WHERE ARE THE “CHAMPIONS”?

I believe that when government turns a deaf ear to the cries of a people it can become a vehicle of radicalization – but at the same time the word radical is often overworked.

The SDS, or Students for a Democratic Society were radical – those at Standing Rock are not.

Al Frankin has written a letter to USAG Loretta Lynch asking in essence if something related to the approach law enforcement is taking can be toned down.

Well, letters are nice but how about something a little more directly involved?

“I think people are frustrated and I think they’re terribly disturbed by the fact that they haven’t had more success and that the federal government in Washington has not been helpful to them and that the state has not been helpful to them, and this is not only true here, but elsewhere in the country, so that there is this frustration and there is apt to be this explosion.”

The above quote the words of Robert Kennedy related to the United Farm Workers who without his help would have been subjected to more brutalization, oppressive conditions, low wages. and very possibly become “radicalized” as a result.

In 1968 Kennedy left the comforts enjoyed by politicians and traveled to Delano, California to hear the complaints of the UFW, see for himself, and ultimately use the influence he had to assist.

There obviously are no Bobby Kennedys currently in government willing to do the same – like I said, letters are nice, but something more is required, and I’m inclined to believe that if USAG Lynch can hold up the departure of her airplane to have a private meeting with Bill Clinton whose wife Hillary was under investigation she certainly is capable of something more than silence.

Frankin should demonstrate his concern by going to the frontline as Kennedy did – and most certainly Bernie Sanders who spoke of the need to confront corporate greed and influence, the need for a political revolution, should as well.

Elizabeth Warren’s tenure has been characterized by a willingness to fight for people – to go after the abuses of Wall Street, and I applaud her for that, but the inclusion of her self identification of having indigenous ancestry I submit an obligation exists for Warren to put in an appearance as well.

Maybe she and Frankin could put together one of those Washington fact finding junkets and visit the area, listen to the people, and witness for themselves the realities.

As the Trump inauguration draws nearer the sands in the hourglass as slipping away.

It’s as though politicians have surrendered the high ground, a defacto admission that they are powerless when confronted by the will of corporations, or maybe it’s just indifference.

Where are the “champions”? I suspect they’re enjoying the comforts of home and a stuffed turkey.

THE KIND OF LEADERS WE DESERVE

 

There exists a notable equivalency between the Trump and Hillary supporters, a generous coating of teflon and blinders that selectively ignores the spoken word.

Faux pas, outright lies, and the revolving door of ever shifting positions are of little consequence – it’s campaign season and the truth be damned when it comes to the two most untrustworthy candidates.

The focus isn’t on integrity, it’s primarily about being a woman in the case of Clinton and being an “outsider” when it comes to Trump.

If these are the most important criteria for their respective supporters it seems to make little difference who the candidates are as outsiders and women abound thoughout the population and the country could possibly be better served by picking one at random from any community in the nation.

Prior governmental service in and of itself isn’t a guarantee of integrity, and if all you have to offer as a resume is being an outsider that isn’t enough either.

I recently watched an interview between Trump’s senior camapign adviser and a journalist, at one point Trump’s adviser pins Trump’s support in part to people working harder and making less.

He also has exported manufacturing jobs for Trump centric items, clothing etc by having these products made in China.

No argument here about the existing inequity, but unless anyone has forgotten Trump is on record as being opposed to a minimum wage increase so how does that translate to resolving the issue of working more and making less?

It doesn’t, and that’s where the blinders come into play.

In fact all the Republican candidates are making the same pitch and all equally opposed to a wage increase.

Hillary’s makeover as a self proclaimed “progressive” fails to resonate with the recorded history of her previous “public service”, so much so it’s child’s play to connect the dots – and again that’s where the blinders come into play.

If in part the qualifications and definition of conservative Republicanism are corporate cronyism then Clinton by any standard is the “lite” version of a Republican.

I believe in diversity, but I also believe diversity should be honest, if warts exist they should be acknowledged, if questions arise they should be addressed in a truthful manner and to hell with whether doing so is deemed politically correct or not.

If not then it no longer is about diversity and opinion, it segues into subterfuge and or blatant pandering – which I suppose in the vast majority of instances could be a metaphor for politics and candidates.

Thomas Jefferson said ” “I tremble for my country when I think we may in fact get the kind of leaders we deserve.”- if you look at the front runners and Jefferson were alive today he would be shaking in his boots.

If either Trump or Hillary are elected what will result will truly be deserved as the result of an electorate that focuses on sound bites and gender rather than substance and integrity.

The problem though is that everyone else will be dragged into the quagmire.

There will be those who offer the mea culpa of voting for the lesser of two evils – I submit it is better to vote one’s conscience than be coerced, better to vote one’s conscience rather than vote for the percieved “winner” who actually is a loser.

This country has a history of electing losers, and in doing so repeatedly elected the leaders they deserved. I submit as a people, as a nation, we deserve something better than loud mouthed bigots or chameleons with ever changing colors.

Perhaps now more than any other time this election shouldn’t be predicated on “vagina monologues”, or as Susan Sarandon  wisely pointed out, “genitalia” – nor should it be predicated on a “businessman” with a history of bankruptcies, exploiting undocumented workers, and settling lawsuits who lacks the ability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Since Elizabeth Warren has expressed no desire to seek the presidency this time around I say Bernie Sanders now and following him Elziabeth Warren, in what would be the beginning and continuation of returning government to the people – the “change” so much lip service is paid to.

“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877

CAMPAIGN HOODWINKING AND SEXISM

People don’t like to be played, especially when they’ve invested of themselves for a cause, when they’ve talked it up and incrementally “overlooked” those troubling questions.

That’s to be expected I guess as a part of human nature and probably ego as well.

Such has been the case when it came to the American Indian Movement and their poster boy/quasi shield Leonard Peltier – one might argue both are something of a “local” problem, and nowadays that may be true to an extent as support and those highly coveted donations have fallen off.

It’s a horse of an entirely different color though when it comes to elections, especially presidential elections – people should be more attentive, more analytical, and more critical.

In looking at the American Indian Movement an obvious question is where did all the money come from and where did it go?

Well some of it came from the CPUSA, some from a variety of foreign despotic rulers and oppressive governments, and even more bizarre some from the federal government in the form of grants, a lot of it went into offshore accounts and the pockets of “leadership”.

On the surface that alone would be enough to raise questions and hackles among a great many, yet the true Aimsters and Peltierites either don’t care to hear about it or somehow find a way to legitimize it.

This is the kind of attitude that prevails during elections – voting records, history, and outright lies don’t count, and even in the midst of railing about Citizens United and the undue influence of super pac money somehow none of that counts either.

The included list of Hillary Clinton’s speaking engagements and monetary haul should raise a few eyebrows – that is if a person is really concerned about corporate influence in government.

It isn’t just speaking fees but donations to the Clinton Foundation that should be unsettling – there’s a long and sordid history of donors getting a leg up when it comes to legislation, and that’s part of the beauty of the net – it’s all there if you’re willing to sift through the bullshit and double check.

Having done so it becomes a matter of personal integrity in my opinion whether a person will accept what it is or put on a smiley face and blow it off.

There are no perfect candidates any more than perfection can be found in the current version of democracy – taking that into consideration it should become a matter of degrees.

How egregious is an issue, how “flawed” is a candidate? Where do they rank on a scale from one to ten when it comes to being trustworthy?

I never got on the AIM bandwagon as I was willing from the beginning to look beneath the surface – I was a Peltier supporter the result of what I consider to be an us against them mentality knee jerk reaction.

That was short lived though as again I took a deeper look into the myth that was being created for Peltier even though I had made a personal investment.

My thinking was it was far better to admit an error than to continue making one as my concerns are and will remain about the welfare of all our different nations people.

That’s what presidential elections should come down to, a concern for the general welfare that transcends ego and the ability to admit when a persons been hoodwinked.

Peddling influence isn’t a qualification for elected office – nobody gives up this kind of money without expectations, and if those expectations aren’t met the well dries up, it’s that simple – obviously in Hillary’s case her cup runneth over.

The formula has been proven and become well established within the election process, if you find that acceptable when it happens to be your candidate then you have no grounds to complain when it’s another.

If you don’t then you need to raise a little hell and demand some accountability rather than laughing it off when the explanation is that’s what was offered.

I think a woman president could be a good thing for the country, but not just any woman,  or for that matter any man.

Hillary is attempting to imply it’s a gender issue and I expect her to ramp that up – it would be a hell of thing to elect a corporatist merely because they also happen to be a woman.

Before all the candidates began announcing I was hoping Elizabeth Warren would enter the race – she opted not to but I’d at least like to see her share the ticket with Sanders.

Hillary is apparently so concerned she’s trotting out former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and feminist Gloria Steinem to essentially declare it is singularly about electing a woman, and any woman who doesn’t agree is suspect.

Is it just me or does that sound sexist in itself? Does sexism only work one way? Is it sexist to imply that women have gravitated to Sanders because ” that’s where the boys are”?

Your future and the future of your children are being sold, that’s something to think about.

http://news.yahoo.com/hillarys-millennial-woman-problem-010617452.html

BENGHAZI 3

Clinton at one point during a different hearing from the latest asked in something of a snit what difference does it make whether those who were killed in Benghazi was the result of a reaction to a video or a terrorist attack?

Now that may be the narrative she and the current administration would like to promote but I think the difference is not only obvious but a major one.

It’s one thing if those who lost their lives did so due to a lack of providing the security they felt was necessary and repeatedly asked for or it was an unforeseeable spontaneous event.

I suppose an equally inane suggestion could be made of what difference does it make if Hillary came under fire in Kosovo as she claimed or if she didn’t as later admitted?

Or what difference does it make if the Clinton Foundation accepts money from the misogynistic Saudis acting as brokers for Saudi interests?

Obviously the hope is that people will say there is no difference, dead is dead, money is money, and a lie doesn’t really matter.

Unfortunately though that isn’t the way either the law or should the public perceive such things – case in point a traffic accident involving fatalities – could be an unavoidable accident in which no charges would be filed, add a driver under the influence and it becomes an entirely different matter.

At the very least the deaths at Benghazi demonstrate a contributory negligence – that too should be considered worthy of either bringing charges or a few heads rolling.

Factor in the attack was sustained over a period of several hours and a response team was two hours in flight time away from a base in Italy that wasn’t activated then by the definition of contributory negligence that is exactly what occurred.

Some might attempt to take issue with using a drunk diver as an analogy, and maybe they could, yet many politicians can rightfully be said to be drunk with power and self importance – but being drunk with power and a sense of self importance is also an act of negligence and lack of due diligence.

Theories abound as to why the current administration along with Clinton went all out to create the perception that the events in Benghazi were spontaneous and unforeseeable – they in fact did so for two or three weeks.

One theory is that if the particulars were to become known it would have a negative impact on Obama’s re election effort.

I can’t say if that’s true or not but it does have the ring of pure party politics to me – anybody doubting whether a sitting president would engage in lying or a cover up to gain re election is naive at best, and I seriously doubt could provide an opposing example related to any president.

But as I’ve previously said this so called bipartisan committee amounts to little more than a circus, a neighborhood block party or internet meme if you like, and should be replaced with an independent commission if anything resembling an investigation is to continue.

Will that happen? No, and for obvious reasons, because the deaths of those at Benghazi has moved beyond fact finding into the arena of a politicized bipartisan sham of a committee – in other words, business as usual.

Do I believe Clinton has and is lying? Absolutely, but she’s far from being the lone example and to what degree isn’t presently known though a few examples do exist.

Among any who did nobody has clean underwear, the only “difference” being some should be wearing Depends in lieu of thongs or boxers due to the “load” they’re carrying.

That won’t resonate with partisans as one thing that characterizes partisanship is the lack of willingness to assign blame or even a hint of suspicion to anyone other than the opposition.

I suspect if this continues and for viable reasons the heat is cranked up a scapegoat or two will be offered – if so odds are it won’t be Clinton but someone significantly lower on the totem pole – that too part of the theater of politics and business as usual.

As I’ve said if Clinton is clean well and good it should be made abundantly clear, if she isn’t then the opposite should be the way of it – the “investigation” in it’s current form has shown itself to be inept and incapable of arriving at a reasoned determination inspite of Trey Gowdy’s best efforts to assure one and all it is. Nor  should it be intended to be a love fest.

On a personal note I would be pleased if Clinton were clean, as I still like to hope that on some level public servants serve the best interests of the public.

I think Clinton finds herself in the eye of the storm now, a brief respite but yet to face the back end which may well turn out to be a category five.

Her problem isn’t so much the Benghazi committee but the FBI headed by James Comey, which is something of an irony as he was appointed to head the fbi by Obama while being lauded for possessing integrity and independence.

Anyone doing even a cursory search can only come to the conclusion that Comey isn’t an Administration team player, and if that’s the case doubtful he’ll back off if pressured.

From the Clinton viewpoint if it comes to that it doesn’t bode well and few options remain – Comey could be fired much the same as Archibald Cox was during the Nixon Watergate investigation.

Alternately the DOJ could ignore or attempt to downplay the specifics and opt not to issue an indictment.

Either way though the reasons would be so transparent the Clinton ship would sink and the Obama administration would likely never recover from the fallout – he’d be viewed as the new Nixon.

If viable reasons exist for the feds to seek an indictment and that is understood by the current administration the same delaying tactics exhibited thus far by the State Department will continue to be the way of it at least long enough for Obama to end his term.

Even though Biden has bowed out who can the DNC turn to if it all goes south for Hillary?

Sanders? I don’t think that’s probable as Sanders is seen to be as much of a threat to the status quo by the DNC as he is by the RNC.

How about Elizabeth Warren? Again I suspect not high on their list as she is perceived to be a threat in her own right and that brings us full circle back to Biden who could become the draft candidate of choice.

A possible advantage in going with Sanders or Warren in such a scenario, or a Sanders/Warren ticket might be a public clamoring for a candidate who isn’t seen as a party toady, someone willing to buck the establishment.

Of course this is speculation but the fact remains this investigation is far from over and the second shoe may not have dropped yet.

In the interim the Clinton camp will put on smiley faces, strut about and say see we told you so while huddling behind closed doors anxiously biting their finger nails.

The implications are huge if wrong doing exists, equally so if as some proclaim it is much ado about nothing and a witch hunt.

So I’m moving on from Benghazi blog wise pending either new revelations or an announcement by the feds. Though I’m working on a blog related to the Clinton Foundation.

As it stands I believe only a very few know the truth in it’s entirety whether it exonerates or incriminates – John Lennon recorded a song about giving peace a chance, how about giving truth a chance regardless of where it may lead us or the vested interests of partisanship?

If transparency is to be the way of things this president declared his administration would be the most transparent in history then no further delays and foot dragging serve that end,  release anything and everything pertinent and allow the process and country to move on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhyiqGIJQus

POOR HILLARY – WHEN IT RAINS IT POURS

Kind of interesting Hillary Clinton’s press conference related to her emails – at one point she says personal emails are private, that people understand and respect that.

If that’s really her opinion rather than a talking point related to her current situation she ought to be equally as vocal about domestic spying that invades a person’s privacy.

That of course isn’t going to happen as the Clinton’s are above all other considerations team players equally as capable as talking out of both sides of their mouths as any other politician.

Her response to donations to their foundation that come from countries that view women as chattel was a real gem – ultimately what her  response amounts to is it doesn’t matter where the money comes from as long as it arrives….kind of the one percenter mentality.

That’s like saying if Nazi’s donated to the YMCA or YWCA with money they collected selling stolen artifacts or gold they extracted from concentration camp prisoners teeth it wouldn’t matter.

Politicians will defend one of their own regardless of how hapless the defense is, as will their supporters – it’s kind of like when one of those televangelists get busted with their pants down ala Swaggert and Baker – they really aren’t to blame. it’s a satanic attack, the devil wants to take them down, and their flock mindlessly echoes the  same sentiment.

In this case it is and will all be portrayed as a conservative satanic attack, and a fair number of the flock will nod their head and promote exactly that.

That’s basically what political parties do, they’re never really to blame, it’s just the opposition attempting to create an issue, while neither consider the adage of people in glass houses.

Now I’m not singling out poor career politician Hillary, I’ve got plenty to say about those on the other side of the aisle like Bush, Cruz, and Walker, she’s merely a current example of how entitled politicians seem to think they are.

My disdain for politicians is pretty much universal in nature, I believe if their lips are moving odds are they’re lying.

Personally I think the time is right for a woman president, if I had to pick one as I candidate I would suggest Elizabeth Warren – as far as I know she hasn’t all those corporate ties Hillary does.

ERROR AND MISCONDUCT

I believe that judicial error or misconduct is something we should all care about-those who have been released from sentences and even Death Row who have been falsely convicted can attest to that.

There are what are referred to as “safeguards” within the process known as appeals, that may or may not always serve their intended function-though I believe by and large they do-and the more ‘days” in court an individual has the less the likelihood they haven’t.

But how to go about remedying such things isn’t easy to speak to. I further believe when a guilty person escapes justice due to such an occurrence it is equally an error. One way, and what I think is the most obvious is to hold any who engage in such activities criminally responsible, charge and jail them all.

Say for instance a prosecuting attorney who withholds or manipulates evidence, or a cop who does likewise, or even plants evidence. A judge who should recuse themselves and fails to do so-in such a case as this they should be held accountable, removed, and a new trial ordered.

Every aspect of the legal system is intended to be equitable and fair-from the cop on the beat to the U.S. Attorney General, yet we all know this isn’t the case-that there are systemic problems. That the hammer comes down with greater force on minorities than those with wealth and influence who enjoy an insulted version, and in the case of Wall Street, banks, and big corporations it is the result of lobbyists and the loophole filled legislation they secure from their friends in the “beltway” that is never amended or studiously enforced.

Elizabeth Warren, a newly elected Senator from Massachuetts who sits on the  Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee recently held banking regulators feet to the fire in a hearing, and the manner in which the way they went about  responding when she asked them when was the last time they took a Wall Street bank to trial was disgusting and as blatant a display of obfuscation and sense of above the law as any will likely see -it should serve as a wakeup call.

“We do not have to bring people to trial,” Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, assured Warren, declaring that his agency had secured a large number of “consent orders,” or settlements.

“I appreciate that you say you don’t have to bring them to trial. My question is, when did you bring them to trial?” she responded.

“We have not had to do it as a practical matter to achieve our supervisory goals,” Curry offered.

Warren turned to Elisse Walter, chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who said that the agency weighs how much it can extract from a bank without taking it to court against the cost of going to trial.

“I appreciate that. That’s what everybody does,” said Warren, a former Harvard law professor. “Can you identify the last time when you took the Wall Street banks to trial?”

“I will have to get back to you with specific information,” Walter said as the audience tittered.

Warren asked if any of the other regulators, representing the FDIC, SEC, OCC, CFTC, Fed, Treasury and the newly minted Consumer Financial Protection Board, could answer the question. None could.

“There are district attorneys and United States attorneys out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds and taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. I’m really concerned that ‘too big to fail’ has become ‘too big for trial,'” Warren told them in what appeared to be a reference to a Warren constituent, open-Internet activist Aaron Swartz, who recently committed suicide after being hounded by federal prosecutors who reportedly said they wanted to make an example of him. Warren had met and said she admired Swartz. After he died, she expressed her concern by attending his memorial in Washington.

Wall Street responded angrily to Warren’s questioning, denouncing the senator and suggesting that she would lose “credibility” if she continued interrogating regulators in such a way.

Credibility-as if Wall Street has any.

Misconduct and judicial or governmental error once gaining a toehold anywhere within the legal system only sparks a flame that becomes a fire, it creates a vulnerability and back door access rivaled perhaps only by the OS Windows-and over time becomes accepted as just the way it is-that acceptance, the lack of outcry is anticipated, relied upon, to further that which is not acceptable by any standard.

The lack of such a strict adherence  to this professed principle of equal justice under the law creates confusion, disgruntlement, and a lack of trust, and predictably lends itself to claims of foul when none exist. Makes it easier for a person to say they were framed or they aren’t a criminal by any standard definition but a political prisoner.

What exists in these modern times is as  real a caste system as any country has or ever had -a “royalty”, a ruling class that hasn’t earned they’re position on the basis of merit, but on manipulation and the sweat of  those who earn their money the old fashioned way-they earn it.

If the legal system fails in it’s duty, or facilitates any of this in any manner from the accused petty thief, to the murderer, or those who in their unbridled greed commit crimes that impact every man, woman, and child in this country, what remains? What hope can a people pass on their to their children…what future?