Bernie Sanders Wins, Even While Losing
After hearing Monday from the Associated Press that Hillary Clinton had clinched the nomination, after absorbing Tuesday night a solid defeat in the California primary and losses in three other states, Sanders was still pledging to go on campaigning for the District of Columbia's 20 delegates in its primary next Tuesday and to fight on until the Democratic National Convention opens in Philadelphia July 25.
It's possible to ridicule Sanders' protests that he can still win the nomination of a party of which he's never been a member. But give him credit. He won 42 percent of the popular vote in primaries against Hillary Clinton and a whopping 62 percent of the votes cast in caucuses.
He carried 23 states, from Maine to Hawaii, and came within 2 percent of carrying five others. He carried or came close to carrying white Democrats nationally.
More importantly, he moved Hillary Clinton -- and the Democratic Party -- well to the left.
Clinton reversed previous positions and came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and against the Keystone XL pipeline. She promised that she would effectively end fracking, which has sharply reduced oil and natural gas prices, and would discourage the mining of coal.
She came close to matching Sanders' promise of free college. She repudiated her husband's 1994 crime bill and his support of financial deregulation. Yes, a second President Clinton could and probably would welch on some of these promises.
But she's not going back to the first President Clinton's policies.
Sanders can claim credit for moving the Democratic Party closer to his own political creed, socialism, than any Democrat has cared or dared to do before. He did so with the critical help of young voters, the millennial generation, who voted about 80 percent for him against Clinton -- and for whom, multiple polls suggest, his self-proclaimed socialism is not a bug but a feature.
A YouGov survey in January, for example, found that 43 percent of under-30s were favorable toward socialism and only 26 percent unfavorable. A 2015 Reason-Rupe poll in 2015 found 48 percent of under-35s positive toward socialism. A 2010 Pew Research poll found 43 percent of under-30s positive toward socialism, nearly twice the 23 percent favorable among those over 30.
The promise of what Mitt Romney infelicitously called "free stuff" may account for some of the attractiveness of socialism to Americans too young to have any living memory of the collapse of communism and to have been taught a history that emphasizes the iniquities of oppressive Western societies. Hey, free college and free health care don't sound so bad.
Those who have actually had experience with government-run economies feel differently, as one can see from recent political results in Latin America.
In Venezuela, the socialism of the late President Hugo Chavez and his chosen successor, Nicolas Maduro, has destroyed the oil-rich nation's economy, to the point that toilet paper, groceries and medicines are simply unavailable, crime has soared to world-high rates and pro-government thugs crack down on protesters. Voters elected an opposition legislature, but Maduro is defying the law to stay in power.
In Argentina, voters in December repudiated leftist President Cristina Kirchner and elected businessman Mauricio Macri. In Brazil, leftist President Dilma Rousseff was impeached last month and removed from office pending trial in the Senate amid record unemployment and revelation of multimillion-dollar bribery conspiracies.
Peru has just had a close presidential election between two candidates both described by Reuters as "business friendly."
Or look at Sanders' favorite example, Scandinavia, where governments have, as Emily Elkins and Joy Pullman write in The Federalist, "opened their economies to free market forces in the 1990s, sold off state-owned companies, eased restrictions on business start-ups, reduced barriers to trade and business regulation and introduced more competition into healthcare and public services."
You didn't hear much about these developments in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Nor did you hear much about the dismal performance of government here in everything from veterans' hospitals to Washington's Metrorail. You just heard bland assurances that an expanded government could provide free goodies without perceptible costs or glitches.
Hillary Clinton's leftward lurch in response to Sanders may not prevent her from beating Donald Trump. But it may not serve America or the Democratic Party well in the long run.
Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentary.
See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.
"The country is now at the edge of an abyss following years of
obfuscation, unaccountability, subterfuge, and law evasion by the
Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry into
a kind of base “group think acceptance” of government corruption
and abuse of power. Resetting Americans’ trust in government
needs to start with holding people in high office, like Hillary
As Obama endorses Clinton, Sanders signals readiness to back campaign
"For the vast majority of the working class, however, living standards and social conditions are worse today than when Obama took office."
"Neither Sanders nor any of the assembled representatives of the corporate-controlled media took note of the irony of pledging to fight oligarchy on the steps of the White House, the symbol and power center of the oligarchy, after an hour-long closed-door meeting with Obama, the commander-in-chief who serves that oligarchy."
As Obama endorses Clinton, Sanders signals readiness to back campaign
By Patrick Martin
Two days after losing the California primary, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders arrived in Washington, DC for meetings with President Barack Obama and other Democratic Party leaders to discuss how he will fold up his campaign and support the Democratic presidential nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
10 June 2016
Obama followed up his meeting with Sanders by releasing an online video announcing his full-fledged, formal endorsement of Clinton as the Democratic presidential candidate. “I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office,” he said, going on to cite Clinton’s role in key administration military decisions such as ordering the raid by Navy SEALs that killed Osama bin Laden.
The video was recorded on Tuesday, even before the polls had closed in New Jersey, California and four other states on the next-to-last day of primary voting. Asked about the timing, White House spokesman Josh Earnest pointed out that the Associated Press and other media had declared Clinton the “presumptive nominee” on Monday, based on a survey of super-delegates.
This underscores the cynically orchestrated character of the AP announcement, worked out in consultation with the White House and top Democratic Party officials who wanted to declare Clinton the winner and the contest over as quickly as possible, regardless of the millions who were to vote the following day.
After meeting with Obama at the White House for an hour, Sanders spoke to the media, reading out a three-page type-written statement in which he did not explicitly endorse Clinton, but made it clear that he would no longer challenge her for the nomination.
BLOG: ONLY BARACK OBAMA HAS SERVED THE 1% MORE THAN HILLARY AND BILLARY!
“I spoke briefly to Sec. Clinton on Tuesday night, and I congratulated her on her very strong campaign,” he said. “I look forward to meeting with her in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and create a government that represents all of us and not just the one-percent.”
Sanders continued to Capitol Hill for meetings with Senator Harry Reid, the retiring Democratic leader in the Senate, and Senator Charles Schumer, who is expected to succeed Reid in January. Sanders did not speak to the press after meeting with the two Senate leaders, proceeding on a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden.
This pilgrimage to Washington shatters Sanders’ claims to be leading an insurgency against the domination of right-wing, pro-corporate politics in the United States. While winning the
support of millions of youth and working people on the basis of his
attacks on the “millionaires and billionaires” and his calls for a
“political revolution,” Sanders has worked for decades as a loyal
ally of the Democratic Party establishment.
From the outset, his campaign has been driven by the political aim of preempting growing social opposition and anti-capitalist sentiment, containing it and channeling it back into the dead end of the Democratic Party. He is now preparing to openly pursue this underlying
agenda by agreeing to hustle votes for Clinton, the candidate of
Wall Street and the military/intelligence agencies.
The inherent contradiction between Sanders’ populist phrases and his bid for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, one of the two main political instruments of the “millionaires and billionaires,” was underscored by his remarks as he left the White House. He declared
that he would do everything possible “to oppose the drift which
currently exists toward an oligarchic form of society, where a
handful of billionaires exercise enormous power over our political,
economic and media life.”
Neither Sanders nor any of the assembled representatives of the corporate-controlled media took note of the irony of pledging to fight oligarchy on the steps of the White House, the symbol and power center of the oligarchy, after an hour-long closed-door meeting with Obama, the commander-in-chief who serves that oligarchy.
No one on the planet has done more to boost the American oligarchy over the past eight years than President Obama: bailing out Wall Street at the expense of working people; slashing wages for autoworkers to spur record profits for GM, Ford and Fiat-Chrysler; shifting the cost of health care benefits from corporations to workers in the guise of health care “reform”; and waging war around the world to defend the global interests of American capitalism.
From the very beginning of his campaign, Sanders has refused to criticize the policies of the Obama administration. He has condemned the domination of American political and economic life by the billionaires without mentioning that Obama is the billionaires’ servant. On foreign policy, Sanders has been virtually silent on the countless atrocities perpetrated by the war machine that Obama commands, from drone-missile assassinations to the bombing of Libya and Syria and ongoing military violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What began Thursday with Sanders’ meeting with Obama is a choreographed operation to deliver as many Sanders supporters as possible to the Democratic Party campaign to elect Clinton as Obama’s successor, along with Democratic candidates for the Senate, House of Representatives and state and local offices.
Key Sanders supporters have already begun declaring their support for Clinton as the Democratic nominee, beginning with Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Sanders’ lone Senate endorser, along with Representative Raul Grijalva, head of the House Progressive Caucus, and the liberal lobbying groups Move-On.org and Democracy for America.
Sanders, despite his longtime posturing as an “independent,” has fully integrated himself into the Democratic Party and has presented his campaign as the best option for promoting and building the Democratic Party at every level.
His claim that he will continue his campaign right up to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia at the end of July is not, contrary to the media presentation, an act of defiance of Clinton and the Democratic establishment. It is the form chosen by Sanders for propagating illusions among his own supporters that the Democratic Party can be made responsive to the left-wing sentiments among young people and working people.
Sanders will use whatever meaningless concessions are granted—if any—on the party platform, rules for future presidential nomination campaigns and the choice of vice president as a further argument to his supporters to stick with the Democratic Party. This is the most bankrupt and dangerous of perspectives, since it leaves the working class politically subordinated to one of the two parties of corporate America and unprepared for the even more right-wing and militaristic policies that will follow the November election, regardless of whether Clinton or the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump emerges victorious.
As his statement in front of the White House made clear, Sanders will become a major spokesman of the “anybody but Trump” campaign, which will be the axis of efforts by the Democratic Party and all of the organizations in its orbit, including the unions and pseudo-left groups like the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Alternative, to portray Hillary Clinton as the lesser evil.
In practice, the right-wing politics of Obama and Clinton, for which Sanders will become an apologist, have helped fuel whatever popular support the fascistic billionaire has been able to obtain. As Obama put in his video endorsement of Clinton, her campaign will “build upon the progress we’ve made” under the Obama administration.
For the vast majority of the working class, however, living standards and social conditions are worse today than when Obama took office. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll this week found that among voters who said they were still feeling “a lot” of effects from the 2008 Wall Street crash and the recession that followed, 56 percent favored Trump and only 26 percent favored Clinton.
Hillary Clinton’s Democratic primary victory
Hillary Clinton’s Democratic primary victory IS A VICTORY FOR LA RAZA SUPREMACY
9 June 2016With her victories in four of the six states holding primary contests on Tuesday, including the country’s most populous state, California, Hillary Clinton has become the all-but-certain presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2016 elections.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has not yet formally conceded, but he faces mounting calls, including from his supporters within the Democratic Party establishment, to “gracefully” bow out and endorse Clinton. Sanders is due to meet with President Barack Obama on Thursday and Obama is expected to formally declare his support for Clinton as early as this week.
In a year marked by deep and growing social discontent, the two-party system in the United States has produced, on the one hand, the fascistic billionaire Donald Trump, and, on the other, Clinton, the personification of the status quo. The impossibility of resolving any of the immense social and political problems facing workers and youth within the existing political framework could find no more conclusive demonstration.
Paralleling the ever more extreme concentration of wealth, American politics is acquiring an increasingly dynastic and nepotistic character, traditionally a hallmark of the decay of bourgeois democracy. In a country of 350 million people, the Democratic Party could do no better than nominate as its presidential candidate an individual whose political career is based, to start with, on the fact that she is the wife of a former president. First came the Bushes, father and son, and now the Clintons, husband and wife. It would hardly be surprising to learn that Michelle Obama, or perhaps one of the Obama children, is preparing a campaign.
In the person of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats have selected their most unpopular candidate. There is no doubt that the Clintons have been the target of right-wing Republican attacks, but they have provided plenty of ammunition. Their record of self-serving hypocrisy extends
back to the launching of Bill Clinton’s political career in Arkansas,
where he combined empty rhetoric with the closest ties to corporate
titans like Walmart and the Perdue chicken empire. While in the
White House, Bill Clinton orchestrated a shift of the Democratic
Party further to the right, including an effort to win support among
Republicans on the basis of anti-welfare legislation, “law-and-
order” prison sentencing rules and pro-market economic policies.
The Clintons’ corruption became even more
pronounced after Bill Clinton left office, as the
pair amassed more than $150 million through
their connections to corporate boardrooms and
the operations of the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton cultivated her relationship with
Wall Street as a senator from New York and
forged close ties to the military-intelligence
apparatus as Obama’s secretary of state.
Clinton’s defining actions during this period were her support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which led to the deaths of more than one million people, and her direct involvement in the Obama administration’s decision to invade Libya and stoke civil war in Syria. Behind her carefully crafted political façade, Clinton’s real persona was most clearly revealed in the unscripted cackles of glee with which she greeted the news of the torture and murder of Muammar Gaddafi, exclaiming, “We came, we saw, he died!”
What ensured her nomination? Besides the support of the Democratic Party establishment and the media, Clinton’s success represents the victory of the politics of race and gender over politics based in a general sense on class. The Clintons, Bill and Hillary, have promoted racial politics while pursuing policies with devastating consequences for the working class, including the vast majority of African-Americans. In the Democratic Party primaries, Clinton was able to win significant majorities among African-American voters and other minorities, along with older voters. Sanders, to the extent that he centered his campaign on criticism of social inequality, won support among broad sections of workers and youth.
The pseudo-left organizations that orbit the Democratic Party and for the most part supported Sanders have been hoisted on their own petard. They prepared the outcome through a decades-long campaign against the Marxist conception that the fundamental social category is class, providing the political framework for the restructuring of bourgeois politics on the basis of race, gender and sexual identity.
Now the media is switching into high gear to proclaim Clinton’s victory a “historic milestone” because she will be the first female nominee of a major party in a US presidential election. Almost 35 years after the arch-reactionary Margaret Thatcher came to power in Britain and launched a war against the working class, the effort to portray Clinton’s nomination as a great triumph for equality is both absurd and disgusting. It is a rehashing, in an even more naked manner, of the political marketing that accompanied the “transformative” election of Barack Obama, the first African-American chief executive, in 2008.
As for Sanders, his “political revolution” has been aimed not at developing a movement against the two-party capitalist system, but at containing and smothering social opposition and channeling it back into the Democratic Party. As the World Socialist Web Site warned from the beginning, this has led to a political dead end. The Democratic Party establishment is now coaxing Sanders back into the fold while the candidate himself tries to figure out how to convince the millions of workers and youth attracted by his denunciations of the “billionaire class” to line up behind Clinton.
It is critical to draw the necessary lessons and begin to construct a genuine socialist movement. The Socialist Equality Party is running candidates in the elections, Jerry White for president and Niles Niemuth for vice president, to build a political leadership for the struggles to come.
The objective tendencies that have fueled the growing political radicalization will continue to operate. There are still six weeks before the party conventions and five months until the general election. Many surprises are in store. The deepening social, economic and geopolitical crisis, outside the control of the candidates themselves, will frame the elections. The recent strike by 39,000 Verizon workers is part of a resurgence of class struggle in the US and around the world. Internationally, every day brings new flashes of geopolitical tensions, fueled by the efforts of the United States to maintain its global domination, that threaten to spark a new world war.
Over the next five months, the SEP and its candidates will speak to and educate workers and youth in the US and internationally and fight to win support for the perspective of revolutionary Marxism. We insist on the need to reject pragmatic politics, in the form of “lesser of two evilism” and the conception, promoted not only by Sanders but also by supposedly independent campaigns like that of the Green Party, that the political system is susceptible to pressure from below. We reject all arguments that Clinton must be supported against Trump. These are aimed at preventing a break with the two-party system, leaving workers completely unprepared for the massive shift to the right that will come after the election, whether the victor is Trump or Clinton.
The issues that are driving workers into political struggle cannot be resolved without a decisive break with the Democratic Party and the building of an independent political movement of the working class that takes direct aim at the source of inequality, war and dictatorship: the capitalist system.
Is Hillary Clinton the vainest person to ever run for president? I know, I know – there’s a lot of competition, including this year. But still, it takes a high level of self-absorption to do this, as noticed by Morgan Cha...
HILLARY CLINTON IS A DEDICATED
SERVANT OF THE RICH WHO DEMAND
WAGES BE KEPT DEPRESSED WITH
ENDELSS HORDES OF ILLEGALS JUMPING
OUR BORDERS. THEN THE LA RAZA
WELFARE STATE ON OUR BACKS IS
HANDED TO THE AMERICAN MIDDLE
CLASS TO PAY FOR!
"Answer: Because Amnesty First reform wasn’t just a practical sop to an ethnic voting bloc. It’s what the GOP business elite actually wanted -- i.e., a steady flow of eager, wage-restraining workers for the foreseeable future."
Hillary Clinton wore a jacket that costs more than $12,000 when
she discussed income inequality and other economic issues
following her victory in the New York primary earlier this year.
According to the New York Post, Clinton sported the $12,495
Giorgio Armani jacket when delivering remarks in New York City
in April after defeating competitor Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in
her home-state primary.
The price of the jacket constitutes roughly 40 percent of what the
average American worker makes in a year. According to the most
recent data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the median
income for U.S. workers in 2014 was $30,815.
While wearing the Armani jacket, Clinton emphasized her
commitment to a “progressive” agenda, lamenting
economic inequality and promising to raise wages and create jobs
should she win the presidency.
“We all know many people who are still hurting. I see it
everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and
savings, and a lot of Americans haven’t yet recovered. But I still
believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic
President once said, there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t
be cured by what’s right with America. That is, after all, what
we’ve always done. It’s who we are. America is a problem-solving
nation,” Clinton said during the speech.
LA RAZA HAS BEEN FUNDED BY OBAMA WITH AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS AND OPERATES OUT OF THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE UNDER LA RAZA V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ (google Obama and LA RAZA).
So it took me about 10 minutes on the INTERNET to find that the
California La Raza Lawyers Association lists MALDEF (Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund) as an affiliate group,
and that MALDEF is one of the organizations that have been
actively protesting Donald Trump. Lazy Jerks at CNN need to get
their facts straight. The La Raza judge needs to go, not because
he's Hispanic, but because his political activity leads to a conflict of
interest." From the California La Raza Lawyers Association. Look
up which groups have been organizing the protests at the Trump
rallies. Notice MALDEF? Oops.
America’s Biggest Losers: The Right’s Commentariat
Trump supporters, exposure of Clinton wrongdoing, and continued
loathsome behavior by the president, academics, and the media. To
its shame, at this crucial juncture many of the once-respected
members of the right’s commentariat are failing their readers and
proving to be America’s biggest losers.
The [Clinton] foundation’s latest Form 990 shows that as of December 31, 2014, Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and their hedge fund son-in-law sat on $439,505,295 in assets. That's pretty good for a "non-profit."
In 2014, they received $24,313,685 in contributions and $113,957,283 in grants, including government grants.
That $439 million in assets is 17 times larger than that $25 million hedge fund that son-in-law ran into the ground by hedging on Greek debt. That $439 million represents a hefty investment fee for some person or company lucky enough to land the account.
The foundation spent $248,221,698 in 2014:$95,887,139 on salaries and benefits.$20,786,529 on travel.$17,249,876 on professional and consulting services.$14,200,147 on conferences and events.$14,196,240 on UNITAID commodities expense$13,519,824 on meetings and trainingEt cetera. Oh and $33,692,599 was spent on direct program expenditures. Sure, this is all legal, but as a charity, this is not on the up and up. The Clintons used this as a way to launder foreign donations (which would be illegal if they were campaign donations) to finance her campaign in absentia.Compare this to the Trump Foundation, whose latest Form 990 covered the year 2012.Income: $1,259,851 (all from Trump)Disbursements: $1,712,089Expenses: $5,305.Assets: $1,717,293.Short. Simple. No staff. No travel. No consulting services. No conferences. No meetings. No training. It's just, here is the money, here are the charities I want to give to, and here is the audit (which cost $5,305).
The Laureate Education went private in August 2007, in a multi billion dollar, risky, hugely leveraged transaction, closed in the last gasp of the bubble. The leveraged buyout was completed around August 2007 for approximately $3 billion in debt plus equity. The driving force behind the deal is of Friend of Bill (FOB) hedge fund king Steven Cohen, a poster child for bad hedge fund behavior.[snip]After the deal closed, the schools had great financial difficulties and these capital suppliers grew concerned. Bill Clinton’s pals were feeling squeezed as a profitable exit seemed less and less likely.To dress the deal up in 2010, Bill Clinton was brought in to serve as “Chancellor,” a part-time position for which he was collecting $16 million through early 2015. This extraordinary compensation was never properly disclosed until 2015. Many of those on the hook paid Bill and Hillary big fees for speeches as well. Bill Clinton was thus collecting from both Laureate equity and debt suppliers. The Laureate CEO, Doug Becker, is involved as a Clinton backer, Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation donor and involved in the International Youth Foundation, a recipient of favors and money from the Clinton-led Department of State. [emphasis added]Incredibly, in 2013 the International Finance Corporation announced a record setting $150 million investment in Laureate at a time when its financial condition was rocky at best. Clinton’s involvement sealed the deal. Then the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation entered into a joint venture with Laureate to create CGI-University. Yet none of these related party disclosures are included in any of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative filings for relevant periods (starting in 2008 or so).
New York State law requires specific approvals for an entity to hold itself out as being a university. In this case CGI (a fraud) created CGI University (a fraud) in league with Laureate, a fraud.
As a rule, a show of public disrespect for judicial authority is a foolish litigation strategy. It worked for Obama with Chief Justice Roberts because, like Mr. Clinton before him, he had virtually all Democrats and most of the media cheering him on. Criticism of a Democratic president for traducing democratic norms is inevitably discounted for partisanship. President Hillary Clinton would get away with it for the same reason.
So it took me about 10 minutes on the INTERNET to find that the California La Raza Lawyers Association lists MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) as an affiliate group, and that MALDEF is one of the organizations that have been actively protesting Donald Trump. Lazy Jerks at CNN need to get their facts straight. The La Raza judge needs to go, not because he's Hispanic, but because his political activity leads to a conflict of interest."From the California La Raza Lawyers Association. Look up which groups have been organizing the protests at the Trump rallies. Notice MALDEF? Oops.
What he lacks in experience he lacks in money and name recognition. David French enjoys a level of popularity above Eddie Spanish but somewhat below Jimmy the Greek. Even among National Review’s stable of writers, French ranks, at least in terms of reader familiarity, as something of a b-lister -- not appearing, for instance, in the list of the magazine’s “notable” contributors at Wikipedia.[snip]Mistaking the views of a cliquish community inside a 64-mile band of clogged roadway for popular sentiment in the country outside of it, beltway conservatives inflate their influence. They imagine themselves as shaping the opinions of conservatives and quadrennially playing Republican kingmaker. So, imagine the terror of witnessing the rise of a candidate who not only stood them up at their annual CPAC gathering but dared call their bluff on immigration and challenged the orthodoxy of a busybody foreign policy that made the last Republican president and his party terribly unpopular. If nothing else, Trump’s success screams “the emperor has no clothes” at the ruling clique that rules in the way the D&D dungeonmaster imagines he does. French’s failure would further emphasize their impotence.
Is it actually a principle if its result is electing someone diametrically opposed to and intent on destroying those things that the principled person supposedly believes in?Sounds more like a conceit to me.
If they’d stood up to the Democrats -- harnessing some of that GOP grassroots anger they knew was out there! — they could eventually have cut a different sort of deal, one that guaranteed enforcement as a precondition for any discussion of legalization, but that did offer eventual legalization to immigration-oriented Latino voters. Why didn’t they do that? ** Answer: Because Amnesty First reform wasn’t just a practical sop to an ethnic voting bloc. It’s what the GOP business elite actually wanted -- i.e., a steady flow of eager, wage-restraining workers for the foreseeable future.*** Maybe this is also the reason why the allegedly hard-nosed elite actually believed all the polls ginned up by Latino activist groups (most prominently an outfit called Latino Decisions) designed to show that they really had to cave on immigration fast or else their party was doomed.
"The facts known about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s actions surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting State Department business, show that she acted with reckless disregard of the security interests of the United States and violated some ten federal statutes."
Hillary Clinton showed reckless disregard for the nation’s security; her email server -- hosting voluminous classified and Top Secret information -- was repeatedly breached and exposed by notorious Romanian hacker “Guccifer” and by the Russians (who have 20,000 Clinton server emails in their possession).
May 27, 2016
James Comey: Enforcing the Law Requires Indicting Hillary Clinton
The facts known about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s actions surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting State Department business, show that she acted with reckless disregard of the security interests of the United States and violated some ten federal statutes. Several are national security-related felonies, just three of which include: 1) disclosure of classified information (22 of which documents were Top Secret); 2) unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents; and 3) destruction of evidence (erasure of the hard drive and deletion of some 30,000 emails by Secretary Clinton), after a government investigation had commenced (Benghazi hearings began October 10, 2012).
THE CLINTON'S GRAFT AND CORRUPTION THAT WOULD MAKE A THIRD-WORLD DICTATOR SALAVATE
Heads up: Major analysis of Clinton Foundation scandals coming
Charles Ortel is a respected Wall Street analyst who has been poring over the publicly available records of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and he promises a blockbuster set of revelations:
I will soon start posting new, in-depth, detailed reports explaining what I have found in the public record concerning the Clinton Foundation. In the latest document, I provide information concerning some of the new avenues we shall start exploring in coming days. (snip)
WATCH: Trailer for ‘Clinton Cash’ Movie Premiering During Cannes Film Festival
WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY - HILLARY SUCKS IN THE BRIBES!
A new documentary film based on Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book “Clinton Cash” is premiering next month during the Cannes Film Festival. Watch the trailer above. The following is the press release about the film.
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (published May 2015 by HarperCollins) dominated headlines for months as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall St. Journal and others confirmed the book’s investigative revelations of foreign donors and companies funneling tens of millions of dollars to Hillary and Bill Clinton. As Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig wrote in the Washington Post, “On any fair reading, the pattern of behavior that Schweizer has charged is corruption.”
Schweizer is editor-at-large of Breitbart News. The author of four New York Times bestsellers, including Clinton Cash, and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer’s investigative reporting has been covered by virtually every major U.S. media outlet, including: 60 Minutes, The New York Times, NPR, Wall Street Journal, ABC News, CNN, Forbes, Newsweek, Fox News, Politico, MSNBC, myriad others.
Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with $2 billion in donations to their foundation, wealth accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.
Clinton Cash has been lauded by top progressives for its exposure of crony capitalism and self-enrichment. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University Earth Institute Director, called it “compelling reading on how Bill and Hillary have mixed personal wealth, power, and influence peddling.” Daily Beast columnist Eleanor Clift calls Schweizer “an equal-opportunity investigator, snaring Republicans as well as Democrats.” And Demos Senior Fellow Nomi Prins says Clinton Cash “provides a damning portrait of elite and circumspect power and influence.”
The film was directed by M. A. Taylor.
Peter Schweizer, who says of the film, “Cronyism and self-enrichment are a bipartisan affair, and Hillary and Bill Clinton have perfected them on a global scale,” will be in Cannes.
Also attending is Stephen K. Bannon, writer and producer of Clinton Cash. Bannon, a former Goldman Sachs banker, is the Executive Chairman of Breitbart News and was dubbed by Bloomberg as “the Most Dangerous Political Operative in America.”
Bannon says, “This film must be seen by every liberal, progressive, and independent voter in America, and the world, to fully realize the degree to which the Clinton’s are nothing more than high class grifters”
Dan Fleuette, producer of Clinton Cash, Occupy Unmasked, and Los Abandonados, will also be at the festival.
Global sales are being represented by Mark Holdom of ARC Entertainment.
Amnesty..... it's all about keeping wages DEPRSSED!
UNDER BANKSTER-OWNED BARACK OBAMA, TWO-THIRDS OF ALL JOBS WENT TO FOREIGN BORN, BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL.
Poverty has become more concentrated under Obama
Poverty has become more concentrated under Obama
By Nancy Hanover
Under the Obama administration, more Americans have found themselves consigned to economic ghettos, living in neighborhoods where more than 40 percent subsist below the poverty level. Millions more now live in “high poverty” districts of 20-40 percent poverty, according to recently released report by the Brookings Institution.
2 May 2016
All in all, more than half of the nation’s poor are now concentrated in these high-poverty neighborhoods. This means that on top of the difficult daily struggle to make ends meet, they face a raft of additional crushing barriers because of where they live.
The Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program report, “Concentrated poverty continues to grow post recession,” is authored by Elizabeth Kneebone and Natalie Holmes and scrutinizes this unprecedented shift in the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown.
The report, based on an analysis of US census tracts, shows that concentrations of poverty have grown under the Obama administration in all geography types: large metropolitan areas, small cities and rural areas. In fact, the number of poor people living in concentrated poverty in suburbs grew nearly twice as fast as in cities, putting paid to the myth of affluence or even stability in America’s suburbs.
The growth of social and economic distress within large parts of the US is demonstrated by the statistics. Pockets of high poverty exist in virtually every part of the country, including adjacent to the nation’s wealthiest neighborhoods. Since 2000, according to the report, the total number of poor people living in high-poverty neighborhoods has doubled to 14 million Americans. This is five million more than prior to the Great Recession.
Referring to the “double burden” facing the poor when they live in high-poverty neighborhoods, Kneebone and Holmes say, “Residents of poor neighborhoods face higher crime rates and exhibit poorer physical and mental health outcomes. They tend to go to poor-performing neighborhood schools with higher dropout rates. Their job-seeking networks tend to be weaker and they face higher levels of financial insecurity.”
These effects are clearly discernible once a neighborhood’s poverty rate exceeds 20 percent, the report explains. During the study period, between 2005-09 and 2010-14, the number of such high poverty neighborhoods grew by more than 4,300.
Across many demographics: City and suburb, black and whiteSuburbs accounted for one-third of the newly high-poverty neighborhoods, a higher share than cities, rural or small metro areas. The share of poor black and Hispanic suburban residents climbed by 10 percent while poor white residents climbed by eight percent, almost as much.
BLOG: OBAMANOMICS; FUCK THE WORKER TO SERVE THE SUPER RICH
The palpable effects of the auto industry restructuring, with the Obama administration’s stipulation of a 50 percent cut in wages for new autoworkers, is demonstrated in the growth of poverty in the sprawling auto-dominated Detroit region. Out of metro Detroiters living in poverty, 58 percent now reside in suburban districts, according to a survey by Oakland County Lighthouse.
A recent and similar demographic study by the Century Foundation states that the six-county region has the highest concentration of poverty among the top 25 metro areas in the US by population. This represents 32 percent of the poor living in concentrated tracts.
There has been a staggering growth of poor neighborhoods in and around Detroit, Kneebone told the Detroit Free Press, adding that the number “grew almost fivefold between 2000 and 2010-14.” Detroit now has an official poverty rate of 39 percent, the highest in the US among cities with more than 300,000 residents.
“Sadly this report reinforces what we have been seeing year after year in Detroit and across Michigan.” Gilda Jacobs, of the Michigan League for Public Policy told the World Socialist Web Site. “Poverty is too high, and where people—especially kids—live has a direct and significant impact on their economic standing, health and other outcomes.”
From the Rust Belt to the Sun BeltDetroit, however, is just the most concentrated expression of the national trend. “Among the nation’s largest metro areas, two-thirds (67 percent) saw concentrated poverty grow between 2005-09 and 2010-14,” the Brookings study found. The authors note that some of the “largest upticks included a number of Sun Belt metro areas hit hard by the collapse of the housing market—like Fresno, Bakersfield and Stockton in California and Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona—and older industrial areas in the Midwest and northeast—like Indianapolis, Buffalo, and Syracuse.”
Eight metro areas now show concentrated poverty over 30 percent: Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wisconsin (30.1 percent); Memphis, Tennessee (31.1 percent); Bakersfield, California (31.7 percent); Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Michigan (32 percent); Syracuse, New York (32.4 percent); Toledo, Ohio (34.9 percent); Fresno, California (43.8 percent); and McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas (52.3 percent).
As the WSWS has previously reported, all job growth over the last decade has been “temp” or contingency employment, traditionally the lowest wage levels of any job and paying no benefits. This loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs has impacted communities throughout the US. Concentrated poverty in suburbs has jumped 2.4 points in the wake of the recession, to a record high of 7.1 percent.
What is the “double burden” of concentrated poverty?In her remarks to the WSWS, Gilda Jacobs elaborated on the double burden of concentrated poverty: “So many detrimental factors come with living in high-poverty neighborhoods. There are no viable jobs, public transportation, childcare, or grocery stores. Crime rates are high, there’s blight and abandoned buildings, and the health risks of lead exposure and asthma. Even Detroit’s public schools are unhealthy and even dangerous.
“This is what Detroit kids and other low-income children are dealing with every day, and what they have to try to overcome in improving their futures. These living and learning conditions are all connected, and harm kids’ development and learning, their academic outcomes and their future job prospects. It is called toxic stress when kids are under constant strain. This study reiterates that so many factors affecting poverty are external and environmental, making them nearly impossible to defeat alone,” she stressed.
A series of studies [including George Galster’s “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications” and others] have documented how poor neighborhoods undermine even the most determined individual efforts to escape poverty.
Taken together, these studies demonstrate how the escalating growth of poverty concentration exacts an ever-higher toll on American society, affecting many aspects of life and particularly destroying the potential of the next generation.
OBAMA'S BANKSTER RULED AMERICA - THE LOOTING NEVER ENDS!
*Education. High-poverty neighborhoods exert “downward pressure” on school quality. Data from the Stanford Data Archive has recently shown a staggering effect upon child learning capacities of attending impoverished school districts. Utilizing 215 million state accountability test scores, the study showed that “Children in districts with the highest concentrations of poverty score an average of more than four grade levels below children in the richest districts [emphasis added].”
*Violence. Exposure to violence has reached epidemic proportions for low-income youth, particularly among minorities. Parental stress over neighborhood violence is a substantial factor motivating families to move—when they can—from high-poverty neighborhoods, compounded by fears of negative peer influences upon their children. Youth and adults who have been exposed to violence as witnesses or victims suffer increased stress and documented declines in mental health.
*Toxic exposures. Poor areas are chronically associated with higher concentrations of air-, water- and soil-borne pollutants. Lead poisoning is most often associated with older housing stock.
Researchers have demonstrated that depression, asthma, diabetes and heart ailments are correlated with living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Additionally, individuals in poor neighborhoods often receive inferior health care and reduced government services.
* Other effects of physical decay . The inability to exercise outdoors is a known factor in the rise of obesity, especially among children. High levels of noise pollution produce stress, and prolonged exposure to run-down surroundings can lead to hopelessness.
*The poor pay more. Prices in poor neighborhoods are notoriously higher and the goods of poorer quality than those in better-off areas. Food and health-care “deserts” are common. The costs of home and car insurance are usually substantially higher.
*Lack of social cohesion. Disorder and lack of social cohesion are associated with both crime and mental distress. Children who live without a cohesive neighborhood network are more likely to have behavioral problems and have lower verbal skills. Those in areas of concentrated poverty are typically more isolated within their households and have fewer educated or employed friends and neighbors. Low levels of employment in distressed neighborhoods also destroy the informal networks crucial for workers to find good jobs.
THE LA RAZA MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PARTNER TO SURRENDER OUR BORDERS TO NARCOMEX.
"This dangerous power vacuum has fueled frustration and created an entirely new breed of disenfranchised voters who are fed up with the status quo. These are real people, their anger is palpable, and it’s not going away anytime soon."
Why Washington’s Political Class Is Losing Control
Study shows immigrants use 40% more welfare than native born
The average immigrant household draws more than $6,000 from the welfare system in a year, costing U.S. taxpayers 41 percent more than people born in the country, a new study finds.If we lived in a country with an intelligent, logical, and reasonable immigration policy, this simply wouldn't happen. An immigrant would have to demonstrate that they have jobs skills so that they could support themselves. It would follow that these newcomers would have the education that would allow them to aquire the job skills to make them useful members of society.
Immigrants with low education levels and higher numbers of children tend to use up the most benefits, according to the analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which found immigrant families consume $6,234 a year on average. The benefits come in the form of cash payments, food, Medicaid and housing.
Illegal immigrant households are included in the figure, since some can access the system through their U.S.-born children. Although illegal immigrants are barred from accessing welfare payments, CIS determined the households still cost the system more than $5,600 in a year on average.
The study follows CIS reports last year that 51 percent of households led by immigrants use at least one welfare program, and legal immigrants account for 75 percent of all immigrant welfare use. Many immigrants hold jobs, but still qualify for welfare because they tend to make less money and have more children.
“If we continue to permit large numbers of less-educated people to move here from abroad, we have to accept that there will be huge and ongoing costs to taxpayers,” CIS executive director Mark Krikorian said in a statement announcing the study.
More than 24 percent of immigrant households are led by a high school dropout, compared to 8 percent of households led by individuals born in the country. Thirteen percent of immigrant-led households have three or more children, compared to just 6 percent of U.S.-born households.
Instead, we are admitting millions of nearly illiterate peasants from Central America and Mexico who will be dependent on the taxpayer until their children are grown. This makes a mockery of America being a land of opportunity when poverty, ignorance, and dependence prevent recent immigrants from moving ahead and become self sufficient.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/study_shows_immigrants_use_40_more_welfare_than_native_born.html#ixzz48GVoFIAJ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
MEXICAN PRESIDENT ENDORSES LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILLARIA CLINTON.
billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between
$250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary
Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more
aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not
only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama's executive
immigration actions, she said "if Congress continues to refuse
to act, as president I would do everything possible under the
law to go even further." She added, "That is just the
Expect even more executive power grabs from Hillary | WashingtonExaminer.com
APPARENTLY MEXICO'S LOOTING IN OUR OPEN
BORDERS IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR LA RAZA HILLARY!
Obama expanded his power domestically far more than any other president in memory. His executive action on immigration is a good example of legislating from the bureaucracy by implementing policies directly contrary to existing law and anything Congress would be willing to do.
SHE PROMISES OPEN BORDERS, CHAIN MIGRATION, NO E-VERIFY, EXPANDED LA RAZA CARE on the gringo's backs!
Clinton campaign in crisis over email controversy, declining poll numbers
By Patrick Martin
The presidential campaign of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was hit by twin blows this week: a harshly critical report by the State Department inspector general over her use of a private email server while in office, and polls showing that Vermont Senator Bernie Sander had closed the gap in California, the most populous US state and one of six holding primaries or caucuses on June 7.
28 May 2016
The report by Inspector General Steve Linick, an Obama appointee, criticized Clinton’s decision to route all her work-related email, during four years as Obama’s Secretary of State, through a private server located at her home in Chappaqua, New York. Clinton never used an official State Department email account, a fact that was no secret, since all her emails to subordinates, other administration officials, the media and Capitol Hill, came from her personal domain @clintonemail.com, not from state.gov.
While Clinton has offered evasive and contradictory accounts for her reasons for using a private email server, the real motive is clear: to retain control over email traffic and avoid having it subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act. This became particularly critical as Bill and Hillary Clinton cashed in on his presidency—and her future political prospects—amassing a $150 million fortune by trading on their contacts with Wall Street and corporate America more generally.
The Inspector General found Clinton had violated State Department rules for information handling, which had been tightened under the Bush administration, as email became the principal means of day-to-day communication. They were further tightened under the Obama administration, which has waged a ferocious struggle against whistleblowers who have exposed government criminality, like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning.
In particular, Clinton did not turn over all her email when she left office in February 2013 because it was stored on her home server. She only turned over printed copies of 30,000 emails in November 2014, under pressure from Republican congressional investigators, after purging another 30,000 emails which she claimed were of a personal nature and not work-related.
The IG report found that when two members of the IT staff for the State Department questioned Clinton’s use of a nongovernmental email address in 2010, their boss told them “never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”
For Clinton’s political adversaries within the ruling elite, including the Republican Party and its presumptive nominee Donald Trump, the email scandal is a political weapon for pursuing disputes over policy and positions of power. Their criticism is completely cynical—Trump himself has refused to release a single year of his tax returns, for example, and Republican administrations have been just as secretive and manipulative about concealing communications from public scrutiny.
This does not negate, however, the significance of the abuse itself. Presuming that Clinton is eventually nominated, her Republican opponents will no doubt use it to reaffirm the broadly felt sentiment that the Clintons operate on the basis of secrecy and corruption.
The crisis that the report is creating for the Clinton campaign can be measured by the response in the media. The New York Times, which has endorsed Clinton, wrote a worried editorial on Thursday under the headline, “Hillary Clinton, Drowning in Email.” The IG report “is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls,” the newspaper wrote.
“There are so many flaws in her argument… I don’t see how this is anything but devastating,” NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said on MSNBC Thursday morning. Asked if Clinton was lying, Mitchell added, “It doesn’t hold up, including her response” to the report.
More important than the IG report is the ongoing FBI investigation into the private email server, which could lead to the filing of charges against Clinton or her aides for the mishandling of classified information. There is also a lawsuit by the right-wing anti-Clinton group Judicial Watch, which has led to court-ordered depositions of top Clinton aides. Cheryl Mills, former chief of staff at the State Department, gave testimony in this suit Friday, but a federal judge barred release of the video, limiting the release to the transcript only.
In the primary contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton is less than 100 delegates short of the 2,383 needed, and would collect at least 300 on June 7 even if she loses all six primaries and caucuses, because of proportional representation.
Her delegate lead, however, combines a relatively narrow lead among elected delegates, 1,769 to 1,499, and a top-heavy margin of 541 to 43 among the unelected superdelegates, party officials and officeholders. In the end, her lead in elected delegates alone will not be sufficient to give Clinton the nomination.
Sanders is favored to win the four smaller contests on June 7, in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and New Mexico, with 83 delegates combined, and Clinton to win New Jersey, with 126 delegates, leaving California, with 475 elected delegates, the main prize. In each of the states, delegates will be divided based on the share of the popular vote for each candidate, with no winner-take-all provisions.
While it would still not give him a majority of elected delegates, a Sanders victory in California would nonetheless both represent a staggering political setback for Clinton and raise questions about the viability of her nomination, particularly when combined with the email scandal.
A poll released this week showed that Sanders has erased the 18-point lead once enjoyed by Clinton in the state, and placed the contest within the margin of error, with Clinton leading only 46 to 44 percent. The poll, by Public Policy Priorities, found Clinton and Sanders running even among minority voters, in contrast to her large leads in many other states.
The Clinton campaign has been forced to abandon its pretense that the nomination contest was over, pouring in money and manpower in an increasingly desperate effort to block a Sanders victory in the state. Unlike the mid-Atlantic states that Clinton swept last month, California permits independent voters to cast ballots in the Democratic primary, and the Sanders campaign has been appealing to voters registered in the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party to reregister as Democrats or independents so they can vote for the Vermont senator.