About our Corporate “News” Media Premature Announcement that Clinton Clinched the Nomination
Last edited Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Anybody who’s paid attention knows that our corporate “news” media is nothing but a conglomerate of highly paid shills dedicated to nothing so much as maintaining the status quo in our country – and has been so for many years. But yesterday’s announcement that Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination for President has to be one of the most blatantly ridiculous things they’ve ever engaged in – coming on the heels of one of the worst episodes of voter suppression we’ve seen in a long time, in a primary season that has been sickeningly filled with such episodes.
Hillary Clinton has NOT clinched the Democratic nomination, and our corporate “news” media knows that. To win the Democratic nomination a candidate needs 2,383 delegates. Clinton is currently more than 500 pledged delegates short of that, and she will still be short that number going into the Democratic National Convention in July. In order to arrive at the “conclusion” that Clinton clinched the nomination yesterday, our corporate news media had to add in unpledged delegates (i.e. Superdelegates) who say that they will vote for Clinton but who won’t actually vote until the Convention in July. Therefore, the claim that Clinton has clinched the nomination is essentially based on a poll – of Superdelegates. So our “news” media may as well have awarded her the nomination before the first vote was cast, based on national polls that showed her far ahead of any other Democratic candidate.
We could argue all day about the wisdom of including unelected Superdelegates in the nominating process, and I’m not going to argue that here, one way or the other. Suffice it to say that the rationale is to give Democratic Party leaders more say in the process, especially in the event that they feel that the leader in pledged delegates is too weak to have a good chance of winning the general election. That is exactly what they are facing in this case. Hillary Clinton has unprecedented negative net favorability ratings for a major party nominee, and she is involved in major scandals that could end up in indictment and conviction on criminal charges at worst, or just continued revelations that cause her favorability ratings to plummet further at best. That is also unprecedented for a major party nominee. Furthermore, a substantial amount of evidence has accumulated that election fraud may be the primary basis for her current lead, and this issue may or may not come up at the Convention, I don’t know.
In any event, the bottom line is that the Superdelegates have not voted yet, and they will not vote until the July Convention. Arguments will be made at the Convention, and then they will decide. A lot can happen between now and then. As is the case with all polls, the Superdelegates who currently say they will be voting for Clinton could change their minds before it’s all over.
= new reply since forum marked as read
because the media running the country is not democratic in any way, shape or form. 
Seems those who like to redistribute the wealth seem to have gotten classified enemies of the state, even when loyal.
CIA Out of Control
Russ Baker
Village Voice, Sept. 10, 1991
EXCERPT...
Dellums press secretary Max Miller says the representative from
Berkeley, together with majority whip David Bonior--another
outspoken liberal--made an agreement with Speaker Thomas Foley to
maintain a low profile in return for gaining seats on the committee.
After one full round of legislation and briefings, Miller says,
Dellums will be heard from. "They wanted to find out as much as
they could before speaking out." Meanwhile, the energetic Oliver
North, in his role as president of something called the Freedom
Alliance, has launched a campaign to collect a million Dump Dellums
signatures. He calls Dellums "a pro-Marxist, antidefense radical,"
who would be a threat on the "supersensitive" committee. Putting
Dellums on the panel, North says, was an "extremely reckless and
very dangerous appointment."
And those who make trouble get trouble. Reports and rumors that
the apparatus pokes into the personal lives of members of Congress
underlines the danger of investigating national security agencies.
"There's a little bit of fear that if you do go after the
intelligence community, your career is threatened," says McGehee,
author of "Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA." Even the
complacent Senate intelligence committee chair David Boren has
reason to worry. According to the "Voice"'s Doug Ireland (see Press
Clips, May 28), Boren faced a vicious primary battle in his first
senatorial campaign, during which his opponents accused him of being
a homosexual. At a press conference, Boren swore on a white Bible
that he was not. "It would therefore be utterly churlish," Ireland
wrote, "to speculate on whether or not the Company has a file on the
state of its tamed watchdog's libido." Since then, Boren has called
Robert Gates "one of the most candid people we've ever dealt with."
Leading congressional critics of the CIA have been defeated,
despite their long, distinguished careers in Washington and
Congress's nearly foolproof 98 per cent reelection rate. Both Otis
Pike and Frank Church were defeated soon after chairing their
precedent-setting '70s hearings. Pike's report had been so
incendiary that Congress voted not to release it before the White
House had a chance to censor the document. (It was ultimately
leaked to and published by the "Voice."
Pike's committee staff
director had been warned by the CIA special counsel, "Pike will pay
for this, you wait and see--we'll destroy him for this," according
to "The New York Times." Also defeated were outspoken senators Dick
Clark, Birch Bayh, and Harold Hughes. Foreign money--possibly South
African--is believed to have financed the defeat of Clark, a vocal
critic of the CIA and U.S. ties with South Africa.
Challenging the CIA also means trying to rein in dictatorial
tendencies that naturally accrue to the occupant of the Oval Office.
"Every president of the United States, no matter what he says before
he becomes president, about how he's going to clean things up," says
Marchetti, "once he gets in there and finds out that's *his* agency,
that's *his* intelligence community, hey, all bets are off."
One man who told the truth blew his chance to become CIA
director, thanks to "reformer" Jimmy Carter. Hank Knoche, acting
director following Bush's retirement, had been called down to a
Senate committee. "The chairman was complaining that `we just don't
know what's really going on,'" says Marchetti, who was privy to the
details of the incident. "They asked about covert action
operations: `Do we know all the stuff that's going on? Could you
tell us more about them?'" Asked to reveal the 10 largest ongoing
operations, Knoche offered to name a few of the lesser ones, despite
urgings from his aide that he keep his mouth shut. President Carter
reportedly heard about it, and was none too happy. Instead of
Knoche, the odds-on favorite for the slot, he named intelligence
novice and old Naval Academy chum Admiral Stansfield Turner. "Hank
learned his lesson that day," says Marchetti.
CONTINUED...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.conspiracy/G8CP9pwqjvU
Toss in the NSA wall-to-wall Frank Church warned us about in 1975 and it leaves little wiggle room to rock the boat. Isn't this a nice democracy or what?
PS: Great to read ya, Time for change.
Thank you for a well written OP. I enjoyed reading it immensely. 
