The recent accusations against Bob Creamer may come from a source that has reliability problems; however, he was caught on tape, and even if it is taken partially out of context there appear to be some additional problems that aren't being adequately explained. If they had a good explanation then there is no reason why he would have had to resign; and if it was out of context, they could have corrected it and explained how James O'Keefe or his allies might have distorted it. On top of that there is additional supporting evidence in leaks from Podesta Emails or other sources to indicate these claims shouldn't be completely dismissed.
However the strongest evidence of use of violence for political reasons may not be in the E-Mails or disclosures about "Bird-dogging" at all, but the lack of research into the most effective causes of violence which are routinely ignored by the traditional media and political establishment, which I'll get to below; but first I want to tell you about how my neighbor almost got arrested for shoplifting thousands of dollars worth or electronics at Walmart, or so he says.
He claimed that he loaded several lap-top computers and a big screen TV and simply walked toward the exit which wasn't watched closely and the only one that seemed to notice was a foreigner, that had an accent which he assumed might be Russian. The foreigner didn't appear to work for Walmart but he spoke up and said that this guy didn't go through the register.
It wasn't until then that security noticed him and stopped him before he left.
He quickly replied that the guy that warned them was a Russian and had an ulterior motive for telling them he was walking out without paying. They became worried that he might have a point and began questioning the foreigner assuming he was Russian, whether he was or not.
My neighbor claimed that at this point he simply proceeded to his car and loaded the electronics in; just before he left he glanced back and noticed they were handcuffing the foreigner.
I found this hard to believe; after all it's not like he has Hillary Clinton's political connections, and could convince the media to present that incredibly lame excuse as a rational reason to investigate his accuser while letting him get away with his crime without further investigation.
Some of the claims about "Bird-dogging" seem almost as hard to believe as my neighbors story; however there's additional evidence the most important thing may not be what's in the disclosures so far but a total absence of the best research about the contributing causes of violence, which are available in libraries but not in the traditional media. I searched for some of the best researchers including James Garbarino, Barbara Coloroso, Murray Straus, Philip Greven, and a few more to see if they were being consulted about the most important causes of violence. None of them seem to have much if any access to government and neither do the most effective solutions to reduce violence get discussed.
The lack of these names isn't the most important thing; if they had some good research about the contributing causes of violence from another source that would be just as well, however they don't. Instead they have their own experts, which don't provide claims that challenge the ideologies of the rich and powerful that control the media.
I went into this in numerous past articles including a series that started with Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows and ended with Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit that explored many of the most important contributing causes to escalating violence and cited numerous sources on each subject. The most important contributing cause is almost certainly child abuse that leads to escalating violence, since this teaches small children to deal with their problems through violence at an early age.
The second most important contributing cause might be abandoned inner cities where children have little or not economic or educational opportunities and are surrounded by epidemic levels of crime. The most widely reported crimes are usually shootings, drugs or other traditional crimes; however, additional crimes which don't get as much attention also include white collar crime including efforts to divert money intended for education, often through prioritization, outsourcing of jobs so that wages are suppressed driving people to crime, and many other corrupt activity that often enriches the wealthiest people and victimizes the poorest. By ignoring this and focusing on traditional crime they put all the blame on the poorest people without holding those in positions of power accountable.
Additional contributing causes include poverty, income inequality, lack of education, gambling now mostly legal and even encouraged by the government and media, gun control and more. Ineffective insurance coverage drives up poverty indirectly contributing to higher crime and at the same time offers a way out with life insurance providing an incentive for murder. This is the motive for at least two percent of all murders and possibly closer to eight or nine; yet they don't even consider regulating it tom make it less likely and even sell policies on babies, which is unjustifiable. Gambling also increases crime and there are more which were covered in the previous articles. In most if not all of these cases the corporations that profit off of these policies aren't held accountable and the best research which shows their business contribute to higher crime are relegated to the fringes.
Fortunately some of the people at the grassroots level do their own research to these causes and prevent them at the local level, as I explained in the closing article in that series; but the media still doesn't report on this. This provides further evidence that when these contributing causes are addressed violence can be reduced, and in the areas where local people are better educated and politically active, it is.
I went into this more in past articles and cited many of the most reliable researchers on a variety of subjects which are available to those that know where to look for them. The point is that while they discuss all these political manipulation there is a total absence of effective solutions that could dramatically reduce violence even more. Some of these stories seem hard to believe but the lack of real and effective solutions are even more important. The Republicans openly deny the science behind Climate Change, which gives Hillary Clinton the opportunity to claim that she' the one that is pro-science; however even when it comes to Climate Change, her positions aren't much better, and when it comes to many other subjects including the social causes of violence she ignores the best science as much as they do.
However, in addition to not covering the most effective methods to address social problems there is an enormous effort to use violence or the perception of violence for political reasons. This dates back to when Hillary Clinton refereed to children coming from troubled families, presumably mostly minorities, as potential "super-predators" who had to be "brought to heal." This is an escalation of the same child rearing tactics that lead to escalating violence in the first place and also taught blind obedience, instead of teaching critical thinking skills from an early age.
According to Sting Video Purports To Show Democrats Describing How To Commit Voter Fraud 10/19/2016 the most inflammatory comments seem to have come from Scott Foval who said, "There's a script. Sometimes the 'crazies' bite ... sometimes they don't bite." .... "It is not hard to get some of these a******* to pop off," Foval said at another point. "It's a matter of showing up to want to get into the rally in a Planned Parenthood T-shirt, or 'Trump is a Nazi,' you know. You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you."
There's good reason to believe this might be out of context since O'Keefe has a history of doing this; however if this is so then Foval could have explained how it really happened and put it in its proper context. What context would these tapes be justifiable? This is almost certainly what Foval would be trying to figure out so he could defend himself or, so he could spin it if he was so inclined. If he was inclined to spin it then he might be concerned about making claims contradicted by the tape which would implicate him in further problems, falling into a trap.
Caesar Vargas was also caught on tape according to the NPR article, and he reported on Facebook, "They have a transcript of our conversation to confirm I told them that voting twice was illegal." This might imply that his part could have been a form of entrapment and if the full context was disclosed he might not be implicated at all depending on what's in it. Bob Creamer's part isn't as inflammatory as Foval's that I know of, however according to one of the clips he did claim that he was coordinating between different organizations which were supposed to be acting independently and he was supposed to be the one in charge, even though he was previously convicted of felonies for tax evasion and fraud, "swindling nine financial institutions of at least $2.3 million while he ran a public interest group in the 1990s." Congresswoman's husband pleads guilty to two felonies 06/31/2005
The media hardly mentioned at all that he was married to a congresswomen on TV; I didn't find out that part until I looked up the story on the internet; and haven't heard the TV news mention it since. They routinely give minimal coverage to the portions they don't want people to pay too much attention to. He was also closely connected to Barack Obama, which they did mention on TV, visiting the White House over three hundred times, including some times when he visited the president himself.
If he could have surly he would have provided more of an explanation, yet he hasn't. The media is trying to portray this as an isolated incident and blame the two people that were fired, implying they're solely responsible. However this is just one of a long list of politicians, including many closely tied to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party.
Additional collusion has been disclosed according to Breitbart coordinated with liberal activist and organizer who disrupted GOP primary campaign events 10/24/2016 which reports that the Clinton Campaign was working with right wingers to ensure that they wouldn't have to go up against Marco Rubio, which if true would indicate that something similar to "bird dogging was taking place and they're trying to rig the election so they went up against an extremists and would leave the public no choice but to look the other way at her corruption since the opposition is so horrendous. I reported on similar incidents disclosed by Wikileaks and CounterPunch in the two previous articles about the Podesta E-Mails, Impeachment Begins With Lesser Evil Choice and Is Hillary Clinton Rigging Election With Help From Trump? where leaked E-Mails indicated that the Clinton Campaign was counting on the Republican Party becoming more extreme so they could easily use scare tactics, and even tried to push back the Illinois primary so that moderates in both parties wouldn't have a chance to challenge either Hilalry Clinton or the most extreme candidate, which turned out to be Donald Trump.
Even if some people are skeptical of these claims of "bird dogging" there is more of it being done in the open by both nominees trying to bait each other even if it might incite violence while refusing to do a good job addressing this issue or any other issue. Donald Trumps opening statements during his campaign accusing Mexicans of being rapists and other fanatical claims was of course incendiary, and Hillary Clinton has often warned the public that he could be baited with a tweet. There was also a famous tape of a pretty blonde girl supporting Trump getting food thrown at her at a Trump rally over and over again. most of these clips didn't show the full context, which would have shown that she was literally taunting the protesters and when they threw a couple minor things at her she taunted them even more. There's no evidence that I know if that she was following a script to "bird dog" them into violence; however she was doing something similar, on behalf of the Trump Campaign; and conservative media including Fox made the most out of this propaganda.
But the Clinton campaign was stooping almost as low with their rhetoric, and not adequately discussing the issues, even though they claim their slogan is "When they go low we go high." Clinton's prepared speech at the Al Smith Dinner was almost as inflammatory as Trump's and she often tries to bait Trump with this rhetoric as part of her campaign to entrap him, which amazingly he routinely falls for. Her surrogates also do this turning comments about "Nasty girls," into a badge of honor even though they don't discuss issues; and they even defended Joe Biden when he said he'd like to take Donald Trump "Behind the gym," clearly implying he would beat him up.
Perhaps their slogan should be "When they go low we" pretend to "go high" briefly before we get into the gutter with them.
This tape seems to imply that people on both sides of the campaign are resorting to epidemic levels of dirty tricks. The following are a few additional stories about the Veritas tapes but that isn't the only example of these candidates using violence for political reasons without exploring how to reduce it in the most effective way possible:
Why Did Vote-Rigging Robert Creamer Visit The White House Over 200 Times During The Obama Admin 10/19/2016
Democratic Party Operative Robert Creamer Used Terror to Wage War on Honesty 10/25/2016
Alleged Transcript of the Project Veritas Video (Ripped from YouTube CC) 10/18/2016
The leaks indicate that her political use of racism and stereotypes about violence dates back to her 2008 campaign where their 527 Superpac ads ran an ad depicting unemployed black males as an implied threat to an old white women. This type of ad is typically not done directly by campaigns but if they wanted their so-called allies to avoid them they could speak out against them at least implying they don't approve. Using the rules as an excuse even thought they're almost certainly colluding with them as Bob Creamer implied or said is routine; however it is a lame excuse since the same political operatives that misuse the rules also make the rules and they're outrageous anyway. Clearly politicians do anything and everything they think they can get away with, and if they wanted to "take the high road," they could do much better than this.
There was of course John Podesta's famous tweet, "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter," indicating he's more concerned about the politics of the shooting than he is with the shooting itself. Otherwise he could have consulted with some of the best researchers that are excluded from the process, whether it is because they don't donate to campaigns or they recommend policies that interfere with those that do or for some other reason.
Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein both campaign on policies that do far more to reduce violence including addressing social problems and avoiding wars based on lies; however these E-Mails often ridicule them for their ideas, including some that insulted and intimidated Tulsi Gabbard and Ben Jealous. There was also a leaked E-Mail that some right wing bigots are using to support Trump, without fully exploring the full context or ways to get along better with refuges. It rights about how "immigrant children as young as six or seven years old (allegedly) turn to crime" in Germany. What they don't mention is that if our government wasn't selling arms all over the world and dropping bombs on Syrians and many other people they wouldn't be refugees in the first place. We could spend money on social problems to reduce escalating violence abroad just like we could at home but instead we spend it on bombs that only incite more violence.
There's much more research that I could go into that would reduce violence both at home and abroad but the political establishment and media is clearly not willing to listen to it anyway.
Fortunately their own research shows that "Millennials seem to have a more refined radar for political BS talk – things that sound cliché and political get tuned out," which shows hope for the future, if we don't elect one of these two incredibly corrupt clowns and they don't do things so foolish that they incite riots and war. What they don't show in this E-Mails is that, according to some of the same research about how child abuse leads to escalating violence, the reason why many of these millennials are better at recognizing "political BS talk" is because of improved child rearing tactics. The same authoritative child rearing tactics, often relying on corporal punishment, that teach escalating violence also teach children to do what they're told and believe what they're told without question impairs critical thinking skills which would enable them to recognize "political BS talk."
Another important reason why the lack of discussion about research that could most effectively reduce violence may be the most important thing is that it is true regardless of how accurate some of these undercover videos are. Even if they're totally faked which seems highly unlikely, there's still an enormous amount of effort from both sides faking things like this. The people running these campaigns get paid an enormous amount of money but there's little or no evidence to indicate that they get big money because they look out for the best interest of the majority.
There's an enormous amount of evidence to indicate they get big money because they look out for the best interests of the campaign contributors, whether you call it a quid pro quo or not!
That would be considered bribery if any rational unbiased person defined what bribery was!
pro-Clinton 527 uses racist imagery in their ad 04/30/2008 This could be a problem if any of the Obama surrogates have any smarts. See link to the new Clinton 527 ad. The screen with "Unemployment" on-screen and three young black males--and cutting to an old white woman in her home--is a dog's whistle on race if I've ever seen one. Not Willie Horton level stuff but the ad is essentially saying that the Obama economic plan will put unemployed black people outside grandma's home.
Fwd: Tweet by Greg Sargent on Twitter 10/07/2015 SCOOP: Obama admin has studied Hillary gun exec action idea, but has doubts it can work, sources say:
Re: Ben Jealous 01/28/2016 he's really hung up on Obama not caring about black people
Multikultistan: A house of horrors for ordinary Germans 02/21/2016 "As he tells it, immigrant children as young as six or seven years old turn to crime and grow up to see honest hard-working people as targets - walking sources of easy money. German society is completely powerless in the face of growing ruthless violence and crime." from orca100@upcmail.nl to Podesta
Rahm 03/05/2016 I got into it w Ben jealous last night and he was all obsessed w how Hillary hasn't condemned Rahm. I'm sure you guys are all over this for the debate but just thought I'd send in that they may well go there for the debate.
Re: Tweet | NBC reports a shooter's name 12/03/2015 Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.
Re: Millenial groups and poll 07/08/2015 In terms of HRC message: Millennials much more attracted to messages about making the middle class mean something and helping middle class families get ahead than “taking on powerful interests”. (From the groups: Millennials seem to have a more refined radar for political BS talk – things that sound cliché and political get tuned out.)
No comments:
Post a Comment