1973 Bollywood Clip–one of the best!

I hope your day is as fun as this

My 1st ever TBT pic by Andy Warhol (I think!)

OK, yesterday I took the best album challenge and now I’m doing my first TBT. Next I’ll be playing Pokemon Go while SnapChatting. But hey, at least I’m not screaming about politics for a change!

Michael Patterson found this pic of me which I suspect was taken by Andy Warhol. Benjamin Liu, with me, was Andy’s assistant and invited a bunch of downtown kooks to a dinner party with Andy. I had just moved to NYC a year or two before, so I excitedly threw on this hideous polyester floral maxi. I’m glad the photo was in black and white so you can’t see the garish colors of the gown. Andy was aloof, but he snapped so many photos of me that I giddily (and drunkenly) assumed that I’d be the next Warhol superstar. Then someone told me that Andy often photographed people with no film in his camera just to get people at a party animated. It worked on this fool–cuz I gave him every pose I knew. This is the first pic I’ve ever seen from that night. I think I look a bit like Shelly Winters. Now you see why I wear lower lashes. But I could barely afford uppers back then! Let’s not even discuss the wig!LADY BUNNY WARHOL

Has Social Media Become Anti-Social?

I had an eye-opening experience the other night en route to a gig. I was a little late and quickly grabbed a cab. Suddenly, there was a commotion outside. An older white couple, a few school kids and a young, straight-appearing black guy were all yelling at me: “You’re dress is caught in the cab door!” I fixed it and thanked them. The whole thing was very interesting to me because there was no dragphobia, hagphobia, homophobia or transphobia on their part–all these people from all walks of life just saw a bitch who needed help and they gladly gave it. They may not have known what I was and I don’t always know myself, but their desire to aid a total stranger seemed very human to me. And “human”, I’m sorry to say, seemed refreshingly different.

Apparently, none of these folks stopped to think: Maybe she doesn’t align with my political or religious views so I won’t offer “her” my help because I might be helping the enemy. Nor did I turn and analyze them with stinking thinking like “The older white couple could be Trump supporters—so reject THEIR help and let your gown trail in the filth.” Or a bitter notion of “I’m so glad these brats could take time off from their Pokemon Go to rescue my stunning if oversized muumuu.” Or “That black guy is probably on his way to a #blacklivesmatter protest, so get his number and we’ll hook up later.” For a brief moment, all of our beliefs were suspended.

I got home later that night and logged onto Facebook, I had a totally different experience. So many people are at each others throats, drawing lines in the sand based on their views. As we spend more time on social media, we carve out our little online empires and lately I’ve seen so many people with posts like “Delete me if you support Trump” or “Admit that black lives matter more than all lives matter.” Or “cops’ lives matter more than blacks’ do.” I’m glad you care about causes. As you all know, I have strong views myself. But are we digging ourselves into holes online? I know I do, because Facebook’s algorithms feature friends’ posts who you have like more. So regardless of who you support, you are mainly seeing likeminded friends’ posts. They may be very illuminating posts, but they’re often slanted towards what you’ve already liked. One video I posted yesterday suggested that the cure for this was liking occasional posts from conservative sites or whoever the opposite of your own viewpoint is. While I can see that as a remedy or sorts, I couldn’t stop comparing my online and offline experiences.

Total strangers in the street caring enough about a fellow human being to do them a favor, and 5,000 “friends” issuing ultimatums. Has social media become anti-social? If we’re just in the middle of a toxic election and this will fade afterwards, then that’s understandable. (Although I don’t seem how two unpopular frontrunners result in many people being happy with the elections’ result.) I have axes to grind, too, and I’ll never suggest turning a blind eye to what issues matter to you. But over the past 6 months, has Facebook taken an ugly turn or are we merely reflecting on an uglier world? (Or in the case of cellphone footage of police killing black people, waking up to a world which some have been known to be very ugly for a very long time?) David Bowie died and then Prince, followed by months of tributes to each. Then the election cycle kicked in. Then Orlando. Then bombings worldwide. Has Facebook become a portal into death and despair in the last year? It certainly seems like it. Do we need an It Gets Better campaign for adults now?

As I headed uptown in a taxi, I passed a few guys hanging out on the street corner around 33rd Street who were laughing their heads off. I couldn’t tell you if they were old friends or if they had just met in a bar and were taking a cigarette break. But they were thoroughly enjoying each other’s company and sharing actual face time as opposed to FaceTime struck me somehow as a very “summery” thing to do. There’s not a ton of summer left. I know I’ve left out some of the other summery pursuits like picnics in the park and exercising outdoors (aka walking to the picnics). My friend Assaad Phoenix El Marjou told me his mother questioned him about his Facebook use asking him “Every morning you are typing for hours–who is paying you?” I think she has a good point, said the long-winded queen who has just finished another essay-length post. So I’ll see you all at the picnic! Or you can just enjoy the mouthwatering photos I post of the food.


Bernie Sanders always said he would endorse Hillary if she were the nominee, but a lot of us didn’t want to hear it. We prayed that an indictment over her emails, exposure of voter fraud/suppression in several states or his mistreatment at the hands of the DNC would cause Bernie to eventually seize the nomination or snap and run as an independent. Many of us felt he was too good for the democratic party anyway, since corporate democrats like the Clintons and Obama have blurred the distinction between the two parties and somehow it’s working people, not corporations, who always lose out. I repeat, that would be 99% of us who always lose out no matter which party is in power. Sanders’ agenda, far from pie-in-the-sky, actually sought to restore the democratic party back to it’s former luster before these war and Wall Street-loving “democrats” ran my former party into the ground. The rock bottom result is Hillary Clinton, who is almost as unpopular as the miserable Donald Trump. And seen as less trustworthy, not only because of a GOP smear campaign, but because of her own many lies, flip-flops and questionable record.

I imagine that Bernie himself never dreamed he would be catapulted as far as he was. Starting at 2% when he announced his candidacy, he was always viewed as a long shot and dismissed by the mainstream media as a fringe candidate. Well, that “fringe” candidate with his “radical” ideas won 20 states. In a world of corporate cash gone wild, this man defined what a grass roots campaign is all about. Sanders took the Occupy Wall Street ideas of income inequality and breaking up the big banks, put a suit on them, and got them discussed on national TV. He brought progressive ideas to primaries which resonated with millions of voters and was praised even by some Hillary supporters for bringing the debate to the left. A hardcore, jaded activist friend told me that while skeptical of even anyone who caucuses with the democrats, he got chills when he heard a crowd cheer at a Bernie rally in the Bronx when he denounced oligarchy.

Bernie lit the spark for a revolution and highlighted the need for fundamental change. Then he endorses the corrupt, dishonest, flip-flopping hawk of a candidate who personifies precisely what we need to revolt against. Sanders knows as well as I do what Hillary represents: greed, power to the corporations (not people) and inevitable war. I will be delighted if I’m proven wrong and a new, peace-loving Hillary rules over the land for two magnificent terms, but her record and stated goals during this campaign make that next to impossible. While Sanders can take his block of support and try to influence the DNC platform, that’s the same DNC which to shafted him repeatedly and brazenly. The DNC’s platform is a non-binding piece of paper which can be ignored by Hillary—possibly as soon as she pivots to the right in the general election. To take the time and money of youth, working class voters and those of any age or background who care about rampant income inequality and the death of the American Dream is a slap in the face to everyone who flocked to Sanders because he exposed Hillary for what she is: the opposite of progress and the definition of the very establishment we must change.

I was progressive before Bernie Sanders was running. Some of my friends are even more far-left than I and expressed doubts about the Vermont senator from the beginning. They doubted his sincerity when he let Hillary off the hook in the first debate about her emails. I, like many Sanders supporters, often wondered why our candidate was so gentlemanly towards Hillary–which completely negated the absurd allegations of sexism and the mythical Bernie Bros. (I have yet to meet one.) When reporters asked him why it was important for Hillary to release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, he never took the bait. He could have said what we all know: that a candidate who doesn’t wish to restrict “too big to fail” banks because they’re in their pockets is likely to usher in another recession, housing collapse, austerity or whichever devious scheme benefits her Wall Street backers. He did not. Instead, he’d ask rhetorical questions like “Why would thesis financial institutions give so much money to someone and expect nothing in return?”

Sanders did claim that Hillary was unfit for office at one point. Bernie was referring to her dreadful record on foreign policy and I agree with him—she has apologized for her Iraq war vote as a mistake. The biggest foreign policy blunder in recent history and Miss Capable didn’t get it right? Only a few a few brave legislators like Sanders dared to vote against that war. Hillary supporters still try to claim that their gal didn’t know Bush was lying us into that war. I’m a drag queen with no access to secret dossiers, so if I knew Bush was lying, she knew. Even the bizarre Trump can boast that he knew the Iraq war was foolish and take his own party to task for both starting it and missing the warning signs. Hillary, who voted to create the chaotic war zone which gave birth to Isis, cannot do so without calling into question her own decision-making ability. She is also responsible for what Obama calls his presidency’s biggest regret—the regime change in Libya which Clinton pushed as Secretary of State.

I never viewed Bernie as a savior. For me he was always compromise, since he regularly approves military spending and funding Israel’s aggression. My go-to foreign policy expert is Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis, who claims that Bernie’s military objectives aren’t that different from Obama’s. Bernie did throw out the words “world peace” a couple times while campaigning, though. And you know that the “radical” idea of everyone living in worldwide harmony is like throwing red meat–er—gluten-free granola bars to us liberals. Obama campaigned as someone weary of war but then fudged his withdrawal deadlines from Afghanistan, is steadily sending more troops to Iraq, was saber-rattling at Syria not long ago, drone-bombing several countries we never declared war on and is seeking to quadruple the military budget for Central Europe. Is anyone from any of those regions seeking to invade the USA? No, but our misguided foreign policy of stirring of the hornets’ nests have scattered some of those hornets to the West to sting us here at home. You can’t bomb an ideology out of existence, but money-making bombs are what Hillary, Obama and every republican are all about. And hey, if you have more enemies, you get to have more wars which make somebody who cares little for our soldiers’ lives more money!

It was very important to us to feel that there is a choice of presidential nominees. That’s why the establishment kept dangling possible runs by Biden and Warren. And the press kept asking if Obama might endorse Sanders. These were never real possibilities, but they kept us from feeling trapped by Clinton’s inevitablty. Which is really just the establishment making sure it stays in power. I don’t care if you put a black man’s face on it, a white woman’s face on it or an orange republican face on it, I object to war and a government which serves giant corporations instead of the voters which it ought to represent.

I am not religious nor am I an overly spiritual person. But to see a bird land on Bernie’s podium in Portland and have him interpret it, over the roaring approval of the crowd, as a dove for peace….well, I like to imagine that this bird was a sign from the earth itself, which we are currently destroying with war and with inaction climate change.

I support Bernie for as long as he is running. But he no longer seems to be. He’s now playing within the system to enact progressive change within the party and elect like-minded legislators and I support him fully in this. When he returns to being a well-loved and trusted senator from Vermont, I thank him for his blast of new ideas from the north. Some may claim that progressive legislation is more likely under a President Clinton than a President Trump. They may be right, but then why is Trump denouncing the TPP when the DNC can’t bring itself to? I hate to say it but in this case, Trump is more progressive than the democrats. Sanders does not support the trade deal, Clinton claims she doesn’t (any more) and yet the DNC props the TPP up because they don’t want to embarrass Obama, who wrote the dirty deal? He needs to be embarrassed by the TPP. The fact that buffoon like Trump can campaign as a rich guy and still have a populist (if racist) message is proof of how the democrats have failed working Americans with trade deals like Bill Clinton’s NAFTA and the TPP. Hmmm, two DEMOCRATIC presidents trying to send our jobs overseas? I not only doubt Hillary’s commitment to opposing the TPP, I reject Obama for writing and pushing it and the democratic party as a whole for not openly slamming something which is so bad for most of us. But it’s great for corporations so you won’t hear much about it on the news!

I’l support Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who won’t win, but who may poll well enough to get a place on the debate stage. Nothing Bernie can say will unify me with Hillary. This lifelong democrat from a family of democrats prefers to leave the party. If you think that my support for a third-party candidate increases Trump’s chances of winning and that scares you, then why didn’t you vote with the scandal-free, trustworthy democrat who was beating Trump in all the polls and who Hillary just adopted half the platform of? (To fool younger voters into getting on board with her so that she can dash their hopes if elected.) Be very careful with fear-based politics. You may be running so scared from the Trump monster that you blindly leap into the arms of another less obvious monster.

Some have called Sanders’ supporters sore losers. With Hillary, peace has lost. I’m proud to be a sore loser when a greater chance for peace loses. I’m concerned with policies not personalities, so whether Bernie or Jill is championing what matters to me then I’ll follow them. I’ll try and help slowly build a truly progressive party. This is, as Bernie himself said many times, bigger than one candidate. Whatever Bernie does from here on out does not taint the seeds of progress he planted. His ideas benefit 99% of us. When they lose, we all lose. So like many disappointed but still passionate supporters of Sanders’ ideas, I won’t abandon my fight for them whether he’s actually running or not. And a big part of that fight includes rejecting a candidate he has just endorsed.


You may have guessed by now that I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton. But I really don’t think milking her FBI email scandal is the best argument against her. Bernie Sanders got his first major bump in the mainstream media by claiming that “Americans are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails” to Clinton at the first debate and I think he’s right—there are much bigger fish to fry. The FBI let Clinton off, saying she skirted rules. Look, very few of us know much if anything about legalese involving high level state department positions and what breach of protocol amounts to a broken law or laziness. So we certainly don’t know which offense deserves a reprimand, a slap on the wrist, a fine or prison time. Now I know that Sanders supporters were drooling over the thought of Hillary being carted off to jail and that spring boarding Bernie into the position of nominee, but this simply isn’t her biggest offense. Or the most clear cut. In my opinion, it’s like a republican to howl over something that isn’t that big of a deal when there are bigger ticket items she should be taken to task for. Clinton’s critics from the left are horrified about the direction she is taking the party into over decades. Like her and her husband’s move toward the federal government allying with big business to do their bidding and not ours. With a democrat now representing war and Wall Street, many lifelong can’t even recognize our own party with Hillary at it’s helm.

Hillary fans will determine that this FBI recommendation vindicates their candidate of choice. But even in victory, Clinton is shrouded in doubt by her the continued misconduct of her and her camp–the FBI’s recommendation will now go to Loretta Lynch, who just rendezvoused at a “chance” meeting with Clinton’s husband on a tarmac in Phoenix. I don’t private plane-hop much, but the likelihood of this seems very bizarre—especially when Lynch is later forced to joke about how inappropriate the encounter was and say she wished she’d known where the lock was on her plane to keep Bill out. And then after meeting with the former president, Loretta now claims that she’s going to abide by the FBI’s recommendation. Why? Because she wasn’t going to before? Did Lynch attend the Dr. Seuss School Of Law, because this makes no sense to me at all.

And of course, this whole thing proves that Hillary lies all the time. We didn’t need an FBI ruling to know that. But she lied about sending emails which were classified from her home-brew server. Whether you like her or not, it’s another lie. She sent at least 113 classified emails inappropriately. She also claimed that she used the home-brew server for convenience so she could mainly use one device. Not true. Again, I don’t know the proper protocol, but when you are under suspicion and asked to deliver all of your emails, you don’t delete a bunch of them unless they are damning. So even in “victory”, Clinton remains scandal-ridden, seems to feel she can lie under oath, ignore the rules and still suffer no consequences.

Besides her dishonesty, having the FBI director calling you “extremely careless” is a poor recommendation for a candidate for the country’s highest office who’s campaigning on her alleged capability and steady hand. We know she wants to contrast herself with loudmouthed fool Donald Trump, but the fact is that “extremely reckless” is exactly what Hillary is accusing Trump of. She doesn’t want Trump having access to power because this careless madman might control the nuclear switch. So how reassured can I be that Hillary, a known hawk, is going to be any better if she ignores rules which keep state secrets safe? “Extremely reckless” does not synch with her campaign’s image of her being steady-handed or capable. She’s capable, all right. But capable of what? I’m not paying her so she’s not working for my interests.

I think it is worth mentioning that this current email scandal is in no way the result of a decades-long GOP smear campaign agains Hillary. Her carelessness brought this on herself. I never bring up Bill and Hillary’s old scandals-why bother with hard-to-prove stuff when she has a rotten track record which is on the record.

There’s another episode over which Hillary supporters feel relieved, and that’s the recent completion of the Benghazi scandal investigation. Republicans made fools out of themselves in that 11 hour hearing in which they grilled Clinton ad nauseum over who was sent what and when. Hillary came out looking forceful, collected and yes, presidential. But everyone is missing the real scandal here. Why were we in Libya to begin with? Because as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton saw it as her role to topple Libya’s leader for “humanitarian” reasons. He was a “bad man” like Saddam Hussein who Hillary voted as senator to overthrow in Iraq. She’s apologized for her bad judgement on that vote. So 10 years after it, she makes the same mistake and guns for regime change? She’s learned nothing from Iraq! So much for experience. She repeats her same mistakes.

The White House has claimed that Obama was 49% against overthrowing Qaddafi and 51% against it. Defense Secretary Bob Gates advised against the attack, but Hillary pressed it as necessary. Can you tell me when you ever have someone who craves war even more than the military chiefs? They always want war, but not as desperately as Hillary. Fast forward to now. Libya has become a hotbed for Isis just as Iraq has. We’ve now sent troops in to clean up Hillary’s mess. Obama has claimed that toppling Libya, Hillary’s foreign policy baby, was the biggest regret of his presidency. So the president whose legacy Hillary is trying to coast on is embarrassed by what Hillary did as his Secretary Of State? Hmmm.

Libya received next to no mainstream media attention. But before you claim that I’m wearing my tinfoil hat, let’s take a peak at an article in which the NY Times broke down the blow-by-blow machinations of the attack on Libya and interviewed key players. The NY Times has endorsed Clinton, yet even they find fault with what she did when she had access to power. It’s long, but I urge everyone to familiarize themselves with this little-covered event before you think of restoring Hillary to a place in our government.They do not paint a picture of someone capable or qualified for anything except using our tax dollars for more mass murder—I mean regime change. That sounds nicer, doesn’t it? Would the FBI’s James Comey view Hillary’s role in Libya as “extremely reckless”? I would, as even a paper which endorses her seems to.

But you please check these excerpts out and see what you think. Does Libya prove, like her “extremely reckless” personal email server, that Hillary is not capable, careful or even in possession of good judgement? Please note that Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal urged Clinton to capitalize on the Libya “success.” Do a little more digging and you’ll find that Blumenthal stood to profit from the fall of Qaddafi. Doesn’t that remind you of that chilling video of Clinton claiming in 2011 that we must now “start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity”? In other words, there is strong evidence that Hillary does not even believe that she’s engaging in humanitarian rescues for the people of Iraq or Libya. This soulless monster is motivated by profit—not some antiquated notion that the USA can help the world with it’s “humanitarian” bombs. Sending American troops to die in a desert so that her friends, allies and Clinton Foundation cronies can profit. This is what passes for foreign policy in a Clinton-run state department. Lovers of peace and justice do not need to cry over the the protocol of how some emails were sent or the republican’s Benghazi scandal when Hillary’s own record in office is the most damning thing about her.

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.

This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation’s chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether, when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Was the mistake the decision to intervene in the first place, or the mission creep from protecting civilians to ousting a dictator, or the failure to send a peacekeeping force in the aftermath?
Mrs. Clinton declined to be interviewed. But in public, she has said it is “too soon to tell” how things will turn out in Libya and has called for a more interventionist approach in Syria.

Libya’s descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a “shadow of uncertainty” as to Colonel Qaddafi’s intentions. The mission inexorably evolved even as Mrs. Clinton foresaw some of the hazards of toppling another Middle Eastern strongman.

“I think at one point I said, ‘Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?’” Mr. Gates recalled. Colonel Qaddafi, he said, “was not a threat to us anywhere. He was a threat to his own people, and that was about it.”

About the time the air campaign began, Charles R. Kubic, a retired rear admiral, received a message from a senior Libyan military officer proposing military-to-military negotiations for a 72-hour cease-fire, potentially leading to an arranged exit for Colonel Qaddafi and his family.
But after he approached the American military command for Africa, Admiral Kubic said, he was directed to end the talks. The orders, he was told, had come from “outside the Pentagon,” though aides to both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton said the offer had never made it to their level. He was baffled by the lack of interest in exploring an option he thought might lead to a less bloody transition.

“The question that stays with me is, why didn’t you spend 72 hours giving peace a chance?” he said.

MORE:   http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

Horrified by Orlando? Then make sure you aren’t voting in a murderer to the White House.

I wish I had never heard Cenk Ugyur from The Young Turks say this, but it’s true. Corporate democrats use their pro-gay stance to make themselves seem like progressives while they continue to harm the interests of most working Americans. It’s no skin off the nose of the banks, the corporations who pay $0 in taxes or the war machine if the democrats promote gay rights or abortion. It doesn’t take one dime of the establishment’s profits to grant gay marriage or let gays fight their unnecessary wars for them. In the same way, republicans who also are motivated by nothing but greed play on the anti-gay or anti-abortion sentiment of their evangelical voters. Both parties are punk-ing us on polarizing, social issues while they both continue their dirty work for the 1%. Are you one of the one 1%? Then why wouldn’t this bug you?

Some of us are not only defined by our sexuality. And some of us feel that if oppressing gay people is wrong, needlessly killing people overseas in countries which never attacked us and cops gunning down innocent people of color and getting off with no charges is also wrong. These injustices must also be fought for as gays seek equal rights for our own community. It’s called equality and we all deserve it. I can’t ask people to support my gay rights and then turn a blind eye to the widespread oppression of others.

Did the senseless slaughter in Orlando deep affect you? Then how can you possibly vote for Clinton, whose Iraq vote alone set the stage to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? There’s a big difference between the carnage in Orlando and Iraq: your tax dollars paid for those who died needlessly in Iraq. I don’t see too much concern among gays horrified by the Pulse shooting who support Hillary for senseless death she promoted in Iraq, in Libya and is now proposing in Syria. And why not? Because those victims weren’t in a gay club? Because they have a different religion or a different skin color? That enables you not to care about them?

If love is love, then death is death.

I know that it isn’t fashionable to compare struggles, but our oppressor is the same. Even if that oppressor happens to have a female face this time around. Hillary is an advocate of a system of mass oppression from perpetual war to starvation wages to private prisons to denying us affordable college and the health care they have in every other industrialized nation. Not to mention the fact that Hillary, the fracking queen, has no respect for an ailing female who all of us rely on every second of every day: Mother Nature.

Will I Vote For Clinton To Stop Trump?

A lot of people are asking me if I will go the “lesser of two evil” route and vote for Clinton so that Trump has no chance of winning. I am a lifelong democrat yet I could never cast a vote for Clinton. If/since the democrats have dared to select a flip-flopping, corrupt hawk like Clinton as their nominee, then I’m no longer a democrat. Here is my analogy.

I go into a restaurant and the waiter tells me that only two entrees remain: toxic diarrhea (Trump) and a regular turd (Clinton). Do I choose to eat one? No, I leave that restaurant and go to one I can stomach. I think throwing my vote away is casting it for someone who I find amoral, corrupt and war-like.

Some of you suggest that I should feel guilty if a monster like Trump is elected, because I choose to vote third party. I’m suggesting that Hillary has chosen unnecessary wars whenever she’s had access to power and this creates more terrorism. I would be ashamed to have my name behind a candidate who is hellbent on instability in the world. I live in NYC, where 9/11 went down. Future terrorist attacks will come here, to my home, not to a field in Montana or Idaho. Destabilize the world and my home could easily become a target again. So you do what you want with your vote and I’ll do want I want with mine. We all have our different concerns.

And do you have the nerve to tell me I have to vote a certain way in order to keep out someone out who may never be the GOP nominee? (Please remember that Trump’s own party loathes him and they could find a way to boot him a the convention. Then all this fear mongering against Trump will have been a mammoth waste of time during which we could have been debating Hillary’s policies, of which few of her fans seem aware and which I think she’ll ignore if elected anyway.) That’s democracy to you? Forcing me into a corner with crappy candidates? Sorry, but I deserve better for my tax dollars.

Detailing Trump’s many flaws over and over doesn’t improve Hillary’s many shortcomings and indefensible record. Trump is threatening to do horrible things. Hillary has already done them whenever she has access to power. So I’ll do all I can to stop both Hillary and Trump. For me, that means promoting candidates who benefit working Americans, peace, addressing climate change, affordable health care and higher education, etc. And staying out of wars which make no sense isn’t “giving away free stuff.” Cutting back on wars we are somehow losing against dirt poor countries would save a fortune which we could put towards benefitting Americans here at home and not destroying the planet to feed greed.

The DNC conspired against Sanders to root for Hillary despite the fact that Sanders was beating Trump by higher margins than Hillary–often double digits in several polls for months–and that’s WITH the media blackout on Bernie’s campaign. So it’s Hillary supporters who may elect Trump by shooting Sanders in the foot. YOU chose Hillary, the weaker candidate to defeat Trump. Don’t now turn around and say I, too, must support that weaker candidate when you’ve shafted the one who was beating Trump.


Maybe I’ve got this wrong, but I’ve never been able to see Trump as the eventual GOP nominee. I guess that’s why I haven’t been as horrified as others by this charlatan. I would never support any republican, which is why I don’t support Hillary. But I never thought Trump would actually end up running. Then he won the nomination.

Late last week on MSNBC, I started hearing reports that after his latest racist gaffe, Trump had gone too far this time and Paul Ryan was warning Trump that he didn’t have the GOP’s “blank check” endorsement. And that’s Ryan, who ran for VP last time around, so he clearly has political aspirations and has the party’s stamp of approval.The republican establishment hates Trump because they don’t actually like to admit that they’re racists. Or that they were at fault with the Iraq war or that the TPP sucks–as Trump has pointed out on the campaign trail. So we’ve recently seen well-loved GOP figures like Laura Bush say she’d support Hillary Clinton. And ex-NJ governor and fabled GOP “moderate” Christine Todd Whitman saying over the weekend she didn’t want to vote for Clinton, but she couldn’t bring herself to vote for Trump–as if she were still hoping for a GOP alternative candidate. They don’t trot Whitman out for nothing–this is orchestrated by the GOP in an attempt to make their party seem more reasonable than Trump. Here’s the cover of the Huffingtonpost today. I’m still having doubts about whether his party will kick him out or not.

Screen Shot 2016-06-20 at 9.42.41 AM

Or maybe he’ll just drop out and find a way to turn his newfound fame into profit. While president of the United States might appeal to his narcissism, the job would require a cut in pay. MSNBC reported that Trump had mentioned several times that he’d like to build a media empire based on the success of his campaign. Why would he be talking about any career choice other than running for president? Should his own party kick him out, all this talk about how horrible a Trump presidency would be for minorities, women, LGBT, gun rights, foreign policy and everything else would just be a waste of time. When the media could have been focusing on candidates who are actually running. Our media gives Trump so much coverage because their greed makes ratings matter more than discussing actual issues. Should Trump either drop out or get thrown out by his party, the constant reporting will have been a huge waste of everyone’s time.

Most people have viewed this election through the lens of HOW DO WE STOP THAT MONSTER TRUMP? Focusing mainly on this, we know that Trump called mexicans rapists, mocked a reporter with disabilities, called Carly Fiorina ugly, wants to ban muslims, wants to punish women who get abortions, etc, etc. But what if this monster isn’t actually going to end up running? Then we know a lot about Trump. Very few people know the actual differences between Hillary and Bernie’s immigration policy, tax policy, health care plans, college tuition fees, the death penalty, foreign policy, etc, etc. The media actually shafted Hillary as well as Bernie, because ALL the focus has been on Trump. But the democratic nomination was always hers to lose. And maybe Clinton didn’t want much examination of her policies since they are often subject to change.

Would the RNC ignore registered republican voters and try to dump Trump even after they chose him as their nominee? Who knows? But I wish the DNC would realize how deeply flawed Clinton is and do just that. I am not an expert on each parties rules of the selection process. But many are not happy with their party’s nominees, who both have very high negative ratings


Last night, MSNBC was gloating over how republicans are freaking because their party is toast with the loathesome Trump as their nominee. They claimed that he has no clear policy positions and has flip-flopped many times. And that Trump doesn’t hold the traditionally conservative views of the republican party. They were also mentioning Trump’s historically high negatives in polls. Candidates with high negatives seldom win. So those on the right are desperately seeking a new republican to a third party libertarian candidate to jump in to attract the votes of all those who will never vote for Trump.

Funny, that’s exactly how I feel about Hillary Clinton. She’s the democratic frontrunner, yet many in the party are so unenthused by her candidacy that they’ll break away from the party if she’s nominated. Like Trump, she’s known for having unclear positions and flip-flopping. (And lying.) Like Trump, she known for policies which aren’t traditionally associated with democrats–like a penchant US military interventionism, strong ties to Wall Street, fossil fuels, insurance industries, big pharma, Monsanto–the list goes on and on.

Here’s the good news. Democrats don’t need to come up with a new, alternative candidate at the last minute to save their party as republicans feel the do. We’ve already got Bernie Sanders. They ran a comparison of Trump and Hillary’s high negatives. Hillary’s were lower than Trump’s, but not by much. Bernie has high positives and his ratings for honesty and authenticity are through the roof. Democrats, ignore him at your party’s own peril.


This is an article in the NY Times about how Obama failed to deliver on his promises of less war during his two terms. Please note that Hillary Clinton is considered more of a hawk than Obama and most democrats. And that one major reason that she lost the presidential race to Obama was that he opposed the Iraq war that Hillary had foolishly voted for as a senator. If Obama, a democrat, has failed to end wars and has actually started several new ones we rarely hear about, imagine what Clinton would do if we were so careless to select a nominee more hawkish than the current president who couldn’t make good on his promises to withdraw troops. Just go ahead and give up on peace with Hillary as commander-in-chief. A christian country which has given up on peace is a very confused place, isn’t it?

Why did the candidate Obama promising peace appeal to democrats 7 years ago, and these same democrats–who are allegedly weary of war–now embrace the more war-like candidate Hillary? When there is a perfectly viable candidate like Bernie Sanders who is more concerned domestic policy than new or continued military entanglements? The democratic party has lost it’s soul, with a hawkish frontrunner laden with Wall Street campaign contributions. War and corporate ties use to be more closely associated with that other party.

Also worth noting that the NY Times, along with CNN, apologized to their readers/audiences for not asking harder questions of the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war. And that this is a paper which endorses Hillary, while admitting Obama’s failure to involve the US in less wars as he’d promised. In fact, as we prepare to salute fallen soldiers on Memorial Day at the end of this month, most of us are forced to admit that we have no clue that we’re even at war with Yemen or Somalia. Support the troops? Most of you can’t even find all them on a map.

This article doesn’t mention it, but Obama has said that his biggest regret was military intervention in Libya, which Hillary urged him to launch as Secretary Of State. Even the Defense Secretary Robert Gates advised against it. But bloodthirsty Hillary pushed forward, and even the NY Times ran a blow-by-blow account which determined that Hillary was not concerned about the outcome of the action in Libya. Well, the outcome was chaos and the formation of ISIS in that chaos. We’ve now sent more troops there to clean up Hillary’s mess.

The Times article also quotes a military historian who claims that “No president wants to be a war president.” Not true. Plenty of presidents actively seek war. Or fail, as Obama has done, to withdraw troops as he promised when campaigning. Some presidents relish war. I believe Hillary Clinton is one of those. Far from learning her mistake of a vote for the Iraq war, in 2011 she said “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.” So she sides with Bush and votes for war, admits her mistake and almost ten years later is thinking more about how to profit from the war than end it? Hillary would love to be known as a war president and is pitching herself as one. She would gladly send US troops to unnecessary deaths to make lucrative deals for her wealthy backers. These aren’t wars which protect the US in any way.

DAILY KOS: When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.

“It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity,” she said in a 2011 speech.

The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation…

I’m not sure what is most disturbing about this quote, the idea that the destruction of an entire country, the continuing death tolls of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s and American troops is a “business opportunity”, just so a few rich corporations could line their pockets, or the realization that this is actually not anything new, but is how our country functions– this is business as usual everyone:

JP Morgan and Exxon calling the shots, calling in their favors at the State department in exchange for some funding to those who allowed them to pray on the innocent. If that’s not an example of the revolving door, I don’t know what is.

I can only shudder when I think of all the other “business opportunities’ those in power have planned for us. This is what the establishment gets you; we have a chance to change this, let’s not let this opportunity go to waste.

NY TIMES: WASHINGTON — President Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.

If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama’s term — a near-certainty given the president’s recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria — he will leave behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

Mr. Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and spent his years in the White House trying to fulfill the promises he made as an antiwar candidate, would have a longer tour of duty as a wartime president than Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon or his hero Abraham Lincoln.

Granted, Mr. Obama is leaving far fewer soldiers in harm’s way — at least 4,087 in Iraq and 9,800 in Afghanistan — than the 200,000 troops he inherited from Mr. Bush in the two countries. But Mr. Obama has also approved strikes against terrorist groups in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, for a total of seven countries where his administration has taken military action.

“No president wants to be a war president,” said Eliot A. Cohen, a military historian at Johns Hopkins University who backed the war in Iraq and whose son served there twice. “Obama thinks of war as an instrument he has to use very reluctantly. But we’re waging these long, rather strange wars. We’re killing lots of people. We’re taking casualties.”

MORE:   http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?_r=0

@Maddow claims Sanders is winding down in CA. SF Chronicle suggests the opposite.

On Thursday, Rachel Maddow ran a segment on how the Sanders campaign had let go of it’s grass roots organizer AND they were planning on airing much fewer ads than is typically thought necessary in a geographically huge state like CA. A state which Sanders would have to win. Rachel seemed puzzled by this action which to her, seemed like a dialing back of his campaign. She even asked if he’d run out of money.

But as a Sanders supporter, I couldn’t help but wonder if Sanders knows that his base is under 45 and doesn’t rely on TV ads as much as they do the internet. Watching MSNBC is basically Trump TV for the first 40 minutes of every broadcast. I don’t understand myself why Sanders would can his grass roots organizer, but the pundit following Bernie’s campaign in CA claimed that Sanders would focus more on his huge rallies and the latino community. I find it odd that Maddow sees it as an unraveling strategy while the Chronicle’s headline is “Bernie’s stepping up in California–will Clinton?”

SF CHRONICLE: “One of the major differences between Clinton and Sanders is their view of the role of government. The Vermont senator’s vision is decidedly more expansive: It includes free college tuition for all and a system of national health insurance.

Sanders sidestepped the question of whether his super-sizing of government would further inflate a national debt that has reached $18 trillion — approaching $60,000 for every man, woman and child in America. He took issue with studies published this week by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and Urban Institute that calculated his programs would cost $33 trillion over the next decade, while his tax increases would raise just $15 trillion.”

One of my issues with the Sanders campaign is that it has not been as forthcoming as it could be with the necessity of raising taxes–as any socialist or democrat does. These countries also don’t allow giant corporations to pay nothing in federal taxes, or far less than their fare share. The wealthy are taxed at a higher rate because they can afford it. That’s the basic principle of socialism–that we are all contributing to a better society. So taxes would go up under a Sanders administration. But monthly premiums would disappear. Sanders calculates that the average American family would save under his model because we would not be paying exorbitant insurance premiums. (Too bad our news is too busy discussing Trump’s moronic outbursts to weigh up Bernie’s tax plans against Hillary’s.)

But one thing is for sure–even if taxes did go up to finance free college and state-run health care for all, they would go up a lot less if the wealthy and corporations were finally paying their fair share. Or just what the percentage they used to pay. Decades ago, some huge corporations paid 70% in taxes. Some now pay $0%? And if Americans, who are allegedly sick of war, weren’t eating up 1/2 of our income taxes on the military, a lot more could go towards Bernie’s benevolent plans which lead to a more equal society and wider opportunities for all. If we truly are sick of war, let’s stop paying for it and rebuild this country.

MORE:  http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Sanders-steps-up-in-California-will-Clinton-7456083.php?t=0e8b9da32800af33be&cmpid=fb-premium


Hi! My new show Trans-Jester has been extended due to sold out crowds at the Stonewall Inn. Here’s a little taste! It now runs Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 7PM. And the ticket price is as cheap as my humor: $19.99 + 2 drink minimum, 21 & up with ID. While the show features my typically raunchy comedy, there’s also a few serious moments when I attempt to understand the politically correct word police and their ever-changing list of taboo words. Co-written, by Beryl Mendelbaum, with choreography by Xanax.

For more info/tickets, please visit http://trans-jester.bpt.me and there are sometimes tickets for cash at the door. Arrive a little early for better seats. On June 1st and 7th the show is later on at 10PM. I really hope you can make it to see the 3 times a week I actually get off of Facebook, shave, paint my face, put on a wig and stop typing essays about politics, because even I need a laugher break from this f#cking toxic election!

Here are a few reviews:

“The most screamingly, gratifyingly, crap-your-pants funny show in town.” — Michael Musto

“A scream for sanity from the nastiest, biggest-hearted comedic performer around.” –John Cameron Mitchell

“So smart.” –Susan Sarandon

“Do yourself a favor and go see Lady Bunny’s new show Trans-Jester at Stonewall. Not for the faint of heart or PC.” –Andy Cohen

“Hurry up and see this old queen before she dies!” — Bianca Del Rio


Former GOP Congressman Mickey Edwards is on MSNBC saying that Trump is not mentally fit–due to his outrageous and often contradictory statements–to be president and have access to that nuclear code. I’m not a psychiatrist, but I certainly don’t think he’s qualified to be president.

However, if it’s senseless destruction we’re worried about, the US president can cause that without the use nuclear weapons. Like when Hillary voted for Bush’s Iraq war, causing hundreds of thousands to die needlessly. and a fortune to be wasted. Then she was awarded the position of secretary of state and pushed Obama and Defense Secretary Gates to overthrow the Libyan government. The real scandal wasn’t Benghazi or which emails were released when to whom. It was that Hillary, almost 10 years after voting for what is considered the worst foreign policy blunder in recent US history in Iraq, angled to go into Libya and overthrow another dictator. Obama called the Hillary-led invasion the biggest mistake of his presidency. In both Iraq and Libya, Hillary’s goal was to overthrow a “bad man” like Saddam or Gaddafi with little thought of the consequences after the attacks.

Well, the consequences in both countries were chaotic. Both became breeding grounds for ISIS, so we’re still sending troops there to fight new enemies which we’ve created. Hillary did not create the policy of US military interventionism, but she is a hawk who represents that bloodthirsty policy perhaps more than any candidate running. And she didn’t vote for war in Iraq or decide to topple Libya’s government to protect the US or protect US interests. She didn’t do it for humanitarian reasons. She did it because her goal, like too many US politicians including Obama, is perpetual war. They do it to rape the oil in the countries they attack and to pay off the defense industry with it’s weapons manufacturers and defense contractors. They gladly send our forces into harm’s way so that their friends and campaign donors to profit. It’s nothing new. GOP president Dwight Eisenhower warned of the danger of the military/industrial complex in the 1961. His worst fears have been realized and both of our two parties now actively seek war. We’re still in Afghanistan, the longest war in US history and we’ve just sent more troops into Iraq. And into Libya to clean up Hillary’s mess.

So while I don’t want Trump the nut job launching nuclear weapons, there’s no certainty that he would if elected. However, there is an abundance of certainty and a rotten record to prove it that if Hillary is elected she will seek actively seek new conflicts like the no-fly zone she is proposing in Syria, which could turn into a proxy war with Russia. Iraq, Libya, a 2009 Hillary-backed military coup in Honduras. And if she’s true to her promise to continue Obama’s legacy, she’ll extend wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and the countries like Pakistan and Yemen who we don’t declare war on but still drone bomb regularly. She represents war for profit. So in this corner, we have Trump who seems insane, unpredictable and irresponsible. In the other corner, we have the presidential-seeming Hillary Clinton smiling and waving with blood on her hands. They both suck.

The same pundit warning against Trump stressed that voters can’t just go with him because he’s running at the top of their party’s ticket. He doesn’t represent his party’s traditional core principles, the pundit claimed, since Trump is less of a conservative than typical GOP presidential hopefuls. All I could think is that this pundit could easily be describing Hillary. She’s the democratic frontrunner, but she’s a hawk just like any republican. She’s the candidate of Wall Street and corporations. She’s no progressive any more than Trump is a typical conservative. And both will say and then change anything to get elected.

But here’s the good news. Bernie Sanders is a progressive and wants the US to stop jumping into every military conflict we can. Oh, and despite what you’ve seen on the mainstream media, he’s still running for president.Bernie’s no dove, but he cares more about rebuliding this country than destroying others.


It’s a very sad when the good news that democrats had to rise up against Obama, our democratic president, to stop his disastrous TPP trade deal. By trying to push this job-killing trade deal written by corporate lobbyists in secret, Obama has raised the ugly question “Are the democrats still the party of the unions and other US workers who don’t want their jobs outsourced to countries like Vietnam where the minimum wage is $1?” If not, it’s time for a new party which represents 99% of us who are sick of electing politicians who screw us. We know the republicans’ are the party of the wealthy. Yes, Obama’s wife is pretty and chic, his kids are adorable and I think he’s awfully handsome himself. But the TPP is a hideously ugly deal. But it isn’t dead yet. And there’s another huge trade deal right behind it called the TTIP. The TPP would cover 40% of the world’s trade.

But that’s the aim of capitalism–to reduce operating costs and increase profits by any means necessary. Even by killing our jobs. And if killing US jobs is what capitalism is all about, maybe Bernie’s democratic socialism doesn’t sound so bad after all. When your president is actively seeking to send your jobs overseas, it’s time to try something new. And make no mistake. Rotten trade deals like the TPP and NAFTA (passed by democrat Bill Clinton) screw the people. What good is Obama stopping discrimination in the work place if we no longer have work places?

I see Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren pictured here. Hillary has promised to carry on Obama’s legacy. Unfortunately, carrying on this atrocious legacy of harmful trade deals is something I do trust her on doing if she’s elected. These trade deals are so bad for average workers that even the moronic Trump opposes them. Just not Obama. And not Hillary, either, until she flip-flopped on the TPP right before he 1st debate in order to seem more like a democrat.

WASHPO: Democrats hand Obama a stinging defeat on trade deal

MORE:   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/populist-democrats-hand-obama-a-stinging-defeat-on-tpp/2015/05/12/aec9be02-f8e7-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?postshare=9471463086013220&tid=ss_fb


Another Trans-Jester review!

Forget Hamilton Get Tickets To Lady Bunny’s Naughty New Show
The real revolution is taking place at Lady Bunny’s hilarious new comedy show, “Trans-Jester,” running at New York City’s historic Stonewall Inn.

This show is as authentically scary and fierce as anything you will ever see, plus Bunny makes her audience weep with laughter and groaning with disgust at the same time.

Her newest blend of brilliant irreverent comedy is the perfect fit for the Stonewall Inn theatre upstairs, which is experiencing a new riot called Bunny!

We’ve become so politically correct that they just made Dick Van Dyke change his name to Penis Von Lesbian,” joked Lady Bunny as the shocked crowd gasped. While new parodies about Adele, Rent and Bruno Mars were too hilarious to describe – they must be seen to be believed.

Trashing political correctness as only a trash-mouthed drag queen can, Bunny breaks down some of the latest buzzwords like cisgender and heteronormative. LGBTQIA. Does anyone even know what that means?

But be warned: Bunny will shock you and this show is not for the faint of heart.

Bunny brings it on home with a show-stopping finale featuring two classics from Gypsy and Follies. The evening also resurrects songs by country star Lynn Anderson, Millie Jackson and even an original tune which pokes fun at her own dating life. A proud slut, Bunny lampoons her own senile attempts to keep up with technology in order to still get sex.

Please note: This show is raunchy. It’s not politically correct by definition − that’s the whole point. So prepare to grab a drink and laugh!

NAUGHTY GOSSIP just loves this very naughty lady. Go see her. We promise it is not a night that you will EVER forget. Plus you will be able to spot a celerity or two in the crowd. The night we went we saw cute Andy Cohen and a few of his Real Housewives! But don’t get it twisted – the star of the night is BUNNY!

The show runs Mon-Wed, 7pm at Stonewall Inn through June

Forget Hamilton Get Tickets To Lady Bunny’s Naughty New Show


So two nights ago, Bernie Sanders won West Virginia. (Hillary won Minnesota that same night.) Some have called it a “landslide” win in West VA for Sanders, and while he did win over Clinton with double digits, I’m not sure it could be considered a landslide. Clickbait. Let’s say it was a decisive win if not an actual landslide.

Now it gets confusing, because each state tallies scores differently. But they aren’t different in this way. Despite a double digit or “landslide” win in West VA, Hillary will be awarded 6 of the 8 super delegates from that state. Now this has nothing to do with a county by county delegate win or a winner take all kind of win which different states feature. We aren’t talking about delegates. We’re talking about super delegates–party insiders who despite Bernie’s decisive win in West VA, will cast 6 of the 8 total their votes for Clinton. Does that make sense to you?

Who are these super delegates? If the process doesn’t seem very democratic, that’s because it isn’t. How can these super delegates refuse to represent the people of their state by awarding the loser with 3/4 of their 8 super delegates? If these super delegates don’t represent West VA voters–and they clearly don’t–then who do they represent? Some are ye old time politicians who tow the party line in the hopes that the DNC would throw them some cash to get reelected themselves. Some may simply prefer Clinton to Sanders. Some are closely tied with industries who shaft workers or actual lobbyists who should have no business swaying our votes and tainting our democracy.

I’m a YUUUUGE Bernie supporter and I’m keenly aware that he has a tough, almost impossible route to clinching the nomination. However, I feel that he’s worth fighting for and as he himself has said, he began as a fringe candidate polling at 2%. So he’s accustomed to fighting uphill battles. I wish that more of us would realize that he’s fighting these battles in the interest of most working Americans, which is why a working class state like West VA gave him a win. But what Bernie sees his own path to victory is persuading the super delegates in states where he did win big to cast their votes his way.

So in West VA, New Hampshire and Iowa, Bernie would get the lion’s share of the super delegates instead of Hillary. Should she get their vote in states she didn’t even win in? DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has actually said that the super delegate system is in place to prevent grass roots candidates like Sanders from getting the nomination. So I guess we’re openly admitting that the democrats are actively closing ranks to destroy the chances of the candidate who has raised and is still raising incredible amounts of small donations from working people…in favor of the establishment candidate with more money from Wall Street than any GOP candidate? Wall Street, which crashed our economy? Which caused the housing collapse? The democrats want to cement the nomination of the candidate of Wall Street and block the candidate of Main Street. Sound good to you? And if so, please explain why? I will freely admit that I’m not the most knowledgeable on the super delegate system. If you are and there’s a good reason for it, by all mean chime in.


IMG_0445 (1)

Hillary has no firm positions except war and greed. Obviously, a democrat will be better on social issues than a republican, but her goal is to get elected and be a puppet of corporations. Remember, the frontrunner began her campaign by saying that she wanted to run because she was a grandmother. This is how vague her policies are upfront–to mask her dark agenda.

This was in yesterday’s NY Times–she’s actually pivoting towards Sanders’ position on health care which she’s previously called too radical. Now, she’s switching at a time when most think shs clenched the nomination and is moving in Bernie’s direction at the exact time she’d like to be pivoting to the center/right for the general election.

So let’s be clear: she proposed single-payer in the 90s. She then made a fortune from the insurance industry and suddenly Sanders’ plan is radical and unrealistic. Now that she can’t win Sanders’ supporters, she adopting a version of another one of his positions. Which of course she’ll abandon if elected. The media has kept saying that it’s good for Sanders to be in the race because it moves Hillary to the left. Well if the left is such a beneficial direction, why not select he candidate who was always left–and who doesn’t need to borrow his opponent’s positions because he’s held the same platform for decades?

This is from the paper which endorsed her.

NY TIMES: “For months during the Democratic presidential nominating contest, Hillary Clinton has resisted calls from Senator Bernie Sanders to back a single-payer health system, arguing that the fight for government-run health care was a wrenching legislative battle that had already been lost.

But as she tries to clinch the nomination, Mrs. Clinton is moving to the left on health care and this week took a significant step in her opponent’s direction, suggesting she would like to give people the option to buy into Medicare.

“I’m also in favor of what’s called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age,” Mrs. Clinton said on Monday at a campaign event in Virginia.

Mr. Sanders calls his single-payer health care plan “Medicare for all.” What Mrs. Clinton proposed was a sort of Medicare for more.”

“She made the remarks as she continues to face a determined challenge on the left from Mr. Sanders, forcing her to essentially fight a two-front war as she seeks to turn her attention to Donald J. Trump and the general election. While Mr. Sanders trails by a substantial number of delegates, his effect continues to be felt in the race as he pressures Mrs. Clinton to adopt more progressive positions.

“Bernie Sanders’s campaign is having an effect on Hillary Clinton’s policies,” said Steve McMahon, a Democratic political consultant from Purple Strategies. “From a progressive point of view, that’s exactly what was hoped for and that is exactly what is happening.”

No–the progressive hope is that democrats embrace the progressive candidate Sanders who doesn’t need to borrow ideas from Hillary.

And in case you want to tell me how great Obamacare is:

NY TIMES: “The politics in the short term are good,” said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Medicare is a popular program — people don’t know too much about health reform, but people know about Medicare.”

Before the Affordable Care Act, people older than 55 tended to have difficulty buying their own insurance, because insurance companies saw them as bigger risks. Since the health law passed, insurance plans have been banned from discriminating against people based on health history, but they can charge premiums that are three times as much as younger adults are charged.”


As with the minimum wage, as with opposing the TPP, as with moving closer toward state-run health care, why not pick the candidate who was right the first time? Not the one who’ss imply pandering to voters and telling them what they want to hear. Think she’s a great leader? She started her campaign with few firm policies and now is borrowing her opponents since they resonate. Don’t believe for a second that she’ll maintain her newfound progressive healthcare “suggestions” if she gets into office. Yesterday, Trump was ridiculed for walking back his claim that he’d ban muslims and claiming it was only a suggestion. Hillary deserves the exact same ridicule.
MORE: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-health-care-public-option.html?_r=0

Elizabeth Warren: A Phony Progressive?

Elizabeth Warren is a fiery speaker and is viewed as a progressive hero on the left because she wants to restrict credit card companies’ unfair practices and break up big banks. Too bad she wasn’t progressive enough to endorse Bernie Sanders when he ran in her state of Massachusetts and lost by only 2%. You remember, when Bill Clinton was trollling polling places in possible violations of election law?

Warren: “Donald Trump is now the leader of the Republican Party. It’s real – he is one step away from the White House. Here’s what else is real:

Trump has built his campaign on racism, sexism, and xenophobia. There’s more enthusiasm for him among leaders of the KKK than leaders of the political party he now controls.”

BUNNY NOTE: While I share Liz’s concerned about Donald Trump, she mentions that there is more enthusiasm for Trump among the KKK than in the democratic establishment. Well, then also denounce that there’s more enthusiasm from Hillary among the mainstream media, the very Wall Street big wigs which Warren has made a name for herself trying to reign in and the Congress members who endorse Clinton out of fear for their political careers. Bernie has the enthusiasm of huge turn-outs at his rallies and grass roots fund-raising which has surpassed even Obama’s. Hillary has more money from Wall Street than any republican candidate. So Liz, denounce her as well, unless you want the big banks to crash our economy and “bless” us with another housing bubble. Liz could praise Bernie’s grass roots fundraising which is “clean” and truly democratic–with mostly small contributions from over 5 million working Americans. Hillary has 1 million donations from average workers and $300,000 a plate fundraisers hosts by George Clooney and others who don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes. Think she’ll raise taxes on the rich? They’re fundraising for her.

Warren: “He incites supporters to violence, praises Putin, and, according to a columnist who recently interviewed him, is “cool with being called an authoritarian” and doesn’t mind associations with history’s worst dictators.”

Hillary has built her career on being a hawk. So while Trump may be scary in inciting his followers to violence at rallies, Hillary has been in position of power like NY Senator and Secretary Of State and has actually green lit violence on a mass scale–by voting for the war in Iraq as senator and by learning nothing from her mistakes in Iraq by overthrowing Libya’s government as secretary of state. So Warren, if violence is bad, I guess you won’t be supporting Hillary the hawk, who is suggesting a no-fly zone over Syria which could lead to a proxy war with Russia. Speaking of Russia, Obama is seeking to quadruple the military budget in Central Europe to pick an unnecessary fight with Putin over attacking the Ukraine. This is none of the US’s business. And Warren calls out Trump for associating with the world’s worst dictators? Hillary counts some of them as her personal friends and they’ve given a fortune to her foundations. I guess Clinton being the “woman’s candidate” doesn’t translate to much when she’s powwowing and accepting money from muslim nations which treat women like crap.

Warren: He attacks veterans like John McCain who were captured and puts our servicemembers at risk by cheerleading illegal torture. In a world with ISIS militants and leaders like North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un conducting nuclear tests, he surrounds himself with a foreign policy team that has been called a “collection of charlatans,” and puts out contradictory and nonsensical national security ideas one expert recently called “incoherent” and “truly bizarre.”

BUNNY NOTE: Hillary’s support for the war in Iraq and the overthrow of Libya which she orchestrated as secretary of state has created hotbeds where ISIS can develop. Hillary has the foreign policy of an Alpha male on steroids. Trump only has the personality of one.

Warren: “What happens next will test the character for all of us – Republican, Democrat, and Independent. It will determine whether we move forward as one nation or splinter at the hands of one man’s narcissism and divisiveness. I know which side I’m on, and I’m going to fight my heart out to make sure Donald Trump’s toxic stew of hatred and insecurity never reaches the White House.”

BUNNY NOTE: Hillary’s high negatives are almost as high as Trump’s. And her untrustworthiness, flip-flopping and shady deals and lies are toxic. While she may not openly express hatred, tell the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died for no reason how sweet she is. Tell the victims of her husband’s welfare reform and crime bill which increased incarcerations how sweet she is. And tell all of those who lost and will lose their jobs from the trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP how we move forward as a nation serving corporations as Hillary and Obama have always done.

Elizabeth Warren, the only way that you can prove you’re a progressive is by endorsing the one progressive in this race: Bernie Sanders. We all know Trump is crap. Tell us how Hillary is at odds with a progressive agenda and I’ll believe that you’re a true progressive. Otherwise, you’re just towing th party line for Hillary, the centrist/republican lite who is in the pocket of Wall Street.

Think Hillary raises $ for other Democratic candidates & Bernie doesn’t? Think again.

I’ve seen quite a few Hillary supporters griping that Bernie Sanders doesn’t raise money for the democratic party to help democratic Congressional candidates. And how Hillary raises so much for them. The Young Turks video Pissi Myles posted below on my feed describes how Hillary has raised a helluva lot, but only 1% of it goes to the party. 99% goes to her election campaign. So some of you are slamming Bernie and giving Hillary credit for something she does not deserve at all. I hope you will watch it. Just another corporate media pro-Hillary talking point espoused by her paid surrogates in the media (who often aren’t identified as surrogates) which is total BS.


We’re sending more troops into Iraq in an offensive to recapture Mosul. Joe Biden made a surprise visit there today, which eerily recalled his visit to Iraq 5 years ago when he claimed that soon we’d have no troops left in Iraq. Well, that never happened. Because this “dumb war” which spun Iraq into chaos is now where ISIS develops. Thanks, Hillary, for joining Bush and Cheney in this dreadful venture which made no sense to anyone except hawks like them.
In this segment, Rachel Maddow points out that the the two guys welcoming Biden from the plane aren’t in uniform. Why not? They are private defense contractors who don’t wear uniforms and don’t have to follow regulations which regular soldiers do. They also cost a fortune and friends of the Cheneys’ or the Clitnons’ are awarded lucrative deals to supply these mercenaries.

And Rachel is quite right to ask why, as our troop level in a war we should have never entered rises to 5,000 after we were supposed to call it quits there 5 years ago, none of the candidates are being asked about Iraq. Well, Hillary doesn’t want to talk about it. Bernie was against it. And even Trump blasted his own party for the stupidity of this wasteful, long war. Only Hillary, presented with the same facts as Sanders who voted against it, thought it was a good idea at the time. So much for her foreign policy experience.

One thing interesting is that our goal there now is to unite Iraqis. I guess that means the warring Sunni and Shia tribes. However, there was little animosity between the two tribes before we smashed their country. In another absurd example of no one really knowing what we are doing in Iraq, anyone remember this? So that US soldiers could exit once and for all, they set about training the Iraqi forces to fight ISIS. Yet as they faced off with ISIS carrying weapons we bought for them, the Iraqis got scared, dropped the weapons and ran. ISIS grabbed the weapons we’d bought for the Iraqi forces and ran. We just filed taxes. Aren’t you glad that part of yours went to failed mission like that one where we actually armed ISIS?


I’m a lifelong democrat from a family of democrats and Bernie Sanders represents the agenda of the democratic I used to know. Hillary does not. She represents the democratic party which Obama moved to the center, and she is to the right of Obama.

If perpetual war and tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations are what she represents and she’s on track to win the democratic nomination even though she acts like a republican much of the time, then perhaps Bernie should run as a third party candidate. He’s said that he wouldn’t, but we need a party which represents working Americans–the 99%. Hillary does not and never will. If the parties have agendas that are too close to each other, then we’re given false choices like the lesser of two evils. Not acceptable to me. Nominating a republican lite like Hillary will destroy the party. Because democrats with a conscience and the Independent swing voters needed for a win on either side don’t trust her. Nor should they.


I thought this comments exchange was so interesting that I hijacked it and copied and pasted it. When Hillary supporters get tired of defending her when you point out her many flaws, they often revert this “It’s the Supreme Court appointees that matter” line of reasoning. In other words, “I know she sucks, but she’ll appoint better Supreme Court nominees.” Really? Then why is Obama trying get Garland appointed right now who supports Guantanamo and Citizens United? Corporate democrats like Obama and Clinton can’t be trusted to appoint liberal justices because they aren’t liberal.

Andrew Jones

Amen sister. I’m #BernieOrBust I’ll be damned if I’ll let someone extort me into voting for them. So sick of the dem establishment calling Bernie supporters spoilers. No the neolibs that won’t back the not only more qualified and reputable candidate, but also the candidate more likely to win a general, that are the spoilers. If a GOP wins it’s the fault of the supposed liberals that wouldn’t back Bernie when they had they chance not Bernie supporters who don’t see any reason to vote for that criminal shill.

Kristian Hoffman

You make me sad. It’s the supreme court. See what world your children inherit with this idiotic line of supposed reasoning. Vote Bernie if he wins (I hope he does, and I will vote for him!) but hold your nose and vote for Hillary if you have to. That “criminal shill” will save you from a world of woes if a Republican is blocked from the white house. This hateful invective serves no one, least of all the ones you love and hold most dear.

Andrew Jones

Kristian Hoffman I call bullshit on that whole line of reasoning. Hillary is an “all of the above” energy advocate, meaning she has not problem with drilling, pipelines, coal, fracking, and imported oil. We need to DRASTICALLY reverse the damage done, not slightly slow down the way we’re destroying the environment.

As for the Supreme Court, I CAN’T WITH YOU PEOPLE! She has said she would support Obama’s pick, Garland. Garland is a corporate shill that supports Citizens United. You are letting these trivial social issues that no candidate really cares about, cloud your judgement. Do you really think Trump will do jack shit to curb LGBT rights or abortion rights?! At least he thinks the campaign finance system is rigged and corrupt. In that sense, he’s MORE LIBERAL than Hillary. And honestly, this is a NY and Hollywood jetsetter married to immigrant. He’s manipulating the retards of the country. He doesn’t give at shit. He has at least promised to overturn Citizens United.


Not only did the great Susan Sarandon pop by The Stonewall Inn on Saturday night, but I also got a couple of great reviews! So we’ve extended through the end of May. My weekend travel schedule only permits me to perform Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays in May at 7PM. But I’m just thrilled that we’ve sold out all but two shows! Here’s a review from Michael Musto for Out.com:





If the following review makes me even more stereotypical, then I’ll wear it as a badge of honor: Long running drag star Lady Bunny is currently doing the most screamingly, gratifyingly, crap-your-pants funny show in town. Upstairs at the Stonewall—which was always a riot—Bunny is appearing in Trans-Jester, poking merciless fun at pc normatives while celebrating her off-color life as a “cyst gender person” who had a cyst removed from one of her nuts and is worrying that her fuck buddy might not approve of the reduced swelling. The show is all like that–raunchy and eye opening, fetidly appealing yet thought provoking.

With a rumored writing assist from Boca Raton widow and Facebook sensation Beryl Mendelbaum, Bunny rewrites pop songs, coming up with “Here’s my asshole/Condoms maybe” and Adele’s “Hello” as sung by a gerbil packed up her butt! (You certainly can’t say “That’s been done”—even by Adele.) She sings snippets of completely original creations like “Granny, why’d you get AIDS? You were dying anyway.” She spins and shimmers and, in amazing voice, renders the manic country tune “I’ve Been Everywhere (ending with “Where haven’t I been? Oh, high school!”) And she offers her thoughts on the absurdity of having come from a generation that fought for urgent things like AIDS drugs and now has to deal with a freakin’ landmine every time you open your mouth and say innocent stuff like “tranny”. “ ‘Slut shaming’?” squeals Bunny. “I thought the best thing about being a slut was getting called dirty things. ‘Suck it, whore!’ ” As for the T word, Bunny recalls landing on her knees with a her finger up a guy’s butt “as his nuts sprayed all over me and I said, ‘Who’s your tranny?’ ” Diving into the topic of the insane bathroom laws down south, Bunny observed, “They think someone like me is going to go into a women’s room and peek over the stalls, looking for hookups? I do that in the men’s room!” That led to another parody song (“If loving black dick is wrong, I don’t wanna be white”) and two Sondheim homages (including one that reached a peak with “I got through Stonewall the movie—and I’m here”). Trans-Jester is transformative, even if you don’t agree with every word that comes out of the Lady’s seasoned mouth. (I was glad Bunny followed a spoof song about Caitlyn Jenner’s favorite things with “That was trans-phobic”. And that’s her point anyway—we’ve got to lighten up, folks.) I wanted even more stuff—like how does she really feel about “cis”, a word designed to describe the vast majority of the population, who aren’t trans? Does Bunny feel the word is even needed? I don’t know, but Bunny’s show is as essential as oxygen from a Dominican delivery guy’s balls.

If you’d like more info or tickets, please visit:   http://trans-jester.bpt.me


<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/wxZXTjV6ErI” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>


It used to be that democrats were the party of working people, unions and peace and that republicans represented the 1% and endless war Not so with Hillary. Defense contractors have donated more to her campaign than to any of the republican candidates. Trump, yes the racist, misogynist, islamphobic @sshole Trump, may be less of a hawk than “democrat” Hillary Clinton. As she has spread death all over the world, she will also be the death of the democratic party. Many, like me, would rather vote for a third party than cast a blood-stained ballot for this whore for war. And catch this: Obama is calling for a $2.4 billion increase in defense spending–even though war-weary Americans are against it–so he’s no better. Bernie has called to reduce military spending and re-allocate those funds to health care and affordable college. But Hillary fans would rather turn a blind eye to her killing people all over the world for no reason except to enrich her campaign contributors. Hillary did not invent the USA’s brutal foreign policy of interventionism and regime change, but there is no doubt in anyone’s mind–even the defense industry which seeks to gain from her hawkishness–that she will continue it if elected.
Do you consider yourself a christian? If so, you might want to turn your back on a candidate who represents senseless destruction and death on a global scale.

“But over this period, employees of the top 50 contractors contributed only about half as much to the Republican presidential candidates still in the race — Cruz, Donald Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — as they did to Clinton and Sanders — a total of at least $357,775 versus at least $765,049 for the two Democrats combined.

The disparity may seem unusual, since Republicans often depict themselves as more supportive of defense spending than their opponents, and historically, more defense-related contributions have gone to Republicans. But Trump, the Republican front-runner, is largely self-funding his campaign, a factor that probably influenced this outcome.

It’s also possible that donors at defense-related companies are betting that a Democrat — either Clinton or Sanders — is more likely to win the White House in the fall than any of the Republicans, which makes them a more useful investment target. The Democrat-targeted donations may also reflect the fact that the party’s highest elected official, President Barack Obama, has called for a $2.4 billion increase in defense spending for fiscal year 2017, and many Democratic lawmakers have said they support that request — even though polls show the public does not agree.”

MORE:   Defense Contractor Employees Give the Most Money to Hillary Clinton





The TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) is one of the biggest issues in the presidential campaign yet it is rarely discussed. Why is it so important? Because it proves the democrats, like republicans, put corporate interests above those of US jobs which the TPP would kill an estimated half a million of. Democrat Bill Clinton’s NAFTA killed millions of jobs when it outsourced good-paying manufacturing jobs outside the US, where minimum wages are as low as 75 cents and hour. This is the issue with greedy capitalism—corporations are concerned with cutting costs only, not about American jobs which benefit–yeah, you guess it, most of us! You may not remember this if you are younger than me, but many retail items once proudly bore a Made In America label because that meant the American workers were being paid to make them and that American companies, not global giants, were benefitting from their sales.
Sadly, corporate democrats like Obama and Hillary Clinton do not represent American workers or they would never push this disastrous deal which shafts already hard hit workers. Hillary called the TPP the “gold standard” of trade agreements when she was Secretary Of State and advocated it publicly 45 times before switching her view to oppose the deal right before the first democratic debate. I don’t think anyone believes her newfound position on the TPP with her history of flip-flopping and lying. Bernie Sanders has opposed all of these trade agreements because they kill jobs. What was he doing in Congress all those years? Taking on anyone who sought to screw the working class.

Obama, proved that corrupt DC good ol’ boys come in all colors. Hillary, if elected, will prove that they come in both sexes. In an attempt to pander to black voters who largely view Obama favorably, Hillary has said that she will carry on his legacy. Guess what? That legacy includes job-killing deals like the TPP. And endless war. And failing to meaningfully address climate change. And refusing to address affordable higher education. Refusing to raise the minimum wage to something we can live on. Refusing to legalize weed. And refusing to embrace universal health care, which Hillary once supported but now calls unrealistic now that she’s made a fortune speaking before pharmaceutical companies.
Speaking of bribes, the below email details how New Balance shoe manufacturer dared to say how awful the TPP actually was. But then they dummied up miraculously after they were offered a lucrative contract to make shoes for the Department of Defense. If you agree that big money in politics has changed our democracy into an oligarchy, Hillary Clinton is not getting your vote. She is the poster child for crooked politics and a rigged economy. For chrissakes, she was even on the board of Walmart which is the poster child for unfair labor practices. After two terms of George W. Bush and two terms of Obama in which new wealth zoomed straight past all of us to the 1%, if we elect another corporate democrat like Hillary, I see a time of great prosperity–for corporations and the 1%. For the rest of us, not so much.

FightForTheFuture.org: “A major corporation just revealed that the U.S. government literally offered them a bribe if they’d stop opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP.)

This type of corruption is what we’re up against in the fight to stop the TPP. We’re battling the most powerful and politically entrenched forces in the world. They have billions to spend on lobbying and influence.
New Balance, a U.S.-based shoe company, opposed the TPP for years, echoing the concerns of experts who say it will hurt jobs and the economy.
But last year, the company suddenly went silent on the TPP. And now we know why––the U.S. government bribed them to shut them up.
The Boston Globe reports that the White House straight up promised New Balance a big money contract supplying shoes to the Department of Defense, as long as they either supported or remained neutral on the massive trade deal.
This latest scandal has more to do with the TPP’s economic impact, but as Internet and free speech advocates, we have deep concerns with this agreement’s impact on our digital rights.

The TPP was negotiated in complete secrecy by lobbyists and government bureaucrats––including some of the same ones that were behind SOPA and the DMCA––and it contains extreme copyright provisions that threaten to expand Internet censorship worldwide. [2] It reads like a wish list for monopolistic corporations and like a death sentence for the future of innovation, our Internet freedom, and our basic democratic process.

The giant corporations pushing the TPP have billions of dollars in potential profits on the line. They’re fighting dirty and there’s nothing they won’t do to get this deal passed.”

@RachelMaddow Finally Reminded Us What News Was Last Night On @MSNBC

I tried to watch Rachel Maddow the other night, who I used to love, but 38 minutes into her broadcast she had only discussed the GOP candidates. So much for MSNBC being left-leaning. The net effect of focusing mainly on Trump is that we seldom hear discussion of Hillary’s plans versus Bernie’s plans. Contrasting the two democrats’ tax plans, health care plans, plans for more affordable education, job creation, etc. and how they would shake down for a student, a retiree, a family of four–we never get that analysis because Trump’s insanity dominates. So many who aren’t politically engaged only fear the GOP boogieman and are prone to go with Hillary, who despite Bernie’s momentum is still the frontrunner. The politically unengaged may also not be aware that for in polls for many months, Bernie has beat all GOP rivals by more points than Hillary–in a few, she even lost to Kasich or to Rubio. And it’s sad that MSNBC would go so TMZ in an election with two fundamentally different democrats running. Democracy doesn’t work without an informed electorate. And if our news is more focused on the ratings they get from Trump’s latest shocking statements, we stay uniformed.

But Rachel surprised me last night with her ending segment. I’d listened to Rachel for years on Air America and last night, she bravely went against the establishment grain and asked a very tough question. And even faulted the media and all candidates for it’s lack of discussion on this issue. The war in Afghanistan.

Obama campaigned on withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2014. Didn’t happen. We still have 9,800 troops there and he’s said that he’ll be passing this conflict on to our next president. Not only is the war in Afghanistan the longest war in US history, we’ve now spent more rebuilding that country than on the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe after World War II. (That was Rachel’s point, not mine.) I actually couldn’t find her quick end segment on MSNBC videos offered, so I created an account to watch the episode in full. It needed to be transcribed. Here are her other points and even a long but telling quote.

We went into Afghanistan to rid the world of the Taliban. (I do not disagree with that war because the Taliban, not Iraq, was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.) However, we went in in 2001 and now in 2016, the Taliban now controls more of Afghanistan than it did in 2001–about 1/3rd of the country. So we can’t win the war and we can’t end the war. Against a dirt poor country. Sound fishy to you?

Rachel: “And now, in year 15, the mission is expanding. President Obama recently directed a new effort by US special forces in Afghanistan to conduct new offensive operations in that country commissioned new offensive operations, but not against the Taliban. This time these new operations are against ISIS. We think of this of this forever war in Afghanistan as a two-sided fight, but we’ve now been there long enough that that’s now out of date. Now the fight against the Taliban is being waged along a separate war against a new player–roughly 1000 fighters for ISIS, who are hostile not only to the US, and to the Afghan government, but also to the Taliban. So ISIS guys are fighting the Taliban, we’re fighting the Taliban. Does that mean we’re on the side of ISIS? Of course not. On the other hand, we’re fighting ISIS, the Taliban is fighting ISIS, so are we on the side of the Taliban? No, of course not.

We’re fighting the Taliban and ISIS and ISIS and the Taliban are also fighting each other. If we had a sane and responsible political in this country, this is what our presidential candidates would be clobbering each other about right now. This is what they’d be clamoring over to beat each other up politically. Because we the voters would be holding them accountable to whether or not they would be able to fix this. Because this, for us, needs a political solution. I am no expert and neither are you, but the solution that has not worked in 15 straight years of trying is probably not going to be one that is going to work in 16 years either. Or 17 or 18.

Nothing starts to work in year 16. And if we’re going to get a new approach here, it’s going to have to come from Congress–HAH! as if–or it’s going to have to come from one of these nice folks. (Cut to a picture of all presidential candidates.) And as long as the war is seen as a foreign story, something the only affects military families, and as long as the fate and the work of 10,000 American troops is not seen as something American politicians actually have to make decisions about, as long as this is just seen as an interesting international news story, then a smart solution is never going to arrive like a gift from heaven. This thing is going to just keep chugging along.

This week we started our 15th straight fighting season in that country. The first presidential candidate to notice that wins a prize. The first presidential candidate who talks about how to fix that ought to win the White House. If our political system made any sense.”


If you actually support the troops, maybe you’d like to give some thought to bringing them home from the longest war in US history in which we are fighting multiple enemies without a winning strategy. Because many want to keep gays from eating at your wedding cakes or prevent women form getting legal abortions, or because many want a female president so badly even though the only one running has the hawkish foreign policy of a republican, most of us have given up on peace. The “christian country” which worships the Prince Of Peace has gotten so wrapped up with who uses which bathroom that it forgot it’s religions’ basic tenet THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I’d see you all in hell if there was one.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who even resembles a dove in this election. All republicans potential nominees and Hillary seek war, and not to protect us. Only to enrich the military/industrial complex which profits from war while using young men and women as pawns in their bloody game. Yet no presidential candidate can win on a strategy which might make the US seem weak and suggest withdrawing from a war we can’t win. Bernie has tried to claim that if the US can’t afford to care for it’s veterans, we can’t afford to go to war. I agree with that. He’s even mentioned “world peace” twice as a goal. But sadly, the American people have been fooled into thinking that war is necessary because we’re constantly under attack, and anyone suggesting peace is somehow weak. Our “interests”–Israel, the Ukraine and countries we want oil from may be under attack but the US is not. We are the attackers around the world. And our attacks actually create more terrorists in Afghanistan (where we now have more Al Qaeda and ISIS now), Iraq (where ISIS was born after Bush’s war), Libya (where ISIS developed after Hillary overthrew their government as Secretary Of State with no plan for the ending chaos) and Syria–where Hillary wants a no-fly zone. (Which could lead to a proxy war with Russia.)

Do you think the troops we have stationed all over the world are handing out lollipops? We just filed taxes–don’t you think that if we didn’t spend a huge portion of each tax dollar on defense that we’d have plenty of money left over for universal health care, free college education, rebuilding our infrastructure, expanding social security and much that we need here at home? But we’re hell-bent on jumping into fights all over the world. Time to fix home. And leave them alone. As Afghanistan proves, they hate us and they hate each other. Let’s tell them goodbye and bring our troops home. That’s supporting the troops. With a fortune left over to BENEFIT Americans rather than DESTROY.

Another Cheap Shot From Hillary Towards @sensanders From Last Night’s Debate

I’ve heard of a Bronx cheer. But last night at the CNN debate held in Brooklyn, they were the most vocal audience of any debate I’ve seen. Hillary supporters can enjoy her many bouts of applause. But Brooklyn was raging for Bernie with the longest screams, wildest bursts of cheering and even chants of “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!” at the end. The moderators had to cut off each candidate several times as it was the most contentious debate, but I did notice them cutting off Bernie more. I wonder if that’s because CNN’s parent company Time Warner donates to Hillary.

Clinton tried one of her cheapest moves–which was actually a repeat from a week or so ago. In an attempt to pander to female voters, Hillary again tried to claim that Bernie had dismissed Trump’s comments on punishing women who get abortion as a “distraction.” Hillary is deliberately misleading voters. You can call it a strategy or you can call it a misrepresentation. Or you can call it another lie from Clinton. What Hillary is referring to is an interview in which Sanders was asked about Trump’s plan to punish women who get abortions. Sanders responded that he is tired of the media distracting us with every one of Trump’s outrageous statements. (Which the news does for ratings as opposed to informing us.)

Donald’s absurd abortion comment is but one of many sensational statements that Trump makes almost daily. Sanders’ point was that the media needs to stop putting the ball in Trump’s court by asking democrats about the GOP frontrunner’s latest gaffe, and focus instead on contrasting the policies which Clinton and Sanders are proposing. Sander has a 100% voting record on abortion rights and legendary feminist Gloria Steinem even named him an “honorary woman” as a reward for his long fight for women’s equal rights. And the day after Trump made his “punishment” claims, he walked it back. This completely proved Bernie to be correct: it was a distraction from real issues to focus on what loud-mouthed, bizarre Donald is spouting for one day when there are major issues like income inequality, climate change and affordable higher education and health care. And sadly, these issues aren’t as discussed as often as Trump’s crazy statements about muslims, hispanics, women, etc.

Is this all Hillary’s got? Misrepresenting an interview and seizing on one of Bernie’s words in it to make women afraid that Bernie dismisses abortion rights? It was actually pitiful to see her make a mountain out of a molehill on this when she and Sanders are equally strong on women’s issues. Clinton may have more votes and more super delegates, so why does she need to make this misleading and desperate attack–unless her own platform isn’t as appealing and she’s dishonest?