Bernie Sanders Claims He’s Losing Some States BECAUSE POOR PEOPLE DON’T VOTE (VIDEO)

Bernie Sanders poor people

Bernie Sanders really stepped in it on Meet the Press yesterday. When asked by host Chuck Todd why he’s lost in some states to Hillary, he said “Because poor people don’t vote.”

That’s not only inaccurate, it’s offensive.

Mediaite reported:

Bernie Sanders: I’m Losing States ‘Because Poor People Don’t Vote’

On Meet the Press this morning, Bernie Sanders said that he’s losing states to Hillary Clinton in part “because poor people don’t vote.”

Chuck Todd brought up how many states with high levels of income inequality have gone for Clinton so far. Sanders said poor people aren’t voting, lamenting it as a “sad reality of American society.”

Watch the video:

This gaffe isn’t likely to hurt Bernie Sanders.

After all, he’s not a Republican.


Bill Clinton Blames Voter Anger ON MILLENNIALS

Bill Clinton PT

Hillary Clinton is already struggling to gain the support of younger voters who back Sanders by a wide margin and this won’t help one bit. It’s almost like Bill doesn’t want her to win.

Fortune reports:

Bill Clinton Blames Millennials For Voters’ Anger

Bill Clinton seems to think he knows why voters are so angry.

While campaigning for Hillary Clinton, the former president speculated as to why voters are so angry during this election cycle. “The reason that there’s so much anxiety, intensity, anger, blame in this election is that 80% of the American people have not gotten a pay raise since the crash eight years ago, after inflation,” Clinton told the crowd.

He praised President Obama for bringing back jobs during his two terms, the Huffington Post reports, saying “we got our jobs back in seven and a half years,” but he blamed millennials for income not being where it should be.

“If all the young people who claim to be disillusioned now had voted in 2010,” Clinton said, “we wouldn’t have lost the Congress, and we’d probably have our incomes back.”

He thinks that if millennials had voted during midterm elections six years ago, Americans would be in a much better place financially than they are now.

Laying blame on people is an extraordinarily bad way to rally them to your cause.

Word of Bill’s remarks is going to get around.


STUDY: Obama’s Plan To Fight Global Warming HITS POOR PEOPLE THE HARDEST

Obama Trump

A new study has found that Obama’s plan to deal with global warming or climate change as it’s now called, will cause the greatest financial burden for America’s poorest people.

The Daily Caller reports:

Obama’s Global Warming Plan Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raises Taxes By 166%

President Obama’s global warming plan would cost America’s poorest families billions annually, according to a report published Thursday by the Manhattan Institute.

The study estimates that Obama’s global warming plan would increase the costs of living for the poorest American families an additional $19 billion per year, equivalent to increasing their taxes by 166 percent. The tax increase would also raise taxes on other poor families by an extra $25 billion, equal to a 33 percent tax increase. Living costs for the richest households would only increase by 4 percent.

Obama wants to implement the Enviromental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which would effectively tax four-fifths of American carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and be similar in scope to an economy-wide carbon tax. In addition, Obama has proposed a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax.

Neither plan would have a large impact on global warming. Data modeling created by the EPA and run by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that the Clean Power Plan would only have adverted 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small it couldn’t be detected.

Liberal policies rarely affect people like Leonardo DiCaprio and other wealthy environmental activists.

The people who pay the most dearly are America’s hardest working people.

Keep that in mind the next time Obama, Hillary, Bernie or any other progressive says they care about the poor or the middle class.

Guilty Whites Read From Their Self Loathing Books

vlcsnap-2016-04-22-01h49m32s252A book excerpt reading took place at Portland Community College as part of their “whiteness history month”. Entitled “NW Writers Explore Whiteness, Its Causes and Impacts”, the event featured five authors who suffer from their white guilt, and decided to contribute to a book from 2Leaf Press. They went round-robin style, with each person reading about 30 seconds worth during each turn. “What Does It Mean To Be White In America is an anthology of more than 80 personal narratives that break the white code of silence. The authors come from a broad range of backgrounds and demographics, but share one thing in common; They are all white and willing to write about what being white has meant to them” says the announcer, as the event began.

One of the authors, Tereza Topferova Bottman, was originally from the Czech Republic, and had some startling things to say: “At first glance, ‘whiteness’ as status is all benefits, advantages, and shiny packages of sparkly goodies. But the truth is white people don’t make it through unscathed. Clearly, maintaining this hegemonic system comes at a cost to us whites. Recent studies show that white, middle aged men, unlike other groups, have a mortality rate that is rising at a rapid race. They’re dying from stress related causes. White Americans are also the biggest terror threat. We have been led to feel disconnected from the humanity of others as well as from our own. We fear being cast out from the only club to which we tentatively belong. This is the deadly set up we are up against, and it is high time for us to attempt to break free from these narratives and redefine our place as white people in the society and in the world.”

Patrik McDade was another presenter, and you can just feel the self loathing and guilt coming from his voice and mannerisms as he reads from his portions of the book.

Topferova Bottman continued by calling on people to renounce whiteness and capitalism: “I’m scared that the violence lurking beneath the mask of white supremacy will buckle out, targeting me as a woman, as someone with Jewish heritage, someone with a black partner and mixed race kids. This fear is real and visceral. But I organize despite it. Two years ago, with several others, I helped to form a group to EDUCATE, ORGANIZE, AND MOBILE white people to work for ‘racial justice’ as part of a multi racial majority for justice, we raise funds for grass roots organizations led by people of color. We volunteer our time and skills, we bring food, we show up to unplanned rallies, we phone bank and door knock to discuss issues pertinent to our community and to the Black Lives Matter movement. We educate ourselves, as well as other white people in our circles, we practice interrupting racism. This is hard work for me. THIS IS MY ANTIDOTE, TO VIOLENCE, APATHY, AND DESPAIR. I try to embody what I’ve longed for other white people to do. Which is to answer the call to acknowledge and renounce ‘whiteness’ for its historical and current inseparability form racial violence and oppression. I want to white people to oragnize, en masse, divest ourselves from the narrow definition of success in a capitalistic society that forces us to subscribe to the deadly values of white supremacy. What I ask of us is nothing short of building a new world, rooted in collective action, shaped by a narrative that strives to re-envision, co-create, collaborate, liberate across the great divisions of race, class, gender, and all the rest. THIS IS YOUR STORY AND MY STORY INTERTWINED.”

After the book excerpt reading, they took questions from the audience. Check out one such “question” from this overfed social justice wackjob, who just rambles on incoherently for three minutes, to the point where not the event the presenters could understand what she (or he?) was trying to ask. It sounds like unintelligible marxist word soup for 3+ minutes.

Topferova Bottman would also say that “whiteness” is a poison: “Gradually, I came to find that I could credit much of my reality in this society to white supremacist culture. The ideology of “whiteness” as status utterly envelops us Europeans, and its poisonous embrace. We cannot escape its cocoon. Rather, we carry whiteness with us like a charm that protects us from harm, shields from impact as we dive from the known to the unknown, parachuting from one spot on the globe to another as immigrants, tourists, or do-gooders abroad. The poison of white supremacy we ingest with our mother’s milk lingers.”

As if her words from this weren’t startling enough, turns out Tereza Topferova Bottman is a public school teacher, teaching “English Language Development” at Rigler School, which is a K-5 dual immersion school in northeast Portland.

One of the other authors, Ann Mavor, is apparently guilty about the wealth she has, but admits that she does little to help others: “My life is filled with decisions I make to maintain a privileged life, based on the oppression of others, past and present… I live off of money I inherited from my grand parents and parents. I don’t have many friends who are not white. I let fear stop me from reaching out to people of color. I buy clothes made by people who are paid poorly and work in unsafe conditions. I live in a nice apartment and eat healthy food, and look away from people who are homeless or poor. Mostly these are ways I stay passive and unconscious because to feel the full truth about racism and the harmful effects of capitalism would be unbearable.”

Portland Community College president Sylvia Kelley can be reached at 971 722 4365.

Anti-Hillary Site Launched By Progressive Activist

Anti-Hillary Site

Democrats who think Bernie Sanders supporters are going to line up behind Hillary if she’s the nominee might be surprised to learn about a new website called Won’t Vote Hillary.

It was created by a progressive activist named Spencer Thayer.

Here’s the language on the home page:

Under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary Clinton.

The DNC and Clinton machine are using the same dirty tricks they used in 2008. Sign this pledge and send a message to the establishment that Democracy is not a plaything for the elite.

Why Democrats Shouldn’t Vote For Clinton

Hillary Clinton may be the DNC darling, but she should not be crowned the presidential nominee without popular consent. We the people cannot allow Clinton to win if we want to see a progressive White House. Clinton”s policies are center-right, she carries too much baggage and she has too many enemies to win the general election. Below is a list of reasons why Clinton is unelectable.

See the site here.

That doesn’t look like a unified party, does it?

(Featured image is a screen cap.)

Socialist Politician From Seattle Urges Bernie To RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT

Kshama Sawant and Bernie

Kshama Sawant is an openly socialist member of Seattle’s city council. She wants Bernie Sanders to run as an independent if he doesn’t get the Democratic nomination.

What a great idea!

The Socialist Alternative blog reports:

Kshama Sawant: Why I’m Petitioning Bernie to Run Independent

I’m launching a petition calling on Bernie to run independent and launch a new party. Here’s why.

Despite all the obstacles of thrown in the path of Bernie Sanders by the corrupted American electoral system, his campaign has made an enormous impact. Sanders has become a lightening rod for the enormous discontent at the billionaire class and its domination over the political system. His campaign has shown the widespread support for breaking up Wall Street, free higher education, a $15/hr minimum wage, single payer healthcare, major public investment in renewable energy, and reforming a broken criminal justice system.

Bernie has conclusively demonstrated that it is possible to raise the resources needed to run a strong political campaign without begging billionaires for donations. By running on an unapologetically anti-corporate, pro-worker platform Bernie has inspired millions of working people to donate to a campaign that actually represents them.

In March alone Bernie raised a $44 million, his largest monthly haul yet, beating Clinton for a third straight month – all without accepting corporate donations. He has received 6.5 million individual contributions from 2 million donors, averaging just $27 apiece.

Do it, Bernie.

Run third party.



Google and White House

This is important because Google has a major impact on how people search for information on the internet and which information they find while searching.

The coziness of this relationship deserves greater scrutiny.

The Hill reports:

Report finds hundreds of meetings between White House and Google

Google and its affiliates have had at least 427 meetings at the White House during President Obama’s tenure, according data from the Campaign for Accountability and The Intercept.

The data, gleaned from White House meeting logs, showed that in all, 169 Google employees have met in the White House with 182 government officials. Not surprisingly, Google’s head of public policy, Johanna Shelton, had the most White House meetings of any Google employee, with 128.

The report highlights the access enjoyed by Google, which has a expansive lobbying operation in Washington and consistently ranks among the highest spenders. In just the first quarter of this year, Google spent $3.8 million to lobby the government.

The meetings data spans from the first month of Obama’s presidency in 2009 to October 2015. Aside from Google staff and lobbyists, the data also takes into account White House meetings with companies Tomorrow Ventures and Civis Analytics.

Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t be evil.”

Let’s hope they weren’t.


Liberal Writer: What Happens If Hillary Is Indicted AFTER GETTING THE NOMINATION?

Hillary Clueless on Guns

It’s probably wise for Democrats to consider this possibility. It’s not likely but it could happen and if it does the election will certainly be affected.

Nathan Francis writes at Inquisitr:

Hillary Clinton FBI Investigation: In Potential Nightmare Scenario For Democrats, FBI Indictment Could Come After Clinton Given The Nomination

Hillary Clinton is on a path to win the Democratic nomination, but the looming FBI investigation and the possibility of an indictment against the former Secretary of State is casting a pall over the race that could end up sending the Democratic Party scrambling later this summer.

Clinton is under FBI investigation for her alleged use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State to share classified information. Though a growing number of legal experts believe that the investigation will end with an indictment for Clinton, it’s the timing that may be the biggest concern for the Democratic Party.

FBI Director James Comey said this week that the bureau is in no rush to finish the investigation before this summer’s Democratic National Convention.

“Somebody asked me if the Democratic National Convention is a hard stop or a key date for you? Are you doing this aimed at that? And I said, no,” he said via NBC News. “We aspire to do all our investigations in two ways — well and promptly, especially investigations that are of great interest to the public. We want to do them promptly.”

Comey added that there is growing pressure for the FBI to ensure that it is indeed completed “well and promptly,” but between the two he would make sure it’s done well.

This has the potential to make an already interesting election even crazier.

We’ll see what happens.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Hillary Was Paid For Speeches By Government Contractors

Hillary on Bernie plans

An explosive new report from the Associated Press confirms what many people have suspected all along. Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches represent a direct conflict of interest with the office she seeks.

From the AP report:

Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov’t interests

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP’s review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton’s speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities. Clinton’s 94 paid appearances over two years on the speech circuit leave her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or influence that may affect the interests of her speech sponsors.

This is surely one of the reasons she won’t release the transcripts of her speeches.

Hillary Clinton is everything the left falsely accuses Republicans of being.

Liberal WaPo Writer Suggests Bernie Sanders Is GETTING READY TO BOW OUT

Bernie Sanders

This might just be wishful thinking on the part of Greg Sargent. He’s the type of pundit who would go to the ends of the Earth to keep a Republican from being elected.

His report should annoy lots of Bernie supporters:

The end is coming: A top Sanders adviser hints at a quiet finish

There’s a whole lot of hand-wringing among Democrats right now over Bernie Sanders’s vow to keep on trying to flip super-delegates even if he continues to trail badly in the popular vote and pledged delegate count — a quest that, he says, could spill on to the convention floor in Philadelphia in July. Both Sanders himself and his campaign manager Jeff Weaver have rattled this saber.

But now senior Sanders adviser Tad Devine has telegraphed a much more likely endgame — one that would be a whole lot quieter and less contentious. In an interview with Rachel Maddow, Devine was asked whether this strategy is in sync with Sanders’s high-minded campaign, and he answered, in part:

“The key test is succeeding with voters. In 2008 I wrote a piece that they published in the New York Times right after Super Tuesday, and I argued that super-delegates should wait, should look and listen to what the voters do, and follow the will of the voters. And I can tell you, I got a lot of push-back from the Clinton campaign at the time, when I published that piece.

“But I believe that today — that our super-delegates, that our party leaders, should let the voters speak first. And I think if they do, all the way through the end of the voting, that will strengthen our party, and certainly strengthen our hand — if we succeed with voters between now and June.”

Note that “if.” In one sense, Devine is basically calling on Democrats to be patient and allow the voting to continue until the end. (I’ve argued that there are many good reasons for Sanders to keep going until all the votes have been counted.) But Devine is also clearly indicating that the super-delegates should not contradict the will of the voters, once they’ve all had a chance to speak.

Even if what Sargent is saying is accurate, getting Bernie supporters to rally around Hillary is going to be much more difficult than he (or she) thinks.