When our Wise and Kindly Founding Fathers established their own
Republic, they made no bones about it. The serious business of
running a government was far too complex for Common Folk to be
involved. And so, calling it, The Republic, our Fore Fathers
established their Oligarchy. It made good sense to these wise men of
old, that folks with no stake in the government would not understand
or care about such matters. The Commoners would be well treated,
provided work and a living wage for their labor.
So, we see how well that worked out.
But my point is that we have never set out to democratize America.
The "Education" of American children was never democracy based. It
has always had an undercurrent supporting and praising Capitalism as
the stabilizing force that makes American great. Add to that the
playing of one group against another, wrapped up in suspicion, hatred,
contempt and fear, stirring in plenty of mistrust of government
agencies and programs, overlaid with belief that government is corrupt
and/or incompetent, and it's small wonder Americans are not ready to
support a democracy.
Can Americans be educated to support and participate in, a democracy?
The bigger question is, can Americans survive if we do not educate
ourselves to support and participate in, democracy.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Read Strangers In Their Own Land and then tell me how capable most
Americans
are to make good decisions.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:18 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: WikiLeaks releases what appear to be
Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches
Hmm...you present a conundrum, Frank. If we had a true democracy, it could
not be fascism. But if you're suggesting that, in the not so real event
that
we declared ourselves to be a true democracy, that we would be quickly
taken
over by fascists, that should certainly be a concern. We "civilized"
humans
are a very long way from having the tools needed to establish and maintain
a
true democracy. But we do have the means for instant spreading of
information, and instant feedback. That is an important step if we are
looking for the day when we have "Rule by the People". Given real
information, I trust my fellow human beings to weigh what they read and
hear, and to make sound decisions. The "controllers" who guard the gates
of
the Empire, would have us believe that most of Americans are far to stupid
and uncaring to make sound decisions. Everyone but you and me, of course.
And far too many of us buy into that Crap. What we need to do is to put a
stopper in the Mass Media mouth, and start trying to figure out what is
real
and what is crap.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/9/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am very glad that we don't have a true democracy. If we did we wouldhave become.
be living under extreme fascism given the stance of so many who feel
that the government, media, working class., etc. is out to get them.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2016 12:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: WikiLeaks releases what appear to be
Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches
Being pragmatic as well as idealistic, (can I be both?), I'll remain a
registered Democrat so that I can vote in the Democratic primary and
feebly attempt to change it. We can see how voting for Sanders worked
out, but I'm still glad I did it. I'm not sure what joining the Green
Party means in concrete terms, but I have been contributing bits of
money to them, even as I supported Sanders, because they're what I
have to fall back on. And maybe, after many years, they'll actually
have a chance of competing in the presidential elections. But given
our oligarchic system, believing we can actually have a democracy is
sort of like looking forwad to going to heaven.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:12 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: WikiLeaks releases what appear to be
Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches
Part of me still thinks in terms of the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party. The truth is, neither of them represent the values
held, say fifty years ago.
Today, the Democratic Party is somewhere to the Right of the Party in
the Eisenhower years. The Republican Party of today represents White
Supremacists, Radical Religious Fanatics, and people who believe,
rightly or wrongly, that they have been sold out by Big Government.
While I am an American, I do not belong to any of the above. And one
basic reason that causes me to shy away from any political
organization, is the fact that most of the ones who understand that we
must set aside our Capitalistic Oligarchy, believe that the only way
will be through a violent uprising. I am not a pacifist, but I do
know that violence only begets greater violence. We simply must find
another way. Killing off those who disagree with us, becomes a never
ending trap. Just look around the world today. The more we kill, the
more there are who rise up against us. Like ancient Rome, we are now
sucking out the marrow of the very bones that make us the strong nation
we
When Hillary Clinton enters the Oval Office, unless she manages toone in.
follow Trump's example of self destruction, I plan to work toward
forcing her to uphold some of her campaign promises, such as lowering
the cost of education, raising the minimum wage to a living wage,
protect social security, and break up Wall Street...or maybe I snuck that
But I no longer have a place in either of the Heads of the Empire'sgovernment "handouts".
Party.
I'm thinking about possibly joining the Green Party, mostly because I
can support most of their political platform. But in so doing, I do
not ever forget that as long as we are working in a Capitalist
Oligarchy, we will never have a true People's Government.
Carl Jarvis(who believes that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill
Stein)
On 10/9/16, Miriam Vienna <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I focus on as I read the articles about these leaks is the way
the Democratic Party is handling them and what the leaks say about
the feeling of entitlement of the party establishment. I'm not
talking about the coziness with financiers. I'm talking about the
party's stance; that it is acceptable to run an unpopular candidate,
one who doesn't represent the supposed values of the party; that it
is acceptable to destroy the candidacy of someone who did, in fact,
represent the party's traditional values; that it is acceptable to
distract the public from these facts by concocting a story of Russian
intrusion into our elections so that people will direct their anger
at an old adversary, Russia, a country that is no longer the kind of
threat that it was perceived back in the days when it was a Communist
country and a competitor for world dominance. The other thing which
is so distressing, (and it is made even more obvious by the book I'm
reading about right wing America), is that every political sector in
our country is tied to its own belief system, and to its own news
sources, so that there's no focus on objective facts.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 10:52 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: WikiLeaks releases what appear to be
Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches
I admit that I did not read far into this "exposé". The very first
line, "...Clinton enjoying warm relations with Wall Street and
admitting she is 'far removed' from ordinary citizens..."
caused me to gag.
For God's sake, can't we get past having to tell ourselves that the
Clinton's' are not friends of the Working Class? Of course Hillary
Clinton feels comfortable and at ease with her billionaire friends.
They're her Friends!!! She's not speaking to the PTA in Detroit, at
a
$25 per couple fund raiser. But what really cranks my little engine
is this never ending crap from the slimy lips of those politicians
who play "hugsy hugsy" with Wall Street, and declare that they are
not bought by the huge contributions from the Elite. These
billionaires, we are led to believe, just love their country so much
that they give away millions of dollars just to prove they are
Patriots. These are the same filthy rich folk who scream if you
suggest a living wage for their employees. And don't talk about
"free" education for our children. And they hate Social Security and
Medicare because it makes hard working folks far too dependent upon
lives.Really? Are we talking about the same kindly old grandpa sitting
behind his huge posh desk reaching out to hand bags of money to those
folks who were just crippled in an industrial accident?
So I just can't keep on reading pointless verbiage. Let's cut to the
chase and demand that these billionaires start calling us into their
fancy dinners and paying us just a few thousand dollars each to hear
what we think.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/9/16, Miriam Vienna <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From The Guardianpublic.
WikiLeaks releases what appear to be Clinton's paid Wall Street
speeches The WikiLeaks emails appear to show Clinton enjoying warm
relations with Wall Street and admitting she is 'far removed' from
ordinary citizens
Excerpts from the speeches, long kept under wraps, came to light
when WikiLeaks published what it claimed were hacked campaign emails.
Photograph:
Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images
David Smith in Washington
Friday 7 October 2016 20.43 EDT Last modified on Saturday 8 October
2016
16.58 EDT
Speeches given by Hillary Clinton to major Wall Street banks
including Goldman Sachs, long kept under wraps, have apparently been
released by WikiLeaks.
The lucrative speeches were a recurring theme in the Democratic
primary campaign; accused of being the pro-Wall Street establishment
candidate, Clinton faced calls from rival Bernie Sanders to make
them
The speech excerpts came to light on Friday when WikiLeaks published
thousands of what it claimed were hacked emails from her campaign
chairman, John Podesta. The campaign refused to confirm or deny the
authenticity of the documents.
On Friday the US government formally named the Russian government as
responsible for recent hacks intended to interfere with the US
presidential election.
US officially accuses Russia of hacking DNC and interfering with
election Administration says 'only Russia's senior-most officials'
could have signed off on cyber-attacks and urges states to seek
federal security aid for voting systems Read more
Glen Caplin, Clinton campaign national spokesman, said: "We are not
going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by
Julian Assange [of WikiLeaks] who has made no secret of his desire
to damage Hillary Clinton.
Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national
security officials that documents can be faked as part of a
sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."
If genuine, the WikiLeaks emails appear to show Clinton enjoying
warm relations with Wall Street and admitting she is "far removed"
from ordinary citizens.
In a speech to the Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit in
October 2013, Clinton apparently complained of "a bias" against
successful people in Washington that stops them retaining their
wealth.
"Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that," she is quoted as
saying.
"He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune.
And when he left Washington, he had a small ."
A man called Mr Blanfein interjected: "That's how you have a small
fortune, is you go to Washington."
Clinton resumed: "You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part
of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is
such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated
that.You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds ofunnecessary."
positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and
At the same event, Clinton appears to have discussed the 2008haven't forgotten it."
financial crisis. "I think that there's a lot that could have been
avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing
what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on
all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we
prevent it from happening?"
The former senator and secretary of state added: "The people that
know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the
industry" - a comment that might have been seized on by Sanders, who
was demanding that Wall Street not be given a free hand to
self-regulate.
After leaving office as secretary of state in 2013, Clinton embarked
on a career speaking to banks, securities firms and other financial
institutions.
Tax returns show that her minimum fee was $225,000 per speech.
In remarks to Banco Itaú, she allegedly spoke in favor of trade in a
tone very different from her current opposition to Barack Obama's
Trans-Pacific Partnership. "My dream is a hemispheric common market,
with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with
energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering
growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.
Trump supporters split on his opposition to TPP, survey shows More
Trump and Clinton supporters back Trans-Pacific Partnership than
not, suggesting nuanced positions between Democrats and Republicans,
survey said
Read more
"Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase
trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that
Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There
is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit but
businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for
governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it
hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers
to market access and to trade"
The excerpts were revealed in a January 2016 email from Tony Carrk,
research director of the Clinton campaign, to Podesta and other
senior campaign officials, highlighting politically sensitive sections.
In an address to Goldman Sachs/BlackRock in April 2014, Clinton
allegedly
said: "I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think
there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country
over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that
feeling when I was growing up.
Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were.
My father loved to complain about big business and big government,
but we had a solid middle-class upbringing.
"We had good public schools. We had accessible healthcare. We had
our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up
his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now,
obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and
the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy,
but I
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Clinton had previously faced calls from rival Bernie Sanders to make
the speeches public. Photograph: Melanie Maxwell/AP In a speech to
the National Multi-Housing Council in April 2013, she admitted a
need for a private and public position on policy. "Politics is like
sausage being made," she said. "It is unsavory, and it always has
been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if
everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and
the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the
least. So, you need both a public and a private position."
And in a speech for General Electric's global leadership meeting in
Boca Raton, Florida, in January 2014, Clinton acknowledged that
anyone who runs for president must raise vast sums of money. "I
would like it not to be so expensive," she said. "I have no idea how
you do
"I mean, in my campaign - I lose track, but I think I raised $250m
or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President
Obama raised 1.1bn, and that was before the Super Pacs and all of
this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we
have this kind of free-for-all with all of this financial interest
at stake, but, you know, the supreme court said that's basically
what we're in for.
________________________________________
