Immigration Policy And Outsourcing Are Virtual Slavery

The debate over illegal aliens, or undocumented immigrants, like all other debates in the mainstream media ignores some of the most basic fundamentals including the fact, yes fact, that this is part of class warfare that leads to virtual slavery and that a large portion of immigration policy is designed to enable rich people to profit by suppressing wages for workers both in the USA and abroad.

The alternative media outlets often catch some of the most important aspects of this much better but they often either miss some of it as well or fail to repeat it very often although they trying to do a much better job.

First of all, for all practical purposes, laws are created by the rich primarily for the benefit of the rich and so-called democracy has been turned into a farce, largely because the media has consolidated into six oligarchies that control over ninety percent of the news nationwide. That means that these oligarchies can rig elections by refusing to cover grassroots candidates and only covering those that cater to their interests. Since one of the leading requirements to getting elected is name recognition this simple method is enough to rig elections so only corporate puppets have a chance.

Our caste system usually doesn't seem quite as blatant as the Indian caste system, which until recently they openly admitted existed, and now only pretend they're trying to get rid of; but it doesn't take much research to realize that it is almost as blatant and that different classes of people that aren't quite as clearly defined exist for different purposes and that the vast majority of benefits for our economic system is designed to go to the rich in a state of virtual slavery that seem almost like a democracy assuming people are complacent and don't read alternative media outlets.

This may not be an intentional well planned conspiracy; but when less than one percent of the population controls all the most powerful institutions the results are the same; and there are smaller conspiracies within these institutions that are exposed on a routine basis. However if you don't check alternative media outlets they'll be quickly forgotten if they're reported at all.



Donald Trump is, of course, one of the most obvious and hypocritical people on this issue, and it doesn't take much research to learn that Hillary Clinton isn't much better, assuming your not a cult follower of one of these plutocrats. They both came up with rhetoric that sounds good to the voters that they were trying to attract during the election; but there were many times, including polish construction workers, Mar-a-Lago guest workers, illegal models and more additional examples than most researcher can come close to reporting on where Trump was doing exactly what he was campaigning against. Hillary Clinton is no better; she supported the coup in Honduras when she was secretary of state, which lead to the assassination of an environmental activists; opposed an increase in the minimum wage in Haiti from thirty one cents an hour to sixty one cents an hour, said that immigrants from these countries "had to go back" while pretending to defend human rights; and voted for the fence and some of the other policies Trump supports as Senator. She is also involved in more scandals than many if any researchers can keep track of.

The media only covers corrupt candidates guaranteeing that we only get corrupt politicians!

Allowing illegal immigrants into this country so that they can hire them at low wages and ensure that they have little or no rights to complain is routine. This enables the rich to get low wages in this country both from these suppressed wages and by using competition to force legal workers to settle for less. If illegal aliens complain they can be deported. They're intentionally creating a class of people who have no rights and using them as scapegoats for their own crimes.

Cabinet members have been repeatedly derailed because they've been caught hiring illegal aliens as housekeepers and nanny's and on some occasions they've created scandals but approved them any way or withdrew them for other reasons like Puzder who was exposed for this but didn't withdraw until it was also reported that he abused his wife as well. This is routine; I wouldn't even know where to hire an illegal alien to clean my house but rich people seem to have no problem whether they set up a network to find them or not.

They passed a law in the eighties giving aliens amnesty on the condition that in the future all employees would be required to check their status; so these people should legally have known they were hiring people here illegally, even though they had no option, yet the people that had influence in the government aren't held accountable for anything while those that have been criminalized take all the blame.

This is justified because they pretend these laws are created by a democracy. In a democracy the people impacted by decisions have a right to the information they need to participate in the decision making policies and then they can vote on it. Immigrants have no such rights and many of them come from countries that are being oppressed by allies of the United States government. Even when they're in their own country and the United States government decides to sell weapons to tyrants that are used to oppress their own people they're not involved in the decision making process.

When the United States supported coups or attempted coups in Chile, Guatemala, Panama, Cuba, El-Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Vietnam and many other places they never allowed the people of these countries to vote on their efforts to oppress them!

Is this what we should call democracy?

If we're the defender of the free world shouldn't we be trying to ensure that as many people as possible that are impacted by policies, both foreign and domestic are informed accurately about these policies and their concerns should be addressed to the best of our ability? We might not be able to accomplish all of this overnight but the political establishment isn't even trying; instead of improving things they're relentlessly pushing voter suppression laws that infringe on the rights of immigrants, poor people, minorities, the working class and anyone that challenges the rights of the oligarchy.



Outsourcing is, of course another aspect of this. We grow subsidized cotton here in the United States ship it overseas, sometimes as far as Pakistan, pay guards, abusive managers, and union busters in those countries who oppress the people that actually make products without paying the workers and local workers have to compete with that so their wages are suppressed as well. As Bob Ortega reported Kathie Lee Gifford got three percent of the revenue of her clothing line for sponsoring it but the workers who produced the quality were abused on only got less than one percent. We're supposed to believe that she's a good person because she gives ten percent of the money she stole from workers and consumers to charity. Yes I say, stole because for a all practical purposes that is what she did although they create propaganda that makes it seem justifiable. When they send advertising expenses through the roof while cutting manufacturing expenses to the bone the people that create deceptive ads aren't providing benefits to consumers they're committing fraud, or at least this would be clear if the scam artists weren't controlling the propaganda!



Sometimes they hardly even pretend it isn't slavery as bad as it was before the Civil War; and amazingly the government claims they can do nothing according to several reports including the following:

The New American Slavery: Invited To The U.S., Foreign Workers Find A Nightmare 07/21/2015

The H-2 visa program invites foreign workers to do some of the most menial labor in America. Then it leaves them at the mercy of their employers. Thousands of these workers have been abused — deprived of their fair pay, imprisoned, starved, beaten, raped, and threatened with deportation if they dare complain. And the government says it can do little to help. A BuzzFeed News investigation. MAMOU, Louisiana — Travis Manuel and his twin brother, Trey, were shopping at Walmart near this rural town when they met two Mexican women who struck them as sweet. Using a few words of Spanish he had picked up from his Navy days, Travis asked the two women out on a double date. .....

The man in the truck was the women’s boss, Craig West, a prominent farmer in the heart of Cajun country. As Sgt. Robert McGee later wrote in a police report, West said that Valdez and Gonzalez were “two of his girls,” and he asked the cops to haul the women in and “scare the girls.”

The police brought the women, who were both in their twenties, to the station house. McGee told them they couldn’t leave West’s farm without permission, warning that they could wind up dead. To drive home the point, an officer later testified, McGee stood over Valdez and Gonzalez and pantomimed cutting his throat. He also brandished a Taser at them and said they could be deported if they ever left West’s property without his permission.

A little after 2 in the morning, they released the women to West for the 15-minute drive through the steamy night to his compound — a place where, the women and the Mexican government say, workers were stripped of their passports and assigned to sleep in a filthy, foul-smelling trailer infested with insects and mice. Valdez and Gonzalez also claimed that they and other women were imprisoned, forced to work for little pay, and frequently harassed by West, who demanded to see their breasts and insisted that having sex with him was their only way out of poverty.

These women were not undocumented immigrants working off the books. They were in the United States legally, as part of a government program that allows employers to import foreign labor for jobs they say Americans won’t take — but that also allows those companies to control almost every aspect of their employees’ lives.

Each year, more than 100,000 people from countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, the Philippines, and South Africa come to America on what is known as an H-2 visa to perform all kinds of menial labor across a wide spectrum of industries: cleaning rooms at luxury resorts and national parks, picking fruit, cutting lawns and manicuring golf courses, setting up carnival rides, trimming and planting trees, herding sheep, or, in the case of Valdez, Gonzalez, and about 20 other Mexican women in 2011, peeling crawfish at L.T. West Inc. Complete article

For one reason or another these stories are rarely if ever reported in the mainstream media but once you suspect that this might be happening it doesn't take much searching to find more stories that are similar including the following couple of additional stories that are just as bad:

Virtual Slavery Indian workers in Tulsa, Oklahoma, were packed into cramped dormitories and forced to work 16-hours, six days a week, for less than minimum wage. When they complained, they were patrolled by armed guards. 06/11/2002

Despite U.S. laws, thousands still virtual slaves in America 12/13/2009

Both the Obama and Bush administrations allegedly claim that there's nothing they can do about it in these reports, and even the media outlets that report on it keep their reporting to a minimum and allow the stories to be quickly forgotten so it is hard to believe they're doing as much as they can although we should be thankfully for them for providing the reports and giving grassroots organizations a chance to pressure the government. We certainly can't expect the Trump administration to even pretend to care about it but there's no doubt that if any of these presidencies wanted to do something they could. The problem isn't that they can't do anything it is that they don't wast to!

The government routinely behaves like a fully owned subsidiary of campaign contributors!

Our government isn't accountable to voters; they're only accountable to donors, and the media that protects them by refusing to cover grassroots candidates that might actually try to do a good job!

Amazingly the members of the ruling class that are robbing everyone blind have the gall to claim that illegal immigrants are the ones responsible for all the crime in America!

Statistics can easily be misrepresented, and politicians routinely do just that but The Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out a much more reliable report by The Sentencing Project (PDF) that I'm sure will stand up to scrutiny much better than the propaganda repeated over and over by the Trump administration and the mainstream media which pretends to do a good job debunking some of the lies from Trump. This report points out that, "1. Immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens; 2. Higher levels of immigration in recent decades may have contributed to the historic drop in crime rates; 3. Police chiefs believe that intensifying immigration law enforcement undermines public safety; 4. Immigrants are under-represented in U.S. prisons."

This report indicates that the biggest crime illegal immigrants commit wouldn't even be a crime at all if they were allowed to participate in the decision making process like it is supposed to be in a real democracy! We call it a democracy when one group of people votes to make another group of people illegal just because they were born on the wrong side of the line and these illegal aren't offered any opportunity to defend themselves or participate in the democratic process. How much better would this be than if the most racist Nazi's voted in the forties to exterminate the Jews without letting the Jews vote? How much better would this be than if the most racists Jews vote to take away land from Palestinians without letting the Palestinians vote?

There can be no justification for this in a sincere Democracy!



Statistically foreign born people are significantly less likely to commit crimes than citizens and first generation immigrants are slightly less likely to commit crimes than US citizens! If we used reasonable justification it would be clear that the billionaires that control the government are much more likely to commit much bigger crimes yet a large portion of these crimes are considered legal; and even when they aren't legal they're rarely if ever prosecuted.





Does anyone really earn a billion dollars? Or even a hundred million dollars? Of course not, they use their connection with the government to help steal this money from the vast majority of the public and the people who pay the greatest price are the ones with the least amount of political power including immigrants!

How much is it even possible for a single person to reasonably earn? Not an easy question to answer but with this corrupt system no one is even trying to figure it out!

We live in a Corporate Kleptocracy not a Democracy! The government is controlled by a white collar crime syndicate!

The following are some additional sources and details:

Undocumented families adjust to living under the constant threat of being torn apart 03/16/2017

What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower 08/25/2016

The Story Behind Donald Trump’s Undocumented Polish Workers 02/25/2016

Andrew Puzder is just the latest Cabinet nominee with a 'nanny' problem 02/07/2017

How to Bring Down a Cabinet Nominee 01/10/2017 Four out of The latest 10 Cabinet appointees to fail failed because of hiring illegal aliens

If someone tips ICE off that I’m illegally in the U.S., will I be deported?

According to ICE, worksite immigration busts have increased tenfold over the past five years. 05/23/2009

Immigration Status Discrimination

A Few Times Donald Trump Has Allegedly Profited From Illegal Immigration 08/30/2016

Indivisible Protest: Overdue Reform or Democratic Trojan Horse?

Protests against the outrageous activities of the Trump White House and Republican Party are needed and the ones begun by "Indivisible" organizers can be a major part of reform, as long as the control of it is at the local level; however this guide has been organized by former congressional staffers from the Democratic Party and if they're allowed to lead this movement then it could turn into a Trojan Horse that just leads them right back to business as usual with the same corrupt Democrats that are selling out to the same corporations as the Republicans.

If the Democrats wanted to prevent this from happening they could have and would have provided much better options than their incredibly lame efforts rigging the primary for Hillary Clinton which is how Trump got the presidency in the first place. If they wanted to cut into the Republican majority they could have run many more progressives instead of the same establishment candidates more concerned about serving the interests of their campaign contributors.

How many of these protests are calling for Single Payer Insurance?



How many are calling out both the Democratic and Republican Parties for supporting one war based on lies after another?

How many are demanding a much more diverse media to coverall candidates including alternative parties like the Green Party? How many are calling for Instant Run-Off elections to make this more likely?

How many are demanding that the poor have their environment protected as much as the rich? As it stands the rich have a right to profit by polluting the poor and neither traditional Party is trying to stop them, although the Democrats occasionally do a better job pretending to oppose it.

How many of these protests are demanding an end to privatization of schools prisons Social Security and much more? Once again the Democrats occasionally do a better job pretending to oppose this but often support it in subtle ways, especially establishment candidates like both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who campaign against privatization but often pushed it when they thought fewer people were paying attention.

The vast majority of people sticking to the script provided by the former congressional staffers are probably not doing much of this, since they might be to busy following the agenda dictated to them by organizers for the same political establishment that got them into this mess in the first place.

However it is virtually guaranteed that many of the real grassroots that supported all these things all along recognize that they can't allow the former congressional staffers to control and possibly limit the reforms they demand. They're almost certainly calling for much more in at least some case4s but there is little or no chance that tehy'll get much media coverage for their demands.

If this protests goes according to the plans of the political establishment we might get enough reform to keep the grassroots in line and restore the same political establishment to power, on the Democratic side for a little while but then we'll only see many of these reforms watered down or even eliminated before they try the same trick again telling us that we need to choose the other corporate party, switching back to Republicans.

If this goes according to plan then the Indivisible protests will be nothing but a Trojan Horse to minimize the reforms enough to silence the majority and keep the control in the hands of the wealthiness without cutting back on corruption any more than they have to.

They may provide only enough reform to benefit themselves when and only when it serves their purposes.

This is standard operating procedure already and it won't change unless there is more organizing from the grassroots level that isn't just following the lead of those in the political establishment.

Even the most progressive politicians from the political establishment have a history of capitulating to corporations, either directly or indirectly.

I liked Bernie Sanders in last years elections and still think he's far better than the rest of the political establishment; however when he abandoned his campaign without speaking out against massive voter fraud and tried to present Hillary Clinton as a progressive he clearly caved to the political establishment. He tried to convince his followers that the election wasn't rigged but even though many of us still like him it is clear that it was rigged from the start.

Kieth Ellison, who was endorsed by Bernie Sanders might be the most progressive candidate that has a reasonably good chance of winning the DNC chair but he also caved and argued that the election process wasn't rigged and that we should accept the results. He also indicated that he would support war in Syria according to Keith Ellison on Syria. He makes a compelling argument about protecting civilians from atrocities, which would be a good argument if that was all there was to it. However even if there are some examples where intervention is necessary to protect civilians from massive atrocities like Rwanda; it also needs to be accompanied by action to curtail the permanent state of war; and one of the most obvious things that needs to be done is that we need to simply stop selling weapons to people all over the world, including many tyrants.

A significant about of the weapons and training that we provide to our current allies are routinely turned against us; any support for war without demanding major changes to these policies around the world should be met with major skepticism.

As Miami Gator and the Miami Progressives have pointed out he apparently also endorsed Stephen Bittel a Florida millionaire that supports the Democratic establishment progressives have been standing up to. They seem to have reluctantly supported Kieth Ellison over Tom Perez because their preferred candidate Samuel Ronan probably won't be able to win anyway and they consider it important to avoid Perez who will be a disaster. I don't know Ronan as well as they do so I can't confirm that he's as progressive as I hope he is but it is clear that if Kieth Ellison is elected he'll need to be held accountable just like any establishment candidate even though he'll be far more productive than Tom Perez.

We may not be able to get grassroots candidates elected right away but even with the most progressive candidates the establishment has to offer we can't count on them to bring about the reforms we need unless we're doing what it takes to keep them honest as much if not more than the traditional media and we need to elect as many progressives as possible so that they can't just blame it on the rest of the political establishment.

There is little or no doubt that if these "Indivisible" protest are going to do much to bring about real reforms that are badly needed the grassroots are going to have to control them, not the former congressional staffers that created their organizational guideline. If some of their recommendations work then fine, they should be used; however the grassroots need to do much more to educate themselves about the Democrats that have betrayed them as much as the Republicans that they recognize for the disaster that they are.



All this talk about "AstroTurf" is at least partially right but this doesn't mean that the vast majority of these people are being paid to protest; there's simply no way even large corporations can afford that when it gets this big. the E-Mail leaks clearly confirmed that some protest really are carried out by paid protesters; one of them said that if they can't get a large crowd they shouldn't send anyone, so they should either send all their interns to pretend to be grassroots protesters or none. But this can only be done on rare and relatively small occasions.

A far more common and larger aspect of AstroTurf is when they pay a small number of organizers to gather larger crowds of people that often don't know they're being manipulated.

This is the kind of AstroTurf both the Indivisible and Tea Party protests are, for the most part.

If the real grassroots movements want to prevent this from being AstroTurf they can join in and do what they can to put as much emphasis as possible on the issues that the establishment is routinely trying to sweep under the rug; and they need to do as much as they can to remind the protesters that it was the Democratic Party that enabled the Republican Party to take over.





This may seem to contradict the idea of Indivisible that congressional staffers had in mind but we don't want to be an indivisible cult blindly following the leader right back into the hands of the same Democratic Party that sold us out during the Democratic Primary when they rigged it for Hillary Clinton.

If we're going to be Indivisible we have to be damn sure it's for the right cause so it will require a reasonable amount of dissent and discussion at the lower levels.

We must always remember, even after the political establishment steals credit from the grassroots the next time, that it was the real grassroots that does the work; and the political establishment only implements the minimum they think they can get away with.

This won't change until we get major media reform and arrange a much better education system for all people, not just the rich that study how to manipulate the poor!





if the grassroots don't do their part to learn about the most important issues and push them especially when the Democrats try to convince them otherwise then this will clearly turn into an Indivisible Democratic Trojan Horse that will ensure business as usual!

Edit 02/27/2017: The election of Tom Perez as DNC chair and response by both Bernie Sanders and especially Kieth only confirms even more that we can't expect much if any help from the political establishment claiming to represent the majority of the public. Tom Perez had little or not support from grassroots levels especially those supporting Bernie Sanders campaign and progressive reforms. This was made clear by the outrage expressed when they announced his election, although most traditional media only reported this part briefly, while repeating Perez's rhetoric over and over again.

The waiving of the rules to elect Kieth Ellison as Deputy Chair was an obvious attempt to get his progressive supporters to be part of the "Indivisible" effort being led by political insiders catering to corporate interests. Kieth Ellison seemed almost to be giving Perez a friendly lecture about what he had to do now that he was Chair and Perez acted as if he was responsive, then he turned around and told his followers how much he trusted Perez.

This was obvious pandering and Kieth Ellison, once again caved and showed that support for the Democratic establishment is more important than support for progressive causes. Only the most credulous would be fooled by this obvious act.

Bernie Sanders also caved at least to a point, endorsing the establishment after it made this choice; however, at least when he was asked about Trump's tweet indicating that the election was rigged, he said that Trump does have a point, accurately. But of course Trump gave them an opportunity to show they can stand up for the people simply by standing up to Trump.

We Need a grassroots political establishment that stops falling for the lesser of two evils trick and giving the public nothing but rhetoric; and that won't happen until we get more candidates elected the media tries to suppress and get more news from alternative media outlets that isn't censored and heavily biased.

Bernie overturn cheating to win nomination or endorse Jill Stein!!

The media has been trying to present Hillary Clinton as the inevitable nominee for the Democratic Party for years, long before even one person had a chance to vote in either Iowa or New Hampshire; and every time they have an opportunity to try to declare Bernie Sanders candidacy to be over they do.

They've been doing this since the New York primary at an escalating pace without mentioning the problems with voting there that gave her an enormous edge often after the initial reports. As I explained in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? there have been voting problems in at least fifteen to eighteen different states and the stories have been growing, often faster than I can update this list. Recent stories indicate that if Bernie Sanders contests it Illinois might be overturned due to voter manipulation and several more states have even bigger problems including New York and Arizona which might have the biggest problems with voter suppression of all.

There are enough problems with the voting irregularities to raise serious doubts about the legitimacy of this election. When you add in the much larger advantage the media gives Hillary Clinton in this election and establishment candidates of their choice in others, there is no legitimacy to this election system. Jeff Weaver has been ridiculed by saying that he might try to win by convincing "super-delegates" to changes sides since Bernie Sanders is more electable than Hillary Clinton. This may seem to be inappropriate, but if we can't get a new election which is the most appropriate way to handle it then it is a better way to correct the problems long enough to overhaul the election system so that everyone can access the information they need, including an opportunity to hear from all candidates not just ones that collect bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions, in the next election and ensure that they're vote is counted.

This is obviously a flawed way of handling it but it isn't as bad as ignoring the much larger problems, which is what the media is doing.

While trying to make Bernie Sanders appear as if he is inevitably going to lose they asked him if he would endorse Hillary Clinton and he indicated that it would be up to her to earn the votes of his supporters; and that he would do everything he could to ensure that a Republican isn't elected.

In a Town Hall immediately following his on MSNBC Rachel Maddow started by asking Hillary Clinton what she would do if anything to earn the support of Bernie Sanders supporters and if she would change any of her positions. She responded angrily and said that when she lost in 2008 she did everything she could to support Barack Obama without conditions and indicated that since she had so many votes that him that he should simply do the same for her without question.

Of course she didn't mention any of the epidemic voting problems or the enormous advantage the media was giving her with their coverage. Many Bernie Sanders supporters are fully aware of this and they're also aware that after campaigning as a progressive promising to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and walk the picket line if necessary and not to hire lobbyists among other things Barack Obama did the opposite once he got in office breaking most of his promises unless there was an enormous amount of protests keeping him honest, or at least preventing him from breaking too many more promises.

Despite all her rhetoric and flip-flopping during the campaign, Hillary Clinton hasn't done nearly as good a job pretending to support the public when all evidence indicates that she'll cater to her contributors once in office, assuming the media and political establishment manages to rig the election for her.

Donald Trump is already calling her "Crooked Hillary" and can be expected to repeat it over and over again between now and the election; and even though he exaggerates and lies about a lot of things there is an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that he is right about this one on many subjects from reliable sources. I provided a long list of these stories on several posts including Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this?

The media has repeatedly said that Trump has the worst approval rating ever; and that Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are almost as bad; perhaps the three candidates with the worst approval ratings since polling began are running this year. The reason for this has an enormous amount to do with the media coverage given to these candidates. With the consolidated media they have the ability to rig elections for their candidates by simply refusing to give any coverage at all to progressive candidates; and that is what they almost always do.

For one reason or another they gave insane amounts of coverage to these candidates without providing fair coverage for any decent candidates, enabling these outrageous candidates to rise to the top. Bernie Sanders has shown there is an enormous amount of support for real reform. Hillary Clinton doesn't come close to attracting the crowds and enthusiasm that Bernie Sanders does.

They might be able to rig the media coverage and perhaps in many cases the votes making it seem like she has much more support than he does but they can't fake that!



Just because Bernie promised to do what he can to prevent a Republican from being elected doesn't mean that he has to support Hillary Clinton who is as corrupt on financial issues and war mongering as the Republicans. He can either continue fighting to convince the public to support himself; of if they successfully rig the media coverage and votes, like they did in 2000; he can put his weight behind Jill Stein.

When he ran as a Democrat he ran the risk of saving the Democratic primary while providing a modest amount of reform and adding his credibility to the corrupt establishment. If he wins then that risk is still there but his supporters aren't going to forget who the real progressives are, assuming they continue doing their research.

The worst thing that could happen is if he loses as a result of cheating and he adds his credibility to their party even though they aren't doing more than a token amount of reform; and his response indicates he knows that his supporters won't fall for that.

Fortunately it clearly isn't over yet and there is even an effort that is beginning to organize a March on the Democratic National Convention 2016! with additional support at Bernie Supporters March on Philadelphia - Democratic National Convention and at the Democratic Underground This could be the biggest protest in years thanks to the incredibly bad candidates the establishment is trying to push through especially when they're trying to shut out much better candidates with well informed grassroots support that won't fall for media lies.

If these protests turn out to be large enough they could either convince the Democratic Party to start fixing the system by giving Bernie Sanders the nomination, since his campaign hasn't been dependent on epidemic amounts of fraud and begin cooperating with further reforms. Obviously many of the insiders may not go along with this but if there's enough pressure from the real grassroots they might not have a choice especially if they realize that refusing to nominate Bernie Sanders would jeopardize their duopoly by having enormous turnout from alternative parties including Jill Stein and the Greens.

If they do give Sanders the nomination hoping to preserve their duopoly it will be up to the public to pursue Instant Run-Off elections alternative media outlets until we can get media reform and more reliance on ballot initiatives.

Regardless of how or why we wound up in this insane situation it has potentially created the biggest challenge to the corporate duopoly in decades. It is virtually guaranteed that there will be another alternative party candidate from the Libertarian Party on the right; and with record breaking negative polling it is highly unlikely that Donald Trump will win.

Besides Hillary Clinton is simply not much better and falling for the same lesser of two evils trick while large portions of the country falls apart isn't much if nay better than Donald Trump, especially since the outrage of all these people provides the greatest alternative which is real reform, either with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein.

The claim that Hillary Clinton has that much more support than Bernie Sanders because of the votes in a seriously rigged system with enormous amounts of corporate propaganda given to the people instead of the most important stories about Hillary Clinton and other candidates is no more credible than Joseph Stalin's claims to have won 98% to 99% percent in election when he was still in power!

As I've said in numerous posts since Invest in Activism, AND Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Grassroots and more before that the most important thing is grassroots activism; but we also need candidates in office that are at least trying to do their best so that we aren't fighting them tooth and nail just to prevent them from making things worse. With Clinton that would be even tougher than with Obama who broke many promises including to put on a pair of "comfortable shoes" not hire lobbyists and much more. Clinton clearly isn't even trying to do a good job pretending. But even Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein isn't a messiah and they don't pretend to be.

On at least one issue Jill Stein might actually be better than Bernie Sanders. He has repeatedly said that he favors arming and training Muslims to fight ISIS. That is how they were created in the first place. If we continue arming and training anyone we should keep it to a minimum since many of the groups we armed in past have turned against us or sold weapons to enemies.

It is far better to simply stop bombing Muslim countries turning people against us and making terrorists seem like lesser of two evils to some. If most Americans were being bombed by American bombs they would be much more likely to see this. This won't solve all problems but it would dry up the support for ISIS and help turn Muslims against ISIS. And developing functioning local economies both here and abroad will help reduce root causes as well.

Even after the eastern primaries including Pennsylvania Clinton is still only ahead by about 327 pledged delegates and there is still a chance to pull ahead, especially if they challenge voter irregularities. If they do this and have enough people let them know that they're not going to take it any more they could still get the nomination.

But if they rig it for Hillary Clinton and try to make us choose the lesser evil a Sanders endorsement could provide the boost and attention Jill Stein and the Grassroots movement they need to win and break up the duopoly.



If Bernie Sanders doesn't do this and the outrage is enough they could still do this; but refusing to try is submitting to corporate rule without accountability.

Which sounds an awful lot like submitting to tyranny!

Sign this petition to let Bernie Sanders and establishment know we won't help elect another corporate puppet. Break the Corporate Duopoly: Support Jill Stein and the Green Party if You Lose the Democratic Nomination

Bernie Sanders endorse Jill Stein Facebook

Is Negligent Homicide And Treason More Polite Than criticizing Super-Delegates

Recently there has been a lot of media coverage about how "rude" Bernie Sanders supporters are when they ask Super-Delegates to respect the will of the people.

There has been a lot of outrage about a speaker at Bernie Sander's rally who said, "Medicare for all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us.”

When a poor pedophile gets caught raping and killing one child there is typically an enormous amount of outrage about that; and few if anyone, including me, would doubt that it is justified.

When large institution run by people out of touch with the lower or middle class start wars based on lies killing thousands of people; profit off of pollution killing thousands more people; profit by denying medicare for all coverage to thousands of people resulting in their deaths and many other activities that cost the rest of us enormous amounts so they can increase profits there is little or no outrage from the people that control the mass media.

Why would there be?

They're getting their cut of the loot being stolen from the public and they have access to security and health care even if the rest of us don't.

Health care companies that profit off of the current system spend and enormous amount of money on advertising so the media gets an enormous profit from them. They also donate an enormous amount of money to political campaigns including to Hillary Clinton and many of the members of congress that Paul Song said he was referring to. After taking this money they preserve a system that doesn't work nearly as well as the systems in countries with Single Payer Health care.

The media doesn't report most if any of this so that the public will have accurate information to make their decisions.

They don't call it bribery even though it clearly accomplishes the same goal.

This pattern is repeated in one industry after another, where the leaders of powerful institutions are paid enormous amounts of money for controlling the industry but large amounts of expenses go towards work like advertising, lobbying, union busting, public relations that do far more to shift wealth to the rich than serve a public good for the majority.

The same goes for the so called "Super-Delegates" who often take campaign contributions from the same corporations involved in epidemic amounts of fraud or in many cases they are lobbyists or fund raisers instead of public officials elected by the people. The vast majority of the people have little or no say who these people are and they can overturn their votes the way the system is set up.

People who go through the details of this get little or no access to traditional media and often make their case on alternative media outlets that can't reach the majority of the public; but they generally do a much better job siting sources and making their case than the media pundits that do have reach the majority of the public. Instead of educating the public these pundits repeat the same propaganda over and over again.

One of the things they repeat over and over again is outrage about a critic using the phrase "Democratic whores" without putting it in it's full context. When they began this frenzy there were a few reports citing part of his speech but what was repeated over and over again was the same phrase, "Democratic whores," without reminding the public that he was complaining about the system being rigged. Mainstream media did little or nothing to confirm or deny whether this claim is reasonably close to the truth, which it is.



People that are accustomed to checking alternative media outlets are much more likely to know the details about how the system is rigged and how much money that could be going toward health care or other services in other industries actually goes to corporate bureaucracy primarily designed to shift wealth to the rich. They might also be more familiar with how the Super-Delegate system works, assuming they can sort through the details which are often intentionally complicated so that only those involved in the establishment understand or benefit from them.

However on one relatively recent occasion Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted, “Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” (Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists” 02/13/2016) This essentially means that if the alternative media manages to inform the public about many important issues and they use this information to win the majority of the popular vote the "Super-Delegates" can overrule the will of the people and choose a candidate that will cater to camping contributors while giving the majority more propaganda instead of keeping promises, which has been standard operating procedure.



Many people are justifiably outraged by that!

The vast majority of complaints that I have seen aren't exceptionally rude but few people from mainstream media pay any attention to them, and only those checking social media ever hear about them. Some of them are inevitably angry; but even in most of these cases they are less "rude" than many of the pundits that aren't criticized for their manners if they cater to corporate interests.

Outrageous policies that do enormous amounts of damage to the majority of the public especially the poorest people with the least resources. Often these are the people that do the menial labor that makes the high standard of living possible for corporate CEOs and politicians like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton.

A modest amount of research will turn up evidence that, like most politicians, Hillary Clinton's, record isn't remotely like her campaign propaganda; and if elected she will almost certainly follow past patterns. The state department lobbied against an increase of the minimum wage from 31 cents to 61 cents in Haiti, under her leadership. She didn't speak about supporting twelve dollars an hour until the fight for fifteen was well under way and it was as what she considered a more practical alternative to appease the public.

Now we're supposed to believe she led the fight for higher wages?

Her E-Mails disclosed her support for the coup in Honduras which led to many refugees; then instead of admitting to the problem and at least letting the poor children and their parents that fled from her abuse she said they have to go back.

Whether it's children being polluted by the fracking she promotes, the children turned into slave labor in sweat shops either in Haiti or other parts of the world producing goods for Walmart or the refugees from her foreign policies disasters or many other disaster produced by clueless bureaucrats these decisions do thousands of times more damage than when one pedophile rapes and kills a child.

Ironically Hillary once laughed about defending a pedophile.

Even when it comes to pedophiles there is an enormous amount of research to indicate what causes that and that most of them were abuse themselves as children. This means that if the mainstream media or political establishment educated the public about this and created policies that would do more to protect children from being abused they would be much less likely to grow up to be abusive parents themselves.

However, the establishment continues to promote policies that focus on punishing after the fact instead of preventing root causes so they pass up an opportunity to prevent domestic violence as well.

There really does seem to be evidence that the claim that politicians are "corporate Democratic whores" or something close. The biggest problem might not be that they aren't "Democratic" at all, since they don't respond to the will of the people. Perhaps they should just be called "corporate whores" serving corrupt interests and arranging for "Media whores" to provide the propaganda that makes their atrocities seem polite.

At least with traditional prostitutes people aren't lead to expect honesty or integrity. It is hard to see why people would believe many politicians including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton have any integrity at all; and yet we're supposed to be offended when someone honestly questions this lack of integrity.

The activities by politicians clearly lead to negligent homicide, at best if not intentional mass murder in some cases; and corrupting the political system so the public doesn't have accurate information to make their decisions and rigging the delegates system while pretending this is democracy should be considered treasonous.

Sources for some of the claims on this post and additional details can be found in some of my past related posts including the following:

Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this?

Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating?

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

Nominating Bernie Sanders would virtually put Minimum Wage on the Ballot and Drive Voter Turnout Up

Bernie Sanders wins foreign policy debate hands down despite propaganda

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

Why no national coverage for Tim Canova and other Progressives?

Tim Canova is just one of many progressive, third or fourth party candidates that have an enormous amount of grassroots support at the local level, even without help from mainstream media that; yet even after they get large support and in Canova's case provide a strong challenge to the leader of the Democratic National Committee the media refuses to give them much if any coverage at all.

This isn't because they don't give any national coverage to local candidates at all; they often do. Not to long ago they made a reference to the 2008 campaign and refereed to Barack Obama as the "unknown Senator from Illinois." This isn't close to the truth although some people who don't any attention to politics may not have been familiar with him. I first noticed what seemed like a surprising amount of coverage from the mainstream media for Barack Obama in 2004 when there were quite a few stories about him, first as a keynote speaker at the convention then as a surprise winner in November.

This was followed up by plenty more stories over the next four years and widespread promotion of his book in the media and libraries. Barack Obama had enormous amounts of coverage years before the 2008 election which enabled him to make a strong campaign and become president.

The media also provides enormous amounts of coverage for many conservative candidates like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Tom Cotton and many more giving them the name recognition they might need to run for higher office starting with the offices they won and in some cases major presidential runs; but they never provide much if any coverage for candidates that get support from local grassroots levels opposing epidemic levels of corporate corruption.

This is the standard practice to ensure that the candidates supported by corporations get enormous amounts of coverage, while those that support consumers, workers the environment, or other progressive causes get little or no coverage making it virtually impossible to get elected. 

Recently Debbie Wasserman Schultz must have gotten some media coverage when Barack Obama endorsed her but I didn't see any of it, at least on traditional media, even though I was watching it regularly, so they clearly didn't repeat it very often like they do many other obsession du jours. Providing coverage for this endorsement would have drawn attention to the fact that she has a strong challenge from Tim Canova largely because of the enormous amount of outrage for her handling of the debates and giving enormous advantages to Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders as indicated in the following article about how Obama's endorsement turned into a major fund raiser for Canova, not Schultz:

Obama’s Endorsement Of Debbie Wasserman Schultz Brings In Serious Money... For Her Challenger 04/04/2016

Tim Canova, a progressive law professor taking on Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), pulled in more than half a million dollars in the first three months of 2016, according to his campaign — a massive sum for a political newcomer.

Canova raised $557,000, powered by small donations. Nearly 15,300 people donated, for an average contribution of $20. Only six donors gave the maximum amount allowed under law, meaning he still has a significant pool of people to tap into for future donations.

Wasserman Schultz has never faced a serious primary challenger in her congressional career, and as the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, she is a formidable candidate.

Last Monday, Wasserman Schultz scored the official backing of President Barack Obama. It wasn’t entirely surprising, given her leadership position in the party. But it still gave her a high-profile boost and one of the most coveted endorsements in the party. Complete article

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova also made local news briefly and wider news on alternative media outlets and the internet when she opposed regulation for predatory payday lenders as indicated in the following article:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz attacked for bank donations and position on payday loan bill 04/0/2016

A law professor running against U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of South Florida says she is in the pocket of big banks and isn’t looking out for consumers who get crushed by debt from payday loans.

"My opponent, after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, has voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFTP) from regulating payday loans and addressing racial discrimination in car loans," said Tim Canova on his website.

Canova, a first-time candidate and professor at Nova Southeastern University, is challenging Wasserman Schultz in the August Democratic primary in a Broward/Miami-Dade district. The race has drawn national attention because Wasserman Schultz is the Democratic National Committee chair. Complete article

Tim Canova is just one of a handful of progressive candidates that get virtually no coverage from the media although they have a large amount of grassroots support. Candidates that pretend to support progressive causes while actually supporting policies friendly to corporations get much more coverage from the media like Barack Obama. He convinced an enormous number of people that he would put on a pair of "comfortable shoes" and walk the picket lines if necessary, refuse to hire lobbyists, oppose free trade agreements outsourcing jobs, that he would oppose military intervention in many cases and much more; but then once he got into office he demonstrated that he really meant the opposite on most if not all the major issues he ran on to get elected.

Clearly he was never the progressive he pretended to be in the first place. The real progressives are the ones the media doesn't cover, presumably since we now have a consolidated corporate media controlled by six corporations that are solely interested in maximizing profits no matter how much damage they do to society.

A lot of people seem to have been convinced that Elizabeth Warren might be the exception to the traditional candidates not being progressive; however as I indicated in numerous posts starting with How sincere is Elizabeth Warren? and most recently Elizabeth Warren steals credit from real grass roots efforts Elizabeth Warren isn't nearly as progressive as she appears to be on many issues. Ironically, I'm not the only one that seems to have noticed this and a lot of the people that did notice have been putting a lot of pressure on her; and as a result she often becomes more progressive to live up to her image. However this often only happens as a result of grassroots pressure not because she started out as progressive as the media makes her out to be.

They just cr5itisized Bernie Sanders because he can't unilaterally break up the big banks, which is almost cert6ainly true; however it is also true that all presidential candidates make many promises like that and well informed people know he can't do it alone. The media is much less likely to criticize other candidates for making similar claims; and even if he can't do it alone he can use the presidency as a bully pulpit to draw attention and make it much more likely that action can be taken on this and many other issues.

One of those issues clearly needs to be election and media reform so that the majority of the public can hear from real progressives and they have a better chance to get elected.

But until that happens we need much more help from alternative media outlets promoting many of these progressive candidates so they might be able to take a large segment of the public when they get elected in November. I'm not saying that all of these progressive candidates should be elected but they should get much more attention so that people can recognize their positions on the issues and if there are a handful of insincere candidates among the Berniecrats or progressives they can be exposed with research. I have noticed that many of Bernie's supporters do much better research than Hillary Clinton's or traditional establishment candidates that target complacent voters; so I suspect and hope that most of these candidates are being screened at the local level and we will have much better chances with them.

Edit: since I posted this the following articale came out about some of the progressives taht amy ahve the the best chacne of winning including two already mentioned:

These 5 ‘Sanders Democrats’ Are Proving To Be Real Contenders 04/19/2016

Inspired by the rise of Bernie Sanders, there is a new group of progressive challengers looking to beat out establishment candidates to secure nominations for Congressional seat races in this election cycle in the hope of beating Republicans in general elections.

While this group continues to grow on a daily basis, many are facing established incumbents or candidates with large financial backing.

Out of the many declared challengers, there is a small group of candidates that are currently in strong positions to defeat their opponents and take their place as the beginning of the progressive movement in the political arena.

See Complete article for more details.

Here are just a handful of progressive candidates most if not all of whom have endorsed Bernie Sanders:

Tim Canova

Zephyr Teachout

Alex Law



Pramila Jayapal



Lucy Flores



John Fetterman

Thomas L. Fiegen



Steve Stokes



Marcia Moody

Endorse Bernie and progressive Berniecrats twitter account which lists many more progressive candidates.

The Berniecrats Network which lists hundreds of candidates around the country, although there almost certainly many more where that came from that aren't getting nearly as much attention as they should.

In most cases the ones that the media covers are much less sincere than those that rise slowly through the grassroots levels; however there are some exceptions. When reviewing the murder rates in states with Republican or Democratic control I noticed one so called independent who voted for an Ag-gag law in Kentucky who claimed to be standing up to the establishment and multinational corporations, and I'm sure there are hundreds of pretenders like him, which is why people need to do their research and keep them accountable. Those that do the best research won't elect phonies like him.

If a growing number of people get their media from alternative outlets they can elect real progressives and the establishment could be in for a surprise in November.

Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating?

The only thing more pathetic than cheating at solitaire and losing anyway is cheating at a presidential election and losing anyway.

The political establishment just might be doing this if Bernie gets elected, or cheating to prevent him from winning so much that it is obvious that the entire political system has turned into a sham!

One of these options seems to be happening as we speak.

Some of the most obvious evidence of rigging the election hasn't been secret and isn't some conspiracy theory; it has been in the open for years for anyone with the critical thinking skills to recognize how the media is presenting Hillary Clinton as the inevitable nominee, discouraging people from entering the race and refusing to provide fair coverage for those that do run. The only reason they eventually provided Bernie Sanders some coverage, although not nearly as much as Hillary, is because of the enormous amount of grassroots pressure and alternative media outlets threatening to make mainstream media irrelevant if the refuse to do their job.

If not for this they would rig most if not all elections by simply refusing to cover grassroots candidates at all, while providing enormous amounts of coverage for candidates that support the agenda of the richest people in this country making it seem as if they're the only options.

But there is growing amounts of evidence that someones going further than that to suppress votes in primaries or illegal electioneering at poll places which the Sanders campaign hasn't been participating in. Some of it is so obvious that it is virtually undeniable but the media is only paying a token amount of attention to it. In other cases the evidence directly implicating Hillary Clinton is weak or non-existent but the evidence indicating problems is real and there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that even if the Clinton campaign isn't directly involved the multinational corporations that benefit from this might be either directly or indirectly involved.

Even with the enormous amount of support from the political establishment and much better coverage from mainstream media there have been reports of voting irregularities in at least seven different states, including at least one that hasn't voted yet. (Update this has risen to at least thirteen different states as indicated in further details below.) This started with the Iowa caucuses, which came first as indicated in the following excerpt:

Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton Trying To Steal Polk County -- New Allegations 03/12/2016

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters met up in Iowa Saturday night for county Democratic conventions. In Polk County, however, there are claims emerging that counts were less than accurate, and accusations that deliberate ploys were used to negatively effect Sanders’ campaign. This follows previous claims of similar mismanagement in the same county during the state’s caucus.

States use various methods to choose the candidates to whom they will apportion their delegates, and in Iowa, the process is multi-step, beginning with a caucus in February to determine which candidates will be considered viable, and followed by party conventions in March, where delegates are apportioned to each candidate based on level of support.

In February, Sanders supporters expressed concerns when they felt that voter counts had been mishandled. Specifically, voters divided into groups to support either Hillary or Bernie, but after being counted, the voters shuffled, rearranging into slightly different groups for a re-count. Claims began to emerge that workers added newcomers to Clinton’s voter count, but didn’t do a complete re-count, thus failing to properly account for any voters who left her group. Complete article

Additional reports of possible fraud in Iowa were reported in, We Now Have A SECOND Example Of Hillary’s Iowa VOTER FRAUD! (VIDEO) 02/02/2016 and there were also reports of fraud in Nevada, which was the second state she won by relatively tight margins before primaries in the South which she was heavily favored, How Hillary Stole Nevada: Voter Fraud Caught on Camera 02/21/2016 This was followed by undeniable violations by Bill Clinton which was caught on camera in at least two possibly three polling places. According to the following article he was in the Newton Free library and even met with mayor Marty Walsh at West Roxbury:

Bill Clinton may have broken Massachusetts law by telling people at polling locations to vote for Hillary 03/02/2016

On Super Tuesday, Bill physically entered at least two polling locations to woo voters, which may have been illegal For Massachusetts, the Super Tuesday primary was very close. Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by just 1 percent. (For comparison, in 2008, Hillary beat Obama in the state by 17 percent).

A more interesting and less reported story about the heated primary, however, was that Bill Clinton may have broken Massachusetts voting law by telling people at polling locations to vote for Hillary.

In an article titled “Bill Clinton Gets a Little Too Close to Voters in Boston,” The New York Times notes that Bill, who “was ranging over the state trying to pump up voters to cast their ballots for his wife,” physically went into at least two polling locations. Complete article

He was also caught on camera in New Bedford near the polling places, whether it was within the allowable limits of not, in this case a protester managed to get behind him with a sign saying "Bankers for Hillary" and a picture of it circulated after the primaries were over. Update, He's now being sued according to, Clinton sued for election fraud 03/31/2016

The following article indicates that like Iowa irregularities may have been enough to take first place in a tight race:

New Details Reveal Possible Voter Suppression in Illinois Primary 03/25/2016

Thousands of Illinois primary voters turned away from polling places due to lack of ballots have been denied their vote after a recent court ruling.

In six counties across Illinois — Adams, Champaign, Effingham, Madison, Sangamon, and St. Clair — polling places ran out of ballots amid higher-than-expected voter turnout, meaning thousands of voters were sent home after waiting in line. On March 17, Adams County state attorney Jon Barnard went before Adams County circuit judge Chet Vahle to ask for an injunction that would grant those voters the ability to vote late due to ballot issues.

The next day, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter who has introduced her at campaign rallies, filed an appeal in Illinois 4th District Appellate Court to prevent late voting. On March 23, the appellate court issued a stay on Judge Vahle’s injunction, meaning those voters won’t get a chance to cast ballots in this primary. Hillary Clinton won Illinois by roughly 35,000 votes, or a slim 1.8 percent margin, effectively splitting delegates with Sanders.

Bernie Sanders won in four of the six Illinois counties that had ballot shortages. Complete article

Arizona was clearly so big of a disaster that even the mainstream media reported fairly widely on it but they didn't cover all the details including some covered in the following article:

Arizona: Hillary Clinton’s Election Fraud Masterpiece 03/23/2016

She stole Iowa, Nevada and Massachusetts – but Arizona is Hillary Clinton’s election fraud masterpiece.

Desperate to prevent another “Michigan upset”, Hillary found an ingenious way to guarantee victory in Arizona.

The key to Clinton’s strategy in Arizona was early voting. In Arizona, around 70% of voters cast their ballot by mail. Why is this important? Because

of the 297,714 voters who have already cast their ballots—174,706 were female, 59 percent of the total early Democratic vote. The breakdown of early Democratic voters by gender and age is shown below. The early vote by women is dominated by older age groups. Voters under 30 account for only 7 percent of Democratic early voters compared to 41 percent for the over 65 crowd. The large number of women, particularly older women, who have already cast Democratic ballots, is a good sign for Hillary Clinton. In other words, the elderly (see: Clinton supporters) make up the vast majority of early voters in Arizona.

Hillary's plan to steal Arizona was remarkably simple: Suppress voting on election day, and rely on her large lead with early voters to secure a win. Complete article

Additional irregularities were reported in 5 Outrageous Examples of Voter Suppression in the Arizona Primary 03/23/2016 and in, This crisis is bigger than Arizona: Behold the travesty that is Wisconsin’s new voter ID law 03/26/2016. Some of these are a result of voter suppression laws by Republicans but they're also financed by the same corporations that support the Democratic establishment, and clearly even when it is Republicans implementing voter suppression laws it is often corporate Democrats that benefit from them.

And Sanders Supporters In Washington Allege Voter Suppression: Wrong Caucus Forms Sent? 03/24/2016 What will be next? This one is difficult to tie directly to any one person but it is part of a much larger pattern to undermine the democratic process and it is much more common when a candidate supported by multinational corporations is faced with a strong challenge from one supporting the grassroots and getting enormous amounts of support in return!



Edit 05/20/2016: The following article came out since this was first posted indicating Clinton wins more where voting machines are easier to hack:

Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests: Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders Election Fraud Allegations 05/16/2016

At the end of the climactic scene (8 minutes) in HBO’s Emmy nominated Hacking Democracy (2006), a Leon County, Florida Election official breaks down in tears. “There are people out there who are giving their lives just to try to make our elections secure,” she says. “And these vendors are lying and saying everything is alright.” Hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the United States are using voting machines or vote tabulators that have flunked security tests. Those jurisdictions by and large are where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is substantially outperforming the first full wave of exit polling in her contest against Senator Bernie Sanders.

CounterPunch has interviewed hackers, academics, exit pollsters, and elections officials and workers in multiple states for this series taking election fraud allegations seriously. The tearful breakdown in Hacking Democracy is not surprising. There is a well-beyond remarkable gap between what security experts and academics say about the vulnerability of voting machines and the confidence elections experts and academics, media outlets, and elections officials place in those same machines.

In Leon County, Bev Harris’ Black Box Voting team had just demonstrated a simple hack of an AccuVote tabulator for bubble-marked paper ballots. Ion Sancho, Leon County’s Supervisor of Elections, also fights back tears in the Hacking Democracy clip: “I would have certified this election as a true and accurate result of a vote.” Sancho adds, “The vendors are driving the process of voting technology in the United States.” Complete article

Update: additional reports have turned up about "Technical Problems Prevented Some Voters From Changing Their Party Affiliation Before the Deadline" in several states including New York according to, New York Election Fraud: Is Arizona Happening Again? 03/25/2016 Other reports indicate there might also be problems in Pennsylvania and California, although I don't have articles on those at this time.

Additional problems took place in Florida according to, Polk County Fla. poll workers mistakenly tell voters election ‘not for Democrats’ 03/15/2016 This means that there are reports of voting irregularities in at least nine states in Democratic party primaries or caucuses.

West Virginia may also be added to this list according to Two West Virginia County Clerks Are Refusing People’s Online Voter Registrations. (04/05/2016) And this article, Clinton profits in Wyoming from Zombie absentee ballots 04/10/2016 describes how there were enormous votes in person in Laramie County but absentee votes gave it to Clinton. When this was reported live as the first results on Saturday even Clinton supporters admitted surprise. Even if this doesn't turn out to be evidence of rigged elections, when Bernie Sanders wins by 12% and splits the delegates evenly then four "super-delegates" all go for Clinton that is undeniable rigging of the election by establishment figures. This is a pattern repeating itself over and over almost always in favor of Clinton. The rare occasions where the rules or a handful of delegates go for Sanders doesn't come close to evening it up.

Additional problems around the country took place in the Republican Party as well according to, “Beyond upset” Voting irregularities reported across the nation on Super Tuesday 03/02/2016 This story reports about problems in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia and Texas.

Update 04/20/2016: New York had many irregularities in their primaries including the purging of well over 100,000 voters from registration rolls in Brooklyn according to Bungled NYC primary voting sparks Board of Elections probe: 'It's time we clean up this mess' 04/19/2016 and After More Than 100,000 Voters Dropped In Brooklyn, City Officials Call For Action, 04/19/2016 This was in addition to strict registration rules that prevent people from changing parities less than six months before the primaries. New voters were allowed to register later but people registered as independents or in a traditional party couldn't switch. Bernie Sanders made a point about three million people who couldn't vote in New York because they were registered as independents according to Sanders expresses 'concern' over NY voting laws after primary defeat 04/1/2016 Even two of Donald Trump's own children couldn't switch to vote for him because they didn't know about this until it was too late, even though independents that would have voted for Sanders weren't reported as widely as the Trump children there would have been much more of them, making an enormous difference if not for rules restricting voter registration. These rules are made by a small percentage of insiders with little or no input from the vast majority of the public. The media and political establishment rig the system so that only the two major parties can get the coverage they need to compete and they usually only provide coverage for those catering to the interests of the political class. These rules are clearly designed to minimize the chance of independents from having an impact, and they indicate that it isn't just Republicans involved in voter suppression tactics. This isn't the only incident with the Democratic Party involved in voter suppression by far, but it is one of the most blatant.

Update 04/26/2016: Additional voter suppression took place in Rhode Island which Closed 66% of Polling Places, allegedly to save money 04/20/2016

Additional evidence of voter fraud turned up in Illinois that may have prevented Bernie Sanders from winning and given rights to contest it according to several stories including, Election Board Scandal: 21 Bernie Votes Were Erased And 49 Hillary Votes Added To Audit Tally, Group Declares [Video] 04/22/2016

Election Fraud Proven at Audit by Chicago BOE - flipped precinct by 18pts from Bernie to Hillary 04/21/2016

The following are additional stories that came up since this post which add to voter suppression problems and raise doubts about legitimacy of the vote:

New York Primary Lawsuit Update: In Potential Win For Bernie Sanders Supporters, Judge Declares Voters Wrongly Purged From Democratic Party Rolls May Still Be Able To Vote 04/19/2016

U.S. elections head used political ties, then curbed voting in Alabama, Kansas and Georgia 03/31/2016

Bernie Sanders Wins Missouri After All 04/10/2016 includes total pledge count

Clinton profits in Wyoming from Zombie absentee ballots 04/10/2016

‘Morning Joe’ wonders why Dems bother voting after Sanders streak fails to dent Clinton lead 04/09/2016 “We’ve been talking about rigged systems,” he began. “Bernie Sanders wins 56 to 44 percent in Wyoming… why does the Democratic Party even have voting booths? This system is so rigged.

Sanders’ Legal Team Considering Federal Lawsuit Challenging Maricopa County’s Election Practices 04/10/2016

There may also be some additional problems indicated by CNN exit polls, which they reported at poll closing on the night of the New York primaries at 9:00. They indicated a much closer race with Clinton winning by only 52% to 48%. I was unable to find an article to back this up but other people reported this as it was happening on both the Democratic Underground and Reddit.

Also a report about a key delegate in Colorado was briefly reported in, Colorado Democrats admit mistake that cost Bernie Sanders key delegate. 04/12/2016 Most of these voter suppression problems are not being reported widely in the mainstream media and they certainly aren't compiling a comprehensive list of all the problems making it easy for the public to realize just how extensive they are. In most cases if they report it at all it is only at the local level in what ever state they occur without mentioning all the other states with additional problems. Then they rarely ever provide much if any follow up unless there is an enormous amount of grassroots pressure, and even then they often don't repeat it much.

Edit 04/27/2016: Pennsylvania Connecticut and California have been added to the list of states with problems suppressing votes according to the following three articles:

Voters Report Suspicious Irregularities in Three Different Primary States Pennsylvania Connecticut and Rhode Island 04/26/2016

Why Half a Million California Independents Could Be Shut Out of the Democratic Primary 04/21/2016

Arizona poll worker testifies incorrect ballots given to Democratic voters 04/25/2016

Could Bernie Sanders Pick Up More Delegates in New York? 04/2/2016 Two lawsuits are brewing in New York state, seeking to stop the New York primary election results from being certified.

Hillary Clinton and Electoral Fraud Why it is 99.9% certain electoral fraud was committed for Hillary Clinton 04/28/2016

Philly’s Democratic Party Breaks Law for Hillary 04/28/2016

Edit 05/14/2016: additional stories: Hillary Clinton urges New York state Democrats to aid in decisive primary victory 04/04/2016

Lee Camp: The Elections Board was paid MILLIONS before the NY Primary??, Hillary's new money laundering, and much more 05/10/2016

Evidence Shows “Democratic” California Purged Thousands of Eligible Voters 05/11/2016

Minutes Reveal BOE Chief, Commissioners Knew About Mass Purging Of Voters 05/05/2016

Man proves software stole votes in all ‘Hillary won’ counties 05/05/2016

Klamath Falls Oregon ballot drop box vandalized, ballots found in dumpster 05/16/2016

Bill Clinton Illegally INSIDE IL Polling Place - Sanders Supporters Demand Hillary Forfeit Delegates 03/15/2016

Edit 05/20/2016: BREAKING: Rampant Election Fraud Reported In 31 Kentucky Counties 05/17/2016

Fraud and Vandalized Ballot Boxes Couldn't Stop Sanders From Crushing Clinton in Oregon and Tying in Kentucky 05/17/2016

Lawsuit Filed today Voter Suppression in California 05/20/2016

Multinational corporations have been making enormous profits and traditional candidates including Barack Obama, who Clinton says takes their money without being impacted, don't hold them accountable despite Obama' or Clinton's claims according to many stories including, Federal Corruption Prosecutions Plummet Under Barack Obama. 03/25/2016 Of course many people might wonder if Clinton isn't influenced by Wall Street money why won't she release her transcripts. Perhaps because if she does the public will know more about what she's really promising them including the following which was obtained partially through a leak of one of her speeches:

Video of Hillary Clinton speaking to bankers and blaming homeowners for the financial crisis isn’t exactly her telling Wall Street to “cut it out.” 03/0/2016

Video of Hillary Clinton speaking to bankers and blaming homeowners for the financial crisis isn’t exactly her telling Wall Street to “cut it out.”

Out of all 50 states, New Yorkers were some of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. The U.S. Department of Justice’s $13 billion mortgage fraud settlement with JP Morgan set aside an entire $1 billion just for New York homeowners. The bank was sued for selling mortgage-backed securities to investors, knowing full well the investments were bogus.

In 2014, Bank of America paid out a $16 billion settlement for committing the same crime in the years leading up to the financial meltdown. Bear Stearns helped package mortgage-backed securities for JP Morgan; Bank of America’s partner-in-crime in peddling bogus securities was Merrill Lynch. Out of the $16.65 billion, $300 million was set aside for New York homeowners.

In 2007, Hillary Clinton, in her second term as Senator of NY, gave a speech at the NASDAQ headquarters—before the financial crisis reached its boiling point — about Wall Street’s housing loan practices, largely excusing financial criminals for their behavior.

“Now these economic problems are certainly not all Wall Street’s fault – not by a long shot,” Clinton said.

No, not “all,” just 90 percent.

Clinton’s address amounted to essentially asking the lenders in attendance to take voluntary action or else she would “consider legislation” to stop banks from kicking families out of their homes. But in the speech, Clinton placed equal blame for the subprime mortgage crisis on homeowners.

A YouTube user found video of the statement and put it side-by-side with her claim during the first Democratic debate in which she said she went to Wall Street before the crisis and told them to “cut it out.”

During the course of Clinton’s political career, JP Morgan contributed nearly $700,000 to her campaign finds, making them her 4th-largest donor. After Clinton left the State Department, she was paid $225,000 by Bank of America for a single speech. Bear Stearns contributed approximately $50,000 to Clinton’s campaign between 1999 and 2004, and Merrill Lynch gave over $33,000 in that same time frame. “Cut it out,” indeed.

So, if you’re looking to elect someone who’s going to be tough on Wall Street and the big banks and isn’t going to throw the little guy under the bus, you might want to look at their financing and legislative record before pulling that lever. Complete article

In addition to providing enormous amounts of coverage for Hillary Clinton starting years before anyone was paying attention and voting irregularities in at least seven states the establishment has front-loaded the election with states that are favorable to Clinton enabling her to get a massive lead, even though these states are mostly controlled by Republicans. And, perhaps one of the most obvious attempts to rig the election they arranged for a large percent of delegates to be controlled by what they call "Super-Delegates" which means they're not accountable directly to the people. Some of these are elected officials who might be as concerned with constituents almost as much as they are their campaign contributors but many of them are lobbyists or fund raisers with no accountability except to campaign contributors.

These "Super-Delegates" are supporting Clinton seventeen to one at this time; and without their contribution Bernie Sanders is only down by 230 delegates down from over 300 before the weekend sweep. With most of the states favoring Clinton already voting most of the remaining states either are too close to call or they may favor Bernie Sanders, by large margins, in some cases.

If he wins the pledged delegates anyone who is paying attention will know that either they should give him the nomination or admit they're blatantly rigging the election and the claim that the United States is a democracy is a farce.

If they don't there is sure to be enormous protests and well informed people bolting from the party.

If we want to have a Democracy in this country we have to stop accepting the lesser of two evils argument every single time; especially when they're accompanied by enormous amounts of other scams. And when the enormous amounts of environmental and economic destruction contirnues to grow and will lead to much bigger problems without real reform that neither Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or any other Republican will even come close to trying to implement.

There is a growing movement to ask Bernie Sanders to Endorse Jill Stein - (Facebook) if the election is rigged for Hillary Clinton. Many may hesitate to do this if they think Bernie Sanders still has a chance but by increasing this movement they might make it that much harder for the establishment to rig it for Clinton since they might realize that we will not fall for their scams and Hillary Clinton will lose enormous amounts of support. This is especially true with a third or fourth party movement on the right, which is inevitable. Bernie Sanders, Endorse Jill Stein - Facebook

Both Clinton and Trump or all the other Republicans have record negative approval ratings. This could create the best chance to break up the duopoly controlled by corporations in a long time.

To help prevent Hillary Clinton from stealing the election or let them know we'll be bolting check the Current List of Democratic Superdelegates and their Twitter Handles. Tweet to them For Bernie! It's not too late to prevent them from rigging the election or overturning the Duopoly!



The following are a few related articles including a collection of grassroots reports about the outrage over Super-Delegates being used to rig the election. These are being reported much more widely on alternative media than the traditional media which is blatantly biased:

Bernie Sanders Is Currently Winning the Democratic Primary Race, and I’ll Prove It to You 03/23/2016

The Definitive, Encyclopedic Case For Why Hillary Clinton is the Wrong Choice 02/25/2016

Did Hillary Clinton ‘Plant’ Religion Question And What Happened To Separation Of Church And State? 03/07/2016

Progressive Group is Backing Bernie Sanders-Style Candidates 03/05/2016

Has Clinton Actually Won Anything? The Theft of Election 2016 03/20/2016

Top House Dem slams party’s superdelegate system 03/04/2016

The Reason Why Dozens of Lobbyists Will Be Democratic Presidential Delegates 02/29/2016

How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates 02/18/2016

KING: Superdelegates a corrupt tool designed to elect party establishment candidates like Hillary Clinton 03/07/2016

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates 02/14/2016

The Reason Why Dozens of Lobbyists Will Be Democratic Presidential Delegates 02/28/2016