For opponents of Hillary Clinton, the story published two days ago in the New York Times is a godsend:  a money trail of corruption and influence pedalling that culminated in Russia acquiring control of twenty percent of the world’s uranium supplies, including a large portion of those mining rights within the United States itself.  Unlike earlier “scandals” that bitter partisan enemies have spent millions of dollars looking for evidence of wrongdoing and relentlessly pursued unsuccessfully, like the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, this story does not appear to be a witch hunt.  There is a money trail that is relatively easy to follow, and only the most ardent supporters of Hillary will be able to deny the overwhelming appearance of corruption at the highest levels.

To understand the story and controversy in the political storm that will be unfolding in the next few days and weeks, it is helpful to read the article in  full.  Here is the link to the New York Times article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?ref=politics

In short summary,  when Hillary Clinton agreed to become Secretary of State for the Obama Administration, she was asked to sign a memorandum of understanding with the White House, stating that Bill Clinton’s charity foundation  not accept money donations from foreign governments, and that all donors be publicly disclosed.  This was to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interests, since the State Department forms foreign policy.  It appears now that the public list the Clinton Foundation provided, concealed the true players behind the largest, multi-million dollar donations that flowed, by funneling the donations through the donor’s own “family charities.”  The result was that a relatively unknown Canadian mining company, whom BIll Clinton had accompanied in the acquisition of Uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan, a Soviet satellite country ruled by an authoritarian “president,” was able to grow into a one of the world’s largest mining companies of uranium, the material that is used to produce nuclear energy and nuclear bombs, gaining assets and uranium rights within the United States, that was eventually sold to the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, giving the vilified leader of Russia, Mr. Putin, control over large swaths of the world’s uranium supply.  The sale of the Canadian mining company to Russia had to be approved by the State Department, since uranium is considered a strategic and security asset, and since it involved mining rights within the United States.  The owners and operators of the Canadian company got U.S. approval, while Hillary Clinton was head of the State Department and one of the chairmen of the committee responsible for the decisions, reaping them millions of dollars in profits, of which more than a few million were donated to the Clinton Foundation.  At the same time, Bill Clinton received one of his highest paid speeches yet, to the tune of 500,000 dollars, or, half a million dollars, from a Russian Investment bank with ties to the Kremlin, who was also involved in the sale of the company.

It is no small secret that our public officials are now sponsored with big money from some of the most powerful and corrupt industries and corporations in the world, from the financial and energy sectors, as well as the monopoly protected pharmaceutical companies that control much of the world’s medicine supply.   Dick Cheney stepped down as head of Halliburton just in time to become the Vice President and help lead us into a war based on lies, which in turn reaped Halliburton billions in profits from the war, as well as the oil industry and other weapons and military industries with close ties to the Bush administration.  It is worth remembering that Hillary Clinton is a known war hawk and also voted for the Iraq war, now claiming that she was “mislead” through “faulty intelligence,” a lie that was obvious at the time and has been proven a lie since by a preponderance of evidence.

The response from the Clinton campaign so far been that there is no evidence that Hillary steered anyone at the State Department to approve the sale for the benefit of her husband’s donors.  But the fact that she was head of the State Department conducting U.S. foreign policy at the same time that her husband and their foundation was receiving millions of dollars from people of foreign countries who benefitted from U.S. policy should itself be considered an act of corruption.  The Clintons deliberately, through deceit in their reporting of donors, kept secret the obvious conflicts of interests that the Obama Administration was concerned about from the very beginning, when they had her sign the agreement before making her Secretary of State.

In the beginning of the email scandal regarding Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server to conduct State Department business, there was reason for suspicion but no real indication of anything that she might have been trying to hide.  But then Mrs. Clinton waited too long to address the issue publicly, and when she did address it, she informed the public that she and her team had separated her personal emails from official State Department emails, and deleted them.  Given the thirst for conspiracy theories surrounding her motives for using a private email server in the first place, this was the worst possible action she could have taken for anyone with nothing to hide, after being accused of hiding something.  The obvious theories that her political enemies were concluding was that the emails must have contained some secret regarding Benghazi.  This seems unlikely, however, since any real conspiracy regarding Benghazi would also involve the White House and the CIA, both of which would have the power to conceal anything from the public they deem classified due to “national security.”

Now there is real reason to suspect that those thousands of “personal” emails that Mrs. Clinton destroyed contained information regarding not family weddings, but family “business:” the flow of millions of dollars to her husband and the Clinton Foundation from donors of foreign countries that the White House would not have approved of, and which the Clintons went to some lengths to hide.

The campaign finance system we currently have amounts to legalized bribery.  It is laughable and makes a mockery of our Supreme Court that recently overturned our already weak campaign finance laws in the Citizen’s United split decision, on the grounds that it was “free speech.”  The conservative hacks on the Supreme Court who delivered this verdict to the billionaire club of private power, actually said that just because a corporation gave money to a politician, it didn’t mean their was any evidence of corruption or policy buying.  That is basically the Clinton team’s defense now: sure we took millions of dollars from foreign citizens, helped secure them uranium mining rights, and were the head of the State Department that ultimately approved the sale of the company to Russia and with it control of  20 percent of the world’s uranium supply; and yes Bill got a half million dollars from the Russian investment bank that helped broker the deal, but that doesn’t prove corruption.

This begs the question on those rare occasions now when a politician is charged with the crime of corruption:  what is the difference between criminal corruption and obvious corruption?  Does Hillary and BIll Clinton expect us to believe that all these donors who gave them millions of dollars, did so out of the goodness of their hearts? Are they really asking us to trust them, and believe that it’s all a series of unfortunate coincidences that their donors got richer after throwing a few million dollars in the Clinton’s direction while Mrs. Clinton headed the State Department?  Millionaires and Billionaires are always looking for a return on their investments, especially the politicians they “donate” to.

Americans are always complaining about how corrupt the politicians and government are, with good reason.  Here we have ample evidence, with an easy to follow money trail exposing the crony favoritism that infects our government.  The fact that the Clintons tried to hide this money trail from the Obama Administration should be more than enough evidence to persuade even the most die-hard Bill and Hillary fans of the greed and corruption that are part of the Clinton’s DNA.  This should be the last wake-up call anyone supporting a Hillary presidency needs.  I have always maintained through numerous policy examples, how Hillary Clinton is a phony liberal serving the needs of the uber rich and powerful.  Now we have a connect the dots road map of their corruption.

I sincerely hope the Democrats wake up before its too late and put forth a legitimate candidate that actually cares about the working class and poor of this country, instead of an oligarch who merely uses average Americans as props in a boring and insincere campaign video to support “their turn” at the throne of real power in the United States.

 

President Obama hopes to join the list of U.S. Presidents who have sold out the American workers to the unfair and immoral practices of transnational corporations through so-called “free trade” pacts that pit American workers against slave wages in the Third World, and erode the sovereignty of U.S. lawmakers to pass laws and regulations that protect worker rights and the environment.  Beyond disappointing, President Obama’s complete turn-around from candidate Obama, who was critical of NAFTA, the first large free trade deal enacted under President Bill Clinton that shipped American factory jobs to Mexico, and led to the surge of Mexican migrant workers driven to the U.S. to look for work as Mexico’s agriculture business was ruined thanks to the flooding of their market by U.S. government subsidized agriculture.

In short, what is called “free trade” by the business community and politicians

If you’re passionate about politics, or at least political issues – not necessarily politicians – you probably have at least one friend or family member who will debate you until you are blue in the face and neither of you end up changing the other’s mind on anything.  I have many friends like that.  And although I enjoy debating, I do get frustrated at not being able to change the other person’s mind on a position they are dug into firmly.  I’m sure they feel the same way when debating me.  However, I have discovered over the past year of intensely debating other people with polar opposite views, that we do share a good deal more of common ground than is often realized in the heat of rising voices.  And that common ground could potentially be exploited to create real political change.

For starters, most everyone agrees that the state of politics in the United States is dysfunctional at best, and obviously full of corruption.  This is reflected in the lack of voter participation and apathy towards politics in general.   For those of us who do participate, we are often viewed as partisan, and there is some truth in this. “Polarization,” as it is often referred to in the media, is then used against the voting public when we complain about the lousy state of American politics.  We are told by pundits “the country is divided,” or “politics have become too polarizing” or this candidate “is a polarizing figure.”  Then, the masters of propaganda tell us that what America really needs is “bi-partisanship” to break gridlock in Washington, and that what voters really want is a “moderate candidate.”  Most Americans aren’t far right or far left, they tell us, that’s why after the primaries the candidate “moves to the center.”  This is a clever lie designed to ensure that no matter who we vote for, in the end we notice so little change, that many of us drop out of the political process completely.  For those who drop out of the process completely, but still follow the news and have opinions, the lament is usually that we have a corrupt two party system in which neither party represents the needs of ordinary citizens, so why bother voting.

It is true that we have a corrupt two party system, designed by the elite business class to give us the illusion of choice, when the actual choice is between their chosen, acceptable list of puppets they have sponsored and paid for.  Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, already the chosen candidates by the elite corporate class, are already being sold by the media as the almost inevitable contenders for the next presidency.  Given the cynicism of the average citizen towards politics, it does not have to be this way.  In fact, on a basic level it seems almost illogical that Jeb or Hillary will be the likely nominees, given how corrupt career politicians are perceived to be, and given that the last Bush presidency was considered a disaster by an overwhelming majority of Americans – and that the wife of a popular ex-president was considered the inevitable nominee last time, before losing to a relatively unknown African American named Barrack Hussein Obama.

So let’s start with what we agree on:  the problems we face.  The old cliche of “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is no longer a cliche or cynical saying: it is a cold hard fact.  The income inequality is at its greatest level since before the Great Depression.  The average worker in America has seen no significant  rise in income for the last 30 years, despite increased productivity and rising corporate profits.  The super rich are really getting more super rich.  CEO salaries have risen exponentially.  The Wall Street bankers who built the house of cards that nearly collapsed the world economy and led to the Great Recession, continue to get multi-million dollar bonuses, and a few even got promoted into the Obama Administration to help with the “economic recovery” as soon as he took office, right after they had just robbed and crashed the American economy.

The average American works more hours than they used to.  They have less benefits than they used to.  It often takes both husband and wife occupying full time jobs, or multiple part time jobs, just to make ends meet.  College tuition is through the roof, and students are saddled with huge debts that by law they cannot bankrupt.  Our healthcare is too expensive.  Pharmaceutical companies write our laws, fleecing us of billions of dollars by holding our lives hostage through their monopoly protected medicines.  Our local taxes keep going up, and our local services keep declining.  Our education system sucks compared to other industrial nations.  Our nation is in a perpetual state of war, despite the so-called peace and democracy loving politicians who continue to send our young people off to wars based on lies and half truths.  There is very little job security.  The real unemployment rate is extremely high.  Cops have too much power and not enough oversight.  The federal government has constructed the most elaborate and powerful domestic surveillance program ever developed in the history of the world.  Can we all agree on most of this?

There are real solutions to these problems, but they never seem to be implemented.  That is because the real brokers of power have also created a very sophisticated propaganda system through their corporate owned media.  Through this system, their chosen puppets rise, backed by billions of dollars in bribes inaccurately labeled “campaign contributions” and “free speech.”  Even as the media says we need bi-partisanship and complains of a polarized country of red and blue states, the issues that matter, the problems and potential solutions, are camouflaged in confusing “debates” and soundbites, resulting in a large percentage of people who support a political party or politician that actually enacts policies they disagree with.  A perfect example of this – and I am not saying this to only bash republicans – was the last mid-term elections in which several red state voters put on the ballot and approved, local laws raising the minimum wage, while simultaneously voting for their Representative or Senator who was opposed to raising the minimum wage.  Another example that existed before the last mid-terms and continues today, is that most people look forward to their Social Security, or depend on their Social Security, and Medicare, yet support candidates who are openly committed to dismantling or weakening both programs.

It seems that political labels, and ideologies that sound good rhetorically, are used to keep us divided, voting for different political parties even though when you peel back the rhetoric and get to the reality and policy, we agree on many things.  We are told we want a “moderate” or “centrist” President, but that is supposedly what we get every time, and we know how well that is working out.

Two polarizing political figures, Ralph Nader and Grover Norquist – political opposites of each other according to most contemporary labels, are working together, personally working together, on issues they see as common ground for most Americans.  It’s what Ralph Nader is calling “the emerging left-right alliance,” and an examination of their collaboration is well worth your reading and consideration.

The magazine The Atlantic reported in an article last September:

“Norquist and Nader are not a new political duo; they’ve been working together for decades. . .Nader remembers Capitol Hill briefings they participated in on the history of corporate welfare in America: tax breaks, subsidies, and otherwise favorable treatment from the government toward large corporations at the expense of other companies (a phenomenon that conservative purists such as Norquist sometimes call crony capitalism).”

Copy and then paste into your browser, any of the below printed in red links (my apologies for the inconvenience of the link not working directly from here)

Link to the full article:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/grover-norquist-and-ralph-nader-a-match-made-in-somewhere/380278/

Here is a link to Ralph Nader’s book on the subject of a left-right coalistion: https://nader.org/books/unstoppable

Here is a very good Politico article on Norquist and Nader, from which the above picture is borrowed from:  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/ralph-nader-grover-norquist-110605.html

Both Nader, the liberal activist, consumer advocate and third party candidate often blamed for Gore losing to Bush II, and Norquist, a staunch conservative famous for getting a large number of Republican candidates to sign his no-new-taxes pledge, find plenty of common ground, such as prison reform, among many others.

There is usually a “fringe” candidate that appeals to both Democrats and Republicans.  This time around, that candidate is Rand Paul, who recently announced his plan to seek the Oval Office.  Rand Paul is often considered a Libertarian, but labels aside, there are some crucial areas he departs from most of the Republican party, of which he is a member of as Senator from Kentucky.  Mr. Paul has been an outspoken critic of the NSA’s unconstitutional domestic spying of our private communications, use of drones, as well as being the only prominent Republican to call for the end to marijuana prohibition and speaking out against the war on drugs and how it has targeted African Americans disproportionately.  Those views appeal across party lines, but are not considered “centrist.”  The media will attack Rand Paul just with just as much intensity as they did his father Ron Paul when he ran for President, attempting to discredit him.  That is the standard media tactic to neuter “non-moderate) politicians who gain enough popularity that they cannot be ignored, like do when they simply enact a media blackout with third party challengers such Ralph Nader in the past, and Ross Perot his second time around (by barring him from the debates.)

I am not supporting Rand Paul for President, as there are more candidates on the “left” that I agree with more, such as Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who is seriously considering a run against Hillary.  But I am glad that Rand Paul is competing on ideas that both liberals and conservatives can agree on, when they focus on the issue instead of the political affiliation label.  If I had to pick from the Republican candidates, Rand Paul is the only one I could support.  He will have polish up his handling of the media, however, as well as his campaign overall.  He is prone to blunders and sloppy like Mark Rubio, which will sink a presidential candidate quickly.  He can also be condescending and sexist in his behavior, as he recently showed by “shisshing” a female reporter on tv before she had finished her question, even holding up finger over his mouth in a shisshing gesture, telling her to calm down, as if she were his irate wife.  The Republican party will provide much comedic relief before its over, as it did last time, but that will only strengthen Jeb Bush in the end.

On the Democrat side of the aisle, primary voters need to defeat Hillary, as I see know reason why a Wall Street crook, Pharmaceutical CEO, Oil tycoon, or war profiteer would not be equally happy with her or Jeb.  Democrats need to be bold and support a progressive candidate who would have broad appeal to both elements of the left and right, the liberal or conservative or libertarian or anything in between.  I think if most conservative voters, or republican voters or independent voters, were exposed to Senator Elizabeth Warren, they would find her easy to support, and a much better representative of the average citizen.  She is outspoken against Wall Street abuses, wants to not only protect Social Security but expand it, wants to make college affordable and has proposed real action to make it so, and is against the next giant, corrupt “free trade” deal known as the TPP, and has not been hesitant to oppose her party’s sitting President who is promoting it for “fast track” approval.  Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is an Independent, who usually caucuses with the Democrats, and will most likely run on the Democratic ticket in the primaries if he choses to run.  Mr. Sanders has a simple and easy to understand message that should appeal to voters of all persuasions.   He wants to strengthen and expand Social Security, and raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires before making cuts on the backs on average Americans, known as the 98 percent majority.

If we can agree on what we agree on, starting with the problems we all see, and then look away from the so-called “middle” that the media tells us we are a part of, and examine and dare even vote for, candidates other than Jeb or Hillary, we have a chance of breaking up the two party corporate party and enacting real change that we can all agree on.  So the next time you are debating or discussing issues with someone of a different political persuasion, think outside the box of political labels and ideologies, and focus on the problem that you agree on, and on where other alternative candidates stand on specific issues.  This is made easier by the fact that the non-anointed candidates will actually stake out bold positions and specific policy proposals that many of us, across the political spectrum, agree on.  If we do this, we are not doomed to vote for Puppet number 1 or 2.  There are a few decent people in both of the two corporate owned parties that would not be a vote for business as usual.  The fact that our system is corrupted should not automatically exclude us from voting for a Democrat or Republican in the primaries, but it should also not make us afraid to support a third party candidate if we end up with the predicted and pre-ordained dynasty figures in the two parties.  We should also demand that third party candidates be allowed into the network Presidential Debates.

Goodnight, and good luck.