here is this email what about I talk
This short documentary has been banned in all Catholic European countries.
And Extremists have hacked YouTube servers trying to take it down
Click here to watch what has united the Catholic Church and extremists for
one sinister purpose...
Just make sure you watch it with the door locked and with the sound turned
down...
I must admit, as a true Christian and Patriot this video really sent shivers
down my spine...
Stay safe. Stay prepared.
Nathan Shepard
P.S.: 24 seconds in the movie really starts blowing out of all
proportions...
Click here to see why...
To not receive future offers/promotions or newsletter please press on the
below link:
Click here to unsubscribe
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:24 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit
Democratic Process
The problem is, as bad as it is, this is the system we have. It is what
determines what happens to us as individuals. As little choice or control as
we have, if we don't make some choices and take actions which might possibly
influence what is done in this country, we will be completely passive
recipients of the results of actions that politicians take.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:19 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit
Democratic Process
Today's a busy day, but I couldn't resist some comment on this article.
As far back as my 80 year old brain can recall, the Democrats and the
Republicans played politics by the same rules. In my state of Washington,
many years back, the two Parties decided to ensure that there were only 2
Parties that could hope to control the state. After setting conditions to
make it near impossible for any upstart Party to muscle in on the action,
the two Big Boys went back to fighting among themselves, secure in the
knowledge that no matter who won an election, the Establishment was secure.
I resigned from the Democratic Party around the time we were trying to force
voters to register as either Democrats or Republicans. I considered myself
to be a Citizen, and found no ballot for that group.
Watching the antics going on in both Parties reminds me of my experiences in
grade school class elections.
But for now, it's off to Port Angeles and some productive work.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/3/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
disapproves."
Boardman writes: "The Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces
these days, as entrenched party leaders find both their president and
much of their constituency headed in directions that the 'party'
calculation that Sanders “can’t”
Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Committee meeting in
Minneapolis, August 30, 2015. (photo: Jim Mone/AP)
Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit Democratic Process By
William Boardman, Reader Supported News
02 September 15
Rigging nominations may or not win elections, but it’s despicable
The Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces these days, as
entrenched party leaders find both their president and much of their
constituency headed in directions that the “party” disapproves. From
Sen. Chuck Schumer choosing to risk war to Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz stifling supporters of her party’s president and the peace
deal with Iran, to the insurgent candidacies of Bernie Sanders and
Martin O’Malley, party leaders find themselves leading toward goals
widely rejected by others.
This is actually a hopeful sign – that there’s resistance. But the
struggle to define Democratic values as more than just another
oxymoron is still in its early stages. It’s also something of a
shadowy war in which the party “leaders” seek to deny insurgents
oxygen by limiting the number of debates, thereby helping Hillary
Clinton ascend to her predicted coronation as the party’s nominee.
Another way of looking at that is that the party “leadership” is
engaged in a delicate game of attempted vote-rigging by ignorance.
What about that can be good for the party, never mind the country?
Leading up to the recent Democratic National Committee (DNC) summer
meeting August 26-29, the National Journal (NJ) offered an
unintentionally hilarious “insider” assessment of the state of the
Democratic Party. “Looming” over the meeting, NJ pontificated, was: A
Bernie breakthrough? A Hillary resurgence? O’Malley coming up on the
outside? No, none of those. What loomed over the meeting was “Joe
Biden’s phantom candidacy.” Seriously, according to NJ, Biden was
getting “much of the buzz” from the party delegates even though he
wasn’t even attending the meeting. NJ quotes two of the DNC’s 450
members as wanting an “interesting race” and not wanting an “anointed
candidate” (the unnamed Hillary Clinton). NJ had no trouble mentioning
Clinton over and over in its story, treating her as the only looming
alternative to Biden (who had a conference call with DNC members on
August 26).
So what might these insider tea leaves mean? Apparently the party
hierarchy is pretty much solidly behind Clinton and willing to rig the
rules (on debates, for example) in her favor. And one might infer
that, whatever dissatisfaction the party leaders might have with
Clinton, they have no interest in Bernie Sanders or anyone else. NJ
doesn’t even mention Bernie till the last paragraph, and then only to
say he will be speaking. NPR, on the other hand, wonders if this is
“2008 all over again?” when the “unbeatable” Clinton lost to another
insurgent. So there’s some ferment in our official media.
Contending for the lead doesn’t make you visible in all media Omission
is a pretty odd way to treat a candidate who is competitive in the
first two primary states. In Iowa, Sanders has come from 50 points
behind Clinton to trail by just seven, and he leads her in New
Hampshire. So it looks like the party poobahs are willfully trying to
ignore a candidate who they desperately hope against hope will fade.
And it seems designed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of the wishful
survive Super Tuesday. But it’s still a long way to February 1 whenSeptember 1 Huff Post story headlined:
the Iowa caucuses set the real circus on the road (with or without Joe
Biden), when the party begins to choose some 3,700 delegates to the
Philadelphia convention July 25-28, 2016.
To become the party’s nominee for president, a candidate will need
roughly
2,242 delegate votes. That number represents one more than 50% of all
the delegate votes (4,483), representing the roughly 3,700 elected
delegates together with 450 DNC member-delegates and more than 250
elected-official/dignitary-delegates.
Democratic “leaders” are apparently indulging their dislike of Bernie
Sanders so much that their pique threatens to align them with a
minority of American voters, committed to nominating a damaged
candidate with a 55% disapproval rating, and 43% favorable (Sanders is
36% favorable, 29% disapproval, with 33% still unsure). As the
certified frontrunner, Clinton remains well ahead of Sanders in
national polling, but recently there have been media pieces like the
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination.including these:
It's Time for America to Notice.
It might also be time for the DNC decision-makers to notice, too, and
to level the playing field to allow a more democratic process to
choose the candidate. If they’re given a fair opportunity, Democratic
primary voters might even choose a truly Democratic candidate for the
first time in decades.
At the DNC meeting, campaign reps were lobbying delegates to commit to
their candidates, but reports suggest there are few committed
delegates yet.
Clinton reportedly has more than anyone else, but reporting suggests
her total may be fewer than ten.
DNC meeting hears four candidates in beauty-contest setting Four of
the five declared Democratic candidates spoke to the DNC in
alphabetical order (Jim Webb did not attend), which turned out to be
in increasing order of intensity, substance, and specificity. They
were all in agreement in a general way about basic domestic issues and
“re-building the American Dream.” They all avoided direct criticism of
each other and they all had sharp lines about Republican failures. It
was all on C-Span, where differences, both subtle and glaring, emerged,
Lincoln Chaffee spoke only eight minutes (everyone else would go overproblems.
twenty), mostly in genial generalizations. But he pointedly expressed
pride in voting against Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Of Democrats
generally, he said, “We’re right on income inequality,” as well as
healthcare, and immigration, and the environment – without getting
specific about any of them.
Chaffee said he supported the Iran deal, not just on its merits –
keeping Iran from building a nuclear weapon – but also because the
deal was the result of important international cooperation among the
US, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Germany in negotiations
that began in 2003 (joined by the US in 2006). He was alone in saying
that that kind of cooperation was needed to solve the world’s most serious
And only Chaffee called for ending all American conflicts overseas,houses of Congress:
calling them “Republican wars.” He did not offer specifics.
Hillary Clinton also spoke mostly in familiar generalities – in
support of women, children, the middle class, and working class
families. She also took a series of shots at Republican Donald Trump.
Clinton said she’s worked her “whole life” to even the odds for the
poor and middle class. She mostly spoke in a flat, polished manner,
carefully waiting at the expected applause lines. She made clear that
she was still running as Bill Clinton’s wife.
(The New York Times falsely reported that she delivered “a fiery speech”
and
“a red-meat speech.”) Clinton hit most of the party’s major domestic
policy clichés without any strong show of passion, punctuating her
points with lots of deadpan head nodding.
At the end, Clinton promised to help re-build the Democratic Party, a
thinly-veiled criticism of the party’s present leadership, including
the president. She promised to help candidates up and down the ticket
nationwide.
Martin O’Malley didn’t veil his criticism of the party’s leadership,
lashing out at policy (but not naming names). He called the party’s
decision to have only four debates before the primaries a “rigged
process” that left the Democratic Party largely silent and
unresponsive to unacceptable Republican racism and trickle-down
economics. He particularly mocked the party’s scheduling of the one
New Hampshire debate in the middle of the holiday shopping season when
almost no one would watch. “This is no time for silence,” O’Malley
said, “we need debate.”
O’Malley lamented the party’s abandonment of a 50-state strategy, a
reference to former party chair Howard Dean’s effort to turn the
Democrats into a truly national party. He proclaimed that “we are the
Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party.”
But he also touted a fake populism, saying people could make change on
their own, claiming that it was “not about big banks, big money taking
over elections – it’s about us.” That was a not-so-veiled jab at the
Sanders campaign, with O’Malley claiming he, too, has progressive
values. But O’Malley offered no justification for leaving banks too
big to fail or allowing big money to buy politicians. This seems to
position him as the “populist” alternative to Sanders, but the one who
won’t do anything serious to disturb the status quo.
Bernie Sanders was attending his first DNC meeting. After thanking his
audience of Democrats “for what you do” for the good of the country,
he noted that his campaign “calling for a political revolution” was
striking a chord in grassroots America. He compared the current
enthusiasm for his message to the Democrats’ “abysmal” showing in
2014, when low turnout contributed to Republicans taking control of both
In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regainIsrael.
the Senate or the U.S. House, will not be successful in dozens of
governor races across the country, unless we generate excitement and
momentum and produce a huge voter turnout. With all due respect – and
I do not mean to insult anyone here – that turnout, that enthusiasm,
will not happen with politics as usual. The same old same old will not
work.
The people of our country understand that given the collapse of the
American middle class, and given the grotesque level of income and
wealth inequality we are experiencing, we do not need more
establishment politics or establishment economics – what we need is a
government willing to take on the billionaire class … Sanders spoke
with his usual energy and intensity, enumerating many specific
positions unmentioned by others. These included defeating the TPP,
rebuilding US infrastructure, ending “cowardly voting suppression by
cowardly Republican governors,” leading the world away from fossil
fuels, defeating the Keystone XL pipeline, providing free college
tuition to all Americans by taxing Wall Street speculation, providing
quality childcare, and expanding Social Security.
Sanders, like Chaffee, affirmed that he stands with the president on
the Iran deal.
How divisive is the Iran accord for the Democratic Party?
In the twelve years since negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons,
Iran has started no wars. Compare that record with the United States. Or
Or even Saudi Arabia. Then ask yourself why you believe Iran is partpeople so deeply in denial.
of an “axis of evil” (if you do believe that). The reality is that
Iran has been successfully demonized beyond all rational reality. Iran
is even helping the US and others fight ISIS.
All the same, US senators like Schumer and others are willing to turn
on their party’s president, ready to reject a pact negotiated not just
by the US but an international coalition with a wide spectrum of
interests, none of which is a nuclear-armed Iran. Hillary Clinton
endorsed the deal almost as soon as it was announced. Sanders endorsed
the deal. But when an apparent majority of members of the DNC proposed
a resolution endorsing the Iran deal, DNC chair Wasserman Schultz
barred the DNC from voting on it.
The Iranian nuclear bomb program has never been much more real than
President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship, yet there are those who
fervently believe in each imaginary horror who will not be swayed by
any evidence of an actual reality. With potentially game-changing
opportunities of such vitality at home and abroad, it bodes ill for
democratic values for the Democratic Party to be so heavily influenced by
calculation that Sanders “can’t”
________________________________________
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio,
TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the
Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of
America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine,
and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and
Sciences.
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.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Committee meeting in
Minneapolis, August 30, 2015. (photo: Jim Mone/AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit Democratic Process By
William Boardman, Reader Supported News
02 September 15
Rigging nominations may or not win elections, but it’s despicable he
Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces these days, as entrenched
party leaders find both their president and much of their constituency
headed in directions that the “party” disapproves. From Sen. Chuck
Schumer choosing to risk war to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz stifling
supporters of her party’s president and the peace deal with Iran, to
the insurgent candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, party
leaders find themselves leading toward goals widely rejected by
others.
This is actually a hopeful sign – that there’s resistance. But the
struggle to define Democratic values as more than just another
oxymoron is still in its early stages. It’s also something of a
shadowy war in which the party “leaders” seek to deny insurgents
oxygen by limiting the number of debates, thereby helping Hillary
Clinton ascend to her predicted coronation as the party’s nominee.
Another way of looking at that is that the party “leadership” is
engaged in a delicate game of attempted vote-rigging by ignorance.
What about that can be good for the party, never mind the country?
Leading up to the recent Democratic National Committee (DNC) summer
meeting August 26-29, the National Journal (NJ) offered an
unintentionally hilarious “insider” assessment of the state of the
Democratic Party. “Looming” over the meeting, NJ pontificated, was: A
Bernie breakthrough? A Hillary resurgence? O’Malley coming up on the
outside? No, none of those. What loomed over the meeting was “Joe
Biden’s phantom candidacy.” Seriously, according to NJ, Biden was
getting “much of the buzz” from the party delegates even though he
wasn’t even attending the meeting. NJ quotes two of the DNC’s 450
members as wanting an “interesting race” and not wanting an “anointed
candidate” (the unnamed Hillary Clinton). NJ had no trouble mentioning
Clinton over and over in its story, treating her as the only looming
alternative to Biden (who had a conference call with DNC members on
August 26).
So what might these insider tea leaves mean? Apparently the party
hierarchy is pretty much solidly behind Clinton and willing to rig the
rules (on debates, for example) in her favor. And one might infer
that, whatever dissatisfaction the party leaders might have with
Clinton, they have no interest in Bernie Sanders or anyone else. NJ
doesn’t even mention Bernie till the last paragraph, and then only to
say he will be speaking. NPR, on the other hand, wonders if this is
“2008 all over again?” when the “unbeatable” Clinton lost to another
insurgent. So there’s some ferment in our official media.
Contending for the lead doesn’t make you visible in all media Omission
is a pretty odd way to treat a candidate who is competitive in the
first two primary states. In Iowa, Sanders has come from 50 points
behind Clinton to trail by just seven, and he leads her in New
Hampshire. So it looks like the party poobahs are willfully trying to
ignore a candidate who they desperately hope against hope will fade.
And it seems designed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of the wishful
survive Super Tuesday. But it’s still a long way to February 1 whenSeptember 1 Huff Post story headlined:
the Iowa caucuses set the real circus on the road (with or without Joe
Biden), when the party begins to choose some 3,700 delegates to the
Philadelphia convention July 25-28, 2016.
To become the party’s nominee for president, a candidate will need
roughly
2,242 delegate votes. That number represents one more than 50% of all
the delegate votes (4,483), representing the roughly 3,700 elected
delegates together with 450 DNC member-delegates and more than 250
elected-official/dignitary-delegates.
Democratic “leaders” are apparently indulging their dislike of Bernie
Sanders so much that their pique threatens to align them with a
minority of American voters, committed to nominating a damaged
candidate with a 55% disapproval rating, and 43% favorable (Sanders is
36% favorable, 29% disapproval, with 33% still unsure). As the
certified frontrunner, Clinton remains well ahead of Sanders in
national polling, but recently there have been media pieces like the
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination.including these:
It's Time for America to Notice.
It might also be time for the DNC decision-makers to notice, too, and
to level the playing field to allow a more democratic process to
choose the candidate. If they’re given a fair opportunity, Democratic
primary voters might even choose a truly Democratic candidate for the
first time in decades.
At the DNC meeting, campaign reps were lobbying delegates to commit to
their candidates, but reports suggest there are few committed
delegates yet.
Clinton reportedly has more than anyone else, but reporting suggests
her total may be fewer than ten.
DNC meeting hears four candidates in beauty-contest setting Four of
the five declared Democratic candidates spoke to the DNC in
alphabetical order (Jim Webb did not attend), which turned out to be
in increasing order of intensity, substance, and specificity. They
were all in agreement in a general way about basic domestic issues and
“re-building the American Dream.” They all avoided direct criticism of
each other and they all had sharp lines about Republican failures. It
was all on C-Span, where differences, both subtle and glaring, emerged,
Lincoln Chaffee spoke only eight minutes (everyone else would go overproblems.
twenty), mostly in genial generalizations. But he pointedly expressed
pride in voting against Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Of Democrats
generally, he said, “We’re right on income inequality,” as well as
healthcare, and immigration, and the environment – without getting
specific about any of them.
Chaffee said he supported the Iran deal, not just on its merits –
keeping Iran from building a nuclear weapon – but also because the
deal was the result of important international cooperation among the
US, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Germany in negotiations
that began in 2003 (joined by the US in 2006). He was alone in saying
that that kind of cooperation was needed to solve the world’s most serious
And only Chaffee called for ending all American conflicts overseas,houses of Congress:
calling them “Republican wars.” He did not offer specifics.
Hillary Clinton also spoke mostly in familiar generalities – in
support of women, children, the middle class, and working class
families. She also took a series of shots at Republican Donald Trump.
Clinton said she’s worked her “whole life” to even the odds for the
poor and middle class. She mostly spoke in a flat, polished manner,
carefully waiting at the expected applause lines. She made clear that
she was still running as Bill Clinton’s wife.
(The New York Times falsely reported that she delivered “a fiery speech”
and
“a red-meat speech.”) Clinton hit most of the party’s major domestic
policy clichés without any strong show of passion, punctuating her
points with lots of deadpan head nodding.
At the end, Clinton promised to help re-build the Democratic Party, a
thinly-veiled criticism of the party’s present leadership, including
the president. She promised to help candidates up and down the ticket
nationwide.
Martin O’Malley didn’t veil his criticism of the party’s leadership,
lashing out at policy (but not naming names). He called the party’s
decision to have only four debates before the primaries a “rigged
process” that left the Democratic Party largely silent and
unresponsive to unacceptable Republican racism and trickle-down
economics. He particularly mocked the party’s scheduling of the one
New Hampshire debate in the middle of the holiday shopping season when
almost no one would watch. “This is no time for silence,” O’Malley
said, “we need debate.”
O’Malley lamented the party’s abandonment of a 50-state strategy, a
reference to former party chair Howard Dean’s effort to turn the
Democrats into a truly national party. He proclaimed that “we are the
Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party.”
But he also touted a fake populism, saying people could make change on
their own, claiming that it was “not about big banks, big money taking
over elections – it’s about us.” That was a not-so-veiled jab at the
Sanders campaign, with O’Malley claiming he, too, has progressive
values. But O’Malley offered no justification for leaving banks too
big to fail or allowing big money to buy politicians. This seems to
position him as the “populist” alternative to Sanders, but the one who
won’t do anything serious to disturb the status quo.
Bernie Sanders was attending his first DNC meeting. After thanking his
audience of Democrats “for what you do” for the good of the country,
he noted that his campaign “calling for a political revolution” was
striking a chord in grassroots America. He compared the current
enthusiasm for his message to the Democrats’ “abysmal” showing in
2014, when low turnout contributed to Republicans taking control of both
In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regainIsrael.
the Senate or the U.S. House, will not be successful in dozens of
governor races across the country, unless we generate excitement and
momentum and produce a huge voter turnout. With all due respect – and
I do not mean to insult anyone here – that turnout, that enthusiasm,
will not happen with politics as usual. The same old same old will not
work.
The people of our country understand that given the collapse of the
American middle class, and given the grotesque level of income and
wealth inequality we are experiencing, we do not need more
establishment politics or establishment economics – what we need is a
government willing to take on the billionaire class … Sanders spoke
with his usual energy and intensity, enumerating many specific
positions unmentioned by others. These included defeating the TPP,
rebuilding US infrastructure, ending “cowardly voting suppression by
cowardly Republican governors,” leading the world away from fossil
fuels, defeating the Keystone XL pipeline, providing free college
tuition to all Americans by taxing Wall Street speculation, providing
quality childcare, and expanding Social Security.
Sanders, like Chaffee, affirmed that he stands with the president on
the Iran deal.
How divisive is the Iran accord for the Democratic Party?
In the twelve years since negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons,
Iran has started no wars. Compare that record with the United States. Or
Or even Saudi Arabia. Then ask yourself why you believe Iran is partpeople so deeply in denial.
of an “axis of evil” (if you do believe that). The reality is that
Iran has been successfully demonized beyond all rational reality. Iran
is even helping the US and others fight ISIS.
All the same, US senators like Schumer and others are willing to turn
on their party’s president, ready to reject a pact negotiated not just
by the US but an international coalition with a wide spectrum of
interests, none of which is a nuclear-armed Iran. Hillary Clinton
endorsed the deal almost as soon as it was announced. Sanders endorsed
the deal. But when an apparent majority of members of the DNC proposed
a resolution endorsing the Iran deal, DNC chair Wasserman Schultz
barred the DNC from voting on it.
The Iranian nuclear bomb program has never been much more real than
President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship, yet there are those who
fervently believe in each imaginary horror who will not be swayed by
any evidence of an actual reality. With potentially game-changing
opportunities of such vitality at home and abroad, it bodes ill for
democratic values for the Democratic Party to be so heavily influenced by
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio,
TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the
Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of
America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine,
and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and
Sciences.
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.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
