Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

Bern This! Why is Karl Rove a “Bernie Bro’?”

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by ear­ly win­ter of 2016. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more.)  (The pre­vi­ous flash dri­ve was cur­rent through the end of May of 2012.)

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

COMMENT: An act that speaks elo­quent­ly for itself is Karl Rove’s Amer­i­can Cross­roads orga­ni­za­tion and its sup­port for Bernie Sanders. Rove does NOT agree with Sanders’ pol­i­cy points. He knows that Sanders does­n’t stand a chance in a gen­er­al elec­tion. Recent polls show­ing Sanders doing bet­ter against Don­ald Trump that Hillary Clin­ton fail to account for the deci­sive fact that the GOP attack machine and its echo chamber/amen cho­rus in the right-wing media con­sor­tium have not focused their fire on Sanders.

If they were to do so they will note that:

  • Sanders was a Pres­i­den­tial elec­tor  for the Trot­skyite Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty in 1980. If he were to get the nom­i­na­tion, you can bet that Fox News will find the hip­pie-est, Jew-iest pho­tos of Sanders and put a red ham­mer and sick­le and red ques­tion mark on the screen behind him. . . . . There’s more. In 1980, Sanders served as an elec­tor for the Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty, which was found­ed on the prin­ci­ples of Leon Trot­sky. Accord­ing to the New York Times, that par­ty called for abol­ish­ing the mil­i­tary bud­get. It also called for “sol­i­dar­i­ty” with the rev­o­lu­tion­ary regimes in Iran, Nicaragua, Grena­da, and Cuba; this was in the mid­dle of the Iran­ian hostage cri­sis. . . .”
  • Sanders’ wife Jane MAY have engaged in ques­tion­able con­duct result­ing in the clo­sure of Burling­ton Col­lege [Caveat: the authors of the let­ter are part of the Fox News orbit–D.E.]:  ” Dear Sen­a­tor Sanders, This firm rep­re­sents Wendy Wilton, an active Catholic and mem­ber of the Immac­u­late Heart of Mary parish in Rut­land Ver­mont. On behalf of Ms. Wilton and oth­er aggriev­ed Ver­mont parish­ioners, we request that your office pub­licly release all doc­u­ments con­cern­ing Burling­ton Col­lege and you involve­ment with a loan appli­ca­tion sub­mit­ted by your wife, as Pres­i­dent of Burling­ton Col­lege, to a fed­er­al­ly-insured bank for a $10 mil­lion prop­er­ty trans­ac­tion.That trans­ac­tion, which involved Burling­ton Col­lege’s pur­chase of the Roman Catholic Dio­cese head­quar­ters, not only led to the demise of the col­lege but almost $2 mil­lion in loss­es to the Burling­ton Catholic Dio­cese. The col­lege’s recent­ly announced, result­ing insol­ven­cy will no doubt lead to fur­ther loss­es to the bank and loss­es to Ver­mont small busi­ness­es that pro­vid­ed ser­vices and goods to the school. Fur­ther­more, the tax­pay­ers of Ver­mont are like­ly to lose tens of thou­sands of dol­lars as a result of an out­stand­ing, ill-advised and unse­cured loan made by the Ver­mont Eco­nom­ic Devel­op­ment Author­i­ty (while your wife served as a paid mem­ber of its board) to Burling­ton Col­lege. The cur­rent pres­i­dent of Burling­ton Col­lege said the “crush­ing weight of debt” brought on by this trans­ac­tion, which was dri­ven and designed by your wife pri­or to her fir­ing, was the cause of its clo­sure. Had the school stayed in its orig­i­nal loca­tion, as hum­ble and inglo­ri­ous as that was, it would still be here today serv­ing its niche of stu­dents and the com­mu­ni­ty. Cur­rent­ly avail­able evi­dence indi­cates that Burling­ton Col­lege failed because the priv­i­leged spouse of a pow­er­ful Unit­ed States Sen­a­tor received spe­cial treat­ment for a loan she should nev­er have got­ten for a prop­er­ty pur­chase that should nev­er have been approved. Mak­ing mat­ters worse, I was recent­ly informed that your office con­tact­ed Peo­ple’s Unit­ed Bank and pres­sured them to approve the loan appli­ca­tion sub­mit­ted by your wife.

    As you are well aware, it is improp­er and against Sen­ate Ethics Rules for your office to get involved in any way with a loan trans­ac­tion that ben­e­fits a fam­i­ly mem­ber. Sen­ate Ethics R. 35(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A). Under these rules it is improp­er for a spouse to receive favor­able treat­ment for a loan “...because of the offi­cial posi­tion of the Mem­ber...” Sen­ate Ethics R. 35(b)(2)(A).
    Your cam­paign, which is part­ly led and orches­trat­ed by your wife, has iron­i­cal­ly and hyp­o­crit­i­cal­ly made wide­spread mort­gage fraud and its rela­tion to the 2008 finan­cial col­lapse the cen­ter­piece of its cam­paign. You have also called on Sec­re­tary Hillary Clin­ton to release tran­scripts of her speech­es to Wall Street firms, which you also blame for the col­lapse. Yet you cyn­i­cal­ly refuse to release your tax returns, which will pre­sum­ably show you direct­ly ben­e­fit­ted from the $200,000 Gold­en Para­chute paid to your wife from a school that was in finan­cial trou­ble due to her appar­ent loan fraud. It is time to dis­close these and all oth­er doc­u­ments relat­ed to this trans­ac­tion, includ­ing your wife’s Gold­en Para­chute agree­ment, all com­mu­ni­ca­tions your office had with Peo­ple’s Unit­ed Bank, and all com­mu­ni­ca­tions with VEDA, so that the full sto­ry behind this finan­cial calami­ty is revealed. Ver­mont parish­ioners, Ver­mont cit­i­zens, and local ven­dors that are still owed mon­ey deserve to know the full sto­ry behind this improp­er trans­ac­tion. Although you and the rest of Con­gress have exempt­ed your­selves from hav­ing to pro­duce pub­lic records in response to Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act requests, it is impor­tant that you release these doc­u­ments and ful­ly dis­close your role in this trans­ac­tion. Accord­ing to news reports, this mat­ter is already the sub­ject of an active fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tion. There­fore any attempt to improp­er­ly influ­ence wit­ness­es or to destroy rel­e­vant evi­dence is pro­hib­it­ed by fed­er­al law. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512, 1517, and 1519. Addi­tion­al­ly, you and mem­bers of your staff may be called as wit­ness­es and be required to pro­duce doc­u­ments in lit­i­ga­tion that will inevitably result from the col­lapse of Burling­ton Col­lege, its like bank­rupt­cy (or insol­ven­cy), and attempts to recov­er loss­es. . . . .”
  • Sanders has been reluc­tant to release his tax returns, with less infor­ma­tion made pub­lic about the returns than any oth­er major can­di­date. WHY? “. . . . . In oth­er words, among the can­di­dates still in the race, Sanders’ releas­es are less exten­sive than anybody’s but Don­ald Trump. (Trump, too, has faced crit­i­cism for refus­ing to share his returns.) And Sanders’ short­com­ings are actu­al­ly big­ger than the screen­shot above would sug­gest. The 2014 fil­ings Sanders released con­sist of just the first two sum­ma­ry pages of his Form 1040 and the equiv­a­lent sum­ma­ry pages from his home-state Ver­mont tax form.Why does this mat­ter? Unlike most of the oth­er can­di­dates, Sanders has not released the suc­ceed­ing pages — the nit­ty grit­ty detail of things like char­i­ta­ble dona­tions and oth­er types of item­ized deduc­tions. For instance, Clinton’s release for tax year 2014 is 44 pages long, or more than 10 times the length of Sanders’ for the same year.It’s worth not­ing that Sanders, as a mem­ber of Con­gress, files annu­al finan­cial dis­clo­sures, which are acces­si­ble online back to 2012. And as a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date, he also files finan­cial dis­clo­sure doc­u­ments to the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion.But tax returns are much more detailed. And despite what Sanders said in the exchange with Tap­per, his cam­paign did not pro­vide Poli­ti­Fact with any ear­li­er, pub­licly avail­able tax forms. The cam­paign told the Post that it has not released any oth­er tax returns pri­or to 2014. (The cam­paign did tell Poli­ti­Fact that they would release his 2015 returns once they are filed.)Tax and dis­clo­sure experts we con­tact­ed agreed that Sanders’ cur­rent dis­clo­sures are weak by his­tor­i­cal stan­dards. . . . .”
  • Even as he calls Hillary Clin­ton “cor­rupt,” Sanders has been scored by the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion no few­er than three times for fund-rais­ing irreg­u­lar­i­ties.
  • Sanders fathered a child out of wed­lock, and has mis-rep­re­sent­ed the child as being birthed by his first wife. While we could­n’t care less about such things, you can bet that the GOP media attack machine will rake him over the coals on this–“Why did you lie about this Sen­a­tor?”
  • Sanders is extreme­ly imma­ture, polit­i­cal­ly and per­son­al­ly. His small-mind­ed, tem­pera­men­tal demeanor would not do well under the glare of pub­lic scruti­ny.
  • Sanders is a con­sum­mate hyp­ocrite. Con­stant­ly rail­ing against “big banks, Wall Street, etc.,” he had pro­test­ers arrest­ed for protest­ing against Gen­er­al Elec­tric.
  • Attack­ing Hillary for rais­ing mon­ey from big Hol­ly­wood con­trib­u­tors, Sanders has also received mon­ey from high-rolling Hol­ly­wood fig­ures.
  • Sanders is hyp­ing the GOP meme, that Hillary Clin­ton is “crooked.” It is a lie. . . . . The for­mer exec­u­tive edi­tor of The New York Times, a renowned inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist Jill Abram­son, admit­ted­ly is no friend of either Bill or Hillary Clin­ton. In fact, Abram­son has spent the past twen­ty-plus years look­ing for some­thing, no any­thing, unto­ward about Hillary. Her con­clu­sion is that “there are no instances of where Hillary Clin­ton did the bid­ding of a donor or bene­fac­tor.” Abram­son also went on to declareHillary Clin­ton is fun­da­men­tal­ly hon­est and trust­wor­thy.” Pulitzer prize-win­ning Poli­ti­fact con­curred and ruled that “Clin­ton has the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates in either par­ty;” includ­ing Sen­a­tor Sanders. . . .”
  • None oth­er than Gra­ham E. Fuller, who was CIA sta­tion chief in Kab­ul, helped start the first Afghan war, was some­thing of a God­fa­ther for al-Qae­da and fig­ures in the inves­ti­ga­tion into the Boston Marathon bomb­ing, is pulling for “Boinie,” as well as tout­ing Don­ald Trump as a desir­able can­di­date. “. . . . Trump has trashed the neo­con war par­ty, blamed George W. Bush for the deba­cle in Iraq and else­where, wants to throt­tle way back on for­eign wars, and has declared a readi­ness to talk to Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin — oth­er­wise treat­ed in the US press as tox­ic and satan­ic. (Though even Chuck Hagel, for­mer Sec­re­tary of Defense, recent­ly had the temer­i­ty to sug­gest that things with Rus­sia were get­ting dan­ger­ous and that we should be in con­stant dia­log with Putin.) Like many oth­ers, I have been gal­va­nized at watch­ing the spec­ta­cle of Bernie Sanders pro­claim­ing issues in his cam­paign that had been vir­tu­al­ly off lim­its for polit­i­cal dis­cus­sion for decades: gap between rich and poor, rapa­cious inter­na­tion­al trade deals, a fair wage, free uni­ver­si­ty edu­ca­tion, the call for US bal­ance (gasp!) in han­dling the Arab-Israeli, issue, etc. The great thing about Bernie — even if he prob­a­bly won’t get nom­i­nat­ed — is that he has pushed hawk­ish, friend-of-Wall-Street Hillary to the left. She has as much acknowl­edged that. That will be Bernie’s great­est lega­cy. I would have hoped that the issues Sanders has raised can nev­er be shoved back into the polit­i­cal tooth­paste tube again. . . . .”
  • Might the CIA be pulling for “Boinie?” Com­pare Gra­ham E. Fuller “feel­ing the Bern” with his advo­ca­cy for the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood: “. . . Fuller comes from that fac­tion of CIA Cold War­riors who believed (and still appar­ently believe) that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam, even in its rad­i­cal jiha­di form, does not pose a threat to the West, for the sim­ple rea­son that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam is con­ser­v­a­tive, against social jus­tice, against social­ism and redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth, and in favor of hier­ar­chi­cal socio-eco­nom­ic struc­tures. Social­ism is the com­mon ene­my to both cap­i­tal­ist Amer­ica and to Wah­habi Islam, accord­ing to Fuller. . . ‘There is no main­stream Islam­ic organization...with rad­i­cal social views,’ he wrote. Clas­si­cal Islam­ic the­ory envis­ages the role of the state as lim­ited to facil­i­tat­ing the well-being of mar­kets and mer­chants rather than con­trol­ling them. Islamists have always pow­er­fully object­ed to social­ism and communism....Islam has nev­er had prob­lems with the idea that wealth is uneven­ly dis­trib­uted.’ . . . .”

. . . . Amer­i­can Crossroads—founded by for­mer Bush advis­er Karl Rove—and sev­er­al oth­er con­ser­v­a­tive-backed super PACs have spent the last month inten­tion­al­ly fuel­ing the Bern, but their zeal has more to do with an effort to weak­en Hillary Clin­ton, whom they still see as the like­ly Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee and hard­er to defeat in the gen­er­al elec­tion.

In the wake of Clinton’s close Neva­da win, Cross­roads claimed cred­it for dri­ving her num­bers down in favor of Sanders.

“Amer­i­can Cross­roads and Bernie Sanders helped Neva­da cau­cus-goers see right through Hillary Clinton’s man­u­fac­tured zeal on immi­gra­tion reform after spew­ing vir­u­lent Trump-like rhetoric—and that one-two punch shaved Clinton’s 50-point lead a year ago to a slim, sin­gle dig­it win,” Steven Law, Cross­roads CEO and pres­i­dent, said in a state­ment.

Cross­roads is one of sev­er­al groups that has released ads that have been aimed at brand­ing Sanders as the only true pro­gres­sive in the race—a strat­e­gy the Ver­mont senator’s cam­paign also embraces.

“If it helps push the nee­dle so that she los­es a state, and she comes out a weak­ened can­di­date, then fan­tas­tic,” said Ian Pri­or, com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor for Cross­roads.

On Mon­day, Future 45, a super PAC report­ed­ly backed by hedge fund bil­lion­aire Paul Singer, launched the lat­est in its own series of ads that seem to defend Sanders. . . .

. . . . Still, the Clin­ton cam­paign has cried foul, not­ing that Sanders’s sup­port­ers have been echo­ing Repub­li­can attacks on Clin­ton and that he cer­tain­ly has not been reject­ing the ads. . . .



5 comments for “Bern This! Why is Karl Rove a “Bernie Bro’?””

  1. Also keep in mind that to Sandernistas, “Hillary is a war­mon­ger”. Incon­ve­nient fact: while the Clin­tons cer­tain­ly sup­port­ed the attacks on Ser­bia... Bernie did, too! And had his for­mer sup­port­ers arrest­ed for occu­py­ing his office to protest that war. Accord­ing to this piece, he also sup­port­ed the first Iraq War! Did­n’t know that...


    Bernie the Bomber’s Bad Week

    by Will Miller

    In the fol­low­ing week, Bernie, doing quick dam­age con­trol, ducked
    respon­si­bil­i­ty for arrest­ing the “Sanders 15” and got him­self includ­ed at
    the last minute with a Con­gres­sion­al del­e­ga­tion going to Aus­tria to meet with
    rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Russ­ian Duna to bring the Rus­sians in to help bro­ker
    a set­tle­ment in the US/NATO war in Yugoslavia. But, before leav­ing to see
    the Rus­sians, he vot­ed in favor of the con­tin­ued bomb­ing of Yugoslavia,
    a bomb­ing that the Rus­sians had already said would have to stop as a
    pre­con­di­tion for any set­tle­ment. A gen­er­al town meet­ing has already been
    sched­uled for the fol­low­ing Mon­day, so he turned it to a “town meet­ing on Koso­vo.”

    Appar­ent­ly, Bernie Sanders has for­got­ten what a Town Meet­ing is.
    Per­haps he lived in Burling­ton (too “big” for town meet­ings) and Wash­ing­ton
    (scared to death of town meet­ings) for so many years he can­not recall how a
    demo­c­ra­t­ic town meet­ing actu­al­ly works. No one is allowed to appoint them­selves
    the mod­er­a­tor for the town meet­ing and per­sons who are par­ti­sans on the issues
    before the town are exclud­ed from the moderator’s elec­tion in favor of per­sons
    who can mod­er­ate fair­ly and even­hand­ed­ly.

    Sanders as the self-appoint­ed moderator/boss opened the evening with naked
    self-jus­ti­fi­ca­tion. “It is a very com­plex sit­u­a­tion…” fol­lowed by the rit­u­al of
    demo­niza­tion of Milosevic–a tech­nique he has per­fect­ed over the last eight years on
    Sad­dam Hus­sein of Iraq. Then he pre­sent­ed the false dilem­ma that the only alter­na­tive
    to bomb­ing is doing noth­ing. Sanders said his sit­u­a­tion was the same as that of Josch­ka
    Fischer’s of the Green Par­ty, Germany’s For­eign Min­is­ter, who has out­raged his Green
    Par­ty mem­ber­ship by sup­port­ing the bomb­ing his coali­tion gov­ern­ment is car­ry­ing
    out as part of NATO.

    Back in Ver­mont the assem­bled cit­i­zen­ry moaned audi­bly.

    He con­tin­ued by sub­ject­ing the packed room of over 200 peo­ple to more than
    an hour of a pan­el pre­sen­ta­tion by peo­ple of his own choos­ing; even then, only one
    pan­elist overt­ly sup­port­ed his position–Bogdan Denich, a pro­fes­sor from New York
    City and leader of the pro-impe­ri­al­ist wing of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Social­ists of Amer­i­ca.
    Anoth­er pan­elist, Shirley Gedeon, a UVM Econ­o­mist whose spe­cial­i­ty is the Balka­ns,
    under­cut Sander’s his­tor­i­cal analy­sis and a third, Rod­dy Cleary, a fem­i­nist and
    reli­gious activist, chal­lenged he sup­port of the bomb­ing direct­ly.

    Appar­ent­ly, with all the col­lege and uni­ver­si­ties in Ver­mont, Bernie had to
    trav­el far into flat­lander ter­ri­to­ry to find an aca­d­e­m­ic will­ing to sup­port his
    “bomb now, talk lat­er” posi­tion. In fact, Denich went beyond Bernie’s present posi­tion
    and called for send­ing in ground troops, imme­di­ate­ly.

    After allot­ting the pan­elists and him­self 12 min­utes each and now more than an
    hour and a half into the meet­ing, the peo­ple final­ly had a chance to speak. But only for 2
    min­utes each, dic­tat­ed the self-appoint­ed mod­er­a­tor Bernie! And this after hav­ing
    lec­tured us on how “com­plex” the issue of the US/NATO War on Yugoslavia real­ly is.
    When he was chal­lenged by a few mem­bers of the meet­ing about his unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic
    restric­tion of peo­ples’ speech, he said any­one who didn’t like it could leave. It seems
    when Sanders was in col­lege in Chica­go, he learned more from May­or Richard J. Daley
    than from his aca­d­e­m­ic stud­ies.

    The over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of the peo­ple present were against Sander’s sup­port for the
    bomb­ing. Even with all his attempts to con­trol the meet­ing, the peo­ple had at him for
    more than an hour and a half. He was denounced for his sell­ing out to the Empire and
    it’s war machine and for his sup­port for the 9 year old war against Iraq and his active
    sup­port for every US inter­ven­tion since he has been in Congress–Iraq, Soma­lia,
    Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Con­go), Alba­nia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.
    He was fur­ther crit­i­cized for his refusal to ban or even object to the use of deplet­ed
    ura­ni­um with it’s long term tox­i­c­i­ty in both Iraq and Yugoslavia. Sanders even tried
    to escape respon­si­bil­i­ty for arrest­ing 15 of his con­stituents in his office one week ago
    for the crime of want­i­ng to talk to him with­out an appoint­ment by blam­ing those arrest­ed
    for their arrest, as if they went out and brought the police in to arrest them­selves.

    Posted by Tiffany Sunderson | May 31, 2016, 1:01 pm
  2. The bot­tom line is that we must do all we can to pre­vent Trump from being elect­ed. Up to this point, I have been back­ing Sanders over Hillary. Polls show Sanders beats Trump by wider num­bers that Clin­ton, who seems to car­ry a log of bag­gage Sanders does not have. But that would change once the infor­ma­tion on Sander’s past comes to light. It would, I believe, throw oth­er­wise votes for Sanders, should he receive the nom­i­na­tion, in Trump’a direc­tion; thus, his win­ning the elec­tion.

    So I real­ly don’t care about Sanders this or Clin­ton that. I care about keep­ing Don­ald Trom­bone out of the White House. Could we unite behind that?

    Posted by David Raisman | June 1, 2016, 2:28 pm
  3. @David Rais­man–

    That is exact­ly the thrust of this post. I’m not a big fan of either Clin­ton, but their Supreme Court nom­i­nees are and/or would be fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent from what the GOP would offer.

    With Karl Rove chan­nel­ing mon­ey to Sanders, peo­ple should wake up and smell the cre­ma­to­ria, er, cof­fee!



    Posted by Dave Emory | June 1, 2016, 3:17 pm
  4. Tul­si Gab­bard (Demo­c­rat) was Bernie Sander’s pick for VP. What is she doing now?

    Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep. Tul­si Gab­bard ‘Under Seri­ous Con­sid­er­a­tion’ for Trump Cab­i­net
    Nov 21, 2016

    Par­tial quote:
    “”“Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep. Tul­si Gab­bard, a high-pro­file Bernie Sanders sup­port­er dur­ing the Demo­c­ra­t­ic pri­maries, is “under seri­ous con­sid­er­a­tion” for var­i­ous Cab­i­net posi­tions in Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald Trump’s admin­is­tra­tion, accord­ing to a senior offi­cial on the tran­si­tion team.

    Accord­ing to the offi­cial, the 35-year-old Hawaii con­gress­woman is being looked as a can­di­date for sec­re­tary of state, sec­re­tary of defense or Unit­ed Nations ambas­sador. If select­ed, Gab­bard will be the first woman as well as the youngest pick for Trump’s Cab­i­net.
    She met with him this morn­ing in his New York City offices at Trump Tow­er. The Trump tran­si­tion source said that their sit-down was a “ter­rif­ic meet­ing” and that the Trump team sees her as very impres­sive. “””

    Who in the Trump admin­is­tra­tion would be so impressed with a Demo­c­rat?

    “”“Stephen Ban­non, Trump’s chief strate­gist, report­ed­ly likes Gab­bard because of her stance on guns, refugees and Islam­ic extrem­ism along with her abil­i­ty to invoke strong anti-estab­lish­ment pop­ulist sen­ti­ment on the left.”””

    Why would a white nation­al­ist like Ban­non “like” a Demo­c­rat like Gab­bard?

    Tul­si Gab­bard, US Con­gress­woman calls on Modi
    Sep 29 2014

    ““”NEW YORK : Tul­si Gab­bard, the first Hin­du Amer­i­can in the US Con­gress, called on vis­it­ing Indi­an Prime Min­is­ter Naren­dra Modi here Sun­day and pre­sent­ed him with a gin­ger flower gar­land from Hawaii.

    Gab­bard, a strong sup­port­er of Modi, is a Demo­c­rat Con­gress­woman from Hawaii.

    The 33-year-old Gab­bard is the first prac­tis­ing Hin­du Amer­i­can in the Con­gress who took her oath on the Bhag­wad Gita.

    She had spo­ken to Modi after his vic­to­ry in the Indi­an gen­er­al elec­tions and con­grat­u­lat­ed him and the Bharatiya Jana­ta Par­ty (BJP).

    She has also been involved in the plan­ning of Mod­i’s US vis­it and had last month met two BJP lead­ers Vijay Jol­ly and MP Rajyavard­han Rathore in that con­nec­tion.

    Gab­bard has always main­tained that it was a “great blun­der” by the US gov­ern­ment to have denied a visa to Modi in the wake of the 2002 Gujarat riots.”””

    “Birds of a feath­er flock togeth­er.”
    ‑ancient proverb

    Posted by Mother Muckraker | November 21, 2016, 2:49 pm
  5. @Mother Muck­rak­er–

    Excel­lent work!

    Now, even as Saint Bernard says the Democ­rats should move away from iden­ti­ty pol­i­tics (and they damn well should), he is tout­ing Kei­th Elli­son as the head of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee!

    Elli­son is an African-Amer­i­can Mus­lim, who has net­worked with Mus­lim Broth­er­hood front orga­ni­za­tions over the years.

    In defense of Elli­son, he may well not know that these are orga­ni­za­tions heav­i­ly net­worked with the Broth­er­hood.

    But, Hell, he damn well should! He is, after all, a Con­gress­man.

    In that con­text, what could POSSIBLY gal­va­nize those dis­af­fect­ed, alien­at­ed white work­ing-class vot­ers who vot­ed for Trump bet­ter than hav­ing an African-Amer­i­can Mus­lim as the face of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty?

    Yeah, that’ll get it! From Tope­ka, Kansas to Day­ton, Ohio to Port­land, Maine to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, they’ll be doing the booga­loo in the streets for sure behind that one!

    Oh, yes, I almost for­got. Bernie Sanders LEFT the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty on July 27 of this year!

    I won­der if Sanders noticed Mod­i’s polit­i­cal her­itage?

    Or that he was work­ing to weak­en Indi­a’s child labor laws?

    What a sack of Fresh Fer­til­iz­er Sanders is!

    Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt not­ed that “In pol­i­tics, noth­ing hap­pens by acci­dent.”

    Few peo­ple are paus­ing to ask them­selves how an inde­pen­dent social­ist who was­n’t even a mem­ber of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty until a lit­tle over a year ago, and who–in 12 years in the Senate–hasn’t spon­sored a sin­gle piece of major leg­is­la­tion, sud­den­ly becomes the “go-to-guy” for the Dems?

    Most of his wins dur­ing the pri­ma­ry were in states with open pri­maries (in which Repub­li­cans could vote or cau­cus­es, which are fun­da­men­tal­ly un-demo­c­ra­t­ic.



    Posted by Dave Emory | November 22, 2016, 9:58 pm

Post a comment