If Not Trump, What?: David Brooks

I never liked David Brooks before, but am seeing him in a new light. It seems he has been changed by the disastrous Trump phenomenon. This article and others he has written lately are a kind of Mea Culpa for him. He--and millions of us--are traveling down a new road to major changes in our political system. Let us hope it goes more in the direction of Bernie Sanders than on Donald Trump. Comment in red within the article is mine.

If Not Trump, What?

David Brooks APRIL 29, 2016

Donald Trump now looks set to be the Republican presidential nominee. So for those of us appalled by this prospect — what are we supposed to do?

Well, not what the leaders of the Republican Party are doing. They're going down meekly and hoping for a quiet convention. They seem blithely unaware that this is a Joe McCarthy moment. People will be judged by where they stood at this time. Those who walked with Trump will be tainted forever after for the degradation of standards and the general election slaughter.

The better course for all of us — Republican, Democrat and independent — is to step back and take the long view, and to begin building for that. This election — not only the Trump phenomenon but the rise of Bernie Sanders, also — has reminded us how much pain there is in this country. According to a Pew Research poll, 75 percent of Trump voters say that life has gotten worse for people like them over the last half century.

This declinism intertwines with other horrible social statistics. The suicide rate has surged to a 30-year high — a sure sign of rampant social isolation. A record number of Americans believe the American dream is out of reach. And for millennials, social trust is at historic lows.

Trump's success grew out of that pain, but he is not the right response to it. The job for the rest of us is to figure out the right response.

That means first it's necessary to go out into the pain. I was surprised by Trump's success because I've slipped into a bad pattern, spending large chunks of my life in the bourgeois strata — in professional circles with people with similar status and demographics to my own. It takes an act of will to rip yourself out of that and go where you feel least comfortable. But this column is going to try to do that over the next months and years. We all have some responsibility to do one activity that leaps across the chasms of segmentation that afflict this country.

We'll probably need a new national story. Up until now, America's story has been some version of the rags-to-riches story, the lone individual who rises from the bottom through pluck and work. But that story isn't working for people anymore, especially for people who think the system is rigged.

I don't know what the new national story will be, but maybe it will be less individualistic and more redemptive. (AND HOPEFULLY MORE SOCIALISTIC) Maybe it will be a story about communities that heal those who suffer from addiction, broken homes, trauma, prison and loss, a story of those who triumph over the isolation, social instability and dislocation so common today.

We'll probably need a new definition of masculinity, too. There are many groups in society who have lost an empire but not yet found a role. Men are the largest of those groups. The traditional masculine ideal isn't working anymore. It leads to high dropout rates, high incarceration rates, low labor force participation rates. This is an economy that rewards emotional connection and verbal expressiveness. Everywhere you see men imprisoned by the old reticent, stoical ideal.

We'll also need to rebuild the sense that we're all in this together. The author R. R. Reno has argued that what we're really facing these days is a "crisis of solidarity." Many people, as the writers David and Amber Lapp note, feel pervasively betrayed: by for-profit job-training outfits that left them awash in debt, by spouses and stepparents, by people who collect federal benefits but don't work. They've stopped even expecting loyalty from their employers. The big flashing lights say: NO TRUST. That leads to an everyone-out-for-himself mentality and Trump's politics of suspicion. We'll need a communitarianism.

Maybe the task is to build a ladder of hope. People across America have been falling through the cracks. Their children are adrift. Trump, to his credit, made them visible. We can start at the personal level just by hearing them talk.

Then at the community level we can listen to those already helping. James Fallows had a story in The Atlantic recently noting that while we're dysfunctional at the national level you see local renaissances dotted across the country. Fallows went around asking, "Who makes this town go?" and found local patriots creating radical schools, arts festivals, public-private partnerships that give, say, high school dropouts computer skills.

Then solidarity can be rekindled nationally. Over the course of American history, national projects like the railroad legislation, the W.P.A. and the NASA project have bound this diverse nation. Of course, such projects can happen again — maybe through a national service program, or something else.

Trump will have his gruesome moment. The time is best spent elsewhere, meeting the neighbors who have become strangers, and listening to what they have to say.

Read More

The Oh-So-True (But what can we do) Department

[click image to enlarge]

First Hillary Clinton told a newspaper that Bernie Sanders wasn't qualified to be president. When he shot back that her judgement made her unqualified, she pretended he'd attacked her out of nowhere. Such are the dynamics of a media narrative: it's impossible to tell the true truth, only their truth.

Read More

Italian doctor may have found surprisingly simple cure for Multiple Sclerosis

April 24, 2016

An Italian doctor has been getting dramatic results with a new type of treatment for Multiple Sclerosis, or MS, which affects up to 2.5 million people worldwide. In an initial study, Dr. Paolo Zamboni took 65 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, performed a simple operation to unblock restricted bloodflow out of the brain – and two years after the surgery, 73% of the patients had no symptoms. Dr. Zamboni's thinking could turn the current understanding of MS on its head, and offer many sufferers a complete cure.

Multiple sclerosis, or MS, has long been regarded as a life sentence of debilitating nerve degeneration. More common in females, the disease affects an estimated 2.5 million people around the world, causing physical and mental disabilities that can gradually destroy a patient's quality of life.

It's generally accepted that there's no cure for MS, only treatments that mitigate the symptoms – but a new way of looking at the disease has opened the door to a simple treatment that is causing radical improvements in a small sample of sufferers.

Italian Dr. Paolo Zamboni has put forward the idea that many types of MS are actually caused by a blockage of the pathways that remove excess iron from the brain – and by simply clearing out a couple of major veins to reopen the blood flow, the root cause of the disease can be eliminated.

Dr. Zamboni's revelations came as part of a very personal mission – to cure his wife as she began a downward spiral after diagnosis. Reading everything he could on the subject, Dr. Zamboni found a number of century-old sources citing excess iron as a possible cause of MS. It happened to dovetail with some research he had been doing previously on how a buildup of iron can damage blood vessels in the legs – could it be that a buildup of iron was somehow damaging blood vessels in the brain?

He immediately took to the ultrasound machine to see if the idea had any merit – and made a staggering discovery. More than 90% of people with MS have some sort of malformation or blockage in the veins that drain blood from the brain. Including, as it turned out, his wife.

He formed a hypothesis on how this could lead to MS: iron builds up in the brain, blocking and damaging these crucial blood vessels. As the vessels rupture, they allow both the iron itself, and immune cells from the bloodstream, to cross the blood-brain barrier into the cerebro-spinal fluid. Once the immune cells have direct access to the immune system, they begin to attack the myelin sheathing of the cerebral nerves – Multiple Sclerosis develops.

He named the problem Chronic Cerebro-Spinal Venous Insufficiency, or CCSVI.

Zamboni immediately scheduled his wife for a simple operation to unblock the veins – a catheter was threaded up through blood vessels in the groin area, all the way up to the effected area, and then a small balloon was inflated to clear out the blockage. It's a standard and relatively risk-free operation – and the results were immediate. In the three years since the surgery, Dr. Zamboni's wife has not had an attack.

Widening out his study, Dr. Zamboni then tried the same operation on a group of 65 MS-sufferers, identifying blood drainage blockages in the brain and unblocking them – and more than 73% of the patients are completely free of the symptoms of MS, two years after the operation.

In some cases, a balloon is not enough to fully open the vein channel, which collapses either as soon as the balloon is removed, or sometime later. In these cases, a metal stent can easily be used, which remains in place holding the vein open permanently.

 Dr. Zamboni's lucky find is yet to be accepted by the medical community, which is traditionally slow to accept revolutionary ideas. Still, most agree that while further study needs to be undertaken before this is looked upon as a cure for MS, the results thus far have been very positive.

Naturally, support groups for MS sufferers are buzzing with the news that a simple operation could free patients from what they have always been told would be a lifelong affliction, and further studies are being undertaken by researchers around the world hoping to confirm the link between CCSVI and MS, and open the door for the treatment to become available for sufferers worldwide.

It's certainly a very exciting find for MS sufferers, as it represents a possible complete cure, as opposed to an ongoing treatment of symptoms. We wish Dr. Zamboni and the various teams looking further into this issue the best of luck

Read More

Intriguing: Why Space and Time May Be Just an Illusion

• Why Space and Time May Be Just an Illusion
  
• George Musser Science Journalist and Author

NASA, ESA, Allison Loll/Jeff Hester

This past fall, the world of physics celebrated the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which forms the foundation of our modern understanding of the force of gravity. Einstein's creation has been the ultimate antidote to a blasé, seen-it-all attitude that sometimes infects even scientists. It opened up a universe that never ceases to surprise — black holes, the big bang, dark energy, gravitational waves — jolting us out of the grooves of thought that we fall into all too easily.

Yet the ink was barely dry on the theory when Einstein saw a problem. It contradicted quantum mechanics, suggesting that physicists needed an even deeper theory to unify these two pillars of fundamental physics. In June 1916 Einstein wrote: "Quantum theory would have to modify not only Maxwellian electrodynamics but also the new theory of gravitation." That was quite an insight when you consider that quantum theory didn't even exist yet. It was still a nebulous idea that wouldn't coalesce for another decade. So, we have been celebrating the centenary not only of Einstein's theory, but also of the long slog to supersede it.

A theory of gravity is also a theory of space and time.

Whereas general relativity took a single genius a decade to create, that deeper theory — known as a quantum theory of gravity — has flummoxed generations of geniuses for a century. In part, physicists are victims of their past successes: when you accomplish anything in life, you raise the bar, making it that much harder to take the next step. But quantum gravity also poses difficulties that are unique in the history of science. A theory of gravity is also a theory of space and time — that was Einstein's great insight. Yet physicists have always formulated their theories within space and time.

So, a theory of gravity swallows its own tail. It supposes, for example, that the passage of time varies, but the word "varies" connotes a temporal process. If time is varying, then the very standard by which it is varying also varies. The whole situation threatens to become paradoxical. This conceptual circularity creates weird mathematical difficulties. For instance, the little 't' that physicists use to denote time drops out of their equations, leaving them at a loss to explain change in the world. To describe what happens, physicists need to go beyond space and time. And what is that supposed to mean? Such an idea forces us into (literally) uncharted territory.

Eagle Nebula's Pillars of Creation. (NASA, ESA/Hubble)

String theory, loop quantum gravity, causal-set theory: these are just a few of the approaches that theorists have taken. Naturally, proponents of each are convinced the others are misguided or even downright unscientific. But when you take a step back from the dispute, you notice all agree on one essential lesson: the space-time that we inhabit is a construction. It is not fundamental to nature, but emerges from a deeper level of reality. In some way or other, it consists of primitive building blocks — "atoms" of space — and takes on its familiar properties from how those building blocks are assembled.

These "atoms" are clearly nothing like ordinary atoms such as hydrogen or oxygen. For one thing, they are not tiny, because the word "tiny" is a spatial description and these atoms are supposed to create space, not presuppose it. Yet many of the same principles apply. Water, for example, consists of H₂O molecules. It can undergo a change of state — freezing or boiling — as those molecules rearrange themselves into new structures. The same might be true of space. If those atoms can assemble themselves into space, presumably they could also reassemble into other structures. And that might explain many of the mysteries of modern physics.

The ordinary laws of physics, operating within time, are inherently unable to explain the beginning of time.

Consider black holes. If, God forbid, you fell into one, Einstein's theory predicts your timeline would end. You would die, but that'd be the least of it. The atoms in your body would simply cease to be. Instead of ashes to ashes, you'd have ashes to ... nothingness. The new emergent space-time theories suggest a different picture in which space undergoes a change of state in a black hole. The black hole does not have an interior volume; its perimeter marks where space melts. The result is a new state that is no longer spatial and is scarcely even imaginable in human terms. If you fell in, you would probably still die, but the atoms in your body would still carry on in some new form.

Consider, also, the big bang. Like black holes, it has always posed something of a paradox. The ordinary laws of physics, operating within time, are inherently unable to explain the beginning of time. According to those laws, something must precede the big bang to set it into motion. Yet nothing is supposed to precede it. A way out of the paradox is to think of the big bang not as the beginning but as a transition, when space crystallized from a primeval state of spacelessness.

Sombrero galaxy. (ESA/Hubble & NASA)

Finally, consider the mysterious phenomena of quantum nonlocality — what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." Two or more particles can act in a coordinated way, no matter how far apart they may be, and they do so without sending out a sound wave, beaming a radio signal or otherwise communicating across the gap that separates them. The particles behave as though they are not, in fact, separated. And one possible explanation is that the particles are rooted in the deeper level of reality where distance has no meaning.

To be sure, this is all still speculation — but it is constrained speculation. Scientists didn't dream up these ideas over drinks after work. They were driven to them by combining the principles of Einstein's theory and of quantum theory and seeing where the path takes them. By the very nature of research, we don't know what these ideas mean or even if they're right. But we do know that humans have not yet grasped all there is to grasp about the universe. And when we do take the next step, the effects will surely propagate into our broader culture. Just as learning something new makes you a better person, so too will learning something new about the universe propel humanity to the next level.

Read More

Ted Cruz names Carly Fiorina as his running mate for the presidency/vice presidency

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-vice-president_us_5720e23ce4b0f309baef5657

Dear God, could there ever be a more unappealing ticket than this???  These two definitely belong together -- but not in a presidential race.  Maybe as preachers in a West Virginia rattlesnake-shaking church. We're lucky they don't have a chance of getting the nomination. 

Now--on to Trump and whomever he chooses as his running mate.  He loves Sarah Palin and may choose her -- he's already told us he would like her in a cabinet position.  Omigod, how did we ever come to this???  We can thank Fox noise and their influence on the ignorant masses who tune in to hear their propaganda.  With their constant snarky jabs at Obama and the "gov'mint" they hate, they've created these monsters that are now the Republican front runners.  What a dastardly deed that was -- and now, like a boomerang, it is coming right back to hit them in the face. 

Which is the only think to cheer about in this gloomiest-ever presidential race.

Read More

Many details about Scientology's Miscavige and revelatory book on the cult by his estranged father

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3558075/It-like-scene-Tom-Cruise-s-Mission-Impossible-estranged-father-Scientology-leader-David-Miscavige-escaped-Church-revealed-memoir-son-trying-BAN.html

The UK always has more details than our media on every story -- this is a particularly good article, chock-full of info.  I found it personally interesting that Ron Miscavige (the father) came from Mount Carmel, PA , my mother's hometown in which she was raised. I'm putting his book on order on amazon and am looking forward to reading more about this infamous giant cult that is crumbling from within now, assisted greatly by the elder Miscavige's revelations.  As the father of a very dangerous son, the dad now has a target on his back.  David wouldn't hesitate to kill him, I'm sure -- but I think the dad will be safe, as everyone would know who done it should he have an "accident" now.  With that said, however, the Scientologists are very good at bringing misery in many other devastating ways to the doorsteps of those who go against Miscavige and the cult.  I think the Miscavige family -- and Scientology itself -- are in for an exceedingly bumpy ride.

It is interesting to see the Republican party being brought down by the loose-cannon renegade Trump, and now Scientology is taking a huge (Yuge) hit, too. The Catholic Church is still under siege, as the Oscar-winning Best Picture "Spotlight" is keeping the world's attention on the sins of that institution. It appears to be time for the fall of some great behemoths in our society, so real change can take place to benefit the people of the world.  Bernie Sanders is still working on reining in Wall Street and the giant corporations -- GO, BERNIE!!!!  Even if he doesn't win the nomination, he'll continue the revolution and make it impossible to be ignored, no matter how hard the corporate-owned major media try to divert their eyes and our attention.  Pandora's Box has been opened, and nobody can put the lid back on it again.

Speaking now in astrological terms, I want to say THANK YOU to Transiting Pluto in Capricorn!  Take a bow, Pluto!  You did a great job when you transited Sagittarius; down came many cults, and revelations were brought forth about the Catholic Church's pedophile priests and abusive nuns, which led to Ratzinger's removal from the papacy.  As more about the Church's evil-doers and decades of coverup is being revealed daily, this remains an ongoing problem for the Church, which has already lost millions of followers.  And now Pluto is taking on the corporate giants and government, ruled by Capricorn.  (For more astrological understanding, if interested, you can go to: http://astrology.about.com/od/plutoincapricornto2023/qt/PlutoCap.htm )

So, even if the primaries go to Trump and Hillary today, there is still some good news to tell!

Read More

Robert Reich: The 2016 Political Endgame Might Surprise the Establishment

Reich is right. The electorate is not going to knuckle under for much longer. The revolution started by Bernie (and by Trump, such as he is) will not be forgotten or laid aside.  As another Clinton presidency gives us the same-old deference to Wall Street and hawkish entrance into ever more wars, voters will continue to be up in arms about the issues that matter most to them, knowing they are never going to be addressed by oily, sleazy establishment politics that benefit the rich over the middle class and poor.  The revolution has begun and is too far along now to ever be put down.  Clinton's attempts to push it into the background will not succeed this time around.

The Endgame of 2016′s Anti-Establishment Politics

by Robert Reich | April 25, 2016

---

— from Robert Reich's Blog

Will Bernie Sanders's supporters rally behind Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination? Likewise, if Donald Trump is denied the Republican nomination, will his supporters back whoever gets the Republican nod?

If 2008 is any guide, the answer is unambiguously yes to both. About 90 percent of people who backed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries that year ended up supporting Barack Obama in the general election. About the same percent of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney backers came around to supporting John McCain.

But 2008 may not be a good guide to the 2016 election, whose most conspicuous feature is furious antipathy to the political establishment.

Outsiders and mavericks are often attractive to an American electorate chronically suspicious of political insiders, but the anti-establishment sentiments unleashed this election year of a different magnitude. The Trump and Sanders candidacies are both dramatic repudiations of politics as usual.

If Hillary Clinton is perceived to have won the Democratic primary because of insider "superdelegates" and contests closed to independents, it may confirm for hardcore Bernie supporters the systemic political corruption Sanders has been railing against.

Similarly, if the Republican Party ends up nominating someone other than Trump who hasn't attracted nearly the votes than he has, it may be viewed as proof of Trump's argument that the Republican Party is corrupt.

Many Sanders supporters will gravitate to Hillary Clinton nonetheless out of repulsion toward the Republican candidate, especially if it's Donald Trump. Likewise, if Trump loses his bid for the nomination, many of his supporters will vote Republican in any event, particularly if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton.

But, unlike previous elections, a good number may simply decide to sit out the election because of their even greater repulsion toward politics as usual – and the conviction it's rigged by the establishment for its own benefit.

That conviction wasn't present in the 2008 election. It emerged later, starting in the 2008 financial crisis, when the government bailed out the biggest Wall Street banks while letting underwater homeowners drown.

Both the Tea Party movement and Occupy were angry responses – Tea Partiers apoplectic about government's role, Occupiers furious with Wall Street – two sides of the same coin.

Then came the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in "Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission," releasing a torrent of big money into American politics. By the 2012 election cycle, forty percent of all campaign contributions came from the richest 0.01 percent of American households.

That was followed by a lopsided economic recovery, most of whose gains have gone to the top. Median family income is still below 2008, adjusted for inflation. And although the official rate of unemployment has fallen dramatically, a smaller percentage of working-age people now have jobs than before the recession.

As a result of all this, many Americans have connected the dots in ways they didn't in 2008.

They see "crony capitalism" (now a term of opprobrium on both left and the right) in special tax loopholes for the rich, government subsidies and loan guarantees for favored corporations, bankruptcy relief for the wealthy but not for distressed homeowners or student debtors, leniency toward corporations amassing market power but not for workers seeking to increase their bargaining power through unions, and trade deals protecting the intellectual property and assets of American corporations abroad but not the jobs or incomes of American workers.

Last fall, when on book tour in the nation's heartland, I kept finding people trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.

They saw one or the other as their champion: Sanders the "political revolutionary" who'd reclaim power from the privileged few; Trump, the authoritarian strongman who'd wrest power back from an establishment that's usurped it.

The people I encountered told me the moneyed interests couldn't buy off Sanders because he wouldn't take their money, and they couldn't buy off Trump because he didn't need their money.

Now, six months later, the political establishment has fought back, and Sanders's prospects for taking the Democratic nomination are dimming. Trump may well win the Republican mantle but not without a brawl.

As I said, I expect most Sanders backers will still support Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. And even if Trump doesn't get the Republican nod, most of his backers will go with whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be.

But anyone who assumes a wholesale transfer of loyalty from Sanders's supporters to Clinton, or from Trump's to another Republican standard-bearer, may be in for a surprise.

The anti-establishment fury in the election of 2016 may prove greater than supposed.

Read More

Hey Jude joyfully played by the young Beatles. Exceptionally clear video.

Makes you feel as if you are there -- a real treat!  (~.~)

https://www.facebook.com/MagicalMysteryChannel/videos/539685589525521/

Read More

True compassion from a judge for a veteran

This unique judge is a role model for all of us...instead of just talking about compassion, he actually practices it.  He deserves to be called "Your Honor."

Amazing: North Carolina Judge Sentences Veteran To A Night In Jail And Then Joins Him

By Sarah P crooksandliars.com

In one of those truly heartwarming stories that makes us all tear up a little bit, here is the story of a judge in North Carolina going above and beyond for one of the offenders who came before him.

The offender was Sergeant Joseph Serna, a former Special Forces soldier in the U.S. Army who served nearly 20 years. During that time he was nearly killed three times, the Washington Post reports. Even though he earned three purple hearts and is truly grateful to be alive, he has never fully recovered from the trauma of his time in service. Consequently, he has been battling PTSD, an all too common diagnosis for those who have served in combat. To fight his demons he has turned to alcohol, which has led to a charge of driving under the influence.

He was fortunate enough to enter what is called the "veteran's treatment court program" in North Carolina. Serna has appeared before Judge Lou Olivera over 25 times and has managed to stay sober for that entire duration.

But last week Serna admitted to have tampered with his urine screen. Consequently, Judge Olivera sentenced him to one day in jail. The Judge did something unusual, though. He offered to drive Serna to jail personally.

Olivera told the Fayetteville Observer the conversation between Serna and Olivera went as follows:

Olivera: "When Joe first came to turn himself in, he was trembling. I decided that I'd spend the night serving with him."

Serna asked him: "Where are we going, judge?"

Olivera told him: "We're going to turn ourselves in."

And that is exactly what happened. Serna turned himself in and the Judge sat right down next to him in the cell. The two vets spent the night talking. Oh, I forgot to mention that Olivera himself was a Gulf War veteran and recognized the danger in leaving a veteran with PTSD alone in a cell could cause. His compassion for another human being superseded his desire to be a Judge handing down a punishment.

We may never know what was talked about in that cell, but the compassion that Judge Olivera showed for a fellow veteran in need is something that should be a model to us all. Everyone is fighting a battle, even if you can't see it. This Judge stepped well above and beyond his duty as a Judge.

Excellent work, your Honor.

Read More

Another article that should be read by all Democrats before voting

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/20/yes_bernie_sanders_is_not_a_democrat_and_hillary_represents_the_very_worst_of_the_party/

Yes, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat — and Hillary represents the very worst of the party

Sanders has exposed just how reactionary and corrupt the Democratic Party is—while Clinton wants things to carry on

Ben Norton
Salon

EXCERPT:
Hillary Clinton, a figure greatly admired by neoconservatives (who are overwhelmingly backing her over Trump), represents a continuation of the status quo — a status quo millions upon millions of Americans have said they refuse to tolerate anymore.

Americans are desperate for actual change, and Sanders has offered a new path. Clinton has flatly insisted that Americans cannot have basic things that much of the world takes for granted — single-payer health care, free public higher education, environmental policies that don't rely on fossil fuel corporations that destroy the planet. Sanders says otherwise....

The Clintons, the most powerful force in the Democratic Party, happen to embody everything that is wrong with it. It was under their leadership that the party took its most reactionary, and despicable, turn.

Bill and Hillary gutted welfare and passed the anti-LGBTQ Defense of Marriage Act.

Bill and Hillary advocated for neoliberal trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Bill and Hillary have made millions of dollars speaking for corporations and banks.

Moreover, the Clintons are one of the most corrupt families in U.S. politics. The Clinton Foundation has been described by investigative journalist Ken Silverstein as a "so-called charitable enterprise [that] has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends."

Unlike that of the Clintons, Sanders' record is not just consistent; it is squeaky clean. And it is consistent and squeaky clean precisely because Sanders is not an opportunist.

Sanders, a longtime independent, is not a party hack. He is a principled leftist who is only running on the Democratic ticket because he knows this, at the present political moment, is the only way he could have a chance of winning.

And he is right.

Read More

Elizabeth talks turkey to Ted Cruz

This is who should be the first woman President!

Elizabeth Warren Spanks Ted Cruz For Whining About His Sacrifices

By Karoli Kuns

4/19/16 6:39pm

Oh, this is glorious. Ted Cruz sent a whiny email out to his supporters about what a "sacrifice" he was making to run for President. So Elizabeth Warren took him to task on her Facebook page, and boy did she spank him.

Yesterday, Ted Cruz sent a campaign fundraising email whining about the "significant sacrifice" he's made to run for President. He whined about facing constant attacks, nonexistent family time, his limited health and sleep, and having no personal time.

Are you kidding me? We're supposed to pity him because trying to be the leader of the free world is hard?! I've got two words for you, Ted: Boo hoo.

Know whose health is limited? Workers with no paid leave who can't stay at home when they fall ill or have to care for sick kids. Know whose sleep is limited? Working parents who do everything they can to save money but stay up at night worrying about how to get their kids through college without getting crushed by debt. Know who gets no personal time? People who work two minimum wage jobs to support their families. Know who gets no family time? Moms with unfair schedules who drop their kids off at daycare and drive halfway across town only to find their work hours have been cancelled.

And Ted Cruz? He opposes mandatory paid family and medical leave and calls it "free stuff." He voted against student loan refinancing. He's says the minimum wage is "bad policy" and he's done nothing to try and help workers struggling with unfair work schedules.

And know who's facing constant attacks, Ted? Hardworking American immigrants, Muslims, LGBT folks, women. They're facing the GOP's constant attacks. They're facing YOUR constant attacks.

Working people are working more and getting paid less. They can't save. Some face mistreatment and discrimination. They can't take time off work for illnesses or to spend time with family. But they don't whine. They don't throw tantrums or try to shut down their workplace because they don't get their way -- and then turn around and demand promotions.

Senator Cruz -- you chose to run for President. Working people don't get a choice. Maybe you should spend less time complaining about your "significant sacrifices" -- and more time trying to do something about theirs.

Read More

Here's Why We Need Bernie over Clinton

EXCERPT:

What I do find curiously infuriating is all the people who say, "Oh, I agree with Bernie, but I can't support him because he couldn't possibly get everything he wants accomplished."

Well, of course he wouldn't. No president ever does.

What Sanders says is: I am going to do my best to try to create a country in which children are not living in poverty, in which kids can go to college, in which old people have health care.

Will I succeed? I can't guarantee you that, but I can tell you that, from a human point of view, it is better to show up than to give up.

Bobby Kennedy knew that too, back in his pre-drone and pre-smartphone world. "Perhaps we cannot make this a world without tortured children," he'd say, quoting the French philosopher Albert Camus. "But we can make this a world where fewer children are tortured. And if you don't help us do this, who will?"

The importance of Bernie

by Jack Lessenberry | April 20, 2016, smirkingchimp.com

---

Nearly a half century ago, a serious candidate for the presidency actually went around telling the voters the truth, and daring them to try to make this a better country.

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not." Robert Kennedy said that over and over in the spring of 1968.

When he spoke at a medical school in Indiana, to call for something like universal health care for all, one of the white students asked sarcastically, "Where are we going to get the money to pay for all these new programs you're proposing?"

Kennedy said, "From you. You are the privileged ones here." He noted that they were virtually all white, and studying in comfort while poor black kids were fighting in Vietnam.

"It's easy for you to sit back and say it's the fault of the federal government. But it's our society too," he said, saying they had an obligation to make it better. Try to imagine, for a moment, Hillary Clinton saying such a thing today.

President Barack Obama wouldn't have said it either, though he may have tried to defend his health care programs.

There's been only one candidate since with the courage to speak truth to power, even when everyone agreed it wasn't politically good for him: Bernie Sanders. And to near universal astonishment, he's winning millions of votes.

We'll never know if Bobby Kennedy would have been elected president, or how much he might have changed things. The night he won the California primary, a loser named Sirhan Sirhan put a bullet in his brain. He might not have won the Democratic nomination even if that hadn't happened; the establishment forces were squarely against him. But he tried.

Fifty years later, Bernie Sanders has picked up the torch. Bobby came from a lifetime of privilege himself, and was one of the youngest men — 42 — ever to run for president.

Bernie is the oldest man ever to make a serious run for the job. He will be 75 in early September. He grew up in a Brooklyn tenement and never had been anywhere near to rich.

Bobby had that famous toothy smile; Bernie usually seems to be scowling. Bobby was a devout Roman Catholic; Bernie is a basically nonreligious Jew.

But they both upset the status quo. (Interesting that people, especially their supporters, usually called them as "Bobby and Bernie," as if they were loved and trusted friends.)

They both inspired young people to get into politics and forced society to grapple with issues it wanted to hide.

"Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere whose politics and greed are destroying the middle class," Sanders tells audiences. Naturally, he gets accused of "class warfare." Most of those who throw around that charge should know; they've been waging it on the poor for decades.

Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to care what they think. Nor does he spend much time courting those veteran mainstream political columnists and talking heads who were first condescending and patronizing to the little socialist from Vermont — and then irritated as he started winning.

Clinton after all, was supposed to be "inevitable." Yet a funny thing happened; Bernie Sanders, who doesn't take money from huge "super PACs" — ended up raising millions and millions in small donations from average men and women.

There is a difference; Bobby Kennedy's biggest support came from the black community. This year, Hillary Clinton is winning the black vote by overwhelming numbers.

That, in fact, is what has kept her in the race. She hasn't fared very well with white voters. In the Wisconsin primary, she won Milwaukee, which has a significant black population — and lost every single county elsewhere in the state.

Still, Hillary Clinton is more than likely to be the Democratic nominee. She has gotten more popular votes in the primaries, and is overwhelmingly favored by the establishment superdelegates, some because they want jobs and influence.

Naturally, if she is nominated, everybody not a bat-shit suicidal Nazi or whacked-out crazy seeking to bring on the rapture will be morally and practically obligated to do whatever they can, including selling their children, to defeat either Donald "Mussolini" Trump or Ted "Savonarola" Cruz.

Yet does anyone really think Clinton would change anything substantially for the better?

You know the answer, just as sure as you know why Clinton won't release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms, speeches for which she was paid vast sums.

Want to guess whether she'll do anything about the terrifying economic inequality increasing since 1981?

Want to guess whether she'll do anything about the $1.4 trillion student loan debt crushing the future of this country?

The only candidate talking about those things, and many others, is Bernie Sanders. American politicians have been knee-jerk supporters of anything Israeli governments wanted to do, no matter now friendly. They fear the wrath of the Israeli lobby.

Sanders is A) the first Jew to ever win a presidential primary, B) the only candidate to have lived and worked on a kibbutz in Israel, and C) the only presidential candidate in either party willing to seriously criticize Israel.

"We are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity. We are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time," Sanders has said.

Both those statements ought to be self-evident. Yet our relationship with our longtime ally and client state has become so distorted that simple common sense seems radical.

What I do find curiously infuriating is all the people who say, "Oh, I agree with Bernie, but I can't support him because he couldn't possibly get everything he wants accomplished."

Well, of course he wouldn't. No president ever does.

What Sanders says is: I am going to do my best to try to create a country in which children are not living in poverty, in which kids can go to college, in which old people have health care.

Will I succeed? I can't guarantee you that, but I can tell you that, from a human point of view, it is better to show up than to give up.

Bobby Kennedy knew that too, back in his pre-drone and pre-smartphone world. "Perhaps we cannot make this a world without tortured children," he'd say, quoting the French philosopher Albert Camus. "But we can make this a world where fewer children are tortured. And if you don't help us do this, who will?"

Whatever else, a President Sanders would change the conversation. We'd be talking about how to make college affordable. We'd be talking about how to revitalize the middle class, not how to make the richest richer.

We'd be far less inclined to plunge into new wars.

Well, this year, while Cruz waved his Bible and Marco Rubio talked about Donald Trump's dick, a little guy from Brooklyn by way of Vermont tried to do something.

And I have to believe Bobby would have seen Bernie as a kindred spirit. "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope," RFK said.

His dream was that "crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring," those ripples could "sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression."

So far this year, 8 million people have voted for someone who is really willing to try.

Read More

Simple Chart: The True Colors of the Candidates

Read More

Important Facts for Dem. primary voters to know

Hillary's Dance: The Two-Faced Hypocritical 12-Step
by Paul Buchheit | April 19, 2016

---

If, sad to ponder, the presidential election comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. a Republican, we'll be left either way with a business-friendly neocon White House. Given Hillary's past deceits and reversals, it's easy to see why she doesn't inspire trust among the American people.

1. Environment

"I won't let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change." —Hillary Clinton, 11/29/15

Greenpeace estimates that the Clinton campaign has taken $4.5 million from fossil fuel lobbyists and donors, and Naomi Klein and Grist have reported on all the money received from ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips and other oil sources. In response, Hillary explained, rather incoherently, "I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me."

2. War

"Is there really any argument that America must remain a preeminent leader for peace and freedom..?" —Hillary Clinton, 10/31/06

Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, an advisor to the United Nations, called Hillary "the candidate of the War Machine." In her book, "Hillary's Choice," author Gail Sheehy claimed it was Hillary who encouraged the president to bomb Kosovo. Then, as Secretary of State in 2011, she strongly supported war in Libya, a country which today is overwhelmed with crime and joblessness and a lack of basic necessities. She backed the escalation of the Afghanistan war, and in 2012, according to Sachs, she was largely responsible for the obstruction of peace efforts in Syria.

3. Banks

"I'm going to go after big banks that pose a systemic risk." —Hillary Clinton, 02/26/16

Go after their money, that is. In the two years before starting her presidential campaign, Hillary was paid over $4 million in speaking fees from the big financial institutions. As summarized by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, "Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known."

Attendees at Hillary's Wall St. speeches referred to her as warm and "gushy" toward her audience, sounding "like a Goldman Sachs managing director," effectively telling them "We're all in this together." She refuses to release the transcripts of her speeches to the big banks, saying, in a pout, she'll do it "when everyone else does."

4. Campaign Money

"We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections....You're not going to find anybody more committed to aggressive campaign finance reform than me." —Hillary Clinton, 09/08/15 and 02/09/16

But the Center for Public Integrity and the Political Insider both describe a Clinton campaign and foundation that are accumulating cash from Super PACs, foreign governments, and lobbyists.

5. Free Trade

"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements." ----Hillary Clinton, 11/15/12
"Based on what I know so far, I can't support this agreement." ----Hillary Clinton, 10/08/15
"I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard." —Hillary Clinton, 10/13/15

Hillary was FOR, then AGAINST, and then either FOR OR AGAINST the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). According to one account, she has "a long record of verbally criticizing free-trade agreements, but then supporting them when in office."

6. Workers

"If you invest in your workers and in America's future, then we'll stand with you." —Hillary Clinton, 03/01/16

Campaign finance records show that a member of the Walton family donated over $350,000 to the Clinton "Victory Fund." Hillary, a former member of the Walmart Board of Directors, has refused to publicly criticize the company, which pays its workers so little that U.S. taxpayers have to subsidize them with over $6 billion in food stamps and other safety net funding.

7. Prison

"Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind that." —Hillary Clinton, 07/20/15

Michelle Alexander notes that Hillary called black kids "super-predators" who needed to be brought "to heel," like dogs. To do this, she supported her husband's 1994 crime bill, which was so severe that food stamps were denied to anyone convicted of a felony drug offense, and public housing was disallowed -- at the risk of eviction for entire families -- for anyone with even an arrest.

8. Welfare Reform

"I have spent a very long time, my entire adult life, looking for ways to even the odds, to help people have a chance to get ahead." —Hillary Clinton, 10/13/15

Hillary actively advocated for her husband's 1996 "welfare reform" legislation, calling the recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) "deadbeats," and despite a doubling of extreme poverty calling the program a success as recently as 2008.

9. LGBT

"We should ban discrimination against LGBT Americans and their families so they can live, learn, marry, and work just like everybody else." —Hillary Clinton, 06/13/15

According to The Atlantic, before 2013, "she earnestly believed that marriage equality should be denied to gays and lesbians. In 2004 she said, "I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

10. Tax Avoidance

"We can go after some of these schemes...misclassifying of income...routing income through the Bahamas or the Cayman Islands or wherever." —Hillary Clinton, January, 2016

The New York Post reports that "the Clintons' family wealth has grown big-time thanks to firms with significant holdings in places like the Caymans." Husband Bill has made millions from his partnership with a fund registered in the Cayman Islands. The Clintons also dodged estate taxes (which they support for other wealthy people) by putting their New York home in a residence trust.

11. Tuition

"We need to make a quality education affordable and available to everyone willing to work for it, without saddling them with decades of debt." —Hillary Clinton, 08/10/15

The National Review points out that Clinton has routinely charged universities $200,000 -- annual tuition for 8 students -- for 30-minute appearances.

12. Emails

"I am all about new beginnings....So here goes, no more secrecy, no more zone of privacy." —Hillary Clinton, 03/23/15

This was in response to her email controversy, using a private server to conduct official business. Just four days later, her attorney announced that she had deleted all the emails on that server.

One More Misstep

"I know how to get things done." —Hillary Clinton, 02/08/16

As noted by John Atcheson, "She only sponsored 3 Bills that became law during her 8 year tenure. One established an historic site in New York, another renamed a Post Office, and the third named a portion of a highway in New York after Timothy J. Russert."

Hillary keeps dancing around reality.

Read More

Handsome young Bernie--can you spot him?

The Original Bernie Bro: Childhood friend recalls Sanders' schoolyard prowess, shyness and crushes

Katie Halper, Raw Story
18 Apr 2016                  

photo via David Sillen from his Bar Matizvah

Don't miss stories. Follow Raw Story!

"Who the heck is this curmudgeon?" wondered David Sillen, 72, of Middletown, New Jersey. A semi-retired creative director, Sillen stumbled across an article about "this guy who's complaining about everything." When he looked at the man's photo, he said, "Oh my god, It's Bernie. It ain't nobody but Bernie." Sillen realized the curmudgeon was his former neighbor, schoolyard buddy, school and Hebrew School class mate. The two of them would walk to the James Madison High School in Midwood, Brooklyn, everyday.

David also realized, "It wasn't about being a curmudgeon. It was about Bernie being so passionate about his feelings. And I sat back and said, you know, the guy's right. He's really right about this stuff."

But back to the early days.

Bernie the Athlete:  Sillen and Sanders played sports together and he's still impressed by Bernie's athletic abilities. Sanders was the captain of the track and cross country teams and, recalls Sillen, "one of the best distance runners in the city. He was more of a guy who led by example… before a meet he didn't get us all together and give us rah rah talks. Nobody practiced harder than Bernie. Nobody tried harder than Bernie when we were in meets. And most of the time he came in first." He was also a very good "school yard athlete," who played "stick ball and punch ball and slap ball and ringolevio." Sanders was "a good school yard basketball player. He was a very tough rebounder. He was skinny and had long arms."

Bernie the Mensch: Sillen said, "When I say he was a regular guy he was a regular guy. He was a mensch." And, unlike others who have made it and left their menschitude behind, Bernie has stayed mensch: "If you were born Jewish and in Brooklyn it was in your DNA to be a Democrat and liberal. A lot of the guys we grew up with who became ultra-successful and ultra-rich — I'm sure left that behind. But Bernie took it to the nth degree, I guess. A lot of us are still liberal Democrats and we support him wholeheartedly."

Bernie the schoolgirl crush: Given that Bernie was such a mensch and such a great athlete, it should come as no surprise that he was considered a catch. "As a matter of fact we had our 50th high school reunion and when he started running for president we started getting all kinds of emails and texts from girls admitting that had crushes on him."  And why not? "He was a good looking guy. Not vain in the slightest… He was a good student… He was a little on the shy side."

You can hear the entire interview with David Sillens at Talk Bernie to Me, the new podcast from Babes for Bernie.

Can you spot Bernie among the Bernie Bros in this photo of David's Bar Mitzvah?

As a hint, this is Bernie's yearbook photo, which he signed for David.

Read More

Excellent Bill Moyers interview: "Voting with their stone-age brains"

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-moyers/66895/voting-with-their-stone-age-brains

EXCERPT:

Rick Shenkman is the historian, editor and publisher of the indispensable website History News Network. I'm a fan and recently had the pleasure of reading his latest book, Political Animals: How Our Stone-age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics.

Shenkman himself possesses quite a highly evolved brain, but he nonetheless admits he has his own share of stone-age brain cells. However, there is no club in his hand at the moment, just this book, which frankly, packs all the wallop he needs. If you want to know why this is the year of Trump, you've got to read it. If you want to know why millions of Republicans still believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, you've got to read it. Even if you want to hold on and remain an optimist, you've got to read it.

This week, I sat down with Rick Shenkman to talk about the brain of the American voter, and what is firing its synapses during this extraordinary primary season.

Read More

IMPORTANT ARTICLE: New Balance Offered A Big Contract by Obama For TPP Silence?

Did The Administration Offer New Balance A Big Contract For TPP Silence?

by Dave Johnson | April 16, 2016 - 7:58am

---

What else is going on to push this corporate-favoring "trade" agreement? Read below to find out:

Last year President Obama went to Nike headquarters to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But Nike doesn't make shoes in the US, and TPP would force companies like New Balance to stop making shoes here. New Balance kept quiet about this, but now says the administration offered the company a big contract in exchange for its silence. New Balance is talking now, because the contract never came through.

A Contract In Exchange For Silence?

The Bangor Daily News has a big story this week, "New Balance claims Defense Department strung it along on military sneaker contract":

New Balance officials say they've broken their silence over the Trans-Pacific Partnership because the Obama administration has failed to offer the company a chance for a contract to sell sneakers to the military.

… New Balance held its tongue about the TPP for nearly a year, he says, because federal officials told the company that if it did so, New Balance would get a shot at a military contract.

This is a very big deal. Last May's post, "Obama To Visit Nike To Promote the TPP. Wait, NIKE? Really?", explained what TPP means for the domestic shoe industry:

While the President visits Nike, New Balance is struggling to be able to keep some of its manufacturing in the U.S. Currently New Balance makes shoes in five factories in the U.S. Their executives say if TPP passes, lower tariffs on shoes made in places like Vietnam will force them to close their U.S. factories.

… If the President gets his way and TPP passes, the tariff on non-U.S.-made (Vietnam) shoes will end and New Balance – like so many other companies struggling to manufacture inside the U.S. – will have no choice but to end its U.S. manufacturing operations. Meanwhile Nike, already manufacturing in Vietnam and Malaysia and currently selling shoes that cost $10 to make for over $100, will gain even more of an advantage, which obviously will not be passed on to consumers. If you are able to get a certain price for a product, why reduce it?

This is just one example of how even more American workers would lose their jobs if TPP passes.

TPP would lower tariffs on shoes (and everything else) coming into the country from low-wage TPP countries. Companies like Nike would be rewarded for closing factories here in the past. Companies like New Balance would be forced to close factories here in the future.

New Balance says the government offered the company this contract if it would keep quiet about what TPP would do to domestic manufacturers. The military buys a lot of sneakers — as many as 200,000 pairs each year. It currently buys non-US-made sneakers, in spite of rules saying they should buy US-sourced when possible. So New Balance should have this contract anyway. (TPP would prohibit us from requiring the purchase of US-made goods with our own tax dollars.) But the government apparently used the promise of the contract to buy the company's silence about the job-killing effect if TPP passes.

The Boston Globe has more on this, in "New Balance accuses Pentagon of reneging on sneaker deal":

New Balance is renewing its opposition to the far-reaching Pacific Rim trade deal, saying the Obama administration reneged on a promise to give the sneaker maker a fair shot at military business if it stopped bad-mouthing the agreement.

After several years of resistance to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact aimed at making it easier to conduct trade among the United States and 11 other countries, the Boston company had gone quiet last year. New Balance officials say one big reason is that they were told the Department of Defense would give them serious consideration for a contract to outfit recruits with athletic shoes.

… "We swallowed the poison pill that is TPP so we could have a chance to bid on these contracts," said Matt LeBretton, New Balance's vice president of public affairs. "We were assured this would be a top-down approach at the Department of Defense if we agreed to either support or remain neutral on TPP.

The government offered a lucrative contract to a company, to keep quiet and not alert the public to the potential job-losses from TPP. Just, wow.

What Else?

This story raises the question of what else the administration is doing to get TPP through, and why. For example, last year the "Fast Track" Trade Promotion Authority bill prohibited the administration from entering into "trade" agreements like TPP with countries that violate human rights, in particular human trafficking. Malaysia violates human rights by enabling human trafficking. Malaysia is a TPP country.

So the administration solved the problem by declaring that Malaysia doesn't do that after all, even though they do.

Last year's post "Obama Administration Makes Malaysia Slavery Problem For TPP Disappear" explains:

[T]he trade promotion authority law … prohibits the U.S. from entering into "trade" agreements with "tier 3" human-trafficking countries.

According to news reports, the Obama administration found an easy – and extremely cynical – fix: just change Malaysia's rating to a "tier 2." Problem solved. But human rights groups, labor and members of Congress are "outraged," "shocked" and "deeply disturbed."

… Human trafficking? Slavery? Sex slaves? People kept in cages? Mass graves? Abuse of workers? No problem. Just tell the State Department to ignore it.

Another post, "Did Obama Administration Downplay Malaysia Slavery To Grease Trade Deal?", elaborates,

Cheap labor is the whole point of our corporate-rigged, NAFTA-style trade agreements. Companies get to move jobs, factories, even entire industries out of the U.S. to countries where people are exploited, the environment is not protected and "costs" like human safety are kept low.

But even so … tolerating slavery? Flat-out slavery? Really? Unfortunately, it looks like that's what is happening with fast-track trade promotion authority, The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Obama administration.

… Malaysia was a Tier 3 country in the 2014 TIP report. The 2015 TIP report was supposed to be released in June but was delayed coincident with the passage of fast-track legislation with the slavery clause. The report was released Monday, and changes Malaysia's TIP rating from the worst "Tier 3" to a "Tier 2,″ even though there is little or no change in Malaysia's actual performance.

Promising a company a big military contract if they would keep quiet about the job-killing effects of TPP? Letting a country off the hook for actual slavery?

The TPP is all about pushing jobs out of the country in search of lower wages so executives and shareholders can pocket that wage differential. But slavery? Really? Contracts for silence about how it will close US factories? Really?

What else is going on to push this corporate-favoring "trade" agreement?
_______

About author Dave Johnson is the lead blogger at Seeing the Forest, a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, a Senior Fellow at Renew California (and their Speak Out California site) and a Fellow at the Commonweal Institute.

Read More

Hillary pulling the UFO card to get votes

It's laughable to see how far Hillary will go to get votes, even the votes of us "weirdos" who know for a fact that we have been (and are being) visited by other galactic civilizations. Much of what we "conspiracy nuts" have been saying for years is true.  And If she gets into the White House and is called on to honor this promise made to the people, we know what kind of answer we'll get.  The same one we got from Bill Clinton's White House that also promised he would get that kind of info. for us once he was in.  Yep. Nada. We'll essentially be told to "Go pound salt."  "Move along...nothing to see here..." 

Here's How Hillary Clinton Is Hoping To Win The UFO Vote

"I would like to go into those files and make as much of that public as possible — we ought to share it with the public." — Hillary Clinton

04/12/2016 04:38 pm ET

• Lee Speigel Writer, Editor

Getty Images/Huffington Post Illustration

If Hillary Clinton becomes the next American president, will she keep her promise to find and declassify UFO government files?

Candidates make all sorts of promises in a presidential election. But in 2016, Hillary Clinton has boldly gone where no front-running White House wannabe has gone before.

The former secretary of state is promising to investigate and declassify government files on UFOs and make them available to the public.

The most recent Clinton-UFO-related news item surfaced on Thursday with the following exchange between CNN correspondent Jake Tapper and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta:

Tapper: Tell us what you're going to do when it comes to Area 51 [a Nevada Air Force base where top secret aircraft have been developed, and where alleged alien spacecraft are studied], and whether or not the U.S. government knows of aliens, should Secretary Clinton be elected president.

Podesta: What I've talked to the secretary about, and what she's said now, in public, is that if she's elected president and she gets into office, she'll ask for as many [UFO] records as the United States federal government has, to be declassified. I think that's a commitment that she intends to keep and that I intend to hold her to.

Tapper: Have you seen any of these documents? You were a White House chief of staff years ago.

Podesta: President Clinton asked for some information about some of these things, and in particular, information about what was going on at Area 51. But I think that the U.S. government could do a much better job in answering the quite legitimate questions that people have about what's going on with unidentified aerial phenomena, and the American people can handle the truth. So, they should just do a thorough search and open it up.

Tapper: What is the truth? Is there evidence of alien life?

Podesta: That's for the public to judge, once they've seen all the evidence that the U.S. government has.

Tapper: What do you think, personally?                                              

Podesta: What do I think? I think there's a lot of planets out there.

Podesta didn't directly answer the question put to him of whether he had ever seen any of the UFO or so-called alien-related documents. But he has a history of claiming the U.S. government has classified important UFO-related documents, as seen in the following video from a 2002 Washington, D.C., press conference.

Last week's CNN exchange followed Clinton's March 24 appearance on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" where she told the voting public that she would be more successful than her husband had been in his attempts to find and release UFO files. 

"I would like to go into those files and, hopefully, make as much of that public as possible," Clinton added. "If there's nothing there, let's tell people there's nothing there. If there is something there, unless it's a threat to national security, I think we ought to share it with the public."

And those Clinton quotes were offered just a few weeks after Podesta stated on KLAS-TV News in Las Vegas, "I've talked to Hillary about that. There are still classified files that could be declassified. I think I've convinced her that we need an effort to kind of go look at that and declassify as much as we can, so that people have their legitimate questions answered."

Is all of this back-and-forth rhetoric just the tip of a Clinton-Podesta-UFO-iceberg?

In early January, during a campaign stop in New Hampshire, the Conway Daily Sun asked Clinton about her husband's previous comments on national television where he stated: "If we were visited [by aliens] someday, I wouldn't be surprised."

Hillary Clinton told the newspaper, "I think we may have been [visited already]. We don't know for sure." She also said that Podesta had urged her to pursue the subject of government UFO files.

"He has made me personally pledge we are going to get the information out. One way or another."

It appears, three months further into the race for the presidency, both Clinton and Podesta aren't joking about the UFO subject because it keeps coming up in conversations.

As the New York primary rapidly approaches and the remaining candidates of both parties travel around the state soliciting large numbers of delegates, will the Clinton camp continue raising the UFO issue?

It will be just as interesting if any of Clinton's rivals try to put a negative spin on the UFO question in an attempt to lessen her credibility with voters.

Also on HuffPost

Politicians and UFO Sightings

Read More

Interesting prediction by Cayce seems to be coming true

The Shifting of the Earth's Poles Has Begun as Predicted by Edgar Cayce in 1936

"Question: What great change or the beginning of what change, if any, is to take place in the earth in the year 2,000 to 2,001 A.D.? Answer: When there is a shifting of the poles; or a new cycle begins."(826-8 given August 11, 1936)

NOVA, the PBS television program, reported startling discoveries about our planet's electromagnetic poles and fields. The program was titled "Magnetic Storm" and was written and produced by David Sington. The reason this is of interest to us is that Edgar Cayce predicted that the beginning of the New Age would coincide with the beginning of a pole shift.

In this NOVA show, scientists explained: "2,000 miles beneath our feet is the Earth's molten core. Here a vast ocean of liquid iron generates an invisible force, the Earth's magnetic field. It's what makes our compasses point north. But it does a lot more: it helps to keep the Earth a living planet. Our neighbors, Venus and Mars, have only weak magnetic fields, which means they're unprotected from the deadly radiation sweeping through the solar system. The Earth, on the other hand, exists within a vast magnetic cocoon, a force-field that for billions of years has sheltered us on our journey through space."

Now scientists have made a startling discovery: it seems there's a storm brewing deep within the Earth, a storm that is weakening our vital magnetic shield. Peter Olson at Johns Hopkins University explained that "the Earth's magnetic field has been our protector for millennia, and now, it appears, it's about to go away."

In reading 826-1, Cayce indicated that the pole shift would become apparent in 2000 to 2001. The NOVA show revealed that the shift has indeed begun in the South Atlantic Ocean region, between Africa and South America. Here the north-south polarity is fluctuating back and forth, weakening the shield against solar radiation. During the pole shift process, the planet's electromagnetic shield will no longer channel the solar winds to our current poles, where few people live. The Northern and Southern lights are a result of radiation moving to the poles. Since radiation causes many problems, the weakening of the shield is a concern. A weak magnetic shield also means that the Northern and Southern lights will be seen all around the planet, even along the equator. It may be a beautiful, wondrous, visionary time for Earth but not a healthy time for many of its inhabitants.

Read More