May 31, 2015


May 30, 2015




This Wednesday the New York State Assembly voted on single-payer legislation introduced by Assemblyman Dick Gottfried... and the bill passed by an almost 2-to-1 margin!

With close to 20 million residents, New York is the 4th largest state in the country. This week's vote is a profound testament to the ongoing health crisis experienced by Americans, which can only be solved through a public, universal health plan. The next step for the single-payer movement in New York is winning approval of the state Senate and a Governor's signature.

The movement seems to be working. Can you contact your state senators and governor if you support single-payer healthcare?

May 29, 2015


May 28, 2015



Everyone is talking about Religious Freedom. I thought it was time I explained to everyone what it means!  More videos here:
Posted by Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian on Tuesday, May 26, 2015

May 27, 2015



A friend of mine just wrote this as a Facebook comment about the Duggar family's molestation accusations: "I am also sick of TV shows based on freaks like this. It seems people will watch anything on television. Now excuse me while I go watch someone pick out a wedding dress..."

This echoes my sentiments exactly. In their attempt to produce cheaper television, producers seek out train wrecks to provide the drama which actors and scripts used to furnish. But actors and scripts cost money. So the idea is to cast train wrecks and hope for "can't look away form a car crash" style drama. Then the networks find out that they aren't merely playing trashy nut jobs, but there are actual child molesters involved. Suddenly, the morally superior networks who went looking for train wrecks and got real ones cancel the show. It happened with Honey Boo Boo and now the Duggars. So the networks reward train wrecks...but only up to a point. Why are viewers' standards so low that they tune in for this shit? Maybe because a whole generation has grown up accepting it as entertainment?

May 25, 2015


When I was growing up, my father never took my sister and I to attend Memorial Day parades. We brats loved a parade, so we couldn’t understand how he was such a party pooper. His explanation was that he wasn’t going to join in a cheering session for the USA’s military might. I’m quite a bit older now and realize that my dad was right.

Of course, that isn’t to say that we shouldn’t honor the service men and women who’ve defended their country. I personally don’t think that many of our military missions are always defending our country. But it isn’t the job of troops to question where they are sent. That’s our job. As we honor the fallen, we must acknowledge that we’ve fallen down on our responsibilities to them in that respect.

I wonder if members of the military would rather we “honor” them by waving flags and eating hot dogs one day per year, or if they’d prefer that we’d take a hard look at some of the challenges they face. Don’t you see a lot of those commercials to help vets financially? Those programs exist for a reason. Many vets go one to lead productive lives after they serve. But it’s no secret that many struggle to find work, many homeless are vets, many vets commit suicide and many vets are stricken with PTSD and other psychological ailments. And these are luckier than the ones who were killed in battle.

In our once a year celebration, it’s all stars and stripes and big brass bands. George W. Bush famously forbade images of soldiers’ coffins on the TV news in a blatant attempt to keep us in rah rah sis boom bah mode and not think that young men and women were actually dying in Iraq. And though most everyone in this country would claim they “support the troops”, they don’t support them enough to slam the government agency which was caught lying twice recently about how long vets must wait for military care. The truth—that vets must sometimes wait for six months for the care that they are promised—doesn’t indicate that we support the troops as much as we like to say we do. And that's the promise made to our military: that we’ll take care of you if you’re brave enough to put yourselves in harm’s way. And of course our “support” doesn’t include taking a hard look at which politicians always vote to de-fund veterans’ hospitals because they don’t believe in big government. We always have the money to go to war, but somehow it’s big bad government overspending when we need to allot funds to care for the injured. Which is why I totally agree with Bernie Sanders when he says that if you can’t afford to take care of veterans, then you can’t afford to go to war. And admit it—most of you who claim to support the troops have no idea what US strategy is in most of the places we’re currently fighting. You support the troops, yet you can’t even describe what their mission is most of the time.

As we honor the fallen, there’s another huge area where the United States citizens have fallen down in our line of duty. To question our government, given it’s rotten track record, any time it says it wants to go to war. And acknowledge that  the US’s default position is war. The rest of the world knows it, but war propaganda all over our media clouds the issue here at home. We’re the most violent bullies on earth and we can’t even see it. No better example of this is Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. Obama is a war president presiding over the longest war in US history in Afghanistan, where’s he’s fudged the date to withdraw countless times. Obama is still in Iraq, fighting secret drone wars and arming Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen, lining up US tanks in countries which border the Ukraine and lord knows what else. He won his laughable peace prize for engaging in negotiations with Iran. The lunacy of this is the the US only dreams it has the moral authority to do negotiate such a deal when we’re the only country to ever actually nuke another nation. In our rush to get the defense industry paid back for their campaign contributions, we often go to war not to defend the US, but to defend private corporations who profit from modern day human sacrifice. This is the American way, and I can’t help but wonder if soldiers would make the same choice to serve if they knew that they were laying down their lives to enrich the already super-rich. Maybe some who serve see war as an adult video game where it’s fun to take out real life targets. But I can’t believe that most would sign up to defend us against an enemy isn’t actually a threat to this country.

As horrifying as ISIS is, George W. Bush’s military efforts lead to the conditions which created this terrorist group when we invaded Iraq and destroyed that country for no reason. So now we have a new, more savage enemy than Al Qaeda to send troops to face. Despite claims that there would be no boots on the ground, Obama sent boots on the ground to Syria recently. (Oh, you didn’t hear about it? That’s the war propaganda in our media downplaying or even ignoring it as they honor a retiring late night host and devote an entire news cycle reporting on a train wreck.) These troops in Syria could remain in the US with their families. And the madness is that no matter how horrifying the images of ISIS burning people alive or beheading them are—ISIS is has no way to attack the US and there are plenty of wealthy countries in the Middle East with large militias of their own which could police their own neighborhood without US involvement. Yet the US readily jumps into combat to pay back the military/industrial complex. I wonder if the troops would prefer that we chant “Support the troops!” less and demand that we examine why we’re starting new fights and prolonging old ones? I know that’s a lot harder and less fun than having a cookout, but if you truly support the troops then they deserve this much from every citizen in this country.

And as we gear up for a presidential election, all Republicans candidates except possibly Rand Paul want more war. And the only winnable candidate the Democrats have offered so far  is Hillary Clinton, who is more of a hawk than Obama—the Nobel Peace Prize winner who is currently fighting two old wars he promised to get out of and he’s added new ones. So our choices are either a clear path to more war  with one party or a veiled path to war with the other. A large reason Hillary lost the last election is that she voted for the Iraq war and Obama didn’t. I know that some of you defend her because she got faulty intelligence. But if a drag queen knew the intelligence was faulty (aka falsified by our government) with no access to any government intel then Hillary should easily have known. The truth is that no senator with presidential ambitions voted against the war because America wanted to avenge 9/11—even if we attacked the wrong country. I don’t see any viable candidate on either side pushing for peace—despite the American people claiming that they’re weary of war. When did our elected officials stop representing us? Or did they ever actually start? While many people make their presidential picks based on which candidate they’d like to have a beer with, who we choose as commander-in-chief has very real, life-threatening consequences for our men and women in uniform. Will we pick another hawk like George W. Bush who ignored warnings about terrorists using airplanes as weapons to strike US targets so that he’d have an excuse to attack Iraq under falls pretenses? Or will we pick a candidate who will, as Obama did, present himself as an anti-war candidate intent on drawing down wars, only to renege on his promises and start new ones? Or elect a female candidate who seeks to override any mistrust Americans may have in a “weak” female president by being tougher on defense? Soldiers’ lives and health hang in the balance.

My dad was right—it’s time that we look at what a warlike nation we are. It says so much about our priorities that we’d rather plunge other countries which aren’t even a threat to us into chaos than fund American’s failing education, create jobs, invest in clean energy for the health of our planet, secure benefits for our needy, or fix our crumbling infrastructure, Not to mention ensuring that veterans don’t wait anywhere near six months to receive medical attention ever again. Saying “Support the troops!” is a lot easier to say than actually supporting them and making sure their needs are met after they serve. And making sure that they serve only when absolutely necessary. So enjoy your barbecues today. I can’t help but think that the troops you claim to support would appreciate it if you took the time to use your brains and your votes to keep them out of more unnecessary battles.

May 23, 2015


While the US claims to be a christian nation, it seems that few of us even understand Christianity and it's most basic tenets--like Thou Shalt Not Kill. So it's very refreshing to see an 85 year old nun who was just released from 2 years in prison for protesting the nuclear plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Nukes are weapons of mass destruction, she claims, and therefore should be opposed by any true christian who doesn't cherish world demolition. So she and two fellow pacifists broke into Oak Ridge's nuclear plant armed with a bible and some blood to splash on the walls. Then they sat, broke bread and sang, waiting to be arrested.

Not only did they prove how easy it is to break into a high security plant filled with toxic materials, here's what this hero had to say on Democracynow:

SISTER MEGAN RICE: "As long as there’s one nuclear weapon existing, nobody is free. That’s why it’s so important: The world is at risk, every moment, as long as there’s one. And we have more—probably more than 10,000 in this country alone. Our purpose was just to speak the truth about weapons of mass destruction, that everybody knows, that they’re illegal, immoral."

Too bad most of the Christians I see are railing about abortions, gay marriage and a war on Christmas rather than saving the world from the US's weapons of mass destruction. I don't think I need to go into the lunacy in Obama trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons when the US is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on another country. But speaking of moral authority, if Christianity is what you supposedly live your lives by and you spout the 10 Commandments like Thou Shalt Not Kill, why aren't you joining Sister Megan in protesting the instruments of war? Because you don't even understand you're own religion, that's why. You'd rather stop someone from getting married than stop world destruction. But I guess pastors, preachers and priests don't like to mention the fact that the US is the #1 military bully in the world. That unpopular stance might reduce their congregation's contributions.


If you watch the news, you'll have noted that the US declassified "Osama Bin Laden's bookshelf"--what he read while holed up in Pakistan. Osama is dead. It's of little interest what a deposed terrorist read. So why is the news all over this new Osama reading material? Because they want to distract us from last week's story by Seymour Hersch about how the Navy Seals capture of Obama didn't jive with the facts. Maybe that's why we never saw the body. Seymour's tales, which assert that Obama announced the capture and fabricated the details surrounding it to desperately get a pre-election boost in the polls, have been supported by info from  NBC and the Navy Seals themselves.

Besides making nice with Cuba, capturing Osama is one of Obama's only foreign policy victories. And now that's called into question? He campaigned on withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and now we're back in both. We were told no boots on the ground in Syria but quietly, boots on the ground were sent in last week. Tell me how Obama's doing a good job again? He's certainly a flop on foreign policy.  A war president who keeps extending the date that we remain in Afghanistan, the longest war in US history. And I'm sure that most of us couldn't even describe what the mission in Afghanistan is. Not to mention secret drone wars in the Middle East, lining up troops and tanks outside the Ukraine and providing Saudis with weapons to attack Yemen. I think it's time for Obama to give back his Nobel Peace Prize. If Bush's wars were so foolish, why has Obama extended them and added more?

May 22, 2015


The Out List is a 1 hour HBO special which aired in 2013. It's now on youtube if you care to check it out for free. I'm interviewed along with Suze Orman, Ellen Degeneres, Wanda Sykes, Larry Kramer, Neil Patrick Harris, a pre-fame Janet Mock and a bunch of other people more famous than me. But I was pleased to represent the drag community in this and I hope I did them justice!


You want to know why ISIS is gaining territory? One reason is that the US is trying to train the Iraqi army to defend itself. Yet the Iraqi army is so pathetic that they dropped their weapons and ran from ISIS's army. Guess who bought those weapons? The US! Now ISIS has weapons which US taxpayers bought. Isn't that a winning strategy? Do you want to whine about beheadings or do you want to make the connection between failed US policies and ISIS's rise? Of course, there's that isn't ISIS's only connection to US military blunders. The US created ISIS when we attacked Iraq and destroyed the country for absolutely no reason, making it a hotbed for terrorists far more extreme than AL Qaeda. Almost all Republicans see more war as the answer and the only alternative on the Democrats side is Hellary, who voted for the Iraq war which provided the breeding ground for ISIS to thrive. MSNBC noted that all of the senators with presidential ambitions, like Hellary, voted for the Iraq war. So they accepted false evidence--which I knew was false so I know they did--to lead us into a war which cost trillions, lost American lives and killed 1 million Iraqis. All because having principles and a backbone and voting against the war might have caused their personal careers to take a hit. It's very sad when a Republican like Rand Paul seems to be less of a hawk than the presumed democratic presidential nominee.


Gee, I would've volunteered!



Democrats have lost their souls and lost their party's former platform as a party of the 99%. How dare Hillary issue such a mealy-mouthed statement on Obama's disastrous TPP, which she helped write and has praised as "the gold standard" of trade agreements? This corporate whore won't make a formal statement until she's seen the deal, which she isn't permitted to see. How convenient for a candidate who works for huge corporations yet pretends to be pro-worker until she gets elected and then she can shaft us like Obama's trying to do with this trade deal. They are all in this together with these carefully crafted statements to trick us. Sadly, 85% of democrats are buying it despite every labor union opposing it.

"Since it is currently illegal for Clinton to see drafts of the agreement, her comments suggest she will not be weighing in on trade policy until well after Congress has decided whether to grant Obama powers to expedite its passage. Although Clinton helped craft parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership during her tenure as secretary of state, the extreme secrecy conditions Obama has imposed on the pact with 11 other nations bar her from viewing it."


May 21, 2015



Talk about a party pooper! Sweet 16 birthday ruined when human waste 'from a passing plane' rains on guests



What we are supposed to believe is that those nasty Republicans have blocked all of Obama's legislative efforts for years. But not on this trade deal. Republicans are siding with Obama against his own party to denounce the TPP, which could cost the US millions of jobs, depress wages here and do a ton of other damage. Obama is showing himself to be a crooked liar pushing what a leader in his own party is calling "insanity" in the article leaked below. For some reason, our "news" has decided that a talk show host leaving his job should receive 10 times the coverage of an agreement that will negatively affect all of us for many years. It will give corporations (like the ones Obama wrote the TPP in secret with) unprecedented new powers and many opponents are only asking that the TPP be discussed openly. But Obama is desperate to fast track the secret deal  it without much discussion and no ability to amend it once it gets through.

What's most upsetting of all is that no one seems to care. You care about late night talk show hosts retiring, about dying celebrities, about reality TV contests, but not about something which will harm workers for decades. The president's actively seeking to harm workers and this will be one of his ugliest legacies. Why should you care if you don't work in manufacturing? Well, NAFTA killed millions of manufacturing jobs and the TPP has been called NAFTA on steroids because it involves 40% of the world's trade. If workers don't have money then they aren't going to afford going to clubs, so djs and drag queens wages will decrease. They won't have money to go to the dentist, the accountant, the nail salon, the event planner, the massage therapist, the hairdresser, the web designer, the butcher, the baker or candlestick maker. Everyone will lose out.

And we really need to ask why a Democrat is pushing a policy like this. Mitt Romney was supposed to be the candidate who repped the 1%--that's why he lost. Obama won as the people's candidate yet now he's switched and is working for the huge multi-national corporations who the TPP benefits. Against his own party. Obama can claim to support paid sick leave, equal pay for women and anti-GLBT discrimination in the work place. But none of that matters if we don't have jobs!

Noticeably absent from the discussion is corporate whore and former Walmart board of directors Hillary Clinton, who called the TPP "the gold standard" of trade agreements when she was serving as secretary of state. This issue is so serious that Elizabeth Warren has suggested she may run unless Clinton speaks out against the TPP.

Congress is supposedly voting on this by noon or very soon. Can you call your representatives and tell them to vote no on fast track and no on the TPP? Unless you own a multinational corporation, the agreement will have devastating effects on the average American. And if it's as beneficial as Obama claims, why not debate it openly in Congress ? The answer is that it isn't beneficial to workers at all and Obama is a liar who is actively seeking to screw us. Yet you don't care for some bizarre reason. I'm beginning to believe that Americans are so dumb that they deserve a government whose salary they pay to rip them off.


May 20, 2015


ahí esta el otro de tamulte o es de atasta ?
Posted by A chingaaaaar a su madre .l. on Friday, April 10, 2015


This is my of my only attempts at celebrity impersonation!

May 19, 2015


Bobby Possumcods' Meth
Posted by The DAMN! Show on Saturday, May 16, 2015


Watch this to see what a presidential candidate looks like. With a clear agenda and fiery outrage at our current system which is cheating working Americans. Liz's arms are in the air and she's yelling about injustice. Quite a contrast to the playing it safe Hillary, who claims she's on a "listening tour" to find out what Americans need. If you're running for president, you should already know what WE need, not just your banker donors. But Hillary isn't ready to fight. Or even lay out a clear agenda. She's so middle-of-the-road that she won't be challenging anyone since she represents the very establishment which must be challenged. Yet something like 85% of democrats support Hillary. If democrats had any backbone, they'd challenge Hillary's coronation and vote for a candidate who actually represents the interests of 99% of us. Obama proved that corrupt DC good ol' boys come in all colors. If elected, Hillary will prove that those good ol' boys can be women as well.

May 18, 2015


Amen to this!

"In the latest edition of club-related technophobia, cell phones have grown increasingly under fire. It wasn't but a couple weeks ago that Francois Kevorkian publicly mused on his Facebook page that it might be better if certain parties in New York began explicitly banning their use as "necessary measures taken in order to maintain the balance between the listener and the music." In some ways this is the logical extension of the way in which certain parties and cultural institutions ban photography inside their premises. After all, usage of cellphones is just as bad if not worse, as they tend to disconnect and mediate away from the present physical experience. Go out to most clubs and you'll invariably run into large groups of people staring like vidiots into their mobile device of choice. While there does seem to be something obviously wrong with this, it's hard to measure exactly what it is without an alternative -- something we seem to have lost in the past decade."



I have been milking this Laugh-In music for literally decades. At Wigstock, we used to use the music from the Laugh-In TV show. But for HBO's Dragtime, they couldn't clear it. So I wrote something similar and it's stuck for years. How fun to have Bea Arthur, Elliot Gould, Elvira, Andy Dick, Loretta Hogg, Nora Burns and others dancing to one of my tunes. I actually think the music holds up fairly well with it's a-go-go feeling.

May 16, 2015


Spinning disco classics at The The Manhattan Monster Bar​ this Sunday. My schedule has been a little off due to travel but I normally do the 1st and 3rd Sunday of each month. Sorry for the confusion. It's from 6-10PM and the least pretentious boogie-in-a-basement dance party in town with no dress code or overcharge and cheap drinks. No bottle service, no VIP lounge and a crazy dj who is likely to join you on the dance floor--if you have enough drugs and/or poppers. I play a lot of the funkier side of disco and early 80s but if the crowd wants it, I've got those Love Is In The Air, YMCA and Gloria jams if requested. I do shy away from Abba. (You're welcome.) The crowd's a bit older but there are always some crazy kids who seem to dance with so much abandon that I imagine they're wishing that artists like Chic and Shalamar were playing in other clubs. There's a chance of light thundershowers tomorrow at some point, so I'll make sure to have Chaka's Clouds, Viola Wills' Stormy Weather, Eruption's I Can't Stand The Rain, Don Ray's Standing In The Rain, Enough Is Enough and It's Raining Men on hand. If you're out and about tomorry night, please stop by!

May 15, 2015


THE GOOD NEWS: We're now fracking so much in the US that we don't have to import as much fuel. That means that we don't have to stir up trouble in the Middle East over oil. Yay!

THE BAD NEWS: (Sorry this is so much longer than the good.)

That fracking is dangerous to our drinking water.

We'll alway find other reasons to invade the Middle East even when we don't need their oil as much.

The US may not need it, but we're still drilling away for oil. Why concern ourselves with the health of the only planet we can live on when a quick buck can be made?

Obama approving Arctic drilling proves that he's a failure in one of his own stated goals for his second term: addressing climate change. Most scientists agree that 80% of the fossil fuels must remain in the ground to avoid the most catastrophic issues from climate change. Yet Obama has tentatively approved this possibly disastrous drilling in the Arctic, approved drilling along a long stretch of east coast, and has passed the buck on the Keystone pipeline.

Gee, are the Republicans blocking him in Congress again? Nope! This, like the TPP, is his own doing and you won't hear any objection from Republicans on drilling for oil. Or much from Democrats. Only from people who care if future generations will be able to breathe at all as they attempt to breathe more easily between extreme weather events.


May 14, 2015


This is actually well-written and interesting. There's a flawless close-up of Bianca Del Rio, Roxxy Andrews is actually wearing sequins with rhinestones on the sequins if I'm not mistaken, and Alyssa Edwards looks stunning!




So I saw Chita Rivera in The Visit. How could I not--after seeing that slow, bewitching entrance she makes on the commercial for it with ruby and diamond jewelry set in a white dress coat sporting a cane? I try to see Chita whenever I can--though the bitch cancelled when I tried to see her in Edwin Drood. Only to find out that she only had a cameo in it towards the end. Look, she's one of the last classic Broadway gals of the Gwen Verdon ilk. She originated the role of the firebrand Anita in West Side Story on Broadway, fer chrissakes! Can I even call a puerto rican actress I adore a "firebrand" any more without being slammed by the politically correct that I'm stereotyping latina women as temperamental? Anyhoo, a starring vehicle with Madame Rivera can't be missed in my book.

It's a great story. Chita returns to a small town she grew up. She's fabulously wealthy after a long life as a very high class hooker. Brandishing a cane and a room full of luggage, she's returned to her old stomping grounds to exact revenge on the cruel townspeople who turned her into a whore. Half jewish and half gypsy, she'd been spurned at all ages but was run out of town after getting pregnant as a teen. The father had several townsmen testify in court that they'd all slept with her to avoid his clear paternity. And boy does Chita hold a grudge--she wants her ex-lover killed. And she's willing to pay a fortune to a town which has sunk deep into poverty since she left.

But after this chilling plot is set up, the show kinda of falls flat. Chita's still mesmerizing and I recommend seeing it for that reason alone. But the drama never develops. It does become darker as the townspeople plumb the depths of their souls to try and justify murdering the former paramour to snatch Chita's enormous ransom.

A pair of actor/dancers appear as Chita and her boyfriend's younger selves and reenact their smoking trysts. The actress playing the younger Chita flips her long, lustrous mane at the very beginning--in a way that would make any brazilian drag queen jealous. The lovers/dancers are a theatrical device which works, and something is needed against a well-done, but grey, industrial and unchanging set. A theatrical device which does not work is the use of yellow to pop out against the grey. The stacks of money they fondle are bright yellow. And once they've realized that things are looking up financially because of Chita, they don yellow shoes to hit the town in. It's clunky, but not as bad as the clunker of the song they perform to it all about yellow shoes. It's hard to believe, but none of the music is memorable. And it's written by Broadway legends Kander and Ebb! Yes, they who wrote All That Jazz and countless other memorable stand-out show tunes that even I know.

While flawed, I do recommend seeing it. I caught it with my maw, who after seeing several plays in one week told me "You saved the best for last." So Lady Becky loved it! I hope I haven't given too much away and I certainly don't consider myself to be a proper theater reviewer. But at least I ain't shrieking over politics for once!

May 13, 2015


Do you remember that photo of Obama, Clinton and others looking at a monitor shocked as they looked at footage of Osama Bin Laden being captured? Well, they may have all been acting because Osama's capture may not have gone down as reported. We'd known of his whereabouts for 4 years before his capture and no courier's path traced us to him as claimed--if Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh is to be believed. Obama cooked up an alibi with the generals over there and they'd planned to roll out the same story together. But because an unpopular Obama needed to get reelected, he jumped the gun and read a hastily written speech which was at odds with the story they'd previously planned to use. That's why the details surrounding the capture--like the assertion that Osama had an AK47 and that there was a gunfight--mysteriously changed in the first few days of reporting. (This part is not disputed by anyone--the details did change.) The generals scrambled to save face and cook up a new story that would match the one Obama blurted out early to try and cash in on a military victory for a campaign boost. This is how dirty politicians are. And this is how desperate our media is to believe the White House and not bother the kind of investigative journalism that Hersh has done. Because we've become so lazy that we prefer soundbites. We want them short and we want them fast. We don't care if they're wrong. As long as it makes us feel good.
The White House has claimed that Hersh's 10,000 page piece is so full of lies that they can't begin to attack it, yet they have not taken the core accusations and dismissed them. Hersh is being vilified by the mainstream media, even though NBC has confirmed part of his story. In addition to the bombshells dropped by his reporting, Hersh himself is fascinating. He's an irascible, no nonsense throwback to the kind of reporter you'd see in a movie from the 1940s. 
I heard a joke once: US finds Osama Bin his home. This home was near a Pakistani military base or two, and that always seemed odd that they didn't know what was going on right underneath their noses. Or maybe they did. But they had to wait until an election before the "triumphant" capture.


We have one democratic-leaning national news station and that's MSNBC. Here's why they can't be trusted. Or you at least have to sift through their pro-establishment propaganda.

Yesterday, several news anchors reported on Democrats in the Senate squashing Obama's TPP trade deal--or at least they rejected the fast track authority Obama was seeking to pass without much discussion of the secret deal and no chance to amend something which governs 40% of the world's trade. MSNBC's anchors from Sharpton to Chris Matthews to Chris Hayes all claimed that "progressives" had won out over Obama. While this suggests quite rightly that Obama isn't progressive at all, "progressives" did not vote the fast track down. Democrats did. Democrats who could not return to their constituents and tell them "We killed your jobs because Obama wanted to serve multi-national corporations' interests at the expense of yours " and get reelected.

Let's remember that most Democrats aren't a very progressive bunch. If they're representing a largely catholic state like Louisiana, then they have a hard time supporting abortion rights. (See disgraced Mary Landrieu.) If they hail from a state with a large rural population, they want less gun control just like Republicans. (See Gaby Giffords, who supported more lenient gun laws before she was shot.) Democrats from oil-producing states have no interest in addressing climate change. (See disgraced Mary Landrieu again.) Many Democrats like Hillary Clinton are ready to buy trumped up evidence to jump into a war because they make money from the defense industry. Many Democrats are corporate cronies like Ben Nelson, who held up the passage of Obamacare and former senator Chris Dodd just broke his promise not to become a lobbyist after he left office.

So for MSNBC to call the senators who stood up to a president of their own party with a stinging rebuke on the TPP "progressive" is just nonsense. They were acting like Democrats! The way Democrats used to act. Democrats who stand with workers--as Hillary claims she does now that she thinks that what we want to hear. Democrats who stand with unions, the traditional democratic voter base which has been lost. Who stand for civil rights whether those be gay rights, ending police brutality against blacks or protecting women's abortion rights. Who would never, as Obama has, attempt to sabotage the very popular Social Security program. Who recognize the importance of addressing climate change and not just paying lip service to it as Obama does, while simultaneously green lighting new drill sites in the Arctic which has environmentalists howling. Democrats used to be the more peaceful party--the Republicans were the hawks. But now we have a Democratic president extending the wars we're already in and fighting secret drone wars we don't even know about. And a presumed Democratic presidential nominee who is more of a hawk than Obama.

Democrats like Obama and Hillary have driven the party so far to the right that we need a new option which is truly progressive. Based on policies like the TPP and Obama's proposed chained CPI budget cuts to Social Security, again and again Democrats are acting like Republicans. Obama has continued many of Bush's policies--NSA spying, government secrecy, not making corporations or the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and not spending to invest in jobs or our infrastructure. The list goes on and on, but there's been little real change. Obama griped constantly about how the extreme right tea party wing of the Republican party forced him to constantly go to the middle ground in negotiations. But the truth is on many issues--he was already in the middle. Certainly further toward the middle than many Democrats like the ones who just rose up together against his sleazy trade deal. I think Obama liked the tea party because it gave him a great excuse to not be progressive. And then you see him try to screw workers en masse with the TPP and getting support from only Republicans on it. Was he reaching across the aisle or was he already there in the middle?

Then you see a centrist candidate like Hillary taking pages from the playbook of the great liberal hope Elizabeth Warren in order to sound more progressive to get elected. If elected, we'll find out how progressive she is. Just as we found out how progressive Obama wasn't. Time for a new party. Democrats have cooked their own goose by turning against core principles they used to have. I'm sorry if you feel trapped by a two-party system but if this country still is a democracy, it's government by the people. We call the shots. They work for us and it's our job to boot them out when they've proven again and again that "us" is the least of their concerns.

May 06, 2015


HELLO there from Dez on Vimeo.


I don't love this guy's humor. But it's an illuminating look at the TPP which Obama is pushing with strong support from Republicans. Alan Grayson calls this secret trade deal "a punch in the face to the middle class." And this comedian is correct--when Obama says to trust him and wait and see what's in the secret deal, itcs kinda tough when he's seeking the fast track authority to ram it through Congress with little debate and without possibility of amendments. Doesn't that alone make it sound beneficial to America? The deal affects 40% of the world's trade. If it's so good for the US, why is it being kept secret by Obama and the lobbyists who wrote it? We only know what we know about the deal from leakers. This is a perfect example of the government defeating the people instead of representing us. And we all know who they do represent.

Obama Is Blatantly Lying About the Trans-Pacific Partnership!The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is a nasty trade...
Posted by LEE CAMP on Tuesday, May 5, 2015

May 05, 2015


May 24th in Sonoma County! A bunch of us "gals" will play this gorgeous casino. I'm DJing and performing along with Joey AriasCandis CayneJackie BeatRyan Raftery as Anna Wintour and many more.



Video of black Baltimore mother Toya Graham beating her rioting son goes viral.
She beat him so hard the police gave her a job application.


May 03, 2015


When I was growing up, the head of a household could work in a factory while his wife kept house and they'd make enough to survive and send a kid to college if they wanted to. Now those manufacturing jobs are dead and you can tell me that unemployment has improved under Obama, but those good jobs aren't coming back. Obama's TPP will kill more US jobs and drive down wages. And while Obama claimed while campaigning that he'd put on his comfy shoes and go marching with unions, he's turned his back on them when they were stripped of their rights in the midwest. Every labor union is denouncing his TPP as a job killer. It's a very dark, dirty deal. But we need to realize that even Democrats like Bill Clinton who passed NAFTA are not concerned with the middle class becoming the "working poor" as long as multi-national corporations get cheaper labor overseas. It's very hard for me to get my head around stuff like trade deficits--not the kind of "trade" I like to focus on. But this video explains it very well. And Alan Grayson is the kind of Democrat I grew up respecting who would challenge special interests, not cave in to them almost every time. If this deal is passed in secret with no discussion and no amendments allowed, this will be one of Obama's ugliest legacy's as NAFTA was Clinton's. The music is incredibly cheesy and dramatic--but so is this deal.


Possibly the Most Important Video You Will Ever See.
Posted by Alan Grayson on Thursday, April 30, 2015