Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    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.

  • Reading Time: 3 minutes

    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.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute
    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.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    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!

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    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.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    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))

     

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    The corporate media didn’t think the drama at Nevada’s convention was important. Nor did media bigwigs think it was important to report the fact that Bernie Sanders won more delegates at the convention than Clinton. For the details of the Nevada caucus see Tom Cahill’s article on U.S. Uncut. ((Tom Cahill, Bernie Sanders Wins the Nevada Caucus After All, U.S. Uncut, April 3, 2016. Available: http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/))

    Coincidentally, Trump also lost the delegate selection process, in Louisiana, in spite of the media’s fawning coverage of him. Apparently the media’s elites think we’re buying the story that Trump is a populist, like Bernie. Otherwise why would they keep saying it?  Of course that’s nonsense, Trump is an anti-populist. His candidacy has been compared to that of George Wallace, another man who used fear and racism to get his way. And who was Wallace running against? Civil rights advocate Hubert Humphrey. For a discussion of what he hoped to accomplish see the article on Wikipedia. ((George Wallace Presidential Campaign, 1968. Wikipedia. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_presidential_campaign,_1968))

    Populists don’t turn people against each other by drumming up fear. That’s the plutocracy’s trick.  That’s how they keep us in line.  The media takes us all for fools.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    Ed Opperman’s YouTube channel, The Opperman Report, reported live on Saturday that Hillary Clinton’s supporters are railroading the Nevada Democratic convention.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhuho4bGNh4&t=1227s

    Opperman reports that Michelle White, Hillary’s Nevada campaign manager, with the help of Marla Turner, Secretary of the Party’s Executive Board, tried Friday night to move someone on Clinton’s alternate list, who was not even there at the time, to the delegate list.  Michelle White had a whole different list of delegates than the one that had been agreed upon by the convention workers.

    Fortunately, the other members at the convention wouldn’t allow them to change the delegate count on Friday, and since White’s faction didn’t have a quorum, they couldn’t proceed.  However Saturday morning at 7 a.m. they removed Christine Kramar the chair of the credentials committee, accusing her of, what else?…giving Clinton information to the Sanders campaign! ((Jon Ralston, Bernie vs. Hillary Boils Over in Nevada Before Clark Convention, Ralston Reports, April 2, 2016. Available: https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/bernie-vs-hillary-boils-over-nevada-clark-convention))

    Apparently SIEU had handed out letters Friday night telling Bernie’s supporters to return Saturday at noon, while they told Hillary’s supporters to be there at 7 a.m.   So Saturday morning those who objected to these tactics, and who were fortunate enough to be there in time, had to link arms with Christine to keep her from being physically removed.  Some Clinton supporters protested the tactics as well.  The bottom line is that Crystal Glass, Angie Sullivan, Melody Nelson and Christine L. Kramar were given trespass notices at the Nevada Democratic Convention.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    Since [intlink id=”2473″ type=”post”]Niko House’s[/intlink] report on North Carolina, reports continue to roll in of similar tactics in other states.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuEMOKSaTk0

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    Ryan Hughes, Bernie’s former Michigan Campaign Director, has been accused of taking money from Hillary’s Super PAC, Priorities USA, while working for Senator Sanders. This is illegal. Two additional state directors are being given a chance to come forward before their names are reported. In the meantime, these people are being positioned to work their magic in states like New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

     

error: Content is protected !!