More DNC Docs leaked

Here's the link for more DNC documents that have been hacked. Download and share. 

The System is fixed

War is Business

Saudi press

....because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings. … Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation...

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/22/saudi-press-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror/

More 9/11 documents declassified

Hillary Clinton supports rapist

Populist Influence on the 2016 Race for the White House

Populist Influence on the 2016 Race for the White House

James Borzillieri

                The Presidential elections are a characteristic tradition in the United States of America. While every bid for the presidency is worth tuning in to, this year’s fiasco has been the talk of the World Wide Web. The internet, however would be a barren place if it were not for the characters who inhabit it, and two particular candidates have taken the country by storm utilizing this new and exciting platform. I am, of course, talking about the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and the illustrious Donald J. Trump.

                Such a contest has never before taken place on our soil. Anybody familiar with American politics is well aware that nominations are generally decided more so by the depth of pockets rather than depth of arguments. While money has certainly not been removed from the equation, additional variables, made possible by high-speed information transmission, have off-balanced the long standing equation of establishment politics.

                Thinking back to the beginning of the election cycle, the tone has certainly changed. The reason for which is the diminishing significance of so-called establishment rhetoric. This perceived impotence arguably first made itself known with the rise of the Tea Party, and the legitimization of the libertarian angle with Ron Paul’s commendable 2012 run for president, garnering an alarming 50% support from American military voters. While many consider supporting a third party nothing more than “throwing away your vote,” others possess a broader viewpoint.

                The thought of having a 3^rd party running for office is unsettling for the many who can’t conceive anything outside of the hard-lined, big money, petro-politics that the pre-millennial generations have grown up knowing nothing other than. However, the changing tone of high-speed media has opened up the debate in a way that not only undercuts establishment rhetoric, but it has many growing up in a reality where the norm is completely non-existent. While concentrated efforts and enormous sums of money have worked hard to put televisions in every living room in America, the open format of the internet has nearly obliterated any semblance of political or scientific consensus within the national community. There is no establishment to the populist base of voters who have shocked the U.S. status quo and garnered the attention of the rest of the interconnected world. The turn from television and big newspapers as main propagators of news media, to the free and open internet has had an irrevocable effect on the way people go about getting their information, as well as the way candidates go about publicizing themselves.

                While the effect may have come off as a mere disturbance back at the beginning of the cycle, the legitimate possibility of a Sanders or Trump White House is very much being discussed among the grass root bases who support them. While mainstream media continues to downplay this reality with silly statistics such as “likability ratings,” there likewise exist polls that make one wonder why the media bothers expending so many resources on such poorly thought out propaganda. A new survey conducted by the Media Insight Project gauged the opinions of 2,014 U.S. adults across the country. What the surveyors concluded was that a mere 6% of adults expressed “a lot of confidence” in U.S. mainstream media sources.

                No matter your preference, Sanders and Trump have done irreparable damage to the corporate media apparatus, as well as the corrupted bi-fascist parties that have been dominating the playing field since before the civil war. Both have done so in a way that no established candidate could have. This warrants further explanation.

                On the blue side, one could go as far to say that Bernie Sanders didn’t have a hippie’s chance on Wall Street of garnering the support he would need to take on the Clinton crime syndicate. In spite of these odds, he has managed to raise more money from more supporters than any candidate who has come before him. His model will be critically studied and widely implemented in the years to come. This is something no candidate could have achieved in the age before smartphones. The effect of that success has been the gift of a podium that the mainstream cannot revoke. This puts Bernie in an interesting position: it gives him the ability to say whatever he wants, though the man has been restrained to say the least in regards to attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

                While Clinton’s ties to Wall Street are not news to many (especially those who consider themselves part of the opposing party), many lifetime democrats are perking up to this long-standing reality in response to the impressively composed Sanders campaign. He has exposed the Clinton contradiction to the left in a way that no Republican candidate (including Donald Trump) could have ever dreamed of. The bi-polar nature of political opinions in the U.S.A. make it nearly impossible for candidates on either party to impose lasting damage to the opposing side. It isn’t until parties begin exposing the corruption within themselves that respective voter bases fully consider the critiques being put forth. Sanders’ composed, yet scathing comments towards Hillary Clinton have had this effect.

                The same truth is just as applicable to the red side. It would be unimaginable to believe that a Clinton could successfully convince the Republican voting base that corruption is visceral throughout its own ranks. However, insurgencies within the Republican party have invigorated voters, and had an effect similar to that which Sanders has brought down on the Democrats. The biggest difference is that the Republican insurgency has a greater momentum. After the disastrous eight-year Bush Jr. presidency, a rising Tea Party movement began mustering the support of financial conservatives and angry, intelligent rednecks all over the country. Initially led by voices like Ron Paul and Alex Jones, the Tea Party phenomenon didn’t take long to attract the scorn of the IRS as well as the injection of big money into the ranks, resulting in the likes of Ted Cruz (and many others) masquerading as agents of fiscal and social reform.

                While the Tea Party has lost most of its steam, it had a desirable effect in the sense that it displayed to the entire country how acceptable it really is to step outside of established party lines. It also helped articulate the effect that big money can have when allowed to permeate through a budding grass roots movement. Enter Donald Trump to capitalize on the residual discontent that the Tea Party movement helped to churn up.

                Both parties have been split as a result of the outspoken populists; variety has been injected into the mix of American politics for the first time since the end of the Second World War, and the rise of the Libertarians has a truly silent (and possibly completely new) voting base ready to pounce on the opportunity at hand.

                It is interesting to note, given the current political landscape, that establishment rhetoric seems to have hit an all-time low in regards to its ability to stimulate and invigorate American voters. Party leaders have even gone as far to say that “votes don’t matter” in preparation for the upcoming conventions that will decide who will don the title of “nominee.” A centrist such as myself can’t help but fathom (rather, fantasize over) the possibility of both Sanders and Trump getting politically worked over by unfair convention tactics and running in spite of who receives the nomination. The danger of splitting votes as once feared by any third party candidate is then nullified, as both parties would be split. Add Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson into the mix, and suddenly we have a five-party system as well as an undoubtedly much larger voter turnout. Things could get rather interesting following this line.

                The next president of the United States could potentially win the bid with only 21% of the popular vote. Not only that, but such a quantum-leap would open up the landscape for the new parties to stay established while illustrating the possibility and methods to which other populist movements can gain their own representation within the system. Successfully doing so would disorient the shadow government beyond its ability to effectively control the U.S. political system as it currently does.

                If there has ever been a time for change, 2016 has opened up the possibility. As illustrated by contemporary populist movements, change starts at home. Every day voters can make a difference, and this writer is personally fed up with hour-long political debates that all-too-often end with at least one participant concluding “well, there’s nothing we can do about it anyway.” Anybody who knows how to push the power button on a television set can debunk that self-defeating, un-American bullshit. Anybody with a history book can look back even further to take in the magnitude of change that has occurred, and anybody with a brain can get out and participate in the system that so many have laid their lives down trying to preserve. In this century, there is no establishment.