Tuesday 5th of December 2023

bernie sells out...


on revolution...

Bernie Sanders is set to launch a new organization fighting for progressive change across the country, but are the former presidential candidate’s supporters disenchanted?

Sanders will unveil the second act of the "political revolution" he started when the insurgent progressive firebrand took on former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, a political fight likened to the make-believe battles of movie-slugger Rocky Balboa. "Nobody has ever gone the distance with Apollo," according to Sylvester Stallone’s character.

But while Balboa’s movie struggle led to the formation of a mega movie franchise, many are skeptical that Bernie Sanders’ next act will be received with the same fanfare, after the candidate endorsed Hillary Clinton, amid revelations from the WikiLeaks file dump of improper engagements between the Clinton campaign, DNC staffers, and the mainstream media.

The organization, to be led by Sanders’ former campaign manager Jeff Weaver, will be allowed to draw funds from the same pool of "dark money" that Bernie railed about, and disproved the necessity of, while relying almost entirely on small dollar donations, in the average amount of $27 per person.

Our Revolution has already been hit by a wave of resignations, including eight core staff members, as well as the group’s entire organizing department and people working in digital and data positions. The staffers are said to have resigned out of concern for the organization’s 501(c)(4) tax status, that allows it to draw anonymous large donations, as well as the emphasis by Weaver on television advertising rather than social media that would leave enthusiastic young Bernie supporters out of the loop.

Social media activity on Bernie Sanders’ account also shows distrust in Our Revolution, with the number of likes, retweets, and shares hardly hitting 3% of the volume he registered as a candidate. The comments the bold proposal have received are akin to a whole once-loyal segment yelling "you’re a bum, Rock."

 Our Revolution (@OurRevolution) August 24, 2016

A Twitter user by the name of Sawgrass replied, "Bernie sold out. Took Hillary’s money. A complete fraud, yet expected from socialist in for himself." Another user name "Slick Willie" said, "Your ‘Revolution’ is dead, that’s what happens when your leader sells out to the opposition. #Irrelevance." Lodi Bale wrote, "it would have been a revolution had you stood up to the corrupt DNC. They cheated you #DNCLeaks.” These are the first three responsive comments on Twitter to Bernie’s post on the announcement.

On Wednesday, Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker sat down with attorney and former Sanders delegate, Julie Hurwitz, and digital organizer with African Americans for Bernie, Anoa Changa, to talk about the possibilities and limitations of the organization.

"The Bernie Sanders campaign presented, for the first time in my memory, a possibility of actually creating a viable mass movement that over the long run, even though I would agree the mood is such that between now and 2020 there is not a lot that we can accomplish, between all of the things that we all believe in, through Bernie’s campaign," said Hurwitz. "I do believe that [Our Revolution] sets the stage for the possibility of a very viable, long run grassroots movement throughout the country."

Anoa Changa agreed that, while many Bernie Sanders supporters have become demoralized over the events of the past few months and their preferred candidate’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton, many remain engaged.

"You had millions of people who turned out and voted and several thousand who actively campaigned and mobilized for Bernie, but not just Bernie but also for down-ballot Berniecrats," said Changa. "Berniecrats are Sanders-style Democrats who are running for office all over the country. So there are people who are active and engaged despite what happened in Philadelphia. We have Tim Canova’s race next week so there are tons of people and it is a mixed emotion."

"There are many people who we talked about who were despondent after what happened at the DNC national convention, but the announcement of 'Our Revolution' led some people to say, alright, you are still with us Bernie," said Changa. "There are several organizations that have already started building on next steps and grassroots outreach. I think it is over 2,300 house parties planned for tonight so you have people really ready to hear the message."


Robin Olsen · School of Hard Knocks
this is a distraction movement to keep half the Demcratic supporters in the USA from boycotting the Democratic party all together and to get them to vote for Hillary. Saunders proved he was nothing but controlled opposition... I was glad to hear of some of the early tweets...seems some Americans at least are catching on..


Gus thinks this is a way to stop Bernie voters moving to Jill Stein...



learning to spot threats at the army training camp...



"Who is the threat?" It’s a question that militaries around the world routinely ask themselves, and a question presented at the top of a Powerpoint slide used by the US Army for some 18 months at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

One enemy, according to the slide, is "insiders," individuals lurking within the ranks of our own government that threaten to destabilize the system. Some expected examples are included, including Chelsea Manning, the former private who disclosed classified documents proving that the US military was complicit in a wide range of illegal activities, as well as former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed the extent of the US government’s international and domestic spying apparatus.





I believe the US army will be chuffed when La Female Clinton declares war on something with a red star on it... No need to know why...

the war hawks to her tent... you've been warned...


For the first time in US history, the corporate monopolies that dictate politics in Washington have huddled under one party umbrella. That umbrella is the Democratic Party. This has struck far less fear into the corporate media than the specter of a Trump Presidency. The White Nationalist billionaire has been deemed a pariah by US ruling class. To defeat him, the ruling class has instituted one-party rule through the abandonment of the Trump-occupied GOP.

Every four years, American liberals warn the general public of the dangers of a Republican Party Presidency. The Democratic Party leverages the imagery of a white supremacist apocalypse to forward its own candidates. As the liberal wing of the dominant class, Democratic Party candidates are marketed as "intelligent," "experienced," and "diplomatic." Presidential elections are thus nothing more than a glorified job interview with the ruling class where the Trumps and Clintons of the world battle and jockey for the necessary campaign cash to win the prestigious position of Commander in Chief of the US imperial system. 

Hillary Clinton has advertised herself as the perfect shelter from the Trump storm for the ruling class and anyone else fearful of his rise. Clinton has actively recruited refugee Republicans to her ranks. The campaign has called the recruitment drive "Together for America." Clinton is working hard to consolidate the entire ruling class under her campaign's umbrella. However, the consolidation of the ruling class under the Democratic Party did not begin with Hillary Clinton. It has been a decades-long process from which Clinton has emerged as its highest expression.

The last forty years have seen a gradual coalescence of the ruling class behind the Democratic Party. It has been determined by the profiteers and war makers that the Democratic Party is best suited to serve their interests under crisis conditions. After all, it was Democratic Party President Bill Clinton who deregulated the financial sector, monopolized the corporate media, and deindustrialized the economy for more profitable pastures through NAFTA. The next Democratic Party President, Barack Obama, followed Clinton's footsteps by instituting the largest wealth transfer in US history to the 1 percent

So it should come as no surprise that war-hawks and billionaires have flocked to Hillary Clinton's tent. Clinton has received endorsements from notable billionaires such as Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban, and Michael Bloomberg. She has also been given both blessings and donations fromSilicon Valley and Wall Street Hedge funds. Neo-con war enthusiast Robert Kagan also endorsed Hillary Clinton alongside prominent war-makers at a fundraiser led by "foreign policy professionals for Hillary Clinton." At the fundraiser, Clinton's policy of regime change in Libya and her commitment to deterring "Russian Aggression" were cited as the primary reasons why she has won over the war hawks to her tent.



When P J O'Rourke is prepared to support La Female Clinton, you know there is something wrong in the sewage pump. It is clogged up somewhere in the sarcastic bend of his right-wing shit...

Clinton is more to the right than GOP — despite letting "her" people "believe" in her "bona fide social promises", which of course NONE of the billionaires supporting her believe in —  nor do they believe she will achieve anything of her social rhetoric.

The support from the billionaires has all to do WITH WHIFFS OF WAR, IN WHICH HUGE PROFITS CAN BE MADE at the expense of other nations and to the detriment of American people. 

Mothers, La Clinton will send your sons to be killed in useless battlefields under the hypocritically tarnished banner of stars and tripes...


smoke signals...

Prediction: If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family tradition.

For consider what the Associated Press reported this week:

The surest way for a person with private interests to get a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, or a phone call returned by her, it seems, was to dump a bundle of cash into the Clinton Foundation.

Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million.

Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in $1 million or more.

To get to the seventh floor of the Clinton State Department for a hearing for one’s plea, the cover charge was high.

Among those who got face time with Hillary Clinton were a Ukrainian oligarch and steel magnate who shipped oil pipe to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions and a Bangladeshi economist who was under investigation by his government and was eventually pressured to leave his own bank.

The stench is familiar, and all too Clintonian in character.

Recall. On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library.

The Clintons appear belatedly to have recognized their political peril.

Bill has promised that, if Hillary is elected, he will end his big-dog days at the foundation and stop taking checks from foreign regimes and entities, and corporate donors. Cash contributions from wealthy Americans will still be gratefully accepted.

One wonders: will Bill be writing thank-you notes for the millions that will roll in to the family foundation—on White House stationery?

By his actions, Bill is all but conceding that there is a serious conflict of interest between his foundation raking in millions that enhance the family’s prestige and sustain its travel and lifestyle, and providing its big donors with privileged access to the secretary of state.

Yet if Hillary Clinton becomes president, the scheme is unsustainable. Even the Obama-Clinton media might not be able to stomach this.



In any other context and in this one, especially, this is bribery.

revolution fizzle...

Bernie Sanders and his supporters have launched a new political organization called Our Revolution. It seeks to support the next generation of progressive leaders, empower millions to fight for progressive change and elevate the nation’s overall political consciousness. More than 2,600 watch parties were held across the country last night to witness Sanders launch the new organization. But reports have emerged of political tumult within Bernie Sanders’s own team. Over the weekend, eight key staffers abruptly resigned in a dispute over the group’s leadership and legal structure. For more, we speak with Larry Cohen, incoming board chair of Our Revolution, and with Claire Sandberg, former digital organizing director for Bernie Sanders’s campaign, who resigned as the organizing director for Our Revolution.


susan sarandon did not vote with her vagina...

“I have had a huge amount of backlash,” she says. “There’s been a really strong blame for a lot of things that are obviously not my fault.”

A cursory scan of Twitter shows a stream of bile all the way from the Will & Grace star Debra Messing to the author Kurt Eichenwald. Sarandon remains defiant, unapologetic and frustrated with Democrats who suggest that she’s let the party down.

“There’s no valid argument,” she says. “It’s just an easy place to put your frustrations, to blame me. I mean, if you read the list of people who voted Hillary Clinton – and then I think it’s me and Viggo Mortensen on the other side. You’d have to be delusional to actually think that Beyoncé and Jay Z and George Clooney and Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep, and the list goes on, were actually overpowered by the two of us.”

But she’s unperturbed, still hyper-aware of the daily failings of Trump’s government. And despite resistance, she’s continuing to show up at Democratic events, such as a recent anti-Trump rally in New York. “I’m focusing on reaching out and forming a coalition not only with all of Hillary’s people but with people I know that voted for Trump, because we have serious work to do now, and we can’t indulge in blaming or depression or any of those things,” she says. “There isn’t time any more to look back. We have to look forward.”

read more:


he got too much money for his campaign...

A complaint against Bernie Sanders filed by a Hillary Clinton’s super PAC was dismissed by a Federal Elections Committee, which ruled that the misdemeanor of accepting an “excessive” $7,462 of contributions during his bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination was insignificant.

The complaint by Brad Woodhouse, founder of the American Democracy Legal Fund and president of the pro-Clinton super political action committee (PAC) – Correct the Record – was filed on April 8 2016, but only became public on Friday.

Federal Election Commission dismiss HRC super PAC allegations against Sanders, full letter:https://t.co/284Zb1f7M3

— Colm McGlinchey (@ColmMcGlinchey) May 27, 2017


The commission made their decision on April 20 2017, telling Woodhouse that they “voted to dismiss the allegation.”

Woodhouse had alleged that Sanders and his campaign treasurer Susan Jackson had received excessive contributions to their campaign. Title 52 of federal campaign finance rules no individual can contribute over $2,700.

The committee found that Sanders campaign indeed received and had not timely refunded excessive sums totalling $7,462.

read more:


she was the reason why people were angry...

People wanted Hillary Clinton to be angrier on the campaign trail — about the problems facing everyday Americans, and on behalf of them — and her team knew it.

The problem was they couldn’t do anything about it, according to Clinton speechwriter Dan Schwerin, who spoke to New York Magazine’s Rebecca Traister for an exposé on Clinton’s life after the election. Why were their hands tied? Because she’s a woman, Schwerin said.

“Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both excelled at channeling people’s anger,” he told Traister:

“And there was a way in which this anger was read as authentic. But there’s a reason why male candidates can shout and are called passionate, and if a woman candidate raises her voice to whip up a crowd, she’s screeching and yelling.”

Clinton understood this, says Schwerin. “So she’s controlled. She doesn’t rant and rave, she’s careful. And then that’s read as inauthentic; it means that she doesn’t understand how upset people are, or the pain people are in, because she’s not angry in the way those guys are angry. So she must be okay with the status quo because she’s not angry.”

Clinton still believes in her strategy not to get angry, despite the public outcry for her to act differently. In fact, she tells Traister that she “beat both” Sanders and Trump (likely referring to the popular vote) with this tactic:

There are plenty of people who yearned for Clinton to get mad; during the campaign, an imagined litany of Clinton’s fury entitled “Let Me Remind You Fuckers Who I Am” went viral. “Oh, I am [pissed],” [Clinton] says. But as a woman in public life, “you can’t be angry for yourself. You just can’t. You can be indignant, you can be annoyed, you can be frustrated, but you can’t be angry … I don’t think anger’s a strategy.”

read more:



The problem was WHY WERE SO MANY PEOPLE ANGRY and ready to vote for El Trupo? 

Hillary and the previous administration was the reason so many people were pissed off....