How the Rest of the Delegate Race Could Unfold

Here are some ways the Republican and Democratic nominating contests could unfold. Adjust the sliders to see how the outcomes can change. Each line in the charts represents one possible outcome.
Republicans

Donald J. Trump scored a big victory in New York, where he is estimated to have won 90 of the state’s 95 delegates.
If Mr. Trump maintains his current level of support in the remaining races, he could win a delegate majority before the convention, but it will be close.
StateDeleg.DateCT284/26DE16MD38PA17RI19IN575/3NE365/10WV34OR285/17WA445/24CA1726/7MT27NJ51NM24SD291,237 delegates needed to winEach line represents one simulationTrump847Cruz543Kasich147
Average results after April 19

Trump 44%
Cruz 43%
Kasich 13%

No other candidate has a realistic chance of capturing the delegates required to win the nomination outright. Even if Ted Cruz were to win all of the remaining delegates, it is a near impossibility for him to reach the 1,237-delegate threshold.

Though Mr. Trump is in a strong position, his path to winning enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination is not assured. Breaching the 1,237-delegate threshold requires him to maintain the same level of voter support in the contests ahead. If the dynamics of the race shift against him even slightly, he will fall short. Mr. Cruz and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio will try to earn enough delegates between them to deny Mr. Trump a majority and force the convention to undertake a second ballot. At that point, anything can happen.

In addition, there are several caveats that add uncertainty to these numbers. In a few states, there are delegates still to be allocated. Even delegates that have already been allocated can be reassigned.

The delegate count as reported by The A.P. lags the total vote somewhat. In the chart below, we have included delegate estimates from The Green Papers, which include the unallocated delegates from states that have already voted.

Mr. Trump’s delegate lead
Reported by The A.P.
Estimated by The Green Papers
Democrats

In the most recent primary in New York, Hillary Clinton won a clear victory over Bernie Sanders, earning over 130 delegates and further widening her lead in the delegate count.
Mrs. Clinton can win less than half of the remaining vote and still earn a majority of the pledged delegates by June.
StateDeleg.DateCT554/26DE21MD95PA189RI24IN835/3WV295/10KY555/17OR61PR606/5CA4756/7MT21NJ126NM34ND18SD20DC206/14Half of all pledged delegatesEach line represents one simulationClinton1427Sanders1151
Average results after April 19

Sanders 55%
Clinton 45%

Democratic delegates are awarded proportionally by congressional district, and in states that have voted so far, Mrs. Clinton has won more than half of the vote, on average. The lack of winner-take-all states on the Democratic side makes it tougher for Mr. Sanders to close the delegate gap.

Mr. Sanders is also significantly trailing Mrs. Clinton in superdelegates, the roughly 700 Democratic Party officials whose support counts toward the nomination. In past elections, superdelegates have supported the candidate who receives the most pledged delegates, and they are free to switch candidates at any time before the convention in July. To have a shot at overtaking Mrs. Clinton in pledged delegates, Mr. Sanders would need a series of large victories in coming contests, increasing his vote share to about 60 percent, on average.

Mrs. Clinton’s delegate lead
Reported by The A.P.
Estimated by The Green Papers

This interactive delegate calculator uses each state’s delegate allocation rules, along with estimates of how favorable each district is for each candidate. To compute these estimates, we used a model based on demographics and results from past primaries and caucuses. Delegate totals are as reported by The Associated Press.

Election results from The Associated Pres

Additional Evidence Of Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary

Hillary Clinton won New York, but her image is underwater

By Ainhoa Aristizabal

She is underwater for her many failures while she was secretary of state.

The Western Media has never mentioned that Madame Clinton approved selling weapons
to the terrorist enemies of her own country while she was secretary of state and that she claims had the OK from President Barack Obama.

And there is so much more about Madame Clinton to be expose. She is not qualified
to be the President of the United States. She lied as usual telling americans that
she had passed the Bar in DC. Her top aid Huma Abeding told a rag newspaper that Hillary Clinton must be guided on her work because she forgets what she has to do during her campaign for the White House. Can you imagine having her as president of the United States when she can’t remember her duties and president?

As usual she lied telling americans that she had job offers in Arkansas but nothing about that she flunked the DC bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas, none, and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School because Bill Clinton was already teaching there. Her own top aid Huma Abedin told The Post that Hillary Clinton must be guided on her work because she forgets what she has to do during her campaign for the White House. Can you imagine having her as president of the United States when she can’t remember her duties as president?

Mrs Clinton provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful.

Mr Turi is a lawfully licensed American arms dealer. In 2011, he applied to the Department of State and Treasury for approvals to sell arms to the government of Qatar. In its efforts to keep arms from countries and groups that might harm Americans and American interests, Congress has authorized the Department of State and Treasury to be arms gatekeepers. They can declare a country or a group to be terrorist organization in which case selling or facilitating the sale of arms to it is a felony. They also can license dealers to sell.Some of the groups that received the arma were in the U.S. terror list. Thus, the same State and Treasury Departments that licensed the sales also prohibited them.

At the time Mrs Clinton denied knowledge of the arms shipments, she and her State
Department political designee, Andrew Shapiro, had authorized thousands of shipments of billions of dollars worth of arms to U.S. enemies to fight her secret war. Among the casualties of her war were U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three more american official who were assassinated at the American consulate in Benghazi.

This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House. It didn’t happen in Africa, Syria, or Qatar.
It happened in “Washinton”

Hillary Clinton gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer
can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and
unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal
behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?

The New York Times endorsed Madame Clinton’s ethical deficiencies and was given a “no charge” for promoting Clinton and ignoring Bernie Sanders.

One cannot think of a single bill Mrs Clinton has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen her country in the War on Terror.

Although many commentators have mentioned that Hillary Clinton leaves behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State, the reality is that she does, several -and all of them are harms to the United States.

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

For the past week or so, I’ve been warning readers that the supposedly “liberal” state of New York has some of the most repressive voting laws in the country. Before reading the rest of this post, I suggest refreshing your memory on just how undemocratic New York is by checking out the following:

Published April 13th: Hillary Clinton Will Win New York, Because New York is Running a Banana Republic Primary

Published yesterday: As Expected, New York’s Primary is Already a Pathetic Mess

As such, two things were obvious going into the New York primary: 1) Hillary Clinton would win. 2) There would be an enormous amount of voter suppression and fraud.

Well the results are in, and the state of the state in New York is very, very bad.

The Daily Beast reports:

Alba Guerrero was dumbfounded. She’d arrived at her polling place in Ozone Park, Queens only to be told that she had been registered as a Republican since 2004.

That was news to her. She remembers registering to vote for the first time as a Democrat so she could vote for Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. When she recently moved from Manhattan to Ozone Park, in Queens, she re-registered at the DMV, she says, and even checked online on March 9th to be sure she was registered at her new address.

But when she showed up to vote for Bernie Sanders at PS63 on Tuesday, she says she was told she couldn’t. New York is a closed primary, where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary—and voters had to be registered by last October. She was told—very politely, she wants to make clear—by poll workers to take it up with a judge. She was given a court order in nearby Forest Hills.

Guerrero drove to the Queens County Board of Elections and pled her case, but Judge Ira Margulis initially turned her away.

“The judge tells me, ‘No, that’s it—2004.’ He shows me, I’m registered as a Republican. He says there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

But on her way out she saw a Board of Elections worker holding something with her name on it. It was her 2004 voter registration, replete, she remembers, with her name, her social security number, her birthday—and someone else’s signature.

“I said, ‘Excuse me, that’s not my signature,’” she said. “It’s not my handwriting. It showed completely different signatures.”

Sure enough, the signatures are strikingly different. Next to a box checked “Republican,” her 2004 signature is written in clear, deliberate, legible cursive and includes her middle name. Her more recent signature is a loopy, illegible scrawl. She insists she’s never changed it in her life, and says she can produce old tax forms to prove it.

So Guerrero went back to to Judge Margulis and showed him the discrepancy.

“He allowed me to change for that day,“ she said.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who tweeted at 11:50 a.m., “There’s nothing more punk rock than voting. #GetOutAndVote”, had to change his tune by the end of the day. WNYC reported this morning that 126,000 Brooklyn Democrats had been removed from the voting rolls since last fall.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who tweeted at 11:50 a.m., “There’s nothing more punk rock than voting. #GetOutAndVote”, had to change his tune by the end of the day. WNYC reported this morning that 126,000 Brooklyn Democrats had been removed from the voting rolls since last fall.

What a fake liberal clown.

“It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists,” he said in a statement released after 5 p.m. on Election Day. “I am calling on the Board of Election to reverse that purge and update the lists again using Central, not Brooklyn borough, Board of Election staff.”

A spokesperson for New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman told the New York Daily News that his office received “by far the largest volume of complaints we have received for an election since Attorney General Schneiderman took office in 2011.”

Some polling sites did not open on time, citing too few election workers. Others had faulty voting machines, or were delivered half the number of promised voting machines.

“I spent three hours this morning trying to vote,” he said. “I’m at a loss for words. I don’t understand that in the 21st century you have to stand in front of a judge to get to vote. It was laughable.”

Gershman was peeved by what happened to him, but he wonders what would’ve happened if he didn’t have a car, or the ability to miss a morning of work to fight for his ballot. And he’s also confounded by what happened to Guerrero’s voter registration form, which he shared on YouTube and calls “pretty clear fraud.”

Guerrero calls the whole incident “creepy.” She has “no idea” who might want to forge her signature on a voter registration form.

“It’s just disheartening. We’re supposed to be the number one country in the world, but things like this you’d imagine would happen in a second or third-world country,” she said. “What happened to me, basically, was fraud.”

Welcome to the real America, Alba Guerrero!

New York Voters Sue The State, Claiming Mass Voter Roll Purges

091013voting2

Dozens of New York voters are suing the state, saying that their voter registration changed without their input, costing them the ability to vote in Tuesday’s primary. The lawsuit, filed this afternoon in Long Island federal court by the group Election Justice USA, argues that the voters’ alleged registration changes deny them equal protection under the constitution, and demands a blanket order allowing “tens of thousands” of potential plaintiffs to vote in tomorrow’s presidential primary.

“Plaintiffs are in imminent harm of losing their right to vote,” the suit reads. “They have beseeched the various Boards of Elections without result. Nothing can save their right to vote save an order from this Court.”

New York’s primaries are closed, meaning only members of a given party can vote in that party’s primary, and the deadline to change parties is more than six months before Primary Day, the earliest in the country. Those who signed onto the lawsuit say that their paperwork was in order, and in many cases they had voted repeatedly in Democratic primaries from the same address, but that recent checks of their voter registrations revealed that their party had been changed or could not be found at all. The accounts echo online reports of other spurned would-be voters.

“We were seeing an alarming number of voter affiliations changed without people’s knowledge or consent, people who were registered listed as not registered,” said Shyla Nelson, a spokeswoman for Election Justice USA.

As the primary neared and the group solicited accounts of irregularities, reports poured in, she said: “What started as a trickle is now a river.”

More than 200 voters signed onto the lawsuit, Nelson said on Friday (she was still tallying late additions this afternoon as lawyers pushed up against the close-of-court deadline).

One plaintiff, a 24-year-old from Suffolk County, says that he registered as a Democrat in 2009, and that a change of affiliation form the BOE showed him, supposedly proving he left the party, bears a signature that is an “identical, pixel-by-pixel” copy of the signature on his driver’s license. Another plaintiff, a 58-year-old from upstate Onondaga County, had been registered as a Democrat since 1989, but on April 11th found that her registration was “purged.” An employee of the county told her that the change was a clerical error, but that she would not be able to vote on Tuesday, according to the suit. Others named in the lawsuit registered for the first time within days of the new voter deadline in March, or the party-change deadline last October.

Nelson, a Vermont performance artist, described Election Justice as nonpartisan, though she and several other core members identified on its website are vocal supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Most of the complaints we’ve seen publicized online center around spurned voters seeking to cast a ballot for Sanders in tomorrow’s Democratic primary. In recent days, the state Board of Elections has chalked up concerns such as these to voter ignorance of New York’s restrictive rules, and of the occasional data entry error.

Election Justice USA formed recently after Republican officials in Arizona’s Maricopa County drastically reduced the number of polling places for the state’s March primary, leading to lines as much as five hours long, with the worst impacts in majority-Latino districts.

“We wanted to develop a response to voter suppression, issues at polling—the widespread problem at polls this election cycle,” Nelson said.

In New York, voters certain that they should be registered Democrat have in many cases been unable to affirmatively prove their status. In one such case, Long Island resident Jonathan Carrillo, a DJ, said that he registered as a Democrat for the first time in March, but that he was listed in Board of Elections records as a Republican. Consultation with Nassau County election officials brought up a 2013 DMV form that shows he registered as a Republican when getting a license, which he says he never would have done.

In this situation, Carrillo’s only remaining option is to go to the county Board of Elections office on Primary Day and explain his case to a judge, in hopes of getting a court order to allow him to vote. This is unfair, Election Justice argues.

“The Board of Elections, not voters, holds the voting records and should be responsible to prove a voter’s ineligibility, rather than putting this burden on the voter. As it is currently structured, the statute places an onerous and excessive burden on the voter to prove their eligibility,” said Blaire Fellows, one of the New York attorneys filing the suit. “It requires securing a court order, which takes time that many New Yorkers simply don’t have, as it means loss of income over and above what they lose by simply taking time off to vote.”

The other procedure available to voters with irregular registration records is to vote at a polling site using a provisional ballot, wherein one explains the nature of the irregularity, for commissioners to consider when they’re counting votes. This process, the lawsuit says, is the product of “one of the nation’s most opaque and oppressive voter laws.”

The suit asks for the state to preserve all provisional ballots and create a hearing process where voters can explain irregularities, adding a layer of due process, where currently, lawyers argue, the ballots are “discarded by the Board of Elections in a closed room.” What the lawsuit calls “purges,” its authors argue, disproportionately affect Hispanic, African-American, and Hispanic voters, as have previous electoral manipulations in the state’s history. The legal filing, which shows signs of being assembled in extreme haste, also cites the just-reported decline of registered Democrats in Brooklyn by 63,500, voters it also calls “purged.”

One Brooklyn resident recounts registering as a new voter last month and, upon being unable to find her registration, calling the Brooklyn BOE only to be told it was probably lost in the mail. Photojournalist Natalie Keyssar said she registered by mail within 48 hours of the March 25th deadline for forms to be postmarked, and that when she returned from an assignment in Mexico on Friday, she looked online to see where to vote, but found she is not registered. Repeated calls to the county board didn’t go through, and after an hour of trying again today, she said she reached a Ms. Jackson who told her that she “shouldn’t have left it till so close to the deadline,” that the office was receiving some 2,000 forms a day towards the end, and that her record can’t be found, likely because it hasn’t been processed yet.

“How can the U.S. actually tell its citizens their right to vote has been lost in the mail?” she wrote in a Facebook post.

She said she found it even more “shocking” when several friends reached out to say that they were having similar problems. “That’s just 8 of my random friends who just happen to be looking at Facebook, so this problem must be very widespread,” she said.

A call to the state BOE left her unsatisfied.

“What I’m waiting to hear is someone to take responsibility, to say that I did everything correctly and I’m still not a registered voter,” she said. “I have a U.S. passport, a driver’s license, a Global Entry photo ID, and an NYPD press pass—I am who I say I am. I just want to vote.”

Sanders bemoaned the closed primary setup in a recent speech.

“We have a system here in New York where independents can’t get involved in the Democratic primary, where young people who have not previously registered and want to register today just can’t do it,” Sanders said during his recent 27,000-strong rally in Washington Square Park.

Republican candidate Donald Trump has also bumped up against New York’s tight limits, as his children Eric and Ivanka just straight-up missed the deadline to register, and thus can’t vote for him. A state BOE spokesman has said that Trump supporters are also among those who have inundated his office with complaints.

An open primary would mostly eliminate the need to prove party affiliation in the first place, as Republicans would be able to vote in Democratic primaries and vice versa (and of course, Conservative, Green, and Working Families party members could vote outside their respective sandboxes).

In the 1970s, a group of New Yorkers sued to have the state’s early party-change deadline declared unconstitutional, but after two courts agreed with them, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions in a five to four ruling. In 2003, New York City’s independent/Republican mayor Michael Bloomberg pushed a ballot proposal to create nonpartisan primaries for city positions, in which the top two vote recipients would go on to the general election. Voters rejected this idea.

A bill currently before the Assembly would open up the presidential primary to those who are not members of a party. It is laid over in the election law committee, and if past efforts to expand voter access in New York are a guide, it may never see the light of day.

A state Board of Elections spokesman declined to comment, saying his office has not yet been served.

A hearing on the suit is set for 9 a.m. Tuesday.

For more information on voting in the Tuesday presidential primary, see our guide here.

The Collapse of the Western Fiat Monetary System may have Begun. China, Russia and the Reemergence of Gold-Backed Currencies

By Peter Koenig
Global Research, April 21, 2016
Theme: Global Economy

On 19 April 2016, China was rolling out its new gold-backed yuan. Russia’s ruble has been fully supported by gold for the last couple of years. Nobody in the western media talks about it. Why would they? – A western reader may start wondering why he is constantly stressed by a US dollar based fiat monetary systems that is manipulated at will by a small elite of financial oligarchs for their benefit and to the detriment of the common people.

In a recent Russia Insider article, Sergey Glaziev, one of Russia’s top economists and advisor to President Putin said about Russia’s currency, “The ruble Is the most gold-backed currency in the world”. He went on explaining that the amount of rubles circulating is covered by about twice the amount of gold in Russia’s Treasury.

In addition to a financial alliance, Russia and China also have developed in the past couple of years their own money transfer system, the China International Payment System, or the CIPS network which replaces the western transfer system, SWIFT, for Russian-Chinese internal trading. SWIFT, stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, a network operating in 215 countries and territories and used by over 10,000 financial institutions.

Up until recently almost every international monetary transaction had to use SWIFT, a private institution, based in Belgium. ‘Private’ like in the US Federal Reserve Bank (FED), Wall Street banks and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS); all are involved in international monetary transfers and heavily influenced by the Rothschild family. No wonder that the ‘independent’ SWIFT plays along with Washington’s sanctions, for example, cutting off Iran from the international transfer system. Similarly, Washington used its arm-twisting with SWIFT to help Paul Singer’s New York Vulture Fund to extort more than 4 billion dollars from Argentina, by withholding Argentina’s regular debt payments as was agreed with 93% of all creditors. Eventually Argentina found other ways of making its payments, not to fall into disrepute and insolvency.

All of this changed for Argentina, when Mauricio Macri, the new neoliberal President put in place by Washington, appeared on the scene last December. He reopened the negotiations and is ready to pay a sizable junk of this illegal debt, despite a UN decision that a country that reaches a settlement agreement with the majority of the creditors is not to be pressured by non-conforming creditors. In the case of Argentina, the vulture lord bought the country’s default debt for a pittance and now that the nation’s economy had recovered he wants to make a fortune on the back of the population. This is how our western fraudulent monetary system functions.

China’s economy has surpassed that of the United States and this new eastern alliance is considered an existential threat to the fake western economy. CIPS, already used for trading and monetary exchange within China and Russia, is also applied by the remaining BRICS, Brazil, India and South Africa; and by the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), plus India, Pakistan and Iran, as well as the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan). It is said that CIPS is ready to be launched worldwide as early as September 2016. It would be a formidable alternative to the western dollar based monetary Ponzi scheme.

The new eastern monetary sovereignty is one of the major reasons why Washington tries so hard to destroy the BRICS, mainly China and Russia – and lately with a special effort of false accusations also Brazil through a Latin America type Color Revolution.

In addition, the Yuan late last year was accepted by the IMF in its SDR basket as the fifth reserve currency, the other four being the US dollar, the British pound, the euro and the Japanese yen. The SDR, or Special Drawing Right, functions like a virtual currency. It is made up of the weighted average of the five currencies and can be lent to countries at their request, as a way of reducing exchange risks. Being part of the SDR, the yuan has become an official reserve currency. In fact, in Asia the yuan is already heavily used in many countries’ treasuries, as an alternative to the ever more volatile US dollar.

It is no secret, the western dollar-led fiat monetary system is on its last leg – as eventually any Ponzi scheme will be. What does ‘fiat’ mean? It is money created out of thin air. It has no backing whatsoever; not gold, not even the economic output generated by the country or countries issuing the money, i.e. the United States of America and Europe. It is simply declared “legal tender’’ by Government decree.

No pyramid scheme is sustainable in the long run and eventually will collapse. It was invented and is used by a small invisible upper crest of elite making insane amounts of profit on the back of the 99% of us. Since these elitists are in control of the media with their lie propaganda, as well as the warmongering killing machine, US armed forces, NATO, combined with the international security and spy apparatus, CIA, MI6, Mossad, DGSE, the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and more, we are powerless – but powerless only as long as we ignore what’s really going on behind the curtain.

Our western monetary system is based on debt has all the hallmarks of a failing global monster octopus. The US banking system was deregulated in the 1990’s by President Clinton. The European vassals followed suit in the early 2000’s. About 97% of all the money in circulation in the western world is ‘made’ by private banks by a mouse click in the form of ‘loans’ or debt. Every loan a private bank hands out is a liability on that bank’s books; a liability that bears interest, the key generator of the banks’ profits. Profit from thin air! No work, no production, no real added value to the economy.

If and when the banks within this web of debt begin recalling their outstanding liabilities, they may set a non-stoppable avalanche in motion – leading to a chaotic end of the system. This end-run may have just begun. We have seen a gradual build-up since the end of WWII with the armament of the Cold War farce, and a high point with the manufactured sub-prime crisis of 2007 / 2008 / 2009, prompting an artificial and endless global economic crisis which may come crashing down in 2016 / 2017.

The damage may be humongous, leaving behind chaos, poverty, famine, misery – death. With the invisible ruling elite having cashed in, remaining on top and being liable to start again from scratch. – If we let them. It always boils down to the same: An uninformed people can be manipulated at will and is left in awe when hit by unexpected events, like acts of terror by bombs or banks.

Let us be crystal clear – we are all uninformed as long as we listen to and believe in the mainstream media – which are controlled by six Anglo-Zionist media giants, feeding the western public with 90% of the information, the so-called ‘news’ that we consume so eagerly every day; the barrage of lies that repeat themselves in every western country every hour on the hour – and, thus, become the truth. Period.

We must get out of our comfortable armchairs, listen to that innermost spark in the back of our minds, telling us against all avalanches of lies that there is something wrong, that we are being fed deception. We have to dig for the truth. And it is there – on internet, on alternative media, like Global Research, Information Clearing House, VNN, The Saker, NEO, Russia Today, Sputnik News, PressTV, TeleSUR – and many more credible sources of truth-seekers.

Back to the impending collapse. – The ground rules for our pyramid monetary scheme have been laid in 1913 by the creation of the FED. Again, the FED is an entirely private, Rothschild dominated banking institution that serves as the US Central Bank. It is the omnipotent dollar making machine. It was fraudulently and secretly conceived in 1910 on Jekyll Island, Georgia, and described by Jekyll Island history (http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml ) as the “duck hunt” which

“included Senator Nelson Aldrich, his personal secretary Arthur Shelton, former Harvard University professor of economics Dr. A. Piatt Andrew, J.P. Morgan & Co. partner Henry P. Davison, National City Bank president Frank A. Vanderlip and Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. partner Paul M. Warburg. From the start the group proceeded covertly. They began by shunning the use of their last names and met quietly at Aldrich’s private railway car in New Jersey.”

The concoction of these secretive “duck hunters” became in 1913 the privately owned Rothschild dominated Federal Reserve System, the US central bank by deceit.

After signing the FED act into existence, President Woodrow Wilson declared,

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

The Anglo-Saxon system had a central bank in England since way back in 1694. It was then already controlled by the Rothschilds, as was the entire banking system. Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild once declared:

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

The Rothschild family’s fortune cannot be properly estimated, but it must be in the trillions. What Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild may have said some 300 years ago, still holds true to this day.

No wonder, breaking loose of this sham monetary scheme is number one priority of most countries that treasure sovereignty, autonomy and freedom, though they do not dare say so openly, lest the empire lashes out at them punishing them with the very financial terror they want to escape from. And lashing out at the unaligned world the empire does, like a dying beast, attempting to pull with it much of the living world into its own shoveled grave.

Is it therefore coincidence or a rather a purposefully planned convergence of several events as a last ditch effort first to ravage then to salvage as much as possible before the collapse?

On 10 April, Zero Hedge reports “Austria Just Announced A 54% Haircut of Senior Creditors in First “Bail In” Under New European Rules”. The Austrian “bad bank”, the failed Hypo Alpe Adria, that became Heta Asset Resolution AG after the government’s nationalization, found a US$ 8.5 billion hole in its balance sheet, enough to trigger the new European ‘bail-in’ rule. Is it coincidence that also in Austria a major bank failure triggered the Great Depression also on a 10th of April – in 1931? – This is a first in Europe. Be prepared for others to follow, as over-extension of European banks is estimated in excess of a trillion dollars.

On 15 April, the New York Times reported that – Five of Wall Street’s eight largest banks are in defiance of the US banking regulator. The FED and FDIC said that “JP Morgan, Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, State Street and Bank of New York, all lacked ‘credible‘ plans to enter bankruptcy in the event of a financial crisis.” These banks have until October 2016 to comply. Under the new rules a tax-payer bail-out would be unlikely. Hence ‘bail-ins’ could affect millions of depositors and shareholders, their funds being stolen in order to self-rescue the too-big-to-fail banks. After all, non-compliance with the regulator’s requests, or insolvency, can easily be manufactured as a legal base for stealing common people’s savings. No worries, the TBTF banks will not go away, but your savings may.

The CIA released Panama Papers (for who still doubts about the CIA involvement in the release of the Panama Papers,

read here http://journal-neo.org/2016/04/09/the-panama-papers-the-people-deceived/),

aimed in a most rudimentary way at defaming the ‘usual suspects’, Presidents Putin and Assad, as well as Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, of course – and others. Strangely no notable EU or US citizens or corporations were on the list. Would anybody seriously believe that Mr. Putin, a former KGB agent, would be so ignorant as to putting his fortune (even if he had any to hide) into Panama, the epitome of a US puppet state, where you can’t flush a toilet without Washington knowing it?

Some token neocons appear in the published papers, like Argentina’s new ‘Washington appointed’ President Mauricio Macri, who is running amok ruining his country. Within less than four months he has rolled Argentina’s economy back by ten years, raising poverty from below 10% in November 2015 to 34% by the end March 2016. The Empire needs him to keep gradually turning Argentina into chaos, however not too quickly, lest he may be ‘deposed’ and replaced by a US adversary – that would not at all be appreciated in Washington. For the types of Macri that made it on the list, the Panama Papers are a warning signal to keep them in-check.

The publication of the Panama Papers may also be an incentive for US citizens and corporations to bring home trillions of undeclared dollar holdings stacked away in overseas tax havens into homeland financial shelters like those in Delaware, Wyoming, South Dakota and Nevada, thereby helping strengthen the gradually decaying dollar.

Simultaneously, some European countries and Japan introduced negative interest rates, so as to increase monetary liquidity, thereby hoping stimulating an ever stagnant economy. That’s the pretext. In reality however, negative interests are but a precursor to a wholly bank controlled financial system. Normally ‘bail-ins’ and negative interest would cause a run on the banks. This has not happened yet.

In Switzerland, one of the first countries to introduce negative interests, the Swiss National Bank reported that the demand of the 1,000 franc notes – one of the world’s highest value denominations (apparently to be maintained despite ECB Draghi’s call for elimination of high denomination bank notes) – increased by 17% (by CHF 4.7 billion – US$ 4.85 billion) in December 2014, the month following the introduction of negative interests. May it be an indication that the Swiss have quietly started hoarding big-denomination cash?

Future hoarding and runs on the banks will be countered by the introduction of a cashless society, i.e. all monetary transactions will gradually become electronic. The process has already begun. In Sweden and other parts of Europe, as well as Japan, cashless supermarkets and department stores claim big success, especially with the young consumers, who happily play along paying electronic cashiers by swiping their cell phones in front of an electronic eye.

The Young and Innocent – if they only knew that the banking oligarchs want to control their money and enslave them with a ‘fun gadget’, they may decide to resist. But well know those who control the system that the young are the drivers of the future. We, the old resistance will eventually die out. Problem solved. – But we are not dead yet. The Times are A-Changing… (Bob Dylan, 1964).

The nefarious trio – ‘bail-ins’, negative interests, and a cash free society – will make living in the industrialized ‘first world’ a sheer nuisance, a stressful dance on toes, as the emperor’s proverbial Damocles Sword hangs intimidatingly above us.

Washington may have one last joker up its sleeve – reintroducing the ‘gold standard’, the very gold standard that Nixon abandoned in 1971. The US have also been accumulating huge amounts of gold over the past 25 years. A new US dollar gold standard would most likely be set at a ratio that would wipe out all US debt, including future ‘unmet obligations’ (GAO – General Accounting Office) of about US$ 125 trillion. It would attempt to keep the western industrialized world in Washington’s orbit, but might lose most of the developing world owning natural resources coveted by the west. These countries oppressed and colonized for centuries are likely to gravitate to the new China-Russia alliance – leaving the outsourced and outwitted west alone without workforce – and with a massive but outdated military power.

To counter the build-up of this criminal last ditch sham by the western Zionist banking czars, China and Russia have been preparing over the last few years an independent financial system, delinked from the US dollar and which now incorporates the BRICS, the SCO nations, as well as the Eurasian Economic Union. This association of countries and economies account for about half the world’s population and at least one third of the globe’s economic output; a fact totally ignored by the mainstream media, for obvious reasons. The Machiavellian sinking ship does not want its passengers to jump to safety.

The 19 April 2016, announcement by China of its gold-backed yuan, no longer convertible into dollars, may just trigger an economic shift into the ‘eastern camp’. Many countries are wary and tired of western exploitation, enslavement, threats of sanctions, oppression and an ever present danger of invasion by the killing machine. The decoupling of the dollar by a third of the world economy may indeed open new horizons, creating new alliances, new hope for a more equal and just world.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, CounterPunch, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2016

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor, and writer on Foreign Policy

Hillary Clinton says she and Bill were ‘dead broke’

By Jon Greenberg on Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 6:18 p.m.

Hillary Clinton is walking the line between being remarkably successful and yet still in touch with the lives of ordinary people. The former secretary of state and potential 2016 presidential candidate has found herself trying to limit blowback to her claim that she and husband Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House.

She made the comment during an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer. Sawyer pressed Clinton on a reported haul of $5 million in speaking fees.

“You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”

Republicans called the claim laughable and the next day Clinton clarified, again on ABC, that she and Bill had done very well over the past 14 years.

“We have a life experience that is clearly different in very dramatic ways from many Americans,” Clinton said. “But we also have gone through some of the same challenges many people have.”

We wanted to take a closer look at Clinton’s claim of being “dead broke” when their time in the White House ended after December 2000.

The Clintons’ balance sheet

Clinton’s 2000 Senate financial disclosure form, via the Open Secrets website, provides a rough view of the balance between the couple’s assets and liabilities. These forms only show amounts in broad ranges — from $15,001 to $50,000, from $50,001 to $100,000 and so forth — but under any set of assumptions, the Clintons were in the red, a problem driven by Bill Clinton’s enormous legal bills.

Their highest possible assets totaled about $1.8 million, while their lowest possible debts were nearly $2.3 million. The most optimistic scenario left them in a hole of about $500,000.

But the federal disclosure form does not include homes used for personal use and the Clintons owned two. In 1999, they bought a five-bedroom home in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million. In December 2000, just as they were leaving the White House, they bought a seven-bedroom house near Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. The price was $2.85 million.

While those homes had mortgages, which would increase the amount of the Clintons’ debt, the family also had equity in them. The New York Times reported that the Clintons put $855,000 down on the Washington house, for instance. That equity would have covered the low-end debt estimate of about $500,000.

Point being: Clinton’s 2000 disclosure doesn’t prove the Clintons’ liabilities exceeded their assets when they left the White House.

We reached out to Hillary Clinton’s office for more details and did not hear back.

Were they dead broke?

All this begs the question of whether someone who can afford to buy a $2.85 million house is “dead broke.” We reached two accounting professors at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, one of the top-ranked schools in the country. Assistant Professor Jeffrey Hoopes said to call the Clintons dead broke would be a stretch for how the term is commonly understood.

“Almost any president leaving office can expect tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of future earnings as a result of their having been president,” Hoopes said. “Speaking, consulting, board positions, and so on, are all very lucrative.”

Professor Brian Mittendorf said a balance sheet of assets and liabilities simply doesn’t paint a complete picture. Mittendorf compared the Clintons to a medical school graduate saddled with huge debts but with the prospect of a very hefty income down the line.

“While one can claim to be technically broke, creditors wouldn’t take it as such as long as future income streams could cover the liabilities,” Mittendorf said.

In December 2000, at least one large bank saw the Clintons through that lens. Whatever their balance sheet might have been, Citibank lent them $1.995 million to buy that house in Washington, D.C. This was a safe loan. By Feb. 5, 2001, Bill Clinton was commanding regular speaking fees of $125,000 or more.

Hillary Clinton herself did quite well in 2001. The book publisher Simon and Schuster paid her $2.84 million in royalties.

By 2004, the Clintons had erased their debts and Hillary Clinton was ranked the 10th-wealthiest member of the Senate, with a net worth between $10 million and $50 million.

Our ruling

Hillary Clinton said she and Bill were in debt and dead broke when they left the White House. The public record shows that they possibly had more liabilities than assets, but it doesn’t show that conclusively. More important, a balance sheet does not tell the full story and the experts we reached said the Clintons’ earning potential had a real economic value that the financial sector traditionally acknowledges and is willing to bank on.

A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clintons were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. This hardly fits the common meaning of “dead broke.”

We rate the claim Mostly False.

The Fix : The Clintons say they left the White House in debt. Wait, what?

The Fix

The Clintons say they left the White House in debt. Wait, what?
The next primary is April 26, when five states vote. Stay caught up with the race.
Connecticut Democratic polling averages
Hillary Clinton has a clear lead in the state with nine points over Bernie Sanders.

51% 42%

New York GOP polling averages
Donald Trump: 48%
In the Republican race, Donald Trump has a clear lead with 20 points over John Kasich.
John Kasich: 28%
Kasich is far behind the front-runner in the polls.
Ted Cruz: 19%
Cruz isn’t polling well in the state.
What is the GOP establishment?
Play Video
The upcoming voting schedule
April 26

Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island hold primaries.

May 3

Indiana holds its primary contests.

May 10

Republicans vote in Nebraska, while both parties vote in West Virginia.

5-Minute Fix newsletter

Keeping up with politics is easy now.
Campaign 2016

By Philip Bump June 9, 2014

This post has been updated.

On Monday morning, ABC teased an interview between all-but-announced presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the network’s Diane Sawyer set to air later in the evening.

One particular exchange jumped out at us. Clinton says that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, left the White House in debt, and needed the speaking fees they both earned in order to pay those debts.

SAWYER: You’ve made five million making speeches? The president’s made more than a hundred million dollars?

CLINTON: Well, you have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy. Bill has worked really hard and it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard. First of all, we had to pay off all our debts. You know, you had to make double the money because of, obviously, taxes, and then pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.

We also did not remember that, specifically. Clinton’s opponents didn’t seem inclined toward much sympathy, quickly lampooning it on Twitter. A specific target: Clinton’s reference to the need to buy “houses,” a comment reminiscent of John McCain’s awkward failure in 2008 to remember how many homes he owned.

And here are the houses, courtesy of the conservative group America Rising.

Certainly, the Clintons accrued an enormous amount in legal fees toward the end of the 1990s, but is Clinton’s tacit suggestion that the family was scraping by accurate?

Well, not exactly. Clinton left the White House to head to the Capitol as New York’s junior senator in 2000, meaning that she had to file annual disclosures of how much she and her husband earned, owned, and owed. We took a look at those filings, via Open Secrets. And this is what the Clinton’s wealth looked like for the first four years after they left office in early 2001.

We considered three things: what the Clintons reported as income on their taxes, what they reported as assets in Hillary Clinton’s mandated disclosures, and what was listed as being owed. The disclosures only give broad boundaries for the value of the assets owned, so the true value of their assets lies somewhere within the dark-red bar.

So, yes, it is technically true the Clintons left office in debt. But, a year later, the couple’s assets had soared. And, as was reported at the time, the Clintons’ debt was entirely gone by the end of 2004 — well before Hillary Clinton left the Senate and well before she left her position as secretary of state. Nor was that income entirely from speaking fees; Clinton’s memoir Living History earned the couple a great deal of income, including $2.8 million reported in her 2001 financial disclosure.

What’s more, there are perks that come with being a former president. According to an April report from the Congressional Research Service, Bill Clinton has received nearly $16 million in pensions and benefits from the federal government since leaving office. That includes $944,000 in fiscal year 2014 for office space, staff, and a pension.

If you were wondering, it was also not as though Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 bid for the presidency thrust the couple back into debt. For her 2009 disclosure, filed because of her appointment to lead the Department of State, the Clintons’ assets were worth somewhere between $10 million and $50 million.

They did, however, have up to $65,000 in credit card debt. Clinton made $200,000-plus for individual speeches in 2013, after she left the State Department. So that credit card debt probably didn’t stick around long.

Just remember the 100’s of thousands of dollars worth of furnishings, china, flatware, etc. that the Clintons stole when they left the White House:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&…

Assuming what Mrs Clinton says about their debt upon leaving the White House is true, what type of debt was it? It wasn’t for mortgage payments or other debts that normal Americans incur to live. They incurred that debt to pay for his legal fees in defending himself from charges related to his dalliances. I’m surprised she would use that as an excuse for her and her husband’s speaking fees and claiming to understand the finances of the common American.

Hillary stated she hasn’t driven a car in over 20 years….and it’s not because she was taking the bus. So after her unsuccessful campaign for president when she left that long string of unpaid campaign bills, they actually had the money to pay but just didn’t?

So let me get this right, As President, Clinton made $200,000 a year and had a $50,000 tax-free annual expense account, never needed to pay for food, childcare, transportation, mortgage/rent, normal home upkeep for 8 years and they were broke after that, now she wants us to put her in charge of a trillion dollar budget! God help us all.

Let’s not forget Whitewater….don’t think your average American could pull off that illegal deal. Well, that’s why they had so many legal bills….

Dodging bullets as she fought for the money to pay for their next meal. He “broke” and mine are worlds apart. Bill’s $16 million in pension and benefits since leaving office implies an income that makes saying they were dead broke, laughable. Well, nobody in Washington has the foggiest idea of how the peasantry live.

Sounds like either the Lapdog media might be taking HIllary down thinking she’s too old and unappealing for a 2016 win, and instead they might be building up a more-energetic and less-left-appearing female candidate like Liz Warren; or maybe, by being tough on her now rather than later, the Lapdog media thinks the voters will forgive by the time November rolls around, thinking “poor HillBilly has been grilled enough on this.” Never underestimate the stupidity of the Low Information Voter and the slyness of the Lapdog Media. Benghazi HillBilly is over the hill. Her time has come and gone. Hopefully she will be the 2016 candidate and lose, once and for all, one last time. She has all the baggage to do so.

What? Populist anti-Wall St. crusader Elizabeth Warren “less-left-appearing” than hawkish big-bux Hillary? Don’t think so, Mr. No Information Voter…

All the loot that the Clinton’s have accumulated ( over $100) in that tax differed foundation from all the IOUs that have collected for all the foreign and domestic contacts,favors etc. That privileged life had it’s own success and living high on the hog . There is nothing anything remarkable about her 4 years as the SOS, except raking up miles traveling in luxury, get fat and ugly ungracefully. The piano legs and pant suits are back and now they think that the Presidency is an entitlement. Th bottom line is the basic greed creed flaw in their characters, Which is well documented from the start with his two terms and AR Governor. Madam pant suits is no angle her self either.

Left the White House $10 million in debt. So the Clintons made that much, paid off their debts, then kept on making money. You would think conservatives would be proud of a couple pulling themselves out of debt through hard word and ingenuity. But no, Republicans criticize the Clintons for not stopping making money once they were out of debt. Huh?

They always had all kinds of deals going. Like FOB paying for their home and living expenses when they left the WH, the leasing of a home on the property to the Secret Service (there to protect them) for $10000/mo, she received millions for a book advance when she was leaving the WH and Bill had a salary from his foundation. These 2 hucksters never felt an economic pinch.

Broke when they left the White House? Is that why she and Bill stole the furniture, but got caught and had to return the items they snagged?

HC is her own worst enemy. Repeating these disproved lies only helps her.

In 1992, the Clinton’s paid $70,228 in taxes on an adjusted gross income of $290,697, of which $34,523 was the President’s salary as Governor of Arkansas and $203,172 was income from Mrs. Clinton’s partnership in the Rose Law Firm. The remaining income was from interest, dividends, and partnership income, capital gains and Mrs. Clinton’s director’s fees and honoraria. The Clinton’s claimed $39,190 in itemized deductions, which included $19,452 in contributions to charities. A list of charitable contributions over $500 is attached. They showed capital gains of $16,336, principally from the sale of Mrs. Clinton’s interest in her Rose Building Limited Partnership, which owns the Rose Law Firm’s building ($13,199)- The Clintons sent a check far $4,085 with their tax return

1999 – Though they didn’t leave the WH as millionaires, they had an adjusted gross income in this year of $416,039, which was double his 1992 income.

They’re Democrats so no one expects them to manage money responsibly., That said, let’s not forget Hillary’s Buffett-esque skills at predicting the cattle market. She did after all, make $99,000 trading cattle futures contracts in ten months. Don’t you wish you could turn an initial investment of $1000 into a hundred-bagger in just 10 months? Why, she even figured out a way to beat her margin calls. Oh by the way, is anyone surprised that she was working with someone who had considerable interest in working with the State of Arkansas at the time her husband was Governor? I’m sure that didn’t have anything to do with her success though.

Another trope that doesn’t follow the facts. Deficits go up in Republican presidencies (Reagan, GWB) and down during Democratic ones (Clinton, Obama). Get a clue.

Another trope that doesn’t follow the facts. Deficits go up in Republican presidencies (Reagan, GWB) and down during Democratic ones (Clinton, Obama). Get a clue.

Deficits really started down under Clinton after the FY 1996 budget which was the first one the Republican congress authored (they took office in Jan 1995). Spending exploded in FY 2008, the first budget written by a Democrat congress. The President has very little input into the budget process because he lacks a line item veto (which the R’s tried to give to Clinton but the SCOTUS struck down). As for Reagan, he never had a Republican congress. Neither did Bush 41. It is YOU that needs to get a clue!

I don’t get the “Wait, What?” part of the headline. The Clintons had massive legal bills. The chart clearly shows that in 2000 when Bill Clinton left office they were about $10 million in debt. What is so surprising and hard to comprehend about that? Ever hire a good lawyer? They don’t make minimum wage.

As for how much they have now, aren’t the right wing types supposed to admire people who go on the free market and sell a product for whatever the market will bear?

Much ado about nothing.

Meet the next President of the United States and his VP

Clinton-Trump

The Donald: “Bernie’s gone. You know that? Bernie’s gone,” Trump said on April 20 at a rally in Indianapolis, Indiana, the day after Hillary Clinton routed Sanders in the New York primary. “I love running against crooked Hillary,” he said. “Bernie wouldn’t be as much fun.”

Ainhoa Aristizabal: Excuse me Mr. Trump but you are not well informed. Too many beers Mr. Trump?

Unlike you who hides when invited to a debate, Bernie Sanders is a fighter. He is going all the way to the Convention. He may be not too much fun, but he doesn’t insult women, or call Mexicans “rapists” and “drug dealers.” Bernie is not a vulgar person.

Every election year promises full employment in industry sectors that serve the public with almost daily opinion polls that tell you what one- to two-thousand people (a sampling) think about every candidate and issue; and, in case you can’t think for yourself, a generous assortment of pundits (usually biased) who will connect the dots and tell you what “most Americans think”.

Hillary Clinton on Drugs and her own addiction
Secretary of State; previously Democratic Senator (NY)

$1B per year to help states with opioid epidemic
Q: Despite an estimated trillion dollars spent, many say the war on drugs has failed. What would you do?

CLINTON: Everywhere I go to campaign, I’m meeting families who are affected by the drug problem that mostly is opioids and heroin now, and lives are being lost and children are being orphaned. So I have tried to come out with a comprehensive approach that does tell the states that we will work with you from the federal government putting more money, about a billion dollars a year, to help states have a different approach to dealing with this epidemic. Police officers must be equipped with the antidote to a heroin overdose or an opioid overdose, known as Narcan. They should be able to administer it. So should firefighters and others. We have to move away from treating the use of drugs as a crime and instead, move it to where it belongs, as a health issue. And we need to divert more people from the criminal justice system into drug courts, into treatment, and recovery.
Source: 2016 NBC Democratic debate , Jan 17, 2016

$10B plan for opiate addiction over 10 years
Heroin is a major epidemic. I’ve heard some great ideas about how law enforcement is changing its behavior, how the recovery community is reaching out. I’ve laid out a five-point plan. I would like the federal government to offer $10 billion over ten years to work with states. We need to do more on the prescribing end. There are too many opioids being prescribed, and that leads directly to heroin addiction. We need more programs, so when somebody is ready to get help, there’s a place to go.
Source: 2015 ABC/WMUR Democratic primary debate in N.H. , Dec 19, 2015

Stop imprisoning marijuana users

Q: When asked about legalizing recreational marijuana, you said let’s wait and see how it plays out in Colorado and Washington. It’s been more than a year since you’ve said that. Are you ready to take a position tonight?

CLINTON: No. I think that we have the opportunity through the states that are pursuing recreational marijuana to find out a lot more than we know today. I do support the use of medical marijuana, and I think even there we need to do a lot more research so that we know exactly how we’re going to help people for whom medical marijuana provides relief. So, I think we’re just at the beginning, but I agree completely with the idea that we have got to stop imprisoning people who use marijuana. Therefore, we need more states, cities, and the federal government to begin to address this so that we don’t have this terrible result of a huge population in our prisons for nonviolent, low-level offenses that are primarily due to marijuana.[1]
Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas , Oct 13, 2015

More drug diversion; more community policing

As a presidential candidate in 2008, I outlined proposals to reduce both crime and the size of our prison population. For example, tough but fair reforms of probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations, while allowing nonviolent offenders who stay clean to stay out of prison. I called for putting more officers on our streets, with greater emphasis on community policing to build trust while fighting crime, as well as new support for specialized drug courts & juvenile programs.
Source: Brennan Center for Justice essays, p. 27 , Apr 28, 2015

Medical marijuana now; wait-and-see on recreational pot
When CNN hosted a town hall with Clinton last month, interviewer Christiane Amanpour asked her about marijuana. Clinton said she was “committing radical candor” in her answer, a reference to the newfound freedom she said she was enjoying. Clinton said it should be available medicinally for people with “extreme conditions” and that she wants to “wait and see” the evidence in states legalizing it for recreational use before taking a position.

When CNN hosted a town hall with Clinton last month, interviewer Christiane Amanpour asked her about marijuana. Clinton said she was “committing radical candor” in her answer, a reference to the newfound freedom she said she was enjoying. Clinton said it should be available medicinally for people with “extreme conditions” and that she wants to “wait and see” the evidence in states legalizing it for recreational use before taking a position.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, I outlined proposals to reduce both crime and the size of our prison population. For example, tough but fair reforms of probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations, while allowing nonviolent offenders who stay clean to stay out of prison. I called for putting more officers on our streets, with greater emphasis on community policing to build trust while fighting crime, as well as new support for specialized drug courts & juvenile programs. And your “fair reforms of probation and “drug diversion programs” managed to “clean their stay out of prison”?

Medical marijuana maybe ok; states decide recreational use
[This week], New York lawmakers approved legislation that would make it the 23rd state in the country to permit medical marijuana use, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. Voters in Alaska and possibly Oregon will decide in November whether to join Colorado and Washington in allowing the sale of marijuana for recreational use.

As the momentum behind marijuana legalization grows, the issue is becoming inescapable for potential presidential contenders in 2016. The latest to weigh in was Hillary Clinton, who was asked about marijuana last week during her book tour. She seemed slightly more open to medical marijuana than she was during the 2008 campaign, saying it was appropriate in limited cases, but that more research was necessary.

“On recreational, you know, states are the laboratories of democracy,” Mrs. Clinton told CNN interviewer Christiane Amanpour. “We have at least two states that are experimenting with that right now. I want to wait and see what the evidence is.”
Source: Beth Reinhard in Wall Street Journal, “Third Way” , Jun 14, 2014

Reduce sentencing disparity for crack, but not retroactively
Q: The US Sentencing Commission recently limited the disparity in sentencing guidelines for those convicted of crimes involving crack cocaine versus crimes involving powder cocaine. Should that change be retroactive?

A: I believe we’ve got to decrease the disparity that exists. It is really unconscionable that someone who uses five grams of crack cocaine, compared to 500 grams of powder cocaine would face such disparate sentencing. And it’s further compounded because the possession of crack cocaine really is unique in the way that it leads directly to prison for so many people. So I am going to tackle the disparity. I think it definitely needs to be prospective on principle. I have problems with retroactivity. I think that it’s something that a lot of communities will be concerned about as well, so let’s tackle this disparity, let’s take it on. The sentencing commission hasn’t come forward yet with its specific recommendation but I’m looking forward to seeing it.
Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum , Dec 1, 2007

1969: held herself aloof from college drug counterculture
Hillary’s faith, or perhaps her personality or seriousness generally, must have been a contributing factor to her staying on the straight and narrow. She called herself “an ethical Christian,” physically aloof from the counterculture. Her college friends do not recall her smoking dope, dropping acid, drinking to excess, or tearing off her clothes during concerts. She did not imbibe the hedonism and drug culture of the period; she did not drop out. She at one time painted a flower on her arm and wore tie-dye clothes, and as surviving photos attest, looked like a girl of the sixties, but was no Janis Joplin.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 34 , Jul 18, 2007

Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison
We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University , Jun 28, 2007

Gov. Clinton implicated in his brother Roger’s drug arrest
The story of Roger Clinton’s 1984 arrest and subsequent conviction on drug charges has been used by the Clintons for years supposedly to demonstrate Bill’s probity. After Roger’s conviction a tearful governor appeared on the courthouse steps. “I feel more deeply committed than ever before to do everything I can to fight drugs in our state,” Bill said.

Half a dozen or more Arkansans have testified to doing drugs with both Clinton brothers or to witnessing them doing drugs. In fact it now has widely been reported that during Roger’s investigation he was videotaped saying, “I’ve got to get some for my brother. He’s got a nose like a Hoover vacuum cleaner.” The officer who conducted the sting claims Governor Clinton shut it down prematurely to protect himself from being implicated in drugs.
Source: Madame Hillary, by R. Emmett Tyrell, p. 77 , Feb 25, 2004

Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts
Q: What is your approach to the “Drug War”?

CLINTON: I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.

LAZIO: The truth is that under the Clinton administration, there has been a dramatic and troubling increase in drug abuse by our children. And that has not been addressed. I crossed party lines in 1994 and built a coalition of Republicans that passed the crime bill. If it were not for that, we would not have drug courts right now. We would not have community policing. We need to have somebody in Washington who has the ability to get the job done.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000

Ambiguous reports of 1960s college alcohol & drug use
It was a time when most university students smoked pot, drank more heavily than people do today, and made the most of the pre-AIDS revolution. Though we know that Bill Clinton partied hard but never figured out how to inhale, the facts are less clear about Hillary. She was not known by any means as a heavy drinker or a pothead but as one classmate recalls “she’s not a super straight person. She was pretty socially relaxed.”
Source: The Inside Story, by Judith Warner, p. 58 , Aug 1, 1999

Involved parents most influential in reducing teen drug use
Some factors that increase the risk of substance abuse in adolescents deserve emphasis. Casual attitudes towards marijuana and minors’ access to cigarettes raise the likelihood that teenagers will make a sad progression to more serious drug use & earlier sexual activity. Dropping out of school puts the child at greater risk, as does having a parent who is an abuser of alcohol or drugs.

One reason my husband is adamant about curbing smoking is the fact that he learned firsthand in his own family, about the slippery slope that begins with the use of one addictive substance and leads to other destructive behaviors.

The characteristics that keep kids from using drugs are hard to quantify but not to understand. Children who truly grasp tha they have a choice to make in the matter are more likely to make a responsible one. So are children with high self-esteem. Most influential of all is the optimism & awareness that comes from knowing their parents are interested & involved in their lives.
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.152-153 , Sep 25, 1996

End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine.
Clinton co-sponsored ending harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine

A bill to target cocaine kingpins and address sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

Sponsor’s introductory remarks: Sen. Biden: My bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity [between sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine] by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender.

Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act.

A: But nothing was done, right?

Congressional Summary:

Increases the amount of a controlled substance or mixture containing a cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine) required for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison terms for crack cocaine trafficking to eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
Eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine.
Increases monetary penalties for drug trafficking and for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.

Related bills: H.R.79, H.R.460, H.R.4545, S.1383, S.1685.
Source: Drug Sentencing Reform & Kingpin Trafficking Act (S.1711) 07-S1711 on Jun 27, 2007

Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use.
Clinton co-sponsored requiring chemical resellers to certify against meth use

Sen. FEINSTEIN: This act is designed to address problems that the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has identified in the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. The bill that I introduce today would:

clarify that all retailers, including mail order retailers, who sell products that contain chemicals often used to make methamphetamine–like ephedrine, pseudoepedrine and phenylpropanolamine–must self-certify that they have trained their personnel and will comply with the Combat Meth Act’s requirements;
require distributors to sell these products only to retailers who have certified that they will comply with the law;
require the DEA to publish the list of all retailers who have filed self-certifications, on the DEA’s website;
and clarify that any retailer who negligently fails to file self-certification as required, may be subject to civil fines and penalties.

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act that we passed last year has been a resounding success. The number of methamphetamine labs in the United States has declined dramatically now that the ingredients used to make methamphetamine are harder to get. Fewer meth labs means more than just less illegal drug production. In 2003, 3,663 children were reported exposed to toxic meth labs nationwide–but so far this year, the number of exposed children is only 319.

This is a common-sense bill, designed to strengthen the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This bill would create incentives to ensure that the self-certification process of the law is made both effective and enforceable. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Source: Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act (S.2071) 2007-S2071 on Sep 19, 2007

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor, and writer on foreign policy