Saturday, June 20, 2020

WHO WILL JOE 'BRIBES' BIDEN PICK AS VICE PRESIDENT? FIRST, SHE MUST HAVE DEMONSTRATED A RECORD OF SERVING CRIMINAL BANKSTERS LIKE WELLS FARGO, AND OPEN BORDERS FOR MORE DEM VOTING ILLEGALS

Kamala #HeelsUpHarris ascends to the top of the Biden VP list: What could go wrong?

By Monica Showalter
The trends on Twitter are in and Kamala Harris has risen to the top of Joe Biden's heap for vice presidential picks.
Some random responses, none good:
She's black, and she's female, which is Biden's criterion for picking a vice president.  And unless he wants to go Norbit with Stacey Abrams, Harris might just be all he's got, given how he's boxed himself in.
Given how Biden is showing greater signs of senility than ever, they might as well even declare her the real president if, heaven forbid, Biden should win.
Harris sees that, which is why she's jumping at the chance.  Ever since her days as Willie Brown's mistress, sleeping her way to the top in politics, she's known a good opportunity when she's seen one. 
She's not #HeelsUpHarris, as Twitter's great kahuna, James Woods, nicknamed her, for nothing.
Problem one, for Joe, at least: She's phony, and it's not just her phony Twitter followers.
Harris, recall, is the one who tried to pander to black voters and guilt-minded whites to the effect that she, in all her Berkeley, California and Canadian upbringing, had suffered through her upbringing in the midst of some kind of Klan country.  Her yearbook photos from her high school showed otherwise.
Being half east Indian, she's not typically black, though she'd have you think she was.  Here's how she acquired that "credential":
Kamala Harris wanted to go to a black school. That’s what black folks called Howard University in the early 1980s when Harris was a teenager considering her future.
Harris, she would say later, was seeking an experience wholly different from what she had long known. She’d attended majority-white schools her entire life — from elementary school in Berkeley, Calif., to high school in Montreal. Her parents’ professional lives and their personal story were bound up in majority-white institutions. Her father, an economist from Jamaica, was teaching at Stanford University. Her mother, a cancer researcher from India, had done her graduate work at the University of California at Berkeley, where the couple had met and fallen in love. And Harris’s younger sister would eventually enroll at Stanford.
And here's what she did thereafter, according to Politico's Michael Kruse:
Her rise, however, was propelled in and by a very different milieu. In this less explored piece of her past, Harris used as a launching pad the tightly knit world of San Francisco high society, navigating early on this rarefied world of influence and opulence, charming and partying with movers and shakers — ably cultivating relationships with VIPs who would become friends and also backers and donors of every one of her political campaigns, tapping into deep pockets and becoming a popular figure in a small world dominated by a handful of powerful families. This stratum of San Francisco remains a profoundly important part of her network — including not just powerful Democratic donors but an ambassador appointed by President Donald Trump who ran in the same circles.
Harris, now 54, often has talked about the importance of having "a seat at the table," of being an insider instead of an outsider. And she learned that skill in this crowded, incestuous, famously challenging political proving ground, where she worked to score spots at the some of the city's most sought-after tables. In the mid- to late '90s and into the aughts, the correspondents who kept tabs on the comings and goings of the area's A-listers noted where Harris was and what she was doing and who she was with. As she advanced professionally, jumping from Alameda County to posts in the offices of the district and city attorneys across the Bay, she was a trustee, too, of the museum of modern art and active in causes concerning AIDS and the prevention of domestic abuse, and out and about at fashion shows and cocktail parties and galas and get-togethers at the most modish boutiques. She was, in the breezy, buzzy parlance of these kinds of columns, one of the "Pretty Thangs." She was a "rising star." She was "rather perfect." And she mingled with "spiffy and powerful friends" who were her contemporaries as well as their even more influential mothers and fathers. All this was fun, but it wasn't unserious. It was seeing and being seen with a purpose, society activity with political utility.
After that, she became "cop Kamala" as the lefties say, or a pretty dirty prosecutor, both in San Francisco and as California's attorney general.  She always put the needs of the Democratic establishment above the people she said she was "helping."  Here's something from an item I wrote about earlier:
So here's a new one, from California watcher Susan Crabtree at RealClearPolitics, reporting Harris's soapboxing at the second presidential debate:
"So in my background as attorney general of California, I took on the big banks who preyed on the homeowners, many of whom lost their homes and will never be able to buy another," Harris said in late July during the second round of Democratic debates in Detroit.
Here's what really happened:
In fact, she and several other state attorneys general were instrumental in negotiating a $25 billion national settlement with five of the top U.S. mortgage lenders to provide debt relief and other financial services to struggling homeowners. But in 2012, just months after Harris secured those funds along with the other state AGs, then-California Gov. Jerry Brown diverted $331 million from California's portion of the settlement to pay off state budget shortfalls incurred before the housing crisis.
Although Harris initially spoke out against Brown's diversion of the funds, she remained silent on a subsequent court battle that began in 2014 — even after she left the attorney general's office and for the last year and a half while serving as senator and during her presidential bid this year.
She shook down some banks in the name of 'the people' and then went and used the money for something else. No wonder she's always been popular with the Democratic one-party blue-state establishment. I have a full blog on that here.
And being part of that establishment, she protected that establishment - such as a sex harrasser, Larry Wallace, who happened to be a top aide during her stint as California attorney general, and whose transgressions forced the state to shell out more than a million dollars in compensation to his victims while he was on the job.
Harris claimed she didn't know a thing about it. Establishment, see, protects its own. So much for #MeToo.
Here's another corrupt little manuever - she managed to obtain a Los Angeles Police Department Praetorian guard that followed her wherever she went across the state. Police for me, but not for thee. Not her first corruption rodeo.
How exactly is that kind of establishment record - sucking up to the rich, protecting Democratic operatives, using all matter of executive privilege, etc., going to win over Bernie Sanders supporters? If Joe Biden picks Harris, he can write them off, these are their hot-button issues.
Worse still is her record as a criminal prosecutor, the Tulsi Gabbard takedowns described - the very takedowns that sank Harris's presidential bid before she even got to the primaries. In Tulsi's words:
There are too many examples to cite but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.
She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California, and she fought to keep a cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.
In an era of protests against police brutality in one-party blue cities, particularly from Black Lives Matter supporters, putting Harris on the ticket with Biden makes about as much sense as Republicans putting Mitt Romney at the top of the 2012 ticket in an age when Americans wanted to get rid of Obamacare. Romney, recall, launched his own version of the government takeover prior to President Obama's legacy program.
As a Republican, perhaps this is all good opposition research fodder for President Trump or Vice President Pence to hurl thunderbolts at in the upcoming presidential election. Maybe we should snicker. 
But it just goes to show how hard up the Democrats are for untainted candidates who can manage some kind of connection to normal people. If Kamala Harris is the best Joe Biden has got, it's not happening.

Amy Klobuchar ends bid to become Biden’s running mate in favor of a “woman of color”


20 June 2020
On Thursday, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar announced she was removing herself from consideration to become the vice presidential running mate of Joseph Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee. Klobuchar mounted her own campaign for the presidency before dropping out in early March and backing Biden against Bernie Sanders. She has been on the “short list” of vice presidential candidates, along with almost a dozen other women, ever since.
Klobuchar told MSNBC that she had called Biden on Wednesday night to withdraw from the running. She said she told him he should choose a woman of color to be his running mate. The move, in Klobuchar’s words, would be a step toward “healing the country.”
Senator Amy Klobuchar endorses Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden at a campaign rally, March 2, 2020 in Dallas [Credit: AP Photo/Richard W. Rodriguez]
Klobuchar had been considered one of the leading contenders for the vice-presidential pick. However, the eruption of mass protests over the police murder of George Floyd put an unwanted spotlight on her career as a local prosecutor in Minneapolis. Like virtually every other Democratic and Republican prosecutor, during her seven-year tenure Klobuchar declined to bring charges against officers who were involved in police murders in Minneapolis.
Even more damning, as documented by an Associated Press story earlier this year, Klobuchar used the railroading of a black teenager, Myon Burrell, to prison for life as a springboard for her political career.
The well worn narrative promoted by the promoters of identity politics, particularly in and around the Democratic Party, is that a woman of color, based on her gender and race, will represent all other women and people of color. This claim is based on the false notion that the fundamental divide in society is not that of class, but rather of race, gender or sexual identity.
The reality is that, like Klobuchar, none of the “women of color” being considered for vice president have anything to do with progressive politics, not because of their race or gender, but because they are Democratic Party politicians committed to defending the capitalist system. The selection of any one of them would do nothing to “move Biden to the left” or curb the frequency with which the police murder poor and working class people of all races.
Biden himself, it should be noted, has boasted of his good relations with Southern segregationist senators and was the author of the 1994 law-and-order Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which increased the mass incarceration of primarily African American men and expanded the death penalty. As Barack Obama’s vice president for eight years, Biden was part of an administration that funneled billions of dollars worth of military equipment to the police and whitewashed one police killing after the next.
A brief review of the political record and background of the leading candidates to become Biden’s running mate reveals that nearly every one of them is a “law and order” Democrat with a record of defending the police.
Senator Kamala Harris of California, who also ran against Biden in the primary, is the only black woman in the Senate. Harris was also the first African American and the first woman to serve as attorney general of the state of California.
During Harris’ political career, she has faithfully carried out the dictates of the ruling elite, sending working class people to jail, defending unconstitutional practices, preventing prosecution of the wealthy and defending the police. Her record includes campaigning as district attorney for criminal penalties for parents with truant elementary school children, up to a $2,000 fine and a year in jail.
In 2010, a Superior Court judge issued a scathing ruling charging that Harris’ office had failed in its constitutional duty to give defendants relevant information about the credibility of prosecution witnesses. And in 2014 she appealed the ruling of a federal judge in Orange County that the death penalty was unconstitutional, stating that the decision “undermines important protections that our courts provide defendants.”
On the issue of police violence, she has consistently sided with the police. She argued that “the left” needed to “get over its bias against law enforcement.” In 2015, she opposed a bill that would require her office to investigate police shootings. She further opposed calls for statewide standards on the use of body cameras by police. A full review of Harris’ political record can be found in the WSWS article, “Who is Democratic Senator Kamala Harris?”
Another prominent candidate who has emerged in recent weeks is Representative Val Demings of Florida, formerly the chief of police of Orlando. Demings began her law enforcement days in junior high, serving on the “school patrol” at Dupont Junior High School in her home town of Jacksonville.
When she was 26, Demings joined the Orlando Police Department. She became its first female police chief in 2007, serving until 2011. Her husband, Jerry Demings, who held the position before her, was elected sheriff of Orange County after leaving Orlando and in 2018 became the first black mayor of that county. There is no doubt that the “get-out-the-vote” machine of this couple is an attractive quality to the Biden campaign in the battleground state of Florida.
However, Deming’s record of overseeing a brutal police force during her tenure is well documented. A 2015 investigation into the city’s police department by the Orlando Sentinel found that from 2010 to 2014 officers used force 3,100 times, including kicking, pepper-spraying and shocking suspects. Furthermore, the report found that the Orlando police used force more frequently on black suspects, with about 55 percent of use-of-force incidents involving African Americans though only 28 percent of the city’s population is black. During this period, 10 people were killed by police officers.
While its investigation only partially overlapped with Demings’ tenure as police chief, the Sentinel found that in 2010, the last full year that Demings served as chief, the department used force 574 times, 20 percent more than officers in similarly sized cities with comparable demographics, such as Baton Rouge.
Another contender is Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta, Georgia. Bottoms imposed a curfew, welcomed the deployment of the National Guard to her city and oversaw scores of arrests during the initial wave of protest following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
At one point, Bottoms denounced the “very diverse crowd” of protesters in Atlanta and suggested that the many white people participating in the demonstrations were “outsiders” who were not welcome in the city. More recently, Bottoms has been working to contain a new upsurge of protests in Atlanta following the police murder of Rayshard Brooks, a 27-year-old black man shot dead by Atlanta police outside of a Wendy’s last week.
Bottoms has a long record of supporting “tough on crime” policies. She often boasts of having “authored the toughest panhandling legislation in the history of the city,” under which the city’s destitute and homeless can be thrown in prison for being out on the city streets.
In addition to her leading role in attacking the pensions of city employees, Bottoms has almost doubled the number of police officers in the Atlanta police department.
Next up is Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia gubernatorial candidate and leading Democratic Party proponent of racialist identity politics, considered for some time a front-runner in the vice presidential contest. While protesters are calling for an end to police killings and many support the call to “defund” the police, Abrams is pushing for “diversifying” law enforcement with more black officers and chiefs, and supports, along with Biden, an increase in funding for the armed enforcers of capitalist “law and order.”
Earlier this year, Abrams wrote an article for Foreign Affairs in which she asserted that blacks and whites have “intrinsic racial differences.” In the same article, she denounced politics based on “the catchall category known as ‘the working class.’”
During the Democratic primary race, Abrams defended the entry of presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire oligarch, saying it was a positive development since “for once we actually know where the money is coming from.”
Finally, there is Susan Rice, the former national security advisor to President Barack Obama. Rice’s response to the multi-racial and multi-ethnic protests was to denounce them as “right out of the Russian playbook.” She made the absurd claim that foreign governments were responsible for stoking domestic dissent.
Rice’s tenure under the Obama administration included countless crimes in the service of US imperialism, including fierce support for Obama’s war for regime change in Libya, his wars in Iraq and Syria, and his drone assassination program.


JOE BIDEN IS OBAMA'S THIRD TERM FOR BANKSTERS AND DEM BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS



"But as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while disproportionately punishing everyone else."

Who is Democratic Senator Kamala Harris?


22 January 2019
On Monday morning, Democratic Senator Kamala Harris announced on “Good Morning America” that she would be running for president in the 2020 elections. The announcement was timed to coincide with Martin Luther King Jr. Day in order to emphasize Harris’s identity as an African-American woman.
Her website and the news media repeatedly emphasize this part of her campaign, introducing her as “the second African American woman in history to be elected to the US Senate, and the first African American and first woman to serve as Attorney General of the state of California.”
The host of “Good Morning America,” George Stephanopoulos, set the tone for her announcement with his first question, “What qualifies you to be commander-in-chief?”
One can imagine the reaction of Dr. King, who declared the US government “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” had he been present to hear this member of the Senate Intelligence Committee talk about the country’s “moral authority” and her promise to always include national security as “one of the highest priorities.”
Harris returned to this point repeatedly, emphasizing what the “American people” do and do not want in a commander-in-chief. In addition to national security, Harris emphasized her background as a district attorney, defending law enforcement and being “smart on crime.”
Harris is widely regarded as a top contender for the Democratic nomination and has been boosted over the years by political endorsements from top Democrats, like former President Obama and current senator from New Jersey, Cory Booker, mentioned in the media as a likely rival for the presidential nomination.
In her political career as a prosecutor, Harris worked closely with law enforcement, as an assistant district attorney in Alameda County (Oakland), then as district attorney of San Francisco (2003-2010), and finally as California state attorney general from 2010 until her election to the Senate in 2016. At every stage she carried out her work as expected, sending ordinary people to jail, blocking exculpatory evidence, defending unconstitutional practices and preventing prosecution of the wealthy.
Harris was born in Oakland, California in 1964 to a Jamaican father and a Tamil mother. Her father was a Stanford University economics professor and her mother a medical researcher. Harris completed her bachelor’s degree at Howard University in Washington DC and then her law degree at UC Hastings in 1989, and went to work almost immediately as the deputy district attorney in Alameda County. In a 2016 interview with the New York Times, Harris said she wanted to work in the DA’s office in order to be “at the table where the decisions are made.”
She began to gain public prominence in 2003 when she won the election for district attorney of San Francisco. As DA she campaigned for criminal penalties for parents with truant elementary school children, up to a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. Although presenting herself as a reformer looking to clean up injustice, Harris’s record holds all the usual dirty tricks used by law enforcement. In 2010, a Superior Court judge issued a scathing ruling that Harris’s office had failed in their constitutional duty to give defendants relevant information about the credibility of prosecution witnesses. Internal memos showed that the DA’s office did not convey their suspicion that an employee in the drug analysis section of the police lab was intentionally falsifying information. Only after the scandal became public, did Harris’s office drop prosecution in over 600 drug cases that relied on that technician.
Harris assumed office as attorney general of California in 2011, but her record remained deeply conservative. Her campaign site brags about her record of criminal justice reform and defense of homeowners from foreclosures, but that is far from the case.
In 2014 she appealed the ruling of a federal judge in Orange County that the death penalty was unconstitutional, stating the decision “undermines important protections that our courts provide defendants.”
On the issue of police violence she has consistently sided with police, notably arguing “the left has to get over its bias against law enforcement.” In 2015 she opposed a bill that would require her office to investigate police shootings. She further opposed calls for statewide standards on the use of body cameras by police.
She has defended the state’s intrusive, familial DNA investigation policies, where the police compare DNA at a crime scene to a broad database and begin investigating any potential relatives of the suspect. Significantly, the database is not limited to those who have committed crimes but can include those simply detained by police.
She further sought to expand California’s civil forfeiture laws, which allow the police to seize assets they claim are related to crimes, and opposed a ballot measure that would limit the state’s “three strikes” law which allows life sentences for non-violent crimes.
Harris claims she “achieved landmark results” by “fighting the Wall Street banks” and winning a large settlement following the Great Recession. In fact, her office refused to prosecute blatant foreclosure fraud being carried out by OneWest Bank, run by then CEO Stephen Mnuchin, now Trump’s secretary of the treasury.
The Intercept obtained a 2013 internal memo by state investigators cataloguing the systematic falsification of foreclosure documents, including the backdating of signatures to before OneWest was founded in 2009. Out of an initial examination of 913 documents, investigators found that 909 were falsified. They estimated that a full investigation of OneWest would yield 5,600 violations of foreclosure sales, auctions, and backdating in nearly every one of the 35,000 foreclosures the bank had carried out by 2012. Harris’s office never pursued the matter.
In her 2016 senate bid, Harris was the only Democratic candidate for Senate to whom Mnuchin donated money. He was joined by at least one other OneWest investor, billionaire George Soros.
As a senator, Harris has mostly been associated with criticizing the Trump administration and defending the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration’s counter-reform which has been an immense windfall to insurance agencies. She participated in the demands with other leading senators that Senator Al Franken resign over allegations of sexual misconduct. After his resignation, she took over his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee—a high profile position that she put to good use during the hearings on the confirmation of right-wing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee—whose longtime ranking Democrat was her colleague from California, Dianne Feinstein—Harris oversees the vast criminal activity of the FBI and CIA, including the FBI’s political investigation into the Trump administration. She stands as a traditional Democratic Party defender of US imperialist interests, and workers can expect nothing else from her in her campaign for president.


The Democrats and anarchy


By Dennis Lund

It seems every Presidential Election is termed the ‘most important election of our lives’. It is a tired cliché that will not be repeated here. What will be said is; rarely have the implications posed by the choices been more distinct, or potentially impactful on the nation.
Actions taken by the Democrats has been made the choice stark and clear. Their far left tilt, the coronavirus response, and the aftermath of the George Floyd murder have afforded the nation a look at the true Democratic Party and what a Democratic victory would portend for the nation.
We have seen a logarithmic rise of a political movement, one that has gained power, through intimidation. It is a movement that brokers no dissent.
Recent events have played directly into the hands of the community organizers now dominating the Democratic Party. These events have also given exactly what the Democrats crave: unlimited power over our lives and absolute political subjugation to the radical elements within the party.
God help us if the Democrats again gain control over the “three branches of government: The Presidency, the Senate and the House,” to quote Representative Ocasio-Cortez.
Today’s Democratic Party has radically shifted in ideology. Evidence of this is the aforementioned representative from New York City.  Does anyone doubt that if not for her youth, she would be short listed for the VP slot?       
She is not the worst of what may be forthcoming should the Democrats run a clean sweep in November. Newt Gingrich last week spelled out the political repercussions.  If Biden, Pelosi and Schumer are in charge in 2021 get ready for this nightmare. These include:
  • Ending deportations
  • Open borders
  • Release of many prisoners
  • Abortions without restriction (and paid for by tax dollars)
  • Severe Gun Control
  • Expansion of the Supreme Court
  • Increased government regulations
  • Undoing anything done by President Trump
This scenario is indeed frightening.
The Democrats are willing to destroy America to achieve their ends. Trump is fighting to prevent this occurrence. The upcoming choice really is that basic.
We saw the real Democrats as they repeatedly lied in efforts to destroy Trump.
Their desperation was reflected in the COVID-19 lockdowns: Democrats blamed Trump for everything they could, be it actions taken or not taken.
The most severe controls over personal liberty were enacted by Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, a potential running mate for Joe Biden.
In a disgusting display of crass political gain we saw Pelosi try to exploit the COVID crisis to advance a far-left agenda.    
We got an additional look at a Democrat future in the reaction to the Floyd murder. Legitimate protests devolved into riots, which turned into a national trend.
The response by Democrats in power, at least those not supportive or empathetic, was weak, ineffective or nonexistent. Those ‘leaders’ are today’s Democrats and will populate a Biden administration.
Black Lives Matter now recognizes the potential destructive power of a mere threat of opposition to their cause. Cross them and you are out. Just like NBA announcer Grant Napear or Philadelphia Enquirer editor Stan Wischnowski and many others.   

Corporate America sees this as well and the donations are flowing in. Was this the true goal?

BLM is untouchable and are now kingmakers or breakers. Excluding the two major parties they are quite possibly the most powerful political force in the country.
We also saw Democrat failures in the Seattle take over. The governor did not care and the mayor thought it to be a street party and patriotic effort.
These are the new Democrats. These are the people we will get if Trump loses. Obama now seems moderate in comparison. Ponder that for a moment.
With Schumer and Pelosi in power, with radical elements like BLM and Ocasio-Cortez encouraged and unrestrained, BLM-approved legislation would pass with ease.
This needs to stop and it will not stop by electing what we are seeing rising from today’s Democrats.
The best way to stop this anarchy from spreading, as well as impacting national politics, is to re-elect Trump, retain the Senate, and regain the House.
The importance of your vote in November extends well beyond President Donald Trump, indeed our future will take a dark turn should we lose.
This needs to stop, but it will not stop by electing what we are seeing from today’s Democrats.


ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT OPEN BORDERS FOR MORE CHEAP LABOR AND NO CAPS ON IMPORTING CHINESE AND INDIANS TO WORK OUR TECH JOBS CHEAP.

Obama’s State of Delusion ... OR JUST ANOTHER "Hope & Change" HOAX?

”The delusional character of Obama’s State of the Union

address on Tuesday—presenting an America of rising living

standards and a booming economy, capped by his declaration

that the “shadow of crisis has passed”—is perhaps matched

only in its presentation by the media and supporters of the

Democratic Party.”


“The general tone was set by the New York Times in its lead editorial on Wednesday, which described the speech as a “simple, dramatic message about economic fairness, about the fact that the well-off—the top earners, the big banks, Silicon Valley—have done just great, while middle and working classes remain dead in the water.”

OBAMANOMICS:

The report observes that while the wealth of the world’s 80 richest people doubled between 2009 and 2014, the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s population (3.5 billion people) was lower in 2014 than it was in 2009.


In 2010, it took 388 billionaires to match the wealth of the bottom half of the earth’s population; by 2013, the figure had fallen to just 92 billionaires. It fell to 80 in 2014.

THE OBAMA ASSAULT ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS

“The goal of the Obama administration, working with the Republicans and local governments, is to roll back the living conditions of the vast majority of the population to levels not seen since the 19th century, prior to the advent of the eight-hour day, child labor laws, comprehensive public education, pensions, health benefits, workplace health and safety regulations, etc.”


“In response to the ruthless assault of the financial oligarchy, spearheaded by Obama, the working class must advance, no less ruthlessly, its own policy.”

New Federal Reserve report

US median income has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama “recovery”

The yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a massive 12 percent, or $6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is just one of the findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances released Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class living standards and a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich and the super-rich.

 

 

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S BILLIONAIRES’ GLOBALIST EMPIRE requires someone as ruthlessly dishonest as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be puppet dictators.

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-rigged-it-so-illegals-would-vote.html

1.     Globalism: Google VP Kent Walker insists that despite its repeated rejection by electorates around the world, “globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”

2.     Hillary Clinton’s Democratic party: An executive nearly broke down crying because of the candidate’s loss. Not a single executive expressed anything but dismay at her defeat.

3.   Immigration: Maintaining liberal immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the most.




IMAGES OF AMERICA UNDER LA RAZA MEX OCCUPATION:

 

Your neighborhood will be next to fall to LA RAZA!


 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/10/america-la-raza-mexicos-wide-open.html



 

 

Why the rich favor the Democrats



There's little doubt that today's Democrat Party is the party of the rich.  Actually, that's an understatement.  Far more than billionaires are involved.  A better expression of reality would be to say a fundamental core of Democrat coalition is the managerial class, also known as the elite.  These are the people who run the media, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the big corporations, the universities and schools, the investment banks, and Wall Street.  They populate the upper levels of government bureaucracies.  These are the East and West Coasters. 
The alliance of the affluent with the Democrat Party can be seen in the widely disproportionate share of hefty political donations from the well-to-do going to Democrats and a bevy of left-wing causes.  It's also why forty-one out of the fifty wealthiest congressional districts are represented by Democrats. 
BLOG: DEMS LOVE SOCIALISM FOR ILLEGALS TO KEEP THEM COMING AND BREEDING ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE AND SOCIALISM FOR BANKS. TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF IT!
 Bernie Sanders is an exception.  But he's an anomaly viewed as dangerous to the party, which is why he's being crushed by the Democrat establishment. 
Why do the wealthy align with the Democrats?  The answer may seem counter-intuitive, but it is really quite simple.  It's surely not ideals or high-minded principles.  Nor is it ignorance.  Rather, it boils down to raw self-interest.  
In his book, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, Christopher Caldwell notes that rich Americans think themselves to be as vulnerable as blacks.  They are a relatively small minority of the population.  They fear being resented for their wealth and power and of having much of that taken from them.  Accordingly, the wealthy seek to protect what is theirs by preventing strong majorities from forming by using the divide and conquer principle. 
As R.R. Reno writes when reviewing Caldwell's book: "Therefore, the richest and most powerful people in America have strong incentives to support an anti-majoritarian political system."  He goes on: "Wealthy individuals shovel donations into elite institutions that incubate identity politics, which further fragments the nation and prevents the formation of majorities."
Some of the rotten fruit of the wealthy taking this approach include multiculturalism, massive immigration of diverse people, resistance to encouraging assimilation, racial strife, trying to turn white males into pariahs, and the promotion of gender confusion.  Through it all, society is bombarded with the Orwellian mantra that "diversity is strength," as if repeating it often enough can make it so.  It is also why patriotism and a common American culture are so disparaged today.  Those from the upper strata of society project the idea that if you're a flag-waving American, you must be some kind of retrograde mouth-breathing yokel.  
The wealthy as a groups are content to dissolve the glue that holds the U.S. together.  And it is all done to enhance and preserve their power, wealth, and influence.  This is why they so hate Donald Trump.  He strives to unite people and the country, although you'd never know that that is what the president is doing  if you live in the media bubble.  Trump's MAGA agenda is an anathema to the managerial class.
To quote Reno one final time:
The next decade will not be easy.  But it will not be about what preoccupied us in the sixties, and which Caldwell describes so well.  Rather than the perils of discrimination we are increasingly concerned with the problem of disintegration — or in Charles Murray's terms, the problem of "coming apart."
Trump and the GOP he is molding are the vehicles to restore and strengthen national solidarity.  Trump said at the Daytona 500, "No matter who wins, what matters most is God, family, and country."  That is not the Democrat agenda.  As seen in Democrat politicians, their policies, and the behavior of their major contributors, the aim is to further weaken the social and national bonds in America.  There is a lot at stake here.  If solidarity wins, the Republic can survive and prosper.  If the Democrats and their wealthy cohorts do, then the middle class withers, the Republic dies, and the rich and their managerial class get to rule the roost.  That is what it comes down to.
ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT WIDER OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY AND HELL NO TO E-VERIFY!

In addition, establishment Republicans are no better than Democrats at stemming the flow of illegal immigration because big businesses reap the benefits of this cheap labor without incurring any of the social costs.

This is why the SEIU supports blanket amnesty for illegal aliens.


Democrats: The Party of Big Labor, Big Government...and Big Business

 

By Antonio R. Chaves
There is a widespread perception that the Democrat Party is the party the working class and the Republican Party is the party of big business.  Even though Republicans on average received slightly more from corporate employees prior to 2002, the overall difference between both parties from 1990 to 2020 is statistically insignificant (Table 1).  In fact, Democrat reliance on big labor gradually shifted toward big business following the involvement of solidly Democrat corporate giants in 2002, and from 2014 to 2020, Democrats consistently surpassed Republicans in corporate donations (Tables 1 & 2).
Based on data compiled by Open Secrets, Soros Fund Management, Fahr LLC (Tom Steyer), and Bloomberg LP ranked among the top ten for political contributions that gave over 90% to Democrats.  In sharp contrast, the right-leaning Koch Industries made the top ten only in 2014.  In nearly all other years, Koch ranked well below the top twenty.
Whether or not this trend is long-term, there is no denying that large corporations on average no longer lean right.  But what does it mean to be "the party of big business"? Donations are not definitive evidence.  What ultimately matters is what politicians do once they get elected.
Many liberals believe that big government is needed to "rein in" big business and that in the absence of federal intervention, corporations will "run roughshod" over the average American.  Many liberals also believe that corporations are the main beneficiaries of laissez-faire economics and that free-market conservatives who want to scale back regulations are somehow "in the pocket" of big business.
In reality, the opposite is true: big business and big government 
go hand in hand because government meddling in the economy 
encourages rent-seeking by businesses that can afford to pay 
for the lobbyists.  This crony capitalism grew exponentially as 
a result of New Deal regulations that squeezed out competitors 
during the 1930s.  Establishment politicians and well 
connected corporations are beneficiaries of the myth that big 
government and big business are adversaries because it hides 
their unholy alliance.
In all fairness, neither party has had a monopoly on the dispensation of corporate welfare: the TARP funds that propped up financial institutions deemed "too big to fail" during the Great Recession were released by the Bush administration.  In addition, establishment Republicans are no better than Democrats at stemming the flow of illegal immigration because big businesses reap the benefits of this cheap labor without incurring any of the social costs.
If both parties are playing this game, what is the basis for labeling the Democrat party "the party of big business"?  What policies from Republicans support small business?
Free-market conservatism benefits small businesses because the government does not pick the winners and losers by means of subsidies, tax breaks, and cumbersome regulations.  You will not see policies like these coming from Washington in a major way because proposals for shrinking the federal government rarely see the light of day in Congress.
Based on data collected by Gallup and Thumbtack, red states far outscore blue states in small business friendliness (Table 3).  This may be why less affluent Americans are fleeing states that score abysmally like California, Illinois, New York, and Hawaii.  This might also be why small business–owners are more likely to vote Republican.
The Trump administration has been good for businesses of all sizes mainly due to the unprecedented rate at which it scaled back stifling regulations.  This may be why some of the president's highest approval ratings now come from small businesses.
Donald Trump set himself apart from the ruling class when he latched onto the third-rail issue of illegal immigration and called out the corporate darling Jeb Bush (AKA "Low Energy Jeb") for his lack of grassroots support.  This may explain in part why Bain Capital, the firm co-founded by Mitt Romney, switched teams and contributed solidly Democrat in 2018.  In 2012, Democrats accused Bain Capital of destroying jobs by systematically dismantling the companies it bought off.  Times have changed...
Small businesses generate well over half of all new jobs.  Most importantly, many are family-owned, have strong ties to their communities, and provide upward mobility for millions of Americans who never attended college.  The Democrats' undermining of this quintessentially American institution is shameful and disqualifies it as the "party of the working class."  Contributions from big labor do not count toward "labor-friendliness" because mega-unions care more about recruitment than about the welfare of working Americans.  This is why the SEIU supports blanket amnesty for illegal aliens.
Democrats fed up with the corporate status quo are now choosing their own anti-establishment candidate, not realizing that socialism is just a more impoverished version of the crony capitalism they are rejecting.  Many Sanders-supporters are also morally shallow because they want to harness the power of the state to muscle in on the wealth of Americans who borrowed responsibly and worked hard to pay their bills.
After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin said, "This Constitution ... is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism ... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government."  If Democrats implement the dystopian policies of California on a national level, their corporate allies will do fine.  It is small business–owners and working-class Americans with nowhere to flee who have the most to lose. Be careful what you wish for.

To view the tables below, click the links.
Table 1: Top contributors to Democrats and Republicans as compiled by Open Secrets.
*The red lettering highlights a funding advantage for Republicans.  The blue lettering highlights a funding disadvantage for Republicans.
**Based on a T-test, the difference is insignificant at P = 0.46
Table 2: Top ten contributors to Democrats and Republicans by category (union, corporate, and ideological) as compiled by Open Secrets:
*In 2008 Goldman Sachs donated 74% to Democrats.  All other groups in this column donated between 40 and 69% to both parties.  This column does not differentiate between giving equally to both parties and giving 70–79% to Democrats or Republicans.
**This number includes the "City of New York."  Although it is officially listed as "other" by Open Secrets (not corporate, union, or ideological), I was personally informed by someone from the organization that Michael Bloomberg was the main source of this funding.
Table 3: Small business scores states scored by Thumbtack ranked according to their Democratic advantage by Gallup:
*GPA scores are based on the following numerical equivalents: A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, F = 0, A+ = 4.3, A- = 3.7, etc.
** Not scored.
***Mean GPA ± standard error. Based on a T-test, the difference is significant at P = 0.00001.

Grim Reaper Mitch to Pelosi: I'm Going to Kill Your Stimulus Plan


Matt Vespa
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just got some bad news from Mitch McConnell. Any talk about another stimulus isn’t going to happen. She may draft a bill, but it’ll meet a swift death in the Republican-controlled Senate. Mitch is the legislative grim reaper for most of what the Democratic House sends his way (via The Hill):
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hit the brakes Tuesday on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) plan to move ahead with a fourth stimulus package that would include major infrastructure spending and other Democratic priorities.
“I think we need to wait a few days here, a few weeks, and see how things are working out,” McConnell said on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.”
“Let’s see how things are going and respond accordingly,” he added. “I’m not going to allow this to be an opportunity for the Democrats to achieve unrelated policy items that they would not otherwise be able to pass.”
McConnell's remarks came the same day that President Trump encouraged Congress to pass a $2 trillion infrastructure bill as the next piece of coronavirus legislation.
Pelosi is also mulling a rollback of the SALT taxes, which would be nothing short of a giveaway to millionaires. And by the giveaway, it would be something of a $620 billion tax cut for them. Remember, this is the party of the working people, or so they say, and a part of me hopes she goes aggressive on this, so we can see Bernie Sanders gum up the Democratic works for a bit. There is no way a hardcore lefty would back this nonsense. Yet, there’s another reason why Mitch isn’t rushing on the House Democrats’ stimulus reloaded plans. They’re off. They won’t be back to work until April 20. And The Hill added that Mitch hasn’t forgotten about judges, adding that the Kentucky Republican’s motto is “leave no vacancy behind.”




THE OBAMA – BIDEN BANKSTERS CON JOB STARTED BEFORE HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE!

GET THIS BOOK!
Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses

BY TIMOTHY P CARNEY
Editorial Reviews
Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.

Congressman Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.” And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
If you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.
Investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:
* The Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and more government control

* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda

* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)

* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics

Praise for Obamanomics
“The notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free market is one of progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to demonize corporations by day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is exploiting the big business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it to entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author

“‘Every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich.’ With this astute observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare the Obama administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the president’s populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama

“Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul

“It’s understandable for critics to condemn President Obama for his ‘socialism.’ But as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while disproportionately punishing everyone else. So-called progressives are too clueless to notice, as usual, which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History

*

•         Hardcover: 256 pages

•         Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30, 2009)

•         Language: English

•         ISBN-10: 1596986123

•         ISBN-13: 978-1596986121

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)