The Democratic National Committee is trying to hide this from you, but you can take matters into your own hands by watching it here. You might call the act of watching this as part of the political revolution.

You might also want to thank Debbie Wasserman Shultz, chair of the DNC, for her deliberate mishandling of the debate schedule by reading The Hill article In primary challenge, Wasserman Schultz faces unprecedented test. It could be payback time for DWS if we all give her challenger all the financial support he needs. Don’t get mad; get even.

The Boston Globe has the story 71-year-old activist arrested in Worcester.

Worcester Magazine has the story as UPDATED: Worcester activist hospitalized after incident at Quinsigamond Community College.

Worcester Anti-Foreclosure activist Chris Horton was taken to the hospital Monday morning after an encounter with police at Quinsigamond Community College during an event honoring Martin Luther King Jr.

Witnesses tell Worcester Magazine Horton was handing out flyers about foreclosures at the annual MLK breakfast, which had drawn hundreds of people, including state and federal officials, when he was asked to stop. Horton allegedly pushed or shrugged off a campus officer who had approached him, before he was wrestled to the ground, according to witnesses.

Jamie Eldridge, State Senator Middlesex & Worcester District, posted about this on his Facebook timeline.

Outrageous treatment by the police of the aggressive arrest of one of the most peaceful persons, and most committed to social justice that I know, Chris Horton of Worcester, at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. breakfast at Quinsigamond Community College this morning. And what a further injustice that Chris was detained for handing out flyers for the repeal of one of the worst laws passed by the Mass Legislature this session, a bill allowing banks to more easily clear title on homes that were often illegally foreclosed upon by mostly big banks, and fraudulent title insurance companies. Perfect example of how property is often more valued over people in American society.

Here is a picture of Chris Horton at his release from the Worcester city jail.

The crowd assembled at the release consists of his friends and supporters who had heard about the incident in time to be at his release. I was not there, but I would have been if I had heard about it in time.

This stooped over 71 year old man doesn’t look like he would be able to assault anyone, let alone a police officer and certainly not physically. I call Chris the brains behind We Want Bernie – Worcester. That is how I came to know him and to work with him.

Being of his age myself, I could certainly understand how he could easily lose his balance. That is a report that I heard third or fourth hand from one of his friends as the cause for the charge of assault. So I am not attesting to the fact that that is exactly what happened.

I am always afraid that if I ever get stopped by police, they might interpret my instability as my being drunk. Not being a heavy drinker, my last alcoholic beverage could have been consumed weeks ago, and I still doubt I could pass a field sobriety test that required me to walk a straight line in sobriety test style as I have seen on TV. I can sometimes lose my balance just standing still.

Some people are spreading the lie that Bernie Sanders has not been able to get any legislation passed. To be charitable, maybe they just assume that because he does not belong to either party in Congress that he must be ineffective. It would be good to look at his legislative record before spouting things that are not true.

The image of the first page of his record shows that there are 6,199 items in the list

New Economic Perspectives is running a series of tutorials on Money and Banking by Eric Tymoigne. This is important information especially for any one who thinks a politician (I mean you Ron and Rand Paul) knows anything about the subject.

Money and Banking – Part 1 – balance-sheet mechanics
January 9, 2016

Money and Banking – Part 2 – Central bank balance sheet and immediate implications.
January 16, 2016

Money and Banking – Part 3– Monetary Base and the Balance Sheet of the FED.
January 24, 2016

Money and Banking – Part 4 – What does the Fed do in terms of monetary policy and why?
January 30, 2016

Money and Banking – Part 5 – FAQs about monetary policy and central banking
February 7, 2016

Money and Banking – Part 6 – Treasury and Central Bank Interactions
February 14, 2016

Money and Banking – Part 7 – Leverage
March 6, 2016

Money and Banking – Part 8 – The Private Banking Business
March 12, 2016

The Week has the article The politics of the deficit are utterly backward.

So after that first round of stimulus, the deficit was very large due to all the borrowing. However, its inadequacy was also obvious, as unemployment plateaued at nearly 10 percent — then stayed there for an entire year. During and immediately after the crisis, the centrist establishment was too shocked to respond, but they eventually regrouped and began demanding immediate cuts to balance the budget — effectively aligning themselves with resurgent conservatives, who as usual demanded all social insurance programs be torched.

I’d like to introduce a new concept that is particularly apt for the current situation. An early sentence in the article is the jumping off point for my idea.

A recession means the economy is suffering a shortage of aggregate demand.

It’s not the deficit, but the aggregate demand that is the key. There is a way to boost demand without increasing the deficit. This becomes particularly obvious when one notices the reaction to the FED’s attempt to stimulate.

Like the Great Depression, fiscal stimulus was particularly important during the Great Recession, because by late 2008, the Fed had cut interest rates all the way to zero — pushing its economic accelerator all the way to the floor — and it didn’t halt or even much slow down the recession.

Like a car spinning its wheels while stuck in the snow, pushing on the accelerator just does not help. It needs to get some traction.

The money the FED was pouring into the economy was just going into the hands of the wealthy to speculate in the stock market or to buy US Treasury notes and bonds because there was no place else that made any sense to invest the money. Had the government taxed back all the money that was going nowhere in the hands of the wealthy, and used it to hire people to do work, the recession could have been ended much more quickly with a much smaller deficit.

In fact, even now, the overhang of all that liquidity that the FED pumped into the economy could eventually come back to haunt us should the economy ever really recover. The only way to prevent hyper-inflation might be to drastically raise taxes to suck that money back out of the economy. The proper actions now could be moderate compared to what will be needed if we wait until the emergency becomes obvious.

Robert Reich’s session on Facebook has the worst investment advice I may have ever heard.

Here is a guy I generally admire, but don’t take your investing advice from him.

He starts with a chart that shows you why investing in the stock market has been a bad idea over the last 20 years.

What a pile of hogwash. Few people are unlucky enough, if they have any brains, to invest only at the peaks. I thought he was an economist that knew economics. Or is investing not part of what an economist knows anything about? Maybe John Maynard Keynes was an exceptional economist.

Does Reich know about dollar cost averaging, even if he doesn’t know about Keynes/Graham/Buffet investing? If I had listened to Reich’s kind of advice over the last 20 years, I would be a lot poorer than I am now, and I mean a lot.

Of course, if I had bought only at the valleys and sold at the peaks, I would have been a lot richer, but nobody knows how to do that.

If you fall for what Reich is selling in this video, then maybe he is right, you shouldn’t be investing in the stock market.

First let me give you the ad.

Hillary Clinton decries this as a negative ad. Her name never comes up in the ad. So what does Hillary think is negative?

Is she saying the following excerpt refers to her?

There are two democratic visions for regulating Wall Street. One says it’s okay to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do.

Wouldn’t she have to be telling us that she is the one taking millions from big banks to claim this ad is about her? Is that the message she wants to give us? Is this campaign starting to drive her around the bend?

Next is an excerpt from the expert’s letter.

In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21^st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

You can use the following link to read the letter that the experts wrote.

Ever since Hillary made the claim that her proposal was better, I have been waiting for exactly this rebuttal from Bernie. I have been posting on my blog this explanation of why his plan is far superior to the Clinton plan. In the debate, he could have asked her if the experts who told her that her plan was better were the same ones that were such a disaster in her husband’s and in the Obama administrations.

YouTube has this great video Clinton to Obama: ‘Shame on you’ which I have renamed with the title of this post, 2008 Hillary Clinton Attacks 2016 Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton attacks Hillary Clinton for using shameful tactics against Bernie Sanders. Maybe she just doesn’t remember what she thought of this the last time she ran for President. Or maybe she does remember, and figures if it worked for Obama, it might work for her. Don’t you just love the sincerity and high moral standards? How are her fans going to make excuses for this?

For additional perspective, you might want to read the article Hillary Clinton’s dirty attack on Bernie Sanders.

Whatever weakness she mischaracterizes in Bernie’s plan can be traced back to the plans she and her husband have supported for years. Is this what stands for principles in Hillary’s book?

This should just about finish off Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party.

The Washington Post has the article The transcript of President Obama’s final State of the Union: What he said, and what it meant. The “what it meant” part is in the yellow high-lighted words which are links to their interpretation of background material.

I link to the article, not so much for their interpretation so much as a source for the original words for me to interpret. I probably want to pick apart more of the speech, but the following is a good place to start me off right away.

Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did.

A large part of the State of the Union Address was great. This is one of the statements that stood out from what was not so great. For many of the problems that the President addressed, there was no agency in how he spoke of them. People feel insecure, wages aren’t high enough, there is instability in the world, the economic system is rigged because they just happened with no agent responsible for causing the problem? In this one sentence he finally made mention of the fact that there are people who cause some of these problems.

Obama was eloquent on many of the things we have to do to solve our problems, but occasionally he would slip in a good word about some of his policies that are responsible for our problems. The Trans Pacific Partnership that he touted is the antithesis of what he claimed it was. Trade policies like the TPP are exactly the kind of tools that the rich use to rig the system in their favor. I refuse to believe that he doesn’t know this. So his touting of this pact is one of the things that ruined the speech for me.

In my 71 years I have grown to know some of the times when I am being lied to. I don’t like it no matter who is doing it.

You would expect an attack on Bernie’s plan from a Presidential candidate who represented the oligarchs and the 0.1% of people who are the wealthiest in this country. Well, here is the proof of what you would be getting if you voted for the attacker. Not only have I received the following email from the Sanders campaign, but I have also seen the news headlines about the attack. Even the Clinton’s daughter has been enlisted in making this false attack. Motherjones has the article Chelsea Clinton Accuses Sanders of Trying to “Dismantle Obamacare”.

You shouldn’t need any further proof that Hillary Clinton wants to be president no matter what it costs our country for her to rise to power. If she would stoop so low as to try to set back universal healthcare for a generation just so she could defeat Bernie Sanders, then what else is she capable of?