My new business card.

(phone and email redacted)


Those that throw labels likely have incentive to not communicate.

It’s not attacking corporations. It’s attacking the greed and corruption that lurks within them. We live in a country that enables and incentivizes the accumulation of wealth at the expense and suffering of others, and one that has decriminalized criminal activity and standardized unethical behavior. You can get as rich as you like–there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s what our country is all about–so long as everyone has a minimally acceptable standard of living. When that boundary is reached, that is, by definition, “rich enough”. That is the system we should live in.

The suggestion that it is “attacking corporations”, is similar to calling those who reasonably criticize Hillary Clinton as “sexist” and those who protested Elijah Cummings’ DNC speech as “racist”. It’s a way of distracting from the issue by attacking the messenger. Taking the most obvious label of the person being criticized, and pretending that the messenger is innately prejudiced against that label.

It’s also similar to equating the slogan “Black Lives Matter” to “anti-cop”. Black Lives Matter means “stop treating us like we are worthless, stop shooting us, because we matter.” There is no anti-anything or -anyone referred to by that slogan. It has nothing to do with anyone but black people. Twisting that to “black lives matter more than all others”, particularly when referring to the police…who, come on, the rare rogue among them happen to be the ones shooting them. It’s a large leap, and in my opinion, perpetuates the disrespectful treatment. Is the disrespectful treatment. Instead of listening and learning, to truly understand the centuries of history and motivation behind that slogan, “All Lives Matter” dismisses it out of hand and twists it into negative aggression.

It’s easy to throw labels. It’s hard to communicate. Those that throw labels likely have incentive to not communicate.

Nuisance: Interview with Lauren Steiner, Bernie Sanders delegate from CA, & longtime activist against the TPP

Interview with Lauren Steiner, Bernie Sanders delegate from California, longtime activist against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the organizer of a large effort in California to observe the vote counting at the end of primary day.

What’s discussed:

– Lauren tells about her long history of protesting around the country. One of her favorites.
– Why she is so against the TPP, and her theories on why Obama is so strongly for it, and why she thinks his presidential library and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are related.
– The media, and how much of Internet media is dependent on large corporations such as Facebook Live and YouTube Live. Here’s one example she gave about propaganda regarding the Syrian regime change.
– The confusion of Monday morning’s private meeting with Bernie Sanders at the Democratic National Convention, and how that might result in his delegates missing votes at the actual convention. Monday was opening day.
– What happened at the Nevada State Democrat Convention, and how that was the catalyst for creating my news network, Citizens’ Media TV.
– The TPP protest organized by Lauren during Elijah Cummings’ DNC speech on Monday night about the democratic platform. How it was organized and communicated to the delegation, and Elijah Cummings’ reactions to it, both on and off the record.
– How the Bernie delegation was not given much guidance on what to do or what to expect during the DNC.
– The nonbinding Unity Commission created by the DNC platform committee, and the platitude filled speech about it on early Monday.

The resources that came up during our conversation:

  • 13 Bankers, a book by Simon Johnston.
  • Ben Jealous mentions the superdelagate reduction in his debate with Jill Stein. It’s a two-part interview (one, two), and I’m unsure exactly where he said it.
  • The blog of my DNC coverage with Citizens’ Media TV.

Was there fraud in the 2016 Democratic primaries? I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure. Did Hillary Clinton legitimately win the Democratic nomination? Same answer.

What we do know about the 2016 Democratic primaries, is that an almost constant stream of questionable things occurred, and in more states than not. While we cannot definitively say that any of it was fraud, we can most certainly say that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest further investigation is warranted.

That the election in places like Arizona and New York and Puerto Rico and California and Nevada are being treated as if they are perfectly legitimate, all certified as “official”. That Hillary Clinton confidently states things like “the New York voters chose me”, without any hint of the problems that occurred. This is one of the fundamental reasons why Bernie Sanders supporters feel ignored.

The first piece of evidence:

The full report from Election Justice USA, of which I annotated the executive summary (the first eight pages). Now I know why Edison Research is worthy of protesting.

New information, supplied by Edison Research (which conducted the polling in question) directly to the author of the exit poll section of this report, on the adjustments made to the standard and scientific exit poll survey methodology, strongly suggests that the discrepancies between the vote counts and their respective exit polls were likely greater than the discrepancies shown in the tables of this report. The actual discrepancies may range as high as 16%-35% in some of the states. Without access to Edison’s raw exit poll data and a detailed account of the actual adjustments made, the actual discrepancies between the classic exit polls and the vote counts cannot be determined with certainty. The possibility exists that the unadjusted exit polls may show that candidate Sanders may have handily won the Democratic Party primary race.

These discrepancies occurred primarily in the Democratic Party primaries but not in the primaries of the Republican Party. This is remarkable, as the exit polls for both parties were conducted on the same day, in the same precincts, with the same interviewers, and used the same methodologies.

The second piece of evidence is a TYT Politics interview with the lead author of An Electoral System In Crisis, a study that was supported by Election Justice USA, and is complementary to their full report:

The third piece of evidence is this post by Citizens’ Media TV ally, and sometimes correspondent, John Laurits (here’s my one, two, three part conversation-interview with John, recapping the Democratic National Convention). The graphs discussed in the above video are the subject of this post. And the post features this video about jellybeans, making it clear exactly what those graphs mean and why they are important:

So while there’s plenty of evidence to warrant further investigation, and plenty of people want that investigation to proceed, unfortunately, none of them have enough power to break through Billionaire Wall. I don’t want to “prove fraud”. I just want to know the truth.