Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

The billionaires who own the Democratic Party are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle, and have threatened to back President Trump if Senator Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination. We know where the loyalty of the billionaires who control the Democrat Party lie, and it is with their comrades in arms, the billionaires who own the RepubliCon Party.

The billionaires that control both major political parties work hard using their news media and talking heads to get Democratic and Republican voters to side with their party and argue with one another about social issues, such as abortion, gun control, or whether or not transgender bathrooms should have urinals, and whether or not Albus Dumbledore of Harry Potter fame is gay or not, and whether or not Santa Claus should be depicted as transgender or not, rather than talking about income, wealth and the political inequality the billionaires, their politicians (such as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden) and their Supreme Court have created, and how the billionaires have rigged and corrupted the democracy we live in, while simultaneously working together to financially rob and rape the 99 percent of both Parties in whatever way possible so long as it makes them richer in the process.

The billionaires who control the Democratic Party have already supported President Trump on a number of issues, such as tax cuts for the rich.

Warren tweeted in response to the threat, “I’m fighting for an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected. I’m not afraid of anonymous quotes, and wealthy donors don’t get to buy this process. I won’t back down from fighting for the big, structural change we need.”

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in the 2020 race.

What CNBC did not say was that the vast majority of U.S. citizens need a new Franklin Delano Roosevelt as United States president in order to stave off the predations of the billionaires who own both major political parties, as well as the corrupt/corporate/conservative wing of the United States Supreme Court.

One Democratic Party senior private equity executive said, “You’re in a box because you’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump.’” This billionaire spoke on the condition of anonymity in fear of retribution by party leaders. The executive said this Wednesday, a day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would begin a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump.

During the campaign, Warren has put out multiple plans intended to curb the corrupting influence of Wall Street on government, both major political parties, and the United States Supreme Court, including a wealth tax. In July, she released a proposal that would make private equity firms responsible for debts and pension obligations of companies they buy. The billionaires surely do not want that. Trump, meanwhile, has given wealthy business leaders a helping hand with a major corporate tax cut and by eliminating regulations.

Warren has sworn off taking part in big money fundraisers for the 2020 presidential primary. She has also promised to not take donations from special interest groups. She finished raising at least $19 million in the second quarter mainly through small-dollar donors.

Trump, has been raising hundreds of millions of dollars, putting any eventual 2020 rival in a bind as 20 or so Democrats compete for their party’s nomination.

Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have raised over $100 million in the second quarter, and a record $125 million in the third quarter. Most of that came from wealthy donors who gave to their joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory. In August, the RNC raised just over $23 million and has $53 million on hand.

The Democratic National Committee have struggled to keep up. The DNC finished August bringing in $7.9 million and has $7.2 million in debt. CNBC decided not to mention this is because Democratic grassroots voters are throwing tens of millions of dollars to the Warren and Bernie Sanders campaigns.

Biden, who has courted and garnered the support of various wealthy donors, has started to lag in some polls. The latest Quinnipiac poll has Warren virtually tied with the former vice president. Biden was one of three contenders that saw an influx of contributions from those on Wall Street in the second quarter.

The business community’s unease about Warren’s candidacy has surged in tandem with her campaign’s momentum. CNBC’s Jim Cramer said earlier this month that he’s heard from Wall Street executives that they believe Warren has “got to be stopped.”

Some big bank executives and hedge fund managers have been stunned by Warren’s ascent, and they are primed to resist her. Ultimately, this means they intend to resist the will of the vast majority of United States citizens.

“They will not support her. It would be like shutting down their industry,” an executive at one of the nation’s largest banks told CNBC, also speaking on condition of anonymity. This person said Warren’s policies could be worse for Wall Street than those of President Barack Obama, who signed the Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.

Yet before Obama was elected, his campaign took over $1 million from employees at Goldman Sachs, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

A hedge fund executive pointed to Trump’s tax cut as a reason why his colleagues would not contribute or vote for Warren if she wins the nomination.

“I think if she can show that the tax code of 2017 was basically nonsense and only helped corporations, Wall Street would not like the public thinking about that,” this executive said, also insisting on anonymity.

This really means something simple: if you want to vote for your interests, as well as the interests of the vast majority of United States citizens, vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. If you want to vote for the interests of the billionaires’ vote for Joe Biden.

Billionaires Rise Up Against Elizabeth Warren

Read Full Post »


The gap between the richest and the poorest U.S. households is now the largest it’s been in the past 50 years according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. income inequality was “significantly higher” in 2018 than in 2017, the Census Bureau says in its latest American Community Survey report. Since the rich in the United States possess earnings and investments abroad, it is likely the income and wealth gaps are much larger than the Census Bureau measures.

The gap grew despite a surging national economy that has seen low unemployment and more than 10 years of consecutive GDP growth.

The most troubling thing about the new report, says William M. Rodgers III, a professor of public policy and chief economist at the Heldrich Center at Rutgers University, is that it “clearly illustrates the inability of the current economic expansion, the longest on record, to lessen inequality.”

That is because the rich are using their political power to create income inequality in their favor.

When asked why the rising economic tide has raised some boats more than others, Rodgers lists several factors, including the decline of organized labor and competition for jobs from abroad. He also cites tax policies that favor businesses and higher-income families.

To understand even a little of how labor unions have been weakened you only need to look at a few of the legal decisions made by the corrupt corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court when it sided with the billionaires and their corporations in the Janus vs. AFSCME case. The corrupt wing of the court, lead by Cheif Justice John Roberts, decided to put an end to decades of legal precedent in which labor union members who did not want to pay union dues were required to pay a lesser fee to their unions to cover the cost of negotiating new contracts with management. Now labor unions are the only organizations in the United States that must provide free services to members who do not wish to pay. The corrupt wing of the court’s intention in making this decision was to weaken the power of labor unions, and working people in general, vis-a-vis the billionaires and their corporations.

Everybody knew the corrupt corporate wing of the court was going to vote in favor of Janus and end four decades of legal precedent in the process. Everybody knew the billionaires had the corporate wing in their hip pocket.

Income inequality is measured through the Gini index, which measures how far apart incomes are from each other. To do that, the index assigns a hypothetical score of 0.0 to a population in which incomes are distributed perfectly evenly and a score of 1.0 to a population where only one household gets all of the income.

The United States has been one of the most unequal of nations in the world using the Gini coefficient. The U.S. is ranked 103 in the world by the World Bank for income inequality, behind every major industrialized country, and up there with such nations as Haiti and Uganda. The U.S. was ranked at 73 ten years ago, so inequality continues to worsen here.

The billionaires’ control the corrupt corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court, the entire Republican Party, and most Democratic politicians at the national level. Therefore, you can expect income and wealth inequality will continue to get worse in the United States.

In other words, vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for president.

US Census Bureau Report

Read Full Post »

A few years ago, I mentioned that the conservative/corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court would never vote to end abortion rights. Click here for that story.

The billionaire owned New York Times reported last month, “At Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s confirmation hearings 14 years ago, the first dozen questions were about whether he would respect the Supreme Court’s abortion precedents.” Well, last month Roberts voted with the court’s honest wing to strike down a Louisiana law that would have severely crippled abortion rights in the state.

The Times explained Roberts decision this way, “Although he offered no reason for his vote, there is little doubt that he wanted to avoid sending the message that the court was ready to discard a 2016 decision, a precedent, in which it struck down a similar Texas law.”

The Times explanation can be considered pure blather. Roberts does not care about “legal precedent” at all and never has. He has voted against legal precedent numerous times. For example, Roberts voted to unleash the financial power of the rich and their corporations by voting against campaign finance laws that curbed the ability of the rich to buy politicians and elections with overwhelming financial might, including the notorious Citizens United v. FEC case of 2010. That decision overturned 100 years of legal precedent. So the New York Times explanation for why Roberts elected to protect abortion rights is absurd, if not a downright lie intended to deceive its readers.

The real reason why the conservative/corporate United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast his vote to maintain abortion rights is more likely to continue to keep the Republican Party grassroots voters in line and their eyes only on one thing; abortion and the dying unborn.

Those rights won’t be significantly impeded legally because doing so would raise the hopes of the Republican faithful that their dreams of saving tens of thousands of the unborn every year would be fulfilled, and this great wedge issue would be legally resolved. Perhaps then many of the faithful would begin to clamor for a more equitable distribution of income, wealth, and political power, just like Jesus once did, and the leadership cannot have that.

Read Full Post »

‘He was a grateful man…just not in a good way.’

The citizens of Florida may have dealt President Trump a death blow to any reelection success when they voted yes to Amendment 4, which restored voting rights to 1.5 million former felons. Naturally, this proved to be a great disturbance within the minds of the Republican Party leadership who prefer to reduce the number of people voting, which enhances their opportunities to win, along with electoral fraud, such as rigging voting machines.

According to Vox, “Black people, who are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated, will benefit the most. In 2016, more than 418,000 black people out of a black voting-age population of more than 2.3 million, or 17.9 percent of potential black voters in Florida, had finished sentences but couldn’t vote due to a felony record, according to the Sentencing Project. (Again, this includes some people convicted of murders and felony sex offenses.)”

Donald Trump won the state of Florida on November 8, 2016, with a plurality of 49.0% of the popular vote that included a 1.2% winning margin over Hillary Clinton, who had 47.8% of the vote.

Amendment 4 might very well turn the presidential election to the Democratic candidate, especially if that candidate is Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Jeff Merkley, all of whom are progressive Democrats, the antithesis of such corporate and Wall Stree Democrats as Hillary Clinton and Ron Wyden.


The final word about the election is that it was not a blue wave. Instead, it was a progressive wave against the corruption of both major political parties by the billionaires and major corporations. This suggests that the end of billionaire rule in the United States may be nearing an end, with the restoration of democracy clearly in sight.

The only thing missing is something to provide a big push, such as a major recession, but that is coming. It is just a question of when.

Once both houses of Congress are restored to the people, only the corrupted US Supreme Court will remain in the hands of the billionaires and their corporations. The corrupted justices (John Roberts, Brent Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas) will continue to make rulings against the U.S. Constitution whenever the financial interests of the billionaires run up against it, and whenever the interests of the 99 percent may reduce the continued accumulation of wealth, income and political power on the part of the billionaires, and at the expense of the 99.9 percent.

Read Full Post »

It’s not quite what you imagine it to be. President Trump is right to shout to the Twitterverse about how its trade deficit with China is costing the United States trillions of dollars and millions of jobs every year.

According to a recent study by the progressive Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which is hated by the conservatives and corporate Democrats alike, “…the growing trade deficit with China…has cost the U.S. millions of jobs throughout the economy since China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, a finding validated by numerous studies.”

Of course, EPI did not report a few things that are important to their study, and for our interests. So, as you read through a few of the EPI highlights below, I will make comments here and there in bolded letters. However, let me state there are a few things in this report that are not mentioned, and the corporate news media do not want you to know.

  • The U.S. trade deficit with China does not really exist in the sense that it is a trade deficit between China and the United States. In reality, the trade deficit is really between US corporations that manufacture their goods and services in the U.S.A. and U.S. corporations that have exported U.S. jobs to China and then exported their-made-in-China goods and services to the USA.
  • Another thing not mentioned is that a variety of studies show the export of every 100 manufacturing jobs from the United States results in the loss of an additional 300 to 1700 U.S. jobs.
  • The difference between the old higher wage exported U.S. jobs and the new lower wage Chinese jobs goes straight into the pockets of the billionaires who control both major political parties via higher corporate earnings, rising share prices, and surging dividends. Thus, much of the income and wealth inequality of recent history is the deliberately negotiated end result desired by corporate-backed U.S. politicians and U.S. negotiators.
  • Currently, three people (Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates) own more wealth than the bottom fifty percent of US citizens. Much of this is caused by the so-called trade deficit with China.
  • Trade treaties are negotiated so that US corporations can export jobs, as well as create them over there rather than over here, and this also helps to manufacture U.S. income and wealth inequality.
  • Pretty much 100 U.S. billionaires control both major U.S. political parties and quite naturally they have rigged the economy using the corrupted U.S. government, and especially a remarkably corrupt corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court, which includes two well-known perjurers in Brent Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts.
  • In other words, the income and wealth inequality we experience has been caused by the corruption of all three branches of the federal government, which could not have occurred without the complete corruption of the corporate news media.
  • Currently, the 1 percent steal somewhere between 22 to 38 percent of all the income produced in the United States, up from roughly 8 percent in 1980.

Here are a few of the highlights of the recent EPI report:

1. U.S. jobs lost are spread throughout the country but are concentrated in manufacturing, including in industries in which the United States has traditionally held a competitive advantage. Think Nike, Microsoft and Apple.

2. The growth of the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2017 was responsible for the loss of 3.4 million U.S. jobs, including 1.3 million jobs lost since 2008 (the first full year of the Great Recession, which technically began at the end of 2007). Nearly three-fourths (74.4 percent) of the jobs lost between 2001 and 2017 were in manufacturing (2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost).

3. The growing trade deficit with China has cost jobs in all 50 states and in every congressional district in the United States.

4. The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most: 1,209,000 jobs were lost in that industry, accounting for 36.0 percent of the 2001–2017 total jobs lost. (Think Dell Computers, Apple, Microsoft and a lot more.)

5. Surging imports of steel, aluminum, and other capital-intensive products threaten hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs in key industries such as primary metals, machinery, and fabricated metal products as well.

6. Global trade in advanced technology products—often discussed as a source of comparative advantage for the United States—is instead dominated by China. This broad category of high-end technology products includes the more advanced elements of the computer and electronic parts industry as well as other sectors such as biotechnology, life sciences, aerospace, and nuclear technology. (This is because Dell, Apple and Microsoft, among many other US high-tech corporations, have exported millions of US jobs to China, or created them there rather than here, and then exported their Chinese made products to the USA.)

7. In 2017, the United States had a $135.4 billion trade deficit in advanced technology products with China, and this deficit was responsible for 36.1 percent of the total U.S.–China goods trade deficit that year. In contrast, the United States had a $24.5 billion trade surplus in advanced technology products with the rest of the world in 2017. (See number six in bolded letters above.)

8. Growing trade deficits are also associated with wage losses (in the USA) not just for manufacturing workers but for all workers economywide who don’t have a college degree.

9. Between 2001 and 2011 alone, growing trade deficits with China reduced the incomes of directly impacted workers by $37 billion per year, and in 2011 alone, growing competition with imports from China and other low wage-countries reduced the wages of all U.S. non–college graduates by a total of $180 billion. Most of that income was redistributed to corporations in the form of higher profits and to workers with college degrees at the very top of the income distribution through higher wages.

The China toll deepens–Economic Policy Institute

Read Full Post »

Now that Right Wing Political Hack and Noted Perjurer Brett Kavanaugh is a US Supreme Court Justice, politicians, such as Republican US Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkowski, worry that the Supreme Court will lack credibility for impartiality when making decisions on cases. She need not worry.

The corporate wing of the US Supreme Court has been extremely partial toward Republican billionaires whenever their interests happen to be the case in front of them, so much so that one might rightly suspect the five judges are on the payroll of the billionaires or expect to receive some payback once they leave the court.

Perjurer Brett Kavanaugh now joins Perjurer Chief Justice John Roberts in ensuring the rollback of labor rights, voting rights, civil rights, environmental regulations, health and safety regulations, consumer protections against Wall Street investment banks and other large corporations, and anything else that might impede the growth of billionaire profits.

These corporate plutocrats (John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and now Brett Kavanaugh) have raped and plundered the US Constitution with lies in order to ensure the billionaires who control the Republican Party are granted greater political and economic power at the expense of everybody else.

No better example exists than Chief Perjurer John Roberts. When referring to Roe vs. Wade during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings Roberts said, “There is nothing in my personal view…that would prevent me from applying precedents under stare decisis,” which is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. Roberts also said, “I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness.” Roberts also testified he would act as an “honest umpire” when making decisions. It turns out all of these were lies. The so-called honest umpire threw evenhandedness and legal precedents out the window years ago.

In Citizens United vs the FCC, Roberts and the rest of the corporate wing of the court wiped out 100 years of legal precedent that allowed regulation of campaign finances. Conservative backers of Citizens United lost in lower courts repeatedly but always appealed, knowing that the conservative wing of the US Supreme Court would side with them. The same process occurred with Janus vs AFSCMC. Conservative supporters of Janus lost time and again in the lower courts, but knew, as did their liberal opponents, that once the case reached the Supreme Court it was a done deal. Forty years of legal precedents were eliminated by Robert’s utterly corrupt billionaire court.

Repeatedly, the Roberts corporate/billionaire court has rolled back voting rights, labor rights, campaign finance laws, all to the benefit of their billionaire backers and against the interests of the 99 percent, while eliminating legal precedents in the process.

Now we have Brett Kavanaugh on the court, a Republican political hack and even more notorious perjurer on the court than is Roberts.

How has the corporate wing of the court been able to do this? They have made up fables, things like corporations are people, international trade treaties are not international trade agreements, money is free speech, etc…. They have simply lied about all this stuff and used this make-believe to advance the Constitutional rights of the billionaires and their corporations while simultaneously pushing back the rights of the 99 percent, which would have stunned our founding fathers.

So do not believe it when you read about how Kavanaugh will change the court into a political hack organization. It has been for a long time already. It may be the most politicized branch of government, but one whose decisions are law, even if total corruption is behind these laws. We may need to begin ignoring Supreme Court rulings since corruption is the primary factor determining cases.

You will not be able to find a greater political hive of villainy and corruption than the corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court, which is nothing more than an arm of the billionaire controlled Republican Party.

Read Full Post »

Professor Christine Blassey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of having sexually assaulted her back in the day. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kavanaugh testified before the same committee that Ford’s accusation was not true. This was a he said/she said moment.

However, when questioned about his alcohol consumption back during the time of the alleged crime, Kavanaugh, the treasurer of his high school Keg100 club, said he was always a light drinker. This brought about accusations from his friends from days of yore that he was lying. On top of that, it appears he lied about a few other things during his confirmation hearings.

It is a federal crime to lie to Congress. And, indeed, if he did lie, that makes him a perjurer.

Kavanaugh’s college roommate and friend says Kavanaugh was often drunk, violent and belligerent. This has been corroborated by several other classmates of Kavanaugh. It appears, once again, members of the Republican Party are about to vote to put a well-known perjurer on the United States Supreme. Chief Justice John Roberts is also a well-known perjurer and Republican Party hack.

Kavanaugh appears to have lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they don’t give a damn. This suggests something quite ugly about the entire Republican Party, at least its members in the US Senate. Partisan politics and political power are more important than honesty in a Supreme Court Judge. Make no mistake about; Kavanaugh is a Republican Party hack.

Is there not a single Republican senator who will stand up to the billionaires who control their party? Chuck Grassley does not care about Kavanaugh’s lack of honesty. Orrin Hatch seems to enjoy it when Kavanaugh lies to him and his Senate colleagues.

Is there not a single Republican in the United States Senate in which honesty matters? Is it all about naked power, redistributing income and political power and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent? Susan Collins? Lisa Murkowski? Will no Republican stand up for honesty? Jeff Flake, you are quitting the Senate. Can you not vote for honesty in judges by voting against Kavanaugh?

Anybody with half a brain knows the Republican’s can find an honest and qualified Supreme Court nominee who is anti-abortion (to satisfy the base) and who will argue with a straight face that corporations are people, money is free speech, labor unions are bad and illegal, corporations and the rich are good, working people are lazy, and trade treaties are not trade agreements.

Something really stinks about Perjurer Kavanaugh, otherwise, the Republicans would drop him as a candidate, or launch an FBI investigation into whether or not he lied to Congress. It’s pretty obvious he lied multiple times to Congress.

Links
Bernie Sanders Wants FBI to Determine If Kavanaugh Told the Truth–Huffington Post

Kavanaugh’s College Roommate Says Lied-San Diego Union Tribune

All the Lies Kavanaugh Told-Huffington Post

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: