on the morning of November 3,
contaminating the exit poll figures by conflating them with the vote
tally percentages, has quite rightly become a matter of controversy
(see Keefer [5 Nov. 2004], and Olbermann, "Zogby Vs. Mitofsky"). But
there seems no reason to doubt that the Mitofsky exit poll data made
available by the CNN website on the evening of November 2 was
professionally gathered.
Mightn't one propose, as a last resort, that Bush's
election-winning divergence of 6.7 percent between the Ohio exit poll
results and the Ohio vote tally was, at any rate, somewhat less
scandalous than the 13.7 percent swing Yanukovych's party was blamed
for by the Freedom House-NDI exit poll? (Ignore, if you like, the
lesser 6.2 percent swing indicated by the Sotsis and Social Monitoring
exit poll-which, if accurate, shows the Freedom House-NDI poll to be
skewed in Yushchenko's favour by fully 7.5 percent.) But if stealing
elections is like knocking off banks, the fact that one practitioner
can dynamite the vault of the central bank and get away with it, while
his less fortunate compeer draws unwanted attention by blowing out all
of the windows of the neighbourhood Savings-and-Loan, doesn't make the
former any less a bank robber than the latter.
The parallels between the Ukrainian and the U.S. presidential
elections extend beyond the exit poll divergences. Ballot-box stuffers
appear to have achieved a 96 percent turnout in parts of eastern
Ukraine, with turnout figures in some areas exceeding 100 percent.
There is evidence of similar indiscretions on the part of Bush's
electoral fraud teams. Twenty-nine precincts in a single Ohio county
reported more votes cast than there are registered voters-to a
cumulative total of over 93,000 votes (see Rockwell). And in six
Florida counties the total number of votes reported to have been cast
exceeded by wide margins the total number of registered voters (see
Newberry). Senator John McCain, manifesting the same stunning lack of
irony as other Republican spokesmen, has weighed in on the issue: "IRI
[the International Republican Institute] found that in a number of
polling stations, the percentage of votes certified by the Central
Election Commission exceeded 100% of total votes. This is simply
disgraceful" (see "McCain"). McCain is of course referring to eastern
Ukraine; when it comes to Florida or Ohio, he keeps his eyes wide
shut.
The question of advance indications of electoral fraud offers a
final point of comparison. In the United States, as in Ukraine (where
international observers described the polls and vote-counts in
previous elections as deeply flawed), electoral fraud was widely
anticipated prior to the 2004 presidential election. As the materials
itemized in the first three sections of this Reading List make clear,
the electronic voting technologies in use in the U.S. were widely
denounced by electronic security experts months and even years in
advance, as permitting, indeed facilitating, electoral fraud; there is
clear evidence that the 2000 election and the 2002 mid-term elections
were marked by large-scale fraud on the part of the Bush Republicans;
and U.S. computer scientists and informed analysts warned insistently
that fraud on an unprecedented scale was likely to occur in this
year's election.
How has it been possible for the massive ironies arising out of the
similarities between the elections in the U.S. and Ukraine to pass
unobserved in the corporate media? Have the media been simple-mindedly
buttering their bread on both sides? If so, it is a habit that makes
for messy eating. On November 20, an article in
The Washington
Post
informed those who might question the U.S. election that
"Exit Polls Can't Always Predict Winners, So Don't Expect Them To"
(Morin). Two days later,
The Washington Post
carried breaking
news of the early election results from Ukraine-and quoted a purported
election-stealer who holds exactly the same opinion of exit polls:
"'These polls don't work,' said Gennady Korzh, a spokesman for
Yanukovych. 'We will win by 3 to 5 percent. And remember, if Americans
believed exit polls, and not the actual count, John Kerry would be
president'" (see Finn).
Key Issues and Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the US
Mainstream media assessments of the integrity of the 2004 U.S.
presidential election have tended to focus on particular and local
problems-computer errors or 'glitches' for the most part-that came to
light on the day of the election or shortly afterwards. Naturally
enough, the fact that these problems were noticed, and in some cases
corrected, works if anything to enhance public confidence in the
integrity of the electoral system.
The stance of the mainstream media is inadequate in at least two
respects. First, some of the 'problems' were not mere accidents, but
open and flagrant violations of democratic principles. Prominent among
these was the election-night 'lockdown' of the Warren County, Ohio
administrative building, on wholly spurious grounds of a 'terrorist
threat': as a result, the public, the press, and the local legal
counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign were prevented from witnessing
the vote count (see Solvig & Horn, and Olbermann [8 Nov. 2004]). This
maneuver generated widespread outrage: Warren County's Republicans may
perhaps have 'misoverestimated' the degree to which previous
conveniently timed 'terror alerts' and Osama bin Laden's late-October
Jack-in-the-Box act had tamed the electorate.
But more importantly, while 'problems' and 'glitches' have commonly
been covered by the corporate media as local issues, they can be
recognized as belonging to a larger pattern. As James Paterson's
compelling analysis of
The Theft of the 2004 US Election
makes
clear, Republican intentions were evident well before the election.
And as Joseph Cannon has remarked, "An individual problem can be
dismissed as a glitch. But when error after error
after error
favors
Bush and not a single 'accident' favors Kerry, we've left
glitch-land."
There is widespread evidence, which goes well beyond any mere
accumulation of local problems, that "glitch-land" is indeed far
behind us. The landscape to which the 2004 U.S. presidential election
belongs includes the murky swamps of Tammany Hall-style
election-fixing-and the still more sinister morasses of 'Jim Crow' as
well.
It has been reported that Republican-controlled counties in Ohio
and elsewhere sought to reduce the African-American vote by
deliberately curtailing the numbers of polling stations and voting
machines in working-class precincts: large numbers of would-be voters
were effectively disenfranchised by line-ups that were many hours long
(see Fitrakis [7, 16, 22 Nov. 2004]). The Republican Party's purging
of African Americans from voters' lists gained the 2000 election for
George W. Bush (see Conyers [21 Aug. 2001]); as informed observers had
anticipated (Palast [1 Nov. 2004], King & Palast), this shameful
illegality was repeated in 2004 on a wider scale. Large-scale
polling-station challenges were used to further slow the voting, and
to turn the new provisional ballots into a mechanism for effectively
disenfranchising minority voters. In the swing state of Ohio this
year, it appears that fully 155,000 voters-most of them
African-Americans-were obliged as a result of polling-station
challenges to cast provisional ballots (see Palast [12 Nov. 2004],
Solnit). Although it is becoming clear that the great majority of
these citizens were legally entitled to vote (see Williams), the
likelihood that their votes will be fairly counted, or that Ohio's
Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell will permit them to be
included in the official tally, remains slender. The effect of this
Jim Crow mechanism appears to be compounded by racially-biased
judgments of ballot spoilage. As Greg Palast reports, 54 percent of
all ballots judged 'spoiled' in the 2000 election in Florida were cast
by African-American voters, and similarly scandalous percentages are
expected in key states this time round. Nor have African Americans
been the sole victims of these tactics: it appears that in New Mexico,
where Hispanics' ballots are five times more likely to be laid aside
as 'spoiled' than those of white voters, 13,000 Hispanics were
effectively disenfranchised by means of provisional ballots (Palast
[12 Nov. 2004]). Bush won New Mexico by less than half that number of
votes.
But it is the co-presence of other forms of corruption, in addition
to all these, that establishes the difference between an election
dirtied by illegalities, and one that was not merely soiled and
distorted by fraud but actually stolen. The evidence presented within
the texts listed here suggests with gathering strength that the Karl
Rovian maneuvers alluded to above were supplemented on November 2,
2004 by less conspicuous-and yet decisive-manipulations of the
machines that recorded and tabulated the votes.
How precisely this apparent manipulation may have been carried out
in different jurisdictions-by rigging machines in advance to
mis-record or delete votes, by configuring proprietary software so as
to allow 'back-door' access for unrestrained vote-tampering, or by
hacking into the notoriously insecure vote-tabulation systems-remains
as yet undetermined. However, the evidence has been coming to light
with surprising rapidity.
As observers and analysts noted at once, troubling discrepancies
were apparent between the exit poll results published by CNN on the
evening of November 2 and the official vote tallies (see DeHart,
Dodge, S. Freeman, Otter, and Simon). No less disturbing, as I
observed in my article on the subject, is the fact that the exit poll
data was systematically tampered with early on November 3 to make the
figures conform to the vote tallies. At 1:41 a.m. EST on November 3,
for example, the Ohio exit poll was altered: Kerry, who had previously
been shown as leading Bush by 4 percent in that state, was now
represented in the revised exit poll as trailing him by 2.5 percent.
And yet the number of respondents in the poll had increased from 1,963
to only 2,020. An additional 57 respondents-a 2.8 percent increase-had
somehow produced a 6.5 percent swing from Kerry to Bush. At 1:01 a.m.
EST on November 3, the Florida exit poll was likewise altered: Kerry,
who had previously been shown in a near dead heat with Bush, now
trailed him by 4 percent. In this case, the number of respondents rose
only from 2,846 to 2,862. A mere 16 respondents-0.55 percent of the
total-produced a 4 percent swing to Bush.
However, the key exit-poll issue remains the divergence between the
November 2 exit polls and the vote tallies. Steven Freeman concluded,
in the first draft of his judicious study of the November 2 exit poll
data, that "Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature
conclusion, but the election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies
make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of
the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate"
(S. Freeman [11 Nov, 2004]).
Other evidence points toward a strengthening, indeed to a
substantial confirmation of this "unavoidable hypothesis" of
systematic fraud. Some of this evidence has been emerging from the
swing state of North Carolina, and from the two key swing states of
Florida and Ohio-either one of which, had John Kerry won it, would
have made him the acknowledged President-elect.
In North Carolina, the tell-tale marks of electronic electoral
fraud have been brought to light by an analyst who publishes at the
Democratic
Underground
site under the name of 'ignatzmouse'. ("Ignatz,"
remember, is the name of the mouse who in the
Krazy Kat
cartoons
smacks the unhappy cat with the inevitable brick. That pesky mouse is
once again on target.)
What gives the game away in the North Carolina election data is the
disparity within the presidential and senatorial vote-counts between
the so-called "absentee" votes-a category that apparently includes the
early voting data as well as votes cast by citizens living abroad and
military personnel-and the polling-day votes cast on November 2.
In the race for Governor, 30 percent of the votes cast for the
Republican and the Democratic candidate alike were absentee votes; the
other 70 percent were cast on November 2. The Democrat won with 55.6
percent of both the absentee and the polling-day votes. In most of the
other statewide races in the North Carolina election there were
similarly close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes.
For example, Democrats won the post of Lieutenant Governor, with 55.7
percent of absentee and 55.5 percent of polling-day votes; the post of
Secretary of State, with 58 percent of absentee and 57 percent of
polling-day votes; and the post of Attorney General, with 56.7 percent
of absentee and 55.2 percent of polling-day votes. In three other
statewide races, and in the voting for three constitutional
amendments, the correlation between absentee and polling-day votes
remains very close (though tight races for three other positions in
the state administration were won by Republicans with polling-day
swings in favour of the Republican candidates of 4.2, 5.2, and 5.4
percent respectively).
Given the close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes
in ten of the thirteen statewide races, the senate result looks
suspicious: the Democrat's narrow lead in the absentee voting became a
clear defeat on November 2, with a 6.4 percent swing in the
polling-day votes to the Republican. And the presidential results look
more seriously implausible. In the absentee votes, Kerry trailed by 6
percent, a result that 'ignatzmouse' remarks "is consistent with the
pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of
November 2
nd
." But in the election day voting, there was a
further swing of fully 9 percent to Bush. Bush led in the absentee
votes (30 percent of the total) by 52.9 percent to Kerry's 46.9
percent; but on polling day he took 57.3 percent of the remaining
votes, while Kerry received 42.3 percent. In the absence of any other
explanation, these figures point to electronic fraud-and, more
precisely, to "a 'date-specific' alteration in the software, a hack,
or a specific [software] activation just prior to the election."
The Florida evidence is, if anything, more flagrant. On November
18, Professor Michael Hout of the University of California at Berkeley
released a statistical study indicating that electronic voting
technology had produced a very substantial distortion of the
presidential vote tally in Florida. According to the analyses
conducted by Hout and his team, irregularities associated with
electronic voting machines accounted for at least 130,000 votes in
Bush's lead over Kerry in Florida-and possibly twice that much. (The
uncertainty stems from the fact that the machines may have awarded
Bush "ghost votes" which increased his tally without reducing Kerry's,
or they may have misattributed Kerry votes as Bush votes. As Hout
explains, the disparities "amount to 130,000 votes if we assume a
'ghost vote' mechanism and twice that-260,000 votes-if we assume that
a vote misattributed to one candidate should have been counted for the
other.")
Hout's results have not gone unchallenged (see Strashny); obviously
enough, the validity of statistical analyses depends on the extent to
which all possible causal factors have been accounted for. But other
data indicates that the 'haunting' of Florida's electronic voting
tabulators was if anything more serious than Hout and his associates
believe. As I have already noted, in six Florida counties the number
of votes purportedly cast exceeded the number of registered voters-by
a cumulative total of 188,885 (see Newberry). These are apparently
"ghost votes," and unless we're willing to assume a level of electoral
participation resembling those claimed by totalitarian states like
Ceaucescu's Romania or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a significant percentage
of the other votes cast in these counties must also represent the
electoral choice not of human beings but of Republican hackers.
Further evidence which may help to identify the agents involved in
Florida's electronic voting fraud has in fact begun to emerge. Brandon
Adams, for example, has noted striking divergences among Florida
voters according to the makes and models of the voting machines they
used in different counties; and a heavy hacking of vote-tabulation
systems used in conjunction with the older optical-scan voting
machines is now well-established (see Paterson).
Moreover, statistically-based work is being complemented by
acquisitions of direct material evidence. In Volusia County, one of
Florida's six most seriously 'haunted' counties, where 19,306 more
votes were cast than there are registered voters, Bev Harris's
BlackBoxVoting team caught county election officials red-handed on
November 16 in the act of trashing original polling-place tapes which
BlackBoxVoting had asked for in a Freedom of Information request. In
addition to filming the behaviour of county officials, her team was
able to establish that some copies of the tapes that officials had
prepared to give them in response to the Freedom of Information Act
request had been falsified in favour of George W. Bush-in one precinct
alone by hundreds of votes (see Harris [18 Nov. 2004], Hartmann [19
Nov. 2004]). The Volusia County materials provide proof, moreover,
that the GEMS central vote-tabulation system, which was supposedly
"stand-alone" and non-networked, was remotely accessed during the
election (Harris [24 Nov. 2004]).
Ohio, remember, was the deciding state. John Kerry conceded the
election after calculating that the some 155,000 provisional ballots
cast in Ohio would not suffice-even if they were properly counted, and
even if, as expected, they were very largely cast by Kerry
supporters-to overturn the tallied results, according to which Bush
had won the state by 136,483 votes.
However, the exit poll data indicates that it was Kerry who won the
state, and by a comfortable margin. Once again, there is substantial
evidence of electronic electoral fraud. Teed Rockwell found, after
careful study of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website, that
twenty-nine precincts in this county "reported votes cast IN EXCESS of
the number of registered voters-at least 93,136 extra votes total."
The same website he studied (
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top
)
also repays further study, for Rockwell's tallying of 'ghost votes' is
in fact conservative. To cite just one example, Brook Park City is
listed as having 14,491 registered voters, of whom it is claimed that
fully 14,458 exercised their civic duty and cast ballots-for a
turn-out rate of 99.4 percent. I leave it to the curious to discover
how many of these high-minded but possibly nonexistent citizens
supported their incumbent President.
Those who want to pursue the questions of vote fraud and
suppression in Ohio may also want to consult the studies carried out
by Richard Philips, whose work, together with the data available on
the websites of Cuyahoga and other counties, provides depressing
evidence of successful vote suppression in urban precincts. (It has
been estimated that vote suppression tactics may have cost Kerry
45,000 votes across the whole state of Ohio [see Bernstein].)
The Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates,
belatedly followed by the Kerry/Edwards campaign, have called for a
recount in Ohio. But if Ohio's Republican Secretary of State Blackwell
permits no more than a recount, without a rigorous audit of the
electronic voting machines and tabulators as well, the numbers for a
reversal of the election results are probably not there. On the
optimistic assumption that a fair count of the 155,000 provisional
ballots would result in 10 percent of them being disqualified and 70
percent of the remainder being validated as Kerry votes, those ballots
might reduce Bush's lead in Ohio by as much as 55,800 votes. However,
it seems unlikely that a recount, including a re-examination of the
more than 96,000 Ohio votes (most of them cast on old punch-card
machines) that were discarded as spoiled, would turn up the almost
81,000 additional Kerry votes that would still be needed.
Together with the principle that every duly cast vote must be
counted, advocates for democracy need to assert another complementary
principle: the principle that votes cast not in polling booths, but in
the hard drives of voting-tabulation machines; and not by citizens,
but rather by ghosts summoned into existence by Republican hackers'
nimble fingers, have no business getting counted, and should be
removed from the tally.
The effect of turning a 'Ghostbuster' computer-auditing team like
Bev Harris's BlackBoxVoting organization loose on the Ohio results, to
carry out a serious audit of any polling precinct and computer-log
data that hasn't already been quietly destroyed, might well be
startling. For while a simple recount would probably leave Kerry
trailing by several tens of thousands of votes, a thorough
computer-audit 'exorcism' of the vote tallies, should such a thing
ever be permitted, might well lead to a reversal of the national
election results.
Whatever the finally certified results may be, a larger informing
context should not be forgotten. The regime of George W. Bush has made
no secret of its scorn for the American Constitution and Bill of
Rights, its hostility to any notion of international law, its
contemptuous dismissal of the decent opinion of humankind both at home
and abroad, its contempt, in the most inclusive sense, for truth.
Bush has claimed that the 2004 election gave him "capital"-which he
now will not hesitate to spend. An early instance of this expenditure
has been the assault on the city of Fallujah, and a compounding of the
manifold war crimes of which Bush and those who serve him are already
guilty.
But what is this "capital"? As the evidence is revealing with
growing clarity, the 2004 presidential election was not in fact a
victory for Bush, but rather the occasion for an insolent usurpation.
A 'president' who takes office through fraud and usurpation can
make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.
As the knowledge of his offence becomes ever more widely
disseminated, he may yet come, like Shakespeare's Macbeth, "[to] feel
his title / Hang loose upon him, like a giant's robe / Upon a dwarfish
thief."
"... Trump has by mere existance dragged the shadow state out of the shadows. Sweet know thy enemy for they will always be thy enemy. Off to restock me popcorn ... 1 week supply will do after that forget it it will be long past popcorn. dinkum Nov 5, 2016 8:27 PM , We were taught at the kitchen table that the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", aka employee withholding taxes, would allow the shadow government dominate over the de jure government. Reason given was that the easier to not have to save money themselves to pay taxes, the less interest taxpayers would have in government. Every year, often in April, my Dad would say that he earned the first dollar for our family that year. Now, about 2 or 3 generations later with celebrations for lowering of the labor participation rates below 63%, shadow government is protected by those either not knowing or unable to know how to register to vote. Ripe pickings for One World Government advocates. Seems most Americans do not understand the concept of independence and have little or no interest in understanding. RaceToTheBottom Nov 5, 2016 8:17 PM , I'm sorry, but I am going to love pointing out to you Trumpsters that it makes absolutely no difference who gets elected, the State still wins..... ..."
"... I haven't voted for the main election in probably 20 years, except in the primary for Ron Paul. I figure 1 minute of my time for a lottery ticket is worth the shot. But yeah I don't think we should go full Nazi mania about the guy, or be like the Obamaites with their messiah. ..."
"... There are alot of people probably unhealthy optimistic about the guy. ..."
"... We are winning because we are breaking people's stockholm syndromes. Apathy is a bad thing, even if the vote is rigged it's better to stay positive that something can be done. Because something can always be done if people want it bad enough. ..."
In previous elections, well, what's the difference really between Bush and Gore? Bush and Kerry?
They went to the same school, and take orders from the same masters. This election is different.
Trump is a real 'trump' card. What does this word mean? It's an ironic name for the candidate who
intentionally or not opened the shadow government for the world to see.
2 : a sound of or as if of trumpeting <the trump of doom>
1 a : a card of a suit any of whose cards will win over a card that is not of this suit -called
also trump card
b : the suit whose cards are trumps for a particular hand -often used in plural
2 : a decisive overriding factor or final resource -called also trump card
3 : a dependable and exemplary person
There are multiple game-changers here, and although Trump himself personally deserves the credit
for being the punching bag at a huge personal sacrifice, Trump himself is not the primary cause of
this paradigm shift. He's just the catalyst, and in the right place at the right time.
As explained eloquently by Peter Thiel, if it's not Trump this time , it will be someone else
next time, or some alternative non-career politician who represents the same things that Trump does.
In fact, Trump probably doesn't know half of what he's getting himself into. He can be the first
President that ushers in a new age of 'reality' (for lack of a better word).
First let's give credit where credit is due. What has made this possible is sites like Zero Hedge,
and more importantly Wikileaks. Clinton Foundation as a model for pay-for-play politics was certainly
not invented by the Clintons, or the Bushes. In fact, in America's Romanesque ideology, a good metaphor
is the business of the Roman empire. Most Roman senators were in fact, super rich.
The Romans really
invented the system of power politics, where politics became big business. The Greeks were too philosophical
and practical to make a business out of it. While the Greeks spent all night debating what is the
prime mover, Romans seized territory, built roads and bridges, and most importantly - got rich.
The country is less a melting pot today, but a stew of competing ethnic, racial, and social
divisions
National, state, and local debt loads are unsustainable
Our elementary and secondary educational system ranks behind many of the other industrialized
countries, even as the costs of a post-secondary education require students to assume thousands
of dollars in personal student loan debt
Our national infrastructure – roads and bridges – is falling apart from neglect and lack
of maintenance even as our electronic infrastructure lags many of our international competitors
Our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, but mediocre by many world standards
Political corruption is rife and influence is based by the size of financial donation to
the political party and candidate
Many political observers believe that in the era of rampant partisanship, America's system
of checks and balances in government is no longer operative
The growing disparity income inequality creates class tension and social stress
Combine this with various Roman symbolism, in Washington DC, and in the cult sects the Elite participate
in (various forms of the Occult) - a picture emerges of a "New Rome" which may be have been the Illuminati
plan all along for America. But the problem is that, the corruption, the debasement of the currency
(today, we have Quantitative Easing) it can't continue. It's a simple problem of physics, the laws
of gravity cannot be violated. The value of the US Dollar is guaranteed to crash. There's no question
about it. It's because of the math and structure of the debt based money system. The future, is Bitcoin
- not the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation is a representation of how the Elite evolved from
a direct rule class system during Medieval Europe to a 'Shadow Government' system that we use today.
Now many ZH readers and traders know this for a long time. What this election has done, is popularized
and exposed this 'shadow government' which really is an entire 'shadow system' because it's not only
about the government. For example in Forex business, on the surface, banks are cashing checks and
loaning money. But 'behind the scenes' they are involved in much more sinister, often illegal, activities.
And the bank fraud cases have been eye-popping, record setting, numbers like "$5.6 Billion" .
Washington DC is a big customer of the banks, of the Elite. But by far, not the only one. And certainly
not the most powerful. It's just what the public thinks. The President of the United States. It's
a powerful person. No, it's not. Presidents (at least, previously) have been mostly puppets that
take orders from "Shadow People" - Presidents have become like Actors and accordingly, our most popular
President, Ronald Reagan, was an actor. A good actor. Everyone loves an actor! But remember what
an ACTOR does - an actor reads his lines, and pretends very convincingly. Actors are not script writers,
producers, artists - they are the only part of the creative process that's not creative. Real insiders
in Hollywood for example know the real genius to making magic are the writers, producers, music composers
like Ennio Morricone. Who is that? Ennio Morricone is a "Shadow Person" - this is the REAL genius
and creative talent behind the Hollywood machine. That background music, it's not something just
thrown together by some executives. Ennio Morricone is a musical genius, he works behind the scenes,
99% of people never heard of him. But we've all heard about some jerks like Robert DeNiro, who are
paid to make fools of themselves and make foolish and childish statements about Trump and how the
Establishment is good and you should enjoy how the system services your account even though you live
worse every year and it hurts when they do it.
As we wait for the grand finale to the play we call "Politics" enjoy this composition, let it
be the background music you remember as the Shadow People are exposed this next week. Turn off your
TVs and listen to something that can actually increase your IQ! Yes - it's true!
Now for the real test of the Election. Now that the Shadow System has been exposed, will people
openly accept it? There's no more conspiracy theories, most of the facts are now available online
for all to see. Will they turn a blind eye - and vote for the Establishment? How deep does the programming
go? VERY DEEP, if you are on meds and have a TV.
We were taught at the kitchen table that the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", aka employee withholding
taxes, would allow the shadow government dominate over the de jure government. Reason given was
that the easier to not have to save money themselves to pay taxes, the less interest taxpayers
would have in government.
Every year, often in April, my Dad would say that he earned the first dollar for our family
that year.
Now, about 2 or 3 generations later with celebrations for lowering of the labor participation
rates below 63%, shadow government is protected by those either not knowing or unable to know
how to register to vote. Ripe pickings for One World Government advocates.
Seems most Americans do not understand the concept of independence and have little or no interest
in understanding.
Voting by mail ballot was easy enough for me to do. Took about 1 minute of my time. Assuming it
doesn't make a difference I'm out 1 minute. But just what if it does matter and it changed the
direction and course we find ourselves on? I haven't voted for the main election in probably 20
years, except in the primary for Ron Paul. I figure 1 minute of my time for a lottery ticket is
worth the shot. But yeah I don't think we should go full Nazi mania about the guy, or be like
the Obamaites with their messiah.
There are alot of people probably unhealthy optimistic about the guy. But as the above comment,
I think the election sure has been entertaining seeing all the bad info come out.
As a Ron Paul
supporter, it's like confirmation that us uniquely different types that everyone thought we were
when we talked about the whole thing being rigged and economics and the war mongering has wings
and been lifted by Trump. Believe me it took Trump for my mother-in-law to see what is going on.
People always were reserved to believe that it was this depraved. I'm sure you are right Clinton
might be just the tip of the iceberg. But even if Clinton goes to jail for conspiring against
Americans considering her terrible lists of crimes against us, that would be well worth it. This
is all about making people believe that conspiracies happen, it took Enron for me to wake up.
What comes next if not Trump is real change, one way or another things are not going back to the
old way.
We are winning because we are breaking people's stockholm syndromes. Apathy is a bad
thing, even if the vote is rigged it's better to stay positive that something can be done. Because
something can always be done if people want it bad enough.
So you will lose like you were always going to lose ... yupper, dam straight, same game same
play, YOY decade after decade.
But all those standing before you, from FBI to MSM, be you DOJ or the Clinton Crime family.
YOU NOW KNOW WHO YOUR FUCKING ENEMY IS because they all crawled out from under the rock.
That was the next step in this game ... know thy enemy for he always knew who you were but
you in kindness now know them. Worse for them is actually your realisation of the truth.
So I ask this question when you were born are you more or less worthy a human being than an
elite child?
I was thinking the same thing. All those foundations that help fund PBS are behind a lot of the
crap we see in America today. And he doesn't mention the biggest source of corruption - the federal
reserve and our banking system. Who owns all those corporations? The owners of the big banks -
those that make up the federal reserve.
P.S. I vote NO FRNs aka US dollars; NO Euros; NO Yens; NO Saudi Rials; NO Chinese Yuans; NO
British pounds; NO Russian roubles; and NO Israeli Shekels.
"... Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent. ..."
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation. ..."
"... Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs. ..."
"... In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability. ..."
"... In the speech, Vanfosson said while Donald Trump, a "part-time reality star and full-time bigot," doesn't care about student loan debt, neither does Clinton. "She is so trapped in the world of the elite," Vanfosson said. "She has completely lost grip of what it's like to be an average person." ..."
"... Vanfosson said the only thing Clinton cares about is the billionaires that fund her election. The student added there was no point in voting for the "lesser of two evils." ..."
"... "She would be worthless to them," They would love all the focus on her and not on their work. Their work will continue regardless of who is president. It becomes easier if the president is HillBillery, but it will happen either way. ..."
"... "Something about this was backward. A gay white man and a white woman asking a multi-billionaire how he knows the system is rigged and insisting it's not. Does that sound right to you?" ..."
"... They asked him how he knows the system is rigged and he said, 'Because I take advantage of it.'" ..."
"... Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election? Yes. But in the words of the economic-philosopher The Bernanke "It would be... disorderly." ..."
"... everything they do is for the children! ..."
"... Can they steal the election? They have to try. Their life depends on it. This is big time. Deep State has trillions and decades invested in this election. ..."
"... Thoughtful and interesting take as always by PCR. They may not want Trump, but better to delay their plans than let HRC blow them up by being under the ultimate spotlight. ..."
"... Thinking that this will not be a video game with the better hackers winning is probably either not paying attention or in some kind of "democracy speaks" denial. ..."
"... Roberts is right, of course. The rigged polls and media bias were prelude to the rigged election. ..."
The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting
Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead,
the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have
posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.
Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that
they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.
With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all
around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own
interests.
Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if
the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.
Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight
on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them,
and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could
damage the oligarchs.
In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.
A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently
stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the
investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.
Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight
and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be "a target-rich environment.
Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material already lined up." House Speaker
Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.
If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary,
would you want to be under this kind of pressure?
What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans
would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose
all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good
for oligarchs.
Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage.
For example, last May Fox News reported:
"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's
infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at
least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail
for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported,
but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included
extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by
their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired
nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young
girls."
Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors
for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service
his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in
the U.S. Virgin Islands."
This kind of behavior seems reckless even for Bill and Hillary, who are accustomed to getting
away with everything. Nevertheless, if you are an oligarch already worried about the reopened Hillary
email case and additional FBI investigations, such as the one into the Clinton Foundation, and concerned
about what else might emerge from the 650,000 emails on former US Rep. Weiner's computer and the
NYPD pedophile investigation, putting Hillary in the Oval Office doesn't look like a good decision.
At this point, I would think that the Oligarchy would prefer to steal the election for Trump ,
instead of from him, rather than allow insouciant Americans to destroy America's reputation by choosing
a person under felony investigations for president of the United States.
Being the "exceptional nation" takes on new meaning when there is a criminal at the helm.
If Hillary gets elected and it's rigged, then her "win" is invalid and her election is illegitimate.
Most peoples of most countries are not obligated to obey an illegitimately crookedly elected leader.
That's some of the reason why countries have revolts, civil unrest, etc.
... Vanfosson was scheduled to give a speech about Sanders and Clinton supporters uniting,
but instead gave a speech about "how terrible Hillary is."
In the speech, Vanfosson said while Donald Trump, a "part-time reality star and full-time
bigot," doesn't care about student loan debt, neither does Clinton.
"She is so trapped in the world of the elite," Vanfosson said. "She has completely lost grip
of what it's like to be an average person."
Vanfosson said the only thing Clinton cares about is the billionaires that fund her election.
The student added there was no point in voting for the "lesser of two evils."
"She would be worthless to them," They would love all the focus on her and not on their
work. Their work will continue regardless of who is president. It becomes easier if the president
is HillBillery, but it will happen either way.
Dave Chappell apparently criticized how the media "twisted" what Trump said when he made
lewd remarks about grabbing women in a caught-on-tape conversation in 2005 with former Access
Hollywood anchor Billy Bush.
" Sexual assault? It wasn't. He said, 'And when you're a star, they let you do it.' That phrase
implies consent," Chappelle
reportedly said . "I just don't like the way the media twisted that whole thing. Nobody questioned
it."
The 43-year-old comic praised Trump's performance during the second presidential debate, specifically
how he handled the harsh line of questions from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz.
"Something about this was backward. A gay white man and a white woman asking a multi-billionaire
how he knows the system is rigged and insisting it's not. Does that sound right to you?"
Chappelle reportedly asked the crowd at the famous Cutting Room comedy club. "It didn't seem right
to me. And here's how you know Trump is the most gangsta candidate ever. They asked him how
he knows the system is rigged and he said, 'Because I take advantage of it.'"
Government needs the trust of the people. PERIOD! If it is not there, the Gov. and its scharade
is over. Hillary and the Clintons are over! If they still put her in, they are all done. All the
MAGA people won't stop once the election is over. It will cascade beyond that and split the country.
They can't have that.
The military as much as Obama has gutted it in the past 8 years, is for Trump. Obama forgot
that it takes 2 or more generations, complete dumbass. They still listen to their parents. The
Obama's don't want the rope that Hilary will get. They are all about self interests, their own.
It's much worse than just Epstein and his Nab O kov-named pimping jet. The Clintons have gone
out of their way at least twice to secure the release of
proven
and
probable child sex trafficking outfits.
Many disaster relief and aid organizations in the poorest countries are fronts for pedophiles
and sex traffickers, and I know this from extensive personal experience in the Third World. The
Clintons and their Foundation are the largest spiders in this global web.
Can they steal the election? They have to try. Their life depends on it. This is big time.
Deep State has trillions and decades invested in this election.
For all my pessimism lately I'm with the majority here. Trump-slide! Back to the shadow!
Thoughtful and interesting take as always by PCR. They may not want Trump, but better to delay
their plans than let HRC blow them up by being under the ultimate spotlight.
I want to see the hacking of the election go fubar with the votes blipping up and down like a
penny stock. Lead changes every 2 minutes by increments of no less than 5% per quote. All the
while CNN pretends like its normal.
Thinking that this will not be a video game with the better hackers winning is probably either
not paying attention or in some kind of "democracy speaks" denial.
How can one cabal steal from itself? Ollie got no factions, Paulie. Gots Meadowlands and 20# sacks
of limestone. Y'know... fertilizer.
Lies. Choose your own path, as God enabled you to do. You are created here, for this purpose.
Do your best.
If the Cunt becomes president, we all better get ready to put our 'pod faces' on... If the Rodent
gets 'selected', I wonder if she will keep the Obonzo's on as servants?
Roberts is right, of course. The rigged polls and media bias were prelude to the rigged election.
Hillary's corruption and Bill's perversions are in the spotlight. It will only get much worse
with nypd and the fbi ready to fight. Plus, she's incompetent, violent, and hated by a lot of
people. Her election alone could incite WW3 within a few months. Trump on the other hand, will
have a "conversion" if elected and a cautious foreign policy will follow. Careers will move along
in DC and Trump will find the job easy. Harmony .... maybe for a few years.
I abhor violence nowadays but for a guy like Epstein and his pals, I would surely make an exception.
As I'm sure would many otherwise in favor of legal justice. Pedophiles do not deserve justice.
Only punishment.
I must say I like PCR a lot but he seems to be crafting a narrative to fit his desires on this
one.
Let's be real here.
There was a massive scandal in England very much like this and it largely went all of nowhere.
It hit brick walls after a few players were outed and then fizzled out.
It cuts to the heart of money and power this kind of thing.
The corruption isn't just there for mere corruption sake.
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
The gist of what I'm saying is this.
Oh yeah they can rig it and Oh hell yeah they will rig it.
THEY HAVE TO because the alternative is to let Trump in there and let some normal human beings
have the power to unravel this all.
The problem is we are likely to be ASTONISHED at how deep and wide this is.
Literally ASTONISHED to the point of shaking the foundations of what everyone believes in.
So yeah the stakes are huge they will rig it and I pray that I am wrong.
The fake polls are evaporating right before our eyes. Hell, even CNN and the alphabets are starting
to back off. Not saying this is proof, but it meshes...
Whatever happens with this election I am punching out of this insane process. We are ruled by
California, New York, Illinois Pennsylvania and Florida and the ghettos therein. Signing up to
be tax cattle and just taking it is masochistic as is aligning oneself with people too lazyor
timid to even boycott Amazon or stage a tax revolt.
Yep taxation without representation all over again. In theory we have it, but in practical reality
we don't. The bible tells the story in revelation. Most everyone will be deceived only a few will
move away and they will be mercilessly hunted and persecuted. Lovely shit.
"... Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. ..."
Just cause nobody is voting for her won't stop em. What counts the vote matters:
"A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context
and explanation.
Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place
in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access
to perform this for any or all clients.
"... But I saw a particular Hillary surrogate on CNN go apopletic, pounding the desk, holding her head in her hands, insisting "IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!!" Carol Costello agreed, emphatically, with her vocabulary of all-knowing nods and tilting her head 11 degrees to the right in sympathetic affirmation. ..."
On March 26, 2014, three investigators from Maryland's Office of the State Prosecutor sat at my dining
room table and showed me a signature on a photocopy taken from a D.C. poll book. The scrawl looked
more like a seismograph reading and was so unrecognizable that it took me a minute to realize that
I was looking at it upside down. Turning the picture over didn't make it much better.
"No, that's not my handwriting," I told them.
Somebody had clearly voted using my name. But why? And how did state officials figure it out?
In-person voter impersonation is vanishingly rare, as
many studies have shown. The claims put forth by Donald Trump that voter fraud in places like
Philadelphia could rig the election against him have very little evidence behind them,
according to election experts
.
Absentee ballot fraud – people violating state laws on the distribution, collection and submission
of mail ballots – is the more likely and more commonly prosecuted crime. Even for these kinds of
scams, a definitive total of cases is hard to come by since voting records are maintained by several
thousand different local governments.
But I saw a particular Hillary surrogate on CNN go apopletic, pounding the desk, holding her
head in her hands, insisting "IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!!" Carol Costello
agreed, emphatically, with her vocabulary of all-knowing nods and tilting her head 11 degrees
to the right in sympathetic affirmation.
If Carol and the Hillary surrogate agree there is no voter fraud, the only logical conclusion
is that Derek Willis is a liar and ProPublica is in bed with the Russians.
how many dead people are registered voters? 2,8 million, more?? How about how many ILLEGALS are
registered to vote?? UNKNOWN!
How many computer voter machines have been hacked?? Unknown.. and oddly, they all "dead, illegals,
rigged machines" all vote for hillary/democrats!
Concerning the listing of voter fraud cases compiled by the Heritage Foundation, it's remarkable
for a) how few cases there actually are (several hundred out of literally millions of votes cast)
and b) how many of the cases involved elected officials or their relatives attempting to influence
their own elections.
So, if you look at the compilation rationally, it's a non-event. You can be sure that tax fraud
is much more common, and almost certainly, does much more damage to our democracy. Somehow, that
doesn't seem to concern the legislatures as much. Just doesn't make good headlines.
"One way to make that job easier is to keep accurate voter lists. An accurate voter list makes
it less likely than mistakes will occur at the polls." ....Or, we could have a national Voter
ID registry, but NYT Democrats such as yourself think IDs are somehow inherently racist. Go figure?
This is retail voter fraud, not wholesale voter fraud. Believe me. I
I'm from Louisiana. I know
the difference between wholesale and retail voter fraud.
Wholesale voter fraud is when we vote
the nursing homes and rig the voting machines to skip votes for people we want to lose and break
all the voting machines in precincts that we know will go for the candidate we want to lose and
kick people off the voter rolls in precincts that we know will go for the candidate we want to
lose.
Retail is when you buy individual votes. Retail is inefficient, problematic (how do you
keep thousands of people you paid to vote fraudulently from leaking the information to someone
who goes to the cops?) and isn't how you rig elections.
Wholesale is where you go for vote rigging,
and right now the Republican Party is the king of wholesale, with voter ID to make sure the "wrong"
people don't vote, cutbacks in early voting hours in minority districts, etc. to try to suppress
the votes of the "wrong" people.
I am now
convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to steal the presidential
election.
In the past, the oligarchs have not cared which candidate won as the
oligarchs owned both. But they do not own Trump.
Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not
report it.
A person who speaks like this
...
...is not endeared to the oligarchs.
Who are the oligarchs?
Wall Street and the mega-banks
too big to fail and their agent
the Federal Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled
American homeowners who the federal reserve allowed to be flushed down the toilet. In
order to save the mega-banks' balance sheets from their irresponsible behavior, the
Fed has denied retirees any interest income on their savings for eight years, forcing
the elderly to draw down their savings, leaving their heirs, who have been displaced
from employment by corporate jobs offshoring, penniless.
The military/security complex
which has spent trillions of our
taxpayer dollars on 15 years of gratuitous wars based entirely on lies in order to
enrich themselves and their power.
The
neoconservartives
whose crazed ideology of US world hegemony
thrusts the American people into military conflict with Russia and China.
The US global corporations that sent American jobs to China and India
and elsewhere in order to enrich the One Percent with higher profits from
lower labor costs.
Agribusiness
(Monsanto et.al.), corporations that poison the
soil, the water, the oceans, and our food with their GMOs, hebicides, pesticides, and
chemical fertilizers, while killing the bees that pollinate the crops.
The extractive industries
-energy, mining, fracking, and
timber-that maximize their profits by destroying the environment and the water
supply.
The Israel Lobby that controls US Middle East policy
and is
committing genocide against the Palestinians just as the US committed genocide
against native Americans. Israel is using the US to eliminate sovereign countries
that stand in Israell's way.
What convinces me that the Oligarchy intends to steal the election is the
vast difference between the presstitutes' reporting and the facts on the ground.
According to the presstitutes, Hillary is so far ahead that there is no point in
Trump supporters bothering to vote. Hillary has won the election before the vote.
Hillary has been declared a 93% sure winner.
I am yet to see one Hillary yard sign, but Trump signs are everywhere. Reports I
receive are that Hillary's public appearances are unattended but Trumps are so heavily
attended that people have to be turned away. This is a report from a woman in Florida:
"Trump has pulled huge numbers all over FL while campaigning here this
week. I only see Trump signs and sickers in my wide travels. I dined at a Mexican
restaurant last night. Two women my age sitting behind me were talking about how they
had tried to see Trump when he came to Tallahassee. They left work early, arriving at
the venue at 4:00 for a 6:00 rally. The place was already over capacity so they were
turned away. It turned out that there were so many people there by 2:00 that the
doors had to be opened to them. The women said that the crowds present were a mix of
races and ages".
I know the person who gave me this report and have no doubt whatsoever as to its
veracity.
I also receive from readers similiar reports from around the country.
This is how the theft of the election is supposed to work:
The media
concentrated in a few corporate hands has gone all out to convince not only Americans
but also the world, that Donald Trump is such an unacceptable candidate that he has lost
the election before the vote.
By controllng the explanation, when the election is stolen those who challenge the
stolen election are without a foundartion in the media. All media reports will say that
it was a run away victory for Hillary over the misogynist immigrant-hating Trump.
And liberal, progressive opinion will be relieved and off guard as Hillary takes us
into nuclear war.
That the
Oligarchy intends to steal the election from the American people
is verified by the officially reported behavior of the voting machines in early voting
in Texas. The NRP presstitutes have declared that Hillary is such a favorite that even
Repulbican Texas is up for grabs in the election.
If this is the case, why was it necessary for the voting machines to be
programmed to change Trump votes to Hillary votes?
Those voters who noted
that they voted Trump but were recorded Hillary complained. The election officials,
claiming a glitch (which only went one way), changed to paper ballots. But who will
count them? No "glitches" caused Hillary votes to go to Trump, only Trump votes to go to
Hillary.
The most brilliant movie of our time was The Matrix.
This movie
captured the life of Americans manipulated by a false reality, only in the real America
there is insufficient awareness and no Neo, except possibly Donald Trump, to challenge
the system. All of my life I have been trying to get Americans of all stripes-academics,
scholars, journalists, Republicans, Democrats, right-wing, left-wing, US
Representatives, US Senators, Presidents, corporate moguls and brainwashed Americans and
foreigners-out of the false reality in which they exist.
In the United States today a critical presidential election is in process in which
not a single important issue is addressed. This is total failure.
Democracy,
once the hope of the world, has totally failed in the United States of America.
* * *
And following today's FBI headlines, the manipulation is about to go to '11' to
ensure the Oligarch's president-of-choice wins in November.
"... In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at Fraction Magic – Short Version video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast) and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with. ..."
In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at
Fraction Magic – Short Version
video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast)
and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with.
The hero of the story is Bennie Smith, a soft-spoken Memphis TN-based genius who has skills
in computer programming and databases; accounting; and political demographic analysis. By luck
those are the same skills that convicted felon Jeffrey Dean had. (Dean wrote the software for
the Diebold voting machines–and I've been told they can now prove that Dean was the originator
of the fractionalized vote-counting software for the central tabulators.)
A longer version of the video is due out in days–in the meantime, the 9 min. excerpt on the
Short Version is amazing. Check out the tips at the end–how the public can help.
"... Like it or not, extending the voting period is actually the best solution to that particular problem, which is why cutting back on early voting is so popular in those same suppressive GOP-run states. ..."
"... The status quo election day polling station method requires one to take notes on these 50+ offices. The mail ballot allows one to "skip the middle step of taking notes", & directly mark the ballot. ..."
"... I think it is more convenient, but who can guarantee that all ballots make it to their final resting place untampered or at all? ..."
"The real answer is to make Election Day a national holiday. Why the heck not?"
Because it wouldn't solve the problem and, indeed, would likely work against those same voters
the GOP has been trying to suppress-the working poor. Because holiday or not, people are going
to have to work, and many if not most aren't aware they're entitled to time to go vote without
sacrificing pay provided they put in for it ahead of time.
Like it or not, extending the voting period is actually the best solution to that particular
problem, which is why cutting back on early voting is so popular in those same suppressive GOP-run
states.
IMHO mail ballots are useful, especially given ballots with 50+ offices to vote for, many of
them nonpartisan judges.
The status quo election day polling station method requires one to take notes on these 50+
offices. The mail ballot allows one to "skip the middle step of taking notes", & directly mark
the ballot.
I think it is more convenient, but who can guarantee that all ballots make it to their final
resting place untampered or at all? That seems like asking for more trouble. Going out for a walk,
drive, or free shuttle during what should be a multiple weekend day period should not be a big
deal for most (and for those who can't walk, etc… there are mail in ballots).
I'm in favor of more holidays for more holidays sake and it will make it easier for some people
to get to the polls, but yea holiday or not people will have to work is the truth. And yes other
than emergency workers like medical professionals it does tend to be poorer people that work holidays.
On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary
Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial
boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.
The tape was never
released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According
to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since
2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.
The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election
battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about
elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent
accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the
current election
is "rigged."
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative
Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result,
which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think
that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we
should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election
Unearthed tape: 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win'
On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary
Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial
boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.
The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers
in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no
one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.
The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election
battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about
elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent
accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the
current election
is "rigged."
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative
Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result,
which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think
that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we
should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
Chomsky recalls being taken aback that "anyone could support the idea-offered by a national
political leader, no less-that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections."
Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral
equivalency.
... ... ...
Chomsky is heard on the tape asking Clinton what now seems like a prescient
question about Syria, given the disaster unfolding there and its looming threat
to drag the U.S., Iran and Russia into confrontation.
"Do you think it's
worth talking to Syria-both from the U.S. point [of view] and Israel's point
[of view]?"
Clinton replied, "You know, I'm pretty much of the mind that I don't see
what it hurts to talk to people. As long as you're not stupid and giving things
away. I mean, we talked to the Soviet Union for 40 years. They invaded Hungary,
they invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted the Jews, they invaded
Afghanistan, they destabilized governments, they put missiles 90 miles from our
shores, we never stopped talking to them," an answer that reflects her mastery
of the facts but also reflects a willingness to talk to Russia that sounds more
like Trump 2016 than Clinton 2016.
Shortly after, she said, "But if you say, 'they're evil, we're good, [and]
we're never dealing with them,' I think you give up a lot of the tools that you
need to have in order to defeat them…So I would like to talk to you [the enemy]
because I want to know more about you. Because if I want to defeat you, I've
got to know something more about you. I need different tools to use in my
campaign against you. That's my take on it."
A final bit of interest to the
current campaign involves an articulation of phrases that Trump has accused
Clinton of being reluctant to use. Discussing the need for a response to
terrorism, Clinton said, "I think you can make the case that whether you call
it 'Islamic terrorism' or 'Islamo-fascism,' whatever the label is we're going
to give to this phenomenon, it's a threat. It's a global threat. To Europe, to
Israel, to the United States…Therefore we need a global response. It's a global
threat and it needs a global response. That can be the, sort of, statement of
principle…So I think sometimes having the global vision is a help as long as
you realize that underneath that global vision there's a lot of variety and
differentiation that has to go on."
It's not clear what she means by a global vision with variety and
differentiation, but what's quite clear is that the then-senator, just five
years after her state was the epicenter of the September 11 attacks, was
comfortable deploying the phrase "Islamic terrorism" and the even more strident
"Islamo-fascism," at least when meeting with the editorial board of a Jewish
newspaper.
"... "This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine," Scalzitti said. "When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration." ..."
CHICAGO - Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast
for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.
Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public
Library.
"I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent," Moynihan said.
"You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to
vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat."
The conservative website Illinois Review reported that "While using a touch screen voting machine
in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted
for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified
the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the
opposing candidate's party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including
his own race.
Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: "Be careful when you vote in
Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting."
Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog,
the machine was taken out of service and tested.
"This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine," Scalzitti said. "When Mr. Moynihan
used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration."
"... Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too." ..."
"... hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable. ..."
"... An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how? ..."
A U.K. based company that has provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground
states like Florida and Arizona, has direct ties with billionaire leftist and Clinton crusader George
Soros.
As Lifezette
reports , the fact that the man in control of voting machines in 16 states is tied directly to
the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist
causes will surely leave a bad taste in the mouth of many a voter.
The balloting equipment tied to Soros is coming from the U.K. based Smartmatic company, whose
chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former UN official and sits on the board of Soros' Open Society
Foundation.
According to Lifezette , Malloch-Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia and
also is a member of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, an organization he
co-founded in the 1990s and built with funds from George Soros' personal fortune.
In 2007 Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice-president of his Quantum Funds, vice-chairman of Soros
Fund Management, and vice-chairman of the Open Society Institute (former name of OSF).
Browns ties also intertwine with the Clintons as he was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting
firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald worked. Brown also was also a senior advisor to
FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons,
is a senior managing director.
When taking that into account, along with the poor track record Smartmatic has of providing free
and fair elections, this all becomes quite terrifying.
An astonishing 2006 classified U.S. diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks reveals
the extent to which Smartmatic may have played a hand in rigging the 2004 Venezuelan recall election
under a section titled "A Shadow of Fraud." The memo stated that "Smartmatic Corporation is a
riddle both in ownership and operation, complicated by the fact that its machines have overseen
several landslide (and contested) victories by President Hugo Chavez and his supporters."
"The Smartmatic machines used in Venezuela are widely suspected of, though never proven conclusively
to be, susceptible to fraud," the memo continued. "The Venezuelan opposition is convinced that
the Smartmatic machines robbed them of victory in the August 2004 referendum. Since then, there
have been at least eight statistical analyses performed on the referendum results."
"One study obtained the data log from the CANTV network and supposedly proved that the Smartmatic
machines were bi-directional and in fact showed irregularities in how they reported their results
to the CNE central server during the referendum," it read.
With such suspicion and a study which claims to prove that the U.K. firm's equipment tampered
with the 2004 Venezuelan recall election, should be enough for states to reject these machines if
they desire a fair election.
Smartmatic is providing machines to Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Illinois,
Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and
Wisconsin, which means these Soros and Clinton linked machines are going to take the votes of thousands
of Americans.
While GOP nominee Donald Trump has been voicing his opinion that the elections are indeed rigged
due to media bias, and the proof that
mainstream polls are heavily weighted to favor Clinton , it is needless to say that if the results
show Hillary as a winner in November, there is going to a mess to shuffle through to find signs of
honesty.
MSNBC are reporting that Hillary is absolutely surging and now leading by double digits! America
is going absolutely wild for Hillary!! This is very exciting – I can sense victory, and I see
that bitter right-wingers can sense defeat as they pre-emptively blame their loss on vote rigging.
There is no such thing as election rigging, unless we're talking about Al Gore losing to Bush
– there was clear evidence of rigging during this election. But Republicans are known for rigging
elections. Democrats have never, and will never rig an election.
Two words: PAPER BALLOTS!!! How anyone with 3 brain cells or more can't see that paper ballots
are the way to go when voting is beyond me. There is a paper trail, and they cannot be hacked.
They can be recounted. Machines are easily manipulated and there is NO PAPER trail to recount.
Use paper ballots and tell Gerge Soros to go fuck himself.
The Soros voting machine issue is one of the largest problems with this election. Trump has mentioned
him by name twice during the debates and has also talked openly about a 'rigged' election. I hope
he will address this directly.
We're already seeing the polls skew in Clinton's direction in unusual states like Arizona so
even that is on the cards to be stolen.
LOL, not even your big hero Barry would claim that. To wit: Obama said back in 2008: "I want
to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in
the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."
And this time, it seems to be more than some monkeying on part of Hitlery and Barry. Rather
"we rigged some votes and screwed some folks." Go figure.
Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, Million Dollar Bonus said: "To say you won't
respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.
"The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.
And look, some people are sore losers, and we just got to keep going" It was actually Hillary
Clinton who said that, same difference lol,
You make a good point, and to distill the matter to its essence, apart from a controlled media
and well established and entrenched special, foreign and banking interests in DC... The CIA is
a CRIMINAL MAFIA acting under color of law, currently taking Saudi money to pay jihadi and 'blackwater'
type mercs in Syria, and by the way Yemen, and elsewhere, to include the slow ramp up in E Ukraine.
hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable.
No they can and will steal this election if, in fact, Trump were to get a majority of votes
(which by the way is unlikely - study the demographics... trump can not beat hillary when she
has 70/80% of women, the latinos, blacks, leftists, and so on) - but the underlying issue remains:
An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis
(if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about
Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et
al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how?
Considering that US military personnel may quite literally be killed by CIA provided weapons,
one might posit that one scenario is CIA personnel being hunted down and arrested (or not) by
elements of the US special forces although this doesn't happen without either strong and secure
leadership or some paradigm-shifting revelation.
For example- if more knew how exceedingly likely it is that 9/11 was an inside/Israeli job...
Knew it... Things might change.
but I'm not optimistic.
hillary means ww3, and we are not the good guys. If we ever were..
Things were way different back when JFK was killed, I know I was around then.
For one thing there was no internet, and people trusted and respected the media (TV and Newspapers)
This trust made it very easy to coverup and / or bury details.
People overwhelmingly trusted government officials, Very few people questioned what government
and media told them, again this makes it super easy to lie and coverup
I repect your question, and I hope you consider what I said. I am trying to make the case that
assasination is no longer an option, not unless they want to truly start a real civil war. Which
I would not rule out. But if they wish to keep the status quo and the sheep silent, assasination
is way way to risky for the reasons I mentioned above
"... But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls. ..."
A
Washington Post analysis of Pollfish data shows that 84 percent of Republicans, 52 percent
of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents believe that a "meaningful amount" of voter fraud occurs
during elections.
Sixty percent of Republicans believe that illegal immigrants are voting, much higher than Democrats
and independents.
Democrats focus more on voter ID laws, with 32 percent suggesting that it contributes to voter
suppression. (Only 26 percent of Republicans feel the same way.)
But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs
by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls.
Last week, Jame O'keefe and Project Veritas Action potentially
altered the course of the U.S. election, or at a minimum raised serious doubts about the practices of the Clinton campaign and
the DNC, after releasing two undercover videos that revealed efforts of democrat operatives to incite violence at republican rallies
and commit "mass voter fraud." While democrats have vehemently denied the authenticity of the videos, two democratic operatives,
Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, have both been forced to resign over the allegations.
Many democrats made the rounds on various mainstream media outlets over the weekend in an attempt to debunk the Project Veritas
videos. Unfortunately for them, O'Keefe fired back with warnings that part 3 of his multi-part series was forthcoming and would
implicate Hillary Clinton directly.
Anything happens to me, there's a deadman's switch on Part III, which will be released Monday.
@HillaryClinton and
@donnabrazile implicated.
Now, we have the 3rd installment of O'Keefe's videos which does seemingly reveal direct coordination between Hillary Clinton,
Donna Brazile, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to organize a smear campaign over Trump's failure to release his tax returns. Per
Project Veritas :
Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic
politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization
Americans United for Change. And, it's all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists
catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. " In the end, it was the candidate,
Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," says Creamer in one of several
exchanges. "So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground." It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized
that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: "Don't repeat that
to anybody."
Within the video both Clinton and Brazile are directly implicated by Creamer during the following exchange:
"The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and
ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That's why. It's really silly.
We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck .
In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff, so that was fine. So, we put all these ducks
out there and got a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan
was 'Donald ducks his taxes, releasing his tax returns."
They said it was a trademark issue. It's not, but anyway, Donna Brazile had a connection with them and she didn't want to
get sued. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United for Change and now our signs say 'Trump ducks releasing
his tax returns.' And we haven't had anymore trouble."
As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation
of federal election laws:
"The ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump,
paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign."
"As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation
of federal election laws "
Yeah, you pretty much got the head shot there. Unfortunately, no gun to shoot it from. The enforcement authorities all work
FOR the Democrat party.
Full spectrum dominance. It's a bitch. Even if you catch them red-haned there's no "authorities" to report it to that will
listen to you.
Remember what happened to Planned Parenthood when they were caught red-handed selling human tissue for profit (which is also
illegal)? That's right. Nothing. Same thing here.
The problem is that the MSM isn't reporting on any of this stuff about Hillary. And, the Republicans in office aren't on the news
at all to talk about any of this. So, the only place it is reported is on the Trump campaign trail where just a few thousand hear
about.
If the media won't report it and the Republicans won't talk about it, Hillary gets a pass. The audience for sites like ZH and
Drudge are just preaching to the chior and not reaching the people who could change their minds or haven't made up their minds.
froze25 -> ImGumbydmmt •Oct 24, 2016 3:40 PM
What this video is, is evidence of collusion between a campaign and a SuperPac. That is illegal in a criminal court. This is enough
to open an investigation, problem is nothing will be done by Nov 8th. All we can do is share it non-stop.
Bastiat d Haus-Targaryen •Oct 24, 2016 2:11 PM
Don't discount the Enquirer: remember who took down Gary Hart and John Edwards:
Hillary Clinton's shady Mr. Fix It will tell all on TV tonight, just days after his explosive confession in The National ENQUIRER
hit the stands.
The man who's rocked Washington, D.C., will join Sean Hannity on tonight's episode of "Hannity" - airing on the FOX News Channel
at 10 p.m. EST - to reveal his true identity at last.
"... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
"... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
"... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
"... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
"... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad
problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their
White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.
The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept
the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him
for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's
will."
What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every
level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby,
Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000
presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example.
The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting
machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.
So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?
The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in
a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are
few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that
there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the
presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast
aspersion on the credibility of American election results.
I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also
had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.
The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging,
because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of
covering up the theft.
Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary
is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome
results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of
the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.
Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping
up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to
elect the candidate that they want.
""Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign" [Politico]. "The new group, called
the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the
White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group - which will coordinate
campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges
to state redistricting maps "
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be
included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years,
and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall
be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within
every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of
Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least
one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall
be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one,
Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six,
Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
That the parties are even allowed anywhere near district-drawing processes is a sign that the
system is a sham designed to preserve them against us. How much more evidence do people need to
be hit over the head with that they're complicit in enforcing frauds and that's not okay?
Obama and Holder, fresh off their various triumphs - closing Gitmo, prosecuting the Bush-era
torturers, and sending top-level banksters to jail - just the team to sort this out. Not.
The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump,
so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing
votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania,
and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to
exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.
I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real
numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and
Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip.
But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven
"poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're
off by 15%.
Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could
replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a
credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.
I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic
Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national
party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible.
At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily
than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.
"... It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all. ..."
"... There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all." Of course there is - to rig elections. What do you think they are used for. ..."
"... The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida. ..."
"... There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio. ..."
"... Here's the best statistical analysis of US vote count irregularities to date. Not a pretty picture. ..."
"... There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors. ..."
"... At present the US seem to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private" club including a very small part of the population. ..."
"... for the 1 percent the system is not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should the peasants rebell. ..."
"... US citizens are reduced to vote in a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks any political progress there might be. ..."
"... There's lots of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen for Bush in Ohio. ..."
"... "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. ..."
"... Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof) this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often. ..."
"... obomber has a friend in the vote rigging business. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer ..."
"... Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream". ..."
"... Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children. ..."
"... We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s) to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable. ..."
"... paper vote or bust. Everything else hides an attempt at control and ultimately fraud. ..."
"... How does that help Trump? Most DNC *and* RNC Deep State insiders favor Hillary. ..."
"... Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the US. ..."
"... In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon, aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S." ..."
"... Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota of his policies being broadcast? ..."
"... Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in. ..."
"... Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this very topic. ..."
"... The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now ..."
"... Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's so plainly obvious it's painful. ..."
"... And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere. ..."
"... There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising' in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. ..."
"... Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged' to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.) ..."
"... Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of HRC. ..."
"... It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls. (Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from Wikileaks.) ..."
"... I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office. ..."
"... Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution stuff - the carrot revolution? ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad, putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year. ..."
"... no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread ..."
"... Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility, and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major downsides. ..."
"... Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution. ..."
"... the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that chooses a president and vice-president. ..."
"... The process is "supposed" to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal was done. If not, go to the second person. ..."
"... And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range") voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines). ..."
"... Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition. Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity? ..."
"... it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media." ..."
"... "When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?" ..."
"... Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?" ..."
"... It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton: ..."
"... Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka, the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc ..."
"... All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER. ..."
"... To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition" or diversity of opinion where there is none. ..."
"... MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational thought and must be dismissed entirely. ..."
"... The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing. The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear. ..."
"... The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as: ..."
"... No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen as anybody who opens eyes can see. ..."
"... "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy." ..."
"... Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?) to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it? ..."
"... Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia believes in. ..."
"... Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17% ..."
"... Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %. ..."
"... In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility crisis and everything went smooth. ..."
Obama was asked about Trump's voter fraud assertions on Tuesday [..] He responded with a blistering
attack on the Republican candidate, noting that U.S. elections are run and monitored by local
officials, who may well be appointed by Republican governors of states, and saying that cases
of significant voter fraud were not to be found in American elections.
Obama said there was "no serious" person who would suggest it was possible to rig American
elections , adding, "I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."
That is curious. There are a lot of "non serious" persons in the Democratic Party who tell us
that Russia is trying to manipulate the U.S. elections. How is it going to that when it's not possible?
Is rigging the election only impossible when it is in favor of Hillary Clinton? This while rigging
the elections in favor of Donald Trump, by Russia or someone else, is entirely possible and even
"evident"?
Curious.
That said - I do believe that the U.S. election can be decided through manipulation. We have evidently
seen that in 2000 when Bush was "elected" by a fake "recount" and a Supreme Court decision.
The outcome of a U.S. presidential election can depend on very few votes in very few localities.
The various machines and processes used in U.S. elections can be influenced. It is no longer comprehensible
for the voters how the votes are counted and how the results created. *
The intense manipulation attempts by the Clinton camp, via the DNC against Sanders or by
creating a Russian boogeyman to propagandize against Trump, lets me believe that her side is well
capable of considering and implementing some vote count shenanigan. Neither are Trump or the Republicans
in general strangers to dirty methods and manipulations.
It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process
is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries
show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible
reason why machines should be used at all.
* (The German Constitutional Court prohibited the use of all voting machines in German
elections because for the general voters they institute irreproducible vote counting which leads
to a general loss of trust in the democratic process. The price to pay for using voting machines
is legitimacy.)
Posted by b on October 19, 2016 at 01:54 AM |
Permalink
I just found out that many states in the US use electronic voting systems made by Smartmatic which
is part of the SGO Group. Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is the chairman of SGO. This man is heavily
entangled with Soros. Hillary is Soros' candidate. You simply can't make this sh*t up
No. The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won
in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida.
There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio.
There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations
and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors.
And diverse political parties that present voters with a choice. At present the US seem
to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private"
club including a very small part of the population.
But democracy never meant the power of the poor. So, no, for the 1 percent the system is
not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should
the peasants rebell.
And in the end, this is the way things are run in Russia and China, with a lot less media circus.
Add - a limit to presidential power for one person. US citizens are reduced to vote in
a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks
any political progress there might be. The US are the oldest modern democracy. It is like
being stuck in the age of steam engines.
Good one, wj2! Here's some more info on Lord Malloch-Brown and George Soros, courtesy of WikiPedia:
Malloch Brown has been closely associated with billionaire speculator George Soros. Working
for Refugees International, he was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia in 1993–94,
formed by George Soros. He has since kept cordial relations with Soros, and rented an apartment
owned by Soros while working in New York on UN assignments. In May 2007, Soros' Quantum Fund
announced the appointment of Sir Mark as vice-president. In September 2007, The Observer reported
that he had resigned this position on becoming a government minister in the UK. Also in May
2007, Malloch Brown was named vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute,
two other important Soros organisations.
DOOOOOOOOOM! "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like
Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. With a population
so gleefully ignorant and self centered as D'uhmerica, you should be lowering your expectations
significantly.
Are honest elections even legal in Texas and Louisiana? How about Massachusetts and New York?
They may be legal there but it would be dangerous to try to enforce that.
Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof)
this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often.
PB 13 "Concerning attacks from both sides, Trump is definitely more hysterical."
Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the
trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream".
Trump's hysterical rants (and the smear campaign) are played up in a organized attempt to knock
him out. People are getting kneecapped (Billy Bush) to demonstrate to others the wrath that may
be visited upon them for supporting the wrong candidate.
Take Bill O'Reilly for example, He told a subordinate female employee (documented court record)
that he wanted to "get a few wines in her and soap up her tits in the shower with a loofah and
falafel. There was a settlement and the story was under-reported. Forgotten and forgiven. In fact
Bill O stands as an arbiter of moral virtue.
Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams
at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children.
It is simply "not in the script" to malign Hillary with her own words and obnoxious behavior.
By the way, she is also a drunk.
We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine
tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s)
to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable.
https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/bushs-it-guy-killed-in-plane-crash/
Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself
unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of
shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the
US.
Daniel Ellsberg, in his book Secrets , recounts what he had learned during his government
service about the honesty of U.S. elections. As reported in
Counterpunch :
In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify
its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon,
aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S.
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the
White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent
most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention
to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to
the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S."
But Lodge's comments were downright uplifting compared with a meeting that Ellsberg attended
with former Vice President Richard Nixon, who was visiting Vietnam on a "fact-finding mission"
to help bolster his presidential aspirations. Former CIA operative Edward Lansdale told Nixon
that he and his colleagues wanted to help "make this the most honest election that's ever been
held in Vietnam." Nixon replied, "Oh, sure, honest, yes, honest, that's right … so long as
you win!" With the last words he did three things in quick succession: winked, drove his elbow
hard into Lansdale's arm, and slapped his own knee.
12,13,will you clowns keep your zippers closed? Your propaganda is unseemly, and we'll see just
whose victory will be huge Nov.8,won't we? Why does anyone put any credence in serial liar polls?
Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota
of his policies being broadcast?
That is his vote rigging angle, that the MSM is corrupt and is politically assassinating him
daily,not the polls themselves being a major factor in the rigging accusations.
Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned
about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in.
And only commie morons would oppose that.
Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator
and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this
very topic. I suggest those interested in learning more take the time to investigate his
site and its many years of accumulated evidence proving Election Fraud a very big problem,
http://bradblog.com/
The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now.
A bloviating bunko artist vers a grifting crypto neocon is not a 'choice', it's a suicide squad
lootfest it's taking America down.
In Humboldt County California we still use paper ballots. Our polling place also has one electronic
voting machine sitting in a corner for voters who can't use the paper ballots. I have never seen
it being used. There was a transparency program that I think they still do where all ballots were
scanned and the images made available online for the public to double check results. I'm no wiz
with machine vision but I think I could knock together enough code to do my own recount.
I'm not paying much attention but doesn't Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting
up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting
process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's
so plainly obvious it's painful.
And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere.
There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising'
in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. (See for ex. Adjuvant @ 6, john
@ 18)
Ideally, one would have to divide it into different types. It is also traditional, which some
forget, I only know about that from 'realistic' novels, I recently read Dos Passos' Manhattan
Transfer, and was amazed how little things change (despite horse-drawn carriages, rouge, spitoons,
cigars, sauerkraut, etc.) - see karlof1 @ 25.
Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is
easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged'
to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following
SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.)
Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet
sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of
HRC.
It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls.
(Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the
election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time
Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls
while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from
Wikileaks.)
This is also the reason for the mad accusations of Putin interference in US elections - if
somebody is doing illegit moves it is Trump's supporter Putin and so the 'bad stuff' is 'foreign
take-over' and not 'us', and btw NOT the Republicans, or Trump circle, which is very telling.
I didn't see the O Keefe, Project Veritas, vids mentioned. Here the first one. There is a second
one up and more coming.
I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going
quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest
the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office.
Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution
stuff - the carrot revolution?
It is an interesting experiment if you can make people vote for a candidate they don't like
by it being the only way to prevent a candidate they dislike even more. You just showed you aren't
able to.
"Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad,
putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year.
Any "no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian
and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread
Russia will not back down if we start shooting down its aircraft. Is Hillary willing to risk
nuclear war with Russia in order to protect al-Qaeda in Syria?
96% of disclosed campaign contributions from journalists went to the Clinton campaign.
From the MSM: TIME.
Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled
and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but
it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to
do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility,
and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major
downsides.
Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense
than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution.
If you want to know how badly rigged, ask any voter when they leave the voting venue: "What
is the name of the elector you just voted for?" You'll get either: 1) a dumb stare; 2) a laugh,
or 3) a "WTF is an elector?"
Under the Constitution, Americans vote for electors. They do not vote for presidents, and there's
a reason for that. It's called "mass stupidity."
The Fondling Fathers were smart enough to know that the people are too stupid to choose their
own leader. So the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote
for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that
chooses a president and vice-president.
There is not "supposed" to be any campaign, candidates, or polls. The process is "supposed"
to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate
the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would
be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal
was done. If not, go to the second person. Pretty much how the CEO of a large corporation
is chosen.
Having the people of a community vote for the local person who would be the most trustworthy
to deliberate on who should be president is a reasonable objective. I mean, essentially the question
for the voter would be reduced to: "What person in our community would be least likely to be bought
off?" But having a gang-bang of 60 million voting Americans who don't really know shit about the
morons they are voting into office . . . that, on its face, is a sign of mass self-deception and
insanity. It is mass stupidity perpetuating itself.
The circus that the US presidential election has turned into – including the grotesque primaries
– just goes to show how fucking stupid Americans are. The system is an embarrassment to the entire
country. And it is an act of flipping-off the Fondling Fathers and their better judgment every
four years. But worst of all, the present system is virtually certain to eventually produce the
most powerful person in the world who is a complete moron, and who will precipitate a global catastrophe
– economic, or military, or both.
And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's
called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range")
voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines).
Just got my mail-in ballots from the postman. Voting against all Democrats except, for POTUS.
Take a few days and vote either Jill Stein or Donald Trump.
Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving
liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition.
Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity?
"For any minimally conscious American citizen, it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump
is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the
viciously dishonest Mainstream Media."
-Boyd D. Cathey, "The Tape, the Conspiracy, and the Death of the Old Politics", Unz Review
"When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential
candidate? What does that say about the media?"
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are
inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?"
If Jill Stein needs 5% of the vote in order to be considered a legitimate candidate (or to bring
the Green party up to legitimate third-party status for the 2020 election), then you can rest
assured that no matter how many votes she actually gets, her percentage will never be above 4.99%.
Just like when Obama swept into office in 2008, the powers-that-be made sure the Democrats never
had a filibuster-proof majority. Give 'em just enough to believe that the system works, but never
enough to create a situation where the lack of change can't be explained away by "gridlock". Brilliant
in its malevolence, really.
It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq
(Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton:
Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka,
the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill
Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff,
John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc
All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless
war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER.
To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or
most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition"
or diversity of opinion where there is none.
Actually MOA is one of few, more or less independent, aligning itself with any sane ideology,
a welcome island of order in the ocean of media cacophony and I often disagreed with MOA but I
appreciate its logical consistency and integrity, hard facts based journalism,no matter from what
moral stand MOA writings are coming from. MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational
thought and must be dismissed entirely.
But there is much, much more rigging going on, on massive, even global scale. The fraud is
so massive and so visible that blinds people from the truth about it. From the truth of how massively
they are being controlled in their opinions and thoughts.
The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed
in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing.
The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear.
It may seem shocking for people under spell of overwhelming propaganda, but this government
run by Global oligarchs is dangerous to our physical and mental health and must be eradicated
as a matter of sanitary emergency.
Let's sweep all those political excretions into the sewage pipes where they belong. But first
we have to recognize the scale of their influence and their horrifying daily routine subversion
of social order, gross malfeasance or even horrendous crimes also war crimes covered up by MSM.
Only after we get rid of this abhorrent, brutal regime, cut the chains of enslavement we can
have decent democracy or voting, not before.
John Stuart Mill - "Government shapes our character, values, and intellect. It can affect
us positively or negatively. When political institutions are ill constructed, "the effect is
felt in a thousand ways in lowering the morality and deadening the intelligence and activity
of the people"
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "I had come to see that everything was radically connected
with politics, and that however one proceeded, no people would be other than the nature of
its government.
And here we are, believing the shit those mofos and feeding us about freedom and democracy
citing bought and sold lies as "scientific research" concocted for one reason alone, to fuck us
up , exploit and discard when not needed.
Here is, in a small part, about how they do it, starting from phony polls that suppose to sway
you one way or another into following supposed projected winner anointed by the establishment.
Polls are routinely skewed, even MSM pundits say use polls they can trust i.e. which give them
results their bosses seek.
Now over hundred top newspapers and media outlets endorsed Hillary so you can safely remove
them from your list of polls you can rely on.
Anyway most polls are rigged even more than elections themselves, mostly by skewing the content
of a poling sample like in the above example. If you poll Dems about Reps that exactly you get
what you seek. But they are more insidious like doubling or tripling polling sample and then pick
an choose what answers they like, or focus sample on the area you know there is overall support
for your thesis or assertion of candidate regardless of official affiliation, and many more down
to raw rigging by fixing numbers or adjustments.
The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in
thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as:
By limiting selection of possible candidates and their access to statewide or national ballot
box via rigged undemocratic caucuses and primaries and other unreasonable requirements, goal-seeking
ad-hoc rules. by eliminating and/or confusing voters about voting at proper physical location
often changed in last moments, forcing into never counted provisional vote by purposely hiding
registered lists, purging made up "felons" from voter lists, requiring expensive or unavailable
or costly to obtain due to extensive travel, identifying documents, threatening citizen (of color)
with deportation, accusing them of voter fraud [baseless challenging that automatically pushes
voter into provisional vote], or strait offering meaningless provisional ballots instead of proper
ballot for people who can't read (English) well, eliminating students and military vote when needed
on phony registration issues, signature, pictures, purposefully misspelled names, mostly non-British
names etc., reducing number of polling places where majority votes for "rouge" candidate, forcing
people to stand in line for hours or preventing people from voting al together.
Selecting remote polling locations with obstructed public access by car or transit, paid parking,
exposed to weather elements, cold, wind and rain in November.
Hacking databases before and after vote, switching votes, adding votes for absent voters, and
switching party affiliations and vote at polling places as well up in the data collating chain,
county, state, filing in court last minute frivolous law suits aimed to block unwanted candidates
or challenging readiness of the polling places in certain neighborhoods deemed politically uncertain,
outrageous voting ON a WORKING DAY (everywhere else voting is on Sunday or a day free of work)
skewing that way votes toward older retired people.
Massive lying propaganda of whom we vote for, a fraudulent ballot supposedly voting for "candidates"
but in fact voting on unnamed electors, party apparatchiks instead, violating basic democratic
principle of transparency of candidates on the ballot and secrecy of a voter, outrageous electorate
college rules design to directly suppress democracy. Requirement of approval of the electoral
vote by congress is an outrageous thing illegal in quasi-democratic western countries due to division
of powers.
Outrageous, voting day propaganda to discourage voting by phony polling and predictions while
everywhere else there is campaigning ban, silence for two to three days before Election Day.
No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers
about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen
as anybody who opens eyes can see.
All the above fraud prepared by close group of election criminals on political party payroll,
months/years before election date often without any contribution from ordinary polling workers
who believe that nothing is rigged.
If somebody thinks that they would restrain themselves this time, think again. The regime,
in a form of mostly unsuspecting county registrars are tools of the establishment and will do
everything, everything they can and they can a lot, to defraud those elections and push an establishment
candidate down to our throats, without a thought crossing their comatose minds. "Just doing their
jobs like little Eichmanns of NAZI regime".
One way or another your vote will be stolen or manipulated up and down the ticket at will
and your participation would mean one thing legitimizing this abhorrent regime.
We must reject those rigged elections and demand that establishment must go, all of them GOP,
DNC and that including Hillary before any truly democratic electoral process worth participating
may commence.
"The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant
oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy."
C. Wright Mills,"The Power Elite" (1956)
Any sane person must thus conclude that an act of voting in the current helplessly tainted
and rigged political system is nothing but morally corrupting tool that divides us, conflicts
us, extorts from us an approval for the meaningless political puppets of the calcified, repugnant
oligarchic US regime, in a surrealistic act of utter futility aimed just to break us down,
to break our sense of human dignity, our individual will and self-determination since no true
choice is ever being offered to us and never will.
Idea of political/electoral boycott, unplugging from the system that corrupts us and ALTERNATIVE
POLITICAL PROCESS designed, developed and implemented for benefit of 99% of population is the
only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official regime candidates'
agendas and from the rigged ballots. Let's not be afraid, it was already successfully done
in the past. It works." Without courage there is only slavery.
Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?)
to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like
he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it?
Grow up.
I took the time off (I'm a software engineer) after the primaries (having supported neither
BO or HRC) because that's who get got. We were coming off 8 years of BushCo which was, in summary...
a horror. The republicans were 100% unrepentant, and McCain was a far louder and steadfast supporter
of Iraq then Hillary... wasn't even close. McCain burried his Abramhoff investigation, sealed
their findings for 50 years. And his running mate was not just bereft of any policy expertise,
she was a loudmouth loon... even FOX canceled her post election show.
I was well aware of BO's questions/limitations. He didn't put his time in as a Senator and
sponsored no meaningful legislation. He played it safe. He had no real policy track record. And
as a Senator he quietly slipped away and hob-nobbed with Bush several times (no other Dem Senator
at the time did this that I was aware). So yeah, Obama was on open question.
I was going to pass on this election, but I've read a lot here about it and started to consider
what as a US voter I might do.
Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly
that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see
if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia
believes in.
I believe in voting. I believe in multiple parties. I believe the game is totally rigged but
sometimes you can win, except that you have to play for this to happen. I believe that you have
to be the thing you want.
I believe in a Green Party and I admire the sanity that comes from Dr. Jill Stein every time
I encounter her position. This is the world I believe in. This is the world I'll vote for and
support, with all tools that comes to hand, forever.
~~
I don't believe in the view that aspiring for betterment is foolish or naive, or the view that
current status cannot change or be changed. Such views fail to acknowledge the physical reality
of a new universe manifesting in each moment, always different in some way from that of the previous
moment. Such views are lost, bewildered, behind the curve, forever.
Term limits are useless. There could never be a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich -- Ever!
Term limited representatives would by definition be track record-free representatives. If you
really would like positive change, you simply need to get strategic hedge simple score voting:
SHSV
Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored
Bernie Sanders by 17%
Mar 06 2016
J.T. Waldron
Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results,
may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines.
68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference
of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine
vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by
1.42 %.
In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to
get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner
and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility
crisis and everything went smooth.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.
Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate in
which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions -
she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016
Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that he
would accept the results of the election - if he wins.
"I would like to promise and pledge . . . that I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election if I win."
Trump later said in the rally that he would accept a clear result but reserves the right to contest
a questionable outcome.
Trump's comments about the election results during the debate were blasted by politicians on both
sides of the aisle, including Governor Charlie Baker and Libertarian vice presidential candidate
Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts. Weld called the debate remarks "the death knell for
[Trump's] candidacy."
Senator John McCain of Arizona, a top Republican who withdrew his support of Trump earlier this
month, said he conceded defeat "without reluctance" in 2008 when then-Senator Barack Obama won the
presidential election. McCain said the loser has always congratulated the winner, calling the person
"my president."
"That's not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It's the American way. This election
must not be any different," McCain said in a statement.
Trump and his supporters have been making unsubstantiated claims that the election is rigged,
putting officials on the defense weeks before most voters head to the polls. Civil rights activists
have called some of the accusations a thinly veiled racist attack.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.
Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate
in which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions
- she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
10:55 AM - 20 Oct 2016
Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that
he would accept the results of the election - if he wins.
"I would like to promise and pledge ... that I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election if I win."
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
(But he didn't want the job anyway.)
President? It would be a demotion, says
Donald Trump Jr http://dailym.ai/2eJLQ71
via @MailOnline - Oct 20
Donald Trump Jr said last night moving into the White House would be a 'step down' for his
father.
Trump Jr was being interviewed on Fox News after the third presidential debate in Las Vegas
and was asked how he thought the Republican candidate had performed during the final presidential
debate. ...
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
