Peace Patriot's Journal
Member since: Sat Nov 13, 2004, 01:56 AM
Number of posts: 24,010
Number of posts: 24,010
- 2016 (24)
- 2015 (1)
- April (1)
- 2013 (26)
- 2012 (21)
- 2011 (2)
- December (2)
- Older Archives
...on handwritten paper or by voice vote! In every other voting process--the primaries, the general elections--the votes are counted by electronic machines which contain 'TRADE SECRET' programming code, owned and controlled by a handful of PRIVATE corporations, at least one of which (ES&S which bought out Diebold) has far rightwing connections that would make your hair stand on end!
Even in states like Oregon, which have paper ballots and do all-mail-in voting, they scan those ballots on 'TRADE SECRET code scanners which feed the now substanceless vote (mere electrons) to 'TRADE SECRET' code tabulators.
The vote counting process is NO LONGER conducted IN THE PUBLIC VENUE--except in caucuses.
Is THAT why Sanders does so incredibly well in caucuses, compared to primaries?
Maddow parrots the "talking point" of many Clinton supporters that caucuses are undemocratic. I think there is more behind this "talking point" than mere dislike of caucuses because Sanders has won so many of them by such big margins.
There are other factors in caucuses--for instance, enthusiasm and willingness to sacrifice your time. Sanders supporters believe in their candidate enough to show up (some Clinton supporters have not even done that) and to spend time talking about Sanders, persuading people and engaging the process in every way.
Sanders himself mentions the democratic value of meeting and discussing. I've read a number of accounts of caucus participants who are very proud of that democratic value. It is traditional for people in those states to meet and discuss and vote in smallish neighborhood groups. They love it! It is real, down-home, town hall democracy! Participatory democracy!
But to me, as a long-time, staunch opponent of the corporate PRIVATIZATION of our vote counting process, what I most value in caucuses is the transparency of the vote counting--that it occurs in the PUBLIC VENUE, where anybody can tell immediately if the count is wrong.
The worst thing about the 'TRADE SECRET' code privatization is that half the states in this country--including most of the South--do NO AUDIT WHATSOEVER (comparison of paper ballots to electronic results) because they have no paper ballot, and the other half do a miserably inadequate audit (not a big enough sample to detect fraud). And all states make getting a recount really difficult.
These evil machines were spread like a plague across this country during the 2002 to 2004 period. I believe that they were first used in a major way in 2004, to re-s/elect Bush and Cheney and their war.
I also think that this 'TRADE SECRET' code--code that the public is forbidden by law to review--can be used in various ways, both blunt ways and sophisticated ways; that this is why exit polls so often fail in this country (while in other countries exit polls are the "gold standard" for determining the integrity of an election); that the 'TRADE SECRET' code can be defeated by overwhelming turnout (or at least make fraudsters hesitate); and that there are varying degrees of protection, depending on the intelligence, honesty and computer savvy of secretaries of state and other election officials.
I think CA is in pretty good shape. OR and WA are in pretty good shape. I think NY might actually be in pretty good shape--because the fraudsters had to use voter purges and closed polling locations to fiddle the vote. Alert election officials can take measures to prevent the insertion of malicious code and other evils, but I'm sorry to say that ALL election officials in this country have succumbed to the glitz and to the alleged "efficiency" of these systems.
In Germany, they count paper ballots by hand in each neighborhood, and have NEVER had a slip-up between the exit polls and the count, and they do it all in one day, very efficiently. It's just not instant. But who cares about "instant" results that are NOT verifiable? Who?
Posted by Peace Patriot | Sat May 7, 2016, 04:36 AM (0 replies)
I put considerable effort into replies in both OPs but before I could hit "Post," they were locked. I have no idea why.
When I tried to post in the FIRST THREAD (below), I got a yellow box with this message: "Your post was unsuccessful because the thread you are replying to is hidden." When I tried to post in the SECOND THREAD (below), I got a yellow box with this message: "Your post was unsuccessful because the thread you are replying to is locked." Both threads now seem to have disappeared.
I was able to copy and paste my comments and some details of the threads before they became inaccessible. (It may be my technical incompetence, but I can't get them to re-load.)
Some very important issues were raised by these OPs and in the comments that were made. One of the issues was in Comment #13 to the FIRST THREAD. I answered by offering some definitions of "liberal" and "progressive," terms that often get mixed up and vague. My comment is very pro-Sanders, so, if you are a Clinton supporter, beware. (It's very hard on Clinton.)
Here is comment #13, followed by my reply:
13. Let's put it very simply, I am a Democrat, Hillary is a Democrat, whether you want to label Hillary
A progressive or not does not change the fact she is a progressive and one who gets things done. Is she far left, no, nor do I want her to be far left, she is a hard core liberal. I will be voting for a Democrat who is a progressive and hard core liberal, Hillary.
MY REPLY TO THE ABOVE:
Clinton a liberal "who gets things done"? What?
"Liberal" is associated in my mind with "free trade for the rich," so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like anything a "liberal" gets done. To the extent that it may be associated with human rights, then I would support those liberal human rights policies, depending on his or her actions, but NOT "free trade for the rich," by which I mean free trade that pits one workforce against another in a downward spiral of wages and benefits, that destroys the sovereignty of democratic countries (our ability to regulate labor, health, environmental and other vital public matters) and that tends to encourage activities that are killing Mother Earth.
"Liberal" in the above sense is liberality for corporations and the uber rich, who may go along with some human rights policies, at least here at home, though often not in exploited foreign countries--but who are inflicting much harm on people and the environment, here and abroad.
Clinton publicly and actively supported "free trade for the rich" agreements (notably NAFTA) during her husband's administration. On her own, she opposed the Colombia "free trade for the rich" agreement and several other such agreements during her 2007-08 campaign for president, but completely turned around and supported them as Secretary of State. This is a "liberal" in the worst sense of the word--a liar.
I guess you could say she "got things done" on the "free trade" part of the "liberal" label.
You call Clinton a "progressive" in one sentence and "liberal" in another. These, to me, are distinctive political categories.
"Progressive" essentially means Leftist, and requires New Deal-like policies for working people and the poor, the elderly, the young, and the sick, and is definitely opposed to "free trade for the rich." A progressive believes in FAIR trade, not "free trade." A progressive is also both sincere and active on human rights and would never, for instance, tolerate what Clinton did in Honduras. Clinton actively supported the fascist coup in Honduras in June 2009 which unleashed death squads against the many women in Honduras who are leading the democracy and environmental movements there. One recent victim was Berta Caceres, an indigenous woman who had recently won the Goldman Environmental Prize. Murdered in her bed by a death squad of ex-Honduran soldiers, who likely received training from the U.S. military, which has a large presence in Honduras.
I am a progressive and I don't tolerate Clinton's support of the Honduran fascist coup. Anyone who supports that Clinton action is not a progressive. That may be the main difference between a liberal and a progressive. A liberal holds "free trade" as the prime value and if some people who are in the way of "progress" get eliminated to further a dam project (Caceres) or other projects of big corporations and investors, too bad. Smother it. Hide it. Lie about it. And, most of all, never even consider it in the first place.
Clinton showed herself to be this kind of liberal when she intervened in the Drummond Coal case, a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of Drummond Coal's death squads in Colombia. Drummond Coal, an Alabama corporation, employed murderers to take care of their "labor problem" in Colombia. The families wanted Alvaro Uribe to give a deposition in that case. Uribe was the fascist/mafia boss president of Colombia during the Bush junta. Members of Uribe's family and his political cronies have been jailed for their ties to rightwing death squads. Clinton, as Secretary of State, wrote to the judge in the case telling him not to require Uribe to appear, and implying that it was a matter of "national security." The judge caved to Clinton's pressure.
That's the kind of liberal I mean. Human rights are mere political "talking points", and they are mostly for the well-to-do--for instance, no "glass ceilings" for women who want to be CEOs, but when it comes to poor people, or targeted women like Caceres, their human rights don't matter, and their poverty and hardship, and even their murder, gets swept under the rug.
"Liberal" is also associated, in my mind, with uncontrolled development and resource extraction, and pollution, and thus, with the death of Mother Earth. Progressives are defenders of Mother Earth, and don't tolerate horrors like frakking. Clinton, of course, is a liberal in this respect, but absolutely not a progressive. She takes money from the frakking industry. She supports frakking here, with only the condition that she picks and chooses the locations. She also helped to export frakking to other countries, as Secretary of State.
You say Clinton "gets things done." She sure does. But virtually nothing of what she has ever gotten done is progressive, and much of it is awful. (To cite another example, Libya.)
Please tell me anything progressive that Clinton has "gotten done." Welfare "reform"? Mass incarceration? Support for the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs"? Enthusiastic support of the massively murderous Iraq War? And all of the above--including "free trade for the rich," no matter who it harms? What has she "gotten done" that is progressive?
Clinton supported the "Defense of Marriage Act" and only came very late to the support of gay rights. Bernie Sanders, for instance, opposed DOMA from the beginning. HE is a progressive.
I can't think of a single progressive thing that she has done. Please enlighten me if I'm being biased. I DO support Bernie Sanders quite avidly, so maybe I'm missing something.
In the SECOND THREAD, the OP seems to ask this question: Why do some Sanders supporters post items about the FBI investigation of Clinton? I tried to answer that question in my reply to Comment #66, by "North Carolina." North Carolina says: "It would however be a godsend to America's poor and ailing middle class." I'm pretty sure that North Carolina meant: "A Clinton indictment would however be a godsend to America's poor and ailing middle class." That's what I was responding to. And I can't find the comment North Carolina was responding to (with that "however"). The thread seems to be gone.
Same caveat to Clinton supporters. Strong criticism of your candidate--beware.
66. It would however be a godsend to America's poor and ailing middle class. nt
MY REPLY TO NORTH CAROLINA
And to a lot of other people as well: The women of Honduras who are getting raped and murdered...
...for leading the opposition to the fascist government that Hillary Clinton put in place--literally put in place. Clinton had OUR State Department run the fake election in Honduras (under martial law with leftists getting murdered) when no election monitoring group on earth would touch it and it was condemned throughout Latin America. Honduras is mentioned in her emails. She was determined that the elected president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, would never be restored to his rightful office.
She PUT THE FASCISTS IN POWER. One of their death squads of ex-soldiers murdered Berta Cáceres, Honduras' most well-known anti-coup activist and environmentalist (winner of The Goldman Environmental Prize), this March. Before she was murdered, Cáceres blamed Clinton for the coup in a Democracy Now interview:
The women activists of Honduras would probably like to see Clinton in jail. The trouble is we have a system that says, "We need to look forward not backward" on the crimes of the rich and powerful. (They teach that at Harvard Law School.) It doesn't matter if it's mass murder, torture, massive theft, massive violations of U.S. and international laws, or "regime change" in democratic countries (Honduras) or in countries that are not democratic but are stable (Libya, Syria, Iraq), with the result of rape, murder, chaos, starvation, displacement and other horrors for millions of innocent people. It doesn't matter WHAT the rich and powerful do, from evading all taxation to war crimes. That precedent has been set.
While I abhor the risks Clinton took with national security, and abhor her "pay to play" deals with the woman-hating Saudis, et al, and the Clinton Foundation, and while I abhor the fact that Goldman Sachs, et al, made her into a multi-millionaire in 2 years time, so they would have a direct agent protecting Wall Street's interests in the White House, I think that Clinton's actions in Honduras and Libya are far, far worse than her secret email server or her corruption.
Thousands of people have suffered and died in Honduras, as the result of Clinton's actions. Honduras is now the most violent country on earth outside of a war zone. And Honduran democracy was destroyed. Millions have suffered and died in Libya, Syria and Iraq, where chaos now reigns, and a vacuum of power was created for the most brutal jihadists to pour into.
Clinton's risks to national security with her private server and her blatant corruption in the office of Secretary of State pale in comparison to these other crimes. Yet there is not a chance in hell that she will be held accountable for the far worse crimes.
And THAT is what I think is on the minds of at least some of the Bernie Sanders supporters who post information here about the FBI investigation. They know--and, really, everybody knows--that there are two systems of justice in this country, one for the rich and powerful and one for everybody else. The rich and powerful who make the decisions to commit enormous war crimes are immune from prosecution. Clinton has one of these as her close friend, mentor and adviser--Henry Kissinger! He is responsible for the deaths of millions in Southeast Asia including tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers. He is responsible for the horrors in Chile in that fascist coup. And he is free and living the good life and offering his advice to his successors. Clinton also has Robert Kagan as a close adviser. He wrote the blueprint for Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld's plan for a military occupation of the Middle East and domination of the world ("The Project for a New American Century"--that infamous Neo-con document). And Clinton herself is now in their company, and, of course, nothing will be done about her crimes or theirs, or those of any other rich and powerful people who inflict mass suffering and death on others.
Bernie supporters want JUSTICE, and there is none to be had.
I think Bernie supporters hope that the FBI might come up with some justice but that's looking less and less likely. I am among those who had hoped that she might at least be held accountable for what are clearly national security violations (sending classified material back and forth with Sydney Blumenthal, whom President Obama had banned from the State Department, and whom she had then employed at the Clinton Foundation). But I also have said that the FBI investigation could be a protective action--protecting her from the RW morons in Congress, for instance, while her candidacy for president of the rich and powerful could proceed smoothly. I still don't know--none of us knows--if justice is even in play at the FBI or the DOJ.
The Clinton supporters want an answer to why some Sanders supporters post info about the FBI investigation at DU, and even, in this post, are calling Sanders supporters "pimps" for doing so.
I can only answer for sure as to my own interest in the FBI investigation, and that interest is mostly my desire for justice for Berta Cáceres and Hillary Clinton's other victims. I know that she will never be held accountable for those actions. Kissinger wasn't. Bush Sr. wasn't. Bush Jr. wasn't. Cheney wasn't. Rumsfeld wasn't. Rice wasn't. I had hoped--and I still hope--that she will be held accountable for the arrogance and greed that led her to set up a secret, private email server, outside of government security measures, to conduct the business of the U.S. government as if it were her own private business. But right now I doubt that even that will happen.
If she makes it to the White House--and that is in very serious doubt, due to her high negatives and inability to draw independent votes (now 40+% of the electorate)--she will be unable to fulfill any of her $12/hr promises to the peons, because the RW morons in Congress are going to present her with Articles of Impeachment the day after her inauguration. Distraction will reign supreme. And any hope for incremental change will be dashed. As with "Benghazi," they won't challenge anything that they themselves do (war, corruption); it will be as stupid and irrelevant as the Benghazi circus, but there is plenty of circus in Clinton's "baggage" to entertain them as long as they want, and even to impeach her with. It will all be meaningless, and we and Mother Earth will lose the next four years to it, at least.
Posted by Peace Patriot | Fri May 6, 2016, 02:08 AM (25 replies)
The FBI investigation is the only hope we have of an objective investigation of Clinton's private email server, its security issues and its purposes. They could be protecting Clinton from the moronic beasts in our 8%-approval-rating Congress. She is, after all, one of the rich and powerful, of whom it has been said that, "we must look forward not backward," when their crimes are somewhere back in time and not in the future.
But we don't know that that is what the FBI is doing--protecting her--while we DO know that Congress is whacko, went way screwy on "Benghazi!" and actually loves "regime change" especially when the target gets raped with a bayonet and murdered, and the whole country descends into chaos, i.e., war profiteer heaven. Clinton is with them on this. "We came, we saw, he died! ha-ha-ha." So what is their beef against Clinton?
Screwballs. But dangerous and very, very power-hungry screwballs. Not really screwballs at all. They have the purpose of wresting all the awesome powers of the U.S. government away from the other "military-industrial-prison complex" faction that Clinton aspires to be the leader of. It could all be kabuki theater. Clinton shares their blood-lust and will certainly satisfy it if she gets another chance, while protecting her own and their financial investments, and those of all donors to the War Party. But I don't think it's kabuki. I think there is an honest-go-God power struggle going between factions of the "MIPC." (And there may be more than two factions--hard to tell with our very, very, very secretive government.)
But, what little I know of FBI Director Comey is that he has a rep as a "straight-shooter," an old-fashioned belief in "law and order," and is protective of that and of the FBI's reputation and integrity. So it's possible that he is an "honest broker" in this extremely unusual situation of a frontrunner presidential candidate under investigation in the middle of an election. By "honest broker," I mean someone who will tell us what the fuck she was using her private, insecure email server FOR, whether she was doing pay-to-play with the Saudis and other woman-hating ME governments on arms deals, what Libya "regime change" was really all about, whether she endangered national security, whether she broke laws, why she deleted work emails with classified information on them, and so forth.
We have a RIGHT TO KNOW these things. We have a NEED to know them. And our only hope of learning what we need to know--however tenuous that hope may be--is the FBI. Certainly not Congress (ludicrous) nor anyone with a political motive, including President Obama, that might mess up their judgement. I'm not saying the FBI can't have political motives. I'm saying there's a chance that they don't. So I hope that their immunized witness stays clear of Congress, which would most certainly interfere with the FBI investigation if they saw profit in it for their particular set of investors.
Re: Obama. God knows what he's thinking. He's a hard man to read. It appears to me that he has both political and personal motives that could go either way. For instance, his legacy has so far not been tainted with scandal. Scandal now threatens that legacy. Would he act to cover it up for that reason? Dunno. On the other hand, if he tangles with Comey about a cover up, couldn't that bring greater scandal? Yeah, it could (precedent, Watergate). Clinton defied Obama on at least one presidential order: continuing to use Sydney Blumenthal as an advisor to State, by hiring Blumenthal at the Clinton Foundation and using her private email server to communicate with him--Obama had banned Blumenthal at State. Obama could be very pissed off about this. Also, Clinton left behind several major clusterfucks that Obama and Kerry appear to be trying to mitigate (Honduras and Libya, as well as various aspects of Iran, Iraq and Syria). On the other hand, Obama is with Clinton on the TPP (talk about clusterfucks!). Sanders totally opposes TPP. Would Obama take action (or fail to prevent action) re Clinton that would put Sanders in the White House? Dunno.
We have never had an FBI investigation hanging like a dark cloud over a presidential campaign before, with no end in sight! It is an unprecedented situation. What the hell is going to happen if (by some miracle, in my opinion) Clinton wins the GE and the FBI has not yet issued a recommendation? Are they going to keep their investigation going throughout her tenure? Are they going to exonerate her on her inauguration day? Will Comey issue a rec for indictment that day and then resign? This situation is BIZARRE. That is the only word for it. We have no idea what may happen with this, and we also have no idea what is going on in the deep, deep layers of our government (CIA, NSA, Pentagon, et al).
A lot of big reasons to vote for Sanders here if you are a voter in any of the remaining states, and I'm a Sanders supporter (in CA). Also, a lot of big reasons to fight for your Sanders vote if it has been taken away. (Hello NY, AZ and others!) But I have to say that I DON'T LIKE this situation AT ALL. (And I'll bet Sanders doesn't like it either.)
I want this election to be determined on the issues and not on dark, impenetrable clouds emitted by various factions of the "military-industrial-prison complex" that is our government. I want openness and honesty and a clear decision by the American people on the future of our country. Personally, I'm sure they would choose a thorough house-cleaning inside the Beltway and a return to New Deal democracy with Sanders as president, in a clean election. But this election is anything but clean. And this FBI investigation is part of the murk.
What the hell is going on, Director Comey? Please tell us! We do pay your salary, you know. Or are you among those for whom that doesn't matter at all?
Posted by Peace Patriot | Sat Apr 23, 2016, 03:17 PM (0 replies)
It's so good, I will repeat the argument here:
You are like little children at the beach.
Also, "Feel the Bern," as the capper, has beautiful irony.
I would only argue with "decades away." Climate catastrophe is not decades away. It is here. Catastrophic droughts in Africa and the ME. Catastrophic floods, hurricanes, here and elsewhere. Islands already going under (including England's coast being eaten away). Catastrophic loss of ocean reefs (fish food source going down--very, very bad!). Catastrophic loss of bees (food pollinators). Catastrophic loss and/or disruption of all species. Catastrophic human dislocations. And on and on. It is HERE, NOW.
Our corporate-run way of life is actually killing the planet we all depend upon for life itself, and it is doing so NOW. And the Corporate Rulers who are running things here have paralyzed our democracy--with mind-boggling propaganda, rigged elections, anti-democratic, planet-killing "trade agreements" and many other tactics--to prevent U.S. leadership from addressing this awesome crisis in any meaningful way.
My metaphor is the Titanic. The rich are arranging their cushy berths on the Titanic while the rest of us are chained and gated below, away from the lifeboats.
But "little children on a beach" building a sand castle with a tsunami rising behind them is good, too. Maybe add some bully kids who think they are 'winning' the sandcastle contest and won't let the other children leave--and it would complete the current picture.
Sorry you won't be continuing at DU. We are in desperate need of "Cassandra"'s who speak the truth here amidst the childish banter that DU has been flooded with. You do know we've been flooded with paid bots whose job is to trivialize serious discussion, spread ugly pre-written 'memes' about racism and sexism, and otherwise make this once very progressive site into a joke?
Posted by Peace Patriot | Thu Apr 21, 2016, 02:42 PM (0 replies)
...the Democratic Party voting rolls, by the NY Democratic Party, in the town where Bernie Sanders was born, on suspicion that they were poor?
Do you know how much that H arrow to the right disgusts old DUers like me? Go ahead and purge me, you punk! I don't have that long to live anyway. I've been a Democrat for 50+ years, and a person for 70. I canvassed for JFK at age 16! And I know how much that kind of loyalty doesn't matter to Clinton and her bots. She can go buy all the votes she needs elsewhere, using her Clinton Foundation slush fund.
I am also a woman. And I say there couldn't be a worse example of feminism on the face of Mother Earth, than Hillary Clinton, whose decisions have led to the rapes, murders, and/or cruel displacement of millions of women in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Iraq. She even laughed about the bayonet rape and murder of one of her "regime change" targets, right on camera. "We came, we saw, he died! ha-ha-ha!" THAT'S feminism? That's what I've struggled for and supported all my life? THAT's the Democratic Party that I've been loyal to all my life?
DO IT! TURN ME IN! Here's my arm. Tattoo it! Shove this old witch in the oven! Do you realize where your mind is leading you? Do you REALIZE?!
Or just go away to a cave somewhere and do some serious soul-searching. You need to.
Posted by Peace Patriot | Wed Apr 20, 2016, 06:09 PM (7 replies)
I came across this obituary for Deborah Neher Applegate in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (in California) yesterday. I don't know if it was Deborah Neher Applegate's last wish for people to donate to Bernie Sanders' campaign, or if this was done by consensus of her family because she was a big Sanders supporter. But I have to say that it's THE most unique endorsement for a presidential candidate that I've ever seen, or probably that ever was:
APPLEGATE, Deborah Neher November 16, 1941 - April 4, 2016 Was born in Chicago, Illinois and grew up in Summit, New Jersey. She graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1963 and obtained a Master's degree in social work from Columbia University in 1975. Mother of Charles and Jennifer, both of Santa Rosa, and grandmother of Tim. Deborah deeply enjoyed her practice of clinical social work. Her introduction to social work was working with welfare recipients in East Harlem, New York. After earning her Master's, she practiced in a hospital setting before relocating with her husband and children to Massachusetts. She then became a clinical supervisor in a mental health clinic, where she served for eight years before opening a private practice. After moving to Massachusetts, the family lived for twenty years in a historic home, built in 1732, which Deborah and her husband lovingly refurbished and maintained. In 1998, they moved to Sonoma County, where she continued her clinical practice with Sonoma County Health Services. After her divorce in 2001, Deborah bought a home in Santa Rosa and worked with community leaders to get the neighborhood designated as a historic district. A lifelong cook and a constant reader, she also became an avid gardener and a member of informal local hiking groups. In 2008, Deborah's daughter, Jennifer, moved in with her for what was intended to be a short-term stay but turned into nearly eight years of happily living together "more like sisters or friends" than mother and daughter. She was delighted by her son's marriage to Jill Decker of Napa, and equally delighted by the birth of their son, Timothy. Twice a year, Deborah spent several weeks with her cousin and best friend, Melissa Cummins Horvath of Cherry Valley, New York. These visits were marked by near-constant laughter and shared memories. Deborah retired from practice in December of 2014, and enjoyed increased gardening time and visits with friends and family. She started volunteering at the Northwest Regional branch of the Sonoma County Library in 2015. She will be greatly missed by friends and family alike. No memorial service is planned. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders or to the Sonoma Humane Society.
(Note: The obit kindly provides the alternative of a non-partisan donation to the Humane Society.)
GO BERNIE! And be kind to all critters!
Posted by Peace Patriot | Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:18 AM (6 replies)
The deadline for voter registration is May 23. (If you mail it in, it must be postmarked no later than that day.)
To vote for Bernie Sanders, YOU MUST BE REGISTERED AS "NO PARTY PREFERENCE (formerly known as "Decline to State"), NOT AS AN "INDEPENDENT." Or, registered as a Democrat, of course.
This needs to be posted in several places at DU (including GD: P, California Forum, Bernie Forum, where else?) and repeated regularly as the deadline approaches. Sanders could lose lots of potential votes from Independents if they don't get this info and re-register.
I can't do this right now. Does someone else want to take it up? Later in April, I'll check from time to time to make sure this info gets posted and re-posted at DU.
Posted by Peace Patriot | Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:24 AM (1 replies)
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"—that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
Do you mean that--given a Clinton "scorched earth" against Sanders--we are about to see Sanders accused of being the shooter at Sandy Hook? Or of approving the slaughter of kindergartners? Something like that?
Actually they've almost gone there already. In any case, the further they go, the closer they get to automatically losing whatever debate is in progress--according to Godwin's Law. They probably decided against trying "Hitler" against a Jew, and chose the Sandy Hook shooter instead, as the ikon of Sanders' lawless, murderous, callous, oblivious, uncaring, rotten, stinking, gun loving, fascist, anti-kindergartner personality and policies.
Posted by Peace Patriot | Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:46 AM (2 replies)
...of many women in Honduras who have been peacefully protesting the fascist government, including the recent murder of the famed indigenous environmental activist, Berta Caceres (winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize). Women have been particularly evident in leadership roles in the Honduran democracy movement. Gays have also been targeted with brutality.
Clinton is some feminist, huh? What a crock!
I followed the coup events as closely as possible from both the corporate press and alternative news sources. What I think happened is this: The coup was planned by the Bush junta, possibly intended as a time-bomb to sabotage Barack Obama, early in his first term, and prevent him from acting on his stated intention of improving U.S./Latin America relations. (U.S./Latin America relations were basically dead during the Bush junta, of course. The Bush junta did terrible things there.)
When the military kidnapped the elected president of Honduras and flew him out of his own country, Obama's first reaction was that this was a "military coup" which triggers a law to stop U.S. funding to the usurpers. He then fell silent on the matter. He was VERY preoccupied at the time with global financial meltdown--an economic catastrophe inherited from the Bush Junta--and TWO wars inherited from the Bush junta, both of them clusterfucks of major proportions. I don't think Obama had anything to do with the Honduran coup, and I don't think he had an early warning about it. His only mistake may have been figuring that his new Sec of State Hillary Clinton would handle it satisfactorily.
Sec of State Clinton acted to legitimize the fascists who had taken power. Her emails reveal she was determined that Mel Zelaya, the elected president, would NOT return to his country and his rightful office. (He is a leftist who was doing things like raising the minimum wage and providing school lunches--actions offensive to Clinton's potential donors). Everything she did--from the talks in Costa Rica to the phony, State Dept.-run election in Honduras--was aimed at NOT restoring the rightful president and instead installing a rightwinger who would do U.S. corporate bidding.
No reputable election monitoring group in the world would touch this situation. They all refused. Leftists were being murdered. Martial law was in effect. Zelaya was under threat of arrest if he returned. Conditions for a fair election did not exist. So Clinton had the U.S. Dept. itself run an election, using outfits like the International Republican Institute (a John McCain project--McCain had telecommunication interests in Honduras). The rightwing 'won,' of course.
Just want to add in here a slight correction of the OP. The OP says this was "a coup that was widely condemned in Central America." The coup was widely condemned throughout Latin America. The President of Brazil, for instance, gave Zelaya asylum in the Brazilian embassy in Honduras, so Zelaya could return to his country. The OAS refused to send its election monitors to oversee Clinton's phony election. The coup was universally condemned. And Barack Obama's plan to improve relations with LatAm was destroyed, for the time being.
I think that Obama's trip to Cuba, and Obama's and Sec of State Kerry's support for the Colombia/FARC peace talks have been efforts to UNDO the damage that Clinton did to U.S./Latin America relations when she was Sec of State.
What has happened since the coup? The fascists have been emboldened to use death squads to end their problems with the leftist majority. And crime and murder have run rampant. The U.S. funded and trained Honduran military and police support the fascists. The Pentagon meanwhile has been building up its presence in Honduras. (The military plane carrying Zelaya out of his country at gunpoint stopped at a U.S. base in Honduras for refueling.) All the profiteers have taken over Honduras--the military profiteers, the police profiteers, the "war on drugs" profiteers, the corporate profiteers and the gangs warring over the ever-more lucrative drug profits. (The more drugs are warred upon, the higher the price, the more violence there is.)
Some of these problems pre-existed in Honduras, but all were made worse--much worse--by this U.S.-supported coup, and the poor majority in Honduras was stripped of their advocate, Mel Zelaya, who was implementing quite modest reforms to improve their lives.
Clinton was responsible for inflicting three clusterfucks on Obama's presidency--Honduras, Libya and Syria--plus the possibility that his presidency will end in scandal from the corruption at the Clinton Foundation and her insecure private email server setup.
On Libya and Syria, she was following the neocon plan (her adviser, Robert Kagan, of the Project for a New American Century--Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld's blue print). And on Honduras? Henry Kissinger (another adviser of hers).
Here is what one Honduran coup general said about their coup: The purpose of the coup "was to prevent communism from Venezuela reaching the United States" (quoted in a report on the coup by the Zelaya government-in-exile). (Note: Hugo Chavez was NOT a communist. He did, however, advocate labor rights, a living wage, universal health care, education, public participation and other "communist" ideas.)
I wondered at the time where this coup general got such a strange notion--that Honduras must stand in the way of "communism from Venezuela reaching the United States."
Kissinger used the same excuse to slaughter about a million people in Southeast Asia in the 1970s. He also used that excuse--communism--to destroy the elected leftist government in Chile in the same era.
Kissinger and Kagan intend to ride Clinton back into the White House to continue their wars. That is my greatest fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Honduras is evidence of it. So are Libya and Syria--where, I should add, women are suffering the most from the chaos and violence that Clinton helped to unleash.
Posted by Peace Patriot | Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:27 AM (6 replies)
...the ones she bears special responsibility for: Honduras, and the destabilization of Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
On Honduras, her emails reveal her direct, stated intention NOT TO PERMIT the return of the ELECTED president of Honduras, who was kidnapped by the U.S.-supported Honduran military at gunpoint and flown out of his own country with a re-fueling stop at the U.S. airbase in Honduras. She explicitly stated that she would prevent his return, and she did! The rule of law was never re-established in Honduras, and the result is the "killing fields" of Honduras, where WOMEN who peacefully oppose these fascists supported by Clinton, are a major target for murder and rape, and where gays are also being targeted for brutality and repression.
It is quite unforgivable, what Clinton did in Honduras. And it is right out Henry Kissinger's playbook.
I don't blame Obama who was only six months into his first term at the time, and preoccupied with Bush-Clinton induced global financial meltdown and two Bush wars. I wasn't sure at first, but I did see that his first instinct was to withdraw U.S. funding to the Honduran fascists (he said it was "a military coup," which triggers the law). Then somehow Clinton got control of the situation and she continued sending these fuckwads billions of our tax dollars, and PREVENTED the restoration of Honduran democracy. In her own words.
On destabilization of Iraq, Libya and Syria, Clinton voted for the goddamn war on Iraq and enthusiastically supported it. Result: chaos.
On Libya, Obama bears responsibility for taking his Sec of State's wretchedly wrong advice, and she personally claimed the result on Libya in an taped interview in which she states, Caesar-like, "We came. We conquered. He died!" and then LAUGHS. The callousness is unbelievable. Yeah, Gaddaffi was dead. Result: chaos.
Syria: I can only point out the significant change of direction under Sec of State John Kerry. Clinton was heading us to war with Iran and Russia--with Syrian 'regime change' and chaos as the collateral damage. This was right out of Bush, Cheney & Rumfeld's PNAC playbook, via Robert Kagan. Kerry is out there vigorously pursuing diplomatic solutions, and, in my opinion, trying to UNDO the damage that Clinton did as Sec of State (and is trying to do the same in Latin America with Obama's visit to Cuba and their support for the Colombia/FARC peace talks). The immediate result of attempted 'regime change' in Syria (Clinton's advice and actions): chaos.
Chaos in the ME is another name for The Project for a New American Century, which brought us the Iraq disaster, with the help of warmongering senators like Hillary Clinton.
As for your disparagement of Bernie Sanders as a poof, I can only say that that is NOT my reading of his character. Also, isn't it time we stop fucking around invading and intervening in other countries, and causing misery everywhere we go, and pay some goddamned attention to OUR OWN HOUSE? A few house repairs are in order, it seems to me, before we go adventuring again. And I sincerely hope that any future adventuring we do is to STOP GLOBAL WARMING, and maybe go to Mars and beyond-- cuz at the rate things are going now, we're going to need another planet.
Posted by Peace Patriot | Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:21 PM (1 replies)