Why is the Millennial Face of ALEC a trolling misogynist lying bully named @WilliamFreeland?

**Warning, strong language ahead

 

Dear ALEC (that’s @ALEC_states on twitter),

 

Why is the millennial face of your organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council, William Freeland, who is also subject to delusions of grandeur and makes outlandish claims for which he provides no evidence, a trolling misogynist lying bully?

 

I get it — people are rude and unkind. Yes, I’ve lived on Earth more than a decade; I know the drill. It also makes 100% sense to me that you would have trolls in your employ who would be specifically assigned the task of illogically, relentlessly, insultingly, crudely and also, for the sake of variety, passive-aggressively engaging and attacking anyone who criticizes your master plan to target state legislators and inspire them to act as human roadblocks by standing in the way of any of American society’s attempts to prevent climate change, protect workers rights, and end the United States’ dependency on foreign oil. It’s a brilliant strategy you’ve designed and I always give credit where credit is due. Kudos, ALEC. Focusing on the local level is noticed less, by fewer people, is talked about less, by fewer media outlets, and entails far less resistance from voters. Who turns out for local elections anyway? (Insert rhetorical group laughter here. No, make that the sound of chortling.) And trolls are the perfect complement to your national strategy: they misinform, they confuse, and thus they systematically divide and conquer the general population. The confused mind shuts down, turns the channel, closes the newspaper, seeks distraction such as “reality” TV, facebook, and instagram, and logically focuses instead on things it does understand: parenting, eldering, working, working out, dating, partying, going to school, paying bills, running errands — all activities that are easy to check off the list if only because they have been completed so many times before and have become habitual. And most strategically, the confused mind will feel morally justified in saying, “I didn’t vote because I didn’t really understand the issues.”

 

Most strategically, the confused mind will feel morally justified in saying, “I didn’t vote because I didn’t really understand the issues.”

 

Most people’s moral compass — fully intact, despite a muddled mind — causes them to see voting from a place of confusion as a kind of fraud, as a type of lying or cheating that’s “just not right,” and thus not an act of dishonesty they can approve of taking part in. In other words, the person who doesn’t show up to the polls on election day who can honestly say, “well, I don’t watch the news [guilt guilt guilt] — that’s why I didn’t vote. I don’t even know the issues,” feels that they’re doing the right thing by staying home! Little do they realize that they are being bombarded with “news,” all the time, conflicting reports filled with mis- and dis-information. Which is why they avoid it. It leaves them confused and feeling guilty that they don’t know what to think. Voting? They don’t feel they deserve such a privilege if they haven’t earned it by studying up on the issues. And the cycle perpetuates itself. Oh, yes, ALEC, you are admirably and masterfully implementing your plan. And confusing the masses is the glue that holds all the pieces of that plan together.

 

 

But ALEC, your trolls are supposed to be better trained. They’re supposed to pee only on the paper and not splash any vitriol on the company. You see, William Freeland isn’t just a super troll, he works for you. It says ALEC is his employer on his linkedin page. So when he lies, bullies, tells a woman who calls him a cunt that she is projecting onto him (yes, unbelievable — that’s why I took a screenshot of it in case he deletes the tweet), and egregiously makes false claims and baseless accusations, it’s so odd that you would divert from a working strategy that uses anonymized trolls and instead veer into unwise territory by associating an identifiable, google-able troll directly with you, your organization, and your reputation. Trolls are supposed to operate covertly. The way he tweets on twitter like a baby screaming for attention from its crib — nonstop and incoherently — and then turns around and reveals that you are his employer makes you look bad. Very bad. Like, surprisingly bad. Unexpectedly unprofessional and uncouth.

 

That is all.

 

Sincerely,

Sarah Reynolds

 

 

Ok, dear social justice activists, enough of my chit-chat with ALEC. Here come all of the lies, the insults, the screaming for attention, the deflection, the misogyny, the outrageous baseless claims and most interestingly, the fear once William Freeland realizes he has backed himself into a corner.

 

Starting with the original tweet of mine that William Freeland started trolling me on:

 

 

 

 

 

 

*At this point, I was like, what? Who — whaaaaa? I tweeted at him first? Obsessively tweet about him? Daily? Now, if you know how to win a troll war (I got this from Sun Tzu of course), the key is to never contradict an obvious lie right away when you can easily disprove it later. Instead, let the troll think they have the upper hand by not objecting — they will dig their own hole even more deeply, even more quickly and you will win faster. (Wait till you find out what he was actually referring to! That he works for ALEC. So he was conflating my tweets about ALEC with tweets about him! Yes! I know! And ALEC pays him real money! To represent them! In public!)

 

 

 

Oh! So he finally clarifies and reveals that he works for ALEC!! But the best is the way he says it: “I, of ALEC, was terrifying …” LOL!! And then he insults me and assumes I am a garden variety Daily Kos reading, tea drinking stereotype. LOVE IT!! He has never clicked on the link to my blog (in my twitter profile) once! But do I contradict him?  No, as Sun Tzu says, “Never contradict a troll. Don’t give him any reason to put down the shovel!! Let him dig his own grave.” Or, actually, that might have been Churchill. So I merely point out — again — that even though I’m so disgusting to him, he keeps following me. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

So at this point, he has called me deranged and obsessive twice (the second time is where he quotes his own tweet, just above). Deranged!! Really? Does he not realize how illogical he’s being? I mean, it’s not even an insult. He could have called me a doorknob and it would have made as much sense.

 

 

 

Now at this point, a well-meaning follower tries to tell me to stop engaging with the troll; watch how William reacts. Note that he specifically tells me what to do: that will be relevant later.

 

 

And now back to the main thread. I had just tweeted, “But you seemed so certain before that you had a claim against me” (yes, that’s the crappy part of creating these blogposts with embedded tweets; tweets would be best visually displayed in the shape of a family tree but blogposts are linear). And he replies:

 

 

This is what, the second or the third time he’s called me confused. And of course it’s “sad” — he wants me to know how much he pities me. That would trigger a defensive reaction in most people (which is what he wants it to trigger in me, too) but for me, his word choices just provide me with additional insight into his shadow self.

 

 

He doesn’t reply to that, but in picking back up on his recommendation that I “bow out” (because remember, he’s in the habit of commanding people to roll over and display submission because he has an inferiority complex and this is how he attempts to assert dominance and leverage control over others), I simply redirect, circling back to the point, which is, if I am truly deranged and obsessive, as he claims, then he should clearly file a complaint with Twitter Support, with evidence to back up this outlandish accusation:

 

 

Oh! He doesn’t like to be told what to do? He certainly likes to tell others what to do! Oh, and note how much it irritates him, especially coming from a woman!

 

 

 

And that leads us to the final tweet of this exchange, where I once again ask him what it is about me that compels him to follow me despite my alleged derangement.

 

He refused to answer my question not once but three times, which is how I won the twitter war (whoever is the first to stop replying is the loser in a twitter war).

 

That tweet had nothing to do with you and didn’t mention you. Yet you favorited it.

 

I tweeted that (“Twitter family, you are the best” — at the very top of the image above) because so many of my followers came to my defense during the trolling and let William know how horrible he was being to me. And if you guessed that he was just as terrible to them, you guessed right. Even more terrible. Just a few examples:

 

And he actually tells her, “Don’t project” — that’s it’s “unbecoming.”

 

This is how pathologically passive-aggressive he is. He attacks people and baits them, attacks and baits. That’s his M.O. Then they call him a name and like the prepared predator he is, instantly he readily explains, oh no, you’re projecting. It is amazing — nay, mind boggling — that ALEC would affiliate itself for a millisecond with a man who would tell a woman that she is projecting cunt traits onto him. And of course, he can say, “Well, she called me a cunt first. She was asking for it.”

 

ALEC, if you don’t know you’ve got a serious liability on your hands, you are far far less intelligent than I first gave you credit for.

 

And here he insults another friend of mine — for what? She doesn’t even attack him, she just says she disagrees:

 

 

And then this:

 

 

 

And here’s where he freaks out when I tweet that ALEC ought to know what kind of person they have representing them on Twitter (these are not all part of a thread so they’re not all embedded in a particular order).

 

 

 

 

 

LOL, I never called him a cunt nor did I tell him it was unbecoming of him to project onto me when he called me confused, deranged and obsessed multiple times. (Because I think he is none of those things; I think he is mean and a bully. And a liar and a misogynist.)

 

More hilariosity: it’s no more libelous for me to call him a lying bullying misogynist than for him to call me a deranged, confused, obsessed progressive intelligentsia operative (next paragraph). Although, at least there’s evidence for my claims. He flat out lied about me tweeting about him daily – ha!! That was the most entertaining part, his conveniently leaving out the fact that it is ALEC I tweet about (not him) and not daily. A brief twitter search showed me that it’s usually about twice a month that I tweet a series of 10 to 15 #StopALEC tweets.

 

 

And I saved the best part for last. William accuses me of being on the payroll of the liberal elite here:

 

 

HA! You know when they say you really know you’re living your passion when you’d do what you’re doing for free? Well, guess what, that’s bullshit. You won’t end up doing it “for free” — you’ll pay for it. Twice. With your time and your money. I pay for this website (it’s cheap, $30 twice a year because I have the wordpress upgrade), the postcards and stamps for my Postcarding for Progress meetup, equipment for making videos, and on and on. And I spend hours on twitter and hours blogging (for example, this post itself has literally taken hours just to finish all this godawful embedding of tweets), hours I can’t (or in truth, choose not to) spend doing anything else. And I take orders from no one. And that means I receive money from no one.

 

I almost replied, “Yeah right, on my $373/week unemployment benefit” but I couldn’t truthfully say that because my 26 weeks of unemployment insurance ended last month. YEAH. I used to have a day job as a debt collector. I am not a political operative, never have been, and no one directs my tweets, and I am the only one who tweets in my name.

 

 

 

 

Multiple people? Which of my tweets ever indicated that? And as far as being part of a progressive microcosm, clearly William never took 30 seconds to read my self-description on this blog or to spend a minute perusing my posts. I call myself a progressive patriot *because* I have views that aren’t necessarily liberal (like going back on the gold standard) and because the Bill of Rights is so important to me. I wish I could make money off my passion. I made over a hundred videos in as many days on youtube in 2014 and they never got more than 25 or 30 views each; my goal was to monetize my channel so I could have a source of income besides a day job, and ultimately instead of one. (I just had to accept that I am not that interesting, or at least not interesting enough for people to hit “subscribe.”) The bottom line is I don’t represent anyone but myself and I do not get money to tweet. And to that end, I am going to post my Unemployment Insurance benefits history right now. As my regular followers know, I went back to school this past fall. When I was laid off back in May, I found out that I qualified for the Dislocated Worker Program because of how many employees at our site were laid off at the same time (or some reason like that — it’s a state program that disburses federal funds for education and MNDEED told me I qualified for it). This was such a gift, such an unexpected opportunity to go back to college after dropping out when I was 18, a true second chance. And I am so proud of myself for taking the leap and going back after 16 years out of the classroom; as of January 4, I can officially say I have 12 college credits to my name.

 

Don’t worry, I’ll be getting student loan money in Feb.
The first two weeks in May I received severance pay from my old employer.
The first two “non-eligible” weeks I received severance pay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus I know someone who sometimes makes donations to the “Keep Sarah Caffeinated” Fund.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This is not to say I don’t accept gifts — just make sure you clearly write GIFT in the memo line of the check or money order you send me or else it will screw up my FAFSA next school year.)

 

 

Finally, I want to say that one of the people I admire most is Ralph Nader who wrote, “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left–Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.” I know well that people are far more comfortable with labels like red or blue or right or wrong or democrat or republican and that is not me. There have been times I lost followers for retweeting Justin Amash or Rand Paul on 4th Amendment issues and there have been just as many times I lost followers for criticizing Hillary on her psuedo-feminism and Wall Street ties. I am not interested in being divided and conquered and falling prey to anyone’s agenda, especially not ALEC’s. Trolls, consider this very fair warning. If you tread your self-righteous way into the quagmire of my twitter timeline, be very prepared to get stuck there.

 

 

 

January 7th update!! William thanked me for this blogpost! What, no more accusations of libel? Well, fantastic! It’s great to know he approves of my analysis of his underlying motivations and commensurately approves of my analysis of ALEC’s two part strategy to use both anonymized and identified trolls to spread confusion as the glue that holds their Divide & Conquer strategy together. Further, it is delightful to feel his gratitude amidst the certainty that he has no objections regarding the accuracy of any of the claims in this post!

 

 

 

 

Oh, and William, one more thing. I know you said in one of your tweets that your mom is a good person and I believe that. It was most likely your father or another father figure who, while you were growing up, made you constantly feel that you weren’t good enough. But I don’t believe that your mom would be proud of the way you treat people you’ve never even met. I can’t imagine a scenario where she reads your tweet to Sharon and doesn’t shake her head, ashamed of the way she didn’t protect you from an overbearing father or stepfather who taught you by example that it was okay to use words as weapons to constantly attack women. You’re being used by ALEC. Ask her if you don’t believe me. It’s not too late of course to make a new decision. You certainly have plenty of drive you could channel into a libertarian cause that is organized by people who don’t hate women. I hope you will.

 

 

Feeling Patriotic? Protest Tyranny and Absolute Monarchy: Buy an Electric Car

Feeling patriotic? Sell your gas-guzzling absolute monarchy-funding, human rights tragedy-perpetuating car and buy an electric car! Let’s all stop voting with our dollars for public beheadings, public lashings, internet censorship, repression of speech, an absence of an independent free press, and woman-hating kings who make life a fascist regime hell for their subjects in Saudi Arabia by donating to their cause every time we purchase gasoline.

 

 

I’ve said before that we vote in three ways, first with our actual ballot at the polls; second, with our dollars, with which we vote affirmatively for all the laws and policies of the government of the country the product is manufactured in when we buy it; and third, with our time, minutes and hours we spend assenting to the practices of the major corporations who create our news, our television, our music, and our books, by spending that time reading/watching/listening to it (to say nothing of the free advertising we give away every time we wear branded clothing/shoes/handbags, etc.). And because we get to vote at the polls once a year at the most, we technically do much more voting with our time and money — especially when we pay our taxes, in which case we re-vote, and confirm the presence of every member of Congress, and second their every legislative move.

 

 

This is why it’s so important to sign petitions and write to Congress regularly, reminding them that they work for us and promising them that we will fire them next election day if they don’t do what we want. Hey, that’s how lobbyists do it. It’s an incredibly effective strategy. Less than a third of eligible voters turned out last mid-term election — how many voters would you guess actually picked up the phone and called their one Rep and two Senators? Guarantee lobbyists picked up the phone. Multiple times. And showed up in person.

 

 

So every time we fill our cars up with gas, we are voting with our dollars for the laws and policies of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, most American gasoline’s country of origin. Now, I was ten during the first war in Iraq, the Gulf War that began in 1991, and I remember my mom calling me downstairs to watch President George H W Bush on the TV in the family room so that she could teach me the body language of lying. As he yammered about how urgent it was to declare war (a declaration that started the instability in Iraq we are still fighting today; people often refer to our 2003 invasion as the impetus, but this blogger suggests that our 1991 invasion is a better historical peg), my mom said to me, “You’re watching the President of the United States lie to the American people on live national television. Now, I want you to watch his face.” Now in my little SNL’d brain, I immediately thought of Dana Carvey and his brilliant impression of Bush the first, and my mom, anticipating this, told me it was not time to improve my comedy routine; it was time to learn the facial ticks and speech blips of liars. (I put my GHWB hand gestures back into my pockets and put “Not gonna do it” firmly out of my head.) So she says, “Now, Sarah Louise, there are people who lie, people who lie pathologically, and people like this man who look straight into the camera when they lie. No compunction whatsoever.” (Me: “What’s compunction?” Mom: “No qualms.” Me: “What’s a qualm?” Mom: “Jesus, Sarah, what do I look like, a human dictionary?” Me, nodding sweetly: “Yep.” Later she made me look up compunction and qualms in the big dictionary in the dining room. Thanks, mom.) After the address from the Oval Office was over, we talked (she talked, I listened) a bit more about the nature of someone who could feel gratified by getting away with deceiving millions of people and how they are few and far between in every day life but very frequently found in people who occupy positions of authority in government.

 

 

Now, this was a game we played with lots of public figures on the glowing oracle-box of truth (the TV) over the years; for example, a year later, we would watch the Bush/Perot/Clinton debates together and she would tell me that the difference between George H W Bush and Bill Clinton was that Clinton actually believed his own lies. But that night, on the eve of Desert Storm in 1991, she just wanted to me to know that the most important thing to remember about the United States’ involvement in the Middle East was that it was about oil. Period.

 

 

Long story short, our military protection of the Saudi regime is how we protect our access to cheap, readily available oil.

 

 

If your next question is why, let me be the first to admit that Abby Martin’s answer rivals the one my mom gave me twenty-five years ago. (Ok, truth: Abby’s 27 minute answer is so thorough, so concise, and so well-researched that it is actually better than my mom’s — and if my mom were alive, she would love Abby Martin and agree.) The historical perspective provided in the episode of the Empire Files embedded below tells you everything you need to know, going all the way back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And it makes it very very clear that our “dependence” on oil is actually the Saudi monarchy’s dependence on US consumption of their oil. But, long story short, the answer to “why?” is that our military protection of their regime is how we protect our access to cheap, readily available oil.

 

 

 

 

This is a paradigm 100% in our power to change. We don’t have to buy gas. We don’t have to vote with our dollars for monarchs who believe it’s okay for women to vote as long as the men they live with and are financially dependent on give them permission to leave the house. We don’t have to collectively prop up a regime that denies due process (what courts? oh, secret courts with “private” trials), a regime that beheads people for stealing, for being gay, and for objecting to abuse of power by the government and protesting that injustice in public, in print or online, a regime that lashes women for being raped (yes, a woman who is raped will receive more public lashings than her rapist), a regime that is destined to be overthrown. And it knows it. As Abby Martin points out in her brilliant withering expose, the House of Saud is scared — and they should be. History hasn’t been kind to kings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, please sign this petition asking the UN to remove Saudi Arabia from the Human Rights Council:

Click on the image to go to the petition.
Click on the image to go to the petition.

 

 

**Brief Aside: I managed to find the No Compunction, No Qualms speech from 1991 on youtube. Watch it here. Notice GHWB trip up on the word diplomatic starting at the 53 second mark. No, flubbing a word isn’t always an indicator of dishonesty. In this case it is.

 

 

**Second brief aside: Have you ever watched the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” Try watching it again with this whole new additional perspective.

 

 

Also, this: http://www.theforeignservicemn.com/electric_ford_ranger/index.php

 

Why does AT&T have the WORST customer service ever? @ATT

The tweets below will speak for themselves but suffice it to say, I am officially at war with AT&T. I have been a customer of theirs so long that I can’t even remember if it was 2004 or 2005 that I switched to them, and in October of 2008, I bought my first iphone on an unlimited data plan, meaning a flat monthly fee for unlimited internet access. They have been throttling my internet and not loading the page while I watch the spinning wheel indefinitely for several years; from time to time, I would call and complain and they would lie to me and say it was just that time of the day when service might be slower and make excuses, etc, ad nauseum.

 

And the FCC knew they were lying too. Which is why, back in June, the FCC fined AT&T to the tune of $100 MILLION for being so full of shit. And as you will soon read in my tweets below, AT&T at first forced their customer service reps to respond to any customer who brought that up with a party line: AT&T is contesting the fines. In July, they even claimed that their actions caused no harm to any customers and that the big bad government was violating their 1st Amendment rights (HA HA HA HA HA HA!) by forcing them to disclose that they actually do throttle data. Then apparently, in September, someone with a law degree thought better of their original idiocy-based strategy/argument and decided they would simply update their website with a disclosure that data really isn’t unlimited and by the way the new threshold is 22 GB. Prior to the FCC intervening, AT&T was throttling anything over 5GB – to put it in perspective, I use about 7 GB a month. And if you’re wondering, “What? Unlimited data?? Sign me up!” I’m sorry to say that they stopped offering this plan; I am considered “grandfathered in” – I know this because every time I have gone into the store to get a new phone, the salesreps tell me to hold on to that plan for dear life because no one else is getting that good of a deal (then I tell them it doesn’t matter how good it seems if in reality, AT&T throttles my data; and then they reluctantly admit that I have a point without admitting that AT&T is throttling).

 

BUT THEY ARE STILL THROTTLING. THEY ARE STILL THROTTLING MY DATA AFTER 5GB.

 

So here’s the deal, AT&T, every time you do this, I’m going to tweet it and add that tweet to this page. And I’m going to tweet this blog post every night. And soon it will be the first result in any google search for why you are so terrible. (The only good thing about AT&T is that all their customer service rep call centers are in the US, unlike Comcast’s, whose business model is predicated on good living wage jobs getting outsourced overseas.)

 

Now let’s go back to June of this year. On June 28, I learned about the FCC putting the federal smack down and tweeted my gleeful reaction. Then on June 30, AT&T sent me a text survey asking me how likely I would be to recommend them to family and friends. My response was a link to the Tweet of Glee. See below.

 

 

Now this may have pissed someone off because the next day my service was like molasses. Even when they throttled me, I could still tweet and my new email would load, I just couldn’t search the internet. But that day, July 1, my email wouldn’t refresh and I couldn’t access any websites using safari either. So I called tech support and read the rep the WaPo headline about the $100 mill over the phone to her, basically saying, the government said you can’t do this to me so, hey, I know, why don’t you stop:

 

 

I also told her I’d be tweeting our WHOLE conversation, everything she said to me. So what did AT&T do? Completely cut my service off. Instantly. No twitter. No email. No internet. So I run with the phone in my hand on speaker to the laptop in my kitchen. AT&T probably thought I was out and about or at work and wouldn’t be able to do anything about not having access to twitter on my phone. Watch what happens:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now this all went down two months before AT&T made the wise decision to update their policy and stop having their reps parrot the party line about “disputing the FCC’s fines” but they are still throttling. And how this all came to a head – me finally pissed off enough to write this blogpost – was when I was trying to google a phone number the day before yesterday and not being able to get any search results because of throttling. This was not an emergency, but it really put it into perspective for me, the gall of that kind of greed: there I was in an unpleasant part of town, needing google, and needing it right now. The reason I have stayed with AT&T all these years is because their range is greatest, meaning, I can be in an elevator and have reception, or in a basement. When everyone else has no bars, I still have at least one. To me it’s a matter of safety, but if they’re going to throttle my access to the internet anyway, range becomes more and more of a moot point. So I called customer service and the rep I spoke to was literally silent to me on the other end of the phone when I asked for a supervisor. He actually wouldn’t transfer me until I told him I needed his name and that I would be tweeting everything he said to me. He then gave me his name and finally transferred me to not-a-supervisor who then said she’d have a real supervisor call me back in ten minutes. No one ever did.

 

Here’s how that conversation went:

 

 

 

 

 

Then later that night was the straw that broke the camel’s back. And this kind of throttling is just reprehensible, plain and simple. AT&T, how dare you. How fucking dare you. You don’t know what kind of situations people are in or where they need to go or how fast they need to leave. FUCK YOU. Fuck you.

 

 

 

And what if there’d been no wifi open around me? Jesus!

 

So how does this end? For starters, look for a video of me calling the FCC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the near future to find out what action I can take next. AT&T, you trolled me. And if you think you can troll me without consequence, think again. Every time you violate our agreement that you will provide me unlimited data in exchange for my money, I will tweet it. And I will then add it to this blog post. And I’ll be tweeting this blog post every single day.

 

 

Merry Christmas.

 

 

 

Wanna Bet? $20 says Donald Rumsfeld dies in prison, convicted of war crimes

 

A twitter follower doubts my prediction of eventual justice for alleged war criminal Donald Rumsfeld.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you doubt my premonitory ability too? Vote in my poll!

 

Bernie, I want you to win: An Open Letter to @BernieSanders from a Millennial Who’s Reading the Writing on the Wall

Dear Bernie Sanders,

 

My name is Sarah, I’m a millennial who voted for Obama twice, and I see you being railroaded by a media who refuse to acknowledge you as a legitimate Presidential candidate and the only Democrat candidate who can win the general election. I have previously blogged about Hillary Clinton’s lack of electability, and unlike her followers who are literally blind to her flaws, I am not only aware of hers, I see a few of yours as well. And I want you to win the Dem nomination because if you don’t, I feel very strongly that we will be looking at a President Bush or Trump thirteen months from now. Writing an open letter to her would be a waste of time because her greatest flaw is a sense of entitlement that causes her to think in terms of how much she deserves to be president instead of how much work it requires to earn votes. You, on the other hand, know all too well how hard the fight ahead will be. You’ll have to fight tooth and nail, not only against your opponents and the superpacs but against the media itself who have already decided you can’t win. I think you can win by implementing a few specific strategies. But the number one demographic you need to start concentrating on right away is the Millennials.

 

 

Here a Millennial, there a Millennial, Everywhere a Millennial

 

There are more millennials than boomers!
There are more millennials than boomers!
And more millennials than every other generation!
In fact, there are more millennials than each of the other generations.

It turns out that there are more Millennials alive than Baby Boomers, (87 million compared to 76 million) and now that we’re all officially old enough to vote, we are the most influential demographic politically (notice that no major news outlets are rushing to announce this). This means that Millennials need to get registered to vote so every time you’re on TV, Senator, don’t waste an opportunity to remind us to if we aren’t already. And, point out that in 31 states and in Washington, DC, people must be either registered *as a democrat* in order to vote for you, Bernie, or they must declare their party affiliation at the polls. (Click here to find out if your state is one of them.) Hey, fellow Millennials, think having to declare loyalty to a political party, in and of itself part of the divide-and-conquer-method, is a load of steaming cow pie? You’re not alone; lots of millennial, gen x-er and Boomer lawyers agree. I have talked to a few and apparently it will take a series of lawsuits against individual secretaries of states (but we have to be careful which states we start with) for infringing on our 1st Amendment right to free speech. The argument will go something like this: if I am prevented from voting for someone on a ballot because I have not registered with my secretary of state as a member of a certain political party, then I am being prevented by that state government from “speaking” my support for a particular candidate. Now if you think that’s a stretch, keep in mind that when Citizens United vs the FEC (federal campaign commission) and McCutcheon vs the FEC were each heard by the Supreme Court regarding whether or not money is speech, those sage robed upholders of our constitutional rights decided that money IS speech! (Obviously, money buys volume or silence, it is not in and of itself a type of expression, for crying out loud.) So if money is speech, voting is definitely speech. And how about our right to privacy also being violated by making us disclose to the secretary of our state which party we intend to vote for? Bernie, those two issues would be a great thing to bring up during the debates.

 

 

 

What’s a democratic socialist?

Do we really need a fly on the wall of HRC’s war room to guess she’s rubbing her hands together and grinning, “Berrrrnie. Sannnnders,” then leaning forward on her throne to command her minions, “Destroy him”? Do we actually need someone to secretly screenshot her whiteboard and tweet the image of the hashtag thereon, #OperationRedSmear? No, we don’t. We just need to acknowledge that it’s probably already begun. By saying that you are a democratic socialist (or, to put it another way, admitting that you are one), Hillary probably sees you walking into a trap of your own making. For example, you say something like, “with a small transaction tax on high frequency stock trades, we could pay for socialized health care, just like in Canada and France, or fund college tuition at all public universities at no charge to students.” She’ll grin into the camera (amused at your ignorance), announce this isn’t Denmark! and then shake her head back and forth condescendingly (pitying your ignorance). Then she’ll pounce and declare: sometimes we need to save capitalism from itself, [everything up to this point she’s already done] conflate socialism with communism, use nasty throwback trigger words like “Marxist” and “the USSR,” and you’re going to lose, sir.

 

Now, the only day we can go back to is today.  So let’s rewrite that chapter right now.

 

 

“Senator, what’s democratic socialism?” Here’s where it’s really important to answer the question, directly, before you go off on your trademark soapbox style “Bernie Sanders says NO to Wall Street’s greed” tangent. We love those tangents; we love them because they indicate passion, idealism, and confidence. Those aren’t the problem. You know what a tell is in poker? Well, your unwillingness to just put it out there, what democratic socialism is, tells us that for some reason, you aren’t quite comfortable with your fondness for it, or perhaps the discomfort is with dem-soc itself. Here’s your usual way of answering the question:

 

 

That’s right, you tell us what dem-soc means, to you, connotatively, instead of denotatively. Hillary will eat that right up, like butterscotch pudding, Bernie. When you don’t answer a question directly, you look like you’re trying to hide something or that you can’t handle the question. I want you to win; that’s why I want to tell you how I think HRC will turn this hesitation around and use it against you. I think she’ll interrupt you talk over you say, “Senator Sanders, why don’t you just admit it? It means there’s voting but the means of production are socialized. And we all know that’s a stone’s throw away from communism.” So I want you, as part of a premeditated strategy to appeal to the large number of libertarian millennials whose interest you have already piqued, to be the first to reference the Bill of Rights in your answer.  So here is one way you could define democratic socialism in a forthcoming way that does the most damage control:

 

Democratic Socialism is where you have a democratic political system, where people vote just like we have now, and a socialist economic system. Now, when the economic system is socialized, it doesn’t mean it has to be run by the government – there are probably people out there who belong to a co-op, and if you do, you know the profits are socialized, meaning spread out among all the members, everybody gets a dividend at the end of the year. But it often does mean state-run programs. And the truth is we already have tons of socialized — meaning government run, in this case — programs in our country. The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the military, our entire Justice System. Do our judges get paid per decision or per trial? Do our FBI agents get paid per case? No, they all get paid on salary so there is no motivation for them to serve anyone’s interests but the American people’s.  (Later, you could tie that into why you co-sponsored the Stop Outsourcing Security Act.) And let’s not forget the bailouts; a taxpayer bailout is known as socializing a loss — instead of spreading the profit or benefit around, we spread the loss around. People will tell you we have a capitalist system but not only do we already have a ton of socialized services that benefit everyone, like our national security apparatus, already in effect, the negative effects of the casino capitalism, they don’t trickle down, they flood down. All those bets Wall St made? When they lose, the taxpayer picks up the tab. That 2008 TARP bailout under President Bush? It was $700 billion. Divide that by the population of the US at the time: 309,557,862.  That works out to be $2258 for every man woman and child in the country. Now how much did you pay for your health insurance last year? In student loan payments? In credit card payments? Crony capitalism’s gambling losses are always socialized, but when they make a killing on the stock market and we ask them to pay the same tax rate on capital gains as other income, they balk! Now, obviously, we have a constitutional republic (this phrase is a trigger phrase for libertarians) and one democratic socialist president is not going to undue the system of checks and balances designed by the framers of the constitution, and I wouldn’t want to. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect us from a corrupt government. But the income inequality in this country, where 95% of all income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%, where only 2% of this country makes more than $250,000 a year, is scandalous. Only 5% of Americans make more than $150,000 a year. The founders wanted the Bill of Rights to protect us from a corrupt government but they could never have imagined we’d need just as much if not more protection from a corrupt Wall Street.

 

imageEmphasize that socialism has nothing to do with corrupt fascist regimes. If anyone asks you if you are a Marxist, say, “No, Marx advocated the abolition of private property; that kind of extremist ideology has no place in our country.” If you don’t believe that, start practicing in the mirror now. You will be asked. The GOP is just waiting to accuse you of it. But Hillary will be worse. She will say, “the rich need to pay their fair share” but then refuse to pick an income level or an income tax percentage that corresponds to her vision of “fair.” Instead, she’ll use your desire for high income tax rates on high income as evidence of you being “out of touch.” Point out that during the 1950’s and early 60’s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90% and the economy boomed.

 

 

Pot

Thank you for getting totally real on marijuana; more than half of Americans support legalizing marijuana (58% according to Gallup’s Oct 2015 poll) and an overwhelming majority of millennials do. But HRC is going to pounce on this issue because even though more than half of Americans support legalization, they are not the half you can count on to go register to vote in advance or make sure they’ve declared a party affiliation. So, here’s how you could play it. You want marijuana to be legal not only because the drug war is imprisoning young people instead of the banksters (this is deflecting, by the way, and Hillary will hone in on that like a predator drone) but because prohibition doesn’t work. It doesn’t make sense. Did prohibition of alcohol work? No, but a massive campaign against drunk driving and drinking while pregnant have worked. Why not legalize pot and put warnings on the packaging like we have with cigarettes? If growers of organic pesticide-free fair trade marijuana want to sell their plant at the farmer’s market, then we require them to hand out a little warning pamphlet (with side effects on fertility/virility, memory, and citing studies of irreversible IQ point decreases in people under age 25, etc.). In other words, you can and should acknowledge that there are negative side effects of pot use and say, “I want buying and using marijuana to be legal; no one should spend a minute in jail for smoking pot. That doesn’t mean I want you to use it!” The DEA spends boatloads of taxpayer money trying to override people’s free will decision to use drugs, a fool’s errand in this blogger’s mind. Far more logical to regulate their sale and educate people (especially on the horrific side effects of meth and heroin). And, Senator, when the topic of legalizing marijuana comes up, you could also suggest using the sales tax revenue it would generate to fund national health care, including treatment programs for those addicted to alcohol and drugs.

 

 

Speaking of Health Care

Lots of people who voted for President Obama blindly supported anything he proposed after he took office because of his star power and magnetism. And you want that demographic to vote for you too (look them up on twitter with #UniteBlue). You need that demographic to vote for you. So start out praising Obamacare, and segue to single payer by pointing out that the best part about the ACA is the provision allowing each state to set up its own single payer system. Besides, as long as there’s going to be a mandate, why not take the middle man/insurance company out of it so that the mandated number of dollars we all pay is even less? And why not put doctors on the federal payroll? Judges are on the federal payroll and get paid from our tax dollars. What is a doctor but a judge of disease? What is a prescription or treatment but a sentence for wayward health? What is a hospital but a jail that doesn’t need bars because the people inside are too sick to get up and walk out of it? (Kidding! It’s way more fun to visit people in the hospital than jail! Unless they’re dying, of course.)

 

 

Guns

You’ve continued to associate the epidemic of gun violence with our disenfranchising health care system that doesn’t get the mentally ill the treatment they need. HRC may not realize it but “gun control” is a trigger phrase too — and what it triggers is a knee jerk reaction in many Americans to buy more guns. Tread as lightly on this issue as you did in the first debates; emphasize your concern for prevention and national health care. Then after you’ve won the nomination, you can reference the 2nd Amendment specifically to relate to libertarian voters. You’re going to need them in the general election. This is a very difficult issue because clearly something must be done; but in this millennial’s opinion, your suggestion that what must be done is getting people access to doctors to prevent these shootings in the first place is the one that will earn you the most votes in our current electoral college voting system. If presidential elections were a strict popular vote, I’d say push gun control because roughly a third of Americans own guns (not the majority by any means). But you’ll need to win many of the states with a high rate of gun-ownership if you want to win the electoral college, so your emphasis on healthcare is strategically your best bet.

 

 

Are you a pacifist? How you can align your conscientious objector past with Daniel Ellsberg & Edward Snowden and appeal to the greatest number of Americans

You said you weren’t a pacifist and you clearly aren’t or you wouldn’t have voted for the AUMF after Sept 11. Use the phrase “just war” sparingly to describe our nation’s right to defend itself if attacked on our own soil; and remind us again and again that you voted against war in Iraq.

 

Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers Whistleblower
Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers Whistleblower

 

Most people won’t doubt the validity of your being a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. We should never have been there in the first place, as the Boomers who lived through it (or lost loved ones who died for it) well know. Many of them, including over 7 million living Vietnam war vets, explained that to their gen x-er and millennial offspring. If you align yourself with Daniel Ellsberg who blew the whistle on the government’s false narrative of success in Vietnam by releasing the Pentagon Papers, (which is why you objected to it too, right?) you’ll not only tap into our country’s collective regret over the Vietnam War and how it could have been prevented or at least cut short, you’ll simultaneously appeal to the Millennials’ admiration of Snowden (70% of us think he’s a whistleblower) because Daniel Ellsberg has been such a vocal supporter of him. In fact, many younger Millennials had never heard of Daniel Ellsberg before Snowden came along.

 

You are wise to say Snowden should have a trial in a court of law though, rather than that the Department of Justice should drop the charges against him or that he should be pardoned because this is what the majority of Americans think. But we’re a funny people; the majority of Americans were glad to learn from the Snowden disclosures that our 4th Amendment rights were being violated by the NSA too. So while I get it that you may feel reluctant to say anything beyond, “I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined,” as you said at the first debate, there are 61 million Millennial Americans who more than agree with you. Evoke memories of Ellsberg, and many other civil libertarians and peace activists and unjust war protesters, especially Boomers, are sure to notice too. And remind us again that you voted against the PATRIOT Act.

 

And be sure to mention that as a contractor, Snowden was not eligible for any whistleblower protections. Not from President Obama’s executive order …

 

… or from the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2012.

 

 

No low blows, just acknowledgement of the systemic corruption of campaign finance and the need for reform

Citizens from Hell United
Citizens from Hell United

 

Bernie, it’s so awesome that you haven’t said one bad word about Hillary. Millennials hate — with a PASSION — that bullshit. WE HATE IT. Thank you, Senator, for sticking to the facts! It’s awesome to point out that the % of your donors who are small donors is extremely high compared to the average campaign, and great to point out how much money has gone into the superpacs since the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions in order to show how flagrant the attempts to buy this election are, and even better to highlight that you aren’t taking a dollar of that superpac money. We know which candidates are in Wall Street’s pocket and that you aren’t one of them.

 

Politicians pointing out each other’s flaws instead of focusing on solutions to very real problems we would prefer to have solved doesn’t make them look better than their opponents. On the contrary, it reveals their personality weakness. Thanks, Bernie, for being the kind of politician who focuses on society’s flaws, not people’s personality flaws.

 

Below is a tweet from someone who has the opposite view. And as far as a winning strategy, I couldn’t disagree more. (This was one of the ways HRC embarrassed herself in 2008 — by insulting Obama over and over. It didn’t even faze him!)

 

 

 

Ease off the Revolution Rhetoric

There’s only one thing I’d recommend you completely eliminate or significantly reduce in your campaign, Senator, and that is any reference to a revolution. Especially during this time of recovering from the disappointment of President Obama’s promises of hope and change, the concept of revolution is a bit much. When someone says revolution to me, I think of two things, the Revolutionary War (and that we won it) and then I think of the Beatles’ song, and this line from it: “You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.” Revolution is a big word, Senator, and it has all kinds of terrible connotations, like no clean running water and the grid going down and rape in the streets. And death and blood and corpses and horrific fighting — and war. Even when you specify a political revolution, it just doesn’t ring true. All revolutions are political revolutions. Yes, “a revolution” has a better ring to it than “Get off your butts and participate; show a little gratitude for your freedom to vote that people died for. Apathy’s not gonna cut it. You actually do have to vote to remind Congress that they work for you and will be fired if they don’t do what you want, and this means voting every 2 years, not every 4.”  While apathy-shaming won’t work, I think the concept of revolution in this sense will make people think of a rebellious uprising more than anything else, and that will turn off a very large important demographic (Boomers) and won’t turn on any of the others.

 

Your campaign is still young and I’m positive there’s a far better slogan to be had, one that will appeal to people of all generations and socioeconomic backgrounds who favor overcoming income equality and seek social justice.

 

To Do List:

  1. Don’t miss an opportunity to remind people to get registered to vote, including tweeting reminders that in many states, you must be registered as a Democrat to be able to vote for you
  2. Define democratic socialism within the context of it already being part of our constitutional republic (saying we live in a democracy is not factually true)
  3. Use trigger phrases like constitutional republic and democratic republic; explain they are synonyms
  4. Answer questions directly even if being direct requires a lie; a straightforward lie is always better than a hesitant justification*
  5. Continue your habit of not intentionally lying
  6. Use trigger phrases like “the truth is”
  7. Explain that capitalism is voting with our dollars; then contrast that with our current rigged “capitalist” system using both “casino capitalism” and “crony capitalism” interchangeably to explain how it really works in practice
  8. Use the 3 phrases “framers of the constitution,” “founding fathers,” “Bill of Rights” and the 3 phrases “Wall St” “income inequality” “the 1%” at a ratio of 1:1 in order to appeal to both liberals and libertarians (also, a lot of people are just plain patriotic and those first 3 words mean something to them)
  9. Hillary overuses the phrase “the middle class” — don’t make her same mistake! Explain socioeconomic classes as they pertain to income inequality; there are the working poor, then there’s a working class, a lower middle class, a middle class, an upper middle class, the rich and the super rich. Below are 2 videos to help explain the insanity of the ratio of CEO pay to average worker and how much worse the reality of income inequality is compared to what we think it is.
  10. Acknowledge the working poor in the debates, those who work but can’t get full time hours because their company’s policy is no more than 32 (or however many) hours a week and consequently, they qualify for SNAP and subsidized housing. They don’t vote because no one acknowledges they even exist! And there are millions of them. If you use the phrase, “the working poor,” they’re going to look up at the TV and go, oh, my God, someone’s talking about us! The other reason they don’t vote is because they literally can’t get time off work on election day and are unaware that in many states, employers are legally required to allow workers to take time off to vote. These votes are ripe for the picking, Bernie. Snatch them up with your #15now rhetoric.

 

 

 

 

 

I know you’ll make a great president, Senator Sanders!

 

Sincerely,

Sarah

 

*Example: Hillary’s concise “no” when Anderson asked her if her flipflopping on issues meant she was changing them based on the demographic (“Will you say anything to get elected?”). She was verifiably lying but it came across as honest.

 

 

Buy this book. Read this book: “Murder at Camp Delta” by Sgt. Joseph Hickman

 

SPOILER ALERT: my review of this 5 star book is not only a recommendation but a summary of its plot

 

This book has it all. Patriotic American soldier compelled by his conscience to prove his government’s attempt to cover up a war crime? Check. Neckless corpses of prisoners of war returned to their families with no further explanation? Check. Autopsy reports showing mysteriously high dosages of an unnecessary vaccine whose side-effects at such a high dose are the psychological equivalent of the terror of 30 days of nonstop waterboarding? Check. Tom Clancy style intelligence community tipsters who call late at night from a blocked phone number to drop URL breadcrumbs leading to missing pages of a 3,000 page NCIS report so redacted it takes a team of law students to make heads or tails of it over months of research? Check. But this is no novel. “Murder at Camp Delta” is a true story written by a marine who values his oath to serve his country and protect the Constitution so intensely that it trumps all concern for any potential consequences he might suffer as a result of this book’s publication.Murder at Camp Delta

 

Sgt Joseph Hickman paints a picture of his experience at the prison at Guantanamo Bay in a series of vivid and sometimes even funny memories of his deployment to JTF-GTMO, among them a bit of culture-shock when an English speaking detainee, replete with British accent, calls him “mate” and asks him to toss a fugitive soccer ball back over a fence, the time he gets called Satan and told he fights like a demon by a group of detainees who rush his team in a communal cell, or the brotherly (and hilarious) grief he gets from his squad for going to a movie with a younger female medic. All of these vignettes show us the unique personality of a soldier who serves in the military with pride and honor. But it is the moments where Sgt Hickman serves our country, willing to make sacrifices many in his position might not, that make this story one of heroism. One of the most memorable is when he stops two guards from playing a game with a detainee who had a prosthetic leg. The guards liked to make the man, al-Gazzar, put on his prosthetic leg, shackle him, and make him walk that way so that when one of them tapped the prosthetic leg, the detainee would collapse and flail on the ground. Why? When Sgt Hickman asks them why, they say because it’s “f—ing hilarious.” In contrast, Hickman addresses this man as a human being — an alleged terrorist — not as a monster, and speaks to him in a rapport-building manner, affording him basic decency, the kind the United States used to lead the world in displaying even in times of desperation such as war. Sgt Hickman’s resistance to the steamrolling of our national moral compass, not only when he protects al-Gazzar from torment (and, no, not because reverse-Stockholm syndrome kicked in and he was sympathizing with al-Gazzar or even because Geneva Convention dictates: he did it because treating prisoners of war humanely is the right thing to do) but again when he goes to the Inspector General, adhering to all military protocol, to report discrepancies in the official Pentagon version of the story of the deaths of 3 detainees on the night of June 9, 2006. What the Pentagon announces to the media is that the three deaths were part of a suicide pact among 3 detainees determined to commit asymmetrical warfare against the US by hanging themselves in their cells. The discrepancy? Sgt Hickman was on duty as SOG (Sergeant of the Guard) and assigned to watch over the entire Alpha Block where all 3 of those detainees were housed, standing fewer than 200 feet away from those very cells. As he states in the book, he was a witness to the fact that three men were not carried from Alpha block to the medical clinic after midnight or at any time that evening, contrary to what the NCIS investigation report stated; but he was witness to three men – three alive men – being let out and taken away from their cells hours before the “suicides” were alleged by the Pentagon to have taken place. (For those familiar with recent history’s revelations that GTMO was also used as a black site for the EIT program, you can guess that they were being taken to that black site building for some “Q & A;” Sgt Hickman is very careful, however, to merely state the facts as he observes them which in my view, lends even greater credibility to his testimony. And he does state that it was a common occurrence for detainees to be removed from their cells and brought back at a later time.)

 

Haunted by his memories and how they compare to the “official version” of the night of June 9, 2006, Sgt Hickman describes the anguish that compels him to find out if his government was involved in a true cover-up. When he realizes he’ll need help to prove it — or, as he initially and optimistically hopes, to disprove any hint of conspiracy — he chooses Seton Hall University School of Law’s Center for Policy and Research based on their impressive “Report on Guantanamo Detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees Through Analysis of Department of Defense Data” which deduced that only 8% of Guantanamo detainees were actually al qaeda fighters. The most interesting thing about Seton Hall’s team of researchers is the methodology they employ, relying only on the government’s own public reports and public federal court findings to identify contradictions and then use the process of elimination to reveal the truth, much like solving an elaborate logic square puzzle. So without knowing anything about any Joseph Hickman or his side of the story, the graduate students on the Seton Hall team focus only on the heavily redacted and incomplete 3,000 page NCIS report of the investigation into the events of June 9, 2006 and slowly but surely scrape away the layers of misdirection that inundate it. Their conclusion? Three prisoners died but not in their cells.

 

 

Three Guantanamo prisoners died on the night of June 9, 2006. But not in their cells.

 

 

Additionally, after the research team learns that the cell blocks had cameras both inside the cells and out, they are shocked to see that NCIS had made this illogical note in the report: “No video evidence is available.” Really? And conveniently, when the the bodies of the dead were sent back to their families, the families could not have their sons properly autopsied to independently verify death by hanging. Why? Because they were sent back without the necks. And then there was the repeated reference NCIS made to an unnamed Senior Medical Officer (SMO) who had examined all three of the detainees and pronounced them dead, yet, oddly, none of the investigators had taken a statement from him or her.

 

The reader soon learns that, meanwhile, the IG (Inspector General) has declined to order the FBI to investigate Sgt Hickman’s claims, and then, disappointingly, that ABC declines to air the TV interview of Sgt Hickman they had filmed (after running it by the Pentagon, they changed their mind). Harper’s magazine does run an award winning story about the deaths in 2010, but the backlash from both government officials and the mainstream media is endless. All hope seems lost when — very suddenly — the story takes an unexpected Tom Clancy turn and Sgt Hickman gets a mysterious phone call from someone whose caller id is blocked. Someone, the reader gasps to discover, within the intelligence community who won’t even say his name before rushing to alert Hickman to an obscure file on the Department of Defense website, one of over 200,000 released in response to a FOIA request, showing a memo from, and signed by, Admiral Harris – the highest ranking military official at GTMO on June 9, 2006 – to General Craddock (then head of SouthCom) encouraging him to encourage NCIS to specifically seek evidence of a suicide plot in their investigation despite the fact that NCIS had already concluded that there was not one. While this is surprising and a blatant attempt to manipulate the outcome of the investigation, this reader concluded that the real point of Unnamed Caller’s tip was to get Sgt Hickman onto the page of the DoD website with the data dump so that Hickman would eventually ask himself, “wait – if this Admiral Harris memo somehow mysteriously ended up on here, what if something else having to do with the NCIS investigation got inadvertently uploaded too?” Which something else did. Two something elses that Hickman finds after three weeks of sifting through a hay-mountain.

 

Remember the missing Senior Medical Officer’s statement? The one the Seton Hall researchers were shocked was never taken by NCIS when that person would have been the one to examine the bodies and pronounce them dead? Lo and behold, that missing page of the NCIS report was part of the same FOIA “data dump” as the Admiral Harris Memo, and in it, the Senior Medical Officer clearly states the cause of death of one of the three detainees who died on June 9, 2006, al-Zahrani: asphyxiation caused by a blockage of the airway, a result of cloth inserted through his oral cavity and into the windpipe. Not hanging. Not suicide. Cloth. Rags stuffed so far down his throat that he choked to death.

 

The second document Sgt Hickman found in the data dump was the sworn statement — three pages long — of a master-at-arms (military police officer here identified as an MA3) who said he saw al-Zahrani in the early hours of June 10, 2006 in the medical clinic still alive, but limp, his feet blue. This MA3 and his partner had been called to assist by the use of a medical brevity code that indicated a living detainee having life-threatening symptoms, a code used frequently to call responders to hunger-striking detainees who had become faint from lack of food, not one used to indicate a suicide in progress. And, this MA3 described medical staff then telling the Camp 1 guards to remove al-Zahrani’s handcuffs so an IV could be inserted. (Slightly difficult for a person to hang themselves with handcuffs on – even more odd for a person to put his or her head in a noose and get all set to jump and then put handcuffs on before jumping.) This MA3 makes 2 more astounding claims, under oath: 1) that after the handcuffs were removed, he observed a corpsman binding an altered detainee bed sheet to each of al-Zahrani’s wrists, leaving approximately a foot of cloth in between and 2) that two Combat Camera personnel began to film all three detainees before “Colonel B” stopped them.

 

Then we learn that those three pages comprising the MA3’s statement were not only removed from the 3,000 page NCIS report, but three other pages of it were copied and RE-NUMBERED BY OUR GOVERNMENT and inserted back into the 3,000 page report as if no one would ever pore over each page and realize that three pages had duplicates. (The Seton Hall students at first merely assumed those pages were misnumbered, not that they were re-numbered by a federal government employee and deliberately falsely substituted in place of the actual pages. However, I would like to give that person the benefit of the doubt, because perhaps he or she is actually a whistleblower and had planned all along to release the missing three pages during a FOIA data dump, and once they were available online, to call an IC tipster with the specific DoD website folder they were uploaded to who would then contact someone in the press if it wasn’t discovered by them without any clues.)

 

Then the plot takes a blood-curdling turn as Sgt Hickman makes another devastating discovery. And the specific horror we learn our government allowed to be inflicted on other human beings at GTMO at the direct behest of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld defies all sense of wrong and right and knowing the difference between the two. Each detainee, upon arrival at GTMO, was given the drug mefloquine at 5 times the normal dose, a dose known to cause hallucinations, suicidal thoughts and the feeling of being terrified — non-stop — for at least 30 days. And while these human beings were being subjected to the equivalent of psychological waterboarding from the mefloquine, they would also be held in isolation. That’s the government’s word for solitary confinement which we now know can cause insanity on its own, to say nothing of combining it with pharmacological warfare.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that “Murder at Camp Delta” will be required reading in every U.S. high school’s American History class half a century from now. If only it were required reading for Congress, today. And there is a commensurate lack of doubt in my mind that this book’s author’s testimony will be instrumental in the conviction and sentencing of alleged war criminal Donald Rumsfeld. If reading this review makes you wonder what happened to your country, stop. We know what happened. A culture of vengeance-gone-wild, nurtured by Orwellian terms like “detainees” instead of prisoners, “enhanced interrogation” instead of torture and “unlawful combatants” instead of prisoners of war, a Wall Street incentivized by incredible returns on investments made in companies like Halliburton, a Congress incentivized by re-election campaign donations from behemoth national security contractors, and an entire intelligence community held hostage by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as surely as the passengers on flights on September 11, 2001 were held hostage by terrorists, all contributed to the stain on our nation’s history that is Guantanamo Bay. Mix in a recession so damaging to national morale that Americans were too consumed with worry over imminent layoff, foreclosure and/or bankruptcy to protest the Bush Administration’s moral bankruptcy, and presto, change-o: unbridled tyranny.

 

Buy this book. Read this book. Ask your Senators and Representative to read this book. Ask the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to hold a congressional hearing to fully investigate the factual information available to them through this book and from other sources regarding the Special Access Program that, through the stroke of a secret, classified 2002 executive order issued by President Bush, turned a detention center into a battle lab, one in which the most heinous of war crimes were allegedly committed.

 

NOTES:

**Think no one at GTMO back in 2002 protested the horrors being done in the American people’s names? Think again. Hickman learned over the course of writing this book that Mark Fallon, then the deputy commander of the Criminal Investigation Task Force at Guantanamo, wrote an email to a CIA lawyer and a military lawyer about the use of torture techniques, stating, “This looks like the kind of stuff Congressional hearings are made of. Someone needs to be considering how history will look back at this.”

 

**See also the impeccable investigative reporting in this 2010 truthout article by Jason Leopold and Jeff Kaye mentioned by Sgt Hickman in the book on the use of mefloquine on all GTMO detainees as part of the “Standard Inprocessing Orders for Detainees” given in 1250 mg dosages, five times the normal dose, which the military already knew would cause “severe neuropsychiatric side effects, including seizures, intense vertigo, hallucinations, paranoid delusions, aggression, panic, anxiety, severe insomnia, and thoughts of suicide.”

Ask Congress: Make College Tuition-Free at Public Institutions

Click here for an easy to use link – simply enter your zip code and Roots Action will automatically pre-fill your 2 Senators and 1 Representative’s information. Take a second, if you wish, to compare my re-write below to their text that pops up after you enter your zip code. Mine is more specific so be sure to take out “as a consistent supporter” on the second to last line if you don’t support your Congresspeople and then enter your name where I have YOUR NAME in all caps on the last line if you are going to use my text instead of Roots Action’s text.

 

 

As your constituent, I urge you to support legislative efforts to make college tuition-free. The United States has the money to do this, as some other nations do, and the 1.2 trillion (not billion – trillion!) dollar student loan debt crisis is crippling an entire generation of potential leaders, entrepreneurs, and young families – families that choose to have only one child or no children because they simply cannot afford to.

 

 

image

 

 

Please cosponsor and support S.1373, a parallel House bill, and any similar legislation that will provide America’s young people with the opportunity to pursue taxpayer funded higher education at any public institution.

 

 

Additionally, please support H.R.2429, the Student Loan Tax Debt Relief Act, which protects students from tax liability when a school closes or an agreement is reached with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to keep a school open.

 

 

As a consistent supporter, I thank you for taking the time to consider my view on this important issue.

 

 

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)

Why Ron Wyden’s Traitorous About Face on #FastTrack for the #TPP?

Author’s update: as of June 23, the Senate voted 60-37 to stop debate on Trade Promotion Authority, also commonly called “Fast Track” for the TPP. The next day the Senate passed TPA and on Monday, June 29, 2015, President Obama signed it into law. THIS DOES NOT MEAN WE’RE DONE FIGHTING. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement itself has not been passed – only President Obama’s ability to “fast track” it (approve it by bypassing Congress’ constitutional right to make amendments to it) BUT there is STILL time if you are reading this now. In fact, please read the inspiring comment from Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch department in the 3 images below explaining that Fast Track was passed before in the late 1990’s in order to be used on the FTAA but after much public outcry, the FTAA was never even voted on! Then please sign PCGTW’s petition declaring that you will never stop fighting the TPP.

 

imageimageimage

 

 

 

The Trans Pacific Partnership “Free” Trade Agreement, if it is passed, will be nothing less than a corporate coup d’etat whose endgame is a total defunding of state and federal government via erosion of the taxpayer base through the strategic disappearance of jobs that provide the income from which that tax is collected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what happened to Senator Ron Wyden? Ron Wyden who was all “transparency is my middle name”?

 

 

He is so unconcerned about transparency nowadays that he is perfectly content to vote for the constitution-violating process known as “Fast Track” technically termed Trade Promotion Authority [TPA] because it gives all the AUTHORITY to the President (removing any amending capability from the Congress, meaning no changes whatsoever) to approve a trade agreement corporations have helped craft and members of congress can’t even keep a copy of. Seriously. Members of Congress can only read the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement in a locked room and aren’t allowed to take their cell phones or a pen inside and have been forbidden to talk about what they read. So guess who they can’t talk about it with. THEIR CONSTITUENTS. Hmm … I wonder who that would benefit.

 

 

image

 

 

Corporations.

 

 

 

 

Sound like a reason for concern? Put it this way, would you sign a pre-nup before you had a look-see? This is the lawyers hashing it out, with no consent from either husband or wife regarding the terms of the final contract. (And remember, they’ll be billed hourly. Do the lawyers have a monetary incentive to make a divorce as painful and drawn out as possible? Why, yes! They DO!!)

 

 

So now that Senator Traitor, the one Senator who had the power to stop this whole messy charade in its tracks, has gone to the dark side, it’s one hundred percent relevant that he pulled this same self-serving passive-aggressive rigamarole in 2013. Section 215 ring a bell? Oh, yeah, that time he tried to entrap DNI Clapper into committing a felony and disclosing classified information about the metadata collection. Uh huh, yes, the lying under oath to Congress Snowden was rightfully pissed off about. This is what happened: Pawn Wyden put Clapper in the position of choosing — on the spot on live national television — between answering the question, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” with the word no and committing perjury OR answering the question with the word yes and committing a felony. Nice.

 

 

You can watch the exchange here starting at 3:27 (it should start playing at that moment if all embeds well):

 

 

 

But here’s how Senator Wyden has doubly betrayed his oath to the constitution: he not only already knew about Section 215 because everyone on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence knew about it because they had ALL previously been informed by Clapper himself in a private letter all the way back in 2011, but, as a US Senator, Wyden has something known as “absolute free speech.” This literally means that he could read the *unredacted* Senate Torture Report, in its entirety, on CSPAN, without repercussion. (Well, he might not get re-elected. Then again, a whole new generation might show up to the polls for him.) Or any classified redacted document … including the Section 215 letter (the one from Clapper to the SSCI outlining the metadata collection from 2011). So, instead of, say, taking a picture of it with his phone and posting it on instagram or tweeting that Section 215 letter one word at a time to all his super supportive followers and letting the ACLU know he’s got some juicy retweet fodder, what does he do? He asks a question he knows the DNI is forbidden to answer truthfully when all along, Wyden could have blown the whistle himself! And should have! What a passive-aggressive hypocrite. To really put it in perspective, Wyden could have done exactly what Snowden ended up doing before Snowden — and maybe Snowden never would have!

 

 

To really put it in perspective, Wyden could have done exactly what Snowden ended up doing before Snowden — and maybe Snowden never would have!

 

Ironically, Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA, put it best: “Ron Wyden was trying to trick Jim Clapper into making an admission of classified information that Ron Wyden didn’t have the courage to make himself.” Really think about that (and you can watch him say it in the video below starting at 1:01:50). Hayden is not only saying that Wyden is a coward, he’s saying that if Wyden HAD had the balls to tell the People about Section 215, it would have been courageous! An act of bravery to disclose that classified information. Michael Hayden probably didn’t even realize what he said but his words are tantamount to a request for whistleblowing.

 

 

Once again, my tweets say it shortest and sweetest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now watch this incredible short video made by true patriot Congressman Alan Grayson on the economic evisceration perpetrated by our Congress against our country through NAFTA, and how the TPP is NAFTA on steroids. Anyone who supports the TPP actively desires not only the erosion of our income tax base through the disappearance of our INCOME (via the elimination of our JOBS), they actively desire that we no longer have funds to pay the public servants who make up the agencies of our federal government. Then ask yourself who benefits if we can no longer afford to have a functioning FBI, CIA, FTC, or even an FDA. Now how about a functioning Justice Department. Guess everyone could just languish in prison till they die and never get a trial. Gee, who benefits from that?

 

 

 

 

There’s still time. PLEASE call your Senators and ask them to vote NO on TPA (Trade Promotion Authority) aka Fast Track and no on the TPP altogether. What they need to hear you say are these exact words: “If you vote for TPA, I will vote for your opponent come election day.” Click here to find your Senator’s phone #.

 

 

And oh, yeah, this little reminder about Wyden and Nike sleeping together in the same filthy bed.

 

#LinkMyScrotum or Trolls Are People Too

Last night, my twitter timeline exploded into a comedy of errors brought on by the typo of one single troll. (See, trolls, you can make a difference!) The takeaway is that trolls make typos too and because trolls are people too and feel embarrassed when they make mistakes (just like non-trolls), they too will delete a tweet once they realize that they typed, for example, the word link instead of the word lick. See image below.

 

Trolls Make Typos Too

 

 

 

GOPBullhorn, as he calls himself, was particularly offended by this tweet of mine:

 

 

 

 

So he replied:

 

 

 

 

Now for those of you who have followed me on twitter a long time, you know that I believe that trolls are deliberately and strategically trying to/succeeding at stealing our time. In other words, when they get you to respond, they win AND they take (steal!!) minutes away from you, minutes that you could spend on your true mission which is to tweet to that demographic of people who *are* receptive to your message. BUT – and it’s a big butt – if another person or entity is mentioned in the tweet, as Walmart was in this case, then I will often reply in order to make the PR/twitter person at that organization/entity take note that WeThePeople are watching and taking action. So I replied:

 

 

 

 

 

And IMMEDIATELY a crowd of members of my “twitter family,” as I call them, leapt to my defense and took on this troll with more vim and vigor than this blogger knew existed on a Saturday night online!

 

And this troll was truly horrible – insulted my friend Jesus and called us morons, fuckers, etc., here …

 

 

 

 

and here:

 

 

 

 

*Yes, the article from Business Insider, which cited statistical information from 1913 to 2008, was indeed from 2011 which means it’s actually four years old. Luckily, the historical data I quoted in my tweet didn’t change between 2011 and 2015. So that’s good!!

 

But it gets better. At this point, I had stopped replying to the troll but was favoriting all the responses from my twitter family who were valiantly defending the truth, and that’s when GOPBullhorn tweeted the “link my scrotum” comment. So then I replied to that, saying, “LOL, click on the link” – which made him realize his mistake and delete the tweet. But I of course had taken a screen shot of it.

 

 

 

 

And this is where the hilarity ensued: Julie seemed genuinely confused when she tweeted this …

 

 

https://twitter.com/juliemains/status/589678869625450497

 

 

And Mad Dad tweeted this …

 

 

 

 

to which I replied…

 

 

 

 

and then because things had gotten so out of hand, I remarked that this is better than an ’80’s sitcom – that I hoped the NSA was enjoying the comedy of errors my TL had become that evening, and Julie (still in complete seriousness, I thought) replied …

 

 

https://twitter.com/juliemains/status/589681246441091072

 

 

I was literally rolling on the floor laughing! Well, on the couch. Which led to the realization that I should make the whole thing a blog post AND …

 

 

 

 

So from now on, whenever any of us gets trolled, lets use this hashtag as a way to alert each other. Think we can get #LinkMyScrotum trending?

 

Finally, the moral of the story …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2014 In Review: the WordPress Annual Report & Who Is REALLY Interacting with My Blog

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog. Thanks, WordPress!!

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 3,900 times in 2014. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 3 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Go See the Interview with @JamesFrancoTV and @SethRogen Right Now! It’s HILARIOUS.

If you haven’t already seen the Interview, go see it in the theater if possible OR stream it on youtube.

 

 

I’d never seen James Franco or Seth Rogen together on screen before and let me tell you, they are hilarious. Rogen’s portrayal of no-nonsense, i-dotting, t-crossing, worrywart tv producer Aaron Rapoport is the perfect straight man to Franco’s embodiment of the off the wall, spectacularly horny, nosey, patriotic (not necessarily in that order) tv star Dave Skylark. And there are real twinges of sadness in the movie that both actors never reduce to maudlin plot development requirements. These are two really really talented people. Who made a very very raunchy, crass, sexed-up, piece of political satire.

 

 

My favorite kind!

 
Spoilers ahead.

 

 

 

As a brief recap, in case you missed the news, Sony got hacked (probably by North Korea, says the FBI) and this group of hackers also threatened “9/11 style” attacks on any theaters who chose to show “the Interview” (a Sony Picture) because the premise is a CIA plot to assassinate Kim Jong Un and at one point in the movie, his death via firey head explosion is depicted. North Korea called the movie itself “an act of war.” So all these movie theaters across the country were afraid of these so called 9/11 style attacks. Now if you have a brain in your head, you’re probably shaking it, going, what were they going to drop on us? water balloons? Using logic: let’s say NK does have [working] nukes. Do they want to have a nuclear war? No, because Kim Jong Un wants to live, not die. He wants to stay the dictator of a fascist regime. So is he going to attack the US with nuclear weapons? No. Because then he’d die. Or worse, for people with fascist personality disorder, he’d be alive but no longer have a regime to rule over totalitarianistically. Yes, that is totally a word. Now.

 

 

The best part of this movie is that it is the truest kind of political satire – no one walks away unsatirized. “The Interview” pokes fun at the CIA, the United States, our popular culture AND North Korea’s supreme leader.

 

 

 

So all these movie theaters pull out at the last minute, crying, oh no! the sky is falling! we don’t want our patrons to be attacked while watching this movie! (read: we don’t want to get sued because all we think about is money) and decide not to show it. So many theaters that Sony decides not to release the movie at all, period! And President Obama is going, “Really, Sony? You couldn’t have talked to me first before you cancel the release of this movie everyone has been anticipating for months? Cuz I could have told you that there is no credible threat to our national security, you idiots.” Except I think he said it in that uberdiplomatic Obama way. So then Sony is like, okay, okay, if theaters want to show it, they can AND we’ll also stream it online. And then a few days after that, the NSA hacked in to North Korea’s internet and kept them in the dark for 9 hours. Er … somebody did. Whether or not it was the NSA, we don’t know. And by we don’t know, I mean, we don’t know. They should have kept North Korea off grid for nine days.

 

 

 

And why? Because freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment. The Bill of Rights. That’s the deal with freedom. I might disagree with you and you might disagree with me. We both get to talk. We both get to write. We both get to make movies and we both get to watch them – or not watch them. We get the choice. To paraphrase Voltaire: I may detest what you say, but your right to say it is worth dying for. (So go thank a vet!)

 

 
One of the funniest and most understated bits in the movie (yes, I’m getting to the actual storyline – but really, what a bunch of deballed cowards at Sony; as Seth Rogen put it, since when do we let North Korea decide which movies play in the US?) is when the two CIA officers first visit Dave and Aaron to pitch the idea of killing Kim to them and there are dirty wine and shot glasses everywhere and cocaine all over the dining table. Now Aaron quickly explains to Agent Lacey that it’s not their cocaine, but Dave – hospitable, warm, welcoming Dave Skylark – offers her some! Because that’s the polite thing to do when the CIA comes over: offer up your best coke, ladies and gentlemen. The viewer and Aaron quickly catch on to the fact that Dave is being honeypotted because, as Aaron points out, Agent Lacey has all three of the things he loves, “bangs, huge tits, and glasses.” And the combination works; Dave agrees to participate in the assassination plot. Later when they go to CIA headquarters to do a dry run of the poisonous handshake assassination technique, Agent Lacey isn’t wearing the glasses. Obviously lying, she says she got Lasik.

 

 

 

Dave: “I know what you did to me – with the glasses – honeycombed me.”

Agent Lacey: “What does that even mean.”

Aaron: “You honey potted him – [to Dave] it’s honey pot – you honey potted him.”

Agent Lacey: “No, I didn’t.”

Aaron: “You did honey pot him. I bet you got him [referring to her partner agent] in here as a honey dick just in case I’m gay but I’m not but if I was I would have seen him coming a mile away.”

Dave: “You honey dick him?”

Male CIA: “She’s not honeypotting you and I’m not honeydicking him.”

Agent Lacey: “It’s very offensive because basically if you think about it, what you’re saying to me, you’re saying because I’m a girl, and because I’m attractive, my only use for this agency would be to manipulate men.”

Dave: “I think it’s offensive too!”

 

 

 

Nice. Nice commentary on the CIA, on the federal government’s exploitation of fertility and virility traits, such as beauty, strength, prowess, cunning, etc, for a greater good (men are just as exploited for their masculinity as women are for their femininity over at Fed Gov) and yet another moment in the movie where we see that Dave is really this teenage boy in a man’s body who just loves women and is a chivalrous sweetheart deep down and Aaron is his best friend and the best kind of friend: a loyal, protective defender. I won’t spoil this next part but you’ve got to see in this same scene what Dave refers to as “the money shot.” In comedy, timing is everything. The four actors in this scene nail it. Perfect timing. Perfect facial expressions. Perfect moments of silence, perfect rapport. This movie is so funny that I literally laughed for almost the whole two hours.

 

 

 

Another vivid character in the movie is Sook, the self-described “propagandist for a totalitarian dictatorship.” She tells Aaron, amidst a burgeoning romance between them, how when she was a young girl, she was pulled out of her classroom at school and “selected” to serve the Jong family as a member of Kim’s staff. She doesn’t say how young she was and neither she nor Aaron clarify what kind of service specifically her role entailed at the beginning of her tenure, but we know. And the movie doesn’t shy away from pointing out the 2 x 4 in our own government’s eye when it comes to the foibles of a hyper-interventionist foreign policy in this scene either. Sook and Aaron are practically naked in Aaron’s bed when Dave bursts in; Sook hides under the covers. After getting a glimpse of Kim’s true nature, Dave is finally ready to go through with the handshake plan.

 

 

 

Dave: “I wanna know if you still have that poison so we can kill that mothafucka!”

Sook (erupting from underneath a hill of covers): “What?!?”

Aaron (leaping in front of Dave who’s about to karate chop Sook): “She’s on our side!”

Sook: “I hate Kim – he is a terrible leader.”

Aaron: “See? She can help us kill him!”

Sook: “What? No! No killing! How many times can the US make the same mistake?”

Dave: “As many times as it takes!”

 

*This is so so funny and sad at the same time. And it’s one of the reasons I enjoyed this movie so much. In previous blog posts and youtube videos, I’ve talked about the “dark gray area” that intervention often leads us into as a nation. This movie isn’t afraid to go there either.

 

Sook continues to explain, using logic: “Killing Kim won’t change anything! He will be replaced. He has brothers, he has other generals. The people need to be shown that he is not a god, that he is a man. Then they will be ready for change.”

Dave: “Yeah. How?”

Sook: “Interviewing him: everyone in North Korea will be watching.”

Dave: “The interview’s scripted – his people are never gonna let me ask real questions.”

Sook: “Dave, I am his people.”

Aaron: “You get Kim to cry like a baby – they’ll know he’s not a god.”

 

 

 

During the actual interview, Dave succeeds, using charm and a disarming combination of warmth and confidence, in drawing out the true Kim, and all of North Korea gets to see that he is not in fact a god. Once again, the filmmakers also allowed an unflattering tidbit about the US to be revealed when Kim remarks to Dave that the US has more incarcerated people per capita than North Korea. True enough. A battle in the studio’s control room ensues as Sook and Aaron fight off Kim’s minions to keep the show broadcasting live to the people, and a revolution is sparked with the incendiary flame of information.

 

 

 

Without spoiling too much of the ending, let me say that my favorite part is during the follow-up montage, where we see North Korea having democratic elections. That alone would be cause for the real Kim Jong Un to declare the movie an act of war. But the biggest threat to his or any fascist regime is the movie’s message that an assassination of character can be far more effective than an actual assassination.

 

 

 

Go out and see it, stream it – do both if possible. Watching it is an act of patriotism in this situation because any attempt by one state to censor or inhibit the free flow of information among members of another state is totally unacceptable, morally reprehensible, and calls for resistance and defiance.

 

 

 

 
“The Interview” is hilarious and awesome. Thank you, James and Seth! You made a great movie.

 

 

 

*Or watch some honeypotting preview action here:
For some reason, the “weapon of ass destruction” line wasn’t in the actual movie. It’s funny as hell in the trailer though!

 

 

You say voting doesn’t matter?

Think voting doesn’t matter? Amendments are ratified by elected state legislatures. Are you a woman? Are you black? The 15th & 19th Amendments were passed by white men! There wasn’t a single woman or black person in the entire Congress.

 

If your vote doesn’t matter, why did corporations go all the way to Supreme Court to get permission to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence who you’ll vote for? (Citizens United vs FEC)

 

If your vote doesn’t matter, why did ONE billionaire go all the way to the Supreme Court to get permission to spend unlimited amounts of money to buy it? (McCutcheon vs FEC)

 

If your vote doesn’t matter, why did 19 states pass laws in 2014 making it more difficult to vote? Why are they trying to legislate silence? What do they have to gain?

 

Voting is a matter of cause and effect. The narcissists and liars in Congress today are there because they were voted into office. So were the good ones.

 

I’ve said before and will say again: you can’t use logic to reason with illogical people (though with the above statements, I definitely gave it my  best shot). You have to use emotion. So, finally, please know that if you believe your vote doesn’t matter, someone is getting off on that. They’re rubbing their hands together going, moo ha ha ha … and chuckling all the way to the bank.

 

 

 

 

 

And not voting is weighted. Not voting at the polls is the same as voting with our silence for everything to stay the same. Consider this: the majority of eligible voters do not show up at the polls, even in presidential election years.

 

 

Elected officials may have the rule-making authority, but the masses have the power to decide who gets that authority. We the people. Rulers (“politicians”) work for us. This is the difference between power and authority: Elected officials have Authority. We have the Power to keep them on the payroll OR vote them out. They work for US. Imagine if you had been raised – known your whole life – that the day you turn 18, you become the employer of 4 federal employees — your one Representative, your two Senators, and the President.

 

 

The Divide and Conquer Method is what keeps people discouraged, keeps them from showing up at the polls, and keeps them from exercising this power to cause change – power that, if you’re an American, you came into like the richest inheritance the day you came of age. In other words, if you think the system is broken, remember, you’re supposed to.

 

 

The Myth of Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils

 

Think that if you voted, you’d only be voting for the lesser of two evils? That’s a myth. People are people. They have strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited, whether they work for the private sector or public. Everyone responds to incentives. We the people first have to be aware of that (that politicians are not above us or beyond us – that they work FOR us) and then we can get down to the business of reminding them, hey, you work for us. We pay your salary. And we’re watching. And in two or six years, if we don’t like your performance, we’re going to let you go.

 

We the People have the MOST leverage when a politician is up for re-election and has something to lose — namely, their job. Corporations are already fully aware of this! They know what the masses don’t: party doesn’t matter, threat of unemployment does.

 

 

Corporations already know what the masses don’t about leveraging re-election: the party of the individual congressperson doesn’t matter – only threat of unemployment does.

 

 

We the People have the leverage. Let’s be like corporations and say with our vote, “Congress, if you don’t do what WE want, we’ll find someone else who will – next election.”

 

March 2015 updates: register to vote HERE

 

TWEET THIS (copy/paste): it’s a common misperception that party matters. We have to think like corps&tell Congress, don’t do what we want, no re-election.

 

Source for above tweet: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/news/2014/11/13/2014-midterms-defined-by-low-voter-turnout

The Hillary Problem: why she can’t win and what we must do about it now before it’s too late

There are 5 reasons Hillary Rodham Clinton can’t – and thus won’t – win the 2016 Presidential election.

 

 

This is why we as progressives, progressive patriots, liberals or democrats, must find someone else who can beat Jeb Bush (or whoever might end up being on the GOP ticket) sooner rather than later. I would also invite libertarians to join us in achieving this goal (for you, my Libertarian friends, wouldn’t a Jesse Ventura/Dennis Kucinich run on the Progressive Patriot ticket be AWESOME?!?!? More on that in a moment!)

 

 

 

 

# 1: She’s cold.

Hillary is cold. Plain and simple. Cold blooded, ruthless, mean, mean spirited. I have never seen a presidential candidate who was mean except in old black and white footage of JFK vs Nixon. And that’s why Nixon lost. Because he came across as mean. Americans like tough. We like strong. We even like scary. We don’t like mean. (Notice Hillary’s book title: “Hard Choices.” That’s exactly what she personifies, a hard choice. Let’s not pick her.)

 

 

#2. She’s a hypocrite.

Lots of people are feminists. I’m a feminist. Wendy Davis is a feminist. Elizabeth Warren is a feminist. Hillary is a woman who stayed married to a man who cheated on her. Not once. Not twice. Not three times. Many many times. Habitually, he cheated on her. And remember, cheaters are liars. So not only does she stay married to a man who cheats on her and lies to her face, she keeps his name. His name!! She keeps his name! That’s not a feminist. That’s the inverse of a feminist. And if she weren’t trying to be president, it would be homemade buttercream frosting on the hypocrisy cupcake that is her life – we real feminists would shake our heads and laugh at the irony (while licking the frosting off the top). But she IS trying to be president. The most powerful person in our country and in the free world who will by default become a role model for hundreds of thousands of young girls (and boys!) and the message that will be sent to them is, “yeah, let men walk all over you and treat you like shit and stay with them, because, you know, it’ll be easier to advance your career”?

 

 

No, actually. And even though it might seem that only certain people would be turned off by this, hypocrisy is felt by everyone at the primal level. It’s that feeling you get when a salesperson comes on too strong or a man at a club looks at you in no particular way, but you just know in your gut, “that’s a dangerous person.” The gut is our inner truth detector and Hillary’s hypocrisy doesn’t pass the smell test.

 

 

#3. Benghazi.

She asks rhetorical questions in a rude, condescending and arrogant manner and this alienates people. “What difference does it make at this point?” she asked during the hearing. Obviously, none to you, and by the way, now everyone thinks you’re a heartless politician pawn. Know why? Because you sounded like one. Too bad those four men were somebody’s son/dad/husband/friend because to those people who are grieving, it makes a huge difference. Hint: rhetorical questions make people hate you, not want to vote for you, as a general rule of thumb.

 

 

#4. Her health.

The GOP will bring up the concussion and blood clot to no end. And that will be unfair because her doctors said she is perfectly fine now. But it won’t matter to voters who are what I call “survival instinct-oriented.” Those are the voters who are highly motivated by fear and preventing danger. They can sometimes be patriotic to the point of cutting off the nose to spite the face; advertising that uses doubt and scare-tactics (“Can we really trust someone who …?” or “When [xyz catastrophe] hits the fan, do you want to wonder if so-and-so will be healthy enough to handle it? Feel safe and secure and protect your family – vote for Joe Schmoe on the Immortality Ticket this November”) is incredibly persuasive when it comes to this demographic. Ironically, Hillary used this very technique in 2008 in this 30 second spot, implying that Barack Obama didn’t have the experience to handle a 3 a.m. emergency:

 

 

 

 

It backfired because the majority of President Obama’s base isn’t survival instinct-oriented (though we all are to some extent because we all have a survival instinct – what I mean is, President Obama’s base isn’t predominantly survival instinct-oriented). We’re what I like to call, “appearance-oriented.” We care what other people think, what other people are saying, and especially what the rest of the world sees and says about our country. It matters to us. We want to have a good reputation. *This does not mean that we give a flying proverbial act of intercourse about whether or not other people approve of our own personal life decisions – then again, we might. But this national, patriotic sense of reputation is separate from that; this is rooted in a desire to avoid embarrassment on the world stage in the same way the survival instinct-oriented people want to avoid danger on the world stage. (And of course, you could want both. That’s how you get hawkish liberals.)

 

 

#5. She lacks niche appeal AND popular appeal.

 

NICHE:

In order to capture the youth and black vote that got President Obama elected, she would have to be as inspiring to them (us) as he is/was.

 

And she’s not young or black, the way he was/is. Remember, Obama won the 18- to 29-year-old vote by 34 percentage points, and the 30- to 44-year-old vote by six points in 2008. In every other age group, McCain won the majority. And Obama won 95% of the black vote across all age groups the first time around. (Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/did-race-win-the-election-for-obama-487/) Now, between 2008 and 2012, that same youth vote dropped 7.4%! President Obama didn’t have the same glamor as constitutional-law-professor/Senator Obama did four years earlier. Now, contrast that with the fact that the rate of increase among black voters between ’08 and 2012 was 6.7%. Hillary is not going to inspire a black voter the same way Barack Obama did. And Hillary won’t inspire a woman voter the way Wendy Davis or Elizabeth Warren do, either. That’s because Hillary isn’t a self-made woman who catapulted her way over, through and around obstacles to get where she is – Hillary rode the elevator up with her husband.

 

 

POPULAR:

And, because the number of white voters decreased 2% across the age spectrum between 2008 and 2012, some pundits estimate that Romney would have won the election if whites had turned out at the same rates as they did in 2004. That 2% figure is huge. Neither Obama nor Romney was worth showing up for that day for 2% of white voters (read: MILLIONS OF PEOPLE). Not even to write in Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. It wasn’t even worth their time. (Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/05/voting-2012-election) Now if Obama, who was a galvanizing force in 2008, lost that much of his mojo and magnetism, what are we to think of Hillary who never had mojo or magnetism to begin with?

 

 
More ways she alienates people:

 

*She used attack ads in 2008. Notice that Obama didn’t use them against her. The only reason to use an attack is if you feel threatened. This of course alerts everyone else to the fact that you do perceive the other person to be a threat, revealing that you do feel insecure, which ironically backfires and makes them doubt your strength and wonder if you really are the weaker party. This was a mistake on her part. Obama walked away looking like he had brushed Hillary dandruff off his shoulder and she got a “fights dirty” reputation.

 

*She threw Obama under the bus on his Syria policy in her interview with the Atlantic. This alienates — all over again — all the people who wanted Obama from the beginning back in 2008, not the people who started out backing Hillary who then switched to Obama after the primaries, but the ones who never even gave Hillary a second glance and assumed she would lose in the primaries. All of those people (myself included) watched her and listened to her overconfident monotone smugness, and we thought to ourselves, “how embarrassing, she still thinks she’s actually going to win!” She couldn’t read the writing on the wall then. She can’t read the writing on the wall now. And we can’t afford to make the same mistake.

 

 

What we have to lose:

Everything.

 

Social Security. The ACA which has a provision in it allowing each state to set up its own single payer system. Vermont already has. Think about that – better than any exchange. Single payer – everyone covered. Awesome. And we also have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to lose – it’s just getting off its feet and with the wave of an executive order, could disappear overnight. And more. Much much more. A return to the Bush II era tax cuts. We must find a strong viable alternative to Hillary  because as it stands now, she is the most popular democratic candidate and she won’t pull in the necessary votes to win.

 

 

Then who, Sarah?

Bernie Sanders. He is very liberal and to those who say too liberal, I say, Barack Obama campaigned on “spreading the wealth around” and he won by a landslide. The American people have not moved to the center in tandem with their elected rulers. We have moved more to the left or more to the right. When we have two centrist politicians, you know what happens … the Supreme Court ends up appointing the president. (Back in 2000 with centrist Democrat Al Gore and Centrist Republican George W. Bush.) Senator Sanders is married, has kids (for some reason, this matters to the masses), is for disclosing campaign financing and SJ Res 19 which will become the 28th Amendment, he’s fully aware of and in opposition to the Koch Brothers’ agenda to privatize everything from schools to prisons and bust unions and repeal Obamacare, and is all around awesome on all his social justice issues stances, including #RaiseTheWage, #15now, #singlepayer health care, and more …

 

OR

 

… Jesse Ventura. People say he’s got a tinfoil hat reputation. To me, he will always be a SEAL, a true patriot, someone who loves his country and is happy to die for it, loves the constitution and is protective of all Americans and American values (due process, the rule of law, a strong middle class, personal liberty, such as legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, etc., and taxing the rich fairly and progressively, minus all the loopholes, and none for corporations who Jesse knows are not people). I think if he moved home to Minnesota, started wearing suits instead of tie dye every day and joined forces with Dennis Kucinich, and was willing to run on the DFL ticket, he could win. Governor Ventura IS the kind of candidate that could bring people to the polls who wouldn’t ordinarily show up. If we didn’t have the electoral college, he/they could run on the Progressive Patriot ticket, but because it’s not a strict popular vote, he will need to run as a Democrat because he’s too liberal to run as a republican or libertarian, though it’s my opinion that a lot of  millennial libertarians are actually quite liberal on some issues, like Social Security which they want to keep as is, along with maintaining public schools, the socialized justice system, maintaining major federal agencies with income tax dollars, etc. It is for those millennials including myself that I came up with the phrase Progressive Patriot because of the strong adherence to the Bill of Rights that the term would entail along with the upkeep of the good (social betterment) federal programs.

 

 

I predict …

 

… that if Hillary ends up being the DFL candidate for president, that of the states Obama won in 2008, Hillary will lose FL, OH, VA, NV, CO, & NM, IN and NC (and Indiana and North Carolina he lost the second time). In fact, if she is the candidate, I think the GOP victory map will look like 2004’s Bush v. Kerry election. Click here to take a look. Ohio is a strong swing state but I predict it will go to the GOP if Hillary is the alternative; and Virginia, which didn’t vote for Bill Clinton in either 1992 or 1996 would go to the republican candidate, especially if it’s Jeb Bush, simply to keep any and both Clintons from getting back into the White House. Security-conscious Virginia traditionally votes red. It would take someone superlatively awesome, like Obama was in 2008, to get VA to vote blue.

 

 

Also, I think waiting till the last minute to announce who will be the real GOP candidate is part of the Republican strategy in order to let Hillary get overconfident (“If it’s Ted Cruz, I’ve got this election in the bag”). I predict it will be a Clinton-Bush re-mix, this time Hillary v. Jeb instead of the 1992 Bill v. George I match.

 

 

Action:

 

Let’s see what happens after the midterm elections next month and go from there. I plan to heavily promote Senator Sanders through my blog, twitter and youtube or to create a petition to Jesse Ventura asking him to run if that becomes necessary, so please stay tuned and get ready to sign some kind of petition, either way!

 

 

 
Reference: 2012 Obama/Romney results http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/

I was a lobbyist for a day! Promoting Net Neutrality for We The People

image
Me and the Crew in Senator Klobuchar’s Minneapolis Office with her staffer Adam (to my immediate left)

My first experience as a lobbyist went great – ok, I got lost on the way there and one of Senator Klobuchar’s kind staffers had to literally guide me as I walked down Washington Ave, providing visual landmarks for me to find my way. But other than THAT. (Oh, yes! I was using google maps. How did you know?)

image
Me delivering the “Ask.”

The beauty of this particular meeting was that it was arranged by Free Press, an organization in Massachusetts dedicated to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They sent an email to all their members — in every state — asking us if anyone was interested in visiting their Senator in person to ask for a commitment on net neutrality. So thanks to Free Press who really made this day happen on the back end – I just had to show up! The funny thing, the lovely Rachel at Free Press explained during our first call, was that this would technically be an act of lobbying … which would make me, technically, a lobbyist! Instantly, an image of Glenda the Good Witch asking me, “Are you a good lobbyist or a bad lobbyist?” popped into my head. (Good, good!!)

image
Each person got a chance to speak.
image
Senator Klobuchar’s staffer Adam listened intently to each person’s concerns.

The other great thing was that we had a teleconference the night  before (moderated by the awesome Candace at Free Press) which allowed us to get to know each other a little bit and decide who was going to be the Note-taker, the Photographer, the Introducer, and the Asker. I volunteered to do the formal ask, where I would specifically say what it is that we were asking for as a group. I was definitely nervous the night before but really excited on the train on the way there. I kept repeating my ask over and over in my head as I chugged extra strong coffee. I had met Senator Klobuchar at the net neutrality meeting she had hosted with former FCC Chairman Genachowski back in 2010 at the U of M’s Carlson School of Business so I reminded myself to mention that too.

The first part of the meeting (which only lasted about 25 minutes total) consisted of each of us introducing ourselves and saying why net neutrality was important to us. I said that as an independent blogger, I want to know that my website will load just as quickly and easily as the New York Times’ website. Even though I don’t have any corporate backers, my voice should matter just as much and be just as easily heard by those who want to hear it. I stressed that I agreed with Senator Franken that at the deepest level, Net Neutrality is a 1st Amendment issue because it comes down to freedom of speech.

For some constituents, their reasoning was as simple as content shouldn’t be discriminated against (or shown preference toward) by Internet Service Providers, period (agree, agree! hear hear!) and for others it was about their livelihood – their profession – being dependent on an internet that allows their clients and customers to be able to reach them. Everyone I met was totally awesome and passionate about the importance of equality online and Adam, Senator Klobuchar’s aide, was totally welcoming and attentive during the entire session.

I wrapped it up with the formal ask, first saying that I was a longtime supporter of Senator Klobuchar’s and had voted for her twice now, first in 2006 and again in 2012, and that I knew she was a proponent of an open internet because she had hosted the meeting with the former FCC Chairman back in 2010, where I had briefly gotten to say hello to her, and that we all were appreciative of her efforts. Then I gave The Ask: We ask Senator Klobuchar to make a strong public statement in support of the FCC reclassifying broadband internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service under Title II of the Communications Act which would allow the FCC to write and enforce rules that prevent the blocking and discrimination of content online by Internet Service Providers. One of my fellow lobbyists, Chad, suggested I email Adam directly the words of the ask and cc all of the others in the meeting so that Senator Klobuchar would have the words to review herself — Adam agreed that would be a good idea and replied back to us the very same day that he would get an answer for us and reply shortly.

If you have not made your own comment to the FCC in support of Net Neutrality, here is one link (you can also go straight to the FCC’s website but this one by US PIRG is easiest because they provide text for you). Here is what I said – and feel free to copy/paste it:
Please reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service which would allow the FCC to write and enforce rules that prevent the blocking and discrimination of content online by ISP’s. Please do not allow fast lanes and slow lanes on the internet.

Here’s me talking about it in Day 96 of my ongoing series, “A Year in the Life of the Progressive Patriot.”

How to Heal a Broken Heart

I had fun making this video on my new youtube channel, The Sarbear Countdown … hope you enjoy.

 

 

 

God, a broken heart hurts like hell, doesn’t it?