DNC Describe Wink And Nod Method For Bribes & Indoctrination Studies

(Wasserman Schultz immediately joins Clinton campaign after resignation 07/24/2016)

The Wiki-leaks of the Democratic National Committee have shown what many of us already knew; that democracy is a farce and that bribery is standard operating procedure, although they don't call it bribery as long as they carefully avoid what lawyers call a "quid quo pro." They also show that an enormous amount of the money they collect is used to research how to indoctrinate the public into voting for candidates that routinely break their promises.

One of the most widely spread E-Mails includes an attachment about how gain Hispanic support, reflecting how they studied them; however it is virtually guaranteed that they have additional studies for most if not all racial groups, age groups, religions, and other demographic groups.

Democrats have often criticized the Republicans for being opposed to science including evidence of Global Warming; however there is an enormous amount of evidence that although they're not quite as obvious, most of the time, they also ignore the best research on any given subject when it suits their purposes.

However these E-Mails indicate that they're studying the psychological science of manipulating the public to convince them to support their candidate for the benefit of their donors; instead of educating the public about science that would help make policy decisions that benefit the public, on any given issues, including violence that the media has been covering involving shootings by or of the police and international violence selling arms and inciting terrorism.

No doubt the Republicans also use similar research but they try to attract a different constituency while serving the same campaign donors who win as long as we keep settling for the same two Parties that routinely betray us.

These are a review of some of the E-Mails and further implications that traditional media isn't covering along with examples of how manipulation tactics are playing out at the Democratic National Convention:

---

* Wink and Nod Bribery Tactics * Hispanic and Other Demographic Groups Indoctrination Tactics * Betraying Karla and other Latinos for Political Reasons * Long List of Demagogues Selling Out Pretending to be Progressives * Bipartisan Worship of War * Infighting at the DNC including biased rigging of the Primaries for Hillary * Collusion with Consolidated Corporate Media to rig coverage so only Corporate candidates have a chance * Coverage of protests almost absent from traditional media * Russian or Mika Conspiracy Theories * Highlights of Additional Leaks *

---

---

Wink and Nod Bribery Tactics

One of the leaked E-Mails, Wikileaks E-Mail: Jordan Kaplan Re: lucky you? 07/2/2016, show how careful the lawyers at the DNC and presumably other political Parties and Campaigns are about avoiding official bribery; but clearly demonstrates that is what is going on, even if they don't call it that, thanks to limited definition created by lawyers and lobbyists. In response to a "NOT strategic question," asked by Robert Glovsky, Vice Chair of The Colony Group, "The one question I need to get a handle on is what I get if I give the $33,400 by June 1 to the Victory Fund - either from the campaign or the DNC. and, how does that compare to being a Hillraiser." to Naomi Aberly she avoided promising him what might be considered a quid pro quo. However it is incredibly obvious that is what he wanted. By not turning him away completely it implies that they're not entirely opposed to bribes as long as it is considered legal.

Jordan Kaplan told Naomi that "He would have more juice at the DNC than with HVF (Hillary Victory Fund)," further implying that bribery is acceptable as long as it don't fit the incredibly narrow definition of a Quid Pro Quo. On top of that this should clearly demonstrate collusion between the DMC and Hillary Campaign which isn't available to those not supported by establishment like Bernie Sanders campaign.

In addition to implicating the DNC and Hillary Clinton this adds to evidence of donors buying influence with the Obama administration, which promised not to hire lobbyists when he campaigned in 2008. This is just one of many broken promises he made and the following articles along with some of the related leaks further demonstrate how money is corrupting politics at epidemic levels. Leaked DNC Documents Show Plans To Reward Big Donors With Federal Appointments 07/24/2016

Wikileaks E-Mail: Re: State Dinner Countdown 05/14/2016

Re: State Dinner on Friday 05/10/2016

RE: Seating Chart 05/17/2016

Re: Connecting you... 05/19/2016

RE: Host for POTUS in Miami 05/12/2016 "Black defended Jeffrey Epstein, who was prosecuted this year for multiple charges of sexual abuse against at least 34 underage girls between 1999 and 2007." .. "I lean no to hosting but could be ok with attending." (Jeffrey Epstein also had connections to Bill Clinton.)

RE: Donor Vet 05/09/2016 George Lindemann Jr. was a highly-ranked rider, Olympic hopeful, and heir to an $800 million fortune. In 1990 he hired Tommy "The Sandman" Burns to electrocute his horse, Charisma, in order to collect on a $250,000 insurance policy.

DNC emails: Behind the scenes look at care of big donors 07/24/2016

FW: 04/26/2016 Here’s one. I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.” (no shade to women)

Re: Liz Simons 05/23/2016 Credit wars are the worst. Elspeth said she raised the money and collected the checks so she wants credit.

Re: Robbie Kaplan blast language 05/07/2016 For the invite you just sent me (Robbie Kaplan Blast language), you have to remove Tina Tchen’s name because there is a hard ask in the e-mail

RE: Gloria Allred blast language for lawyers approval 05/19/2016 When sending out an e-mail fundraising blast, the ask cannot have the appearance of being earmarked for the purpose of defeating Trump.

---

Hispanic and Other Demographic Groups Indoctrination Tactics




Outreach to Hispanics or any other demographic group doesn't seem to involve encouraging them to check facts, which Karla Ortiz and other Hispanics might be advised to do before joining the campaign and realizing they've been betrayed, as indicated by the following attachment obtained from RE: Follow Up 05/22/2016 Getting out the Latino Vote in 2016 and Beyond

Getting out the Latino Vote in 2016 and Beyond

Introduction

The US Hispanic population and its influence have reached the tipping point. Specifically Hispanic Millennials are now larger than the current Baby Boomer demographic and growing. There is one shot to capture this demographic or lose the window of opportunity for generations:
1. Hispanics are the most brand loyal consumers in the World: Known fact.
2. Hispanic brand loyalty is generational: Entire families.
3. Once a brand loses this loyalty, Hispanics never re-engage: Unforgiving.
4. If a brand earns this loyalty, Hispanics will always be loyal and influence family and extended family to be loyal: Long term relationship.
5. Hispanics are the most responsive to “story telling”: Brands need to “speak with us”. Without a comprehensive brand strategy and plan, The DNC will lose the opportunity to acquire the Hispanic consumer.

Without a comprehensive brand strategy and plan, The DNC will lose the opportunity to acquire the Hispanic consumer.

Objectives

• To empower and inspire US Hispanics 18+ yrs of age to register & vote in the 2016 Presidential and Congressional elections
• To develop a relationship with Hispanics based on trust and inclusion.
• To increase the turnout of Hispanic voters from 48 % to 75% or more
• To extend the success in 2016, own the Hispanic loyalty, and convert states like Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Texas to become reliably blue

Assumption

The DNC possesses reliable demographic data and voting statistics of US Hispanics. This document does not seek either to address or expand on DNC data.

Issues

US Hispanics have been underrepresented and marginalized in education, finance and civic representation, while being the fastest growing demographic in the US, in the last 40 years

1. The Latino share of eligible voters is growing Latinos will make up 13 percent of all eligible voters in 2016, a 2 percent increase from 2012 higher in some states. In Florida, for example, the share of eligible voters who are Latino will increase from 17.1 percent in 2012 to 20.2 percent in 2016. And in Nevada, the increase is from15.9% to 18.8%.
2. Hispanic voter turnout is low—compared to other groups. Hispanic voter turnout in 2012 was 48% compared with 64.1% for non-Hispanic whites and 66.2% for blacks.
3. A total of 800,000 Latinos turn 18 each year—one every 30 seconds (or more than 66,000 individuals per month). Ninety-three percent of Latino children are U.S.-born citizens and will be eligible to vote when they reach age 18. As of 2014, one in four children in the United States—17.6 million total—were Latino.
4. As of 2013, 3.9 million lawful permanent residents were eligible to become citizens but had not naturalized. They come from Latin American countries, with more than 2.7 million from Mexico. Horrified by the anti-Hispanic messages coming from Trump, Cruz and others, they are applying for citizenship in record numbers.
5. Hispanic voters are voting for Democrats in ever-increasing margins (% voting for D minus % voting for R). The margins were 18% in 2004, 36% in 2008 and 44% in 2012
6. These five facts suggest that increasing Hispanic turnout could—and likely would—lead to the election of many more Democrats.
7. Traditional methods to reach Hispanics are ineffective. They include
i. Hispano/Leadership to reach/engage
ii. TV/Print
8. US Hispanic Millennials feel betrayed by politics, elected officials and parties
9. US Hispanic Millennials distrust politicians and parties
10. The US Hispanic Demographic is made up of multiple “Hispanic” or “Latino” cultures
11. There is no homogeneous Omni-channel platform that can scale across each Hispanic/Latino community in the country to
• Discover/learn issues and how they impact local communities
• Share and express point-of-view re: issues
• Feel included in process
• Be motivated to take action (Register and vote)

Solution

In order for a dramatic and impactful GOTV and branding effort targeting the US Hispanic eligible voters, the solution must be focused on the US Hispanic Millennial. This effort will be successful if the brand marketing is based on issues and conversations versus direct politicking, polling, advertising and robo-calling. P2P now replaces Door-to-door, which obligates the 2016 effort to have a strong digital and interative/experiential execution.

To register Hispanic/Latino Millennial voters and motivate them to vote via an Omni-channel platform to include:

1. Web
2. Mobile Messaging Platforms
3. Mobile Video Vehicles (automobile or other)
4. In person experiential events + voter registration

The features of an Omni-channel platform, with Viral Loop, scalable to dozens of Hispanic Communities Nationally:

1. GOTV a. Responsive Web applications with deep link interaction connecting partner sites
b. P2P / P2G mobile application based on Messaging
c. Issue Discovery + Call To Action
i. Broadcast issues (content) to mobile application and website
ii. Subscriber expresses opinion or sentiment
iii. Straw voting
2. Allow communities to engage with each other and create sustainable behavior
a. Social Media +Networking
i. Link all social media & networks to mobile applications and website
ii. Allow direct targeting of local communities
3. Reach out to communities
a. Experiential events in conjunction with video story telling and local events
b. Organize local events via mobile city-to-city
c. Provide video based storytelling of Hispanics/Latinos to express themselves
d. Setup GOTV activities at each local event
Original article

This is a result of an enormous research into how voters, in this case Hispanics, respond to various outreach methods. This is only a small sample of advertising research for both sales and political purposes, which attempts to get the views of the advertiser across without fact checking when ever possible. Most of this research is considered proprietary and researchers are routinely required to sign non-disclosure agreements recognized by the legal system. This should, and would, raise many ethical issues if the vast majority of the public understood them, which of course they don't. By making this type of research proprietary, with protection under the legal system, the law is aiding and abetting conspiracies to psychologically manipulate the public for either marketing scams or political manipulation to get the public to vote against their own best interests without realizing they're being manipulated.

This is basically a description of indoctrination methods although they avoid phrasing it that way.

"Brand loyal consumers," assuming Hispanics are as loyal as they claim, are an advertisers dream because they buy based on Brand without following up with comparison shopping. Their attempt to "develop a relationship with Hispanics based on trust and inclusion," is unlikely to hold up to scrutiny if a reasonable amount of fact checking is done, as indicated below with a review of how Hillary Clinton has responded to Karla's request in the past. The protests in California before their primary also indicates that a lot of well informed Hispanics were aware of her deceptions already, although, perhaps with the help of this psychological research it appears as if a lot of other Hispanics have fallen for their propaganda.

They claim that "Hispanics are the most responsive to 'story telling,'” which may be true, at least to some degree. However this involves more appeals to emotions and attempting to develop friendship, presumably with a small percentage of people since they can't get to know them all. However if they befriend people with a lot of popularity, which is well known among social marketers, they can encourage them to recruit others based on appeals to emotions. Once they trust their "friends" or perceived friends they may be much more willing to believe them without fact checking.

This might be how they were able to convince Karla and her family to trust Hillary Clinton and enable the emotional moment in Nevada which eventually led up to her speech at the Democratic National Convention.

In all fairness though, one of the E-mails that is making the rounds, Wikileaks E-Mail: RE: New video: Trump isn't trying to bring people together 05/09/2016 is probably not as derogatory of Hispanics as some people make it out to be. The reference to "taco bowl engagement" is clearly a reference to Trump's tweet where he's eating a Taco bowl attempting to refer to his engagement efforts as incredibly incompetent, which as they know with their research it will be ineffective. However they're still attempting to use his incompetency for political reasons not for the best interests of Hispanics.

---

Betraying Karla and other Latinos for Political Reasons

Karla' speech to the Democratic National convention was a follow up of an event that happened after reporters left the room in Nevada and a recording of an event was made that was quickly turned into an ad as reported in Hillary Clinton released emotional ad to appeal Nevada Latinos (02/18/2016), where she tells Karla, "You don't have to worry about what happens to your mom and dad, or somebody else in your family. Let me do the worrying. I'll do all the worrying, is that a deal? I'll do all the worry. I'll do everything I can to help, OK?"

Now that this document has been revealed it is reasonable to assume that it might have happened as one of their outreach attempts and when it worked out so well it they may have pounced on it to use it as an ad. This isn't a guarantee; however it is reasonable speculation considering all the political manipulation that the Clinton Campaign has been involved in in the past going back to the "rapid response" team with James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, in 1992 her getting caught planting questions in 2008, and now an enormous amount of leaks from the DNC that show collusion with her campaign. If this isn't somewhat close to how they might have manipulated Hispanics there could easily be other manipulation methods, which is more likely after a simple check of a small amount of her record.

Hillary Clinton's record in Central America among other places as Secretary of State has been horrible for poor people as many stories including, Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup (03/11/2016), which shows that when the media isn't reporting widely her record against minorities, often for the benefit of corporate donors is atrocious; and there's plenty more reports where that came from.



Honduran children were among those forced to leave the country then after she left the State Department when Barack Obama was being criticized for being the deporter in chief she said, “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay. So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.” (06/18/2014). This is of course the exact opposite of what she promised to Karla; and it is an example of how she responds when she's in power not campaigning. This is just one of many examples where she has a record of saying one thing during a campaign and doing another in power.



The Haitians didn't do any better as reported in High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti. (03/14/2016) Like most of her other complaints from poor people victimized by her policies it is only reported briefly in the traditional press while her positive propaganda is repeated over and over again, except for the complaints the Republicans focus on, which is often not nearly the most important parts of her record.

Similar manipulation tactics were almost certainly used to recruit African Americans, including the mothers of victims of police violence while she declines to look into the research on the root causes of violence and how it escalates as I explained in numerous previous articles including Media Suppresses Causes Of Orlando And Texas Shootings Again and Media Ignores Solutions For Both Police And Black Lives Matter. Recently she has called for gun control; however like most other issues this is a recent reversal of past positions when it suite her agenda at any given time. She supported background checks and the assault weapons ban as first lady but when running for campaigns at one time or another catered to gun right interests and has supported enormous amounts of weapons sales abroad including a lot that wound up in the hands of hostile regimes or terrorists.

As I explained in past posts, research shows that reasonable gun control is almost certainly a part of the solution but it is definitely not the only contributing factor and probably not even the most important one by far. The most important long term contributing cause to escalating violence including both the shootings of minorities by police and the shooting of police in retaliation is almost certainly child abuse and corporal punishment that teaches violence at an early age and escalates to bullying hazing and domestic violence later in life. Additional long term contributing causes to violence include income inequality, poverty, abandoned inner cities, lack of education and more, which I cited in the previous posts about the Orlando shootings and police shootings mentioned earlier. Addressing the long term contributing causes will protect both the police and civilians including minorities; however it is often against the ideologies of the political class that seems far more concerned about getting richer and maintaining control of the government and propaganda used to make decisions.

Regrettably many people may be slow to recognize this if they've been taught to respond to appeals to emotion from an early age; however if more efforts can be made to slowly teach the majority of the public all the details and encourage them to check facts then real solutions that reduce violence poverty, war and many other problems can be implemented.



Fortunately, as indicated during the protests in California, some Hispanics are already catching on to Hillary Clinton's scams like the Haitians that have been protesting her mishandling of donations to help their country. If they can do more to teach other Hispanics, eventually more of them will recognize Hillary Clinton for the political manipulator that she really is and if their own report is correct, "Hispanics never re-engage: Unforgiving," many Hispanics could be helpful in a reform movement that helps out their own people as well as the rest of the country.

In order to expand this it has to be done slowly at the grassroots level; or we need major reform so it can be done on a much larger scale if we can get help from a reformed political and media establishment that is acting in the best interests of all the public not just campaign donors.

Which may mean we have to throw the bums out of Congress and the White House!

At least one additional follow up to this article will come soon.

Mark Twain endorses Sanders, Stein or Johnson from the grave!

Obviously Mark Twain couldn't have specifically endorsed one of these candidates; however he made statements that clearly indicates that he wouldn't even consider choosing among those chosen by the establishment; and he also indicated that the public should think for themselves and not let the political parties narrow their choices to two incredibly corrupt candidates as the following excerpts from his autobiography, which he refers to as being from the grave, indicates:

We are discreet sheep, we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. We have two opinions; one private, which we are afraid to express; and another one – the one we use – which we force ourselves to wear to please Mrs. Grundy, until habit makes us comfortable in it, and the custom of defending it presently makes us love it, adore it, and forget how pitifully we came by it. Look at it in politics. Look at the candidates we loathe, one year, and are afraid to vote against the next; whom we cover with unimaginable filth one year, and fall down on the public platform and worship the next — and keep doing it until the habitual shutting of our eyes to the last years evidences bring us presently to a sincere and stupid belief in this years. Look at the tyranny of party-- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty— a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes— and which turns voters into chattels, slaves, rabbits; and all the while, their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible-texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master. ....

The preacher who casts a vote for conscience' sake runs the risk of starving. And is rightly served, for he has been teaching a falsity--that men respect and honor independence of thought and action. ....

All the talk about tolerance, in anything or anywhere, is plainly a gentle lie. It does not exist. It is in no man's heart; but it unconsciously, and by moss-grown inherited habit, drivels and slobbers from all men's lips. Intolerance is everything for oneself, and nothing for the other person. The mainspring of man's nature is just that--selfishness. Let us skip the other lies, for brevity's sake. To consider them would prove nothing, except that man is what he is--loving toward his own, lovable to his own--his family, his friends--and otherwise the buzzing, busy, trivial enemy of his race--who tarries his little day, does his little dirt, commends himself to God, and then goes out into the darkness, to return no more, and send no messages back--selfish even in death. ....

.... I had been accustomed to vote for Republicans more frequently than for Democrats, but I was never a Republican and never a Democrat. In the community, I was regarded as a Republican, but I had never so regarded myself. As early as 1865 or '66 I had had this curious experience: that whereas up to that time I had considered myself a Republican, I was converted to a no-party independence by the wisdom of a rabid Republican. This was a man who was afterward a United States Senator, and upon whose character rests no blemish that I know of, except that he was the father of the William R. Hearst of to-day, and therefore grandfather of Yellow Journalism--that calamity of calamities. ....

When Blaine came to be talked of by the Republican leaders as their probable candidate for the Presidency, the Republicans of Hartford were very sorry, and they thought they foresaw his defeat, in case he should be nominated. But they stood in no great fear of his nomination. The Convention met in Chicago and the balloting began. In my house, we were playing billiards ... as a ballot was received at the political headquarters downtown, it was telephoned out to the house, and George reported it to us through the speaking tube. ….

…. He said sorrowfully, that it was hard luck to have to vote for that man. I said:

“But we don’t have to vote for him.”

Robinson said “Do you mean to say that you are not going to vote for him?”

“Yes,” I said, “that is what I mean to say. I am not going to vote for him.”

The others began to find their voices. They sang the same note. They said that when a party’s representatives choose a man, that ends it. If they choose unwisely it is a misfortune, but no loyal member of the party has any right to withhold his vote. He has a plain duty before him and he can’t shirk it. He must vote for that nominee.

I said that no party has the privilege of dictating to me how I should vote. That if party loyalty was a form of patriotism, I was no patriot, and that I don’t think I was much of a patriot anyway, for oftener than otherwise what the general body of Americans regard as the patriotic course was not in accordance with my views, that if there was any valuable difference between being an American and a monarchist it lay in the theory that the American could decide for himself what is patriotic and what isn’t; whereas the king could dictate the monarchists patriotism for him— a decision which was final and must be accepted by the victim; that in my belief I was the only person in the sixty millions— with Congress and the Administration back of the sixty millions — who was privileged to construct my patriotism for me.

They said “Suppose the country is entering upon a war–-where do you stand then? Do you arrogate yourself the privilege of going your own way in the matter, in the face of the nation?"

“Yes,” I said, “that is my position. If I thought it an unrighteous war I would say so. If I were invited to shoulder a musket in that cause and march under that flag, I would decline. I would not voluntarily march under this country’s flag, nor any other, when it was my private judgment that the country was in the wrong. If the country obliged me to shoulder the musket I could not help myself, but I would never volunteer. To volunteer would be the act of a traitor to myself, and consequently traitor to my country. If I refused to volunteer, I should be called a traitor, I am well aware of that–-but that would not make me at traitor. The unanimous vote of the sixty millions could not make me at traitor. I should still be a patriot, and, in my opinion, the only one in the whole country. Autobiography of Mark Twain p. 314-7

I may not be able to tell which candidate he would choose but with the current political establishment lining up like cult followers in a manner as bad, if not much worse, than the political culture in 1884, it is clear that there is no way he would consider either of the two presumptive nominees.

Nor should any rational person.

The political establishment is relying on a cult mentality that a shocking percentage of the public still have which involves blindly following the leader or crowd. They've done an enormous amount of research into this and political advisors like Frank Luntz, James Carville, George Stephanopoulos routine study so they can manipulate the public more effectively and pressure into supporting candidates that don't serve their interests.

The good news is that a lot of this research indicate that child rearing tactics are a large contributing factor to this and that many younger people learn more critical thinking skills due to changes since Benjamin Spock and other advisers recommended many more effective methods. These are necessary to educate workers in a high tech society and they also enable them to stand up for themselves more effectively when politicians manipulate them.

This is no doubt a major reason why Bernie Sanders is so much more popular among younger people who weren't taught to go along with the crowd.

Mark Twain understood long before many of these young people that real Patriotism is doing what's best for our country; not blindly obeying our leaders, even when they send us to war based on lies.

With either Trump or Clinton we'll get many more wars based on lies and epidemic levels of fraud which they're already involved in as many reports indicate.

Mark Twain was also a critic of copyright infringement or plagiarism; however a close look at his writings indicates that he would use reasonable discretion and four to six score and seven years ago he accused all people including himself of committing plagiarism at one time or another.

This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have thought Melania crossed the line; however he might have been far more concerned with the incredible phoniness of the rhetoric coming out of all politicians than the plagiarism that the media is obsessing about. The media avoided considering whether any of these politicians, including Trump, Clinton or Obama really believe their "word is their bond." If anyone checked their records they would easily find an incredibly long track record of all three betraying their word to the majority while catering to the rich.

I don't know about Mark Twain but I'm not a fan of Ted Cruz either; but I agree that everyone should "vote their conscience" after checking the track record of all candidates through independent media more reliable than traditional media.

If ninety percent of the public did this then it would be hard to imagine either Trump or Clinton getting more than ten percent of the vote. If the mainstream media provided fair coverage they wouldn't even get that!

Can Democrats ever trust their "Leaders"

Bernie's decision to endorse Hillary Clinton should remind people that grassroots education and efforts will do far more to bring about real reform than any one candidate although it will be much more likely if we manage to elect a candidate that is at least trying to do a good job, which will never include either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have the highest negative poll numbers in history, with good reason; and I strongly suspect they have even less support than the media implies, especially Hillary, who can't gather large enthusiastic crowds like either Trump or Sanders. However Trump can't completely fake his large rallies which should raise major concerns about how he was able to convince all these people that he represents their best interests.

He's not even a good scam artist, assuming his target audience has a reasonable amount of critical thinking skills.

---

The fact that Hillary Clinton isn't beating him by an unprecedented landslide already in the polls is a clear indication of how horrendous she is as a candidate!
 

---

This demonstrates that a shocking percentage of the public responds far more to appeals to emotions than they do to rational arguments; and the political establishment has been studying how to manipulate those emotions for decades.

It also demonstrates that a Democracy can't work unless the majority of the public have the education critical thinking skills and access to accurate to look out for their own best interests. If more isn't done to teach the public to think rationally we''l fall for the same scam every damn time and it gets worse every four years.

Bernie Sanders has done far more to promote a grassroots movement than any of the pseudo-progressives that the media provide a modest amount of coverage for before electing a corporate democrat, and that is something that a politician selling out would never do since his grassroots movement appears to be going on even with the endorsement.

However Hillary Clinton opposed almost all of her progressives positions until it became clear that she would need to reach out to progressives for the primary, and she's demonstrated in the past that she will flip once in power. There have been so many examples where she has taken one position in public and another in private that it is hard to keep up with, although many people have tried including me in numerous past posts with incredibly long lists of examples.

By recommending that we accept the lesser of two evils as our only options Bernie is trying to help elect one of the two most corrupt candidates ever to run for president, the other is Donald Trump and it is hard to tell which is worse, although at least with Trump he isn't doing as good a job pretending to be progressive.

The fact that a large number of his supporters aren't going along with this indicates that they have far better critical thinking skills than the supporters of Donald Trump. This a close look at the records of the candidates that the media is willing to cover shows that he's the only one that is even remotely close to representing the people, unless you count Jill Stein, who the media hardly covers at all.

However thanks to alternative media outlets she's getting enough coverage to slowly get support and force the media to give her a minimum amount of coverage.

The media practically never covers real grassroots candidates at all, virtually rigging elections so that the only "Viable" candidates are ones that represent corporate interests while consulting with campaign advisors and pollsters to convince the public that they're looking out for their best interests without actually doing so.  

There's been an incredibly long history of so-called progressives or liberals running for president then either collapsing because of their own efforts or betraying progressives causes. Every open election in the past thirty years they've always run a progressive who later showed that he wasn't so progressive although in most cases they didn't even win. Often they seem to have run incredibly bad campaigns that might make some people wonder if they aren't taking a dive.

The most recent one, Barack Obama in 2008, may have been the first one to actually win the White House; but then he proved that he wasn't progressive at all catering to corporate interests over and over again. The media and his political advisors presented him as a rising star from the grassroots and an enormous number of people believed them including record breaking numbers of African Americans and young people that turned out to vote for him.

He promised not to hire any lobbyists in his cabinet, to oppose free trade when it didn't protect jobs or workers rights to support GMO labeling, oppose military actions around the world based on lies, and he even said that as president, if necessary, he would put on a "Comfortable Pair of shoes and march with protesters to protect workers rights.

He broke every one of these promises and many more.

The recent controversy about Malia Trump's plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech overlooks the reminder that she put emphasis on the fact that keeping promises matters a lot and that is why they told us to vote for Obama in 2008 but after he broke all these promises it should be clear that all traditional candidates are compulsive liars. At least Obama did a much better job pretending to represent the public. Neither Hillary or Trump even do that!

Prior to his election his record was far more progressive than Hillary Clinton, which is why he won. Now that Hillary won the nomination with an enormous amount of help from the media and voter suppression we're supposed to believe she's a progressive just because Bernie Sanders endorsed her and contradicted himself on many issues in the process?

For many of us that looked at her record it isn't going to happen and it is clear that this raises doubts about whether Bernie Sanders has been working with the establishment for too long and is starting to believe some of their own propaganda about accepting the assumption that we can never challenge the two party system.

He still has a much better record representing the public consistently and it is only after and enormous amount of pressure that began before the campaign that he accepted the lesser of two evil arguments and endorsed Hillary. The media has been pressuring him to promise to endorse the winner since he began when George Stephanopoulos and other pundits persistently demanded that he endorse the duopoly before providing him any coverage and still presented Hillary Clinton as the inevitable nominee.

Perhaps he couldn't have even gotten as much coverage as he did if he didn't make that promise.

But he also made a promise to the public to pursue revolutionary reform which Hillary Clinton will never do unless she thinks she has absolutely not choice! 

Clearly, sometimes even Bernie Sanders needs to be convinced to support the grassroots and political reform with all this pressure from the corrupt establishment.



However grassroots efforts alone won't bring about the reform we need if we have to fight tooth and nail to get the president to stop corrupting the system. This is what has been going on for seven years with Barack Obama; who didn't address many if any of the concerns brought about by Occupy Wall Street or any of the other protest movements that he supported during his campaign. He opposed the Keystone pipeline during his campaign but then hedged until there was an enormous amount of protest to back him up; he still supports TPP and privatization of the education system and use of drone strikes despite enormous protests.

Neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are even doing a good job pretending to support the interest of the public, nor do their records indicate that either one of them will be as willing to back down even a little when faced with enormous amounts of protests.

Furthermore with their enormous negative poll numbers and grassroots oppositions we shouldn't believe that they're our only choice. This could be the best chance since Abraham Lincoln to elect an third party candidate or to overturn the presumptive nominee in a convention.

In any other political year this would probably be an absurd out of the question idea but this political year has been full of one absurd out of the question thing after another, including these incredibly corrupt candidates becoming the presumptive nominees.

There is virtually guaranteed to be enormous marches in support of Bernie Sanders much bigger than those supporting the nominee.

I don't think this has ever happened before.

This will be disastrous for the Democratic Party for the country to see that their nominee can't get this kind of support and it may also draw attention, at least in the alternative media to enormous reports of the voter suppression that enabled her to win the delegates she needs.

Or it may draw attention to many of the news stories that the media hasn't been covering adequately which could easily cause a melt down of Hillary Clinton's campaign if the public knew about them.

Hillary Clinton has been involved in record number of scandals that should have caused her campaign to collapse years ago; and they would have if there had been reasonable coverage of them. In this insane campaign it may still be possible for that to happen.

But if it does it will only happen with an enormous amount of grassroots pressure which is building up even if the media doesn't report it.

This could still potentially convince the delegates to support Bernie at the convention. If so it will be due to the grassroots efforts that he gets the nomination not his promises to party leaders.

However in the event this happens there should be enough evidence that indicates that even Bernie Sanders needs to be accountable to the grassroots, and as much as I think he has done far more than any other establishment candidate he may need an concessional reminder, along with grassroots pressure on the congress to get the reform he's been fighting for.

If not then supporting either Trump or Clinton will essentially be rubber stamping the corporate duopoly allowing them to rig elections by rigging the coverage and limiting our choices to two parties that are incredibly corrupt.

In the long run we'll have to reform the entire election and media system enabling the public to control the interview process and to hear from all candidates without requiring them to collect enormous amounts of donations from corporations before getting any coverage. In the short run if Bernie Sanders can't get elected then there are only a couple possibilities with name recognition including Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, either of which would be far better than Trump or Clinton but Johnson isn't inclined to provide the investment in restoring our infrastructure or protecting the environment.

Jill Stein has far more in common with Bernie Sanders than Gary Johnson and an enormous number of Bernie's supporters are switching to him already. As far fetched as some people might think this is it could either hep convince the ?Democrats to nominate Bernie or give her the first real chance of beating these two incredibly corrupt and incompetent candidates.



Some have argued that this is a lost cause as well and that it can do far more to set the ground for future campaigns, which could be true. However that has already begun, although the media hasn't been reporting on it. As I reported previously in The media isn’t reporting it but Grass Roots candidates are winning some local elections there are some communities that are electing independents or at least progressives that are actually responsive to the public within the traditional parties at the local level where grassroots educate themselves. One of them. Gayle McLaughlin, is no longer mayor due to term limits but the grassroots movement in Richmond is still keeping them honest and there are more including Kshama Sawant and possibly many more that haven't been widely reported.

This opens up at least two possibilities; that enormous support for either Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders could help grow this movement and get them elected as well or at least grow the movement and let the candidate that wins know that the public isn't falling for this scam any more if they keep getting more extreme.

But in order for this to work in addition to good candidates we need grassroots pressure to keep them honest.

Another reason why grassroots efforts are as important if not more important than the candidate we elect is that the method of small contributions that both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are relying on to challenge the system may be much better than allowing the corporation to completely control the debate; but it runs the risk of committing to a finance system that is still flawed.

As I explained in several posts including Invest in Activism, AND Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Grassroots in the long run we need an election process that enables the public to control the interview process so that we can hear from all candidates and we also need media reform. In Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it I explained that we should require all candidates to fill out an application that the public can use to compare each of them and know where they stand on the issues.

Unfortunately even though both Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders have filled out these applications in the past unlike either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton they have declined to update it this year. Both Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders are far better at sincere reform than either Trump or Clinton but this is one more examples of why even they need to be held accountable to those of us who help them get elected. Even if they don't win they could do a lot to inform the public about ways to improve the election process by supporting this along with expanded and open debates that invite all eligible candidates for any office including the presidency.

Both Stein and Sanders have been far more inclined to support this; but unfortunately like a lot of other politicians at least Sanders has done it more when it suited his campaign declining to engage with Jill Stein on several occasions when she invited him to.

Unless there is an enormous outage we'll get one of these two incredibly corrupt candidates which has led to many seemingly farfetched conspiracy theories; however even though the most bizarre ones are unlikely the behavior of the media and political establishment indicates that something absurd is going on and behind the irrational or humorous conspiracy theories is and enormous amount of corruption which won't change; and there is still a possibility of a more rational conspiracy theory. But that can't be uncovered unless there is an enormous pressure to get the truth out along with careful scrutiny to fact check them.

At least Jill ?Stein has been calling for Truth Commissions but if we can get this through it will have to be under a more credible candidate like Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders. There is no way we can trust either Trump or Clinton to oversee this while they continue to be involved in epidemic scams.  







Bernie Sanders escalated a grassroots movement that was in the process for years if not decades. We can't let it end if we want to bring about the reform we need just because he endorsed Hillary Clinton. This raises some doubts about hims but hopefully it is due to pressure. He may still be the best chance to get a sincere candidate in office either by running as the Democratic Nominee but if we give up then we will never get the reform we need until after they may do more damage than we can repair.







On top of that with atrocious record on foreign policy really has costed an enormous number of people their lives even if some people like Pat Smith may have exaggerated or misrepresented her record for political reasons. She's still supported enormous arms sales which routinely wind up in the hands of people we fight against or tyrants that incite more war and invasions based on lies either as Senator supporting the Iraq war or as Secretary of State supporting many more disasters that created a breeding ground for terrorism. She has preserved a policy that maintains a permanent state of war and despite some of Donald Trump's legitimate criticism of this his plans are just as extreme.

It will be a disaster with either of these tow at a time when we need major reform that only Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein are willing to bring about.

Media Ignores Solutions For Both Police And Black Lives Matter

The police didn't protect Philando Castile or Alton Sterling; they killed them for trivial reasons, or perhaps as a result of their own paranoia and bigotry.

It is hard to imagine that the protesters believe that they're there to protect them more than they are to keep them under control.

Repeating the claim that the police are here to protect us over and over again won't convince those that are being targeted as suspects, often without reason over and over again that it's true.

To protect and to Serve sounds like a great slogan and it would be if the police protected everyone equally and was accountable to the public not just those with the most political clout.

The Black Lives Matter movement didn't train Micah Xavier Johnson to go on a killing spree. The military may have partially done so though; and he isn't the only one trained by the military or police academies, by far, to go on shooting sprees against the people they're supposedly protecting. Within the past few months a Homeland Security Officer and former FBI agent, both with military experience as well went on shooting sprees and the Orlando shooter was a security guard who had previously worked at a courthouse providing private security for the government. The reason for all the protests that have been going on is because citizens activists have been documenting an enormous number of shootings especially minorities and often veterans by police under questionable circumstances and I went into many of them myself and the reasons why this is such a problem in A Brief History of Cops Convicted of Murder and Teach a soldier to kill and he just might. These reviews of the causes of violence also included research that is rarely presented in the traditional media, although it is available in the academic world; and it stands up to scrutiny much better than the research that is presented in the media, which is mostly propaganda appealing to peoples emotions.

One of the biggest causes for violence is early child abuse bullying which escalates to more violence later in life including domestic violence or hazing in various organizations including the military or police academy. In the previous posts about the subject I cited an article by David Couper, former police chief of Madison Wisconsin, which has low murder rates due to progressive policing and other local activities including education. He explained how hazing and bullying in the police academy taught police to respond with necessary violence; and he also demonstrated that some of the people concerned about he problem and trying to fix it are police.

This also goes for veterans who are also impacted by veteran violence when they go out of control and one of those veterans, Ashton Woods, was also leading the peaceful Black Lives Matter in Dallas. Woods said the repeated shootings by police are pushing some unstable people over the edge. "That does something to the human psyche. I don't care what color or ethnicity you are," he said. Black Lives Matter condemns Dallas shootings, plans protests 07/08/2016

Woods also said a couple days after this article that he had seen Micah Johnson around Dallas although he didn't know him personally and he wasn't involved in the Black Lives Matter movement. Just a few hours before the shooting incident Harry Houck was in a shouting match on Erin Burnett (July 7) where he denied any fault by the police and continued a pattern by many of the most extreme police officers claiming there isn't any problem with the police worth protesting against. Van Jones responded by scolding Houck for being “so rude and interruptive that you’re actually making my point… no matter how respectful we are, this is the way it goes down.”

I have no idea whether or not Micah Johnson saw this but this is just one of many rants by police like Patrick Lynch, Frank Borelli, or their other defenders like Rudy Giuliani who're in total denial of any problem with the police at all. People that live in minority communities will always know much better. It is much easier for those with political power to remain in denial than for those that are being oppressed with little or no educational or economic opportunities.

If Micah Johnson was outraged by the police shootings and saw that little or nothing was going to be done to solve the problem these denials are much more likely to send him over the edge than the protests by Black Lives Matter. If anything the protests might have given him hope that here might be an alternative way to change things, which rational people know that there is. Of course after the shooting in Dallas instead of changing his rhetoric those in denial like Harry Houck and others blamed Black Lives Matter for protesting the problem instead of police for over acting in many of these shooting incidents.

The media gives these police apologists much more air time and, although they give some air time to more rational people like Van Jones many of the best researchers hardly get any air time at all and when the Black Lives Matter representatives that might have a good point to make they only get a small amount of air time at best, while shouting matches like the one on Erin Burnett that make good entertainment but lousy education are routine.

Another black Lives Matter representative made a great point with the little time they gave her when she said that forty percent of her local city budget went to police; unfortunately they didn't give her time to elaborate on that. If they wanted to understand what leads up to violent crime they could do much more to explain how lack of educational or economic opportunity and income inequality contribute to crime. By using too much money for police, which waits till the last minute before addressing crime, there is less money for education housing, child care and many other things that prevent violence from escalating so that police often never have to be called at all.

When productive solutions like this happens it never makes the news!

Unfortunately the response to this in the media is more money for police but little or no discussion about other preventative methods.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown started to make a good point when he said they were asking too much of their police when he said they asked them to deal with mental health and many other problems instead of providing counseling; and he added to this by saying that if some of the Black Lives Matter protesters wanted to help they could apply for a job. Hopefully some of those jobs would be in education or child care not just the police.

Since they have all this propaganda about the police protecting us, another concern that should be is whether or not they're protecting us from epidemic levels of white collar crime that cause the poverty and income inequality among other things that might indirectly contribute to problems in abandoned inner cities, including violence.

When the multinational corporations ship jobs overseas to suppress wages and eliminate economic opportunity are they protecting poor people from fraud?

When these same corporations send advertising budgets through the roof paying people that deceive the public lots of money while cutting manufacturing expenses to the bone are the police protecting the poor from them?

When they consolidate to a small number of corporations so they don't have a real free enterprise system competing with each other are the police protecting the poor from epidemic corporate fraud?

When those that control large corporations profit by polluting poor neighbors, often leading to many diseases that kill them, are the police protecting the poor from negligent mass homicide?

When insurance companies lobby the government to ensure that a reasonably affordable health care system isn't implemented do the police protect the poor from fraud? when the same insurance companies buy enormous amount of advertising from the media and the media coincidentally chooses not to explain the benefits of Single Payer to the public are the police are the police protecting the poor from fraud?

When the media rig elections by only providing coverage to candidates that support corporate interests are the police protecting the public from epidemic manipulation of the so-called democratic process? Are they protecting the public from voter suppression?

Of course not this isn't their jurisdiction, nor is it what they're trained to do; or is it?

When large segments of the public finally learn about these epidemic levels of fraud and start protesting the government does nothing then they call in the police, not to protect the poor, but to relegate them to "free speech zones" or some other method to ensure that they can't get their point across to the public.

Following orders designed to protect the rich and powerful and enforce the rules and laws they create are as important if not more important to the police as protecting the public although this isn't what the good police officers intended at all.

Saying they're protecting us over and over again doesn't change the fact that it isn't always true! Even though good police officers never intended to aid and abet in epidemic levels of fraud negligent mass murder and voter suppression, by blindly obeying orders to suppress protests when the political establishment and the media refuse to do their job that is what they unintentionally wind up doing. It may take time to think this through but the result is the same for those that are being oppressed, not protected.

What the media and the political establishment fail to mention is that the most effective way to protect both the police and the majority of the public is to find the root causes of crime and prevent them. There is plenty of research which I have covered in past articles to show how this is done and the most important efforts don't even involve police. It involves maintaining a good educational system and economic system that enables everyone to have reasonable opportunities without driving one segment of society into desperation while enriching the elites without any accountability.

What is almost completely buried in this discussion is any mention about how the greatest threat to both the police and the majority of the public have come when neither the government or the private sector address many of the basic functions of society and corruption is at epidemic levels, whether that corruption is in the police on in the corporate sector. Some of the highest death rates for police officers, especially by murder on the job took place in the twenties and the sixties and seventies when there was much more police corruption. A lot of this was partly retaliation from police brutality.

The all time low, per capita, of police deaths in the line of duty was in 2013; even if you just counted the total deaths without comparison to population this was the low for at least five or six decades as well.



In order to make it seem like a :"war on police" they've been comparing recent shootings to 2013 saying it is a dramatic rise without mentioning it was the all time low. This is obviously misleading propaganda that can be easily exposed and when they first did it in 2014 it was exposed at the grassroots level quickly while the traditional media repeated their propaganda over and over again. They're doing the same thing now but since it was exposed they're not quite as extreme.

Retaliation for police brutality is much lower than it was in the past and if they want it to get any lower the way to reduce it even further is to reduce the police brutality and restore other educational and economic opportunities that many of these protesters are trying to speak out for.

The good police didn't sign on to defend a corrupt political system; and if they understood that that is what they were doing they would favor this reform as much as the protesters.

Edit: Another shooting of police by a former veteran took place in Baton Rouge. Barack Obama didn't address any of the root causes or acknowledge that the military provided training for another shooter. Instead he called him a "coward," which now seems to be standard operating procedure. His methods are foolish and counter-productive but, not cowardly, he went up against overwhelming odds on a virtual suicide mission. He wasn't nearly as much of a coward as Barack Obama is by refusing to stand up to corporate interests that are profiting off of many of the root causes of violence and controlling the media so that they don't educate the public about them preventing more violence.



The following are a few of my past articles on how to prevent violence from escalating including some about how early child abuse leads to escalating violence and others about additional contributing causes of violence:

Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence?

Child abuse and bullying link in study long over due

Daddy's Hands, Hard as steel when I’d done wrong

Public relation campaign for child abuse prevention

The real victim rights advocates

Cause and Effect of Hatred

Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows

Does lack of education increase violent crime? Religion?

How much does Income Inequality Affects Crime Rates?

States with high murder rates have larger veteran populations

Teach a soldier to kill and he just might

The tragedy of gambling politics in United States

How does gambling and gun control impact violent crime?

Politics, not technology, caused botched executions

Troy, Cameron, Gary all innocent? And executed?

Democrats do a bad job on crime; Republicans and the Media are worse!!

Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit

Life Insurance and media companies are encouraging lots of murders

Union Busting adds to corrupt bureaucracy and incites crime

Are the FBI and media underestimating police shootings by at least twenty-five percent?

A Brief History of Cops Convicted of Murder

The threat to police is greatly exaggerated

Debunking “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”

Is the militarization of the police leading to escalation of violence including Vegas shooting?

For additional information or sources see the following:

Officers in Baton Rouge shooting had previous complaints 07/07/2016

Dallas sniper profile: Micah Johnson was sent home from Afghanistan 07/09/2016

KING: Why are the two cops who killed unarmed Noel Aguilar not fired and charged with murder? 12/22/2015

Dallas shooter served in Afghanistan; police say he hated white people 07/08/2016

As Protests Sweep Country, New Video Shows Off-Duty NY Cop Fatally Shooting Black Man Delrawn Small 07/11/2016

Philando Castille was a Ticking Time Bomb — This Innocent Man was Pulled Over 52 Times Before 07/09/2016

NRA members want to know why their organization isn’t defending Philando Castile 07/08/2016

Joe Biden Cures Cancer Like Al Gore Invented The Internet

Politicians, including Al Gore, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton etc., have an incredible knack for take credit for just about everything often even things they obstruct.

The media has an incredible knack for helping them by refusing to provide the best research on any given subject.

The media is giving Joe Biden another news cycle to talk about his "Cancer Moonshot" effort to find a cure; what they don't mention is that even though everyone would agree that curing cancer is a goal that we should be working toward; we already have an enormous amount of research available about how to dramatically reduce cancer and the ability to do it.

This mostly involves prevention of it from developing in the first place by recognizing many of the contributing causes of cancer. It won't take much searching the internet for evidence to indicate that a variety of things that can be reduced cause cancer and Joe Biden could take advantage of his high profile position to inform the public about it.

Of course that would interfere with large multinational corporations that make large profits from the pollution, tobacco, fatty food including red meat that contribute to cancer.

This is why the media and political establishment routinely gives credit to each other for all the things people at the grassroots or in the research community accomplish.

If they did a better job educating the public about the causes of cancer and based their policy decisions on them then they could dramatically reduce cancer without waiting for new research and at the same time they could provide adequate funding for future research on the condition that there aren't patents driving up the costs of medications and treatments. If they informed the public about how much more the pharmaceutical companies spent on marketing and lobbying than they do on research then it would be clear that the government is really funding a large portion of the research already which means there is no justification for the patents except that it is corporate welfare in return for campaign contributors, although they may use the wink and nod method so they can claim there's no Quid pro quo.

Besides as the following article clearly indicates the amount of funding the Obama administration is asking for isn't nearly enough to accomplish the goal he claims to be aiming for:

What Is the Point of Joe Biden's Cancer 'Moonshot'? 07/0/2016

The vice president has launched an effort to “end cancer,” but the White House is only asking for $1 billion.

DURHAM, N.C.—No one doubts the sincerity of Vice President Joe Biden’s “cancer moonshot” initiative. That’s the cause that Biden announced he’d pursue in October, when he decided not to run for president, and it’s one inspired by the life and death of his son Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer last year.

But is the plan even really a “moonshot”? After all, the Obama administration has asked for just $1 billion in funding for the initiative in this year’s budget—a budget that is already more aspirational than realistic—and top researchers have questioned the impact that amount can really have. (For reference, $1 billion is between a third and a fifth the cost of a new pharmaceutical.) In a visit to Duke University on Wednesday, Biden’s first since the budget’s release, he offered a glimpse of what he hopes to do. The vice president isn’t proposing a massive new government effort to fund or conduct research—like a second Apollo program—but rather, promising to cut through red tape and bring together various players to enable greater cooperation.

“The science is ready,” Biden proclaimed, a phrase he repeated a half-dozen times over the course of 80 minutes. “I believe we can make much faster progress—as an outsider looking in—if we seek greater collaboration, greater sharing of information. In short, breaking down some of the research that is trapped inside of silos, and share information with drug companies, and drug companies being willing to be more forthcoming in sharing information.”

The vice president suggested that what he lacks in scientific knowledge—he joked that he’d become an attorney because he wasn’t smart enough to be a scientist—he makes up for in his ability to marshal federal government resources and use his office to bring together disparate parties, a skill honed over four decades in Washington.

“Maybe the only thing I'll be able to do with any dispatch is be a convener and maybe help negotiate some of the transitions that have to take place,” he said. Biden said the president had told his Cabinet, “Do what Joe tells you.” ..... “Money is necessary and critical, but it's not the answer to do what we have to do,” Biden said, though he also claimed to have spoken with three philanthropists who wanted to donate $1 billion or more to cancer research. He said a common story he’d heard during meetings with hundreds of oncologists since embarking on the moonshot went something like this: There are two drugs made by two different companies that treat the same cancer, both somewhat effectively, but the clinicians think the pair would be most effective in concert—if only they could get approval. “The overwhelming inclination of all of you is if you combine the two it may be better, but getting that done is like, y’know, getting a nuclear deal with Iran, only we were more successful. The science is ready. We have to figure out a way to share information more.”

Biden also lamented the many parallel efforts to achieve the same goals that were going on in the cancer space. In some cases, there are several drug companies working on similar drugs to treat similar cancers—all spending huge sums, but not working with each other, all in hopes of reaping a windfall. Several participants spoke about the need to make it easier to let patients join clinical trials. And a common theme was the necessity of better sharing of crucial data that allows breakthroughs. There many troves of such information, but little mechanism for combining them. Biden, fresh from the World Economic Forum, offered one example. Complete article

Discussion about not sharing information wasn't in the majority of the media reports about his "Cancer Moonshot" so most of the public don't know about it. If it was then more could be done to discuss how effective patents are, since they're a major part of the reason why different companies don't share information with each other. The government often subsidizes research without requiring that different companies share the information with each other or that they provide affordable health care coverage when they do develop improved treatments. Greater discussion of this might indicate that the current method of financing for profit clearly isn't even close to the most effective way to advance research or the health of the majority.

If grant or tax breaks for research were provided on the condition that they share information with each other then duplicate research could be significantly reduced and different researchers could learn much more from each other. Sacrifices made for the sake of research could also be reduced.

It doesn't take an advanced scientific education to understand the current system, where everything is patented and done in secrecy, isn't about the most effective way to advance research; it is about the most effective way to ensure that those at the top can control it; so that they can maximize profits at the expense of the public.

His son also did his share to take credit from the best researchers and he famously used his death for his own political purposes, even though anyone who points out the obvious might risk being criticized for being insensitive. The claim that Beau allegedly believed that Joe Biden would be the only one that could do a good job solving this countries problems so he urged him to run for president as part of a heroic death bed plea should be considered highly political and phony, although I don't mean to smear someone dying of cancer; however the people that used his death for political purposes are the ones showing real disrespect.

For a while years before Beau Biden's death he spoke out about how corporal punishment should be banned and helped pass a bill doing so in Delaware. This bill allegedly outlawed corporal punishment in the home and there were a lot of supporters for corporal punishment that were outraged claiming that it interfered with their right to raise their children as they saw fit. When the bill was passed supporters of it were of course pleased; however in response to the complaints they explained that this wouldn't be used to prosecute parents except in the most extreme circumstances.

This might have worked out quite well if they had allowed the researchers opposing corporal punishment to explain why it should be eliminated and how it has a negative impact on children behavior; however instead they let the politicians and media handle the majority of the coverage and it may not have had much of an impact at all. Sweden banned corporal punishment decades ago ahead of the majority of the world and this ban was accompanied by an educational effort by researchers that know about the negative impacts. They were able to drastically reduce or eliminate corporal punishment without much if any legal reprisals for those that used it. If they did this in Delaware than it could have been much more effective and the education could have spread to other parts of the United States reducing violence everywhere, even where there was no law banning corporal punishment.

This didn't happen and murder statistics may already reflect this, although hard conclusions based on a law only a few years old are premature. They didn't ban corporal punishment in Delaware schools until 2003 and in homes in 2014. In most cases statistics show that states using the most corporal punishment have the highest murder rates so presumably they might have gone down after it was banned in schools, but if anything they went up. Corporal punishment is just one of many contributing factors, even if it is probably the most important one other things like poverty, income inequality and abandoned inner cities also impact them. However a review of the research would almost certainly indicate that allowing those that knew more about it, instead of politicians that routinely take credit for the work of researchers, deliver the message would have improved educational opportunities for the public.

However, when it comes to stealing credit for other people's work, Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff and surrogates, are doing a much more effective job than either the Biden's or Al Gore, even when she has actually worked against many of the initiatives she claims to support.



When the "Fight for 15" movement began she waited a long time to say anything; then when it was clear that it was gaining momentum instead of supporting it she came out in support of a gradual increase to 12 dollars an hour as what the media portrayed as a reasonable compromise.

If the workers accepted this and remained silent letting her fight for them; then I suspect they might have hit a filibuster in the Congress and Hillary Clinton could have at least gotten credit for trying. Instead they kept on going and succeeded in at least two states, California and New York.

Hillary Clinton went to a rally and tried to claim she fought for it all along.

How stupid does she think workers are?

Is she relying on the public remaining ignorant or complacent? If not, how can she get any support at all.

Amazingly when she was Secretary of State the state department lobbied Haiti not to raise the minimum wage from 31 cents an hour to 61 cents; but this was hardly mentioned by traditional media. News of this came out as a result of E-mails that were disclosed and reported in alternative media outlets.

Hillary’s State Department Pressured Haiti Not To Raise Minimum Wage to $.61 An Hour 01/18/2016

She also took credit for helping Haiti through the Clinton Foundation; what the media rarely ever mention is that the vast majority of the money raised for Haiti never made it to Haiti and there have been numerous protests against Clinton for this.

Additional E-mails also exposed her support for the Honduran coup; and while the refugees were coming to the United States she said they had to be sent back, often even if they faced persecution as a result of the coup she supported.

Then amazingly she took a little girl in her lap in Nevada telling her not to worry about her parents being deported, that she would take care of it, not mentioning her past support for deportation.



Amazingly, (I know using the word amazingly too often becomes redundant but it really is amazing how often the media get everything wrong about Hillary Clinton), anyone that researches it will find that she does similar things on just about every subject she takes a position on often flipping her position for the duration of the campaign. She supported many trade agreements including TPP, the Keystone pipeline, fracking and many other things before she opposed them and only opposed them as the election was approaching. She often says that the public needs someone that doesn't just come around at election time and make promises reneging on them once in office yet that is exactly what her track record indicates we can expect from her.

Her E-mails show that she lobbied for CAFTA in private, but took credit for voting against it after it was clear it would fail; she took credit for opposing banking deregulation as First Lady but then after taking donations from the banks voted for the same deregulation with a minor change.

She's having enough problems with her E-mails in constant investigations that often appear political, sometimes because they are; but the biggest problems with her record are the ones that get much less attention from the press.  While they're reporting on the scandal in a way that seems partisan they're ignoring the content of the disclosed E-mails that are only being covered by alternative media outlets. Both the media and campaign contributors profit off of activities like the Honduran coup, free trade without worker or environmental protection, or suppressing the minimum wage.

The mainstream media routinely gives credit to the most incompetent politicians or each other in some cases for the things done by researchers or grassroots efforts; after all clearly it couldn't have been Al Gore who invented the internet if it was actually Brian Williams that was stealing the credit from the people that did the work.



Giving credit to Joe Biden for helping find the cure for cancer is even more ludicrous when considering many of his past blunders, including his early downfall after being caught plagiarizing a British politician ending his 1988 presidential campaign. Or when he said, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." –Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time, interview with Katie Couric, Sept. 22, 2008 Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes

I've written numerous other articles that provide much more sources for research showing how preventing corporal punishment and other contributing causes to violence in Child abuse leading to escalating violence and Contributing causes to crime and how to prevent them

I have also provided an enormous amount of additional sources about routine hypocrisy in the Hillary Clinton campaign in the following articles:

With friends like Richard Trumka labor has problems

Regardless of Polls Bernie Sanders Supports Blacks much better than Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders wins foreign policy debate hands down despite propaganda

Hillary Clinton Is Using Children As Props While Her Record Betrays Them

Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this?

Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Revolt in the Streets?

Bernie Sanders Wins Least Violent States

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience is a disaster



Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracy, 06/08/2015,

Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres, a Honduran environmental activist, Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup. 03/11/2016