Joe Biden's Medical History Needs Scrutiny, Vetting

Biden and his handlers explain this as stuttering.  It's not.

Given Biden's medical history, I have no doubt his doctors have told him what it is and the causes. It's got a name, a term, (#Palilalia #echolalia, #coprolalia, #dementia, ##Alzheimers). 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/20/biden-help-kids-with-stuttering-pbsnews-politico-debate-sot-vpx.cnn]

A psychiatrist explains: 

Read more...

Why Did Bernie Sanders Vote Against the Magnitsky Act?

The fact that Bernie Sanders voted against the so-called Magnitsky Act of 2012 imposing targeted sanctions on Russian oligarchs to punish the Putin regime for human rights abuses is often cited as “proof” by conspiracy theorists that Sanders was somehow culpable in the Kremlin’s targeted effort to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton as part of their broader attack on the 2016 U.S. election.

What conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that Sanders was joined in voting nay by Carl Levin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Jack Reed, none of whom stand accused by anyone of being Russian stooges.  

What conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that the Obama administration opposed the Magnitsky Act. The administration flip-flopped only after the sanctions were attached to a bill normalizing trade relations with Russia, hence the bill’s official name  The Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 6156).

What conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that Sanders voted for a second, more robust version of the Magnitsky Act in 2015.  

What liberal conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that Sanders supports imposing punitive sanctions targeting Putin and his oligarch cronies, supports the sprawling Russia counter-intelligence investigation of the 2016 election led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, denounces Russian aggression  and Putin on a fairly regular basis, and during the 2016 presidential campaign supported sending more U.S. troops to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Eastern European members to deter Russia from attacking them the way it attacked Ukraine in 2014.

Clearly Sanders is no Putin stooge.         

So although conspiracy theorists are wrong that Sanders is somehow soft on or partial towards what he calls “the autocratic, nationalistic kleptocracy of Vladimir Putin,” the fact remains that he voted against the Magnitsky Act.

The question is: Why?

The difficulty in answering this question is that Sanders issued no press release or statement during that time period outlining his position on the bill; made no speech on the Senate floor about the topic before casting his vote (neither did Levin, Reed, or Whitehouse); and was never questioned by the media about it.                

Given that Sanders supports imposing punitive sanctions in principle  on Russia (and other bad actors in the international state system), there are two likely reasons why he voted against the Magnitsky Act.  /4 of 12

The first is that Sanders almost certainly opposed normalizing trade relations with Russia just as he opposed permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China. China and Russia (then the USSR) were designated as non-market economies under the Trade Act of 1974 which meant that trade relations with both of nations were subject to an annual review by Congress. Human rights abuses by both regimes inevitably came up during such reviews, so awarding PNTR to China (in 2000) and Russia (in 2012) was a way of eliminating regular discussion of these unsavory issues. In almost every discussion of U.S. trade policy, Sanders mentions his opposition to PNTR for China in the same breath as he denounces  trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and TPP, so the likelihood that he voted against the 2012 version of the Magnitsky Act since it awarded PNTR to Russia seems high. When Chuck Todd asked Sanders on Meet the Press in 2015,“So basically, there’s never been a single trade agreement this country’s negotiated that you’ve been comfortable with?”, Sanders’ response was, “that’s correct.”             

The second possibility is that Sanders may have agreed with Levin’s objections to the final version of the 2012 Magnitsky Act. Levin’s remarks on the Senate floor were later reproduced as a statement on his (now-defunct) Senate website:

“… the Magnitsky language before us is not the Magnitsky language adopted by our Finance and Foreign Relations committees. Their Magnitsky language applied the same sanctions to human rights violators wherever they might be — whether in Russia, or Syria, or Sudan, or North Korea, or China, or in any other country.        

“In other words, the Senate committee-approved bill wisely adopted a global Magnitsky standard. The reasoning for this is sound, because while the mechanism of U.S. visa denial for human rights violators was inspired by a single case in a single nation, the principles that it seeks to advance are universal. This bipartisan Senate committee bill, unlike the House-passed version of the Magnitsky Act that we will soon vote on, does not single out Russian human-rights violators for visa denial, but would apply the visa denial mechanism to people from any country who violate important human rights standards. The United States should be clear and firm in its commitment to protecting human rights, wherever the violations occur, and to holding those who violate those rights accountable to the best of our ability, including denying them visas to come to our country. Human rights do not end at the borders of Russia, and anyone who violates those standards, as so many did so blatantly in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, should be held accountable.      

“Applying the Magnitsky provisions globally, as the Senate bill approved by our committees did, follows in the spirit of Jackson-Vanik, which, while inspired by events in the Soviet Union, was not limited to the Soviet Union.

“The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee both voted unanimously to report a version of the Magnitsky bill that applies its sanctions globally. Senators Cardin and Kyl have worked, on a bipartisan basis, to build support for that global standard, and I strongly support their effort. I commend them on their effort.   

“So why is that Senate committee-reported bill not before the Senate? Why would we deny visas only to Russian human rights violators? Why diminish the universality of the values the Magnitsky bill seeks to uphold?

“Applying the sanctions contained in this bill solely to Russians, as the House version does, not only diminishes a universal value. Because it adds a political twist — it will stoke a nationalistic response in Russia. If this bill does not apply the same rule to all human-rights violators, if it singles out Russian human-rights violators, President Putin will no doubt appeal to the nationalistic passions of many Russians by saying that our bill isn’t aimed at protecting human rights, but is aimed at Russia. We should not hand President Putin that argument.”           

Levin voted nay on the 2012 Magnitsky Act as a protest vote against the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowing the bill’s scope to focus solely on Russian oligarchs whereas the original bill would have applied to all human rights-abusing regimes and their respective oligarchs generally. Since neither senators Whitehouse nor Reed issued statements about why they voted the final bill down, we can only speculate as to their reasoning.                

Since Sanders voted for the Affordable Care Act despite the fact that it fell well short of his preferred Medicare for All, single payer plan and voted for many Iraq War funding bills even though he was against that war, it seems unlikely that he would vote down the 2012 Magnitsky Act because it was flawed. He generally votes for flawed legislation (like the 1994 crime bill) and then works to fix the flaws later. When he votes against a bill, it is because he thinks the legislation will do more harm than good.  

The most likely explanation for why Sanders voted against the 2012 Magnitsky Act is because he opposed normalizing trade relations with Russia. When a stronger, more consistent version of the Magnitsky Act came up for a vote in 2015 at the beginning of the Kremlin’s election interference campaign, HE VOTED FOR IT.  

Read more...

Presidential Campaign Can Help Americans Learn about Social Security

Social Security has become an issue in the presidential election campaign. Democratic candidate Joe Biden has come under criticism from his competitor, Bernie Sanders, for his past advocacy of cuts to Social Security benefits. Donald Trump has made headlines for recent comments suggesting he’d be open to cutting Social Security.

There is no doubt that Biden has in the past supported cuts to Social Security. But there are other reasons, too, that Social Security should really be a prominent issue in this presidential campaign. Despite the fact that about one-sixth of Americans get a check from Social Security ― and millions more, including poor children, are helped immensely by it ― the nation’s largest anti-poverty program remains vastly misunderstood by most of the country.

In March, a Pew Research poll found that only 16 percent of Americans believed that the Social Security system would be able to pay promised benefits to older Americans when they retire. Polls showing majorities who do not believe that they will see anything from Social Security are common.

In reality, there is no reason for anyone to believe such wild nonsense. Social Security has paid all promised benefits for more than 75 years, and there is nothing in its finances indicating that the future will be different. Current projections show an eventual gap between forecast resources and promised benefits. But that gap going forward is much smaller than what was closed in the past. Anyone with knowledge of the subject matter can tell you with “high confidence,” as the UN climate reports like to say about global warming, that this relatively small gap will also be closed. And there is no need, or reason, to close it with any kind of benefit cuts.

The surreal polling data on Social Security is a result of many years of effective public relations work, financed by billions of special interest dollars, including political campaign contributions. The American right has always hated Social Security, from its origin in the New Deal of the 1930s. Social Security is based on an ethic of solidarity: we are all in this together, so it is in our collective and individual interest to pay into a social insurance fund when we are young, healthy, and working, and draw upon it when we need it. This does not fit well with the right-wing narrative of society as a collection of atomized, self-interested individuals.

But it was in the ‘90s that many liberals began to accept, and even promote, the arithmetically false, right-wing talking points that Social Security was going broke.

The verbal and accounting tricks were swallowed by much of the media and proved effective. There was a demographic time bomb, we were (and continue to be) warned. In 1999, there were 3.3 workers paying into the Social Security system for every retiree drawing benefits. But the Baby Boomers are going to retire! And by 2030, it was estimated, this ratio would shrink to 2.1, they said.

Hardly anyone, outside of those of us who looked at the numbers, seemed to notice that this is just one side of the balance sheet. The other side shows that productivity and wages also grow, and hence it takes fewer workers per retiree to finance any given level of benefits. That’s one reason why, for example, the ratio of workers to retirees fell from 8.6 in 1955 to 3.3 in 1999 and nobody missed a Social Security check. And people accepted that payroll taxes increased, because their wages increased vastly more.

The “granny-bashers,” as we affectionately called them, created a phony intergenerational war out of something that was very much a war waged by the rich against all generations.

And guess what, the much-dreaded retirement of the Baby Boom generation has come to pass ― about 58 percent have already become eligible for Social Security benefits ― and the sky did not fall. OK Boomers, thanks for not destroying our economy by collecting a modest average benefit of $1,471 per month, which you have fully paid for out of your wages over the past few decades.

That brings us back to Joe Biden, who has supported cuts to Social Security benefits in the past. Maybe he has come to see the error of his ways, without saying so. Like many other Democrats, he has followed Bernie Sanders in now supporting the expansion of Social Security benefits instead of cutting them. Although not nearly as much expansion as Sanders. Still, people can change.

But a look at the Social Security section of the Biden campaign website leaves cause for skepticism and concern. “The impending exhaustion of the Social Security Trust fund imperils American retirement as we know it.” Um, not really: the Trust Fund sits at $2.8 trillion right now, and it’s got 15 years before it would be exhausted. And it’s never going to be the main source of Social Security benefits, 77 percent of which would still be paid when it’s used up. And as noted above, revenues will inevitably be increased before this catastrophe could materialize.

But the Biden campaign is presenting that 1990s alarmist picture adopted by the people who have long wanted to cut and/or privatize Social Security. There’s more: “With Social Security’s Trust Fund already in deficit and expected to be exhausted in 2035, we urgently need action to make the program solvent and prevent cuts to American retirees.”

To say that the Trust Fund is “in deficit” doesn’t have an actual meaning in accounting or arithmetic. For the reader who is left to guess what it means, it sounds like an overdrawn checking account. What they are trying to say, with a conceptual error and a dose of unnecessary fright, is that Social Security will be taking in less revenue than it is spending on benefits, and therefore drawing on the Trust Fund. But that’s no reason to panic ― that’s what the Trust Fund was accumulated for: to give us some time to make the political decisions about how to maintain (or expand) benefits.

A better approach to this problem is to first acknowledge that we have been fed a load of cow manure about Social Security’s finances for decades, and then show how it is affordable to expand Social Security so that people who depend on it for their retirement can escape poverty. That has been Sanders’ approach.

There’s a lot at stake, and a lot could go wrong, as policy-makers decide how to close the gap that is continuously brought about by people living longer. Social Security keeps more than 27 million people above the poverty line, including at least 1.5 million children. A lot of people could get hurt by changes that don’t make headline news. So, it might be good to have someone at the helm who has seen through the false narrative that we have been fed, has a consistent record on the issue, and a clear picture of what to fight for.

Read more...

As I Predicted Long Ago...

Lily Ledbetter Act - Read them all, and now see Nancy Pelosi's admission today; only eleven years later:

The Founders never intended for Americans to have to wait so long, for their children's children (or grandchildren) to reap the benefits of what was started through our system of justice so many years earlier.

Read more...

While This Writer And Bernie Volunteer Gets It...

It may be to late to matter:

Party Insiders Talk: Cheating, Rigging, and Smearing

Democratic party insiders opened up to the wrong person when they talked about how the nominees have already been chosen, even though there has not been any voting yet, and of the plan to smear Bernie Sanders as a Russian asset.The Fix is In“The fix is in and the odds are through the roof.” This alludes to one of the lines in the film Pulp Fiction about the underworld of hit men and gangsters. When the boxer is supposed to “take a fall” in the fifth round so underworld gangster Marsellus Wallace can get a hefty return on his “correct” bet. But the boxer doesn't—and he has his brother place his own bets (for when the boxer doesn't throw the match) all over town. This same boxer is able to collect a lot of money because he bet on himself. It's a great plot twist. The same thing is happening now. The DNC is taking a cue from fictional underworld gangster Wallace.
Now the fix is in politically. On January 20, 2020 at 8:20 p.m. PDT I received a communication from a reliable source. This person had interactions earlier that evening with high level party members and associates of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who said that they have now selected Biden as the Democratic Party nominee, with Warren as the VP. They also said the plan is to smear Bernie as a Russian asset. So the DNC has coronated Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren as the presidential and vice presidential nominees.
Part of the plan for Bernie is for the Democratic Party to label him a Russian operative. They will engage in a massive smear campaign. If this sounds too far-fetched—just wait for them to label everyone who supports him as Russian operatives. This is how they will deal with anyone who they want to get rid of: people who do not play by the DNC rules or candidates who are honest and upfront. I'm sure they will label him and his supporters as Russian operatives. Nobody needs proof, they just need an accusation, though hopefully they will rethink this plan now that Tulsi Gabbard has sued Hillary Clinton for defamation to the tune of $50 million.
The Democratic Party is Undemocratic
These insiders said that Bernie is not getting the nomination because he is not a democrat. The Democrats plan to give the nomination to people who have been loyal to the party. Many liberal Americans still think the Democratic Party is the last bastion or last holdout against Trump and all he represents. Against hate. Against racism. Against demagoguery. They think the Democratic Party will set everything right. That the Democratic Party is democratic. Is fair. Is going to fulfill the will of the people.
Well, I'm sorry to report that the fix is in—just like last time. The Democratic Party establishment must think that because we have the horror of Donald Trump, this gives them leeway to do anything they want. That there is no need for voting. That there is no need to wait for a vote. That there is no need to see who the best candidate is to beat Trump. There is no need for democracy. In fact, we no longer have a democracy—The Atlantic reports that public policy does not reflect the preferences of Americans.
The DNC must think it's enough to just have a candidate. Forget popular enthusiasm. So what if Biden hung a noose around students neck in the form of non-dischargeable debt? So what if he sided with Bush about war?So what if he enacted racist prison policies? He can barely fill a hall—while Sanders fills stadiums with enthusiastic supporters.
Who will stop it? Remember last time when Las Vegas union bosses made casino employees vote for Hillary while on-the-clock—or lose their jobs? There were reports in the media that union bosses had their workers vote for Hillary in a move that won the state, and possibly the election. Are the Democrats planning the same thing for Nevada? The one question I have is this—is there any fairness or democracy left in the Democratic Party? Will it happen again? How can anyone stop it?
Because in truth, the DNC doesn't need to be democratic. There was a class action suit after the 2016 election filed against the DNC. The lawsuit requested money back for Bernie supporters who had given millions, often in very difficult circumstances. In fact, on August 25, 2017 the court verified the DNC has a right to rig primaries. They can make any backroom deals they like. The lawyers argued that they could do what they liked and they won. And now it appears they are at it again. And now, according to my source, they have selected their final candidates and are prepared to smear Bernie as a Russian asset.
Of course it's not over by a long shot. We must do everything we can to stop those bastards. Bernie’s popularity is surging. He is gaining in the polls and whenever he is blatantly attacked his supporters dig deep in those near empty pockets to donate again. Warren painted Bernie as sexist, claiming he said a woman cannot win the presidency. Time to donate. Hillary says no one likes Bernie. It's time to donate again.
Bernie SupportersMuch of America does not realize that Bernie supporters are on social media en masse to encourage each other, share news, have donation drives, strategize, and share memes. The Democrats do—and they are hitting back hard. Many of the American people do not realize how large the crowds are when Bernie speaks. They do not know because it is not on mainstream media (MSM). No. They just don't know.
Another fact not touted on MSM is that Bernie Sanders does great in a head-to-head matchup with Trump. Also, most of Sanders' supporters do see Trump as a destructive, racist president. Facing the horrors of another four years of Trump, or the status quo, pro-corporate Democrats who will carry on many of the same policies as Trump—many supporters openly acknowledge the need for another party. One that meets the needs of working people, the poor, and the destitute. That will declare a climate emergency.
For most Sanders supporters, activists, and volunteers, the news that the DNC has selected Biden and Warren will come as no shock. The DNC had selected Hillary Clinton previously, and it is, even now, still perfectly legal to be as corruptly undemocratic as they wish. However, Sanders supporters are just likely to buckle down, donate a little more, do more doorknocking and phone banking. More tabling, sign waving and Bernie house parties.
A Great HopeThere is an urgency for many reasons: the horrors of Trump, the looming crisis of climate change, the known DNC corruption, the persistence and increase of grave social problems, an increasingly attacked media, and infighting among working people. Bernie's candidacy, and what it represents, is a great hope as the populace witnesses the entrails of capitalism.
Yes, the fix may be in, but Bernie supporters will continue to push for an impossible dream. Of having actual democracy here in the United States; Patients able to get their insulin; No children in prisons; Peace instead of war for profit; And active solutions to the climate crisis so we can gift our grandchildren with a healthy world to live in. Plus the truth is Bernie is the one who can beat Trump.
So Bernie supporters can be like the boxer in Pulp Fiction. Refuse to take the fall. Refuse to sell out. Speak the truth to power—while giving and phone banking. Hope to crack a dirty, corrupt system. Plus a few hail Marys, prayers, incantations, and muttered curses for good measure. Maybe in the end, if humanity is extremely lucky, we will win one for the people. Just like the boxer who got paid instead of the crooked gangster—that could be us. We progressives could win the nomination in July, then the presidency in November. Bet on it.

Read more...

Homeless in . . .

Homeless in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico (refugee encampment south of U.S. border)?  
A favela in Brazil?

A refugee camp in New Delhi, India?



[Answer: Wine country (wine cave country), Sonoma County, California]

Read more...

Photo Reveals CIA's Response to the Senate Torture Report

Torture Never Stopped Under Obama 

The Torture Memo Obama Never Rescinded 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...