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!






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.



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.”



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.”



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



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?


Iowa, a farming state, voters have turned on Clinton as they’ve gotten to know her. As food giant Campbell’s Soup just agreed to label it’s products with GMOS because we’re concerned about what’s in it, Iowans are realizing that Hillary would back corporations, not consumers or farmers. Perhaps Iowans are especially suspicious because they grow a lot of corn there–which Monsanto copyrighted. Yes, copyrighted an actual seed and they go around inspecting crops because it’s now illegal to grow any other kind. France, Scotland, Hungry, Germany, Greece and Latvia have banned Monsanto’s GMO corn.

WASHPO: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ties to agribusiness giant Monsanto, and her advocacy for the industry’s genetically modified crops, have environmentalists in Iowa calling her “Bride of Frankenfood” — putting yet another wrinkle in her presidential campaign’s courtship of liberal activists who are crucial to winning the state’s Democratic caucuses.

The backlash against Mrs. Clinton for her support of genetically modified organisms (GMO), which dominate the corn and soybean crops at the heart of Iowa’s economy, manifested itself at a recent meeting of the Tri-County Democrats, where members gauged support for the former secretary of state.

“I was surprised, because these women were really pushing for Hillary until they found out about the Monsanto connection, and then they dropped her like a hot potato,” said James Berge, Democratic Party chairman for Worth County, Iowa.

“It’s quite a big issue,” he said. “There’s people who are just wild about all the use of GMOs.”


I’ve seen a few memes indicating that Bernie Sanders will deteriorate into a fossil if he’s elected, because he’s so old. I’m all for a good joke, even if it’s an ageist joke about the candidate I support. Ya can’t ever have enough jokes and the sicker the better, in my view.

But if there are any of you seriously doubting Sanders’ ability to lead based on his age, here’s a couple things to remember.

If elected, he’d be the oldest president ever elected. But he’s in fine health, according to his records which he released without hesitation. (See link below.)

Hillary is only a few years younger than Sanders. And it’s she who is questioning his health using her typically nasty campaign strategy. Sanders is above this–but if Sanders were Hillary, he might attack her age and weight and claim that she’d have a heart attack before he would. She’ll gladly steal his ideas because she has none of her own and will say anything to get elected and continue this country’s downward trend toward oligarchy in which corporations and the wealthy rule.

Should Bernie’s campaign point out that with Hillary’s frequent flip-flopping for decades, that her mental health should be called into question?

If Bernie’s elected, I’m sure he’d pick a VP who was both healthy and who shared his convictions. So if he died while being sworn in, the world wouldn’t exactly fall apart.

Wisdom comes with old age. Maybe that’s why Bernie came up with ideas that Hillary needs to steal. His message of income equality, a higher minimum wage, government-run affordable health care and free college and a focus on climate change and not jumping into every war are the solutions to what ails this country. He may be older, but his ideas are 10 times fresher than Hillary’s. That’s why he’s resonating with youth, whose lives are ahead of them and they haven’t given up on settling for the lesser of two evils. Which even many Hillary supporters admit that she is. Funny how an old-timer like Bernie can snatch all the enthusiasm and passion. Most know that an establishment candidate like Clinton, bloated with campaign cash from Wall Street, will continue with more of the same corruption and the change no one even believes in even now.


A muslim, who we’ve been trained to see as the enemy, is a better advocate for peace as a principle than ANY of our presidential candidates. We all claim to want to live in peace. Most Americans claim to worship Jesus, the Prince Of Peace. But peace as a goal is forgotten. You’ll never hear it on the campaign trail. Republicans brag about how many new enemies they’d attack, Hillary’s foreign policy is that of a republican and even Bernie is no dove. Obama, whose middle name is Hussein, has extended wars, launched new ones and even secret ones with drones against countries we never declared war on. How did we get here? America is the biggest enemy of world peace. We don’t spend more than any other country on defense and station soldiers all over the world to hand out lollipops, folks.




In this absurd election with Trump’s non-stop shenanigans and Cruz handing out bottles of water in Flint, Michigan but only to pro-life supporters, etc. One thing has been remarkable. They’ve even mentioned it in every democratic debate–that all the GOP candidates and their debates have made the democrats look like adults who could actually lead. I mean, Trump even grabs headlines by not attending the debate.

However, if you want to talk about a clean campaign with substance, no one trumps Bernie Sanders. He’s never run one negative ad campaign in his career. And now, in the midst of all of this hate and insane calls for impossible fences on the border and carpet bombing, he doesn’t need to run them. His strong message is his selling point. Seeming authentic and honest while spreading the message that the government must do more to ensure prosperity for more Americans instead of serving Wall Street and corporations is what the country needs. It addresses our fears that government is bought. And Sanders is such a mensch that he shies away from attacking Hillary. It would be so easy to attack her, because she represents the corruption Americans are sick of and her negatives are extremely high.

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign never imagined that she would ever be seriously challenged by Sanders. Now that he is, her campaign is lashing out with lies to frighten people. Drumming up fears about Sanders’ age (he’s only 6 years older than she is), saying he’s a communist, that he wants to tear up Obamacae and leave us with nothing, and that he doesn’t think black lives matter. She’s playing on something I noticed–Bernie’s first two ads have few people of color in them. Guess why? In New Hampshire, where Sanders is winning in polls, it’s mostly white voters. Same with Iowa, where he’s creeping up on Hillary’ lead and now just two points behind her. These aren’t national campaign ads, and Sanders doesn’t have Hillary’s bankroll from Wall Street to run as many ads as she can afford to.

Clinton is terrified by a strong message like Sanders’, which hasn’t changed much in decades–unlike her record of constantly flip-flopping. So she’s up to her usual smear tactics. You may recall how nasty Hillary was when she ran against Obama. Long after he was the frontrunner, she kept slinging every kind of mud imaginable until the democratic party was begging her to drop out of the race so as not to damage Obama and the party. Democrats claimed that since Obama was the clear frontrunner after winning so many primaries, that Hillary was giving the republicans ammunition against Obama which could cause her own party to lose. Desperate, dishonest and nasty, she finally gave up. This article looks at how she’s smearing Sanders in all kinds of ways. Sadly, our news may be less likely to cover this because they want her ad $. So this is from a UK paper.


Libya is now experiencing a crisis because then Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton urged Obama to overthrow their government in 2011. So now we’re sending troops there. She’s actually able to start a war before she gets back into the White House, based on the chaos she helped create there? Now that IS some impressive foreign policy experience!

Also note, we’re sending more troops into Iraq STILL? The war we never should’ve started but which Hillary voted for as senator? Do you not see a pattern here? Call Bernie too old, a socialist, a jew, an angry old white man or whatever else you want. He wants to fix THIS country, not create terrorist breeding grounds for ISIS in other countries as Hillary has done, and as of this “deeply troubling” announcement, still is doing. War brings more terror. Let’s please fix home. America, you are no longer needed as the world’s police because you’ve done a wretched job of it and no one trusts you. Leave US interventionism in the dust with Hillary.

“We came, we saw, he died” Hillary proudly joked about Libya’s Qaddafi. She may claim to be concerned about gun control in the US–because that’s the only issue she can come at from the left at Bernie–but she represents war and destruction–now available in a pantsuit. The US military interventionism Clinton will continue if elected is nothing short of monstrous. Suddenly, we “need” to start a whole new war. Which this general claims can spread to other countries? How long before we start hearing “The US doesn’t cut and run?” “The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, says he wants to begin taking “decisive military action” against the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Libya. Libya is currently experiencing a political crisis, which began after a 2011 U.S. military intervention helped oust longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The New York Times editorial board calls General Dunford’s announcement of a new military campaign in Libya “deeply troubling,” writing: “This significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress … A new military intervention in Libya would represent a significant progression of a war that could easily spread to other countries on the continent.” Meanwhile, Dunford says he is also preparing to ask for additional U.S. troops to be deployed to Iraq.”


I think this is an indication of how a president Bernie Sanders would try and change our government’s unhealthy ties with corporations who bribe legislators. Obama campaigned on stopping the revolving door of lobbyists and special interests and the White House. He went on to appoint Wall Street execs to his cabinet and while Michele Obama was pushing a wonderful healthier eating platform, Obama had the nerve to appoint Monsanto head Michael Taylor to the FDA. Talk about foxes watching the hen house. Now Obama wants someone with strong ties to big Pharma to lead the Food And Drug Administration, while simultaneously pushing the TPP trade deal which would make it easier for Big Pharma to have monopolies like on lifesaving medicines worldwide.

Another democratic senator has put a hold on Obama’s FDA nominee until the FDA reviews how it approves painkillers, including how it gives out Oxycontin to kids. I can’t believe that heroin addiction, which often starts with an addiction to prescription pain-killers, is the number 1 concern among New Hampshire voters. Not ISIS, not the economy. Heroin.

If this is a stunt on Bernie’s behalf to make people believe that he’s fighting for the people against corporate interests, it worked on me.

Bernie Sanders Blocks Obama Nominee To Lead FDA

“Dr. Califf’s extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry give me no reason to believe that he would make the FDA work for ordinary Americans, rather than just the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies.”


Economist Paul Krugman wrote a piece on Bernie supporters and how naive they are to believe in Bernie’s ability to affect change. Krugman claimed that throughout history, change has always happened incrementally. That revolution never actually works. I’m one of those naive people, too ignorant of history to counter Krugman with historic examples to the contrary, who thinks Bernie has a chance worth fighting for. Because he’s fighting for me.

I feel a lot of backlash from gays especially who tend to support Hillary. But I could never put anyone in the White House who voted to go war in Iraq to the White House, so last time around I voted for Obama over Hillary. Gave him money, even, because he’d opposed the Iraq war. Turns out he kept those wars going and added a few–with Hillary’s help as his Secretary of State. Almost done with his second term, people are still working harder for less money. They can’t afford to retire. Still can’t afford healthcare.

When I was growing up, one head of the household could hold a good-paying manufacturing job and support his wife and maybe even send a kid to college. That’s largely gone, and Obama’s trade deal will destroy half a million more jobs if passed. Now two heads of a household work full-time and they’re still on food stamps because we don’t have a living wage. We’ve become the “working poor” as the middle class has died out. But the wealthiest have gotten richer and richer under two terms of Bush and two of Obama. Hillary’s a corporate democrat just like Obama, and is now trying to coast on his meager successes. Walmart is the poster child for unfair labor practices with it’s own employees too poor to shop there–and Hillary once sat on their board of directors. We need a government which will benefit workers or I’m not sure this country will recover anytime soon.They say the recession is over but too many people can’t afford health insurance and to save money. That’s bleak. Perhaps that’s the reason why we view Real Housewives with nosejobs snatching wigs and fighting over martini lunches as entertainment. It makes a nice break from the reality of real housewives trying to pinch pennies because they’re scared for the future as I am scared.

And you know what? I’d rather be called naive than jaded. Actually, I have to laugh when I learn that many of Sanders supporters are young. I can barely even read a text, much less send one. But kids, granny gurl is with ya on this one and she is ‪#‎feelingthebern‬. See, I even just used a hashtag! So at my age, I probably should be jaded. Maybe I should be like other voters in my age group and be prudent. But if prudent means embracing a deeply flawed candidate like Hillary who I know will lead the country astray based on her own record, I’ll pick naive every time. We need deep structural changes now–and it’s not the time to discuss if Bernie’s ideas can get through Congress. They’re the right ideas so we need to fight for them. If fighting for what’s right is naive then that’s me. I’ll never fight for what’s wrong just because the republican candidates are more wrong.
This is one of the best pieces I’ve read on Sanders. It’s long, but if you made it this far! If you are weighing up your choices (as some of you have said you are) this may interest you.

Economist Bill McKibben for Huffpo:

You could see it last night in the Democratic town hall. Before they let, you know, sensible people ask questions, there was CNN moderator Chris Cuomo. Cuomo, of course, wanted to know if Bernie Sanders was going to “bring back the era of big government.” This is exactly the kind of frame that pundits have been trying to put on American politics for about as long as I can remember, which is at least back to the Carter era.

This question is supposed to be a kind of kryptonite that causes Democratic politicians to sweat and turn pallid and immediately explain that no, they’re for efficient government or some such. It’s the kind of question that turned Bill Clinton into a triangulating centrist who cut welfare to the bone and elevated corporate power with a series of disastrous trade agreements. Everyone in Washington knows that “big government” is always bad.

But Bernie wasted no time in saying that he was going to bring back the era when government helped care for people. He thinks government should help people go to college and pay for their medical care, which is what big government does in every other industrialized country in the world. He even — in an ad released earlier in the day — dared to advocate that people who have spent their lives working might deserve the chance to relax and be grandparents at the end of the day.
This kind of stuff makes the keepers of our political order crazy. In the last few days, we’ve seen folks such as Paul Krugman in the New York Times and Paul Starr in Politico patiently explain that Bernie is too far to the left to be president. It’s like they’re dumping water on the Wicked Witch of the West and waiting for her to shriek, “I’m melting!” But actually, he’s just shrugging it off, like a duck. As Cuomo tried to get him to confess to his socialism, his team just tweeted out a list of “socialist” accomplishments: Social Security, the minimum wage, Medicare, the 40-hour workweek.

The Beltway polls don’t quite get how much America has changed — how unequal and desperate it’s become. Sanders has spent his career on the back roads of Vermont, which is America’s second-most rural state. That means he’s met a lot of poor people and a lot of desperate people — a lot of people like the woman who started crying at his event in Iowa earlier in the day. The Washington Post reporter described it as “a remarkably moving thing,” which it was. But since Post political reporters only meet actual people during those rare moments in a four-year cycle when they happen to intersect with presidential candidates, he perhaps imagined it as rare. This is what life is like.

Which is probably why actual people are also less worried about the other half of the “serious people” test imposed by pundits. Cuomo’s next question for Sanders was about if Hillary’s experience trumps his. This was pretty much the same question Hillary herself posed to Barack Obama with her infamous “3 a.m.” ad eight years ago. In the D.C. world, “experience” is crucial. It doesn’t matter what you believe — it matters how much power you’ve exercised. Do your time, and you’re in the club.
But again Bernie refused to melt. Yes, he said, she’s very experienced — an obvious concession made with the graciousness that’s marked his campaign. (“People are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”) But, hey, experience isn’t everything. If it was, we’d elect Dick Cheney to every possible office, because he’s had the most experience of all. Instead, as Bernie pointed out, judgment is really more important.

That is why, he added, it is relevant that he opposed the Iraq War when she supported it. And he opposed the Keystone pipeline when she supported it. He could have gone on for a long time with that list: why did she set up a wing of the State Department to spread fracking around the planet, for instance? Why was she against gay marriage for years? But the point is clear. A leader is someone who figures out where the future is going, not someone who joins the party once it’s underway. A canny politician, by contrast, is precisely someone who waits until it’s safe and then runs up to lead the parade.

If it was a year for canny politicians, then Hillary would be a shoo-in. She’s spent decades perfecting that approach.

But it’s not, perhaps, a year for canny politicians. Our Earth is becoming hopelessly unequal (a report last week showed that 62 people owned more assets than the poorest 3.5 billion on the planet) and hopelessly hot. It’s a year, perhaps, for people who insist on telling the truth, even if it’s in a Brooklyn accent.


A common argument I’m hearing from Hillary supporters is that while she is deeply flawed, not trustworthy due to frequent flip-flops, a warmonger and tied to the very financial institutions which crashed our economy (and which Obama never prosecuted), we MUST elect a democratic president if only for the sake of the Supreme Court justices they’d appoint. This is a valid point and a bigger picture issue, since justices serve for life. A republican president WOULD try to roll back gay rights, women’s right to choose and issues that matter to people of color.

However, I take issue with this line of thinking: Elect Hillary who many are not enthusiastic about and don’t even trust to do the nation’s TOP JOB so that she can influence a DIFFERENT BRANCH of government. Elect a flawed president because at least she’ll get the Supreme Court appointees right. I’m sick of “at least” candidates. I’m sick of giving up on principles most democrats used to hold dear like peace and income equality. Fear-driven campaigns driven by “We can’t let a republican win” could land us with a democrat who ain’t no damn good.

What about her influence in the White House, when she starts new wars and panders to the corporations who’ve paid for her campaign? No, I don’t want to roll back the hard-fought victories of social justice. And Hillary is definitely better than on social issues like GLBT rights and abortion than any republican. But there are other issues she sucks at. How do we weigh the damage she might do as president versus what the benefits her SCOTUS appointees would have over the long run? I wish our news was weighing this up on this as opposed to leading with every news hour with Trump’s latest outrage.

A young man in Iowa actually stood up in Hillary’s face last night and asked her why people think she’s dishonest. (I kind of wished she’d said “Because I’m just not!” and let out a devilish cackle.) The distrust is palpable. So how do we even trust her to appoint the right Supreme Court justices? We’d like to think she would. Just as we would like to think that she had the capability to see the phony evidence Bush offered as proof we needed to attack Iraq. That war cost trillions and created more terrorists. Iraq is now ISIS’s main breeding ground. You see, there are other issues that Hillary won’t be better on than Bernie. Why wouldn’t she justices who support her corporate goals–like the TPP, not reforming big banks, not standing up to the fossil fuel industries and endless wars which benefit the defense industry?

Bernie Sanders would also appoint the right justices. Are you saying don’t support him because Hillary is the only candidate who can win? Why, because she has the most money from corporate donors? That’s exactly what Bernie wants to change. The fever for Trump and Bernie is fuelled by people sick of the corrupt political establishment and bought candidates. So perhaps Hillary is the one can’t win and this line of thinking is putting all your eggs into a creaky basket full of holes.

Here’s what polling wiz Nate Silver had to say on Jan 18: “We’ve got an unpopular set of presidential candidates this year– Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party with a net-positive favorability rating — but Trump is the most unpopular of all. His favorability rating is 33 percent, as compared with an unfavorable rating of 58 percent, for a net rating of -25 percentage points. By comparison Hillary Clinton, whose favorability ratings are notoriously poor, has a 42 percent favorable rating against a 50 percent unfavorable rating, for a net of -8 points. Those are bad numbers, but nowhere near as bad as Trump’s.”

You see, the media’s insane focus on Trump is not that scary of a phantom. Remember that when he had 39% in the polls, these were polls of registered republicans voters. Registered GOP voters are about 18% of the population, so 39% of 18% is what? About 8%? 8% are backing this headline-snatching monster who forces us to run into Hillary’s arms without even contemplating Bernie? Don’t forget that while Trump has a small number of virulent supporters, even many republicans who aren’t registered, independents and democrats would turn out in droves to vote against Trump because he is so disgraceful to many. Even if his opponent in the general election was Bernie Sanders. I mean, our main allies in the UK are actually discussing banning him from the country. The biggest group of people who like him are in our media.


Bernie Sanders was on fire last night, but in one respect he let me down. He was challenged as to how he plans to pay for the free college and government run health care. And his other great plans like creating much needed jobs by rebuilding our ailing infrastructure–how about that? We need jobs and the infrastructure badly needs repair. The government pays people to rebuild it. Two birds killed with one stone. But where does the government get all that money for all his wonderful programs?

Bernie claimed that he’d pay for all his plans with taxes on Wall Street speculations and by taxing corporations who get away with not paying a nickel of their taxes thanks to loopholes like offshore accounts. And by taxing the wealthy, who pay less in taxes than they they have in decades. But he won’t just tax the corporations and the wealthy. He’ll raise taxes on everyone like any democratic socialist would do. That’s what socialism is–bigger government with more benefits paid for by higher taxes. No sense in sugar-coating it becuase should he win the nomination, republicans will pound him for suggesting tax hikes. Americans hate higher taxes, even if those extra tax dollars would be way less than our monthly exorbitant insurance premiums which would disappear. I’d rather pay a bit more in taxes than pay a fortune each month to gouging insurance companies in the hopes that you won’t pay out the nose when you get seriously ill. Then you get sick and still pay more. That’s the crap system US health care system Obamacare didn’t sufficiently reform.

What Bernie couldn’t say, however, is that there’s an elephant in the room which no one’s mentioning. If the US government weren’t hell-bent on occupying countries all over the world and toppling governments, we’d have tons of extra money for his programs. In 2013, 27 cents of every tax dollar went to our bloated defense budget. Americans have said they want peace and are weary of the wars that Obama is allegedly drawing down from. But in fact, Obama has extended the longest war in US history in Afghanistan multiple times. Not what his campaign promised. Obama’s killed more with drones than George W. Bush, and recent findings from the showed that 90% of the “precision” drones missed their targets and killed civilians instead. Obama claimed he didn’t believe ground troops in Syria were the answer, yet sent in special operatives anyway, which are troops. Because Russia attacked the Ukraine, the US has lined up troops and tanks in surrounding areas, though this exercise in military might is pointless since no one is attacking us. We simply want to bully Russia. And we just flew a jet over North Korea to warn them after they fired some bomb. None of these are a threat to the US. ISIS, while vicious, isn’t even a threat to the US. They couldn’t strike us here if they tried. I agree with Bernie that muslim nations should step in to squash ISIS. If the US is always ready to jump into war–the trademark of most Republicans and Hillary–neighboring countries know they won’t have to.

The sad truth is that Americans refuse to even acknowledge our perpetual wars. We claim to “support the troops” yet most have no idea what their missions even are. George W. Bush didn’t even allow the coffins of soldiers to be seen on the news to try and distance us from the ugliness of battle. And we elected him twice! While the Iraq war killed several thousands of US troops, the estimates of innocent Iraqis who died is from a couple hundred thousand to a million. We’re divorced from the many wars America is waging. There’s a meme suggesting that Trump is not merely a racist @sshole but that in fact, he’s a mirror of what Americans have become. I’m sorry to say that this isn’t true of just Trump supporters. Even democrats turn a blind eye to Obama’s many war efforts and the fact that Hillary’s a hawk as well. What Bernie should have said is that we need to greatly reduce the amount that we spend on war. That would raise a fortune for his programs. If Sanders wants to mimic the successful governments of Scandinavian economies where the happiest people on earth live, let him also mimic their policy of peace.

But no US presidential candidate could ever get elected by suggesting that we spend less on the defense to pay for valuable programs here at home. So maybe that Trump meme suggesting that Americans are @ssholes isn’t too far off. We care more about killing people overseas who have never attacked us than free college, health care and a new infrastructure. I’d love for someone else to actually do the math, but if just half of that 27% of each tax dollar was spent on Americans’ needs and not endless war, I’ll bet Sanders’ free health care and college, expanding social security and jobs to rebuild the infrastructure would pay for themselves. If Sanders intends to take on Wall Street, corporations and the wealthy not paying taxes, big Pharma, health insurance , etc–why not take on the cruellest and most expensive special interest that eats up the largest part of every tax dollar we spend?

Americans would howl that Sanders is weak on defense if he suggested halving our military budget. The truth is that no one is attacking us–we’re attacking them and have troops based all over the world which we don’t need. If diplomacy worked so well with Iran, let’s ditch our failed strategy of being the world’s police. Becuase even with the trillions we put towards defense, we’re losing wars–in Iraq, in Afghanistan and against ISIS. But when your goal is perpetual war so that the military industrial complex always gets paid off, you don’t actually want to win wars. If we won, we’d have to stop fighting.


Many have told me that they respect Bernie’s policies, but they don’t think he can win in a general election. One recent poll Quinnipiac poll showed Sanders beating Trump or Cruz by double digits by more than Clinton would beat them by. But I understand that some want to play it safe and make sure that a republican doesn’t get into office. The GOP certainly is extra crazy this year.

I just hope that your strategy of choosing Hillary to be safe from republicans doesn’t backfire. Hillary is loved by many but also hated by many. I can’t explain the love, I can’t explain the hate–I only look with at her policies and voting record with concern. But let’s imagine she wins the nomination and then wins the presidency. Bernie critics say that he’d never get his socialist agenda through Congress. What makes you think that Hillary will get her agenda through if the GOP-led Congress blocked Obama on so much? The only thing the GOP hates as much as a black guy with a foreign-sounding name is Hillary. Or Bernie. They hate everyone. Since the advent of the Tea Party, they even hate themselves.

Hillary’s putting forth the notion that she’ll be the democrat who can work with both sides because of her experience. Is this already a tack to the middle in the primaries? Don’t candidates usually wait for the general election to go more mainstream? (And face it, they always do.) I would love to get more info exactly how she plans to accomplish working with Congress when Obama failed to. By abandoning core democratic principles? How else would she manage it? A magic wand? So in the end, we would have voted for Hillary to fend off the republicans, so that she can begin acting like one? Is that the strategy? I’m actually asking, because it isn’t clear to me. I’ve heard how Bernie’s policies are too “radical” to get through our crooked Congress, but I’ve yet to hear how Hillary will get hers through. Obama was often blocked by Congress as well. What makes Hillary different? Her willingness to betray her party/compromise/whatever you want to call it?

I prefer voting for someone like Sanders who says we need a bold new direction and has enthusiasm behind him. Perhaps that enthusiasm will translate into more progressives in Congress as well. With the GOP nut jobs, perhaps any democrat can win. So why not pick the democrat whose ideas you believe in wholeheartedly? And if Obama has been doing such a great job that Hillary is now claiming she’ll continue his presidency’s great work, why did democrats have so little enthusiasm behind them that republicans won majorities in Congress to be able to block Obama as much as they have? Congress has a terrible approval rating because everyone knows they’re corrupt. I think a vote for someone willing to slam Congress’s nonsense is much more appealing than someone willing to cut more half-assed deals.


For ages, the GOP yammered on about Benghazi–it was going to be the “gotcha” moment which proved Hillary’s incompetence because a few American lives were lost in the operation. When they finally had the Congressional hearing, for 11 hours Hillary proved that she was forceful, intelligent and possessed the kind of gravitas one might require in a room full of world powers. She seemed presidential, and the results of this hearing seemed like it had finally put many people’s doubts behind her. Joe Biden, who had been floating the idea of a run, announced afterward that he would not run because it was perceived that the democratic establishment had saved itself at this hearing. (Hillary’s poll numbers had been dropping because of the scandals.) In the analysis following the hearing on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell mentioned that there was a broader policy issue here, but never went into what that was.

Here’s what that issue was. The US was in Libya overthrowing leader Gaddafi with Hillary acting as one of the major brokers of the coup. She even pushed for ousting and murder of Gaddafi against the advice of Robert Gates, who was then the Secretary of Defense. So she’s more of a hawk than the Secretary of Defense is, who also criticized her lack of an exit strategy. A major reason Hillary lost the election to Obama was that she voted for the disastrous Iraq war as a senator. 10 years later and she’s acting as Secretary of State to overthrow another muslim leader, also with no exit strategy? Hillary learned nothing from her mistake in voting for Iraq. This military coup lead to chaos in Libya–the same chaos the US created in Iraq which led to it becoming a breeding ground for ISIS. A 2014 estimate reveals that 6,000 ISIS fighters are now in Libya–there are likely to be many more now. So far from keeping us safe by her tough position on defense, Hillary’s murderous actions in Libya as Secretary of State are actually bolstering ISIS. Fear of ISIS is one of voters’ major concerns. Hillary, like most Republicans, represents a foreign policy which helped create ISIS.

Remember how vile we thought John McCain was when he sang “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?” Well, Hillary had her own disgusting little play on words to describe Libya and her utter disregard for peace: “We came, we saw, he died.”

I never said Gaddafi was a sweetheart. Like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, he was a “bad man” who mistreated his people. Killed them in a vicious civil war. But that didn’t make him a threat to the US in any way. It did, however, make him a target for the US military, which never met an arab nation they didn’t want to overthrow. But Wikipedia casts doubt upon the “humanitarian” reasons we ousted Qaddafi: “That month, Amnesty International published their findings, in which they asserted that many of the accusations of mass human rights abuses made against Gaddafist forces lacked credible evidence, and were instead fabrications of the rebel forces which had been readily adopted by the western media.”

During the hearings, you may recall the name Sidney Blumenthal being brought up again and again. He was Hillary’s Libya advisor who stood to personally profit from his ties to Osprey Global Solutions, a defense contractor, which hinged on overthrowing Gaddafi. So if you want a foreign policy based on overthrowing countries with oil–the oil that 80% of is supposed to stay in the ground to avoid the worst effects of climate change–vote for Hillary. With Libya, Hillary was doing exactly what democrats howled over when Cheney’s firm Halliburton benefitted from the Iraq war. If you want American troops dying to enrich our government’s friends, she’s the perfect candidate.

Almost all republicans want perpetual war all the time to pay off the defense industry and snatch oil contracts for their buddies. So the GOP-led Congress couldn’t quibble with Hillary about anything of substance during the lengthy Benghazi hearing. They agree with her interventionist policy in Libya. How could they criticize her for doing something most Republicans would’ve done sooner? That’s why we got 11 hours of silly questions about which emails were when and to whom, trying to disgrace Hillary for improprieties, especially since they could link these to her other improprieties with her personal email scandal. The true scandal is that Hillary is a hawk who will bring more bloodshed to the world, which will then create more terrorists like ISIS. And that she overthrew Gaddafi, not because he threatened the US or we were so concerned about his mistreatment of his people that we had to step in and stop it. She did it to exert US military might for no clear reason and to pay off business interests like her advisor Sidney Blumenthal. The french government, which joined the US in it’s attacks on Libya, now has a multi-billion dollar deal for Libya’s oil. And the whole US government was involved in it’s typical quest for never-ending war–despite the fact that most Americans claim they are sick of war and would prefer to fix problems here at home.

Because there was no threat to the US from Libya, Hillary needed something horrific to scare Americans into supporting Obama and Hillary’s war, Blumenthal even floated a bizarre rumor which was then spouted by Susan Rice: that Gaddafi was giving his supporters in Libya’s civil war Viagra to rape the women who opposed him. Which is as absurd as George W. Bush’s false claims that we needed to invade Iraq because they had yellowcake uranium which somehow posed a threat to us. But hawks want war–their reasons don’t have to make sense.

So if you want lies, dirty dealings and unexplained wars which boost ISIS’s numbers, vote for Hillary. When it comes to war, Hillary’s a republican. I’m not suggesting that Bernie Sanders is a dove, but he has repeatedly called for muslim countries to iron out their own problems rather than jump in for murky reasons. I am suggesting that this country needs to stop seeing military intervention as the answer to problems we don’t even have. No one suspected that George W. Bush would use the attacks of 9/11 to launch wars which are still going on today. Some families urged their kids to enlist to straighten them up or to get money for college, thinking there were no wars on the horizon. Yet many were killed or many came home to experience PTSD, homelessness and joblessness thanks to some of the brutally long tours of duty. So it is very important to look at Hillary’s terrible record on war. Are you “supporting the troops” when you send them into battles they need not be fighting? Or are you instead supporting the corrupt leaders who don’t think twice about sending into harm’s way to enrich their allies?


This organization which supports singe payer wants us to sign to urge Clinton to stop her dishonest attacks on Bernie Sanders and his support of a single payer system. Dishonest is their word. Have you seen what she’s been saying? She even had Chelsea join her in being “dishonest”. Both have been claiming that Sanders wants to undo Obamacare and start from scratch. A scare tactic. Hillary claims Sanders’ plan would basically end every kind of health care we know.” Right, because it would begin a new kind of health care where everyone has it, a plan supported by 81% of registered Democrats. Make no mistake, Clinton is right when she claims that taxes would go up for everyone. Any form of socialism is going to raise taxes because it’s offering more services like universal healthcare. But that increase in taxes would be completely offset by the fact that we would, under Sanders’ plan, have no monthly insurance bill. So while Clinton again misrepresents Bernie, 81% of Democrats support a single-payer system which Obama didn’t have the balls to go for. A system which has almost every country in the developed world has which results in cheaper health care. The US can’t have because our government is bribed by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. I wonder how much money Hillary’s campaign has taken from them to spread these lies? She’s out of step with progressive healthcare reform and she’s out of step with 81% of Democrats. So she’s forced to lie. Democrats–this is your frontrunner? Good luck!

“In recent months Hillary Clinton has targeted Bernie Sanders’s support for a single-payer healthcare system, indicating that single-payer represents a tax-hike for working and middle-class families that would undermine their income. Clinton has also argued that Sanders’s plan would “send health insurance to the states, turning over your and my health insurance to governors.”

According to a Kaiser poll released within weeks of Clinton’s comments, 81% of Democrats favor “Medicare for all,” single-payer healthcare, along with 60% of Independents and almost a third of Republicans. And for good reason: virtually every country in the developed world provides better access to healthcare at half the cost using a single-payer system, or something very close to it.

Fear mongering that single payer will cut into working families’ incomes through tax hikes is disingenuous, because single payer replaces sky-rocketing insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments with lower payroll and income taxes. A single payer system creates savings by cutting out for-profit middlemen and eliminating administrative waste, creating exactly the relief for working and middle-class families that Clinton champions.

Governors would not be allowed to undermine universal coverage under single-payer legislation introduced by Bernie Sanders in 2013. The bill gives states responsibility for issuing healthcare cards and paying providers, but requires that they cover all residents with comprehensive coverage, and puts them under federal receivership if they fail to do so. However, if Hillary Clinton is uncomfortable with state-level administration, 81% of Democrats would welcome her support for a national single-payer healthcare system!

Clinton has been a tremendous leader in so many areas, including her successful efforts to pass the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997. Join us in calling on Hillary Clinton to support a moral and sustainable vision for healthcare by supporting single-payer healthcare reform.”