The above quote from Malcolm X has never been more apt than it is right now.
I have it on good authority that Bernie Sanders’ supporters are “crazy and violent”.
There are several news networks who are running stories about phantom chair-throwing around the clock.
None of the networks seem interested in covering the stories of male Clinton supporters attacking female Sanders supporters or stories of Bernie Sanders campaign centers and volunteer’s apartments coming under gunfire.
You would think these would be interesting to many viewers.
They certainly are more provocative than some guy raising a chair and setting it back down, having regained his senses.
So why is the corporate media constantly focused on “crazy Bernie Sanders supporters” and not an investigation of the events that lead them to act so “crazy”?
It is interesting to note that Hillary Clinton’s top donors include Time Warner, Comcast and Fox.
Even the most die-hard Clinton supporter would have to be curious as to why “news” networks are supporting a candidate for President.
Critics of Senator Sanders’ proposals remind us that “You can’t get something for nothing.”
This is abundantly obvious.
The world simply does not work that way.
So why do “news” outlets donate millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton?
Is the “news” capable of being “fair and balanced” when it is heavily invested in a campaign?
The questions of media bias actually go hand in hand with some larger questions that we need to address as American voters.
The “crazy Bernie people” keep saying that the primaries are rigged.
And let’s be clear, when they say this, they are not speaking about how the DNC (Democratic National Committee) tried to maneuver Hillary Clinton out of debating Bernie Sanders entirely and when they could not do that, they scheduled the debates at times where people were unlikely to watch.
Nor are they speaking of the onslaught of corporate media manipulation that leads average Americans to believe that Sanders is not competitive in the race, even though he is far ahead of Clinton’s 2008 campaign (she lost and had to concede, whereas Sanders has forced a contested convention).
They are not even referring to the fact that millions of Sanders voters have not been allowed to vote, due to the fact that they had the audacity to register as Independents, a move they undoubtedly thought would allow them freedom of choice in their voting.
When the “crazy Bernie people” say that the DNC is rigging the election in favor of Hillary Clinton, they LITERALLY mean that votes are being changed by the voting machines.
That’s ridiculous, right?!
This is America, right?!
And where is the proof to support such ridiculous allegations?
These are all valid questions.
If someone is going to make an allegation of electioneering, then they should provide support for their claim.
This is problematic.
Let’s imagine for a second that the “crazy Bernie people” are correct, that they voted for Sanders, but their votes were changed to Clinton by the machines.
How would they prove this?
The impossibility of proving this claim highlights the fact that we need an entirely new system of voting in America.
One that is transparent.
One that makes election rigging impossible.
But before I abandon all hope of defending the claims of Sanders “crazy” voters, let’s try one more method of discovering truth.
In politics, we are told to “follow the money” to figure out who is pulling the purse strings.
From this, an entirely new game of Internet espionage is born, as smart Internet users seek to uncover who is controlling their country, while at the same time those in power seek to hide behind shell companies and Super-pacs.
I would be tempted to dismiss the “crazy Bernie people” and their outrageous claims of election rigging, if there weren’t so damned many of them and they weren’t so dogged in their argument.
Sure, they provided cell-phone videos of obvious election rigging at the Nevada Democratic Convention, but that is still a hop, skip and a jump away from allegations that votes are actually being switched at the machines.
But let’s delve a little deeper, before we dismiss the voices of millions of Americans.
When we “follow the money” on the Diebold voting machines, being used in the Democratic primaries, we find that they are supplied by a company called Smartmatic, which is owned by billionaire George Soros (pictured above).
When linking my source for this, I was unable to find any commentary at all from CNN, MSNBC or any of the other corporate “news” outlets that donate to Hillary Clinton.
It seems that George Soros being in charge of the voting machines would be a huge news story, as Soros is also Hillary Clinton’s largest donor.
Wait a minute!!!
The company that is in charge of the voting machines is also Hillary Clinton’s largest donor?!?
Perhaps the “crazy Bernie people” are not so crazy after all.
Surely everyone agrees that we cannot expect impartiality if the company in charge of counting our votes is heavily invested in the success of a single candidate.
Why would George Soros give all this money to Hillary Clinton?
And how can Hillary’s largest donor be allowed to tally our votes?
Even Clinton supporters must admit that this is a conflict of interest at the very least.
But allow me to take this a step further.
I will say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to receive fair election results when the company in charge of vote counting is also an investor in one of the candidates, let alone her LARGEST investor.
Suddenly, the “crazy Bernie people” don’t seem so crazy after all.
I am tempted to go into each individual accusation of voter suppression that the DNC has been accused of and look at all sides of each story, but that would require an epic tome.
It is curious that the Massachusetts exit polling, conducted by Hillary Clinton donor Time Warner, which has been historically accurate for decades showed Bernie Sanders winning by 7 points, but once CNN “adjusted” the poll, it showed Clinton winning by 2 points (exactly the amount she “won” by).
It is curious that nearly all of the exit polling across the country showed that Sanders outperformed the final counts.
Why are these people leaving the polls and lying about who they voted for?
Who does that?
Of course, the answer is that almost no one does that.
So why are the normally accurate exit polls showing such a wide disparity between people who say that they voted for Sanders and the votes that are actually credited to him through the voting machines audited by Hillary Clinton’s largest donor?
It’s a fair question, right?
Perhaps a better question would be to ask why the networks (which, as we have illustrated, donate large sums of money to Hillary Clinton) have suddenly and without reason, canceled their exit polling for the remaining primaries?
Why would they do that?
To conserve funds?
That seems unlikely, as exit-polling is big news and actually causes people to tune in.
Exit-polling is a huge money maker for these networks, so why cancel when the Democratic race is so close that we cannot even declare a winner without relying on the Super-delegates at the contested Democratic National Convention (sponsored by Comcast) on July 25th.
And speaking of Super-delegates, they have not voted yet.
They vote at the convention.
So why would ALL of the corporate”news” organizations that donate money to Clinton, continue to mislead the American people, by showing the Super-delegate totals when airing the “news”?
Don’t the American people deserve to know the actual delegate count?
How can this be taken as anything other than a blatant attempt to mislead voters?
Perhaps if the “crazy Bernie people” believe that Clinton has already won, then they will stay home and not bother voting.
Or perhaps many of those people who would have voted for Sanders, will just vote for Clinton as the “news” has made it abundantly clear that a vote for Sanders is a wasted vote.
I have touched on just a smattering of oddities in this “Democratic” primary.
I am curious as to why the corporate media lies repeatedly by saying that Clinton has 3,000,000 more votes than Sanders and how the DNC conveniently decided to not count caucus voters and how this allows them to perpetuate this untruth.
I am curious as to why tens of thousands of voters are going online and showing that their Democratic voter registration was switched to Republican or Independent just before voting day (in case you are wondering how Clinton and the DNC would know who is planning on voting for Sanders, this data is acquired through phone-banking. Each candidate knows who each other’s voters are).
I am curious as to why nearly every single one of these disenfranchised voters claim that they were intending to vote for Sanders.
I cannot justify extending this article to the length required to speak about sudden voter purges that occur right before elections and how the people purged say overwhelmingly that they were planning on voting for Sanders, when interviewed.
And I will not touch on the nature of closed primaries that deny Independent voters their basic constitutional right to vote.
Nor will I discuss in depth the intense hypocrisy of Clinton and the DNC to expect that those same people who were refused their right to vote in their state primary, should then turn around and throw their support behind the very party that refused them their right to vote (“BUT HEY!! IF YOU DON’T THEN TRUMP WILL WIN!!!”)
There is such a preponderance of evidence to support the claims of election fraud on the part of Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that it is less of a question of whether there is actual fraud and more a question of why anyone would choose to deny the obvious at this point.
To the supporters of Secretary Clinton, I would ask…
“Is the election of your candidate worth the cost of destroying American Democracy?”
The Bernie people aren’t crazy.
When Democracy comes under attack it is the duty of everyone to defend it.
If you honestly believe that this election has been conducted fairly, then I move that you are choosing to remain ignorant of the facts.
I know that America is LONG overdue to have our first woman President.
But electing Hillary Clinton at the cost of American Democracy would be a travesty.
I believe strongly that her supporters are better than that.