Although its content is accurate, the research out of Stanford is a paper, co-written by a Stanford
student. 
So it’s not a proper “study” by professors, duly peer-reviewed, as this headline misleadingly suggests.
Apologies.
MCM

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud 

by Sean Adl-Tabatabai

A bombshell study released by Stanford University confirms evidence of election fraud during the 2016 Democratic Party primaries.
 

According to a paper released this week entitled, “Are we witnessing a dishonest election?,” a state comparison based on the voting procedures used during the election reveals endemic election fraud within the system.

Given the stakes in the outcome of the American presidential elections, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance.

Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive.

At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate?

We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim.

First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls.

Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama.

As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.

Full report: Are we witnessing a dishonest election?


Two Bigots Running for US President

It’s easy to spot Donald Trump’s crude bigotry but harder to detect Hillary Clinton’s more subtle variety since it pertains mostly to Palestinians and people pressuring Israel to respect Palestinian rights, explains Lawrence Davidson.

By Lawrence Davidson

To find bigots in political office in the United States is not historically unusual. In fact, up until the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement, publicly recognizable bigots in office were the norm in many parts of the country. Even in the post-1960s era, we find presidents such as Nixon and Reagan who could be openly bigoted. However, most recent office holders have known enough to keep their prejudices off of the public airwaves.

It is a sign of the fragility of the changes in national character wrought by the Civil Rights Movement that the inhibitions holding back public expressions of bigotry are wearing thin. And that has set the scene for the current contest for the presidency in which both major parties have thrown up (no pun intended) bigoted candidates. Yes, that is right, two of them, not just one.

On the Republican side the bigot is easy to spot. That is because Donald Trump wears his bigotry on his sleeve, so to speak. He can’t help but display it because, apparently even at this late date, he doesn’t understand what the big deal is.

On the campaign trail he has insulted Mexicans, Muslims and “our African-Americans,” and gotten away with it because millions of his supporters are also bigots. A common bigotry is one of the reasons they cheer him on. However, now that he is the “presumptive” Republican candidate for president, much of that party’s leadership and their media allies have begun to call him on these problematic public expressions.

They want to see Trump act “presidential,” hiding away his prejudices for the sake of achieving maximum appeal. Alas, this is not easy for a man who, all of his life, said what he thought, no matter how improper. He sees it as “just being honest,” and up until the run for president, his wealth had helped forestall most public criticism.

Hillary Clinton’s Bigotry

On the Democratic side the bigot is not so easy to spot, but the problem exists in any case. Hillary Clinton may not be a bigot in the same way as Trump. She certainly isn’t going to go about insulting ethnic groups with large numbers of potential voters. Indeed, she has cultivated many minority groups and is supported by them.

But such outreach has its limits, and in one important case she is willing to act as a de facto bigot in order to cater to a politically powerful interest group. Having actively done so, the difference in ethical behavior between her and Mr. Trump starts to blur.

In what way is Hillary Clinton, now the “presumptive” presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, behaving like a de facto bigot? She does so in her open, prosecutorial hostility toward the fight to liberate Palestinians from the racist oppression of Israel and its Zionist ideology.

Clinton, having in this case traded whatever principled anti-racist feelings she has for a fistful of campaign dollars, has openly sided with the Zionists. And, as she must well know, they are among the world’s most demonstrative bigots.

Read More: 


FBI criminal investigation emails: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says WSJ:

FBI is investigating Hillary’s classified emails on State Dept. approval of CIA drone killings in Pakistan

By Ben Norton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her phone in October 18, 2011(Credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)The FBI has been conducting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information for months.

An explosive new report reveals just what it is that the FBI is looking to: emails in which then-Secretary of State Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations in Pakistan with her cellphone.

From 2011 on, the State Department had a secret arrangement with the CIA, giving it a degree of say over whether or not a drone killing would take place.The U.S. drone program has killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and other countries.

Under Sec. Clinton, State Department officials approved almost every single proposed CIA drone assassination. They only objected to one or two attacks.

The emails that are at the heart of the FBI’s criminal investigation are 2011 and 2012 messages between U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and their State Department superiors in D.C., in which the officials approved drone strikes.

Clinton’s aides forwarded some of these emails to her personal email account, on a private server in her home in suburban New York.

These are the revelations of a report by The Wall Street Journal, based on information provided by anonymous congressional and law-enforcement officials who were briefed on the FBI’s probe.

The State Department revealed in January that 22 of the emails that were on Clinton’s private server at her home contained top-secret information. These messages were not publicly released, and an investigation was eventually launched.

The White House acknowledged in a press briefing on Thursday that the FBI probe into Clinton’s handling of classified information is a “criminal investigation.” President Obama endorsed Clinton for president on the same day.

Hundreds of civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and more have been killed by U.S. drones.

Pakistan is the site of more U.S. drone strikes than any other country. The Obama administration has carried out more than 370 drone attacks in Pakistan, killing as many as 1,000 civilians, including up to 200 children, according to data collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The exact number of civilians killed is unknown, because the U.S. is very secretive about its program, and because it essentially redefines militant to mean any man of military age in a targeted area.

In 2011, some Pakistani officials pushed back against the U.S. drone assassination program, leading the U.S. State Department to ask the CIA to be more “judicious” about the timing of drone attacks. Clinton’s State Department did not oppose the CIA’s specific choice of targets, just their timing.

This led to a compromise in which the CIA gave the State Department some voice in the drone assassination process. Beginning in 2011, CIA officers began notifying diplomats in the U.S. embassy in Islamabad of planned attacks. The diplomats then conveyed the information to senior State Department officials.

Read More: 


CA voting rights activists observing the provisional ballot count looking for attorneys and poll workers in Alameda, etc.

Diana Finch <diana.finch@verizon.net>: Jun 10 03:46PM -0400

If anyone here knows attorneys or poll workers in California who are interested in helping to observe the provisional ballot review and counting, please reply to this message via the group or directly to me (but not to both) and I will put you in touch with the organizers of this effort, who include the Election Justice USA attorneys who also filed suit before the California primary concerning the provisional ballots.

Under California State Election law, certified observers are allowed to watch the provisional ballot counting. The counting and observations have begun already in San Francisco and are expected to continue next week in many other locations including Alameda.

Thank you!

Diana Finch
diana.finch@verizon.net


What Media Hid in De Niro Autism Film Affair

By F. William Engdahl

Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a former British gastro-enterologist and vaccine researcher has been fully exonerated of the charges that he, together with a world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist, Prof. John Walker-Smith, conducted fraudulent tests with children that raised the possibility of a link between the popular MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and onset of autism and other severe symptoms. Most remarkable is the fact that despite his de facto exoneration in a British Court more than four years ago, in 2012, mainstream media in the UK and the USA have chosen to deliberately ignore the fact. They did so to hide the explosive content of Wakefield’s film, Vaxxed.

This past April, Hollywood actor and founder of the Tribeca film festival, Robert de Niro, announced in an interview to the New York Times that he had personally arranged for a new documentary film, Vaxxed, about links between autism and vaccinations, to be shown on April 24 at his festival in order to open a national debate on the subject. Some 48 hours later the Tribeca website announced it had pulled the film. The pressure had been enormous. To his credit, some days later, on America’s most popular morning show, de Niro repeated his earlier statement that while he is not anti-vaccine, he wants an open debate on the subject. De Niro’s own son is autistic.

Exonerated

At the time I wrote my article, I was not aware that a British Court some four years ago completely exonerated Wakefield’s co-author and researcher in the autism study. Since then a helpful reader has pointed me to the entire text of the Court decision. I’ve decided to write this follow-up in the interest of justice to Andrew Wakefield, whom I’ve personally met and whose moral courage going up against the pharma lobby against all normal odds we owe a debt to. I do it also in support of Robert de Niro’s call for an open debate on the question of links between not only autism and vaccines. Had our “mainstream” media not been long ago polluted with the toxic waste of the pharma industry, and had they maintained a scintilla of honest journalism today, such an account would not have been necessary.

In February, 2012, Mr. Justice Mitting held hearings on the charges brought against world renowned pediatric gastro-enterologist, Prof. John Walker-Smith, Wakefield’s co-researcher, in Britain’s High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court.

The Justice ruled that charges brought against Walker-Smith by the British General Medical Council’s Panel, the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” Walker-Smith won his appeal against a General Medical Council regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in authoring a 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician…”

Read More: 


Stunning Emails Reveal How Clinton Foundation Donor Bought Seat As Hillary’s Nuclear Weapons Advisor

By Tyler Durden

Forget Hillary’s personal email server: this is what true cronyism and criminal corruption looks like, and this is the biggest threat from a Hillary presidency.

It has been widely speculated, if not proven, that donors to the Clinton Foundation who over the years have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the “charitable organization”, bought political favors with the Clintons in exchange for their generosity. That has now been confirmed thanks to a stunning ABC report which reveals how a major foundation donor – one who previously had practically no experience on intelligence matters – mysteriously ended up as a nuclear weapons advisor to Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Worse, the person in question Rajiv K. Fernando, had been the head of a high frequency trading company, Chopper Trading (recently acquired [2]by HFT powerhouse DRW), which may explain the unprecedented pull of the HFT lobby throughout all ranks of the US political apparatus. In other words, Fernando bought a seat to not only have advance knowledge of all US foreign policy, but to directly shape it, something he could then parlay in the forms of massive policy frontrunning profits thanks to his trading company.

In other words, the appointment qualified Fernando, a trader in the public markets, for one of the highest levels of top secret access.

Just as shocking was the aggressive retaliation with which the State Department tried to cover up the cronyism that literally “bought” Fernando’s seat as one of Hillary’s closest political advisors, and how – as a result of ongoing media pressure – Fernando just as mysteriously resigned only days after his appointment was announced when the State Department was unable to come up with a legitimate reason for him to stay on.

The full shocking story follows, courtesy of ABC [3].

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.

Read More: 


What ‘Hamilton’ Forgets About Alexander Hamilton

By JASON FRANK and ISAAC KRAMNICK

ALEXANDER HAMILTON is all the rage. Sold out for months in advance, the musical “Hamilton,” Lin-Manuel Miranda’s remarkable hip-hop dramatization of this founder’s life, is arguably the most celebrated American cultural phenomenon of our time. Reported on from every conceivable angle, the show has helped keep Hamilton on the $10 bill and prompted a new nickname for this weekend’s Broadway awards ceremony: the “Hamiltonys.”

Central to the musical’s power is the way it and its extraordinarily talented multiracial cast use Hamilton’s immigrant hustle to explain the most important political episodes of his life. “I am not throwing away my shot,” Mr. Miranda’s Hamilton sings early on, and it is this motif that animates everything that follows.

In Hamilton’s tumultuous life, Mr. Miranda saw the drive and promise of the immigrant story of America. Already in 1782 the French immigrant Crèvecoeur had defined “the American, this new man” as one who moved to a land in which the “idle may be employed, the useless become useful, and the poor become rich.” Hamilton announces this entrepreneurial ambition early in the show: “Hey, yo, I’m just like my country/I’m young, scrappy and hungry.” The night’s biggest applause line, “Immigrants: We get the job done!,” proclaims that, contra Donald J. Trump, immigrants are the source of America’s greatness and renewal, not its decline.

Mr. Miranda’s depiction of Hamilton as resourceful immigrant and talented self-made man captures an important aspect of his character. But the musical avoids an equally pronounced feature of Hamilton’s beliefs: his deeply ingrained elitism, his disdain for the lower classes and his fear of democratic politics. The musical’s misleading portrayal of Hamilton as a “scrappy and hungry” man of the people obscures his loathing of the egalitarian tendencies of the revolutionary era in which he lived.

Read More: 


Ryan under GOP fire for Trump remarks

By Alexander Bolton and Scott Wong

Speaker Paul Ryan’s handling of Donald Trump is coming under criticism from Senate Republicans, many of whom prefer the way their leader, Mitch McConnell, deals with the unconventional candidate.

McConnell, the Senate majority leader from Kentucky, has steadfastly declined to call Trump’s criticism of a federal judge “racist,” a term that Ryan (R-Wis.) pointedly deployed.

“It sets up journalists to ask, ‘Do you agree with Paul Ryan that it was racist?” said an aide to a vulnerable GOP senator

Trump set off a firestorm last week by claiming that a Mexican-American federal judge handling a lawsuit against Trump University was biased because of his heritage.

Republican lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol swiftly expressed strong disapproval, but Ryan ratcheted up the criticism significantly by calling it “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Ryan’s remarks quickly became a Democratic talking point used to batter vulnerable Senate Republican incumbents.

“This morning, Ryan called Donald Trump’s attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel the ‘textbook definition of racism.’ Will Johnson join Ryan in calling out Trump’s racism?” American Bridge, a Democrat-allied communications group, asked in a press release targeting Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), one of the chamber’s most endangered incumbents.

The group sent out similar releases pressing Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Roy Blunt(Mo.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) to condemn Trump’s action as “racist.”

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Wednesday sent an email to reporters highlighting a Tampa Bay Times article in which three Republican Senate candidates declined to go as far as Ryan.

“Even though high-ranking Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan have condemned Donald Trump’s comments on the Trump University Judge as racist, Florida Senate candidates Carlos Beruff, Ron DeSantis and Carlos Lopez-Cantera avoided going that far,” the Senate Democrats’ political arm wrote.

One GOP senator said he and his colleagues are more upset with Trump’s lack of discipline, which has forced them to play defense instead of talking about the weak economy.

At the same time, the senator added, “nobody was happy with Paul.”

Another Republican senator was more diplomatic: “If he could have gotten his point across without being so definitive and giving Democrats fodder for people lower on the ticket, that would have been good.”

Senate Republicans won’t criticize Ryan publically because they don’t want to pick a fight with the top-ranking House Republican or be seen as defending Trump’s comment, which many thought was ill-advised.

But they have concerns about whether Ryan is thinking enough about how his actions affect the party’s chances of keeping control of the Senate.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said her boss did what he thought was right.

“He was asked a question and answered honestly. He’s always said he’ll speak out when warranted,” she said.

Read More: 


Allegations of voter fraud follow Hillary Clinton campaign across nation

BY DARIN DAMME, REALITY CHECK |

Arizona is just the latest state where allegations of voting irregularities have been claimed.

As the Huffington Post reports:

Beginning in Iowa and climaxing with the holy mess that occurred in Arizona, the Democratic presidential primaries have been a Wagnerian Ring Cycle of electoral “shenanigans,” cynical rule-bending and outright voter suppression.

Below are some possible instances of voter fraud, courtesy of Hillary Clinton’s campaign:

Iowa (FEB 1)

Allegations of voter irregularities in favor of Clinton began with the nation’s first vote, Feb. 1, in Iowa.

Clinton had to win Iowa. A loss in Iowa would have been devastating to her campaign and would have likely resulted in a momentum shift in media coverage and voter enthusiasm in favor of Bernie Sanders.

Clinton was declared the winner by the slimmest of margins (only four votes statewide), even though multiple reports of election rigging were claimed.

It’s been reported six different precincts in Iowa held coin flips to break a tie between Clinton and Sanders voters, with Clinton winning all 6.  However, the video below clearly shows Sanders winning at least one of those coin flips that was credited to Clinton.

In Polk County Iowa, multiple recounts were conducted as the headcount changed from round to round.

However, video released of the final recount shows Clinton campaign representative Liz Buck not conducting an actual recount of Clinton voters, but simply adding the number of new arrivals in the Clinton tally without accounting for those who left.

Read More: 


How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board

By MATTHEW MOSKBRIAN ROSSCHO

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

Read More: 


Forbidden Bookshelf

Forbidden Bookshelf




“While We Were Sleeping”

While We Were Sleeping is an urgent call to save Greenwich Village from New York University's uncontrolled expansion.

Click here to donate to NYUFASP and receive a copy of "While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York" (minimum donation to receive a book is $10 plus $8 shipping).

Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD



About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:

Help News From Underground!





Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to: markcrispinmiller@gmail.com

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts

Blogroll

Need a bigger font size?




Sponsored Links



  • Your link could be here too, contact us for pricing details.