Amos's River of Justice

Author: Sheila Marler

  • Can We Talk About Patriarchy?

    It’s time to explain my general approach—again. I’ve been rethinking it due to the new developments in this conversation—for example our inclusion of Pope Francis—or maybe I should say his inclusion of us—and my support of a candidate in this presidential election. In the case of the election, I’ve wanted to avoid confusing my opinions with Senator Sanders’s platform. In the case of the Catholic Church I’ve become aware that there are many among us who don’t understand its relevance to the American conversation. But I haven’t given up on women’s rights. The unspoken question remains, can we talk about patriarchy?

    I’ll begin by explaining why I think Americans are fortunate to be invited into the Church’s conversation. I will end with a mention of Plato and his effect on both the Church and women.

    The Church Can Enrich the Conversation

    I’ve already mentioned the biography of Albert Gleizes. After much study and thought I’ve come to the conclusion that without the presence of the French Church and especially its priests, this story wouldn’t have been so rich and meaningful. Of course the same can be said of the artists and writers.

    The priests didn’t lead this conversation—they were a natural part of it because of their closeness to their communities and their interest in the art and culture of those communities. They listened, they invited the artists to teach in a church setting, and they commissioned work. Since reading about this process, the entire French conversation has had a hallowed place in my imagination. Sadly, that world is gone now. It died in World War II. Many people fear that the pre-war confidence in a restoration of order died with the old world. But fortunately, the Church didn’t get the memo. It continued the conversation.

    Vatican II

    “In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War there was a widespread desire within the Roman Catholic Church for a change in the way in which the Church was presented to the world—a desire for greater openness and ‘relevance’ to the conditions of modern life. Its most radical expression in France was the ‘worker-priest movement—the movement of priests who, acutely aware of the divorce of working-class life from the Church, became workers, as indistinguishable as possible from their fellow workers, often actively engaged in the political struggles of the class led by the Communist Party.

    “In art, the post-war period was characterized by a willingness to use well-known, sometimes controversial, artists, giving them considerable freedom, regardless of their own religious beliefs. The two names most prominently associated with this tendency were Fathers Marie-Alain Courturier and Pie Raymond Régamey, both Dominicans. They were to be behind the church at Assy, in the Haute Savoie, built between 1948 and 1950, with work by Léger, Lurçat, Matisse, Chagall, Bazaine and (especially controversial) a crucifix by Germaine Richier. They were also responsible for Matisse’s chapel—realized for the Dominicans—at Vence (1948-51), and for Le Corbusier’s church at Ronchamp (1955) and his Dominican priory at La Tourette (1960).” 1

    A Pattern for Dealing With Disagreement

    Previously I mentioned the theological disagreements that arose from Gleize’s adherence to Rene Guenon. However, it’s important to also mention that these disagreements didn’t end the interaction of Gleizes and the Church. Today, many people associate theology with the Inquisition. I’ve read their articles online.  While the the Inquisition was indefensible, some of the worst events in our history have been a result of getting the theology wrong, so I would argue that it’s a force that must be reckoned with. Whatever hope we have of building a new and better world, it will have to be built with an awareness of the relevance of theology, for better or for worse.

    Authoritarianism Always Finds a Way

    I can argue this another way. When I wrote about our Ayn Rand episode, I argued against her tendency to define her philosophical machinations as morality. I think it’s shocking that we were being fed the doctrines of Ayn Rand by financial institutions that have no concern for us.   Today there are many people slinging a new and improved world view and hoping to get followers. My point here is that none of our current ideas can be taken for granted simply on the claim of rationality or secularization. And if not for our cultural history I would have had no basis for my argument against Rand.

    The Exception of the American Catholic Church

    On a negative note, one concern I have is that the Catholic church takes on a different character depending on its setting and circumstances. I imagine the interwar period in France was a humble time for the Church, and I don’t know if the American Church shares any of the same characteristics, or if it ever did. Thanks to the U.S. bishops, our conversation with the Church has already had a some rude shocks. First we learned that the bishops believe it’s okay to risk the lives of mothers who trust Catholic hospitals to care for them. Second, there was a recent headline about a meeting between the U.S. Bishops and the Mormon Church to discuss shared concerns. Neither of these things increases my confidence in the bishops.

    America’s Use of the Occult in its Medical System

    Hermes in India convinced me that the Devil presides over the medical system. Therefore, I can’t take this news about hospital policies lightly.

    Can We Talk About Patriarchy?

    Here’s my suggestion for an approach to the discussion of patriarchy. One objection to patriarchy is its economics, which I call ‘trickle-up economics’. I would argue that greed was the original motivation for the denigration of women. As long as large amounts of unattached wealth exist in the world, as opposed to being owned by communities (and passed down through mothers), there will be an endless struggle for control of it. I’m sorry to say, Plato’s philosopher-king isn’t coming—just an endless stream of shady characters in expensive shoes. This is the aspect of patriarchy that has to end.

    But is a rejection of Plato the same thing as a rejection of the church’s theology, which depends on Greek thought? Not necessarily. Not unless economic inequality is more of a central tenet of our culture that I realize.  I think you have to look at the whole theological process rather than a single set of ideas from twenty-five hundred years ago.

  • Nevada Convention Democracy’s Swan Song

    When I brought up a previous post, [intlink id=”985″ type=”post”]The American Diamond in the Rough[/intlink], I wasn’t trying to reintroduce the subject of patriarchy. I was focused on campaign strategy. I was looking for a non-confrontational way to respond to the criticism of my objections to the diverting of Sanders’s supporters to Jill Stein. Because the problem with this approach seemed so obvious to me, the personal, confrontational nature of the criticism led me to believe that the problem was more than a simple difference in strategy.

    The critics acted as if this was a question of whether third parties have a place in American politics. (I’ll ignore for now their doubts about the voters’ ability to choose.) For me, this wasn’t a question about third parties. I was objecting to the assumption that Jill Stein is the same as Bernie Sanders, and that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Bernie. Since they are not the same as people or as politicians, this makes no sense as a strategy. Bloggers who claim to be Sanders supporters should be telling people to write in Sanders, not to write in someone else. In fact, they should be telling Jill Stein’s supporters to vote for Sanders. Considering Bernie Sanders’s success so far, it’s more likely that this would lead to his nomination and therefore to the success of the progressive agenda.

    As I write a certain blogger is scolding Senator Sanders again on YouTube for not solving the shocking behavior of the Democratic Party at the Nevada Democratic convention. Unfortunately, I believe she’s laboring under a misunderstanding of what’s really happening here. Does she really believe there’s a simple remedy available to Sanders after party officials revealed themselves to be thugs and called out law enforcement to enforce their thuggery? If so, I’m sorry to be the one to tell her this, but instead of railing against Sanders we should be mourning the end of our democracy because that’s what we’re witnessing here.

    Those who talk about how common sense will prevail and go on about how this must be the end of the evil party, are also mistaken. We’re seeing the fruits of the decades since World War II with numerous treacherous men at the helm of this country.

    On the other hand, if those who are still waiting to vote in their state primaries are too discouraged to vote as a result of what I’ve just said, that would be a mistake. The only other choice we have at this point is to hand it over now rather than in July, and I’d advise against that. Even though I have less confidence now than I’ve ever had before in the FBI’s coming to our rescue, I say let’s finish this. There will be plenty of time to talk about what we’ve learned at the end.

     

  • Long Term versus Short Term Strategy

    See also: [intlink id=”985″ type=”post”]The American Diamond in the Rough[/intlink]

  • Apologies to the Green Party

    I realize that I got off on the wrong foot on the last post. I blame the fact that I approached the subject backwards. When I saw that first Chris Hedges interview with Ralph Nader, I didn’t get the part where Hedges was supporting the Green Party. I thought he was promoting Clinton. Obviously if you support a third party candidate, you’re going to support him or her in a presidential election. And I agree with Hedges that something has to be done about the Democratic Party.

    It would be nice if the Green Party people could be more clear about their agenda. It’s true that those on YouTube were trying to be supportive of Sanders for the most part but I guess I haven’t been watching them long enough to notice the Green Party affiliation. I regret getting this wrong, and hope to hear more about the Green party agenda.

  • 2016 and the Curious Case of the Third Party Left

    I’ve been enjoying the political commentary on YouTube since I discovered it a few weeks ago, but I’m sorry to have to report a disturbing pattern. Previously I questioned the wisdom of Sanders supporters pushing voters to a third party candidate.  I was talking about a YouTube blogger that I haven’t mentioned on this blog, but I wasn’t aware that he had so much company. Normally I wouldn’t consider this a problem—everyone is entitle to an opinion.  However I think it’s a curious strategy for Bernie Sanders supporters.

    Since then I’ve realized that this has been going on since the beginning of this campaign. I first saw it in the person of Chris Hedges, senior fellow at The Nation Institute, but I didn’t know how to fit it together.  Hedges often interviews Ralph Nader, and they both spend time shaking their heads over Bernie Sanders’ campaign. At first I thought he must favor Clinton. Now I know there’s another rationale, although it will probably end up helping Clinton anyway.

    Hedges thinks that working within the Democratic Party is validating a corrupt party. He prefers third party candidates–the Green Party in particular. However in practice this means running campaigns that have no hope of success and believing that this will eventually topple the establishment. Never mind that the Green Party has been around for decades and still hasn’t managed to do what Sanders has done in one year.

    While Hedges has a right to his opinion, I think pushing this agenda in the middle of a presidential election is either reckless or calculated. I would opt for calculated since Hedges can’t possibly be unaware of its effect on an election.  He’s seen it in action.

    Ralph Nader participated in three presidential campaigns, two of them as a Green party nominee. His most recent effort was the 2000 presidential election, in which he won 2.74% of the popular vote. Some people claim he acted as a spoiler in that election, inadvertently helping to elect George W. Bush. (The Nader-ites deny this.) And there are hints that Nader holds a grudge against Bernie Sanders because Sanders tried to keep him from running.

    The Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund supports the Nation Magazine, among other publications and programs. Chris Hedges and The Nation Magazine are ardent supporters of Occupy Wall Street.  Occupy Wall Street has been taking credit for Bernie Sanders’ campaign but the connection doesn’t really fit.  Not only is the chronology wrong, Occupy gravitates toward the civil disobedience route like Chris Hedges, as opposed to the electoral route.

    These people tend to blame the electorate for the mess this country is in, which in my opinion is a very serious charge that shouldn’t be ignored. The majority of Americans are trying to elect Bernie Sanders, the only candidate who promotes social and economic justice, so on that basis alone their accusation is hard to defend. But the most confusing part is how they seem to go back and forth between a strict party ideology and a tear-down-the-party ideology.  Or rather, they want to replace one party with another party on the one hand, and ignore the electoral process in favor of civil disobedience on the other hand.

    This has never been about the Party for me. It’s been about taking advantage of the opportunity that Bernie Sanders represents. In my view he’s the right guy in the right place at the right time to address the threats we face. However Hedges and associates put party structure and political theory first.  They want a candidate who fits their ideology–not a real person like Sanders, who has been holding on to his principles while working within the system as he found it. They’re all theory.

    Think about it this way. If Clinton’s and Sanders’ policies were exactly the same except that Sanders chose to run his campaign without corporate financing, I’d consider him the superior candidate on that basis alone. Campaign finance is a key issue and affects everything else.  Sanders was the only candidate willing to run without corporate help.

    Or…if Clinton’s and Sanders’ policies were exactly the same except for the fact that Clinton chose to hide her actions as Secretary of State from the American people, I would vote for Bernie Sanders on that basis alone. That kind of secrecy while serving in such an important office is a red flag for democrats everywhere.

    Ideological purity during an election takes on a different meaning than it would have had in the absence of an election.  And it raises serious questions about motive. Nothing Hedges says can qualify as neutral in this election because there’s an elephant in the room–the candidates who stand to benefit from his criticism of Bernie Sanders.

  • My List of Pet Peeves and Strange Behaviors in the 2016 Election

    1.  People who criticize Bernie Sanders because he’s not radical enough.
    2.   People who give Occupy Wall Street credit for creating Bernie Sanders. These are often the same people who think Sanders is not radical enough.
    3. People who play the role of America’s honorary lefty, usually at the behest of the people mentioned above. Their job is to come out on cue and criticize any candidates who threaten the establishment.
    4. People who tell Sanders’ voters that in the event Sanders is not the nominee, they should write in Sanders’ or Jill Stein. This is not a strategy unless your goal is to take votes away from Sanders. By the way, how did Jill Stein manage to attach herself to Sanders’ campaign? Talk about a free-rider!
    5. People who claim to be on our side, and then react to strategy suggestions like they’re personal attacks.
    6. People whose personal pride is more important to them than the conversation.
    7. People who openly call the electorate ‘ignorant’, which is not even close to the spirit of this conversation as I understand it.
    8. People who publicly blame our candidate for widespread election fraud, potentially causing doubt among his supporters, which makes no sense considering the process for addressing election fraud is defined by statute in each state, meaning that avenues for recourse are constrained by these statutes. The case of New York should illustrate how blaming a candidate is nonsense. All we really need to know here is that a candidate can’t initiate a re-canvas in New York, except in village elections. However, I’ll also mention the two law suits and the audit that have been initiated in new York, and which are going forward as they should, without Sanders’ input.

    Have a safe and uncluttered primary day everyone.

  • The Primary Race After New York

    In the last debate Bernie Sanders was asked to list instances when Hillary Clinton’s vote was influenced by donations from billionaires and corporations. Some of his supporters wondered why he didn’t cite the specific examples we’ve been reading about in the news. Instead he talked about the general effects of corruption. He probably knew that reports like that of Elizabeth Warren, that Hillary changed her vote on the bankruptcy bill after receiving a contributions from the consumer credit products industry, do not actually prove corruption. ((John Light, Elizabeth Warren Recalls a Time When Big Donors May Have Changed Hillary’s Vote, Moyers and Company, Feb. 4, 2016. Available: http://billmoyers.com/story/elizabeth-warren-recalls-a-time-when-big-donors-may-have-changed-hillarys-vote/)) It was Antonin Scalia who legitimized these practices with the preposterous claim that money doesn’t necessarily have a corrupting influence.  So now, if there’s no formal exchange of a vote in return for a donation, the politician has deniability.  I think Sanders is right when he continues to talk about how money corrupts the system. It’s really the best response because it goes to the heart of Antonin Scalia’s ridiculous argument.

    A related issue is the rampant election fraud we’ve seen in this primary election. Election fraud is related to campaign finance in two ways. First, it’s a result of Supreme Court meddling. It’s important that Sanders has publicly condemned the fraud, but it’s unrealistic to expect him or any candidate to make specific allegations or force compliance on such a foundational problem.  Anyway, it would have just sucked him into a quagmire of denials. Deniability is another similarity between campaign finance and election fraud.  An Arizona judge recently demonstrated the problem when she stated that we can’t prove Arizona’s behavior affected the outcome of the election. After watching this video from Rising Phoenix Media’s YouTube channel, in which an attorney explains to her that the burden of proof is on the state, I would argue that lawsuits are more effective than endless rhetorical fights between candidates.  But the question remains as to whether Sanders’ supporters will continue to be disenfranchised.  That’s why I think it’s important to talk frankly about our chances in this election after the New York primary.

    Another action in which the Sanders campaign has shown a firm grasp on reality is it’s recent objection to the way the Clinton campaign has been financing itself. This is a situation that the campaign is more equipped to address in the context of this election, with the possibility of a more immediate benefit.

    Monday, Senator Sanders’ campaign wrote a letter to the DNC questioning whether the Clinton campaign is violating campaign finance rules. ((https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bernie-2016-Letter-to-DNC-1.pdf)) The letter expressed concern about activities currently being conducted through the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) the joint fundraising committee created by the DNC and Hillary For America (HFA). This letter was not short on facts, as NPR has claimed. ((http://www.npr.org/2016/04/19/474851697/explainer-bernie-sanders-on-hillary-clintons-joint-fundraising-committee)) The main source was FEC disclosure reports and these were provided in the footnotes.

    The HVF has reported receiving individual contributions that exceed by 130 times the $2,700 limit that applies for contributions to Secretary Clinton’s campaign.  In addition, these funds were used to pay for more than $7.8 million in direct mail efforts and $8.6 million in online advertising, both of which appear to benefit only HFA.  In just three months the HVF received received nearly $12 million in “unitemized” contributions, which are contributions from donors not exceeding $200.  The joint fundraising committee appears to be using funds raised by “big dollar” donors to fund activities that benefit only HFA.  Moreover this process could allow HFA to re-solicit these small-dollar donors over and over again.

    The spending on direct mail and online advertising seems to represent an impermissible, in-kind contribution from the DNC and the participating state parties to HFA.

    Finally, the Hillary Victory Fund’s FEC disclosure reports indicate that all of the fund’s spending for salaries and expenses has been in the form of  reimbursement to HFA for providing these services.  This raises the concern that funds meant to be allocated among participating committees are being use to subsidize HFA through over-reimbursement for services.  The Sanders Campaign is demanding that these apparent violations cease immediately.

    Although the DNC has responded that there is nothing out of the ordinary in its funding of this Democratic primary((http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dnc-chair-sounds-off-bernie-132000016.html;_ylt=AwrTcdgTNhlXTE8AVdEnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbHNxNnYwBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDRkZVSUMwXzEEc2VjA3Nj )) these allegations are not new.  They were made public last year by the Washington Post, ((Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger, Democratic Party Fundraising Efforts Helps Clinton Find New Donors, too, Feb. 20, 2016. Avaliable: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-fundraising-effort-helps-clinton-find-new-donors-too/2016/02/19/b8535cea-d68f-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html))and again this month in several independent publications.

    An article published April 1 on The 98 ((This is How Hillary Bought Her Superdelegates, The 98. April 12, 2016. Available: http://other98.com/hillary-bought-superdelegates/)) provides more background for the Sanders’ campaign’s concerns. And contrary to the DNC’s claims, it tells us that joint fundraising agreements are highly unusual in a primary election.

    “A joint fundraising committee linking Hillary Clinton to the national Democratic Party and 33 state parties is routing money through those state parties and back into the coffers of the Clinton campaign and all its PACS and Funds … It is a highly unusual arraignment if only because presidential candidates do not normally enter into fundraising agreements with their party’s committees until after they actually win the nomination. And second, Clinton’s fundraising committee is the first since the Supreme Court’s 2014 McCutcheon v FEC decision eliminated aggregate contribution limits and congress increased party contribution limits in the 2014 omnibus budget bill” said Paul Blumenthal, a writer for The Huffington Post.” (As quoted by The 98)

    Probably the most interesting part of this dispute is that it explains the behavior of the superdelegates’ who support Hillary Clinton regardless of which candidate wins their states’ primaries. It turns out many of them are up for reelection—88% of Congress is up for grabs with 34 Senate seats and 435 House seats, and in many cases the funding for their reelection efforts depends on Hillary Clinton. The 98 cites an article on counterpunch.org, that provides more detail.

    “Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.

    The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.

    In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.

    The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.

    In other words, a single donor, by giving $10,000 a year to each signatory state could legally give an extra $330,000 a year for two years to the Hillary Victory Fund. For each donor, this raised their individual legal cap on the Presidential campaign to $660,000 if given in both 2015 and 2016. And to one million, three hundred and 20 thousand dollars if an equal amount were also donated in their spouse’s name.

    From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.

    The money was either transferred to the Hillary for America or Forward Hillary PACs and spent directly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign, often paying the salaries and expenses within those groups, or it was moved into the DNC or another Clinton PAC. Some of it was spent towards managing the Hillary merchandise store, where you can buy Hillary T shirts and hats and buttons.

    The fund is administered by treasurer Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer. Ms. Jones has the exclusive right to decide when transfers of money to and from the Hillary Victory Fund would be made to the state parties.

    One could reasonably infer that the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support. And that the Super Delegates of these various partner states would either pledge loyalty to Clinton, or, at the least, not endorse Senator Sanders. Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s Super Delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.

    If a presidential campaign from either party can convince various state parties to partner with it in such a way as to route around any existing rules on personal donor limits and at the same time promise money to that state’s potential candidates, then the deal can be sold as a way of making large monetary promises to candidates and Super Delegates respectable.

    The leadership of a very broke Montana Democratic Party decided in August of 2015 that this was a seductive deal they were willing to make. And by the end of that year scores of $10,000 donations came in from out of state.

    Montana’s list of out of state donors to the state campaign reads like a Who’s Who of the Democratic financial elites. The names vary little from the list of high donors to the other 32 states that signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund.

    What do billionaires like Esprit Founder Susie Buell of California, and businessman Imaad Zuberi of California, and media mogul Fred Eychaner of Chicago, and Donald Sussman hedgefund manager from New York and Chicago real estate mogul J.B Pritzker, and gay activist Jon Stryker of NY, and NRA and Viacom lobbyist Jeffrey Forbes and entertainment mogul Haim Saban all have in common?

    They all appear to be brilliant business people who have all given millions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and to her various PACS. And they all gave the Montana State Democratic Party $10,000 each in 2015. It is doubtful that many of them have any interest in Montana politics, or that they have even bothered to visit.

    None of these are awful people; they are simply awfully rich. And they like their friend Hillary and want her to be the president. And if some of their millions will buy her way into the White House then so be it. None of this is illegal. But it makes a mockery of Ms. Clinton’s pledge to further the cause of campaign finance reform.

    And the Hillary Victory Fund’s marriage of convenience with the Montana party negates Governor Steve Bullock’s eloquent insistence that he will do anything necessary to overturn Citizen’s United. And the coldness of the deal’s intention of doing anything it can to further Hillary Clinton’s chances for becoming President brings Senator Jon Tester’s stated neutrality in the Democratic primary into a sharp and unflatteringly hypocritical focus.

    One doubts that most of these one percenters adore fly fishing. Or care much about mountain climbing, or skiing, or collecting morel mushrooms along the edges of the Yellowstone river in the fall. We can safely assume that they will not be raising buffalo for meat in the near future, or buying an organic farm next to Senator Jon Tester’s. In fact we can probably assume that most of them have never been to Montana.

    And one doubts if many of them care or not if Governor Steve Bullock will get re-elected or will be replaced with a creationist businessman named Greg Gianforte whose family gave $1.5 million to a creationist museum in Glendive, Montana that proudly displays a man riding a dinosaur as if it were a rodeo horse.

    That outsiders could make their votes count for more than our own in our Presidential primary by supporting a system that is rigged in favour of the wishes of lobbyists and billionaires running their money through our state democratic party coffers is a concept that most Montanans would be repulsed by.

    Yet it is inconceivable that not only did the state’s chairperson, Nancy Keenan, approve the deal, but that both Governor Steve Bullock and Democratic senator Jon Tester approved it as well. It directly affects the funding of both of their campaigns, now and in 2018.

    I have yet to hear back from any Montana democratic office holders that they have even heard of the Hillary Victory Fund. Monica Lindeen, the State Auditor, has never heard of it. A couple of county Chair persons have never heard of it. Jean Dahlman, a feisty independent thinker and a ranch woman who is on the executive committee of the state party has never heard of it. And when I wrote Jonathan Motl, the man in charge of the Office of Political Practices and a demon for making sure our state laws about contributions are enforced, he did not get back to me. So I am assuming he has never heard of it either. Who was in on this? No one seems willing to tell.

    In Montana, a state where one third of voters identify as independents, and where it is imperative that Democratic candidates for public office win some votes from both Republicans and Independents in order to get elected, it seems peculiar that the Montana State Democratic Party would make a deal with the Hillary Clinton campaign months before the national primaries were underway, given that there is a very real and proud tradition of political independence in Montana. Being told who to vote for in a primary by your party’s big wigs is not part of that tradition. Any collusion by a Montana national candidate with the Hillary Clinton campaign before a primary was held, and the votes counted, could potentially be politically suicidal.

    The agreement with the Hillary Victory Fund and the DNC could solve some of the Montana State Democratic Party’s financial problems while simultaneously funding several state and federal candidates. But the scheme would only make sense as a benefit to the parties involved if the money raised actually stayed in the states that received the initial checks. This did not happen.

    The Alaska Democratic party, in its end of the year filing with the FEC, said it raised $43,500 from the Hillary Victory Fund with 10,000.00 dollar donations from Clinton friends and billionaires, including hedge fund manage S Donald Sussman, and Hyatt Hotel heir JB Pritzker. ( two of the several $10,000 donors to the Montana State Democratic Party) . But in the same report it said it transferred the same amount of money, $43,500 back to the DNC – . a technically legal move that effectively obliterates federal limits on donations to the national committee.

    “It just becomes a way to funnel more to the DNC to support the Clinton Campaign”, said Paul S. Ryan, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Centre, which advocates for campaign finance reform. “It’s effectively Hillary Clinton’s team soliciting Hillary Clinton’s supporters for much bigger checks than they can give to the campaign.”

    The same thing happened with the Maine State Democratic Party with many of the same billionaire donors. Maine attracted many of Clinton’s biggest donors. But the contributions didn’t stay in Maine either, or in any of the other state democratic parties to which Hillary Victory Fund donations have been funneled. In October and November two transfers totaling 39,000 from the Hillary Victory Fund to the Maine Democratic party sat for less than 48 hours before the same amounts were transferred to the DNC in Washington.

    The Montana State Democratic party received $43,500 dollars from the Hillary Victory Fund on November 2, 2015. Yet on that same day it transferred $43,500 back to the Democratic National Committee in Washington. And on December 1, 2015 it received another $20,600 from the Hillary Victory fund. And on the same day the Montana State Democratic Party sent that exact same amount, $20,600, back to the DNC in Washington as well, an entity that has not bothered to disguise its preference for a Hillary Clinton candidacy over that of a Bernie Sanders one.

    By November 2015, 22 of the state parties linked to the Hillary Victory Fund have received $938,500 from the fund and sent the same amount back to the DNC. There is no limit to amounts of money transferred between state and national parties and PACS or Funds.

    (Obama had a similar fund in 2008, but not until he had already won enough delegates to be sure he would be the nominee.)

    The Democratic spokespeople for the17 states that refused to go along with the Clinton campaign’s plan, even though many of them were as broke as the Montana State Democratic Party was (Nebraska springs to mind), were clear that it seemed less than democratic to be choosing sides in a primary that hadn’t happened yet. That the very purpose of a primary was to let the people choose which candidate they wanted to represent them and to not let the party establishment load the dice in their own favour. They made it obvious that they were choosing democracy over kick-backs…

    …A loud article in the NYT in March proclaiming that elected officials in 22 states would not support Bernie Sanders conveniently left out that those 22 states had signed agreements with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Hillary Victory Fund.

    What it really does is seriously handicap the Democratic Primary Race. Every one of the states charging electoral interference by the Clinton campaign is a state that made a deal with the Hillary Victory Fund. Insinuations of conspiracies are unprovable in these cases. But the perception of fraud and corruption is glaring and damaging.

    What the Clinton campaign appears to be in stunning denial about is that most of us “regular folks” (a revolting term used with growing frequency these days) are not burdened with an inability to confuse morality with legality. Corruption is corruption is corruption no matter how many laws there are allowing it. Very few brilliant business people give presidential candidates upwards of six million dollars without expecting something in return. There is a reason they are brilliant business people. Throwing away millions of dollars for nothing is not one of them

    Most state democratic parties don’t want Campaign Finance Reform. They feel they can’t afford it. Many local politicians become terrified of voicing support for alternative candidates out of fear of being cut off the Democratic Party gravy train.

    The psychological damage of the Hillary Victory Fund, the inference by its very existence that every vote is not equal, has had a dampening effect on older Democrats. The perception that most Democrats support Hillary, and that she is the most reliable candidate to defeat a Trump or a Cruz in the fall is felt by every journalist, every newspaper opinion writer and every television current affairs show, and is absorbed by the consumers of that news. When you have lobbyists for the big media giants, such as Fyeed Eychancer of Newsweb, or Viacom lawyer and lobbyist Steve Forbes, giving money to the Hillary Victory Fund through the state of Montana, the rot in the system is laid bare.

    Here in Montana, a politically vibrant state with a heady mix of Republicans and Democrats and Independents and Libertarians, not one single Democratic official up for election will openly support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. They all say exactly the same thing: “I’m not going to endorse anyone until after the primary.” Which has as much meaning as saying you are not going to vote until after the election.

    This is the state that brought the entire American union movement to the West, back when Butte was a thriving mining town and corrupt copper barons ran the state. It’s a state in which miners fought and died for the right to have unions. It’s a state in which we had, until Citizen’s United, the first and only state law that expressly forbade corporate expenditures on elections.

    You can’t win an election as a Democrat in Montana without the Native American vote. You have to win Butte, a mighty monument to the working man and Democratic to its very core. You have to win the artsy types and the students in Missoula, the writers in Livingston and the oilmen in Billings and the ranchers in the east. You can’t be all things to all men, so you have to be real. You have to be honest because word spreads fast in a small but tight population like Montana and if your word is no good, neither are you.

    But most importantly, you can’t win an election in Montana if you don’t acknowledge and respect the pride Montanans have in their ability to think independently. Their courage to not follow the herd. Independence is a proud master.

    Our state party leadership signed a deal with a woman who out here, on our turf, possibly wouldn’t last a week. They signed away our unobstructed right to choose which Democratic candidate we supported for President. Given that we have 15 pledged delegates and seven Super Delegates, we have lost our absolute right to have Super Delegate endorsements proportional to the wishes of the primary voters

    For what? Sixty four thousand and one hundred dollars? Which we had to give back? That’s a pretty poor excuse for selling out our right to our own choice.

    Look, we know the deck is stacked, that Hillary and the DNC get all the face cards and that you’re dealing from the bottom of the deck. But just give us an ace from time to time, or maybe even a small straight. Don’t rub our hopelessness in our faces as if we are too dumb to know. You will pay for your contempt. If not this year, then the next.”

    Beneficiaries

    Recipient Party Type** Office Sought Total
    Clinton, Hillary D C Pres $4,440,000
    DNC Services Corp D P $2,263,436
    Democratic Party of Wisconsin D P $207,278
    Democratic Party of Oklahoma D P $140,000
    Democratic Party of New Hampshire D P $74,700
    Democratic Party of Pennsylvania D P $70,500
    Democratic Party of Texas D P $69,100
    Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida D P $66,200
    Democratic Party of Nevada D P $66,200
    Democratic Party of Colorado D P $66,000
    Democratic Party of Ohio D P $66,000
    Democratic Cmte of Utah D P $64,100
    Democratic Party of Alaska D P $64,100
    Democratic Party of Mississippi D P $64,100
    Democratic Party of Montana D P $64,100
    Democratic Party of Oregon D P $64,100
    Democratic Party of South Carolina D P $64,100
    Democratic Party of Tennessee D P $64,100
    Democratic State Cmte of Massachusetts D P $64,100
    Georgia Federal Elections Cmte D P $64,100
    Idaho State Democratic Party D P $64,100
    Michigan Democratic State Central Cmte D P $64,100
    Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party D P $64,100
    Missouri Democratic State Cmte D P $64,100
    Rhode Island Democratic State Cmte D P $64,100
    West Virginia State Democratic Exec Cmte D P $64,100
    Wyoming State Democratic Central Cmte D P $64,100
    Democratic Party of North Carolina D P $64,000
    Democratic State Central Cmte/Louisiana D P $64,000
    Indiana Democratic Congressional Victory Cmte D P $64,000
    Democratic Party of Arkansas D P $63,000
    Maine Democratic State Cmte D P $59,800
    Democratic Party of Virginia D P $43,500 ((Margot Kidder, How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties. Counterpunch, April 1, 2016. Available: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/))

    Source: FEC

    This campaign would turn anyone into a conspiracy theorist. However we don’t need the Bilderberg group to explain this primary election. Citizen’s United and McCutcheon v FEC explains everything. The financial damage done by these rulings is just the tip of the iceberg. They appear to have turned 33 proud and independent states into drones for Hillary Clinton.

    Hopefully I haven’t lost everyone, because I think there’s a glimmer of hope in this news.  Besides the evidence it provides of the Sanders campaign’s strategic competence, I think it indicates that Clinton is hurting for cash.  Now that she’s lost her golden goose her choices seem clear: she should either honor her obligations with those 33 states, or release the superdelegates.  Given the cash situation, releasing the superdelegates would probably be the way to go.

     

  • Hillary’s Shameless Posturing on Gun Control

    I’m finally listening to the last debate—I can never get CNN’s live stream to work so I have to wait for it to be posted on YouTube. Sadly, it feels like torture to listen to it. I know that if New Yorkers voted today, and if it was a fair vote, Bernie would win. To put it more bluntly, I know he would be ahead already if not for all the tricks. So when Hillary lays claim to Bernie’s policies, it sounds like she’s laughing at the very idea of authenticity—it sounds as if she’s mocking us. She’s laughing at the idea of truth.

    During this election we’ve been hearing a lot about how her foreign policy decisions made things worse in the Middle East instead of better, and how these decisions have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. In her own defense she’s said that her vote on Iraq was a mistake and also that it’s too early to tell how Libya will turn out. Many have expressed concern that she seems poised to handle Syria in the same way, but of course her supporters are not concerned at all. They seem to have no objection to her recklessness. Maybe if they were confronted with the domestic meddling that Hillary carried out as a civilian they would have to admit there is something deeply troubling in this candidacy.

    In 1993 when Hillary Clinton was first lady she was largely responsible for the tragedy at Waco, Texas in which members of the Branch Davidians, many of them women and children, were burned to death in their compound.((Linda Tripp—Hillary Ordered Waco Slaughter and Clinton Abused Monica, rense.com. Available: http://www.rense.com/general8/tripp.htm))

    According to Linda Tripp, Janet Reno begged aides for a reason not to proceed with the orders she received from first lady Hillary Clinton, but she was finally forced to launch a military-style teargas attack, after which a U.S. army tank rammed the building and inserted flammable gas. That’s what started the building on fire. Vince Foster was devastated over this outcome and he was dead three months later, supposedly from suicide. However, according to Tripp Hillary seemed unmoved by it.

    This shouldn’t be surprising considering that during the standoff Hillary did what she could to make her cowboy approach acceptable to the public. According to Steve Barry, a retired, long-time member of Army Special Forces, Hillary put together a “crisis center” on her own initiative, and it was this crisis center that sent out accusations of “child abuse” by adult members of the sect, including leader David Koresh.

    As frightening as Clinton’s foreign policy exuberance is, this story suggests that her behavior is motivated by an equal opportunity character flaw—a character flaw that includes domestic policy.

    The Clintons didn’t have to do any of this—it was a calculated political decision. President Clinton and Hillary were embarrassed politically by the standoff so they pulled out all the stops, even sending the Combat Applications Group of Fort Bragg, N.C. ((Mike Blair, Military Unit Responsible at Waco. The Forbidden Knowledge. Available: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/military_unit.htm))

    Later they claimed Delta Force had an advisory role, but this claim has been contradicted. Delta Force had a direct operational role according to Barry, and as such it violated Posse Comitatus which outlaws the use of Army forces to enforce civilian law. Bill Clinton’s order for Army involvement at Waco was a high crime or misdemeanor and therefore, an impeachable felony offense.

    Meanwhile, the recorded debate is still playing in the background. I can hardly believe my ears—Hillary is trashing Senator Sanders over his gun policies!

  • Calling the Election Like it is

    Bernie Sanders’ enemies have been trying to take the shine off of his invitation to speak at the Vatican. They claim they’re concerned about protocol but they’re only angry because they think it might increase his chances in this election. They are out of touch with our times.

    To put things in perspective, Senator Sanders has become part of a conversation that was in progress before most of us were born. This is a conversation that will continue regardless of who wins this election. Sanders is naturally a part of it because of the policy positions he’s maintained throughout his career. By the same standard his political rivals are not part of it, due to the policy positions they have maintained throughout their careers. Nevertheless they demand equal attention from the Pope. They covet his public approval even as they refuse to cooperate with him.

    American politicians have generally been dismissive of Pope Francis’s advice, but they don’t seem to realize that when they act as if the Vatican’s invitation is a compliment to the Senator they reveal a grudging respect for him. This is the central irony of this ironic campaign. They don’t take Francis’s advice seriously but they want his approval for political reasons, or in this case they want to deny his approval to Sanders. It seems that for them the pope is merely one of the trappings of power—he’s the Pope-figure. He exists to acknowledge the eventual nominee, but the nominee’s policies are none of his business.

    This irony came into view when Donald Trump exploded in anger at the suggestion that building walls instead of bridges is not Christian. Trump could have changed this policy if he really wanted the Pope’s approval, so the fact that he didn’t change it is telling. Apparently his faith, like his plan to build a wall, is a political strategy. Therefore, to question his faith is to question his electability.

    Then Trump’s supporters in the media raised irony to a new level. When the Pope tried to clarify what he thought was a misunderstanding on Trump’s part, they declared a victory for Trump! They apparently thought this was a wrestling match. The problem is that when a religious leader appears with a warning, it is not the place of those being warned to declare the victor. That’s a decision for future generations.

    I’m not writing this article to convince people to vote for Senator Sanders. The majority of Americans are already voting for him. The problem is they are being cheated out of their vote. What I’m trying to do here is put this battle in its proper context.

    The candidate who appears poised to claim the presidency labors under a series of misunderstandings about reality. She has no capacity for appreciating this conversation. Her level of blindness and deafness is breathtaking. I call on this candidate to step down.

    Hillary Clinton, you are lacking in vision and imagination. I believe you have sold us out and then smilingly destroyed the evidence. Why else would you manage your server the way you have?  How dare you expect us to vote for you when you disrespect us like that? You and your minions have no solutions. You have only personal greed.

    Together we represent the way forward. You do not. We have a candidate who can lead us in the right direction but you are standing in our way. I call on you and your minions to step down.

    Pope Francis has not endorsed a candidate or offered an opinion about a candidate. This article represents my own opinion.

  • Missouri Democratic Party Helps Hillary

    On March 28, two weeks after the Missouri primary, the Missouri Democratic Party chose to reinterpret the rules for delegate allocation, potentially cementing Clinton’s victory in that state. By Friday evening, this change will be final.

    Clinton won the Missouri primary in a near tie. However under the old interpretation, because Sanders won in the counties with more voters, he would have won more delegates for the state. If the Party is successful in allowing the delegate count in each county to be allocated by the entire congressional district’s proportionality, then instead of Sanders earning 629 delegates to Clinton’s 601, he will only get 578 delegates to Clinton’s 652.

    Technically, this is not illegal.  Apparently, the Party’s handbook is written so that it can be interpreted either way. However, the timing of this change, and the fact that it reverses the outcome of the primary, puts it on the dirty trick list for the 2016 presidential primary.((Reddit: Sanders for President, April 7, 2016. Available:

    CRISIS IN MISSOURI (regarding delegate allocation)
    by inSandersForPresident


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8emL2T_Nss4))

    Thanks to Tim Black on YouTube for bringing this to my attention.

    ((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8emL2T_Nss4))

     

error: Content is protected !!