Potential Election Fraud Study – 2016 w/update

From the conclusion of a new study of the Democratic Party primary elections this year by Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, Stanford University, and Axel Geijsel, Tilurg University, The Netherlands, entitled: “Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America,” dated June 7, 2016:

Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.

Essentially, Barragan and Geijsel, the authors of this study, looked at states where there no paper voting trail (i.e., e-voting machines) existed and found Clinton did significantly better in those states than Sanders compared to states where a paper trail did exist. They also showed that exit poll results deviated significantly from final results by a large margin in Clinton’s favor. Further, the discrepancies between the exit polls and final results were wider in states where there was no paper voting trail.

The authors used the 2008 primary elections as a control for this year’s primaries. They found that in the 2008 primaries between Clinton and Obama there were no such voting anomalies between states with paper voting trails and and states without paper voting trails. If you’re a statistician, please feel free to examine their paper at greater length.

Here’s a pie chart graphic from the study that shows the differences in a way anyone can understand:

Make of this what you will.

I don’t expect anyone to change their mind regarding their candidate preference over this. However, I do believe this is another reason why we should move to a paper ballot system, and get rid of all e-voting machines. I believe that Ohio in 2004 was also likely flipped thanks to e-voting machines. Other countries get by just fine running clean elections without these unverifiable, and easily hackable machines. And please remember that the GOP controls the majority of states. There is no reason why we should be using them.

Hopefully, all of us can agree upon that much.

UPDATE: In light of the criticisms raised by some commenting that the study I cited is “a joke” and otherwise invalid, I have passed all such comments in full along to the study’s authors for their response.

I’ve also sent it to my father, Donald T. Searls. He’s a retired professor with a Ph.D in statistics, for his evaluation of the study. I did not send along any commenta to him as I simply wanted his unbiased evaluation. In fact, I did not even mention that I posted about this study online.

A brief (and incomplete CV) to establish his credentials:

Employment history:

Westat Research Analysts, Inc., National Assessment of Educational Progress, Professor of Mathematics and Applied Statistics (retired) University of Northern Colorado.

Academic Titles:

Donald T. Searls, Ph.D.
(1996), Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Applied Statistics — B.S., M.S., Ph.D.; Appointed 1983)

Selected papers:

ON THE “LARGE” OBSERVATION PROBLEM, Donald T. Searls 1962. link

An Estimator for a Population Mean Which Reduces the Effect of Large True Observations, Journal of the American Statistical Association
Volume 61, Issue 316, 1966

Adjusting Educational Survey Data – American Statistical Association, Robert C. Larson and Donald
T. Searls, 1974

Age of Admission and Trends in Achievement: A Comparison of Blacks and Caucasians, American Educational Research Journal, 1984

When I receive any feedback I will pass it along in a separate post.

Big Omission from DNC Platform Survey

I was dismayed to discover that the DNC Platform Drafting Committee sent two emails requesting feedback from Democratic party members on issues to be addressed by the party’s platform. One email was just a brief notice from the DNC that “had one small box for me to put my thoughts into.”

The other was an email sent by Keith Ellison, one of the members of the DNC Platform Committee (he was a pick of Bernie Sanders). His missive was a little bit longer, but here are the issues he listed for which he requested feedback (as well as all of one’s contact info), and specifically the recipient’s priorities from among a drop-down menu of issues:

Raising the minumum wage
Civil rights
Making college more affordable
Protecting women’s health care choices
Immigration reform
Protecting and expanding Social Security
Overturning Citizens United
Reducing economic equality
Wall Street accountability and consumer protection
Common-sense gun reform
Affordable housing
Criminal justice reform
Other

Now these are all valid matters worthy of the Democratic Party’s careful consideration as it drafts it’s proposed party platform, and I don’t wish the disparage the importance of any of them. However, there is one glaring omission from this list. Can you guess what it is?

Answer: CLIMATE CHANGE

I suppose one could argue the “Other’ category is adequate, but I personally don’t find that Rep. Ellison’s failure to list Climate Change among the issues that Democrats are being asked to prioritize was a very smart move. Indeed, I consider it disturbing considering that nine out of ten of the hottest years on record have occurred since 2005, with the two hottest years being 2014 and 2015. And 2016 is shaping up as a the likely new Numero Uno on that list, based on the number of record hottest months already.

So, forgive me if I find the lack of interest in this issue – well – a big effing deal. Here’s just a few things the DNC ought to be considering including in their party’s Platform regarding Climate Change:

1. Ban Fracking.

2. End the huge subsidies that benefit fossil fuel companies.

3. Create a national environmental and climate justice plan that recognizes the heightened public health risks faced by low-income and minority communities.

4. Department of Justice investigation into Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies, which not only knew about the dangers of climate change, but spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.

5. Adopt an immediate clean energy initiative to replace fossil fuels while creating millions of new jobs by investing in renewable energy technologies.

6. Promote Conservation, including upgrading the nation’s electricity grid so less energy is lost in transmission.

7. Provide subsidies to consumers and businesses that convert to the use to wind solar or other forms of renewable energy technology. For example, support solar net metering, which means that people who invest in solar should be able to offset the cost – or in some cases even make money – on their electric utility bill.

8. Pass the Low Income Solar Act to increase low-income families’ access to solar energy by making it more affordable for people who own their own home to get access to community solar projects.

9. Make residential and commercial buildings more energy efficient, by passing the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Residential Energy Savings Act to provide federal loans to states to perform energy efficiency updates.

10. Build electric vehicle charging stations and subsidize electric motor vehicles.

11. Build high-speed passenger and cargo rail to reduce carbon emissions.

And that’s just a short list of some of the things we should be advocating to reduce carbon emissions and protect the planet.

Maybe someone could let the DNC and Rep. Ellison know that Climate Change better be a priority for the Democratic Party if we hope to create a sustainable world in which we, our children and grandchildren can continue to live and thrive.

The People’s Convention, July 23rd

The Democratic National Convention starts on July 24, 2016. But it’s not the only convention in Philly. And it with won’t be the only organization voting on a platform. Because if you want a platform for real progressives (and not the once every four year ones) to run on, you should ask the people what they want and let them vote on it.

And that is exactly what The People’s Convention, to be held in the historic Arch Street Meeting House in Philadelphia on July 23rd, is all about. Today, as we speak, ordinary citizens, some of them delegates for Bernie Sanders, but many of them people who are simply fed up with our current sham democracy where both parties represent the interests of the 1 percent, are working to draft their own platform, one based on the concerns of the 99 percent.

The People’s Convention will be open to the public, and everyone will have the right to vote to ratify it. Here is a short list of policies that people voted for in an online poll to include in the People’s Platform: Getting Big Money Out of Politics; Racial Justice; Healthcare for All; Climate Change; A Living Wage; College for all and Student Debt Relief; Income and Wealth Inequality and Electoral Reform (ending voter suppression laws and expanding the right to vote).

But why have a platform by the people, for the people and of the people? That’s not just a rhetorical question and to answer it let me quote from the May 31st press release by the organizers of the event:

The People’s Convention is a pro-democracy event intended to set the stage for a new era of people-powered politics. Our plan is the ratification of a collectively written People’s Platform. This platform will consist of the issues which are most pressing to our country’s civic health.

We also hope to create a space for grassroots organizers and organizations to network and build relationships. This networking should establish the foundation of an ongoing movement intended to transform American politics for the better.

The marches and rallies planned for July 24-28, are all fine and good, but they won’t have any lasting effect unless the political revolution that Bernie Sanders has helped inspire transforms itself into a viable, sustainable movement, one that can influence our politics at all levels, from the local to the national. It can’t rely on one individual. Bernie himself has said repeatedly, real change can only come from the bottom up, not the top down.

The webpage for the People’s Convention emphasizes the importance of creating a grassroots platform if we want to sustain a progressive political movement:

The People’s Convention in Philadelphia [is] a grassroots attempt to reclaim our democracy by uniting behind a common policy framework, rather than a personality or party. Leading up to our first People’s Convention this summer, grassroots organizers from around the country will work together to formulate a People’s Platform: a unifying set of ideas, beliefs, and values that will help define the movement.

This platform will also serve as a critical mechanism to hold elected officials accountable; public representatives who pledge to uphold this platform, but fail to do so through their votes and other public behaviors, will no longer be eligible to seek endorsement or support from The People’s Revolution.

As Jack Pollack, one of the co-founders of the organization, The People’s Revolution, which is focused on making the The People’s Convention a reality, said In These Times, the whole point is to insure that the movement sparked by Bernie doesn’t end with Bernie:

The People’s Revolution envisions “Bernie without the Bernie,” says Jack “Jackrabbit” Pollack, who in October cofounded the group with fellow Sanders organizer Shana East. “What Bernie has shown us is that you can actually rally people around a set of policies that are really all going in a positive direction.”

The People’s Revolution sees Sanders as a critical partner in building a broad issues-based progressive movement to ensure the promise of the campaign—“A Future to Believe In”—becomes a reality. At the People’s Convention, the group plans to develop and ratify a People’s Platform to present to the Democratic National Convention and set an agenda for the broader movement.

That’s right, actual Bernie Sanders’ delegates will present this platform on the floor at the Democratic National Convention. Indeed, many of Sanders’ pledged delegates are already involved in helping to draft the planks of the People’s Platform. But they aren’t the only ones.

Anyone can go to The People’s Convention website and sign up to help out, and you don’t need to live in Philadelphia to be involved. This is a nationwide effort in which anyone can participate. Even of you can’t attend the People’s Convention in Philadelphia, you can be involved in helping draft the platform, or spreading the word by volunteering for the Communications, Press and Social Media working groups. Or help out with fundraising.

So, who is behind this effort? I thought you’d never ask.

Jack Pollack is a long standing activist for progressive organizations. Here is his bio:

Jackrabbit Pollack is a founding member of Interoccupy.net, affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement. In 2012, he participated in the grassroots disaster relief to hurricane Sandy known as Occupy Sandy. He has provided logistical support for groups fighting for racial justice such as SURJ, Ferguson Action, and Movement for Black Lives. In April of 2015, he began work as one of the core members of People for Bernie with whom he worked through July.

And here is bio of his co-founder, Shana East:

Shana East is a grassroots organizer located in Chicago, Illinois. Last year she began her foray into electoral politics, working on Chuy García’s mayoral campaign team. She then went on to be a founding member of People for Bernie, before co-founding the volunteer-run Illinois for Bernie and The People’s Revolution along with partner Jackrabbit Pollack in summer 2015. More recently, she was the Illinois Digital and Volunteer Coordinator on Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.

I support the People’s Convention. I’m a volunteer working to spread the word on blogs, reddit and other forms of social media. I urge you to share this post on Facebook, or on Twitter, Instagram, reddit or on your own blog. If you belong to a progressive organization or volunteer group for Bernie, your organization can become a sponsor of the People’s Revolution to network and cross promote each others events.

But even more than that, I urge you to make a tax deductible donation so that everyone who wants to attend the People’s Convention, even homeless people, can do so free of any charge.

Your tax deductible donation doesn’t have to be all that large to make a difference. I donated $10 when I signed up, but any amount, large or small, is welcome. Here is the link to their donation page: Donate to the People’s Convention

The primaries are coming to a close soon. Bernie will be taking his campaign to the Democratic Convention. But we need to bring our revolution to Philadelphia as well, and not just by marching and attending rallies, but by working together through a truly democratic process to craft a set a principles, policies and values that we can all get behind. The People’s Convention is a critical step in reclaiming our democracy from the 1 percent that has hijacked our political process by buying the support of politicians in both major parties. I ask for your help in any way you can, from volunteering, spreading the word or donating whatever amount you can, in order to make The People’s Convention a success.

Thank you for your time,

Steven D

What We Should Remember Today

On that Christmas Day Company I, First Platoon, was very hard hit. My good friend Oliver Coghill was on my right and a buddy named Palko was next to him. Both were killed, and I could hear Lieutenant Lawson calling for his mother.

– Excerpt from the written account of the combat experiences of my uncle, Darrell Burdette Searls, former infantry soldier in Company I of the 290th Regiment of the 75th Division, United States Army, 1944-1945

For many Americans, Memorial Day is just another excuse for a three day weekend where people can party with family or friends, grill hamburgers and hot dogs or barbecue, and drink the alcoholic beverage of their choice. But it wasn’t created for that purpose, at least not originally. Memorial Day began as a somber remembrance following the Civil War, and it was started not by any government but by a group of Union Army veterans of that horrendous conflict.

Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of an organization of Union veterans — the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) — established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers. Maj. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30. It is believed that date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country.

The point of this observance was, in the words of General Logan, to …

[I]nvite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.”

Today, unfortunately that intial purpose has long been forgotten. It’s become just another opportunity for Americans to take time off, go on vacation and, above all else, shop.

Not that politicians haven’t made gestures to remind us of what they wish to emphasize about the holiday. As the official Memorial Day page for US Department of Veterans Affairs informs us, in 2000 Congress passed a bill signed into law by then President Clinton, The National Moment of Remembrance Act, “[t]o ensure the sacrifices of America ’s fallen heroes are never forgotten.”

The millions of soldiers who were slaughtered and died in those wars, in our prevailing culture of nationalism and uber-patriotism, have been posthumously transformed into glorious heroes. Their deaths are spoken of with almost an god-like reverence, as courageous warriors who sacrificed themselves to preserve our freedoms, thus stripping them of their very humanity.

Lost in all of the empty platitudes in all the public remarks and commemorations by our political leaders is any mention of why the wars that took their lives were fought in the first place.

Even more profoundly, they rarely mention what wars do to people. Any realistic depiction of war’s horrors, and the the damage and harm it causes to individuals, families, communities and entire nations is pushed aside and ignored. Anyone who dares to contradict the prevailing patriotic narrative about America’s wars is shunned, told to shut up, or labeled an American hating traitor.

But what war does to the bodies and minds of our vets, should be at the heart of any remembrance or observance. War is not a glorious adventure in which heroes selflessly sacrifice themselves for our country. For most vets, it’s a terrible nightmarish reality in which, as the saying goes, the living often envy the dead.

I have no personal experience of war, but my oldest uncle, Darrell Searls, now deceased, saw combat in WWII. Specifically, he fought in the “Battle of the Bulge, oft described as the “greatest battle in American military history.” Certainly in terms casualties suffered by American soldiers, and particularly deaths, it ranks right up there with the “greatest” of all American battles.

I knew him as a great storyteller, and his friends and colleagues remember him as a noted raconteur, always ready with a witty joke or amusing anecdote. Yet, during all the time I knew him, the one life experience he did not discuss was the story of his service in WWII. Only late in his life was my aunt, a former editor, able to convince him to write about his time as a combat soldier. His wartime memoir of that time in his life tells a true story of what it is like to be one of the men and women our leaders send off to fight in our wars.

His Army division, the 75th, was the least experienced and youngest unit in the US Army in 1944. It was nicknamed the Diaper Division because of its youth. Many of its soldiers were literally 17 and 18 year-old kids straight off the farms of the Midwest. They arrived in LaHavre, France on December 13, 1944, three days before the German Army launched its last great offensive of the war against American forces in the Ardennes Forest. The American commanders were caught completely off guard. It was arguably the worst intelligence failure of the war, as undermanned American units guarding that part of the Allied line were quickly overrun by a concentrated force of Panzer divisions.

While my uncle and his platoon camped in misery in the rain and mud at an assembly are in northwest France, the German Army’s advance continued unabated, helped in large part by bad weather that kept American warplanes grounded. Out of desperation the 75th Division was committed to the Battle of the Bulge to support the flank of the 23rd Armored Division on December 20th.

Almost all of the soldiers in the 75th Division had no combat experience, including many of their officers. The parts of it I’ve chosen to include here cover the 47 days thereafter until he was removed from combat duty. I’ve italicized the official US army archived morning reports for his platoon whenever he cites them. His first day of actual combat came on Christmas day, 1944. What follows are brief excerpts directly taken from his memoir:

December 25:

Finally on Christmas Day, as we approached the little crossroads of Werpin, we made contact. […] As we got up onto the road, we came under German machine gun fire … Once across the road, we were out of the field of fire and could proceed up the wooded hill that was our objective. Three tanks on the road gave us covering fire, but their shells bursting in the trees on the hill sounded like firecrackers and were not very reassuring. For concealment, we went through a barn and out a back door, where the battalion commander patted each man on the back as we went through. Three days later, he was relieved and hospitalized with combat fatigue. The stress of sending men to their deaths was too much for him. […]

We could hear bullets snapping around us, but other than the two prisoners, I didn’t see any Germans until we crested the hill and I saw a group running away in the distance. The range was fairly long; but firing several rounds at the departing runners, I could see my tracer bullets flying among them. They all went down, either because I hit them or for cover. I don’t know which, and I don’t want to know.

On that Christmas Day Company I, First Platoon, was very hard hit. My good friend Oliver Coghill was on my right and a buddy named Palko was next to him. Both were killed, and I could hear Lieutenant Lawson calling for his mother. Sergeant Bay was also killed, but not before he apparently wiped out a major position of a German machine gun unit that was probably responsible for our casualties.

My impression was that casualties were much worse than the report indicated. It appeared to me that only about a dozen of us were left, and I was the ranking soldier as a Pfc. I gathered up the survivors, and we continued along the ridge; but the Germans had left. We came upon one German body; and I ordered a young private to “stick it” with his bayonet, an action we had been trained to do to be sure that the person was dead. The boy was reluctant to do so but followed my order, and the resulting crunch suggested that the man had been dead for some time.

December 26-31:

The next morning a captain found us and directed us to go back down the hill and to connect up with our outfit. He warned us that we would see a lot of dead guys on the way. He was right. L Company had been making a frontal assault across an open field at the base of the hill we were to take and had suffered terrible casualties.

Moving through their positions was an almost otherworldly experience, like visiting a wax museum and viewing subjects frozen in time. One particular tableau is with me to this day. The morning was bright and sunny, with a slight breeze. As we filed past one group of bodies, we could see that one GI with a head injury was lying on his back, propped against a log, and that a medic bending over him had started to bandage the wound when he too was hit. The ends of the bandage were streaming out in the breeze.

During the next few days our company dug in along the ridge line we had secured on the crest of a hill under trees looking out over an open field. […] The Germans attempted one attack but were decimated by a tremendous barrage.

Just before the attack, I was working on improving my foxhole, which at the time was about waist deep. I had placed my cartridge belt, trench knife, and canteen on the rim above and in front of the foxhole. Suddenly a shell landed 50 yards out to my right.
I crouched in my hole as 3 more shells exploded almost simultaneously right above me. I looked up to see that the trees had been blasted away; and where I had been in shade, sunlight now streamed into my hole. The handle of my trench knife had been severed, and my helmet was split from the top to the bottom rim. […]

By the time my uncle was removed from active duty for “combat fatigue” in the first week of February, 1945, all of his “friends and acquaintances” were either dead or had been wounded so severely they had been removed from combat duty. My uncle was fortunate. He survived and was never sent back into combat after receiving his diagnosis (today’s military uses a different name for it: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD, but its all the same thing).

Studs Terkel famously titled his book of interviews of WWII veterans “The Good War.” My uncle’s memoir, however, that no war is good, though some may be necessary. The plain fact of the matter is that the only good thing about WWII was when the fighting stopped. As my uncle once said to me in a self-revealing moment of understatement, “War isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.” And I left out many of the worst things from his memoir to which he bore witness: shootings of captured German POWs by US troops, accounts of self-inflicted wounds used by members of his company to escape combat, and the constant terror and fear he endured. The brief excerpts above are bad enough.

Today, I honor my uncle’s memory, and his courage in writing honestly about the reality of modern warfare. There was nothing glorious about the war he described. It must have been very painful to dredge up the memories of his many friends and comrades and even enemies whose deaths he witnessed, but I am grateful that he did.

Many people who never witness war up close and personal, including many stay-at-home Generals and Political Leaders, speak with patriotic fervor of the honor and glory and sacrifice of the members of our armed forces, but their words ring hollow to me. All wars, even a war of necessity, constitute the worst activity in which human beings can engage.

Both the leaders of Nazi Germany and Japan started WWII as a war of aggression. Before it ended tens of millions of combatants and civilians died, often in atrocities: the terror bombing of cities in England, Germany and Japan; the genocidal mass murder of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and other groups deemed sub-human; and lest we forget the first use of atomic weapons against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Under international law, wars of aggression long ago were outlawed and are considered war crimes. After the end of WWII, leading Nazis and Japanese militarists were rightly indicted and judged guilty for initiating a war of aggression. Defeating those murderous regimes was necessary, but that didn’t make it a “good war.”

Sadly, it is now our government that is engaging in numerous wars of aggression. Yet, none of our current or former political or military leaders have been indicted for starting and continuing these wars of aggression, nor are they ever likely to face an international tribunal to adjudicate their responsibility for those war crimes.

Today, somewhere in the world, US soldiers are participating in armed conflicts, whether as part of a special ops unit, pilots dropping bombs on the innocent and guilty alike, or soldiers who remotely control aerial drones of which President Obama has made such great use since he became Commander-in-Chief of our nation’s armed forces.

My daughter’s boyfriend is a member of the NY National Guard, part of the US Army Reserves. A day doesn’t go by when I do not consider the possibility that he very well may be sent off to fight in some faraway country against people who pose no real danger to the national security of the United States.

On Memorial Day we should remember those who fought and died in our wars, but not for the purpose of glorifying their sacrifice as mythical heroes. Instead, their deaths should be a reminder to us that war is the cause of horrific slaughter. It ruins so many other lives it touches, both among combatants and civilians alike. War destroys everything and everyone it touches.

The observances of Memorial Day should be a lesson to us not to treat war and armed conflict as mere geopolitical games between great powers, but as a real and terrible act that should only be taken as a last resort, and only when the lives of our people and the security of our nation is truly in imminent danger.

That’s not the lesson most politicians, elected officials and all those who profit from our nation’s wars want us to take away when we remember our war dead. But those deaths should remind us that war kills people indiscriminately and without mercy. Those who it kills are lost to their loved ones forever. Their deaths leave a void that can never be filled.

War is the darkest stain in the history of humanity. When you take the time to reflect upon what it means to remember our nations’ war dead this weekend, and also I would add, to reflect upon all our surviving war veterans, many who live with debilitating mental and physical ailments, reflect on that.

Thank you for reading,

Steven D

Less than casual observation

Remember when Hillary people informed us that she was doing the state parties a big favor by creating her Hillary Victory Fund, whereby money would be shared by her campaign, the DNC and the local parties, money they wouldn’t ever have been able to obtain without access to her wealthy donor base? Well, despite charges by some that it was a big money laundering scheme to primarily benefit the Clinton campaign, many Democrats still believed that she was the candidate doing the most for the party overall.

But now, Politico has issued its second report on the Hillary Victory Fund, and what their report claims doesn’t sound like much of a deal for the local parties. It sounds like the local parties’ were fleeced to be exact, as her “rebuild the party” plan has returned less than one percent (1%) of the monies raised to local state Democratic parties, while holding on to the rest – you know, 99 percent of $61 Million raised.

[L]ess than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

So Hillary got 15.4 Million directly, plus most of another $23 Million that directly benefited the Clinton campaign and is being spent now in the primary on her behalf rather than being saved to help state parties in the general election. Meanwhile, the DNC holds onto another $8 Million, which if the recent past is prologue will go to the presidential nominee for the general election.

So far all of the 32 State Democratic parties who signed up for this deal have received a sum total of around $500 Thousand buckaroos, which averages out to $15,625 per state. So much for the rebuild.

“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.

“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”

Better luck in four years folks. Assuming the local branches of the Democratic Party still exist in any real sense in many states after another four years of leadership like we’ve seen over the last 8 years. Too bad Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy was kicked to the curb for the many splendid benefits provided under the leadership of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, instead.

When It’s Nice to Have Big Donors

Hillary Clinton gets a lot of criticism over all the big donors who contribute to her, her Super Pacs and her family’s foundation. Many people, especially her supporters, see nothing wrong with this, or claim that this is how the system works these days. Obama, after all took lots of big donations from Wall Street over the years. So do the Republicans. Perhaps it influences votes on certain legislation, or perhaps it doesn’t. So go the arguments.

However, in one instance, Hillary Clinton, while she was serving as Secretary of State, was able to obtain large donations to benefit the State Department. That’s right, donors to her family’s foundations came through with millions of dollars that was not provided for in the department’s budget approved by Congress.

More than a dozen donors to Clinton’s non-profit foundation and her various political campaigns poured money into an endowment she launched into 2010 to pay for the upkeep of the Diplomatic Reception Rooms. The 42 sumptuous salons at State Department headquarters in Washington, decorated with 18th and 19th century American furnishings, are used to welcome foreign dignitaries, conduct diplomatic meetings and swearing-in ceremonies, and host official dinners.

By the following year, the campaign had raised more than $20 million to permanently fund restoration and maintenance for the rooms and their collections of rare American artwork, thanks largely to reliable Clinton donors.

Nearly half of the 37 people and organizations who donated to the State Department campaign, known as Patrons of Diplomacy, also gave money to the Clinton Foundation, according to State Department and foundation records. Of the eleven people who served as co-chairs for the campaign, agreeing to contribute their own money or to help raise funds from others, six also gave to the Clinton Foundation, a global charity started by former President Bill Clinton.

Did the donors do this out of patriotism, or a concern for the upkeep of our diplomatic reception rooms and their expensive antiques and artwork? Was it to make themselves look good or help their brand (having their name” etched in stone was one of several donor perks, according to a glossy 22-page brochure.”) Or did they do this in the hopes that, having made these contributions, it would provide access to Secretary Clinton or otherwise help them in matters their organizations had or might have before the Department of State? Who can say? The motivations of each donor do not come inscribed on the checks they gave to the endowment. And to be fair, the State Department’s endowment pre-existed Clinton’s time in office. This wasn’t some new idea she dreamed up on her own.

I suppose how you look at this beneficence on behalf of these wealthy individuals and corporations depends a great deal on how you view the enormous of amounts of money that has poured into our political system over the last several decades, and increasingly so since the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court.

A recent analysis of the 2014 Senate races by the Brennan Center for Justice found outside spending more than doubled since 2010, to $486 million. Outside groups provided 47 percent of total spending – more than the candidates’ 41 percent – in 10 competitive races in last year’s midterms.

“The premise that the Supreme Court was relying on, that these groups would be truly independent of the candidates themselves, is very questionable,” says Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, one of three Democrats on the six-member Federal Election Commission. […]

Of the $1 billion spent in federal elections by super PACs since 2010, nearly 60 percent of the money came from just 195 individuals and their spouses, according to the Brennan Center report. Thanks to Citizens United, supporters can make the maximum $5,200 donation directly to a candidate, then make unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs.

Both Democratic candidates have stated that Citizens united is not good for the country, though their statements on the matter are not exactly equivalent. Since he began his campaign, Senator Sanders has frequently stated that he wants the Citizens United decision overturned by the court itself or through a Constitutional amendment, as does President Obama.

“If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice and that nominee will say that they are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision,” the Vermont independent said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Secretary Clinton’s statements on the matter have been for the most part on point with Senator Sanders’ views. In January of this year, this is what she had to say publicly about the money that has been dumped into our political finance system since the Supreme Court equated money, any amount of money, with free speech under the 1st amendment, that can only be regulated by government under certain very restricted circumstances.

It’s time to reclaim our democracy, reform our distorted campaign finance system and restore access to the ballot box in all 50 states.
That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that’s where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I’ll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it.

Meanwhile, we need more transparency in our politics. In the last three elections, more than $600 million in donations came from unknown, untraceable sources. That’s a lot of secret, unaccountable money. As president, I’ll require federal contractors to fully disclose their political spending. I’ll call on the Securities and Exchange Commission to require that publicly traded companies do the same. And I’ll fight for legislation requiring the disclosure of all significant political donations, no matter where they come from or who they benefit. Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you should have to identify your donors.

That seems pretty clear cut and straightforward. However one chooses to view the manner in which she benefited from large sums of money raised by Super Pacs and bundlers in this election cycle, these statements by her are quite clear as to the policies she would pursue as President to eliminate, or ameliorate the effects of, Citizens United.

However, at other times she has implied she does not view her opposition to the massive amounts of money that has flooded into our political system since 2010 as all that important an issue, especially when she has been criticized for taking advantage of the new reality in campaign finance. She has frequently stated in her debates with Sanders that the large sums of money that she has raised over the years from lobbyist bundlers and now from Super Pacs that support her this year have not changed any of her votes in the past, nor will they influence her in the future.

This, in spite of the fact that her critics, from Elizabeth Warren to Glenn Greenwald have, fairly or unfairly depending on your point of view, asserted that her vote in favor of a “draconian bankruptcy bill” in 2001 (that bill failed, but a similar bill was passed in 2005 when Senator Clinton was absent from the Senate chamber) belies her claim that money has played no role in her decision making process. Other critics have often pointed to the monies received by the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative while she was Secretary of State, as evidence that those contributions led to favorable outcomes for donors who had dealings with the State Department under her time in office.

Much has been made about whether Secretary Clinton’s commitment to campaign finance reform can be trusted. Certainly the Trump has made it clear he intends to attack her on just this very point, recently taking to calling her “a crooked person”. He willingly acknowledges that he gave money to politicians of both parties, including Clinton and to the Clinton Foundation, before he began his own campaign for the GOP nomination.

Nonetheless, at least we know of one instance where Clinton’s connections to big donors paid off for the government. I’m sure the diplomats from foreign countries appreciate the restoration of the reception rooms our country provides when they come here to discuss important foreign policy matters with our Secretary of State or other diplomats representing our country.

And who knows. Perhaps Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS will be approved by a lame duck Senate should the Democratic nominee win the election in November. Bill Moyers is at least cautiously optimistic that Garland, if appointed to the Court, would vote to reverse Citizens United. That would have an immediate effect on the 2018 midterm elections, and scale back to some degree the obscene amounts of campaign cash that has corrupted our political process. One can only hope that best case scenario will come to fruition.

The March on DNC is Real

… and here’s an Early Primer on What they have Planned for the Democratic Convention.

The March on DNC is being organized by four groups who support Bernie Sanders, but more importantly support the values and principles upon which he has based his political career and upon which he has campaigned.

The four main groups who have done the heavy lifting to bring this about are:

Black Men for Bernie
Bernie or Bust
The Berners [website under construction]
The Movement4Bernie

These folks already have obtained permits from the City of Philadelphia for the use of several parks for all 4 days of the Convention, permits that they have agreed to share with the Sanders’ campaign when Bernie’s people reached out to them. All of these groups have different agendas and motivations and ideas on how to go forward in supporting Bernie, but on one thing they stand united: the right of Bernie supporters to peacefully rally, petition the DNC, support and celebrate Bernie and the political revolution his candidacy inspired at the Democratic National Convention in July in Philly.

The media has taken a sudden interest in their planned activities in the wake of the Nevada debacle and the “penchant for violence” big lie that the DNC and the Hillary campaign (and David Brock’s paid trolls) have rabidly promoted in the already biased corporate media and online. The organizers of the March of the DNC, however, made it very clear in the following video of their press conference (held on Wednesday last week) that they are committed to peaceful non-violence, or in the words of one of the spokes people, Billy Taylor, showing love for Bernie in the City of Brotherly Love:

Here’s how the local media covered that event and the planned rallies and marches:

Newsworks:

The group of Sanders supporters who gathered outside City Hall Wednesday promised to remain peaceful, but said they expect to rally at the plaza outside the Municipal Services Building in Center City.

The group is still holding out hope Sanders will be the party’s standard-bearer. Bruce Carter of Black Men for Bernie says Sanders is the only candidate he can believe in.

“I’m 100 percent Bernie-or-bust in the general election,” Carter said. “Our goal is to register every black male over 18 that can vote so they will have a voice in the general election regardless of who has the nomination.”

CBS # Philly

NBC10.com

Four pro-Bernie Sanders rallies, with estimated attendance of 38,000 activists, have been approved for public demonstrations during the Democratic National Convention in July, the city said Thursday. […]

For the largest of the four pro-Sanders rallies approved, more than 30,000 people are expected to attend weeklong demonstrations called “March for Bernie at DNC,” which will be held at FDR Park in South Philadelphia. It’s within earshot of where conventioneers will gather at the Wells Fargo Center to nominate their party’s presidential nominee.

The rally has been approved for five straight days, starting July 24 and ending July 28. The permit from the city also allows activists to gather each day from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The “public assemblage,” as the city technically describes demonstrations, could evolve from rally into protest depending on what happens during delegate voting inside the convention.

More importantly, here’s a copy of their press release from their official Facebook Page:

Are you frustrated with the DNC? Has your vote been tossed? Your voice been suppressed? Have you felt silenced by the establishment?

We are organizing to stand together and support Bernie, sway the delegates and super delegates to our side, and ensure the DNC is aware that with out Bernie our vote won’t be with the Democratic Party in November. We have put forth a call to action. We will be peacefully demonstrating at the Democratic National Convention to threaten mass deregistration if the Democratic Establishment continues their election fraud tactics to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. After voter suppression, dirty politics, and smear campaigns, we will be loud in clear in our message to the establishment: We The People have the power and we vote Bernie.

Our mission is to organize more marches across the country in the same way we did in January, only this time, bigger.

We’ve got time to organize and promote these events. With this amount of time on our hands, we should be able to blow this up bigger than any Bernie event so far.

We want a YUGE demonstration/march at the convention in Philly as well as YUGE solidarity marches across the country to send a clear message to the establishment: WE. WILL. BE. HEARD.

The details are still being worked out, but PLEASE SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE.

To be clear: THIS IS A MARCH FOR BERNIE SANDERS.

We want to make this historical. We need to show the DNC and the rest of the establishment that we are NOT going to stay silent. We the PEOPLE decide this election, NOT super-delegates. We are most likely going into the convention close to a tie with no one securing the delegates needed to win the nomination before that. That means it’s OUR job to be LOUD and CLEAR that we are for BERNIE SANDERS and that they need to vote with US.

You can RSVP at our event here if you will be in Philly, or you can RSVP at one of the many other facebook events created by other passionate organizers!

Please SHARE far and wide! We want this to be as YUGE as possible! Use ‪#‎MarchOnDNC‬ to share your thoughts/events!

Events planned so far:

#MarchOnDNC – Philly Event by Billy Taylor – March4Bernie

#MarchOnDNC – Philly Event by Steve Okan Layne – Day 1

#MarchOnDNC – Chicago

#MarchOnDNC – Los Angeles by MarchOnDNC-LA

#MarchOnDNC – Philly Event Day 4

#‎MarchForBernie‬ Against The DNC – SLC – July 24

Deregistration To Save The Nation – by Jimmy Perry

Million Berners March – July 26 & 27 – Black Men 4 Bernie

Full list if events leading up to the convention, as well as during the convention, is found here: Link

Here is their GoFundMe page: March on the DNC!

Need a ride? They have that covered with their ride share program

And rally buses to bring people in for the all Monday July 25th march/rally.

Need a place to stay? Check these out:

Bernie BnB
COUCHSURFING.COM
airbnb
VRBO

More important information will be coming soon (including information on coordinating with the campaign’s events, details on non-violence training, water and medic stations, and much much more, so stay tuned! In the meantime please share this post and the The March on DNC website page on all of your favorite social media platforms.

For myself, I am determined to be there, no matter what. I hope to meet many of you there as well as we share in this demonstration of what real democracy is supposed to look like.

Thanks for you time,

Steven D

Alberta Still Burns & Banks Still Cheat

I know everyone is all in an uproar over chairs that were or were not thrown, arrests that were or were not made, death threats by those nasty, violent Bernie Bros, and whatever stupid thing Der Trump said lately. However, out in the world where the American election campaign isn’t the primary thing on everyone’s mind, a lot of bad crapola is going on. One of those bad things is the fact that the wildfires in Alberta (where oil from the the tar sands does roam) are still out of control:

Well over 1,700 firefighters are trying to get a grip on the blaze, which started May 1 near Fort McMurray.

[A]s of Wednesday, the fire is still 0% contained, the Alberta Agriculture and Forestry department said.

Even worse: The blaze is marching east toward Saskatchewan and will likely reach the province Wednesday, Alberta wildfire official Chad Morrison said. […]

The inferno could actually burn through the winter and into next year, University of Alberta wildfire professor MIke Flannigan said.

We have reached the point where national governments cannot deal with the ever worsening wildfires that the consequences of climate change have wrought. As for the residents of Ft. McMurray, the tar sands boom town that was evacuated two weeks ago, residents are being told that life as they knew it (i.e., before the fire) is not likely to ever return. That prophecy comes straight from the Premier of the province, Rachel Notley:

Premier Rachel Notley outlined her government’s long-awaited re-entry plan Wednesday, saying residents will soon be allowed to return to their homes in a phased, multi-day process starting with the least damaged areas.

However, she warned that residents will not be coming home to life as they left it. While essential food, power and urgent medical care will be available, other amenities such as clean drinking water and full hospital services will take longer to restore.

As well, the premier noted the entire plan is dependent on meeting several safety factors, including an end to the ongoing threat of the fire, reasonable air quality and functional traffic controls.

Lot of conditions on that return, aren’t there. If I lived in Ft. McMurray, knowing my house and my job may very well have gone up in smoke, I’m not sure I’d want to return. But, what other options are available, assuming that a safe return to their homes can be assured despite the ongoing wildfire that destroyed their city.

But not everything newsworthy involves “natural” (yes, I’m being sarcastic) disasters. For example, our financial system continues to be held hostage by a gang of criminal organizations.

Case in point: a lawsuit was filed yesterday alleging bid rigging in the Nine Trillion Dollar ($9,000,0000,000) Government Issued Bond market. Specifically, five banks, and by banks I mean Too Big To Even Think About Failing Banks (or as I like to call them the Insiders) – Bank of America (USA! USA!), Credit Agricole (France), Deutsche Bank (Germany, duh), Credit Suisse Group (Switzerland) and Nomura Holdings – have been sued in the U.S. District Court for Manhattan for rigging the prices and thereby defrauding their investors.

Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Credit Agricole SA (CAGR.PA), Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN.S), Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE) and Nomura Holdings Inc (8604.T) were accused of secretly agreeing to widen the “bid-ask” spreads they quoted customers of supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds.

The lawsuit filed … by the Boston Retirement System said the collusion dates to at least 2005, was conducted through chatrooms and instant messaging, and caused investors to overpay for bonds they bought or accept low prices for bonds they sold.

“Only through collusion could a dealer quote a wider spread than market conditions otherwise dictate without losing market share and profits,” the complaint said. “Defendants reaped millions of dollar(s) in profits at the expense of plaintiff and members of the class as result of their misconduct.”

The proposed class-action lawsuit seeks triple damages, and follows probes by U.S. and European Union antitrust regulators into possible SSA bond price rigging.

Just for the record, let me note that of the five defendants (so far), only Nomura Holdings has not contributed to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative and/or the Clinton campaign, with the biggest contributor our own Bank of America, which not only paid Bill and Hillary Clinton over $1 Million in speaking fees between 2011 and 2014, but whose PAC, employees and family members contributed over $180,000 to Hillary’s campaign committee alone, as of April 21, 2016, and whose Bank of America Foundation donated between $500,000 and $1 Million to the Clinton Global Initiative as of 2013.

Well, former Secretary Clinton has made it very clear that she has the toughest plan to deal with Wall Street, much tougher than Bernie Sander’s goal to break up the big banks. So, I’m sure that despite the fact these Too Big To Fail Banks, whose level of fraud, illegality and corruption only got worse after our government bailed them out, she’ll make another proclamation telling them to just “cut it out”, since that worked so well the last time.

Does make me wonder, however, why these bid rigging, money grubbing, Wall Street hucksters keep funding her charitable organization, paying her and Bill tons of money for half hour speeches, and arm twisting their well compensated employees into donating to her campaign, if she is just going to bring the hammer down on them starting next year. Maybe they think she will continue the policies of the Obama administration, which has for the most part failed to indict any individuals for trashing the world’s economy during his nearly eight years in office.

Or maybe they think that she’ll follow the lead of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is making an attempt to undermine the enforcement of stricter regulations on pay day lenders by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Either these large banks know something we don’t know, or maybe they are delusional and are throwing money at the Clintons hoping she won’t do what she has promised to do if elected president. I guess we will just find out next year, assuming, as I’m sure all right minded people do, that she defeats Trump handily and the Democrats regain control of the Senate and perhaps even the House of Representatives. At least, that’s what all the left leaning prognosticators tell me to expect.

Sure hope they are right. Just like I hope the poor people of Ft. McMurray someday soon (by early June or by the end of the summer, at least) get to return to their homes and begin the hard work of rebuilding their city. Hey, it’s the season when hope springs eternal, or so the saying goes. Gotta have hope everything works out for the best, because I sure can’t afford to pay for the influence these multinational corporations and billionaires are attempting to buy with the money they’re pouring into the coffers of both Republican and Democratic candidates this year.

Alberta Fires Worsen. Blame Climate Change

Perhaps I’m beating a dead horse in the eyes of some here, but when I see a headline like this – Fort McMurray: Fire could double in size, Canadian official says – from CNN, I find it more than a little disturbing.

Dry, windy conditions are fueling the blaze, which has already raged over 1,010 square kilometers (389 square miles). By Saturday, it might be twice as big.

“It’s extremely dry out there. Wind continues to push from the southwest, to push the fire to the northeast into the forested areas,” Alberta Wildfire official Chad Morrison said Friday afternoon. “There is a high potential that this fire could double in size by the end of the day tomorrow.”

This is just one of forty (40) wildfires ravaging Alberta. And it’s only May. As for those who see this as just another strange weather event that we should not tie to anthropogenic climate change, well, again, that’s not what the experts at Climate Central, a popular and respected climate science website, are saying in their article: “Here’s the Climate Context For the Fort McMurray Wildfire.”

The wildfire is the latest in a lengthening lineage of early wildfires in the northern reaches of the globe that are indicative of a changing climate. As the planet continues to warm, these types of fires will likely only become more common and intense as spring snowpack disappears and temperatures warm.

If you followed the links from the excerpt of article above, you would see references to a series of massive, disastrous wildfires across the upper Northern hemisphere, including boreal forests in Siberia, Alaska and the Northwest Territories in Canada since 2013, which predates the current extreme El Nino event. This sharp increase in both the extent and intensity of wildfires this far north, and the lengthening of the wildfire season across the globe, as acknowledged by this report in The New York Times, “Wildfires, Once Confined to a Season, Burn Earlier and Longer,” is seen by many climate scientists as a clear indication that global warming is the clear culprit.

Here’s a list of a few of the sources that support this claim:

NASA

A new analysis of 35 years of meteorological data confirms fire seasons have become longer. Fire season, which varies in timing and duration based on location, is defined as the time of year when wildfires are most likely to ignite, spread, and affect resources. […]

The researchers found that fire weather seasons have lengthened across one quarter of Earth’s vegetated surface. In certain areas, extending the fire season by a bit each year added up to a large change over the full study period. For instance, parts of the western United States and Mexico, Brazil, and East Africa now face wildfire seasons that are more than a month longer than they were 35 years ago.

Climate Central

The National Interagency Fire Center’s numbers vividly illustrate how 2015 was a record setter. U.S. wildfires scorched 10.12 million acres. […]

That bests the previous mark of 9.87 million acres set in 2006, and it’s the first time wildfire acreage burned has crossed the 10-million acre threshold. The impacts of climate change mean that the threshold will likely be crossed more often in the coming century as wildfire season lasts longer and sparks more large fires. […]

…. In Alaska, scientists have raised concerns that wildfires could send vast reserves of carbon locked in the soil up in smoke. That could raise temperatures further and lead to even more fires and speed up the march of climate change in a dangerous feedback loop.

PNAS Journal article “Recent burning of boreal forests exceeds fire regime limits of the past 10,000 years.”

Fire frequency and area burned increased ∼6,000–3,000 y ago, probably as a result of elevated landscape flammability associated with increased Picea mariana in the regional vegetation. During the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA; ∼1,000–500 cal B.P.), the period most similar to recent decades, warm and dry climatic conditions resulted in peak biomass burning, but severe fires favored less-flammable deciduous vegetation, such that fire frequency remained relatively stationary. These results suggest that boreal forests can sustain high-severity fire regimes for centuries under warm and dry conditions, with vegetation feedbacks modulating climate–fire linkages. The apparent limit to [Medieval Climate Anomaly] burning has been surpassed by the regional fire regime of recent decades, which is characterized by exceptionally high fire frequency and biomass burning. This extreme combination suggests a transition to a unique regime of unprecedented fire activity.

Perhaps you don’t think this has anything to do with the current election, and in one sense you are correct. The media certainly hasn’t made climate change a major topic of discussion, nor have the candidates. The Republicans, including the likely nominee, Donald Trump, almost to a man and woman, reject the science of climate change and deny that what we are seeing with our own eyes is real. It’s happening now, not in some distant future when we will all be dead and won’t have to worry about it. But they deny, deny, deny because to do otherwise would be to reject the position of their financial backers and all those conservatives who buy into the Fox Noise propaganda.

What’s more troubling, however, is that, despite a few rhetorical statements and stated policy positions (which you can easily find on her campaign’s website, so I won’t bother linking to it here), Hillary Clinton, the leader in the number of delegates in the current Democratic Party’s nomination selection process, seems oblivious or indifferent to the effects that climate change is re-shaping our world at an alarming and ever increasing rate. Instead of responding to legitimate complaints regarding her record by environmental critics, she has lashed out in anger at them instead. And no wonder. Her record, from promoting fracking around the world to approving the transport of tar sands pipelines while Secretary if State is not a good one. Let’s look at some examples, shall we, beginning with her concerted effortss at State to promote fracking.

When Hillary Clinton took over the State Department, she set up a special arm, the Bureau of Energy Resources, after close consultation with oil and gas executives. This bureau, with 63 employees, was soon helping sponsor conferences around the world. And much more: Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that the secretary of state was essentially acting as a broker for the shale-gas industry, twisting the arms of world leaders to make sure US firms got to frack at will.

Unfortunately, Hillary continues to claim that fracking is a clean source of energy, despite the recent evidence that methane emissions in the US alone increased 30% after the fracking and shale gas boom began, and studies that show natural gas would do little to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, while simultaneously blocking increased utilization of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power.

We’ve reached the point where Denmark can generate 42 percent of its power from the wind, and where Bangladesh is planning to solarize every village in the country within the next five years. We’ve reached the point, that is, where the idea of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to a renewable future is a marketing slogan, not a realistic claim (even if that’s precisely the phrase that Hillary Clinton used to defend fracking in a debate earlier this month).

Joe Romm, a climate analyst at the Center for American Progress, has been tracking the various economic studies more closely than anyone else. Even if you could cut the methane-leakage rates to zero, Romm says, fracked gas (which, remember, still produces 50 percent of the CO2 level emitted by coal when you burn it) would do little to cut the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions because it would displace so much truly clean power. A Stanford forum in 2014 assembled more than a dozen expert teams, and their models showed what a drag on a sustainable future cheap, abundant gas would be. “Cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by burning natural gas is like dieting by eating reduced-fat cookies,” the principal investigator of the Stanford forum explained. “If you really want to lose weight, you probably need to avoid cookies altogether.” […]

Clinton continues to conflate and confuse the chemistry: Natural gas, she said in a recent position paper, has helped US carbon emissions “reach their lowest level in 20 years.” It appears that many in power would like to carry on the fracking revolution, albeit a tad more carefully.

I guess she isn’t paying attention to the research or the EPA’s own confession that they drastically underestimated methane emissions (though their current estimates of methane emissions are still likely too conservative). But she’s against coal, right? Not so fast. Just recently, after criticism from coal miners and the coal mining industry in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton publicly reversed her previous position that coal as an energy source should be phased out as soon as possible.

Mrs. Clinton said earlier this year that more miners would be put out of work if she is elected president and vowed to continue President Obama’s unprecedented crackdown on carbon emissions through federal regulation.

The former secretary of state then tried to retract her comments by saying she was merely opining on the fact that the U.S. coal industry is declining.

“I don’t know how to explain it other than what I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time, and I did put out a plan last summer,” she said. “I didn’t mean that we were going to do it. What I said was that is going to happen unless we take action to try to help and prevent it,” Mrs. Clinton said at a town hall meeting in West Virginia this week.

A profile in political courage, this is not. Then again, in 2008, she avidly supported coal as the fuel of the future. And now she appears to be back on the clean coal bandwagon, supporting pie-in-the-sky carbon sequestration as the solution to keeping coal miners and their employers in business.

Earlier on Monday, Clinton expanded on what sort of “action” she would take during a conversation about “economic barriers and jobs,” which was held in Ashland, Kentucky.

“We’ve got to do a lot more on carbon capture and sequestration,” she told voters, “and try to see how we can get coal to be a fuel that can continue to be sold and continue to be mined.”

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), or “clean coal,” has long been touted as a greener method of burning fossil fuels and is a pillar of Clinton’s energy agenda.

Then, of course, there is her dubious record at the State Department, when she green-lighted (pun intended) the Alberta Clipper pipeline to make the transport of tar sand oil production in western Canada economically viable, despite the consensus among the scientific community that it is a dirtier, more harmful source of fossil fuels that should not be pursued.

As [President Obama spoke about America’s leadership in the fight against Climate Change], another pipeline known as the Alberta Clipper was already transporting some 800,000 barrels per day (BPD) of tar sands crude—the same type and essentially the same volume of oil as the proposed Keystone—to U.S. refineries.

While Keystone has monopolized public outrage, the State Department has quietly allowed a similar project to move ahead. The Clipper is one link in a broader network of pipelines, operated by Canadian oil giant Enbridge, Inc., that extends from the Alberta tar sands all the way to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Environmental groups warn that this could lead to a dramatic increase in the production of tar-sands oil—one of the dirtiest and most environmentally hazardous types of fuel— with little public scrutiny

Perhaps it should come as no surprise to anyone, that three major US oil companies, Chevron, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, who held significant investments in Canadian tar sands, lobbied the State Department under Secretary Clinton to approve the Alberta Clipper pipeline. All three companies then contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation after this tar sands pipeline was approved.

In 2009, the Clinton-led State Department approved a permit for the 400-mile Alberta Clipper pipeline, which is designed to pump up to 450,000 barrels of oil per day from the Canadian oil sands to Wisconsin (where recent polls show Democratic primary voters are concerned about its impact). According to federal lobbying records reviewed by the IBT, Chevron and ConocoPhillips both lobbied the State Department specifically on the issue of “oil sands” in the immediate months prior to the department’s approval, as did a trade association funded by ExxonMobil.

Those three oil companies have delivered between between $2.5 million and $3 million to the Clinton Foundation. That is on top of money their executives and lobbyists delivered to Clinton’s campaign and super PAC in her 2008 presidential bid — the year before she approved the pipeline. […]

In the year prior to the approval, Chevron’s Laurence Humphries was a top fundraising “bundler” for Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, raising more than $100,000 for her run, according to the watchdog group Public Citizen. Following the pipeline approval, Chevron hosted an event at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010, according to CGI’s website. The company also gave the Clinton Foundation $250,000 in 2013, reported the Wall Street Journal. In all, Chevron has given between $500,000 and $1 million to the foundation. Two Chevron lobbyists are listed as fundraising bundlers for Clinton’s 2016 campaign, according to the Huffington Post.

It is both sad and ironic that the people who have been forced to evacuate their homes as a result of these wildfires, which are literally creating its own “weather,” live in the very region that is heavily dependent on income from the development of tar sands oil. Tar sands oil that would not have been developed absent the approval of the Alberta pipeline by Hillary Clinton, the beneficiary of millions of dollars of dirty oil money. That Greenpeace protestor who confronted Hillary in New York was telling the truth, and Hillary evaded the truth of which her accuser spoke by attacking her and blaming Sanders’ supporters for lying about her fossil fuel industry connections. Like Bill McKibben, I have no faith that she will do anything significant to halt fossil fuel use and/or ameliorate the horrific consequences of climate change that are occurring now.

Meanwhile, Alberta burns.

Alberta Wildfire Out of Conrtrol

Perhaps I’m beating a dead horse in the eyes of some here, but when I see a headline like this – Fort McMurray: Fire could double in size, Canadian official says – from CNN, I find it more than a little disturbing.

Dry, windy conditions are fueling the blaze, which has already raged over 1,010 square kilometers (389 square miles). By Saturday, it might be twice as big.

“It’s extremely dry out there. Wind continues to push from the southwest, to push the fire to the northeast into the forested areas,” Alberta Wildfire official Chad Morrison said Friday afternoon. “There is a high potential that this fire could double in size by the end of the day tomorrow.”

This is just one of forty (40) wildfires ravaging Alberta. And it’s only May. As for those who see this as just another strange weather event that we should not tie to anthropogenic climate change, well, again, that’s not what the experts at Climate Central, a popular and respected climate science website, are saying in their article: “Here’s the Climate Context For the Fort McMurray Wildfire.”

The wildfire is the latest in a lengthening lineage of early wildfires in the northern reaches of the globe that are indicative of a changing climate. As the planet continues to warm, these types of fires will likely only become more common and intense as spring snowpack disappears and temperatures warm.

If you followed the links from the excerpt of article above, you would see references to a series of massive, disastrous wildfires across the upper Northern hemisphere, including boreal forests in Siberia, Alaska and the Northwest Territories in Canada since 2013, which predates the current extreme El Nino event. This sharp increase in both the extent and intensity of wildfires this far north, and the lengthening of the wildfire season overall