OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)
THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)
YEAR ONE
YEAR TWO
YEAR THREE
YEAR FOUR
YEAR FIVE
YEAR SIX
|
OBOF YEAR SIX INDEX
|
|
|
OBOF TYMHM Vol. 16 No. 1
|
Jan. 03, 2016
|
|
OBOF TYMHM Vol. 16 No. 2
|
Jan. 25, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agenda
1. FROM FLOYD
2. Bernie Sanders Rockets to First Place in Iowa
3.
Hillary
& Bernie - The Credibility Gap
4.
The
Most Critically Important Issue in this Election; Taking our Country Back
5.
Bernie for President
2016
6. Bernie Sanders Raised $33 Million in Campaign
Donations Last Quarter
FROM FLOYD
GOOD
NEWS
My Son has been given clearance to start
walking and he has been able to come to my house and correct the problems with
my computer. Better, and more news
coming. It sure is good to see him getting
around again.
~~~
Bernie Sanders Rockets to First
Place in Iowa
January 23, 2016
| News Report
It’s great news for progressives – Bernie Sanders has
pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa less
than two weeks before the Iowa
caucus.
According to a new poll released by CNN on Thursday, 51% of
polled voters would vote for Bernie Sanders, with only 43% in support of
Hillary Clinton.
The poll was conducted via telephone with a sample size
of 2,002 Iowa
voters. It has a sampling error of plus
or minus 6 percentage points.
This is a huge shift for Sanders, who was lagging behind Clinton in a similar poll
in December 54% to 36%. Sanders success
may be attributed to his recent announcements of his healthcare plan “Medicare for All” and his plans for breaking up Wall Street and the “too
big to fail” banks. In fact, Clinton has been pushed
aside as the best on health care by Sanders 51% to 45%. Voters also voted for Sanders to be the most
trusted to handle the economy 58% to 36%. Perhaps the largest gap was the
amount of voters that trust Sanders’ policies to help the middle class, versus
Hillary’s policies with 67% to 30%.
~~~
Hillary & Bernie - The
Credibility Gap
January 23, 2016
| Op-Ed
Panic now grips the Clinton
campaign. Polls show Bernie Sanders
surging to a dramatic lead in New Hampshire and closing in Iowa. The Washington
Post reports that Hillary’s national numbers are dropping faster now than
they did in 2008. The Clinton campaign
has started throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Sanders, with the
gutter award captured, thus far, by Senator Claire McCaskill who smeared him with the
“hammer and sickle,” transparently attributing the red-baiting to future
Republican attacks of her own imagination.
But the question isn’t what’s wrong with Bernie — he’s
soaring beyond all expectations. The
question is what’s wrong with Hillary?
She has universal name recognition, unparalleled experience,
the support of the big money and the political gatekeepers, the Hollywood
glitz, the best political operatives, the pollsters, the ad makers, the
establishment policy mavens, and political press coverage. Having learned from 2008, she’s got the best
ground operation in the history of Iowa
caucuses that still may rescue her there. But she’s sinking rapidly against a
73-year-old political maverick who is still just introducing himself to the
American people
It’s great news for progressives – Bernie Sanders has
pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa less
than two weeks before the Iowa
caucus.
According to a new poll released by CNN on Thursday, 51% of polled
voters would vote for Bernie Sanders, with only 43% in support of Hillary
Clinton.
The poll was conducted via telephone with a sample size
of 2,002 Iowa
voters. It has a sampling error of plus
or minus 6 percentage points.
This is a huge shift for Sanders, who was lagging behind Clinton in a similar poll
in December 54% to 36%.
Sanders success may be attributed to his recent
announcements of his healthcare plan “Medicare for All” and his plans for breaking up Wall Street and the “too
big to fail” banks. In fact, Clinton has been pushed
aside as the best on health care by Sanders 51% to 45%. Voters
also voted for Sanders to be the most trusted to handle the economy 58% to 36%. Perhaps the largest gap
was the amount of voters that trust Sanders’ policies to help the middle class,
versus Hillary’s policies with 67% to 30%.
Iowa caucuses that still may rescue her there. But she’s sinking rapidly against a
73-year-old political maverick who is still just introducing himself to the
American people.
Already the inevitable Clinton circular firing squad has begun
firing its salvos: We should have gone
negative on Bernie earlier. We should
have used Bill more… or less. We
shouldn’t have bet the house on the first four primaries. Woulda, shoulda, coulda.
Inevitably, any Clinton
campaign carries a lot of baggage that simply has to be overcome. The assaults on her won’t really be unleashed
until the general election (although Donald Trump and Republican legislators
have already started). What is plaguing
the Clinton
campaign are less the sins of the past than the strategic choices of the
present — particularly her decision to be the candidate of big money.
Hillary’s Unilateral
Disarmament
From its start, the Clinton
campaign has boasted about its unparalleled fundraising capacity. HRC geared up a bevy of SuperPacs and C4s to
take big donations and dark money. She
launched a relentless operation to get wealthy donors to max out both for the
primary and the general. Her ability to
raise money helped scare away other potential contenders. Her continued
commitment to this path is symbolized by the $33,400 a plate dinner
Warren Buffet is hosting for her in Washington, D.C. on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. People who can afford $33,400 for one seat at
the table aren’t exactly the working people Hillary claims to champion.
Sanders, of course, made a different decision. He has condemned Super PACs, big money and
secret contributions. He has funded his
campaign with record numbers of small donations raised largely over the social
media. He doesn’t have anything like a
traditional campaign fundraising operation. That independence gives both force
and integrity to his core message that it is time to take back our democracy
from the “billionaire class,” the entrenched interests, and the Wall Street
banksters.
Clinton argues that she favors fundamental campaign
finance reform, but she can’t “unilaterally disarm.” Deep pocket Republicans
are amassing huge war chests to assault her. She has to be armed with big money to defend
herself.
But in doing so, Clinton
“unilaterally disarmed” her own credibility. The Clinton
family foundation and the family fortune have been built with large contributions and
lavish “speaking fees,” significantly from the biggest financial interests in
the country. Wall Street made Hillary herself a millionaire, as she pocketed over $3 million in
speaking fees from Wall Street finance houses in 2013. She made nearly as much ($2.8 million)
speaking to health care industry interests.
And now her campaign is raising big
bucks from the same folks.
The result is corrosive. When Clinton
insists that her Wall Street reforms are far tougher than those of Bernie
Sanders and Martin O’Malley, it rings false. She attacks Sanders for supporting Medicare
for All which naturally is the bête noire of the private health insurance and
drug companies.
When Sanders invoked the $600,000 Clinton received from Goldman Sachs alone in
speaking fees (a bank that just agreed to pay $5 billion essentially for
mortgage fraud) in the last debate, her only defense was to suggest that a
similar criticism would apply to Barack Obama who also raised money from Wall
Street. Democrats like President Obama,
but the defense is pretty lame given that fact that he will leave office with
the big banks bigger and more concentrated than they were when their excesses
blew up the economy, and with no major banker going to jail for what the FBI
describes as an “epidemic of fraud.”
Moreover, Sanders has demonstrated that it is possible to
generate enough true popular excitement to raise enough money from small
donations to be financially competitive at a presidential level. He didn’t “unilaterally disarm;” he armed
himself in a manner consistent with his program. And every attack by the Clinton camp only rouses his committed and
growing army of small donors to ante up again.
In the general election, this might not matter as much.
Every Republican — except Donald Trump, the self-funding billionaire — is
enmeshed in the same pursuit of big money. But in the primary, as Clinton protests angrily that she is a true
progressive reformer, her words lack conviction not because of Sanders’ mild criticisms
but because she has unilaterally disarmed her own credibility.
Credibility and
Electability
In his brilliant new book, America Ascendent, Stanley Greenberg, the
opinion analyst who helped Bill Clinton win in 1992, maintains that credibility
on political reform is a big deal, not a side note.
Greenberg has tracked the emerging majority that Obama
helped forge of the young, single women, and people of color whom he projects
will constitute a majority of the electorate in 2016. These voters are looking for change. They fare among the worst in the modern
economy and are the most supportive of the activist government and progressive
reforms championed by Bernie Sanders and, yes, by Hillary Clinton.
But, Greenberg argues, these voters are the most
skeptical of whether government will serve them in the end. They understand that the rich and powerful
have rigged the rules, that when money talks, politicians listen. Corruption isn’t a bug, it’s a feature of our
big money politics.
Greenberg’s polling for Women’s Voices, Women’s Vote and
other groups suggest that before they give a reform agenda a hearing, these
voters must see a candidate who is credibly committed to political reform — to
curbing big money in politics, to cleaning out the stables in Washington, to
making government serve the many and not just the wealthy and wired few. As Greenberg concludes, “When voters
hear the [political] reform narrative first, they are dramatically more open to
the middle-class economic narrative that calls for government activism in
response to America’s
problems.”
This helps explain the remarkable excitement that Sanders
has generated among the young. He passionately champions popular big reforms —
tuition free college, a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for all, a bold climate
change agenda, breaking up the big banks and more. And his integrity and credibility are affirmed
by his commitment to funding his campaign with the support of millions of
citizens, not the big money of special interests.
As Greg Sargent of the Washington
Post notes, Hillary’s
credibility gulf also undermines her argument about “electability.” Democrats have a natural majority among the
electorate, but only if they turn out. Even
the Clinton
campaign has been worried about whether HRC can generate the excitement among
the rising American electorate to get them to the polls. Now, they worry about whether Sanders will
generate so much excitement that he will flood the Iowa caucuses and primaries with a wave of
new voters.
Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate who has
assembled a strong campaign. She will
remain formidable even if Sanders exceeds expectations by doing well in Iowa and winning in New Hampshire. The panic among her
supporters is both unseemly and excessive.
Claire McCaskill and the rest of the hit squad would be well advised to
listen to the advice Campaign Chair John Podesta offered to David Brock, head
of one of the Clinton Super PACs, and “chill out.” Clinton’s difficulties stem not from the
attacks of Sanders — the most courtly of opponents — but from her own revealing
choices.
~~~
The Most Critically Important Issue in this Election; Taking our
Country Back
January 17, 2016
| Op-Ed
Nothing is more important than the need for the American
people to take their government back; to once again make this a government “Of,
by and for the people.” Sadly we have seen our democracy transformed into an
oligarchy in which the rich and powerful, together with the masters of
Corporatism, have taken control over this country and its government.
Over the past several decades this ultra-powerful entity
has placed a vice-like grip on this government. It, thanks to the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision, is now being allowed to flood
our election process with unlimited amounts of corporate money in order to
elect those to Congress who will bend to its dictates and facilitate its
special interests. Estimates indicate that it will spend as much as $5 billion
in this presidential campaign. That’s
obscene.
Let’s see how this corporate grip on our government is
damaging this country. What we have here
is a powerful alliance between Corporate America and the government that is
without question, determining the direction of this country. The people of America have no voice, no say in these
matters, and their needs, their wants and what they may think are irrelevant to
those who are in command of this alliance.
For example, in poll after poll, Americans are quite
clear about what they believe that their government should do. First, they badly want this government to
create millions of more jobs for America’s workers; to see new
industries developed and jobs returned to this country from overseas. The corporate/government alliance wants no
such thing and job creation is not even on the table. Anyone recall when they last heard of a
comprehensive plan by this Congress to create jobs? Even one?
Americans are sick and tired of constant war and watching
massive amounts of taxpayer dollars pumped into the military machine. Iraq
and Afghanistan were
disastrous and now the U.S.
government is caught up in another quagmire in Syria. Check out this article, one of a great many that give the details of the massive U.S. military presence all over the world, with
elite U.S.
special ops forces existing in some 147 countries.
Here is one of the major conclusions that this excellent
article presents: “Investing in enduring bases rather than diplomatic,
political, and humanitarian efforts to reduce conflict across the region
(meaning the Greater Middle East in
particular) is likely to do little more than ensure enduring war. Wise words to
be sure but they will fall on deaf ears of those who continue to facilitate
this government’s agenda of war.
This controlling corporate/government alliance places an
enormous emphasis on expanding U.S.
military presence across the world but at the expense of America’s many other critically
important needs. It’s as if everything
of importance in America
has been put on hold because of this ongoing pursuit of military objectives. It is serving to suffocate America’s creative and innovative abilities that
once produced great achievements and made America the envy of the world.
The people want to see an appropriate portion of those
funds shifted from the military into domestic needs, for example, those such as
repairing and improving our crumbling national infrastructure and our education
system.
Americans want to see steps taken to lessen this
country’s dependency on petroleum and begin the process of developing alternate
sources of energy, primarily solar power. That’s not going to happen anytime soon
because the giant petroleum corporations who are a major part of this alliance;
they say NO!
Bernie Sanders continually talks about the massive
inequality of wealth and income between those at the top and the
rest of Americans, which is hurting this country and this society in so many
ways. Congress clearly has the power to deal with this inequality in many
different ways but chooses to totally ignore it. And why? Well, because the wealthiest Americans and the
masters of corporatism don’t want any part of it and so the Congress does what it
is told.
The majority of the people are not pleased with the sad
state of the electoral process in this country. They see politicians continually elected who
then go to Congress and, instead of representing the interests of the country
and its people, they answer only to those who control the campaign funds that
determine the outcome of most elections. That’s deplorable but it’s how the system
operates and the people are helpless to do anything about it.
So what in the world can the American people do to deal
with this situation; how can they reverse this direction, what measures can
they use, what process can they follow
to turn it around?
The most effective way to deal with this situation would
be to determine how to reverse the Citizens United decision and ban those
massive corporate campaign contributions. The best one would be through the Supreme
Court reversing that decision. The other would necessitate a Constitutional
Amendment, a virtually impossible endeavor. However, neither of these options
will ever materialize as long as the current court is controlled by five
Republican-appointed justices who will block any attempt to do it.
So what to do? Simply
this; that court’s makeup would have to be reconstituted into one that would be
very receptive to taking the steps to initiate that reversal.
Let’s look at the ages of the 9 justices on the court to
determine how long it could be before one or more would retire or might die in
office.
Antonin Scalia – 79
Anthony Kennedy – 79
Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 82
Clarence Thomas – 67
Steven Breyer – 77
John Roberts – 60
Samuel Alito – 65
Sonia Sotomayor – 61
Elena Kagan – 55
That indicates that there are 3 or 4 of these justices
who would probably need to be replaced in the next one or two terms of the next
president.
Of all the current candidates running in the presidential
primaries in both parties how many of them even consider this to be a deep and
serious issue and problem for this country? The only one that consistently brings it up is
Bernie Sanders as one of his main talking points. Hillary Clinton does not emphasize it as much
but indications are that she would make this reversal of Citizens United a
prime objective in her administration.
Therefore, we can conclude that of all the candidates of
both parties who are currently in the running to become the next president only
two, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, would appoint new justices who would,
undoubtedly, be favorable to reversing Citizens United.
As far as the Republican candidates go, the idea that any
one of them would ever even consider initiating steps to reverse that decision
is unthinkable. So, the natural
conclusion for those who are very intent on taking their country back and
restoring its democracy will call for them to think deeply about voting for
either Clinton or Sanders. While I
certainly am not a supporter of Clinton
I would, in fact, vote for her if I believed that it would result in taking our
country back.
Bernie Sanders talks about the major banks that are “too
big to fail”, those who were the primary cause of the 2007-2008 recession, who
are masters of using clever scams and schemes to fleece the American people. Banks that have been receiving ongoing huge
loans from the Federal Reserve Bank at near zero % rates and who have not
appropriately used the funds to make loans to businesses; and, instead, have
used a good portion of them for their own purposes, including buybacks of their
stocks.
The collusive nature of these banks and the government
was evident when these banks who largely caused the 2007-2008 recession cried
out for government to help them when they were in deep trouble. Thereafter the U.S.
Congress and the president did not hesitate to provide the huge funding to bail
them out. Did the powerful banks learn
from their near catastrophe and change their ways? Absolutely not.
In this upcoming presidential election it’s imperative
that the vast majority of Americans join the movement whose chief objective is
to take our government back; to make it “A government of, by and for the people
and to restore our democracy. And the
only way to accomplish that formidable task is to break up the powerful
corporate/government alliance that stands in the way.
Michael Payne is an
independent progressive activist. His writings deal with social, economic,
political and foreign policy issues; and especially with the great dangers
involved with the proliferation of perpetual war, the associated defense
industry, and the massive control that Corporate America holds over this
government and our election process; all which are leading this nation down the
road to eventual financial ruin if the conditions are not reversed. He is a graduate of Northwestern
University, Evanston,
Illinois and a U.S. Army veteran.
~~~
Bernie for
President 2016
Dear Floyd,
“I like to give on a scale where I can see impact...” - David Koch
Earlier this year, a number of Republicans flew to California to make fundraising
pitches to more than four hundred wealthy conservative donors attending a
private conference hosted by the Koch brothers.
It’s worth
taking a moment to ask the question, who are the Koch brothers, and what do
they want?
The Koch brothers are the second-wealthiest family in America
worth $82 billion. For the Koch
brothers, $82 billion in wealth apparently is not good enough.
Owning the second-largest private company in America
is apparently not good enough.
It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they
are able to control the entire political process.
This issue isn't personal for me. I
don't know the Koch brothers, but I do know this. They have advocated for destroying the federal
programs that are critical to the financial and personal health of middle class
Americans.
Now, most Americans know that the Koch brothers are the
primary source of funding for the Tea Party, and that’s fine. They know that they favor the outright repeal
of the Affordable Care Act, and that’s their opinion. It’s wrong, but that’s fine as well.
But it is not widely known that David Koch once ran for
Vice President of the United
States of America on the Libertarian Party
ticket because he believed Ronald Reagan was much too liberal. And he ran on a platform that included the
following:
- “We favor
the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt and increasingly
oppressive Social Security system.”
-
- “We favor
the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
-
- “We
support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find
employment, such as minimum wage laws…”
-
- “We
support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
In 1980, David Koch’s presidential ticket received one
percent of the vote from the American people. And rightly so. His views were so extreme they were rejected
completely out of hand by the American people.
But fast forward almost thirty-six years, and one of the
most significant realities of modern politics is just how successful David Koch
and the like-minded billionaires attending his retreat have been at moving the
Republican Party to the extreme right. The ideas above that were dismissed as
downright crazy in 1980 are now part of today’s mainstream Republican thinking.
The Koch
brothers, and billionaires like them, have bought up the private sector and now
they’re buying up the government. It’s
up to us to put a stop to them, but it will require all of us standing together
with one voice on this issue.
Your donation to our campaign today is a contribution
towards the dismantling of a corrupt system of campaign finance held in place
by the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends:
If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue
Express, your donation will go through immediately:
Here’s the truth: The economic and political systems of
this country are stacked against ordinary Americans. The rich get richer and use their wealth to
buy elections, and I believe that we cannot change this corrupt system by
taking its money. If we’re serious about
creating jobs, health care for all, climate change, and the needs of our
children and the elderly, we must be serious about campaign finance reform.
So far in this election, less than four hundred families
have contributed the majority of all the money raised by all the candidates and
super PACs combined. According to media reports, one family will spend more
money in this election than either the Democratic or Republican Parties.
This is not democracy. This is oligarchy.
Our job is not to think small in this moment. The current system of campaign finance in this
country is utterly corrupt. That is one
of the reasons I am so proud of how we have funded our campaign — over 2.5 million
contributions from working Americans giving less than $30 at a time. But our campaign is unique.
We must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United, and I will not nominate any justice to the Supreme Court who
does not make it abundantly clear that she or he will overturn that decision. We need legislation that requires wealthy
individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose
where their money is going. And more
importantly, I believe we need to move towards the public funding of elections.
Our vision for American democracy should be a nation in
which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political
process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy
and the powerful.
Tomorrow afternoon I’ll be in New York City to deliver a major speech about
our need to create a financial system that works for all Americans, not just
the few. I’ll be in touch shortly after. I hope that you’ll keep an eye on your
inbox for my message.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders Raised $33 Million in Campaign Donations Last Quarter
January 3, 2016
During the final quarter of 2015, Sen. Bernie
Sanders managed to raise $33 million in campaign donations. With over a million
individual donors making more than 2.5 million contributions, Sanders’ campaign
shattered President Obama’s previous record of more than 2.2 million
contributions in 2011.
“This people-powered campaign is
revolutionizing American politics,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign
manager. “What we are showing is that we
can run a strong, national campaign without a super PAC and without depending on
millionaires and billionaires for their support. We are making history and we are proud of it.”
Although Sanders’ campaign fell $4 million
short of Hillary Clinton’s $37 million contributions received last quarter,
Sanders’ supporters are able to donate again because most have not reached
their campaign contribution limit. Unlike
Sanders’ campaign, Clinton
struggled to establish a low-dollar donor base with many of her donors having
already reached the maximum limit of $2,700. Instead of targeting wealthy contributors,
Sanders’ campaign received small donations averaging $27.16 during the last
three months.
GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson
reported raising $23 million last quarter, while Sen. Ted Cruz
only raised $20 million. Even after
refusing to accept any support from super PACs, Sanders’ campaign ended up
raising $72.8 million for 2015.
“Bernie is the only candidate generating the
kind of broad-based enthusiasm and excitement that Democrats must have in order
to raise funds for a general election campaign and keep the White House and
make gains in Congress,” Weaver said.
Unlike Clinton’s
affluent donors, many of Sanders’ supporters simply cannot afford to contribute
the maximum donation limit for his campaign. By taking a grassroots approach, Sanders has
gained a better understanding of the escalating financial and racial tensions
plaguing the country. On Saturday,
Sanders took to Twitter and wrote, “Over half of American
workers have less than $10,000 in savings and have no idea how they will be
able to retire with any shred of dignity.”
Andrew Emett is a staff writer for
NationofChange. Andrew is a Los Angeles-based reporter exposing political and
corporate corruption. His interests include national security, corporate abuse,
and holding government officials accountable. Andrew's work has appeared at
WeAreChange, TravelersToday, The Joy Camp, and ForceChange.
~~~
If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll try to get
more to you. I am still in hopes of
getting my computer fixed before long and that would make it much easer to get
info to you,
God Bless You All
&
God Bless the United
States of America.
Floyd
