Bernie Sanders has never taken money from prison lobbyists.
Why would politicians accept money from interests they oppose? I explain Clinton's prison lobbyist donations in this YouTube segment.
Bernie's goal is to ban private prisons. Hillary has a similar goal, but takes money from prison lobbyists. Does this make sense to you?
According to Lee Fang of The Intercept, Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton.
After pressure from civil rights groups, Vice News explains Hillary Clinton Shuns Private Prison Cash, Activists Want Others to Follow Suit.
The Huffington Post writes "Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice."
Do you trust Clinton?
Yes, more Americans trust Donald Trump.
In contrast, Democrats have one honest candidate. As president, Bernie's goal is to ban private prisons, and he's already taken steps toward that objective. This goal is highlighted in a USA Today piece titled Bernie Sanders seeks to ban private prisons:
Sen. Bernie Sanders said he hopes to end the "private, for-profit prison racket" with the introduction Thursday of bills to ban private prisons, reinstate the federal parole system and eliminate quotas for the number of immigrants held in detention...
It would bar the federal government from contracting with private incarceration companies starting two years after passage.
Has Clinton ever sponsored a bill to ban private prisons?
No, and here is the prison lobbyist money at work; refusing to change structural issues while hiding behind bold rhetoric.
Clinton's website states she will "End the era of mass incarceration, reform mandatory minimum sentences, and end private prisons."
Sadly, her website forgets to mention that Hilary Clinton accepted $133,246 from two major prison lobbyists.
Why is this important in 2016?
Think Progress writes "Raking in billions of dollars, two of the largest prison corporations, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), are some of the most influential lobbyists in the country."
Finally, a quick word to my critics; an ever-growing legion of paranoid Hillary supporters longing to merge Democrats into Republicans that can't be disparaged in Facebook memes. Chez Pazienza wrote a heartwarming piece titled After Nevada, the Threats from the "Bernie or Bust" Crowd Grow Louder, in which Walker Bragman, myself, and anyone who'd write-in Bernie's name are labeled "petulant children." If Marco Rubio became a Democrat tomorrow (Rubio takes almost as much money from prison lobbyists as Hillary Clinton and has a similar foreign policy), Mr. Pazienza and others would eagerly defend Democrat Rubio's campaign, especially if the lesser evil were Huckabee or Cruz. The long-term destruction of the Democratic Party, in terms of Democrats like Clinton accepting even more prison lobbyist money than Jeb Bush, are lost upon defenders of the faith who'd jettison genuine progressive values for a pragmatic candidate linked to an FBI investigation.
No doubt, nothing says "getting things done" like saving Top Secret intelligence on a private server in your basement.
Then, there's an amusing hit piece on me in Raw Story by the great "TBOGG," or Tom Boggioni, titled Ultimate Bernie bro: Meet the Hillary-hating Rand fan who felt 'the Bern' and fell in love. It's the journalistic equivalent of eating a lollipop that fell into the toilet. However, it's much more than that, and distorts the truth behind why I ever wrote a piece on Paul in the first place.
For the record, and for the one millionth time, I only wrote that article in 2014 because I'm against perpetual wars and President Obama had sent troops back to Iraq. This is a progressive stance on war, but over the heads of moderate Republicans who've taken over foreign policy for Democrats.
Yes, Hillary Clinton takes foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger, and the worst part is her voters could care less.
By the way, I don't hate anyone, I simply believe that Hillary Clinton will move Democrats dangerously to the right, like her husband did in the 1990's.
Again, I do not hate Hillary Clinton, or anyone else.
The great TBOGG failed to research that I advocated Elizabeth Warren (I explain my admiration of Warren on Ring of Fire), Jim Webb, and Martin O'Malley, after the Paul piece. I never "fell in love" with Rand Paul, although I do love Bernie Sanders. I also said in that same piece I'd vote for Clinton (in the last paragraph), but I've evolved on that point.
The great TBOGG makes up for his vilification of me by the amazing artwork of heart shaped lockets showing me and Bernie, which I plan on turning into a giant poster and hanging above the pitchfork, oversized internet screen, and other revolutionary supplies I'm supposed to own as a "Bernie Bro."
Ultimately, the vast majority of my critics are white like me, but white enough never to be concerned with prison lobbyist donors. Whereas I've taken things to unique viewpoints in the past, like advocating black men openly carry firearms, the liberal white naysayers attacking me never mention Clinton's ties to the prison lobby. To really look at covert and surreptitious racism, look at the white liberals ignoring Hillary's 2008 campaign against Obama.
The definition of white privilege is embodied in the tantrums of those who'd sooner vote for an establishment Democrat with an "abysmal" record on racial justice, for fear of the same man who donated money to this candidate's foundation and Senate campaigns.
The more I write, the more I realize that in many respects, white critics of Bernie truly don't care about black issues, at least not the same issues Tim Black and I discussed on Tim Black TV, or those Benjamin Dixon and I talked about on The Benjamin Dixon Show. The Clinton campaign, and its supporters, gleefully point to Hillary's popularity among minority voters, yet never mention her racist attacks against Obama in 2008, and certainly never mention the issues Michelle Alexander presented in The Nation.
Here's my view of this year's angry white people supporting Hillary Clinton. The primarily white and loud progressive voices shouting against a man who was arrested as a Civil Rights activist in 1963, and defending a Democrat who ran a racist campaign against Obama, have only one goal in mind. Power is what drives these pundits, not a value system, and if minorities can help them attain power, then minorities, and especially the minority vote, are simply cogs in a machine.
These people don't care about Clinton's 3 a. m. ad (with a "racist sub-message") against Obama and certainly haven't read Michelle Alexander's Nation piece titled Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote:
From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted--and Hillary Clinton supported--decimated black America...
In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. "They are not just gangs of kids anymore," she said. "They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators.' No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
...Sanders opposed the 1996 welfare-reform law. He also opposed bank deregulation and the Iraq War, both of which Hillary supported, and both of which have proved disastrous. In short, there is such a thing as a lesser evil, and Hillary is not it.
While Ta-Nehisi Coates and Michelle Alexander have presented relevant critiques of Bernie Sanders, they're still choosing Sanders over Clinton. Sanders isn't perfect, but he's far better than Clinton on racial issues.
To the people disparaging me, Walker Bragman, and other Bernie supporters, the "lesser evil" voting theory pertaining to racial justice simply isn't important.
Funny how that works, right?