Who Is Nina Turner?

Nina Turner has become known nationally as a voice for voting rights, for workers’ rights and for marginalized people. She has a strong record of standing up for middle-income and working people.

Ms. Turner made the decision in November to drop her support for Hillary Clinton, and begin helping Bernie Sanders with his bid for the nomination. This was a major blow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, in part, because she had served on the board of Correct the Record, a Clinton super PAC. She stated her endorsement of Bernie Sanders has resulted in some rebuffs from the Clinton camp in Ohio.

Ms. Turner stated,

“I was approached by a Clinton supporter who said that I am doing a disservice to the country. It was very insulting.”

Ms. Turner said that, despite her early support for Clinton, she had not formally endorsed the former Secretary of State. Nina stated,

“Clinton did not lose my support, so much as Bernie Sanders earned it, with his attention to issues important to me.”

“I’m very attracted by his message and his style. And that he has held pretty much strong on his beliefs, and the world is catching up with him.”

Turner added that Sanders’ positions on voting rights and wage issues have stood out to her.

Nina Turner is originally from Cleveland, Ohio. She graduated from Cleveland’s John F. Kennedy High School in 1986. She worked for a few years before meeting and marrying Jeffery Turner, and then returned to school, receiving an Associate of Arts degree from Cuyahoga Community College. She continued her education and also gained a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Master of Arts (1997) degree from Cleveland State University.

Ms. Turner’s first elected office as a Cleveland City Council Representative for Ward One was in 2005. In 2008, Ms. Turner was unanimously selected by the Ohio Senate Democratic caucus to serve in the Senate term. In the 128th General Assembly, Nina Turner served as “Ranking Minority member on the Senate Highways & Transportation and Judiciary Criminal Justice Committees”. In 2010, she won her Senate seat and was elected as Minority Whip.

Her support is important to Bernie. She strongly believes presidential candidates need to “earn” the black vote. Black voters are not going to simply get in line to follow Hillary Clinton. You have to earn their vote. Nina Turner believes Bernie Sanders is doing that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton Dared Us To Find “Her Support For Wall Street”…

Mrs. Hillary Clinton presented the challenge of finding situations where she had supported wall street. It’s not much of a challenge. One theory suggests she forgot the internet exists when she made this statement. The internet is loaded with examples of her associations with, and support for, Wall Street philosophies. The connections are complex, to be sure. They include her paid public speaking appearances, her political fundraising, her son-in-law’s hedge fund, the Clinton Foundation, and donations from other nations.

This is one example of how it works. Before Mrs. Clinton became Secretary of State, Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. After becoming Secretary of State, the Saudis asked her for military jets. Two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing, who manufactures the F-15, contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation (according to a company press release). This finalized the deal, with Mrs. Clinton playing middle man and making a hefty profit.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, putting weapons in the hands of governments who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation. While Secretary of State, she also authorized $151 billion in deals for 16 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation. In essence, a foreign nation makes a donation to the Clinton Foundation, later they request weapons. A major business, typically listed on Wall Street, then makes a donation to the Clinton Foundation (or perhaps to her son-in-law’s hedge fund, described later in this article) to get the contract, and finalize the deal. (Are these donations tax-deductible? Are “we” ultimately paying for Boeing’s donations/bribes?)

Between 2000 and 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton earned $109 million. Some of the money came from the what are called speeches, but are in fact private meetings (reporters and recording devices are not allowed). One hundred and nine million dollars!!! The average American will never see that kind of money. Wall Street businesses have been steady clients. In 2011 and 2012, Bill Clinton gave speeches to a number of Wall Street firms, including American Express, Bank of America Corp, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Holdings plc, JP Morgan Chase, Jefferies LLC, the Mortgage Bankers Association, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Pershing LLC, TD Bank, the Vanguard Group, UBS AG and Wells Fargo & Company. The starting fee of Mrs. Clinton’s husband, per speech, was $165,000. Mrs. Clinton’s fee is roughly $200,000 per speech for the same client base. These “speeches” are essentially backroom deals made with a presidential candidate.

People in the finance, insurance, and real estate industries donated $21 million to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Securities and investments were her third largest source of campaign donations behind wealthy lawyers and retirees. Citigroup Inc management staff donated $765,192. Goldman Sachs staffers were next, making donations of $682,990. DLA Piper came in fourth, Morgan Stanley was in fifth place, and JP Morgan Chase came in sixth.

In 2002, Mrs. Clinton’s husband began a public health non-profit that grew into ‘The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Global Initiative, which holds forums for international leaders, was separately incorporated from the foundation in 2010, at the request of the Obama Administration, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. After she stepped down as Secretary of State, the two funds were reunited (they were briefly separated by legal technicalities, but never “really” separated in terms of staffing, etc.). The Clinton Global Initiative has disclosed its donors by using financial ranges, but not by using specific amounts. Citi Foundation, Barclays Capital, and Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund have each donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton’s foundation. Citigroup Inc, McKinsey & Company, Bank of America Foundation, Barclays PLC, and UBS Wealth Management USA have donated between $500,000 and $1 million. Additionally, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Americas, Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund, and Morgan Stanley have each given between $251,000 and $500,000.

Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, is a founding partner in Eaglevale Partners LP. This is a $400 million hedge fund started in 2011. A New York Times investigation found “tens of millions of dollars raised by Eaglevale can be attributed to investors with some relationship or link to the Clintons.” The investors include an overseas money management firm connected to the Rothschild family; and Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd C. Blankfein.

Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, said in April 2014,

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton Worries About Black Votes, Bernie Worries About Black Lives!

Black voters have been remarkably loyal to the Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, primarily because of positive associations with former president, Bill Clinton. But what have the Clintons actually done to earn the black vote? Have they done something concrete to improve the lives of most black people?

No!!! Just the opposite!!!

In 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for president, black communities all across America were suffering an economic collapse. Manufacturing jobs were vanishing as the work was taken overseas for cheaper labor. Globalization and deindustrialization hurt workers of all colors, but African-Americans were hit especially hard. Unemployment rates among young black men quadrupled and crime rates in inner-city communities spiked.

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton made the economy his top priority, arguing persuasively that conservatives were using race to divide the nation and divert attention from the failed economy. But, after becoming President, he caved, and chose to follow former President Reagan’s agenda on race, crime, and welfare. He actually did more hurt to black communities than any previous presidents. In part, because Bill Clinton vowed that he would never permit any Republican to be perceived as tougher on crime than he was.

Just weeks before the New Hampshire primary, Clinton proved his toughness by overseeing the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally impaired black man who had so little understanding of what was happening he asked for his dessert, from his last meal, to be saved for later. After the execution, Bill Clinton remarked, “I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I’m soft on crime.”

President Bill Clinton supported the largest increase of federal and state prisoners of any president in American history. He actively pushed for the federal “three strikes” law. President Clinton signed a $30 billion crime bill which created a large number of new federal capital crimes, and mandated a life-sentence for some three-time offenders. When President Clinton left office, in 2001, the U.S. had achieved the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported seven states where African-Americans made up 80-90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison. This, in spite of the fact they were no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites.

President Clinton’s administration eliminated Pell grants for prisoners seeking a higher education, supported laws that blocked federal aid to students with drug convictions, and signed legislation imposing a lifetime ban on welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense. To make matters worse, the federal safety net for poor families was torn to shreds by the Clinton administration in its effort to “end welfare as we know it.”

It can be argued it is unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies of her husband. But Mrs. Clinton is riding on the illusion her husband was an advocate for the black community. Her own record is not much better. In 1994, as she supported a crime bill, she used racially coded wording to describe black children as animals. She said,

“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Both Clintons now express their regrets for the crime bill, and Mrs. Clinton says she favors criminal-justice reforms to undo the damage caused by her husband’s policies. Empty words. As the status quo candidate, there will be no significant changes, with the exception of banks and wall street gaining more freedom and power. Hillary Clinton cares about black votes.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, cares about black lives. Check out his record here, and see if he deserves your vote.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Racial Prejudice In The GOP Blocks Supreme Court Nomination

The Republican Party refuses to negotiate or cooperate with President Obama on anything. They have made this quite clear through their behavior and actions over the last seven years.

In recent days, various members of the Republican Party, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have declared President Obama should give up his responsibility of selecting a new Supreme Court Judge. They state they will not give their approval regardless of who he nominates. They claim to have grievances with him for dealing with issues they refused to deal with. Their claims are based primarily on bruised egos and a long-standing prejudice against blacks. Many Republicans in Congress seem to believe a black man should not be President of the United States.

 This is certainly not the first time the Republican Party has expressed their prejudice against having a black President.

 After Hurricane Sandy, Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, greeted President Obama with a bear hug and praised him as “incredibly supportive.” It should come as no surprise that Gov. Christie, who had spent the last few days delivering bear hugs and words of sympathy to shell-shocked residents, was extremely relieved to see the President, and the financial support that came with him. However, members of the Republican party immediately criticized Christie for the hug, claiming they felt betrayed, and that he hurt Romney a week before the presidential election. (In their minds Christie should have shunned the President, and refused any help. That would have really helped the people of New Jersey.)

Republicans have said the American public should ignore their party’s historical support of racial prejudice. That the party has changed and should not be held responsible for the actions of a few from a generation ago. If one views the behavior and actions of the Republican Party, it is difficult not to conclude they continue to support racial prejudice, regardless of what they say.

In 2015, after six years of refusing to meet with the President, Republican congress membersblamed him for refusing to cooperate and negotiate with them. They blamed President Obama for blocking immigration reform, claiming his initiatives made it difficult for them to pass legislature on the issue. He was blamed for their inability to work on tax reform, and has been criticized for providing an improved sick leave package for Federal employees. (Republican hypocrisy is truly astonishing!)

Some political observers believed the election of the first African-American president was a final step in creating multi-cultural equality in America. This was a premature assumption (one the author was also guilty of) regarding racial tolerance.

Horribly enough, it seems to have galvanized right-wing whites to do whatever they can to make his presidency a failure. While Republican leaders claim they are in an ideological fight over the principles of “small government,” their actions, and some “former” Republicans, say otherwise.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson once stated publicly stated the Republican Party is “full of racists” who wanted President Obama out of office because of the color of his skin. “Let me just be candid, my party is full of racists. And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable.”

The Republican Party has a long history of voter suppression tactics. They strongly supported efforts to keep blacks from voting in the South and are currently attacking the non-existent problem of voter fraud. Republicans have instituted various forms of voter suppression aimed at preventing Democratic-leaning blocs from voting. The new ID requirements can be difficult for the elderly, students, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people of color.

Sadly, this proves that racial prejudice still exists in the United States, and that many of our elected officials represent and support this kind of behavior. They actively block the right of people of color to vote. The Republican culture has such an established philosophy of racial prejudice, they must be considered guilty until they can prove with their “behavior and actions,” that they have changed. Currently, no such proof exists. Quite the opposite. Their behavior in the present speaks volumes.

Ignoring the more obvious forms of prejudice, there have been more subtle expressions which would never have taken place with a white President. During one of the President’s first speeches before Congress, Republican Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!” at the top of his voice while Obama spoke on health care reform. House Speaker Boehner rejected President Obama’s request to speak to a joint session of Congress, the first denial in the history of the U.S. In a rant, Sarah Palin wrote on Facebook, “President Obama’s shuck and jive shtick with these Benghazi lies must end.” More recently, Boehner snubbed our President by inviting the Israeli Prime Minister to speak before congress, without notifying the President. A white President would not be treated with such contempt and disrespect.

There are Republicans who are not racist, and who are disgusted by the behavior and actions of their party. Many are dismayed at their party’s efforts to prevent people from voting through archaic voter suppression tactics. But it impossible to reject the truth. On a broad scale, the Republican Party GOP supports racism. The Party rarely reprimands its members for racially charged language, and attempts (with some success) to stop minorities from voting. Can they really claim these are not expressions of racism? And isn’t passive support of prejudice just as bad as the act of prejudice?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why The FEC Is Completely Useless Regarding Arizona’s Voter Fraud

Thousands of twitter users across social media accused Arizona of voter fraud, suppression, and the sabotaging of the March 22 primary election. This is because thousands of voters in Arizona were stuck in long voting lines for several hours Tuesday night. So long, many were not able to vote. The long lines were the result of a sudden decrease in polling stations. In Maricopa County, officials reduced the number of polling locations by 70 and 85 percent.

As a consequence, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in Arizona with roughly 58 percent of votes to Bernie Sanders’ 40 percent. A large number of Independents who had newly registered as Democrats were unable to vote, meaning they couldn’t vote for Bernie Sanders.

How could voter fraud on this scale happen in the United States. Ask the Federal Elections Committee. Or don’t, since they are completely useless. It has become common knowledge the FEC does absolutely nothing. The six-member FEC panel is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and its purpose is to decide on and mete out punishment. However, because the 3 Republicans don’t support the panel or its mission, nothing ever happens. They have meetings, but nothing gets accomplished. There are no investigations. It’s the standard Republican theme of anarchy.

There is a petition to have the Obama Administration investigate the voter fraud and suppression in Arizona. It states:

We the people of the United States of America find this act alarming and would like a complete investigation to uncover the violations that occurred during the Arizona voting on 3/22/2016 and prosecute those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.

FEC Commissioner Ravel says the Federal Elections Commission is unwilling to investigate almost all instances of rule-breaking. The former chair’s best efforts to fix it were stymied at every turn. According to Ravel, the only way to change things is to overhaul the whole agency, restarting with new commissioners who have impeccable qualifications, and a true motivation to do their job. She suggests that will not happen in the current political climate. Ravel said:

I think the system is already scandalous. We have so much “dark money” in the system, and so much money from a small group of people. This has led to so many in the great middle of Americans who feel they don’t have a part in the political system. So I don’t think it requires us to be at a greater rock bottom frankly. I think that we need to have some change now.

Democracy in America is fast becoming a joke. Voter fraud and suppression are running rampant. We really do need a revolution.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton Supports The “Illusion” of Democracy

Mrs. Clinton won in Brooklyn, Bernie Sanders’ place of birth, with 60% of the vote, better than throughout the state as a whole. Theoretically, this is a place where Bernie should have won big! New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the person in charge of investigating why 125,000 people in Brooklyn were removed from voter rolls between November 2015 and this month, is also a lead member of Hillary Clinton’s “Leadership Council” and has publicly endorsed her. When asked about the situation, he responded politically, saying,

“By most accounts, voters cast their ballots smoothly and successfully. However, I am deeply troubled by the volume and consistency of voting irregularities.”

His colleague, Michael J. Ryan, the executive director of the elections board, responded much less politically, and perhaps more honestly, when he said

“…while approximately 125,000 were removed from voter rolls in Brooklyn since the fall, some 63,000 people were added. The decline does not “shock my conscience” because there were 800,000 registered Democrats in Brooklyn, and thousands of people were added and removed from the list every year.

“Unless and until a full-throated investigation reveals otherwise, I’ll stand by the statement I made yesterday: that no voters were disenfranchised.”

It would seem Mr. Ryan is not deeply troubled by voters simply being dropped from the registration lists and blocked from voting. There is absolutely no reason to believe a thorough investigation will be made by politicians supporting Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s lackeys, people in political positions of authority, openly state what a terrible thing it was that voters were disenfranchised, but Hillary Clinton’s “Leadership Council” member, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, will probably not provide much support for an investigation into a crime he may have been a part of.

There is, however, some hope of a real investigation. Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, released an online form, allowing voters to provide information about their experiences. Mr. Stringer seems to feel voting rights were actually violated. He said,

“The decline occurred without any adequate explanation furnished by the 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, told to vote at the wrong location, or unable to get in to their polling site.

Unfortunately, Mr. Stringer lacks the resources to take the investigation very far, and unless he finds corruption quickly, his investigation may be frustrated and dropped, with no results.

Hillary Clinton’s nomination is far from certain. She faces any number of possible criminal indictments and Bernie can still win the delegate count, especially if superdelegates realize how corrupt Hillary Clinton really is. The claims of her inevitable nomination ring hollow and have the desperate sound of people willing to do anything to help their candidate win.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

 

 

The think tank, 3rd Way, was formed 10 years ago, as an extension of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s political philosophies. At present, 3rd Way, is backed by Wall Street financiers, corporate donations, and a few select members of congress. They have advised Hillary Clinton and the DNC against alienating the wealthy, suggesting income inequality is not a real concern for the American people. And, they selected a politician to take down, both as a warning to other Democratic candidates and as a way to weaken the Progressive movement. Fortunately, the target’s supporters were strong enough for most Democrats to think the advice would be suicidal.

The target was Elizabeth Warren, the senator from Massachusetts. Four years ago she helped galvanize grass roots Democrats against the corruption of Wall Street, and helped bring the issue of income inequality to to Congress. 3rd Way advised Democrats to cut their support for her, in December of 2013, when its leaders essentially wrote in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, warning Democrats not to follow her and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio “over the populist cliff.”

At stake is the direction and future of the Democratic Party, and their support of the middle-class. Many people on the left were stunned and angered by the advice being given to the DNC. Warren’s supporters concluded 3rd Way was acting as a proxy, and being used by Wall Street enemies to try and scare candidates into taking more conservative positions.

On October 28, 2015, 3rd Way published a separate paper titled, “Ready for the New Economy,”  which falsely argues,

“the narrative of fairness and inequality has failed to excite voters,” and that “these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today’s populist agenda.”

This report also attacks Bernie Sanders’ proposals on expanding Social Security and the implementation of an updated single-payer health-care system, and advises Democrats to avoid the “singular focus on income inequality” because its “actual impact on the middle class may be small.”

Lets understand that 3rd Way is an active advisor to the DNC, replacing the Democratic Leadership Council.

Robert Reich has become a leading Wall Street critic, and argues there are several issues Democrats are unwilling to tackle because of Wall Street’s monetary hold on the party. The issues Democratic leaders won’t talk about, because of their ties to 3rd Way, includes transaction taxes for high-speed traders, tax breaks for hedge fund managers, and limits on the size of banks. Does Hillary Clinton talk about limiting the size of banks or tax breaks for hedge fund managers?

Reich stated,

“At some point it becomes a Faustian bargain. The financial dependence on Wall Street effectively ties the hands of the Democratic Party.”

Clinton, Blair, Prodi, Gerhard Schröder and other leading 3rd Way members organized conferences to promote the 3rd Way philosophy in 1997 at Chequers in England. 3rd Way, as a political think tank, now has tendrils throughout the world.

3rd Way is not a transparent think tank. It has been very secretive about where its funding comes from. Consider, however, 3rd Way’s strong support for cutting Social Security. In a 2011 Politico column,“Progressives: Wise Up,” 3rd Way’s president and vice president argued for Social Security to give up fighting a Grand Bargain that would have cut Social Security’s benefits, cuts that are opposed by 93.8 percent of Americans. (It would come as no surprise 3rd Way believes Global Warming/Climate Change is a myth.)

Bottom line, many Corporate Democrats are not significantly different from Republicans. They are Democrats in name only, seeking the same goals as Republicans. And these people are advising the Democratic Party!

Corporate Democrats, with Hillary Clinton’s help, have effectively taken over the DNC and are supplying a “hidden agenda,” separate from the the goals of the Democratic voting base. Does Hillary Clinton have any “real” interest in dealing with income inequality?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment