But since we are speaking about freedom of press, have you seen Appelbaum at the Logan symposium? I would say it´s a must see and should be discussed at every journalistic school. (second link http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57631330 )

Have only seen some but there are a lot of interestings talks, including some notes about theguardian in the talk with Appelbaum , especially the stories at the end. The sound from Snowden becomes better after 6-7min. To name some speakers Appelbaum, Assange, Drake, Binney, Snowden and many more interesting people who are speaking about the status quo of the media including influence of money and the Gov, about how to protect journalism or rest of it, freedom of speech, how you can protect yourself and many more interesting topics.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/26/amy_goodman_on_aj_how_thehttp://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/25/seymour_hersh_weighs_in_on_sandershttp://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/15/robert_scheer_v_torie_osborn_ahttp://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/15/juan_gonzalez_clinton_has_really_distortedhttp://www.democracynow.org/topics/bernie_sandershttp://www.democracynow.org/topics/panama_papers

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57834633

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57825644

I wonder how much she got from the fracking industry? https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/ But who cares, she is Bibis best friend and the NYT will push her to the top, like they pushed the Millerreport infront of the invasion or stopped Risen from publishing his story before BushII was “reelected”.. https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/the-new-york-times-and-clinton-campaigns-abject-cowardice-on-israel/

http://www.mangofeed.com/bernie-sanders-new-cali-ad/http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57887656http://www.dpreview.com/members/9561468404/overviewhttp://www.mangofeed.com/bernie-sanders-new-cali-ad/

http://www.mangofeed.com/bernie-sanders-new-cali-ad/http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57887656http://www.dpreview.com/members/9561468404/overviewhttp://www.mangofeed.com/bernie-sanders-new-cali-ad/

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282709-fbi-everything-on-clinton-is-evidence-or-possible-evidencehttp://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282689-former-cia-officer-faces-extradition-to-italy-for-bush-era-efforts

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57878787

Agree, since you are interested there is an interesting article from Marcy (emptywheel) https://news.vice.com/article/edward-snowden-leaks-tried-to-tell-nsa-about-surveillance-concerns-exclusive

Those Feinsteins are painting the world like they need it..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-could-call-orlando-000000708.htmlhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-just-made-shady-153811722.htmlhttps://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/orlando-nightclub-gunman-scouted-walt-150008380.htmlhttp://nypost.com/2016/06/12/the-clinton-university-scandal/https://www.yahoo.com/news/watters-infiltrates-clinton-rally-154732875.htmlhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-just-nailed-real-143350298.htmlhttps://gma.yahoo.com/inside-orlando-nightclub-massacre-breaking-down-three-horrific-015406383–abc-news-topstories.html

Pancreatic cancer arises when cells in the pancreas, a glandular organ behind the stomach, begin to multiply out of control and form a mass. There are usually no symptoms in the cancer’s early stages; by the time of diagnosis, it has often spread to other parts of the body. Symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the most common form of pancreatic cancer, may include yellow skin, abdominal or back pain, unexplained weight loss, light-colored stools, dark urine and loss of appetite. It rarely occurs before the age of 40, and more than half of cases occur in those over 70. The risk is lower among non-smokers and people who maintain a healthy weight and limit their consumption of red or processed meat. It can be treated with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, palliative care, or a combination of these, depending in part on the cancer stage. It is never cured by nonsurgical treatments, though any of these will sometimes improve quality of life, particularly palliative care. It typically has a very poor prognosis: 25% of people live for one year after diagnosis, and 5% for five years. (Full article…)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancreatic_cancer

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57908382

Agree and my guess is that as soons as Clinton II is in power MIC, Prison-/Frackingindustry, WS, Saudis,.. somehow will rememeber CLinton II who helped her into that position. And I´m sure CLinton II like CLinton I will remember her sponsors and she will remind the ones she needs in Senate and House that they also need an reelection and money, maybe even Clinton II helped them out in the past with the money from her sponsors. https://theintercept.com/2016/06/10/hillary-clinton-used-leadership-pac-as-slush-fund-in-2008-09/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57908382

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57921119

Thinking about ordering a bottle of the stuff and see if it really works. If it does, it will reverse the aging process. If not, then I just threw away money. lol

Amazon sells these pills by the way; they aren’t cheap.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160428152124.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57922909
I’m not effectively saying that. I’m saying it makes no sense to campaign for limiting guns unless you also campaign for (or at least support) a heavy tax on unhealthy food, and make that a much higher priority than limiting guns. Objectively, the costs are much lower, and the benefits are much higher. There are several similar changes we could make which would make us all happier, healthier, and wealthier.

Personally, I think that’s one of the best laws we could pass. We’d be genuinely better off if we exercised more and ate healthier. A public subsidy for vegetables, and a tax on sugars and saturated fats, and free public gyms and exercise programs would cost a slight fraction of what we would save in healthcare spending. And we’d have a happier, healthier, and more productive as a population.

Whether just eliminating unhealthy food, eliminating both unhealthy food and guns, or keeping both make sense depends on what value you place on human life versus freedom. They’re both important, and you can reasonably argue for any of the three options. But if you’re arguing for just a ban on guns, you’re not being logically consistent — by your own logic, you should question your own mental state.

Diabetes is caused by obesity and a genetic tendency, not sugar. Do you want to ban burgers too?
What would you like to do? It’s a pretty big killer. It is compeletely preventable (at least Type II). You’re implying you would not be supportive of such a law, presumably because it would inconvience you. Why are you okay with us having food which addicts people to it and then destroys their health, self-esteem, and often kills them?

Moreover, as I said, many factors are elective. It effects the person concerned, but doesn’t kill anyone else. If I get shot by a madman, I have no choice in the issue.
Children aren’t mature enough to make the choice. By the time they’re adults, they’re mostly obese and sugar-addicted. Lower-classes socioeconomic also don’t have much choice — cheap, fast food is almost always heavily processed. People don’t have the time or money to eat healthy. Obesity rates for children whose parents didn’t finish high school are roughly double of those whose parents did finish high school. That doesn’t sound like much of a choice.

Your smug attitude would be very different if your son or daughter were shot in their classroom.
And your smug attitude might be different if you had lost a parent, child, or spouse to diabetes or similar preventable conditions.
Maybe I am too sceptical with Clinton II, but her history gives a lot of reasons to believe that she is another heartless selfcaring politician who has not learned from history and is selling herself to the highest bidder. Hope she doesn´t make it for 8 years…

 

 

Well we now also have the scandal ABC News reported on tonight, about a donor to the Clinton Foundation paying in access of one million dollars, getting super delegate status and receiving access to a board he had no business being a part of. I also heard that the Democratic Party charwoman might be resigning pretty soon. Clinton looks like she might take Elizabeth Warren as VP, I always knew Warren wanted next after Clinton and being very progressive I ssee this as an olive branch to get the support of Bernie’s voters.

http://www.dpreview.com/members/5901168018/overview

Well we now also have the scandal ABC News reported on tonight, about a donor to the Clinton Foundation paying in access of one million dollars, getting super delegate status and receiving access to a board he had no business being a part of. I also heard that the Democratic Party charwoman might be resigning pretty soon. Clinton looks like she might take Elizabeth Warren as VP, I always knew Warren wanted next after Clinton and being very progressive I ssee this as an olive branch to get the support of Bernie’s voters.

State Dept: FOIA officers didn’t know, didn’t ask about Clinton use of private email

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/state-dept-foia-officers-didnt-know-didnt-ask-about-clinton-use-of-private-email/2016/06/09/d8d99194-2e93-11e6-b5db-e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html

“a State Department official produced to answer questions in a civil lawsuit probing Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server said no officials responsible for handling public records requests knew of her private email account while she was secretary, but was instructed not to answer whether the department’s top legal office knew, according to a transcript released Thursday.”

Sad, this whole administration is ripe with corruption and an inability to do their jobs!

Wilkes Land anomaly[edit]
A giant impact crater beneath the Wilkes Land ice sheet was first proposed by R. A. Schmidt in 1962 on the basis of the seismic and gravity discovery of the feature made by the U.S. Victoria Land Traverse in 1959–60 (VLT), and the data provided to Schmidt by J. G. Weihaupt, geophysicist of the VLT (Geophysical Studies in Victoria Land, Antarctica, Report No. 1, Geophysical and Polar Research Center, University of Wisconsin, 1–123).[1] Schmidt further considered the possibility that it might be the elusive source of tektites from the Australasian strewnfield.
EGM2008 gravity anomaly map
The hypothesis was detailed in a paper by J. G. Weihaupt in 1976.[2] Evidence cited included a large negative gravity anomaly coincident with a subglacial topographic depression 243 kilometres (151 mi) across and having a minimum depth of 848 metres (2,782 ft).

The claims were challenged by C. R. Bentley in 1979.[3] On the basis of a 2010 paper by J. G. Weihaupt et al.,[4] Bentley’s challenge was proven to be incorrect, and the Earth Impact Database (Rajmon 2011)[citation needed] has now reclassified the Wilkes Land Anomaly from a “possible impact crater” to a “probable impact crater” on the basis of Weihaupt et al.’s paper. Several other potential impact crater sites have now been proposed by other investigators in the Ross Sea, West Antarctica, and the Weddell Sea.[citation needed]

Wilkes Land mass concentration[edit]

Map of Antarctica showing Wilkes Land, with the crater conjectured by von Frese and team marked in red
The Wilkes Land mass concentration (or mascon) is centered at 70°S 120°ECoordinates: 70°S 120°E and was first reported at a conference in May 2006 by a team of researchers led by Ralph von Frese and Laramie Potts of Ohio State University.[5][6]

The team used gravity measurements by NASA’s GRACE satellites to identify a 300 km (190 mi) wide mass concentration and noted that this mass anomaly is centered within a larger ring-like structure visible in radar images of the land surface beneath the Antarctic ice cap. This combination suggested to them that the feature may mark the site of a 480 km (300 mi) wide impact crater buried beneath the ice and more than 2.5 times larger than the 180 km (110 mi) Chicxulub crater.

Due to the site’s location beneath the Antarctic ice sheet there are no direct samples to test for evidence of impact. There are alternative explanations for this mass concentration, such as formation by a mantle plume or other large-scale volcanic activity[citation needed]. If this feature really is an impact crater then, based on the size of the ring structure, it has been suggested by von Frese’s team that the impactor could have been four or five times wider than the one that created the Chicxulub, believed to have caused the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.[6]

Because mass concentrations on Earth are expected to dissipate over time, von Frese and coworkers believe the structure must be less than 500 million years old, and also note that it appears to have been disturbed by the rift valley that formed 100 million years ago during the separation of Australia from the Gondwana supercontinent.[6]

These researchers therefore speculate that the putative impact and associated crater may have contributed to this separation by weakening the crust at this location. These bracketing dates also make it possible that the site could be associated with the Permian–Triassic extinction event.[6] The Permian–Triassic extinction occurred 250 million years ago, and is believed to be the largest extinction event since the origin of complex multicellular life.

Plate reconstructions for the Permian–Triassic boundary place the putative crater directly antipodal to the Siberian Traps, and von Frese et al. (2009) use the controversial theory that impacts can trigger massive volcanism at their antipodes to bolster their impact crater theory.[7]

However, there are already other suggested candidates for giant impacts at the Permian–Triassic boundary, for example Bedout off the northern coast of Western Australia, although all are equally contentious, and it is currently under debate whether or not an impact played any role in this extinction.

The complete absence of a well-defined impact ejecta layer associated with the Permian–Triassic boundary at its outcrops within Victoria Land and the central Transantarctic Mountains argues against there having been any impact capable of creating a crater the size of the hypothesized Wilkes Land impact crater within Antarctica at the Permian–Triassic boundary.[8][9]

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57901908
what else can be said about him? He brought together people from all different sides of the spectrum, from conservative to liberal, muslim, jew, christian, hindu, buddhist, and all else. The guy transcended pretty much everything.
I watched his services today in awe. I asked, how could one person do all that, particularly a black person who rose from small beginnings? Simply amazing.
The most impressive part is that, even with all the braggadocio he inspired others because he considered others capable of being able to break through whatever barriers kept them down and attain a higher level of achievement than was thought possible. Ali had greater faith in others than others even had in themselves! And that faith Ali had was contagious- for if ‘The Greatest’ believed you were capable of achieving great things- who were you to argue? He could have easily acquiesced to the government over the Vietnam War, he probably wouldn’t have even had to fight, but he wanted to stand by his beliefs. And he was nearly penniless but he stood firm. After he won the Supreme Court case (which he almost lost, it was very close- they were actually going to write the decision against him and changed their minds at the last moment) he said he wouldn’t sue the government to get his potential earnings back, he said that he just wanted to get back to what he loved. That impressed a lot of people and when the deceit behind the War finally came out, people realized Ali had been right all along.

 

 

http://coolmompicks.com/blog/2016/06/10/web-coolness-fathers-day-teacher-gifts-muhammad-ali-daughter/https://theintercept.com/2016/06/08/european-parliament-calls-for-investigation-of-secret-cia-torture-sites/

 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57889695

Yes, and Skype and such has been hacked previously. It’s been known for years that if you want to remain private….dont use the internet or even your phone to transmist sensitive data. Something not mentioned by any of these articles are the fake cell phone towers popping up all over the landscape (called Sting Rays)…..a large quantity of which (interestingly) are popping up near DC and the creator of Blackberry demonstrated can not only intercept calls or texts but can turn on phones to be used as listening devices. The only way to bypass them is to take your battery out of your phone (which many manufacturers don’t allow anymore.) The guy who runs Black Berry demonstrated how to tell when you’re near one of these towers- your signal strength drops and their newest phone indicates you’re near one of these fake towers.

My main objection with that article is the author’s inflammatory use of the word “radicalized”- the engineers are only looking out for our best interests and, as such, should be applauded. The FBI/CIA/NSA, etc, have a long history of going after civil rights activists, (like MLK), peace activists (who were proven right about the Vietnam War being based on lies and deceit and where many innocent women and children died, which is why Ali is now viewed as a hero), environmental activists, and a large range of nonviolent protesters who oppose the government. It also happens in the UK. There was a recent case of UK spies infiltrating peaceful environmental groups and trying to push them into doing illegal behavior. They were exposed when someone took a picture of one of them and posted it on facebook and the tattoo in the picture gave him away. Something similar was done to a person working with the Baltimore police department who was trying to coerce Walmart protesters who were circulating flyers showing how Walmart sells products made by children who work in sweat shops in third world countries (3,000 of which died in a fire in Bangladesh, under unbearable conditions.) I find this kind of activism just as important as saving Syrian refugees. Walmart needs to be taken to the mat for this. You can’t let the government try to silence the voice of activists by giving them these powers- and take this slippery slope. Otherwise 1984 will become a reality. It’s not just “terrorists” they put in black sites and torture (something which I oppose for anyone)- and it’s something which they did in collusion with the APA, for which now they are widely derided. Because it’s been scientifically proven that those methods simply do not work!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57889761

What you are doing certainly helps- but you are missing the big picture. To truly help the situation you have to take corporations like Walmart to the mat for supporting sweat shops and expose the government for their military actions and for trying to silence protesters and civil rights activists and environmentalists and the unholy collusion between those corporations and governments. That is the real cancer. What you are doing by comparison, is like giving morphine. It helps ease the pain, but it desn’t solve the real problem, which is how the West interferes with and holds down the Third World and how crony capitalism runs rampant in the West, to the detriment of politics and our environment.

BTW a majority of people see this corrupt collusion but the main stream media does not report it- like they didn’t report on the thousands who attended the Millions March Against Monsanto protests or the Democracy Now protests that shut DC down.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57889947

That’s if you believe anything Haydn says which I don’t and most people don’t (it was even indicated how uncomfortable he seemed when he said it.) Snowden tried to contact the authorities 10x about what was going on and hew as ignored- just like previous whistleblowers.

Skype and such has been hacked previously. It’s been known for years that if you want to remain private….dont use the internet or even your phone to transmist sensitive data. Something not mentioned by any of these articles are the fake cell phone towers popping up all over the landscape (called Sting Rays)…..a large quantity of which (interestingly) are popping up near DC and the creator of Blackberry demonstrated can not only intercept calls or texts but can turn on phones to be used as listening devices. The only way to bypass them is to take your battery out of your phone (which many manufacturers don’t allow anymore.) The guy who runs Black Berry demonstrated how to tell when you’re near one of these towers- your signal strength drops and their newest phone indicates you’re near one of these fake towers.

My main objection with that article is the author’s inflammatory use of the word “radicalized”- the engineers are only looking out for our best interests and, as such, should be applauded. The FBI/CIA/NSA, etc, have a long history of going after civil rights activists, (like MLK), peace activists (who were proven right about the Vietnam War being based on lies and deceit and where many innocent women and children died, which is why Ali is now viewed as a hero), environmental activists, and a large range of nonviolent protesters who oppose the government. It also happens in the UK. There was a recent case of UK spies infiltrating peaceful environmental groups and trying to push them into doing illegal behavior. They were exposed when someone took a picture of one of them and posted it on facebook and the tattoo in the picture gave him away. Something similar was done to a person working with the Baltimore police department who was trying to coerce Walmart protesters who were circulating flyers showing how Walmart sells products made by children who work in sweat shops in third world countries (3,000 of which died in a fire in Bangladesh, under unbearable conditions.) I find this kind of activism just as important as saving Syrian refugees. Walmart needs to be taken to the mat for this. You can’t let the government try to silence the voice of activists by giving them these powers- and take this slippery slope. Otherwise 1984 will become a reality. And in the other thread I illustrated for you the unholy collusion between corporations like Walmart and the government to silence voices of dissent. It’s not just “terrorists” they put in black sites and torture (something which I oppose for anyone)- and it’s something which they did in collusion with the APA, for which now they are widely derided. Because it’s been scientifically proven that those methods simply do not work!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57879394

http://pagesix.com/2016/06/05/tell-all-book-reveals-hillarys-erratic-uncontrollable-ways-in-the-white-house/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4013000

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57879409

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57872853

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/04/mississippi-police-officer-slams-teen-ground-headfirst-during-scuffle-viral-video-shows

http://nypost.com/2016/06/03/two-teens-who-beat-up-elderly-woman-on-train-surrender/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57885209

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57884489

Sorry that I have post again, but I want to share a good laugh a comment found under an interesting article from Greenwald.

Benito:

“I congratulate the Associated Press for this humane decision to put the primary voters out of their misery, and simply declare Mrs. Clinton the nominee. A lot of people in California and other states would have been forced to go through the charade of voting, taking away valuable time that could have been allocated to more worthwhile pursuits such as rioting. While some may argue this is undemocratic, the symbolism represented by the leader is far more important than democratic choice. Voters have demonstrated by their past behavior, an annoying predilection to vote for the wrong candidate. As a self declared liberal, I don’t take the extreme position that voting should be eliminated, but am pleased to see that at least it is being curtailed.

So a hearty congratulations to Mrs. Clinton for her spectacular victory. A congratulations is in order to the DNC as well, and their signature achievement of nominating the most unpopular Democratic nominee in history. The super delegates may prefer to humbly remain anonymous, but they too should be congratulated for ensuring that the democratic process did not have even a slight chance of undermining the will of the party. Under the proud and fearless leadership of the neocons, may the Democratic Party lead the United States of America towards its ultimate destiny.”

Also the article is interesting, but I think Greenwald could have also named the eroded primaries in which the two party dictatorship has done in the past everything they could to make sure that only a certain group is allowed to vote and especially independent voters or candidates have no chance at all. So someone like Sanders who is not backed from the bigmoney (Mic,Frackingindustry,WS, Saudis..) and attracks a lot of independent voters has nearly no chance to get “elected” from the democratic and independent DNC.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/?comments=1#comments

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57889784

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57881260

“It’s a crime under the Espionage Act to willingly, or inadvertently, transfer 22 Top Secret emails from secure State Department servers, to an unguarded private server. This is essentially what Hillary Clinton paid Bryan Pagliano to do (when linking her private computer server to secure State servers) and is likely the reason he was granted immunity. ”

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10317324.html

It’s time the FBI recommends to indict this evil subhuman.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57881260

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57887283

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57883985

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57881416

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/31/the-gop-platforms-surprisingly-progressive-stance-on-crime/

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Continue Reading Below

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, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She declared that “Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes.

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

Winning Friends, Influencing Clintons

Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions — a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.

Just before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement generally obligating it to disclose to the State Department increases in contributions from its existing foreign government donors and any new foreign government donors. Those increases were to be reviewed by an official at the State Department and “as appropriate” the White House counsel’s office. According to available disclosures, officials at the State Department and White House raised no issues about potential conflicts related to arms sales.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., urged the Clinton Foundation to “forswear” accepting contributions from governments abroad. “Foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state,” he said. The Clintons did not take Lugar’s advice. In light of the weapons deals flowing to Clinton Foundation donors, advocates for limits on the influence of money on government action now argue that Lugar was prescient in his concerns.

“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. “This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.”

Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.

“These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,” Lessig told IBTimes. “Can it really be that the Clintons didn’t recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”

National security experts assert that the overlap between the list of Clinton Foundation donors and those with business before the the State Department presents a troubling conflict of interest.

While governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the Clinton Foundation exclusively to influence arms deals, they were clearly “looking to build up deposits in the ‘favor bank’ and to be well thought of,” said Gregory Suchan, a 34-year State Department veteran who helped lead the agency’s oversight of arms transfers under the Bush administration.

As Hillary Clinton presses a campaign for the presidency, she has confronted sustained scrutiny into her family’s personal and philanthropic dealings, along with questions about whether their private business interests have colored her exercise of public authority. As IBTimes previously reported, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation. IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.

Questions about the nexus of arms sales and Clinton Foundation donors stem from the State Department’s role in reviewing the export of American-made weapons. The agency is charged with both licensing direct commercial sales by U.S. defense contractors to foreign governments and also approving Pentagon-brokered sales to those governments. Those powers are enshrined in a federal law that specifically designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In that role, Hillary Clinton was empowered to approve or reject deals for a broad range of reasons, from national security considerations to human rights concerns.

The State Department does not disclose which individual companies are involved in direct commercial sales, but its disclosure documents reveal that countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw a combined $75 billion increase in authorized commercial military sales under the three full fiscal years Clinton served, as compared to the first three full fiscal years of Bush’s second term.

The Clinton Foundation has not released an exact timetable of its donations, making it impossible to know whether money from foreign governments and defense contractors came into the organization before or after Hillary Clinton approved weapons deals that involved their interests. But news reports document that at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary: Algeria, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Thailand, Norway and Australia.

Sales Flowed Despite Human Rights Concerns

Under a presidential policy directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to specifically take human rights records into account when deciding whether to approve licenses enabling foreign governments to purchase military equipment and services from American companies. Despite this, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such sales to nations that her agency sharply criticized for systematic human rights abuses.

In its 2010 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department inveighed against Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption,” and a “lack of judicial independence.” The report said the Algerian government “used security grounds to constrain freedom of expression and movement.”

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and its lobbyists met with the State Department officials who oversee enforcement of human rights policies. Clinton’s State Department the next year approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The increase included authorizations of almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment” after the State Department did not authorize the export of any of such items to Algeria in the prior year.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department authorized at least $2.4 billion of direct military hardware and services sales to Algeria — nearly triple such authorizations over the last full fiscal years during the Bush administration. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose Algeria’s donation until this year — a violation of the ethics agreement it entered into with the Obama administration.

The monarchy in Qatar had similarly been chastised by the State Department for a raft of human rights abuses. But that country donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. During the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bush’s second term. The department also approved the Pentagon’s separate $750 million sale of multi-mission helicopters to Qatar. That deal would additionally employ as contractors three companies that have all supported the Clinton Foundation over the years: United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric.

Clinton foundation donor countries that the State Department criticized for human rights violations and that received weapons export authorizations did not respond to IBTimes’ questions.

That group of arms manufacturers — along with Clinton Foundation donors Boeing, Honeywell, Hawker Beechcraft and their affiliates — were together listed as contractors in 114 such deals while Clinton was secretary of state. NBC put Chelsea Clinton on its payroll as a network correspondent in November 2011, when it was still 49 percent owned by General Electric. A spokesperson for General Electric did not respond to questions from IBTimes
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/282735-warren-rips-mcconnell-for-blocking-judges

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282692-oil-train-rules-move-to-white-house-review

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282694-india-pm-highlights-new-climate-goals-in-speech-to-congress

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282734-obama-forgives-anthony-bourdain-for-being-friends-with-ted
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/282723-jones-act-a-lifeline-for-puerto-rico-and-even-bigger

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282725-lawmakers-celebrate-passage-of-chemical-reform-bill

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/282707-fcc-republican-raises-new-questions-about-phone-subsidy-fraud

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/282700-mccain-ndaa-amendment-would-leave-musk-in-rocket-seat

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/282723-jones-act-a-lifeline-for-puerto-rico-and-even-bigger

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/282724-warren-ryans-poverty-plan-shiny-repackaging

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282725-lawmakers-celebrate-passage-of-chemical-reform-bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282658-ap-warns-reporters-after-harassment-from-sanders

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/282710-five-burning-post-primary-questions

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/282645-if-obamas-immigration-actions-are-upheld-whats-left-of

Lawmakers took a victory lap Wednesday to celebrate the Senate passing its major chemical safety overhaul, sending it to President Obama’s desk.

It was a long-fought battle to pass the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals for the 21st Century Act, and lawmakers framed it as nothing short of a miracle.

The Senate passed it by voice vote Tuesday night, following the overwhelming passage two weeks ago by the House. Obama is likely to sign it soon.
The bipartisan bill would dramatically overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, giving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sweeping new authority to regulate harmful chemicals, while limiting states’ powers over chemicals.

It’s the first major environmental bill to pass Congress since the Clean Air Act of 1990.

“This law has been in need of updating for decades,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), a lead sponsor of the legislation, told reporters Wednesday. “Every stakeholder in sight, everyone involved in this part of the economy and the law has said that. The trick has been bringing everyone together on a bipartisan basis.”

Vitter said the bill accomplishes the two goals he had set out when he joined the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in working on the bill.

“First, make sure we fully protect all Americans’ health and safety. And second, make sure we create a workable regulatory environment, so that our leaders in science and innovation and technology … can remain world leaders and continue to innovate,” Vitter said.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the lead Democratic sponsor, called the feat “a great triumph of bipartisanship” and compared it to climbing a mountain.

“Most Americans think, when you go to a grocery store, or you go to a hardware store, and you buy a product, they think that it’s been tested for safety. It hasn’t been tested,” he said.

“Now we’re going to see that that testing takes place, and we’re going to move forward with a very tough cop on the beat, which will be the EPA, looking at the safety of products, doing that analysis.”

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who led House efforts as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction, spoke about how long the process has taken.

“David Vitter came over 5 and a half years ago … and said he was going to do this with Sen. Lautenberg, and I said, ‘come see me when you get any success,’ ” Shimkus joked.

“And then a couple years later, he popped back in, and that made us really get more serious in moving on the House said.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the legislation “a new chemical Magna Carta, a chemical bill of rights for every American that will serve as the foundation for protecting the American people from the dangers of toxic substances.”

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57890522

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/282708-dems-zing-house-gop-over-zika-fundinghttp://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/282712-morgan-stanley-to-pay-1m-sec-fine-for-data-breachhttp://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282689-former-cia-officer-faces-extradition-to-italy-for-bush-era-effortshttp://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282734-obama-forgives-anthony-bourdain-for-being-friends-with-tedhttp://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/282732-hacked-computer-network-behind-major-malware-attacks-offlinehttp://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/282724-warren-ryans-poverty-plan-shiny-repackaginghttp://thehill.com/policy/defense/282720-advocacy-groups-scold-pentagon-delay-on-transgender-changeshttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/how-to-overcome-the-greatest-barriers-to-rooftop-solar-power/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/hot-times-in-a-frozen-land/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clinton-claims-nomination-blasts-trump-on-climate/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fast-spreading-genetic-mutations-pose-ecological-risk/http://www.scientificamerican.com/video/fluffy-egg-free-desserts/

 

 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57878787

Agree, since you are interested there is an interesting article from Marcy (emptywheel) https://news.vice.com/article/edward-snowden-leaks-tried-to-tell-nsa-about-surveillance-concerns-exclusive

Those Feinsteins are painting the world like they need it..

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57889695

Yes, and Skype and such has been hacked previously. It’s been known for years that if you want to remain private….dont use the internet or even your phone to transmist sensitive data. Something not mentioned by any of these articles are the fake cell phone towers popping up all over the landscape (called Sting Rays)…..a large quantity of which (interestingly) are popping up near DC and the creator of Blackberry demonstrated can not only intercept calls or texts but can turn on phones to be used as listening devices. The only way to bypass them is to take your battery out of your phone (which many manufacturers don’t allow anymore.) The guy who runs Black Berry demonstrated how to tell when you’re near one of these towers- your signal strength drops and their newest phone indicates you’re near one of these fake towers.

My main objection with that article is the author’s inflammatory use of the word “radicalized”- the engineers are only looking out for our best interests and, as such, should be applauded. The FBI/CIA/NSA, etc, have a long history of going after civil rights activists, (like MLK), peace activists (who were proven right about the Vietnam War being based on lies and deceit and where many innocent women and children died, which is why Ali is now viewed as a hero), environmental activists, and a large range of nonviolent protesters who oppose the government. It also happens in the UK. There was a recent case of UK spies infiltrating peaceful environmental groups and trying to push them into doing illegal behavior. They were exposed when someone took a picture of one of them and posted it on facebook and the tattoo in the picture gave him away. Something similar was done to a person working with the Baltimore police department who was trying to coerce Walmart protesters who were circulating flyers showing how Walmart sells products made by children who work in sweat shops in third world countries (3,000 of which died in a fire in Bangladesh, under unbearable conditions.) I find this kind of activism just as important as saving Syrian refugees. Walmart needs to be taken to the mat for this. You can’t let the government try to silence the voice of activists by giving them these powers- and take this slippery slope. Otherwise 1984 will become a reality. It’s not just “terrorists” they put in black sites and torture (something which I oppose for anyone)- and it’s something which they did in collusion with the APA, for which now they are widely derided. Because it’s been scientifically proven that those methods simply do not work!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57889761

What you are doing certainly helps- but you are missing the big picture. To truly help the situation you have to take corporations like Walmart to the mat for supporting sweat shops and expose the government for their military actions and for trying to silence protesters and civil rights activists and environmentalists and the unholy collusion between those corporations and governments. That is the real cancer. What you are doing by comparison, is like giving morphine. It helps ease the pain, but it desn’t solve the real problem, which is how the West interferes with and holds down the Third World and how crony capitalism runs rampant in the West, to the detriment of politics and our environment.

BTW a majority of people see this corrupt collusion but the main stream media does not report it- like they didn’t report on the thousands who attended the Millions March Against Monsanto protests or the Democracy Now protests that shut DC down.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57889947

That’s if you believe anything Haydn says which I don’t and most people don’t (it was even indicated how uncomfortable he seemed when he said it.) Snowden tried to contact the authorities 10x about what was going on and hew as ignored- just like previous whistleblowers.

Skype and such has been hacked previously. It’s been known for years that if you want to remain private….dont use the internet or even your phone to transmist sensitive data. Something not mentioned by any of these articles are the fake cell phone towers popping up all over the landscape (called Sting Rays)…..a large quantity of which (interestingly) are popping up near DC and the creator of Blackberry demonstrated can not only intercept calls or texts but can turn on phones to be used as listening devices. The only way to bypass them is to take your battery out of your phone (which many manufacturers don’t allow anymore.) The guy who runs Black Berry demonstrated how to tell when you’re near one of these towers- your signal strength drops and their newest phone indicates you’re near one of these fake towers.

My main objection with that article is the author’s inflammatory use of the word “radicalized”- the engineers are only looking out for our best interests and, as such, should be applauded. The FBI/CIA/NSA, etc, have a long history of going after civil rights activists, (like MLK), peace activists (who were proven right about the Vietnam War being based on lies and deceit and where many innocent women and children died, which is why Ali is now viewed as a hero), environmental activists, and a large range of nonviolent protesters who oppose the government. It also happens in the UK. There was a recent case of UK spies infiltrating peaceful environmental groups and trying to push them into doing illegal behavior. They were exposed when someone took a picture of one of them and posted it on facebook and the tattoo in the picture gave him away. Something similar was done to a person working with the Baltimore police department who was trying to coerce Walmart protesters who were circulating flyers showing how Walmart sells products made by children who work in sweat shops in third world countries (3,000 of which died in a fire in Bangladesh, under unbearable conditions.) I find this kind of activism just as important as saving Syrian refugees. Walmart needs to be taken to the mat for this. You can’t let the government try to silence the voice of activists by giving them these powers- and take this slippery slope. Otherwise 1984 will become a reality. And in the other thread I illustrated for you the unholy collusion between corporations like Walmart and the government to silence voices of dissent. It’s not just “terrorists” they put in black sites and torture (something which I oppose for anyone)- and it’s something which they did in collusion with the APA, for which now they are widely derided. Because it’s been scientifically proven that those methods simply do not work!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57879394

http://pagesix.com/2016/06/05/tell-all-book-reveals-hillarys-erratic-uncontrollable-ways-in-the-white-house/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4013000

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57879409

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57872853

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/04/mississippi-police-officer-slams-teen-ground-headfirst-during-scuffle-viral-video-shows

http://nypost.com/2016/06/03/two-teens-who-beat-up-elderly-woman-on-train-surrender/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57885209

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57884489

Sorry that I have post again, but I want to share a good laugh a comment found under an interesting article from Greenwald.

Benito:

“I congratulate the Associated Press for this humane decision to put the primary voters out of their misery, and simply declare Mrs. Clinton the nominee. A lot of people in California and other states would have been forced to go through the charade of voting, taking away valuable time that could have been allocated to more worthwhile pursuits such as rioting. While some may argue this is undemocratic, the symbolism represented by the leader is far more important than democratic choice. Voters have demonstrated by their past behavior, an annoying predilection to vote for the wrong candidate. As a self declared liberal, I don’t take the extreme position that voting should be eliminated, but am pleased to see that at least it is being curtailed.

So a hearty congratulations to Mrs. Clinton for her spectacular victory. A congratulations is in order to the DNC as well, and their signature achievement of nominating the most unpopular Democratic nominee in history. The super delegates may prefer to humbly remain anonymous, but they too should be congratulated for ensuring that the democratic process did not have even a slight chance of undermining the will of the party. Under the proud and fearless leadership of the neocons, may the Democratic Party lead the United States of America towards its ultimate destiny.”

Also the article is interesting, but I think Greenwald could have also named the eroded primaries in which the two party dictatorship has done in the past everything they could to make sure that only a certain group is allowed to vote and especially independent voters or candidates have no chance at all. So someone like Sanders who is not backed from the bigmoney (Mic,Frackingindustry,WS, Saudis..) and attracks a lot of independent voters has nearly no chance to get “elected” from the democratic and independent DNC.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/?comments=1#comments

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57889784

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57881260

“It’s a crime under the Espionage Act to willingly, or inadvertently, transfer 22 Top Secret emails from secure State Department servers, to an unguarded private server. This is essentially what Hillary Clinton paid Bryan Pagliano to do (when linking her private computer server to secure State servers) and is likely the reason he was granted immunity. ”

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10317324.html

It’s time the FBI recommends to indict this evil subhuman.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57881260

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57887283

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57883985

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57881416

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/31/the-gop-platforms-surprisingly-progressive-stance-on-crime/

 

 

And some may even be critical about what ClintonI did with WS, but ClintonII doesn´t care as long as someone near her can make a good deal. https://theintercept.com/2016/05/27/hillary-clinton-wont-say-how-much-goldman-sachs-ceo-invested-with-her-son-in-law/

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2129265834/overview

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57784017

Have heard ClintonII is the chosen one, totally not biased from all the money she gets from their good friends around the globe.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/

 

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/26/amy_goodman_on_aj_how_thehttp://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/25/seymour_hersh_weighs_in_on_sandershttp://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/15/robert_scheer_v_torie_osborn_ahttp://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/15/juan_gonzalez_clinton_has_really_distortedhttp://www.democracynow.org/topics/bernie_sandershttp://www.democracynow.org/topics/panama_papers

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/dear-fbi-the-democratic-p_b_9784334.html

Comments
Sort by
Top

Add a comment…

Also post on Facebook
Write 6 more characters to post to Facebook
Post

Alex C Kent · Pediatrician at Methodist Hospital
At least we Bernie supporters know the system can be far better than it currently is and don’t go begging on the street corner for the support of the lowest common denominator of America’s corporatocracy.

Remember what you said when the beast loses because we won’t vote for it. Democrat “insiders” insist they don’t want Independents voting in “their primary” so why should we vote for them in the general election? We won’t.

Come back to us with a woman who actually deserves to be president, like Elizabeth Warren, and we’ll then revise our position. The Beast can go back to dumpster diving.
Like · Reply · 4 mins

Sandra Bowen · Works at Bowen Inc.
Yes, from me, too —
Dear FBI, please help!

Thank you!

PS We’re also worried about what appears to be voter fraud! Thanks
Like · Reply · 78 · 5 hrs

Terry Welch
Voter fraud based on…?
Like · Reply · 36 mins

Melissa Santiago · Buffalo State College
Thank you Mr. Goodman this was spot on. We do not want someone under FBI investigations on top of all the other scandals to be the leader of this country. Not.only is it scary, but a huge gamble that will probably give Trump the nomination if shes indicted during the general election. There’s a reason for all the voter suppression that’s been going on and why Independents, the largest voter group of it’s constituance cannot vote in most states do to closed primaries. Literally blocking millions of people ,but for some odd reason they can vote in the general election. Talk aboit a rigged system to control control control. Not looking forward the next 4 years with #WhichHillary.
Like · Reply · 58 · 4 hrs

Ally Eatwell
Melissa Santiago, indeed, the largest voting group, Independents, is being blocked. The biggest insult toward Independents is coming from their pockets. Taxpayer dollars pay for Primaries. So, Independent voters are paying for elections they are being excluded from! At, 43% and growing, Independents, the largest part of the electorate can and must push for a consistent open primary system in all states.
FairVote.org/
OpenPrimaries.org/
Like · Reply · 40 · 4 hrs

Sam Meyers · Des Moines, Iowa
You are so right. I am a Brit. that has been living in America for some time. I came here when Bill Cinton was publicly humilating his family and country with all his disgusting shenanigans and the scandal and shady behavior of this couple has continued since then. I am speechless that anyone is supporting his wife for this position. Not only has she proven inadequate, not only with just about every task Bill gave her to do when President, but also as secretary of state, but she is a duplicitous and untrustworthy hypocrite. A truly sub-standard candidate, totally lacking vision and not worthy to be President. I hope the FBI completes their investigation soon and rids us of the Clintons once and for all. Would also like to see an investigation of their shady so-called charity as well.
Like · Reply · 7 · 1 hr

Terry Welch
Do you know that Only 47% of Bernie’s primary victories were in open/semi-open primaries? Should the other 53% of closed/semi-closed primaries–a.k.a. parties choosing their leaders–be cancelled?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · 34 mins

Alex C Kent · Pediatrician at Methodist Hospital
Terry Welch Yes they should . At least we Bernie supporters know the system can be far better than it currently is and don’t go begging on the street corner for the support of the lowest common denominator of America’s corporatocracy.

Remember what you said when the beast loses because we won’t vote for it. Democrat “insiders” they don’t want Independents voting in “their primary” so why should we vote for them in the general election? We won’t.

Come back to us with a woman who actually deserves to be president, like Elizabeth Warren, and we’ll then revise our position. The Beast can go back to dumpster diving.
Like · Reply · 2 mins

Randa Morris · Oscoda, Michigan
Spot on The truth is, although I have been a dem for a long time, what’s happening within the party is too much for me. The fact is that if you question HRC or criticize her in any way, there are many members of the party that act as if you should be executed on the spot for this alleged ‘disloyalty’ You’re called a ‘not real dem’ or a ‘fake Dem’ (reminds me too much of what it was like trying to tell repubs that Iraq was a lie and you were attacked as ‘disloyal’ to your country and ‘unAmerican.’ I sincerely hope that HRC is not nominated to represent the party for that exact reason. We’ve already seen what happens when people refuse to question the leaders they are inexplicably bound to and refuse to believe they can do any wrong. The scariest thing to me is having a president with these kind of devoted, half-crazed followers, who dismiss everything in the media as a ‘conspiracy’ against their annointed leader.
Unlike · Reply · 43 · 4 hrs

Ted Rawlings
Don’t forget Bill and Hillary’s significant part in the Iraq War:

“…If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

Bill Clinton went to war with Iraq in December of 1998 (code-named Operation Desert Fox). It was a major four-day bombing campaign by th…See More
Like · Reply · 11 · 2 hrs

Patty Smith · Old Dominion University
FBI, please defend our American democracy! We need your help to end corruption in our government. Defend justice! Save our democracy. And give us back our country! We are counting on you.
Like · Reply · 38 · 4 hrs

Steve Wehrly · Seattle University
Can anybody believe that the investigation would still be going on if the FBI has found nothing? Plus, there are two tracks to the investigation, either of which could end Clinton’s campaign: 1. the emails; 2. the foundation and Huma Abedin’s work and pay (simultaneously) for the State Dept., Mrs. Clinton personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton lobbying/PR firm. Is it even possible that Abedin’s work in all four positions did not involve a conflict of interest and conspiracy? If either Clinton or Abedin tried to hide one incriminating e-mail, both would be liable to prosecution. Obama’s entire Presidencial legacy will be shattered if he or Justice tries to cover up, to say nothing of the impeachment that will begin immediately if there’s no indictment or if Obama tries to pardon Clinton, Abedin or anybody else.
Like · Reply · 36 · 4 hrs

Bodhi LeRoc · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
There is a third track, which the press rarely mentions, which is that she directly violated the FOIA by destroying emails and skirting security protocols re her blackberry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/presidential-nominating-system-rigged_us_57209f59e4b01a5ebde40051
Sort by
Top

Add a comment…

Your comment may also appear on The Huffington Post’s Facebook Page.
Post

Alex C Kent · Pediatrician at Methodist Hospital
I don’t believe in the two party system either, there is so much wrong with it. At least we Bernie supporters know the system can be far better than it currently is and don’t go begging on the street corner for the support of the lowest common denominator of America’s corporatocracy.

Democrat “insiders” insist they don’t want Independents voting in “their primary” so why should we vote for them in the general election? We won’t.
Like · Reply · Just now

John Lodge · Spencerport, New York
Of Course it is. The founding fathers are rolling over in their collective graves. They NEVER intended to have 2 entrenched parties pulling all the strings. The whole Nominating process is controlled completely by the two individual parties, they even have two totally separate sets of rules. If it wasn’t for the ridiculous nominating process the presidential election process could be shortened to 6 months instead of 2 years, which would negate much of the fund raising which taints the process allowing donors to own them even before the election.
Like · Reply · 119 · 9 hrs

Dallas Dunlap · Works at Retired
John Lodge – The Founders didn’t even provide for a popular vote for President. They set up the Electoral College, with the Electors to be chosen by whatever method the states chose. At the time of the first Presidential election, only six states had the public voting for Electors, with voting restricted to free white men over the age of 21 who owned substantial property. George Washington, running unopposed, got only 39,000 votes.
Until the early 20th century there were no primaries. State parties chose convention delegates in party caucuses. The delegates chose the nominee at the party conv…See More
Like · Reply · 57 · 8 hrs

John Saint
Dallas Dunlap your forgetting one other part,they had NO orimaries. primaries were set up to HELP keep it a 2 party system. the ORIGINAL was every ran on the ballot. the top was president number 2 was vp.so you would have 7-8 people running for president.no the people do vote for president,they vote in each state for that states electorial college,you need to win states not total population.but the idea is to win the majority of states.
Like · Reply · 3 · 8 hrs

William Joyce · Delaware Technical & Community College
The founders were very smart and ahead of their time,in reading their writings their biggest fear of corperations and the wealthy buying the system.Flash forward to today and that is what happened and I am sure everyone of them is rolling over in their graves today

Half Of Americans Think Presidential Nominating System ‘Rigged’ – Poll
“I’d prefer to see a one-man-one-vote system.”
04/27/2016 07:21 am ET
3.4 K
CHARLES MOSTOLLER / REUTERS
A voter leaves the booth after casting her ballot in the Pennsylvania primary at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S., April 26, 2016.
More than half of American voters believe that the system U.S. political parties use to pick their candidates for the White House is “rigged” and more than two-thirds want to see the process changed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The results echo complaints from Republican front-runner Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders that the system is stacked against them in favor of candidates with close ties to their parties – a critique that has triggered a nationwide debate over whether the process is fair.

The United States is one of just a handful of countries that gives regular voters any say in who should make it onto the presidential ballot. But the state-by-state system of primaries, caucuses and conventions is complex. The contests historically were always party events, and while the popular vote has grown in influence since the mid-20th century, the parties still have considerable sway.

One quirk of the U.S. system – and the area where the parties get to flex their muscle – is the use of delegates, party members who are assigned to support contenders at their respective conventions, usually based on voting results. The parties decide how delegates are awarded in each state, with the Republicans and Democrats having different rules.

The delegates’ personal opinions can come into play at the party conventions if the race is too close to call – an issue that has become a lightning rod in the current political season.

Another complication is that state governments have different rules about whether voters must be registered as party members to participate. In some states, parties further restrict delegate selection to small committees of party elites, as the Republican Party in Colorado did this year.

‘SO FLAWED’

“I’d prefer to see a one-man-one-vote system,” said Royce Young, 76, a resident of Society Hill, South Carolina, who supports Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. “The process is so flawed.”

Trump has repeatedly railed against the rules, at times calling them undemocratic. After the Colorado Republican Party awarded all its delegates to Ted Cruz, for example, Trump lashed out in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, charging “the system is being rigged by party operatives with ‘double-agent’ delegates who reject the decision of voters.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has dismissed Trump’s complaints as “rhetoric” and said the rules would not be changed before the Republican convention in July.

Trump swept the five Northeastern nominating contests on Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The New York billionaire has 950 delegates to 560 for Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas, and 153 for Kasich, the Ohio governor, according to the Associated Press. A total of 1,237 delegates are needed to secure the Republican nomination.

On the Democratic side, Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has taken issue with the party’s use of superdelegates, the hundreds of elite party members who can support whomever they like at the convention and who this year overwhelmingly back front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has repeatedly emphasized that she is beating Sanders in both total votes cast and in pledged delegates, those who are bound by the voting results – rendering his complaints about superdelegates moot.

On Tuesday, the former secretary of state won Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut, while Sanders won in Rhode Island. Clinton leads Sanders by 2,141 delegates to 1,321, according to the AP, with 2,383 needed to win the nomination.

Sanders has also criticized party bosses for not holding enough prime-time television debates and said before a string of primaries open only to registered Democrats this month that “independents have lost their right to vote,” referring to a voter block that has tended to favor him.

A Democratic National Committee official was not immediately available to comment.

‘ARCANE RULES’

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said the U.S. presidential nominating system could probably be improved in a number of areas, but noted that the control wielded by party leadership usually became an issue only during tight races.

“The popular vote overwhelms the rules usually, but in these close elections, everyone pays attention to these arcane rules,” he said.

Some 51 percent of likely voters who responded to the April 21-26 online survey said they believed the primary system was “rigged” against some candidates. Some 71 percent of respondents said they would prefer to pick their party’s nominee with a direct vote, cutting out the use of delegates as intermediaries.

The results also showed 27 percent of likely voters did not understand how the primary process works and 44 percent did not understand why delegates were involved in the first place. The responses were about the same for Republicans and Democrats.

Overall, nearly half said they would also prefer a single primary day in which all states held their nominating contests together – as opposed to the current system of spreading them out for months.

The poll included 1,582 Americans and had a credibility interval of 2.9 percentage points.

(Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Leslie Adler)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/presidential-nominating-system-rigged_us_57209f59e4b01a5ebde40051
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-so-many-young-women-love-the-pull-out-method_us_5718f1f0e4b024dae4f14305

 

long story short, I used to take a bus to work to save time, and I ended up getting stalked by a woman who figured out where I live and took an earlier bus and was waiting for me at my doorstep one day.

another girl was honking her horn at me all the way to my car and that was really embarrassing, I was ignoring her but she wouldn’t let go.

another girl jumped into the shower when I called her and started- doing things- my family was visiting and they heard her (she was on speakerphone because I was cooking) it was so embarrassing I tried to end the call but dropped the phone behind a table and she just kept going and going, until I got to the phone and was able to shut it off. Later she called back and apologized lol.

another girl who couldn’t have been more than 16 bent over after I walked out of my hair appt and she wasn’t wearing any underwear and I could see straight down, I told her to go find her mother I wanted to talk to the mom and she told me she wanted me to be her “daddy” OMG I didn’t walk away, I ran away.

ellen plit st louis mo rn

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-data-dump-in-may-2016-4

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-data-dump-in-may-2016-4

Only some links, you will find the other talks from the Logan symposium on youtu…

Have only seen some but there are a lot of interestings talks, including some notes about theguardian in the talk with Appelbaum , especially the stories at the end. The sound from Snowden becomes better after 6-7min. To name some speakers Appelbaum, Assange, Drake, Binney, Snowden and many more interesting people who are speaking about the status quo of the media including influence of money and the Gov, about how to protect journalism or rest of it, freedom of speech, how you can protect yourself and many more interesting topics.

Only some links, you will find the other talks from the Logan symposium on youtu…


Something else I can’t stand is how glib “Democrats” say they can’t stand that Bernie was in their primary, that it belongs to THEM and they don’t want his revolution- and yet they want Independents to vote for their candidates? It’s not going to happen. Either open your primaries or Independents have every right to ignore you in the general election. The point is why should we vote for them in the general election when they won’t let us vote in their primaries- particularly since most new voters are independents (and up to 40% are, in for example, NY.)

Something else I can’t stand is how glib “Democrats” say they can’t stand that Bernie was in their primary, that it belongs to THEM and they don’t want his revolution- and yet they want Independents to vote for their candidates? It’s not going to happen. Either open your primaries or Independents have every right to ignore you in the general election. The point is why should we vote for them in the general election when they won’t let us vote in their primaries- particularly since most new voters are independents (and up to 40% are, in for example, NY.)

Something else I can’t stand is how glib “Democrats” say they can’t stand that Bernie was in their primary, that it belongs to THEM and they don’t want his revolution- and yet they want Independents to vote for their candidates? It’s not going to happen. Either open your primaries or Independents have every right to ignore you in the general election. The point is why should we vote for them in the general election when they won’t let us vote in their primaries- particularly since most new voters are independents (and up to 40% are, in for example, NY.)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/king-not-vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2615978

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/king-not-vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2615978

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57679570

Agree, imagen on weekend where every newschannel around the world would be forced to show some of the Logan discussions followed with an open debate with politicians, the public, journalists… about the status quo of our societies inclusive what is done in “our” names (dronestrikes as one example) and the solutions which we are needing.

If you have some free time, the other discussions like “Can you hear me now”, “Challenge Power 2”, “Future of OS”, “Todays investigative platforms”, “Report from the front”, “Difficult Targets” … are also interesting and please feel free to share information and good sources with others, we need a much better informed public.

Independent from the topic, which english newsoutlets are giving alternatives like the Greens (Jill Stein) or Lessig a voice?

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/new-study-shows-mass-surveillance-breeds-meekness-fear-and-self-censorship/

“New Study Shows Mass Surveillance Breeds Meekness, Fear and Self-Censorship

A newly published study from Oxford’s Jon Penney provides empirical evidence for a key argument long made by privacy advocates: that the mere existence of a surveillance state breeds fear and conformity and stifles free expression. Reporting on the study, the Washington Post this morning described this phenomenon: “If we think that authorities are watching our online actions, we might stop visiting certain websites or not say certain things just to avoid seeming suspicious.”

The new study documents how, in the wake of the 2013 Snowden revelations (of which 87% of Americans were aware), there was “a 20 percent decline in page views on Wikipedia articles related to terrorism, including those that mentioned ‘al-Qaeda,’ “car bomb’ or ‘Taliban.’” People were afraid to read articles about those topics because of fear that doing so would bring them under a cloud of suspicion. The dangers of that dynamic were expressed well by Penney: “If people are spooked or deterred from learning about important policy matters like terrorism and national security, this is a real threat to proper democratic debate.””

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/new-study-shows-mass-surveillance-breeds-meekness-fear-and-self-censorship/

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/27/new-study-snowdens-disclosures-about-nsa-spying-had-a-scary-effect-on-free-speech/

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/new-study-shows-mass-surveillance-breeds-meekness-fear-and-self-censorship/

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/new-study-shows-mass-surveillance-breeds-meekness-fear-and-self-censorship/

What we really need is equal time. I’ll give you an example. Democracy Now held a big protest on DC about the way the primary system is conducted in the US. It got ZERO coverage by the mainstream media. So did the Millions Against Monsanto protest last year which drew almost a million people. They only provide coverage for the “news” that concerns their corporate sponsors, not the news which should really concern us. Most of the news they report is the same drivel over and over again- I don’t even watch CNN anymore. The internet is a far better source of news and I hope others make the same decision and their ratings suffer. A big sign of their manipulative ways is how many fossil fuel company commercials there are in the middle of “news” broadcasts and previously there were monsanto ads until a bunch of us pounded a few media outlets’ social media pages and told them we wouldn’t be watching any shows on their networks until the ads were gone. A few weeks later, they were gone.

As a matter of fact, the Washington Post was lamenting the other day about how many more people follow social media than care about what the newspapers “think” because the newspapers and the rest of the mass media were all dismissing Bernie Sanders and none of us cared- we don’t get our “news” from them because we’re intelligent enough to know when they’re trying to use us as puppets and force feed us a media propaganda that does not agree with reality.

What we really need is equal time. I’ll give you an example. Democracy Now held a big protest on DC about the way the primary system is conducted in the US. It got ZERO coverage by the mainstream media. So did the Millions Against Monsanto protest last year which drew almost a million people. They only provide coverage for the “news” that concerns their corporate sponsors, not the news which should really concern us. Most of the news they report is the same drivel over and over again- I don’t even watch CNN anymore. The internet is a far better source of news and I hope others make the same decision and their ratings suffer. A big sign of their manipulative ways is how many fossil fuel company commercials there are in the middle of “news” broadcasts and previously there were monsanto ads until a bunch of us pounded a few media outlets’ social media pages and told them we wouldn’t be watching any shows on their networks until the ads were gone. A few weeks later, they were gone.

As a matter of fact, the Washington Post was lamenting the other day about how many more people follow social media than care about what the newspapers “think” because the newspapers and the rest of the mass media were all dismissing Bernie Sanders and none of us cared- we don’t get our “news” from them because we’re intelligent enough to know when they’re trying to use us as puppets and force feed us a media propaganda that does not agree with reality.

Well I’ve been involved in a lot of activism but never cared much for the political process because as others have stated, real change begins from the ground up. The fact is there are far more of us than there are of them and we need to utilize our power of numbers to bring real change. I don’t care how much money or power someone has they should not win if they are vastly outnumbered, the question is how do you mobilize all these people for a common cause (or range of common causes?) I think we’re beginning to see that now.

Well I’ve been involved in a lot of activism but never cared much for the political process because as others have stated, real change begins from the ground up. The fact is there are far more of us than there are of them and we need to utilize our power of numbers to bring real change. I don’t care how much money or power someone has they should not win if they are vastly outnumbered, the question is how do you mobilize all these people for a common cause (or range of common causes?) I think we’re beginning to see that now.

 

Advertisements