But first, some breaking news...
The Justice Department just granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department staffer, in exchange for not facing possible criminal charges. He's the one who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign and set up the private email server in her New York home in 2009 while she was Obama's Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton and her family personally paid Pagliano to maintain the private e-mail server that Hillary used while heading the State Department — a server that her husband and their daughter used as well. Last year Bryan Pagliano asserted his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination.
If Hillary Clinton is ever questioned by the FBI, it can put her in a precarious situation, because she is an habitual liar (and she even lies about lying) — and that's how Martha Stewart wound up in prison — for lying to the FBI. That alone could be Hillary Clinton's downfall. But to put a positive spin on this bit of news, her spokesman Brian Fallon said the campaign is "pleased" that Bryan Pagliano is cooperating with prosecutors (Have you ever heard so much B.S.?)
Short commentary: Personally, I believe the Clintons set up the private email server to hide their correspondence from the government and public scrutiny related to their foundation (the Clinton Global Initiative), which was cleverly set up by the Clintons to work similarly as pass-through S-corporation to hide and redirect funds to people who would be loyal and committed to them — and that their foundation (while doing work for many good causes), was really disguised as a charity to use as an international criminal enterprise to personally benefit themselves. (But that's for the FBI and conspiracy theorists to sort out.)
During one Democratic debate Senator Bernie Sanders has made it clear that he's "tired of hearing about those damn emails"; but what is often misunderstood is, that was only said in the context that the media should be more focused on the issues — and that the legal process should play itself out in the justice system — and that he would rather not make the email controversy a negative campaign attack against his political opponent.
Some people have criticized Sanders for not being more aggressive on this issue; but Sanders prefers to stick to his message of wages and income inequality, campaign finance reform, healthcare, expanding Social Security, college tuition and college debt, and racial justice. (Donald Trump pontificated that Bernie had lost the Democratic primary the moment he passed up the chance to attack Hillary on this issue during the first debate.)
Now, what about the multi-billionaire Warren Buffett? First, a short video of a recent interview on CNBC . . .
Billionaire Warren Buffett praised Senator Sanders, because he's genuine and wants to reform campaign laws and help struggling people. But he also said that we shouldn't do that if it's going to screw the billionaire's Golden Goose. Buffett used the same reverse-psychology strategy that Hillary Clinton, her supporters and media pundits often use — praising Bernie from one side of their mouth while at the same time attacking him: "He's a nice guy but..."
This double-talk with overlying positive tones with an embedded warning is deliberately done in this way in an attempt to make Sanders look unelectable and draw votes towards Hillary, while at the same time, keeping Sanders' supporters on board for the general election — that is, should Clinton become the Democratic nominee. But Bernie's supporters see through this ploy, and it will backfire on the establishment "gravy train" Democrats. People don't like it when other people are trying to manipulate and use them, especially when being told a crock of slimy lies.
Despite Hillary Clinton's secretive emails on a private email server, Warren Buffett doesn't think we need transparency in government, and so he will support Hillary Clinton to protect his "Golden Goose". On March 6, 2009 stocks on the DOW were at 6,626 — today they are at 16,879. The billionaires have made a fortune under Obama, but wages have remained stagnant and jobs are still hard to find.
And as incredible as it is to believe, of all the new jobs created under Obama, most went to foreign-born citizens. Hillary Clinton has always supported H-1B and other guestworker visas that allow employers to use under-paid foreign labor that depresses domestic wages.
The billionaires (like Warren Buffett) want to protect the status quo, and are backing Hillary Clinton. Black voters are being bamboozled into voting for Hillary Clinton while working-class Whites are being drawn to either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.
The Republican party's establishment machine created the Tea Party (now the Freedom Caucus) and presidential candidates like Donald Trump with their failed 40-year-strategy of "trickle-down" economics; and now they are trying to figure out how to cling to their political power after screwing over the working people for decades.
On the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, the Democratic party's establishment machine (with their own pro-corporate policies) also helped to create the populist movements of Occupy Wall Street, the progressive Elizabeth Warren and the Independent Bernie Sander's presidential campaign — and the Democrats are now trying to cling to their own political power after screwing over working people for decades.
Both major U.S. political parties are now actively trying to subvert the will of the majority of the American people with dirty tricks to keep their "gravy train" corrupt politicos in power. Two-time failed presidential candidate and outsourcer-and-chief and corporate raider Mitt Romney, is on TV this very minute, telling us why we shouldn't vote for Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are using slurs, lies and innuendos to demean Sanders — and calling him a "Socialist" — and may try to use their super-delegates to steal the Democratic primary election over the popular vote from Bernie Sanders. Both parties will use dirty tricks to continue their reign of absolute power and will over an angry American population.
For decades, pro-corporate politicians like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton (both Republicans and Democrats) have supported trade agreements which have cost us millions of decent paying jobs as corporate America shuts down plants here and moves to low-wage countries. As president, Bernie Sanders' trade policies will break that cycle of agreements which enrich the every wealthy at the expense of the working people of this country.
Bernie Sanders is currently running a campaign ad that says only one candidate has consistently fought trade deals that ship jobs overseas — including NAFTA and TPP (that Hillary supported), and that is Bernie Sanders: “While others waffle, Bernie is fighting hundreds of thousands of new job losses.” >>> Economic Policy Institute (February 26, 2006) Lagging recovery of construction and manufacturing sectors is one more reason wage growth is suffering for most workers.
THE MEDIA is always over-emphasizing how may superdelegates are currently pledged to Hillary Clinton, and are deliberately attempting to undermine the enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders' campaign by rarely mentioning that these superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the Democratic convention in July. In BIG BOLD NUMBERS on the TV screen, they attempt to convince us that Bernie has no chance of winning the Democratic primary. The major media outlets (such as CNN and MSNBC) are using paid pundits to actively "campaign" for Hillary Clinton — trying to influence public opinion and sway the votes (rather than just "report" the news).
Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, claims that her lead is prohibitive and will only get larger. "By virtue of Secretary Clinton’s eight wins on Super Tuesday — most of which were by significant margins — we now have a lead of more than 180 pledged delegates over Senator Sanders."
Tad Devine, Sander's senior advisor, argued that the demographics of Tuesday’s contests – half a dozen Southern states with sizable African American populations – were more favorable to Clinton than any other day on the nominating calendar going forward. (I noted this yesterday by using the analogy of Confederate and Yankee States)
In a recent post in the Guardian, the author Maria Cardona attempts to convince us (using scare tactics) that the only way to take down Donald Trump is with a united Democratic front — meaning, "Hey you Bernie bros, you better get on board with the first woman president or we might have a lunatic as our next president."
Of course, I don't agree at all. I will never vote for a habitual liar and reward them with the White House JUST BECAUSE they are a woman, or because she might be "the better of two evils". But I do agree 1,000% with one of the reader's comment below:
I'm sorry, but there will be no such unity. The young people, first-time voters, and independents that Bernie has engaged will not be around in November if Hillary is the nominee. The far-left will not unite behind Hillary because they know her policy positions are fleeting. Despite how much Bernie may urge his supporters to vote for Hillary, it will not change the fact that she is the poster-child for our corrupt campaign finance system.
On the flip side, most reliable Dem voters do not seem to have a problem with Bernie in particular, and are likely to support him in the general election without question. They just prefer Hillary, perhaps because for some reason they believe she has more experience or better electability. The latter is grossly incorrect. Hillary does very poorly with independents, as evident by her polling results in general election match-ups, her performance with independents in the Dem primary, and perhaps most of all, her high unfavorability rating.
Dem voter turnout was devastatingly low in the 2014 midterms, and is much lower in the 2016 primary so far — lower than it was in the 2008 primary, which doesn't bode well for either Hillary or Bernie, but Bernie has done a better job bringing in new voters. He also performs better with independents than any candidate on either side, he is the only candidate with a positive net favorability, and his anti-establishment message can enable him to win over anti-establishment Republican voters who are currently turning out for Trump.
The point is, a lot of people just don't trust Hillary Clinton, and will not vote for her. She may be winning the primary so far, but she has not generated any enthusiasm. Her major victories are in conservative southern states, and can easily be attributed to Bernie's failure to reach certain demographics in those states or to generate a large voter turnout, yet those same states are almost certainly going to be won by Republicans in the general election.
Progressives know she is not progressive. Her propensity for military action, her support of trade agreements, her protection of Wall St., and many other things make it very clear that there is nothing progressive about her. Her campaign funding sources and Super PACs go against the fundamentals of democratic values. I won't even get into the unethical if not illegal behavior she and her family has engaged in over the decades. There will be no unity.
Besides the fact that Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump in a general election than does Hillary, The Washington Post gives us another reason to vote for Bernie Sanders:
Super Tuesday victories by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton put the nation on a path toward an ugly and contentious general election, pitting a pair of major-party presidential candidates saddled with vulnerabilities in a contest that will be decided by a fearful and angry electorate divided along racial, cultural and ideological lines. A Trump-Clinton general election matchup would represent the continuation of a decade or more of politics marked by gridlock in Washington, distrust of institutions and leaders, and political discourse that has been on a downward spiral. Whoever wins in November will face the enormously difficult task of trying to bring the country together in the hope of being able to govern effectively. For millions of voters, the motivating emotions in such a race would be largely negative — driven by stop-Trump or stop-Clinton sentiments as well as fears that the other party’s candidate might prevail and general distress over the state of the country.
And why are African-Americans overwhelming voting against their own best interests? From the Huffington Post:
Bernie Sanders has a 100 percent rating from the NAACP. He endorsed the presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson in both 1984 and 1988. He marched with Dr. Martin Luther King. He was a member of both the Congress on Racial Equality and the anti-racist Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the 1960s. He led Chicago's first-ever mass protest against housing segregation. His campaign has been joined by a long roster of African-American intellectuals and cultural icons. He opposed Clinton's disastrous welfare "reform" bill in the 1990s. He's opposed the death penalty his entire political career. He's consistently voted to limit the power of law enforcement. He opposed the Iraq War in part because he believes wars are often fought by the poor on behalf of the rich. He heard #BlackLivesMatter before Hillary Clinton did, and has consistently showed more respect to young black protesters than has Clinton. He's led the fight to restore the Voting Rights Act, which conservatives have gutted in order to suppress the African-American vote. He's called for an end to for-profit prisons and the War on Drugs. His economic and healthcare plans are significantly more targeted than Clinton's when it comes to addressing poverty and lack of affordable healthcare in majority-minority urban communities. And yet, to hear Hillary Clinton supporters tell it, the only way for Sanders to prove he cares a lick about African-Americans is to drop out of the presidential race right now and passionately endorse his rival. (Rapper T.I. just revealed he was backing Bernie Sanders for president - - - Lindsey Burgess is the kind of voter Sen. Bernie Sanders desperately needs more of: young, black, college-educated, progressive).
Why every vote counts: Bernie Sanders won over Hillary Clinton in the city of Methuen Massachusetts by exactly one vote last Tuesday. But Methuen wasn’t the only close win for Sanders. He beat Clinton by two votes in Avon, with 402 votes to her 400. Not to be outdone, Clinton bested Sanders in Chatham 669 to 661 for a total of eight votes. With more than 1.1 million votes cast, Clinton’s margin of victory was 20,000 votes — and won the State by a mere 2% >>> It's OK for Elizabeth Warren NOT to endorse Bernie Sanders. It's also OK for his supporters to be really pissed off >>> I am beginning to become upset with her too.
Jesse Ventura told The Daily Beast he will run for president if Bernie Sanders does not win the Democratic nomination.
Some other tit-bits that might interest you
- Breitbart: A $2,700-a-head Hillary Clinton fundraiser in London expects the Clooneys and Fox News' Murdochs as guests (Breitbart: See Bernie Sanders Supporters In London)
- Petition: The payday loan industry has an important new champion in Washington: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Congresswoman from Florida and Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Maybe it has something to do with the more than $68,000 in campaign contributions she has taken from the payday industry.
- The Atlantic: Sanders’s economic message has trickled down to congressional races across the country.
- Billboard: Ashley Nicolette Frangipane — known by her stage name Halsey — will vote for Sanders. "I love Bernie Sanders. I love Bernie Sanders so much." (Because he is a man of the people, not Wall Street.)
- The Clinton's War on Women