The Congressional Black Caucus PAC announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign on Thursday, a move that is being widely interpreted as a sign of her deep support from the African-American community. As they made their announcement, CBC PAC officials downplayed Bernie Sanders’ proposals for poverty reduction and tuition-free college as unrealistic, while touting Clinton as a bold leader.
Some of the members who spoke at the event, held at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, anticipated the same kind of criticism that the Sanders campaign has made of some other Washington-based leadership groups that have endorsed Clinton. “We are not from the establishment, we are from the streets,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y.
But the Congressional Black Caucus PAC is not the same thing as the Congressional Black Caucus, which is made up of 46 members of Congress. Indeed, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Sanders supporter, made that point on Twitter:
Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me.
— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) February 11, 2016
Ellison then said in another tweet that “endorsements should be the product of a fair open process. Didn’t happen.”
Ben Branch, the executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, told The Intercept that his group made the decision after a vote from its 20-member board. The board includes 11 lobbyists, seven elected officials, and two officials who work for the PAC. Branch confirmed that the lobbyists were involved in the endorsement, but would not go into detail about the process.
Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md., a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the maker of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations.
And a significant percentage of the $7,000 raised this cycle by the CBC PAC from individuals was donated by white lobbyists, including Vic Fazio, who represents Philip Morris and served for years as a lobbyist to Corrections Corporation of America, and David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.
The caucus itself, while presenting itself as a champion of progressive causes, has a mixed legislative record. As some reporters have noted, Wall Street and corporate money has flowed to the CBC, through its PAC and nonprofit arms, while a number of CBC members have taken a leading role working with Republicans to chip away at the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
The CBC PAC endorsement comes as Clinton is working furiously to demonstrate that the African-American community stands solidly behind her campaign. Shortly after her crushing defeat in the New Hampshire primary, her campaign hosted a conference call with surrogates who dismissed Sanders as being “absent” on issues important to African-Americans, and belittled his role in Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington as insignificant. Hazel Dukes, the New York state NAACP leader who disparaged Sanders’ role in the civil rights movement, previously helped Wal-Mart in its bid to open stores in New York City after her group received donations from the company.
Not all CBC members have embraced the Clinton endorsement. Speaking this morning on Democracy Now, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., a CBC member, said she has not endorsed either candidate in the Democratic primary, and reminded viewers that the CBC “has nothing to do with the” CBC PAC, which is a legally distinct entity. NBC Capitol Hill producer Frank Thorp tweeted that Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., was one of two abstentions on the CBC PAC board.
Top photo: Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., speaks about Hillary Clinton during a news conference at the DNC headquarters on Capitol Hill, February 11, 2016.
All of them that could be bought responded by being bought. Not representation as defined. Misrepresentation…YES!
And can anyone say that these are all of the Blacks that can be bought out because that is how they got there in the first place. They were never representatives, just immoral political sycophants attached to some billionaire’s asshole!
Excellent reporting with far reaching implications. Can we go further into a contextual discussion of lobbying and campaign money manipulating the historic Democratic Party black America vote, and some voices of black Americans working against this corruption?
Otherwise we are still in the complaint journalism territory of tell me something I didn’t already guess.
Please share. https://www.facebook.com/1719109368312895/videos/1757348067822358/
So basically the congressional black caucus pac. Is just a mixture of corporate whores and sorry ass lobbyists. That explains the Clinton endorsement.
LOL!
Is everyone aware that John Lewis has walked back his remarks about Sanders?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/john-lewis-berne-sanders-soften
You call that “walking back” his criticism? His original statement promoted the grotesquely false insinuation that, because Lewis hadn’t seen Bernie marching or participating in the Civil Rights Movement, then he probably didn’t. That level of horse manure requires an earnest apology to call it a walk back, imo, and Lewis’s clarification doesn’t have anything of the kind in it.
Please read Facebook pages titled, Real Estate Crisis or Government Sanctioned Racketeering?
What bothers me most is that the Clintons and the Democratic Establishment have a financial strangle hold on almost all elected African Americans. This intricate financial strangle hold involves their ability to (a) handpick those African Americans elites to run for elected offices (b) finance their elections (c) assign them to Congressional Committees (d) parade them to African Americans voting bloc (99.99% of them ) and pretend that they represent African American concerns!!
These African America elites are the parrots for the Democratic establishment which is now controlled by the Clintons and their corporate friends! This organization was created when Walter Mondale lost 48 states to Ronald Reagan in 1984 general elections. It was called Democratic Leadership Council created in 1985. The DLC decision was to push the Democratic Party to the right or as close to the Republican Party as possible. The deregulation of the Wall Street and GLOBALIZATION then followed. The DLC brand of Democratic Party support globalization and regime changes abroad to advance this policy. They will fight Bernie Sanders with everything, even if that mean soliciting help from the Republicans!
Are we African American people so ignorant and helpless that we can get played, like ultimate idiots on planet earth, by these window dressing black elites who, apparently, do not have direct access to the money men from the corporations and Wall Street? These elites get bread crumbs falling from tables of those lobbyists with DIRECT ACCESS TO THE WALLSTREET MONEY MEN and Democrat establish; and those crumbs go towards their salaries!
Thanks for this informative article. Understanding what actually went down makes a big difference…..the Clinton machine has not changed one iota. Intuitively you know this but thought maybe I should consider voting for her. It’s Bernie all the way for us!
Everyone of you should be ashamed of yourselves….. Bernie is out there working his ass off for every chance side with the Black Voters to make years of pushing black people incarcerating more for non violent crimes…. All Of You Are Cowards to being the foot rest for Hillary’s feet…. Every one of you are nothing more than a rug for her to walk on… Maxine Waters, I thought you were smarter than that and I live in your district…. Bet your ass you will play hell getting reelected again…..Get that money when you can after you get up off of the floor after the Bitch walked all over you….. COWARDS THE LOT OF YOU….. I
An Open Letter to Rep. John Lewis.
https://thesouthlawn.org/2016/02/12/an-open-letter-to-rep-john-lewis/
Thanks for sharing that Pedinska. Hope you don’t mind if I tag it (good on Ellison for sticking his neck out, he’s going to get bit for this)
Man fears and hates the exit from the trap. He guards cruelly against any attempt at finding the exit. This is the great riddle. – Wilhelm Reich
Yes, thanks for this.
:( was unable to open the link.
Too bad one can’t LIKE so many of the statements here / some of us white folk get it.
Excellent job of helping me understand what just happened with the CBC. I could not figure it out until today that the PAC was acting independently.
Louise Hoff, new subscriber
Just because a hypocrite says that the CBC
“has nothing to do with the CBC PAC”
hardly means that she is not telling a bald faced lie.
In the election of 2014 the CBC PAC helped fund the campaigns
of the democrat members of the CBC.
If you want to believe that the procurement of money for
the members of the CBC “has nothing to do with”
their actions, then you are being willfully delusional.
I just saw this. Wow. Definitely explains a lot. Thank you. I also wrote about this, just today: http://schatziesearthproject.com/2016/02/12/civil-rights-legend-john-lewis-is-just-not-being-truthful-about-bill-hillary-clinton/
John Lewis disgraces his own legacy with his corrupt sell out lying ways…
The establishment NGO endorsement phenomenon is increasingly fascinating as well.
I am hopeful that as more and more national advocacy groups’ and unions’ leadership make the cynical calculation to endorse Clinton against the interests and will of their own membership we’ll see a shake-up of leadership. Memberships will decline and/or folks on the ground will increasingly revolt as their leaders’ unresponsive decisions become increasingly transparent.
More investigation/reporting into a number of local chapters of unions refusing to adhere to their leaderships’ edict to support HRC, and instead going rogue with local chapter endorsements, would be interesting at gauging the degree to which establishment advocacy is increasingly becoming vulnerable to grassroots efforts that appear to be energizing in response to a politician (Bernie Sanders) who doesn’t act ashamed of his own ideology. That might indicate a promising trend.
Unions, civil rights advocacy groups, human rights advocacy groups, womens advocacy groups, environmental advocacy groups, and other public interest groups have been getting increasingly tone-deaf with respect to conditions on the ground as the neoliberal grip on the political process has persisted. Adopting corporate-styled, consultancy driven leadership models that base themselves in DC and emphasize responsiveness to consultancy driven milquetoast, risk averse drivel (unabashedly advocating for the imperative of holding on to political access) over the knowledgeable conviction of their activists and members on the front lines (whose experience and proximity to the conditions dictate a conviction for results that does not enjoy the luxury of such political cowardice).
All these establishment phonies endorsing HRC are doing is broadcasting their detachment from their members and their lack of courage and integrity.
I’ve been privy to leadership/DC conversations regarding this very question of endorsement in response to membership demand at one of our nation’s oldest and largest environmental advocacy groups. Leadership knows who the best candidate is, they believe the same themselves in their own individual capacities. Yet, the spineless lack of integrity, basic responsiveness to the groundswell of the organization’s own grassroots activists and members, masquerading as ‘knowing-better’ than to do the right thing, wins out. After all, the Clintons are not known for their forgiving political benevolence. Everyone knows (across NGOs, media outlets, any actor plugged into/dependent on establishment) that if they don’t fall into line now (or keep their mouths shut) and Bernie isn’t able to overcome the extreme headwind that Clinton is summoning against him — they’ll be shut out with an unforgiving ruthlessness in an HRC administration.
This makes those that endorse Bernie that much more impressive. That his endorsements are largely individuals and activists is likewise a promising indication of his authenticity.
In a way, Sanders’ lack of establishment endorsements is a good sign. It’s an indication (perhaps not a promise) that his call for change won’t ring as hollow as Obama’s.
Bernie gives us the best chance for real change. It doesn’t matter how badly Bernie kicks Hillary’s ass during debates, the corporate media pundits will spin it and declare Hillary the runaway winner, which is what they just did. Money rules and all alternative media needs to get together and start doing exposes on the cretins who own and anchor the various news outlets.
Lee Fang – awesome work. Also, hat-tip to Amy Goodman.
This should be it for Clinton. I can’t imagine any conscientious individual supporting her after this.
The idea that Hillary Clinton took part in the early days of the civil rights movement 1960-’63 and that John Lewis met her at that time is ludicrous. I’m not sure about Bill, but Hillary was a young republican in those years and served as a volunteer in the Goldwater campaign in 1964. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the 1964 civil rights act and it was a major issue in his campaign.
Lee Fang is a great guy to have on your side. Way to go Lee.
I see that my lengthy comment has appeared below, complete with all three links. Thank you to Lee and/or anyone else who may have helped get it onto the board.
In addition to that, I have another link I’d like to supply in rebuttal to Rep. John Lewis’ “I never saw him. I never met him. ” comment. I believe Rep. Lewis is engaging in some seriously disingenuous misrepresentation at this point. That’s a shame. No matter what your position on Senator Sanders, or any other candidate, I think we can all agree that the truth, in all its unvarnished glory, is what will help us make informed decisions about where to place our support.
It seems there was a film made sometime after the voter debacles that were the 2000 and 2004 elections. It featured Cynthia McKinney as well as some of her congressional cohorts, two of whom were John Lewis and Bernie Sanders:
http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/people/cynthia_mckinney/american_blackout.php
I found that while looking for references for an assertion on twitter by Zaid Jilani, to wit:
One would think that sort of support would not go unnoticed by someone of Rep. Lewis stature. Perhaps his powers of observation have been waning since the mid-60s.
All the Clinton Administration have done is place America in 3rd Class Poverty, all because of their NAFTA Bill and killing off Glass Steagall!
John Lewis has OBVIOSLY GAINED from this, or else his dumb azz would be railing against what the Clinton’s did, while he was/is still in Congress! LEWIS PROFITED FROM THE SELL OUT OF THE AMERICAN WORKER’S! Let’s look up and find out how much he is worth today!
John Lewis being the dumb azz he is, has the nerve to come out against Bernie Sander’s … he needs another knock up his dumb head to get his sensibilities back!
John Lewis has PROVEN … he is part of the Establishment! FORGET YOU, YOU SELL OUT, I PRAY OUR REVOLUTION RETIRES YOUR SELL OUT AZZ OUT OF THE CONGRESS!
John Lewis’ comments implying Sanders wasn’t present for the Civil Rights movement while the Clintons were is positively “Swift-Boat” material.
Will this be like 2004, with only the The Daily Show calling out the Swiftboaters for their bullshit, or is the online response now going to be sufficient to percolate up into the MSM?
Great analogy. I sent emails to the Swiftboaters at the time, challenging their phony assertions. Speaking of phony, it appears Lewis is as phony as Clinton. Does anyone else remember the video clip of her trying to sound Black when addressing a Black group, probably during the ’08 campaign?
Straw man. He didn’t imply that Sanders wasn’t present for the Civil RIghts Movement. He claimed that Sanders hasn’t actively supported black people, which takes more than being at protests in the 60s. Where has he been since the 60s? Well, he’s been in Congress for 2 decades but in that time hasn’t met with a civil rights icon like John Lewis? But he expects that people should believe his brand new attention to non-class oppression as though it’s long-standing because he did some things in the 60s? And you’re appalled enough about that to make things up and then start yet another conspiracy theory?
I’m tired of this “online response” baloney. You guys freak out about something that you know approximately nothing about. You make things up to support that. You deluge the internet with conspiracy theory claims that are ludicrous. And then for some reason, because you guys convince them that you are many, you get mainstream coverage as thouh you’re informed and telling the truth. Then you become many.
Well, I’ve supported Sanders for decades but you guys have convinced me not to. And now you’ve convinced me to start correcting you on the facts.
Sanity is standing up to you trolls now.
No real Sanders supporter of “decades” would change his preference based on a couple anonymous posts. Nope, this poster is simply projecting his own agenda of made up conspiracy with ludicrous claims, et al.
What a phoney…
1. I don’t believe you have been a Sanders supporter. I’d wager money that you are a Clinton supporter who is just concern trolling us.
2. You’ve decided to start “correcting [us] on facts”? You read more into Lewis’ comments than any of us, regarding the “Sanders hasn’t actively supported black people” claim. Back up your assertion, your “facts” if you will.
And Sanders never met Lewis while in Congress? Strange, I can find Sanders/Lewis as sponsors & cosponsers of bills [1]. Maybe they did this without ever meeting?
3. The efforts at getting factual statement from Lewis, rather than an “artful smear”, have been successful [2].
1. https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22lewis%22%5D%2C%22within%22%3A%5B%22lewis%22%5D%7D
2. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/john-lewis-clarifies-comments-bernie-sanders
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dnc-1100am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Bernilicious piece you wrote there Lee. That’s what i call real journalism. Thank you man.
Greenwald attempted to saddle Hillary with passing the 1994 crime bill signed into law by Bill Clinton (“The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism”). Besides Bernie Sanders voting for the “bill”, twenty-six out of thirty-eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for the bill as well. Don’t expect this fucking publication to even begin to tell the whole story when it comes to these elections. The Intercept might as well be Russian Television covering an “election” in Russia.
Bill Clinton addressed the NAACP in July, 2015:
“…….Bill Clinton said Wednesday that the crime bill he signed into law as President in 1994 worsened the nation’s criminal justice system……..”I signed a bill that made the problem worse,” Clinton told an audience at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s annual meeting in Philadelphia. “And I want to admit it.”……..”
A sincere moment by the ex President – or campaigning for the black vote for Hillary?
>”Don’t expect this fucking publication to even begin to tell the whole story when it comes to these elections.”
Har! Well, you’re here Craig! *neither barred … nor tied I might add./
~aside. If your man Trump wins the big one, don’t forget my man benitoe’s plan to commoditize all Congressional Votes into highly complex derivatives to sell at Free Market prices… and cut out the middle man.
Benito alone is worth the price of admission to the Intercept!
The Intercept’s new motto: “Making Trump Great Again”!
Compared to Hillary Trump is great. I could never vote for the demagogue but Hillary is as corrupt as they come.
Gary Johnson 2016
Thanks, great indictment of the CBC, and as others before me have mentioned,
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3198/5241/original.jpg
https://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/08/rep-lewis-praises-snowden-then-quickly-retracts-praise/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/bernie-sanders-core-university-chicago
“Don’t expect this fucking publication to even begin to tell the whole story when it comes to these elections. ”
deer Misturd CrunkySummerPants. did yew waek up onna wronk sied uv teh bed tihs mornink hunnee?
tihs pooblicayshum iz knot oobligated too crater too yur neds don u no.
thangk gudness foor smawl favoorz.
p.s. Myrna tellz me yur favoor iz indead smawl.
Considering this publication complains perpetually about what the “main stream media” doesn’t report, it’s kind of sleezy when you report only half of the story yourself. I never said the Intercept had any obligations at all – just that they are a bit hypocritical. Uh, get my point?
hunnee ef yew onny spendink tiem heer cumplainin bowt teh wun-sidded repoortink an knot cumplainin bowt it enneewhere els tehn maybee teh hipporkrissy yew ned to be lukkin at iz yur own.
Myrna sed to offur yew a diskcount sense yur favoor iz so smawl.
we like to pleez owr cumstumerz don u no.
Bravo!! Kudos TO LEE Fang, Thank you for shining light into the manipulating sleight of hand of corporate CASH buying influence AND how deceiving the money grabbers are. Great reporting !!
Perhaps the author of this piece is already aware of this, but one of the lobbyists mentioned was also a controversial presence in President Obama’s campaign:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/obama-1.html
Keep up the good work ‘Intercept’ (and don’t let us down).
CBC super special delegates, huh. Figures.
After watching (most of) the PBS dem. debate love-fest last night, I’m not sure it matters that much. Gads, PBS mods/questions … s.u.c.k.e.d.
Idk, maybe Bernie is just too nice for this sort of work? The only visible rise from theBern I could detect was on Kissinger’s role in Cambodia 50 years ago … so long ago I can’t find it on the map.
Otoh Hillary, a mercilessly skilled debater, opened a canned one on her Achilles-heel Iraq vote; “I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016.”
Bernie let it slid??? … when, imo, he should have gone to the heart of it, explaining that those votes in 2002 are the inexorable reason ISIS needs to be defeated in 2016.
This action proves that how people look is not as important
as how much people can be corrupted by corporate money.
By this action, the Congressional Black Caucus
(which is in fact closely connected to the CBC PAC even though
Barbara Lee, like a typical democrat, wants to deceive
people into believing otherwise)
has decided that what is needed in the fake U$A
is more control of people by
Wall Street, Weapons, and Wall Mart economics.
The CBC has “made it” into the corrupt halls of power and
they are now tools of the status quo, just like Clinton, Bush, Trump,…..
Thank you,this should be front page news! This is the number one issue being raised by the front runner for the democratic party nomination -Sen. Sanders.
How quick we forget.
It was Lewis who originally backed Hillary in 2008 citing her civil rights record. But he jumped off Hillary’s Donkey when he saw Obama was becoming “transformational.” Is this recent endorsement to make amends for 2008 and kiss the Billary ring?
Racist is that the media are trying to see which way African-Americans are leaning based on every brown person’s endorsement, but there’s been no talk on where the needle is moving on the “white vote,” which is actually a big chunk of the electorate. I hope a day will come when African-Americans are considered like every other group — with wide variety of opinions and beliefs.
Has one pundit raised one question about the direct or mood of the Jewish, Hispanic or Asian vote?
The obsession with identity politics is one indication of how
the people in the fake U$A still cling to the belief in
“Us versus Them” and refuse to see how the obsession with
and worship of
money and militarism
is polluting the whole world.
This endorsement needs to be examined because of the timing.
Money’s candidate isn’t doing as well as they would like,
so manipulative pressure must be used.
If the comment by representative Ellison is accurate, this
endorsement was being pushed UN-democratically in an effort to
promote the wishes of the money-makers and had nothing to do
with anything democratic.
The biggest problem is that the CBC PAC and the CBC have the
appearance
of being connected to equal rights, but this endorsement
clearly shows how they are trying to use their monetary
power to manipulate voters into promoting
the candidate who clearly represents money,
even to the extent that representative Barbara Lee promotes
the bogus notion
that the CBC “has nothing to do with the CBC PAC.”
Follow the money.
All of the identity politics share the same religion.
Very well articulated! Bravo!
Great article, too!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-12/heres-what-julian-assange-thinks-about-voting-hillary-clinton
Superb article, Lee Fang! Thank you!
“Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid OxyContin . . .”
No spin here, no sir.
How about, “. . . maker of OxyContin, a lifeline for individuals who are struggling with chronic pain that occurs with some types of cancer, bone pain, heart attack, and severe burns.”
Or maybe, “maker of the well-know antiseptic, Betadine; the laxatives, Colace and Senokot; the sleep aid, Intermezzo; and the prescription pain reliever, OxyContin.”
“. . . David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.”
They sell guns? That’s why lobbying for Walmart (the correct spelling of the retail stores’ name) is bad? If this isn’t dog-whistle journalism . . . oh, hell, of course it’s dog-whistle journalism.
This piece, like so many others here, should end with: “I’m Bernie Sanders and I approved this ad.”
Doug Salzmann, what you said is so unbelievably stupid that my head is spinning. The whole point of this article is that the board of the CDC PAC is made up mostly of lobbyists and the PAC’s own officials. These people are not members of the Congressional Black Congress, let alone even members of congress period. The author explains who these lobbyists are because that is what any responsible journalist would do – include detailed information to inform the reader. Either you completely missed the entire point of this article and should read it again, or you’re just another insidious troll attempting to smear people you don’t like with obfuscation and outright lies. If the latter, please go back under the bridge from whence you came and stay there.
“The whole point of this article is that the board of the CDC PAC is made up mostly of lobbyists and the PAC’s own officials.”
No, that’s not the “whole point” — it’s the main point. And the point could easily have been made without the spin.
“The author explains who these lobbyists are because that is what any responsible journalist would do – include detailed information to inform the reader.”
The author includes only the “detailed informations” that leads readers toward the desired reaction: disapproval of the members, as I pointed out in my alternate descriptions of Purdue and my questioning of the depiction of Walmart. Perhaps you need to re-read and try to understand my point.
If you don’t, can’t or won’t see the relentless spinning of Democratic primary reporting in TI — effectively repeated jabs at Clinton while Sanders gets a long, continuing pass, well, that’s probably because you’re a committed Berniebot, like most of the current cast of posters BTL these days.
As I said, this is dog-whistle stuff, and it works: note the rush of happy and uncritical puppies running to answer the call.
I guess only Establishment Journalists get to be biased. Every time Chris Matthews speaks Hillary should say “I’m Hillary Clinton and my donors are funding your wife’s bid for the senate.”
God forbid anyone throw criticism at Walmart and Big Pharma. Those poor underdogs can’t catch a break.
“Every time Chris Matthews speaks Hillary should say ‘I’m Hillary Clinton and my donors are funding your wife’s bid for the senate.’”
Yes, he probably should, although he should sort out the identities better than you have. If your point is that relentless spin by proponents of one camp justifies relentless spin on the other side, it’s not a very convincing point.
“God forbid anyone throw criticism at Walmart and Big Pharma. Those poor underdogs can’t catch a break.”
I didn’t say or imply those things; you inferred them. What I said, perhaps not directly or simply enough for you, is that the “criticism” above was indirect, suggestive, and designed to appeal to the known tendencies and biases of the target audience — just as the hacks on the right do when targeting their preferred demographic. It’s fundamentally manipulative and dishonest.
Purdue probably does many things that are worthy of criticism (almost certainly related to pricing and attempts to corner markets), but making an important pain reliever is not one of them, regardless of the fact that the drug can be abused. The list of things that can be both useful and abused is nearly endless.
Likewise, Walmart has done terrible things to employees, local businesses, vendors and suppliers, etc. Guns, however, are a legal product in America and the author uses the reference to selling them precisely because he knows that his readership largely disapproves of that reality.
Spin, spin, spin.
Good critique Doug, I hope Lee takes it to heart. Personally I read it less as ‘spin’ than simply a lazy use of shorthand. “Gunz and Pills” standing in for the systemic corruption you ably highlight. If Lee applied more rigor toward contextualizing Purdue or Wal-Mart (oops), it would be still confer an agenda. There’s nothing wrong with that imo. That’s not spin. Objectivity is a myth. The problem is the use of rhetorical cost cutting that only served to dumb down the point. So a little more rigor would go a long way imo. Or, alternatively, as you say, let the categories speak for themselves.
A tangent here, but the connection between opioids and metastasis is no bueno. :( Pot isn’t panacea but deschedule needs to happen yesterday.
In 2007, Purdue Pharma pled guilty in federal court to criminal charges that they misled regulators, doctors and patients about the drug’s risk of addiction and its potential to be abused, and paid $600 million in fines and other payments. Three executives also pled guilty as individuals and paid $35 million in fines. It is true that Oxycontin has beneficial uses, and was properly made, but it was marketed in a criminal manner, with devastating effects.
Well then, shouldn’t Daron Watts and Purdue Pharma pony up a few 100 billion or so to pay back the American tax payer for funding the war that took back those lucrative poppy fields from the Taliban who pretty much wiped them out by 2000. Heck, our armed forces are still guarding them, add another 100 billion.
“. . . shouldn’t Daron Watts and Purdue Pharma pony up a few 100 billion or so to pay back the American tax payer for funding the war that took back those lucrative poppy fields . . .”
Uh, no.
Oxycodone (the generic name for OxyContin) is produced from an alkaloid (thebaine) found in Papaver bracteatum, which is grown commercially for that purpose and which does not contain morphine, unlike Papaver orientale, which is the poppy cultivated in Afghanistan (and other places) and often used to produce heroin.
It helps to know what you’re talking about before posting and I hope this helps you with your next post about semi-synthetic opioids.
Mr. Fang
“…….Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, a revered civil rights leader in the 1960s, emphasized that point. He told reporters he didn’t recall Sanders’ role in the civil rights movement…….”I never saw him. I never met him,” Lewis said. “I was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved with the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery and directed to voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton.”…..But he [Sanders] has a significant climb ahead of him. An NBC/Wall Street Journal Marist poll released in late January showed him struggling to attract support among African-American voters in South Carolina, garnering 17% compared to Clinton’s 74%……”
I find it fascinating that an online anti-corporate Media outlet financed by the billionaire Pierre Omidyar is knee deep in associating Hillary Clinton with Wall Street and corporate money while completely neglecting her challenger, Bernie Sanders. Greenwald criticized the Clintons for lobbying and passing the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act” which he implies (without any statistical evidence) was responsible for mass incarceration of African Americans. Bernie Sanders voted for the bill! Of course, Greenwald – more lawyer defending a client than journalist – neglected to mention that fact when he lambasted Hillary in his article “The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism”. Can there be any more telling of an omission that that? The Greenbots will defend Greenwald on that omission as well.
In other words, you are only getting half of the story at the Intercept. Half truths are the norm. So anything you read at the Intercept is biased, advocacy journalism which you simply believe is the whole truth at your own risk. Is Bernie really that good and Hillary that bad? I sincerely doubt it. The Intercept which spends a fair amount of ink selling the idea that the Democrats are the same as the Republicans clearly has staked a position in the US elections only pointing out the importance America’s democracy to US policy. Unfortunately, they take this stand neglecting simple Journalism standards – like the truth.
Obviously, this is a planned and concerted effort by the Intercept to support Bernie Sanders without criticism.
If you don’t want to take Mr Greenwald’s word for it, I suggest that you read Professor Michael Alexander’s take on this subject.
Michelle, not Michael. Mea Culpa.
You got the author’s name wrong: it’s MICHELLE ALEXANDER (author of the book exposing the prison-industrial complex THE NEW JIM CROW). Bill & Hillary Clinton passed so many policies that DIRECTLY HARMED the African-American community it’s incredible to me that they have any support from Black people at all. Craig doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he failes to see the role that the 1994 crime bill played—and he’s obviously a Clinton supporter. Which means he’s either an un-informed fool or someone who’s quite happy with the things remaining exactly as they are—lots of goodies for the top 10%–with the rest of us struggling to hold on.
Greenwald attempted to saddle Hillary with passing the 1994 crime bill signed into law by Bill Clinton (“The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism”). Besides Bernie Sanders voting for the “bill”, twenty-six out of thirty-eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for the bill as well. Don’t expect this fucking publication to even begin to tell the whole story when it comes to these elections. The Intercept might as well be Russian Television covering an “election” in Russia.
Bill Clinton addressed the NAACP in July, 2015:
“…….Bill Clinton said Wednesday that the crime bill he signed into law as President in 1994 worsened the nation’s criminal justice system……..”I signed a bill that made the problem worse,” Clinton told an audience at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s annual meeting in Philadelphia. “And I want to admit it.”……..”
A sincere moment by the ex President – or campaigning for the black vote for Hillary?
No offense, but I corrected my auto-correct eight hours before you corrected me. Not sure how you missed that.
In the 1960’s Bernie Sanders was a 20 something nobody, who would expect Lewis to recall him out of a sea of a thousand others. And the Clintons would have been even younger nobodies but he remembers them. Now do I got this right, is that what we are being told. I would rather swallow a ball of lint than this story.
Ha! Craig “let our history go” Summers now presents himself as a defender of truth.
Too much.
Next up, plankeye again calls everyone else bigoted after racist use of n-words.
Thanks for validating what I predicted:
“…….The Greenbots will defend Greenwald on that omission as well……”
When you worship someone as the God of journalism, it’s difficult to see through the halo to find the horns. Avoiding the truth does not make you a defender of the truth.
Thanks as always for your input.
This isn’t the first time and most likely won’t be the last time John Lewis reaches down in the gutter to sling unfounded slurs.
Before being elected to the Atlanta City Council in 1981, Lewis faced “years of criticism as a holier-than-thou publicity seeker who challenged city leaders on ethical matters”.[11] In the context of the “war on drugs”, Lewis challenged Julian Bond to take a urine drug test during the 1986 Democratic runoff. The Houston Chronicle called it “perhaps the best-known example” of congressional candidates challenging their opponents to drug testing.
Yet again, awesome reporting.
I did a little research and your claims are pretty far off in my opinion. You claim 11 lobbyists, but name only 5. From my research, it looks like maybe 2 more could be labor lobbyists (but I guess that’s not so good for your narrative), then 4 who work in politics but are clearly not lobbyists, another 8 elected members of congress (not 7 as you claim) and 2 who work for the caucus as ED and Treasurer. Please share your research as a lot of folks are sharing this article and just taking you at your word – which is incorrect.
Another news source (pro-Clinton btw) used the same numbers cited in this article this evening.
Just taking a peek at their website, I see a considerable number of leaders who are lobbyists.
This is fast and important reporting Intercept, keep it up, the corrupt political system is writing its hands with the increasingly hard hitting exposure.
I couldn’t believe what I read. It’s absolutely horrific to see what goes on behind closed doors, and it seems everyone has hands in everyone’s pockets. It upsets me that we will never hear about this on the news.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207342902884780&set=gm.227083160973781&type=3
Hazel Dukes, also recently came out against proposed NYC law that would cause McDonalds to stop selling meals to children with toys, as well as further labeling of sodium and fat content. The NY NAACP takes money from McDonalds. She didn’t even bother to show up at the NYC Council hearing, and instead had someone read her statement to the council in her absence.
At first i was watching msnbc and it reported CBC endorses Clinton! I thought this is really bad for Bernie. Then i find out that CBC Pac, a superpac, endorses Clinton, without asking it’s members, without approval from the CBC, and with a vote only from lobbyists and establishment?!? I thought this is really good for Bernie
It’s not a “superpac”, it’s a PAC founded and run by the CBC.
Bernie Sanders for POTUS P!
THE CLINTONS ARE ABOUT POLICY, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, EXPERIENCE, & TODAY: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt ..Everything else sums up to opinions, conjecture, & ignoring the issues of the people. Defeating Drugs, protecting food sources, improving the economy, and the future of the generations; this is worthy of anyone’s attention, ANYWHERE & EVERYWHERE..
Posting this everywhere. He said that they were going to throw the kitchen sink
Mr. Sanders won’t outright call her a liar but her own words will #shesaliar https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI
wait a minute ….in 1963 bernie was marching with mlk
also getting arrested for protesting housing segregation at the univ of chicago
while in 1964 hillary was a goldwater girl campiagning for him …goldwater’s platform was getting rid of the civil rights recentlypassed
Yes, and this kind of ploy is just like HRC insinuating that Sanders has not supported Obama. She’s the one on the stage who ran against him! Talk about Chutzpa.
lee fang….thanks for the good work …the consistantly good work
there needs to be more of you and less of everybody else
such an enlightening article
clinton must be realy in trouble…broke and blacked out
So the Congressional Black Caucas PAC has a board member whose bread is buttered when people use Oxycontin, the new gateway drug to hell? I almost wish you didn’t tell me this. Of course, most people won’t take it this way, but if I ever heard an argument for cleaning up politics that anyone could get behind, this is it.
Wow, just wow.
double wow…spread this around i just heard it called the cbc on abc news not the cbc pac which is what it is and not affiliated with cbc i believe that is correct and these are lobbiests for these companys…it is a scam on we the people ….no matter our color…its the lack of integrity that is totally unworthy
I’m a conservative. I read lots of stuff covering both parties. I do not support Sanders because I think the whole free college thing is a bad idea. I also have intimate knowledge of the healthcare industry and think his idea would create another govt agency that would be so large that mismanagement would be a given (VA and IRS). All this being said, It infuriates me when a candidate twists the the truth to seek to get more votes illegitimately. Both parties have candidates that do this, but in the instance covered in this article the fact that Clinton would accuse Sanders of trying to smear her with innuendo and then allow this falsehood to be the news item of the day just makes me sick. How the PAC could support this woman after the past year is beyond me. And John Lewis et al, are showing their true colors by allowing the media, encourageing the media to portray this endorsement as a broader one than it really is. These PAC leaders are in this for themselves and not for the good of the CBC. Sounds like they are in cahoots with Clinton and are cut from the same cloth.
“Gateway drug”? Talk about “just wow.”
I called the NBC to scrolled them, this morning at about 845am. I was informed then, that the two are separate. The media also makes it seem as one
It is extremely frustrating that long, researched comments with multiple links are still getting caught in the spam system here. [sigh]
Can Lee, or someone else, please retrieve the comment I tried to post for me? It took a while to find all the information and I think it’s stuff that Lee and readers here might be interested in seeing as it casts doubts on Rep Lewis’ statements wrt Senator Sanders’ vs the Clintons’ participation in the civil rights movement.
Thanks. :-s
I hope they can retrieve it. I would be very interested in seeing those.
Well, it took them awhile, but I’m assuming that what’s now posted is what you were waiting for, and, it’s quite worthwhile! Thank-you Pedinska.
I’m really, really sorry that this is happening again, Pedinska. I posted a multiple link comment the other day, and it took till the next day for it to post. As we know, that is not the intended result one looks for in an ongoing thread of conversation. They just fucking need to fix this shit. It’s goddamned frustrating.
The gist of it is what waitstill has posted above but with links to the information and a bit more detail.
I hope they can retrieve it and get it posted. I think it’s a good supplement to wht Lee has written here and maybe even the start of an update or new post.
It’s unfortunate that the CBC PAC and it’s representatives feel the need to distort the record in similar fashion to Madeleine Albright, Gloria Steinem and the cadre that was scolding young women last week, but we don’t have to let these distortions stand. We can, and should, address them, respectfully, with the truth. We’ve had enough distortion and lying in our politics to date. It’s time to address it head on as Lee is doing.
I’ll post one short excerpt along those lines from the good read at the link:
Throw off the dead weight of the Democratic Party: By Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report.
That’s a good article Kitt. Thanks for pointing it out.
I am an intermittent reader at BAR. I need to change that.
Kitt and Pedinska, I received an email today (11AM PST) from Rubina at the Intercept saying they have fixed their spam filter regarding my posts.(?)
Thank you for this . It’s very important to have all the facts :)
John Lewis: ‘I never saw’ Sanders at civil rights events
I have nothing but respect for Rep. John Lewis. To do what he did in service of civil rights for so many years, all while knowing that he or his loved ones could be killed at any moment, is the epitome of courage under fire. But when one looks at the specifics of his speech and the structure of how it was delivered, it seems more than a little disingenuous. And that is unfortunate for an endorsement that he is, of course, entitled to make wrt any candidate of his choosing.
It doesn’t take long to find evidence of Senator Sanders actual involvement in the civil rights movement:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1964/01/14/page/6/article/race-protest-cases-of-159-are-decided
The civil rights movement was large, with many participants in cities across the country. So it is to be expected that no single leader of that movement, no matter how committed and prolific his activities, could be expected to remember – or even have met – all people who believed in and took action on behalf of that movement.
In 1964 – the same year Bernie was arrested for protesting segregation, Hillary Rodham volunteered to campaign for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, who rejected the New Deal, crusaded against labor unions and the welfare state and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that John Lewis was working hard to get enacted. In 1965, her first year in college, she was elected president of the Wellesley Young Republicans. By her junior year, in 1967 – after Lewis’ tenure as Chair of the SNCC ended – her politics had begun their long evolution in a more liberal direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Early_life
In 1963, in the summer following his junior year in high school, Bill Clinton experienced some revelations:
In 1964-65 Clinton was busy being President of his class at Georgetown University. From 1964-1967 he interned, then clerked, in the office of Arkansas Senator William Fulbright, during the heart of the time period that Lewis discussed in his endorsement. Some of you may recall that Fulbright was a segregationist who signed the Southern Manifesto after the Supreme Court handed down their verdict in Brown v. Board of Education. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Early_life_and_career
Time passes, people change, and that kind of personal growth should surely be recognized though I would argue that it should never be rendered above scrutiny. So it was that I found it surpassing strange when Rep. Lewis insinuated in one breath that Senator Sanders was not a participant – I never saw him. I never met him. – of one of the greatest societal movements of our time, while in the very next implying that the Clintons were, in spite of demonstrable evidence that the exact opposite occurred.
John Lewis used a McCarthyite smear tactic to defeat fellow civil rights hero Julian Bond in his first race for Congress. Lewis later wept profuse crocodile tears at Bond’s funeral for “my dear brother Julian.” Some people will say anything when the cameras are rolling.
would love to know your sources for this info? (I beleive you–just want to share it) Bill & Hillary Clinton are 2 of the most SELF-SERVING CREEPS to be in the WHite House—and that'[s saying something.
I think her sources are the links she provided.
As avelna2001 notes below, I have included three links (they are highlighted in blue in my comment). They are posted directly below the parts of my comment that are referenced in them.
Hope that helps! :-)
This isn’t the first time Lewis has voiced unsubstantiated slurs.
Before being elected to the Atlanta City Council in 1981, Lewis faced “years of criticism as a holier-than-thou publicity seeker who challenged city leaders on ethical matters”.[11] In the context of the “war on drugs”, Lewis challenged Julian Bond to take a urine drug test during the 1986 Democratic runoff. The Houston Chronicle called it “perhaps the best-known example” of congressional candidates challenging their opponents to drug testing.
Thanks for looking for the truth rather than reporting on the he-said-she-said garbage. As others have commented, you’ve been in top form this election season. Plus you’re hot, so you’ve got a lot going for you. Keep up the great work! It’s so nice to have things to read without having to be on DEFCON 1 bullshit alert.
I am really interested to see what Black Lives Matters response is going to be to this. Hopefully something thoughtful instead of the usual anti-whitey diatribe that we are getting accustomed to. Things aren’t going to change until the political corruption is taken on stopped.
Thank you. I was just sick for Bernie Sanders when I saw the “I never saw him” remark. I’ve shared this on facebook. Thank you so much.
Great article. Appreciate the facts on the PAC and connections to big business.
Very good article. Thank you
This is why we pay you the big bucks, Lee. Keep up the great work
Exactly what does Hillary Clinton’s boldness consist of if actually doing something about the problems facing the Black community is unrealistic?
the real cbc should sue the pac for improper use of the name cbc. It’s misleading. Trademark law would easily stop that, court case would be over in a matter of weeks. Wake up, people.
Bloopie2. Might want to think about that. CBC and CBC PAC are actually distinguishable by the fact that one is just a Caucus, and the other is a Political Action Committee. The boards are different, and they are incorporated differently. I worked for a CDBG and a CDBG Operations Corporation, and both entities were separate and legal. Can be deceptive though, and I think it’s oftentimes by design that they are.
Great reporting!!
And yet, Clinton will probably win the nomination because the process is so very, very corrupt what with super delegates and all…
Today on Democracynow barbara Lee went on and on about how
the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional
Black Caucus PAC are two different things.
She emphasized that the caucus included republicans and
gave the impression that the decisions of the CBC PAC were
not connected to the CBC.
Then I looked at Open Secrets to see how the PAC spends its money
in campaigns. In 2014, the CBC PAC only gave money to the
democrats who were running.
It seems that the CBC PAC with all of its financial scheming
is actually more of a democrat organization than is the CBC.
than is the CBC.
Thanks Lee Fang, keep at it, much appreciated
Funny…had Sanders won the nomination, I wonder if you would have heard anything about lobbyists….ridiculous…once you don’t follow and drink the Sanders Kool-Aid, you are evil….great way to go my friend…..this one is too funny.
I’d recommend a nice cup of coffee, and then a quick search on how to use ellipses, and finally, repost this in some manner that’s intelligible. I think you’re trying to imply that Sanders will be the same as HRC regarding lobbyists influencing his administration. I would note that it’s not lobbyists in particular that Sanders is campaigning against; it’s the lobbyists that have bags of money to influence policies which are the subject of Bernie’s ire.
Fantastic reporting!
These dinosours need to be all primaried. Look at them, all of them in their 70’s siting in their safe districts. Spent 20 years in DC. Totally clueless. I hope black voters humiliate them by rejecting Hillary. She thinks endorsements from her friends in Washington means anything to the average people.
Thank you Lee. Your reporting this election has been thoroughgoing and indispensable.
Bravo to Lee Fang. Fine journalism.
Law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out earlier that John Lewis made a 180* turn re: Ed Snowden.
https://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/08/rep-lewis-praises-snowden-then-quickly-retracts-praise/
Great catch, and ever since Lewis has been in congress, he’s demonstrated nothing but spinelessness.
Sorry transition from his earlier years. . . .
You might not get a Holiday card from Team Clinton, but if you keep killing it with this excellent work, you can send her one back in Arkansas where she’ll be hiding from the Wall Street mafia.
With the transcripts, you’ve already made a material, observable, and definable impact on the Presidential election. You’re playing with house money from here on out. Keep it up!
Thanks!
Whether he wanted or not MLK legacy is creation of large Black elite, courtiers of the regime that exterminates their brothers and sisters in unprecedented viciousness while they are covering up those crimes and endorse their new 21st century slave masters such as Clinton.
Amen, brother! (CBCPAC: Slaves to the White Devils)
Mr. Fang –
I always look forward to your investigative work. Keep it up.
But they are from the streets!
Wall Street and Easy Street!
Lobbying, this means advocating for, doesnt it? Not all Lobbyists are bad people, and Sanders should know better. For a Progressive leader, he seems to perpetuate stereotypes!
Sanders is a spoiler, he will split the black vote and thereby give the
Republicans the Presidency. Now thats being progressive!
I’m not clear on what it is you’re trying to say, and I don’t think you are either.
Sanders will “split the black vote” between whom? If you mean he will “split the black vote” between himself and Clinton, so what. What does that even mean? If Sanders wins the nomination, there won’t be a “split the black” vote in the General Election of any significant numbers; Sanders would receive most all of “the black vote” in the general. But the bottom line is this: if Hillary Clinton loses to Sanders in the primary, then there is no one more responsible for that loss than Hillary Clinton.
Joke’s on you, Sanders doesn’t have the guts to run as an independent or third party candidate, he’s said he would endorse Hillary Clinton if he lost the nomination. And besides, what has voting Democrat gotten our country as a whole recently? The TPP and its corporate tribunals, the corrupt bankers being bailed out instead of being jailed for their fraud, the deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians in the Mid East, more environmental pollution thanks to fracking, and attacks on civil liberties (ie, the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments) and international law (ie, treatment of civilians).
It was Martin Luther King Jr. himself that wished people would one day be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Were he alive today, I bet he’d have quit the corrupt “two party system” and become a Green, having recognized that a corpse rots and decays and becomes spoiled itself (the Dem/Repub parties having died a spiritual death).
Not all lobbyists are bad people? What planet are you from, dood?
With the explosion of the lobbyists in D.C. and around the country, now well over 40,000 and growing like a colony of runaway rats, there has likewise been ushered in the dismantling of the US economy.
Your weekend assignment? Read Jane Mayer’s outstanding book, Dark Money.
Got that?
“…a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.”
Seriously, THAT is what you think is wrong with Wal-Mart?!?
There’s a lot to choose from on that subject. What did you have in mind?
They say “bold”? I don’t think that word means what they think it means to quote The Princess Bride movie.
If there is something “bold” about Hillary Clinton’s political career over the last 30 years I must have missed it. And I’ve paid pretty close attention year in and year out over that period. Predictable, a trailing indicator of public opinion, a flip-flopping windsock–maybe. “Bold” she is not. Hell if Hillary Clinton has a “principle” she hasn’t flip-flopped on at some point I’d be really shocked and need citations to reputable sources to prove it.
I’d have to say the only nominally “liberal” politician in America living that I dislike more, is her husband former Pres. Clinton. Maybe Howard Dean at this point. Although Chuck Schumer and a whole mess of Congresscritters are running a very close fourth.
Well Hell yes! Of course the CBC would endorse HRC after she’s received the Officially Approved Endorsement from mass murderer, Henry Kissinger.
Whenever Wall Street commands the CBC to “fetch it” they immediately respond:
“We’re stepping, we’re stepping!”
With the possible exception of Maxine Waters, they are sooo deep in the pockets of Wall Street, it ain’t even funny!
Recommended Reading:
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right
Except the CBC explicitly did not endorse HRC.
I hold them both in equal contempt, as I’ve followed the pro-Wall Street pro-globalization activities of the CBC for quite more than several decades now.
Whether Charlie Rangel sneaking in anti-worker verbiage in the Singapore Accords (allowing in an exponential number of foreign visa workers, thus circumventing the officially stated limits), or the CBC back in 1980 supporting removing sensitive defense-related manufacturing jobs from the not-to-be-offshored list (in the name of “diversity”) thus allowing them to be offshored to Asia just at the time when Black-Americans were making inroads into those jobs, etc., their behavior has been most wanting.
CBCPAC, not CBC.
A few days ago, Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright, the Official Feminists for the Democratic National Corporation, spewed their nonsense…
But what other reason is there to vote for HRC other than because she’s a woman?
Sooo…in the opinion of CBCPAC, the Official Negro has spoken…am I correct in that assumption?
What could possibly motivate lobbyists for a student loan company to oppose Bernie Sanders??! Mysterious!
Thank you for making me laugh out loud!