Anonymous – Ideas Are Social Evolution

There’s an entire universe of people out there, countless others spreading ideas of a positive future.

You might call them dreamers, or crazy. You might say that what they are doing is never gonna work, and that we are doomed to fall back to our primal instincts. Ladies and Gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends, I am here to tell you differently.

I know, we live in an age with daunting problems. We need the best ideas possible, we need them now, we need them to spread fast. The common good is a meme that was overwhelmed by the seductive mirage of blind profit and intellectual property. But it needs to spread again. If the meme prospers, our laws, our norms, our society, they all transform.

This is social evolution! And it’s not up to governments, it’s not up to corporations, it’s not up to lawyers… it’s up to us!

We are the children of a thousand generations of this human race. We have come this far not to be subjected to imperialism, conflicts, and deprivation. We are meant for something great. I am here to tell you that with the right mind and motivation, we can achieve anything. We have the technology to feed everyone on earth. We can escape the prison of working for survival. And we can find a balance with nature. We can do all this and much, but only if we want to.

And now, go do something amazing.

Anonymous – Ideas Are Social Evolution

Oligarchy is the new Fascism

Oligarchy is the new Fascism

By MinistryOfTruth  

Thursday Sep 15, 2011 · 3:57 PM EDT

When the super rich can break laws and face zero consequences because they have bribed the politicians and law enforces then we don't have a Democracy under the rule of law. We have an oligarchy for the super rich and a fake rigged democracy.

Through a legalized system of bribery, politicians receive bribes from wealthy donors in return for writing the laws to their liking, and then those politicians are rewarded with high paying jobs when they retire. To not call this bribery is a lie, but in a system based on lies, lying is a necessity.

They lie us into wars for profit.

They lies us into believing that our founding fathers wanted a free market, when in fact our founding fathers believed so much in a regulated marketplace with clearly defined rules and regulations that they put it in the constitution, which is that peace of paper Conservative fascists wave at you when they are taking your Democracy away from you.

And yes, I am going to call "conservatives" fascists in this post, because the people who cheer the death of their fellow citizens aren't good Americans. They aren't good Christians either. If you hate the poor and wish death upon the sick, you aren't a Christian, you're a Roman. If you believe in torture and the death sentence I don't understand how you reconcile the torture and death penalty imposed upon Jesus, but more importantly to my point, if you believe in small democracy and a limited democracy that subservient to the wealthy and business interests alone, you don't believe in democracy, you believe in Oligarchy.

But what is Oligarchy other than fascism with a different name?

The idea of "Free Markets" is a direct assault on the central idea behind Democracy. The idea that Democracy via Government has no place in Governing the commerce conducted within the state is a method of thwarting democracy. If one wealthy Oligarch can have his will over the combined will of millions of his fellow citizens than he is not their peer, he is their King.

We have an Oligarchy in America, that can not be disputed. There are billionaires who control multi-billion dollar industries who exert enormous wealth and power, and they are the bribe makers, they are the men who bribe our law makers and law enforcers to subvert our democracy to their interests, and not only have they succeeded, but they have declared a silent, coded all out war on the heart of American Democracy itself.

Coded language such "economic freedom" means the freedom of the rich to do as they please and the freedom for the victims of their robbery to die in the streets. "Social Justice" can only become the enemy of economic freedom when the basis of that economic freedom is fraudulent, that is why the bribe taking lawmakers hate "Social Justice", because social justice means an end to the "Economic Freedom" to commit their fraud and do as they please.

What conservative fascists call "Socialism" is anything that stands in the way of their undemocratic "Free Markets". Duckspeak was the word used by George Orwell in 1984 to describe the dumbing down of language into a incomprehensible system of relaying talking points to the brain that fitted perfectly within party approved discussion. When I hear conservative fascists speak the same talking points ad verbatim in a mishmosh of disconnected lunacy, Duckspeak is what I am hearing.

...What was required, above all for political purposes, was short clipped words of unmistakable meaning which could be uttered rapidly and which roused the minimum of echoes in the speaker’s mind. The words of the B vocabulary even gained in force from the fact that nearly all of them were very much alike. Almost invariably these words — goodthink, Minipax, prolefeed, sexcrime, joycamp, Ingsoc, bellyfeel, thinkpol, and countless others — were words of two or three syllables, with the stress distributed equally between the first syllable and the last. The use of them encouraged a gabbling style of speech, at once staccato and monotonous. And this was exactly what was aimed at. The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of consciousness. For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument, and the texture of the words, with their harsh sound and a certain wilful ugliness which was in accord with the spirit of Ingsoc, assisted the process still further.

So did the fact of having very few words to choose from. Relative to our own, the Newspeak vocabulary was tiny, and new ways of reducing it were constantly being devised. Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning "to quack like a duck". Like various other words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/...

Words like tyranny, spending, taxes, regulation, socialism and many others have been rendered meaningless over decades of conservative fascist propaganda in an effort to make the basic use and methods of democracy seem evil. This distracts from the fraud and exploitation inherit in "Free Markets" and the bribery of lawmakers and law enforcers that allows the fraud to exist. Every single conspiracy theory has one thread in common, the Government is evil. Never is the conspiracy a conspiracy of greed or wealth, it is never evil corporations or billionaires, it is always evil governments and faceless government bureaucrats or specific lawmakers who won't be bribed or aren't doing exactly what the bribe making Oligarchy demands.

The idea of small government and limited government is an attack on Democracy. Any use of Democracy that conservative fascists who have been bribed or duped disapprove of becomes an act of tyranny to them, and the acts of conservative fascists are always painted by the Oligarch propaganda media as a just an honorable act of rebellion. The fascist are always the victims in their own minds, they are the persecuted always, even if while they are taking your democratic rights away from you and feeding you to the fraudulent Oligarchs who manipulate the free markets.

In a fraud based economy the game is rigged in favor of the lawless. The super rich who profit from this fraud use their profits to bribe our law makers and law enforcers.

In a bribe based system of representative Democracy, the game is rigged in favor of the bribe takers. The bribe takers who profit from this fraud use their power to aid and abet the fraudulent super rich.

And at the end of the game both the super rich and the bribed lawmakers and law enforcers get richer and more powerful while everyone else in our society is screwed.

We used to have a system in America where some persons were considered to be the outright property of other people, and were exploited as such. Now we have a system where the property of one man is considered to have all the same rights as a person. In an unfettered, unregulated free market, that property is a king that never dies and you are all his slaves unless you are one of the owners of that property, and then you are of the economic royalty and everyone else who is not of that select economic royalty is a peasant. Free markets is the new slavery to a corporate personhood, never ending war is the new pathway to peace, and Oligarchy is the new fascism.

Now prove me wrong. Talk me down. The floor is yours.

Armory of the Revolution

Bernie, We Will Follow You Anywhere. Except to Hillary.

Roland Vincent / April 22, 2016

Bernie Sanders may be the most important political figure since Abraham Lincoln, even if he is not elected president, even if he doesn’t become the Democratic nominee.

Bernie Sanders has ignited a political revolution. It will continue long after Sanders is dead and buried and will reshape the American political landscape for decades to come.

One has only to see Sanders’ popularity and support among young voters to appreciate how profoundly he will impact the country. Voters under thirty embrace Bernie in astounding numbers. Upwards of 80% of those young people support him. As they move into positions of influence and authority in society, the Democratic party as we know it cannot continue to exist.

Hillary Clinton is the last stand for Wall Street Democrats. She and the political hacks and opportunist whores who have controlled the party for the past 50 years are toast in a very few election cycles.

The Millennials are taking over the party, the country, society.

The knee jerk fear of socialism does not affect them. The siren call of greed falls on deaf ears. Social justice and equality are not campaign slogans to them. Our young people are not impressed by incremental improvements in society. They are unwilling to allow their values and beliefs to be sacrificed on an altar of political expediency.

They believe they are entitled to a government that works for everyone. They do not see their futures served by the status quo or gradualism.

Those young people are the future of the Democratic party. And that future will be significantly delayed if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Bernie and his legions are fighting the status quo, the corrupt political system that auctions off legislation and governmental policies to the highest bidder. The system which makes officeholders more responsive to special interests and major donors than they are to the people who elect them.

Bernie and his team may believe that they must support Hillary if he does not defeat her for the nomination. He has certainly said he would. He may believe that he will be able to shape the future of the party and influence her policies as president. That is certainly the usual practice. All the good Democrats rally around the nominee and present a unified front to the electorate.

The problem with such an approach this year is that Bernie has exposed the political status quo for the fraud that it is. Bernie has raised issues that cannot be addressed by Hillary, as Hillary is the poster child for the very problems Bernie is describing.

Bernie may rationalize the problems away with concerns that the Republicans are so much worse than is Hillary, but that argument will not be persuasive to many who support Sanders.

I will stand with Bernie for as long as he fights to be our president. I will support him in his quest for the Democratic nomination. I would encourage him to continue on through November as an independent or third party candidate. I urge him to turn his campaign organization into a long term shepherd and advocate of the political revolution he has started.

I beg him not to fold. To not endorse Clinton. To not embrace the corrupt system he has been fighting.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, the revolution stops dead in its tracks.

If Sanders endorses Clinton he will undo much of what he has accomplished.

He will almost certainly rip the hearts out of those who have come to love, respect, and admire him.

The revolution will be put on hold until such time as we can take back the Democratic party, possibly four or eight years from now.

And those years will continue to yield dead American troops, seniors without housing, students with crushing debt, families without healthcare, American jobs being outsourced, Wall Street running amok, industry lobbyists and alums in her administration, billions dumped into Israel’s coffers, arms sales to the world, neocon foreign policies reminiscent of W and Dick Cheney. And on. And on.

If Bernie does embrace Hillary, many of his troops will not.

Bernie, we love you.

But we won’t follow you into the enemy’s camp.

Your place in history has yet to be decided.

You can be a Democratic has-been. Or you can be the most important political figure since Abraham Lincoln.

Personally, I think you are Lincoln-esque.

Author’s Notes:

• I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

The Other Political Challengers Taking on the Democratic Establishment

THE OTHER PROGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS TAKING ON THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT

BY CHRISTOPHER HASS

“TODAY,” BERNIE SANDERS BOOMS IN HIS MONOTONE SHOUT, “we begin a political revolution to transform our country—economically, politically, socially and environmentally.” He marks each beat with his right hand, as if conducting with an invisible baton. Behind him, a lone seagull flaps its wings as it flies across Lake Champlain. The crowd of 5,000 that has come to Burlington, Vt., on a sunny afternoon in May to witness Sanders’ official campaign announcement breaks into a cheer.

At the time, it was easy to dismiss talk of revolution as the rallying cry of a 74-year-old democratic socialist who clings too dearly to memories of the 1960s. Eleven months and more than six million votes later, Sanders’ call for revolution is harder to ignore.

But what, exactly, would this political revolution look like? It’s not hard to imagine Sanders marching in the streets with the masses—he’s walked plenty of picket lines, most recently alongside Verizon workers in New York City last October—but that’s not the revolution he’s calling for. For Sanders, political revolution means shifting control of American politics away from corporate interests, convincing non-voters to go to the polls and attracting white working-class voters back to the Democratic Party, all while moving the party left enough to embrace democratic socialist policies.

A political revolution of that kind is going to require two things: a wave of candidates committed to a bold set of progressive ideas and a mass of voters with the political will to elect them. There’s evidence both of these are already here.

IN THESE TIMES SPOKE TO U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE CHALLENGERS across the country who are very much a part of this wave. They are all outsiders to varying degrees, and all of them are running against the Democratic establishment in its various forms—from corporate donors and super PACs to the head of the Democratic National Committee herself.

These challengers range from first-time candidates to experienced lawmakers, from community organizers to law professors. Each is balancing the individual concerns of the voters they seek to represent alongside the larger mood of the nation. None of them is running because of Bernie Sanders, but they clearly benefit from the enthusiasm and sense of progressive possibility his campaign has created.

It would be a mistake to call them “Sanders Democrats” (and it’s unlikely Sanders himself would want anything to do with the term). Some have endorsed Sanders, others remain neutral or even back Hillary Clinton. But they are coalescing around a set of progressive policies familiar to anyone who has heard Sanders speak, including single-payer healthcare, free college tuition, a $15 minimum wage and breaking up the big banks. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic platform more at odds with Bill Clinton’s centrist Third Way of the 1990s.

More importantly, these positions increasingly reflect the popular will. Even after the brutal battles over Obamacare, polls show that more than half of Americans support moving to a single-payer healthcare system. Fifty-eight percent want to break up the big banks. Sixty-three percent support raising the minimum wage to $15. And Americans are nearly united in agreement (78 percent) that Citizens United should be overturned.

What’s striking about recent polling, though, is not the support for these progressive policies (many have enjoyed widespread approval for a while), but the openness to new, radical ideas—especially among young voters. In a January YouGov poll, people under 30 rated socialism more favorably than capitalism. On the eve of the Iowa caucus, when asked how they describe themselves, 43 percent of Democratic caucusgoers chose “socialist.” Take a moment to let that sink in.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A GENERATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE whose central experiences with capitalism have been two recessions, a financial crisis, crushing college debt, flat wages and soaring income inequality. For young people, the devil they don’t know is looking better and better than the devil they do—and that sentiment is fueling insurgent challengers.

Many of these candidates continually emphasize the need to purge U.S. politics of corporate money, starting with the Democratic Party.

“It’s easy for candidates to say they’re for overturning Citizens United, but it’s really meaningless when they’re also taking so much corporate and dark money that they’ll never follow through,” says Tim Canova, who is running for Congress in Florida’s 23rd congressional district. “The Democratic Party has lost its way. It has gone corporate and Wall Street on so many issues that it has unfortunately turned its back on its own grassroots base.”

And it’s more than a matter of principle: Many of these candidates believe that voters are fed up with how the corporate capture of the party has pulled it to the right. “The Democratic Party has been Lucy with the football and the voters have been Charlie Brown,” says Tom Fiegen, a candidate for Senate in Iowa. “Democrats have pulled the football away too many times, so the voters say, ‘Nope, I am not going to be tricked again. I am not going to have you lie to me and tell me you’re on my side, and then when I send you to D.C., you vote for the TPP or you vote for the Keystone Pipeline.’ ”

Nowhere is this trust gap felt more keenly than among young voters. Sanders has won the support of young people like few politicians before. In each of the 27 states that held primaries or caucuses in February or March, he won the youth vote, often by more than 50 points. In his home state of Vermont, he defeated Hillary Clinton among voters under 29 by an overwhelming 95 percent to 5 percent.

Tom Fiegen saw how this played out in Iowa. “In the conventions I went to,” he says, “there was probably 30 to 40 years difference in age between Bernie supporters in one half of the room and Hillary supporters in the other half of the room.” Fiegen himself has endorsed Sanders, and you can hear in his voice the same passion that has animated so many young people: “We are idealists. … We want a better world. We think we can achieve it. We’re willing to basically throw our bodies in front of the bus to do that.”

IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THIS YEAR’S ELECTION is playing out in a moment when protest movements have interjected themselves into the national conversation in a way we haven’t seen in a long time. Black Lives Matter, Fight for 15, the climate movement and more have demonstrated the value of setting uncompromising demands and pushing the boundaries of what is politically possible.

It’s no surprise then that some of these progressive challengers come directly out of protest movements. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state senator running for the 7th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, has a long history of activism and advocacy in Seattle. She founded the post-9/11 immigrant rights group Hate Free Zone (now OneAmerica), which has held massive voter registration drives.

“The only reason I got into politics was because I believed it was another platform for organizing,” she says, “and that’s what I want to do with my congressional campaign. We’ve brought in thousands of leaders, young people and people of color and women who never saw themselves as part of democracy.”

Joseline Peña-Melnyk, who is running for Congress in Maryland’s 4th District, says: “These movements give me hope for the future of our democracy. They show that the spirit that gave rise to the civil rights movement is still alive as people take up causes that matter and challenge the status quo.”

Donna Edwards, a co-founder of the National Network to End Domestic Violence now running for Maryland’s open Senate seat, agrees. “I’ve always believed in outside movements,” she says. “Government doesn’t move effectively and elected officials don’t move effectively unless they have a big push from the outside.”

Candidates like Debbie Medina, a democratic socialist running for state Senate in New York’s 18th District, are happy to be that push. As she told The Nation, “This election is just another rent strike.”

Sanders himself is arguably the biggest protest candidate of them all. But a funny thing is happening: Many of the protest candidates are winning. By the middle of April, Sanders had won 16 states, as well as the Democrats abroad primary. Donna Edwards has led by as much as 6 points. Polls show Lucy Flores, a Sanders supporter running for Congress in Nevada, leading by 20 points. In Maryland’s 8th congressional district, Jamie Raskin’s two closest opponents are busy arguing over who’s in second place.

THE ESTABLISHMENT, HOWEVER, IS NOT GOING QUIETLY. In Florida, where Tim Canova is challenging Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her congressional seat, news got out in March that the Florida Democratic Party (FDP) had denied Canova’s campaign access to the party’s voter file. His supporters created an uproar; the file is crucial to any campaign’s get-out-the-vote efforts. The FDP eventually backed down in order to avoid, in the words of the state party executive director, the “appearance of favoritism,” but the policy remains in place for all other Democratic primary challengers in Florida. And not just Florida—Democratic challengers in other states are routinely denied access to this data or charged extra for it.

“The DNC and state Democratic parties must stop favoring incumbents over insurgents in Democratic primaries,” Canova says. “We need to recruit activists committed to our progressive agenda to run for office, and that includes challenging incumbent Democrats.”

Given that these candidates want to rid the party of corporate influence, it’s no surprise that many are going head-to-head with big money. In Maryland, Jamie Raskin’s two biggest challengers in the Democratic primary are a wine mogul named David Trone, who has already spent more than $5 million of his fortune on the race, and Kathleen Matthews, who once oversaw the Marriott political action committee and is now herself the recipient of more lobbyist money than any Democrat running for the House in 2016.

“My [two] major opponents here have no real history of involvement in Democratic Party politics,” Raskin says. “They are creatures of the big money politics that have overtaken our country.” He’s won the endorsement of both liberal groups and a number of Democratic state lawmakers, and—borrowing a page from Sanders’ playbook—has relied on a surge of small-dollar donations to remain competitive. “Progressives are fired up here for a victory against big money,” Raskin says.

In Nevada, Lucy Flores faces a multi-millionaire, Susie Lee, who has loaned her own campaign $150,000. But as Jeb Bush will tell you, money alone only gets you so far, especially in a year when voters seem more interested in authenticity.

“The number one lesson that everyone can learn from Bernie Sanders,” Tom Fiegen says, “and that I’ve tried to emulate is: Tell the truth.” Donna Edwards put it this way: “We should not run away from who we are as Democrats and the values that we share. … We lose elections because our voters stay home.”

FOR A PRESIDENT SANDERS OR A PRESIDENT CLINTON TO BE SUCCESSFUL, they’re going to need voters to come out not just in November, but in 2018, 2020, and beyond. For any president to enact a progressive agenda, they’re going to need a new Congress, made up of people like Donna Edwards, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal and others.

When Barack Obama first ran for president, he spoke frequently about how his election was not about him, but us. He may have meant it, but it was hard to shake the feeling that at that moment in American history, it was in fact very much about him and the qualities he possessed. Today, when Sanders uses the same language, you believe him—if for no other reason than it’s hard to imagine a wild-haired septuagenarian in a baggy suit as the catalyst for a popular movement. Clearly, something deeper is going on.

For the most part, Sanders himself has remained focused on his own election fight with Hillary Clinton. He has avoided talk of the future. But in a recent interview with Cenk Uygur of the “Young Turks,” Sanders let his guard down for a minute, saying, “We need, win or lose for me, a political revolution which starts electing people who are accountable to the working families of this country.” There it was—“electing people,” plural, not a single president. That’s what revolution looks like. 

3 NEXT STEPS IN THE POLITICAL REVOLUTION - BERNIE SANDERS CAN'T DO IT ALONE.

3 NEXT STEPS IN THE POLITICAL REVOLUTION

BERNIE SANDERS CAN'T DO IT ALONE.

BY LARRY COHEN

BERNIE SANDERS WILL CAMPAIGN all the way up to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia to seek the nomination—and to continue building the “political revolution.”

What is that political revolution, beyond his call to get the billionaires and corporations out and the people in?

1. Electing candidates to public office like Sanders—both this year and in years to come—is one leg.

2. The second leg is democratic, structural political reform. This means changes to our electoral system, such as instituting automatic voter registration and matching small donations with public funds.

3. It also means transforming the Democratic Party to a populist-based party by reforming its inner workings. Sanders’ campaign offers the most comprehensive challenge to the wealthy Democratic establishment since Jesse Jackson’s historic 1988 campaign. Sanders stumped that year for Jackson, helping him win in Vermont. At the 1988 Democratic convention in Atlanta, the Jackson campaign negotiated party reforms that included ending winner-take-all primaries and halving the number of super delegates. Partly as a result of the end of winner-take-all, Bernie is on track to win at least 500 more delegates than Jackson did in 1988. But the reforms to the super delegate system were never enacted, and the Sanders campaign (to which I am an adviser) plans to bring some version of that demand back this year. The delegate selection process will also be back on the table, based on a growing list of serious flaws beginning with the Iowa Caucus, where the Democrats refused to release or review the caucus precinct results.

Twenty-three years before Occupy Wall Street, Jackson also pressured the Democrats to include a call for higher taxes on the 1% in the party’s platform. This and other platform demands pushed Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis in a more progressive direction. Today, as in 1988, issues are the third leg of the political revolution—and the most apparent. Clinton and Sanders hold clearly different positions on trade, foreign policy, financial reform (including breaking up the big banks), the role of money and super PACs in politics, and critical economic reforms such as free higher education, Medicare-for-all and Social Security expansion. These issues will not only be raised from now through July, but for years to come in mobilizations of the emerging progressive base.


Those of us who are working day and night to elect Bernie Sanders president are determined to sustain this movement beyond the moment. The congressional and other electoral campaigns this year, combined with the emerging focus on democracy itself and the issues that mobilize our supporters, will carry that movement forward. 

Why Bernie Sanders is the only Populist Candidate for President

WHY BERNIE SANDERS IS THE ONLY POPULIST CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

FRI, 4/24/2015 - BY CARL GIBSON

As Bernie Sanders stood politely next to the microphone at the Hanover, NH, home of Jon Fox and Darrell Hotchkiss, Fox, who was introducing Sanders, joked about how he offered Sanders a tie at an event in Burlington, Vt., when Sanders was still mayor.

“He absolutely wouldn’t let me give him the tie. He told me, ‘I hate those things,’” Fox said.

As the packed audience of dozens at Fox and Hotchkiss’s house stood captivated, Sen. Sanders asked a few rhetorical questions about the stark inequality between the haves and have-nots in today’s United States:

“How does it happen that despite a huge increase in technology and productivity, Americans are working longer hours for lower wages?”

“Income for the median family is about $5,000 less than that same family earned in 1999. How does that happen? Why?”

“The top 14 people in America, between 2013 and 2015, saw a $157 billion increase in their wealth. That’s more wealth in a two-year period than what the bottom 40 percent of American people have. Is this what the people want, or is this economy rigged completely in favor of the wealthy?"

The concentration of wealth among the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans has become such a pressing issue that even Republican presidential candidates as far to the right as Ted Cruz are acknowledging it, and on Fox News, of all places. While Republicans continue to insist on policies that will only exacerbate inequality – like the GOP-led House recently voting to cut taxes by $269 billion for the 6,000 wealthiest families in America – and Hillary Clinton pays lip service to the injustice of tax loopholes that allow wealthy hedge fund managers to pay laughably low tax rates, Bernie Sanders remains the only potential candidate proposing bold, definitive solutions to inequality.

At the New Hampshire event, Sanders called the current federal minimum hourly wage of $7.25 a “starvation wage” and called for it to be doubled to $15 an hour. He also drew attention to his legislation that would create 13 million new jobs by investing $1 trillion in updating America’s infrastructure.

As Clinton was bringing her nascent presidential campaign to the mainstream, Bernie got off the campaign trail and back in Washington this week where he employed an interesting filibuster to a bill that would speed the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress without the public getting to hear its contents. While Sen. Sanders was bringing up a procedural motion to stop the Senate Finance Committee from meeting to discuss fast-track, he tag-teamed with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) who has introduced over 80 amendments to the fast-track legislation, all of which will take hours to debate within committee.

In the meantime, Brown and Sanders are taking over the headlines to drum up public rage against fast-tracking the TPP – and getting what they hope are enough votes together to stop the bill in its tracks.

“It is not acceptable that probably until the last few days, major television networks spent zero time discussing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is the largest trade agreement in the history of our country,” Sanders said in New Hampshire last weekend.

Hillary Clinton, however, continues to waffle on the TPP. While she backed it as President Obama’s Secretary of State, she’s since kept mum about the trade deal – one that's remained so secretive that the only portions made available for public review were done so by whistleblowers risking their entire careers. The worst parts of the agreement allow multinational corporations to sue the U.S. government over new laws that may infringe on future profits, effectively making American and other nations' sovereign laws subservient to global corporate rule.

Very soon, Hillary Clinton’s campaign will be dealing with the fallout of “Clinton Cash,” a new book detailing the questionable ways in which the Clinton family built their wealth. Some examples include Hillary Clinton’s state department granting favors to foreign entities that made donations to the Clinton Foundation, and who paid Bill Clinton as much as $500,000 for each individual speaking engagement. Most notably, the book describes a Canadian bank and major stakeholder in the Keystone XL pipeline proposal that paid former President Clinton $1 million, right around the time Secretary Clinton’s State Department was considering the project.

During Sanders’s most recent stop in New Hampshire, he decried the influence of big money in politics as the key obstacle to legislation that would allow the economy to work for the vast majority of Americans. His call for overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and instituting public financing of campaigns drew wild applause.

“We are not going to move forward in creating new jobs and dealing with the minimum wage, pay equity for women, climate change, Wall Street, all these issues, until we have real campaign finance reform,” Sanders said. “Buying elections is not free speech... It is just simply wrong for billionaires to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.”

While Hillary Clinton has announced a goal of raising an astonishing $2.5 billion for her campaign, much of will likely come from the same corporations and banks that already own Washington, Sanders has continuously held fast to his promise of never accepting corporate money. A side-by-side comparison of Clinton’s and Sanders’s donors shows whose interests the candidates will serve if elected.

While four of Hillary’s top donors are banks (over $1.5 million from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs; more than $1 million from JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley throughout Clinton’s political career), all of Sanders’s top 20 donors are organizations representing working people. The largest cumulative amount Sanders has received throughout the entirety of his 17-year political career is $95,000 from the Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union. Other unions supporting Sanders represent public school teachers, letter carriers, electricians, and auto workers.

Though Republicans, mainstream Democratic politicians and the beltway pundit elite have channeled their inner Frank Underwood and falsely referred to earned Social Security benefits as “entitlements” that need to be cut to ensure the program’s stability, Sanders has also made the bold stance of pledging to not only protect Social Security, but expand it. Clinton, on the other hand, remained largely silent during the infamous “Grand Bargain” debates in which President Obama put cuts to Social Security on the table in negotiations with Republicans. Her husband’s chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, co-authored the austerity-laden Simpson-Bowles plan that inspired Obama’s starting point for negotiations.

At the home of Jon Fox, Sanders told a story about a CEO from the Business Roundtable – one of the largest lobbying groups for multinational corporations in Washington -- speaking to the Senate Budget Committee, of which Sanders is the ranking member. The CEO urged committee members to eliminate all federal taxes for corporations while raising the age to qualify for Social Security and Medicare benefits to 70.

“We did some research, and we found out that the average CEO on the business roundtable, when they retire, will have about $88,000 a month,” Sanders said. “Can you imagine the chutzpah of a guy who gets a million dollars a year in retirement benefits, coming to the U.S. Congress saying we have to cut Social Security and cut Medicare for people trying to get by on $13,000, $14,000 a year?”

The Vermont senator has repeatedly said that the $106,000 income cap on taxpayers paying into Social Security should be removed, and that no filer should be exempt from funding Social Security, regardless of how wealthy they are. Legislation Sanders introduced in 2011 would have done just that, ensuring the program would be fully-funded for at least the next 75 years.

Sanders is likely to make his official campaign announcement by the end of the month. While Elizabeth Warren carries 20 percent of likely Democratic primary voters, there are only 18 months left until the general election and she has yet to travel to either Iowa or New Hampshire, which all serious candidates have done by now. It’s safe to say Warren won’t be running, which means her supporters are likely to migrate to Bernie Sanders’s side, giving him potentially one-third of likely primary voters.

Given New Hampshire’s proximity to Sanders’s home state of Vermont and the senator’s familiarity with the area and its people, he would have a real shot at winning the New Hampshire primary if he were to run. If Sanders wins in the critical first-in-the-nation primary state, he will finally be seen as a credible candidate for the nomination by the top pollsters and pundits. And if Sanders wins the nomination, Americans will finally have the economic populist presidential candidate they’ve been waiting for. Whether or not this opponent of the billionaire class, corporate greed, Wall Street and environmental degradation – and this champion of working people, the unemployed, retirees, and student debtors – becomes our next president will be entirely up to us.

RT.COM

QUESTION MORE

Arrests made as hundreds of elderly Americans protest at 2nd ‘Democracy Spring’ sit-in

Published time: 12 Apr, 2016 17:41Edited time: 12 Apr, 2016 18:46

Democracy Spring protesters participate in a sit-in at the U.S. Capitol to protest big money in politics, April 11, 2016 in Washington, DC. © Mark Wilson / Getty Images / AFP

Hundreds of Americans, many of whom are elderly, marched in support of political reform in Washington, DC, taking part in a sit-in and risking arrest as they pushed for fairer elections. RT's "Redacted Tonight" host Lee Camp was detained as he reported from the scene.

Already, multiple arrests have been made, according to reports from those on the ground near the demonstrations.

According to RT's correspondents, police have started releasing some of the protesters.

The sit-in comes one day after more than 400 people were arrested for participating in what has been been termed the “Democracy Spring” movement. The organization has planned for 10 days of demonstrations and mass sit-ins at the US capitol, with day two highlighting efforts from older Americans who want to see change.

“As ‘elders’ we have a moral imperative to care for and speak for future generations,” the Democracy Spring website reads. “We aim to use our wisdom and life experience to guide our actions, and stand together to create our legacy and reclaim our democracy.”

“Every voice is needed to speak up and say what we know is true – that a thriving and just democracy is the path towards a sustainable world for all children, for all life.”

As protesters marched on the US capitol, many elderly Americans held signs and chanted slogans such as: "Democracy is not for sale, [we're] not too old to go to jail.”

“I’m not dead yet; I care deeply; I vote,” read another sign held by a demonstrator.

Social media users have reported seeing dozens of police officers out to keep an eye on the protesters and make arrests.

As part of its movement, Democracy Spring is pushing lawmakers to pass legislation that would boost the power of small campaign contributions, offer public funding for political candidates, and update the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in order to protect minority and lower-income voters at the polls.

The group is also calling for a constitutional amendment that would essentially overturn Supreme Court rulings giving corporations the ability to freely spend in elections. The amendment would end “the big money dominance of our elections and allows for Congress and the States to set overall limits on campaign spending, including prohibitions on corporate and union spending in the political process.”