Monthly Archives: January 2017

Coming to America: Mexican refugees from Pancho Villa

Mexican Immigration 1910 – 1920

Mexican refugees

Between 1910 and 1920 during the chaos of the “complex and bloody conflict” of The Mexican Revolution nearly a million Mexicans are estimated to have died.  Another million fled from the conflict in the first large wave of Mexican immigration into the United States. The social, economic  and political power struggle even drew in the United States military to cross into Mexico in 1916 in pursuit of Pancho Villa. Villa was a revolutionary general and is a hero in Mexico, but he is considered to be a rampaging bandit by my family.

Map image from Rand McNally and Company 1914 located in the Newberry Library in Chicago (Perspectives on the Mexican Revolution)

Refugees

Refugee = a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

My maternal grandparents’ family had deep roots in Mexico. During The Mexican Revolution my grandparents became refugees. They were part of the economic class targeted by the Villa revolutionaries, who seized their land and stole their property. The Villa army terrorized and killed and worse. A brave great-grandmother protected her family and home, standing off some of Villa’s forces with a rifle, before fleeing. A great-grandfather collapsed and died of a stroke watching his burning business. My grandfather hid in the hills to avoid being killed. My grandmother fled across the border by train with their young children, parents, other family and members of their household. She sewed some coins into her skirt. Arriving in San Antonio, Texas with only what they could carry, they began a new life in the United States. My grandfather was able to join them later. Some of the group of extended family eventually returned to Mexico after the conflict ended. (see addendum ***)

Below is a photo of Pancho Villa from Getty Images.

My grandparents stayed in the United States, but kept their roots in Mexico with cross border businesses and relationships living on the border in the Texas Rio Grande Valley. They raised a family and successfully integrated into the United States. Their sons fought in WWII and had successful professional careers. My mother was the youngest and born in the United States, as were some of my uncles.

Some Enchanted Evening

My father was an Indiana farm boy whose ancestors had immigrated at different points from Europe and Britain. My mother and father meeting was unlikely, but definitely kismet. In their long life together they contributed to the US economy and society in many positive ways. My parents believed in higher education. My father and mother were both bi-lingual in Spanish and English. Both earned advanced degrees, as well as making sure all of us kids were able to go to college. My grandparents and family have contributed to the United States as good citizens in many ways.


The song “Some Enchanted Evening” always reminds me of my mother and father. (1958 recording of movie “South Pacific” sung by Giorgio Tozzi)


#Nowall

Thankfully my grandparents and my young uncles fleeing from war in Mexico did not find a “Wall” of rules or a high fence to block their entrance. There was a legal way to arrive and to stay in the United States and work towards becoming naturalized citizens.

Thank you, Pancho Villa and Thank you, America

My appreciation for Pancho Villa is because his revolution helped bring my mother’s family to the United States. I am very fortunate to have been born a citizen of this great nation and I do not take that privilege for granted.

*** Memories from another sibling on what we were told about family story:

“I was told Pancho Villa personally shot one relative’s husband because the relative did not gather up his horses fast enough to turn them over to Pancho Villa’s men. One of Grandfather’s brothers was kidnapped and the family had to ransom him back.

I was told one of the cousin family groups (like a cousin twice removed relationship) saw a dead young woman in the streets with a little girl clinging to her trying to nurse. They grabbed up the child and kept running taking the child with them to America and making her a daughter of their family. When Grandmother was delivering identical twins (our uncles) one twin was breach. Grandfather went out to get a doctor in the town, but every time he came to a street he was asked “Who are you for? Who are you with?”. He feared being shot for a wrong answer. Grandfather was not able to find a physician to come. Grandmother’s mother managed to deliver the twins.” Only a few days old these twins were brought to America and contributed to and loved this great land, even as they also loved their original homeland of Mexico.

Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political Landscapes with Legislative Reform on the Horizon By Faye Hipsman, Doris Meissner

Library of Congress: The History of Mexican Immigration to the U.S. in the Early 20th Century

The Mexican Revolution and the United States in the Collections of the Library of Congress U.S. Relations with Mexico Post-Columbus, NM

Mexican Migration to the United States Historian Miguel A. Levario, from Texas Tech University, interviewed on 15Minute History

Perspectives on the Mexican Revolution historical collection in the Newberry Research Library in Chicago

USA Immigration and Citizenship 1865-1924 historical collection in the Newberry Research Library in Chicago

We are a nation of immigrants.

We are a nation of immigrants.

Coming to America

This animated map from Business Insider shows the history of immigration from the first permanent settlement in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 to the 2000s.

“Today, more than 1 in 8 Americans are immigrants, and almost all are descendants of those born in foreign lands.”

Click the following link: Immigration for an interactive graphic showing how immigration has changed over the last 200 years. Created by Alvin Chang for Vox (April 26, 2016)

States regulated immigration until the opening of the first federal immigration station at Ellis Island, New York in 1892. Between 1892 to 1954 there were 12 million immigrants who entered, lighted to our shores by Lady Liberty’s torch.  In 1965, Congress passed the “Immigration and Nationality Act”, which allowed sponsoring of family members. There has also been illegal / undocumented immigration into the country by overstaying of tourist visas or entry through the open borders.

As Neil Diamond lyrics in the song, “Coming to America”, tell of the story: “We’ve been travelling far. / Only want to be free. / Everywhere around the world. / Got a dream they’ve come to share. They’re coming to America.”

Various links:

U.S. Immigration before 1965 (by History.com)

An Age of Migration: Globalization and the Root Causes of Migration

The Causes of Earlier European Immigration to the United States

Vox.com: 37 maps that explain how America is a nation of immigrants (October 2015)

Center for American Progress: The Facts on Immigration Today (as of October 2014)

 

“Welcome to America” is our nation’s strength

 Welcome to America

Our nation is a land of immigrants and that is a great strength. Everyone, except the native inhabitants, in the United States came or were brought to this land from other shores relatively recently in historical terms. Our country has fought to stay united and for all of our people. As citizens we have a responsibility to not allow our differences to separate us, but to bond together around our common love for this country. What can and should bind us together is a desire for life with opportunities and freedom.

We the People

We aren’t a nation of one race or language or religion. We are a nation of an idea and a philosophy. We should work towards the perfection of this ideal.  We should focus on what binds us and not about what separates us. We are a nation of people who follow the principles in the US Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Defend the Constitution

Our nation should be embracing more immigration with more forms of “work visas” and pathways to citizenship. We should be bringing the best and brightest to join our nation with open arms. The Statue of Liberty holds up her shining light to welcome those “yearning to breathe free“. We should welcome more people and not pick and choose whether those seeking this same love of freedom look or worship exactly like us. We should look for people to bring to this nation who believe in our principles.


America is freedom – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise – and freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs protection. – Ronald Reagan 1989


Wikipedia: Immigration to United States of America

Wikipedia: History of immigration to the United States

Wikipedia: United States Constitution

US Constitution

Reagan Library: Ronald Reagan Final Address January 11, 1989

Wikipedia: Shining City On a Hill

 

Senator Brown grills Steven Mnuchin, nominee for US Treasury Secretary

US Treasury Secretary Confirmation Hearing by US Finance Committee

Nominee: Steven Mnuchin

Senator: Sherrod Brown of Ohio

Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 

Time: 10:00 AM

Location: 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Senator Brown (B): Let’s clear up one thing.. your words…

Banks are not highly incented to do modifications for their borrowers.

That’s why we had a systemic breakdown. That’s why so many families lost their homes and banks were forced to pay millions of dollars in fines and remediation. So put that aside… I want to talk about your situation.

Senator Brown leans on his hand during questioning

You bought the ability to help families stay in their homes. That’s not what you did.

I understand your defensiveness, both in individual meetings – mine and others, and in this committee about what happened at OneWest.

But… let me lay this out, in 2006, businessman Donald Trump responded to a question about the possibility of a real estate crash by saying “I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy.”

Now you didn’t just buy properties. You bought the bank. You bought the ability to help families stay in their homes. That’s not what you did.

So my questions are these. You’ve been saying that OneWest is a success. Let’s look at the record, I really want yes or no answers because I have a lot of questions and what I will say is factual in my view. I’d like you to confirm with yes or no.

Is it true that community groups say that OneWest, specifically the California Reinvestment Coalition, foreclosed on 60,000 families nationwide and denied 3/4ths of mortgage modification applications.

Mnuchin (M): I am not aware of that, I know they…

B: Well, they did.

Steven Mnuchin frustratedly looks down and waves hands while being questioned.

If you know they did, then why are you asking me? I don’t have it in front of me.

M: If you know they did, then why are you asking me?

B: I want to hear it from you. If you don’t know it…

M: I don’t have it in front of me.

B: I’m going to keep interrupting because we don’t have a lot of time. I apologize if you see that as rude.

M: I don’t see that as rude. That’s okay. Thank you.

B: Is it true that OneWest regulators, that’s the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of Currency – US Department of the Treasury), said that you had deficient mortgage practices, closed on 10,000 plus borrowers without proper procedure and at least 23 who were current on their mortgages?

M: So, what I would say is we followed the same procedures that the…

B: Did the OCC say that?

M: …the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) followed. We inherited the FDIC procedures.

Senator Orrin Hatch: Let him answer the question.

Senator Brown presses the questions gesturing with both hands

Yes or no?

B:   Is it true that OneWest independent audit firm said that it violated the Service Members Civil Relief Act by initiating foreclosures on 54 active duty military families? That’s what the independent audit firm said. Yes or no?

M: Well, you have the document in front of you. I don’t. Ok, so… let me just say..

B: I’m pretty surprised… sorry Mr. Mnuchin that I’m surprised you don’t know these things because you’ve been rather defensive, for probably good reason, about what happened at OneWest.

M: I do want to just comment for the record. We unfortunately did foreclose on certain people in the military. It was quite unfortunate. It was inappropriate. We responded to those people and made them whole. As I said, that every single person had the opportunity to have their mortgage reviewed and we corrected any errors. Our errors were less than anybody else, so it is not that I’m being defensive but I’m proud of our results.

Mr. Mnuchin twitches and purses his lips while answering questions

it is not that I’m being defensive

B: I would not be proud of these findings, but…

Is it true that the California Attorney General’s office said that OneWest backdated 96% of the documents they examined and then you aggressively obstructed their investigation? That’s what the Attorney General’s office said. Did they say that?

M: So first let me comment that I sought the leaked memo, as you did. I think it is highly inappropriate that somebody at the Attorney General’s office would leak internal..

B: Was there no truth to backdating…

M: Again, what I would say is the primary regulator was the OCC. They were the one’s who had the obligation to regulate.

B: The OCC said… Mr. Mnuchin, I’m sorry, but OCC said you had these deficient mortgage practices, which you couldn’t remember when I asked you about OCC. Now you are citing OCC in response to California Attorney General.

Senator Brown asks tough questions.

Is it true…

Is it true that one of the employees who was in charge of the modifications. One of employees accused OneWest of not having any process to help its 3,000 FHA and VA mortgage borrowers avoid foreclosure and that this same employee, who was in charge of modifications, has accused OneWest of not having a proper process in place to help those VA mortgage borrowers avoid foreclosures and submitting false claims.

M: It seems to me, in all due respect, that you just want to shoot questions at me and not let me explain what are complicated issues.

B: I’ll let you explain after I go through the questions because I know one answer will take my whole time, so I’ll let you explain when I’m done.

M: Well, then let’s… at least understand these are complicated questions.

B: They are complicated questions.

Mr. Mnuchin is frustrated in having questions asked with no chance to explain.

Let me explain…

M: Let me at least explain them and otherwise there is no point in shooting them all at me when I don’t have the ability to respond.

B: You don’t, but these are factual things.  You can follow-up a response later in more detail.

One example of, you can answer this and take as long as you need, One example of an insider loan that was a Relativity Media deal that the FBI denied a FOIA  (Freedom of Information Act) request related to Relativity Media where you were co-chair siting enforcement procedures. Have you been questioned by law enforcement on this? Yes or no?

M: I have not and I saw that you wrote that letter yesterday. I assume that the FBI did a thorough review of my background report. I have no idea why they didn’t approve the FOIA issue. I’ve been told that we have no reason to believe that’s any issue associated with me.

B:  Fair enough.

M: That you should direct that to the FBI. When I had the opportunity to meet with you…

Mr. Mnuchin often purses his lips when looking frustrated at the questions.

Mnuchin purses his lips and twitches his shoulders when appearing frustrated at the questioning.

B: I accept your answer that you are not being investigated, but I find it interesting that you know about the letter I sent yesterday. The letter I sent with all those questions detailing all of the issues that I just asked about with Bank West – West Bank – One West.

M: OneWest

B: OneWest, I apologize.

M: My father forgot the name sometimes as well.

B: But the letter I sent you back in mid-December about this you’ve not even taken the time to answer and it really laid all those… I think the issue is the OneWest purchase went well for the Treasury Secretary designee, but it was a disaster for homeowners, for employees, for investors in Relativity and for taxpayers. We can talk more about taxpayer cost on this whole process and the amount of money that he bought it for and sold it for, but mostly subsidized by taxpayers.

Orrin Hatch: Senator your time is up. Now you take as much time you want to answer.

M: Thank you very much. First of all, Senator. I did enjoy meeting you.

B: Thanks.

I don’t believe we had the opportunity to meet before that time. If I’m confirmed I look forward to spending more time with you.

B: Thank you for saying that.

M: I know that you have some.. although we may not agree on everything, there were certain things we did agree on when we met and I have a lot of respect as you as a Senator to hear your issues. Now I did tell you, I did acknowledge that you sent me the letter. I was advised by the staff that the appropriate thing was for me to come here and answer questions , or meet with all of you independently and answer questions that you have. And if I don’t satisfy that you have the ability to make questions afterwards which I will respond to.

When I came to your office I told you that and I said that I would spend as much time with you as you wanted answering those questions and they were quite significant and, you know, because I knew they were complicated. So I did tell you although I wouldn’t respond to them in writing. At that point that I did understand your questions and I wanted to address them.

Steven Mnuchin chastised Senator Brown for not letting him answer questions, then ends without actually answering anything.

I did tell you although I wouldn’t respond to them in writing.

Mnuchin stopped speaking without actually addressing any of the questions. He sat up straight and stared straight ahead. Another Senator started to welcome him to begin their questioning.

End of transcript. (Transcribed by my listening to Hearing with screen grabs on 01/24/2017)

Senate Finance Committee Hearing to consider the nomination of Steven Mnuchin for Secretary of the Treasury


Is this who should be our next Secretary of the Treasury? I vote no and have written to my two state Senators.

Contact your state Senators to let them know what you think about this nominee.

Senate.gov

==================================

www.senate.gov US Finance Committee

https://www.finance.senate.gov/library/executive-session-transcripts Official transcript of meeting should show up in Library in a couple of months after session.

Wikipedia: US Senate Finance Committee

Wikipedia: Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio)

Wikipedia: Steven Mnuchin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury

US Secretary of the Treasury

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), formerly known as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), is a federal law that provides protections for military members as they enter active duty. It covers issues such as rental agreements, security deposits, prepaid rent, eviction, installment contracts, credit card interest rates, mortgage interest rates, mortgage foreclosure, civil judicial proceedings, automobile leases, life insurance, health insurance and income tax payments.

Onewest Bank

Wikipedia: Onewest Bank

Relativity Media

Wikipedia: Relativity Media

FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, which simultaneously serves as the nation’s prime federal law enforcement agency.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency created by the Congress to maintain stability and public confidence in the nation’s financial system by: insuring deposits; examining and supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection; making large and complex financial institutions resolvable; and managing receiverships.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law that gives you the right to access information from the federal government. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government.

FHA Loans – Housing and Urban Development An FHA loan is a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration. Borrowers with FHA loans pay for mortgage insurance, which protects the lender from a loss if the borrower defaults on the loan.

Veteran’s Administration (VA) Loans The VA Loan is a home-mortgage option available to United States Veterans, Service Members, and eligible surviving spouses. VA Loans are issued by qualified lenders and guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Transcript of Vice President Joe Biden at World Economic Forum Davos 2017

Special address of Vice President Joe Biden at World Economic Forum Davos 2017

Personally listened to speech and transcribed fully

Other transcriptions (such as Fortune magazine) left out sections

Good morning everyone. I want to thank you and Klaus for your hospitality here and in the United States. You visit me in the United States, you still act as the host. You are so very very gracious.

My name is Joe Biden. I will be Vice President for 48 more hours — and then – tonight I get to start to say what I think, as if I haven’t for the last 44 years. (big smile). Klaus is not part of my presentation, but I promise you I have met so many incredible people around the world that was we begin to reorganize the system of the delivery of both care, as well as the way we attack cancer.. I am confident… absolutely confident – god willing if you have me back next year to talk about the project that we will be making exponential progress. There is so much hope and I’m so happy to see you looking and feeling so well.

Ladies and gentleman, It’s a great honor once again to address this distinguished forum, but this year in these early days of 2017 there is a palpable uncertainty of the state of the world. Klaus said I chose here to make my last speech when the President and I talked about this, President Obama and I, it seemed a fitting place to make the final speech since it was in Europe, on behalf of the United States, made the maiden speech for our  administration on foreign policy at the Munich conference. I want to talk about basically the same subject 8 years later. For the members of the media in the audience, I am making it clear that I am not referring the world is uneasy. I’m not referring to the imminent transition of power in our country and I mean that. In 2 days there will be a new President of the United States (someone booed… He raised his hand.. ). No, the challenges we face, the choices we must make as an international community don’t hinge exclusively on Washington’s leadership. It matters, I’m not suggesting that Washington leadership doesn’t matter, but it doesn’t hinge exclusively on Washington’s leadership.

Whether we reinforce the ties that bind us or whether we unravel under the current pressures, these choices have to be made by every single nation. They will determine, and it sounds like hyperbole, they will determine what kind of nation and what kind of nations and the world we are going to leave for our children.

For the past seven decades the choices why our fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers and grandfathers have made – particularly in the United States and our Allies in Europe –  have steered the world down a very clear path. After WWII, we literally drew a line under centuries of conflict and took steps to bend the arc of history. It sounds like hyperbole, but we actually bent the arc of history in a more just and fair direction instead of resigning ourselves to ceaseless wars. We built institutions and alliances to advance our shared security.

Instead of punishing former enemies, we invested billions and billions of dollars to help them rebuild. Instead of sorting the world into winners and losers, we outlined universal values that defined a better future for our children.

Our careful, and I mean, careful attention to building and sustaining the liberal international world order with United States and Europe at its core was the bedrock of the success the world enjoyed in the 2nd half of the 20th century. An era of expanded liberty, unprecedented economic growth that lifted millions out of poverty, a community of democracies that to this day serves as a fulcrum for our common security and our capacity to address the world’s most pressing problems.

Strengthening these values, values that have served our community of nations so well, for so long, is paramount to retaining the position of leadership the Western nations enjoy and preserving the progress we’ve made together and, I would argue, the health of the remainder of the world.

In recent years, it has become very evident that the consensus upholding this system is beginning to face incredible and increasing pressures from both within our countries and without.

Today I’d like to speak to the sources of those pressures, as I see it, and about why it is imperative that we act urgently to defend the liberal international order, to sustain it.

Here in this exclusive Alpine tower, where CEOs of multinational corporations rub elbows with world leaders, it is easy to embrace the intellectual benefits of a more open and integrated world. Many many benefits flow from it.

It is at our own peril that we ignore and to miss the legitimate fears and anxieties that exist in communities all across the developed world.

The concerns of mothers and fathers how they feel about losing that factory job that has always allowed them to provide for their families and the expectation that their children would even have a better life. Parents who don’t believe they can give their children a better life than they had.

My Dad used to have an expression “Joey, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck” It is about your dignity, it is about your sense of yourself, it is about self-respect, it is about being able to look your child in the eye and say and mean “Honey it is going to be okay.” An awful lot of people felt that way a decade ago aren’t so sure. These are pressures that are undermining the support for the liberal international order from inside.

Globalization has not been an all ? good. I’m a free trader. I’m a strong supporter of globalization, but it has deepened the rift between those racing ahead at the top and those struggling to hang on in the middle or falling to the bottom.

One year ago, I spoke here in Davos about the challenges we face mastering the fourth industrial revolution – which will be a topic of this Forum for the next 10 years – about how can we insure the benefits and burdens of globalization, digitalization, artificial intelligence are shared more equitably.

In my country, there used to be a basic bargain beginning in the mid-20th century embraced by both political parties disagreed only in degree. It was something everyone agreed on. The basic bargain was that if you contributed to the success of the enterprise in which you were engaged you got to share in the benefits and the profits. That bargain has been fractured in my country and many of yours.

Advanced technology has divorced productivity from labor. We are making more than ever with fewer and fewer workers. There is a shrinking demand for low skill laborers while highly educated workers are getting paid more and more contributing to the rising inequity. It is based on a meritocracy, but it still has painful outcomes in some places. International trade and greater economic integration has lifted millions of people in the developing world out of abject poverty. Improving education, extending their lives, their expectations and opening new opportunities

Standards of living are still well below middle class expectations in the United States and Europe, but the change is real and good. Meanwhile many communities in the developed world that have long depended on manufacturing – the opposite is true. Their relative standard of living has declined. They feel shut out of opportunities. Their economic security feels jeopardized. Taken together these forces are effectively hollowing out the middle class, the traditional engine of economic growth and, I might add, of social stability in Western nations. We can’t undo the changes in technology has wrought in our world – nor should we try.

But we can and we must take action to mitigate the economic trends that are stoking unrest in so many advanced economies and undermining people’s basic sense of dignity.

Our goals should be a world where everyone’s standard of living is rising. There is an urgency to taking common sense steps like increasing cognitive capabilities through access to education and job training.

In my country back when I was a young Senator, even in the ’90s, I would talk.. it was very much in vogue to talk to graduating high school and college seniors. I’d say you are going to have seven jobs in your lifetime. I wondered why they didn’t look back at me and smile and say “Isn’t that great.”  Continuing education whether you’re an astrophysicist or you working on the assembly line is going to be required.

Insuring basic protection for workers has evaporated from what they were 20 years ago in most of our countries. Expanding access to capital, implementing progressive equitable tax systems where everyone pays their fair share.

I said to a group of folks like you last night..  the top 1% is not carrying their weight. You aren’t bad guys, you are all good guys.

I pointed out.. imagine in terms of standard of living… Imagine most middle class societies like European societies and ours, a person can’t get much of a raise, but if you told them all their kids would get a free college education they’d be very very thankful. A raise or free college education? They’d take the free college education. We can afford to do that in a heartbeat.

In the United States of America we have $1 Trillion 300 Billion tax expenditures per year. Used to be $800 Billion when Reagan was President. No one I have found can justify that many expenditures. Only two reasons for those expenditures, tax breaks… one, promote entrepreneurialism, generate risk, have people engage in productivity, increasing productivity or promoting social good.

This thing called “stepped up basis”  – you have similar things in other countries. You buy a stock, it increases 4 fold over a period of time. It goes from $1 million to $4 million. You are on your way to cash it in. You are going to pay capital gains on $3 million. But on the way god forbid you are hit by a truck and your daughter inherits it.  She pays no tax. No evidence it generates increased productivity of investment that tax-free money. It costs the Federal government $17 billion a year.

I can pay for every single solitary student in the United States of America going to a community college raising the number from 6 to 9 million, increasing productivity by 2/10ths of 1%, for $ 6 billion a year. Eliminate that one tax expenditure. I can increase productivity, I can cut the deficit by another $11 billion. That’s what I mean by more equity in the tax structure. People paying their fair share.

But compounding these economic worries are people’s fears about the real security risks we face.

If you look at the long streak of history or even just the trend lines in wars and other incidents of large-scale violence over the 50, 60, 70 years. As a practical matter we are probably safer than we have ever been, but it doesn’t feel that way. Daily images of violence and unrest from all over the world are shared directly on televisions and smart phones. Images we rarely would have seen in the pre-digital age. It fosters the feeling of perpetual chaos, of being overrun by outside forces. Communication technology has fostered incredible progress making information more accessible, breaking down barriers between people and nations, facilitating greater scientific collaboration, empowering ordinary citizens to challenge injustice and hold their government’s accountable.

But they also have given hateful individuals a megaphone to spread their virulent extremist ideologies. Radical jihadists not only recruit and find haven in ungoverned deserts of Iraq and Syria. They do the same in the ungoverned spaces of the internet.

Borders seem less real to people. Terrorist attacks seem more inescapable. Fears of unrelenting migration mount as people continue to flee violence and deprivation in their homelands. In the wake of these understandable fears we see the series of alarming responses.

Popular movements both on the left and the right have demonstrated a dangerous willingness to revert to political small mindedness. To the same nationalist, protectionist, isolationist agendas that lead the world to consume itself in war during the past century. We’ve seen time and again throughout history dangerous demagogues and autocrats who have emerged seeking to capitalize on people’s insecurities. This is nothing new in history. In this case using Islamophobic, anti-Semitic,  xenophobic rhetoric to stir fear, sow division, and advance their own agendas. This is at political odds with our values and with a vision that we built and sustains the liberal international order.

The impulse is to hunker down, shut the gates, build walls, exit at this moment is precisely the wrong answer. It offers a false sense of security in the interconnected world. It is not going to resolve the root causes of these fears and it risks eroding from inside out the foundations of the very systems that had spawned the West’s historically unprecedented success.

We need to tap into the big-heartedness that conceived the Marshall Plan, the foresight that planned Breton Woods, the audacity that proposed the United Nations. We can’t rout fear with retrenchment. This is a moment to lead boldly and recommit ourselves to the common principles which remain essential to my nation and to all liberal democracies all over the world.

Of course, their are those who don’t share this vision of the world and those who wish to dissolve the community of democracies and supporting institutions in favor of parochial international order where power rules and spheres of influence lock in and divide nations. We are hearing those voices in the West, but the greatest threat on this front springs from the distinct illiberal and external actors who equate their success with fracturing the liberal international order.

We see it in Asia and the Middle East,  where China and Iran would clearly prefer a world in which they have overwhelming sway in their regions. I won’t mince words. This movement is principally led by Russia. Under President Putin, Russia is working with every tool available to them to whittle away at the edges of the European project, test the fault lines among western nations and return to a politics defined by spheres of influence. We see it in their aggression against of their neighbors sending in so-called “little green men” across borders to stir violence and strains of separatism in Ukraine, using energy as a weapon cutting off gas supplies mid-winter, raising prices to manipulate nations to act in Russia’s interest, using corruption to empower oligarchs to coerce politicians.

We see it in the worldwide use of propaganda and false information campaigns, injecting doubt and political agitation in democratic systems, strengthening illiberal factions and forces on both left and right to seek out and roll back the decades of progress from within our systems. We were sought in the cyber intrusions against political parties and individuals in the Unites States of America which our intelligence community all 17 have determined “with high confidence”,  I’ve been doing this for 46 years and they seldom use the phrase “high confidence”,  that they were specifically motivated to influence the elections. It is not only the United States, I need not tell you, that has been targeted. Europe has seen the same attacks in the past. With many countries in Europe slated to hold elections this year we should expect further attempts by Russia to meddle in the democratic process. It will occur again, I promise you.

Again the purpose is clear, to collapse the liberal international order. Simply put Mr.  Putin has a different vision of the future, one of which Russia is pursuing across the board. It seeks to return to a world where strong imposes will through military might, corruption and criminality while weaker nations have to fall in line.

From the first  moments of our administration, even as we sought to press the so-called “reset” button with then-President Medvedev – President Obama and I made clear that this is not way for nations to behave in the 21st century.

I was asked to layout our policy in Munich in 2009 February when at the Conference, I said quote “We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and to choose their own alliances.” end of quote.

That was our position, that is our position that should be our position. That has been our position for the last 8 years and is a position that needs to be continued to be championed in the years ahead.

Look, the United States hasn’t always been the perfect guardian of that order, of our order. We have not always lived up to our values and some of our past missteps have provided fodder for the forces of illiberalism. But President Obama and I have worked consistently in the past 8 years to lead not only by example of our power, but by the power of our example.

This is the challenge that will by necessity define the foreign policy agendas of all of our nations as we move forward, so although I’m only going to be Vice President for 48 more hours, I’m here today to issue a call to action.

We cannot wait for others to write the future that they hope to see. The US and Europe has to lead the fight to defend the values that have brought us where we are today. The fight to create a more equitable and more inclusive growth for people at every level, not only in our continents but across the world. A fight for democracy where ever it is under threat whether be it at home or abroad. A fight to lift up forces of inclusion while opposing intolerance in all its guises. A fight to embrace that world order that has gotten us here. Fight to urge those to reject isolationism and protectionism. Fight to block the dangerous proposition (and it is a proposition now) that facts no longer matter.

I work with a wonderful guy in the United States Senate with a great sense of humor. He was the Senator from Wyoming. We’d be in a debate.. he’d stand up and say “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” That the truth holds no inherent power in a world where propagandists, demagogues and extremists carry sway?

Join this fight. We have to continue to invest in this democratic alliances. As it has been for seven decades, the unity of Trans Atlantic connection is essential to addressing the global challenges we all face. Defending the liberal international order requires we resist the forces of European disintegration and maintain our long-standing insistence on a Europe whole, free, and at peace. It means fighting for the European Union. Presumptuous of me to say that as an American. One of the most vibrant and consequential institutions on earth. The EU has contributed to the prosperity of millions through reforms and improved living standards, driving peaceful resolutions in disputes between nations.

It has its short comings. It means keeping open the door for membership in the European and Transatlantic institutions. Those states of Europe on Europe’s eastern edge where people in places like the Balkans and Ukraine continue to strive to be part of an incredible undertaking that is the European Union.

And is used as a tool to get them to reject the illiberalism that has defined their countries for so long. To get them to attack the cancer of corruption in their states. To get them to move into the 21st century.

The EU has been an indispensable partner to the United States because as the EU and United Kingdom begin to navigate a new relationship it remains profoundly  in my country’s interest to maintain our close relationship with both parties. For all our people, I think that I can say as a fact … all our people are safer when we work together. We have to continue to stand up for those basics norms of modern nations. Principles of territorial integrity, freedom of navigation,  of national sovereignty. Where as I said in Munich… the right of all our nations to make their own decisions to choose their own alliances.

To that end, we must bolster European’s energy independence so that nations are not subject to outside manipulation and improve our cyber defenses and combat misinformation that prevents outsiders from perverting out democratic processes.

In the single greatest bulwark for Transatlantic partnership is the unshakable commitment of the United States to all of our NATO allies. It is a sacred obligation we have embraced. An attack on one is an attack on all. That can never be placed in question. In addition we have to continue to stand with Ukraine as they resist Russia’s acts of aggression and pursue the European path, as long as they are pursuing it in the way that is demanded.

In 2 days the United States will engage in an act that has defined our exceptional democracy for more than 200 years – the peaceful transition of power from one leader in one political party to another. It is my hope and expectation that the next President and Vice President of the United States and our leaders in Congress will ensure that the United States continues to fulfill our historic responsibility as the indispensable nation.

But we have never been able to lead alone. Not after World War II not during the depths of the Cold War and not today. The United States, our NATO allies, all nations of Europe – we are in this together. As the oldest and strongest democracies in the world, we have a responsibility to beat back the challenges that are at our door now.

We must never forget how far we’ve come. How we got here or take for granted that this success will continue without an awful lot of really hard work and investment.

It is only by championing the liberal international order, by continuing to invest in our security, reaffirming our shared values, expanding the cause of liberty around the world that we are going to retain our position of leadership. Because if we don’t fight for our values, no one else will.

The idea of Europe whole and free and at peace, in my opinion, constitutes one of the most audacious consequential visions of the past century. A nation and the notion that after centuries of conflict that Europe could reinvent itself as an integrated community, one committed to political solidarity, the free flow of goods and people, a solemn obligation to collective defense – and succeeded in achieving it was audacious.

The United States believed in it and still believes in it. My prayers.. people across Europe believed in it. They did and aspired to it and I hope they still believe in it. The success of the European enterprise, very simply is essential to American security in the 20th century and remains so in the 21st.

Our Atlantic alliance is the bedrock of addressing so many 21st century threats from terrorism to the spread of disease like Ebola and climate change. You heard me make this claim for four decades, but I’m not alone in this belief. America’s commitment to NATO, not-withstanding things you’ve heard recently, is thoroughly bipartisan.

Just last month my good friend and frequent sparring partner, Senator John McCain, travelled to Estonia where he said quote “the best way to prevent Russian misbehavior is by having a credible strong military, a strong NATO alliance”.

In that same trip another leading Republican and very close friend of mine, Lindsey Graham, assured Ukrainian troops serving on the front lines “Your fight is our fight”.

That’s the same sentiment expressed two days ago when I made my 6th trip to Ukraine as Vice President. History has proven that the defense of free nations of Europe has always been America’s fight and the foundation of our security. Throughout more than four decades of an incredibly divisive foreign policy debate there has always been a consensus about the value of this Transatlantic relationship. And it has to change, and it has to alter, but the essence of it has to remain.

As I enter private life, I can tell you, I will stand with you as you carry this fight forward. I will continue to use my voice and power as a citizen doing whatever I can to keep our Transatlantic Alliance strong and vibrant because our common future and the future of my children and grandchildren depends on it.

Thank you for taking the time to listen.

 

CFR members in past Presidential administrations

Members of Council on Foreign Relations in past 3 presidential administrations

Council on Foreign Relations members have dominated past administrations.

Republican or Democrat hasn’t made much actual difference, as past administrations were all filled with CFR members. There was often mostly an illusion of choice for the voters between the two parties. There have been candidates, such as Congressman Ron Paul (Republican / Libertarian), who have exposed the goals of the globalist agenda. The idea of America First and distrust of globalism has been gaining traction.

Republican Presidential debate 2007

The CFR had only had one candidate, Hillary Clinton, in this election.  Hillary Clinton’s administration would have been as equally filled with CFR members as the prior Presidents’.

Hillary Clinton speaking at CFR in 2010

Below is a list of the Council on Foreign Relations members in the last three Presidential administrations, including Cabinet members, advisers and nominations.

(links are Wikipedia)

President Barack Obama (Democrat)

John Kerry – Secretary of State  (Teresa Heinz Kerry wife of John Kerry is also CFR member)

Timothy Geithner – Secretary of Treasury

Jacob J (Jack) Lew – Secretary of Treasury

Robert Gates – Secretary of Defense

Chuck Hagel – Secretary of Defense (resigned)

Ashton Carter – Secretary of Defense

Tom Vilsack – Secretary of Agriculture

John Bryson – Secretary of Commerce

Penny Pritzker – Secretary of Commerce

Sylvia Burwell – Secretary of Health and Human Services

Ernest Moniz – Secretary of Energy

Janet NapolitanoCFR Staff bio – Secretary of Homeland Security

Jeh Charles Johnson – Secretary of Homeland Security

William Daley – Chief of Staff

Peter Orszag – Director of Office of Management and Budget

Susan Rice – Ambassador to the UN (prior member Trilateral Commission)

Michael Froman – US Trade Representative

Michael Chertoff – US Secretary of Homeland Security (Trilateral Commission member)

Thomas E. Donilon – National Security Adviser (Bilderberg Group)

Cecilia Rouse – Council of Economic Advisers

David Howell Petraeus – 4 star Army General, Director of the CIA 2011 – 2012 (resigned), Commander of United States Central Command 2008 – 2010, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force

Janet Louise Yellen –  Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System nominated by Barack Obama

Paul A. Volcker – Chair of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, prior Chair of Federal Reserve –  (member Trilateral Commission)

Henry Kissinger – Secretary of State for President Richard Nixon, adviser to every President since, and a close friend and adviser to Hillary Clinton.


President George W Bush (Republican)

Richard (Dick) Cheney – Vice President

Steve Preston – Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Henry Paulson – Secretary of the Treasury (and worked at Goldman Sachs Founders corporate member)

Robert Gates – Secretary of Defense

Mary Ann Peters – Secretary of Transportation

Condoleeza Rice – Secretary of State

Tommy G. Thompson – Secretary of Health and Human Services

Elaine L Chao – Secretary of Labor

Colin Powell – Secretary of State

Susan C. Schwab – US Trade Representative

Robert Zoellick – US Trade Representative (also Trilateral Commission) – been President of The World Bank, also a managing director of Goldman Sachs, steering committee Bilderberg Group (was a Deputy Secretary of State)

Michael Chertoff – US Secretary of Homeland Security (Trilateral Commission member)

Richard Holbrook – United States Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan (Bilderberg Group)

John Wolfowitz – United States Deputy Secretary of Defense (Bilderberg Group) – President The World Bank

Karen Parfitt Hughes – Councilor to the President

John Bolton – US Ambassador to the United Nations

Brent Scowcroft – United States National Security Advisor

Marc Alexander Thiessen – Speech writer for GWB


President Bill Clinton (Democrat)

Bill Clinton – President (current member 2016)

Chelsea Clinton – daughter (current member 2016)

Note:  not listed as a member, speaks at meetings and called New York City branch “The Mothership”. Hillary Clinton –  First Lady to President Clinton, Senator, ran for President twice

Lawrence Summers – Secretary of Treasury (also member Trilateral Commission)

Togo D. West – Secretary of Veteran Affairs

William B. Richardson – Secretary of Energy

William M. Daley – Secretary of Commerce

Madeleine Albright – Director Emerita CFR – Secretary of State (also member Trilateral Commission)

William Cohen – Secretary of Defense

Federico F. Peña – Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Transportation

Mickey Kantor – Secretary of Commerce, US Trade Representative

Daniel Glickman – Secretary of Agriculture

Robert RubinCFR staff bio – Secretary of the Treasury

William J. Perry – Secretary of Defense

Donna Shalala – Secretary of Health and Human Services

Charlene Barshefsky – US Trade Representative

Lloyd Bentsen (deceased past member – no longer listed)

Richard Holbrook – United States Ambassador to the United Nations (Bilderberg Group)

George Stephanopoulos – White House Director of Communications, Senior Adviser to the President (now major media pundit)

Sidney Blumenthal – Senior Adviser to the President

Rahm Emanuel – Senior Adviser to the President (not listed as CFR member, but his brother, Ezekiel Jonathan “Zeke”, is a member) (later Mayor of Chicago where Barack Obama was from)

Cecilia Rouse – National Economic Council 1998 to 1999

Zoë Baird – CFR Staff bio – nominated by President Bill Clinton as the first woman to be Attorney General of the United States, but she withdrew her nomination over “nannygate”

Bobby Inman – nominated by President Bill Clinton for Secretary of Defense, but he withdrew from consideration

Stephen Gerald Breyer – US Supreme Court Justice nominated

Vernon Jordan – Presidential adviser

Links:

(1) End-Times for Liberal Democracy? from CFR articles

CFR published individual membership roster Jan 17, 2017

CFR Membership from 2015 Annual Report (PDF file)

CFR Corporate membership roster Jan 17, 2017

Note: I appreciate that the Council on Foreign Relations has their membership listed publicly. Some conspiracy folks claim there is a secret list of additional members.

Other related and overlapping memberships include The Trilateral Commission and The Bilderberg Group.

Trilateral Commission membership list 2016 (PDF file)

Bilderberg meeting participants (public list)

CNN proposed Donald Trump Cabinet November 2016

Barack Obama Cabinet Members

George W. Bush Cabinet Members

Bill Clinton Cabinet Members

List someone else has done claiming connections of Goldman Sachs

Geithner Haunted by a Goldman Past He Never Had AUGUST 19, 2010 from NY Times

Who is the Council on Foreign Relations?

Who is the Council on Foreign Relations?

The CFR

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource to help better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. 

Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations says the organization “takes no institutional positions on matters of policy”, but their “principal goal is to inform the country’s foreign policy debate”.

About CFR – website

The Council on Foreign Relations is first and foremost a membership organization with about 5,000 members. New members are screened and the members are a very select group. There is a special program to cultivate the next generation of foreign policy leaders with about 800 “term” members.

Most CFR meetings are exclusively for members, but the organization publishes “Foreign Affairs” magazine and has some videos and other open dialogue available to the public.  The Corporate Program serves an international membership with about 200 leading global corporations.

About CFR brochure (PDF format)

Wikipedia: Council on Foreign Relations

The group has members in powerful positions across government, finance, business and the media spread around the globe.

The membership is divided almost equally among those living in New York, Washington, DC, and across the country and abroad, and it is a group unmatched in accomplishment and diversity in the field of international affairs.

Conspiracy theories from sane to “tin foil hat” crazy abound surrounding the Council on Foreign Relations. The following video gives a sane introduction about the organization and founding, then continues into the crazier side with Illuminati alien lizard people, so provides a good broad view.

My take….

The CFR believe in globalism over nationalism. They think and act as citizens of the world. Some say the group desires a one world government as an ultimate goal. Members do appear to want a balance of powers among major nations, as well as regional trade entities with a common organizational control by region.

The CFR view themselves as a group of leaders who should and can direct the world for the common good of the planet and humanity. Members are usually highly educated with many graduating from elite universities with advanced degrees. All members will be very intelligent and desire to think about common global problems and wanting to find solutions through discussion. They believe in the philosophy of “liberal order”.

The group grew out of a Western civilization base and tend to have a grasp of history and how empires rise and fall over the millenia. They frequently use the term “New World Order” when discussing how the world is changing and how to alter and shape the direction of international relationships between countries. They believe in pulling developing countries up, even if this means giving up power and extra benefits in the current developed countries.

The group may claim to want to prevent war, but they also believe in regime change to control the balance of powers. They believe very powerful countries have a responsibility to play world “police”. Currently the United States is the main super power, but they are planning ahead for the US to decline and other countries to rise up and assume that responsibility.

They are a group to be watched because they are very powerful and want to have control to shape minds, attitudes and the world. The control is “for our own good” because they are wiser than the average Joe. I think they have a view of being benevolent overlords to a large extent, as they bumble along trying to direct the world population – a bit like herding cats and taming lions.

There are other related associations where the “elite” – rich, powerful, connected, intelligent, highly educated – meet to discuss world affairs. These groups range from public to private and even secret cabals.

Benevolent overlord - I, FOR ONE, WELCOME OUR NEW BENEVOLENT OVERLORD Misc

Publication list of CFR

Foreign Affairs magazine (requires a subscription) $35 for new subscriber in USA

Youtube channel of CFR (public videos)  Currently 43,000 subscribers

Facebook for CFR Note: Unless signed up to Facebook, then there will be a blocking message constantly semi-obscuring your view of the pages.

Currently 315,000 followers on Twitter

Blame for Hillary’s campaign loss

There must be someone to blame.

Hillary appeared a shoe-in, particularly running against the wild card candidate of “The Donald”. How did she lose when she was a slam dunk? The Democrat party autopsy is ongoing.

For myriad reasons, Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do to the high dollar donors. If she wants to remain in politics, then she will need their backing again and their money. She has much less power or influence to peddle.

Of course, Hillary Clinton isn’t going to admit to herself or to her donors that she was a poor candidate from the start. There has to be some other reason!

“We have to understand what happened here.”

ABC News reporters at 1 AM on the night of the election were stunned as the states tipped over to Donald Trump. Those waiting for Hillary’s victory speech in the Javits Center were “bewildered” and “shell-shocked”. “We are so confused. The numbers were so wrong just all across the country.” says a reporter. Yes, they are wrong because Hillary was supposed to win.

George Stephanopoulous

“Something no one would have predicted even a day ago.” “Been a surprising evening in so many ways. In some ways an entire industry blind-sided.”

“Historical, unprecedented. We’ve said that word, unprecedented, from the very beginning.”

“I  thought Trump would win the Republican nomination based on “data” and that Hillary would win the election based on “data”.  Well, the data was wrong. Something went majorly off in all of the expectations everybody on both sides had.” (CFR member)

Matthew Dowd

“I think this is the biggest miss that the world has seen.”

“I think a country; blind-sided. An industry and a country blind-sided. Let’s just look at the expanse of it. This is from nearly every single media association that did their own polling. They weren’t in some conspiracy. They did their own polling converged on a 3 or 4 point lead. The Clinton campaign did their own polling. They were confident they were going to win this election. The Trump campaign did some semblance of polling and they were not confident they were going to win this election. Every single state poll out there… accumulation effect. I think that we are going to be asking a lot of questions for the days that are following us how was this missed.”

Martha Raddatz

“I think it had to be more than secret Trump voters, people who wouldn’t say they were voting for Trump. I didn’t find very much of that. I didn’t find really anybody who wouldn’t say “I’m voting for Trump”. But there is something else going on here that the data is missing and the polls are missing. ”

“You know who didn’t believe those polls? Donald Trump’s voters. They went out there, they listened to him saying this is not over. They didn’t listen to us. They didn’t listen to anybody else about the polls. They went out and voted.”

“I think we all got it wrong. It would be good for the Democratic party to look at what happened. Maybe we weren’t listening well enough to those voters.”

Bill Crystal

“You don’t have a historic anomaly of this magnitude and then everything goes back to normal.” “We are in uncharted waters.”

Whack-a-Scandal

Let’s face it. Hillary, unfortunately for the Democrats, was a poor choice of candidate. She had already been passed over in 2008 by a charismatic junior Senator and community organizer. Hillary added to her resume in the last 8 years. Many said she was the most qualified to be President, but that isn’t necessarily why people vote for a candidate. The years of being a junior Senator put her on par with Obama’s experience before becoming President in 2008, but saddled her with the Iraq War vote. Her years as Secretary of State only added more baggage to her pile. Private email server and Benghazi became two new issues. Investigations have definitely been a Whack-a-Mole problem for the Clintons.

When it comes to Hillary Clinton the investigations and scandals are never really over, and they somehow always manage to get worse.

Abigail Tracy (Vanity Fair October 28, 2016)

Hillary’s turn

Many voters actually resented the attitude that Hillary was supposedly owed her turn to be President after waiting patiently doing other duties. Rumors said she had made a pact with Bill Clinton in Arkansas that he would be President first and then it would be her turn. After watching the Bush family oligarchy, then this was believable.

Rumors also spread since 2014 that Hillary had snapped at a freelance reporter in California during a campaign stop saying “It’s my turn. I’ve done my time, and I deserve it.”

Martha Raddatz, ABC News reporter, on election night told of an interview with a prior Obama voter.

Q: Have you ever voted Republican?

A: I have not, but I am this year. I’m voting for Trump this year.

Q: Why are you voting for Trump?

A: I don’t trust Hillary at all, she wanted to be a politician her whole career, so staying in a marriage for that is something that bothered me a little bit.  

Q: Does anything bother you about Donald Trump?

A: Well, you know what… they are both horrible. I don’t know who to pick, but they are both horrible. I’m going with Trump and I think he will pick an amazing Cabinet because he wants to win.

Meme generators ran overtime.

Image result for Hillary was my turn

Voters are sexist

Trump over performed with white men. Democrats blame the uneducated white older man for wanting to prevent a woman from taking office because they are afraid to lose their privileged patriarchy. Yet Hillary didn’t do as well in getting votes from Hispanics and African Americans as expected. There were “secret” Trump voters who lied to pollsters or wouldn’t say that they were voting for Trump, which could have skewed the polling results.

Having personally run into rabid angry Democrats who lash out if you suggest even a hint of tolerance for Trump or saying anything negative about Hillary, then I can definitely understand this sentiment to stay silent about your vote.

Surely the women would vote for Hillary over Trump, right?

There were a couple of people who wouldn’t tell me who they were voting for, but a lot of them were college educated women and … uh… who knows if they were the secret Trump supporters. – Martha Raddatz ABC News on election night

Why bother

The consensus was that Hillary would win. The polls said she would win. The New York Times reported that “Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was so confident in her victory that her aides popped open Champagne on the campaign plane early Tuesday.”

Perhaps Hillary fans were so sure she would win that they decided to just stay home. Maybe they couldn’t vote for Trump, but why bother voting for Hillary when she was an obvious shoe-in? Some couldn’t vote for either candidate, as neither were great options. Some went to third parties or just opted out completely. After the results, there were angry protesters marching with “Not My President” signs in the streets below Trump Tower in New York City. Asked whether they had actually voted, many had not. So how many Hillary votes were lost for failure to even show up?

The electoral college

Rather than figure out how this happened, perhaps just change reality. There were attempts to get the sworn electoral voters to give her the vote with the arguments that Trump was so awful that it was their patriotic duty to go with the next worst candidate.

The sting of her loss is all the more painful because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is technically a “winner”, even though she isn’t going to be the next President by losing the electoral college. The fault is the archaic electoral college. The debates about the merits of the Founders setting up the “electoral college” in the US Constitution begins anew with many siding for keeping and many siding for switching to the popular vote or even some combination of methods. Perhaps if she had campaigned harder in the close states, then the electoral college would have tipped more in her favor? Would she have actually won or would it just be an even closer race? In the end Hillary had 5 “faithless electors” and Trump had 3 with all being for other people.

How did some Trump / anti-Hillary fans feel about celebrities calling for electors to go with Hillary?  Mark Dice has nearly 900,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel and his fan base always loves a good ridiculing of such Hollywood celebrities.

It was the Russians

“Blame the Russians” didn’t manage to get traction, though that theory continues to be pushed. Learning various shenanigans from the leaked Podesta and DNC emails released from Wikileaks has yet to be shown to have altered the outcome, though perhaps a few disenfranchised Bernie Sanders fans opted out of supporting Hillary. Surely the leaks didn’t help Hillary Clinton.

Image result for it's the russians

Holding your nose

The many stupid things Trump said and tweeted somehow bounced off. If Trump had lost, then the analysis of his loss would have been easy. Bottom line was that many voted against Hillary and what she stood for and personally against her. His supporters focused on making sure Hillary Clinton wasn’t the next President. The Republican base held their nose and voted against Hillary. They got out their vote with stronger turnout than came out to support Romney in 2008.

http://www.hellertoon.com/main.html

Can’t blame the weather

If there had been bad weather, then that could have been blamed.

Fewer days on the road

Her being sick and failing to be able to campaign as hard never gets mentioned. She spent precious campaign days preparing for the debates. The pundits told us that Trump lost the debates, but that opinion could itself be debated.

Obama campaigned for Hillary. He said her Presidency would be a “continuation” of his legacy. The election of Trump was a rejection of the Obama administration policies, as well as the Republican establishment. There was also a rejection of the globalist agenda.

Late Deciders

Polls showed more undecided voters deciding in the last week had voted for Trump. Were these polling numbers any more accurate than her presumed margin for winning the election? If not, then analysis of the flawed polling data is also flawed.

David Muir, ABC News, speculated on election night that this poll would “fuel arguments that the FBI Director’s announcement affected the final days of this race.”  Director Comey sent a letter to Congress 11 days prior to the election about 650,000 new emails found in an unrelated case that were being reviewed. The unrelated case was related to the Anthony Weiner divorce with his wife, Huma Abedin. She was a friend of Hillary Clinton and also the Vice Chair of Clinton’s 2016 campaign and also worked in the 2008 campaign.

Early voting was already underway. How many of these undecided early voters were swayed towards Trump by this news, who weren’t already moving towards Trump? The news that Clinton supporters would be listening to, such as MSNBC, overall would likely have a different spin than the news that Trump supporters would be listening to, such as Fox News or InfoWars.

Mika Brzenzinski (CFR member) on MSNBC “Morning Joe” on 10/30/2016:

“Everyone talks about how what Comey did is outrageous. This was a great credible man with great integrity a week ago. So don’t really get that. What if there really is something? We are not going to say it was so outrageous.

The bottom line is this all goes back to the server. Something she shouldn’t have done. Something that was way more than a mistake. Way more! And this is a self inflicted massive wound. I just kept thinking how I’ve been on my horse going after Republicans and the Republican party. You nominated this guy. You nominated Donald Trump. How could you do that? 

When I’m thinking Democrats nominated someone who was under an FBI investigation for having a private server among other things. So here we are! Here WE are!”

There was also more going on, including Hillary Clinton using foul mouthed rappers for an event, which was mocked and turned off many. Trump was pressing hard flying from place to place to campaign.

Hillary was cleared again on 11/06/2016. The election was on 11/08/2016.

Very likely undecided voters went into the polling booth not knowing who to choose, as both were awful choices. Someone had to be blamed and couldn’t be Hillary.

It’s Comey’s fault

Hillary Clinton on 11/12/2016 said the the 10/28 Comey letter to Congress about new emails was the critical factor for why she lost the election. Unless the data can show more detail and can be more accurate than the polling overall predictions, then this appears to be looking for a scapegoat and jumping to conclusions.

ABC News Late Decider poll results

“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Clinton said on the conference call. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless — proven to be — stopped our momentum.”

“we dropped, and we had to keep really pushing to regain our advantage, which going into last weekend we had. We were once again up in all but two of the battleground states, and we were up considerably in some that we ended up losing. And we were feeling like we had to put it back together.” – Vanity Fair in their quote of “The New York Times”

Comey is now going to be investigated

FBI Director James Comey is now going to be investigated for his re-opening of the Hillary email investigation so close to the November election. He really had not choice, except to release the information. He then cleared the doubt was quickly as possible.


Time line:

Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State

Leaked over time by Wikileaks

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/  From Wikileaks: On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton served as U.S. Secretary of State from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013. The FBI conducted an investigation into allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure.

Politico.com: Clinton aides kept tabs on anti-Trump elector gambit

The Atlantic: What the WikiLeaks Emails Say About Clinton

BBC News: 18 revelations from Wikileaks’ hacked Clinton emails

The Guardian – WikiLeaks emails: what they revealed about the Clinton campaign’s mechanics

Investigated by FBI and Department of Justice determined outcome ( July 5 and 6, 2017)

FBI: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

July 5, 2016 “After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.”

Statement from Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Regarding State Department Email Investigation July 6, 2016 “Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State.  I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

Not everyone agreed with the FBI decision

The Intercept: Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — Until Hillary Clinton

Published on Jul 5, 2016

On Fox News – ‘The Kelly File,’ former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom says FBI Director James Comey’s decision makes ‘no sense’.

Email investigation re-opened 10/28/2016

Letter by FBI Director to his staff

Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff distributed an internal memo on Thursday detailing why it thought the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had played a role in Mrs. Clinton’s loss. (from New York Times)

Letter (text) to Congress by Comey 10/28/2016

Politico.com: FBI Letter to Congress

How Trump supporter viewed Comey letter

Vanity Fair: F.B.I. RENEWS CLINTON INVESTIGATION AFTER WEINER SEXTING PROBE TURNS UP “THOUSANDS” OF NEW E-MAILS (they used all caps in their headline) 10/28/2016

Hillary response 10/28/2016

Published on Oct 28, 2016

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke on Friday night from Des Moines, Iowa, addressing the FBI’s recent decision to reopen her email case.

Open Letter from Former Federal Prosecutors and High-Ranking Officials of The U.S. Department of Justice

Open Letter from Former Federal Prosecutors and High-Ranking Officials of The U.S. Department of Justice

Politifact / Meet the Press: Mook said, “There are Justice Department policies against doing something like this so close to an election.” 10/30/2016

“650,000 emails to sort through” 10/31/2016

Published on Nov 1, 2016

MSNBC: Rachel Maddow reports on a new set of stories about the FBI investigating aspects of the Donald Trump campaign and ties to Russia, and FBI director James Comey’s reported reluctance to reveal Russia’s role in hacking for fear of influencing the election.

Published on Nov 6, 2016

Fox News: ‘The O’Reilly Factor’: Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points 11/6

Hillary exonerated a second time 11/6/2016

DailyMail UK: 11/6/2016 FBI announces no change in decision on Hillary emails

FBI to be investigated by DOJ Inspector General 01/12/2017

NPR: 01/12/2017 Pre-Election Conduct Of FBI, Other Justice Officials

Other links on topic:

10 Reasons Why Electoral College is a Problem (six parts) from 2012

Salon.com: Why Donald Trump won — and how Hillary Clinton lost: 13 theories explain the stunning election

Vanity Fair: Clinton Blames Comey for Loss

The NYTimes: 11/13/2016 Hillary Blames Comey for Loss (usually requires a paid subscription to view more than 10 times a month)

Rumors about Hillary claiming “My Turn”

Wikipedia: Huma Abedin She worked on the 2008 and 2016 campaigns and is a friend of Hillary Clinton. (Democrat)

Wikipedia: Anthony Weiner NY politician (Democrat)

Wikipedia: FBI Director James Comey (Independent / Republican)

Wikipedia: DOJ Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Democrat)

Inspector General DOJ Michael Horowitz

The Guardian: ‘I never thought Trump would win’: meet the Americans who chose not to vote

https://weather.com/forecast/national/news/election-day-november-2016-presidential-senate-race

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) current public membership roster

Hello world!

Hello World!

TODAY IS WEBSITE MOVING DAY. 

WELCOME TO WORDPRESS!

Today I am moving my new blog from www.rummagingglobalism.wordpress.com  to the official domain at www.rummagingglobalism.com .

Image result for happy new year 2017 gif globalism