A Quick Explanation of Brazile’s DNC Bombshell and it’s Apathetic Implications for the Future of Truth

Last week, Bernie supporters, DemExiters, and the remaining disillusioned Dems have had our beliefs proven by Donna Brazile’s recent book that finally reveals that the DNC rigged the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton. Most of my compatriots who fall into the aforementioned categories have known that the DNC was not on our side since 2015, so Brazile’s claims aren’t necessarily news to us. However, it is a bit satisfying that our truth has been recognized as such, and that we aren’t the un-American, conspiracy theorists, election-sabotagers that the Democratic Party has made us out to be. I personally have not rejoiced over Brazile’s admittance, although I am grateful for it, because I think the Democratic PR Machine is working right now to dissolve this mess and replace it with their rallying cry of “We did nothing wrong!”. This post is to hopefully help people understand what happened, so that the truth is a bit harder to sweep under the rug.

Key Players

Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC): 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary loser to Barack Obama and 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate loser to Republican challenger, Donald Trump. Since her loss, she has been spending her time promoting her book, “What Happened”, which details the 16 reasons why she lost the election (none of the reasons have to do with her or her campaign, fyi).

Democratic National Committee (DNC): is the organization  that runs the Democrat Party. They help figure out who to run, craft the party’s platform, and create campaigns to get Democrats to win unilaterally across local, state, and national races. It’s main purpose is to raise money and then use this to best strategize ways to get their candidates to win. When people want to donate money to the Democratic party, the DNC is the beneficiary.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS): She was one of Hillary Clinton’s top aides for her 2008 campaign. She became the chair of the DNC in 2011, where she took Tim Kane’s position, who would later be HRC’s 2016 running mate. She resigned from the DNC in 2016 after emails were published that showed her preference towards HRC during the campaign, among other allegations. She was a close friend to HRC, and didn’t resign herself from the DNC during HRC’s 2016 run, which is pretty unethical considering the chair is supposed to be unbiased. I mean, how can you be unbiased when one of your BFFs, and someone who would give you a top job in her administration, is running for president? For further reading, see this post from 2015 where I was first critical about DWS’ bias for HRC and the lack of Primary Democratic Debates between HRC and Sanders.

Donna Brazile: Took over as interim chair of the DNC in 2016, when DWS resigned, until Feb 2017 when Tom Perez was voted in as chair. Her book, “Hacks“, which this article is based on, comes out November 7th.

Hillary for America (HFA): Hillary Clinton’s official presidential organized campaign.  Under FEC rules, the maximum individual contribution allowed to any candidate is $2,700.

Hillary Victory Fund (HVF): Hillary’s Super PAC- if an individual exhausted the maximum contribution to HFA, they could give an additional $353,400 to this PAC in support of HRC.  In 2016 they raised $529,943,912.

Brazile’s book talks about a conversation she had with Gary Gensler, Hillary’s Chief Financial Officer, when she took over the DNC in the summer of 2016.  He explained to her that in 2015, the DNC, under DWS’s rule, contracted an agreement known as “The Joint Fundraising Agreement between the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America”. Apparently, the DNC was in debt in 2015 due to Obama’s campaign, and DWS was a shitty fundraiser and manager.  Under this agreement, HRC would pay off the DNC’s 2 million dollar debt (which is kind of measly, right?) in exchange for having control over the Democratic Party’s finances, strategy, and all of the money raised. Anything that happened within the DNC and the decisions about everything from operations to messaging of the Democratic Party had to go through Hillary. HRC had control of the entire party, ultimately halting any potential support from the party to go towards Sanders. Brazile writes, “The campaign had the DNC on life support, allocating money each month to meet its basic expenses, while using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse”. 

Brazlie’s book is the proof that all of us who dared to question HRC and the DNC had waited for: that Bernie Sanders’s chance at winning the 2016 primary was doomed from the start due to the pro-HRC biased messaging and spending disseminated throughout the US by the Democratic Machine (DNC), which had HRC at the helm. The question is, now that our beliefs have been confirmed, will anyone who refused to believe that HRC or the party did anything wrong acknowledge and accept this new reality? Sadly, I have my doubts. I believe that the DNC and HRC manipulated messaging and took advantage of creating and promoting identity politics which lead to the formation of the current militant group of anti-Trumpers/HRC lovers, who shun and shame any thought that is outside of the Democratic box. The HRC “Feminist” Facebook Moms, who identify and exploit the message that they were wronged due to no fault of their own, most likely aren’t willing to open their ears to Brazile’s truth, let alone accept it. And that’s the problem. Even though the truth is out there, even though it’s been clear that the deck was stacked since 2015, too many people aren’t willing to accept that their golden calf was actually a serpent  who cares nothing of truth, virtue, dignity, fairness, or the democratic process from inception.

Again, I sadly don’t expect much to happen from this news. I hope it helps persuade people to question the Almighty Democratic Doctrine, but my faith in this is pretty low. I guess all we can do is continue to strive for truth and hope others eventually recognize that the truth is more important than being right.

***

I used Brazile’s book excerpt and the actual Joint-Fundraising Agreement as the main sources for this article.

Who and Where Are Our Leaders?

Who and where are our leaders? This is a question that I have spent a lot of time mulling over throughout the past year. My mind probably first wrestled with this when Bernie Sanders conceded his nomination for the Democratic Presidential Candidate at the DNC last summer. I’m sure the emotions I felt watching the speech were similar to other Sanders supporters- the feeling of defeat, the disappointment in the American electorate and democratic process, and the frustration that the Democratic Party got away with rigging the election in order to, once again, demand support and submission to their chosen golden calf. It was a rough night, I cried knowing that the hope I had in my heart for a real revolution wasn’t going to come by way of electoral politics.

I would say that Bernie is still probably the most revered US political leader today, however his followers aren’t nearly as energized as they were a year and a half ago. The same is true for HRC supporters. The only other person with a continuous strong following is Trump, and I think this is just because his base fails to ever take responsibility that Trump is ever in the wrong (ie: Trump said we’re going to Syria which is another broken campaign promise. Does his base really care? Probably not. Somehow, they’ll still be correct in their own minds). So this is pretty depressing if our most recognized leaders are Trump and Sanders.

So, why is this? Why does there seem to be less leaders in the era of Trump and Post-Truthism? Is  political fatigue really the reason behind the lackluster support? Are people too tired to care anymore? I have to believe that tiredness is only partially to blame- the real problem is the lack of enthusiastic, idealistic, moral leadership available.

I finally finished Judgement Days which is about the heavy weighted relationship between LBJ and MLK and chronicles their work on the Civil Rights Bill. The revolutionary movements that were sparked by the 60s wouldn’t have happened without these strong leaders and who knows what worse of a state we’d be in had they given up on their convictions. And you know what’s crazy? While I read JD I kind of felt jealous that there were actual leaders, leading groups of people and entire movements towards a real goal. Groups like the ACLU, SNCC, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference all were lead by leaders with strong organizing skills and a passionate heart. Where are these types of leaders now?

LBJ and MLK Getting Work Done and Signing the 1965 Voting Rights Act

A great number of activist groups have popped up and grown since November 8^th, which is really great and important. BUT, I have to wonder. Who are the leaders of these movements? BLM? DSA? Who are the leaders of the movements to get money out of politics (other than Bernie?) ? Who is leading the movements to end discrimination against LGBTQI where, even in places like Scranton, PA, it is legal for landlords and employers to discriminate against gay and trans people? Who is trying to create real gun reform? Or criminal justice reform? Who is trying to end the war on drugs? Where are these people, and if they exist, why aren’t they visible and vocal?

Maybe I’m out of touch. These people must exist, but what are they doing for their movements? And why aren’t they actively trying to form coalitions with these like-minded lib groups? It’s so frustrating. I’m happy to be part of a bunch of different activist groups, but I have to wonder, where are we headed? Sure, acting locally is going to allow us to do more work than shooting for national initiatives, but there needs to be an overall national goal, right? We need some kind of roadmap if we really want to transform this nation, but we’re not going to get anywhere if no one is at the front of the line leading the way. 

What Happens When You Don’t Get What You Want… ;(

AND IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII WILLL ALWAYS LOOOOOVVVEEEE YOUUUUUUU

Man oh man, have I been procrastinating processing my feelings about this one: Bernie’s not going to be our president. Only last week did I hang my head as I took down my “Bernie 2016” sign from my front window. Ugh. And the thing is, I knew this going into the campaign. I think many of the Sander’s supporters who were overwhelmed by Sander’s appeal well over a year ago knew that Sander’s probably wansn’t going to get the nomination. He’s anti-establishment, running against the establishment, in a “race” created by the establishment. Every aspect of the presidential run was stacked against him, with the exception of American populism. But even all these truths doesn’t make my bleeding heart burn less when I’m faced with the fact that the man I really believed in isn’t going to be our president.

As the months progressed, and Bernie became more popular and influential, a lot of Bernie supporters thought that this might be enough. That the amazing divine power of social media and grassroots organizing would lead us into the next candidacy with a renewed faith in how our government and politics are run. I did my best to think as realistically as possible, and continued to focus on Bernie’s issues and needs in key states and key areas like Northeastern PA. I knew if I started to buy into the idea that Bernie would be president then I would be greatly disappointed, and maybe I might slack off in my campaigning for him. I can tell you, the first time I think I really cried of happiness over Bernie was staying up until past midnight, waiting to see who won Iowa back in January, because I couldn’t believe how close it was. How the hard work was paying off.

So what now? A lot of people I know are angry at Bernie for endorsing Clinton, but truth be told, he said he was going to do so from the very beginning. He was positioning himself to make sure he could still have influence on the Democratic Platform, and the influence he’s had over it is way more than what I had hoped for last year at this time. Bernie’s given us the MOST progressive platform ever in the democratic party. Even if the democrats don’t follow it, his guidance is there. We are the ones who need to hold our politicians accountable for following it.

He also said he’s not going to run as a third party candidate.  I had written a post about him being Stein’s VP, which was a pipe dream, and a fun thing to think about, but Bernie has integrity. Even though the entire DNC ran a coup against him, he continues to stick to the POLICIES and ISSUES, not what is grabbing headlines. This is admirable. What is even more so, is that Bernie has asked his followers to keep this movement going. And that’s the best thing he can do- and it’s a really big thing! Now that so many people feel EMOTIONALLY connected to politics, we can make a real change.

How does this happen? Well, let’s keep in mind what we do want. Some things that I care about: Cut military funding and stop perpetuating wars in far off lands, redistribute our budget to give more federal money to states for schools and human services, and start to make the transition to a new green deal. Now, that I have some goals in mind, how do we make this happen? Well, if you watched Bernie’s speeches, one of his favorite lines is “Change doesn’t come from the top down, but from the bottom up”.  Local elections are so important. Everything from School Board to City Council, these are the people who are elected to really get something done. It would be pretty naïveté to think that Bernie could have gotten much done (other than appoint true, really, social justice warriors for Supreme Court instead of waify, corporately influenced, democratic titled judges) without the help of electing other REAL progressives in the House, Senate, and at the State and Local levels.

I don’t think Bernie losing was a loss for Bernie supporters. Sure, it’s okay to feel a little disappointed, but now’s the time to stop dwelling on it. Let’s figure out how to use the momentum that was created to continue to strive for REAL change. Bernie did such a wonderful thing bringing issues to the forefront instead of ad-Revenue-debacle-content that we see covered as “the issues” on all mainstream media.

The most important thing we can do is stay together and work towards change. Bernie was the catalyst that got us going, but we’re going to have to be the real soliders that begin to overthrow this corrupt oligarch that is American politics and government, starting from the bottom up.

Is a Stein-Sanders Ticket a Fairy Tale?

once upon a time, there were two progressives who wanted to beat the big bad wolf and the evil witch…

So I’ve been learning more and more about the Green Party Presidential Candidate hopeful, Jill Stein, and she seems pretty great.

She recently wrote an open letter to Senator Sanders, in which she applauds his campaign’s progressive agenda, his “inspiring grassroots movement”, and makes note of the unfair attacks from the establishment and media against him. She ends the letter by inviting him to speak with her about “collaborative ways to advance the effort and ensure the revolution for people, planet, and peace will prevail”.  Sanders still hasn’t responded to this invitation, but I’m curious if he might after the DNC in Philadelphia hands over the nomination to Clinton. Sanders campaign has demonstrated a sense of integrity since the beginning- and since Sanders promised supporters he would take his campaign all the way to the convention, I believe he will do so, and that this might be delaying him from speaking with Stein.

Stein’s platform lines up very closely with Sanders. Her “Power to the People Plan” includes creating millions of jobs from transforming the country’s dependence on fossil fuels to renewable energy, end poverty by providing helpful social programs to increase social mobility, creating a single payer healthcare system, providing free education, including college education, break up big banks, increase minimum wage to $15 and hour, and make GMOs transparent. Because of this progressive stance, it’s easy to understand why Sanders supporters would embrace a Stein-Sanders ticket with open arms.

I mean, is this a crazy thought? Would it be impossible for a Stein-Sanders ticket to materialize? I don’t think so. This could be a way to get around the outdated, bought and sold, two party system and start a real revolution of the people. Sanders has said that he will not run as a third party candidate, but he never said (to my knowledge) that he wouldn’t accept a running partner position.

This would cause an even bigger problem than the DNC is worried about now with the #StillBernie and the #BernieorBust movement. These diehards would certainly give their support to a Stein-Sanders ticket, and people who are on the fence about who to vote for if the options are Clinton-Trump (meaning, do I write in Sanders? or compromise to vote against my own convictions and choose the lesser evil, which arguably is Clinton), such as myself, would be so relieved to see this ticket as a viable option.

There are still things that Stein needs to accomplish before she can seriously think about getting Sanders on her side. She still needs to get on the ballot for a lot of states, including PA. If she hopes to gain media attention and be invited to debates, she will have to receive at least 15% of the electoral vote which can be difficult if she doesn’t have Sanders supporters already.

So for all you naysayers, just let me have this daydream. I don’t want to give up on the hard work I, and so many of my new friends, have done for the Sanders campaign. If I allow myself to give up on my own ideology, then ultimately the entire establishment has won.

Mainstream Media vs. The People

After watching the first Democratic debate on Wednesday night I predicted what the headlines would be the next morning: “Sanders wins over more American voters”, “Clinton second to Sanders at Debate”, “Crazy Scientist Looking Guy Actually Has Good Ideas”, etc. etc. Instead I was (somewhat) surprised to see via news headlines how Hillary had “clearly won” the debate.

I was a little confused by this considering that I saw more positive words about Sanders during and after the debate via social media than for any other candidate on the stage. Bernie pulled in 1.3 million dollars from donations during the debate, more than any other candidate. If talking financially and popularity it can be proven that Sanders won the debate.  Investigating further, I saw screen shots of many different mainstream media polls, including CNN, MSNBC, and Slate, all which pointed to Sanders as having the popular vote. It seemed by morning however these polls were deleted, and support for Hillary’s victory seemed universal throughout the media.

If we look at Hillary’s donors, we can see that Time Warner has given $501,831 to the Clinton campaign over the years, and an additional $83k for the 2016 cycle. Coincidentally, Time Warner owns CNN newsgroup. Of course CNN’s agenda is a Clinton win. By the controlling mainstream media we see how America’s views are manipulated.  Looking into Hillary’s donors for 2016 I found it startling that Google has donated $58k so far to her campaign. Will we soon find our right to open internet compromised in favor of Clinton? I wouldn’t be surprised in the coming months if it is easier to find pro-Clinton information online than any information opposing Clinton or positive information about Sanders. Checkout Clinton’s donors for 2016 here.

Should we be surprised by Clinton’s appearance on SNL? NBCUniversal owns the network, who is a donor to the Clinton 2016 campaign.

In the midst of all of this, the mess that DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made of the debate schedule only favors mainstream media more. In a piece this morning from Bloomburg, fellow vice-chairs and reps spoke out about the Chairwoman’s dictator ways in choosing to only hold 6 democratic debates. In 2007 there were 21 democratic debates held before the Iowa Caucus on January 3rd, 2008. The huge variance in democratic debates is an outrage to democracy. The fact that Wasserman Schultz was co-chair of Clinton’s 2008 campaign should be considered as a conflict of interest in her role as head of the DNC. Obviously she has stacked the deck in Clinton’s favor. I believe its safe to assume that Wasserman Schultz didn’t make this decision solely by herself, but by the help of Clinton’s top donors.

I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised by the injustice to democracy via mainstream media, however I am frustrated. It is the power of large corporations such as Time Warner, NBCUniversal, Comcast, and Google who will filter what the American people get to see and learn about the candidates. Information is at their discretion. I just hope that the momentum of change continues and that those who share this frustration will understand the obligation they have to inform those around us who may not realize how serious this issue is.