Check out our slate of Daily Kos-endorsed candidates

Debbie Wasserman Schultz "accidentally" told the truth about the purpose of Super-delegates in the Democracy Party -- and it has very little to do with promoting grassroot democracy -- just the opposite actually.

Super-delegates exist to control and diminish grassroot democracy, from ever threatening the Party elite's tenuous hold on power.

And the way the Media constantly confounds (and combines) the unpledged delegates with the pledged delegates in their Democratic "delegate" Totals, it would seem the DNC's "true purpose" for them, is well founded.

Here's the accidental quote from the DNC Chair back in February this year, during 'the pre-game show' to a Democratic Debate, when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper, to explain the idea of "super-delegates" to new voters:

DWS:  Unpledged delegates [super-delegates] exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn’t competition between them.

---

TAPPER: I’m not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let’s move on.

Here's a longer version of that exchange:

CNN's Jake Tapper calls out DNC Schultz as she "clarifies" Superdelegates

  link

It seems particularly "separating" {segregating} -- when the corporate media frequently goes to some length to explain that the GOP Unpledged Delegates, are "free to choose" any candidate, even right up to the convention.

Yet they rarely make that same distinction for the Dems Super-delegates -- and bother to explain that they too are "free to choose" any candidate, even right up to the convention.  No with Dems, our corporate media lumps in the Unpledged with the Pledged, as if they are so complex in "purpose", the Audience would never be able fathom it. ... Just Look at that Clinton 'Delegate Lead'!

Grudging thanks to Wasserman Schultz however, for helping us out with her "clarifying" remarks.  ... Which were never to be repeated by the corporate media again.  Ooops!  

No wonder only 14% of the people think Congress is doing a good job.

Because as Sixty Minutes reports, they spend most of their time on the Hill, NOT actually doing their jobs -- of representing us.  They’ve got other responsibilities that are first on the To-Do List ...

---

April 24, 2016 — Link to Video.

Stop fundraising, start working, says Fla. Rep. David Jolly, who is seeking to ban federal-elected officials from dialing for dollars. Norah O’Donnell reports.

Stunning Facts uncovered by this investigation:

 • Congress reps have to make on average $18,000 a day, to get re-elected.

 • The Parties recommend Congress reps spend 30 hours a week raising this money.

 • The schedule of Congress is based around these 30 hours of "Dialing for Dollars".

 • Congress reps are given Telemarketing Scripts to guide them in their cold calling work.

 • Since such calls are illegal from the halls of Congress, each Party has dedicated nearby Call-Centers where this “work” can be done.

...

Simply incredible. Watch the Report.

So much for those “Bridge Fuel to Future” claims that rationalized the ongoing high-tech transfusion of proprietary Toxic formulas, for the ground water that nobody needs. All for sake of the EZ-profits that heralded “cleaner than coal” shale gas would bring.

So we were told then, when the “all of the above” energy strategy became the policy of the land.

More recently scientists are telling us that “Bridge to Future” is more like an “Expressway to the Past”, given the little-monitored, little-measured, little-captured Methane that escapes routinely in the normal course of shattering the Earth, for the sake of ‘gold rush’ profits.

Study: Methane leaks make fracked gas 'dirtier' than coal, oil

A new Cornell University study suggests that natural gas produced using the hydraulic fracturing process contributes the same or larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions than coal or oil.

by Kevin Zwick, wayneindependent.com — Apr 11, 2011

A new Cornell University study suggests that natural gas produced using the hydraulic fracturing process contributes the same or larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions than coal or oil.

The new study says "fugitive methane" — vented gas that escapes from flow-back and leakage — is a major contributor to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas. [...]

“The take-home message of our study is that if you do an integration of 20 years following the development of the gas, shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is, in fact, worse than coal and worse than oil,” Howarth stated in a press release. “We are not advocating for more coal or oil, but rather to move to a truly green, renewable future as quickly as possible. We need to look at the true environmental consequences of shale gas.”

The warming impact of methane is 105 times more (pound for pound) than carbon dioxide, Howarth says, adding that even small leaks make a big difference.

The report shows that roughly 3.6 to 7.9 percent of methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well, causing emissions that are 30 percent more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas.

Here’s a few conclusions from that Cornell University study:

8 Conclusions and implications

---

The GHG footprint of shale gas is significantly larger than that from conventional gas, due to methane emissions with flow-back fluids and from drill out of wells during well completion. Routine production and downstream methane emissions are also large, but are the same for conventional and shale gas. Our estimates for these routine and downstream methane emission sources are within the range of those reported by most other peer-reviewed publications inventories (Hayhoe et al. 2002; Lelieveld et al. 2005). Despite this broad agreement, the uncertainty in the magnitude of fugitive emissions is large. Given the importance of methane in global warming, these emissions deserve far greater study than has occurred in the past. We urge both more direct measurements and refined accounting to better quantify lost and unaccounted for gas.

---

The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming.

ScientificAmerican echoes these Fugitive Shale Gas concerns:

Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases

"Fugitive methane" released during shale gas drilling could accelerate climate change

by Mark Fischetti , scientificamerican.com —  January 20, 2012

[...]

When water with its chemical load is forced down a well to break the shale, it flows back up and is stored in large ponds or tanks. But volumes of methane also flow back up the well at the same time and are released into the atmosphere before they can be captured for use. This giant belch of "fugitive methane" can be seen in infrared videos taken at well sites.

[...]

Currently, pipeline leaks are the main culprit, but fracking is a quickly growing contributor. Ingraffea pointed out that although 25,000 high-volume shale-gas wells are already operating in the U.S., hundreds of thousands are scheduled to go into operation within 20 years, and millions will be operating worldwide, significantly expanding emissions and keeping atmospheric methane levels high despite the 12-year dissipation time.

Howarth said he is particularly concerned about fracking emissions because recent data indicates that the planet is entering a period of rapid climate change. He noted that the average global temperature compared with the early 1900s is now expected to increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next 15 to 35 years, which he called "a tipping point" toward aggressive climate change. More and more fracking would speed the world to that transition or undermine efforts to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The notion, Ingraffea said, that shale gas is a desirable "bridge fuel" from oil to widespread renewable energy supplies several decades from now "makes no sense" in terms of climate change.

[...]

And the Industry response:  Out of sight, out of mind …  What Fugitive Shale Gas problem?   Come out to the drilling rig — and show us.   OK …

This video was taken at Marathon’s Sugarhorn Central Facility in Karnes City by TCEQ on August 15, 2012 and September 5, 2012 in response to a landowner complaint.

x

YouTube Video

Marathon failed to submit a reportable emissions report for these two events until late December. The emissions report for the 12-hour August 15th event noted a release of 42.06 pounds of benzene among many other toxic chemicals. The report for the 11-hour September 5th event noted 26.63 pounds of benzene along with many other toxic chemicals. An analysis of the TCEQ’s investigation and Marathon’s report was done by Wilma Subra and can be found HERE.

On Monday, March 4th and Tuesday, March 5th, IR video taken by ShaleTest shows the emissions continue at the same level at this facility.

And if you are among the camps that discount the effects of Climate Change, rationalizing that those are really someone else’s problem further on down that “future bridge” road — then consider the the simple real world impacts that “fugitive toxics” can have on the local neighborhoods, NOW.

---

 Roger M. Richards CineReel-Dear President Obama film excerpts from Roger M. Richards on Vimeo.

---

Think of the children … exposed to these “unseen threats” on a “routine basis” … for that sake of what exactly?  … a little examined policy of “All of the Above”?

And so many people thought the poisoning of Flint was/is bad — how is this kind of poisoning worthy of only shrugs, simply because it is a bit harder to measure and see.

The eyes and lungs and immune systems of locals — are the ‘canaries’ that no one is listening to, even now.

Dear President Obama: The Clean Energy Revolution is Now documents stories from fracking/fossil fuel hotspots in US & the citizen-led fight for clean energy.

x

15 min into watching @dearobamafilm ... speechless! #CleanRevolution #ClimateAction #ClimateJustice #FeelTheBern #BernieorBust #EarthDay

— jacquelynn garofano (@jkmgarofano) April 23, 2016

 

x

@MarkRuffalo Just watched @dearobamafilm. Extremely impactful. I hope those who can enact change see it and are moved to act. Thank you. 🌎

— Jill K (@Jedi_Jill) April 23, 2016

x

We're screening @MarkRuffalo's @dearobamafilm on 4/28 but you can see it tonight @ 8pm on @VICELAND! @jonbowermaster pic.twitter.com/T69077gNTo

— CaliforniaLung (@CaliforniaLung) April 22, 2016

Dear President Obama addresses these contradictions, but more importantly it gives voice to some of the many Americans who have become the non-consenting victims of the president’s “all of the above” energy policy that has so often meant everything belowground, no matter the costs of extraction. In many cases that has meant poisoned drinking water, polluted air, sick families, and communities torn apart. More than 17 million Americans now live within one mile of an oil or gas well, and more still are affected by associated infrastructure such as pipelines, air-pollutant spewing compressor stations and bomb trains.

Most importantly, the film is about the future. It serves as a call to President Obama, in the remainder of his term, to help the Americans who have been harmed, and to get us on a swift path to the clean energy future starting today.

There’s still a lot President Obama can do before he leaves the White House in January. He can finally meet in person with Americans, who have been harmed by oil and gas drilling and fracking, and hear their stories firsthand. He can direct his EPA to investigate the many cases of reported water contamination across this country with the same emergency powers that EPA used in investigating Flint, Michigan. And he can stop all drilling on federal lands, which would prevent harm and do a great deal to truly address climate change by keeping fossil fuels in the ground as climate scientists agree we must.

[...]

...

Here’s the Facebook page Dear President Obama.  It has more content and more clips.

The Vimeo page has a much larger video segment of the Documentary.

From earthjustice.org:

The Marcellus Shale that runs beneath most of Pennsylvania has been a key target for the oil and gas industry; it currently accounts for nearly 40 percent of U.S. shale gas production.

Between 2011 and 2015, the state approved more than 12,000 permits and almost 6,000 fracking wells, forever altering the landscape of northeastern and southwestern Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, the gas industry has deep ties with the state’s legislators. Between 2007 and 2014, the industry reportedly gave $8 million to elected officials and spent $41 million lobbying the state legislature. A report by the Public Accountability Initiative in 2013 revealed that 45 current or former Pennsylvania state officials have ties to energy industry and fracking regulation, including 28 who ultimately traded their government positions for industry jobs.

[...]

That page also has a well-done Interactive map that shows where and what ‘Fraccidents’ happened, across the once pristine Pennsylvania, when all Fracking-caution was summarily thrown into the wind.

Here’s are few local PA tales, that demonstrate what happens when Special Interest “Accidents” are allowed to happen to good people. I encourage you click this link, to read about more of them:

Centre County, PA

Donal Ludwig, who lives near an NCL gas well, found that his water had been contaminated with high levels of barium, manganese, iron, arsenic and lead. He showers at a nearby campground and hauls his own clean drinking water. When Ludwig tried to shower at his home, he experience headaches and extreme ringing in his ears. When he used the dishwasher, his eyes watered uncontrollably and swelled shut.

---

Muncy, PA

The subsidiary of energy giant ExxonMobil Corp. halted operations in the county and provide the water well owners with potable water when flammable gas was found in five water wells in Lycoming County and in the nearby Little Muncy Creek.

Although multiple past incidents have prompted the DEP to fine Chesapeake Energy and Cabot Oil & Gas, companies drilling in Pennsylvania counties, they have not assumed responsibility for the pollution. XTO may be another corporation to add to the list.

---

Branchburg, NJ

In May 2013, a flash fire at a natural gas pipeline compression facility, Transco Pipeline, sent two construction workers to local hospitals and caused minor injuries to 13 other workers. Three emergency fire crews were needed to extinguish the fire.

---

Susquehanna County, PA

In March 2012, an explosion at a natural gas compressor station in Susquehanna County blew a hole in the roof of the complex holding the engines, shaking homes as far as a half-mile away and drawing emergency responders from nearby counties. The Lathrop station pressurizes and dehydrates natural gas from Marcellus Shale; gas was leaked after the explosion before the valve was shut off.

---

Wyoming County, PA

In April 2013, 9,000 gallons of fracking fluid spilled from a well site owned by Carrizzo Oil and Gas. According to the Department of Environmental Protection, a faulty hose came loose at the site.

A Wyoming County oil well, operated by the Texas-based Carrizo Oil and Gas, spewed more than a quarter million gallons of highly pressurized fracking wastewater, causing evacuations of nearby homes and buildings in March 2013. Methane gas leaked out of the well, prompting EPA to test the water and air quality in the area.

What — Could possibly go Wrong?   Now you know.  And that’s not the half of it.

---

And that wind-socking, caution-shedding did have its rather serious “political price tags” attached, unfortunately for PA residents. From wikipedia:

Pennsylvania and fracking

Lobbying and donations

A 2012 press release by MarcellusMoney.org stated that the "natural gas industry and related trade groups have now given nearly $8 million to Pennsylvania state candidates and political committees since 2000.... Top recipients of industry money given between 2000 and April 2012 were Governor Tom Corbett (R) with $1,813,205.59, Senate President Joseph Scarnati (R-25) with $359,145.72, Rep. Dave Reed (R-62) with $137,532.33, House Majority Leader Rep. Mike Turzai (R-28) with $98,600, and Sen. Don White (R-41) with $94,150.^[19]

The 2011 Common Cause report, "Deep drilling, deep pockets, in Washington and Pennsylvania," found that "from 2001 through June 2011, the fracking industry gave $20.5 million to current members of Congress and spent $726 million on lobbying."

Two Pennsylvanians, Rep. Tim Murphy, and Sen. Pat Toomey, ranked among the leading recipients in Congress in gas industry donations (10th and 28th respectively). Murphy has received $275,499 and Toomey $160,750. Other PA recipients included Rep. Jason Altmire (D) with $65,365; Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) with $60,800; Rep. Bill Shuster (R) with $59,000; Rep. Charles Dent (R) with $56,500; and Rep. Glenn Thompson (R) with $52,000.

The natural gas industry contributed about $1.6 million to Gov. Corbett’s political campaigns from 2001 to 2011, about $1.1 million of that for his campaign for governor.^[20]

Revolving door

The 2013 Public Accountability Initiative report "Fracking and the Revolving Door in Pennsylvania" identified 45 current or former Pennsylvania state officials who have links to the energy industry and gas drilling and fracking regulation, including 28 who have left to take industry jobs. [...]

MARC 1

In January 2012, Central New York Oil & Gas Co., LLC went to court to condemn nearly half the properties along its FERC approved 39-mile natural gas pipeline through northern Pennsylvania, despite the company's assurance to federal regulators that it would minimize using eminent domain. Eminent domain would give the company the right to excavate and lay the 30-inch diameter pipeline on private property. Landowners would not lose their properties and would be compensated. Landowners say the company steamrolled them by refusing to negotiate in good faith on either monetary compensation or the pipeline's route, which cuts through the state's pristine Endless Mountains.

The MARC 1 pipeline is seen as key infrastructure for tapping into the Marcellus Shale, as the high-pressure steel pipeline will connect to major interstate pipelines and the company's own natural gas storage facility in southern New York state. Central New York Oil & Gas hopes to start construction soon and finish by July 2012, but awaits permits from Pennsylvania environmental regulators and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA has expressed concern that the pipeline will cross dozens of pristine waterways.^[29]

---

What do the Democratic Candidates say about Fracking?  From motherjones:

Hillary Clinton, though, needed more time to outline three conditions in a more nuanced answer on fracking. She's against it "when any locality or any state is against it," "when the release of methane or contamination of water is present," and "unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using."

Until those conditions are met, "we've got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking."

[...]

Bernie Sanders had a simple answer: "No, I do not support fracking."

Fracking is not only a concern to the residents of PA, other states’ citizens do not appreciate the Fracking Industry’s “steam-rolling” ways, either.

I encourage you click this link, to learn more about them — your fellow-residents who are in search of a seriously Greener America.  Maybe one day the EPA will actually start protecting us, and not just the Toxics that Be.

Got to give the Brock-man kudos for admitting it, that the way to reverse those underwater trustworthy numbers is to pay professional media messengers, to do the “social reversing”.

That kind of positive PR can’t be bought! … or wait a minute, maybe it can …

---

Barrier Breakers 2016: A Project of Correct The Record

Task force will help Clinton supporters push back on online harassment and thank superdelegates

correctrecord.org

Anonymous online attacks, from both sides of the political spectrum, have sought to spread lies and misleading narratives about Secretary Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s supporters are more enthusiastic than Sen. Bernie Sanders’ supporters, yet oftentimes are discouraged from engaging online and are “often afraid to voice their thoughts” because of the fear of online harassment. Many of Hillary Clinton’s female supporters in particular have been subject to intense cyber-bullying and sexist attacks from swarms of anonymous attackers.

Among the many Hillary Clinton supporters attacked online, superdelegates have been subject to vicious attacks for supporting her. Even the director of MoveOn, which has endorsed Sen. Sanders, denounced this harassment.

In response to these attacks on supporters and superdelegates, Correct The Record is launching the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force. While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media.

Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram. Barrier Breakers 2016 is a project of Correct The Record and the brainchild of David Brock, and the task force will be overseen by President of Correct The Record Brad Woodhouse and Digital Director Benjamin Fischbein. The task force staff’s backgrounds are as diverse as the community they will be engaging with and include former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will organize.

Lessons learned from online engagement with “Bernie Bros” during the Democratic Primary will be applied to the rest of the primary season and general election — responding quickly and forcefully to negative attacks and false narratives. Additionally, as the general election approaches, the task force will begin to push out information to Sanders supporters online, encouraging them to support Hillary Clinton.

The task force currently combats online political harassment, having already addressed more than 5,000 individuals who have personally attacked Secretary Clinton on Twitter. The task force will provide a presence and space online where Clinton supporters can organize and engage with one another and are able to obtain graphics, videos, gifs, and messaging to use in their own social spaces. Additionally, the Barrier Breakers 2016 task force hopes to embrace the creativity of Hillary Clinton’s supporters by sharing their efforts and content with other groups.

THANK A DELEGATE WEBSITE:

www.thankadelegate.com

EXAMPLE GRAPHICS:

[...]

Something smells … like astroturf around here.

And now we kind of know why. 

We have it first-hand from a very “trust-worthy” source.

This is a very sad commentary on our new Citizens United’s America — where Money and ‘Manufactured’ Free Speech are no object.

...

I’m sure the Independents can’t wait to be schooled like this in their Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook feeds. Afterall who doesn’t enjoy a persistent troll or two, in their daily media stream?

 marketwatch.com — Jan 5, 2016

[Bernie Sanders: ]  If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. When it comes to Wall Street reform that must be our bottom line. This is true not just from a risk perspective and the fear of another bailout. It is also true from the reality that a handful of huge financial institutions simply have too much economic and political power over this country.

If Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican trust-buster, were alive today, he would say “break ‘em up.” And he would be right.

And, here’s how I will accomplish that.

Within the first 100 days of my administration, I will require the secretary of the Treasury Department to establish a “Too-Big-to Fail” list of commercial banks, shadow banks and insurance companies whose failure would pose a catastrophic risk to the United States economy without a taxpayer bailout.

Within one year, my administration will break these institutions up so that they no longer pose a grave threat to the economy as authorized under Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

That was back in January, where Bernie Sanders explained how he would break up the TBTF Banks, under the Authority of Dodd-Frank.

---

TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 1, 2016

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.

You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.

Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That's number one.

Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power.

And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.

Daily News:  Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders:  How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

That was early this month in April, where Bernie Sanders STILL explained how he would break up the TBTF Banks, under the Authority of Dodd-Frank.

It was the Daily News questioner who brought up the possibility of the Fed [Federal Reserve] as “a way to get it done” — Not Bernie Sanders.

Sanders continued to insist that the Administration, through the Secretary of Treasury, has the authority to break-up the TBTF Banks — by the authority of Dodd-Frank.

To claim that he does not know how to “break them up” is disingenuous, at best;  and veiled ageism at worst.  Just check Bernie’s Wall Street Speech of January 2016, for proof that he actually knows all about the authority given the executive branch, to prevent any systemic risk that those six speculative financial institutions (worth over $10 Trillion and 58% of the Economy), may in fact be imposing on the overall economy.  If recent history be any guide of future results.

…..

The real question should be:   Who is actually prepared to use that Authority — within their first hundred days of their Administrations?   … And who is not?

Once again the presumptive ‘First Dude’ is trying to insert himself into the headlines, ala Trump-bambastic statements:

Bill Clinton:  Sanders fans would ‘shoot every third person on Wall Street’

by Mark Hensch, thehill.com — April 15, 2016

[Bill Clinton: ] “One of the few things I really haven’t enjoyed about this primary: I think it’s fine that all these young students have been so enthusiastic about [Hillary Clinton's] opponent and [Sanders] sounds so good: 'Just shoot every third person on Wall Street and everything will be fine,’” Clinton said in Fort Washington, N.Y., according to CNN.

[...]

Clinton said after the event on Friday said that the quip illustrates Sanders’s focus on blaming the financial industry for America’s woes.

“It’s a joke,” he told MSNCB. "It’s a total joke. It’s meant to point out that’s the unilateral explanation for everything that’s wrong with America. You know, we all need to lighten up here, have a little sense of humor.”

Thing is, Senator Sanders (and the vast majority of his supporters), talk about making Wall Street speculators paying “their fair share” in taxes; and holding Wall Street CEOs and Managers “accountable” when they break our Laws, by knowingly selling fraudulent investment scams to the unsuspecting — BUT no one is advocating for “shooting every 3rd person on Wall Street”,  despite what the former president quipped.

The implications of this “joke” are insulting, and distorting, and totally misstates the Sanders position on the Wall Street behemoths:  These Too-Big-To-Fail corporation interests, are EVEN BIGGER NOW than they were when they nearly collapsed the world economy, because of their untangleable shell-game shenanigans back then. As such, they should broken up (ala the AT&T break-up of recent history).  No guns required.

Even the presumed Democratic Nominee, the wife of the Joking Dude, was outraged enough by the dangers these Too-Big-To-Fail Wall Streeters posed BACK THEN, that she went down the citadels of finance, to call-them-out on their excesses ...

[Hillary Clinton: ]      And certainly borrowers share responsibility as well. Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads. Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don't deserve our sympathy.

But finally, responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn't have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. So Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned might very well have ended in collapse and foreclosure. Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.

Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, but Wall Street certainly had a hand in making it worse. [...]

I urge Wall Street and the mortgage industry to voluntarily agree to the following three steps:

First, we need a moratorium of at least 90 days on foreclosures of subprime, owner-occupied homes. The moratorium will stop foreclosures until lenders and servicers have contacted borrowers and frozen mortgage rates. It will also give financial counselors time to work with families.

Second, we need to freeze the monthly rate on subprime adjustable rate mortgages, with the freeze lasting at least five years until the mortgages have been converted into affordable, fixed-rate loans. [...]

Third, the mortgage industry must provide status reports on the number of mortgages it is modifying. Accountability is essential. Despite all the media coverage, despite all the hearings, despite the Secretary of the Treasury, despite all that has gone on in the last 30 to 60 days, the mortgage industry has only modified about 1 percent of at-risk mortgages this year. That' is simply not enough.

Now, I hope everyone will voluntarily agree to these steps, because we cannot fail at this. The costs are just too high.

If we cannot reach a voluntary agreement, I will consider legislation to address the problem.

Funny, Hillary Clinton’s stern tone towards The Street’s “partial responsibility” in the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis, while pointed, did not call for summary executions, either.

“Voluntary Agreement” to cut-it-out, was more the exhortation of the day.  (Should Bernie be toning it down in the same way, Bill?)

Too bad, not a single Wall Street CEO has gone to Jail yet since then — even though those TBTF Banks are more than happy to saddle their current Investors with Multi-Billion Dollar fines in settlement judgments for their own past misdeeds.

Routinely ‘skating on the Scam of the Century’ warrants our on-going concern and oversight, NOT our joking laugh-it-off ridicule, as the presumed First Spouse is all too quick to do, out on the campaign trail and wherever else he might end up ...

For better or worse, President Obama has taken a strong limited-involvement stance on Syria — one that has avoided getting American troops directly drawn in and involved in another Foreign Conflict of unknown length and duration.

This policy of U.S. restraint in Syria, is being directly challenged by many of the 2015 presidential candidates, including a very direct and vocal challenge, by someone from his own Party.

...

Obama up against growing support for a no-fly zone in Syria

by Rebecca Kaplan CBS News — October 5, 2015

[...]

Who opposes it?  [a no-fly zone in Syria]

For one, the person who matters the most - President Obama himself.

"What we have learned over the last 10, 12, 13 years is that unless we can get the parties on the ground to agree to live together in some fashion, then no amount of U.S. military engagement will solve the problem," he said Friday.

Late last month, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest reiterated that the administration was still not considering a no-fly zone because it raised a complicated set of logistical questions about what would be enforced and what kinds of resources would be needed.

The president has less and less company these days. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said last week that he does not support a no-fly zone because it "could get us more deeply involved in that horrible civil war and lead to a never-ending U.S. entanglement in that region."

Bernie Sanders is not breaking the measured and restrained response to the Syrian Civil War situation. One quagmire that now has Russia “stepping up its involvement in the Syrian civil war — culminating in airstrikes last week that may have targeted not just ISIS, but also rebels opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”

Well Candidate Clinton would break with this Obama policy on Syria — not build on it — if she were elected to succeed him.  In the most recent Democratic Debate, Secretary Clinton reiterated her plan for Syria:

[Hillary Clinton: ] And, yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe.

I say “reiterated her plan” because back in last December’s Debate, Secretary Clinton went to some lengths, explaining the rationale and geo-political strategy behind this U.S.  ‘skynet’ plan slated for the skies of Syria:

[...]

But one position advanced by former Secretary of State and current frontrunner Hillary Clinton was so hawkish, so cavalier, that even Raddatz felt compelled to push back. After Clinton said she supported a no-fly zone in Syria in the context of fighting ISIL, Raddatz skeptically followed up:

RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I’d like to go back to that if I could. ISIS doesn’t have aircraft, Al Qaida doesn’t have aircraft. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?

CLINTON: I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting airspace. […] I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia […] The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia. If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs.

Well at least she’s making a more palatable argument this time around, moving from getting some “leverage over Russia” to, please think of the ‘plight of the poor Syrian refugees’.

Given Obama’s stance on this situation however, I doubt he’s pleased with this proposed “Legacy extension.”

I must say I agree with Obama’s core assessment here:

       “that unless we can get the parties on the ground to agree to live together in some fashion, then no amount of U.S. military engagement will solve the problem.”

Obviously, Secretary Clinton has come to a different conclusion, one that seems to say that we can force peace on a region, by simply asserting a ‘constant threat’ from above.

I hope Russia is not too ‘put out’ by this Clintonian tactic, should it ever come to pass.

--

Note:  defenseone.com explains there are significant costs and risks involved in setting up and supporting a “simple” No Fly Zone, here:

…

Everything You Need To Know About No-Fly Zones

I find some of their concluding statements rather ironic, in an Obamatonian sort of way:

How Will It End?  [a no-fly zone]

The logical ending to a no-fly zone is when the situation on the ground changes so that it is no longer necessary. We will probably not be able to force this change, as there is generally not a direct link between implementing the no-fly zone and achieving lasting political outcomes.

Who knew?  … No one could have ever foreseen this result.

The Brooklyn Democratic debate transcript, annotated

by Team Fix, washingtonpost.com -- April 14, 2016

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Let's turn to another critically important issue.

Senator, Secretary, the issue of energy and the environment.

Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders has said you are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. You say you're sick and tired of him lying about your record.

What are his lies?

CLINTON: Well, let me start by saying we need to talk about this issue and we should talk about it in terms of the extraordinary threats that climate change pose to our country and our world. And that's why for the last many years, both in the Senate and as secretary of State, it's been a big part of my commitment to see what could be done.

But there has never been any doubt that when I was a senator, I tried -- I joined with others to try to get rid of the subsidies for big oil. And I have proposed that again, because that's what I think needs to be done as we transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

CLINTON: And everyone who's looked at this independently, "The Washington Post" and others, who give us both hard times when called for on facts, have said that this is absolutely an incorrect false charge.

So, we both have relatively small amounts of contributions from people who work for fossil fuel companies. Best we can tell from the reports that are done.

But, that is not being supported by big oil, and I think it's important to distinguish that. And, let's talk about what each of us has proposed to try to combat greenhouse gas emissions and put us on the fastest track possible to clean energy.

BLITZER: Thank you. We're going to get to that to, but I want you to respond, Senator.

SANDERS: It is one thing, as the Secretary indicated, to talk about workers. I'm sure I have contributions, you have contributions from workers in every industry in the country. But, as I understand it, 43 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry maxed out, gave the maximum amount of money to Secretary Clinton's campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Now, that's not saying -- and, then some people say, well, given the hundreds of millions of dollars she raises it's a small amount. That's true. But, that does not mean to say that the lobbyists thought she was a pretty good bet on this issue.

Now, what I think is when we look at climate change now, we have got to realize that this is a global environmental crisis of unprecedented urgency.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

And, it is not good enough. You know, if we, God forbid, were attacked tomorrow the whole country would rise up and say we got an enemy out there and we got to do something about it. That was what 9/11 was about.

We have an enemy out there, and that enemy is going to cause drought and floods and extreme weather disturbances. There's going to be international conflict.

(APPLAUSE) I am proud, Wolf, that I have introduced the most comprehensive climate change legislation...

BLITZER: .... Thank you...

SANDERS: ... Including a tax on carbon. Something I don't believe Secretary Clinton supports.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton, go ahead and respond.

CLINTON: Well, let's talk about the global environmental crisis. Starting in 2009 as your Secretary of State, I worked with President Obama to bring China and India to the table for the very first time, to get a commitment out of them that they would begin to address their own greenhouse gas emissions.

(APPLAUSE)

I continued to work on that throughout the four years as Secretary of State, and I was very proud that President Obama and America led the way to the agreement that was finally reached in Paris with 195 nations committing to take steps to actually make a difference in climate change.

(APPLAUSE)

And, I was surprised and disappointed when Senator Sanders attacked the agreement, said it was not enough, it didn't go far enough. You know, at some point putting together 195 countries, I know a little bit about that, was a major accomplishment...

BLITZER: ... Thank you...

(APPLAUSE CHEERING)

CLINTON: ... And, our President led the effort to protect our world and he deserve our appreciation, not our criticism...

BLITZER: ... Go ahead, Senator...

SANDERS: ... Let's talk about that. When you were Secretary of State, you also worked hard to expand fracking to countries all over the world.

(CHEERING)

SANDERS: The issue here -- of course the agreement is a step forward, but you know agreements and I know agreements, there's a lot of paper there. We've got to get beyond paper right now.

We have got to lead the world in transforming our energy system, not tomorrow, but yesterday.

(APPLAUSE)

And, what that means, Wolf, it means having the guts to take on the fossil fuel industry. Now, I am on board legislation that says, you know what, we ain't going to excavate for fossil fuel on public land. That's not Secretary Clinton's position.

BLITZER: Thank you.

[Sanders: ]  Let us support a tax on carbon...

BLITZER: ... Secretary Clinton...

SANDERS: ... Not Secretary Clinton's position.

BLITZER: ... Go ahead and respond.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, I'm a little bewildered about how to respond when you have an agreement which gives you the framework to actually take the action that would have only come about because under the Obama administration in the face of implacable hostility from the Republicans in Congress, President Obama moved forward on gas mileage, he moved forward on the clean power plant. He has moved forward on so many of the fronts that he could given the executive actions that he was able to take.

(APPLAUSE)

And, you know, I am getting a little bit -- I'm getting a little bit concerned here because, you know, I really believe that the President has done an incredible job against great odds and deserves to be supported.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

CLINTON: Now, it's easy -- it's easy to diagnose the problem. It's harder to do something about the problem. And...

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary. We'll continue on this. Errol -- Errol Louis, go ahead with your question.

SANDERS: Wolf. Wolf.

BLITZER: We're going to continue on this. Errol, go ahead.

LOUIS: OK. Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. Fracking, of course, a way of extracting natural gas. Now as a candidate for president, you say that by the time you're done with all your rules and regulations, fracking will be restricted in many places around the country. Why have you changed your view on fracking?

CLINTON: No, well, I don't think I've changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas.

And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can.

That's why I've set big goals. I want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide electricity to every home in America within 10 years.

(APPLAUSE)

So I have big, bold goals, but I know in order to get from where we are, where the world is still burning way too much coal, where the world is still too intimidated by countries and providers like Russia, we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy.

LOUIS: Thank you, Secretary. All right, Senator?

SANDERS: All right, here is -- here is a real difference. This is a difference between understanding that we have a crisis of historical consequence here, and incrementalism and those little steps are not enough.

(APPLAUSE)

Not right now. Not on climate change. Now, the truth is, as secretary of state, Secretary Clinton actively supported fracking technology around the world. Second of all, right now, we have got to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet.

(APPLAUSE)

And that means -- and I would ask you to respond. Are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transit away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do?

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: You know, I have laid out a set of actions that build on what President Obama was able to accomplish, building on the clean power plan, which is currently under attack by fossil fuels and the right in the Supreme Court, which is one of the reasons why we need to get the Supreme Court justice that President Obama has nominated to be confirmed so that we can actually continue to make progress.

I don't take a back seat to your legislation that you've introduced that you haven't been able to get passed. I want to do what we can do to actually make progress in dealing with the crisis. That's exactly what I have proposed.

LOUIS: OK, thank you, Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: And my approach I think is going to get us there faster without tying us up into political knots with a Congress that still would not support what you are proposing.

(CROSSTALK)

LOUIS: Senator Sanders, you've said that climate change is the greatest change to our nation's security.

SANDERS: Secretary Clinton did not answer one simple question.

LOUIS: Excuse me, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator…

SANDERS: Are you for a tax on carbon or not?

LOUIS: I have a question for you. You've said that climate change is the greatest threat to our nation's security. You've called for a nationwide ban on fracking. You've also called for phasing out all nuclear power in the U.S. But wouldn't those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?

SANDERS: No, they wouldn't. Look, here's where we are. Let me reiterate. We have a global crisis. Pope Francis reminded us that we are on a suicide course. Our legislation understands, Errol, that there will be economic dislocation. It is absolutely true. There will be some people who lose their job. And we build into our legislation an enormous amount of money to protect those workers. It is not their fault...

SANDERS: It is not their fault that fossil fuels are destroying our climate.

But we have got to stand up and say right now, as we would if we were attacked by some military force, we have got to move urgency -- urgently and boldly.

What does that mean?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator -- senator, jobs...

SANDERS: Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- jobs are one thing, but with less than 6 percent of all U.S. energy coming from solar, wind and geothermal, and 20 percent of U.S. power coming from nuclear, if you phase out all of that, how do you make up...

SANDERS: Well, you don't phase...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- that difference?

SANDERS: -- it all out tomorrow. And you certainly don't phase nuclear out tomorrow. But this is what you do do.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: What you do do is say that we are going to have a massive program -- and I had introduced -- introduced legislation for 10 million solar rooftops. We can put probably millions of people to work retrofitting and weatherizing buildings all over this country.

(CHEERING)

SANDERS: Saving -- rebuilding our rail system.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Our mass transit system.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: If we approach this, Errol, as if we were literally at a war -- you know, in 1941, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we moved within three years, within three more years to rebuild our economy to defeat Nazism and Japanese imperialism. That is exactly the kind of approach we need right now.

BLITZER: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Lead the world.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

[...]

Well, my friends, that conference was in 1992. And it is stunning how little the conversation has really changed since then.

When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them. And it is a challenge that I address in nearly every single country that I visit as Secretary of State, because President Obama and I believe it is urgent that we do so.

And the reason is simple: The science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3D movie. It’s warning us; it’s compelling us to act. And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. It’s something that we understand with absolute assurance of the veracity of that science. No one disputes some of the facts about it. Let me give you an example. When an apple separates from a tree, it falls to the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics. No one disputes that today. It’s a fact. It’s a scientific fact. Science also tells us that when water hits a low enough temperature, it’s going to turn into ice; when it reaches a high enough temperature, it’s going to boil. No one disputes that. Science and common sense tell us if you reach out and put your hand on a hot cook stove, you’re going to get burned. I can’t imagine anybody who would dispute that either.

So when thousands of the world’s leading scientists and five reports over a long period of time with thousands of scientists contributing to those reports – when they tell us over and over again that our climate is changing, that it is happening faster than they ever predicted, ever in recorded history, and when they tell us that we humans are the significant cause, let me tell you something:  We need to listen.

Remarks of John Kerry, Secretary of State

Link for intro image:  www.rt.com/…

...

From america.aljazeera.com, and last December’s Democratic debate:  When Hillary Clinton explained her plan for a No-Fly Zone over Syria, Martha Raddatz of ABC News challenged the foreign policy implications of her plan.

[...] But one position advanced by former Secretary of State and current frontrunner Hillary Clinton was so hawkish, so cavalier, that even Raddatz felt compelled to push back. After Clinton said she supported a no-fly zone in Syria in the context of fighting ISIL, Raddatz skeptically followed up:

RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I’d like to go back to that if I could. ISIS doesn’t have aircraft, Al Qaida doesn’t have aircraft. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?

CLINTON: I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting airspace. […] I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia […] The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia. If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs.

Raddatz moved on, but this exchange illustrates the absurdity of Clinton’s support for a “no-fly zone.” A no-fly zone over Syria, as all parties understand, is a tacit declaration of war not only against Syria, but also against their longtime ally Russia, whose air force is currently flying over Syria to defend the government of Bashar al-Assad against both ISIL and various rebel groups, some overtly or covertly backed by the United States.

The Democratic presidential frontrunner is calling for war against Russia over Syria and hoping no one notices

by Adam Johnson, america.aljazeera.com — Dec 29, 2015

...

“I do not think it would come to that” — the shooting down of Syrian or Russian planes.

— Then why declare the No-Fly Zone in first place?   … “Leverage”?   Are you kidding me.

...

No one in the Bush Administration “thought” their Iraq Invasion, would last longer than “six weeks, six month tops!”

Were they kidding us?   When it comes to Foreign Wars, “wishful thinking” can get you into a world of hurt,  and mired in the land of “unintended consequences” — with real harmful “unfortunate” results, for hundreds of thousands real families, try to live their real lives.   Or at least, they once were … before the ‘foreign invaders’ lay claim to their lands (and air).  And never left.

---

In last night’s Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton once again went there. This time working the Syrian refugees, into her No-Fly rationale:

And, yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe.

It seems, she really does wants that “muscular U.S. show of force” in the middle of the Mid-East conflicts.

Be careful what you wish for people — you just might end up getting it, unintended consequences and all.  The whole unforeseeable Ka-bang.

Sometimes the excess toothpaste, just does not go “back into the tube” — no matter how hard we try to force it to.  Wishful intentions, notwithstanding.

So called “breaking news” as reported by CBS Evening News

...

Inside the $5.1B Goldman Sachs subprime mortgage settlement

by Dean Reynolds, CBS News — April 11, 2016   (with Video)

[...]

In February, Morgan Stanley settled for $3.2 billion, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $1.2 billion, J.P. Morgan Chase paid $13 billion three years ago, and Bank of America coughed up a whopping $16.6 billion in 2014.

[...]

When one transaction manager was asked by Goldman officials "How do we know that we caught everything," he answered: "We don't."

Another responded it "depends on what you mean by everything." And when an outside analyst wrote a positive review of Countrywide, the head of due diligence at Goldman wrote in an e-mail: "if they only knew."

[...]

"Millions of people were thrown out of jobs, millions of people lost their homes, communities were destroyed -- all because of their wrong doing. Yet they are escaping any criminal accountability, it seems."

[...]

No wonder Bernie Sanders says “their business model is fraud” ...

...

Because settlement after settlement, proves indeed — It Is.