When The S*** Hits the Fan

“Ugly On Display”: Media Blames #Bernie Supporters for Upset Over Rigged #Elections

by

voter-card

This article was written by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Anti-Media.

 

Mad About Rigged Elections? Mainstream Media Says “You” Are The Problem

by Claire Bernish

Mainstream headlines constantly decry Bernie Sanders supporters for disrupting events in outrage, as if their protests and demonstrations somehow illustrate the devolution of the elections. But that focus by the corporate media utterly negates the consistent and continual reports of fraud and disenfranchisement fueling their ire.

And it’s getting ridiculous.

Newsweek, though far from alone, offered a prime example of the obfuscation of the election fraud and questionable campaign tactics by Hillary Clinton in its skewering of Sanders’ supporters.

“Get Control, Senator Sanders, or Get Out,” Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald titled his op-ed — which thoroughly blasts the Vermont senator — as if he were somehow responsible for both the electoral chaos and the actions of an irate voting public.

“So, Senator Sanders,” Eichenwald writes [with emphasis added], “either get control of what is becoming your increasingly unhinged cult, or get out of the race. Whatever respect sane liberals had for you is rapidly dwindling, and the damage being inflicted on your reputation may be unfixable. If you can’t even manage the vicious thugs who act in your name, you can’t be trusted to run a convenience store, much less the country.”

Really?

Because what Eichenwald obviates most readily in his attack is the inability to understand why those protests might be occurring in the first place. Judging by the timing of his article, it’s likely Eichenwald wrote it after chaos broke out at the Nevada Democratic Convention on Saturday — chaos that transpired after the party took it upon itself to ignore thousands who rightly believed Sanders delegates had been excluded unfairly from the caucus proceedings.

Despite the call for a recount, party officials refused to follow necessary procedure and abruptly adjourned the convention, leaving thousands of voters in the lurch — and hotel security and local law enforcement to deal with the aftermath. When things seem suspicious, apparently Eichenwald feels voters should not only have no recourse, they should be happy about it.

“Sanders has increasingly signaled that he is in this race for Sanders,” he continues, “and day after day shows himself to be a whining crybaby with little interest in a broader movement.”

It would be nice if Eichenwald’s hit piece were as much a joke as it comes across, but clearly he’s missed the point — and the vast movement supporting not only Sanders, but electoral justice. Worse, he didn’t stop there:

“Signs are emerging that the Sanders campaign is transmogrifying into the type of movement through which tyrants are born.

“The ugly was on display” at the aforementioned Nevada convention, Eichenwald adds, “where Hillary Clinton won more delegates than Sanders.”

No kidding. That would be precisely the issue that “cult” expressed fury about — Clinton managed to put yet another state under her belt under highly questionable circumstances. In fact, suspect happenings at nearly every primary and caucus so far oddly favor the former secretary of state — and Nevada stood as further testament to why voters are practically up in arms over what appears to be electoral favoritism.

But Eichenwald wasn’t alone in overlooking those concerns — or in blatantly mischaracterizing both that bias and its consequential thwarting of the wishes of a hefty segment of the voting public.

In the New York Times, Alan Rappeport also took the chance to strike at Sanders’ followers by citing Roberta Lange, Nevada State Democratic Party Chairwoman, who adjourned the convention early — earning the wrath of Nevada’s voters.

“‘It’s been vile,’ said Ms. Lange, who riled Sanders supporters by refusing their requests for rule changes at the event in Las Vegas,” Rappeport notes, adding, “The vicious response comes as millions of new voters, many of whom felt excluded by establishment politicians, have flocked to the insurgent campaigns of Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump.”

Though he at least presented that aspect of the elections fairly, his description of what Lange actually did in Nevada misses the mark — that rules change had originally occurred prior to the convention, and Lange’s hasty and subjective decision on a contentious voice vote to permanently install the change arguably created the eruption of anger. But a number of Times staff have contributed sizeable amounts to Hillary’s campaign — and a Clinton family organization also donated $100,000 to the Times’ charitable organization the same year it endorsed her. Funny how bias thus peppers its reporting.

But the media roasting of Sanders and his supporters also appeared in the Sacramento Bee — where the editorial board also called the senator to task for the Nevada incident in lieu of calling out the controversial elections. According to the Bee,

“The episode had the reek of Trump rallies, where threats, insults, and sucker punches to defend the presumptive Republican nominee have been common. Yet looking back at the hundreds of Sanders supporters who descended on a Clinton rally in East Los Angeles earlier this month to intimidate her supporters, making one little girl cry, it now seems inevitable that the same kind of violent eruption would afflict those ‘feeling the Bern.’”

Seriously?

While the protest in L.A. certainly rattled Clinton supporters, violence didn’t pepper the event. One Sanders supporter — sporting a Free Hugs tee-shirt, no less — even assisted Clinton-supporting families with teary-eyed children in tow navigate through the crowd. While reports that someone ripped apart a young girl’s pro-Hillary sign might be valid, it would stand as the exception to what amounted to a boisterous demonstration over justifiable grievances. And, again, this obfuscation forgets entirely the need for demonstrations, which Hillary Clinton — in repeated lies, controversial policy proposals, and a campaign replete with fraud complaints — has clearly helped create.

Perhaps corporate, mainstream media — instead of targeting the symptom — should attempt to report its root cause.

Perhaps enormous swaths of voters being dropped from the rolls in New York; Clinton’s inexplicably astronomical luck in coin tosses in Iowa; inexcusably untrained elections volunteers and their equally inexcusable tendency allowing Clinton supporters to participate in caucuses without first being registered; or any number of other examples from the mountain of ever-growing evidence the elections are, indeed, rigged, are infinitely more deserving of headlines than hit pieces against those protesting such affronts to the American electoral process.

Or perhaps we should all just do as Eichenwald suggests — swallow our pride and our desire for a less corrupt and fairer system — and turn tail.

Or not. Because this system is rigged — and the corporate media helps pull the strings. But as long as independent media reports what the mainstream refuses, and as long as fraud inundates the 2016 election, there will be protests — regardless of whether or not Newsweek and the Times and the rest of their ilk ever grasp accuracy in reporting.

SHTFplan and Mac Slavo www.shtfplan.com

What Hillary #Clinton Has in Common With #Communist #China

by

 

(ANTIMEDIA) What do Hillary Clinton and the communist government of China have in common? Aside from their shared support for subverting freedom, lack of respect for human rights, and support of invasive surveillance, they both possess armies of trolls who manipulate online narratives.

According to a new report from researchers at Harvard’s Department of Government, the Chinese government employs millions of people to make posts praising government on their behalf. The internet mercenaries are deemed, collectively, “The 50 Cent Party,” because of rumors they are paid per post (the report concluded they do not appeared to be paid and most are government employees to begin with). They are believed to make 488 million posts per year.

After a blogger leaked hacked official email archives, the long-suspected program was confirmed to be real. Those leaks “reported activities of Internet commentators, including numerous 50c posts from workers claiming credit for completing their assignments, and many other communications.” The posts were often “cheerleading” for government, sometimes to “distract the public, although this activity can be also be used to distract from other events, general negativity, specific grievances, etc.” Posts that reflected positively on government made up the majority of so-called 50 centers’ activity, and the researchers theorized it “is a strategy designed to actively distract and redirect public attention from ongoing criticism, other grievances, or collective action.”

Perhaps such behavior is to be expected of an overarching communist regime, but Hillary Clinton’s internet army made headlines before China’s. As Anti-Media reported last month, the Clinton campaign has invested $1 million to fund an army of internet crusaders to challenge negative conversations about her online. That army, called “Barrier Breakers” and is a division of her organization, Correct the Record, which describes itself as “a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.”

According to Correct the Record’s website, Barrier Breakers is intended to “serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media.” (By “committed superdelegates,” perhaps they mean “paid lobbyists.”)

The project is extensive, “including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.”

It appears 50 centers and Barrier Breakers are performing the same function: creating potentially artificial perceptions that the Chinese government and Hillary Clinton, respectively, enjoy enthusiastic support (it’s likely some members of both the Chinese and Clinton social media teams do genuinely believe the things they post). But there are differences.

For one, the Chinese government has attempted to keep its operations secret. In contrast, the Clinton campaign has made its intentions public, seizing the opportunity to couch their attempts to control the conversation in proactive language that conflates itself with combating online harassment. “The task force currently combats online political harassment, having already addressed more than 5,000 individuals who have personally attacked Secretary Clinton on Twitter,” they boast. They do not disclose whether task force members’ individual identities are public or private.

Correct the Record claims Hillary supporters are “oftentimes are discouraged from engaging online and are ‘often afraid to voice their thoughts’ because of the fear of online harassment,” using this, evidently, as justification for paying people to post positive sentiments about the candidate, who currently suffers a likeability problem as severe as reviled presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

The biggest difference between Clinton and the Chinese government in their efforts to sway conversations online concerns the degree of defensive engagement they display: according to the researchers, the Chinese government’s posters “do not step up to defend the government, its leaders, and their policies from criticism, no matter how vitriolic; indeed, they seem to avoid controversial issues entirely,” preferring, rather, to use cheerleading efforts to distract and redirect. “Letting an argument die, or changing the subject, usually works much better than picking an argument and getting someone’s back up,” the researchers explained.

In contrast, Clinton’s Barrier Breakers project openly admits its active engagement in countering anti-Hillary narratives. Referencing “Bernie Bros,” Barrier Breakers vows to use what they’ve learned to “quickly and forcefully [respond] to negative attacks and false narratives.” This reaches beyond the Chinese government’s designs to distract with cheerleading; it’s an unabashed effort to change minds — even as Barrier Breakers fails to elaborate on the “false narratives” they plan to challenge.

Their goal conveniently ignores Clinton’s own proclivity for dishonesty and manipulating narratives. Indeed, her collective of paid public supporters extends to cable news, where many pundits praise her but fail to disclose they are on her payroll.

Hillary Clinton and the Chinese government are not the only entities who attempt to mold narratives and public perception to their benefit. Donald Trump was caught hiring real-life actors to drum up enthusiasm for his campaign. In the social media sphere, the Israeli government has a student program, called “Hasbara,” meant to counter online speech critical of Israel. British spy agency, GCHQ, which wokrks closely with the NSA, has a program to manipulate online political narratives and destroy the reputations of activist movements. And of course, the American government, namely — that we know of — the military, uses sock puppet accounts to spread pro-American propaganda.

While Barrier Breakers is, perhaps, more permissible than the Chinese government’s program, in that it is not officially sponsored by government, Clinton has given the populace no reason to believe her manipulative practices will cease should she make it to the White House.

This article (What Hillary Clinton Has in Common With Communist China) by Elizabeth Montag is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#WWIII? A “Hybrid Geo-Financial War” Between #NATO and Russia Is Dangerously Escalating

by

ww3-horizon

Russia is preparing for war against the West.

Putin is being urged to do so because the U.S. and NATO have been preparing for war themselves.

Syria and Ukraine have just been warm ups. The real thing could be around the corner, and other proxy flashpoints are ready to line up.

The rising tensions for military conflict are sharply complicated by the stealthier financial war that is nonetheless taking a serious toll across the globe, in particular as collapsing oil prices put incredible pressure on those regimes who have cast a big social benefits net financed primarily by $100/barrel oil.

As SHTF previously reported, that made Venezuela the most vulnerable, and it is plain today that the oil rich nation is collapsing. However, the manipulation of these prices was also meant to put pressure on Russia (as well as other countries)… while the attempt to undercut Russian natural gas by taking over Ukraine and have NATO supply gas to Europe instead of Russia has so far failed.

It is a sophisticated geopolitical gamble that perhaps no one is winning, apart from who manages not to topple over.

A detailed, but nonetheless alarming article by Alastair Crooke reports that there is significant pressure on Putin from other Russian leaders to take a hard line in the days ahead.

via the Huffington Post:

Putin carries, at one end of his balancing pole, the various elites more oriented toward the West and the “Washington Consensus“ and, at the pole’s other end, those concerned that Russia faces both a real military threat from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a hybrid geo-financial war as well. He is being pressed to come down on the side of the latter, and to pry the grip of the former from the levers of economic power that they still tightly hold.

In short, the issue coming to a head in the Kremlin is whether Russia is sufficiently prepared for further Western efforts to ensure it does not impede or rival American hegemony. Can Russia sustain a geo-financial assault, if one were to be launched? And is such a threat real or mere Western posturing for other ends?

What is so important is that if these events are misread in the West, which is already primed to see any Russian defensive act as offensive and aggressive, the ground will already have been laid for escalation. We already had the first war to push back against NATO in Georgia. The second pushback war is ongoing in Ukraine. What might be the consequences to a third?

In mid-April, General Alexander Bastrykin, the head of Russia’s Investigative Committee (a sort of super attorney general, as Cohen describes it), wrote that Russia — its role in Syria notwithstanding — is militarily ill prepared to face a new war either at home or abroad, and that the economy is in a bad way, too. Russia, furthermore, is equally ill prepared to withstand a geo-financial war. He goes on to say that the West is preparing for war against Russia and that Russia’s leadership does not appear to be aware of or alert to the danger the country faces.

[…] A retired Russian general entered the fray to confirm that the West is indeed preparing for war — he pointed to NATO deployments in the Baltics, the Black Sea and Poland, among other places — and underlines again the unpreparedness of the Russian military to face this threat. “This is a heavy indictment of Putin,” Cohen says of the revelations from this analysis. “It is now out in the open.”

[…]

The government’s economic policy is being criticized. The opposing faction wants to see an immediate mobilization of the military and the economy for war, conventional or hybrid. This is not about wanting Putin ousted; it is about pushing him to wield the knife — and to cut deeply.

There is every reason to think that the clashing interests of NATO and Russia can and will spark more flashpoints across the map and around the arc that generally surrounds the former Soviet empire, which the United States hopes to contain in order to maintain its own crumbling empire.

While President Obama, now officially the president to oversee the longest period of war (albeit somewhat contracted), may be reluctant to pursue in form of open conflict with Russia, a president like Hillary Clinton may be all-too willing to do so. She has already called in recent days for an escalated ‘war against ISIS,’ which handily also gives an open ended pretext to challenge NATO-Russian conflict points wherever they might appear.

Donald Trump’s positions here are as yet unclear, but he is beginning to surround himself with the same type of advisers – including Henry Kissinger –  that have brought us to this point.

With economic decline and a definite fatigue for war, Americans face an end of the dollar as the world currency standard and an era where the BRICS nations, and in particular the militaries of Russia and China, pose an existential threat to the world that the U.S. and Britain carved out in the WWII era and which they essentially won away from the Soviets by the end of the Cold War.

These waxing and waning empires are dangerous as their vulnerabilities and short-comings become exposed, and their territories challenged.

That fact that Putin is being prodded from within Russia to be less diplomatic and more aggressive in posturing for war is downright unsettling. Many of our most dangerous American leaders are all-too willing to poke the bear and evoke a reaction.

Ukraine and Syria, as well as the Georgian conflict before it in 2008, prove that the U.S. will continue waging war and posturing for global domination in spite of the lack of a coherent narrative (but there’s ISIS), or any convincing pretext for sending troops and sponsoring proxy armies.

The American people are sick of war, but the misleaders in Washington are eager enough to reinvigorate their sense of power and entitlement to control the affairs here and abroad. After all, war – in a sick kind of way – is good for the economy, and a big one means a mandate of emergency powers and a period of unquestioning obedience from the domestic population.

The threat is all-too real, and a serious provocation, like the false flag attacks that have sparked most of the wars in the past, could be on the horizon.

That all basically points to WWIII… or at least a full second Cold War. It could be a long way off, but the sense is that the scent is in the air.

What do you think will happen next?

Read More:

Vladimir Putin Responds To Obama’s “Hostile” Acts: Warns of Nuclear Consequences

Falling Oil Prices Could Cripple ‘Vulnerable’ Russia, Trigger World War III

Putin “Prepared to Use Tactical Nuclear Weapons” If Turkey/Saudi Invade Syria

Sudden Death In Putin’s Inner Circle: “These Two Guys Just ‘Die’ With Barely A Ripple In the Media”

Putin Targets US Monetary System: “Aims to Eliminate the US Dollar and the Euro From Trade”

SHTFplan and Mac Slavo www.shtfplan.com

#Democrats Fear #Violence At Convention: “Don’t Want To Go Back To ’68 #Riots”

by

bernie-accues-hillary

Any way you slice it, the Democratic National Convention coming up in Philadelphia in late July promise to be tumultuous.

Though Hillary Clinton and the party insiders long ago expected the 2016 primary to be a formality (which conspicuously few hopefuls in the race), the grassroots voters are feverishly demanding Bernie, and vehemently against the establishment candidate who is widely known for her duplicity and dishonesty.

As California Senator Diane Feinstein makes clear in this short and sweet video below, the establishment fears the riots and backlash that could come from a contested, or at least highly protested, convention as Sen. Sanders vows to continue the fight ‘until the last ballot is cast.’

Instead, she and other figures inside the Democratic party are trying to nudge Sanders into dropping in order to save face and avoid damaging the party’s share in the duopoly of political power.

But regardless of whether Sanders pushes through until convention or not, there will be lots of angry people who remain unsatisfied with another Clinton and more of the same. Tensions have been especially high since the controversial events in Nevada last week, as CNN notes:

The public outpouring of anger began last weekend at the Nevada Democratic Party convention, where Sanders supporters who said Hillary Clinton’s backers had subverted party rules shouted down pro-Clinton speakers and sent threatening messages to state party Chairwoman Roberta Lange after posting her phone number and address on social media.

That led Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other top party leaders to demand an apology and publicly ruminate on the possibility of violence at the Democratic National Convention in July as they prepare for a general election battle with Donald Trump.

Commentators and politicos have also speculated on potential violence unfolding at the Republican National Convention, though that was largely before most of the GOP began to come to terms with Trump as the nominee.

Clearly, the broiling political anger, which has been heating up for years, is one of the major scenarios that riot police and other members of law enforcement have been training for for years. As Paul Joseph Watson reported:

Police advised by FEMA officials how to conduct “mass arrests”

The Department of Homeland Security oversaw a first of its kind three day training exercise in Texas this week during which police officers from fifteen different departments took part in drills on how to deal with riots and conduct mass arrests.

Although the threat of riots is real enough (it happened back in 1968 largely because the Democrats forced unlikable establishment tool Hubert Humphrey as the nominee), it also gives a pretext for larger security budgets, more riot gear and other tools and a rationale for forceful treatment of peaceful protesters exercising their rights.

The American people are angry. There are many reasons, and the shamefully rigged elections have been one of the major outlets for their outrage.

Read more:

Martial Law at Republican Convention? Riot Cops “Preparing For A Siege Rather Than Political Event”

Homeland Trains Police for Riots, Civil Unrest: “This Training Has Never Been in Texas Before”

Strapped Americans Headed for “Civil Unrest and Riots,” With Poor Spending 60% on Bare Essentials

Study Finds “Presence of Professional Protesters to Incite More Violence” in Baltimore and Ferguson

SHTFplan and Mac Slavo www.shtfplan.com

Did the #Nevada Democratic Party Just Steal Another State From #Bernie Sanders?

by

 

(ANTIMEDIA) Nevada — In what might best be described as a minor electoral coup, the Nevada Democratic Party did its utmost to ensure a caucus victory for Hillary Clinton — and it appears they succeeded.

“We need civility in the Democratic Party — civility,” bemoaned Sen. Barbara Boxer to the largely outraged crowd, amid boos and shouts of “recount,” in the Paris hotel in Las Vegas on Saturday. “When you’re booing me, you’re booing Bernie Sanders,” asserted Boxer, a Hillary supporter, fanning the flames. “You know something, I grew up in Brooklyn and I’m not afraid of bullies. I’m for Hillary Clinton because she’s for all of us. So keep yourselves booing and boo yourselves out of the election.”

Boxer’s obstinate fealty to Clinton did nothing to pacify the thousands milling about, jeering — especially when she added, “We had our Nevada Caucus and Hillary Clinton won.”

As Nevada State Democratic Party Chairwoman and member of the national DNC’s Executive Committee, Roberta Lange, stood at the podium before thousands of mostly irate party members, an unidentified woman — as captured in video footage uploaded to Facebook — made a request on behalf of the crowd:

“I am asking you to have a recount. 9:30 was too soon for a preliminary vote. The petition did not get to everyone.”

Many attendees demanded that 64 excluded Sanders delegates, listed in a “minority report,” be allowed to participate. But Lange instead swiftly called for a voice vote to implement a temporary change of party rules on a permanent basis. Then she took it upon herself to affirm the result — which, as video shows the obstreperous reaction, was at least debatable — abruptly adjourned the meeting with an impotent slam of the gavel, and simply walked out, leaving pandemonium in her wake.

Stunned at Lange’s unceremonious departure, the throngs of Sanders devotees screamed incredulously at the now vacant podium, demanding an explanation for what had just taken place. Murmurs showed resolve to wait in the convention room until just democracy could be carried out — to no avail.

Shortly after Lange’s exit, which was followed by other party officials who then had to be escorted by police offstage, hotel security and armed local law enforcement officers appeared at the front of the auditorium.

“I don’t know if anyone can see this,” says Adryenn Ashley, who uploaded video to Facebook as events unfolded. “I don’t know if you can hear this, but there are 20 armed sheriffs here to help them steal the election … They’re saying leave now or else.”

At one point, a Hillary T-shirt-adorned woman even called for Bernie supporters to be ‘arrested.’

As hotel security can be heard on video saying, as officers ushered the outraged attendees from the meeting floor, “it is now in the hands of the attorneys,” and “[p]lease leave peacefully. Please leave, it is not safe here.”

But as one Sanders supporter rightly intoned, “If we do not leave, it becomes a big issue. I’m not leaving.”

Eventually, attendees disbursed — however disenfranchised they felt.

In the aftermath, those aforementioned 64 excluded delegates secured Clinton’s win by 33 — with final tallies on the day at 1,695 attending for Hillary to Sanders’ 1,662.

So contentious were the totals that Nevada Democratic convention credentials committee co-chair, Leslie Sexton, claimed the action by the state party rules committee “violates the spirit and values of our state and our nation.” As reported by RealClearPolitics, she continued:

“The credentials minority report is based on the challenge of 64 Sanders delegates. Contrary to the procedures and precedents set by the committee, nearly none of these 64 people were presented with the opportunity to be heard by the committee or to demonstrate that they are registered Democrats. Without the opportunity to be heard, no delegate could be stricken. The actions of the credentials committee violate the spirit of the Nevada state delegate plan which encourages full participation in the delegate process, and it violates the spirit and values of our state and our nation.”

Perhaps Sexton absolutely characterizes the disenfranchisement of the voting public as the primary season rolls on, as state after state reports innumerable complaints from voters. Or perhaps, her statement evidences a larger pattern of usurpation of the vote — as state after state reports mysteriously cleansed voter rolls, registration ballot shortages, inexcusably long lines, and inexplicably under-trained volunteers — who often sport candidate-specific paraphernalia, in direct conflict with established electoral law.

As outrageous as the Nevada State Convention might have seemed, it stands as yet further evidence that votes will be taken by whom the establishment deems pertinent to the narrative. If the DNC touts Hillary Clinton then, voters be damned, she will be their nominee.

With rumors a contested Democratic National Convention may be in the works, it would seem more pertinent than ever to examine how vehemently the establishment guards its go-to candidate — something with which past supporters of Ron Paul have well familiarized themselves.

It now stands virtually impossible to deny — elections are nothing more than a rigged theater of political appeasement.

This article (Did the Nevada Democratic Party Just Steal Another State From Bernie Sanders?) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Marc Nozell. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

You Know Those Missing #Hillary #Emails? #Russia Might Leak 20,000 of Them

by

 

 

(ANTIMEDIA) Hillary Clinton sits at the center of a raging firestorm concerning her arrangement of a private email account and server set up in her home — from which top secret information may have been deleted. But despite Bernie Sanders’ apparent annoyance with the “damn emails,” the scandal just exponentially intensified, when Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed on Monday that Russia has possession of around 20,000 of Clinton’s emails — leaving open the possibility her deletions might not have been permanent after all.

“There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in an interview for The Kelly File.

With Clinton’s repeated claims she employed the personal email server only for mundane communications and non-sensitive State matters having been proven outright lies, the deletions of 31,830 emails — in the new context of Napolitano’s statement — have suddenly become remarkably relevant.

As the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s questionable email practices deepens, the question of who had access to what information previously located on the former secretary of state’s server is now more critical than ever.

One such individual, Romanian hacker Guccifer, who was abruptly extradited to the United States, revealed he had easily and repeatedly accessed Clinton’s personal server — and he wasn’t the only one.

“For me, it was easy,” the hacker, whose given name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, exclusively told Fox News; “easy for me, for everybody.”

If Guccifer and Napolitano are right, Russia may, indeed, have possession of highly-sensitive information courtesy of Clinton’s arrogant failure to adhere to the obligation to use a government email account during her tenure as secretary — a situation worsened by the now-mendacious claim no sensitive information had been sent through the personal account.

In fact, if Guccifer is to be believed — as his extradition by the U.S. indicates — news of the Kremlin having obtained potentially top-secret material may be the tip of a gargantuan iceberg. Using a readily available program, the Romanian hacker also claimed he observed “up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world” during sessions on Clinton’s personal server. If just one of those unknown parties was connected to Russia, who the other nine might be could be central to the FBI’s decision whether or not to charge Clinton for mishandling classified information.

Adding yet another nail in the coffin case against Hillary on Thursday, the Hill reported conservative watchdog Judicial Watch revealed, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, frustration with technical difficulties in obtaining a secure phone line led the secretary to direct a top aide to abandon the effort and call her without the necessary security in place.

“I give up. Call me on my home [number],” Clinton wrote in a February 2009 email from the newly-released batch — on the also notoriously unsecured server — to then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.

Though the email thread contains no confirmation such a call was ever made on the unsecured phone line, it evidences still more of the same flagrant disregard for national security apparently peppering Clinton’s practices during her time at the State Department.

“This drip, drip of new Clinton emails show Hillary Clinton could not care less about the security of her communications,” noted Judicial Watch president, Tom Fitton, in a statement cited by the Hill. “How many other smoking gun emails are Hillary Clinton and her co-conspirators in the Obama administration hiding from the American people?”

For a putative presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t appear to appreciate the imperative for keeping matters of national security obscured from … anyone.

This article (You Know Those Missing Hillary Emails? Russia Might Leak 20,000 of Them) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

Jon #Stewart Just Slammed Hillary #Clinton But the Media Ignored It

by

(ANTIMEDIA) While it’s hardly shocking that mainstream media targeted Jon Stewart’s latest jab — in which he described Donald Trump as a “man-baby” — the mainstream media establishment mouthpiece virtually ignored his lambasting of Hillary Clinton.

“What I think about Hillary Clinton is, you know … I imagine [her] to be a very bright woman … without the courage of her convictions — ‘cause I’m not even sure what they are,” Stewart told David Axelrod for his podcast, The Axe, to which the audience erupted in applause.

Though the slam represented more than corporate media has managed thus far during the former secretary of state’s troubled run for the presidency, Jon Stewart took the description to a hilarious next level. For reference, Magic Johnson once had a talk show that ultimately failed because … well … witness Stewart’s comparison of Johson to Hillary:

“Magic Johnson was a charming individual, but he wasn’t a talk show host … so, he would sit and he would go, [Stewart affected a flat tone here] ‘Uh, my first guest tonight … my first guest tonight is [with lots of enthusiasm] CHER, everybody!’ But he never seemed authentic and real to his personality. It seemed like he was wearing an outfit designed by someone else for someone else to be someone else, and that is not to say that [Clinton] is not preferable to Donald Trump — because at this point, I would vote for Mr. T over Donald Trump. But I think she will be in big trouble if she can’t find a way, and maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a real person doesn’t exist underneath there. I don’t know.”

Axelrod then asked the former host of the Daily Show about Clinton’s appearance as a guest — and the criticism continued:

“What was that like?” Axelrod inquired about the former secretary’s interview.

“Really cool,” Stewart deadpanned. “It’s — look, there are politicians who are either rendering their inauthenticity in real enough time to appear authentic, and then their are politicians who render their inauthenticity through — it’s like, when your computer … if you have a Mac and you want to play a Microsoft game on it …”

AXELROD: Yes, yes.

STEWART: … and there’s that weird lag.

AXELROD: Yes. No, I mean …

STEWART: That’s Hillary Clinton.

AXELROD: … that’s a big problem. There’s like a seven-second delay and all the words come out in a perfectly …

STEWART: Right.

AXELROD: … politically calibrated sentence.

STEWART: Right. Now, what gives me hope in that is that there’s a delay, which means she’s somehow fighting something. I’ve seen politicians who don’t have that delay and render their inauthenticity in real time, and that’s when you go, ‘That’s a sociopath.’

So, there you have it. Jon Stewart described Hillary Clinton as inauthentic and not bold enough to follow through on issues she stridently touts — but stopped just short of calling the presidential hopeful a ‘sociopath.’

For the full podcast, visit this link.

This article (Jon Stewart Just Slammed Hillary Clinton But the Media Ignored It) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#DOJ Employees Investigating Hillary Email Scandal Gave $75K to Her Campaign

by

 

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — In what must be described as a massive conflict of interest, Hillary Clinton has amassed nearly $75,000 in campaign donations from individuals listing their place of employment as “Department of Justice.” Considering Clinton is the subject of a sweeping investigation by the FBI — for which the DoJ will determine whether or not charges will be levied — such donations seem at least somewhat dissonant.

As the Washington Free Beacon reported, of all the presidential hopefuls, Clinton received by far the heftiest sum from DoJ employees — $73,437 total, including 228 individuals contributing the maximum allowable by law, $2,700. On its own, the total could be considered substantial, but as the Free Beacon noted, Clinton’s previous presidential run wasn’t favored as heavily by DoJ employees — in 2008, she raised just $15,930 from 23 contributors.

Hillary’s donations from the Department of Justice completely swamp those of the other candidates, in fact, as Sanders’ total from 51 donors was just $8,900 and Trump garnered an inconsequential $381.

“I’m not surprised in the least to see more evidence that shows the politicization of the Justice Department,” said watchdog group, Citizens United, president David Bossie, in a statement to the Free Beacon. “How can Democrat political appointees fairly investigate someone who is about to become their nominee for president? That’s why last July I called on Attorney General Lynch to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate the private Clinton email server.

“Today, I renew my call that Attorney General Lynch must appoint a special counsel to determine if Hillary Clinton or her agents broke the law and compromised our national security. This investigation needs to be conducted free of political influence once and for all.”

Critics have previously pointed to Lynch personally donating over $10,000 to Democratic candidates as evidence of her lack of impartiality — and sufficient reason she should not be charged with overseeing the investigation of Clinton’s emails.

As if the DoJ connections to the Clinton investigation weren’t enough, the former secretary has also received a number of hearty contributions from the private prison industry.

As The Intercept reported nearly a year ago, two of Clinton’s top campaign donors are Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group — two of the biggest private prison corporations on the planet.

For Clinton to not only claim to follow the letter of the law in the face of evidence to the contrary — in her use of a private email server for official State business — but to also tout her devotion to minorities and social justice, while accepting donations from for-profit prisons, belies the flimsiest of façades.

As usual, Hillary Clinton’s stances run the gamut of personal convenience while flouting the public interest. Though evidence grows stronger by the day that at least one of her many wrongs is deserving of an indictment, the levying of charges remains an open question — if not downright doubtful.

This article (Dept. of Justice Investigating Hillary Email Scandal Gave $75K to Her Campaign) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Marc Nozell. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

Here’s Why Ron Paul Just Said #Hillary Could Have Run as a #Republican

by

Former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, Ron Paul (TX), made some interesting comments in an interview with Fox Business Monday.  Paul insisted the neoconservative Republicans could actually back Hillary Clinton, instead Trump.

“Hillary is a Wall Street person and she is a neocon and she wants to spend money on the military. So, a lot of them will go there. They’re not going to get Romney to run. I think it will shift a lot of people over to Hillary because I’ve always argued that Hillary could have possibly run as a Republican with some of her positions.”

From theantimedia.org Team

Video: #Hillary Confronted by #Coal Miner Whose Jobs She Vowed to Destroy

by

Claire Bernish
May 4, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — Hillary Clinton already has an issue with being truthful, but her latest waffling on coal — and, specifically, coal miners’ livelihoods — has most of the country crying foul.

“Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let’s reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these undeserved poor communities,” Clinton boasted at a town hall meeting in March — immediately, hypocritically, and even jovially following up with this zinger:

“So, for example, I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean, renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Granted, the chameleon presidential candidate elucidated, however vaguely, that “we don’t want to forget those people” — and she did ultimately apologize for the original remark. But the damage from such a powerful dismissal of the livelihoods of generations of Americans had already been indelibly marked in the hearts of coal mining families — as well as in the minds of members of West Virginia’s Republican Party.

Clinton has been touring West Virginia ahead of the state’s primary — and coal miners clearly can’t let her promise to put them out of work fall by the wayside.

Hillary sat down for a roundtable discussion with local residents on Monday as throngs of protesters could be heard outside, chanting “Go home!” One of the locals, Bo Copley, who recently lost his coal mining job, pleaded with Clinton to explain her statement from March.

“The reason you hear those people out there saying some of the things that they say,” Copley said, noting the loud protesters just outside the room, “is because when you make comments like ‘we’re going to put a lot of coal miners out of jobs,’ these are the kind of people that you’re affecting.”

Copley then thrust a picture of his family in front of an obviously uncomfortable — or possibly bored — Clinton, demanding to know if his family members would “have a future in this state” were she to be elected president.

“What I said was totally out of context from what I meant, because I have been talking about coal country for a very long time,” Clinton asserted during the conversation.

Hillary’s backtracking seems disingenuous at best considering her track record is more replete with mendacity than honesty. As you can see in the following footage, Clinton has more in common with a desperate chameleon than she does with the honest voters she actively attempts to court.

And, judging by the fully extended middle fingers greeting her in coal country, it seems more and more people realize they’re likely to hear Clinton say just about anything to win votes.

This article (Video: Hillary Confronted by Coal Miner Whose Jobs She Vowed to Destroy) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#Hillary #Clinton’s Million Dollar Professional Internet Troll Army

by

Nick Bernabe
April 24, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Hillary Clinton-aligned Super PAC, Correct the Record, is taking a page out of Vladimir Putin’s playbook by employing a $1 million dollar professional internet troll army to build a paid, positive consensus about the Clinton campaign. The effort, called “Breaking Barriers 2016,” claims:

“While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media.

“Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.”

The campaign will essentially be employing an unknown number of paid, pro-Hillary trolls to spread positive news about the candidate and counter anyone posting negative information about her. And these aren’t just ragtag trolls living in their mothers’ basements — they are industry and campaign professionals. As Correct the Record acknowledges:

“The task force staff’s backgrounds are as diverse as the community they will be engaging with and include former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will organize.”

In response to this news, Bernie Sanders campaign staffer Mike Casca told The Daily Beast, “Our campaign and our vendors are not paying people to reply to anti-Bernie comments on social media.” He added, “Come on man, really?”

The Hillary campaign was also recently called out by The Intercept for deploying “astroturfers” into the media — people with ties to Clinton who act as experts and political commentators to promote her campaign without disclosing their ties to the candidate.

With Hillary’s highly effective media strategies employing media surrogates — and now internet trolls — it’s becoming increasingly hard to decipher a distinction between actual Clinton supporters, unbiased political commentators, and paid campaign shills.

This article (Hillary Clinton’s Million Dollar Professional Internet Troll Army) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nick Bernabe and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Gage Skidmore. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

The Video That Could Bring Down #Hillary #Clinton’s Campaign

by

 

Claire Bernish
April 20, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) After New York’s stunningly disorganized and questionable primary results proved, yet again, our elections are rigged to ensure establishment darling Hillary Clinton garners the Democratic nomination, a new video from Abby Martin’s Empire Files could topple Clinton’s entire campaign.

Evidence of said rigging isn’t difficult to find — it’s written directly into the electoral process in superdelegates, whose 700 “unpledged” votes remain uncommitted to a candidate until the nomination. This is “to ensure nominees are hand-picked party insiders,” as Martin explains in the video.

“The single vote of a superdelegate is worth thousands of ours,” Martin notes. “Many of these people are current and former members of Congress, and dozens more are literally corporate lobbyists working on behalf of every industry from healthcare to private prisons.”

In fact, the employment of superdelegates was initiated precisely for situations when the people’s choice doesn’t align with the establishment’s — such as the current overwhelming popularity of Bernie Sanders.

But the web of corporate media executives and insiders contributing directly to Hillary Clinton’s campaign couldn’t possibly explain the extreme bias, lack of criticism, and virtual media blackout on Sanders’ success, right? And her campaign, dripping with corporate lobbying cash, wouldn’t concern the American voting public, even though lobbyists literally act as superdelegates — would it?

Watch Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents to see the proof the establishment doesn’t want you to discover.

This article (The Video That Could Bring Down Hillary Clinton’s Campaign) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Gage Skidmore. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Primary Chaos: #NY #Elections Face Audit After 126,000 Mysteriously Denied Right to Vote

by

Claire Bernish

April 19, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Amid further reports of numerous problems with today’s primary election — including reports of some 126,000 voters purged from the rolls — New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer announced on Tuesday he will be auditing the city’s Board of Elections.

“There is nothing more sacred in our nation than the right to vote, yet election after election, reports come in of people who were inexplicably purged from the polls,” the Comptroller stated. “The people of New York City have lost confidence that the Board of Elections can effectively administer elections and we intend to find out why the BOE is so consistently disorganized, chaotic and inefficient.”

Stringer was so alarmed, he penned a letter to NYC BOE Director Michael J. Ryan about the audit, noting his “deep concern over widespread reports of poll site problems and irregularities” — and demanded the BOE provide viable explanations for each.

“Voters across the city have complained about poll workers erroneously redirecting them to different poll sites, poll workers unable to operate voting machines, poll workers unable to produce the correct party ballot for an individual voter, and poll workers giving conflicting information,” he wrote.

“Of particular concern are numerous allegations of widespread removal of eligible voters from voter-registration rolls, as well as instances of incorrect party affiliations on individual registration records. These errors have conspired to bar first time and longtime voters from exercising their fundamental democratic right.”

Stringer’s concerns were echoed by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio this afternoon, who issued a statement cited by Politico about the ongoing turmoil and outrage:

“It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists. I am calling on the Board of Elections to reverse that purge and update the lists again using Central, not Brooklyn borough, Board of Election staff.”

In fact, a spokesman for State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman claimed his office has already received “by far the largest volume of complaints” from any election since 2011, Politico reported.

In concurrence with Stringer’s audit announcement, de Blasio added:

“We will hold the BOE commissioners responsible for ensuring that the Board and its borough officers properly conduct the election process to assure that voters are not disenfranchised. The perception that voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process and must be fixed.”

Despite these telling public statements from officials, Ryan told the Observer:

“I bristle at the suggestion that some folks might be making that there are widespread problems. We’re just not seeing it.” He added the snafus occurring Tuesday were “what we typically see during elections.”

Ryan did mention he’d been away from his office most of the day, yet repeatedly rebuffed suggestions the voluminous number of reports were anything out of the ordinary for an election.

“Comptrollers audit agencies, that’s why comptrollers are there,” Ryan told the Observer about Stringer’s intent to audit. “If Comptroller Stringer believe that it is a worthy use of his agency resources to investigate the Board of Elections, we’re no different than any other city agency.”

With voters increasingly irate over inexplicable difficulties in simply casting a primary vote, we may be in for quite the ride in November.

This article (Primary Chaos: NY Elections Face Audit After 126,000 Mysteriously Denied Right to Vote) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#Clooney Raised $15 Million for #Hillary & DNC, Denounced #Money in Politics a Day Later

by

 

Elizabeth Montag
April 18, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) George Clooney held a $353,000-per-couple fundraiser for Hillary Clinton just one day before he called the amount of money in politics “obscene.” On Sunday, he discussed his two-day San Francisco event on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he defended the pricey dinner galas — even as he acknowledged the problem of out-of-control spending in elections.

Clooney went on to justify the fundraiser, estimated to have generated $15 million in two days, by arguing the money raised goes not only to Hillary Clinton, but the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — the institution currently under fire for subverting the electoral process to satisfy the party’s establishment machinery which, of course, includes the Clintons.

Asked point blank by host Chuck Todd if he felt the fundraiser pooled an “obscene” amount of money, as Bernie Sanders alleged, Clooney acknowledged it was over the top:

“Yes, I think it’s an obscene amount of money,” he said, adding that protesters showed up to the event to voice their disapproval.

“[W]e had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco. And they’re right to protest, they’re absolutely right — it is an obscene amount of money,” he added. The protesters were largely Bernie Sanders supporters, some of whom threw dollar bills at Clinton’s motorcade.

“The Sanders campaign when they talk about it is absolutely right, it’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree, completely,” he said.

truth-cancer-ad

The A-list actor acknowledged he likes Bernie Sanders and thinks he is fostering important conversations within the Democratic Party. He also vowed to throw a similar fundraiser should Sanders receive the nomination. Nevertheless, he reaffirmed Hillary Clinton as his first choice. Further, he justified the fundraiser by arguing, essentially, it was a necessary evil to place Democrats back in power.

“The overwhelming amount of the money that we’re raising, is not going to Hillary to run for president. … It’s going to the congressmen and senators to try to take back Congress,” he said, prefacing his statement with the suggestion the Clinton campaign has not made this clear enough.

He continued, “…we need to take the Senate back because we need to confirm the Supreme Court justice, because that fifth vote on the Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United and get this obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I never have to do a fundraiser again. And that’s why I’m doing it.”

Indeed, much of the money raised for the Hillary Victory Fund — the beneficiary of the weekend’s fundraisers — goes to the DNC to invest in candidates, though Clooney did not explicitly mention the committee in the interview. A much smaller portion goes to state Democratic parties, leaving millions for Clinton and the national party establishment. Unsurprisingly, Todd did not press Clooney on the merits of raising millions of dollars for an organization that has admitted to suppressing the voices of Democratic voters in its tirade against Bernie Sanders.

As Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the increasingly loathed chair of the DNC, said of the Democratic Party’s political process in February:

“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.” Her statements — and the shenanigans at polling centers — enraged Sanders’s followers. Clinton’s corporate funding has also raised serious suspicions about her credibility.

When Todd pressed him, Clooney denied the possibility that — as Sanders suggested — wealthy donors will expect access to a ‘President Clinton’ for their contributions at the fundraisers. Rather, he abruptly shifted his focus to the Koch Brothers:

“No, I actually don’t think that’s true. I think there is a difference between the Koch Brothers and us. The difference is, if I succeed — if we — succeed in electing an entire Congress…and a president, you know, the tax policies that they would enact would probably cost us a lot more money, quite honestly. The Koch Brothers would profit if they [got] their way, and…there’s no profit for us in this.”

Though Clooney may not personally be making a profit (and he admits the policies he envisions would further indebt the nation), he neglected to note that under a Clinton presidency, defense contractors, private prisons, and other corporatist industries who back Clinton will expect to receive a boon to business for the investments they’ve made in her — even if they didn’t attend this particular Hollywood fundraiser. Further, considering the establishment DNC spearheads Clooney’s stated goal of winning a Democrat-dominated Congress, it’s likely those selected to run for office with the “obscene” cash he raised would favor the same interests as the corrupt party rulership.

In spite of these concerns, Hollywood’s behind-the-scenes moguls, some with interests in Washington D.C., have thrown their support and money behind Clinton; Jeffrey Katzenberg, founder of Dreamworks Animation and former top bundler for the Obama campaign, co-hosted Clooney’s fundraiser and enjoyed alone time with Clinton beforehand. Katzenberg and his staff  have enjoyed access to the White House throughout the Obama years, and he has long-promoted internet censorship legislation for the sake of stopping online piracy, along with other policies beneficial to the film industry.

Others, like Haim Saban, a proudly pro-Israel Hollywood billionaire, have supported Clinton for years. Saban currently runs Univision, which recently acquired the Onion and boasts of his contributions to Hillary, which total $6.4 million. Perhaps reflecting his purchased influence, Clinton wrote a letter to Saban last July vowing to oppose the BDS movement (boycotts, divest, sanctions), which seeks to disempower Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

As Hollywood’s behind-the scenes power players favor Clinton, so do celebrities. Many, like Beyoncé, Kerry Washington, Ellen Degeneres, and Katy Perry, are considered “empowered women,” and thus, apparently support the female presidential candidate. A majority of entertainers openly supporting nominees opt for Clinton. Clooney — and many other actors and musicians — proudly supported Barack Obama and continue to do so, even as his reign failed to live up to expectations, extended privacy violations, sanctioned and committed war crimes, and sought to bolster America’s oligarchy.

The star-studded event over the weekend undoubtedly raised millions for Hillary, but it is unclear whether the Hollywood establishment is unaware of her myriad crimes — or simply overlooking them for the chance at influence over the next president.

As Bernie Sanders said of the extravagant weekend galas:

“So it’s not a criticism of Clooney. It’s a criticism of a corrupt campaign finance system, where big money interests — and it’s not Clooney, it’s the people coming to this event — have undue influence on the political process.”

This article (Clooney Raised $15 Million for Hillary & DNC, Denounced Money in Politics a Day Later) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Elizabeth Montag and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. Image credit: Michael Vlasaty. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

Bill #Clinton May Have Just Cost #Hillary the #Black Vote

by

Nick Bernabe
April 8, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Philadelphia, PA — Hillary Clinton has been performing well with minorities so far in the 2016 Democratic primary, but that could soon be changing. Bill Clinton may have just severely damaged the former secretary of state’s reputation among African Americans by committing a major gaffe — one he is now “almost” apologizing for.

At a campaign stop in Philadelphia on Thursday, Bill was interrupted by protesters — a common theme this presidential election. The protesters, mostly young black Americans, interrupted Bill’s speech to air their grievances about his sweeping 1994 crime bill — the largest ever passed. The bill, sold as a way to effectively fight inner-city crime, actually helped expand an already developing trend of mass incarceration that had an overwhelmingly negative impact of the black community.

Signs reading “Clinton Crime Bill destroyed our community,” and “Hillary is a murderer” could be seen waving in the audience as Bill was interrupted Thursday. He caused a major backlash in the the African-American community when he decided to comment on the people who were incarcerated because of his crime bill.

“I don’t know how you would describe the gang leaders who got 13-year-olds hopped up on crack and sent them out in the streets to murder other African-American children.“Maybe you thought they were good citizens…You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter. Tell the truth. You are defending the people who cause young people to go out and take guns,”  he said at the campaign event.

Hillary Clinton was a major supporter of her husband’s crime bill when she was First Lady. As we reported previously:

truth-cancer-ad

“Hillary Clinton lobbied Congress to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Bill Clinton signed the act into law in 1994… The largest crime bill in history, it provided $9.7 billion in prison funding. From 1992 to 2000, the amount of prisoners in the U.S. increased almost 60%.”

In another recent incident, Hillary came under scrutiny for alluding to young black males as “super-predators” in a speech in 1996. She, like Bill, has been confronted by activists for her contribution to the nation’s mass incarceration problem.

Hillary is facing eroding support from the Latino community, as well. Recent polling shows her previous popularity among this key demographic has evaporated — leaving Bernie Sanders with a slight lead of 48% to Clinton’s 47% in Latino support.

Ironically, though he defends it now, Clinton previously disowned the crime bill, admitting in an interview with CNN last year that it had “too wide a net” that resulted in “too many people in prison.”

Regardless, Hillary Clinton is still raking in major cash from the private prison industry despite her haunting past with mass incarceration.

This article (Bill Clinton May Have Just Cost Hillary the Black Vote) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nick Bernabe and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Yes, the #PanamaPapers Could Really End Hillary #Clinton’s Campaign

by

Op-Ed by Jake Anderson
April 6, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) With Senator Bernie Sanders winning seven of the last eight delegate battles — the most recent was Tuesday night’s Wisconsin victory — there’s a feeling in the air that most progressives haven’t felt since the Iowa caucus. It speaks to a hard truth Hillary Clinton and her choleric campaign staffers will encounter when they wake up in the morning: Bernie really could still beat Clinton and become the Democratic nominee for president.

No way, some of you are saying. The television faces said the delegate math was too hard. The superdelegates make it impossible. Hillary wins the primaries, Bernie only wins caucuses; America won’t elect a socialist; the nation won’t rally behind free healthcare and college tuition.

Despite the supposedly ineluctable logic of Sanders’ unelectability, many pundits now believe there has been a seismic shift in the 2016 presidential race. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Americans are sick to death of the two corporatist political establishments and will do anything to send them a message. The evidence of this is that the two most popular candidates in the 2016 election are a Jewish democratic socialist and a reality TV star who referred to his penis during a nationally televised debate.

Then there’s the matter of the Panama Papers. In case you haven’t heard about them over the roar of mainstream media’s ‘round-the-clock anti-Trump coverage, it’s being referred to as the biggest data leak in history. For the last year, 400 journalists have been secretly decoding 11.5 million documents leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. The 2.6 terabytes of data show billions of dollars worth of transactions dating back 40 years.

Acquired from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and then shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the documents present a jaw-dropping paper trail of how the upper echelon of the 1 percent has used shell companies and offshore tax havens to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes. In less than a week of exposure, the Panama Papers have already implicated 140 world leaders from 50 different countries. Top executives and celebrities who appear in the leaked emails, PDFs, and other documents may also be indicted in money laundering, tax evasion, and sanctions-busting activities.

Though the source of the leak opted not to do a Wikileaks-style data dump and is instead allowing media outlets to curate the information, international tax reform could be imminent.

truth-cancer-ad

The revelations are relevant to the 2016 presidential election because they once again illustrate the stark contrast in judgement between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The transgressions documented in the Panama Papers were directly facilitated by the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, which Congress ratified in 2012. In 2011, Sanders took to the floor of the senate to strongly denounce the trade deal:

“Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries.”

Clinton, on the other hand, completely ignored the tax haven issue, and instead, regurgitated the same job-creation platitude she used to peddle NAFTA, which has decimated American manufacturing jobs and led to an economic refugee crisis in Mexico.

Beyond just exposing her unwillingness to understand how modern free trade agreements benefit the rich and punish impoverished countries, Clinton may have a more nefarious connection to the Panama Papers.

In lobbying for the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, Clinton paved the way for major banks and corporations, most notably the Deutsche Bank, to skirt national laws and regulations. After she resigned as Secretary of State, the Deutsche Bank paid her $445,000 for a speech. While criminality can’t yet be definitively established, this may change when the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” publishes its comprehensive list at the end of the month. In addition to the aforementioned connection, Clinton’s name has already surfaced in connection to a billionaire and a Russian-controlled bank named in the files.

The fallout from the Panama Papers is being felt around the world. On Tuesday, Iceland’s Prime Minister resigned after it was revealed his family had used a shell company to hold millions of dollars worth of bonds in a collapsed bank. After an interview in which Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson had a meltdown when asked about the company’s assets, over 20,000 citizens of Iceland protested. For context, that’s approximately 10% of the country’s population.

How does this lead to Bernie Sanders defeating Hillary Clinton? The Sanders campaign has been run on the premise that Clinton is inextricably linked to political corruption, disastrous military interventions, and collusion with Wall Street. If it can be shown that Clinton was involved in criminal improprieties exposed by the Panama Papers, this will constitute yet another major line of attack for Sanders headed into the April 14th debate in New York. If Sanders wins the New York primary a few days later and scoops up its 95 delegates, the narrative of the election will dramatically shift.

When added to the myriad other Clinton scandals and political vulnerabilities, the Democratic party’s gatekeeper superdelegates could decide that Clinton is too big of a liability going into the general election. It all comes down to New York, though — Sanders must win New York. If he does, you will see historic chaos unleashed upon the American electorate. And if the Panama Papers leak sets off an unstoppable domino effect, the DNC may soon find its fractured party looking just as ghoulish as the clown’s autopsy being conducted on the Republican Party.

This article (Yes, the Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary Clinton’s Campaign) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media. This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#Wikileaks Drops #Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It

by

Michaela Whitton
March 20, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — On Wednesday, a major archive containing over 30,000 of Hillary Clinton’s emails were released. Though the State Department began releasing the emails in May last year — after a Freedom of Information Act request — it is the first time the messages have been made easily available in a searchable format, courtesy of WikiLeaks. Before the launch, the FBI was investigating the Democratic candidate’s use of a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The archive contains over 7,000 emails written by Clinton herself.

The scary, albeit fascinating exposé on who’s in bed with whom in the halls of global power has expanded to include Facebook, according to WikiLeaks. The organization has accused the social networking site of censorship, saying Facebook is blocking users’ access to the latest Clinton dispatch.

wikileaks-hillary

As a result of the outing, Twitter users are calling Clinton wicked, a thug, and a hypocrite. The released emails uncovered that the presidential frontrunner was instrumental in spreading chaos and extremism in Libya. They also revealed that she pushed for oil privatization in Mexico and forwarded emails claiming a Sunni-Shiite war would be good for Israel and the West.

wikileaks-hillary-2

For those who are fascinated but don’t have the time or inclination to sift through more than 30,000 documents, here is a snapshot of what Clinton’s emails revealed:

This article (Facebook, WikiLeaks and Clinton’s Warmongering Emails) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

#Netflix’ House of Cards Is Much More Realistic than We’d Like to Admit

by

Jake Anderson
March 19, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) — ***MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Netflix original series, House of Cards, has never shied away from controversial storylines. The narrative has followed Frank Underwood’s rise to power from Congressional whip to Vice President to President. His meteoric ascent to power was always trailed by a dark shadow, though — one that perhaps mirrors the real life brutality, scandal, and corruption that accompanies the machinations of most high-level politicians.

House of Cards is particularly ruthless in this regard. Frank Underwood has personally killed two people. One, a journalist with whom he has been having an affair. She learns too much, and during a discreet subway station meeting, Frank takes advantage of a well-timed metro train to push the young woman into its oncoming path. Another Underwood victim is a ruined, alcoholic candidate for governor of Pennsylvania (who had become politically toxic for the Democrats). Late one evening, he passes out in his car, and Frank, who has driven him home, leaves the gas running and closes the garage door.

Frank, of course, has addressed the camera and been open about his Machiavellian philosophy of power. “For those climbing to the top of the food chain there can be no mercy,” Frank once said. At one point, he also stated, “I’d push [the Russian president] down the stairs and light his broken body on fire just to watch it burn if it wouldn’t start a world war.”

Season 4 of House of Cards picked back up in the middle of the savage Democratic primary, where  Underwood is pitted against an ethical judicial reformist, Heather Dunbar, who promises to restore dignity to the White House. Unfortunately, her brief inconsequential meeting with journalist-turned ex-felon Lucas Goodwin, who pleads with her to listen to his evidence of the president’s crimes, spells her end. After Goodwin attempts to assassinate Underwood, rendering him on the brink of death, Dunbar’s dalliance with Goodwin is a nail in her political coffin.

Season 3 also ended with Claire Underwood leaving the president, though she returns to him as the season progresses. While Underwood is the frontrunner on the Democratic side, he trails in the general election polls to a Kennedy-esque Republican by the name of Will Conway. After his recovery from the near fatal gunshot wound to the liver, Frank and Claire come up with an unprecedented plan for her to be his Vice President. This effectively reunites the two and makes them a formidable opponent against Conway, who is a war hero. He is also the user of a mysterious data analytics company deploying a proprietary data mining surveillance tool to gather voter information.

Underwood begins his own surveillance program, obfuscating its paper trail with a military strike that would necessitate surveillance. Here we start to see the full measure of Frank Underwood’s manipulative warmongering — Wag the Dog mixed with some black ops. Underwood, who is a moderate Democrat toeing the line with conservative policies (he proposed ending social security, as well as doubling down on foreign interventionist strategies), appears very much as a Clinton-like centrist ideologue who uses the military for nebulous political gains and geopolitical chess moves.

The real manifestation of this comes in the last few episodes of Season 4 of House of Cards. Underwood negotiates with ICO — a radical Islamic terrorist group clearly modeled after ISIS — for the release of a family held captive. The mother and daughter are released, and the Underwoods allow the kidnappers to speak with their imprisoned leader. When that goes awry, a federal raid turns up nothing, and a news story draws attention to his previous crimes, Frank begins to panic.

Claire, overwhelmed by emerging scandals from their past that threaten to dismantle their political dynasty, devises a sinister but calculated plan.

“I’m done trying to win over people’s hearts,” Claire says to a dejected Frank, insinuating the Underwoods should start a war to help win the election. “We can work with fear.”

The fear instilled in the public from terrorist attacks like ICO’s often serves as fodder for foreign intervention, and in the season finale, Claire realizes it can also serve as a distraction from their corruption.

This is more than a reflection of the times: this is political reality. Americans live in a militaristic empire that thrives on using fear as leverage to coerce the population into thinking war is a necessity. In reality, it is a boon for defense contractors… and the politicians who facilitate this wealth. Distractions abound as those in power execute hidden agendas in Washington D.C.

During an address to the nation in which Frank notifies the public he will not negotiate with terrorists — leaving the father of the family in the hands of the domestic extremists who kidnapped him — Underwood declares a merciless war on ICO. It is presumably declared without congressional approval. “We must move beyond reason, we must respond with force,” he says. “It will be a war more total than anything we have waged thus far in the fight against extremism.”

After the terrorists share video of them slitting the kidnapped father’s throat, the Underwoods share a moment together. Frank casts his characteristic gaze into the camera, readying to speak. Only this time, Claire is looking at us, too.

“We don’t submit to terror,” the president says. “We make the terror.”

House of Cards Season 4 ends.

This article (Netflix’ House of Cards Is Much More Realistic than We’d Like to Admit) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Martial Law at Republican Convention? Riot Cops “Preparing For A Siege Rather Than Political Event”

by

tear-gas-riot-crowds

This article was written by Joshua Krause and originally published at The Daily Sheeple.

Editor’s Comment: It looks like RNC 2016 could end up being as chaotic as the DNC in 1968 – and potentially as violent – as the system then clamped down in an arbitrary and over-blown way in order to send a message that dissent will be stifled, and that state power will be defended at all costs, and against all principles.

By all accounts, the Hillary and the GOP insiders are taking it farther than ever – preparing to bare their ruthlessness in order to stop Trump and quell the angry masses who’ve had enough of the status quo rulers, and would rather the novelty of being fooled by someone new.

What is going to happen in June, and why are the police preparing as if for civil unrest and widespread martial law?

Here was ’68:

Cleveland Stocks Up On Riot Gear For Republican National Convention

by Joshua Krause

As the July Republican National Convention looms, the city of Cleveland is preparing for any eventuality, including civil unrest. In exchange for hosting the convention, the city has received a $50 million federal security grant, and they haven’t wasted any time spending it on all kinds of goodies for their police departments. In fact, when you read the list of gear they’re trying to acquire, it sounds like they’re preparing for a siege rather than a political event.

That list includes 2000 sets of riot control suits, batons, and bags to carry it all in. Plus another 310 sets of riot gear that are designed for bicycle mounted cops (I bet you can’t imagine a cop riding a bicycle in full riot gear without laughing). Last week they ordered 300 bicycles, 15 motorcycles, 25 sets of tactical armor and two horse trailers. To top it all off, the city is going to rent 3 miles of 3.5 foot tall steel barriers, and 3,250 feet of 6.5 foot tall barriers.

Welcome to America, where a supposedly free and open electoral process must be accompanied with barricades and an army of stormtroopers.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

This article was written by Joshua Krause and originally published at The Daily Sheeple.

SHTFplan and Mac Slavo www.shtfplan.com

Here Is Why Trump Will Win: Americans “Want Somebody With Balls”

by

donaldtrump-fear

You may not agree with everything this guy stands for, but you have to respect his candor and principles for blatantly calling out the system for what it is.

But this epic rant explains in 4 minutes why Trump is unstoppable, and Americans are done with the way things have been.

Common sense has been sacrificed for a whiny, liberal la-la-land where the State can arrest or silence anyone it pleases for hurting someone’s feelings or saying “taboo” words.

But Outlaw Morgan doesn’t give a F-@* about that. His viral and foul-mouthed rant is close to the sentiments of the people. They are fed up, and pissed off – and for that reason, Trump will win.

Disclaimer: This video is filled with foul language and politically incorrect observations. “So just cry about it!”

And the primary results are proving that. The establishment can pull out every empty suit in their line up, but people inside the GOP and across the country are sick of all of it.

Donald Trump is quite obviously not perfect, and has yet to earn any trust. His record has sometimes blown in the wind. But it doesn’t matter.

In 2016, he has done nothing but tell it like it is, and that is why is resonating with Americans everywhere, regardless of party or creed, and despite the outrageous and incendiary comments that Trump has made.

And that’s why wimps like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and the other phonies can’t even buy their way into office anymore.

What do you think will happen next in 2016?

SHTFplan and Mac Slavo www.shtfplan.com