Friday, July 1, 2016
#SeeYouInPhilly #bernieorbust #feelthebern #writehimin #stillsanders #PoliticalRevolution #AlwaysSanders #FBIPrimary #neverhillary #crookedhillary #DropOutHillary #dumphillary #whichhillary #ReleaseTheTranscripts #ifwebernyoubernwithus #IfNotBernieTrump?
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
* I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump, but still .... Evidently, the popular vote means nothing to the Republican establishment...
There are three types of Americans living in a nation governed by a two-party political system: 1) those who are unequivocally loyal and totally believing in the Democratic Party, 2) those who are unequivocally loyal and totally believing in the Republican Party, and 3) those who question both parties and seek the truth (Independents, the largest third of the populace.)
30% of American voters are Democratic partisan ideologues; 26% are Republican partisan ideologues; and 43% are Independent critical free-thinkers — but because of our country's political duopoly, a great many are forced to either lean left or right, and compromise their principles by always voting for the lesser of two evils. One poll found that more Americans considered themselves Independents, the most ever in the last 75 years (and why it's about time the U.S. had a real and viable 3rd party).
We have seen our leaders in both major political parties make outrageous remarks and engage in unethical and illegal behavior. We've witnesses members in both parties obfuscate, deflect, lie, and manipulate the facts to best benefit their respective party, while their followers fell in lockstep behind them like members of a cult — all believing, with few questions or doubts (like Obamacare: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.")
We've seen both political parties suppress votes and rig elections ... so what type of government could you expect to have from either political party?
We've seen voters in both political parties being spoon-fed mountains of cattle excrement — that they willingly swallowed whole — because they are either too ignorant and misinformed to know the difference, or they are too lazy to double-check the facts. Although, with a highly corrupt and partisan corporate media, admittedly, many times it's not their fault when "news" organizations have effectively been brainwashing them. Many people are forced to trust the media, because between work and family and school, they might not have the time to do their own research. (As an aside, see my earlier post from 2014 ... The Big Lie: Politicians and the media).
We've caught the media on both sides of the political spectrum outright lying to the American people about the "facts", so when it comes to their "fact-checkers", it can sometimes be quite a task to fact-check the fact-checkers — because they can be just as wrong as their media sponsors (just like polls).
When it comes to cable news, it's become common knowledge that these media outlets are very partisan: Fox News sides with the Republicans; CNN and MSNBC sides with the Democrats; and Independents have to go online to collect and assimilate a multitude of sources in order to come to a consensus on where the truth lies (People like myself monitor these stations for "tips" and then go online to research the topic from varying points of view).
We see Donald Trump being consistency hammered on CNN and MSNBC about his university and wall; and we see Hillary Clinton always being hammered about Benghazi and her private email server on Fox News. But like most people, news organizations don't lie or mislead 100% of the time. At the every least (even in a worse case scenario), there are grains of truth. As corporate entities, they have their own profit-driven and ideological agendas; but to maintain their credibility, they also have to pass a certain "smell test" to remain relevant and to garner advertising sponsors (who usually have the same corporate agenda as the media).
Most Republicans will most likely believe almost everything they see and hear on Fox News (and other right-wing media outlets); whereas most Democrats might believe almost everything they see and hear on CNN and MSNBC (and other "mainstream"/left-leaning media outlets). Independents will take what they all say with a grain of salt, and cross reference all their claims because they realize for all the aforementioned reasons that the media is biased — so if they want the facts without the candy-coating, they have to do some work.
Personally, after watching the Democratic primaries very closely, I can never again believe everything that CNN and MSNBC has to say about Donald Trump because of the way they reported the election results and moderated the Democratic debates. They were clearly in the bag for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders from the very beginning.
At first, CNN and MSNBC's bias against Sanders was very subtle and nuanced, until Sanders became a real and legitimate threat to Clinton's campaign, and then the bias got thicker and thicker as time went on — right up until the last primary election in D.C. — and it continues today because, officially, Clinton won't actually clinch the nomination until the DNC convention in July when superdelegates vote — that is, if the FBI doesn't recommend an indictment of her for using a private email server to transfer 22 sensitive top secret documents pertaining to weapons programs from a secured government State Department server to a private non-encrypted server in Clinton's bathroom. But if you ask a loyal Democrat, they don't care at all! Un-frigging-believable!
After watching the media deliberately trying to influence the primary elections by influencing voter sentiment, I began to question their reporting on Donald Trump, and saw that they had used the same tactics with him as they did with Bernie Sanders. I began watching Trump's entire rallies online at YouTube and found many instances where they took his words out of context to report their biased sound bites. It's no wonder Trump is always slamming the corporate media — just as Bernie Sanders always slams the corporate media — because they both have valid reasons.
Don't get me wrong ... I support Sanders (by far) over Trump; and much of what the media reports about Trump is true (boisterous, bombastic, etc.). But they also exaggerate some things he says and constantly over-emphasizes other things he says. They also misrepresent Trump meanings sometimes. Trump isn't a professional politician, so he isn't as "smooth" or diplomatic compared to Obama. But if you watch his full speeches, you can sometimes catch his true meanings that he clumsily expresses while at the podium without a teleprompter.
I'm not defending Trump at all, I'm just making a point about the media — and the sheeple who believe everything the media tells them, and then votes accordingly. For example: We get tired of hearing about the Republican's "fishing expedition" and hearings when it comes to Benghazi. Most people just think it's one partisan attack from one political party against the other. But just like the corporate media's B.S., we also have to sift through the cow manure that the politicians spew and dig for the truth (a nasty business sometimes).
But not EVERYTHING Fox News or the Republicans say is partisan hot air; just as not EVERYTHING that CNN, MSNBC and the Democrats say is total crap either. But many people get jaded after a while and just sort of tune it all out, thinking anything Fox or the GOP says can't be believed or everything CNN, MSNBC and the Democrats say can't be believed either. But the truth usually lies in between.
Unfortunately, Independents don't have their own cable TV news station — but we do have the internet, and that provides much more unfiltered information. Of course, there's a lot of B.S. online too, so good judgment, an open mind, due diligence in your research, and a sane, objective and unbiased perspective is also required — traits that many people don't always collectively possess — qualities that were once admired in journalism ("The Fourth Estate"), but not so much anymore, because they take their marching orders from the top, just like any other major multinational corporation.
As I noted in another post — via the Associated Press — Media CEOs Dominate Ranks Of Highest Paid Executives: Six of the 10 highest-paid CEOs last year worked in the media industry. Many, if not most of the talking heads that we see on our TVs are multimillionaires. Do you really think they want higher taxes or care about the minimum wage or how bad trade deals like the TPP would screw the working-class?
Media monopolies are just as harmful as any other monopoly. Right now 90% of the media is controlled by the Big Six media corporate conglomerates (who are against net neutrality and favor the TPP trade deal). And just like any monopoly, they can fix information the way other companies can fix prices — just the way huge institutional investors like banks can manipulate the stock market and commodity prices.
And the corporate media on both sides of the political aisle isn't just biased on ideology and social issues, but on the economy as well. The Republicans on Fox News bashed Obama for extending unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed during the Great Recession, as though the jobless were just looking for a free hand-out; but they will also use high-unemployment as an attack on the Democrats for their inability to create enough jobs. So the "facts" are used conveniently (by all the media) to guide the narrative they want to present to influence events, such as elections and government policy (They don't just report the news, they influence the news.)
The recent news about the UK leaving the European Union (#Brexit) is being used by both political parties in the U.S. to make points for their political parties: CNN and MSNBC (the Democrats) would like us to believe it's mostly about immigration, racism and xenophobia; while Fox News (the Republicans) wants us believe it's more about over regulation by big government ... when it's really about globalization and bad trade deals and a poor economy that has left the working-class behind — something that both political parties are equally guilty of. The corporate media favors globalization, and so therefore, have been fear-mongering about #Brexit — like the drop in the stock market. (Clinton and Obama were against the decision, while Trump and Sanders appeared sympathetic to the decision.).
The "mainstream" media slants in favor of the pro-corporate "moderate"/centrist Democrats — but against left-leaning liberal "progressives", which was exhibited by the "mainstream" media and the Democrats' treatment of Bernie Sanders, comparing him to a Joe Stalin Socialist — just like the conservative media. But when it comes to national security and mistakes that Obama's administration has made, CNN and MSNBC gives the Democrats a big free pass on many issues.
One perfect example is the way Hillary Clinton's email "scandal" is being covered. We've witnessed Clinton's various ways of explaining this for months. It reminded me of watching Bill Clinton's testimony before the Office of the Independent Counsel prosecutors investigating the president's relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The Clinton's have perfected obfuscation, deflection, lies and the manipulation of facts into a well-honed verbal art form (Clinton-speak). They are both masters of the game, and that's why it's been so difficult to pin them down an many things (It's a very tangled web they weave!)
If you've ever watched the Democratic debates (I watched every minute of every one, sometimes more than once), you may have noticed that, like her husband, Hillary Clinton has a very ingenious way of not answering the moderator's direct questions (even when specifically asked to answer "yes" or "no"). Instead, she veers off course onto another subject and then launches into a mini-filibuster for several minutes before tagging her vague answer at the very end with a non-answer. During one debate, on the subject of raising the Social Security cap, Bernie Sanders called her out on this. (In the 2008 debates with Obama, Clinton used the same tactics.)
Sometimes during an interview or debate, when being asked a question, Hillary Clinton will tell the moderator or interviewer: "The question you should be asking is..." — as if only she knows what we want to hear, and not just what she wants us to know. I've noticed some of Clinton's campaign surrogates use this same exact tactic when being interviewed on cable news. It's very slippery and slimy --- like a snake in tall grass. (And they don't think we see through their charade, as if we're ALL in lockstep behind them like the members of their cult.)
The Republican Party (who I can't stand) made some very real and meaningful and serious allegations against Hillary Clinton referring to Benghazi and to her email server. Not everything the GOP has to say is based on a phony "witch hunt" or a "vast right-wing conspiracy". They are also American citizens with real concerns. Just as the Democrats (who I can't stand) make attacks on Republicans that are many times based on real and true concerns. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, but can sometimes be totally true or totally false.
The attacks that the Democrats make on Trump aren't always completely true; just as the GOP attacks against Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration about Benghazi might be a least only half true (which is frightening in of itself) — but CNN and MSNBC are vigorously and unequivocally coming to Clinton's defense! Where is real journalism these days, when the media used to more fairly report as the government watchdog on both political parties? Now the corporate media appears almost complicit in government cover-ups and stonewalling and white-washing — except when they can use a dramatic sound-bite to replay over and over and over and over again (to the detriment of all other news).
But the attacks the Republican make against Clinton on her email server are almost totally true. But don't ask a Hillary supporter. Some of the classified emails were "born" classified, meaning they didn't have to be marked "classified" as she herself transmitted data that she should have known was classified and marked it classified herself. And ignorance is no excuse for violating the law as simple negligence is enough to violate the Espionage Act. But recent revelations show that it's beyond just "negligence" or "ignorance" or "convenience" or "a mistake" — now we have deliberate "intent" because Hillary Clinton wanted all her private email purposefully hidden from any government oversight and any freedom of information requests. (Most Independent critical thinkers believe it was to hide her dealings with the Clinton Foundation).
But it's funny how we hear so little about this on CNN or MSNBC. They'd rather talk about Trump and his bombastic remarks. They rather report on Trump University, that doesn't threaten national security. And ill-informed or misinformed ignorant Hillary sheeple are perfectly happy in their bliss to remain in lockstep behind Clinton like members of a cult — just like all the sad, pathetic, mindless and lost people in Jonestown Ghana who drank the Kool-Aid. But IMHO, it's a pity that all the mindless Hillary-bots have to take the rest of the country down with them.
I hate the GOP for "starving the beast" (us, the people) and for giving tax breaks to big corporations and the rich (just like the Democrats do); but I also hate the Democrats for abandoning the working-class and for treating Bernie Sanders so crappy during the primary elections. Their true colors really showed, and they have proven to be just as slimy as the Republicans (maybe more so, because the Republicans don't hide their sliminess and are expected to be slimy.)
* Editor's note: Usually I try to title most of my posts as relevantly to the content as possible, but for this one post, I could only think of "Clinton's Sex, Lies and Video Tape". I don't know why, maybe it just seemed like something the mainstream media would do . . . to mislead. Just this moment, I Googled the title, and found it was used once before ... so I also borrowed the photo below ;)
Monday, June 27, 2016
Edward-Isaac Dovere, a senior White House reporter, writes a scathing rebuke of a recently released "tell all" book about the Clintons called: "Crisis of Character" — written by former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne.
Dovere's article is at Politico and is dated June 21, 2016 and is titled: "Secret Service veterans denounce anti-Clinton tell-all book". One passage in the article reads:
People familiar with West Wing security laugh at the idea that Byrne or any uniformed officer ever would have walked in on Bill Clinton anywhere, whether in a meeting or, as a New York Post article over the weekend claims, in the middle of a make-out session in the Map Room with the late daughter of former Vice President Walter Mondale. The Secret Service presidential detail would have stopped him. (That affair was a well-worn rumor during the Clinton years, though strongly denied by Eleanor Mondale, who died of brain cancer in 2011.)
Below is the specific text regarding the incident of Eleanor Mondale from President Clinton's Aug. 17 grand jury testimony before Office of the Independent Counsel prosecutors investigating the president's relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. What's interesting is, not only does it appear the former Secret Service officer (Gary Byrne) was telling the truth in his new book; but also that Bill Clinton was pissed off because Monica Lewinsky had suspected Bill was messing around with another woman and it was a Secret Service officer ("uniformed division") who had told her that it was Eleanor Mondale (which Bill had never denied) -- and Bill was pissed off that a Secret Service officer had told Lewinsky (who had made a scene). It was later reported that Bill wanted the officer fired for spilling the beans on him (He didn't think it was "proper", even though what he was doing wasn't proper). The text below is followed by a video in Bill's own words.
QUESTION: The witness list came out on December 5th of 1997 with Monica Lewinsky's name on it. Mr. President, when did you find out that Monica's name was on that witness list?
CLINTON: I believe that I found out late in the afternoon on the 6th. That's what I believe. I've tried to remember with great precision, and because I thought you would ask me about this day, I tried to remember the logical question, which is whether I knew it on the 6th, and if so, at what time. I don't -- I had a meeting in the late afternoon on the 5th -- on the 6th. Excuse me, on the 6th. And I believe that's when I learned about it.
QUESTION: Now, on the morning of the 6th, Monica Lewinsky came to the northwest gate and found out that you were being visited by Eleanor Mondale at the time and had an extremely angry reaction. You know that, sir, don't you?
CLINTON: I have -- I have -- I know that Monica Lewinsky came to the gate on the 6th, and apparently directly called in and wanted to see me and couldn't, and was angry about it.
CLINTON: I know that.
QUESTION: And she expressed that anger to Betty Currie over the telephone, isn't that correct, sir?
CLINTON: That -- Betty told me that.
QUESTION: And she then later expressed her anger to you in one of her telephone conversations with Betty Currie, is that correct?
CLINTON: You mean, did I talk to her on the phone?
QUESTION: Monica Lewinsky that day, before she came in to visit in the White House.
CLINTON: Mr. Wisenberg, I remember that she came in to visit that day. I remember that she was upset. I don't recall whether I talked to her on the phone before she came in to visit, but I may well have. I'm not denying that I did. I just don't recall that.
QUESTION: And Mrs. Currie and yourself were very irate that Ms. Lewinsky had overheard that you were in the Oval Office with a visitor on that day -- isn't that correct, that you and Mrs. Currie were very irate about that?
CLINTON: Well, I don't remember all that. What I remember is that she was very -- Monica was very upset. She got upset from time to time. And -- and I was, you know -- I couldn't see her. I had --I was doing, as I remember -- I had some other work to do that morning, and she had just sort of showed up and wanted to be let in and wanted to come in at a certain time. And she wanted everything to be that way. And we couldn't see her. Now, I did arrange to see her later that day. And I was upset about her conduct. I'm not sure I knew or focused on, at that moment, exactly the question you asked. I remember I was -- I thought her conduct was inappropriate that day.
QUESTION: I want to go back, and I want to take them one at a time. No. 1, did you find out at some point during that day that Monica had overheard from somebody in the Secret Service that you were meeting with Ms. Mondale and that Monica got very irate about that?
CLINTON: I knew that at some point. I don't know whether I found out that, that day. I knew that they -- I knew that somehow she knew that among -- that -- that Eleanor Mondale was in to see us that day. I knew that. I don't know that I knew how she knew that on that day. I don't remember that.
QUESTION: Pardon me. That leads into my second question, which is, weren't you irate at the Secret Service precisely because they had revealed this information to Ms. Lewinsky on that very day -- so irate that you told several people -- or at least one person -- that somebody should be fired over this, on that very day?
CLINTON: I don't remember whether it happened on that very day. But let me tell you that the uniformed Secret Service -- if that is in fact what happened, and I -- we'll stipulate that that is. But no one should be telling anybody, not anybody -- not a member of my staff --who the president is meeting with. That's an inappropriate thing to do. So I would think that if that in fact is what I heard when I heard it, I would have thought that was a bad thing. I don't know that I said that. I don't remember what I said, and I don't remember to whom I said it.
QUESTION: It would be an inappropriate thing, sir. And that leads into my next question, is that why did Mrs. Currie, on your instructions, later that day tell many of the Secret Service officers involved that it never happened, to forget about it?
CLINTON: That what never happened?
QUESTION: The incident that you were so irate about earlier. The incident of somebody disclosing to Mrs. -- to Ms. Lewinsky that Ms. Mondale was in the Oval Office with you.
CLINTON: I don't know the answer to that. I think maybe -- you know -- I don't know. I know that...
QUESTION: You don't recall that you later gave orders to the effect that we're going to pretend this never happened...
CLINTON: No, sir.
QUESTION: ... or something like that?
CLINTON: No, sir. I don't recall that. First of all, I don't recall that I gave orders to fire anybody, if that was the implication of your first statement.
QUESTION: It wasn't an implication. Actually, the question was that you initially wanted somebody fired. You were so mad that you wanted somebody fired.
CLINTON: I don't remember that, first of all. I remember thinking it was an inappropriate thing to do. And I remember -- as I usually do when I'm mad, I -- after a while, I wasn't so mad about it. And I'm quite aware that Ms. Lewinsky has a way of getting information out of people when she's either charming or determined. And it -- I could have just said, well, I'm not so mad about it anymore. But I don't remember the whole sequence of events you're talking to me about now, except I do remember that somehow Monica found out Eleanor Mondale was there. And I learned either that day or later that one of the uniformed division personnel had told her. I thought then it was a mistake; I think now it was a mistake. I'm not sure it's a mistake someone should be terminated over. I think that, you know, you could just tell them not to do that anymore.
QUESTION: In fact, it would kind of be an overreaction to get irate or terminate somebody for revealing to a former White House staffer who visits where the president is, don't you think, sir?
CLINTON: Well, it would depend upon the facts. I think, on the whole, people in the uniformed Secret Service who are working on the gate have no business telling anybody anything about the president's schedule, just as a general principle. I didn't mind anybody knowing that she was there, if that's what you're saying. I could care less about that. But I think that the schedule itself -- these uniform people --you know, somebody shouldn't just be able to come up on the street, and because they know who the Secret Service agent is, he says who the president's with. I don't think that's proper.
QUESTION: I agree, Mr. President.
CLINTON: But, on the other hand, I didn't -- you know, I wanted to know what happened. I think we found out what happened. And then they were, I think, told not to let it happen again, and I think that's the way it should have been handled. I think it was handled in the appropriate way.
QUESTION: And you have no knowledge of the fact that Secret Service officers were told later in the day something to the effect of "This never happened; this event never happened; you have no knowledge of that"?
CLINTON: Sir, I'm not sure anybody ever told that to me. I mean, I thought you were asking -- let me just say my interpretation of this, of your previous question, was different than what you're asking now. What I remember was being upset that this matter would be discussed by anybody. It's incidental it happened to be Monica Lewinsky. And that whatever I said, I don't recall, but then thinking that the appropriate thing to do was to say, look, this is not an appropriate thing for you to be talking about, the president's schedule, and it shouldn't happen again. Now the question you seem to be asking me now -- I just want to be sure I'm getting the right question -- is whether I gave instructions in effect to pretend that Monica Lewinsky was never at the gate.
QUESTION: To the effect of...
CLINTON: And if that is the question you're asking me, I don't believe I ever did that, sir. I certainly have no memory of doing that.
QUESTION: Or anything to that effect?
CLINTON: I don't know what that means.
QUESTION: Is that your testimony?
CLINTON: What does that mean, "anything to that effect"?
QUESTION: Well, Mr. President, you've told us that you were not going to try to help the Jones' attorneys, and I think it's clear from your testimony that you were pretty literal at times. So, that's why I'm saying I don't necessarily know the exact words. The question was, do you have any knowledge of the fact...
CLINTON: No, but I...
QUESTION: ... of the fact that later in the day, on Saturday, the 6th of December 1997, Secret Service people were then -- were told something to this effect. "This event never happened. Let's just pretend this event did not happen." Do you have knowledge of it or not?
CLINTON: No, sir. And I didn't instruct the Secret Service in that regard. I have memory of saying anything to anybody in the Secret Service that would have triggered that kind of instruction.
QUESTION: Did you tell Captain Purdy (ph), while you were standing in the doorway between the Oval Office and Betty Currie's office, did you tell Captain Purdy (ph) of the uniform division, "I hope I can count on your discretion in this matter," at the end of the day when you all were talking about that earlier incident? Did you tell him that or anything like that, sir?
CLINTON: I don't remember anything I said to him in that regard. I have no recollection of that whatever.
QUESTION: We'll take a break now.
KENDALL: Thank you. 3:38.
* Full video testimony (4 hours 15 minutes) at C-SPAN: http://www.c-span.org/video/?111990-1/presidential-grand-jury-testimony
* The following transcripts were provided by the Federal Document Clearing House. Full text to entire testimony: http://www.anusha.com/clintonv.htm
#FBIPrimary #neverhillary #crookedhillary #DropOutHillary #dumphillary #whichhillary
#ReleaseTheTranscripts #ifwebernyoubernwithus #IfNotBernieTrump?
Thursday, June 23, 2016
A Plea to Sanders Supporters: Don't Fall in Line (by Michael Howard | June 22, 2016 | 10:15am at Paste Magazine...)
Friday, June 17, 2016
Michael Trimm, an IT professional for a large company, explains how difficult it is to set up a secured email server and says most experts don't recommend it -- and also, it's a lot more costly, a lot more risky and a lot LESS "convenient" than carrying a second device.
Monday, June 13, 2016
It seems that a lot of life-time Democrats would now gladly leave the Democratic Party to join a new Progressive Party — and that goes without saying for most Independents and first-time voters as well — those who only voted in the Democratic Party's 2016 primary elections BECAUSE of Bernie Sanders.