Thursday, October 15, 2020

JACKIE LACEY AND THE COP REIGN OF TERROR IN AMERICA - ANOTHER LAWLESS LAWYER AT WORK

 

THE LAWLESS LAWYER CLASS

LAWYER JACKIE LACEY PROTECTS HER MURDERING GANG INFESTED L.A. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT. SHE IS A REMINDER THAT THE LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO THE LAWYER CLASS!

ONLY KAMALA HARRIS HAS DONE MORE FOR MURDERING COPS AND THEIR GENEROUS NEO-FASCIST COP UNIONS!

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-lawless-class-how-lawyer-jackie.html

During her time in the DA’s office, Lacey has prosecuted only one officer for killing a civilian, leading to protests outside her office and her home

“She continues to find that it is necessary for police 

to kill unarmed people,” Gascón said. “Perhaps she 

thinks it’s fine, or perhaps it’s all the money she 

has taken from police unions.” Lacey has benefitted

from more than $5 million in contributions to 

outside committees benefiting Lacey has come 

from law enforcement unions. 


Oversight Panel Calls for Resignation of LA Sheriff Alex Villanueva

FILE: L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva speaks in August at the graduation ceremony for the latest Academy Class. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Our news is free on LAist. To make sure you get our coverage: Sign up for our daily newsletters. To support our non-profit public service journalism: Donate Now.

In a significant erosion of support for Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva, the Sheriff's Civilian Oversight Commission Thursday called on him to resign as leader of one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country. Commissioners said the sheriff has obstructed oversight at nearly every turn and failed to address major problems at the agency, including the existence of "deputy gangs."

The commission's resolution describes "a serious lack of judgement and leadership by Sheriff Villanueva" and decries "his efforts to block meaningful reform." It also says Villanueva has restricted access to the department by the county's inspector general.

In an extraordinary move, the sheriff opened a criminal investigation into Inspector General Max Huntsman in 2019, accusing him of unlawfully accessing department records. Huntsman — and the county's attorney — said he had access to those files under the law that created his office. Members of the commission called the sheriff's move an act of intimidation.

LOST CONFIDENCE

The nine-member panel says it has lost confidence in Villanueva's ability to effectively govern the agency, which employs nearly 18,000 people and operates the largest local jail system in the country.

Villanueva was an unconventional candidate for sheriff when he beat incumbent Jim McDonnel in the 2018 election. He was a retired lieutenant with little management experience who had never supervised more than 100 people. Villanueva won largely because of the backing of the deputy's union and an endorsement by the LA County Democratic Party.

The vote Thursday to call on Villanueva to resign was unanimous. Some of the panel's most traditionally pro-law enforcement members agreed the sheriff must go, including former Federal Judge Robert Bonner, former Deputy District Attorney Lael Rubin, and former Sheriff's Lt. J.P. Harris.

Despite those credentials, Villanueva has called the panel anti-law enforcement.

"They're political philosophies are either they really, really hate cops or they slightly hate cops or they're not too sure," he said. In the sheriff's view, attempts by the panel to oversee his department are part of a "proxy war" by the Board of Supervisors. The board appoints the panel.

It's worth noting Villanueva's relationship with the board has deteriorated too — two members of the board have asked him to resign. Aspiring members of the board also are critical of the sheriff. In Wednesday's debate hosted by our newsroom, Herb Wesson and Holly Mitchell both said the sheriff was unqualified to do the job. They're vying for the open District 2 seat, which represents cities such as Carson, Compton, Culver City and Inglewood; all or part of L.A. neighborhoods including Crenshaw, Koreatown, La Brea, and Mar Vista; and other unincorporated areas of the county.

Villanueva did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the commission's vote.

AN ELECTED OFFICE

The sheriff is elected by the voters — so it's unclear what effect the calls for resignation will have. In fact, several commissioners worried their resolution will close the door on any hope for effective oversight — even though it simultaneously calls on the sheriff to cooperate with the panel.

"It does seem to be a bit of a contradiction," said Harris. "I hope it doesn't close the door."

"He is the one that closed the door, he's the one that can open it," said Commissioner and Loyola Law School Professor Priscilla Ocen.

The vote comes amid a raging debate over policing in the country and a demand for more accountability and transparency. It also follows a series of controversial shootings by sheriff's deputies that drew angry protests, as well as accusations of brutality by the department during the George Floyd and other demonstrations.

Among the resolution's points:

  • Sheriff Villanueva removed the Sheriff's Department's constitutional policing advisors, while at the same time attempting to rehire deputies who were fired for cause, such as fabricating evidence and domestic violence.
  • Sheriff Villanueva alleged, without proof, that the disciplinary process was "unfair" and deactivated the disciplinary proceedings against deputies accused of using excessive force and committing child abuse
  • Violent deputy cliques or gangs continue to operate within the department, particularly in the Compton and East Los Angeles stations... Despite Sheriff Villanueva's claims that members of these cliques/gangs have been disciplined or reassigned pursuant to Sheriff's Department policy, Inspector General Max Huntsman has said that he is "'aware of no implementation whatsoever' of the policy and that his office can't effectively investigate the secret societies 'because of the obstruction of the Sheriff's Department.'"

In another part of the resolution, the commission says the commission has "violated the First Amendment rights of residents engaging in protest activity as well as journalists covering protests." It cites the arrest of LAist/KPCC reporter Josie Huang, who was taken into custody by deputies last month after identifying herself as a member of the press. "In defending the arrest, Sheriff Villanueva cited inaccurate and misleading information that was contradicted by contemporaneous video footage."

THE BACKSTORY

When Villanueva took office in December of 2018, commissioners initially were hopeful for a better relationship with him than his predecessor Jim McDonnell, who sometimes resisted requests for information from the panel and attended only a handful of their meetings.

Indeed, Villanueva attended several meetings during his first few months in office but as commissioners' questions became more pointed about deputy discipline, use of force and other matters, he quit showing up.

Villanueva was particularly perturbed by the panel's demand for more information about his decision to rehire a former campaign aide who had been terminated by the department for alleged domestic violence and lying. The rehiring of Caren Carl Mandoyan sparked a lawsuit by the board of supervisors and a judge's ruling it was unlawful.

His relationship with the nine-member civilian panel steadily deteriorated since then with his often refusing to even send subordinates to answer questions necessary for them to conduct effective oversight. McDonnell almost always sent his undersheriff to meetings - even if his responses to inquiries left the commission unsatisfied.

In May, Villanueva defied the first ever subpoena by the commission to testify about how he was handling the spread of coronavirus inside LA County's sprawling jail system. The sheriff worried it would be a "public shaming" of him.

The commission was created by the Board of Supervisors in January of 2016 to increase transparency and accountability at the department. In March, voters approved a measure giving subpoena power. At each point, criminal justice reform advocates expressed high hopes for better oversight and changes at the sheriff's department.

With the commission now at a standoff with the sheriff, nobody expressed much hope.

There was talk of a recall of the sheriff among a few activists who spoke at the meeting - the only hope for some to oust a sheriff who's vowed to remain in power.

READ THE FULL RESOLUTION:

DOCUMENT
PAGES
TEXT
Zoom

NANCY PELOSI - 'WE FEED THE BEGGARS' - WHO WERE ONCE MIDDLE AMERICA - As pandemic death toll approaches 200,000, American oligarchs celebrate their wealth

 

Pelosi Tells Wolf Blitzer: ‘We Feed’ the Beggars, ‘Have You Fed Them? We Feed Them’

 By Craig Bannister | October 14, 2020 | 11:45am EDT

 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(Screenshot)

“Have you fed them? We feed them,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when he suggested Pelosi should accept a compromise on the coronavirus relief bill because “people are on the street, begging for food, begging for money.”

On Tuesday’s “Situation Room,” Host Wolf Blitzer asked Speaker Pelosi why she’s refusing to accept any offers of compromise on coronavirus stimulus when Americans “need the money right now” and her fellow Democrats don’t want her to “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Towards the end of the contentious debate on the subject, when Pelosi called for Blitzer to be sensitive to the needs of her constituents, Blitzer responded:

“I am sensitive to them because I see them on the street, begging for food, begging for money. Madame Speaker, thank you so much.”

“Have you fed them? We feed them. We feed them,” Pelosi declared.

Pelosi attacked Blitzer throughout the interview for suggesting that there’s an urgent need to compromise, telling him:

  • “You all think you know more about the suffering of the American people than those of us who are elected by them to represent them at that table.”
  • “You really don’t know what you’re talking about.”
  • “I don't know why you're always an apologist — and many of your colleagues — apologists for the Republican position.”
  • “Do you have any idea what the difference is between the spending that they have in their bill and that we have in our bill?”
  • “[You’re] defending the administration all this time with no knowledge of the difference between our two bills.”

In a recent interview with Bloomberg News, Pelosi voiced her disdain for compromise on coronavirus relief, saying compromise would be unacceptable because it would be “a missed opportunity” to get all of what she wants.

At one point, Pelosi got so worked up that she accused Blitzer of “apologizing for Obama”:

“So you're the apologizing for the Obama — excuse me. God forbid. Thank God for Barack Obama.”

This process was sped up by the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Obama administration took measures to gut autoworkers’ pay while funneling trillions of dollars to Wall Street.

According to a Bloomberg analysis of the data, the richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. The increased concentration of wealth at the top in the course of 2020 is the result of the unprecedented injection of money into the stock market by the Fed, which has led to an explosive growth in the fortunes of moguls such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla chief Elon Musk and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Richest 50 Americans now have as much 

wealth as bottom 165 million

The Federal Reserve released data this week on US household wealth that documents the acceleration of wealth inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the second quarter of 2020, the bottom 50 percent of households—some 165 million people—held $2.08 trillion, or $12,600 per person, while the richest one percent of the population controlled $34.2 trillion, i.e., over $10.4 million per person. In percentile terms, the top one percent of the population held 30.5 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 50 percent controlled only 1.9 percent.

According to a Bloomberg analysis of the data, the richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. The increased concentration of wealth at the top in the course of 2020 is the result of the unprecedented injection of money into the stock market by the Fed, which has led to an explosive growth in the fortunes of moguls such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla chief Elon Musk and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The divide in wealth appears even more gigantic when one looks at the top 10 percent of the population as a whole. Combined, the top one percent and next nine percent held 69 percent of the nation’s wealth at the end of the second quarter of 2020, a total of $77.32 trillion.

Between the first and second quarter of 2020, the top one percent of the population increased its share of the country’s wealth from 30 percent to 30.5 percent. The biggest losers were those in the 50 to 90 percentile range of wealth holders, who saw their overall share shrink from 29.7 percent to 29.1 percent. The 90 to 99 percentile and the bottom half remained largely unchanged.

While these changes may appear slight, they actually represent a substantial shift in a short period of time. The top one percent of the population substantially increased its share of the country’s wealth as the Fed effectively printed over $3 trillion and injected it into the financial markets. Better-off sections of workers, who, unlike the bottom half of the working class, have some level of savings, retirement funds or other assets, saw their wealth share decline, as they were forced to draw on savings amidst the global downturn.

One explanation for this sharpening division between, roughly, the top 10 percent of the population and the bottom 90 percent of the population is the disproportionate ownership of stocks and mutual funds. The top one percent of the population owns 52.4 percent of all corporate equities (stocks) and mutual funds, the next nine percent owns 35.8 percent.

Combined, 88.2 percent of the US economy, as represented in corporate equities and mutual funds, is owned by just 10 percent of the population.

While the bottom half of the population has for the last several decades held only one percent of the nation’s stocks, better-off sections of the working class, the 50th to 90th percentiles, held 21.4 percent of this wealth in the early 2000s. However, today this share has fallen to just 11.2 percent. In other words, better-off sections of the working class, less connected to the financial markets, have seen their fortunes move in an opposite direction to those in the top 10 percent of the population.

Another interesting feature of the Fed data is its breakdown by age group. The Millennial group—those born between 1981 and 1996—is today the largest share of the American workforce, accounting for 72 million workers. However, Millennials own just 4.6 percent of US wealth.

In contrast, the data shows that in 1989, when the typical member of the Baby Boomer generation was 34, that generation controlled about 21 percent of wealth.

This contrast between the wealth of Millennials and that of Boomers at similar times in their life cycles reflects the incredible difficulty that young people today face in landing a decent-paying job, paying for college and paying for health care, let alone taking out a mortgage, raising a family and saving for retirement.

The Fed data comes on top of several other recent reports and announcements about social inequality, including:

  • A UBS report showing that the world’s billionaires have increased their wealth by over $1.3 trillion, more than 10 percent, in just three years.
  • An announcement by the World Bank that the fallout from COVID-19 will push as many as 150 million people into what it classifies as extreme poverty (living on less than $1.90 per day) by 2021. This is the first time the number of people in extreme poverty has increased since 1998.
  • Wall Street Journal report that, using Labor Department data, demonstrated the divergence of fortunes for educated and noneducated workers amid the pandemic. The Journal found that, while those with college degrees have nearly recovered from COVID-19 job losses (which were smaller), high school dropouts still have 18 percent fewer jobs.
  • A RAND report that found the bottom 90 percent of Americans would be making 67 percent more without last four decades of deepening inequality.

The ever-growing concentration of wealth at the top of the population weighs like a malignant tumor over society. No social problem, whether it be inequality, global warming, education, health care, retirement or the pandemic, can be solved without mobilizing these vast fortunes at the top and placing them under the democratic control of the broad majority of the population.

The process of extreme class restructuring, and the decimation of the ranks of the better-off, “middle-class” workers depicted in the Fed data, has been underway for at least 40 years. Under Democratic no less than Republican leadership, president after president, Congress after Congress, policies have been carried out that inflated the wealth of the ultra-rich while degrading the conditions of the working class.

This process was sped up by the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Obama administration took measures to gut autoworkers’ pay while funneling trillions of dollars to Wall Street.

Now, a similar but even more drastic social restructuring is underway in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions have been thrown into long-term joblessness and poverty, while $3 trillion have been injected into the financial markets and hundreds of billions of dollars given out to major corporations under the bipartisan CARES Act.

The needs of the working class—the broad majority of the population—stand in direct conflict with the interests of the parasitic financial elite. The major banks and corporations, which control nearly every aspect of global life today, must be placed under the democratic ownership and supervision of the working class so that that the needs of the population can be met.

As pandemic death toll approaches 200,000, American oligarchs celebrate their wealth

 

The United States is passing through a historic social, economic and political crisis. The death toll from the coronavirus pandemic is nearing 200,000 and could double by the end of the year. Democratic forms of rule are breaking down, with the Trump administration intensifying its open incitement of fascistic violence. Tens of millions are unemployed and face impoverishment and homelessness. Wildfires are burning out of control on the US West Coast.

It is impossible to understand any of these processes outside of the massive levels of social inequality. The United States is an oligarchy, with a concentration of wealth that is historically unprecedented.

The release of the Forbes 400 billionaire report gives a sense of this reality. The richest 400 individuals (0.00012 percent of the population) now possess more than $3 trillion.

The report declares: “Pandemic be damned: America’s 400 richest are worth a record $3.2 trillion, up $240 billion from a year ago, aided by a stock market that has defied the virus.” The surge in the stock market, underwritten by the multi-trillion-dollar CARES Act passed in March, has filled the already overflowing coffers of the super-rich, who now hold claim to the equivalent of 15 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Even the numbers provided by Forbes, based on figures from July 24, are a major underestimation of the current reality. Since that time, the wealth of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, has shot up to more than $200 billion, while the wealth of Tesla CEO Elon Musk has grown to over $100 billion. Bezos’s holdings are three million times greater than the annual income of the typical American household.

The staggering level of inequality reflected in the Forbes list is the central feature of American society, which is defined by the transfer of obscene and ever larger amounts of wealth from the working class into the hands of a tiny financial oligarchy through tax cuts, bailouts, the slashing of wages and the clawing back of pensions and other benefits won by workers in the struggles of the 20th century.

The latest rise in the billionaires’ wealth is not based on any exertion of labor on their part, but on the inflation of the stock market, with trillions of dollars in debt from the Federal Reserve and Congress, which will be paid off the backs of the working class. Everything has been subordinated to ensuring that the Dow and the S&P 500 rise to new heights.

It would take the median American, who earns $33,000 per year, 97 million years to earn as much as is controlled by the wealthiest Americans. Consider what $3.2 trillion could pay for in a year:

  • In the 2016-17 school year, $739 billion was spent on public elementary and secondary schools, providing education for 50.8 million students and employing 3.2 million teachers and another 3.2 million school employees.
  • The Congressional Budget Office projects that the federal government will spend $1.3 trillion on health care programs this year.
  • Diabetes cost the US economy $327 billion in 2017, with insulin accounting for $40 billion of this total. The average cost of insulin, critical for the survival of diabetes patients, is up to $6,000 per year and continues to rise.
  • According to the US Department of Agriculture, $800 billion was spent by Americans on food and beverages for consumption at home in 2019. The federal government provided $60 billion of this in food stamps for the poorest and most vulnerable to gain access to essential nutrition.
  • The 2018 fire season cost $24 billion, driven by record devastation, including the destruction of the city of Paradise, California. All told, extreme weather and climate disasters that year cost $91 billion.

Added up, the wealth of just 400 people could pay for an entire year of public education, health care, nutrition and disaster relief for millions of Americans. The UN recently reported that 132 million more people will go hungry worldwide this year due to the pandemic, driving the number of undernourished close to 1 billion.

Despite the burning need to save millions from malnourishment and starvation, the World Food Program faces a shortage of $5 billion in its effort to deliver food to those in need. The wealth of the 400 richest people in the US is more than 600 times this amount.

Every element of politics is subordinated to the interests of this social layer. It is for this reason that the danger of the pandemic was initially covered up, the bailout of Wall Street was organized and the back-to-work and back-to-school campaigns were implemented.

The systematic looting of society left the country vulnerable to such an outbreak. The subordination of health care to the predatory interests of for-profit health care companies and insurance giants turned nursing homes for the elderly into death chambers and left nurses and doctors without the necessary personal protective equipment and other medical equipment—such as ventilators—needed to treat patients.

The drive of the Trump administration toward fascism and the cultivation of the extreme right cannot be understood except in relation to the class interests of the oligarchy, representing that faction of the ruling class that seeks to smash outright any sign of opposition from the working class. On the other side of the coin, the Democrats represent the faction that seeks to use the politics of race and identity to smother the class struggle, while cultivating sections of the upper-middle class that use the politics of race and gender to fight for access to positions of power and carve out for themselves a bigger share of the wealth of the top 10 percent.

As only the latest example, the racially fixated New York Times published its “Faces of Power” list this week, noting that too many people in “influential positions” are white. What difference would it make if everyone one on the list were black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American? In fact, the report found that a majority of police chiefs in the largest cities are black or Hispanic: Cold comfort for the young black men who are disproportionately killed by police.

The obsession among upper-middle class academics and journalists on race and gender is a distraction from the grotesque levels of wealth that define social relations in American society. This form of politics has nothing to do with the interests of the working class. Instead, it seeks to harness anger over racism and social inequality to advance the interests of a small layer of minorities in the top 10 percent who want a larger piece of the pie hoarded by the top 1 percent.

At every point, science, reason and human solidarity collide with the economic interests of the current rulers of society—the oligarchs, the parasitic masters of finance capital. It is impossible to defend democratic rights or save lives without confronting this issue.

Mass problems such as the COVID-19 pandemic, increasingly deadly fires fueled by climate change and global hunger require mass solutions. The problems of mankind cannot be resolved without breaking the stranglehold of the capitalist oligarchy in every country. Its wealth must be expropriated and directed toward meeting social needs. The large corporations and banks must be transformed by the working class into democratically controlled institutions oriented to meeting human need and not private profit.

The social inequality that characterizes capitalist society—and all the policies that flow from it—are fueling an immense growth of social anger and working class struggle. These struggles must be organized and united on the basis of a conscious, revolutionary and socialist program.

ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT AMNESTY AND WIDER OPEN BORDERS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT NO CAPS ON IMPORTING CHEAPER FOREIGN WORKER.

 

Further, the dubious choice of Kamala Harris as the vice presidential nominee was made solely to placate and reassure Wall Street and the wealthy, as she was viewed by them as being very deferential to the mega-rich class based on her days in California. 

Millionaire Democrat Donor Says Joe Biden Will Be Good for Wall Street

Scott Olson/Getty Images

15 Sep 2020395

2:53

A millionaire Democrat donor, who was once listed as a billionaire by Forbes, says Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden will be good for Wall Street in the long run.

Michael Novogratz, the former Goldman Sachs executive and hedge fund manager, told CNBC in an interview that while a Biden win against President Donald Trump may initially drag the market down, Wall Street will stand to benefit.

“I think Biden’s going to win. I hope Biden wins,” said Novogratz, who now runs an investment firm. “But if he wins, I think the market will go down, at least initially because he’s going to raise capital gains tax … he’s going to raise corporate taxes some and he’s going to raise personal income tax.”

“I think it’s probably better for the markets [if Biden wins] because the chaos Trump brings every week, every day just gets tiring,” Novogratz said.

Novogratz donated $200,000 to the Biden Action Fund in June.

Despite endorsements from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Novogratz said Biden and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-CA) platform “sounds a lot more conservative than the Republican team when you’re talking about their plans.”

“There’s going to be so much pressure to start redistributing wealth whether it’s paying for college, paying for loans, if it’s Medicare for All,” Novogratz said. “Those are things the Democrat Party cares about and there’s going to be pressure and maybe we’re not going to get all of those but we’ll be heading in that direction. So I don’t see our deficits miraculously collapsing.”

Biden and Harris have sought to distance themselves from their large Wall Street backing in recent weeks. Although Biden blasted Wall Street executives in a town hall with the AFL-CIO union, a new report revealed that the former vice president’s campaign has assured Wall Street donors that his administration will maintain an economic status quo to their benefit.

This month, Biden touted Wall Street’s support for his plan to abolish America’s suburbs by seizing control of local zoning laws to construct housing developments and multi-family buildings in neighborhoods. Likewise, Wall Street is fully behind Biden’s plan to hugely expand legal immigration levels, beyond already historical highs at 1.2 million green cards and 1.4 million visa workers a year.

The Biden-Harris ticket has elated Wall Street so much that for the first time in a decade, more financial executives are donating to the Democrat candidates than Republicans, the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis reveals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

  

Biden’s Billionaires

 

By Steve McCann

Many years ago, while participating in a voter registration drive, I came upon a grizzled and disheveled old man sitting in the overgrown and weed-infested yard of his paint-starved house calming smoking his pipe.  Despite his gruff demeanor, Ully (Ulysses) was very pleasant and loquacious as we talked for over an hour on topics ranging from the weather to the innate foibles of mankind.  It turned out that he had to leave school after the fourth grade in order to work in the fields to help support his family and had toiled in a variety of menial and labor-intensive jobs ever since.  Yet, he had a deep and thorough insight into human nature.  Among his comments about the rich and ostensibly well-educated was: “All the money in the world cain’t buy a fool a lick of common sense.”

I was reminded of that observation after reading an article describing the 131 billionaires who are pouring millions into the coffers of the Democrat party and Joe Biden’s campaign in their mindless obsession to defeat President Trump in November.  Among the prominent names are Jeff Skoll, a founder of eBay who has contributed $4.5 million; Laurene Powell Jobs of Apple and owner of The Atlantic magazine has donated $1.2 million,  and Josh Bekenstein, Chairman of Bain Capital (co-founded by Mitt Romney), $5 million.  

Far more Wall Street financers have also jumped on the Biden/Democrat party bandwagon than are supporting Donald Trump, whose policies have overwhelmingly revived the economy after the stagnation of the Obama-Biden years. The tech billionaires, not content to simply cough up untold millions in direct political contributions, are also funding massive voter drives, promoting mail-in balloting, creating divisive partisan news sites, aiding and designing the Democrat party’s digital campaigns and unabashedly censoring the social media accounts of the Trump campaign and innumerable conservatives. 

The political party they are gleefully underwriting in order to oust Trump is no longer the party of the middle and working class (which is now one and the same) but a two-tier assemblage in which the prey is sleeping with the predator.  The witless wealthy and socially aware are in bed with the avowed socialists and militant Marxists.  What is holding this marriage of convenience together is a mutual hatred of Donald Trump and the undoable promises made by Joe Biden and the Democrat party hierarchy.

In a 2019 meeting with 100 super-wealthy potential donors, Biden assured the gathering that he would not demonize the rich and would only increase their taxes slightly while ensuring that their standard of living would not be affected by any of his policies.  He also stated: “I’m not Bernie Sanders.  I don’t think 500 Billionaires are the reason why we are in trouble”.  Further, he unabashedly emphasized that the wealthy are not the reason for income inequality and “If I win this nomination.  I won’t let you down.  I promise you.”  

Further, the dubious choice of Kamala Harris as the vice presidential nominee was made solely to placate and reassure Wall Street and the wealthy, as she was viewed by them as being very deferential to the mega-rich class based on her days in California. 

When the time came to deal with the Marxist/socialist wing of the Democrat party’s anti-Trump coalition, policy commitments, many diametrically opposite of what was promised the wealthy donors, were also guaranteed with a non-verbal pledge of we won’t let you down.

The first step was a de facto party platform.  The 110-page Biden-Sanders Manifesto which includes, among other commitments, a massive job killing $2+ trillion climate agenda to phase out fossil fuel usage within 15 years, the elimination of cash bail, redirecting (i.e. cutting) funding for the police, dismantling all border protections, legalizing virtually all illegal immigrants and massively raising corporate and individual tax rates on the wealthy.  This manifesto is a socialist screed that would destroy the middle class and permanently neuter the economy and nation. 

An effusive Bernie Sanders proclaimed to the world that Biden and the Democrats have embraced his socialist agenda and that Biden would be the most progressive president since FDR.  Sanders exposed not only the behind the scenes reality of today’s Democrat party but Biden’s figurehead role.

Further confirmation of the radicalization of the Party came about unexpectedly as the militant Marxist faction of the Sanders coalition forced the issue.  Impatient and unwilling to wait until after the 3rd of November, Antifa and Black Lives Matter used the death of George Floyd as a pretext to take to the streets and begin their long-hoped for revolution.  They claimed that rioting, looting, committing arson and attacking law enforcement was a necessity as this was a systemically racist country.  Yet, they openly demanded immediate changes rooted in their radical Marxist ideology of class warfare not so-called systemic racism.  As two of their preferred chants and graffiti slogans “eat the rich” and “abolish capitalism now” confirms. 

Biden, the Democrat party hierarchy as well as virtually all Democrat elected officials refused to address the violence and those responsible.  Thus, they tacitly approved of the lawlessness and by doing so flashed a green light to continue the riots.  When forced to acknowledge the reality on the streets of the nation’s cities, they instead blamed Trump, the police, white supremacists and even the Russians.  Due to their spinelessness, the armies of anarchy and revolution Biden and the Democrats unleashed will never be defeated or mollified by them.   

Considering the vast dichotomy in the litany of promises made and actions taken, it is inevitable that either the moneyed elite or the mob of passionate true believers will be betrayed.  There is no middle ground.  Who will prevail? 

Will it be the elites whose only weapon is money and fleeting political influence or the passionate mob whose weapons are unconstrained violence and intimidation?  Will it be those who believe a revolution could never happen here or those who are currently inciting revolution with the implicit blessing of a major political party?  Will it be those who believe that Biden and the Democrats, if elected, will be able to forcefully deal with the insurgents or the insurgents who now know that riots and extortion causes Democrat politicians to cower in the corner?

Beginning with the French Revolution and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, history has recorded that passionate mobs always prevail when dealing with a feckless ruling class or party.  And the first casualties have inevitably been the wealthy elites.

I can envision sitting with my old friend, Ully, and asking him if he thought the wealthy elites, indiscriminately tossing money at the Democrats for the sole purpose of defeating President Trump, understood the pitfalls involved.  He would lean back, slowly exhale a puff of smoke from his well-worn pipe and with uncontrollable anger in his eyes would say: “Nope.  Those damn fools ain’t got a lick of common sense.”

 

Report: Joe Biden Promises Wall Street Donors the Status Quo in Private Calls

OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

8 Sep 2020343

3:50

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden is promising Wall Street donors the economic status quo that they became used to before President Donald Trump’s administration, according to a report.

An investment banker on Wall Street told the Washington Post that in private calls with financial executives two months ago, Biden’s campaign assured them that talk of populist reforms on the campaign trail was nothing more than talking points.

The Post reports:

When Joe Biden released economic recommendations two months ago, they included a few ideas that worried some powerful bankers: allowing banking at the post office, for example, and having the Federal Reserve guarantee all Americans a bank account. [Emphasis added]

But in private calls with Wall Street leaders, the Biden campaign made it clear those proposals would not be central to Biden’s agenda. [Emphasis added]

“They basically said, ‘Listen, this is just an exercise to keep the Warren people happy, and don’t read too much into it,’” said one investment banker, referring to liberal supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The banker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks, said that message was conveyed on multiple calls. [Emphasis added]

In a statement to the Post, Biden’s campaign downplayed the influence of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — left populists on trade and economic policy — on the former vice president’s agenda.

“The Biden-Sanders task forces made recommendations to Vice President Biden and to the [Democrat National Committee] platform drafting committee,” Biden spokesperson TJ Ducklo said. “This anonymous source appears to be confused and uninformed about this very basic distinction.”

The report comes as Biden told AFL-CIO members on Labor Day that he will be the “strongest labor president” union workers “have ever had.”

“You can be sure you’ll be hearing that word, ‘union,’ plenty of times when I’m in the White House,” Biden pitched. “The words of a president matter. Union. We’re going to empower workers and empower unions.”

In the Democrat presidential primary, Biden told a group of rich Manhattan donors at a private fundraiser that “nothing would change” for them or their wealthy lifestyles if elected.

“I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money,” Biden said at the June 2019 fundraiser.

“The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished,” Biden said. “No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”

Like failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Biden has enjoyed a cozy relationship with Wall Street executives, along with his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

Most recently, Biden touted Wall Street’s support for his plan to abolish America’s suburbs by seizing control of local zoning laws to construct housing developments and multi-family buildings in neighborhoods. Likewise, Wall Street is fully behind Biden’s plan to hugely expand legal immigration levels, beyond already historical highs at 1.2 million green cards and 1.4 million visa workers a year.

The Biden-Harris ticket has elated Wall Street so much that for the first time in a decade, more financial executives are donating to the Democrat candidates than Republicans, the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis reveals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

 

 

As Bloomberg pledges $100 million, Wall Street boosts Biden campaign


15 September 2020

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has pledged to spend at least $100 million to support the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in Florida. This announcement Sunday is only the largest pledge of support from the financial oligarchy for the Democratic campaign.

Bloomberg aide Kevin Sheekey said the pledge of virtually unlimited financial backing to Biden in Florida, the most critical “battleground” state in the 2020 election, “will allow campaign resources and other Democratic resources to be used in other states, in particular the state of Pennsylvania.”

Florida has 29 electoral votes, the most of any closely contested state, following California with 55, overwhelmingly Democratic, and Texas with 38, leaning Republican. New York state, also with 29 electoral votes, is heavily Democratic.

Only once in the last 60 years—Bill Clinton in 1992—has a candidate won the presidency while losing Florida. The last Republican to lose Florida and still win the White House was Calvin Coolidge in 1924, when the state was lightly populated swampland.

Early voting begins in Florida September 24, and Bloomberg’s money will pay for massive campaign advertising on behalf of Biden, in both English and Spanish. Campaign officials said the funds would be devoted almost entirely to television and digital ads.

Even before the Bloomberg commitment, the Biden campaign and supporting Democratic groups had outspent Trump and the Republicans by $42 million to $32 million. The flood of cash from the billionaire media mogul will give the Democrats a three- or four-to-one advantage over the final seven weeks of the campaign.

The efficacy of Bloomberg’s huge financial commitment is open to question. The media billionaire spent $1 billion (a mere one-fiftieth of his gargantuan personal fortune) on his own pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination. He launched his campaign at a time when he believed Biden’s candidacy was near its demise, hoping that his money might forestall the nomination of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

The sudden revival of Biden’s campaign with his victory in South Carolina in February and then in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 3 led Bloomberg to abandon his own efforts and endorse the former vice president, since their right-wing views on a range of topics, and particularly on foreign policy, were virtually identical.

Since then, Bloomberg has transferred $20 million from his abortive presidential campaign to the Democratic National Committee, as well as pumping in another $120 million to local, state and congressional campaigns, making him by far the largest single backer of the Democratic Party.

Florida is only the most glaring example of the general trend in the 2020 election, in which the financial oligarchy and Wall Street have indicated a distinct preference for Biden and backed it up with heavy financial commitments.

During August, the Biden campaign broke all records for fundraising in a single month, raking in $365 million, nearly double the previous record of $203 million set by the campaign of Barack Obama in September 2008, and more than Hillary Clinton and Trump combined to raise, in August 2016, $233 million. The Trump campaign also broke the Obama record, but its total of $210 million in August was far behind the pace set by the Democrats.

Approximately $205 million of the $365 million came through online donations, including 1.5 million new donors. This is more an indication of the widespread hostility to Trump among millions of working-class and middle-class people than any groundswell of support for Biden, who personifies the corrupt US political establishment, having spent 36 years in the Senate before his eight years as Obama’s vice president.

That means that $160 million—a near-record amount by itself—was raised through large donations from wealthy supporters of the Democratic Party. While Trump continues to rake in the lion’s share of support from industries such as oil and gas, mining and real estate, Biden has collected the bulk of financial backing from the banks, hedge funds and insurance industry.

Under rules set by the Federal Election Commission, a wealthy donor can now give as much as $830,600 to support a presidential candidate, routing much of the money through federal and state party committees rather than the candidate’s own campaign.

The result of the disparity in fundraising throughout the summer is that the Democratic presidential campaign has now caught up with and even surpassed Trump’s war chest. The Trump reelection campaign, despite raising an unprecedented $1.1 billion, has less cash on hand for the fall than the Biden campaign. According to press accounts, more than one-third of the money raised by the Trump campaign was used to pay the expenses of fundraising itself.

There were several reports last week that the Trump campaign was experiencing a “cash crunch,” and was unable to sustain advertising in all 15 of the so-called battleground states. Both the Washington Post and Bloomberg News reported that Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien has halted television advertising in Michigan and Pennsylvania at least temporarily, and that Biden was outspending Trump in nearly every closely contested state.

Stepien replaced Brad Parscale as campaign manager in July, at least in part because of concerns that Parscale had squandered Trump’s substantial initial fundraising advantage.

According to the media tracking firm Advertising Analytics, the Biden campaign spent $17 million in television and digital advertising in nine battleground states during the week of September 3, compared to $4 million by the Trump campaign.

The Clinton campaign outspent Trump by similar margins in 2016, but Trump campaign aides had boasted they would not face such a deficit in 2020. Trump has hinted he would seek to make up the difference from his personal fortune, but there has been no sign yet of any direct outlay by the billionaire to back his own campaign.