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?

Nothing like a good review from one of my fave performers, @DwayneMilan

The Village People’s Randy Jones, MargOh Channing and Dwayne Milan stopped by The Stonewall Inn for the opening of my new show: Trans-Jester


Nothing like a good review from one of my favorite performers, Dwayne Milan! 9 more performances of Trans-Jester at Stonewall Inn through April 30th.

If you are in the NYC area and you a fan of comedy that’s not so “PC”, then DO YOURSELF A FAVOR and GO SEE Lady Bunny’s one-whoa-man show “Trans-Jester”. It will have you laughing in TEARS (unless you are easily offended then you WILL be in tears).

Bunny leaves no one safe while dishing out her not so politically correct views through song parodies, original material, videos, and more about the new PC state of the world and pop culture.

Don’t let the stacked wigs fool you. If you don’t know already, Bunny is a smart writer and her views on politics are a must read!
I don’t want to give anything away but to hear her sing ADELE and her remake of Uptown Funk alone was worth the ticket.
Spread the word and show your support to a true ICON in the Drag World. You won’t regret it!


CgBqbk2UUAAmQCN-1.jpg-largeMORE INFO/TIX HERE: http://trans-jester.bpt.me




Tell me again about Hillary’s foreign policy experience? Obama now says he regards the Clinton-driven overthrow of Libya as the biggest mistake of his presidency. Hillary pushed for regime change in Libya as Secretary Of State against the advice of Defense Secretary Gates, and Obama was said the by 51/49 against the invasion himself. Even the NY Times, which has endorsed Hillary, gave a blow by blow account of how the US attack showed that Clinton was eager to topple the country without giving thought to the aftermath. Well, the aftermath was chaos causing Libya to become a breeding ground for ISIS, and the US just had to send troops there to clean up her mess.

Libya was an unnecessary invasion which led to chaos, more US troops sent there afterward and it’s now a hotbed of new terrorism. In other words, Hillary the hawk learned nothing from her admitted mistake to vote for the Iraq war about 10 years before Libya. It is Clinton’s hawkishness (and campaign cash from the financial giants which crashed our economy) which caused Sanders to claim she is not qualified to be president.
The press made a big deal out of that statement because they’d rather dwell on he-said, she-said perceived slights and the horse race so they can distract voters away from immense, ongoing problems like income inequality, a bribed government, unaffordable college and insurance and addressing the mammoth issue of climate change. While I’m certain that Hillary is highly intelligent and has many world leaders on speed dial–in order to sell them arms and promote fracking worldwide–when she was in a position to drive foreign policy she made a huge error.

I’ll take Sanders’ statement about Clinton being disqualified a step further. Experience means nothing if you lack judgement. And Hillary Clinton, whose default position is war, lacks the judgment and compassion to qualify her as a baby sitter, much less a commander-in-chief. So if sending US troops on unnecessary invasions like Iraq and Libya without considering the quagmires now over there and more terrorist outposts is your idea of foreign policy experience, vote for Hillary. I’d love to see you try to explain your vote to the young men and women who she, like too many in our government, has no problem sending on military missions which make no sense and often backfire. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war.

MORE:   President Obama Calls Libyan Intervention Biggest Mistake of His Administration






In the last five years, Bunny’s performed two sold out solo shows at La Escuelita. But that venue closed! So Bunny is bringing her blend of raucous, irreverent comedy to the even more legendary venue Stonewall. And if you thought Stonewall was a riot, don’t miss Bunny in this limited run of Trans-Jester.

“We’ve become so politically correct that they just made Dick Van Dyke change his name to Penis Von Lesbian.” –Lady Bunny

In addition to new parodies which re-work selections from Adele, Rent and Bruno Mars to hilarious, effect punctuated by zany Laugh-In style zingers, Bunny has widened her—don’t go there!–repertoire to include some actually insightful social commentary. (Well, she thinks it’s insightful, anyway.) Trashing the current overemphasis on political correctness, Bunny breaks down some of the latest buzzwords that we’re all supposed to remember for every for every occasion as we “evolve.” Sometimes, Bunny feels, that we’re actually evolving away from common sense! Take the new name for our community–LGBTIA. Does anyone even know what that means?

While Bunny shies away from politics in this performance–because one train wreck on stage per night is enough–she doesn’t shy away from gender politics and the new lingo we’re suddenly forced to learn every time Will Smith’s son puts on a dress. After Caitlyn Jenner reached out to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz to become his “trans ambassador”, Bunny feels that it’s time for the gloves to come off while addressing that farce.
And Bunny may shock you with revelations about her own gender identity. “She” asks pertinent questions about cultural appropriation prior to declaring her undying love for black cock in a refreshingly vulgar version of Uptown Funk which has left recent audiences in San Francisco, Los Angeles and London reeling with mirth.

Theater queens rejoice! In her loooooong career in nightclubs, Bunny has never delved much into show tunes, but in Trans-Jester, 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 the dating life of whatever sex it is you want to call this “Lady”. A proud slut, Bunny lampoons her own senile attempts to keep up with technology in order to still get sex, and the folly of a mature showgirl who appears to be teleported from a 1960s TV set dating the youth which the internet of 2016 yields.

Trans-Jester begin Wednesday April 13th at 7:30 and runs Wed-Sat for through Saturday April 23rd. There are 8 performances only and Stonewall is an intimate venue, so reserve now to guarantee seats! The tickets are a low $19.99–as cheap as her humor–and there may be tickets for cash only at the door after the online sales close nightly at 5:30PM. There is a two-drink minimum and the drink prices range from $7 (beer) to $12 (well drinks). There is no drink maximum, and Bunny’s singing will drive anyone to drink. And in keeping with spring cleaning, Lady Bunny t-shirts will be on sale after each show for $25. (Someone thought “Buy in bulk” and now can’t move in her tiny apartment thanks to boxes of t-shirts which didn’t sell online!)

Please note: This show is raunchy. Not politically correct by definition–that’s the whole point. So if that’s not your cup of tea, you should honestly skip it. Or prepare to grab a drink and laugh, cheer and possibly even be challenged by a salty old kook who isn’t afraid to express herself from a viewpoint which is often unique.

Trans-Jester is written by Lady Bunny and Facebook sensation Beryl Mendelbaum.

MORE INFO/TICKETS:  http://trans-jester.bpt.me


Sanders has raised an extraordinary amount of money from 5 million individual donors with an average contribution of $27.
Clinton has around 1 million individual corporations but tons of money from big banks (which crashed our economy) and fossil fuels (which must be held in check to avoid the worst of climate change. Also from private prisons (which she was forced to give back), Monsanto, defense contractors, big Pharma and other unsavory corporate entities which have too much influence on our government, to put it very mildly. Why do you think Americans pay higher prices for prescription drugs than any other country? Because the pharmaceutical industries cosy up to politicians like Hillary.
So which of the two candidates is the party of the average working American? The candidate funded by the people who are showing up at his rallies in record numbers? Even when he began as a fringe candidate, his rallies attracted more than Trump’s yet they received no media coverage. Last week, Sanders attracted 18,500 in the Bronx and Hillary spoke to 400 in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

George Clooney is hosting a fundraiser for Hillary where they charge $353,000 for a meal. Who has that kind of money? The people who are wealthy and don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes, as they would under a Sanders administration. They want Hilary because she’ll keep income inequality intact. She’ll never force her donors to pay their fair share of taxes or go after corporations which pay either $0 or a fraction of their corporate taxes. She’s working for them, not the people.

SANDERS CAMPAIGN EMAIL: l: “If you were wondering how the political and financial establishment of this country would respond to us winning six of seven contests, most of them by extraordinary margins, here’s your answer:
Over the next 15 days alone, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has scheduled 33 high-dollar fundraisers. While Bernie is campaigning in Wisconsin and New York, the Clinton campaign is traveling to places that have already voted like Colorado, Virginia, and Florida to collect massive checks, including one event where couples can contribute $353,000 to sit with George Clooney.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with George Clooney. Everybody loves George Clooney. We’ll even plug his new movie, “Money Monster” that appears to be about the destruction caused by the greed, recklessness, and fraud on Wall Street.
But that $353,000 is an outrageous sum of money. And one of the great questions of this campaign is whether people coming together can overcome the electoral influence of a small number of millionaires and billionaires who are buying our elections.”


On Saturday–Bob The Drag Queen aka Christopher Caldwell–appeared at a fundraiser in Raleigh, NC called Drag Me To Lunch. CNN covered it, but neither Bob nor I were the stars of that show. The star was trans activist Candis Cox, who thanks to a new law, risks arrest if she uses the bathroom in public places. Candis had been in DC the night before and her flight home got cancelled. So she rented a car and drove home in time for a lunchtime gig. Talk about dedication! Here’s a CNN video about her situation. An avid student of history, she owns a Whites Only sign which used to hang above a toilet in the area. And wishes that blacks especially could see the similarity between their former bathroom drama and this new one for trans people. However, church-y blacks can dismiss LGBT folks as sinful and lesser than in the same way that racist whites justified separate toilets for people of color.

Candis Cox is in pink.

The law affects LGBT people in other ways since they can now be refused service at businesses which base their discrimination on their religion frowning on LGBT anything. Some businesses have sought to counteract this with signs saying LGBT WELCOME HERE. But even some attendees at this lunch performance at the Sheraton were told that if they appeared in any video from it, they would lose their jobs. It’s easy to forget what goes on in the rest of the country for a NYC resident. But for both Bob (from Atlanta) and me (born in Wilmington, NC) this was an awakening of what goes on outside of bigger cities. Several states, mostly southern, are now considering similar laws. I suspect that this is being pushed as a national GOP-led backlash to gay marriage and to enhanced trans visibility. Also, republicans are keenly aware that they must bash LGBT rights and abortion rights to court the evangelical voters. It’s really all that party has left since their support from minorities has dried up–with the exception of a few latinos who vote red–and women voters aren’t keen on bizarre abortion restrictions like being “punished” for having an abortion as Trump recently supported. Or being forced to carry the child of your rapist even if he is related to you, which other GOP candidates support. GOP voters have largely realized that trickle down economics doesn’t really ever trickle down, so firing up evangelicals is the surest path to victory for republicans.

However, 11 NC democrats voted for this law in addition to republicans. This is my problem with democrats who aren’t really democrats and who don’t back progressive causes when it comes down to it. PS: It certainly was fun to console myself over the plight of folks in my home state with that good ol’ down south cuisine like potato cakes, field peas, turnip greens, marinated Roma tomatoes (which had so much sugar in the marinade that this was like a “dessert vegetable”, fried eggplant (not as good as my mama’s!) and fresh-baked blackberry cobbler! I love my people down south–until they get into a damn voting booth!


If EDM is dying and we can get back to vocals and actual songs, I’m all for it!

IN DEFENSE OF @SusanSarandon

This article addresses the utter nonsense of those who cry “PRIVILEGE!” in response to Susan Sarandon’s claim that she may not vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee. They also falsely accused Sarandon of saying she’d vote for Trump because their mindset is so limited. Sarandon’s accusers are quick to blast her without ever considering what she’s is saying–that Clinton does not deserve the nomination because she’s a poor candidate with a poor record and lacking in vision to the right of Obama. But Clinton-ites would rather howl over the actress’s privilege than entertain her valid criticisms of Clinton.
How about this? Sarandon is rich, I assume. So it’s wonderful that she’d step down off of her privileged high horse to speak up in favor of working Americans who need Sanders’ $15 an hour minimum wage, who don’t want to lose their homes or see the economy crash again thanks to the big banks which back Clinton, who are concerned about wrong-headed wars which their people may be forced to fight in just to have a job and who can’t afford college and/or health care which Sanders sees as a right? If her privilege causes Susan to get down in the trenches and fight for the ailing working class, bring it on. We know that Hillary doesn’t represent them. Working class people are voting for Sanders. The higher earning voters who would be taxed more in order to address rampant income inequality tend to not support Sanders. I’d say those are the privileged ones who need to start paying their fair share of taxes.

SALON.COM: Please get over the Susan Sarandon “scandal”: Why the establishment’s freakout shows just how blind they are

“The outraged handwringing, then, isn’t about Sarandon’s privilege. It’s about the Democratic establishment’s utter cluelessness when it comes to left-wing voters, to people tenuously engaged in the process who may be voting for the first time, and to people who choose not to vote more generally.

In reality, the people who don’t vote are not privileged: The poorer someone is the less likely they are to vote, as Sean McElwee pointed out last year at Politico.

“In the 2012 election, 80.2 percent of those making more than $150,000 voted, while only 46.9 percent of those making less than $10,000 voted,” McElwee wrote. “On average, each bracket turned out to vote at a rate 3.7 percentage points higher than the bracket below it.”
Why don’t people, poor or otherwise, vote? If you asked them, they might tell you about barriers, including voter ID, felony disenfranchisement, cumbersome registration procedures and trouble getting to the polls during a busy work day. They might also say, however, why bother voting, because they feel disconnected or alienated from the process, because they feel like their votes don’t matter. No one has a closer look at the failed bipartisan establishment than people whose impoverished condition has remained unchanged under governments of both parties. Hectoring people about their responsibility to stop Bush, stop Romney and stop Trump doesn’t qualify as inspiring.”

MORE:  http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/please_get_over_the_susan_sarandon_scandal_why_the_establishments_freakout_shows_just_how_blind_they_are/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow


Sanders’ supporters have been called “privileged” because he’s advocating fundamental changes which would make life easier on working class Americans? As if we’re some lofty, rich intellectuals who can afford to take a gamble on someone who was a fringe candidate a few months because his policies would benefit the vast majority of us. And “privileged” people just love revolutions. Actually, it’s the truly privileged who aren’t aware that we need one. They aren’t aware that two heads of household of working full-time and yet still “privileged” enough to qualify for food stamps.

That some seniors have the “privilege” of skipping days taking their meds because they can’t afford to take them daily as prescribed.

That it’s tough or impossible for many to both save money and afford monthly insurance payments after the not far-reaching reforms of Obamacare.

That “privileged” students can’t get jobs without paying for college and they can’t afford college.

That “privileged” people are nervous about losing more American jobs while Obama tries everything he can to work with republicans in Congress to send jobs overseas with the TPP, which Clinton praised until the first debate.

That Flint, Michigan residents are still paying for the “privilege” of drinking poisoned water.

The country is a mess. Sanders wants to fix it and wrest power away from the corporations and the wealthy. Clinton thinks all she needs to do is tweak Obama’s amazing legacy. THAT, my friends, is privilege.

Yes, “privilege” is why Sanders is surging with a largely voter-financed campaign despite the media downplaying his appealing, populist platform and his successes. Are you out of your mind? Privilege is a popular word for people to throw around. How you can equate privilege with an equality-seeking campaign for the working class I’ll never understand.

58% of new wealth is going to the 1%. It happened under two terms of Bush and two terms of Obama–under both a republican and a corporate democrat like Hillary. Another term of downturn for most of us? Here comes the austerity! Don’t know that one? They’re out in the streets of Europe protesting over it. Austerity is when the hard-hit are hit even harder as services are yanked away. This deluxe, “privileged” European import may be headed our way if you don’t wake up. What do all republicans want? To cut government services from welfare to the VA to heating oil subsidies to disability. Hillary has claimed she’ll be a “practical progressive”–which means she’d plan to get things done done by caving to republicans. Just as Obama did the unthinkable by trying to cut a deal with the GOP by cutting Social Security. Remember his chained CPI offer? Bernie wants to expand the extremely popular Social Security program, not cut it. But wait–Social Security. That sounds socialist to me. Yes, it is. And Americans in both parties overwhelming support it.


Please Recognize Your Privilege If You Can Afford Eight Years of Hillary Clinton and the Status Quo

“Most working class people cannot afford eight years of the status quo, and they certainly cannot afford eight years of Republican rule.If you are privileged enough not to worry about the status quo, perhaps you should consider the situation of others when you vote in this very important primary election.”

MORE:   https://medium.com/@tonybrasunas/please-recognize-your-privilege-if-you-can-afford-eight-years-of-hillary-clinton-and-the-status-quo-fc1b9dc62bcd#.68olpa4z2


I was looking forward to Rachel Maddow’s interview with Bernie Sanders–until it happened. It was a failure. There are clear policy difference between Sanders and Clinton and she chose none of those to discuss. If you air Brussels fall-out footage for a week, might some foreign policy questions be in order? Hawkish candidates from Clinton to Trump just appeared at AIPAC trying to top each other with greater threats while Sanders is actually mentioning “world peace” on the campaign trail. Might that warrant a mention? No other candidate is proposing it.

Sanders even mentioned climate change once and Rachel didn’t take the bait. (Sanders says it’s a dire issue, Clinton pays it lip service it after selling fracking worldwide, waffling on the Keystone pipeline and taking money from oil companies.) Instead, Maddow insisted on placing the ball in Trump’s court yet again by asking Sanders to reflect on the GOP frontrunner’s absurd comments that day to punish women who get abortions. We all know Clinton and Sanders support women’s access to abortion equally. We all know Donald will continue to make rash statements to snatch all the media coverage. Thanks, Rachel! You fell for Trump’s trap. She seems to forget that the democratic candidates have issues to discuss besides reacting to Trump, who I doubt will even get the nomination. If he does not, all that coverage will be wasted. We could have been answering about actual questions people have, like how Sanders will pay for his ambitious health care and tuition free state college plans. But no, let’s stick to Trump and his latest gaffe, even when interviewing democratic candidates.

In one bizarre line of questioning, Maddow tried to point out a factual error from the Sanders campaign. His campaign manager had said that they did not focus on the southern states despite the Sanders campaign stating earlier that the democrats needed a 50 state strategy. If Sanders is a liar–call him out on it. But does anyone beside Maddow care about this? I guess Maddow was looking for a gotcha moment but Sanders replied with the obvious: saying he knew he wasn’t going to win Mississippi or Alabama, so he put his resources and time in states where he had a better chance. That’s a reality of any campaign and it’s why Clinton is campaigning in NY rather than Wisconsin where she’s projected to lose to Sanders. A very silly question when you think of all the big ticket items Sanders is proposing. Or even the two democrats’ contrasting views on immigration, Glass-Steagall, prison culture, marijuana, the price of prescription drugs or a host of other issues impacting so many of us.

Rachel even apologized before asking yet another question on the electoral process as opposed to policies which might effect us. Sanders even called her out on her lack of substance. Maddow is a Rhodes scholar who knows good and well how silly she was being. If you want to discuss the elections as a horse race and discuss process, there are allegations of voter fraud in Arizona, Massachusetts and somehow Sanders’ name was not included on the DC ballot. Or Maddow could have even gotten comments on three ethics violations flied against the Sanders’ campaign by Clinton surrogate David Brock. One of the three alleges that Bernie’s campaign accepted too much money in individual contributions and is likely to go nowhere. The joke is that anyone from Clinton’s camp, fully aware that her Wall Street contributors crashed the economy and may well do so again if she’s elected, has the nerve to complain about 5 million individuals giving an average of $27 to Sanders as opposed to Clinton’s 1 million individual supporters. If a grass roots campaign like Sanders is unethical and Clinton’s is not, we are truly in need of urgent election reform.

Another bizarre question was Rachel echoing an often-heard sentiment about how the democratic race had made both candidates better. Here’s an illustration of Bernie’s gentlemanly tone, which Hillary’s campaign has been whining about. Bernie hasn’t changed his positions in decades. Sanders could have easily pointed out that Rachel’s assertion was hogwash, seeing as how it’s Clinton who’s improved by having him in the race. That’s what people are saying–even Clinton supporters. She’s adopted several of Sanders’ positions once the campaign started. Like slamming the TPP, which Sanders has always opposed but which Clinton began to object to right before the first debate. Or raising the minimum wage–Sanders wants $15, Clinton settles for $12. Even Clinton surrogates note that she’s aping the angry speech of Sanders because it resonates with voters who aren’t buying Clinton’s “I’m carrying on Obama’s great legacy and everything is fine the way it is” attitude. For too many of us, the economy isn’t fine. Sanders has a plan to rescue it. Do we get details on that in an interview with the allegedly “liberal” MSNBC? No, we get more TMZ-ish questions related to Trump. About a position which Trump had walked back before the interview even aired. The failure of Maddow to focus on what’s important to voters was YUGE. I think this might just be why Sanders urges his supporters to turn off the corporate media.


New article (not even any comments on it yet!) by Michelangelo Signorile questioning the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) endorsement of a republican candidate in Illinois over Tammy Duckworth, his democratic frontrunner with a perfect LGBT score. Why does a gay group endorse any republican over a democrat? Hello?

Now we cried bloody murder when alleged trans icon Caitlyn Jenner reached out to evangelical republican Ted Cruz to be his “trans ambassador.” Now we have HRC endorsing a republican instead of a democrat? Why?
And did Human Rights Campaign (HRC) also endorse a democrat who is far too close to republican positions for my liking and who didn’t lead on LGBT issues when they endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton (also HRC)?

We often trust these “Gay Inc.” organizations to do our thinking for us. And I don’t want to discount all of their hard work in the trenches when while were were watching TV. But there are times like this when you question if the establishment gay movement is anymore in synch with you than the establishment government, media, etc. Most LGBT advocates would agree that HRC’s (the advocacy group) endorsement of HRC (the candidate) was odd since they normally wait until much later in the game in order to hold their candidate’s feet to the fire on LGBT issues during their campaign.

And Gay Inc. isn’t always to be trusted. Power corrupts. A few years ago, Signorile also exposed a scandal which emerged after GLAAD sent out a newsletter condoning an AT&T merger–which has zilch to do with LGBT anything. You get too close to those money folks and you lose your head, it seems. Which is why I prefer the presidential candidate who working people have endorsed and funded with their own contributions: Bernie Sanders.

SIGNORILE: How The Human Rights Campaign Is Helping the GOP to Retain the Senate

MORE:   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/how-human-rights-campaign-helping-the-gop_b_9545778.html


When Hillary says “I’m a progressive who gets things done” she’s doing two things.

1. Implying that Bernie’s ideas are too radical to get through Congress–even though she’s been shamelessly stealing his ideas as they gain traction with voters. If she were a true progressive, she would have already come up with progressive ideas on her own–and not need to be lead by Sanders.

2. If she is a progressive, how would she get things done with a gridlock in Congress? By caving in to the republicans. By moving the democrats further to the middle than Obama did. That’s not progressive–it’s centrist. Obama couldn’t get anything through the GOP-led Congress because they hate him. They’ve also hated Hillary for decades. They hate Bernie, too. So either democratic presidential hopeful will have a tough time with legislators. Why not go for Bernie, whose ideas have us enthused because he’s on the side of working Americans, if being “practical” means abandoning party principles and caving to republicans? Isn’t this Hillary already hinting that she’ll cave to the opposition?

Here’s a a perfect example. Social Security is an immensely popular program. It’s a socialist program, actually. Obama shocked progressives by offering, in a bargain with Congress, to cut Social Security through chained CPI cuts. No principled democrat would make such an offer. Sanders wants to expand Social Security and Medicare. Clinton will not commit to never cutting Social Security. So while her and Obama’s centrist leanings might enable her to get legislation through Congress by caving to the GOP, it would be legislation which screws us! And suddenly, austerity isn’t just a word used in Europe anymore. It means cutting services and hitting the hardest hit even harder.

In my view, the ideal thing would be to elect Sanders who’d be much less likely to cave and also elect true progressives in Congress who might get Sanders’ legislation passed. Call the bribed Congress members out from the White House and shame them into voting on behalf of the American people for a change using the president’s bully pulpit. It’s a lot of work, but political revolutions don’t happen without people getting involved. And we have a lot of work to do to get this country back on track. If our government isn’t representing us over corporate interests, we have to cry foul, not give in and say “Oh well, that’s our corrupt system but I’m the candidate who can more easily maneuver in it.”



Posted by Theo Frias on Thursday, January 21, 2016



Debra Paget does the cobra dance in Fritz Lang's "Tomb Of Love."

Posted by The Sound Gallery on Wednesday, May 20, 2015


Hillary Celebrates Facebook Friends Day

Hillary celebrates Friends Day with those who have contributed so much to her campaigns.

Posted by Reason Magazine on Friday, February 5, 2016


Dance Off

Friday Night Turn Up:Okay, Who do you think did it best?

Posted by SOUL TV on Friday, February 5, 2016


It’s easy to hate Martin Shkreli, whose company raised the price of a drug called Daraprim to astronomical levels overnight. He was grilled by Congress recently and he seems every bit the jerk you’d imagine. But why can’t you put two and two together and hate the other times this is happening?

1. What Martin Shkreli did witht he price of this drug is capitalism: profit is the only goal no matter how people suffer, die from unaffordable life-saving medicines and lose their jobs if antoher country’s labor is cheaper than our minimum wage. Capitalism is cruel. If Shkreli’s beavior is so loathesome, perhaps you might support the democratic socialism of a Bernie Sanders with affordable medicines? It only stands to reason.

2. Obama is currently pushing a trade deal which would grant drug companies just like Shkreli’s to gouge consumers on all kinds of drugs–including life-saving AIDS drugs–world wide. Yet Obama receives no criticism for this outside of a few consumer advocates despite the fact that he’s laying the groundwork for big pharma monopolies. Because you’re too busy trying to defend Obama against republicans who bash him to actually look at the garbage he’s ramming through Congress. Did I mention that only republicans in Congress support the TPP–so Obama’s joining forces with his mortal enemies to screw the American people and our news isn’t mentioning it. The TPP is so damning that Hillary had to withdraw her support of of it right before the first debate because no democrat can run for president if they support it. (Sanders was always against the TPP.)
Here’s consumer advocate Lori Wallach on the deal. I’ve linked to her whole interview in the first comment if you’d care to educate yourself on how Obama is actuvely trying to screw the people he allegedly represents.

Lori Wallach: “The TPP includes the new monopoly rights for big pharmaceutical companies that would raise medicine prices. In the developing country members of TPP, that could be a death sentence. For people in the U.S., it’s going to mean higher prices. And there are even provisions that would allow the pharmaceutical firms to challenge decisions by Medicare and Medicaid vis-à-vis what kinds of medicines they’ll reimburse. They try and focus on generics to keep the price down.

And Obama’s TPP will destroy an estimated 1/2 million jobs, yet we’ve been led to imagine that he cares about jobs because unemployment is down. He’s actively seeking to outsource jobs with the TPP to help corporations over US citizens.
Lori Wallach: “Well, the TPP includes the kind of language that was in NAFTA that makes it easier for big corporations to offshore more American jobs. There are literally incentives for job offshoring. The TPP also would push down our wages for the jobs that would be left, because it would pit American workers more directly in competition with those in Vietnam who make less than 65 cents an hour.”
The TPP would flood us with more imported unsafe food. For instance, it includes Malaysia and Vietnam. They send us a lot of shrimp and other seafood. Right now, a large percentage of it, that is inspected, gets rejected for a lot of different dangerous things. But under the TPP, those inspections could be challenged as an “illegal trade barrier.”

Plus, the TPP would expand the outrageous investor-state system. Those are those tribunals where a foreign corporation can sue the U.S. government, going around our courts, going around our laws, and demand cash compensation from us taxpayers for any law they think violates their new TPP privileges and rights as a foreign investor. And then they get compensated for lost future profits. Everyone saw the XL pipeline fight start. TransCanada is demanding $15 billion under NAFTA. That case is just the tip of the iceberg, because the TPP would allow 9,500 more Japanese, Australian and other companies to use that kind of regime against our domestic laws. So that’s a snapshot of what it would mean if it went into effect. There’s a lot more.”


There’s a funny notion that you hear around election times. That Americans vote for the candidate we’d most like to have a beer with. I’d like to have a beer with Grace Jones, but I certainly don’t want her running the country. She’s explosive on stage and in real life, so let’s keep that diva away from any buttons attached to nuclear weapons.

Equally nuts is that some people, we are told, vote for the most likely winner. Um…this isn’t the lottery, folks! You don’t win if your candidate wins and they aren’t actually interested in advancing your rights and financial health instead of the welfare of the corporations who’ve bought them. You lose even if win you do win in that scenario.

I gagged when I traveled to Texas during the last election and a latino gay guy told me–I hope he was joking–that he wouldn’t mind seeing Paul Ryan around for 4 years as VP because he thought Paul was so sexy. I’m a card-carrying slut who thinks sex is healthy, but can’t you get your kicks in some way that doesn’t drag the country backwards as you get your rocks off?

Another insanity is people who vote based on name recognition. “Duh, I know that name. Uh, her husband was president.” If you vote based on name recognition without any analysis of the what the other candidates are proposing, go ahead and write in the candidate God. He’s known worldwide and very powerful and very trustworthy. Or Cinderella for that matter–she rose from humble circumstances to prove she was born to be a ruler. The theme of this election overall is that we are sick of the DC establishment. So a vote based on someone’s name recognition alone means that the very political system we distrust produced the name you so easily recognize. And between your viewing of the Kardashians, more commercials will come on for that candidate because that candidate has been purchased by the corporations which actually control our government. (Which is, incidentally ,why we hate Congress.)

If you’re somewhat detached from the candidates’ actual policies and more in tune with their beer-drinking demeanor, sex appeal and name, you may view Bernie Sanders as angry old white man. His voice splutters and it looks like he may be spraying spit when he rants. Then he does that odd thing where he licks his tongue out of the side of his mouth. Gays–you love it when Cher does it!

But may I suggest that if you aren’t angry, you’re asleep? We all hate Congress, we’re disappointed by Obama and after 4 terms of Bush and Obama with most of the new wealth going to the 1%, most of us aren’t filled with much hope. More like rage and despair. We’re working harder for less money and often unable to retire at 65. This anger is on both sides of the political spectrum. One reason the moronic Trump is soaring in the polls after failing in every one of his past election bids is that he’s tapped into that anger. Hillary is acting like she’s going to carry on Obama’s “great” work and that everything is fine and dandy with a few incremental changes she’d make. For most of us, that isn’t enough. We need a new direction which isn’t guided by crooked campaign donors. Bernie Sanders wants to make fundamental changes in health care, college tuition, foreign policy and the way we approach climate change. Don’t you realize that when he’s talking about income inequality, he fighting mad for you? I don’t exactly know what Donald Trump is fighting for–racists, people who think they’ll beomce rich like him, people who think Obama isn’t a citizen, etc.

Look–do you want to input Bernie’s picture on that site which let’s people on the site gauge how sexy he is? He’d lose that vote in a landslide. But if the election were based on the canddiate fighting hardest for working Americans against corruption and misplaced priorities like corporations who pay $0 in taxes, Sanders comes out on top. A vote for Bernie Sanders is vote for yourself. Unless by some bizarre coincidence all my friends are billionaires. If that’s the case, could I please borrow a few million?