Non-violent grass roots reform and Democracy: Efforts To Stop Bernie Including Moving California Primary to Boost Kamala Are Backfiring!

In July of 2017 it was reported that Kamala Harris was meeting with establishment insiders Dems’ rising star meets with Clinton inner circle in Hamptons 06/15/2017, one of many stories showing that she was an early Wall Street favorite, although the mainstream media gave these stories minimal coverage, if they mentioned them at all; some of the best ones were only reported on alternative media outlets that get less circulation but are often as reliable, if not much more reliable than corporate media. (I could report many of these articles but many have come and gone often buried; and there are already plenty below; and there's plenty of other people tracking alternative media that are as familiar with this as I am.)

Then two months later California moved their primary up three months to early March California Moves Up 2020 Primary Elections To March 09/28/2017 There was an enormous amount of reporting showing that Kamala was an early favorite for many insiders, including those with Wall Street ties, but a close look indicated that a lot of her early support might have been manufactured, perhaps including her huge rally announcing her campaign accompanied by a boost in polls according to the mainstream media.

Whether that rally was partially manufactured by campaign organizers or not, at the same time the grassroots were going thorugh her record and exposing how atrocious it was. This was widely known on social media where I saw her laughing at protesters demanding more education and fewer prisons, and many other stories that were brazenly contradicting her claim to be progressive. Well informed people were well aware how bad she was before Tulsi informed a larger audience at the debate in late July or early August as reported in 'You owe them an apology': Tulsi Gabbard ripped into Kamala Harris at the Democratic debate over her controversial record on criminal justice 08/02/2019 this fued continued last month when Kamala tried to smear Tulsi as reported in Kamala Harris Goes Scorched Earth on ‘Unfortunate’ Democratic Candidate Tulsi Gabbard 11/20/2019 and Tulsi shot back that it was “unfortunate” that Harris would “traffic in lies and smear and innuendoes because she cannot challenge the substance of the argument that I am making. It only makes me guess that she will as president continue the status quo, of regime-change wars, which is deeply destructive.” (Feel free to check the articles for full context; I won't deny claims that I might have my own biases; however I suspect if you do your own research you might come to similar conclusions about most of it.)

I don't always agree with Tulsi, but more often than not when she disagrees with the establishment's military policies she's closer to the truth; it's often when she agrees with them that she's more likely to be wrong.

But regardless of the feud between Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris there's little or no chance that either of them will be elected president, and now that Kamala Harris has dropped out any advantage she might have had in California because they moved up the primary is irrelevant, many of the polls showed her doing badly in her own state since August anyway. Now Bernie's leading as reported in the following article, but mainstream media is trying to downplay it:

Bernie Sanders Tops New California Poll—But You Wouldn't Have Known It By Reading This LA Times Headline 12/05/2019

In latest #BernieBlackout example, Sanders' deputy campaign manager notes it took major newspaper "three paragraphs to mention who is leading."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

A new poll released Thursday found that Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading the 2020 Democratic presidential field in California—but you wouldn't have known it by reading the Los Angeles Times' original headline on the survey, which mentioned Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden, but not the senator from Vermont.

"Warren and Biden lose ground in California's shifting 2020 Democratic race," read the newspaper's initial headline which, in the face of backlash, was later changed to, "Warren and Biden lose ground, Sanders moves ahead in California's shifting 2020 Democratic race."

While the Times changed its headline, it did not alter the body of the story, which doesn't mention Sanders until the third paragraph.

"The Democratic presidential contest in California remains extremely fluid—but not enough, at least so far, to provide an opening for Michael Bloomberg," reads the story's lede paragraph. Complete article

The bizarre effort to portray Joe Biden as the front runner is even more incomprehensible. the entire media and political establishment does an enormous amount of research to find out how good candidates present themselves on the campaign trail, so they should have known that Biden has an incredibly long history of making massive absurd gaffes and taking temper tantrums that would inevitably repeat them selves and as the following article and accompanying video show it has:

‘You’re a damn liar, man!’ – Joe Biden blasts Iowa voter, calls him ‘fat’ after man repeats Ukraine smear 12/05/2019

“OK, I’ve got two problems with you,” said the man after introducing himself as an “old, Iowa retired farmer.”

“One, you’re damn near as old as I am. You’re too old for the job. I am 83 and I know damn well I don’t have the mental faculties I did when I was 30 years ago. All right ... forget that stuff.”

“I got a question I want you to answer,” said the man.

“We all know Trump has been messing around in Ukraine over there, holding their foreign aid for them to come up saying they’re going to investigate you. We know all about that. He’s no backbone. We know that,” the man said.

“But you on the other hand sent your son over there to get a job and work for a gas company that he had no experience with gas or nothing in order to get access for the president. You’re selling access to the president just like he does ...”

Biden then shot back.

“You’re a damn liar, man!” Biden said. “That’s not true and no one has ever said that. No one has proved that.”

″I see it on the TV,” the man said.

Biden said, “No one has said my son has done anything wrong and I did not on any occasion.”

When the man interjected, “I didn’t say you were doing anything wrong,” Biden became angrier.

“You said I set up my son to work in an oil company. Isn’t that what you said? Get your words straight, Jack,” Biden said.

When the man said he had heard the claim on MSNBC, Biden snapped: “You don’t hear that on MSNBC.”

“You do not hear that at all,” Biden said. “Look, OK, I’m not going to get into an argument with you, man.”

When the man said, “I don’t want to either,” Biden said, “Well, yeah, you do.”

“But look, fat, here’s the deal,” Biden said.

The man then said, “It looks, it looks like you don’t have any more backbone than Trump does.”

Biden said to the crowd then: “Any other questions?”

“Yeah, all right. I’m not voting for you,” the man said.

Biden replied, “I knew you weren’t, man.”

“You think I’d thought you’d stand up and vote for me? You’re too old to vote for me.” Complete article

Video of same event with fewer ads

This should have caused an end to his campaign especially if you consider many more gaffes or videos where he lectures his own critics in an obnoxious manner however the mainstream media is downplaying those that they do report and ignoring many more. However, the mainstream media is doing an incredibly bad job reporting on this, often trying to spin it in his favor, including this article which opens by saying that this man presented his claim "without any evidence" implying that Biden might have been justified in his outburst, and some of the voter replies presented by the mainstream media indicates that they may agree, although after a closer look it's hard to imagine that this is completely right.

Most media reports don't claim that Biden "sent" his son to Ukraine to get that job but it doesn't take much deduction to figure out that he got that job because of his relationship to the vice President, and there who'll be no doubt that there's an obvious conflict of interests there, or if you want to accept the spin used by most politicians and media pundits call it the "appearance of a conflict of interest." But her in the real world the vast majority of us know that we could never get high paying jobs like that without experience, yet it's routine for relatives of politicians that can influence major decisions.

This wasn't just an "appearance of a conflict of interest," at all it was obvious corruption and anyone that wants to see it can see it!

Yet the mainstream media has trying to spin this as if it's no big deal repeating over and over again that Hunter Biden did nothing illegal, yet even they often admit that he did something unethical. Furthermore, if what he was doing wasn't illegal that may be an even bigger problem than it is; since it would mean that brazen obvious corruption is perfectly legal, which it often is!

In a full transcript just released even Biden, sort of admits there might have been something wrong with it but claims that no one warned him about it, and possibly lied about not being warned as indicated in the following excerpt:

Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Joe Biden 12/09/2019 ..... Nobody warned me about a potential conflict of interest. Nobody warned me about that. And at the same time —

George Kent, the State Department official, testified that he raised it to you, and your staff.

No, he didn't say me. He did not say me.

To your staff. To your staff, I stand corrected.

I never, never heard that once at all.

To your staff. And your staff told him he has no bandwidth for family matters.

Well, my son was dying, so I guess that's why he said it, because my son was on his deathbed. But that, that's not the reason why — they should have told me. (According to a Tweet by a New York Times and Politico reporter "*at least 1 aide reportedly raised the issue w/ him")

Even if you accept his claim that no one warned him, there's still major doubts about his judgement that he couldn't figure it out without a warning and that he has a staff that wouldn't warn him but according to New York times reporter Ken Vogel he was warned by at least one aide. There should be no doubt that Joe Biden is going to complete his meltdown before the primaries get to far, even if mainstream media tries to cover for him; but the amazing thing is that most if not all the other high profile candidates are also clearly Wall Street puppets!

Perhaps the most ironic candidate is now Pete Buttigieg, who's clearly a favorite of Wall Street as well; but when he was getting started as a high school student he won the

Pete Buttigieg on Bernie Sanders by Pete Buttigieg 12/10/2019 This essay was first published in 2000 by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, the winner of the library’s annual 2000 Profiles in Courage Essay Contest, as pointed out by David Sirota which is very odd, because it sounds an awful lot like an endorsement of Bernie Sanders; except it was written before he joined the political establishment and caved to it, which is clearly routine for establishment candidates that want to get media coverage.

But frankly, even though the mainstream media is portraying him as a leading candidate, just like they did Kamala Harris for a while, I find it hard to believe that he ever had much of a chance. The only candidate that seems to have a significant chance to beat Bernie may be Elizabeth Warren under the current circumstances. The mainstream media has been trying to portray several candidates as top tier but, except for Bernie Sanders they all have outrageous records and have been exposed as having close ties to Wall Street at the expense of the vast majority of the public, including Elizabeth Warren, but her propaganda is much more convincing.

One of the most effective ways they rig elections is by simply refusing to give grassroots candidates any media coverage ensuring they never get the name recognition they need to be viable, as I explained in More Censored Candidates From The Underground In the long run we need to draw much more attention to this at the grassroots level, but for now Bernie Sanders is the best hope for short term reforms.

Another of their most popular tactics is that they minimize or bury negative news about candidates that they don't support while repeating positive news over and over again & do the opposite for candidates that they don't like. this means that their true records aren't completely hidden; but they're practically never mentioned by the mainstream media and covered much more widely by alternative media or on social media like Facebook or twitter, which is controlled by the grassroots. Once you look closer at that it becomes clear that even Elizabeth Warren isn't nearly as Progressive as she claims to be.

I've gone into her record in much more numerous articles including my most recent one Will Social Media Expose & Destroy Both Biden & Warren?; Is Elizabeth Warren A Wall Street Stealth Candidate? and Elizabeth Warren is NOT a "consumer advocate!" all of which provide many additional sources, often including lower profile articles from traditional media, that aren't mentioned very often & are ignored by Network and Cable News, which is where a shocking percentage of the public get their information.

But more stories about her keep coming out, or researchers turn up old stories that were almost ignored that totally contradict her image like the following one about her flipping houses, when she claimed that she was defending working class people from this type of predatory practice:

Records: Prof profited by buying, selling homes 06/02/2012

Elizabeth Warren, who has railed against predatory banks and heartless foreclosures, took part in about a dozen Oklahoma real estate deals that netted her and her family hefty profits through maneuvers such as “flipping” properties, records show.

A Herald review has found that the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate rapidly bought and sold homes herself, loaned money at high interest rates to relatives and purchased foreclosed properties at bargain prices.

Land records from Warren’s native Oklahoma City show the Harvard professor was active in the often topsy-turvy real estate market in the 1990s, including:

Purchasing a foreclosed home at 2725 West Wilshire Boulevard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for $61,000 in June 1993, then selling it in December 1994 for $95,000 — a 56 percent mark-up in just 18 months.

Buying a house at 200 NW 16th St. for $30,000 in August 1993, then flipping it for $145,000 — a 383 percent gain after just five months.

Lending one of her brothers money at 9.5 percent interest to buy a home at 1425 Classen Drive for $35,000 in August 2000. He sold the place three months later for $38,500 — a 10 percent gain in 75 days. .......

Providing her brother with a loan in 1997 to buy 901 NW 22nd St. for $90,000. He sold it some two years later for $106,000 — an 18 percent increase. .......

Herald columnist Howie Carr reported yesterday that Warren and her relatives also profited from two additional Oklahoma City foreclosures — in both cases showing triple-digit percentage gains.

Warren's campaign issued a statement last night: "Elizabeth and (her husband) Bruce are fortunate to be in a position where they can help their family. They have been able to help relatives buy their homes and her nephew — a contractor — fix up houses."

However, Warren and her family's private investments don't seem to square with her public statements about the latest real estate boom and bust.

"We are in the midst of one of the greatest economic crises in our country's history — a crisis that began one lousy mortgage at a time," the Democrat wrote on her campaign website, which also decries "a deregulated credit industry (that) squeezed families harder, hawking dangerous mortgages." Complete article

Reporting like this is routinely done in a very low profile manner & the mainstream media hardly mentions old stories like this while covering her or reminding the public of this and many other stories which clearly indicates that she's not nearly as progressive as she pretends to be, and this goes for her image trying to protect the environment as well. In some of my past articles I mentioned how the media gave her an enormous amount of credit for trying to stop Climate Change in once case by signing on to legislation that was actually pushed by other politicians. Why didn't they give credit to the politicians that started that? this is typical of their coverage of her, including minimal coverage on television for this more recent story from the Washington Post:

Memo from 1990s pollution case shows Elizabeth Warren in action as corporate consultant 12/09/2019

The memo from then-Professor Elizabeth Warren was written on Harvard Law School letterhead, a symbol of gravitas for a scholar renowned as a champion for consumers victimized by predatory banks and other big businesses.

But on this occasion, Warren was not arguing on behalf of vulnerable families, nor was she offering the sort of stinging rebuke of corporate greed that would later define her political career. Rather, Warren was representing a large development company that was trying to avoid having to clean up a toxic waste site.

The memo, which Warren wrote in 1996, used legalistic and often dense language to argue that businesses faced the “risk of the unknown” from a growing threat of lawsuits, and that defended the company’s right to “maximize its returns to its unpaid creditors and to survive as an employer.

“Environmental claims, product liability claims, and mass tort claims, for which we have currently only seen the tip of the iceberg, are multiplying against American businesses,” wrote Warren, who, according to her campaign, was arguing that a different company should bear the cleanup costs.

The eight-page memo, which has not previously been reported, offers a rare glimpse of Warren in action during her past work as a corporate consultant — one whose arguments were at times out of step with the liberal presidential campaign she is running today. Complete article

Unlike Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a long record arguing to defend the planet and roll back Climate Change, despite mainstream media's efforts to make it seem as if she does. Using bankruptcy laws to avoid accountability for environmental damage is quite common, often sticking tax payers with the tab as reported in numerous articles including Bankrupt companies avoid more than $700 million in cleanup costs 05/18/2007, yet I'm not aware of any effort by Elizabeth Warren to reform these laws, or pass a tax for at risk companies, like oil companies or other chemical corporations, so that they can foot the bill when some of them cut too many corners and go bankrupt. In many cases some of the bankrupt companies may be subsidiaries of larger more profitable companies and they may use bankruptcy laws to minimize damages sacrificing the subsidiary to bankruptcy while the larger more profitable company negotiates lower liability, assuming they pay anything at all.

In addition to defending corporations in the past Elizabeth Warren has also made an incredibly weak claim that the military can lead the efforts despite the fact that they're "single largest source of emissions of any institution in the world," The U.S. military won’t lead efforts to combat climate change 11/0/2019 and the fact that were're constantly fighting wars for oil, yet she's doing little or nothing to change this including supporting a military budget that was even bigger than Trump requested, without holding him accountable for any of the wars he's carrying out or threatening to carry out directly or indirectly, including the war in Yemen, increased tensions in Iraq, Israel, Bolivia, Venezuela and many other parts of the world.

Sarah Lazare goes into her foreign policy credentials a little more the int eh following article:

When It Comes to U.S. Militarism, Elizabeth Warren Is No Progressive 05/17/2019

Massachusetts Senator and 2020 presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has been widely celebrated in liberal and left-leaning press for churning out progressive policy proposals on the domestic front, from child care to housing. Articles have hailed her as the “intellectual powerhouse of the Democratic party,” the person who “has the plans” and the “progressive policy anchor in the 2020 field.” One Guardian piece from late February asks, “Why vote for Sanders when you can have Elizabeth Warren instead?”

Yet, none of these articles take a close look at Warren’s track record on war and militarism, despite the fact that the realm of foreign policy is where presidents have the most power to act without Congress (thanks in part to Obama’s unfortunate expansion of presidential powers to make war). It’s as though the United States existed in a vacuum, with only domestic matters to attend to; in reality, we are the biggest military empire in human history, with 800 military bases around the world and U.S. commandos deployed to 75% of countries.

Once Warren’s foreign policy record is scrutinized, her status as a progressive champion starts to wither. While Warren is not on the far right of Democratic politics on war and peace, she also is not a progressive—nor a leader—and has failed to use her powerful position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to challenge the status quo. While she’s voted for military de-escalation on some issues, including ending the Yemen War, she’s gone along with some of the most belligerent acts that have occurred under her watch, cheerleading Israel’s devastating 2014 war on Gaza and vocalizing her support for sanctions against Venezuela. Even judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade: not the last in her class, but far from first. Complete article

Is It Imperialist to “Green” the Military? 11/19/2019

Elizabeth Warren Wants Green Bombs, not a Green New Deal 06/05/2019

And one of the issues she's supposedly most outspoken about is opposition to lobbyists, or at least that's what her rhetoric and most media pundits lead us to believe; however one exception is the following article, although it's virtually ignored by cable and network news:

‘It’s not like she hates lobbyists’: Warren’s Senate record doesn’t match her campaign rhetoric 10/1/2019

She’s threatened to end corporate lobbying as we know it, but Warren has been far from hostile with lobbyists as a Massachusetts senator.

Elizabeth Warren has proposed outlawing foreign governments from hiring lobbyists if elected. She’s pledged to tax “excessive lobbying” at rates as high as 75 percent. And in a speech in New York last month, she described lobbying as an “industry whose sole purpose is to undermine democracy and tilt every decision in favor of those who can pay.”

Even in a Democratic presidential field in which most candidates have sworn off contributions from lobbyists, Warren’s hostility to K Street stands out.

But while Warren’s campaign rhetoric has made the influence industry nervous, many lobbyists who’ve worked with the Massachusetts senator’s office say she’s far from antagonistic when it comes to doing business with K Street.

Six lobbyists who interacted with her office said they’d never had trouble getting meetings. Several of them said that while they’d be reluctant to bring corporate clients to meet with Warren’s leading progressive rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), they’d have no qualms about having them sit down with Warren.

“I don’t think she has anything against lobbyists,” said Camden Fine, the former head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, who worked closely with Warren for years. “It’s not like she hates lobbyists. That’s just not how she operates.”

When Warren was fighting to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2009, she helped persuade Fine’s trade group to not oppose the creation of the agency. She signed off on a deal that Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee at the time, struck with Fine that let community banks avoid being examined by the new agency. Complete article

She's following in Barack Obama's footsteps; when he was campaigning in 2008 he promised no to hire lobbyists for his cabinet and broke that promise along with his promise to "put on a comfortable pair of shoes" and march with protesters as president and many other promises. He started out as the candidate for "Hope and Change," but began showing how little change he was going to bring about as soon as he got in office and is now the former president of "not yet" opposing major changes including Medicare for all, Barack Obama and the Politics of Not Yet 12/11/2019, which supposedly Elizabeth Warren supports, some of the time.

There were signs that Barack Obama never had any intention of keeping many of his promises in 2008, just like there are signs that Elizabeth Warren has no intention of keeping her promises now, assuming she gets elected. she has many ties to the insurance industry, as well as Wall street insiders, including her own daughter, and many of her campaign workers, and she's hedged numerous times about Medicare for All and many other issues, although many people not watching closely might not have noticed.

Elizabeth Warren isn't much if any better than any of the other wall Street puppets, and, to those of us who pay close attention, it's incredibly obvious, too obvious. And Bernie Sanders does stand up to scrutiny; as many of his supporters routinely say for any given issue there's a video or article from decades ago showing that he's on the right side of the issue and has been all along! And this can be verified by checking each subject or following Bernie supporters on Social media while they repeat them. She's also repeatedly coming to the defense of the same politicians that routinely rig the economic and political system in favor of Wall Street including her recent claims that she would consider Kamala Harris for her vice president, despite the fact that she's not even remotely progressive, and she even in=dicated that she would consider Joe Biden to be Vice President again as reported in Elizabeth Warren says voters are ready for an all-female presidential ticket 12/08/2019

In the past she's praised many Wall Street insiders, include Deval Patrick, Foreclosure Mogul who she refers to as a "Must have" for her cabinet, Elizabeth Warren says Deval Patrick, who is now weighing a presidential run, would be a “must have” in her Cabinet. Foreclosure mogul Deval Patrick helped a billionaire Republican rip off middle class families. “A pretty terrific guy?” 😏 11/12/2019 she's praised both Lawrence Summers and Paul Volker and dozens of other political insiders that are totally agasint all the progressive policies that she pretends to support, and she's already demonstrated that in the Senate caving to them is no routine.

I have no doubt that there are many other candidates or potential candidates that are far better than the Wall Street puppets, besides Bernie Sanders, including Sanderson Beck, but the mainstream media ensures they don't have a chance by never providing them any coverage at all, as much as I like Bernie Sanders, I have to admit that he's the only hope for real reform the media is allowing us to seriously consider, whether it's because they feel he's so popular they can't ignore him or some other reason.

Don't they even know how to do a better job pretending to do a better job instead of making it so obvious to well informed people? That's the irony, they do; yet they seem to have chosen not to!

Why?

I don't know for certain, but can't imagine any rational explanation, which may mean that something extremely far-fetched might be going on. If nothing insane was going on there's no way that they could have botched the 2016 election so badly and allowed a clown as pathetic as Donald Trump to be elected; so there's no doubt something far-fetched or insane is going on.

I've written numerous articles about Philip Corso's claims that he shared alien technology with corporations; if this is true then the implications would be enormous impacting our entire society including the political establishment since advanced technology and the lobbying from these wealthy corporations have an enormous impact on everything. If it's not true then there has to be a big reason why the establishment is allowing this fringe conspiracy theory to be presented on the History channel and other sources, and why there are colossal blunders on both sides of the issue from high profile spokespeople.

Either way it could impact the political establishment, so I'm not completely ruling out the possibility that this could be part of a controlled disclosure effort releasing information when, and only when it serves their purposes.

As much as I like Bernie Sanders, occasionally they're somethings even he gets wrong including when he endorsed Hillary Clinton and tried to patch back together the reputation of the Democratic Party by campaigning for Tom Perez despite the fact that they rigged the chairmanship of the DNC too against progressives. some of the most important reforms are going to have to be pushed from the grassroots not the political establishment; and even when Bernie Sanders is keeping his promises as president he'll need an enormous amount of grassroots support to pressure Congress or replace large portions of them with more reliable progressives to bring about the reform we need, whether some fringe conspiracy theory is close to the truth or not.