Julian Assange says that we must have political accountability–a general deterrence set to stop political organizations behaving in a corrupt manner.

Untitled

Julian Assange: Choosing Between Trump or Clinton is Like Picking Between Cholera or Gonorrhea

Following the end of the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump has received a surge in his popularity. He’s now leading Hillary Clinton 44 to 39 percent in a four-way match-up, according to the most recent CNN poll. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson received 9 percent, and Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein received 3 percent. But for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the threat of a Donald Trump presidency doesn’t inspire him to back Hillary Clinton. When asked, Assange said: “You’re asking me, do I prefer cholera or gonorrhea?”

TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Julian, we cut you off earlier when you were talking about what you felt were the most significant emails that you have released. Is there any last one that you’d like to mention? And also, do you have any thoughts on Donald Trump? I mean, just before we went to air, a CNN poll came out that says Donald Trump is ahead by 5 percentage points of Hillary Clinton. Now, he did just come off of the Republican convention, but many called it the worst convention in history, so it’s not automatic that he should have had this percentage lead. Of course, though, you have the crisis, the disarray, the Democratic Party is in because of these emails that you’ve released.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, you’re asking me, do I prefer cholera or gonorrhea? Personally, I would prefer neither. Look, I think—you know, we know how politics works in the United States. Whoever—whatever political party gets into government is going to merge with the bureaucracy pretty damn fast. It will be in a position where it has some levers in its hand. And so, as a result, corporate lobbyists will move in to help control those levers. So it doesn’t make much difference in the end. What does make a difference is political accountability, a general deterrence set to stop political organizations behaving in a corrupt manner. That can make a difference, because that changes the perception of what you can do or not do. And so, always—well, almost always, you should choose the principled position, which is to set a disciplinary signal about acting in a corrupt way, and take a philosophical position, which is our institutions can only be as good as our understanding of our institutions.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to—

JULIAN ASSANGE: Now, are you asking—the other—

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, go ahead, Julian.

JULIAN ASSANGE: The other top emails, well, as I said, I think this instruction by Luis Miranda, the head of communications, to go out and covertly spread anti-Bernie Sanders propaganda is a clear instruction combined with a chain of command. It’s not simply expressing a sentiment. It is expressing an instruction within the DNC to subvert the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Then there’s a lot of emails about the close relationship between the DNC and the media—The Washington Post involved in a co-fundraising party, an off-list co-fundraising for the DNC, calling up MSNBC during the middle of a program and saying, “Pull that segment now,” Debbie Wasserman Schultz calling up the president of MSNBC in order to discipline Morning Joe, etc. That’s, you know, of course, something that we’ve all suspected happens, but this is concrete proof of it.

But, you know, I really encourage people to research the more than 8,000 attachments that we put out, separate files, including more than 175 spreadsheets. That has the real core, the financial core, of the power structure and the exercise of monetary influence over the DNC. And that’s something that’s going to seed journalistic investigations for years.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange, we want to thank you for being with us. Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. This is Democracy Now! You can go online at democracynow.org to read the transcript or to hear again either the audio podcast or the video, see the video of this interview. We’re broadcasting from the Democratic convention in Philadelphia. It’s the first day. It will be gaveled in in just a couple of hours from this broadcast. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. When we come back, a debate. Stay with us.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If you think Donald Trump is bad now, wait and see how bad Hillary Clinton will be as President.

Ben Norton Jaisal Noor

‘Lesser of Two Evils’ Argument Not Resonating with DNC Protestors

Salon.com’s Ben Norton says grassroots movements will be more mobilized under a Republican candidacy

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: I?m Jaisal Noor for the Real News Network.
We?re here in Philadelphia in front of City Hall. We?re at a Bernie or Bust Protest. Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate, just addressed the crowd of a couple hundred people. She got a rack of applause urging people to vote their conscious, vote to address the issues that are plaguing America, and not support Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

We?re now joined by Ben Norton. He?s a journalist for Salon.com. You?ve been here all week and you were at the RNC as well? Talk about why you?re here and what your impressions have been so far. You know, the first day of this convention ended last night and some controversy. Talk about what?s going on with you.

BEN NORTON: Well I think people in general, people on the inside of the convention and outside rank and file people, you know average people, workers are really tired of the few options they have available to them. I spoke to a lot of Sanders delegates last night and few of them are excited about supporting Clinton. Really the only argument that really prevails all of these conventions is the other side is bad so you have to support us. It?s a really dispiriting kind of environment. I see very few positive messages.

Michelle Obama last night tried to make her speech very positive in that way but a lot of it is if you listened to Sander?s speech it was Trump is such a horrible candidate that we must endorse Clinton to defeat Trump. And at the Republican convention it was Clinton is such a horrible candidate we must get behind Trump to defeat Clinton. I think seeing protests like this, they are very inspiring because you see Americans who are really demanding progressive change outside of the establishment who refuse to say we must choose one of these two evils. And they say you know we live in a democracy and we want to choose an option that actually appeals to us and choose a politician who actually may represent our interest.

NOOR: So the counter point, and some of the people we?ve talked to share your view, I mean share the view you just expressed. But also there?s people that say we don?t?we want to build a third party but we want to continue grassroots movements but we have to defeat Trump first. And that?s also what Sanders message was because?and others have made this point that if Trump is elected then he?s going to set progress back so far that it?s going to hurt every marginalized community across this country.

But that doesn?t seem to be resonating with some people and even people in swing states. It?s?even people we?ve talked to in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and in Cleveland, in Ohio. Even though they know it?s a swing state they say they?re still going to vote their conscious. So now Trump is doing the best he?s ever done in national polls and Hillary has her highest unfavorability ratings she?s had in this election so far.

NORTON: Well I think I?m pretty confident that Hillary?s going to win. Trump is too extreme of a candidate. Even aside from that, I?m not very convinced that a Trump candidacy would be an apocalyptic event. I think it would be bad. I also think a Clinton presidency would be bad. I think we have to think about it not just in terms of who?s in office but what that effect is on the larger political [melee]. Because if you look at the Bush administration, you look at the Obama administration, there are many similarities especially on foreign policy, national security, clamp down on journalist, etc. But one of the primary differences between them is the grassroots activism. And if you look at the Bush administration there was enormous grassroots pressure against the administration.

NOOR: Especially against the Iraq War. An unprecedented amount of global protests before the war even started which never really happened before.

NORTON: Absolutely and when Obama was voted in it immediately shrunk and shrunk exponentially. So I think we should think of it not just in terms of who?s in office. If Trump entered office, we?ll probably see a renewed way of activism that we haven?t seen since maybe the 1960?s in this country and I think that would be very healthy for democracy.
I don?t think a Trump presidency would be a good thing by any stretch of the imagination but I think we should think of it not just in terms of who?s in office. Also I think if we had a Trump presidency that would encourage progressives to run for local office. To run for congress etc. So I don?t think we should think of this apocalyptic view of politics. I think we should think of it more in terms of what different layers of society will react in different ways and think about how as people on the left we can push for progressive change regardless of what layer of society it is.

I mean the presidency is an important role but ultimately the presidency is very limited. Usually you have a choice between a kind of centrist candidate and a kind of right wing candidate.

NOOR: So the–some of the issues that people have raised are the next president will make at least one or maybe more Supreme Court picks. They?ll have to act on climate change with urgency. Now we saw the massive protest against fracking and environmental change on Sunday. So people aren?t happy in the grassroots with Clinton. Especially with the pick of Tim Kaine as Vice President, with his track record. But Trump didn?t even mention climate change with his speech?with accepting the Republican nomination. So as far as those two issues go for example, some Clinton supporters are hesitant, people say they?re going to back Clinton. They see those two issues as apocalyptic in a way.

NORTON: Well absolutely. Climate change is there?s no question, the biggest problem we face as a planet. I think that it?s imperative that we do something about it. That said, Clinton her record on climate change and fossil fuels and such is not a positive one. She?s criticized fracking now but in the past when she was Secretary of State and before, she was supportive of fracking. She now claims to oppose the TPP but again she previously supported it which would also be horrific for the environment. And yea Clinton, she actually accepts the climate change as a real thing. But that?s such a basic bare standard that it?s not enough. We really are facing catastrophic–impending catastrophic situation with climate change and we do need systemic change and serious action. And 4 years or 8 years of a Clinton presidency I think will do very little to stop that. And I also think one of the discussions that?s kind of removed from a lot of this is looking at things in the long term and not just the short term. There?s no question that Trump would be horrific as a candidate but if we have 4 or 8 years of Clinton of more wars, of more austerity, of another economic crisis, and potential bailouts of banks and large corporations etc., you know you think Trump is bad now? Wait for what we?ll see in 4 or 8 years.

I mean this is not a problem that is going to go away. The Republican Party has lurched to the far right and this is the future of the Republican Party. So I think we really need to talk about how we can pressure all politicians but especially the Democratic Party and say, we?re not just going to obey. We?re going to push you from the left and say we need you to adopt these policies. We need you to ban fracking, we need you to move toward renewable energy, and the Green Party and the Sanders movement are doing these kinds of things among other kind of parties. And if we don?t pressure the Democratic Party, I?m afraid and I think it?s quite possible that the Democratic Party won?t take the steps that we need to address climate change and we?ll still face the climate catastrophe that we still face now.

NOOR: I think that?s a really good analysis because regardless of who?s in office it?s going to be up to the grassroots movements to pressure them. Some would say that Clinton would be [acceptive] to grassroots pressure but again the point you raised about where that movement is going to go, where the movement went that was so massive under Bush was?it sort of evaporated under Obama. That?s something the movement?s still going to have to deal with going forward. Ben Norton thanks so much for being with us.

NORTON: Thanks. Glad to be here.

NOOR: Thank you for joining us at the Real News Network.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who Should Bernie Voters Support Now? Robert Reich vs. Chris Hedges on Tackling the Neoliberal Order

chris hedges

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. Our special, “Breaking with Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As we continue to talk about the Democratic National Convention, we’re joined now by two guests. Joining us from Berkeley, California, is Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Clinton and is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. And here in Philadelphia is Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. His most recent book is Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt.

And I’d like to begin with Robert Reich. You’re a—you were a Bernie Sanders supporter. You’re now backing Hillary Clinton. You’re not at the convention, but your perspective on what you saw last night and the possibility of the Democratic Party uniting behind Hillary Clinton, or a group of the Sanders supporters going with Jill Stein?

ROBERT REICH: Well, it’s very hard to tell what the delegates are going to do. And it’s very hard to tell—even harder to tell what the electorate is going to do. You know, this is a very agonizing time for many Bernie Sanders supporters. I, with a great deal of reluctance initially, because I’ve known Hillary Clinton for 50 years—50 years—endorsed Bernie Sanders and worked my heart out for him, as many, many people did. And so, at this particular juncture, you know, there’s a great deal of sadness and a great deal of feeling of regret. But having worked so long and so many years for basically the progressive ideals that Bernie Sanders stands for, I can tell you that the movement is going to continue. In fact, it’s going to grow.

And right now, at this particular point in time, I just don’t see any alternative but to support Hillary. I know Hillary, I know her faults, I know her strengths. I think she will make a great president. I supported Bernie Sanders because I thought he would make a better president for the system we need. But nonetheless, Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee. I support her. And I support her not only because she will be a good president, if not a great president, but also, frankly, because I am tremendously worried about the alternative. And the alternative, really, as a practical matter, is somebody who is a megalomaniac and a bigot, somebody who will set back the progressive movement decades, if not more.

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Hedges?

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It’s a system where corporate power has seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We’ve lost our privacy. We’ve seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. We’ve seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son. We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This has been a bipartisan effort, because they’ve both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d’état in slow motion, and it’s over.

I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism. First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, them create a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.

So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we’ve got to break away from—which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. We’ve got to break away from political personalities and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact, the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.

And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now—about 4 percent. We’ve got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle. We’ve got to be willing to step out into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right to privacy—and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn’t exist anymore because of wholesale government surveillance—we have no ability, except for hackers.

I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I’ve printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails—you should read them. They’re appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West “trash.” It is—the whole—it exposes the way the system was rigged, within—I’m talking about the Democratic Party—the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign.

The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it’s one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. This debate over—I don’t like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Reich, I remember you, on Democracy Now!, talking about your time as labor secretary when President Clinton signed off on welfare reform, and you described walking the streets of Washington, D.C., wondering where the protests were, that you had vigorously objected. And it was also an issue, a bill that Hillary Clinton had supported. So, can you respond to Chris Hedges on these three points, including, so, you take a walk in the political wilderness for a little while?

ROBERT REICH: Well, Amy, it’s not just taking a walk in the political wilderness. If Donald Trump becomes president, if that’s what you’re referring to, I think it is—there are irrevocable negative changes that will happen in the United States, including appointments to the Supreme Court, that will not be just political wilderness, that will actually change and worsen the structure of this country. I couldn’t agree with Chris Hedges more about his critique, overall, of neoliberalism and a lot of the structural problems that we face in our political economy today. I’ve written about them. But I’ve done more than write about them. I’ve actually been in the center of power, and I have been doing everything I possibly can, as an individual and also as a mobilizer and organizer of others, to try to change what we now have.

I think that voting for Donald Trump or equating Hillary Clinton with Donald Trump is insane. Donald Trump is certainly a product of a kind of system and a systematic undermining that has occurred in the United States for years with regard to inequality of income and wealth and political power. But we don’t fight that by simply saying, “All right, let’s just have Donald Trump and hope that the system improves itself and hope that things are so bad that actually people rise up in armed resistance.” That’s insane. That’s crazy.

What we have to do is be—we’ve got to be very, very strategic as progressives. We’ve got to look at the long term. We’ve got to understand that Bernie Sanders brought us much further along than we were before the Sanders campaign. We owe a lot to Bernie Sanders, his courage, his integrity, his power, the fact that most people under 30 voted for Bernie Sanders. In fact, if you look at the people who voted for Bernie Sanders under 30, that was more people than voted for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton together under the age of 30. We are building a progressive movement in this country. But over the next four years, I don’t want Donald Trump to irretrievably make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to move forward with that progressive movement.

Now, I understand Hillary Clinton is not perfect. I’ve known her , as I said before, for 50 years. I met her when she was 19 years old. I know her strengths, and I know, pretty well, her weaknesses. She is not perfect. And as Chris says, you know, she is also very much a product of many of the problems structurally in this country right now. We fight those structural problems, yes. Hand in hand, Chris, with you, shoulder to shoulder—I’m very short, maybe it’s my shoulder, and it’s your rib cage—but it doesn’t matter, we continue to fight. I will continue to fight. Many people who are watching and listening will continue to fight. We must continue to mobilize. I hope Bernie Sanders does what he implied he would do last night—that is, carry the movement forward, lend his name, his energy, his email list. This is not the end of anything. But we have got to be, at the same time, very practical about what we’re doing and very strategic about what we’re doing. This is not just a matter of making statements. It’s a matter of actually working with and through, and changing the structure of power in this country.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Chris, I’d like to ask you—you’ve written that liberals are tolerated by the capitalist elites because they do not question the virtues of corporate capitalism, only its excesses, and call for tepid and ineffectual reforms. Could that have also have been said of FDR in the 1930s? Because you were one of the folks who did not back Bernie Sanders from the beginning.

CHRIS HEDGES: That’s right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, you’ve—

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, I didn’t back Bernie Sanders because—and Kshama Sawant and I had had a discussion with him before—because he said that he would work within the Democratic structures and support the nominee. And I think we have now watched Bernie Sanders walk away from his political moment. You know, he—I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama.

A political campaign raises consciousness, but it’s not a movement. And what we are seeing now is furious spin—I listened to Ben Jealous just do it—from the self-identified liberal class. And they are tolerated within a capitalist system, because, in a moment like this, they are used to speak to people to get them to betray their own interests in the name of fear. And I admire Robert and have read much of his stuff and like his stuff, but if you listen to what he’s been saying, the message is the same message of the Trump campaign, and that his fear. And that is all the Democrats have to offer now and all the Republicans have to offer now.

And the fact is, from climate change alone, we have no time left. I have four children. The future of my children, by the day, is being destroyed because of the fact that the fossil fuel industry, along with the animal agriculture industry, which is also as important in terms of climate change, are destroying the ecosystem on which we depend for life. And neither party has any intention to do anything about it.

AMY GOODMAN: What should Bernie Sanders have done?

CHRIS HEDGES: Bernie Sanders should have walked out and run as an independent.

AMY GOODMAN: Take—

CHRIS HEDGES: And defied the Democratic Party.

AMY GOODMAN: Take up the invitation of Dr. Jill Stein—

CHRIS HEDGES: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —and run on a ticket with—

CHRIS HEDGES: She offered to let him run on the top of the ticket. That’s what he should have done. And the fact is, you know, let’s not forget that Bernie has a very checkered past. He campaigned for Clinton in ’92. He campaigned for Clinton again in ’96, after NAFTA—the greatest betrayal of the working class in this country since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1948—after the destruction of welfare, after the omnibus crime bill that exploded the prison population, and, you know, we now have—I mean, it’s just a monstrosity what we’ve done; 350,000 to 400,000 people locked in cages in this country are severely mentally ill. Half of them never committed a violent crime. That’s all Bill Clinton. And yet he went out and campaigned. In 2004, he called on Nader not to run, to step down, so he could support a war candidate like John Kerry. And I’m listening to Jealous before talk about the Iraq War. Sixty percent of the Democratic senators voted for the war, including Hillary Clinton. The idea that somehow Democrats don’t push us into war defies American history.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Reich?

ROBERT REICH: Well, all I can say is that at this particular point in time—I mean, again, many of the things that Chris Hedges is saying, I completely agree with. The real question here is: What do we do right now? And what do we do to mobilize and organize a lot of people out there who right now are not mobilized and organized? And how do we keep the energy building? I disagree with Chris with regard to Bernie Sanders. I think Bernie Sanders has been a great and is a great leader right now of the progressive cause.

What I think we ought to do is develop a third party outside the Democratic and Republican parties, maybe the Green Party, so that in the year 2020, four years from now, we have another candidate—it may be Bernie Sanders, I think he’s probably going to be too old by then—but we have a candidate that holds the Democrats accountable, that provides a vehicle for a lot of the energy of the Bernie Sanders movement to continue to develop, that fields new candidates at the Senate, in Congress, at the state level, that actually holds Democrats’ feet to the fire and Republicans’ feet to the fire, that develops an agenda of getting big money out of politics and severing the link between extraordinarily concentrated wealth and political power in this country. That’s what we ought to be doing.

Now, we can—but in order to do that, we cannot have—and, you know, I think that Hillary will be a good president, if not a great president. This is not just trucking in fear, Chris. But I do fear Donald Trump. I fear the polls that I saw yesterday. Now, polls, again, this early in a campaign still—we’re still months away from the election, but they are indicative. They show Donald Trump doing exceedingly well, beating Hillary Clinton. And right now, given our two-party system, given our winner-take-all system with regard to the Electoral College, it’s just too much of a risk to go and to say, “Well, I’m going to vote—I’m not going to vote for the lesser of two evils, I’m going to vote exactly what I want to do.” Well, anybody can do that, obviously. This is a free country. You vote what you—you vote your conscience. You have to do that. I’m just saying that your conscience needs to be aware that if you do not support Hillary Clinton, you are increasing the odds of a true, clear and present danger to the United States, a menace to the United States. And you’re increasing the possibility that there will not be a progressive movement, there will not be anything we believe in in the future, because the United States will really be changed for the worse.

That’s not a—that’s not a risk I’m prepared to take at this point in time. I’m going to move—I’m going to do exactly what I’ve been doing for the last 40 years: I’m going to continue to beat my head against the wall, to build and contribute to building a progressive movement. The day after Election Day, I am going to try to work with Bernie Sanders and anybody else who wants to work in strengthening a third party—and again, maybe it’s the Green Party—for the year 2020, and do everything else I was just talking about. But right now, as we lead up to Election Day 2016, I must urge everyone who is listening or who is watching to do whatever they can to make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president, and not Donald Trump.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to break and then come back to this debate on both sides of the United States, as well as of this issue. Chris Hedges is with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist. Latest book, Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt. And who you were just listening to is Robert Reich, who is the former labor secretary under President Clinton and professor at University of California, Berkeley, his latest book called Saving Capitalism. He was a Bernie Sanders supporter and now says he will vote for Hillary Clinton. When we come back, we’ll hear some of the words of Donald Trump and get response. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Opening Ceremony” by Laura Ortman. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. Our special for this two weeks, “Breaking with Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, in a moment, we’ll return to our debate between Robert Reich and Chris Hedges, but first let’s turn to Donald Trump’s nomination speech at the RNC in Cleveland last Thursday. Trump said Sanders’ supporters would vote for him in the fall.

DONALD TRUMP: I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders. He never had a chance, never had a chance. But his supporters will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest single issue—trade deals that strip our country of its jobs and strip us of our wealth as a country. Millions of Democrats will join our movement, because we are going to fix the system so it works fairly and justly for each and every American.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Donald Trump talking at the convention in Cleveland. Robert Reich, interestingly, Donald Trump and Chris Hedges agree on one thing, that free trade deals that the—that both the Republicans and Democrats have negotiated over the past few years, especially NAFTA, have been disastrous for the American people. You were part of the Clinton administration when NAFTA was passed. Talk about this, the impact that Trump is utilizing among white workers in America over the issue of free trade.

ROBERT REICH: Well, Donald Trump is clearly using trade and also immigration as vehicles for making the people who have really been hurt by trade, by globalization, feel that he is going to somehow be on their side. He’s not going to be on their side.

Trump is right in a very, very narrow respect, that trade has hurt very vulnerable people, working-class people. The burdens of trade have been disproportionately fallen on those people who used to have good unionized jobs in America. And the failure of NAFTA and also the WTO, the World Trade Organization, Chinese ascension into the WTO, all of those Clinton-era programs—the failure was, number one, not to have nearly strong enough and enforceable enough labor and environmental side agreements; number two, not to have adjustment mechanisms here in the United States for people who lost their jobs to help them get good jobs, that were new jobs, for the jobs they lost. The winners in trade could have compensated the losers and still come out ahead, but they did not. And that is a structural, political problem in this country that we have to address.

It is also a problem with regard to technological displacement. It’s not just trade. Technology is displacing and will continue to displace and will displace even more good jobs in the future, but we have absolutely no strategy for dealing with that. And right now, the burdens of technological displacement are falling, once again, on the working middle class, lower-income people, who have very, very few alternatives, driving a greater and greater wedge between those who are lucky enough to be—to have rich parents or be well educated or be well connected, and everybody else.

We cannot go on like this. This is unsustainable. And Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are symptomatic, their rise, are both symptomatic of this great wave of antiestablishment anger that is flooding American politics, although on the one side you have authoritarian populism, and on the Bernie Sanders side you have a political revolution. I prefer the political revolution myself. I’m going to continue to work for that political revolution.

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, I think we have to acknowledge two facts. We do not live in a functioning democracy, and we have to stop pretending that we do. You can’t talk about—when you eviscerate privacy, you can’t use the word “liberty.” That is the relationship between a master and a slave. The fact is, this is capitalism run amok. This whole discussion should be about capitalism. Capitalism does what it’s designed to do, when it’s unfettered or unregulated—as it is—and that is to increase profit and reduce the cost of labor. And it has done that by deindustrializing the country, and the Clinton administration, you know, massively enabled this.

And, you know, we’re sitting here in Philadelphia. The last convention was in Cleveland. These are Potemkin villages, where the downtowns are Disneyfied, and three and four blocks away people are living in appalling poverty. We have responded to surplus labor, as Karl Marx says, in our deindustrialized internal colonies, to quote Malcolm X, by putting poor people of color in cages all across the country. Why? It’s because surplus labor—corporate entities cannot make money off of surplus or redundant labor. But when you lock them in a cage, they make $40,000 or $50,000 a year. This is the system we live in.

We live in a system where, under Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, the executive branch can put the soldiers in the streets, in clear violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, to see—carry out extraordinary rendition of American citizens who are deemed to be, quote-unquote, “terrorists,” strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military facilities, including in our black sites. We are a country that engages in torture.

We talk—Robert talks about, you know, building movements. You can’t build movements in a political system where money has replaced the vote. It’s impossible. And the Democrats, you know, their bedside manner is different from the Republicans. You know, Trump is this kind of grotesque figure. He’s like the used car salesman who rolls back the speedometer. But Hillary Clinton is like, you know, the managers of Goldman Sachs. They both engage in criminal activities that have—and Clinton’s record, like Trump, exposes this—that have preyed upon the most vulnerable within this country and are now destroying the middle class. And to somehow speak as if we are in a functioning democracy, or speak as if there are any restraints on capitalism, or speak as if the Democratic Party has not pushed forward this agenda—I mean, Obama has done this. You know, he has been as obsequious to Wall Street as the Bush administration. There’s no difference.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Reich?

ROBERT REICH: Chris, you know, I—again, I find this a frustrating conversation, because I agree with so much of what you have said, but the question is: What do we do about it? I mean, we are in a better position today, in the sense that Bernie Sanders has helped mobilize, organize and energize a lot of Americans, and educated a lot of Americans about the very issues that you have talked and written about and I have talked and written about. But it is—the question is: What is the action? What is the actual political strategy right now?

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, let me—let me answer that.

ROBERT REICH: And I think the political—

CHRIS HEDGES: Let me answer that.

ROBERT REICH: Well, let me just—let me just put in my two cents. I think political strategy is not to elect Donald Trump, to elect Hillary Clinton, and, for four years, to develop an alternative, another Bernie Sanders-type candidate with an independent party, outside the Democratic Party, that will take on Hillary Clinton, assuming that she is elected and that she runs for re-election, and that also develops the infrastructure of a third party that is a true, new progressive party.

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, that’s precisely what we’re trying to do. There is a point where you have to—do I want to keep quoting Ralph?—but where you have to draw a line in the sand. And that’s part of the problem with the left, is we haven’t.

I covered the war in Yugoslavia, and I find many parallels between what’s happening in the United States and what happened with the breakdown of Yugoslavia. What is it that caused this country to disintegrate? It wasn’t ancient ethnic hatreds. It was the economic meltdown of Yugoslavia and a bankrupt liberal establishment that, after the death of Tito, until 1989 or 1990, spoke in the language of democracy, but proved ineffectual in terms of dealing with the plight of working men and women who were cast out of state factories, huge unemployment and, finally, hyperinflation.

And the fact is that these neoliberal policies, which the Democratic Party is one of the engines for, have created this right-wing fascialism. You can go back—this proto-fascism. You can go back and look at the Weimar, and it—Republic—was very much the same. So it’s completely counterintuitive. Of course I find Trump a vile and disturbing and disgusting figure, but I don’t believe that voting for the Democratic establishment—and remember that this—the two insurgencies, both within the Republican Party and the—were against figures like Hillary Clinton, who spoke in that traditional feel-your-pain language of liberalism, while assiduously serving corporate power and selling out working men and women. And they see through the con, they see through the game.

I don’t actually think Bernie Sanders educated the public. In fact, Bernie Sanders spoke for the first time as a political candidate about the reality the public was experiencing, because even Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address, was talking about economic recovery, and everything was wonderful, and people know that it’s not. And when you dispossess—

ROBERT REICH: Well, let me—let me—

CHRIS HEDGES: Let me just finish. Let me finish. When you dispossess that segment, as large as we have—half the country now lives in virtual poverty—and you continue to essentially run a government that’s been seized by a cabal, in this case, corporate, which uses all of the machinery of government for their own enrichment and their own further empowerment at the expense of the rest of the citizenry, people finally react. And that is how you get fascism. That is what history has told us. And to sit by—every time, Robert, you speak, you do exactly what Trump does, which is fear, fear, fear, fear, fear. And the fact that we are going to build some kind of—

ROBERT REICH: Well, let me—let me try to—

CHRIS HEDGES: —amorphous movement after Hillary Clinton—it’s just not they way it works.

ROBERT REICH: Let me try to inject—let me—let me try to inject—

AMY GOODMAN: Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich?

ROBERT REICH: Let me try to inject some hope in here, in this discussion, rather than fear. I’ve been traveling around the country for the last two years, trying to talk to tea partiers and conservatives and many people who are probably going to vote for Donald Trump, to try to understand what it is that they are doing and how they view America and why they’re acting in ways that are so obviously against their self-interest, both economic self-interest and other self-interest. And here’s the interesting thing I found.

This great antiestablishment wave that is occurring both on the left and the right has a great overlap, if you will, and that overlap is a deep contempt for what many people on the right are calling crony capitalism—in fact, many people on the left have called crony capitalism. And those people on the right, many, many working people, they’re not all white. Many of them are. Many of them are working-class. Many of them have suffered from trade and technological displacement and a government that is really turning its back on them, they feel—and to some extent, they’re right. Many of them feel as angry about the current system and about corporate welfare and about big money in politics as many of us on the progressive side do.

Now, if it is possible to have a multiracial, multiethnic coalition of the bottom 90 percent that is ready to fight to get big money out of politics, for more equality, for a system that is not rigged against average working people, where there are not going to be all of these redistributions upward from those of us who have paychecks—and we don’t even realize that larger and larger portions of those paychecks are going to big industries, conglomerates, concentrated industries that have great market power, because it’s all hidden from view—well, the more coalition building we can do, from right to left, multiethnic, multiracial, left and right, to build a movement to take back our economy and to take back our democracy, that is—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Robert Reich—Robert Reich, I’d just like to interrupt you for a second, because we only have a minute left, and I just wanted to ask Chris one last question. In less than a minute, if you can, regardless of—you’re voting for Jill Stein, other folks are going to vote for Clinton and Trump. Where do you feel this massive movement that has developed over the last few years, this people movement, would have a better opportunity to grow, under a Trump presidency or under a Clinton presidency, assuming that one of those two will eventually be elected?

CHRIS HEDGES: I don’t think it makes any difference. The TPP is going to go through, whether it’s Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Endless war is going to be continued, whether it’s Trump or Clinton. We’re not going to get our privacy back, whether it’s under Clinton or Trump. The idea that, at this point, the figure in the executive branch exercises that much power, given the power of the war industry and Wall Street, is a myth. The fact is—

ROBERT REICH: Equating—I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Even on immigration?

CHRIS HEDGES: What? On?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Even on immigration?

CHRIS HEDGES: What? On immigration? I mean, let’s look at Obama’s record on immigration. Who’s worse?

AMY GOODMAN: We’ve got 10 seconds.

CHRIS HEDGES: I mean, you know, you can’t get worse than Obama.

ROBERT REICH: And can I just say something?

CHRIS HEDGES: I mean, the idea is, the Democrats speak, and the—

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Reich, 10 seconds.

CHRIS HEDGES: Yeah.

ROBERT REICH: I just want to say, equating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is absolute nonsense. I just—anybody who equates the two of them is not paying attention. And it’s dangerous kind of talk.

CHRIS HEDGES: That’s not what I—that’s not what I did.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there, but this is a discussion that will continue. Chris Hedges, I want to thank you for being with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author of Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt. And former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, professor now at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book, Saving Capitalism.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bernie Sanders betrays his supporters with his announcement of voting for Hillary Clinton and signals his intentions of his endorsement at the convention

maxresdefault

Bernie Sanders is beholden to the corrupt Democrats since they appointed him to seven paying committees in the Senate. He will not jeopardize his well-being for our well-being.

Bernie Sanders–reporting over $200,000 in income, with a fat pension, the best benefits money can buy, and a $30 million book deal awaiting him after the election, and promises of big rewards from Hillary for endorsing and supporting her–will not throw all of that away for a political campaign.

His campaign was just that:  a campaign.  It was never a political revolution.  Leaders of political revolutions never quit before the official battle begins, and say that they will vote for and support their enemies.  When the moment arrived of walking all that endless talk of Bernie Sanders about fighting his political revolution, he caved out of self interest, and sold out all of his 10 million followers, who gave out of their meager earnings $220 million to fight the so-called revolution.

The movement will die after July because Berners will lose their leader. They will vote for Hillary, Trump, Stein, Johnson, Bernie, and Hillary will become President.  And after the official sell out at the Democratic Convention in July, Bernie will return to the Senate, and give more bullshit speeches to an empty chamber about income inequality.

Like Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders was just another fake-left disappointment offered to progressive by the DNC to herd them back into the corral of the Democratic party.

Bernie Sanders betrayed his millions of supporters out of self interest.  He is no less a traitor than Benedict Arnold.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Green Party’s Jill Stein — What We Fear from Donald Trump We Have Already Seen from Hillary Clinton

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jill Stein, what do you say to those, for instance, who criticize third-party efforts as spoiler efforts throughout the history of the country—Ross Perot running in the early ’90s with the result that Bill Clinton was able to defeat the Republican candidate, then, of course, Ralph Nader in the 2000 race, blamed by some, although others disagree that that was the result, for resulting in George Bush being elected in 2000?

DR. JILL STEIN: So, let me say first off, this is a problem that could be fixed with the stroke of a pen, this electoral system that tells you to vote against what you’re afraid of and not for what you believe. And, you know, what we’ve seen over the years, this strategy has a track record: This politics of fear has actually delivered everything we were afraid of. All the reasons you were told you had to vote for the lesser evil—because you didn’t want the massive Wall Street bailouts, the offshoring of our jobs, the meltdown of the climate, the endless expanding wars, the attack on immigrants—all that, we’ve gotten by the droves, because we allowed ourselves to be silenced. You know, silence is not what democracy needs. Right now we have an election where even the supporters of Hillary Clinton, the majority don’t support Hillary, they just oppose Donald Trump. And the majority of Donald Trump supporters don’t support him, they just oppose Hillary. And the majority are clamoring for another independent or several independent candidates and an independent party, and feel that they are being terribly misserved and mistreated by the current politics. So to further silence our voices is exactly the wrong thing to do. And I’ll just point out, Donald Trump himself is lifted up by a movement which is very much the product of the Clintons’ policies. The lesser evil very much makes inevitable the greater evil, because people don’t come out to vote for a politician that’s throwing them under the bus. And so we see houses of—the houses of Congress, we have also seen statehouse after statehouse, flipping from red to blue over the years as the Democratic Party has become a lesser-evil party. And Donald Trump is buoyed up by the policies passed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary—that is, deregulation of Wall Street, which led to the disappearance of 9 million jobs, 5 million people thrown out of their homes, and by NAFTA, which exported those jobs. That’s exactly the economic oppression and stress that has led to this right-wing extremism. So you can’t get where you want to go through the lesser evil. At the end of the day, you’ve got to stand up.

But we could fix this right now simply by passing ranked choice voting, which takes the fear out of voting. If you can’t put your values into your vote, we don’t have a democracy. Ranked choice voting says you can rank your first choice first, and if your first choice doesn’t make it, is eliminated and loses, your vote is automatically reassigned to your second choice. This is used in cities across the country. My campaign actually proposed this in the Massachusetts Legislature through a progressive Democratic representative back in 2002 in the first race that I ran. I was running for governor. We proposed that bill, filed it, so that there would be no splitting of the vote. The Democrats refused to let it out of committee. And that tells you something very important: They rely on fear. They don’t want you to vote your values. They need to use the scary tactic of, “Oh, the other guy is worse.” Why is that? Because at the end of the day, they are not on your side. They need you to be afraid of them, because they are not for you. That alone speaks volumes about how far we are going to get.

In this race, I’ll just conclude saying, this is a unique moment now. We’ve never been here in history before. What we are facing, you know, is not just a question of what kind of world we want to be, but whether we will be a world at all, the way the nuclear arms race has been re-engaged, the way Hillary Clinton wants to create an air war over Syria through a no-fly zone against another nuclear-armed power—that is, Russia—the climate crisis, where the day of reckoning is coming closer and closer all the time. We can’t keep using this failed policy of silencing ourselves with this politics of fear. It’s time to forget the lesser evil, stand up and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do.

AMY GOODMAN: And to those Sanders supporters who have started saying, “If it’s Hill, it’s Jill”? And this is going back to the point of what would you say to Sanders supporters worried about Trump.

DR. JILL STEIN: Yes, exactly. I’d say putting another Clinton in the White House is only going to make that right-wing extremism greater. We will see more of these neoliberal policies, like Wall Street deregulation, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Hillary has always supported. She’s changed her tune a little bit, but Hillary has walked the walk. Look at the walk and not the talk. In fact, you know, Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate. Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things. Hillary has supported the deportations of immigrants, opposed the refugees—women and children coming from Honduras, whose refugee crisis she was very much responsible for by giving a thumbs-up to this corporate coup in Honduras that has created the violence from which those refugees are fleeing. She basically said, “No, bar the gates, send them back.” You know, so we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing.

And it’s not only the militarism that Trump talks about, it’s Hillary’s massive record of militarism: the rush into Libya, which was really—you know, she was the prime mover behind that campaign, which the military advisers were largely against; her approval for the war in Iraq and so on; you know, her threat to bomb Iran; and, you know, she—and her demonization of Russia and China, and the pivot against China. We are rushing towards war with Hillary Clinton, who has a track record.

And on climate, you know, Trump talks terrible on climate, although in Ireland, I believe it is, he does believe in climate change: He’s trying to build a wall to protect one of his luxury golf courses in Ireland, because he’s worried about sea level rise from climate change, according to the papers that he’s filed for that permit. And on climate, Hillary Clinton established an office to promote fracking around the world, while secretary of state.

So, the terrible things that we expect from Donald Trump, we’ve actually already seen from Hillary Clinton. So I’d say, don’t be a victim of this propaganda campaign, which is being waged by people who exercise selective amnesia. They’re very quick to tell you about the terrible things that the Republicans did, but they’re very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic White House, with two Democratic houses of Congress. It’s time to forget the lesser evil, stand up and fight for the greater good. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. Neither—

AMY GOODMAN: Jill Stein, we just—we just have—

DR. JILL STEIN: Neither party of the evils will do it for us.

AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds, but your unsolicited advice, unsolicited by Bernie Sanders, for what he should demand when he meets with President Obama today, and then your advice to him when he comes outside?

DR. JILL STEIN: You know, I don’t think President Obama is going to change his tune because of something that Bernie Sanders says to him. I think what’s really important—you know, in the words of Frederick Douglass, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will.” This is why third parties are effective, whether they’re in power or whether they are simply pushing. Otherwise, there is no counterweight of the power of corporations, which have basically taken over the two major corporate political parties. So, I think it’s very important for Bernie to—you know, to have a teachable moment here and to take heed of his experience of the last many months, and for him to actually stand up and do what the world needs for him to do and what the world needs for this movement to do. And if Bernie is not able to overcome his experience of many decades as a loyal and faithful Democrat, I really understand that. But I think for those of us who are living in today and who are seeing what tomorrow looks like, it’s very important for us to move ahead and take back the America and the world that works for all of us, based on putting people, planet and peace over profit.

AMY GOODMAN: Jill Stein, we want to thank you for being with us, 2016 presidential candidate for the Green Party.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

JAW-DROPPING Evidence Of Election Fraud & Media Blackout

My Response To Being Attacked By Josh Holland In Raw Story Concerning #ExitPollGate

I want to take a moment to respond to a recent hit piece against me by Joshua Holland in Raw Story.

It involves a meme I created that the actor Tim Robbins then retweeted. The meme shows the difference between the exit polls in several states and the results given by the voting machines. I and many others believe the massive difference in the numbers is due to election fraud, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

Let’s start with the end of the article where Josh Holland tries to further indict me by closing with “I asked Lee Camp if he was ‘interested in the fact that this is factually inaccurate and really misleading? I mean, can a meme be retracted? Is that something that would interest you?’ He didn’t respond.”

Josh Holland believes he “asked” me this because he sent an email to an account I don’t check often. As Holland certainly knows, I get hundreds of emails a day. I’m sure he does too. Many of those emails are from very strange people who send meaningless crap. The name “Josh Holland” did not stand out to me. Then when I did read the email, he didn’t introduce himself as anyone of note or a reporter for that matter. Going back through my emails I can see he had a signature at the bottom that says he’s a writer, but how often do people scan through signatures when they receive weird sarcastic angry emails? So this is a guy who couldn’t pass the most basic hurdle of journalistic integrity – Let the person you’re “interviewing” know that you’re interviewing them for an article. And then he implies that because I didn’t respond, I can’t defend the meme I created.

I can, however, and I will. Not just because I want to correct Josh Holland’s journalism fail but because I want people to hear the facts behind the corporate mouthpieces who uphold this fraud for the powers that be.

Josh Holland wants to lead you to believe that exit polls (in my meme and gathered together by Richard Charnin) are just wildly inaccurate and basically don’t mean anything. But it’s quite easy to find screen shots or video that verify the exit poll numbers I used. CNN did indeed report Bernie Sanders was losing by 4% according to exit polls (Watch it here). So if these numbers are incorrect, that begs the question why CNN or other news outlets would report them at all. I mean, shouldn’t Mr. Holland spend most of his time writing headlines like, “CNN Reports Wildly Incorrect Exit Poll Numbers”? That sounds like quite the scandal. Rather than go after CNN or NBC for reporting these numbers (that he believes are false), Holland attacks me.

Holland goes on to quote Joe Lenski (which he spells “Lensky”) who he says is with Edison Research. However, it’s tough to know whether Lenski knew he was being interviewed since Holland prefers to avoid revealing he’s interviewing people for articles. For all we know Lenski was just making stuff up in an online chat with someone he thought was a sexy co-ed.

Lenski apparently told Holland that American exit polls are “just not designed for that type of precision. They’re surveys, and like any other survey, they have a margin of error.” What Holland is very careful to avoid revealing to readers is that there is an exact margin of error. It’s +/-4% according to Edison Research’s website. However, the NY exit polls were off by TWELVE PERCENT. And many states were equally wildly off. Holland does a fine job of avoiding such inconvenient facts.

Furthermore, this entire line of thought is a contradiction for Mr. Holland. At one point he wants you to believe the exit polls Charnin used for his analysis are INCORRECT (different from what was reported) and then a few paragraphs later he wants you to believe they are CORRECT but NOT PRECISE (the same as what was reported but it doesn’t matter). Which is it, Mr. Holland? Are they the correct exit poll numbers but the polls aren’t very good? Or are they incorrect exit poll numbers altogether? You can’t have it both ways. That’s like saying, “I did NOT sleep with that woman. AND I didn’t enjoy it.”

Even IF we go with Mr. Holland’s thesis that exit polls in America are all but meaningless but that they’re REALLY GOOD in other countries, you would think Holland would want to use his masterful reporting skills to find out why the most powerful “democracy” in the world doesn’t want verifiable proof that their voting system is working properly. Mr. Holland would surely then start researching the voting machine audits in places like Chicago where widespread fraud WAS INDEED discovered. Mr. Holland might also want to let his readers know about Diebold – the company that used to run our voting machines until they were indicted by federal prosecutors for “worldwide criminal conduct.” Or he might want to mention how certain voting machines are ripe for hacking according to cyber security experts. But no, facts like that are not good for Mr. Holland’s argument that these elections are pristine.

Finally Holland seems to confuse two kinds of “adjusted” poll numbers. He thinks that “adjusting” for non-response rates is the same as “adjusting” for what the voting machines tell us. When people (like me) say they’re looking at “unadjusted” poll numbers, they mean they’re looking at poll numbers before they were FORCED to fit with the machine tallies. As election fraud expert and NY Times bestselling author Greg Palast told me, “After Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, when exit polls showed Gore and Kerry as winners, US TV networks asked exit polling contractors to ‘conform’ the results to the official results. So, of course, all evidence of hanky-panky disappears.” Holland seems to entirely misunderstand what “adjusted” means. There’s no mention of Lensky carefully explaining this to Holland, but who knows what happened in that conversation that wasn’t reported.

Or perhaps Holland would like to let his readers know that the 2004 election was INDEED stolen for the Republicans as proven by Greg Palast, and that the exit polls showed as much.

But Josh Holland is in a tough spot. He’s trying to defend a system that was recently rated by a Harvard study as the worst in the Western world for fair elections. That’s not an easy job. It’s like being the current publicist for Bill Cosby. Holland has to rely on smoke and mirrors because this system is so clearly corrupt. Over 50% of America already believes the presidential nominating system is rigged.

So I sent an email to Mr. Holland saying, “Are you interested in the fact that your reporting is factually inaccurate and really misleading? I mean, can a column be retracted? Is that something that would interest you?” …I sent it to an email address he doesn’t often check and didn’t identify myself. …I haven’t heard back.

UPDATE: Richard Charnin and Bob Fitrakis (the author of six books on election integrity) have ALSO responded to Josh Holland’s sad attempt at reporting. They tear his argument limb from limb with simple facts. Read their responses HERE.

UPDATE #2: Here is another well-researched article demonstrating election fraud by looking at the exit polls. It brings up an interesting point that I did not know before. If Holland’s assertion that the exit polls are all just WILDLY OFF all the time is true, then they would be WAY off for the GOP primary as well. They AREN’T. According to the article, the GOP primary exit polls have been almost dead on. This further negates Holland’s evidence-free argument.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ralph Nader talks about the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Primary on C-Span May 4 2016


All Speakers: Ralph Nader and Greta Wodele Brawner

00:02:02

Greta Wodele Brawner
EN LOT OF MONEY6 HOST: WHAT WILL HE ASK FOR AT THE CONVENTION?

00:02:04
CALLER
CALLER: HE WILL GET A PRIMETIME SPOT BUT CONVENTION, THEY ARE REALLY VAUISHED AND SUPPORTING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION AND HE IS LIKELY TO LEND HIS CREDIBILITY TO HILLARY’S IN CREDIBILITY. Show Less Text
00:02:41

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: SO SHOULD HE LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT BID?

00:02:46

Ralph Nader
GUEST: IT IS TOO LATE. IT MAKES SURE YOU HAVE TO CLIM MOUNTATO GS OETH — A MILITARIST. THE NEW YORK TIMES IS ENDORSING HILLARY AND STILL HAVING A PAGE ONE STORY ON HILLARY THE HAWK. SHE SCARES OBAMA. SHE SCARES SOME OF THE GENERALS. WAR IS THE FIRST CHOICE AND LOOK AT THE LIBYA ATTACK, WHICH WAS A DISAROUS, CHAOS AND VIOLENCE SPILLING INTO AA Show Less Text
00:04:50

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST:S FOR WALL STREET. IF YAB TWATPE, SHE ISIRST F PREDTABLE. THS, I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OUT AGAINST COAL COMPANIES LIKE PATRIOT AND PEABODY THAT HAVE TRIED TO SHIRK THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO WORKERS AND RETIREES. THEY MOVE INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY WORK, WHICH THEY CAN BE PROUD OF AND DON’T HAVE TO DIE FROM. Show Less Text
00:07:06

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: WHAS NA GUT: ITOPEN PRIMARY. SOMEBODY WHO CALLS HIMSELF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST CG AT FAST, HE STARTED AT 3%. WHAT DOES HE DO NEXT? WHAT HE HAS TO DO IS LEAD A CIVIC MOVEMENT. HAS GOT TO VE A BIG RALLY ON THE MALL AND HE IS GOING TO TAKE HIS AGENDA AND SAY WE WANT TO PRESS ALL THE CANDIDATES FROM NATIONAL TO LOCAL TO TURN THIS COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF FAIR PLAY AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVITY. IF HE DOES THAT, HE WILL BE RELATIVELY INDEPENDENT. HE WON’T BE SEEN AS A TOADY FOLLOWING CNTON IF SHE WINS. HE HAS A LOT OF AGONIZING DECISIONS TO MAKE BUT HE HAS A HUGE BASE OF SUPPORT AND VERY HIGH IN THE POLLS. Show Less Text
00:08:40

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: ARE YOU GIVING HIM ADVICE? WE WILSHOWHAT COLUMN THERE AND THE NEW BOOK THAT IS COMING OUT WHY RALPH NADER. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT, BREAKING THROUGH POWER. YOU GO TO THEIR WEBSITE, YOU CAN FIND MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE BOOK AND THE EVENTS. LET’S GO TO BALTIMORE OENROLEODELOR L T YOU THINK THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENT AS CLOSELY HELD TO OUR HEART AS THE CONSTITUTION HAPPENS TO BE, THAT IT IS NOT SACROSANCT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, PERHAPS ONCE EVERY HUNDRED YEARS. TRYING TO HAVE AN ALL-OUT PROCESS WHERE THE POPULACE — THE CONSTITUENTS, 300 MILLION WOULD PARTICIPATE AND THEN DO A REFEREND, UM TO HAVEHE MAJORITYILL ON T W RISK A CONVENTION IN WHICH YOU MAY LOSEOME OF THE BILL OF GHTS IMAY BE RETROGRADE. THE LARGEST ASMB OF LYCOMPSH LICYROSACCOMPLISHED CIV NATION, THEY ARE NEVER ASKED T PARTICIPATE. THEYRE ELUD.THEY PUT OUT REPORTS TT AFFECT CAIDTH THEY ARE IED.OR 13 PEOPLE WERE ARRESDTE IS I DANGEUS SOCIETY TSIBAY HAVE A COMMERCIALIZED ECTION THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE CIVIL COMMUNITY. THAT IS WHY WE WANT PEOPLE @TO COME TO CONSTITUTION HALL. THESE ARE GROUPS THAT ARE PUSHING SAFE FOOD. PHARMACEUTICALS. DOESN’T MATTER WHAT POLITICAL IDEOLOGY CONSUMERS HAVE HERE. LESS PESTICIDES? FAIRNESS IN THE JUDICIALES ALWAYS LIKE THIS, IS A PRODUCT OF DIVIDE AND RULOWBRES TREGH ENTIMMERSION. IT IS NOT FOR PEOPLE WITH SHORT ATTENTION SPANS OR PEOPLE WITH JUSTICE FATIGUE BECAUSE IT IS EIGHT HOURS A DAY, THE GREATEST CIVICS EXPERIENCE IN ANYBODY’S SI INEFFECTIVE FOR THEIR PURPOSES OR DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS. HE DID IT ON A TINY BUDGET. IT’S LOT EASIER TO THINK AT’S IT’S A LOT EASIER THAN WE THINK TOAKE CNGE AT THE BASIC CHANGE IN A COUNTRY COMES THROUGH CIVIC ACTIVITIES AND IT SPILLS OVER INTO BETTER POLITICS. IF W DON’T HAVE BETTER POLITICS, IT IS BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE CYNICALLY ACTIVE. Show Less Text
00:13:47
Unidentified Speaker
>> HAVE YOU INVITED SENATOR SANDERS TO SPEAK?

00:13:54

Ralph Nader
GUEST: WE CAN’T INVITE PEOPLE SPEAKING — PEOPLE RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. I HOPE C-SPAN WILLOVER CT. NEXT.

00:14:10
CALLER
CALLER: I WANT TO CALL ABOU THE SYSTEM — THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. I AM THINKING WE ARE MORE LIKE A PLUTOCRACY DOMINATED BY THE CORPORATIONS AND BY THE WEALTHY. ESPECIALLY WITH THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION THAT JUST OPENS THE FLOODGATES FOR MONEY FROM THE CORPORATIONS TO DOMINATE AT AND DERA, POSITIONS. I JUST DON’T SEE HOW MONEY IS — IT IS GOING TO BE A HUGE FLOOD OF MONEY INTO THIS ELECTION AND IT IS GOING TO CONTROL THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, EVEN STATE ELECTIONS. Show Less Text
00:14:54
Unidentified Speaker
>> THE MOST POPULAR POLITICIAN OF ACCORDING TO THE POLLS, BERNIE SANDERS, IS ON YOUR SIDE. HE IS SAYING WE HAVE GOT TO GET RID OF BIG MONEY, SUPER PAC’S, BILLIONAIRES TRYING TO BUY POLITICIANS, AND HE HAS DEMONSTRATED WITH MILLIONS OF PEOPLE GIVING HIM $27 AVERAGE CONTRIBUTIONS. HE DOESN’T GO TO PARK AVENUE OR BEVERLY HILLS FOR THESE FUNDRAISERS. THIS IS A PERSON RUNNING FOR A MAJOR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION. THATUGHTO GI Y JOHNSON. HE HAS TAKEN ON DONALD TRUMP. YOU DON’T SEE THAT ON THE SUNDAY SHOWS. THIS IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES BELONG TO THE OPLE. Show Less Text
00:17:08

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: YOU CAN HEAR THE CITIZENS VOICE RIGHT HERE ON WASHINGTON JOURNAL. CARMINE IN NEW YORK. REPUBLICAN.

00:17:19
CALLER
CALLER: MR. NADER, HOW DOES A CORPORATION LIKE GENERAL MOTORS KNOWINGLY PRODUCE A CAR WITH THE ADDITION — IGNITION SWITCH DEFECT AND AS A RESULT, PEOPLE ARE KILLED AND MORE ARE INJURED, AND NO ONE GOES TO JAIL. Show Less Text
00:17:37

Ralph Nader
GUEST: THIS IS THE ADDICTION — IGTIONNIWITCH DEFECT THE ANSWER IS INTERNAL COVERUP. THEY COVERED UP FROM REPORTING THEY TOOTHEIK NEY FROM A STATEMENTS AND BIGOTRY, THEY SAY HE IS THE ONE. WE HAVE TO HAVE CORPORATE CRIME ENFORCEMENT. THERE IS A CORPORATE CRIME WAVE. YOU CAN READ IT IN THE WALL STET JOURNAL LOPO LOBIS H DISASTER, SO IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CITIZENS MOBILIZING. IF 1% OF THE CITIZENRY MOBILIZES IN EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, TWO AND A HALF MILLION PEOPLE, AND HAVE PUBLIC OPINION BEHIND THEM AND SET UP FULL-TIME OFFICES, THEY COULD CHANGE SS IN ONE OF OUR MOTTOS IS “MAKING CHAN IS EASIER TN WE THINK. LET’S NOT GIVE UP ON OURSELVES. IO HE WANTED TO USE A PROPELLANT. WHERE WAS THE QUALITY CONTROL PEOPLE AT FORD AND GENERAL MOTORS? THAT IS A FASCINATINGRY Show Less Text
00:21:25

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: WHAT A BIG FAN I AM OF YOU. I AM A BERNIE SANDERS SUPPTER. I WILL PROHE INTERN GIVING HIM $27 TODAY. I WILL TAKE MY BERNIE SANDERS WATER BOTTLE WITH HONOR TO WORK TODAY. ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN BUGGING ME FOR YEARS, I KNOW A LOT OF DEMOCRATS AND FRIENDS OF MINE THINK YOU CAUSED — COSTOR THE ELECTION IN 2000. WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST HAWKS 9/11 IGO AND KNOW THAT IN 1998, BOTH GORE AND INTON GOT ROUGTH CONGRESS A RESOLUTION TO TOPPLE SDAMAD HUEIN. GEORGE BUSH USED THAT WHEN HE WAATS G THE DRS FOR TT CRIMINAL WAR OF AGGRESSION THAT HAS TAKEN ER A MILLION OF IRAQI LIVES. NEVER MIND T THERE WAS BELLIGERENT’S. IN THE 2000 ELECTION, GEORGE W. BUSH HAD A SMALLER MILITARY BUDGET THEN GORE WAS PROPOSING. HE WAS TALKING AGAINST NATION BUILDING SO IT IS VERY HARD TO PREDICT. WE DO KNOW IF PEOPLE DON’T GET INVOLVED IN FOREIGN AND MILITARY POLICY, BARNEY FRANK, RON PAUL, TRIED TO DO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO BE SUBORDINATED TO THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. SEVERE DEPRIVATION, CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE WHILE WE SPEND TRILLIONS ABROAD MAKING THINGS WORSE. Show Less Text
00:23:46

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: HECTOR IS UP IN SAN DIEGO. OF THE PASSION THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SHOULD HAVE SPE IF THEY WIN THE ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE?

00:24:35

Ralph Nader
GUEST: I DON’T THINK HILLARY WILL DO THAT. I DON’T KNOW ANY NOMINEE OF A MAJOR PARTY THAT WILL PICK SOMEONE WHO IS HIGHER IN THE POLLS THAN SHE IS AND IS TRUSTED MORE THAN SHE IS. MOST NOMINEES JUST DON’T DO THAT. MY GUESS IS BERNIE WOULD NOT EVEN WANT IT. I DO THINK HE WANTS TO GO ALL OVER THE WORLD LIKE JOE BIDEN AND GO ON ASSIGNMENTS LIKE THAT. I THIS HEEES S Show Less Text
00:25:14
CALLER
CALLER: THANK YOU C-SPAN FOR IS OORNITYTU MR. MR. NADER, HAVE YOU HEARD OF SOMEONE NAMED FUEGO GOING AROUND CIOIT C AND EDUCATING THE ZET MO L O CITYOITY C ANDTI, IOLD MY NOSE FINY CRAFTED ABILITY TO SAY WHATEVER SHE NEEDS TO SAY TO WHICHEVER AUDIENCE SHE IS SPEAKING. SHE IS A VERY WELL PRACTICED AND CUNNING LINGUIST THAT CAN SAY WHATEVER IT TAKES. Show Less Text
00:26:53

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: WHAT JOHN SAID

00:27:03
GUT
GUT: THEY ARE AFRAID OFRUMP THEY THEY HAVE THEIR HOPES INTO BOTH — HOOKS INTO BOTH PARTIES. TO WHICH THEY MOLI BACK ON MAY 20 3:20 4, 25, AND 26 — 23, 24, 25 AND 26. ISIT IS PEOPLE LEARNING HOW CHANGE OCCURS OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL PROCESS. WHEN I CAME TO TOWN, YOU COULD NOT FIND MANY POLITICIANS FAVORING CONSUMER PROTECTION, MUCH LESS OUR SAFETY. WITHIN A FEW MONTHS, THEY WERE PASSING THE AUTO SAFETY LAW UNANIMOUSLY. THAT IS BECAUSE THEY HEARD THE RUMBLE FROM THE PEOPLE. THE FACTS GOT FULL-TIME CIVIC ADVOCACY, IT IS A DIFFERENT COUNTRY. THE POLICIANS WILL FOLL.OW TH MASSACHUSETTS. GOOD MORNING. GO-AHEAD, BRIAN. Show Less Text
00:29:11
CALLER
CALLER: YOU SAID IT RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS MR. NADER. I AM WONDERING WHETHER MR. NADER CAN COMMENT ON THE RECENT PASSING OF DANIEL BERRIGAN AND WHETHER MR. NADER EVER MET HIM OR WHAT HEOULDHINK OF THECUENT CAMPAIGN. MR. BERRIGAN WAS ALWAYS CONCERNED WITH THE LIFE AND ADDRESSING THESE NEEDS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Show Less Text
00:29:51

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: LET’S MOVE ON TO JANET IN INDIANA.

00:29:55

Ralph Nader
GUEST: IS A GREAT AMERICAN, DANIEL BERRIGAN.

00:29:58

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: JAN, UT I WANT TO TE A MOMENTO THANK RALP NADH

00:30:27
ST
ST: ROB IN NEW NADER, YOU HAVE HAD A REAL IMPACT ON MY LIFE. WE MET IN 1992. I WAS ENTHRALLED WITH YOANDU STILL AM. YOU MIGHT RECALL IT IS ROB ARNOLD. DONALD TRUMP HAS SAID SOME THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN VERY TO HEAR COMING OUT OF THE MOUTH OF A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND FRONT RUNNER OF THE REPUBLICAN LINE, BY DON’T SEE ANYTHING HE HAS SAID AS BIGOTED. I THINK IT IS EASY TO AUTOMATICALLY BRAND SOMEONE THAT WAY.YOU REFERRED TO DONALD TRUMP AS BIGOTED , AND LIKE YOU TO GIVE EMPWH OHIM HE WENT AFTER HISPANICS FOR AME. AND REBUILD THEIR LIVES IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND HE ATTACKED THEM AS IF THEY ARE TERRORISTS. THIS IS ANTI-SEMITISM AGAINST ARABS. IT IS NOJUSTT NTI-SEMITISM AGAINST JAEWSEWS WHEN THEY WERE EXCLUDED BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE COMMUNIST. HE IS A SERIAL BIGOT. HE COMES BACK AND SAYS THE HISPANICS VE Show Less Text
00:32:49
GUT
GUT:SOI DON’T FLYAG VOTE, BUT I ALWAYS VOTE MY CONSCIENCE. WE HAVE GOOD THIRD PARTIES. OBOUSLM FAVORABLY OS TO EDEL OGREEEPARTY. IF PEOPLE VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE COLLECTIVELY, THEY WILL CHANGE POLITICS. IF THEY VOTE FOR THE LEAST WARS, THEY WILL NEVER HAVE ANY LEVERAGE. IF YOU SIGNAL YOU WILL VOTE FOR THE LEAST, WHY SHOULD THEY GIVE YOU ANY TIME, THE POTENTIAL NOMINEES? PEOPLE HAVE TO POPULATE THEIR VOTE. STRATEGIC OR TACTICAL VOTE OR LEAST WORST OR THEY CAN DO A VOTE OF CONSCIENCE. I PREFER THE LATTER. WHITE VOTE FOR SOMEBODY YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN JUST BECAUSE THE OTHER PERSON IS WORSE? Show Less Text
00:33:37

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: IN MARYLAND WHO IS A DEMOCRAT, YOU’RE ON THE AIR.

00:33:41
CALLER
CALLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?

00:33:43

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: WE CAN.

00:33:45
CALLER
CALLER: MR. NADER, I HAVE QUALITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND I RESPECT WHERE YOU’RE COMING FROM. HOWEVER, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT CONGRESS. THE CANDIDATES CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. SOMEONE LIKE BERNIE SANDERS IS 74 YEARS OF AGE AND HAS NO CONSTITUENCY. IF HE GOT THE NOMINATION AS PRESIDENT, WHO DOES HE TURN TO? THE DEMOCRATS? REPUBLICANS WILL NOT FOLLOW HIM. WHERE DOES HE GO? WE HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT WE HAVE. NEED TO HAC 270. CAN VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE IN THOSE STATES. YOU THINK E REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO CAMPAIGN IN MASSACHUSETTS? YOU THINK DEMOCRATS WILL CAMPAIGN IN TEXAS? IF YOU’RE IN ONE OF THOSE 40 STATES, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. YOU CAN VOTE FOR YOUR CONSCIOUS AND THE LEAST WORST ARE GOING TO WIN BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY WE DON’T HAVE COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS. WE DON’T HAVE A COMPETITIVE DEMOCRACY IN ALL THE STATES. BERNIE SANDERS HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR THAT, BY THE WAY. HE CAMPAIGNS EVERYWHERE. ITS NOT JUST CAMPAIGN IN BLUE STATES. Show Less Text
00:35:27

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, CYNTHIA, IENYOU ARE ON THE AIR WITH RAHLP NAR. CA AND MODE OUT EVERY INCUMBENT. BOEVARIRAQ THEY– BLOW APART IRAQ. THEY LET WALL STREET PEOPLE TAKE OVER A SET OF CHALLENGING THEM AN IMPOSING STANDARDS AGAINST THE BAILOUTS. AT LEAST YOU ARE ACTIVE, BUT ALWAYS HAVE A REASON FOR UNIFORM REJECTION. Show Less Text
00:37:10

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: BILL IS NEXT IN MARYLAND. A DEMOCRAT. HI, JOE.

00:37:16
CALLER
CALLER: THANK YOU FOR C-SPAN. I’M CONCERNED THAT THE BAD ACTO WILLING TO GO TO WAR WHEN NOT NECESSARILY SO DEPRIVED ME OF THE LUXURY OF FOCUSING ON A LOT OF THE GOOD LIKIVING THE CONVERSATION IN WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND A GOOD DIRECTION, BUT MY HIGHEST ALREADY PRIORITY IS KEEPING PEOPLE WHO ARE READY TO GO TO WAR WHOSE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEMS ARE EXPENSIVE BLOODY ANSWEROUT OF THE PICTURE. Show Less Text
00:37:59
GUT
GUT: WELL, THAT IS WHAT MADE 25TH — MAY 25 IS ALL ABOUT. HIGH-LEVEL VETERANS AND BECOME SCHOLARS AND ADVOCATES, AND PEACE GROUPS WILL COME TOGETHER. PHIL DONAHUE IS COMING TO SHOW HIS DOCUMENTARY ABOUT A SOLDIER IN IRAQ WHO CAME BACK AS A PARAPLEGIC. THE INT IS ALLMPIR E DEVOUR THEMSELVES. THAT IS THE LESS OF ONSTORY. BREAKING THROUGH POWER AND HOW TO DO IT. THAT ISAY ONE BREAKING THROU CONGRESS IS DAY FOUR, MAY 26. BREAKING THROUGH WAR IS DAY THREE, MAY 25. BREAKING THROUGH THE PRESS. THERE ARE A LOT OF VOICES OUT THERE THAT DON’T GET ON THE EVENING NEWS. Show Less Text
00:40:10

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: FINAL QUESTION FOR YOU HERE. WHAT DYOUO MAKE OF THE DEBATE THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON AND BERNIE SANDERS DURING THIS PRIMARY NOMINATING PROCESS OVER WHO IS A PROGRESSIVE AND WHO IS NOT? IS HILLARY CLINTON A PROGRESSIVE? Show Less Text
00:40:23

Ralph Nader
GUEST: BY NO MEANS. ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS OF PROGRESSIVE IS CURBING CORPORATE POWER, CRACKING DOWN ON CORPORATE CRIME. WHEN SHE WAS IN THE SENATE, SHE REPRESENTED NEW YORK STATE AND WALL STREET. SHE DID NOT HOLD THE BANNER OF JUSTICE UP. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR HEARINGS. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR STRONGER CORPORAL CRIMINAL LAWS. SHE IS FAR FROM A PROGRESSIVE AS ANY DEMOCRAT COULD BE. THE OTHER THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS IF BERNIE SANDERS HAD MORE DEBATES, ARE THINK THINGS MAY HAVE CHANGED BUT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WAS FAVORING HILLARY. THEY WANTED TO LIMIT DEBATE AND PUT THEM AT INOPPORTUNE TIMES AGAINST BIG SPORTS EVENTS. IN FIVE MONTHS, HE GOT VERY LITTLE COVERAGE. THERE WAS AN ANALYSIS OF ABC COVERAGE OF TO THE MIDDLE OF DECEMBER. THEY GAVE TWO MINUTES TO BERNIE SANDERS AND 80 MINUTES TO DONALD TRUMP. THE MEDIA WILL HAVE TO BE A LITTLE INTROSPECTIVE AS TO WHY THEY DID NOT HAVE AN HIGHER ESTIMATE OF THEIR OWN ABILITIES AND WHY THEY DID NOT STOP THE SHOUTING AND SLITHERING OF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. IT IS A VERY SERIOUS REASON FOR THE MEDIA TO LOOK BACK AND SAY WHAT DID WE DO? WHO DID WE NOT SCRUTINIZE? WHY DID WE GIVE MOST ATTENTION TO THE NOMINEES WHO WERE EXITING FALSE STATEMENTS — EXU ING FALSE STATEMENTS AND BIGOTRY. THEY WERE MAKING MONEY OFF OF THESE DEBATES. THEY WERE SETTING UP DATABASE. SINCE WHEN IS A COMMERCIAL CORPORATION DECIDE WHO IS GOING TO BE DEBATING? WHO IS ON TIER ONE OR TWO YEAR T– OR TIER TWO? THEY SHOULD BE REPORTING. THAT IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULD GET THE CIVIL SOCIETY VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN CAMPAIGNS. Show Less Text
00:42:23

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: FINAL CALL FOR YOU FROM TEXAS, INDEPENDENT. ARE YOU THERE?

00:42:28
CALLER
CALLER: YES I AM.

00:42:30

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: IT IS YOUR TURN.

00:42:33
CALLER
CALLER: I AM CALLING FROM HOUSTON, TEXAS.

00:42:35

Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: YOU ARE ONLY A. — ARE ON THE AIR.

00:42:40
CALLER
CALLER: WE HAVE VOTER FRAUD HERE IN TEXAS. IT IS NOT DONE BY THE LITTLE PERSON. I HAVE ONLY SEEN ONE CASE OF IT AS BEING AN ELECTION CLERK. NOW WE HAVE GREAT BIG HUGE FRAUD BASED ON THE ELECTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH. 800,000 VOTES THROWN OUT OF HARRIS COUNTY. WE HAVE ELECTION FRAUD. IT IS ALWAYS AT THE TOP. IT IS NOT AT THE BOTTOM. WHY DO I HAVE TO SHOW UP WITH IDS? WHY DO I HAVE TO SHOW UP AND STAND IN HUGE LONG LINES? Show Less Text
00:43:17

Ralph Nader
GUEST: THAT IS A GOOD POINT. , WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE U.S. HAS — AMONG U.S. COUNTRIES, THE U.S. HAS MORE CONSTRICTING LAWS FOR VOTING. WH WE HAVE TDO BALLOT TO GIVE THEM MORE VOICES AND CHOICES? TH IS WHAT GROUPS LIKE SETE FONST CUTIONA RIGHTS AND THE BRENNAN CENTER ARE WORKING ON. WATCH THE SOFTWARE PROBLEMS NOW. THE SOFTWARE IS OWNED BY PRIVATE COMPANIES. AS RESEARCHERS AT JOHNS HOPKINS HAVE POINTED OUT, IT IS EASY IN A CLOSE ELECTION TO RIG THE SOFTWARE AND FLIP IT. WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS. INTERNET HAS PAPER BALLOTS. — CANADA HAS PAPER BALLOTS. THEY DON’T HAVE MACHINES. AT NIGHT IN THIS GIANT COUNTRY, THEY KNOW WHO WON OR LO BECAUSE THEY HAD A PAPER TRAIL. THAT I HAVE MACHINES WHICH ENGAGE IN SHENANIGANS. I THINK THE CALLER MADE A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. THERE IS A STRONG ARGUMENT FOR UNIVERSAL VOTING LIKE AUSTRALIA. IF YOU GIVE THE PEOPLE TO CANDIDATE, I THINK OUR CIVIL Show Less Text

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Curry analyzes the Connecticut primaries April 26 2016 on Fox CT News

bill curry

Bill Curry:  “In some ways, you would be [surprised that the polls in Connecticut are busy today]. Last week, on the Democratic side, every story said that it’s all over for Bernie; it’s so difficult to put this nomination together. And Bernie supporters really do feel that they are part of the revolution. They really do feel that this is a movement. Their dissatisfaction with the party leadership is really deep. And it turns out that nothing can keep them from showing up. Hearing a week of negative stories doesn’t seem to dampen their spirits at all. He has a real chance here…

On the Hillary side, on the establishment’s side, you hear a lot of calls for Sanders to drop out. And the thing is, this has always been about two things: this is about the base of the party in a revolt against its elites. This is not just in the Democratic party but in both parites. If you look at Sanders and Trump, it’s not just a left insurrection or a right insurrection, this is an insurrection of the broad middle class against the entire political establishment. This is a revolt against corruption in the eyes, I believe, of a solid majority of Americans.

So when the pundits on the national television say, maybe this next round will wind it up, there’s no reason for the Republicans to surrender their party to Trump, and there’s no reason for the Sanders supporters to give up their fight. And so it’s not just a question of picking a nominee, on each side they are trying to secure a future here. It’s going to go all the way to both conventions regardless of the results….

The largest rally on the [New Haven] green since the Black Panther’s trial of 1970. I think it’s been 40 years since a crowd that large assembled in New Haven for any reason. Having spent the last few years worrying that the grassroots democracy was just about dying out, the campaign trail was like the streets of Laredo with swinging saloon doors, tumbleweed bouncing down an empty Main Street, and suddenly the rooms are full in both parties. Suddenly these rallies are full.

If you want to take a step back from it, there’s a really hopeful sign here of a public that won’t give up on its democracy. That’s really good news.”

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now reports that Hillary Clinton Has Embraced Some of the Most Brutal Dictators in the World

Glenn-Greenwald-Patriot-Act-NSA-Freedom-1

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I’d like to turn to an ad produced by the Emergency Committee for Israel, which alleges that Trump supports dictators. The ad started airing last month.

JAKE TAPPER: The world would be better off with Saddam Hussein—

DONALD TRUMP: Hundred percent.

JAKE TAPPER: —and Gaddafi in power?

DONALD TRUMP: A hundred percent.

Looking at Assad and saying maybe he’s better than the kind of people that we’re supposed to be backing.

And I think Russia can be a positive force and an ally.

But, you know, whether you like Saddam Hussein or not, he used to kill terrorists.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Glenn Greenwald, in one of your recent articles, you suggest that Hillary Clinton has demonstrated comparable support for what you call, quote, “the world’s worst despots.”

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, two things. You know, that article that I wrote about Hillary Clinton grew out of the debate where she attacked Bernie Sanders for comments he made in the 1980s in which he said positive things both about Fidel Castro and also the Sandinistan government in Nicaragua, and she very self-righteously said, “How could you possibly praise a government that is oppressive and tyrannical.” And yet, if you look at Hillary Clinton’s record, not in the 1980s, but far more recently, in the last five to six years, she has embraced and expressed extreme levels of support for some of the world’s most brutal and horrific dictators. She called President Mubarak of Egypt a close personal friend of her family and expressed all kinds of support for him at the time that the government, of which she was a part, was arming and funding him. She did the same with the Saudis. The Clinton Foundation has raised money from some of the worst and most oppressive dictatorships in the Persian Gulf, including the Saudis and the Qataris and the Emirates and the Bahrainis. Hillary Clinton, essentially, her record has been one of embracing and supporting, in all kinds of ways, the world’s worst tyrants.

The other aspect that I would add is that, you know, not just those Persian Gulf regimes, but one of the things that Hillary Clinton has done, with very little notice, has been to make a central part of her campaign embracing not just the right-wing Israeli government, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu herself—himself. She’s written op-eds in Jewish journals and in The Forward talking about the need to get even closer to Israel, if you can imagine that. And then the speech she just gave to AIPAC was about the most disgustingly militaristic, hawkish, pro-Israel speech, I think, that you could ever possibly hear, without the slightest even pretense of concern for people in Palestine or in Libya, where she supported a war that has caused great instability, or in Iraq, where she supported a war that has imposed huge amounts of suffering. And so it’s very easy to talk about Donald Trump being close to dictators or being dangerous, but there has been a huge amount of Hillary Clinton’s record that has spawned immense amounts of tyranny and violence in the world, that Democrats and progressives are steadfastly ignoring.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to a clip of Hillary Clinton addressing AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

HILLARY CLINTON: Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS. … We must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton addressing AIPAC. Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: What she’s doing there is affirming one of the most vile slanders that currently exists. There is a campaign in the United States and in Israel to literally outlaw any advocacy of a boycott movement against Israel, similar to the boycott and divestment and sanctions campaign that brought down Israel and the United States’s closest ally, which was the apartheid regime in South Africa. Now you can certainly raise objections to the tactic of boycotting Israel, and lots of people have, but to render it illegal depends upon this grotesque equating of an advocacy of a boycott of Israel with anti-Semitism and then saying that because anti-Semitism should be banned from universities or from private institutions, that it should be literally outlawed, to ban advocating the boycott of Israel, as well. And people in Europe are actually being arrested for advocating a boycott of Israel. Students in American universities are being sanctioned and punished for doing so.

And what Hillary Clinton did was go before AIPAC and pander, as grotesquely as she typically does, by affirming this line that if you “malign,” quote-unquote, the government of Israel and support a boycott of it, in opposition to their decades-long occupation of the Palestinians, it means essentially that you’re guilty of maligning the Jewish people. She is conflating the government of Israel with Jews, which, ironically enough, is itself a long-standing anti-Semitic trope. But it’s just part of her moving to the right in order to position herself for the general election by affirming some of the United States government’s worst and most violent policies.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, Democratic candidate Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was the only one to skip the AIPAC conference earlier this week. He did address the issue on the campaign trail, though, from Utah, calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: It is absurd for elements within the Netanyahu government to suggest that building more settlements in the West Bank is the appropriate response to the most recent violence. It is also not acceptable that the Netanyahu government decided to withhold hundreds of millions of shekels in tax revenue from the Palestinians, which it is supposed to collect on their behalf.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Bernie Sanders in Utah. Glenn Greenwald, I believe he did offer to address AIPAC by video stream or Skype, as did Romney in 2012, but we heard he was told no.

GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, I mean, a couple months ago, Donald Trump, on an MSNBC program, said, when asked about Israel and Palestine, that he thought the U.S. should be neutral in order to be a more effective arbiter, which until 20 years ago was a standard mainstream U.S. position, but now has become very shocking. Same with what Bernie Sanders just said. To hear a prominent American politician stand up and actually criticize Israel in such stark and blunt terms, calling them occupiers, essentially, and criticizing how they’re treating the Palestinians, is almost shocking to the ear. Hillary Clinton would never do it, nor would leading Republican politicians. And yet it’s really a very mild way to talk about Israel. And it shows just how far to the right the discourse has shifted in the United States when it comes to Israel, and how much a part of that rightward shift is Hillary Clinton, when you think about how almost shocking it is to hear pretty mild criticisms of Israel coming from Sanders or mild proclamations of neutrality coming from Trump.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, before we end, Glenn, the issue of encryption, again raised, of course, in the aftermath of the Brussels attacks, but the whole battle between the government, the FBI and Apple?

GLENN GREENWALD: The government’s attempt to make sure that nobody can use encryption to keep them out of private communications is based on continuous deceit. They falsely claimed that the Paris attackers used encryption, when they had no idea if it was true. They’re already making that claim about the Brussels attackers, even though there’s no suggestion that it’s true. And the whole campaign against Apple was based on what turned out to be a total lie, which is that they needed Apple to help them break into the San Bernardino phone, when all along they could have done it themselves. And it’s up to the media to check these claims on the part of the government, and, of course, the media has been very lax in doing so.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you, Glenn, for staying with us. We’re going to talk to you for a few more minutes after this broadcast, and we’ll post it online at democracynow.org. Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, his piece for The Intercept is headlined “Brazil Is Engulfed by Ruling Class Corruption—and a Dangerous Subversion of Democracy.” Another recent piece, “The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic ‘Neutrality.'” We’ll link to these and many others at democracynow.org.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Sanders Slams Trump for Attacks on Clintons

GTY_bernie_sanders_bill_clinton_donald_trump_split_jt_160103_12x5_1600

RADDATZ: That’s Hillary Clinton’s top rival, Bernie Sanders there, working the crowds this week on New Year’s Eve. In just a moment, Bernie Sanders will join me.

But first we go inside the growing feud between Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, who’s about to hit the campaign trail for his wife, Hillary, as ABC News Cecilia Vega reports, Trump’s new attacks on his former friend, Bill Clinton, are dominating the Democratic race in the New Year.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CECILIA VEGA, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A year ago it seemed the presidency might be Hillary Clinton’s race to lose.

Who would have thought 12 months later a Democratic Socialist from Vermont and a billionaire reality TV star would pose the biggest threat to her dreams?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Are you ready for a radical idea?

(CHEERS)

VEGA: Her main challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders, continues to draw large and enthusiastic crowds.

SANDERS: We have received 2.5 million individual contributions, more than any campaign in the history of the United States of America.

VEGA: And this week a twist, ugly attacks from a former friend. Just a few years ago, Trump had nothing but praise for the Clintons…

TRUMP: Hillary is a great friend of mine, her husband is a great friend of mine, they’re fantastic people.

VEGA: Now aiming his attacks only at his potential rival, but taking shots at Hillary’s husband as well.

TRUMP: She wants to accuse me of things? And the husband is one of the great abusers of the world? Give me a break. Give me a break.

VEGA: Those attacks not stopping Clinton from bringing what she calls her secret weapon to the campaign trails.

Tomorrow, the former president heads to New Hampshire, a place where both Clintons have enjoyed political comebacks. But this time, this is Sander’s backyard where he’s been leading in the polls since August.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let’s make this happen. I need your help. I need your support.

VEGA: For This Week, Cecelia Vega, ABC News, New York

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ: Our thanks to Cecelia.

Bernie Sanders is hard at work on the campaign trail this holiday weekend. And he joins me this morning from New Hampshire. Happy new year, Senator Sanders.

We noticed that today is the 25th anniversary of your first day in Congress. Twenty five years, what do you say to critics who say the country needs a president from outside Washington and not a career politician?

SANDERS: Well, what I say is if you study my record, I’m not exactly a career politician. Martha, during my tenure in the Congress, I have taken on virtually every powerful special interest from Wall Street to the insurance companies to the pharmaceutical industry to the military-industrial complex.

What my campaign is about is standing up to the billionaire class today, and making certain that we do not continue to see the decline of the American middle class, where people are working longer hours for lower wages and almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent. That is the issue that I find that the American people are most concerned about, the decline of the middle class, massive income and wealth inequality, and a corrupt campaign finance system.

RADDATZ: Well, let me take you back to 1990 on election night. This is what you said. “We need a mass movement of tens of millions of people prepared to say that we want national health care, that we want the millionaires and multi-national corporations who are not paying their fair share, to pay their fair share.”

That sounds an awful lot like Bernie Sanders 2015, but you haven’t really been able to create that mass movement. How can we imagine that you’ll do it now?

SANDERS: Well, Martha, we’re doing pretty well. You know, I started this campaign at 3 percent in the polls. There were some polls that had me out recently at 39 percent. Come to my meetings. They’re huge all over the United States of America.

And what we are seeing is mass dissatisfaction on the part of the middle class. We’re seeing people who are really upset that they can’t afford to send their kids to college. They can’t afford childcare. The rich are getting richer; almost everybody else is getting poorer. And what people are saying is, you know, it’s absurd. That with massive income…

RADDATZ: Let me turn to Iowa.

SANDERS: …and wealth inequality…

RADDATZ: Let me turn to Iowa, Senator Sanders. This is what you recently said at a campaign stop.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: Let me tell you a secret, don’t tell anybody. I don’t want to get Secretary Clinton nervous.

(CHEERS)

SANDERS: I think we’re going to win here in Iowa.

(CHEERS)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RADDATZ: I don’t know how nervous Secretary Clinton is about that. She has consistently led in the polls in Iowa through the latter part of 2015. What can you possibly do to try to stop that momentum in just four weeks?

SANDERS: Martha, should have been with us in our last trips to Iowa. The turnouts that we’re seeing in big towns and in small towns are extraordinary. The enthusiasm is very, very strong. I think that people are tired of establishment politics and establishment economics. And they are also tired of a corrupt campaign finance system in super PACs that allows billionaires to purchase elections. That’s not what the American people want.

And one of the manifestations of that is the kind of incredible fundraising that we have been doing in terms of small, individual donations. We have 2.5 million small, individual contribution-style campaign. That is more than any campaign in the history of the United States of America, and I think that speaks to the enthusiasm and support that we’re getting at the grassroots.

RADDATZ: Hillary Clinton has Bill Clinton joining her on the campaign trail there in New Hampshire this week. Donald Trump and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus think Bill Clinton’s sexual history is fair game. Do you?

SANDERS: No, I don’t. I think, you know, we have enormous problems facing this country and I think we got more things to worry about than Bill Clinton’s sexual life. I think — interestingly enough, maybe Donald Trump might want to focus attention on climate change, understand that climate change is not a hoax, as he believes that it is, that maybe Donald Trump should understand that we should raise the minimum wage in this country, which he opposes, and maybe we should not be giving huge tax breaks to fellow billionaires like Donald Trump.

So I think maybe he should focus on those things.

RADDATZ: You have had some very harsh words for Donald Trump recently and you said you wanted to stay away from personal attacks…

SANDERS: Yes.

RADDATZ: …in this campaign.

SANDERS: Right.

RADDATZ: Some of the things you’ve said, like calling him a pathological liar, have been pretty personal.

SANDERS: Yes. The truth is I do not get engaged in personal attacks, but Trump really is over the edge. He has attacked me very ferociously and has called me a liar because I point that out, that nobody else has seen on television thousands of Muslims celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Time after time, this guy just comes up with things off the top of his head that are lies. And somebody has got to say that he is a pathological liar.

RADDATZ: Senator Sanders, President Obama is reportedly considering executive action that would require unlicensed gun dealers to get licensed by the ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Recent polling shows three in four Americans thinks it’s important that there be bipartisan consensus before implementing gun control. Is an executive action that circumvents Congress the right way to do it?

SANDERS: Well, I wish that we could get bipartisan action on gun safety legislation. I think the American people have been horrified by the mass shootings we’ve seen over the last couple of years. What I think we need to do, among many other things, is do away with the so-called gun show loophole where people are — do not have to go through the instant background check.

Martha, there is a wide consensus, overwhelming majority of the American people believe we should expand and strengthen the instant background checks so that people who should not have guns, are i.e. criminals or people with mental issues, mental health issues, should not guns. I think that’s what the president is trying to do and I think that will be the right thing to do.

RADDATZ: And very quickly, Senator Sanders, on the campaign trail last week, you said that the retaking of Ramadi in Iraq is a model for destroying ISIS and that training of Iraqi troops may have turned things around. Eighty percent of the reason Ramadi is falling is because of coalition air strikes, though. That’s what you think should continue?

SANDERS: Right. I think it has to be Muslim troops on the ground who are fighting for the soul of Islam, supported by U.S., French, U.K., German, other major powers, and using our air superiority.

RADDATZ: Might be very difficult to get those ground troops, but thank you very much, Senator Sanders.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment