Is Hilary Clinton's Super Delegate Projection A Farce?

Super delegates do not count towards anyone's delegate total because they don't actually exist and will never be cast unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention circumstances that so far has only happened once before in the history of the Democratic Party. So in all likelihood super delegate votes will never be cast, something CNN is both too inept to know and too lazy to find out about. Super delegate declarations are also non-committal so any declarations made now count for nothing and carry no force of action even if super delegates were ever asked to cast a vote which is unlikely. And it's not even purely their choice to vote. They have to be formally asked. Which is why superdelegates haven't cast a vote in 32 years. Clinton and the DNC know this. But it's clear that the Democratic party establishment is willing to create the fiction and false impression that Clinton has a big delegate lead. She doesn't. Ignorant, incompetent journalists who have more in common with parrots than Woodward and Bernstein just happily repeat the fraud they are fed. Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes. Because based on Democratic Party rules and procedures super delegate votes don't count until the are cast at the convention, not before, and won't ever be cast unless they are asked to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention. They do not automatically vote as John King erroneously claimed on CNN and have never voted since 1984. In 2008 with much talk about superdelegates switching from Clinton to Obama then back to Clinton and with neither candidate even close to the 2/3 majority needed, even then superdelegates didn't vote. So the real story which CNN and other news organizations miss, is why is Clinton and the DNC claiming super delegate votes now as part of her delegate total when it's a sham, super delegates have no vote now, probably never will and the declarations are non-committal? It's as much of a fraud as looking at a house you might buy, keep it under consideration, decide to keep looking but include the house in your financial statement as an asset even though you don't own it. Or writing a check post dated four months from now, unsigned and on a bank account that's not even open and claiming it as an asset. It's not only fraud, it reeks of campaign dirty tricks in collusion with the Obama run DNC as part of Clinton's backroom deal with Obama, trying to give the illusion of Clinton leading by a substantial margin when she isn't. And it raises an interesting question: is Hillary Clinton and the DNC thinking about trying to steal the nomination? This nonsense about super delegates is sheer political dishonesty with the Clinton campaign along with the help of the DNC who, as even David Gergen pointed out is in the tank for Clinton, trying to make it look like she's way ahead when she isn't. The story as reported by two AP reporters, Hope Yen and Stephen Ohlemacher (yes, let's name names) had the opening line, "so much for Bernie Sanders big win in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 super delegates to the Democratic Conventions dwarfing Sanders gain in New Hampshire" . Its total fiction since Sanders pledged delegates are real and the "endorsements" count for nothing in terms of actual votes so Clinton and the DNC establishment successfully played the two AP reporters for stooges. As well as John King and others at CNN. Clinton saying she picked up 87 super delegates after New Hampshire has the same affect and same weight and real influence on the nomination as if she had picked up 87 empty beer cans. Well,no, that's not true because the beer cans would be worth more if they had a 5c deposit. So here are the facts and the truth about super delegates based on Democratic Party rules and procedures that you won't get from Clinton or the DNC, and it seems from the news media, at least not now: Super delegates have only cast a vote once in the history of the Democratic party, 32 years ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart by less than 500 delegates won in the primaries but didnt have the 2/3 needed for the nomination. But even then they didnt play a role in the nominating process for president. They cast their votes for Mondale who had 1,606 pledged delegates won in the primaries to Hart's 1164 which only affirmed the results of the primaries and allowed Mondale to get to the 2/3 threshold as required by DNC rules.. They have never cast a vote since. And as of now have no certain role. Pledged delegates do . So any declarations are bogus. Super delegates would not cast a vote unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention, not before, a set of circumstances which only occurred in 1984,the only time super delegates voted since they were created. Which is what makes any non-binding declarations now bogus. And Clinton and the DNC know that too. Those circumstances are as they occured in 1984, that neither candidate finishes the primary season with the two thirds majority of pledged delegates needed for the nomination that are won in the primaries - if they did the nominating process is over without superdelegates casting a single vote - the delegate count is so close as to make them virtually tied, AND the convention is hopelessly deadlocked with neither candidate or party officials able to persuade delegates on the other side to switch after the first ballot. Super delegates could be used to break a hopeless deadlock when neither candidate is able to get the two-thirds delegate count needed. Or if a candidate finishes with a clear delegate lead but not enough to reach the 2/3 needed as per DNC rules. Then superdelegates could be used to get them over the top and to avoid what Democrats were afraid of when they created super delegates - a contentious convention and floor fight. Without being needed to vote superdelegates wouldn't vote and wouldn't dare vote in a way that would reverse the votes of pledged delegates won. When Obama finished the 2008 primary season with a paltry 65 delegate lead over Clinton and it looked like the nomination could go either way if superdelegates voted , Nancy Pelosi said super delegates were obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates if they were to vote at all. So where does Clinton get off claiming over 440 super delegates when whether they will vote at all is yet to be determined, their "endorsements" are non-committal,worthless as votes, and in all probability super delegates will never vote at all? Delegates won in primaries, called "pledged delegates", are actually committed to vote for the candidate they are sent to the convention to vote for as a result of vote counts in the primaries. Without getting too esoteric, it's actually delegates that are elected during primaries, either Clinton or Sanders delegates who are then sent by voters to the convention to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for on the first ballot. They are the only delegates that actually count now. And are real. And the delegates that traditionally, and to date have decided the nomination. So until and unless those extraordinary set of circumstances occur which only ocurred once, in 1984, super delegates will not vote, don't count now and for all intents and purposes dont even exist. When the first roll call vote is called there will be no super delegates voting. All of which shows the depths of dishonesty and deception Clinton is willing to go. And with her the Obama run DNC who look like they are trying to do what they can to rig the process and create false impressions. If Bernie Sanders finished with 2000 pledged delegates won during the primaries and needed another three hundred to get the two-thirds majority with Clinton say, 1,000 delegates behind, there would be some horse trading to get the remaining 300 delegates needed from Clinton perhaps making a deal on picking a vice presidential running mate. But its inconceivable super delegates even those declaring for her now ( which again, don't count) would cast votes for Clinton to give her the nomination.Super delegates casting their votes for the second place finisher never happened even in 1984. It would bring the Democratic party to its knees if they tried to crown a queen instead of nominate a president.and Sanders voters would never vote for Clinton no matter what histrionics DNC officials pulled over Supreme Court nominations etc etc. Super delegates would only vote to break an otherwise hopeless deadlock and to give a clear winner the votes required by rules to officially get the nomination. They are a last resort and most importantly as mentioned earlier, super delegates have only once in the history of the Democratic party ever cast a single vote and that was 32 years ago And if a hopeless deadlock never occurs super delegates will have no role. To count them now is pure fraud. So why is Hillary Clinton putting out the fiction that she is ahead on delegates even though she isn't because of super delegates? Because she is being underhanded and so is the DNC run by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Obama's hand picked chair of the DNC who are trying to build a phony aura of expectation and inevitability and the illusion that she will be the nominee and then if she doesn't have the actual votes from the primary battles try and steal the nomination by using super delegates with Obama and Wasserman-Schultz driving the getaway car. The New York Times acting like the long arm of the law put their arm on Clinton in a recent editorial making it clear that super delegates can have no role in the outcome of the nomination which needs to be decided by whoever wins the most delegates in the primaries. But there is another reason the Clinton campaign is putting out these super delegate numbers as if they count now when they don't. Its the kind of outrageous political tactics we've seen from Republicans -- a tactic to suppress the Sanders vote. There is little doubt that the Clinton campaign with the help of the DNC, by putting out these fictitious super delegate numbers are trying to create some false idea that Clinton has such a huge lead her nomination is inevitable. The hope is this will dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of Sanders voters (enthusiasm Clinton cant match) and hopefully hold down their turnout in the hopes of making them think Clinton's nomination is inevitable because of super delegates and there is nothing they can do to affect the outcome. Which of course is not true . Its more of a Republican style dirty trick, the kind they have tried in the past in the hopes of holding down the African American vote in certain communities. The principle is the same. The Clinton campaign and the DNC needs to be called out for this kind of dishonest manipulation when she is actually tied with Sanders 51-51 in pledged delegates, the only delegates that matter. This idea that super delegates have declared anything for her carries no authority, no weight, no certainty. Nothing a super delegate says now is binding. They could change their minds a hundred times between now and the convention, and no one would know so how can they be counted now? And if Clinton is putting out these phony super delegate numbers to try and grease the skids for an attempt at stealing the nomination at the convention, it might be a good idea for Sanders voters to remind her and everyone else of one other thing: In 2008 when it looked like Obama might lose the nomination to Clinton because of a super delegate vote, Donna Brazille, an Obama supporter and former chair of the DNC said publicly that if super delegates decided the nomination she would quit the Democratic party. If Donna Brazile can quit the Democratic party if super delegates decided the nomination so can Sanders voters. And they can make it clear that they will. Which means if Clinton and the DNC tries to steal the nomination from Sanders using super delegates if he has the majority of pledged delegates they can count on Sanders voters staying home. Clinton putting out the word that she has 469 delegates which include over 400 super delegates that she can't ethically or even by DNC rules count is almost a veiled threat as if to say, "okay I got buried by the voters in New Hampshire and it was razor thin in Iowa and Nevada but so what? I have a trick up my sleeve." If Clinton, Obama and the DNC think they are greasing the skids now so Clinton can pull a fast one at the convention later, they better not try. If they do anything to try and rig the nomination, Sanders voters can just vow never to support it, just like Donna Brazile threatened which will bring the Democratic party down like a house of cards and do Clinton no good in the general election. Let Sanders and his supporters put Clinton and the DNC on notice that if they do anything to rig the nomination, if the nomination does not go to the candidate who won the most votes and most delegates in the primaries as Nancy Pelosi in 2008 said it must, then the Democrats will have to face the music and take another drubbing like they did in 2010 and 2014 essentially over Obama's unscrupulous sell out of the health care public option to the insurance companies. Make it clear that if Clinton can't win honestly she is not going to win at all. And if Sanders voters stay home in the face of a corrupt process it will wipe out Democratic down ticket candidates also, and if that's what it takes to throw open the windows, let in the fresh air and purge the Democratic party of those corrupting the system, so be it. No amount of whining or scare tactics by Democratic big wigs about what will happen if Clinton loses and begging Sanders supporters to go along with the corruption will ever work. Its called making your own bed and lying in it. With the double meaning of the word "lying" very clear.

Rival protesters face off in gritty Hong Kong neighborhood

"Rival protesters face off in gritty Hong Kong neighborhood" - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0HN03Q20141004

Kenya Chief Justice Dr.Willy Mutunga In Trouble

I don’t think Willy Mutunga knew what he was getting into when he packed his personal belongings and left his cushy offices at the Ford Foundation in Nairobi early in 2011 to join the Judiciary as Chief Justice and President of the Kenya Supreme Court. If he thought by leaving a relatively safe job at an international Non-Governmental Organisation for the coveted position he would get an easy ride, he must now be having different thoughts. Dr. Mutunga joined the Government at a time when the dignity, the reputation and the respect for the third Branch of Government were at their lowest ebb. Kenyans had lost confidence in the Judiciary. The morale of judges and magistrates was zero. Corruption and nepotism were rampant. Hundreds of cases were pending, and prisoners were languishing in remand prisons because there were no judges to conclude their cases. Bottom line: the Judiciary was no longer a place where citizens could go to find justice. Enter Dr. Willy Mutunga, a political activist, human rights lawyer, pro-democracy crusader and an intellectual per excellence. Conformists took one glimpse at him and saw a stud on his left ear and they went beserk. But Mutunga’s academic and social credentials carried the day. He impressed the majority of Kenyans and received thumbs-up from the international community. Finally, and for the first time, the country had a real reformer at the helm of the Judiciary. That was then. Today, the Chief Justice is so mired in controversies that Kenyans may want to take another look at the man who was detained for almost a year by President Daniel Arap Moi for agitating for political reforms. Soon after taking over, Dr. Mutunga issued a well-documented road map that was to yank the department from years of inertia, ignominy and compunction. But two years down the line, his comprehensive reforms and anti-corruption agenda appear bogged down in mud. From the controversial vetting of judges, to the dispute over the presidential petition ruling, to the Gladys Shollei affair, to claims of death threats made by the Chief Justice himself, things have, as someone once said, become elephant for the soft-spoken former law professor. What all these events prove is that the office of the Chief Justice is hot, and requires a dose of tact, a bucket of diplomacy and a tonne of guts for its occupier to stay sane. At one time when Mutunga was under siege, he took to the social media to make his views known, but he was quickly reminded that his position called for a better method of communication. Considering his age, at 67, Mutunga has a few more years before he retires at 70 years old. That means three more years of hard knocks, controversies, abuses and humiliation. Mutunga’s latest battle with the judges over office space is likely to lead to a showdown that could disrupt the activities of the Judiciary. Appelant judges have refused to move to their new offices at Upper Hill claiming they would be in danger of radiation from nearby communication masts. Although the Commnication Commission of Kenya has said the premises are safe, some judges have reportedly threatened to resign if Mutunga insisted on their relocation. He will need Solomonic wisdom to deal with this one. The Chief Justice is currently on a tour abroad. When he returns another fight will be waiting for him, this time from the floor of the National Assembly. A Member of Parliament has asked the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to summon the Judicial Service Commission to question its members about Mutunga’s current overseas trip. The MP is questioning not only the rationale of Mutunga and two of his top officials being away at the same time, but he wants Parliament to get answers about his alleged frequent visits overseas. Ndung’u Gethenji, the MP for Tetu cites the present office space stalemate and the issues surrounding the Chief Registrar who was briefly suspended and then recalled to duty by the JSC over matters of precurement, as some of the reasons that should have kept the Chief Justice at home. The Shollei issue is not over A lot more is on the way. Constitutionally, it would be difficult for a committee of the House to summon the JSC to explain anything. The Judiciary and Parliament are parallel bodies with independent powers. The JSC has refused to appear once before, and I see no indication that it will offer itself this time around. And that is my say.

Deputy President Ruto's Ksh.100M jet report delayed

The office of the Auditor General is yet to complete investigations into the government’s controversial leasing of a jet for the Deputy President William Ruto during his West African tour in May this year, on grounds of technicalities. The Auditor General once again failed to give satisfactory reasons for the delay and failure to beat the three week deadline issued by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee.

Tunisian Education Minister resigns,pressure on government grows

Tunisian Education Minister Salem Labyedh has resigned, the prime minister's spokesman said on Wednesday, as pressure mounted on the Islamist-led government to step down. Protests against the moderate Islamist Ennahda party intensified after last week's killing of a leftist politician, the second to be slain in six months, disrupting a political transition that began when Tunisians toppled an autocratic leader in 2011. Opposition parties, the largest labor union and the secular Ettakatol party, the ruling Ennahda party's junior coalition partner, have all demanded the government's departure. Labyedh, a secular independent, had said he was considering resigning after fellow leftist Mohamed Brahmi was shot dead on Thursday in an assassination the government has pinned on hardline Salafi Islamists. The opposition blames Ennahda. The minister of culture, Mehdi Mabrouk, also told local media he was hoping to convince all ministers to resign. "I hope to see the resignation of all members of the government in the coming days," he told the local Shems radio station. "I hope these will be the last days I spend as the minister of culture." While politicians feud, the army is struggling to contain Islamist militants, who killed eight soldiers on Monday in a mountainous region near the Algerian border in one of the bloodiest attacks on Tunisian troops in decades. A small roadside bomb exploded on Wednesday south of the capital as a police patrol passed, but no injuries or damage were reported. Last Saturday, the day of Brahmi's funeral, the capital Tunis was hit by its first car bomb, but again no one was hurt. "We are facing two choices. Either we confront terrorism together, or we will distract the army and security forces with political battles that are much less dangerous than terrorism," Noureddine Bhiri, the prime minister's spokesman, told a news conference. Ennahda has softened its rejection of opposition demands in the face of increasing pressure. It said on Tuesday it was open to the possibility of a new government, but has firmly rejected the opposition's demands that the transitional Constituent Assembly also be disbanded. The body is just weeks away from completing a draft of a new constitution to be put to a popular referendum. Prime Minister Ali Larayedh will meet the head of the powerful Tunisian General Labor Union on Thursday to discuss the political crisis and a new initiative to deal with the situation, the prime minister's office said. The 600,000-strong union is calling for a compromise that would remove the current government and put a technocratic government in place, but would not dissolve the Assembly.

Egypt says to 'put and end' to Muslim Brotherhood vigils.

Egypt's new rulers declared two Cairo vigils by supporters of the deposed president threats to national security on Wednesday and instructed the interior ministry to "put an end" to them. Thousands of supporters of the Islamist Mohamed Mursi and his Muslim Brotherhood have been staging sit-ins at two locations in the Egyptian capital for the past month, protesting against his overthrow by the army on July 3. The Brotherhood says its supporters will stay put until Mursi is reinstated. At least 80 of them were shot dead by security forces at dawn on Saturday in the second mass killing of Mursi supporters since his overthrow. Wednesday's statement by the cabinet raised the specter of yet more bloodshed. In a televised statement, an interim cabinet installed by the military said the "terrorist acts" and traffic disruption stemming from the protests were no longer acceptable and "represent a threat to Egyptian national security". "The cabinet decided to begin taking all necessary measures to address these dangers and put an end to them, commissioning the interior minister to do all that is necessary regarding this matter within the framework of the constitution and the law," it said. Minutes before the statement, authorities said they had referred the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badie, and two other senior movement officials to a court on charges of inciting violence.

Israel,Palestinians deeply divided despite renewed peace talks

Israel and the Palestinians remain far apart over terms of any peace deal, officials from both sides made clear on Wednesday, a day after talks resumed in Washington for the first time in nearly three years. Israel's lead negotiator, Tzipi Livni, said the parties "need to build confidence" after what she called an encouraging start in Washington, and disputed a Palestinian demand to focus first on agreeing the frontiers of an independent state. "The goal is to end the conflict," Livni said on Israel Radio. "It cannot be ended merely by setting a border." Yasser Abed Rabbo, who is close to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, forecast "huge difficulties" for the talks begun after intense diplomacy by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Abed Rabbo, speaking on Voice of Palestine radio, cited Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and said any further building there would scupper the negotiations. He was alluding to Israeli media reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had cajoled far-right allies to back the talks by pledging to permit more settlement expansion. Kerry has said the negotiators will reconvene in August, aiming to achieve a "final status" deal within nine months. Previous peace talks collapsed in 2010 over settlement building in the West Bank, which Palestinians see as grabbing land they want for a state that would include the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, all territories captured by Israel in 1967. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in a move never recognized internationally. Palestinians want it for their capital. Abed Rabbo said borders, which the Palestinians say must be based on pre-1967 war lines, were "the first issue that must be resolved", countering Israel's demand that all issues, including refugees and Jerusalem, should be tackled simultaneously. "Putting all the dishes on the table at once may be an attempt to undermine the process," Abed Rabbo said. Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid defined the ultimate goal of negotiations as the creation of a Palestinian state in "the majority" of the West Bank, but said Israel would keep three large settlement blocs there, as well as East Jerusalem. The Palestinians might eventually accept this "because they will have no choice", the centrist minister said. "What we are looking for is a fair divorce from the Palestinians, so that we can stand on one side of the border and they on the other." Decades of peace negotiations sponsored by the United States, Israel's main ally, have failed to resolve the conflict.