Monday, June 20, 2016

HILLARY AND BILLARY'S LONG SERVICE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY - Political lessons of the Sanders campaign

Political lessons of the Sanders campaign

Political lessons of the Sanders campaign

20 June 2016
With his speech to supporters on Thursday night, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders began the process of drawing to a close his campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Sanders has yet to formally endorse the presumptive candidate, Hillary Clinton. But he told his supporters that the “major political task” over the next five months would be to defeat Donald Trump and he left no doubt that he would be working closely with Clinton to this end.
When Sanders announced his candidacy in May of 2015, he issued a call for a “political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally.” On the basis of denunciations of the “billionaire class” and a focus on the issue of social inequality, Sanders received far more support than either he or the Democratic Party leadership had anticipated. In the course of the Democratic primaries, the self-described “democratic socialist” won some 12 million votes, piling up large majorities among lower-income voters and particularly among young people.
The growth of anti-capitalist sentiment revealed in the support for Sanders frightened the ruling class. The affinity of broad sections of American workers and youth for socialism, combined with widespread hatred for Clinton—seen by millions as a war-monger, Wall Street lackey and pillar of the status quo—produced a major political crisis for the Clinton campaign, nearly derailing her planned coronation.
Now, however, as he prepares to make a formal endorsement of Clinton, Sanders is forced to clarify the meaning and goal of his “political revolution.” Thursday’s speech was the clearest elaboration of the political strategy that has guided Sanders’ campaign from the beginning. “Real change,” he declared, “never comes from the top down…It always occurs from the bottom up… That’s what the political revolution we helped to start is all about.”
The aim of this “bottom up” revolution, he continued, must be to defeat Trump, ensure that the Democratic National Convention “passes the most progressive platform in history,” develop a “50-state strategy” so that Democrats win throughout the country and flood the Democratic Party with Sanders supporters.
In other words, the “political revolution” in the end amounts to seeking to transform the Democratic Party, the oldest capitalist party in the world, into a party for progressive change and social equality. “I am looking forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors,” he told his supporters. This task, he said, will last generations—“a long and arduous process of transforming America.”
The idea that Sanders is promoting, that his 
campaign marks the beginning of a shift of the
Democratic Party to the left, is a fraud. 
Nothing exposes this more clearly than the 
candidate he is preparing to support.

Clinton is among the most widely despised candidates of a 
major party in US history, the personification of corruption 
and nepotism. Not only is she a mainstay of the Democratic 
Party establishment, she, along with her ex-president 
husband, have for decades played a leading role in shifting the Democrats ever further to the right. Both Clintons were prominent members of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), formed in 1985 to appeal to sections of the Republican Party on the basis of pro-market and pro-war policies. This was part of an effort to completely separate the Democratic Party from the policies of social reform with which it had been associated since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal.
Bill Clinton served as a chairman of the DLC 

prior to his election in 1992. As US president, 

he oversaw the abolition of welfare, an end to 

the Glass-Steagall banking regulations, the 

expansion of charter schools, law-and-order 

attacks on democratic rights, sanctions and 

bombings against Iraq and the war against 

Serbia. Hillary Clinton was a prominent 

leader of the DLC throughout her term as a 

senator from New York, which she used to 
deepen her ties to both Wall Street and the 
military-intelligence apparatus (including through her vocal support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq).
As secretary of state under Obama, Clinton positioned herself on the right wing of the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment, calling for a “no-fly” zone in Syria and more aggressive measures against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, actions that could quickly lead to war between the US and Russia. She is directly responsible for the destruction of Libya and the overall disaster in the Middle East that has produced the greatest refugee crisis since the Second World War.
Yet Clinton is to be Sanders’ ally in transforming the Democratic Party into a “party of working people and young people!”
The Sanders campaign in many respects mirrors those of previous “left” and “insurgent” Democratic Party candidates and political figures, including Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean and even Barack Obama himself—the “transformative” candidate of “hope and change” whose election in 2008 supposedly inaugurated a sea-change in American politics. The results of these previous proposals to perform political alchemy on the Democratic Party are self-evident.
Sanders, however, is seeking to carry out the job of channeling opposition into the Democratic Party under far more explosive conditions. The growth of social inequality and the deterioration of the conditions of life for workers and young people—particularly in the nearly eight years since the financial meltdown of 2008—have produced an enormous level of social and political discontent.
With Sanders making his exit, the Democratic Party and the media are moving quickly to suppress the class issues that motivated his supporters by promoting even more aggressively the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation. This is to be combined with appeals to sections of the Republican Party and the military concerned about the implications for US imperialism of a Trump presidency to join forces behind Clinton.
The objective factors that underlie the support for Sanders, however, will not go away. The two-party system in the United States is beginning to break apart. There are clear signs of a resurgence of class struggle in the US and internationally, and these are only a pale indication of what is to come. Whoever wins in November, new and far more bloody wars are being planned, intersecting with and intensifying the economic crisis and the breakdown of democratic forms of rule in the United States and internationally.
It is necessary to assimilate the experience of the Sanders campaign and draw the appropriate political conclusions in order to prepare for what lies ahead. It is not so much a question of Sanders himself—he is, in the end, a dime-a-dozen bourgeois politician—but a whole type of pragmatic politics that hopes for a solution to the crisis confronting the working class without a direct challenge to the capitalist system.
The World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) anticipated the trajectory of the Sanders campaign because we based ourselves on a scientific, historically grounded, Marxist analysis that proceeds not from what political tendencies or individuals say about themselves, but from their history and program and the class interests they represent.
The only way forward for the working class is on the basis of a genuinely revolutionary policy—not a “political revolution” to promote the Democratic Party, but a socialist revolution to overthrow the capitalist system. The Socialist Equality Party is spearheading the organization of the working class independently of all parties and factions of the ruling class, on the basis of a socialist program to fight for workers’ power and public ownership of the corporations and banks under the democratic control of the working people, in the United States and internationally.
It is to build a socialist political leadership in the working class that the SEP and its candidates, Jerry White and Niles Niemuth, are running in the  presidential election. We call on all workers and young people to support our campaign and make the decision to join the Socialist Equality Party.
Joseph Kishore

SEN. SANDERS SURRENDERS TO HER CORRUPTNESS… Will he serve her Wall Street Paymasters also?


Hillary & Billary….. Operating like third world dictators sucking in the bribes from every criminal and sleaze bag they know and they know all of them!

Hillary Clinton Signals LA RAZA SUPREMACIST Cecilia Munoz will make a great Vice President. Munoz is endorsed by Mexico.


Cecilia Munoz - Formerly of the 'Tan Klan'
Now works in Intra-government Affairs for the White House
Radical Mexican Reconquista zealot Munoz speaking at a soiree thrown by the miserable ADL.
From the New York Times - October 22, 2000

Despite the fact that the majority of documented Hispanics oppose illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La Raza race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a separatist movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously oppose it is scorned as racism. Aztlan and Mecha groups advocate killing all whites and blacks and driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic cleansing.

Islamism is the great evil of our age….

Instead, with the aid of our media and Internet, we greet each new act of
Islamic murder with a show of lies and anger. The Left is in charge of the lies. They tell us, in Hillary Clinton’s absurd words, that “Muslims . . . have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

The second comes from “Shep” on a Disqus comment at Scott Adams’s blog

 It is particularly poignant today, in the wake of Hillary calling out the Saudis for funding radical Islam, and posing as a friend of gays:

I encourage readers to add their own examples of Hillary Hilarity in the comments.







Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama's executive immigration actions, she said "if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." She added, "That is just the beginning!" 


"The facts known about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s actions surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting State Department business, show that she acted with reckless disregard of the security interests of the United States and violated some ten federal statutes."

"The Clintons used this as a way to launder foreign donations (which would be illegal if they were campaign donations) to finance her campaign in absentia."




"The country is now at the edge of an abyss following years of obfuscation, unaccountability,
subterfuge, and law evasion by the Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry
into a kind of base “group think acceptance” of government corruption and abuse of
power. Resetting Americans’ trust in government needs to start with holding people in high
office, like Hillary Clinton, accountable."



America’s Juan and Evita Peron!

Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with $2 billion in donations to their foundation, wealth accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.

May 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton -- Career Criminal

At the conclusion of an article on the State Department IG’s findings that Hillary Clinton brazenly violated federal record-keeping statutes, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy asks:
“What are we to make of Mrs. Clinton’s public posturing that of course [emphasis in original] she is prepared to cooperate -- and encourages her subordinates to cooperate -- with government investigators?”
The question is obviously rhetorical, but one problem with rhetorical questions is that we don’t always really answer them, other than shrugging. So allow me in this case to answer that question. What we are to make of Mrs. Clinton is that she is an accomplished career criminal -- and I mean that literally, not rhetorically. 
Like a lot of accomplished career criminals Mrs. Clinton has committed so many high crimes and misdemeanors, and gotten away with them to boot, that we tend to forget (or ignore) past acts of lawlessness because the new ones keep on coming. And like skillful felons the world over, Mrs. Clinton takes full advantage of this very human inclination, by sloughing off past accusations as “old news” or the result of biases that have emerged through “misunderstandings.” Anyone who has worked in criminal justice has seen this phenomenon, where repeat offenders get to know police, prosecutors and judges so well that law enforcement tires of them -- maybe even comes to like them a bit -- and so cut the career criminal a break. And the clever crook knows this tendency and plays upon it. It’s this dynamic that led to the development of “three strikes” laws, so such crooks don’t receive unearned or plainly manipulated sympathy. 
Donald Trump’s recent faux pas regarding the long-ago apparent suicide of Clinton confidant Vince Foster is an example of this process. Trump, as is his wont, made a poorly thought-out off-the-cuff remark suggesting that Foster was murdered, and that Clinton was behind it. Since this is one crime that the Clintons probably did not commit, Trump’s remark was foolish, since, like accusations about Obama’s birthplace, it just gives the leftist media ammunition to belittle legitimate criticisms. But it was also understandable -- Trump didn’t claim the accusations were true, only that he was aware of them, and given we’re talking about Hillary Clinton, well…
But Trump needn’t speculate about Foster’s fate, nor should we. Rather than trying to pin Foster’s death on Hillary, he ought to remind the public of her other crimes, and launch focused attacks on her documented and provable malfeasances, starting with her cattle futures trading windfall/bribe. Today, Hillary’s cattle trading is usually mentioned casually as an indicator of how far back Hillary’s corruption goes, but that crime (from 1978/79) itself is worth revisiting in some detail. 
Like most of Hillary’s wrongdoing, she benefits from the fact that her schemes are complex, superficially boring, and often hard for the general public to understand. In that sense it’s understandable that Trump fell into the trap of talking about the Foster case. Murder and/or suicide is comprehensible and sexy, trading livestock is not. That doesn’t change the fact that Hillary’s $100,000 trading windfall cannot reasonably be seen as anything but a criminal bribe. 
Anybody that knows anything about trading commodities understands that what Hillary claims to have done -- turn an initial $1000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit ten months later -- is as a practical matter almost impossible even for the most skilled commodity operator, and absolutely impossible for a neophyte such as Hillary was. My father traded commodities for decades, was very smart, reasonably good at it, and even ran an advisory service for a time. He managed to stay ahead but not by much. Three quarters of commodity traders lose money, the vast majority inexperienced traders like Clinton. 
An inexperienced blackjack player would have a much, much easier time turning a $1000 stake at a casino into $100,000, than would a similarly situated person in futures trading, though of course such a blackjack run would require almost perfect play. What Hillary claims to have done would have required divine intervention, or a criminal scheme. Since I am fairly sure the Almighty is not on her side, we need to go with the latter. 
After the trading scheme became public in the 1990s, Clinton and her defenders tried to explain the windfall away as a combination of Hillary’s native intelligence, luck, and good advice. But a scholarly paper put out in 1994 by the Journal of Economics and Finance calculated that the odds of gaining such a profit in ten months under conditions at the time, and giving the investor the benefit of the doubt, at 31 trillion to 1. By way of comparison, the odds that the blood detected on O.J. Simpson’s notorious glove (found after the murders at Simpson’s estate), did not contain the blood of his victims is between 21 and 41 billion chances in one. Thus, at least by this metric, it is far, far more likely that O.J. Simpson is innocent of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, than it is that Hillary’s cattle futures profit was not illegal. Even a bored, inattentive and not very bright electorate can understand that. And I understand that some people never will understand it no matter what, which is why O.J. walked. 
The futures trading incident is also notable in that after the scheme became a legal and political issue, Hillary’s cool reaction to it proved to be her coming out party as an effective mob boss who could handle herself under intense pressure and scrutiny. She was widely praised in the liberal press for being forthcoming and unflappable, while also giving no ground, a pattern that would repeat itself again and again, up to the present.   
Hillary’s cattle futures bribery scheme dates back to the same time frame as she began her other introductory criminal scam, Whitewater. From there came the Rose Law Firm billing records scandal (related to Whitewater), Travelgate, Hillary’s libels against victims of her husband’s predatory sexual behavior, Troopergate (related to Bill’s dalliances), the White House’s missing furniture, the friendly mortgage for the house in Chappaqua, a carpet-bagging Senate run, the Clinton Foundation, pay for play speeches, Benghazi, and the email scandals. (I may have missed one or two others.) 
It is a breathtaking history of scandal and criminality that might make Tony Soprano blush, and is certainly the envy of real life mob bosses cooling their heels in penitentiaries jail across the nation. Hillary simply has almost all the traits (and history) of a successful mob boss, including a close knit group of loyal confederates who operate under a code of omerta
Trump has many flaws, but to my knowledge he is not an outright criminal, much less a mob boss. Trump needn’t concern himself with Vince Foster. He does need to thoughtfully and aggressively hone his attack on Hillary’s enduring criminality. There is plenty to work with.