(snip)"April Fools for Hillary Clinton: her supporters who are very rich and often with rather dim, ugly pasts, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi ordering her around. The threat: these people who have very dangerous, ugly private agendas will no longer give any money to ANY Democrat unless Pelosi obeys them and furthers Clinton's campaign. Of course, they all fear Obama's future Presidency because they want our destructive wars against Islam to continue. So today, we look back in time to a period when Americans were sick and tired of the Vietnam War and what happened during THAT ugly election season. 1968, a bloody year, a very bloody year.
In Letter, Top Clinton Donors Chastise Pelosi For Statements About Super-Delegates
Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a scathing private letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chastising her for publicly saying that the super-delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count and demanding that she say that they should make an "independent" choice.
When I saw the story on the mainstream media, NOT ONE mentioned any names of these nasty critters, the Mafiosi Godfathers and Godmothers [Goddamn Godpeople]. So I searched the web and thankfully, the blogger community had all the facts. TMP had the actual letter which I am reproducing in full just so there are more mentions of the lists of names appended. Perhaps Speaker Pelosi won't find a horses head in her bed this week.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.
We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.
During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:
"I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”
Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.
We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.
Sincerely,
Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner
The same day Hillary's rich, spoiled pirate supporters try to whack the DNC, we get this peculiar front page story at CNN. One that sets my teeth on edge.
King's final crusade: The radical push for a new America
King called his crusade the Poor People's Campaign. He planned to march on Washington with a multiracial army of poor people who would build shantytowns at the Lincoln Memorial -- and paralyze the nation's capital if they had to.
The campaign's goal: force the federal government to withdraw funding for the Vietnam War and commit instead to abolishing poverty.
What King was saying by this time was even more provocative than what he planned. In his final presidential address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he said the movement should address "the question of restructuring the whole of American society.""(snip)
(snip)"Why was King killed? It is rather obvious. He ceased being someone who merely wanted to vote. He wanted economic change. Unions, at that time, were white enclaves. They fought integration tooth and nail in the following years. Women and minorities were endangering the white-male only club and this is part of the ongoing reaction of the unions who ran to fascists for protection of their privileges. The 'blue collar' reaction was due to the desire to have good things for themselves and only themselves.
Since then, due to the unions and other blue collar workers desiring privileges, we have a New World Order where the unions are dead as doornails, the privileges of the white working class has been brutally eliminated and them left to fend for themselves in a blasted wasteland and no leaders in sight.
I remember 1968. And even earlier! I was very involved in the Movement. And was on the far fringes and was, at the time of King's assassination, in Germany. I was deported after RFK was assassinated and came into the US, in a flaming fury and plunged into student/antiwar politics here. Both King and Robert Kennedy were against the war in Vietnam. I gave antiwar speeches in Germany where the Cold War was in a deep freeze thanks to the Berlin Wall and the Russians re-invading Czechoslovakia. Indeed, it was while I was on the way to Prague, I was going to slip over the border by climbing the mountains, being a good mountain climber. But the West German State Police learned of the plan [probably through the Stasi] and they intercepted me as I left Nuremberg.
The United States was going bankrupt due to the Cold War and the very hot Vietnam War. When JFK was assassinated, he had already said 'non' to the French concerning Vietnam. But LBJ said, 'Yahoo. Let's kill them all!' And so our currency was trashed and barely hanging on, the economic slaughterhouse of 'stagflation' was just beginning to rear its ugly horned head when both MLK and RFK tried to turn our nation around and seek a new road. And they were making headway in this! We were all full of hope until the scythe of death removed them and the grinding wheels of History ground ruthlessly onwards.
I walked out of JFK Airport in NYC and right into the Chicago Democratic Convention riots. Yeah! And we failed. And failed again and again as we tried to find some tool, some thing that would stop the deadly imperial nonsense. Appealing to people's sanity didn't work. I was back then, a big cruncher of numbers and thought, if I only could show how the economic forces of the Cold War/Hot Vietnam War were destroying our nation, people would stop just so they could eat dinner and live in their homes! But no. This was not an option. The mainstream media supported those who made money off of the fearsome military/industrial complex. And many complex employees were union. So they were quite content, little knowing how their incomes would be whittled down and even vanish, over the following years. "(snip)
(snip)"Now on to some very revealing videos of Robert Kennedy's last hours. It pays to listen to his entire speech and then the chants of his happy supporters. Listen very carefully and we hear Obama's speeches today. And many Obama supporters have obvious fears for his life. The fact that rich people who 'support' the Democrats ---but are actually using them as a tool---the fact that they are growling threats now is not going to let us sleep easy. Just as similar threatening gestures and language ends up with guns going off. It doesn't matter who does it, what matters is the THREATS. And I greatly resent such threats being made. Hillary has lost her bid and good riddance.
Note that there was no need to threaten Ron Paul, for example. The media did their job most excellently on him. Kucinich, even more so. But now there is only one person in Hillary's path. And several unpleasant solutions."(snip)
from




Bookmarks