The email below was received from the Sanders' campaign. Please consider subscribing and contributing! Informed voters don't trust Killary because she LIES! Don't we want a President we can TRUST?
I want to share something with you that is probably going to make you angry, but then I am going to give you an opportunity to do something about it.
For months, you've heard the Clinton campaign endlessly repeat in interviews and on social media that they have raised millions and millions of dollars for state parties through something called the "Hillary Victory Fund." They've even used it as an attack line to insinuate Bernie wasn't willing to help down-ballot Democrats.
Well, yesterday morning, thanks to a Politico investigation, we found out that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Victory Fund has stayed in state party coffers. And indeed, the majority of the money spent by the Victory Fund has gone to benefit Hillary Clinton's primary campaign against us. The piece said some state party fundraisers believe they are basically acting as "money laundering conduits."
There's more, but first let me get to the part where you can take action. In recent weeks, the Clinton campaign has expressed a lot of interest in what is important to Bernie's supporters. Here's your chance to send a message about our distaste for big-money in politics:
Sign our petition calling on the Clinton campaign to stop bending campaign finance rules to their breaking point, and immediately transfer all the money allowable to the state parties participating in the "Hillary Victory Fund."
Here's how the scheme works for the Clinton campaign:
Rich people like Alice Walton of Walmart who have already contributed the maximum amount allowable to the Clinton campaign can contribute an additional $350,000-plus to the Victory Fund.
The first $33,400 of her contribution is supposed to go the DNC, and the rest divided up between participating state parties. But that's not what's been happening. The Victory Fund has mostly been doing one of two things with Ms. Walton's money:
1. Taking that money and spending it on advertisements and small-dollar fundraising solicitations. Then they take all the small-dollar contributions and data reaped from Alice Walton's contribution and transfer it directly to the Clinton campaign. This tactic is basically a way for them to benefit from a contribution much larger than the legal limit from Alice Walton.
2. They take Alice Walton's money and transfer it to state parties, who then immediately transfer it to the DNC. Often times they do it without the state party even knowing because the Clinton campaign controls many of the bank accounts involved. So at the end of the day, most of the state parties have received exactly $0 from their Victory Fund arrangement.
So, now that we know the Clinton campaign is taking advantage of state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign, it's time for her to do the right thing and let the state parties keep their fair share of the cash:
Sign our petition calling on the Clinton campaign to stop bending campaign finance rules to their breaking point, and immediately transfer all the money allowable to the state parties participating in the "Hillary Victory Fund."
It's unfortunate that Hillary Clinton has benefited from tens of millions of dollars in cash transfers and advertising to campaign against us in the primary. But it's not too late for her campaign to do the right thing by the state parties we're going to need to win elections up and down the ticket this November.
I'm sure if you sign our petition, that is something they will notice.
FOCUS: Scott Galindez | Democratic Race Heating Up, Not Winding Down Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News Galindez writes: "The pundits and the political hacks are calling for Bernie Sanders to either drop out or to 'tone down' his message. Instead, both campaigns, in a sign that neither really thinks the race is over, have turned up the heat." READ MORE
he pundits and the political hacks are calling for Bernie Sanders to either drop out or to “tone down” his message. Instead, both campaigns, in a sign that neither really thinks the race is over, have turned up the heat. Hillary Clinton is holding conference calls with victims of gun violence trying to paint Sanders as pro-gun. Sanders is pressing for a debate in Brooklyn prior to the New York primary.
Sanders has pulled ahead in Wisconsin and is already making appearances in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York. Clinton has been forced to spend time in New York, where Bernie is pushing hard for a debate before the April 19th primary. Sanders also seems to be getting under Clinton’s skin. She blew up at a Greenpeace activist who asked whether she would pledge to reject money from the fossil fuel industry going forward. Clinton claimed she was not taking their money and in an angry tone said she wished Bernie Sanders would stop lying.
Eva Resnick-Day, the activist who asked Clinton to take the pledge, said the following in an op/ed on the Greenpeace web site:
To be clear, we are talking about more than just individual contributions from oil and gas employees. According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign.
Greenpeace USA, along with 20 other organizations, launched the pledge to #FixDemocracy, asking all presidential candidates to reject future fossil fuel contributions, champion campaign finance reform, and defend the right to vote for all.
When we launched the campaign, Sanders signed the pledge immediately. Hillary’s campaign responded, but did not sign. Unsurprisingly, the Republican presidential candidates who won’t even admit that climate change is real – while real communities on the frontlines are already impacted – did not respond to our request.
The Clinton campaign also attacked Bernie Sanders on guns when they held an event with parents of an Aurora, Colorado, shooting victim. The parents attempted to sue the gun manufacturer, but the case was thrown out because of immunity laws that protect gun manufacturers. Sanders supported the legislation that granted immunity but has expressed willingness to re-address the issue.
Hillary Clinton is also taking aim at Sanders’ time as an Independent, claiming that her long ties to the Democratic Party should mean something.
CORPORATE DEMOCRATS STILL HAVEN'T FIGURED IT OUT!
Let’s be clear, if the Clinton campaign thought they had the nomination wrapped up, they would not be attacking Sanders. They will need his supporters in November to beat the Republican nominee.
Sanders has also turned up the heat, challenging Clinton to a debate in New York. The pressure seems to be working, and it appears that both sides are close to a date and location. If Sanders were no longer a threat there would be no New York debate talks.
Despite the media narrative, Bernie Sanders does have a path to victory. The media is doing everything they can to spin for Clinton. One example is John King reporting on CNN that he has run the numbers and if Bernie won the rest of the races with 55% of the vote he would not catch Clinton. Why did King pick 55%? Maybe it has something to do with Nate Silver showing how Sanders would catch Clinton with 56% of the remaining vote.
OK, 56.6% – not an easy task, but possible. King did point out that if Sanders got 55% of the remaining delegates Clinton would not have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, but she would be ahead. Even with that admission, it is so clear that the mainstream media is trying to tell voters what will happen instead of reporting what is happening. There are over 2,000 pledged delegates left to be allocated and 208 super delegates who are uncommitted. Of course, the super delegates who have committed can change their mind at any time. So while Hillary Clinton has the easiest path to the nomination, it is not a sure thing.
Many Sanders supporters have had enough of the media spin and are taking to the streets. On Sunday over 1,000 protesters showed up at CNN’s Los Angeles headquarters to protest the lack of coverage of the Sanders campaign. The strength of his campaign despite the biased media coverage Sanders has received makes you wonder where he would be if the media did their job and didn’t constantly dismiss his chances.
All signs are pointing to a big night for Sanders on Tuesday. It remains to be seen if his momentum will continue to New York and the other eastern states that round out April. Perhaps we should all wait and see how people vote before dismissing Bernie’s chances. I expect Sanders to go all the way to the convention. After all, the political revolution is about more than Bernie. It is also about reforming the Democratic Party. If Bernie dropped out before the convention, the power that his delegates would hold at the convention would all but vanish. Expect the Sanders delegates to arrive in Philadelphia with a reform agenda that includes things like an end to super delegates. Win or lose, the political revolution will continue. As Harold Meyerson said, “Bernie Sanders’s campaign didn’t create a new American left. It revealed it.”
Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
On Friday, Clinton told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell the following:
“It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about H.I.V./AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan – in particular, Mrs. Reagan – we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it. Nobody wanted anything to do with it. And, you know, that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy, but it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, ‘Hey, we have to do something about this, too.’”
This is not just a falsehood — it is a damnable, catastrophic, insulting misrepresentation about the role the Reagans played in the horrific and painful experiences of millions of Americans in the ‘80s. People literally died because Nancy and Ronald Reagan refused to speak, let alone do anything, about this emergency.
As Dan Savage writes:
I'm literally shaking as I try to write this. There are no words for the pain Clinton's remarks have dredged up. I'm supposed to be writing a column—it's way overdue—but all I can think about are all of my dead friends and lovers, lovely guys who might still be with us if Nancy and Ronald Reagan had started a national conversation about HIV/AIDS.
Or done something about it.
Millions of men and women all around the world were condemned to death as a direct result of the hateful silence of the Reagan White House. Millions more will die.
Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement—the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What's AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don't.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President—
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any—
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping—
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no—(laughter)—no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.
Clinton either has absolutely ZERO idea about the struggle for gay rights, and has been blind to LGBT America’s pain for decades, or she is flat-out lying about an administration and a person that she knows did absolutely nothing.
“You know I’ve had much more contact in my life with gay people than Hillary has... I think she’s really a little put off by some of this stuff... Hillary, emotionally speaking, still finds the issue [gay rights] harder to swallow than I do. And that it could be difficult for her in New York politics, how far she’ll be asked to go.”
But, either way, I find it absolutely insane that a person this clueless and homophobic (or just plain dishonest) is running for the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States, especially when her opponent has never said anything of the sort, voted against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA (which Clinton supported), defended gay soldiers on the floor of the House in 1995, supported Burlington’s first Gay Pride Parade all the way back in 1983, and wrote a letter even earlier, in the 1970s, calling for the abolition of all laws concerning sexual orientation and homosexuality.
And Clinton’s apologies — that she “misspoke” and that she “made a mistake, plain and simple” — fall shockingly short.
By simply saying she “made a mistake” and “misspoke,” Clinton’s implying that she actually knows the Reagans didn’t do anything to stem this murderous wave of disease, and she just goofed in trying to talk about it.
But, obviously, not only did Clinton have absolutely no idea what the Reagans’ position on this catastrophic issue was — she actually thought Nancy Reagan was a subtle activist for the cause!
This is not a “mistake” (an excuse we’ve heard too often from Clinton), because a mistake is bumping someone’s arm or saying the wrong year when recounting history.
This was not just a gaffe or a mix-up — this was the revealing of her deep and problematic ignorance of the LGBT fight for equal rights.
“And I always get a little chuckle when I hear my opponent talking about doing it [health care reform]. Well, I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94, standing up the insurance companies, standing up against the drug companies."
Only problem?
Sanders appeared at a health care reform event with Clinton — in which she thanked him for his work and help on the issue.
In February, Sanders requested a meeting with Hillary, “to bring in two Harvard Medical School physicians who have written on the Canadian system,” according to the records of the administration’s task force. Those physicians were Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, leading advocates for single-payer health care.
They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady.
“She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’” recalled Himmelstein.
“And I said, “How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’
And she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ”
Sanders was undeterred by this dismissal of single-payer’s political viability.
In March, he was at it again, inviting the first lady up to Vermont as the state considered overhauling its own health care policies. In June, Clinton did go up to Vermont – to address a Democratic Governors Association meeting hosted by the state’s then-Gov. Howard Dean in the quaint village of Woodstock – and she brought Sanders and Sen. Pat Leahy with her.
OK, so here we see that not only did Sanders fight and push for BETTER health care than Clinton did — she actually said she didn’t believe the American people would follow a bold, strong leader pushing for a better standard of living for them and their children, or even that the President of the U.S., or the First Lady, should even try.
Sound familiar?
This is exactly the issue playing out between Sanders and Clinton in this primary season:
The American people are too stupid and dumb to actually fight for their own best interests, says Clinton.
The American people will rise up and follow a truth-teller, if only the Democratic establishment stops fighting the true liberals and progressives, says Sanders.
Who the hell do you want to vote for? The guy who thinks we should fight for real health care for all? Or the candidate who thinks the president shouldn’t lead the American people to a better world?
Come on, guys. The answer is so plain and simple — we NEED Bernie Sanders! We NEED the stalwart who’s been fighting for us, unquestionably, all his life!
The only thing that makes universal health care, tuition free public colleges and universities, and all the other basic stuff Sanders is proposing impossible — IS US.
Stand up and fight for your rights, for your own sake!! You’re already paying for it! Don’t let those tax dollars get sucked to war and corporate welfare anymore!
And lastly, for all Clinton’s talk about “standing up to the insurance companies,” it sure looks like she thought there wasn’t a “force on the face of the earth” that could do anything to stop them.
How’s that for being a champion of the people?
Give me a freaking break.
3) Bernie Sanders and the Clean Power Plan
At Thursday’s Democratic debate, Clinton said this about Bernie and green energy:
"The Clean Power Plan is something that Sen. Sanders has said he would delay implementing, which makes absolutely no sense.”
...Sanders himself did not say he would delay implementation. In reality, he wants a more ambitious plan (and has released one) and has supported Obama’s plan from the get-go.
And the guy whose reporting her campaign cited as proof of this wrongful attack has written an article debunking her statement: Sanders is not going to delay the implementation of anything that will increase green energy — he’s the one who’s been speaking about climate change the most in this campaign.
Ridiculous, dishonest, absurd.
4) Bernie Sanders on Immigration
In the Thursday debate, Clinton said that Sanders has and would “stand with the Republicans” on immigration, accusing Sanders of the following:
When you got to the Senate in 2007, one of the first things you did was vote against Ted Kennedy's immigration reform.
The second statement is true — but the first is wholly false.
Sanders had specific concerns about the bill that Clinton failed to mention, and he opposed the bill from the left, which doesn't square with Clinton's argument that in Congress he would be liable to "stand with the Republicans" on immigration. What's more, in 2013, he voted for the immigration reform package, including the guest-worker program.
Sanders supports immigration reform, and has, PERIOD.
To try and say otherwise is simply dishonest.
She continually paints a narrow and distorted picture of the truth to try and dishonestly tar Sanders.
In your own words, “shame on you,” Hillary Clinton.
5) Bernie Sanders and the Auto Bailout
At the March 6th debate, Clinton said this of Sanders and the auto bailout:
“I voted to save the auto industry. He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference."
This is another dishonest manipulation, rather than a flat-out lie: Sanders supported the auto bailout, but not the Wall Street bailout.
To suggest that Sanders voted against the auto industry is straight-up false: Sanders, as even Clinton noted, voted FOR the bailout, but when it got wrapped up in a bailout for Wall Street, Sanders did vote against it.
This is only a “pretty big difference,” in the sense that Sanders didn’t support the middle class bailing out the massive financial institutions that crashed our economy, while Clinton did.
6) Hillary Clinton’s Emails and Her Sec. of State Predecessors
At the Univison/Washington Post debate, here’s what Clinton said about her emails:
“It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed, and as I’ve said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing, and many other people in the government."
This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell. Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did.
No Sec. of State has never set up a private server at his or her home — and very few have even used emails. Her statement is misleading and false.
Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.
—
—
—
Clinton has also wrongly attacked Sanders on hisuniversal health care proposal and indirectly accused him of being sexist when Sanders said we, as a country, need to stop“shouting at each other” over gun control —“I’ve been told to stop shouting about guns,” Clinton said at a rally in Virginia on Friday, a line she repeated Saturday during her remarks at the J-J dinner. “Actually I haven’t been shouting, but sometimes when a woman talks, some people think it’s shouting.”
Hillary Clinton consistently manipulates and distorts the truth to her advantage.
I don’t understand why anyone would vote for someone who is so repeatedly dishonest and disingenuous, let alone someone who openly says Americans can’t get, in return for their tax dollars, adequate health care and good schooling and paid family/medical leave, because the political system is so damn fucked up.
I want the candidate who’s calling on Americans to stand up and fight for their democracy — not the one who’s asking them to be patient while she goes into the corrupt Congress and somehow attempts to barter with the Republicans she calls enemy.
People are suffering, people are oppressed, people are struggling NOW.
We need change.
We need Bernie Sanders — a leader who will fight for us, instead of throwing his hands up and saying, “Well, gee, change is just too damn hard, but by the way I’m still going to somehow get comprehensive immigration reform and criminal justice reform done all by myself, when Obama couldn’t.”
She’s simultaneously running on a bold platform (increasingly so), while also saying that Sanders’ ideas are TOO bold.
I wish people would question her on HOW she plans to get jack done in this Congress without the political revolution, the standing up of the American people, that Sanders is calling for — and, by the way, the political revolution that Sanders is starting, because, despite what people say, Sanders has broken turnout records in Colorado (made in 2008), Kansas, and Michigan.
In all of the states that Clinton won, Democratic turnout was drastically lower this year than in 2008. Aside from Massachusetts, where Clinton won by 1 percent [the closest race of the day] with voter turnout just 4.29 percent lower in 2016 than in 2008, all of Clinton’s wins relied on anywhere between 20 percent and 50 percent fewer Democratic voters going to the polls in those respective states. Democratic turnout as a whole was 32 percent lower on Super Tuesday 2016 when compared to 8 years ago.
She’s not rallying the American people — Bernie Sanders is.
For goodness’ sake, for your own sake:
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN DEMOCRACY!
RISE UP AND DEMAND CHANGE!
LET US CONTINUE TO MAKE HISTORY!
VOTE BERNIE SANDERS!
Let a new age of prosperity and peace FOR ALL commence!
Come on, my people! You DESERVE education and health care and a living wage and paid family/medical leave and A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING!
For crying out loud, don’t let this chance slip by!
LET’S GO!
And don’t be confused: even if Sanders doesn’t win, the political revolution will NOT end. This isn’t Sanders’ revolution, this is OURS. This is Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Fight For $15, this is US.
But it’d be a helluva lot easier with a champion of the people in the WH!
If anyone can be counted on for a positive endorsement, it’s one's parents. So it should come as no surprise that presidential candidates are pulling out all the stops to include the people most likely to offer admiration, spouses, children, etc. And while hauling one's famous family out to campaign together is one pretty desperate move, some candidates have gone further.
Rafael Cruz has declared that his son Ted has been anointed by God to be the next president of the United States.
“All of us were worshipping and the words that came out of Ted’s mouth were, 'Hear my lord, use me,'" Rafael told televangelist Kenneth Copeland. “I believe God has raised him up for a time like this.”
Cut to crowd of ministers gathered around Rafael Cruz praying. Copeland added, “We are seeing a sweep of the move of the spirit of God from coast to coast all over this nation. We receive the outpouring of the holy spirit over Washington DC.”
In a November 2014 Senate speech, Cruz accused President Obama of being "openly desirous to destroy the Constitution and this Republic.” In the same speech he suggested that the sitting president was unlawfully elected and is "the perpetrator of a violent insurrection to overthrow the government.”
he pundits and the political hacks are calling for Bernie Sanders to either drop out or to “tone down” his message. Instead, both campaigns, in a sign that neither really thinks the race is over, have turned up the heat. Hillary Clinton is holding conference calls with victims of gun violence trying to paint Sanders as pro-gun. Sanders is pressing for a debate in Brooklyn prior to the New York primary.
