IF you honesty need to ask then you need to drink more corporate media “kool-aid” … WAR create$ corporate profit$ which are deemed $acred by the John Robert$ Supreme Court … got it…???

…IF you honesty need to ask then you need to drink more corporate media “kool-aid” … WAR create$ corporate profit$ which are deemed $acred by the John Robert$ Supreme Court … got it…???

Everyone Knows the US Military Is Failing—So Why Won’t Washington Bring the Troops Home?

 

It’s time to challenge politicians’ claims about the military’s effectiveness in the twenty-first century.

 

Tom Engelhardt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently

“gotta” laugh … unacceptable … 65,000% spike … but … hey, trust me … it’s safe…

clip_image002

…You “gotta” laugh … unacceptable … 65,000% spike … but … hey, trust me … it’s safe…

 

‘65,000% radioactivity spike’: New York Gov. orders probe into water leak at Indian Point

 

In an “unacceptable” groundwater leak at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, three monitoring wells were discovered to contain “alarming levels of radioactivity,” the Governor of New York said, ordering an immediate environmental probe into the issue.

Health and environment commissioners were ordered by Governor Andrew Cuomo to begin an investigation into the leak of “radioactive tritium-contaminated water” at the Indian Point nuclear power plant after the operator, Entergy Nuclear Operations, raised the alarm.

 

One of the three wells in question, according to Cuomo’s statement, had “radioactivity increasing nearly 65,000 percent,” while in total the company reported “alarming levels of radioactivity” at three monitoring wells.

 

The cause of the contamination is unknown. The contamination has reportedly not spread off-site and does not pose an immediate threat to public health, according to the operator. Yet Cuomo noted that his first concern is for the “health and safety of the residents close to the facility.”

Read more

The Governor also stressed that authorities must ensure that the “groundwater leak does not pose a threat,” calling the“latest failure” at Indian Point “unacceptable.”

 

He tasked Department of Environmental Conservation’s acting commissioner, Basil Seggos, and the Health Department commissioner, Howard Zucker to “employ all available measures, including working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to determine the extent of the release, its likely duration, cause and potential impacts to the environment and public health.”

 

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently…

Do not be surprise this is part of the GOP smoking gun being readied to fire at Hillary if necessary…

…Do not be surprise this is part of the GOP smoking gun being readied to fire at Hillary if necessary…

 

FBI confirms investigation into Hillary e-mail server

2/8/2016 7:21:23 PM  Ed Morrissey   ……….The FBI confirmed in a letter filed in court last week what nearly everyone already knew for months — that they have an open investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized home-brew e-mail system. The letter came as a necessarily belated  ….More…

 

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and

What is honestly obscene is anyone believing that Hillary is NOT owned & beholding lock, stock, barrel by Wall Street…

clip_image002

…What is honestly obscene is anyone believing that Hillary is NOT owned & beholding lock, stock, barrel by Wall Street…

 

The Idea That Hillary Clinton Took $200k+ a Speech from Banks and Corporations Is Obscene

The typical American has to work five years to earn that much.

Anderson Cooper:  ………"But did you have to be paid $675,000 [for three speeches to Goldman Sachs]?"

Hillary Clinton: ………"Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered."

Hillary is misleading us at best by saying that her $225,000 per speech fee, paid three times by Goldman Sachs, was "what they offered."  It was not what they offered — it was what Team Hillary demanded.

A review of her 2014 tax return posted, shows that $225,000 per speech was her minimum fee

She received $225,000 for 34 of the 41 speeches listed on her tax return. Of the remaining 7 speeches, two were for 250,000 and the others for $265,000, $275,000, $285,000, $305,000 and $400,000.   In total she received $9,680,000 for these speaking engagements in 2013.

Wall Street firms funded 14 of her 41 talks. In addition to Goldman Sachs, the list includes Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity Investments UBS and Bank of America.  Her benefactors also include hedge funds and private equity firms like Apollo Management and Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts.

In response to the media backlash over her Wall Street ties, Clinton hassince “postponed” a number of big fundraisers with financial-sector titans like BlackRock and the Mitt Romney co-founded Bain Capital. The events, according to Politico, will be held “sometime after the New Hampshire primary.”

Why did Hillary Take the Money?  ….Carl Bernstein,  of Watergate fame and Hillary biographer,commented on CNNthat the White House is "horrified that Clinton is blowing up her own campaign."  He said they can’t believe she took the money and didn’t see the ethical problems that would dog her .

It is not credible for her to argue that she took the money because she wasn’t sure she was going to run for president or that she was "dead broke."  She and Bill hadraked in $139,000,000 between 2007 to 2014. 

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently…

Know what … we honestly don’t give a dam … they’re well paid to entertain us … yea we are sorry in the moment … then we yell at our tem to “kill’em”…

…Know what … we honestly don’t give a dam … they’re well paid to entertain us … yea we are sorry in the moment … then we yell at our tem to “kill’em”…

 

What Happens To A Football Player’s Brain During A Concussion?

02-06-2016  •  Popsci ……Inside the injury that could destroy the NFL

 

 

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently…

the choice is ours … alone

…When you read this article note it assumes that Bernie is solely accountable for bringing needed change … Bernie offers a perspective … a new paradigm … an opportunity of us to unite and be a power … the choice is ours … alone…

 

The Not-So-Revolutionary Reform at the Center of Bernie Sanders’ Revolution

His campaign finance reform proposals could do some modest good, but wouldn’t bring about the revolutionary change he promises.

 

During last week’s Democratic candidates’ debate, Bernie Sanders mentioned his proposal for campaign finance reform a number of times. Not only is it near the top of his reform agenda, but he sees the current campaign finance system as standing in the way of many other needed reforms. We have an economy rigged in favor of the wealthy, he says, and "sustaining that rigged economy is a corrupt campaign finance system undermining American democracy, where billionaire, Wall Street, corporate America can contribute unlimited sums of money into super PACs and into candidates…. [Y]ou’re not going to accomplish what has to be done for working families and the middle class unless there is campaign finance reform." Changing the campaign finance system is the key to Sanders’ "political revolution," which will empower millions of people to "stand up and fight back, demand that government … represents us and not just a handful of campaign … contributors."

So what, exactly, is his proposal? Given the rather unimpressive history of past campaign finance reforms, would it do any good if it passed? Sanders explains his campaign finance reform proposals in a detailed page on his website. These proposals include:

·       A constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United (2010), which allowed unlimited spending by super PACs, and Buckley v. Valeo (1971), which famously categorized campaign spending as political speech and thus largely without limits.

·       Barring that, appointing Supreme Court justices who would work to overturn Citizen United.

·       Passing something along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide public funding for candidates who are able to meet a modest level of private fundraising.

Some of these goals are more achievable than others. Passing a constitutional amendment is incredibly difficult—it’s hard to see something like what he outlined above passing in three-quarters of state legislatures, no less winning a supermajority in the current Congress. A president could, of course, appoint justices who oppose Citizens United. But that’s obviously a slow path to reform. Vacancies occur infrequently, and the Supreme Court must wait for cases to come to it before it can rule.

The real nugget of Sanders’ reforms is the Fair Elections Now Act, and it’s not a bad proposal. It’s certainly more thoughtful than previous campaign finance efforts that simply sought to put caps on how much people could donate to candidates or parties. What FENA does is set a modest threshold for candidate fundraising to demonstrate their viability. For example, candidates for the House of Representatives would need to raise $50,000 across at least 1,500 donors.

If they meet this threshold, public financing would kick in. The government would provide the candidate with enough funding to run competitive primary and general election campaigns. If they wished to raise more money, they could do so in a way that magnifies the contributions of smaller donors. The government would give the candidate five times each private donation they’d received of $100 or less.

This is actually not a very radical proposal. Several states (Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine) have recently been using public financing in state legislative races. Some cities (including New York City) have been experimenting with small donor matching systems. And some of the results are encouraging, if not particularly dramatic. Small donor matching systems seem to make for a more diverse donor pool. Candidates who rely on public funding for their support spend less time fundraising and more time meeting with voters, which is nice. But it’s not like such reforms have made the candidates more moderate or obviously less sympathetic to the concerns of major corporations.

It’s also worth noting that small donors—the sorts of donors valorized by such reforms and generally believed to have purer souls than those who donate thousands at a single time—have their own agendas. Those who contribute small amounts tend to be more ideologically extreme than other donors. To the extent politicians would be more dependent upon them for election and re-election, such a reform could end up making government actually more dysfunctional.

That may be a legitimate price to pay, in some people’s minds, if it empowers common folks against the interests of big corporations. But it’s actually difficult to demonstrate that big corporations are able to get their way through campaign donations. For one thing, there are still lots of different donors on multiple sides of any issue. A politician thinking of voting one way to keep some set of corporate donors happy may quickly be angering another set of corporate donors with the same vote.

For another, it’s still just really hard to find direct evidence that donations, even a lot of them, change the votes of politicians. To hear Sanders’ supporters describe it, his money is pure and comes from his hundreds of thousands of supporters who want nothing more than a better future for the country, while Hillary Clinton is a shill for corporations and the military industrial complex, and her affiliated super PACs have corrupted her outlook. Isn’t it interesting, then, that they voted identically 93 percent of the time they served in the Senate together? Is the hope that a complete re-structuring of the campaign finance system will make politicians seven percent less attuned to wealthy corporate interests?

The reform proposal at the core of Sanders’ revolution is actually not that revolutionary, and it could actually do some good. But it’s hard to see it dramatically re-structuring our electoral system, no less inducing other societal shifts. And it actually has some costs built into it, such as a potential increase in polarization. So certainly peruse and consider it, but don’t expect it to bring about the revolution.

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently…

I dare say … Bill … after your I did not have SEX with that woman … you just might want to re-think any attack on Bernie…!

…I dare say … Bill … after your I did not have SEX with that woman … you just might want to re-think any attack on Bernie…!

 

BILL CLINTON GOES AFTER SANDERS The former president said the surging candidate was living in a "hermetically sealed box." [Amanda Terkel, HuffPost]

 

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers