Democrats still don't get it . . .

Democrats really don't get it.

Democrats don't get that when they rang the alarm bells of sexism early in the primaries, on Bernie Sanders' supporters-- progressives, no less-- people who are truly NOT sexist, that the, "cry wolf," syndrome was in full force by the time Donald Trump (an actual sexist) came around.

Democrats don't get that when they were willing to compromise their principles of the last four years by lifting bans on lobbyists and PAC money, to defeat-- not Donald Trump-- but a progressive candidate to the left of the establishment candidate, it fractured their base.

Democrats don't get that when they were willing to compromise our democracy, by breaking their DNC charter, by breaking convention rules, by lying about voice votes, by allowing voter suppression to go unchecked, by purging their rolls, by engaging in party-swapping, they alienated anyone and everyone who gives a damn about the integrity of our representative republic. By the time it got around to discussion about the Electoral College, their objections were laughable.

Democrats don't get that they had the biggest political movement since the 1960's at their doorstep, and they slammed the door in its face. And they didn't even have to nominate Bernie Sanders. They could've had their nominee. They just had to keep up the appearance of integrity, and they failed miserably.

Democrats don't get that compromising on free trade, after it devastated middle America for two and a half decades and enslaved tens of thousands in developing countries for our comfort, alienates both its progressive base and centrist voters.

Democrats don't get that many Latinos felt like it was a choice between the wife of the guy who signed the law that sent hundreds of thousands fleeing from poverty in Mexico, versus the guy that wants to build a wall and ship them back. They also haven't forgotten that Bill Clinton built the first border fences in California, New Mexico, and Texas in Operation Gatekeeper.

Democrats don't get that many black Americans weren't afraid of Trump-- because what can you do to black America that hasn't already been done? What can you do to black America that's worse than shooting them down like dogs in the streets and claiming self-defense? And what they needed, what they really needed in a candidate, was to know what that candidate was going to do for their communities, for their families, and for issues that affect them.

Democrats don't get that, with our climate change crisis in full swing, doubling-down on fracking, accepting donations from big oil, gas, and coal lobbyists, was a direct threat to the health and future of our youth. You'll be dead and gone when they're suffering from what you've done. They won't support you.

Democrats don't get that we blame them for the failings of Obamacare. We remember the Democrats who fought hard for the health insurance industry and big pharma that still plagues our health care. So when their candidate was still fighting for the health insurance industry, with Obamacare on the verge of collapse in several states, (insurance companies pulling out of exchanges, massive premium hikes,) their candidate sounded like a Republican.

Democrats don't get that the American people don't want change-- they need change. So much so that they were totally discouraged with their candidate and stayed home, voted for a third party for the first time in their lives, or flipped to Donald Trump.

Democrats don't get that their post-election choices, with no reform in the Democratic Party, means doom and gloom for us for decades.

Get your act together, Democrats. I can appeal to Republicans until I'm blue in the face and it won't do any good. You're our only hope.

Voting centers, or how Maricopa County suppressed the vote.

In a general election, Maricopa County is not allowed to use, "vote centers," also called, "super precincts," or, "mega precincts," that reduce the number of polling stations but allow voters to vote anywhere. For the first time ever, because these are presidential preference elections and they are not bound by general election laws, Secretary of State Michele Reagan and County Recorder Helen Purcell rolled out these, "vote centers," on March 22, 2016 without announcing it to the voters, or the media, or anyone really. They just did it.

Here's a list of the known issues with vote centers. Anyone who spends any time learning about vote centers knows these are the issues inherent with them. Our state officials had to know this would be the result. If they didn't, they are incompetent.

1. Vote centers make polling places far less convenient, particularly for more rural voters and the less mobile.
2. Urban areas become gridlocked with traffic during peak times.
3. Parking becomes a major issue.
4. Long lines form at the polls.
5. Randomized audits become next to impossible.
6. It influences voters to choose mail-in ballots which favor establishment candidates and change how the election season works.
7. It takes the poll work away from locals and centralizes it, giving the parties more control.

Any municipality that employs these vote centers without addressing the inherent problems with them is doing it to intentionally to suppress the vote.

Shame on you Maricopa County!

Vote Centers or Super Precincts, from the N.C. Coalition for Verified Voting

Petition: Nullify the 2016 presidential preference election results in Maricopa County, AZ

Thousands of votes were not cast in the Tuesday, March 22, 2016 presidential preference election in Maricopa County, Arizona as a result of the decision to reduce the number of polling places from 200 in 2012 to just 60. There was one polling place for roughly every 108,000 voters. Lines were reportedly five hours long at some locations. Some predominantly minority neighborhoods had no polling location at all. Anglo communities had more polling sites per resident. Thousands were disenfranchised. This was made possible when the Supreme Court of the United States gutted the Voting Rights Act. As a result of this massive disenfranchisement, unprecedented in modern history, we demand the results of the 2016 presidential preference election in Maricopa County, Arizona be nullified immediately.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

Zero News Reports About AZ Polling Place Reduction

This is normally where I would include a link. But this time I don't have one. That's because no one in the major media reported on the dramatic reduction in polling places in Maricopa County, Arizona before the presidential preference election on March 21, 2016. The number of polling places was reduced from 200 in 2012 to just 60 on Tuesday, thanks to a Voting Rights Act weakened by SCOTUS. The Arizona Republic never reported on it, the Phoenix New Times never reported on it, and none of the local papers reported on it. No one on local TV reported it. It was all done very, very quietly-- so a big surprise would await Arizona voters. It worked a little too well, and they have awakened a sleeping giant.

Voter Suppression Is Real

Thank you Supreme Court of the United States! Who needed a Voting Rights Act, anyhow?

What ever happened to that grand committee that President Obama began by executive order in 2013 that was supposed to alleviate long lines at the polls? Oh yeah, it did nothing. The website is still there and it hasn't been updated since the committee was formed in 2013. Check it out at the link:
https://www.supportthevoter.gov/

Yes, my life is indeed pretty great. That's the problem.

"What are you complaining about, your life is pretty great!"

You bet my life is great. But my life is great at the expense of people less fortunate. My life is great because I was lucky enough to be born where I was born and to whom. My life is great because I'm a white man and the system has given me too many advantages to count. My life is great because of the artificially low prices arranged for us by multinational corporate interests exploiting poverty in developing countries. I know that my clothing is affordable because it is made by children, slaves, and indentured servants. I acknowledge that my food is inexpensive because it is picked by exploited migrant labor. My life is great because of the countless Americans who came before me to fight for socialism-- the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, safe working conditions, and more. I am very aware that my life is great because of the men and women who fought, bled, and died to end tyranny and protect us from fascism. So, yes-- I am acutely aware that my life is great. But most importantly, I am aware why my life is great.

What the word socialist means to this American.

I am often confused by my fellow Americans, including most recently Hillary Clinton and Chris Matthews on MSNBC's town hall (3/14/16.) They talked about the word socialism in a pejorative sense, intentionally focusing on the root word rather than its qualifier.

National socialism and democratic socialism aren't even in the same political zip code. National socialist countries included the Nazis. People's democracy included Marxist-Leninist states and communist governments.

But socialism tempered by democracy has given us thriving governments in post-WWII Northern Europe. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and even Ireland and Canada.

The word socialism even has a rich history in the USA.

When I think of the word socialism, I think of the workers who marched in Chicago's Haymarket Square for the eight-hour workday that we all take for granted today.

Demonstration in Haymarket Square, Chicago, IL

When I hear the word socialism, I think of the striking coal miners and their families in Ludlow who lost their lives at the hands of the Colorado National Guard at the pleasure of billionaire John D. Rockefeller.

Striking coal mining families shortly before they were massacred on April 20, 1914

Among the dead were eleven children and two women who were burned alive because they wanted nothing more than for their fathers and husbands to have fair wages and safe working conditions.

Aftermath of the attack by the National Guard on the Ludlow miner's camp.

When I think of socialists in America, I think of the Palmer Raids when government used immigration status as a tool to conduct violent police raids on union workers in 12 cities.

Union office ransacked following a Palmer Raid.

The injustices and unlawful activities of our government during the Palmer Raids led Massachusetts District Court Judge George Anderson to write, "a mob is a mob, whether made up of Government officials acting under instructions from the Department of Justice, or of criminals and loafers and the vicious classes."

When I think of socialism, I remember the shoot-outs between striking workers just trying to fight for fair treatment and the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. I remember the Coal and Iron Police in Pennsylvania that existed to protect the management and owners of huge corporations from their angry employees. I remember the 20,000 U.S. federal troops called out to put down the Pullman Strike by the American Railway Union.

Finally, when I think of socialism, I remember the tens of thousands of Americans who fought, bled, and even died for the working conditions that we all take for granted today. I remember that these men and women died for a cause, and the government in collusion with the robber barons killed them amidst cries of, "Socialism!"

Remember this history, Americans. It has been too long forgotten.

"Where's Bernie? I don't see Bernie."

Before you use the word SOCIALISM, know its history!

Before you conservatives start tossing around the word, "socialism," as some kind of a pejorative or insult-- know its history in the United States. Know exactly what you are saying. Learn how it was used as a propaganda tool to justify unleashing the full force and might of the United States military against striking American workers. Freedom of expression was suppressed-- it became illegal to fly certain banners. Yes, in America. That word-- "socialism," led directly to the deaths of American men and women who were fighting for rights that we all take for granted today-- the end to child labor, minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, safe working conditions, overtime pay, and even the right to strike itself. That is your history, America. It was called The First Red Scare. Learn about it so that when you say the word, "socialism," we are at least talking the same language and I know precisely where you stand.

Don't mess with our choice!

Hillary Gets Most $$$ from Weapons Manufacturers of All Candidates

No other candidate gets more money from weapons manufacturers than Hillary Clinton.

Source: OpenSecrets

#FlintDebate #FeelTheBern #HillaryClinton #BernieSanders #Hillary2016 #Bernie2016

Hillary's Scary Lobbyists

Remember when the Democratic Party dropped its ban on lobbyist donations so Hillary could beat Bernie? Bernie petitioned the DNC to urge them to stop rolling back their bans. The petition fell on deaf ears. Here's a bit of background if you are unfamiliar with this news.

DNC rolls back restrictions on lobbyist donations - The Hill

So what has been the result? Well, here's a sampling of some of Hillary's lobbyist donors.

-Michael Pease who lobbies for Goldman Sachs and was once barred from communicating with the House Financial Services Committee.

-Joe O'Neil who lobbies for Bain Capital. Yes, that Bain Capital.

-Theresa Fariello and Lai King Lam who lobby on behalf of Exxon-Mobile.

-Jerry Crawford who lobbies on behalf of Monsanto.

-H. Benson Dendy III who lobbies on behalf of several companies including Raytheon Inc. who makes tactical munitions for drones, and DJI Technologies who makes drones.

-Joseph Pigg for the American Bankers Association.

-The in-house lobbying staff of Commerce Bank.

-Langston Emerson representing private equity firms.

-Thurgood Marshall Jr. who represents the Corrections Corporation of America-- private prisons.

-Michael Driver-- who represents the Red Flat Nickel Corporation that wants to develop nickel laterite mines on thousands of acres of National Forest and BLM land in Southwest Oregon.

-Stuart Eisenstat for the private American military company and security consulting firm Blackwater.

-Ameren Corp which lobbies on behalf of electric companies.

-Sabrina Campbell who lobbies for her client American Electric Power.

-Janet Boyd who lobbies for Dow Chemical.

-Melissa Lavinson who lobbies for Pacific Gas & Electric. Yes, Erin Brockovich's PG&E.

-James Allen who lobbies on behalf of big coal plant owner Puget Sound Energy.

-Bradford Cheney of Glover Park Group who have been criticized for their anti-ethanol lobbying.

-Lobbyists for the Podesta Group, whose clients include Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo, Monsanto, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, big health insurers, big pharma, and much more.

-Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP who represent big media conglomerates.

-Raul Tapia, Melissa Maxfield, Phil Tahtakran, and Edolphus Towns all from Comcast.

-Kenneth D. Salomon who once worked for the FCC but now lobbies for telecommunications companies.


-Vic Fazio from Phillip Morris.

-Shanti Stanton who represents nearly $750 million in dark money, and over a billion dollars in all representing big pharma, Wall Street, and others.

These are just a small sampling, and what it means for our country is just business as usual. If these lobbyists get their way, and they likely will to some extent, then we will have no advancements in alternative energies, no tightening of restrictions on polluters, mining in our national forest, expansion of private prisons, and possibly even net neutrality itself is under threat. And I don't even want to envision the consequences of Blackwater's lobbying efforts.

SOURCE: OpenSecrets

What will it take?

What will it take? Child labor again? The military's might and force used against striking workers? What will it take? Another Great Depression? Sweatshops? How far do we descend before the American public wakes up for a second New Deal? How many people must suffer before the voters of this country rise up and take back their government? How low must wages go before Americans become fed up? How many human beings in developing countries must we enslave before we acknowledge the consequences of our consumer-driven society? How many bombs must we drop in foreign lands before the hands of peace and diplomacy take control? How many people must go hungry before empathy and compassion dominate our policies? How many? What will it take?

Bernie 2016 Together

The Clintons Are Not Liberal Democrats

Nope, the Clintons are not liberal democrats. And this isn't just someone's political opinion, it has been a fact for two decades. Oh, sure, they belong to the Democratic Party, but by definition they are not liberal democrats. They are, "New Democrats." Of course, they're not new anymore since they've taken over the establishment of the Democratic Party for the last 25 years. But in the early 1990's, the Clintons were not your run-of-the-mill liberal politicians.

The Clintons changed the party. They co-opted the Reagan/Bush platform on law and order, the drug war, and border enforcement in order to appeal to more white middle-class Americans. For his first couple of years in office, Clinton enjoyed a democratic majority in both the House and Senate and still pushed for more conservative policies. By his second term, the Republicans had taken over Congress and the only legislation that got passed were laws that the Clintons and Republicans agreed on-- in other words, we got all of Clinton's conservative side during most of his eight years in office.

The Clintons are as close to Republicans as you can get. Or worse-- they are politicians willing to say and do whatever it takes to get elected, including throwing their own constituents under a bus. NAFTA, marriage equality, incarceration, Don't Ask Don't Tell, immigration, Wall St. deregulation, weakened consumer protections, predatory lending, unprecedented build-up in border enforcement, cruise missile strikes, Rwanda-- please tell me how a Clinton presidency is any different from a Republican presidency.

My Short Story of Free Trade - How the Clintons Betrayed America

I was a young man in my early 20's when the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed into law by Bill Clinton. It was the first time I felt betrayed by a President that I supported. Sadly, it wouldn't be the last.

I was vehemently opposed to the trade deal. It seemed to me that the American people were being sold out to multi-national corporations. Although George H.W. Bush claimed that he had negotiated tough standards to protect labor and the environment, I didn't believe him. I suspected that they wanted to exploit labor in Mexico and take advantage of lax enforcement of environmental regulations. I also thought it was just a part of Reagan's larger vision of an Americas without borders. I really didn't know how right I was at the time.

When we elected Bill Clinton, we didn't really know much about him. He was a governor from Arkansas. So we had little choice but to listen to his platform and make our decision based on what he was promising to do. No, we didn't trust him at all. But we had no federal voting record to compare.

And we listened. We listened to his promises of change. We just had 12 years of Republicans in the White House-- we were more than ready for change. At the time, the working class was angry. We were angry at the Republicans for busting our unions (the first step to bringing free trade to the U.S.) I knew at least a dozen people - moms and dads with families to feed -- who were on strike in the 1980's. The government was encouraging American businesses to move to other countries, and they offered tax incentives and subsidies to do it. (Yes, they really did that.) We were also angry with George H.W. Bush who said, "Read my lips: No new taxes," and then proceeded to create new taxes.

So Clinton and Gore campaigned on a platform of change-- investing in American business, keeping companies from moving overseas, and protecting American jobs. And that's precisely what most of us wanted. Clinton and Gore even appeared together on an episode of the Phil Donahue Show in Tennessee near a sportswear manufacturer that had recently moved to El Salvador. We were truly done with the GOP, and Clinton won in a landslide.

Just months into his presidency, I watched in horror at a press conference called by President Bill Clinton. It was the signing of what he said were, "side deals," for NAFTA that he negotiated to protect labor and the environment. He trotted out Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush who each spoke in hyperbole to support the agreement. I simply couldn't believe what I was seeing. Congress still had to ratify NAFTA before it could be implemented, but this show of power was so strong that I knew the legislation would eventually pass.

And it did pass, and Clinton signed it before the end of his first year in office. And we all know how that turned out. American wages have stagnated, jobs disappeared, trade deficits continued to grow, labor camps sprung up in Mexico, child labor skyrocketed, and there are some 14 million more people living in poverty in Mexico today than in 1994. Sure, we all get super low prices, but it is coming at a tremendous unseen cost. It is the slavery of the 21st Century-- happening somewhere else where American eyes don't have to see it.

According to the Economic Policy Institute:

"no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric “race to the bottom” in wages and environmental quality." ~Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute, November 17, 2003

So what were those side deals all about? What was that big dog and pony show and dusting off all the American presidential relics?

Let's break this down. In 1992 George H.W. repeatedly said the core agreement had protections for workers and the environment. When Larry King asked Al Gore what changed about the NAFTA agreement that made Clinton/Gore have a change of heart in 1993, Gore said they had negotiated side deals to protect workers and the environment. Those side deals were allegedly the reason Clinton changed his mind and signed the agreement. And in the end, the biggest problem with NAFTA was that there were no protections for workers and the environment. Not inadequate protections-- no protections.

And that sends chills up and down my spine every time I think about it. Watch the video. It's all in there.




Today, we are rapidly approaching entire global free trade. If you think your quality of life has diminished in the last twenty years, just wait. Since 2001, our country has signed free trade agreements that are in force today with Jordan, Australia, Chile, Singapore, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. We are also in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.

Proposed free trade agreements include the Free Trade Area of the Americas including all countries in the Western Hemisphere except Cuba (notice we are playing nice with Cuba these days?), the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area including most countries in the Middle East, the Transatlantic Free Trade Area including the European Union, and bilateral free trade agreements with New Zealand, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Taiwan, Ecuador, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

All of these free trade deals are great for Americans -- IF -- they own or invest in a multi-national corporation, For everyone else they are terrible deals. They cost Americans jobs and wages, and we are allowing the exploitation of child labor, poverty, and the pollution of the environment in other countries as a result of our consumer-driven economy. We have to stop this, America, before we fully belong to the global serfdom ourselves. And we are nearly out of time.

The first step? Vote for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton Was Wrong And He's Sorry

Bill Clinton was wrong about Wall Street deregulation. He's sorry.
Bill Clinton was wrong about NAFTA. He's sorry.
Bill Clinton was wrong about the three strikes crime law. He's sorry.
Bill Clinton was wrong about the drug war. He's sorry.
Bill Clinton was wrong about marriage equality. He's sorry.
Bill Clinton was wrong about Don't Ask Don't Tell. He's sorry.
Bill Clinton was wrong about the Rwandan genocide. He's sorry.
Bill Clinton was wrong to bomb an infant formula factory in Iraq. He's sorry.
Bill Clinton was wrong to bomb a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. He's sorry.

I wonder what Hillary's list will look like.

ECONOMISTS AND FINANCIAL EXPERTS IN FAVOR OF SEN. SANDERS’ WALL ST. REFORMS

In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical
for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the
biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act,
separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and
they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street
executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008
crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’
potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in
watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that
pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills”
for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call
for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they
leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking.
As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial
system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size
and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution
and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and
public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans
for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-
Steagall.

Signers (Institutional listing for identification purposes only):
1. Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley
2. Robert Hockett, Cornell University
3. James K. Galbraith, University of Texas
4. Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
5. Christine Desan, Harvard Law School
6. Jeff Connaughton, Former Chief of Staff, Senator Ted Kaufman
7. William Darity Jr., Duke University
8. Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research
9. Brad Miller, Former U.S. Congressman and Senior Fellow, Roosevelt
Institute
10. William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City
11. Lawrence Rufrano, Research, Federal Reserve Board, 2005-2015
12. Darrick Hamilton, New School for Social Research
13. Peter Eaton, University of Missouri-Kansas City
14. Eric Hake, Catawba College
15. Geoff Schneider, Bucknell University
16. Dell Champlin, Oregon State University
17. Antoine Godin, Kingston University, London, UK
18. John P. Watkins, Westminster College
19. Mayo C. Toruño, California State University, San Bernardino
20. Charles K. Wilber, Fellow, Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace
Studies, University of Notre Dame
21. Fadhel Kaboub, Denison University
22. Flavia Dantas, Cortland State University
23. Mitchell Green, Binzgar Institute
24. Bruce Collier, Education Management Information Systems
25. Winston H. Griffith, Bucknell University
26. Zdravka Todorova, Wright State University
27. David Barkin, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco
28. Rick Wicks, Göteborg, Sverige (Sweden) & Anchorage, Alaska
29. Philip Arestis, University of Cambridge
30. Amitava Krishna Dutt, University of Notre Dame
31. John F. Henry, Levy Economics Institute
32. James G. Devine, Loyola Marymount University
33. John Davis, Marquette University
34. Gary Mongiovi, St. John’s University
35. Eric Tymoigne, Lewis & Clark College
36. Trevor Roycroft, Ohio University
37. James Sturgeon, University of Missouri-Kansas City
38. Spencer J. Pack, Connecticut College
39. Thomas Kemp, University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
40. Ronnie Phillips, Colorado State University
41. John Dennis Chasse, SUNY at Brockport
42. Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Bard College
43. Silvio Guaita, Institution, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
44. Glen Atkinson, University of Nevada, Reno
45. William Van Lear, Belmont Abbey College
46. James M. Cypher, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
47. Philip Pilkington, Political Economy Research Group, Kingston University
48. Eric Hoyt, PhD candidate, UMass-Amherst
49. Jon D. Wisman, American University
50. James K. Boyce, University of Massachusetts Amherst
51. Hendrik Van den Berg, Professor Emeritus, Universities of Nebraska
52. Thomas E. Lambert, Northern Kentucky University
53. Michael Nuwer, SUNY Potsdam
54. Nikka Lemons, The University of Texas-Arlington
55. Scott T. Fullwiler, Wartburg College
56. Charles M A. Clark, St. John's University
57. John T. Harvey, Texas Christian University
58. Daphne Greenwood, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs
59. Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts Amherst
60. Mohammad Moeini-Feizabadi, PhD candidate, University of Massachusetts
61. Rebecca Todd Peters, Elon University
62. Andres F. Cantillo, University of Missouri-Kansas City
63. Michael Meeropol, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Western New England
University
64. Robert H. Scott III, Monmouth University
65. Timothy A Wunder, Department of Economics University of Texas-
Arlington
66. Mariano Torras, Adelphi University
67. Gennaro Zezza, Levy Economics Institute
68. Wolfram Elsner, University of Bremen
69. Larry Allen, Lamar University
70. John Miller, Wheaton College
71. Chris Tilly, UCLA
72. Sean Flaherty, Franklin and Marshall College
73. Clifford Poirot, Shawnee State University
74. Anita Dancs, Western New England University
75. Calvin Mudzingiri, University of the Free State
76. Roger Even Bove, West Chester University
77. Andrea Armeni, Transform Finance
78. Anwar Shaikh, New School for Social Research
79. Steven Pressman, Colorado State University
80. Frank Pasquale, University of Maryland, Carey School of Law
81. John Weeks, SOAS, University of London
82. Matías Vernengo, Bucknell University
83. Thomas Masterson, Levy Economics Institute
84. Antonio Callari, Franklin and Marshall College
85. Avraham Baranes, Rollins College
86. Janet Spitz, the College of Saint Rose
87. Nancy Folbre, University of Massachusetts Amherst
88. Jennifer Taub, Vermont Law School
89. Irene van Staveren, Erasmus University
90. Yavuz Yaşar, University of Denver
91. Scott McConnell, Eastern Oregon University
92. Don Goldstein, Allegheny College
93. J. Pérez Oya, Retired UN secretariat (Spain)
94. Elaine McCrate, University of Vermont
95. Thomas E. Weisskopf, University of Michigan
96. Jeffrey Zink, Morningside College
97. Scott Jeffrey, Monmouth University
98. Lourdes Benería, Cornell University
99. Frank Thompson, University of Michigan
100. Baban Hasnat, The College at Brockport, State University of New York
101. Ilene Grabel, University of Denver
102. Tara Natarajan, Saint Michael's College
103. Leanne Ussher, Queens College, City University of New York
104. Kathleen McAfee, San Francisco State University
105. Victoria Chick, University College London
106. Steve Keen, Kingston University
107. Heidi Mandanis Schooner, The Catholic University of America
108. Louis-Philippe Rochon, Laurentian University
109. Jamee K. Moudud, Professor of Economics, Sarah Lawrence College
110. Timothy A. Canova, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern
University
111. Karol Gil Vasquez, Nichols College
112. Mark Haggerty, University of Maine
113. Luis Brunstein University of California, Riverside
114. Cathleen Whiting, Willamette University
115. William Waller, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
116. Kade Finnoff, University of Massachuettes-Boston
117. Maarten de Kadt, Independent Economist
118. Timothy Koechlin, Vassar College
119. Ceren Soylu, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
120. Dorene Isenberg, University of Redlands
121. Barbara Hopkins, Wright State University
122. Matthew Rice, University of Missouri-Kansas City
123. David Gold, The New School for Social Research
124. Cyrus Bina, University of Minnesota
125. Mark Paul, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
126. Xuan Pham, Rockhurst University
127. Erik Dean, Portland Community College
128. Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., George Washington University Law School
129. Rohan Grey, President, Modern Money Network
130. Tamar Diana Wilson, University of Missouri—St. Louis
131. Radhika Balakrishanan, Rutgers University
132. Alla Semenova, SUNY Potsdam
133. Yeva Nersisyan, Franklin and Marshall College
134. Linwood Tauheed, University of Missouri-Kansas City
135. Michael Perelman, California State University, Chico
136. Janet T. Knoedler, Bucknell University
137. David Laibman, Brooklyn College and Graduate School, City University of
New York
138. Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics, London
139. Steve Schifferes, City University London
140. Al Campbell, University of Utah
141. Faith Stevelman, New York Law School
142. Kathleen C. Engel, Suffolk University Law School
143. Jack Wendland, University of Missouri-Kansas City
144. Ruxandra Pavelchievici, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis
145. Zoe Sherman, Merrimack College
146. Donald St. Clair, CFP, Financial Planning Assoc. of Northern California
147. Carolyn McClanahan, CFP, Life Planning Partners, Inc.
148. Thomas Ferguson, Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Institute
149. Saule T. Omarova, Cornell University
150. Josh Ryan-Collins, City University, London
151. June Zaccone, Hofstra University
152. Alex Binder, Franklin & Marshall College
153. Albena Azmanova, University of Kent, Brussels School of International
Studies
154. Hans G. Ehrbar, University of Utah
155. Devin T. Rafferty, St. Peter’s University
156. Reynold F. Nesiba, Augustana University
157. David Zalewski, Providence College
158. Claudia Chaufan, University of California-San Francisco
159. L. Randall Wray, Levy Economics Institute and Bard College
160. Richard B. Wagner, JD, CFP, WorthLiving LLC
161. Joseph Persky, University of Illinois-Chicago
162. Julie Matthaei, Wellesley College
163. Peter Spiegler, University of Massachuetts-Amherst
164. James Ronald Stanfield, Colorado State University
165. William D. Pitney, CFP, Director of Advocacy, FPA of Silicon Valley
166. Ora R. Citron, CFP, Oak Tree Wealth Management
167. Susan Webber, Former Associate at Goldman, Sachs & Co.
168. Richard D. Wolff, Democracy at Work and New School for Social Research
169. Mu-JeongKho, University College London
170. Kevin Furey, Chemeketa Community College

Source: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

#feelthebern #berniesanders #bernie2016 #berniesanders2016 #hillaryclinton #imnotwithher #603forhrc #tcot #pjnet

What's missing in the debate over income inequality?

Now there's an oldie but a goody. Today we would replace the robber barons on top with behemoth Wall Street banks, leviathan military contractors, mammoth pharma, colossus health insurance, and a gargantuan gun industry.

What is missing from the discussion over wealth inequality? Where are the moderates and the more centrist Republicans who lean right? Why aren't they on board? They certainly don't support the one percent. It turns out, there is a problem with the way we have been framing the whole debate. We are leaving them out.

“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” ~Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court, 1916-1939.

Louis Brandeis was a liberal firebrand-- pretty much the Bernie Sanders of his day. But it was Republican Herbert Hoover who agreed that speculation on Wall Street was prolonging a financial recovery from the Depression and preventing prosperity.

And that idea of preventing prosperity lies at the heart of Republican ideals-- our free market system. Because of the massive inequality, Americans are no longer able to take part in free enterprise, the very cornerstone of our capitalist system.

"...it hampers the freedom of the individual. The only way we are going to work out our problems in this country is to have the individual free, not free to do unlicensed things, but free to work and to trade without the fear of some gigantic power threatening to engulf him every moment. . . " ~Louis Brandeis

We need to heed our history and take a page from our predecessor. We need to speak to the moderates and right-leaning Republicans. We need to frame the discussion in a way that includes them and helps them to understand how wealth inequality hurts them too.

The financial reforms following the Depression made it harder to become a billionaire. Not impossible, but harder. In the decades following those reforms, the number of billionaires was reduced by half. But there was a record number of millionaires. And all it took was some simple regulation of Wall Street banks and how they do business. It didn't kill them, and it made our middle class grow so anyone could start a business and join the ranks of the millionaires.

We need to invite more people to join us.

~The Liberal Malcontent is both a liberal and a malcontent.

#feelthebern #berniesanders #bernie2016 #hillaryclinton #imnotwithher #nhprimary #fitn #603forhrc #tcot #pjnet

Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.

Where did they get the idea that Obama might be out to take their guns?

Or does she stand with Obama? She approved this message too.

Thanks, Hillary, for contributing to the noise against Obama and the resulting 8 years of inaction on guns. Perhaps you should have chosen what was best for the American people rather than what was most expedient for your political career.

Bernie's position has truly evolved, from protecting gun rights for his constituents in rural Vermont, to seeing the need for stricter laws on guns today. I fully admit that. But he didn't throw any of his colleagues under a bus to get ahead.

#feelthebern #berniesanders #bernie2016 #hillaryclinton #imnotwithher #nhprimary #fitn #603forhrc #tcot #pjnet

They want us to believe it.

#feelthebern #berniesanders #bernie2016 #hillaryclinton #imnotwithher #nhprimary #fitn #603forhrc #tcot #pjnet

I'm not sexist. I'm waiting for Elizabeth.

I am a Bernie supporter. And that's not all-- I don't like Hillary Clinton. What can I say? I don't like her. I've spent a lot of time looking inwardly to understand my dislike for Hillary. Were some of my feminist friends correct? Was it the male privilege so ingrained in our society that was subconsciously making me dislike this woman who was on the verge of shattering the glass ceiling and making history? Was I being . . . (gulp) . . . sexist?

I've always thought I had a very progressive view on women's issues. I've always believed in equal pay for equal work and I am angry and frustrated that in the 21st Century we are still having that conversation. I support funding for women's health initiatives and Planned Parenthood. I support the right to choose. I believe in treating women equally and I support their fight against institutional sexism, the mass media, and body image shaming. I am a staunch supporter of violence against women legislation and I think it could go farther. I believe rape is at epidemic levels and under-reported everywhere, especially on our nation's campuses. I have a whole bunch of other important, progressive, pro-female views. At one time, one would've called me a male feminist, but really I'm just an ordinary liberal malcontent.

So could I possibly be acting like a sexist when it comes to Hillary? Why do I dislike her so much? And so I did days of thinking and researching and looking back on history. And the memories came flooding back. I wasn't being sexist after all! I have very, very good reasons for disliking Hillary.

Hillary has never met a war she didn't like. She has supported virtually every use of force ever put before her during her entire career-- as a Senator and at the State Department. In the midst of a historic peace deal with Iran, for example, Hillary just kept threatening to use military force. Why? If they agreed to all the conditions of the deal, what's the point of threatening them further? How do you think that plays in Iran? Well, if the leaders of Iran directly threatened to use their military against the United States, how would we react? We know how we would react because it has happened! And it's not pretty-- the Republicans get all huffy and puffy, the hawkish Democrats begin grumbling, and the military industrial complex licks its chops. We have enough power to bring Iran to its knees diplomatically-- we have shown that time and time again. So Hillary is just being a war-monger.

Yes, Hillary is indeed more experienced at foreign policy than Bernie. And that's not a good thing because her experience has been mostly bad. She pushed for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi and we all see how well that turned out. Gaddafi was tortured gruesomely before a bayonet was shoved into his anus which killed him. In response was Hillary's infamous comment, "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a good laugh. It was a real knee-slapper. Yes, Gaddafi was a brutal, evil man. But we don't need to sink to that level of response. It is undignified and inappropriate. Worst of all, it is war-like. It shows a people that laugh when they overthrow dictators. I can't get the image of Hillary laughing after that comment out my damn head. I just can't.

I could go on all night with examples from Hillary's record-- from her support of the Iraq War, pushing for escalations in Afghanistan, making no bones about wanting to intervene even more in Syria-- she is simply much, much too hawkish for my tastes. She looks beholden to the military industrial complex. I don't see her motivations for becoming more peaceful once elected president. She frightens me.

So thank goodness, my male feminist card is intact. I am judging Hillary equally, looking at her as I would any other candidate, and I just don't like what I see. So don't call me sexist. I am just waiting for Elizabeth.

~The Liberal Malcontent is a liberal and a malcontent.
#feelthebern #berniesanders #bernie2016 #hillaryclinton #imnotwithher #nhprimary #fitn #603forhrc #tcot #pjnet