This coming Presidential election 2016 will see Clinton neo-liberals out in force to maintain control of policy moving forward with Trans Pacific Trade Pact and ending US sovereignty and re-writing the US Constitution.
We are listening to Hillary on the national media telling us she thought she could use a private email/phone account for the entire time she was in office. She said she expects to audit these personal communications for several years extracting calls she deems personal and sending those that she deems part of her job as Secretary of State on to Federal storage for public view when declassified. So, we are to believe an intelligent person did not know that would be illegal as all communications by public officials are to be archived as a whole. This is true at the state and local level as well. What Hillary is doing is making her own rules---she no longer sees the US Constitution as relevant to her ----she works for the global tribunal. Republicans are playing this for all its worth but Bush did the same thing. This is the same issue of policy discussions behind closed doors in Baltimore and Maryland. Public private partnerships have now 'required' confidential discussions by public officials behind closed doors. The public finds out after all is finished and installed.
ANY POLITICIAN THAT WORKS LIKE THIS IS A CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERAL----GET RID OF THEM. ONLY 20% OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTS NEO-LIBERALS SO IT WILL BE EASY PEASY IF PEOPLE ENGAGE IN POLITICS.
It doesn't matter if the Republicans are shouting because all real Democrats should be too.
ELECTION 2016 Hillary-gate?
Email server traced to Clinton home 'Impressive control over limiting access to her message archives' Published: 03/04/2015 at 8:10 AM
The news for Hillary Clinton keeps growing worse, as the latest in her email scandal indicates that the mail server she used for all her government correspondences was located in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home – and registered under the name of a man who doesn’t even exist.
The Associated Press first reported the development, writing “the highly unusual practice of a cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton … impressive control over limiting access to her message archives.’
“It would also distinguish Clinton’s secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.”
Home-based and operated email servers are less reliable and secure from hack attacks than those in commercially run data centers, AP reported.
Congress, meanwhile, is appointing a committee to see if the former secretary of state did indeed violate federal law by using her personal email account for all her government business.
That congressional announcement comes as another committee already investigating Clinton for her response in Benghazi – when four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed in a terror attack – accused the former secretary of state of using more than one personal email account during her four-year tenure, the New York Post reported.
House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said his panel is joining with this Benghazi panel to check if Clinton broke disclosure rules.
“Violations of the Federal Records Act within federal agencies is something we take very seriously,” Chaffetz said, Breitbart reported. “The House Oversight Committee will work with Mr. [Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee on Benghazi to further explore Hillary Clinton’s use of personal emails while at the State Department.”
It’s not clear how the double investigations will impact Clinton’s resumed run for the presidency. But possible Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, has already weighed in on the email matter.
“Transparency matters,” he tweeted. “Unclassified @HillaryClinton emails should be released. You can see mine, here.”
John Kerry is on national news decrying a Republican attack on his wanting to keep all negotiations with world nations over Iran with NATO----making agreements that Kerry doesn't feel Congress needs to approve. This is yet another example of US public policy being written between these global national leaders that never come to the US or Congress for approval.
Kerry calls this Republican attack on the Executive Office's ability to make deals all their own UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Meanwhile----Kerry is #1 in writing and pushing Trans Pacific Trade Pact an agreement less about trade and more about restructuring nations' governments to have them reporting to global tribunals and global courts and not the US Congress/courts and American people. HE MUST THINK THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
TPP IS ILLEGAL AND A COUP AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE US CONSTITUTION. IT IS TREASONOUS TO PLAN WHAT JOHN KERRY IS LEADING.
Kerry is married to Heintz Catsup heirhess and you know what Heintz is known for around the world? SLAVERY. So, why is John Kerry running as a Democrat? He is a Clinton Wall Street neo-liberal capturing the Democratic Party----get rid of these farm teams.
Headlines October 08, 2013
Kerry Touts Secretive TPP Trade Deal at APEC Summit
U.S. officials are pushing for an agreement by the end of the year on the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal described by critics as "NAFTA on steroids" that would establish a free trade zone stretching from Vietnam to Chile to Japan and encompassing nearly 40 percent of the global economy. Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized the U.S. commitment to the deal during an address to business leaders at the APEC summit in Bali, Indonesia.
John Kerry: "At its core, TPP is about generating growth for our economies and jobs for our people by unleashing a wave of investment and entrepreneurship all across the Asia Pacific. And at a time when we, all of us, seek strong and sustainable growth, TPP is creating a race to the top, not to the bottom."
Bill Clinton's most successful political moves came with his recruitment of black leaders to dismantle all of War on Poverty and New Deal and all Labor and Equal Protection laws making way for the new WORLD ORDER------Trans Pacific Trade Pact. These very leaders were often early civil rights leaders working with MLK to get all of these programs that neo-liberals needed to shed to be rid of public subsidy----TPP doesn't allow public subsidy for the most part....just enough to keep the poor from rioting like any third world nation.
So Clinton sets up in Harlem, plays the Sax, and makes black leaders rich if they push his neo-liberal agenda. Sure enough, two decades later, we have raging black and Hispanic neo-liberals----New Democrats----taking the Democratic Party by storm and taking everything labor and justice worked these several decades to accumulate. So, Reagan/Clinton defunded and dismantled all that protected equal protection and labor law----all that was Medicare and Medicaid----all that was strong public education and now he has the black leaders helping him do this. These people of color are maybe 1-2% of the population literally killing the other 99% of people of color. That is the dynamic here in Baltimore except instead of Clinton neo-liberals----we have the tag team Neo-conservative Johns Hopkins doing the same.
Remember, people simply want jobs and to earn a living but global corporate pols only do pay-to-play here in the US now as they have overseas for decades.
PLEASE DO NOT THINK THIS CAPTURE IS COMPLETE----WE CAN CHANGE THIS EASY PEASY IF GOOD PEOPLE RUN FOR ALL OFFICES AND WE VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT THE FARM TEAM. KNOW THESE CANDIDATES!
As former President Bill Clinton leaves Harlem, no tears from residents
BY Michael J. Feeney DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 7:06 PM
Watts/News A saxophone serenade welcomes former President Bill Clinton to Harlem. HARLEM residents aren't crying over former President Bill Clinton's offices moving out of their neighborhood.
The William J. Clinton Foundation, which moved onto W. 125th St. nearly 10 years ago, plans to move most of its offices to Water St. in the financial district.
Clinton will keep an office in the building, but many residents don't care what his plans are - either because they never saw him or don't think his presence helped the neighborhood.
"It don't faze me; I never saw him," said lifelong Harlem resident and Clinton supporter Susan Chaplain.
"When he was here what did he do for us? Nothing," she said as she stood on Lenox Ave., not far from Clinton's offices. "He never did nothing while he was here. What difference does it make?"
Sharon Johnson, 59, also wasn't concerned with Clinton's plans.
"He don't come out here so it don't matter one way or another," she said. "He never even comes out to say 'hi.'"
James Carrington, 62, is one of many sidewalk vendors selling artwork on W. 125th St. near Clinton's building.
"It doesn't matter to me," said Carrington, who added he's spotted Clinton only once and that his presence hasn't made any impact on Carrington's business.
"It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't affect me," Carrington said of the move.
One woman, who declined to give her name, said she wasn't surprised to hear Clinton was moving.
"I knew he wasn't going to stay up here too long," she said. "I was surprised when he moved up here...It was a lot of attention when he came up here, but when was the last time he was here?"
Another resident, who refused to give his name, hoped the rent for businesses would go down now that Clinton is packing up and leaving Harlem.
"Maybe now that he's leaving, the rent will go down," he said. "Him being in the community doesn't affect us. All it did was raise the rent.
"Drugs were still being sold. People were still being killed," he said. "It won't be no tears. No, thank you. Goodbye."
Bernie Sanders is an establishment Presidential candidate and he may well be a poser as well. He is different in having decades in Congress actually walking the talk of progressive labor and justice. So, this 2016 election is about a slate of Clinton neo-liberals like Cuomo, Clinton, Biden, and O'Malley all running as progressives and loving the middle class. O'Malley and Cuomo obviously want to be a Vice Presidential pick.
We need to know that national labor union leaders are tied to the aprons to these Clinton neo-liberals so do not listen to their direction if you know that candidate is a Wall Street global corporate pol. Same for these justice organizations that were built as civil rights and justice but are now simply being paid by Wall Street to hawk their privatization policies.
I went to a 'progressive' event in Washington back in 2009 that was a Clinton neo-liberal event. Neo-liberals pretend there is no longer a progressive wing of the Democratic Party-----we call it the Democratic base of labor and justice. They say all we need to support are progressive issues. Of course----if you are a Wall Street global corporate pol you have no intention of doing anything progressive. IT IS ALL DOG AND PONY.
Bernie Sanders Could Be the 2016 Democratic Candidate We’ve All Been Waiting For The Vermont senator has given progressives leverage and a platform, a potent combination.
Tom Hayden May 13, 2014 Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)
Northampton, Massachusetts--Senator Bernie Sanders is inching closer to deciding to run for president as a Democrat in 2016.
When Sanders appeared in Northampton to celebrate the tenth anniversary of Progressive Democrats of America, and to honor the legacy of the group’s late co-founder and national director, Tim Carpenter, “Run, Bernie, Run” sentiment ran high. Carpenter’s last act was to collect 11,000 petitions urging Sanders to run as a Democrat. And nothing Sanders said discouraged the consensus.
Thus a memorial service became an organizational birth, just as Carpenter himself envisioned.
Nothing is decided until it is officially decided, of course, and pressures from the Democratic establishment are building quickly against the independent Vermont senator. Few if any Democratic elected officials are likely to endorse Sanders for fear of retribution from the formidable Hillary Clinton forces. Women’s groups, African-Americans, Latinos and Asians, Hollywood liberals and the organized labor are coalescing into a united front for Clinton too, and are sharply opposed to a potentially divisive primary fight with Sanders.
But just as 2016 will be Clinton’s moment as a longtime feminist, it could also be Sanders’ moment as the only candidate challenging what he calls the “oligarchic force” with their vast powers over the economy, campaign finance and suicidal exploitation of fossil fuels. Sanders’ warning that democracy is threatened by the oligarchs resonates profoundly with millions of Americans looking for answers and for heroes. On the economic issues, it is predictable that a majority of rank-and-file Democratic voters prefer Sanders’ message on the economic crisis to the neoliberal formulas long supported by the Clintons. Those populist issues are not the only motivators in an election, but create a pre-existing base for a credible challenger, just as the Iraq War and Democratic silence propelled Vermont Governor Howard Dean to national influence in 2004.
For the moment, Sanders is on a nationwide speaking-and-listening tour in which he delivers a long, detailed and educational stump lecture on the stranglehold of the oligarchy, adding a menu of general solutions: infrastructure spending, expansion of healthcare and education programs, repeal of the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, protecting civil liberties against a Big Brother surveillance state, and a rapid energy transition away from greenhouse gas emissions. Without detailing his foreign policy views, Sanders reminded the PDA audience of his opposition to the Patriot Act and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
The Clinton forces currently dismiss the Sanders’ challenge, relying on an early monopoly of endorsements and money to project an aura of inevitability. But her advisers have reason to worry if she has to face Sanders in twenty to thirty debates where he will have a populist advantage with the voters judging them. In the Clinton style, she may hug the center with an eye on the fall general election, which could cause a dampening of ardor among the Democratic base. Assuming she wins the nomination, a lingering “Bernie factor” in states like Ohio could tip the November balance. The Karl Rove Republicans basically depend on fissures among Democratic constituencies to eke out victories for their unpopular Republican candidates.
Sanders for his part has no interest in being seen as a spoiler who handed the election to the Republicans. He is registered as an independent (socialist) but caucuses with the Senate Democrats. If he runs as a Democrat, he will have to find a way to acknowledge Clinton as far better than any Republican candidate, while at the same time articulating a sharply different populist message. He could borrow Jackson’s ’80s strategic refrain that it “takes two wings to fly,” meaning that the Democrats are stronger if their progressive wing is strengthened against the Wall Street wing of the party. That increased progressive strength already is demonstrated in the electoral victories of Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Bill de Blasio in New York City. California’s Jerry Brown has shown that it is possible to balance a budget, raise taxes on the ultra-rich, spend more on education equity, support immigrant rights fight global warming and win big. (Brown has endorsed Clinton, but is capable of running himself if an opportunity should happen to arise).
One way for Clinton to marginalize Sanders or even push him out of the race would be to move closer to Sanders’ populist positions. Could the Clintons, who are famous (or infamous) for marginalizing the party’s left and realigning it with Big Money (NAFTA, deregulation, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers), actually swing back to the left in 2016? They may think that they don’t need to, because Clinton’s economic policies only need a bit of “refreshing,” and because a Hillary candidacy will turn into a referendum on women’s rights just as 2008 became a referendum on racism. They may be right if the Republicans cannot leash their mad-dog chauvinists. But if the nominee is Jeb Bush? The campaign then would seem to many Americans one over over dynastic succession, in which case the economic issues—and the “Bernie factor”—could become decisive.
The Clintons already are on the image-makeover path, showcasing their endorsement of de Blasio (a former Clinton lieutenant), supporting a minimum wage increase and offering a positive gloss on their time in the White House. Would that approach sell in a debate with Sanders, or would she be hammered for tokenism and flip-flopping? In the background, her support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, drone and recent hawkish positions on Libya and Syria, lurk as sharks in the water she will have to navigate. Those issues can’t be dismissed like Benghazi, and they are issues which deeply matter to Democratic voters.
Clinton emissaries of course could negotiate behind-the-scenes, starting now, with Sanders for major platform planks on the economy, climate change and campaign finance reform, even suggesting the vice-presidency to someone like Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Virginia’s Tim Kaine or even Senator Elizabeth Warren, all enticing offers to Sanders’ wing of the party. But that would require an unusual recognition by the Clintons that the Democrats really do have a progressive wing that only grows more frustrated and stronger as the economy stagnates, emissions rise, wars loom ahead and right-wing fundamentalism becomes more toxic. In turn, such a tacit agreement would require a humility from Sanders that might begin to fade as he puts on the body armor of a challenger. A progressive third force (consisting of mainstream Democrats, the progressive base, populist insurgents and even libertarians) could take root as the best governing coalition possible in America. Can Clinton and Sanders imagine instigating a force larger than themselves in 2016?
It’s a deep question. But without the growing whispers and rumors of a Sanders campaign, the question would not even be under consideration. The progressive agenda would recede as a possibility as maneuvering towards the center takes over the political stage. It is more likely that the issues will be sorted out the old-fashioned way, by the sweat and tears of one more fateful election. For now at least, Sanders has given progressives a leverage and a platform, a potent combination.