Bernie Sanders: SuperPACs Don’t Own Him

The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful said it reached its goal of one million individual online contributions, the first to make such an announcement this election cycle.

Source: Sanders Campaign Says It’s Hit One Million Online Contributions – Washington Wire – WSJ

Bernie Sanders: SuperPACs Don’t Own Him


If this article doesn’t show that Bernie Sanders is a true contender for President of the United States, I don’t know what will convince you. As a supporter of Bernie Sanders, I’m thrilled to say that the Senator from Vermont makes me more optimistic about our electoral process at a time when I was fast becoming a total cynic. As a person who considers himself a total natural born cynic, it actually makes me happy to have something tangible to hang on to. In this case, it’s Bernie Sanders.

The major reason that I have become very cynical over the years about the American electoral process, is the fact that it has become contaminated by big corporate donors and wealthy individuals campaign purchasing our democracy for their own political and profit minded agendas. Bernie Sanders is almost what I would call an anomaly, because he accepts no contributions from SuperPACs or corporate donors. Therefore, he is not bought and paid for, unlike other candidates for public office, especially president. He owes the big money interests that seek to control this country absolutely nothing. The reason is his campaign is entirely financed by average citizens.

Bernie Sanders is also the first candidate in my memory to effectively use email and the Internet as a platform to successfully raise over 1 million online contributions, more than any other presidential candidate in the short history of the Internet. To me, this goes to show that a candidate doesn’t depend on the “mainstream media” to make some progress in a political campaign. I find this especially refreshing because I’m one of those people who prescribes to the theory that the “mainstream media” is making a conscious effort not to cover the campaign of Bernie Sanders. Even though you still see a few stories about him, the number of stories about him has faded considerably. Even so-called “liberal” media outlets like MSNBC appears to be pandering to the whims of the status quo candidates, like Hillary Clinton and others.

It has gotten to the point where I actually believe that the media wants to do more than just report the news, they want to shape the news. I also think that the media wants to influence our political landscape to the point where they want to control who gets elected president of the United States. Right now, despite her falling poll numbers, it seems that our media is trying to convince us that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. Of course, over on the right, they seem to be pushing for Donald Trump whom I actually regard as being a dangerous racist. Maybe, the fact that Bernie Sanders has raised more political contributions using an Internet appeal to the masses than any other candidate might actually catch the eye of the mainstream media. Even though it may sound as though I’m being way too optimistic, one can only hope. As far as I’m concerned, Sen. Bernie Sanders is this country’s only hope for salvation.

Bernie Sanders Is Catching Up To The Clinton Fundraising Juggernaut

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign raised more than that of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the third quarter of 2015. But not by much. And with Sanders building a massive pool of grassroots donors, it seems entirely possible that
Is Bernie Sanders the only presidential candidate without a super PAC?

It’s no secret that Bernie Sanders isn’t a fan of billionaires and, according to Sanders himself, he’s practically the only 2016 presidential candidate to refuse their money as well. The democratic socialist senator from Vermont has long criticized

Hillary Clinton Has Finally Taken A Glib Position On Keystone XL

Clinton called the pipeline a “distraction from the important work we have to do on climate change.”

Source: Hillary Clinton Has Finally Taken A Position On The Keystone XL Pipeline | ThinkProgress


Hillary Clinton Has Finally Taken a Glib Position On Keystone XL


Last week, Hillary Clinton finally took a position against the Keystone XL pipeline. In my opinion, her statement was very glib and did not even begin to address the real issue here; the fact that the Keystone XL pipeline is a potential environmental disaster waiting to happen. Of course, I shouldn’t be so naïve as to believe that she really gives a damn about the environment. I think she probably made the statement against the Keystone XL pipeline because doing so was politically expedient.

It may sound like I’m being quite harsh against Hillary Clinton’s attitude, but I actually do think that political expediency played a large part in her decision to oppose the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Even though it may sound very cynical, and even though I am happy with her finally taking a public position against the pipeline, the reasons for doing so still takes some of the feeling of satisfaction that should have been present when she announced her decision. I can’t help but to think that pressure was put on her by various sectors and she just merely caved in and made a glib announcement. Her statement was inadequate at best.

The primary reason that Hillary Clinton seems to give in her statement, is that the Keystone XL pipeline has become a distraction that is taking away from the real cause of fighting global warming. This causes me to question her sincerity, especially since the Keystone XL pipeline represents something much bigger that merely transporting toxic tar sands oil from point A to point B. She doesn’t seem to realize that the entire controversy about the Keystone XL pipeline is just the tip of the iceberg in the entire environmental movement.

As far as I’m concerned, the Keystone XL pipeline is the opening shot in the war between corporate America and those of us who consider ourselves to be true environmentalists. For some reason, probably because she has been in bed with the corporate establishment that controls this country for so long that she doesn’t see the reality of the situation. In the fight to save the environment and prevent global warming, I don’t see Hillary Clinton as a real ally to the environmental movement. And, I have a strong feeling that no other environmentalists trust her either.

I also question the timing of her announcement of her sudden opposition to the Keystone XL, especially since her supporters and others have been pressuring her to take a position about the Keystone XL, for many months. I also question the location of her announcement, Iowa, where her primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading her in some of the polls. As anyone who follows the news knows, her primary opponent for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, has been a very vocal opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline. I personally think that Hillary Clinton’s is highly suspect. Could it be that political expediency has influenced her decision, or does she really give a damn about the Earth’s environment? You all can make up your own minds about this question.

As Pope Lands, Hillary Clinton Says She Opposes Keystone XL Pipeline

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has come out against the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. It’s something she has spent months avoiding taking a position on — and her announcement coincided with the mass media event of Pope …

Clinton: I Oppose The Keystone XL Pipeline | Crooks and …

After months of declining to take a position on the Keystone XL pipeline, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says she opposes the construction of the project. “I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone …

Who seems to be the better candidate for president, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?

Who seems to be the better candidate for president, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?


bernie sandersThis is probably the best comparison of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders that I have seen, so I thought I would share with you. It was written by Ron Wiseman on Quora. The link to the page that it was written on can be found at the bottom of this article. If you read it, it actually gives a lot of information about both candidates records, and make you understand why I am so adamant about voting for Sen. Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton.


Answer by Ron Wiseman:

There could not be a bigger contrast between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.


Hillary has supported every war since Vietnam.  She voted for the war in Iraq.  She voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and again for the Patriot Reauthorization Act in 2006.  She endorsed targeted assassinations in foreign countries, including the targeting and killing of a US citizen who was accused of supporting terrorists, but who had not been brought to trial.

Hillary has repeatedly supported the death penalty and campaigned in her husband’s place during the 1992 New Hampshire primary when he left to oversee the execution of an African-American man whose suicide attempt left him brain damaged.  She supported the Defense of Marriage Act that would have denied gay couples the right to marry.  She supported a travel ban against those who are HIV positive.  She does not support a $15 minimum wage.

She has long advocated for the criminal justice policies that called for locking up more people for longer periods, including those convicted of non-violent crimes.  She supported the bailout of Wall Street in 2008 and 2009 and has refused to answer questions about breaking up the largest banks who hold our middle class hostage.  She has not supported laws that would close tax loopholes that allow millionaires and billionaires to hide their wealth in foreign banks to avoid paying taxes.

Hillary has supported trade agreements that allowed US companies to move jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor.  She supports the TPP.  She has hinted that she’ll support the Keystone XL pipeline if the matter isn’t settled by the time she takes office.  She has supported drilling in the arctic.

Hillary began her campaign this term by keeping the free press out of her campaign events, essentially denying the American people the right to know what she was saying.  If you ask me, she is not a candidate for the Democratic Party.  No, Hillary is a candidate for the Hillary Clinton Party.


Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, voted against the Iraq war.  He voted against the Patriot Act and the Patriot Reauthorization Act.  He has not supported the death penalty.  He has not supported free trade agreements that move our good-paying jobs overseas.  Bernie has stated clearly that Keystone XL would be a disaster for the environment.  He also voted against the Wall Street bailouts, and supports breaking up banks that are considered too big to fail.

Bernie supports healthcare as a right of all citizens.  He supports the $15 minimum wage.  He believes the government should stay the hell out of our bedrooms (he supports gay marriage), and out of a woman’s difficult health choices.  He supports the de-militarization of our police forces and an overhaul of our criminal justice system.

Bernie supports a massive jobs program that would put 13 million unemployed people back to work rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure.  He supports free public education for those who are able to succeed in college and want to go.  He supports expanding Social Security benefits for the elderly.

He wants to increase taxes on the wealthy who are currently able to pay nearly nothing.  He wants to remove the salary cap on the Social Security tax for high-earners.  He wants to close the tax loopholes that have allowed corporations to hide profits in other countries to avoid paying taxes.  And he wants to move swiftly forward on a transition away from fossil fuels and significantly increase our use of renewable energy.

Who seems like the better democratic candidate for president, Bernie Sanders or Hilary Clinton?

Consumerism in America: The Latest Drug

Consumerism is quickly becoming America’s latest drug. Like any drug people here in the United States are not only addicted to it, but they seem to think that they cannot live without it.

Consumerism in America: The Latest Drug


Consumerism in America

Consumerism in America is fast becoming our latest drug. Like any drug, people here in the United States are not only addicted to it, but they seem to think that they cannot live without it.

The dictionary definition of consumerism is something that I’m very much disagree with. The dictionary definition of consumerism is: “a modern movement for the protection of the consumer against useless, inferior, or dangerous products, misleading advertising, unfair pricing, etc.”. To me this is just the opposite of what consumerism in America actually means. When I think of what consumerism is. I would define it as, “over spending your hard earned money on useless junk that you really don’t need.” It has gotten to the point where Americans are consumed in this race that the only people who win the race on who has bought the most useless crap before they die.

It has gotten to the point where media and consumerism both go hand-in-hand. Without the media constantly hawking merchandise, I would dare say that many people in this country wouldn’t consume as much as they do.

Consumerism in America

But because advertisements have become the staple of most TV networks, magazines, and newspapers, the media seems to have made consumerism, a mainstay in everything they do. Even newscasts promote consumerism in America.

Some newscasts even have entire segments devoted to the latest products and electronic gadgets; America’s other drug. After all, we couldn’t live without our cell phones, tablets, or laptop computers, could we? Hopefully, you understand that my last statement was pure sarcasm.

The cons of consumerism are almost too numerous to mention, while the pros of consumerism in America are almost nil, unless you are a capitalist fatcat who is making money from it. The advertising, manufacturing, and sale of various merchandise that people think they need is a huge industry.

consumerism in americaThe cons of consumerism in America are; causing people to overspend, the consumption of useless merchandise, wasting time and money, brainwashing people into thinking that the junk that they buy defines their identity and gives them a sense of self-esteem, and polluting our environment. People should know that e-waste is becoming an increasingly large problem in the United States. After all, you cannot just continue to dump broken computers and cell phones into landfills because many of the components in these items contain hazardous waste.

It is easy to see that the negative effects of consumerism are not in short supply. One of the most negative effects of consumerism is the brainwashing of the American people. People are so brainwashed into thinking that the useless merchandise they spend money on; often money that they really can’t afford, defines who they are and is something that they cannot live without, which is total bullshit. A person is not defined by whatever shit they happen to buy or own.

It has gotten to the point that people concentrate more on the latest electronic gadgets and merchandise that they do on what is happening in the real world. Consumerism has become their reality. It has become such a huge distraction that is no wonder that corporate pirates are running this entire country into the ground. Every time I see people doing stupid things like camping overnight in front of some store that is about to release some type of new gadget (i.e. iPhones), I just want to scream at them, “stop buying useless shit that you really don’t need and can’t afford.”

consumerism in americaOvercoming consumerism isn’t going to be easy, simply because the last two generations of Americans have embraced consumerism as a crucial part of their lives. They actually think that somehow life began with the cell phone. How ludicrous!

As I remember, we all functioned quite well before cell phones and computers came along. It seems that people have lost their ability to have a normal conversation with another person. However, they find it far easier to send out a text that it is to actually talk to another person face-to-face.

The dictionary definition of consumerism falsely portrays it as a good thing in a positive light, whereas in reality I really think that consumerism is a bad thing that greatly harms our society. People really need to come in for a reality check and realize that the stuff they buy is useless crap that they are conned into buying. It rarely enhances their lives in a positive way.

Celebrating Consumerism in America’s Mid-Town Melting Pot

flag When we conjure up “America” on the 4th of July, the “go to” image is still that Norman Rockwell neatly scrubbed Middle American small-town nestled amidst “amber waves of grain” with gap-toothed kids and “jes’ folks” lined up on Main Street
ZERO STATION: Consumerism in America

But he also raises a powerful question about consumerism in America, if only slightly indirectly: Have the words “consumer” and “person” become synonymous in our culture? Consider… When Saturday morning comes and …

When Rich Old White Men Stop Losing Control of the United States


The rise of Trump obliterates all other issues — campaign 2016 is now almost entirely about race

Source: The Republicans Are Now Officially the Party of White Paranoia | Rolling Stone

When Rich Old White Men Stop Losing Control of the United States

The way I view the Republican Party of today is that they are just another group of rich old white men of European origin trying to retain their control over the United States, just as they always have.  They seem to think that just because this country was founded by rich white men of European origin, many of them slave owners, it should always remain under their control, even though in a number of states, including my own state of California, whites are now a minority.

They choose to fight the diversity that should be embraced instead of rejected.  Except for the Native Americans, every person in this country could be regarded as “illegal aliens”.  They refuse to acknowledge that our country has evolved into a diverse culture, where everyone should have a say in what happens.

As for Donald Trump, he is just another white racist who feels threatened that the control he and the other old rich white men who have traditionally controlled this country, is slipping from their grasp.  His statement that Mexican immigrants are “killers” and “rapists” should be ample proof of his racist beliefs.  Trump also has a lot of support from white supremacists.  Just last week, Donald Trump received the endorsement of David Duke, former grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan of Louisiana.  To me, that says a lot about where Trump is coming from, especially since he did not reject the endorsement from Duke.

His relentless pursuit of President Obama’s birth certificate and ridiculous claims that Barack Obama was born in Kenya was not only a sign of Donald Trump’s racist beliefs.  I would be willing to bet nearly anything that if Barack Obama was white, Trump wouldn’t have said a damn thing.  He, like many other rich old white men really feel paranoid about losing the control that they have always had, but don’t deserve.

Even though quite a few people, many of them within the Republican Party, underestimate Donald Trump’s appeal, he and his entire mindset are dangerous.  Most of his so-called “appeal” derives from the fact that he panders to the lowest common denominator that unfortunately exists with many Americans; racism and fear of losing control over this country.  Equally unfortunate is that many of Trump’s supporters are from the fast disappearing middle-class.  These people don’t seem to realize that they have been every bit as much exploited by rich old white men as anyone else, if not more so.  They have been exploited through their labors and blue-collar status.  Unfortunately, not many of them seem to be able to recognize this fact.

This very well in the article from Rolling Stone is one I can highly recommend taking the time to read because it says it all; rich old white man are afraid of losing control of the United States.

EDITORIAL: The party of Donald Trump

It would no longer be the party of angry, rich, old, white men. Instead, it would become a more inclusive party. It would try to woo Latinos. It would reach out to women instead of antagonizing them. It essentially promised not to lose again by making

Why Jeb Bush should make Miley Cyrus his running mate immediately

The Republican Party’s image problem is becoming an existential crisis. It’s the party of rich, old, white men — just ask anyone. It’s owned outright by lobbyists and big business, it’s out of touch with young people and minorities, it’s hopeless with

Is President Obama a Hypocrite in Protecting Our Environment?

Source: Cartoon: Obama drills

Is President Obama a Hypocrite in Protecting Our Environment?


Protecting our environment

Is President Obama a hypocrite when it comes to protecting our environment?  That is a big question that many people have started asking, especially since he made his trip last week to Alaska.  It seems to me that he is trying to play on both sides of the fence on this crucial issue.

On one hand, President Obama has done some pretty good things in taking a leadership role in protecting our environment by calling for a reduction in greenhouse gases, yet he turns around and issues a drilling permit to Royal Dutch Shell, a company that not only has a long history of accidents and violations, a drilling permit to explore for oil in the Arctic wilderness of Alaska. Does this sound like a person who is truly committed to protecting our environment?

Many of us who consider ourselves to be environmentalists have praised President Obama for taking a position against global warming.  We have also applauded him for his position against coal-fired power plants.  He has shown himself, at least in his words, to being a president who is a leader in stopping the spread of global warming, and reducing greenhouse gases.  In doing this, it shows himself to be extremely interested in protecting our environment.  I truly don’t understand why he is seemingly changing his stance against fossil fuels. His administration now issues a permit for Royal Dutch Shell to explore for oil in the Arctic wilderness?  What gives?

So far, President Obama has built a pretty good legacy for himself and has taken a truly progressive stance in protecting our environment.  Why does he now seems to risk that legacy in favor of more Arctic oil exploration?  By seemingly reversing his position on protecting our environment, he risks not only the well-being of our planet, but the environmental legacy that he is worked to establish.

What Motivates Someone to Protect Our Environment …

However, as environmental champions, are we conveying this when we talk about the power of our organizations? The implications of not protecting our environment are inherent to us, but how do we better connect with those …
Shaping our future by protecting our environment

Protecting our greatest assets including our beaches foreshores and bushland and moving to a clean energy future have been given a 74 million boost in todays Sunshine Coast Council budget.

Renaming Mt. McKinley: President Obama Pays Respect to Native Alaskans

President Obama’s decision to approve the formal renaming of Alaska’s Mt. McKinley to Denali has been met with outrage. Some of it has been par for the course: House Speaker John Boehner expressed his “deep disappointment in this decision” and conservatives have critiqued Obama for bypassing Congress yet again. But the volume of outraged responses from present and former lawmakers in President William McKinley’s native state of Ohio is surprisingly high for a distant mountain and 120-year-old presidency.

Source: The Long History Behind Renaming Mt. McKinley


Renaming Mt. McKinley: President Obama Pays Respect to Native Alaskans


Mt. McKinley

Even though conservatives strongly object, President Obama went ahead and renamed Mt. McKinley to Denali, a traditional name that native Alaskans have always called it.  Conservatives are using every reason they can think of, all bullshit, to oppose President Obama and yet another case where the president has used his power of the executive order.

Donald Trump, the rich racist windbag who is running for the Republican nomination for president has vowed to reverse President Obama’s executive order renaming Denali back to Mt. McKinley, if by some chance he is elected president. Of course, Donald Trump is no stranger to racism against Native Americans. Several years ago, Trump also displayed his racism against Native Americans, when he also tried to stop the Pequot tribe of Massachusetts from building a casino on their tribal land.  It seems that Donald Trump can’t stand any type of competition to his casinos, especially if that competition is Native American.

In 2000, he launched a scurrilous and racist media campaign against the Saint Regis Mohawks just because they wanted to open a casino that might compete against his casinos.  In this campaign, Trump claimed that if the Saint Regis Mohawks were allowed to open their casino, it would lead to increased criminality and drug abuse to be brought into the area.  This time, Trump’s excuse for saying that he will rename Denali back to Mt. McKinley is somehow showing disrespect to the state of Ohio, birthplace of President McKinley whom Denali is named after.

Personally, I think that renaming Mt. McKinley to Denali is a great idea.  It not only recognizes and pays respect to native Alaskans, but naming it after a president who really have nothing to do with Alaska or native Alaskans is useless and unnecessary.It is a small gesture of respect to a people who have been dominated and oppressed by the white man since the 1700s.  However, the gesture of renaming Mt. McKinley to Denali doesn’t newly make up for the numerous abuses these native people have been subjected to.

Obama was right to rename Mt. McKinley and its imperialist connotations

Today, In a Letter To The Editor, “Why rename Mount McKinley,” George Cook sees no reason to rename North America’s highest peak, stating that President Obama is just trying to “add to his weak legacy.” I have no objection to his opinion on Obama’s …
Ohio Republicans extremely butt-hurt that Alaska’s Mt …

You’d be wrong. The real problem is that this lawless, dictatorial president has decided to rename Mt. McKinley what all Alaskans call it: Denali, the native Koyukon Athabascan word for “The Great One” or “The High One.”.