Who's the Sherif for "there ought to be a law against ...."?


     Slightly below the surface at last Sunday's picnic was some hint of despair about the chances for a representative democracy, right below the surface question about the relevance of the Democratic Party.

     I still like Mr. Obama's exhortation, don't get mad, vote!, but who is counting and whose votes are being counted?

     I had bookmarked before the Georgia 6th District contest the Greg Palast article herewith reproduced from RSN.

    Talk later, anyone?

p.s.  Q.  Who is monitoring the hen house?  A.  Not just the Russians.

Michael

Will New Jim Crow Scam Tip Georgia's Ossoff-Handel Congressional Race?

By Greg Palast, Reader Supported News

19 June 17

GOP goons grab reporter when he asks how 40,000 minority voter registrations vanished

aren Handel took a break from beating up Democrat John Ossoff to attack a reporter: me.  In the televised debate between the two candidates vying for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, Republican Handel claimed, “a reporter supposedly representing some very liberal Democratic organization almost literally accosted me.”

Handel's handlers trying to prevent Greg Palast from asking a tough question

In fact, is was a trio of galoots working for Handel who accosted me.

But who accosted whom is less important than Handel promoting the dangerous new trend of attacking the press, sometimes physically, when questions are uncomfortable or challenging.

Handel is afraid I’ll report what I began uncovering in my investigations in Georgia’s 6th.  I first came here in 2014 for Al Jazeera, when I interviewed an enthusiastic group of Korean-Americans based in the 6th, the Asian-American Legal Advocacy Center. When I returned to cover the current race, I found the Asian-American voting rights office shuttered and empty.

Apparently, the group which had launched a “10,000 Korean Votes” registration drive discovered that many of their registrants simply never appeared on voter rolls. Their lawyers’ query about missing voters to the Secretary of State resulted in a raid by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and a threat of criminal charges.

Voting rights attorney Nse Ufot told me what happened:

“They were doing a campaign to register 10,000 Korean-Americans to vote, and had quite a bit of success. At some point during the campaign, they noticed that many of the folks that they were registering were not showing up on the voter rolls. So, they reached out to the Secretary of State to say, "Hey, where are our folks? Why aren't they showing up on the rolls?"  They never got an official response.  What they did get was the GBI kicking in the door and requesting all of their files.”

While no charges were brought, the terrifying raid, was enough to put the Korean voter group out of business.
And Ufot’s own group, New Georgia Project has seen the registrations of new voters of color suspiciously…vanish.

Ufot told me, ‘We submitted 86,419 voter registration forms.  There are 46,000 of the folks that we've registered who have made it, and 40,000 of them are missing.’

So New Georgia Project contacted the Republican Secretary of State’s office.

“You know what they told us? ‘We don't know what you're talking about. What forms?’  They did not disappear. We intentionally registered voters on paper forms so that we could make copies. We knew who they were. They were not on the voter rolls.

When African-American activists raised a ruckus over the disappearance, they got the same treatment as the Korean-Americans: a Gestapo-style raid on their offices, threats of criminal charges and jail term.

But the African-American organizers had long faced down Jim Crow intimidation tactics.
I wanted Handel’s story—and not just as a candidate.  She herself was Secretary of State, and up to her chin in these vote suppression games.

I started out by asking if the Democrats were stealing the election, and she was pleased to say, “They’re pulling out all stops!”

But when I got to the subject of her office purging voters, one of her henchmen jumped in front of me, slammed me backwards and while two others grabbed and muscled me away.  She refused to answer to a question about the raids on voter registration groups, but the crowd answered for her, chanting “U! S! A! U! S! A!” – as if a journalist asking a question is the new enemy of America. And that’s frightening. Not the clowns who assaulted me. They were more buffoonish than threatening.

I don’t want compensation, I don’t want to press charges. I want an answer to the question: Who will decide the race in the Sixth—the voters or Jim Crow?

---

Greg Palast has been called the "most important investigative reporter of our time - up there with Woodward and Bernstein" (The Guardian). Palast has broken front-page stories for BBC Television Newsnight, The Guardian, The Nation Magazine, Rolling Stone, and Harper's Magazine. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Billionaires & Ballot Bandits, Armed Madhouse, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and the highly acclaimed Vultures' Picnic, named Book of the Year 2012 on BBC Newsnight Review. His books have been translated into two dozen languages. His brand new film of his documentary reports for BBC Newsnight and Democracy Now! is called Vultures and Vote Rustlers. 

Talking Politics while eating Hot Dogs.

Around a dozen people showed up at the 16-2 picnic held at Kukuiolono Pavilion on 18 June.  The food was plentiful so much of the excess (unopened of course) will be donated to the Kauai Food Bank.  Everyone was concerned with the direction our country is going as we tried to "brainstorm" a solution.  At times, tempers started to rise, but we quickly admitted that each of us had a different perspective and so things cooled down long enough for anyone with something to say to have the opportunity to say it.  Although no solutions were agreed upon, the topics under discussion were very broad.  The way I recall the discussion...

Is the Democratic Party viable (relevant) any longer?  

The answer is yes and no and even maybe.  A party that cannot elect its members to government positions can hardly be called relevant.  (The Greens for example.)  But then the only way to be elected to office in Hawaii is to be a Democrat, which means there is no candidate choice other than the one the party presents, but then how is that choice made?

Some wanted to work on support for a third party rather than the Democrats, but they were countered by those who pointed to the lack of success of the Green Party.  Even if the Greens remain on the ballot, what is the possibility of a Green being elected to any office in Hawaii?

Another group wanted to work within the Democratic Party and take it over.  They see the Democratic Party on Kauai (at least) as being "dead" and ripe for an insurgency.  The DPH was thwarted from electing a Clinton supporter as State Party Chair at the 2016 convention because of in-fighting among the establishment.  This group sees no party establishment left on Kauai to even battle so that if all the groups like Kauai Indivisible or People Power Kauai and others could create a "KNCC" (Kauai Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), the Democratic Party on Kauai would belong to them.

The last group took umbrage at the premise.  This group seems to have been loyal to the party and the party loyal to those members.  It would not be fair to label these folks as members of the "establishment", but they certainly do not appear to question the hierarchy.  It might be more correct to label this group as "insiders" where all "insiders" may not have the same values, but they recognize that they are the Party decision makers, so they don't want "outside forces" diluting their influence.

If you didn't vote for Clinton in the General, it is your fault that Trump is President.

The heading of this section is somewhat misleading since it was recognized by the picnickers that Hawaii's electoral votes were going to go for Clinton no matter who the individual voted for.  But the gist of the point was to apply this blame on a national scale (or more specifically to the voters of Wisconsin and Michigan who didn't show up.)  

This is the "lesser of two evils" argument.  Several specific issues where Trump is obviously "worse" than Clinton would have been were brought up.  The fact that Trump at least got the USA out of the TPP (which Clinton called the "gold standard" until she realized that it might cost her votes) was countered by the argument that the TPP was still happening, ignoring the fact that the USA was not going to be a signatory to that treaty.  The TPP, like NAFTA, benefits some Americans and is detrimental to other Americans, it is hardly a "yes" or "no" question.  Whether it is a "win" or "loss" that the USA is not a participant while the rest of the world signs on is totally unknown.  Those against participation in the TPP were just happy that Trump got us out.  (Yes, giving Trump a "win" -- maybe.  Waiting on his "better deal" to be revealed.)

However, those who made this argument (non-voters failed) did not seem to be aware of the "moral injury" caused by the USA pursuing foreign policies detrimental to the rest of the world.  When informed of Clinton's involvement in the overthrow of the Democratically elected government of Honduras there was no counter argument.  The point being made, as an American you are responsible for what America does, whether in its borders or outside its borders.  Is it really all right that America used a drone to kill an American Citizen without any judicial review?  No trial at all?  How can this be moral?  

So, sure there are huge differences between what Trump is doing and what Clinton might have done in any number of specific areas.  But does that mean it is all right for Clinton to overthrow the government of a foreign country?  Is this a case of not wanting to know the evil committed in your name?

DNC Superdelegates?  Or the Electoral College.

It does appear that confusing a DNC Super Delegate and a voter in the Electoral College is easy.  This confusion is understandable since politicians like Mazie Hirono conflate the two issues.  

A Superdelegate is someone the DNC has arbitrarily determined to be eligible to vote for who will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate.  Members of Congress automatically get this award,  while other "high donors" may actually "purchase" this designation by contributing enough to the party.  Remember that 70% of those voting in the Hawaii Presidential Preference Poll wanted Sanders, while 8 of 10 Hawaii Superdelegates voted for Clinton.

The question then was asked how those members of the Electoral College could live with themselves after having betrayed America's voters.  It was actually the DNC Super Delegates who committed the betrayal.  Unfortunately there wasn't time to get into understanding the difference.  Just understand that they are not the same thing.  Doing away with Democratic Super Delegates could happen tomorrow.  On the other hand, the Electoral College is part of the US constitution and has been around since the founding of the Republic so it could take decades to eliminate.

The point is, if a member of Congress is proud of being a Superdelegate, and she tries to tell you how horrible the Electoral College is, she is trying to bamboozle you.  (Start the video at 43:23 to see Mazie Hirono conflate the Super Delegates with the DNC and fail to answer the question but retreat to her "stump speech".  Her answer was not specifically discussed today.)

Local Kauai Government

Oh Boy.  So many issues with no resolution except to say everyone at the picnic felt powerless.  We were united in our desire to find and fund alternatives to our County Council and State Representatives but felt powerless to overcome the "good ol' boy" network.  Unless supporters were disinclined to speak up, we all agreed that if Kauai's mayor runs for Governor it will be embarrassing.  (Even though we were united against Governor Ige.)

No Conclusions

What's next?  We all left baffled without a new plan.  We all recognize that if anything is to be different, it is up to us to make that change.  But no one had any idea what to do.  The argument remains, "Support my issues" vs "Vote the lesser of two evils" (which implies that will fix it later).

At least we came together to talk about it.  We need to do it again soon.

A Tangled Web of Rumors

A Tangled Web of Rumors

A recurring theme has emerged after the 2016 election claiming "the Russians did it,"  meaning that Russia somehow caused Hillary Clinton to lose the Presidential election (rather than her own incompetence) because Russia wanted Donald Trump to win.  Most of the stories surrounding this claim are filled with wild speculation and leaps of fantasy but have been repeated often enough, from so many different sources, that many believe the central claim.

Several alternate explanations, which are just as fantastical, have arisen that may appear to be attempts to counter the central Russian theme.  We know that the Steele Dossier, which details Trump's dealings with Russia, is a real document.  We also know that there are at least two lawsuits against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) concerning the way they did not follow their own charter in running the Presidential Nomination process.  These two matters get conflated by the 1% in a way that is distracting voters from "real" issues.  (The pending passage of "Obamacare repeal" for instance.) They are being used as a foundation on which to build conspiracy rumors that attack either the Republican Party, the Democratic Party or even both, but the goal is to get you to pay attention to irrelevant "facts" so that the 1% can continue to pick your pocket.

The Steele Dossier

Buzzfeed is the only media outlet to make the dossier available.  They open their January 10 story by stating that the document is unverified.   Rachael Maddow has featured the dossier on her show several times.  Other news organizations have since published stories that portions of the dossier have been verified.  An analysis of the dossier is posted in Wikipedia.  While there is a lot of speculation about the veracity of the dossier, the many so-called experts may believe or not believe its contents.  How is the "average citizen" suppose to choose "sides"?

The 1% don't care, just as long as you fight with one another about meaningless matters.  The dossier is just one portion of the "Trump/Russia" connection but it is used as a foundation for other anonymously sourced reports that are putting more and more pressure on Trump.  (While I surely think Trump a fool, I have to ask the question, "How in the world did a fool get elected President?  What were the forces that made that possible?  How do those forces gain by feeding me irrelevant information?"  Netflix "House of Cards" is suppose to be a fantasy -- is it?)

I am reminded of Judith Miller's reports in the New York Times about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction that were used to justify that war.  She was fired for those stories because they were suppose to be false, but late last year some outlets still reported that WMDs were indeed found.

These rumors just won't die.  They are much like Clinton's lie during the Michigan Primary that Sanders did not support the Auto Bailout.  Of course he supported the Auto Bailout.  He did not support the give-away to the 1% that was included in the bill that he voted against.

Lawsuits against the DNC

At least two lawsuits were filed against the DNC in 2016.  The first was file because the DNC suspended Sanders' campaign access to the DNC voter database.  It is a complicated mess.  The second was filed as a class action lawsuit by contributors to the Sanders campaign because of collaboration between the DNC and Clinton's campaign to the detriment of Sanders.  The legal filings for the DNC lawsuit include information that all Democrats should be aware of.  (See Note below.)

These lawsuits are sometimes conflated but they serve as a foundation for rumors and what are often called "conspiracy theories".   Shawn Lucas was the process server for the class-action law suite who was found dead in his home.   Beranton J. Whisenant, Jr. was a U.S. attorney found dead on a Miami Beach and rumored to have something to do with the class-action case (although as a US attorney, he shouldn't have had any interest in the civil case).  Also the DNC is also suppose to have murdered Seth Rich because he was the one who supplied Clinton's emails to Wikileaks and not the Russians.

Fact vs Fiction

Living in an era of Fox News reinforced by social media and propaganda web sites like Alex Jones Infowars, it is becoming more and more difficult to separate Fact from Fiction.  Unfortunately, facts often are conflated with obviously false, wild rumors and then the facts get dismissed as not being true.  It is way too easy to believe or not believe these allegations depending on which version most closely comports to your opinion.

The Clinton campaign repeatedly blames Russia for her loss when there is no proof.  Trump is alleged to be a Russian pawn but the story (so far) depends a lot on anonymous sources.  Many, both Republican and Democrat, believe that Hillary Clinton runs a "murder, inc." organization.  The denial of that rumor is used to obfuscate the fact that Huma Abedin simultaneously worked for the Clinton campaign, the Clinton foundation and her own consulting firm.  We must view very skeptically both the conspiracy claims and the denials of those conspiracies.  Look for the underlying facts.  Often there is a truth that you should not allowed to be denied.

Do you recall when Dan Rather was fired from CBS News?  Do you recall Gary Webb's story about how the CIA imported crack cocaine into LA to finance Oliver North's (Reagan's) campaign against the Nicaraguan Contras?  Do you recall how strongly the "main-stream media" rejected these stories?  There may have been details that were not correct, but they were, in general, true.  We have to be aware of the motivations of the myriad alliances that corporatists make with one another and how those alliances are merely temporary and only hold as long as all members of the alliance can make money.

Why do Conspiracies divert out attention?

Do not be diverted from understanding that middle-class America has been getting smaller and smaller since Reagan was elected.  Bill Clinton was instrumental in deregulating the economy which caused the tech-bubble in 2000 and the Great Recession in 2008.  George W. Bush made no efforts at all to counter the movement of wealth from the middle class to the 1%.  Barack Obama made some wonderful noises, but Obamacare still leaves insurance companies with CEOs who are paid exorbitantly for not really doing much; there are still US troops in Afghanistan; Guantanamo is not closed; the list goes on and on and on.  These facts end up dividing us as we enter into false debates about trying to blame either the Republican or the Democrat.  The truth is, neither party is on your side.  But it is your fault for not paying attention.

Keep your eyes on the prize.  What do you want from your government?  Translate those wishes into concrete actions you can take to change the Democratic Party remembering that we are "all in this together".  Sadly, if you don't work within the party, you will be presented with two more corporatists in 2020.

Note:

If you would like to review the court documents you can either join PACER and look for the case numbers or you can use a search engine (google) to look for the case numbers.  It is up to you how deep into this you might want to go.  Case No. 0:16-CV-61511-WJZ is the Wilding lawsuit.  Case 1:15-cv-02211 is the database lawsuit.

Dear family and wider friends,

Here's my reaction to the shootings yesterday, all about the circle of "us."

Paul Ryan's comment as Speaker of the House was poignant:  "An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us."  His remarks drew applause from the entire House.

     I agree totally, except the circle of "us" is too narrowly drawn.  

      Before the baseball-playing Republican members of Congress and lobbyists were assaulted by a disgruntled political opponent, now dead, and with the third ranking member of the GOP caucus in critical condition, several others of "us" had been killed in San Francisco at a UPS warehouse by a disgruntled worker.   

     The Speaker and commentators referred only to Representative Steve Scalesi, talked about more protection for ordinary members of Congress, and called for bipartisan cooperation to lessen the bitter political divides. Of commentators I heard, only Lawrence O'Donnell referred in his "last word" segment to the several other Americans killed that day.

     "Us" should mean all of us.  

     As a Catholic and as a Democrat, I feel all life is sacred -- mine, yours, the not-yet-born, the born disabled, the born poor -- all human life is, for me, sacred and worthy of protection. Yes, that is an article of faith with which you may not agree, but it is mine.

     Will we get there, to a wider definition of "us"?  

     Will GOP members of Congress repeal their quietly inserted prohibition in a law to forbid the Center for Disease Control from researching gun-related deaths in the U.S.,totaling  last year  some 33, 000 deaths?  

     It was the NRA that lobbied Congress for and won that prohibition on even research.  Meanwhile, we are the only nation with more guns than citizens.  The NRA and the current Administration is pushing for allowing unrestricted access to silencers on all weapons.  That directly threatens our police and public safety.

     Why not regulate the acquisition of weapons of military utility, such as AK-47s and AR-15s, which threaten our first responders daily? If we can require, governmentally, folks who get behind a wheel to study, take tests and pass them, before they get a license, why does it not make eminently more sense to require the same of anyone who wants to own a weapon that can kill a person instantaneously or more slowly via bullets that rip through organs?

     Why not require every firearm to bear a serial number as every engine block in a vehicle does? Why not a traceable radio frequency code on every weapon manufactured?  They are used in crimes as well as by law-abiding sportsmen and citizens who want to protect themselves in their own homes.

     Why do we have so many firearms outlets along the border with Mexico which sell to whomever and that are then used in narco-trafficking?  Ask the NRA and the gun manufacturers who sponsor the NRA.

     NRA members statistically, per news reports, actually favor sensible gun management legislation.  Not the NRA leadership or gun manufacturers, placing profits above people's lives. I repeat, gun management is sensible.  It is not taking guns out of the hands of citizens.  Should people without mental capacity bear arms?  Should felons bear arms?  Etc.

     The protective circle of "us" is too narrowly drawn.

     As Gabby writes below, we need the courage to overcome the obstacles to sensible safety and health measures.  3000 Americans and foreigners - immigrants - died on September 11, 2001.  33,000 Americans died by gun violence last year.  Isn't it patriotic to use our government-of, -by, and -for the people to do something about that rolling disaster?

     I ask the Republican members of Congress to join the Democratic and independent members of Congress to do right by America, for all of us. 

     More guns of greater caliber means simply greater harm to more people, families, and communities.  Enough with Sandy Hook, with Columbine, with Orlando, and so on.  

   Time to act, my friends, for all of "us."

"None of the Above"

Do you recall the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago?  The Vietnam war was taking a toll on the American psyche as those who lived through WWII insisted that their children stand up to Communism just as they had stood against Fascism.  Can you tell me what the Vietnam war was about?  Vietnam is now one of America’s biggest trading partners and Ivanka Trump has some of her clothing line produced in Vietnam.  

Richard Nixon won the ’68 election by promoting a “secret plan” to end the war.  In reality, he was committing treason by sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks.  When President Johnson called Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority leader in the Senate, to notify him of that treason, Dirksen failed to take any action to stop Nixon.

Four years later I had my first chance to vote in a Presidential Election.  Nixon showed himself to be a liar and CSN&Y sang "Four Dead in Ohio”.  America’s youth were angry and energized, they wanted peace.  The “moral injury” (akin to PTSD but not the same thing) the Vietnam war inflicted on our nation still hasn’t been healed.  It probably won’t be until those who know who Mary Ann Vecchio is are all dead and gone. 

George McGovern ran as the Peace Candidate and was nominated as the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate.  However, the Democratic Party establishment decided they would rather Nixon remain President than they lose control of the party.  Thomas Eagleton was suggested as the nominee for Vice President when all other establishment Democrats demurred.  Whether or not it was that same establishment that revealed Eagleton’s recurring depression, I cannot say, but I do have my suspicions since Sargent Shriver’s, Eagleton's replacement, main claim to fame was that he was a Kennedy in-law.

Flash Forward to the first election of George W. Bush and Judith Miller lying in the New York Times about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Even though millions around the world protested, Bush still got his war and as many as 600,000 Iraqi's died.

When Air America Radio started broadcasting in 2004 in the wake of George Bush’s lies, there was a brief moment of hope that America might come to its senses.  However, Congressional Democrats and Presidential Candidate John Kerry failed to explain why they voted for the war.  Many voters decided the Democrats had no character and stayed home, allowing Bush to steal a second term in Ohio.  Long after the fact, Clinton justified her vote for the Iraq war by saying Bush lied about it, a trait she is pretty good at herself.  Who didn’t know Bush was lying about Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”?  Other than Fox News viewers, of course who decided Clinton was the liar.

When Thom Hartman joined Air America, he had a segment called “Brunch with Bernie”.  Senator Sanders, of Vermont, would take calls from anyone across the nation.  His answers were well thought out, articulate, compassionate, and addressed the issues that concerned me.  Hell, Sanders often identified those issues to me!  I listened to him for over five years.  Never once did I think he was mistaken.  Never once did I imagine him to be insincere.  

When the 2016 Presidential campaign started in the last half of 2015, I was one of those voices urging Senator Sanders to run.  America's youth was again energized, just as it had been in '72.  Aging McGovern supporters awoke from their stupor and started contributing to his campaign.

However, the Corporatists that make up the Democratic Party Establishment wanted Hillary Clinton as their nominee.  

What is a corporatist?  Unfortunately, it is a polluted term that varies in definition depending on who uses it.  In this paper, it is the support of large corporate organizations (run by and for the 1%) to the detriment of the "rest of us" who are not members of that elite economic group.  Corporatists value wealth and power above all; using wealth to obtain power; using power to obtain wealth.  A Corporatist tells you, "It's just Business".  Ask Salvatore Tessio what that means.

Hillary Clinton is a corporatist.  She is well paid by America’s Economic Elite (the 1%).  Fifty, mostly secret, speeches at $250,000 each, goes a long way to assuaging one’s conscience.  As a Corporatist, Clinton is hardly different from Donald Trump in that both believe that what is good for the 1% is good for America.  Even Obamacare still leaves members of the 1% the opportunity to skim off the top of your premiums to enhance their own wealth.  The corporatist 1% is in charge and American voters know it.

Corporatists make more money when there is a war going on.  They use the war to justify spending on useless pieces of expensive machinery like the enhanced X-ray machines used by the TSA to "keep us safe" from the terrorists who want to "kill us" because we invaded their country (not because they "hate our freedoms").  As a corporatist, Clinton supports war.

When Clinton was Obama’s Secretary of State she was not opposed to the “Arab Spring” which expanded the havoc in the Middle East.  Her celebration of the murder of Muammar Gaddafi reveals what I consider to be a deep character flaw.  Such “little girl glee” after someone is murdered should haunt us all.

She must be ashamed of her heavy involvement in the military overthrow of the democratically elected government of Honduras since that chapter was removed from the paperback edition of her book “Hard Choices”.  Berta Caceres won the 2015 Goldman Environmental award for her work against corporatists.  She blamed Clinton for the Honduran overthrow.

Although both Trump and Clinton are corporatists, there are many issues on which Trump and Clinton differ.  Those issues just aren’t the most important to many voters.  I’m not against “gay rights”, but I'm not gay.  Women should receive equal pay for equal work, but I’m not a woman.  I really don’t care which bathroom someone uses.  I very much support family planning, but I believe the Democrats are insincere in their stand.  Even Nancy Pelosi says the issue of abortion is “fading”.  The 1% do not care whether or not the poor have access to family planning.  The rich always have access.  Black Lives Matter to me, but then, I’m not Black.  I have contributed to each of these causes.  I support each of these causes, but my fight remains against the corporatists.  It is often a corporatist who finances opposition to these causes.  We should have common cause against a common enemy and not allow that enemy to divide us.

Unlike the substantive issues for not supporting Clinton, the list of Republican allegations against Clinton, including Benghazi and her “emails”, is very long.  I give none of them credence.  For the most part, they are manufactured truths that have very little foundation.  

Like the Republicans, Clinton does not refrain from “making stuff up” in her attacks on anyone who does not completely support her, including Bernie Sanders.  Former Republican David Brock, who was so instrumental in bringing attention to the the Whitewater Scandal, switched “sides” and founded Correct the Record, a propaganda organization to to carry out "hits" on their opponents such as the misleading and completely false Bernie Bros label.  I am not a misogynist, but Brock has labeled me one.  During the Michigan Primary one of Clinton's more bald-faced lies was the claim that Sanders did not support the auto bailout.  Politifact had to twist itself into knots to declare this to be only half true and not a lie.

I guess though that I am an “old white man”, another argument sometimes used to oppose those who did not support Clinton.  I hardly understand how one can use that argument without confessing absolute ignorance of the real issues.  How can it be that electing a woman President is the "most important" issue if that woman stands for much of what you oppose?  I am an “old white man” and I’ve been lumped into a group that is hated and feared because most corporatists, having no moral compass, are “old white men”.  But it is also true that some members of any religious, ethnic, sexual, age, racial or national group are corporatists who, like Frank Underwood, seek positions of power solely to benefit themselves.  If I wanted to play the “victim card”, I would define a term equivalent to misogyny for those who hate “old white men”.  But that is just as stupid as those who wonder “what is wrong with the millennials,” speaking of an entire generation as if they are all the same and not individuals.

I believe that any job that needs to be done, deserves a living wage, but I also know that there are some people who are totally incapable of performing a job for which I’d be willing to pay $15/hour.  This raises the question of what do you do with those people who aren’t capable?  This question is ignored by both the Republicans and the Democrats.  Remember it was Bill Clinton who ended "welfare as we know it" after Reagan's corporatist lie about Welfare Queens showed him it would win elections.

I believe that one should be rewarded for being better at a job than anyone else.  But there are limits to this.  President Obama was paid $400,000 for a one hour speech to a large, exclusive bank, an amount 10 Kauai residents would be lucky to make in a year.  How is this moral?  How is it moral for those same financiers to use technology to skim a portion of every trade on the stock market as detailed in the book “Flash Boys”?  Those banksters are better at something than anyone else -- fraud.  Hillary Clinton has no answer for these questions.  She just takes their money.

I have been bullied and vilified and called selfish and told that Trump’s win is my fault and not Clinton’s.  I voted for McGovern in ’72, and I voted for the Democratic Nominee in every Presidential election — until 2016, when, like 45% of the 2016 eligible voters, I chose “none of the above”.  In Hawaii’s Presidential Preference Poll, Bernie Sanders received 70% of the vote.  However 8 of 10 Hawaii Super Delegates to the Democratic National Convention voted for Clinton.  How much more clearly can the argument be made that “my vote doesn’t count”?

I remain a Democrat since I do not see a viable alternative. (The Greens are way too small with uninspiring candidates.) I support those Democrats who address the issues I care about such as: Tulsi Gabbard, Jason Kander, Keith Ellison, and those who support "The People's Budget".

I will never again vote for a corporatist.  Bring on Chris Hayes making fun of Susan Sarandon but understand that I consider those angry folks who yell and call voters stupid (as the Daily KOS did) to be equivalent to a serial abuser blaming the victim for their failures.  Get help.

Just like Bill Maher who think’s he is so much smarter than the rest of us that we should submit to his wishes, the corporatist Democratic Establishment does not care about the issues or goals of the "rest of us". 

The establishment needs to acknowledge the "moral injury" inflicted on America.  We are all Americans.  We are responsible for what America does.  When a 500lb bomb is dropped on an Afghan wedding party, it is a moral injury.  The millions that died in Iraq because George Bush wanted to be a "War President", is a moral injury.  Obama's not-so-secret war in Yemen where a drone strike killed an American Citizen, is a moral injury.   These "moral injuries" accumulate, harming everyone so that it is ever so easy to hate anyone who isn't a "Real American" just like you.

Demands that I vote for someone opposed to my moral values is a bit selfish.  Clinton campaigned on, “Trump bad, I’m not Trump!”, which was true, but after forty years of choosing the “lesser of two evils”, I finally recognize that it was still a vote for evil.

If the Democrats want my vote, support my issues.  Put the banksters in jail and stop the waste of money on expansion of the American Empire.

So, with the 2016 election we find ourselves back where we were in 1968.  The Old wondering how the promise ever got so ugly and The Young rejecting the world they have inherited.  Will 2020 be a repeat of 1972?

Yell at me all you want, I will no longer submit.  I was cheated out of the future I was promised.  I will not consent to the theft of that future from coming generations.

aloha,

sometimes little developments that are encouraging need to be noted, including at the very local levels.  Here's a Democracy for America update, which I post with the question for you.  What do you want to see happen?  What rings your bell, makes you smile, encourages you?

June 18, papas' day, is set to foster talk-story about that with you and officers of your precinct, the better to guide our endeavors.

Come for the beer and the hot dogs, but also to talk story.

Michael
President, d16-2

Here's the DFA post in part:

Jim Dean, Democracy for America	12:27 PM (3 hours ago)
to me

Michael --
Progressive leaders won major victories on Tuesday in critical elections across the country -- and DFA members like you helped make it happen:

• Jimmy Gomez won the all-important special election in California's 34th Congressional District. Gomez co-authored the single-payer health care bill that just passed the State Senate, and members like you helped him defeat a Republican-turned-Democrat. This is a big win that helps prove that progressive leadership is the path to power for Democrats.

• Chokwe Lumumba won the runoff election and will become the next mayor of Jackson, Mississippi. Lumumba won on a people-powered left-wing platform of economic and racial justice, taking on white supremacy in the heart of Mississippi -- thanks in part to your donations.

• Aja Brown was re-elected mayor of Compton, California, and will be able to continue her work revitalizing her city and building up the local economy with new, high-wage jobs.

• Progressive candidates in New Jersey backed by DFA had a great primary night, and members like you will be with them every step of the way as we go into the general election this fall.

These are big wins that we should celebrate -- and then pivot to the other key elections coming up this year in Georgia, Virginia, Washington State, Charlotte, Cincinnati,and beyond. Once again, DFA members like you have proven we can elect progressives and build a reflective democracy by helping build winning campaigns focused on real grassroots organizing.

Will you help DFA build on yesterday's victories and win again in 2017? Chip in $3 or more monthly to continue the momentum and build people-powered campaigns across America!