Sanders’ Massachusetts Campaign Worker Alleges Infiltration by Clinton Operatives

Since [intlink id=”2473″ type=”post”]Niko House’s[/intlink] report on North Carolina, reports continue to roll in of similar tactics in other states.

Priorities USA Allegedly Paying Sanders’ Michigan Campaign Director

Ryan Hughes, Bernie’s former Michigan Campaign Director, has been accused of taking money from Hillary’s Super PAC, Priorities USA, while working for Senator Sanders. This is illegal. Two additional state directors are being given a chance to come forward before their names are reported. In the meantime, these people are being positioned to work their magic in states like New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.


Not Enough Polling Places in Arizona, Long Lines

In spite of warnings from Democrats, election officials decreased 200 polling places in 2012 to 60 in 2016.  ((Elvia Diaz, Arizona Election Officials Writing off Voters? You Bet., March 23, 2016. Available:

People waited up to 5 hours.  ((Editorial Board,, March 23, 2016. Available:

They were told they could go to any polling place in Maricopa County, but they all had lines.  ((E.J. Montini, Montini: Arizona–Where Registered Voters…CAN’T VOTE!, March 23, 2016. Available:

Bernie Sanders and the Supreme Court

It’s my theory that Merrick Garland will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. I think this is inevitable for the reason that everyone involved in this process has an interest in maintaining the Court’s conservative majority.  Then if the next president has to replace a liberal justice he or she will be able to be magnanimous and appoint another liberal since it won’t affect the conservative majority. But if the Court loses another conservative, a conservative will be appointed to replace him.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who says he will ask President Obama to withdraw his nomination of Merrick Garland if he’s elected to the presidency. He’s the only candidate who has said he’ll nominate a justice who will overturn Citizens United.  He’s the only candidate who will be willing and able to change the majority on the Supreme Court.

Keeping Politics in Perspective

The news networks were recently called out for their blatant favoritism of a presidential candidate, Donald Trump. It’s been interesting to watch their response since this calling out. After disappearing for a day or two, the candidate is back in the news with a vengeance, although now the writers take a more critical approach. And I think I see a new element with the potential to be just as damaging as the unequal coverage—the disparagement of this candidate’s supporters on the basis of class. This is particularly dangerous because it’s effects are subliminal.

It is legitimate to criticize one’s political opponents on a political or moral basis, but in my opinion it’s not legitimate to criticize them for class differences, i.e. for wearing a blouse ‘right off the rack at Walmart’, or living in a mobile home. I’m afraid I didn’t notice this problem when we were first told that these voters are poorly educated, but it’s become impossible to ignore.

When I first [intlink id=”2062″ type=”post”]endorsed[/intlink] my candidate, Senator Sanders, I explained that I never intended to use this blog for political strategy. In my view his presidency was an opportunity to reorient our politics and our policies to address the reality of the future, a future which includes a growing population and diminishing resources.  The class issue, which many people have said is probably made up anyway, makes this peaceful existence unlikely.

Of course fighting these divisions is not our responsibility alone—our opponents have chosen hostility, fear, and selfishness as the way forward. What’s really damning in my view is that they chose these things over the brighter way that was available to them. This is a legitimate criticism. The class criticism on the other hand might have subliminal effects because it hides behind the legitimate one.

As I write, I realize that this article has been influenced by this media trick too.  it’s sounds like I’ve forgotten that Senator Sanders is the champion of social justice and that it’s not our policies that need explaining.  That’s what these tactics are meant to do.

We Really Are All In This Together

There are several directions we could take when talking about the threat presented by Donald Trump. We could talk about the weak spot Trump has revealed in the democratic process. The weak spot would be the existence of a block of voters willing to follow such a man. Maybe in the process we’ll decide that Plato was right when he said the general population can’t be trusted to chart its own course. Or maybe these people are the result of Plato’s theories. But first we’d have to agree that Trump’s candidacy is a problem worthy of this mental effort. Believe it or not I think we’re getting there.

Or we could talk about how this voting block is aided and abetted by a pandering media that assumes all anger is equal. According to them, anger is a common denominator that makes violent people completely interchangeable with people who promote justice.

We could do like the liberal pundits and argue that the Republican platform is the Trump phenomenon in embryo. Unfortunately, I think it was bad timing to do so after Mitt Romney rebuked Donald Trump.  Regardless of where Trump came from and at whose behest, he’s now the Republican Party’s responsibility and Romney was obligated to do something. This isn’t a partisan issue, and it’s certainly not a rights issue. Trump chose this course over the objections of his own party. We know how this ends—we’ve seen it before—and no one has a right to take us there.

Pope Francis was also fulfilling his responsibility when he said that a person who only wants to build walls, rather than bridges, is not Christian. Because the Catholic Church is an entity with a memory, it was his duty to address this. We know how important it is to distinguish a Christian from a pretender because almost a century ago members of the Nazi Party were not above claiming Christian allegiance when it suited them. Many of the other ideas of that era are still with us today, along with the pride of our political leaders. The question now is whether we’ll be able to overcome our pride and take advantage of Francis’s wisdom in these matters.

Bernie Sanders is another example of someone who is willing to say what needs to be said. I’ve lived in Arizona for more than thirty years and I’ve never heard anyone take Arpaio to task the way Sanders did recently.((Reuters, Bernie Sanders, In Arizona, Takes on Sheriff Joe Arpaio. New York Times, March 18, 2016. Available:

So it seems the common denominator that really matters here is not anger at all—it’s spine. Mitt Romney, Pope Francis, and Bernie Sanders recognized the same problem and they have all had the courage to address it.

On second thought, Donald Trump may have done the conversation a favor by reminding us that we’re all in this together.

See also: Pope Francis and his predecessors by Michael Sean Winters, National Catholic Reporter, March 18, 2016. Available: 

Leadership: Business, Politics, Religion

During this primary election process we’ve heard quite a lot about the importance of religion.  Business prowess has come up as well.  Do models exist that can tell us what to look for in a religious businessman-president?  This is the text of an article on the website,  It’s entitled The Four Signs of a Toxic Leader, and it was written by Wesley D. Balda and Janis Bragan Balda.  This was written for a business context, not for this election cycle or politics in general.

“Why do we tolerate
and follow toxic leaders?”

For most of us that question is too painful to confront. Our
fear of losing income, reputation or self-esteem edges us into
compromises that damage our hearts and souls. We are willing
to bear these burdens and accept these scars because the alternatives
frighten us too much. How can I sacrifice my family’s wellbeing
or feed my children if I’m constantly marching away from
positions that upset my fragile moral frame of reference? Life is
hard, so I just need to put up with my bullying boss … right?
And it is true: many leaders
suffer from some degree of toxicity. If any part of our religious position
recognizes fallenness—original sin or evil in the world—then
we understand that leadership, grounded by power, has potentially
toxic roots. This is not such a bad theory because it gives
us a clear starting point for identifying and surviving toxic
leadership, both as leader and as led.
Toxicity manifests in numerous and pungent ways—bullying,
toxic ambivalence, pretension, fantasy and hypocrisy.

Bullying and Commanding

Bullying involves things like unfair treatment, public humiliation
and other forms of threatening behavior. While some bullying
is straightforward, other behaviors can be subtler yet still
create toxicity. These include undermining one’s position or responsibility,
falsely taking credit, spreading rumors and halftruths,
and social ostracism.

Some research identifies bullying as an epidemic, especially in
the workplace. For example, in the United States over a third of
the workforce may have been bullied. The practice can be a form
of same-gender/same-race harassment not covered by numerous
laws and judgments of recent years. Nearly three-fourths of
bullies are bosses. This, of course, makes it a leadership issue.

Whenever a leader commands, the power dynamic shifts and
can become problematic. There is a thin line between commanding
and bullying. Bullying can involve shouting, swearing, name-calling,
malicious sarcasm, threats to safety, or actions that are threatening,
intimidating, humiliating, hostile, offensive or cruel. To
cement their position, bullies evaluate performance unfairly,
deny advancement, steal credit, attack reputations, give arbitrary
instruction, and even assign unsafe work. They can interfere,
sabotage, undermine, and encourage failure. The underlying phenomenon often identified as workplace
bullying can result in physical as well as emotional and psychological
disorders, including a diagnosis such as post-traumatic
stress disorder.

Toxic Ambivalence: Sins of Omission
We can probably agree that toxic leadership does not necessarily
require intentionality—it can be accomplished quite effectively
as a sin of omission rather than commission. Simple
ineptness and rank incompetence breed toxicity in their own
way. Followers experience frustration where managers do

Steven Sample, former president of the University of Southern
California, describes “thinking gray” as an attribute of a contrarian
leader. It refers to avoiding, delaying or deferring a decision
until it has to be made, which really is a decision in itself.
In some highly charged political situations the leader may walk
a thin line between pragmatic indecision and toxic ambivalence.
While this may preserve college presidencies or other
newly installed senior leaders, it can also be a quick route to
toxic ambivalence.

Pretension: The Problem of Celebrity
“As soon as enough people give you enough compliments and
you’re wielding more power than you’ve ever had in your life,
it’s not that you become arrogant or rude to
people, but you get a false sense of your own importance and
what you’ve accomplished. You actually think you’ve altered the
course of history.”

The fact that this quote came from a movie star, Leonardo
DiCaprio, rather than an executive only amplifies its relevance.
Characterizing the leader as celebrity may sound like an odd
take, but we can see how aptly it fits. Through a variety of circumstances
any public event (physical, virtual or broadcasted),
we create celebrity. It is a form of leadership that emerges from
visibility and branding. A name becomes increasingly recognizable,
and a set of meanings is attached to it. There can then
be a subtle shift, as a normal human being becomes a brand.

followers, attracted by the brand,
ignore a host of warning signs.
A foundational indicator of
toxic celebrity is a lack of accountability.
Leaders enthralled with celebrity
are literally “in thrall” to the unholy freedom to do exactly
whatever feels good at the moment. This is the dark side of
celebrity. At the same
time, celebrities
are placed under extraordinary pressure without the benefit of
being held responsible for results. Those followers who are eventually
disappointed or hurt are also usually the ones who bring
down celebrities once they discover their feet of clay.

The phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood stars. Some
leaders consciously leverage a personal brand to be more effective,
giving little thought to the moral or ethical implications
of their burgeoning celebrity. These leaders
represent a fair and balanced cross section of politicians, corporate
executives and preachers.

To varying degrees we all want to be celebrities because it
means others are impressed by what we say, do things for us,
affirm us, become our “friends,” don’t criticize or hurt us, and
primarily allow us to exercise power over them—only because
we are important, not because we are right. That is the bad news.
Because celebrity is a form of leadership, it can become
toxic. But in and of itself, celebrity is not bad. We start with a
neutral concept and by understanding it attempt to deal with
its realities. If leaders are defined as those with followers, then
anyone with one or more followers will deal with some aspect
of celebrity as we are defining it.

Celebrity in this generic sense is going to happen to leaders
with visibility, whether desired or not, so how do we keep it
from getting toxic? Toxic celebrities are generally humorless
about their own shortcomings, travel with uncritical followers,
seek more celebrity and constantly build their own brands.
Their celebrity can turn into notoriety when toxicity becomes
public. However, these celebrity leaders may also remain effective
(as they define it) or even become more effective in inappropriate

The bottom line is that celebrity without community is toxic.
Community, in some sense, provides accountability and prevents
toxicity, if understood properly. But what kind of community?
A group of mere followers, an acquiescent community,
does not exercise accountability. The only community of any
worth is a community of loving detractors.

Hypocrisy: the Problem of the Servant Leader

Jesus’ counterintuitive teaching on
servant leadership reputedly launched this often-praised ideal of leadership (or at
least gets cited often).
But what are all the implications of
becoming a servant? How often is slave associated with servant
leadership? How would a leader exhibit slave-like behaviors
when leading? Jesus gave his life “as a ransom for many”; are we
willing to link our eventual physical death—becoming a literal
ransom for our followers—to current discussions of servant
leadership? Biblically, this is a fairly narrow concept, which has
become embellished with extrabiblical meanings.

Certainly a servant-leader is sharply different from one who is a leader first,
perhaps because of a need to assuage an unusual power
drive or to acquire material possessions. The difference
manifests itself in the care taken by the servant, first to
make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are
being served. Robert Greenleaf has done much thinking on this and in his book, Servant Leadership, writes, “The test I like best, though difficult to administer,
is: Do those served grow as persons; do they, while
being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous,
more likely themselves to become servants? And,

what is the effect on the least privileged person in society;
will she or he benefit, or at least, not be further deprived?
No one will knowingly be hurt, directly or indirectly.”

However, sometimes followers have
a higher expectation for clear
(or even forceful) direction
than a leader does, which
can confuse the leader in his or her
attempts to be a servant. It
can also cause a breakdown
of communication and an

abdication of responsibility for results where a leader attempts to
be collaborative at all costs. Lack of direction, of managing, of exercising
leadership, can just as quickly create chaos among these
types of followers and allow silos to fester.

Perhaps we need to step back
and realize that in one sense everyone in an organization serves.
Support functions serve the mission as well as serving the operations
functions; operational people serve the mission and the customer,
and so on. Ultimately, though, the manager serves the institution, and not
its employees, customers or shareholders.
The manager’s first task is to make
the institution, whether business, hospital, school, or university,
perform the function and make the contribution
for the sake of which it exists. Servanthood must contribute to the
institution’s performance. If the institution or organization does
not perform, it has no reason to exist (and servant leadership
becomes irrelevant). Of course, the manager can generate performance
through good leadership, ethical behaviors and affirming
relationships with followers and subordinates; but the
priorities must never be confused.
In the final analysis, for those who refuse to part with the
term servant leaders (and especially if you think you are one),
have someone check with your followers anonymously. The only true test for a so-called
servant leader is a confidential reality check with the followers.

A Final Thought: Am I a Toxic Leader?

It is easier to recall occasions when we have been bullied than
it is to remember when we have done the bullying.
In the midst of enthusiastically cataloguing the various injustices
that another leader may have perpetrated on us,
we might need to work through our own “due diligence” and
explore our personal capacity as leaders for battering followers.

Once aware of our problem, most of us will
hopefully seek a solution, recognizing that self-regulation is
part of our job as a leader. However many leaders still refuse to
confront the signs of toxicity and instead assault their followers
until they are stopped or retire. Without this honest appraisal we have no right to complain
about those who batter us.((Wesley D. Balda and Janis Bragan Balda, Four Signs of a Toxic Leader, Available:

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Rupert Murdoch?

My goal in posting the previous video was not to promote Sanders. His part in it was a bonus. My goal was to call the media’s bluff on this knock-down, drag-out road show, staring Donald Trump. So for anyone interested in the facts I’ll just mention some revelations that I think might explain the craziness of this campaign.

The main idea that stuck with me from the video is that using violence and ‘patriotism’ to move the working class to the right is the M.O. of Rupert Murdoch. This led me to do further research. Remember Trump’s temper tantrum over Megyn Kelly? It’s likely it had nothing to do with his hurt pride. Trump’s purpose was to show that he’s on the side of conservatives at Fox News who are miffed that Kelly has become the ‘face’ of Fox. [1]And although Murdoch has objected to Trump’s candidacy he agrees with Trump’s plan to temporarily ban Muslim immigrants.[2] Furthermore, Murdoch has been telling the GOP it would be madness to block Trump.[3]

Then there’s the fact that Trump went out of his way to make this about Bernie. At the time I thought it was a bad move for Sanders’ supporters to close Trump’s rally, but then it came out that it was George Soros who financed it. Soros is a Clinton supporter. Here’s an article from Washington’s Blog that pins the whole thing on Clinton. Gee, I wonder if it means anything that Trump played it the way he did?  Weird.

Credible Account Says Clinton Is Behind Violent Protests at Trump Rallies
Posted on March 12, 2016 by Eric Zuesse.

This concerns the question of the identity of the people who are behind the violent protesters at Donald Trump’s rallies.

There are going to be ad-hominem attacks against me for my reporting this account, which will contradict the myths that both progressives and conservatives hold regarding the U.S. government, but anyone who recognizes that the press to this day hides its having hidden the incontestable fact that George W. Bush knowingly falsified, lied regarding the evidence concerning “Saddam’s WMD,” will at least give this account, and its source, fair and unprejudiced consideration, as being possibly accurate and honest. Sometimes, in order to get to the truth in a case, it’s necessary to rely upon the testimony of people that one considers despicable; the FBI wouldn’t be able to crack many cases otherwise — and, sad to say, neither can I. So: please don’t dismiss me for relying here upon a researcher whom I personally detest — and whom you might likewise detest.

I believe that the libertarian Roger Stone, who is the Republican Party’s most gifted opposition-researcher, after having been Richard Nixon’s most gifted dirty-trickster, and after his having ferreted out the hypocrisy of Eliot Spitzer for paying prostitutes — after, in other words, Stone’s having worked for politicians I despise, and destroyed the careers of ones I admire — is among this nation’s stellar investigative journalists; and I have found, over the years, that, when he reports about dirty tricks, what he has reported is only confirmed, not disconfirmed, as time passes. In other words: though I don’t like the man, and I disagree with his politics, I respect his news-reporting. And, here is what he says, in a rush interview with the ‘conspiracy theorist’ (another libertarian) Alex Jones, on Saturday evening, March 12th, and I think that the entire nation needs to hear Stone’s account, at least to give it consideration. So, here it is:

My rush transcript of highlights from his rush-interview:

I think everybody in the country has now heard about these violent protests [at Trump rallies] which are being blamed on supporters of Bernie Sanders. … This is a false-flag. These demonstrators are flying under a false banner. They are not Sanders supporters by-and-large. This is an operation directed by supporters of Hillary Clinton, paid for by George Soros and Move-On, by David Brock at Media Matters for America, also funded by Soros, and also by the reclusive billionaire Jonathan Lewis. Now, Lewis was identified by the Miami New Times as a ‘mystery man.’ He inherited roughly a billion dollars from his father Peter Lewis … [founder of Progressive Insurance Company]. Jonathan Lewis interestingly withdrew his support of the Democratic National Committee over the immigration bill that he thought was unfair to gays. In any event, this is a Hillary Clinton operation. The idea here, very clearly, is to divide the Sanders economic voters from Trump; in other words, those voters who lost their jobs because of NAFTA and all of the other globalist international trade-deals that have screwed this country, they now realize that these voters are potentially, when Sanders is out of the race, Trump votes, and this is an effort to make Trump toxic, to disqualify him, [as a] racist, bigot, the whole thing is essentially a hoax. It’s a gambit directed, by the way, by Brock. Brock was once a friend of mine and was a comrade in the fight for freedom; but he went over to the dark side, with the Clintons, for money: big, big, big, money; and this is unfortunately his little dirty trick, Unfortunately, they have leaks within their operation, my sources are of the very best. The entire collaboration in Chicago is a Hillary Clinton operation. And, frankly, I can’t see Bernie Sanders having anything to do with it. I don’t agree with Bernie, but I respect him, and this is not his handiwork or the handiwork of his campaign.

[Jones here goes on to explain why he respects the investigative reports from Stone, then says, “When I saw all these Bernie shirts and Bernie people saying ‘We attack!’ — you know, people shooting guns in the air saying ‘We support Bernie!’ that is so clearly a way to attack him, make him look like a radical revolutionary, and to make Hillary look good, and also make Trump look like a racist when the media plays this up. You’re absolutely right. … To be clear: you have sources inside saying this is a Soros/Brock Media Matters, which they admit is run by the White House, they have weekly meetings, Obama’s former transition chief. … We’ve seen the build-up toward race-war this summer, this fall, to try to cloud the entire election; is that what you’re getting at; is this the opening salvo … ]

[Stone continues] I think Hillary understands that Trump would lose the votes of certain establishment Republicans if he is the nominee. On the other hand, it doesn’t matter, because of his crossover outreach. Right now in Ohio, Democrats and independents in the Mahoning Valley, these people have lost their jobs because of these great globalist trade deals, are lining up to vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary, which is legal in Ohio with some paperwork. And we saw this same crossover in Michigan. So it occurred to the Clinton people that Bernie’s economic voters — not his hard-left voters, she’s not going to get them, they’re not going for Hillary, blue-collar folks who have just figured out that they have been left out of the new-world-order economy, are a ripe target for Trump; he’s already getting that, she is petrified of it; so, this little maneuver, this David Brock dirty trick, solves two problems at once: it helps knock down Bernie, because after all these people are involved in violence; and it also disqualifies Trump as a future vote, by portraying him as a racist or a bigot. The whole thing is a kabuki dance. And I think it’s very important that Trump understand that it’s not the Sanders campaign that’s disrupting his rallies; this is a Hillary Clinton operation.

[Jones asks for more details.]

[Stone continues] Hillary Clinton empowered a certain member of Congress to approach the billionaire John Lewis to pay for a portion of this overall program. This isn’t just Chicago. You’re now going to see these phony demonstrators, these ringers, showing up at other Trump events. … That’s as much as I’m prepared to say. …


That’s the interview.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign benefits enormously by this tactic:

1: It re-orients the issue away from economics toward race; away from economic issues and toward ethnic conflicts

2: It identifies Sanders with violent supporters.

3: It identifies Trump with racism and violence by his having black ‘Bernie supporters’ (of which there are few) disrupting Trump’s rallies.

4: While it smears both Sanders, her current opponent, and Trump, her likely future opponent, it leaves Hillary herself unscathed.

So: the proposed explanation makes sense, and it’s entirely in character for Hillary Clinton.

Therefore: I believe it. ((Washington’s Blog, March 12, 2016. Available:

The only part of this article that I disagree with is the claim that one of the purposes of the demonstration was to hurt Trump.  It will be interesting to see how it affects his campaign.


[1] Cathy Burke, Sources: Trump Will Only Speak to Rupert Murdoch to Resolve Fox Feud, News Max, 27 Jan, 2016. Available:

[2] CNN reported, Rupert Murdoch Praises Donald Trump, Epic Times, Jan. 17, 2016. Available:

[3] ((Justin Carissmo, Donald Trump: Rupert Murdoch says Republican Party Would be Mad Not to Unify Behind Fellow Billionaire, Independent, 3 March, 2016. Available:

The Donald is the Corporate Media’s Creature

One of the most disturbing parts of the violence at Trump rallies is his refusal to acknowledge his part in it. The other disturbing part is the media’s collusion. The networks give Trump more press than any of the other candidates, while at the same time they insist that all the candidates are interchangeable. Likewise they insist that Trump’s followers are interchangeable with the followers of Bernie Sanders.

Considering that we’ve spent the last 50 years fortifying ourselves against the kind of behavior we’re seeing at Trump’s rallies—for the reason that its effects on the human race are only too well-known—Trump’s behavior should give us doubts about his motives and intentions. When you add the media’s behavior to the picture, as well as the bias that the police and secret service have shown at Trump’s brawls, you realize this is bigger than Trump.

Another term for today’s media is ‘the corporate media’. The media became corporate through a process rather than a single event. The following YouTube video published back in 2013 lays it all out.

If you want to know which candidate best serves our political and media grand poobahs, find out which one gets the most air time. Based on the amount of air time Donald Trump gets relative to other candidates, I think it’s reasonable to ask whether he’s really the rogue player he claims to be.

Bernie Sanders: a Future to Believe In

Sorry Hillary Clinton, but the real artful smear in this presidential campaign had nothing to do with your paid speeches. The real artful smear was your establishment’s racist innuendos about Bernie Sanders’ whiteness.

Blaming an entire race of people for a nation’s problems has always been politically useful. In this campaign it started as a tool for reining in Bernie Sanders’ candidacy. I remember how sick I felt when I first heard the corporate media inform the public that Bernie Sanders is a white man from a white state. They argued that for the sole reason of his whiteness, black people weren’t going to vote for him. In retrospect I think this was the beginning of the campaign-conversation’s downhill slide.

From there it progressed to the [intlink id=”2148″ type=”post”]Black Lives Matter[/intlink] episodes at Sanders’ rallies. Unfortunately this movement’s scorn for the idea that all lives matter may have invited the answering snarl we’ve been hearing from white supremacists—a snarl that is now being skillfully marshaled by Donald Trump.

Do I need to point out that Donald Trump has been a perfect foil to Bernie Sanders from the day he announced his candidacy? Although there is no resemblance between Sanders and Trump, the corporate media continues to insist they’re the same. Donald is Bernie, they say, only Republican. Of course this leaves Cruz and Rubio as the only bonafide Republicans in the race and frankly I think their youthful cluelessness is rather touching compared to the cleverness of Trump and Clinton. The Republicans think they’re in the game when they don’t even know what the game is.

For me, Sanders’ candidacy has always been about what we are leaving to our [intlink id=”2062″ type=”post”]children and grandchildren[/intlink]. If you look at the future realistically it’s clear that these dishonest political games are a luxury we can’t afford. Ideally, the presidency of the United States is not a feather in someone’s cap. The person who fills this office must be able to lead us into a future that no one has ever seen before.  In spite of this fact the establishment of both parties clings to economic, social, and foreign policies that are inadequate to deal with it.

We really only have two choices: we can continue in our self-centered, short-sighted, and greedy path, which will condemn most of the world’s population to a slow death by disease and starvation; or we can make a common-sense plan for world-wide peace and prosperity. If we go with the first choice, we’ll survive at the expense of our humanity, if we survive at all. If we go with the second choice I won’t deny that we’ll have to innovate to assure the survival of the planet, but what a challenge that will be. And what an adventure!

So I say let’s not be the kind of people who throw the weak and the vulnerable under the bus. Instead, let’s to do our best to assure a humane future for all of the world’s people.

This is the conversation. If we want it to continue we need Sanders in the White House.