Tony Brasunas

Evidence of election fraud always starts with exit polls.

Exit polls are the most important polls the media commissions. Throughout this fifty-state 2016 Democratic primary between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, the exit polls have shown again and again that the way people have voted, on the one hand, and the way the computerized counting machines have recorded votes, on the other hand, have differed significantly.

If you’re unfamiliar with exit polls, they are rigorous scientific instruments used throughout the world as a primary deterrent and safeguard against election fraud. While a few media pundits have written that exit polls only provide informal data for election-day media stories, that is far from their only purpose.

In Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, for instance, exit polls have been used to overturn elections. In Ukraine, when the recorded vote differed from the exit polls by more than 2%, people immediately knew something was amiss, there were protests in the streets, and the entire election was thrown out. The US State Department itself dubbed that Ukraine election fraudulent based largely on the variance from the exit polls. The State Department considers 2% to be the standard margin of error allowed for an election to be considered fair and authentic.

But for elections here in this country — even one involving a former head of the State Department itself — exit polls have been ignored by elections officials and the corporate media if they differ from the reported results. In state after state, (more…)

Hillary Clinton has stated many times that being president isn’t about grand ideas but about making “hard choices.” She even titled her book Hard Choices, and she has used this phrase regularly on the campaign trail.

She’s right: making difficult decisions is an essential part of leadership. But making the right choice is what great leadership requires, and even by her own admission many of her choices have been wrong.

Let’s review:

(Yes, you are owed an apology in advance that the list is so long.)

• For years Hillary Clinton promoted fracking while she was Secretary of State, but now she regrets her support.
• She was, and still is, personally invested in (more…)

The most popular politician in the country is up against all three facets of the American political power structure, and he has already defeated two.

After weeks of inspiration and joy, there was anger and sadness this past week in the Bernie Sanders movement. After historic rallies throughout the state, Hillary Clinton’s apparent victory in New York left millions in the movement wondering whether it was the corporate media or the Democratic National Committee that was screwing them over. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but it’s a third culprit who deserves their scorn.

Yes, the DNC has actively worked to rig this primary for Hillary Clinton, by minimizing and delaying the debates, by counting superdelegates as if they vote before July’s convention, and by surreptitiously funneling money to her campaign that was solicited for down-ticket candidates.

Yes, there have also been countless instances of blatant propaganda in the corporate media, most galling perhaps the ones appearing daily in the New York Times and NPR — the so-called “N-axis” — where many thoughtful urban Democrats get their news. So tendentious has Paul Krugman become, for instance, one can only assume he’s angling for a position in a Hillary Clinton cabinet

But the Bernie movement has it’s own sources of news, thanks to the Internet you’re using right now, and the campaign has its own sources of funds, too, thanks to the number 27.

The Elephant in the Room

The obstacle that the movement has to confront right now is something else: the voting system itself. (more…)

Historical perspective on Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

Who is the real Democrat — Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Why are fringe candidates getting all of the attention this year? Who are the moderates?

These questions can all be answered by understanding something that has been unfolding for forty years: The center of American politics has shifted steadily to the right. Today neither party is even remotely similar to what it was when Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, for example, first entered politics.

In the late 1970s, as large corporations turned into transnational giants, they pumped huge amounts of cash into the political system. This largesse lured, first, the Republican Party, in the 80s, followed by the Democratic Party in the 90s, and precipitated a rightward political shift as both parties rewrote their policies to compete for the same corporate contributions.

Before this, from 1932–1976, the Democratic Party as a whole was far more progressive. The issues and approaches advocated today by Bernie Sanders (more…)

Some people say Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are approximately the same on the issues. These people likely have a lifestyle and a level of income that is comfortable and that they’re not too worried about losing.

For middle class and working class people, many of whom struggle from paycheck to paycheck and carry debt, the policies proposed by the two candidates are nothing alike.

Given the power of an incumbent president, and the fact that most of our last presidents have been reelected, if we end up with Hillary Clinton in the White House, we’ll likely have her and her essentially status quo policies for eight years, not just four.

Bernie Sanders’s proposals, many of which are quite bold, are not all guaranteed to be immediately implemented of course, but Bernie has a long track record of tenacity and passing progressive legislation even in Republican-controlled legislatures. We know he will fight (more…)