ARIZONA RIGGED

What happened yesterday in Arizona should be considered a national disgrace. I got an email last night from a woman who waited five hours to vote in Arizona. Five hours. 

We don't know how many thousands of people didn't get to cast their ballotsyesterday in Arizona because they couldn't afford to wait that long. Scenes on cable news last night showed hundreds of people in line at 11:30pm in Phoenix – more than four hours after polls closed. Voting should not be this difficult.

One reason it is so hard to vote in Arizona is because the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. There were 70 percent fewer polling places this year than in 2012 in Phoenix's county. They wouldn't have been allowed to cut those polling places if the Voting Rights Act was still in tact.

These cuts meant that, in a county with more than 4 million residents, there were just 60 polling places. This is unacceptable, but it's also not an isolated incident.

We need to make it easier to vote, not more difficult. One way we can do that is by reaffirming our support for the Voting Rights Act, which, when I am president, I will fight to reinstate.

Add your name to say you support reinstating the Voting Rights Act so we can make voting easier for everybody, not more difficult.

ADD YOUR NAME »

We cannot continue to see democracy undermined in the United States of America. Enough is enough.

Make no mistake: the billionaire class does not want Americans to vote. Billions of dollars are being funneled into our elections in a form of legalized bribery, even as American voters — especially minority voters — are being discouraged from voting. It is no wonder that government no longer works for ordinary Americans.

Above all, we need to remember the price that was paid for the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act was one of the great victories of the civil rights movement. Now, as then, change comes when the people demand it — in the voting booth, and on the streets in peaceful demonstrations. We must remind ourselves of what’s been achieved in the past, and resolve to do equally great things in the future. Democracy is not a spectator sport.

It is my sincere hope that the states that vote in the coming weeks and months do better than what we saw yesterday in Arizona. Too much is at stake for our future.

Right now, what we can do is show your support by adding your name to say you want to reinstate the Voting Rights Act. Click here to add your name.

No one said a political revolution would be easy. The billionaire class doesn't want to see our movement win, and so we must do everything we can to show them that we have the power.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

WHAT DO HILLARY AND HEIDI HAVE IN COMMON?

Besides both of their first names beginning with H both Hillary and Heidi have very strong ties to Wall Street; especially with Goldman Sachs.

For example; both Hillary and Heidi are (or have been) employed by Goldman Sachs; Heidi as a banker;

Heidi Suzanne Cruz is an American investment manager at Goldman Sachs, former economic policy advisor to the 2000 George W. Bush presidential campaign, and an appointed government official in the Bush Adminstration. Wikipedia Read More: Who is the real Heidi Cruz?

Watching any Ted Cruz political advertisement featuring his wife and two young daughters, we could easily get the impression that Heidi Nelson Cruz, like Nancy Reagan, is a devoted wife dedicated to making sure she and her husband occupy the White House.

The New York Times in an article published on Jan. 18, described Heidi Cruz as “a political wife,” who had become a force in her husband’s presidential contest, “an all-purpose surrogate and strategist to be deployed as often as possible.”

Heidi is herself a high-powered Bush insider, who served as deputy to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice before signing on as a Deputy to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, neocon stalwart and former Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Zoellick wired a cushy job for Heidi when she landed at Goldman Sachs as a partner. 

Goldman would, of course, go on to make a secret $1 million loan to fund Ted’s U.S. Senate campaign while both Cruzes lied about the source of funds being Heidi’s retirement savings.
Read more: Ted Cruz Didn’t Report Goldman Sachs Loan in a Senate Race

Heidi is not a high flying super model flashing for slick magazines and is fair game in this political game that she's well versed at playing;  Read More; The Trials And Triumphs Of Heidi Cruz

As for Hillary and her position as a motivational speaker for Goldman Sachs there is much more to be said and disclosed about  why voters should believe her when she says she is not beholden to Wall Street bankers. It's a hard sell to convince voters that bankers paid out those millions of dollars for just a pep talk.  

At the most recent Democratic presidential town hall, for instance, Clinton was asked by Anderson Cooper if it was a mistake to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. Her answer was, well, awkward:

CLINTON: “Look, I gave speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions.”

COOPER: “But did you have to be paid $675,000?”

CLINTON: “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered.”

Together, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton,have earned in excess of $125 million in speech income since leaving the White House in 2001, one-fifth of it in the last two years. Read More; Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches to Wall Street Animate Her Opponents

Report alleges Clinton gave big banks a free pass for financial crisis during glowing speeches about industry

A new report in Politico, with several quotes from Goldman employees who attended Clinton’s speeches, will likely increase the pressure.

According to people who heard Clinton’s remarks, “she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs…She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.” On the one hand, it’s understandable that Clinton wouldn’t condemn the people paying her several hundred thousand dollars to speak. However, the report sharply contradicts her “Cut it out” narrative, which was already unpersuasive.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” said another attendee. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” However accurate these accounts are, it’s a very bad look for Clinton. The discourse on the Left right now is focused on greed and inequality and corruption – reports like this can only undermine Clinton’s campaign.

Hillary Clinton can’t run away from her Goldman Sachs problem: Report suggests her paid speeches were decidedly pro-Wall Street

It would be interesting to not only know the contents of these pep talks but who the audience was. Could it be that Heidi might have been in attendance?

THE BUSH CURSE!

Being endorsed by a Bush is tantamount to writing your own political death certificate and shows how desperate Cruz and the Establishment are getting in trying to stomp on Trump who obviously is the "people's" choice.

The Establishment has dumped millions of dollars into these losers and got zip in return. It's amazing to watch how they act and what they say and how contrary it is to that of the voters.  It's no wonder there are so many angry and fed up Americans out there who are tearing this busted up political machine apart.

Even though Democrats are more civil about it, it looks like the writing is on the wall for the Establishment in that camp also. With each new primary or caucus we see more and more voters coming out and casting their ballot for the "outsider" Bernie Sanders; especially the Millennials who are not looking back but to the future and what in store for them if nothing significantly changes in the body politics as practiced in America.

As for Cruz, all the political endorsements in the world (or an act of God) will help him win the General Election if he faces off with Bernie.

Jeb Bush endorses Ted Cruz, who he says will help ‘overcome the divisiveness and vulgarity’ of Donald Trump - The Washington Post

WHY REPUBLICANS WANT TO RUN AGAINST HILLARY

Why do Republicans (and the media)  frequently mention Hillary and say little or nothing about Bernie when reporting on General Election match-ups?

Republicans want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate because they believe that Hillary will lose the General election regardless who she runs against in November. They believe her loss is almost guaranteed because she will lose the Independents and Crossovers who will cast their votes for "anyone but Hillary."

They see Hillary as the gift that keeps on giving when the GOP attack dogs begin to feast on her. The baggage she carries is "huuuge" (as Bernie would say) and her opponents will have a field day tearing down her (and her husbands) reputation(s). The theme is obvious; can she be trusted? Is she honest? And, there's plenty of evidence to support that she loses on both counts.

There's her secret email accounts that she shared classified information. There's the secret speeches she made to Wall Street bankers who make up the bulk of her donor base. There's the hundred of millions of dollars her and Bill have pulled in for doing nothing more than peddling their influence and connecting power brokers.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, scares Republicans because he comes to the race with almost no baggage and is unshakable when it comes to his position on the issues Americans care about; the economy, healthcare, education, the infrastructure, income inequality, immigration, and political corruption.  These are issues Republicans would rather not talk about because they; as well as Establishment Democrats, are a part of the problem and have no solutions.

In a General Election Bernie not only wins the votes of the majority of Millennials who are coming out in droves to vote for him, but also Independents and Crossovers that his message rings true with.

High turnout was reported among Democrats in all three states, with voters waiting hours in line in a few locations and some complaining that officials had not opened enough caucus sites or polling places.

Even after Arizona was called for Clinton, Sanders urged voters to stay in line, hoping to narrow the delegate gap in a state in which Democrats award them proportionally. In fact, Clinton’s Arizona margin narrowed as the night wore on—and Sanders’s dominating performances in Utah and Idaho allowed him to claim the majority of delegates who were up for grabs on Tuesday.

Clinton wins Arizona primary, but Sanders takes Utah and Idaho contests - LA Times

With Donald Trump on track to become the Republican nominee, Sanders has highlighted polls that show him beating the New York businessman in a general election by a wider margin than Clinton.

“There is no question that you are looking at the strongest Democratic candidate,” he said Monday.

His campaign team has repeatedly described the primary calendar as skewed in Clinton’s favor for the first half of the nominating contests and expect Sanders to pick up steam in western states, such as Washington, which holds its Democratic caucuses Saturday.

“We’re at halftime here, and we agree we’re behind, but we think we’re going to win this game,” said Sanders strategist Tad Devine last week.

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, expressed frustration with the sentiment that Clinton was already locking down the nomination, calling it a “media drumbeat to essentially disenfranchise half of the Democratic voters.”

TWO MORE REASONS TO NOT ELECT HILLARY

Cronyism is common in the political Establishment and Hillary Clinton is a major offender. Electing Hillary not only brings a huge amount of baggage but a busload of political hacks that will continue to corrupt the system Hillary and company operate in.

Time for These Two Democrats to Go - BillMoyers.com

There are two Democrats whose resignation from office right now would do their party and country a service.

Their disappearance might also help Hillary Clinton convince skeptical Democrats that her nomination, if it happens, is about the future, and not about resurrecting and ratifying the worst aspects of the first Clinton reign when she and her husband rarely met a donor to whom they wouldn’t try to auction a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom.

In fact, while we’re at it, and if Secretary Clinton really wants us to believe she’s no creature of the corporate and Wall Street money machine — despite more than $44 million in contributions from the financial industry since 2000 and her $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, not to mention several million more paid by other business interests for an hour or two of her time — she should pick up the gauntlet herself and publicly call for the departure of these two, although they are among her nearest and dearest. And we don’t mean Bill and Chelsea.

A DICTATOR IS A DICTATOR IS A DICTATOR; JUST WHO'S DICTATOR?

Critics of President Obama like to claim that he is supporting an undemocratic ruthless dictator by making friends with the current Cuban government; acting as if this is contrary to America's values and democratic way of life.



How soon these critics forget that the United States is "Pro-Dictator" as long as the dictator is their dictator. In Cuba it was Batista who won favor with the US.

In 1952, Batista ran for presidency. All the indications showed that he would lose and some of the polls put the former Cuban leader last. Such a humiliation would have ended any chance of attaining his former power. To avoid such humiliation, Batista put himself at the head of another military coup. On March 10th1952 this proved to be successful and the US quickly recognised both his positioning office and his government on March 27th.

Batista now held the self-appointed rank of General. Once in power Batista suspended the island’s constitution and established a one-party dictatorship with him as the leader.

Batista’s rule was oppressive. The rich on the island did well as long as they ensured that they ‘rewarded’ Batista. However, little if anything was done for the poor. Batista allowed Cuba to become a playground for America’s rich. Just fifty miles from Florida, rich Americans would fly out to Havana to gamble and to enjoy the good life. Nothing could have been in more stark contrast to the lives of poverty led by the Cuban poor.

On July 26th 1953, a small group opposed to Batista attacked a barrack’s in Santiago. The attack, led by Fidel Castro, was a failure but Batista responded with his infamous ’10 for 1’ order – that the local military commander had to shoot ten civilians for every one soldier killed. In the event, 59 people were shot – though as 19 soldiers had been killed, the final total could have reached 190.

Batista wanted everything to return to normal as quickly as possible as he feared that any perceived social uprising would put off those who wanted to invest vast sums of US dollars in Cuba. It is said that he took 30% of the cash raised in the gambling hotels built in Havana – run by the Mafia – while his wife took 10%. As the cash that flowed through these hotels was so great, the 60% left – if these figures were correct – would have still represented a massive profit for those involved.

In May 1955, Batista felt so strongly entrenched in his position that he released from prison Castro and other rebels who had survived the July 1953 barracks attack in Santiago.

From December 1956, Batista faced a growing challenge from a left-wing movement led by Fidel Castro. Student demonstrations in Havana were brutally dealt with by police and student leaders were murdered by men who were outside of the law. However, Batista did face one huge problem. The number of poor Cubans who had not benefited from the vast sums of money that had been invested and spent in Cuba far outweighed those who had benefited. These people were ideal targets for the likes of Castro and ChéGuevara who had gone to Cuba to assist Castro.

The sheer size of the island gave Castro and his men the opportunity to hide from Batista’s men. They copied the tactics of Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communists. Castro’s followers helped the poor of the island by helping out on their very rudimentary farms, by establishing the most basic of schools for the poor and by giving what medical help they could. This ‘hearts and minds’ policy was very successful and the support for the Communists spread outside of the Sierra Maestra Mountains and nearer and nearer to Batista’s power base in Havana.

Batista lost the support of the Cuban Army and on December 31st 1958 he had to flee Cuba for the Dominican Republic with his reputation in ruins.

The United States government had supported the American-friendly Batista regime since it came to power in 1952. After Fidel Castro, together with a handful of supporters that included the professional revolutionary Che Guevara, landed in Cuba to unseat Batista in December 1956, the U.S. continued to support Batista. Suspicious of what they believed to be Castro’s leftist ideology and fearful that his ultimate goals might include attacks on U.S. investments and properties in Cuba, American officials were nearly unanimous in opposing his revolutionary movement.



Cuban support for Castro’s revolution, however, spread and grew in the late 1950s, partially due to his personal charisma and nationalistic rhetoric, but also because of the increasingly rampant corruption, brutality, and inefficiency within the Batista government. This reality forced U.S. policymakers to slowly withdraw their support from Batista and begin a search in Cuba for an alternative to both the dictator and Castro.



American efforts to find a “middle road” between Batista and Castro ultimately failed. On January 1, 1959, Batista and a number of his supporters fled Cuba. Tens of thousands of Cubans (and thousands of Cuban-Americans in the United States) joyously celebrated the end of the dictator’s regime. Castro’s supporters moved quickly to establish their power. Judge Manuel Urrutia was named as provisional president. Castro and his band of guerrilla fighters triumphantly entered Havana on January 7.



In the years that followed, the U.S. attitude toward the new revolutionary government would move from cautiously suspicious to downright hostile. As the Castro government moved toward a closer relationship with the Soviet Union, and Castro declared himself to be a Marxist-Leninist, relations between the U.S. and Cuba collapsed into mutual enmity, which continued only somewhat abated through the following decades.



Cuban dictator Batista falls from power - Jan 01, 1959 

A REVOLUTION IS ONLY AS STRONG AS THOSE WHO REVOLT

Consider this fact: Since the primaries began in early February, the oldest presidential candidate in the field has received more votes from people under 30 than the two party frontrunners combined.

Senator Bernie Sanders, the 74 year-old democratic socialist, has galvanized millions of millennials with his anti-establishment message, and in Michigan earlier this month, he pulled off “one of the greatest upsets in modern political history” with the help of 81 percent of the under-30 vote — a huge margin that has been relatively consistent throughout. Young people have packed his rallies across the country and he has been dominant on social media, with almost two million followers on Twitter and three-and-a-half million on Facebook.

This broad support from America’s youngest adults has naturally led some commentators to pronounce Bernie Sanders the future of the Democratic party. And, in one light, even at his advanced age, it’s hard to disagree. While his nomination is looking less and less likely, Sanders has accomplished a great deal by mobilizing both young and older progressives and shaping the national debate.

Even more remarkable, he has convinced a growing number of American voters that “socialism” is not a dirty word, but a positive alternative to corporate capitalism. By openly declaring himself a democratic socialist, Sanders has given a friendly face to a word that has long been used by right-wingers to scare voters. And whether one agrees with the Senator’s policies or not, it is hard to deny that he is sincere. Only the most paranoid conspiracy theorists could claim he has some ulterior motives. What you see is what you get, no blatant flip-flopping or transparent pandering.

This sincerity has been a driving factor for many young voters. On social media, where many millennials learn about the election, numerous videos have been produced comparing the senator’s lifelong political consistency — whether it’s him railing against Alan Greenspan in the early 2000s or deriding a homophobic congressman in the ’90s — to Hillary Clinton’s long history of flip-flopping on important issues like gay marriage, free trade, crime, and so on.A  

Bernie’s revolution could still disappear: Why a more progressive America is by no means guaranteed