Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zax who wrote (966311)	9/22/2016 1:43:05 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1574333

The Obama Legacy: It’s No Crime For Corporations To Steal From the Public, or the Poor Submitted by Bruce A. Dixon on Wed, 09/21/2016 - 17:43 by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon After 8 years of the first black president, it’s time to take stock of what we’ve won and lost, what’s changed and not. Today we look at the Obama administration’s abysmal record on corporate crime, in which Democrats went far beyond the atrocities of their Republican colleagues to protect and immunize corporate thieves from prosecution or lawsuits from their victims. The Obama Legacy: It’s No Crime For Corporations To Steal From the Public, or the Poor by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon Today we’re going to look for the Obama legacy in how the federal government treats those who steal from the public or from the poor. The current bankster scam in the news right now is Wells Fargo, whose bosses deliberately incentivized thousands of $12 an hour employees to buckle down and sell connected financial services to customers who did not need or want them in order to keep their jobs or be eligible for promotion. For the record, Wells Fargo is not the only bank to do this, it’s been a standard kind of corrupt bankster move all over the world for decades. Wells Fargo made billions doing it this time alone. So how do scamming banksters get handled in the age of Obama, and is it any different from what came before? The answer is that a thousand or two bank workers will be disciplined or fired. For a small fine, a mere fraction of what its executives stole, Wells Fargo got the Obama Justice Department to co-sign on their professed innocence of any crime and to guarantee their immunity to lawsuits filed by the people they robbed. Obama’s first attorney general famously declared the banksters too big to prosecute or even investigate, and his second attorney general wrote the fine print on the similar “get out of jail free” and the “can’t be sued by the people I robbed” cards Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and of course Wells Fargo received in 2008-09. It wasn’t always this way. When savings and loan officials scammed the public out of billions during the first Bush administration, federal prosecutors put a couple thousand of them in prison. Obama could have done, and was expected by millions of his voters to do the same. He simply chose not to, which helped Democrats lose the Congress in 2010. In 8 years Democrat Barack Obama has gone further to protect criminal banksters and their investors than any Republican dared go before him. Take a quick look at the Obama administration’s handling another kind of theft from the poor, wage theft. Economist Richard Wolff estimates the yearly value of wages which employers refuse to pay, illegally withhold or otherwise steal from their workers in this country at several times the value of all the reported burglaries and armed robberies. Employers traditionally are not prosecuted, and in Los Angeles it’s reported that 83% of workers who WIN a case filed for stolen wages against an employer never recover a cent. Wage theft seems to be an area where little has changed. Previous administrations never bothered themselves about it, and neither did the Obama administration. Finally not even the briefest of Barack Obama legacy on elite financial crime is incomplete without noting the president’s role in the massive expansion of the charter school racket. The Obama administration spent $4 billion in federal stimulus money outside any congressional or other oversight to incentivize the closing of thousands of so-called “underperforming public schools” mostly in black and poor communities. The near-complete absence of public accountability on the part of charter schools predictably ushered in a nationwide white collar crime wave, as charter school operators, their officers, contractors and their sugar daddy investors scrambled for shares of the cash that used to go to public education. Thus the past 8 years reveal the definitive Obama legacy on elite financial crime. It’s not just too big to jail. It’s simply not punishable, or even investigatable as long as you steal from the poor or from the public. For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Bruce Dixon. Find us on the web at www.blackagendareport.com. Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, and the co-chair of the GA Green Party. He lives and works near Marietta Ga, and can be reached at bruce.dixon@blackagendareport.com.

To: zax who wrote (966311)	9/22/2016 1:45:18 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574333

Hillary Clinton's Neo-McCarthyism and the Real Father of "Extreme Nationalism" Submitted by Danny Haiphong on Tue, 09/20/2016 - 17:51 by Danny Haiphong The Democrats have made Vladimir Putin “the primary boogeyman of Clinton's campaign,” insanely blaming Russia for Donald Trump’s white nationalism. The historical reality is that the U.S. “birthed the most extreme nationalism the world has ever known when its founding rulers created a state based on white supremacy.” And it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who oversaw the coup in Ukraine that brought neo-Nazi parties to power. Hillary Clinton's Neo-McCarthyism and the Real Father of "Extreme Nationalism" by Danny Haiphong *“Any act of protest that questions the legitimacy of the US claim to hegemony over the rest of the planet is subject to the harshest of attacks.”* In late August, Hillary Clinton accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of being the "godfather of extreme nationalism" in a campaign speech in Nevada. The accusation was part of a longer condemnation of Donald Trump's supposed relationship with the Russian head of state. Clinton cited Trump's cozy relationship with UK white nationalist Nigel Ferage but then blamed Putin for the rise of both Ferage and Trump. In recent weeks, the Clinton campaign has increased its attention on the so-called right-wing in the US and West by coining the term "Alt Right." But by adding Putin into the equation, the Clinton campaign has ignited a neo-McCarthyist war on Russia and anyone who stands in the way of her agenda. In the mid 20th century, Senator Joseph McCarthy led the US government's domestic war on socialism. McCarthy and the FBI warned of the dangers of communism. Anyone deemed a communist was subject to surveillance, imprisonment, exile, and even death. The domestic war on communists in the US complimented a broader global project to contain the Soviet Union. Socialism was on the march all over the world. Millions of workers in the Soviet Union, China, and the Third World had overthrown capitalism and instituted workers’ states capable of providing healthcare, education, and employment for all. Socialism's global example threatened US capitalism's Post World War II hegemony. The existence of socialist societies inherently questioned the legitimacy of US capitalism's racist order. That is, Black Americans and workers as a whole may find it to their advantage to fight for a similar social order. So the US government furiously demonized the Soviet Union. Its multifaceted, anti-communist campaign forever impacted the way people in the United States think about Russia's role in the world. *“By adding Putin into the equation, the Clinton campaign has ignited a neo-McCarthyist war on Russia and anyone who stands in the way of her agenda.”* Hillary Clinton has revived anti-Russian dogma to fit the current times. Clinton has this time accused Russia not of a communist plot but of the complete opposite: fascism. She has long used Trump's overt white supremacy to instill fear in the US electorate. But to blame Putin for the rise of white supremacist nationalism is not only absurd, but dangerous as well. The accusations against Putin only heighten tensions between Washington and Moscow. And these tensions have reached World War III potential. Clinton has only added fuel to the fire. In a moment where the US-NATO alliance has militarily surrounded Russia along its European border and waged a non-stop proxy war in Syria to weaken Russia's position in the world, Putin has become the primary boogeyman of Clinton's campaign. Prior to being labeled the father of extreme nationalism, Putin was accused of hacking into the DNC computer system in favor of Donald Trump. Clinton's claims against Putin have only become more farcical by accusing him of something that is as American as apple pie. It is the United States that birthed the most extreme nationalism the world has ever known when its founding rulers created a state based on white supremacy. It then imposed the dominance of its racist, capitalism system on the rest of the world. The US has not only made white rule a staple of its domestic economy, but it has also created, coddled, and empowered racist regimes such as Israel to serve its global interests. Clinton has hidden behind Trump's white nationalism and hurled lies about Putin in order to avoid such truths. The hardest truth of all is that Putin has nothing to do with the rise of “extreme” nationalism. *“To blame Putin for the rise of white supremacist nationalism is not only absurd, but dangerous as well.”* Hillary Clinton has good reason to avoid these facts. Her popularity has plunged and the truth can only make matters worse. What is striking about her neo-McCarthyist attack, however, is how the same accusations she has made against Putin could be turned right back on her. As Secretary of State, Clinton laid the foundation for the coup in Ukraine in 2014. The coup's mastermind, Victoria Nuland, was a Clinton surrogate who has been a chief foreign adviser for the Bush Jr. Administration. Ukraine is now controlled by political parties that harbor Nazi ideology such as the Right Sector. Clinton's endless wars abroad and loyalty to privatization is what really gives white, fascist nationalism the strength to fester and thrive. Clinton has ushered in the rise of a one-party dictatorship of monopoly capital where only fringe elements of the bourgeoisie such as Trump dare to lead from the Republican Party wing of the capitalist state. Such a dictatorship can only bring more misery and thus more opportunities for white nationalists to increase their political power. This was not Russia's doing. It was from start to finish an American project. Neither white supremacist nationalism nor World War III scenarios are products of some Putin and Trump collaboration. They are products of an imperialist system in decline. This system is ruled by the forces of capital and managed by politicians such as Hillary Clinton. It is the ruling circle that has set into motion the most vile and murderous form of nationalism to date. The formation of the US nation-state was predicated on the mass occupation of indigenous people and the mass enslavement of African people. US nationalism has since justified the plunder of the world in service of the post-industrial capitalist class. *“Clinton has ushered in the rise of a* *one-party dictatorship of monopoly capital where only fringe elements of the bourgeoisie such as Trump dare to lead from the Republican Party wing of the capitalist state.”* Objectively, it would be difficult to find a form of nationalism more "extreme" than the US variety in terms of violence and oppression. Subjectively, the US nation-state has been cloaked with notions of "freedom," "democracy," and "liberty" to mask its true character. Quarterback Colin Kaepernick has learned that simply kneeling during the US flag's "national anthem" creates a knee-jerk reaction among followers of US nationalism. Any act of protest that questions the legitimacy of the US claim to hegemony over the rest of the planet is subject to the harshest of attacks. In cases like Vladimir Putin, it can bring accusations from the very class and nation responsible for the problem in the first place. What makes Clinton's anti-Putin slander so dangerous is that the US has for years now been engaged in war maneuvers against Russia. The use of Putin to attack Trump only lays the basis for a new lie to justify full-scale military intervention. By blaming Putin for "extreme nationalism," Clinton and the ruling class have taken the lies against Russia to a new level. The danger of a new world war is growing, and it is not because of Donald Trump. It is because of the nature of the imperialist system, which is in desperate need of a revolutionary movement capable of putting it out of its misery. *Danny Haiphong is an Asian activist and political analyst in the Boston area. He can be reached at* *wakeupriseup1990@gmail.com*

To: zax who wrote (966311)	9/22/2016 7:00:01 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574333

MSNBC Decries `Violent Arrests' By Charlotte Police, IGNORES Looting of Stores by criminal thugs rioting! 8 nwsbstrs

To: zax who wrote (966311)	9/22/2016 11:09:52 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574333

>> In the case DUI, you might want to look up "implied consent". YOU might want to look up implied consent. All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination). This is largely because in the United States, driving is considered a privilege rather than a right, and the state has a legitimate interest in keeping dangerously intoxicated drivers off the road, to prevent injury, property damage, and loss of life. *In most states, however, the police must have reasonable grounds for administering a sobriety test.* *[1]*