Tag Archives: bernie

Ohio purges thousands of black voters from voting rolls

by JaimeTeeter Posted on June 2, 2016

Ohio purges thousands of black voters from voting rolls

By on Jun 2, 2016Share

Reuters reports that Ohio officials have purged tens of thousands of voters who haven’t cast a ballot since the 2008 presidential election from the rolls.

While purging inactive voters is fairly common, doing it on this scale — and after only eight years of inactivity — is an exception. Although the statewide total of impacted voters isn’t known, Reuters found that 144,000 voters had been purged in the three biggest counties, and black and Democratic-leaning districts were twice as likely to be affected as white and Republican-leaning districts.

When kicked off the rolls, voters have to register again. Not only is this a hassle, there are reports of voters not finding out until they get to their polling places. Then, it’s already too late.

Because Ohio is a swing-state, this could have a huge impact on pro-climate candidates in the election, as well as potential state-wide measures for clean energy, raising the minimum wage, and legalizing medical marijuana and industrial hemp.

Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit against Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted in April, alleging that the rule targets minority and low-income voters and violates a federal law saying states can only purge voters from rolls upon death, request, or if they move out of state.

This isn’t the first time Husted has faced allegations of misconduct, as Think Progress points out: In 2012, Husted defied a court order to restore early voting hours, and in March, the Bernie Sanders campaign filed suit against him after Husted barred 17-year-olds who will turn 18 before the general election from voting in the primary. A judge agreed with the Sanders camp that this was unconstitutional, and blocked Husted’s decision.

Husted has called the recent suit “politically motivated, election-year politics,” that “opens the door for voter fraud in Ohio.”

Except voter fraud, according to experts, isn’t actually a problem. In fact, an investigation of more than 1 billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014 found all of 31 incidences of fraud.

Stories of voter suppression have been rampant this election season. Part of this is because its the first presidential election after the 2013 Supreme Court decision that kneecapped the Voting Rights Act. The decision allows state to enact ID requirements, shorten voting periods, and end same-day registration. There have also been a few mysterious incidences this go-round, like the purging of 120,000 people from voter rolls in New York and Arizona Democrats claiming that Latino and working class districts had insufficient polling places for their primary.

Now, it’s up to the courts to decide if it will be allowed to go on in Ohio.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Read more: 

Ohio purges thousands of black voters from voting rolls

Posted in alo, Anchor, cannabis, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ohio purges thousands of black voters from voting rolls

Universal Health Care Is Probably No More Popular Now Than It’s Ever Been

by LucilleMickle Posted on May 23, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Harold Pollack says that Bernie Sanders has started a political revolution:

Not enough of one to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but enough to put the dream of single-payer health care back on the national political agenda in a way few would have expected five years ago….Just this week, Gallup released a poll indicating that “58% of U.S. adults favor the idea of replacing the Affordable Care Act with a federally funded healthcare system that provides insurance for all Americans.” Politico Magazine reports that Sanders’s health plan “is the most popular of the three remaining candidates.”

I’d be thrilled about this if it were true, but I have my doubts. The problem is that Americans have a long history of supporting things in the abstract but not so much when they become concrete partisan proposals. Take Obamacare. In 2013, a CNBC poll showed 37 percent unfavorability toward the “Affordable Care Act,” but 46 percent toward “Obamacare.” In 2014, a Morning Consult poll showed 71 percent support for offering Medicaid to all adults under the poverty line, but only 62 percent support for expanding Medicaid “as encouraged under the Affordable Care Act.” A Marist poll in Kentucky showed 57 percent disapproval of Obamacare but only 22 percent disapproval of kynect—Kentucky’s version of Obamacare. And of course, we have years of polling showing that lots of people like nearly all the individual elements of Obamacare, but then turn around and insist that they hate Obamacare itself.

As for universal health care, a Harris poll last September found 63 percent approval. A Kaiser poll in December found 58 percent support for Medicare-for-all. Gallup polls going back 15 years show higher support for government guarantees of health care during the Bush years than they do now.

So color me skeptical that Bernie Sanders has really had much effect on the health care debate. Gallup’s poll last week didn’t so much as breathe the word “taxes,” and if it did, support for the universal health care option would sink like a stone. Americans have long had mixed feeling about universal health care, and those feelings are deeply tied up in partisan attitudes and willingness to pay. Unfortunately, Sanders doesn’t seem to have moved the needle on this at all.

Read the article: 

Universal Health Care Is Probably No More Popular Now Than It’s Ever Been

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Universal Health Care Is Probably No More Popular Now Than It’s Ever Been

The Great Matt Bruenig-Neera Tanden Kerfuffle Sort of Explained

by RodgerQuinonez Posted on May 21, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I spent the afternoon catching up on the latest in the world of liberal scuffles. Here’s the background: Lefty gadfly Matt Bruenig got into a Twitter fight with Joan Walsh yesterday morning over the topic of young people supporting Bernie Sanders. It culminated with this from Bruenig: “I have a daughter too. Your pathetic ageism against young people (remember taunting them as “barely shaven”) is sickening to me.” About then, CAP president Neera Tanden weighed in with a light comment defending Walsh, which prompted this follow-up from Bruenig:

Tanden is—and has been for a long time—a Hillary staffer and ally, so it’s not unreasonable to suspect that she might have supported welfare reform in the 90s. But Tanden denies ever having supported it, which is believable on its face since (a) her family used welfare when she was growing up, and (b) she was in law school at the time welfare reform was being debated.1

In any case, Bruenig’s tweets were nasty, apparently unfounded, and a bit two-faced (charging Walsh with “ageism” followed by insulting Tanden as “geriatric”). So what happened next? I’ll get to that, but perhaps some of you don’t know who Neera Tanden is. You should. To the best of my memory, I’ve never interacted with her and don’t really know anything about her, but a bit of googling turned up this:

Her birthday is a deeply held secret. However, she was born in 1970 and says she’s 45 now, so it must be sometime after May 19.
Her brother attended USC and she attended UCLA. Woot! I approve already. We need less Ivy League and more West Coast in high places.
She uses the word “actually” a lot. Maybe she picked this up at UCLA.
She is the president of CAP, the Center for American Progress. CAP is a high-powered progressive think tank that most people think of as either a very influential mainstream liberal think tank or, if you want to be a little more insidery, as the Clinton family’s personal think tank.2 Being president of CAP is, as Joe Biden might say, a Big Effin Deal. Tanden is the kind of person who gets mentioned frequently as a possible chief-of-staff in a Hillary Clinton White House.
Here’s the Washington Post shortly after she took over CAP: “At 5 feet 2 inches tall, with an infectious laugh and impatience for ineptitude, Tanden brims with a moxie that can shift to sarcasm. Critics and allies alike describe her as an effective molder and messenger of intricate policy, as well as an expert practitioner of in-house politics. Friends say she is remarkably well-rounded: a model wife and mother, ideal company for a glass of wine, a perfect partner for spontaneous office dancing.” Yikes!

OK, so what happened next? Bruenig works for Demos, a lefty think tank (yeah, they’re everywhere), which got wind of his tweets and immediately apologized: “Sincerest apologies for @MattBruenig’s judgment and demeanor. It’s unacceptable and we’re on it. While @MattBruenig blogs with Demos, we do not condone personal attacks. We are dealing with this internally. Thank you for understanding. We value the important work you’ve done and continue to do. @neeratanden @joanwalsh” This afternoon Demos fired him:

Today, we are taking a harder look at how our staff, fellows and independent contractors engage on social media—and unfortunately, we are finding that we have not met our own standards of vigilance to ensure that nobody associated with Demos is crossing an important line. After our tweet apologizing for Matt’s personal attacks including the term “scumbag,” we received emails from multiple individuals who made it clear that we were not aware of the extent to which Matt has been at the center of controversies surrounding online harassment of people with whom he disagrees.

It was evidence of a pattern of behavior that is far out of line with our code of conduct. After multiple conversations, Matt Bruenig and Demos have agreed to disagree on the value of the attack mode on Twitter. We part ways on the effectiveness of these kinds of personalized, online fights and so we are parting ways as colleagues today. And just as we did with Matt three years ago when he first joined our blog, Demos will continue to find and amplify the voices of lesser-known progressive policy commentators to make for a more inclusive public sphere.

As their statement goes on to say, there’s an overlay of Bernie vs. Hillary in all this, and this prompted a flurry of Twitter condemnations of Demos. Glenn Greenwald was fairly typical:

So which was it? Was Bruenig fired for offending the great and good, or was he fired for being a jerk? It’s hard to say, isn’t it? Demos says it got a pile of emails that suggested a longtime pattern of “online harassment.” But the rest of us haven’t seen those emails, so who knows? They also say they had “multiple conversations” with Bruenig, and apparently he declined to just apologize and move on. It also sounds like he declined to rein in his behavior.

If you assume that Demos is telling this straight, it’s hard to see how they could hold onto him. This is the kind of thing that I’d normally call a non-firing offense, but only if the offender agrees there’s a problem and promises to rein it in. The risk of having an employee like this go completely ballistic at some point and write something either libelous or just plain repellent3 is too great. All of these tweets may have been on Bruenig’s private account, but he’s still very publicly associated with Demos—which is explicitly in the influence biz and has to be careful about making lots of random enemies just because one of its employees has a bit of a temper problem.

The whole thing is a damn shame. I hope Bruenig lands on his feet somewhere, but I’ll bet that any future employer will ask for pretty much the same promise about tone and harassment that Demos did. It’s a little hard to imagine any outfit in the think tank trade not caring about this. In the end, I suspect Matt Yglesias has the final word:

1It’s times like this I wish I still had access to Nexis so I could check this out, but I don’t.

2Dammit, is there a synonym for think tank?

3More repellent, anyway. You know what I mean.

Read the article: 

The Great Matt Bruenig-Neera Tanden Kerfuffle Sort of Explained

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Great Matt Bruenig-Neera Tanden Kerfuffle Sort of Explained

Is Bernie Sanders Just the Latest Goo-Goo Candidate?

by ReganRojas Posted on May 2, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jonathan Chait argues that the appeal of Bernie Sanders isn’t truly rooted in his ideology:

It is certainly true that Sanders pushed the debate leftward, by bringing previously marginal left-wing ideas into the Democratic discussion….But to understand the Sanders campaign as primarily a demand for more radical economic policies misses a crucial source of his appeal: as a candidate of good government.

American liberalism contains a long-standing tradition, dating back to the Progressive Era, of disdain for the grubby, transactional elements of politics….Candidates who have fashioned themselves in this earnest style have included Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Howard Dean, and Barack Obama. These candidates often have distinct and powerful issue positions, but their appeal rests in large part on the promise of a better, cleaner, more honest practice of politics and government.

I’ve made much the same argument myself, so you’d think I’d agree with Chait. But after hearing from a lot of pissed-off Bernie supporters over the past few days, I’m not so sure anymore. For example, here is Ryan Cooper explaining why non-Boomers like Bernie’s ideas:

Though I can’t speak for everyone, I’d wager that young people are attracted to those ideas because they know what it’s like to graduate with a crushing load of student debt or to have a baby in a country with no paid leave but which also expects both parents to work full-time. Or maybe they can just feel that the bottom half of the income ladder is getting a raw deal. They’re not idiots in thrall to a political charlatan.

I’ve gotten an awful lot of responses like this. The gist is usually a combination of (a) my “statistics” about the state of the economy are totally bogus, and (b) I’m too fat and contented to understand what life is like for anyone less fortunate than me. But here’s the thing: most of these responses seem to come from folks who themselves have student debt or low incomes. There’s nothing wrong with that, and I’d fully expect these folks to appreciate Bernie’s message. But they’re not arguing for good government, they’re arguing for policies that would help them personally. That’s your basic transactional politics, no matter how you dress it up.

POSTSCRIPT: I think Cooper is very, very wrong about the history of health care reform too, but I’ll leave that for another time.

View this article:  

Is Bernie Sanders Just the Latest Goo-Goo Candidate?

Posted in ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Bernie Sanders Just the Latest Goo-Goo Candidate?

Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

by PorterTeeple273 Posted on April 21, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For the last couple of months, we’ve been taking flak from some of our readers over our election coverage. Here’s a sample of Facebook comments from a recent story, headlined “Sanders Extends His Lead in Wyoming.”

“You hate Bernie.” “Boy the media hates her!”

Journalists like us typically shrug off this kind of criticism. When we make people on both sides mad, we must be doing something right…right?

But Mother Jones is not your typical news organization, this isn’t your typical election season, and we’ve never been too much into doing things the way they’ve always been done. So we wanted to take a different tack this time and address these concerns with you, head-on.

We won’t be coy: This is about building a relationship, and we’re going to ask for money.

Mother Jones is a reader-supported nonprofit, and that means we rely on donations and magazine subscriptions for 70 percent of our annual budget. It also means that by April 30, we need to raise $175,000 from readers like you to stay on track.

So the easiest thing to do, in some ways, would be taking it easy on our election coverage so as not to upset any of you while we’re asking for your support—we know Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders appeal to a lot of our readers. But taking it easy on anything is not in our DNA; in fact, it’s exactly the opposite of what (we think) you want us to do.

We’ll explain why we believe that—but if you don’t need to read more, please make your tax-deducible donation to help fund our reporting right now. (You can use PayPal, too, which could be easier if you’re reading this on your phone.)

Here’s one big thing about being supported by readers: No one tells us what to cover, or how. That means we’re free to do what good journalism has always done: Offend some of the people, all of the time.

Unlike some publications, we don’t endorse or support candidates. As a nonprofit, we’re legally prohibited from doing that, and, just as importantly, it would be counter to what we stand for journalistically. We’re not about telling you how to make up your mind. You do just fine on your own. What we are about is giving you the facts you need to do it—even when they are uncomfortable.

That often means going to extra lengths: Unlike a lot of “news” you read online, what we write goes through a real fact-checking process. (Read a great description of it, by one of our ace former researchers, here.)

And it means digging in places where others aren’t. Back in 2012, pundits insisted that voters didn’t really care about the 0.01 percent and their disproportionate influence in politics—until we revealed how Mitt Romney had told his big-ticket donors that 47 percent of Americans were moochers. Two years ago, when few were talking about Clinton’s links to the fossil fuel industry, we did a major investigative feature on her support for fracking as secretary of state; now her links to the fossil fuel industry are a big issue. Last summer, we ran the first in-depth piece on Sanders’ political evolution (and put an illustration of him on Mount Rushmore on the cover of our magazine); it took months for other major outlets to take him seriously. Since then, we’ve both covered the breaking news in the race and dug deeper on the strong points and weak points of both candidates—because that’s the job you want us to do.

Stories that make some of our readers uncomfortable don’t just happen during a presidential election. The increase in mass shootings and the influence of the National Rifle Association, the neuroscience behind racism, the incredible amount of water it takes to grow a single almond—we’ve gotten pushback from a lot of people about these stories, too, but they’ve also turned into mainstays of the public debate.

And that’s what we’re aiming for: substantive reporting that challenges conventional wisdom. There are plenty of places that serve up content to affirm what their readers already believe. But we think you deserve better.

Do we expect our biggest critics to open up their wallets to support us after reading this? Nope. But being a reader-supported nonprofit means building a real relationship with our audience, and that starts with trust. We hope there are enough of you who trust us to provide information you won’t find anywhere else—even if, especially if, it challenges your own preconceptions.

Continue reading here: 

Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

Factlet of the Day: Youth Turnout in New York Wasn’t Much Different Than in 2008

by MaureenHoffmann Posted on April 20, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For the record, here’s the Democratic turnout in New York in 2008 and 2016:

Total Turnout

18-29 Turnout

2008

1.82 million

273 thousand

2016

1.81 million

322 thousand

The turnout rate among all residents aged 18-29 was up from 9.8 percent to 11.5 percent. That’s a nice increase, but as I recall, Obama didn’t spend a whole lot of time in New York in 2008. When you take that into account, it’s hard to see much evidence here of a massive surge in youth interest caused by the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Continue reading:  

Factlet of the Day: Youth Turnout in New York Wasn’t Much Different Than in 2008

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Factlet of the Day: Youth Turnout in New York Wasn’t Much Different Than in 2008

Bernie Sanders earned $205,000 in 2014

by DomingoTorreggi Posted on April 15, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Earlier today I noted that someone who earns $200,000 pays an average federal income tax rate of 15 percent. Well, it turns out that Bernie Sanders is really, really average. He released his 2014 tax return tonight, and it reports that he had an adjusted gross income of $205,617 and total taxes due of $27,653. That’s 13 percent of his income.

Oddly, his return shows total wages of $156,441, even though US senators earn a minimum of $174,000. I’m not sure what the explanation for this is. He also shows charitable contributions of $8,350, which is 4 percent of his income. He’ll get some flak for that, I suppose, but I find all the showiness of politicians about their charitable donations to be tiresome. Whatever it is, it’s fine.

I just want to know why his reported wages were less than his official salary. Does the Senate pay less if you collect Social Security benefits?

UPDATE: In comments, machev suggests that Bernie contributes $17,500 to the federal equivalent of a 401(k). So his reportable income is $174K – $17.5K = $156.5K

See the article here:

Bernie Sanders earned $205,000 in 2014

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders earned $205,000 in 2014

Sanders addresses the Vatican on how income inequality is killing the planet

by JudeMathis Posted on April 15, 2016

Sanders addresses the Vatican on how income inequality is killing the planet

By on 15 Apr 2016commentsShare

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders visited the Vatican on Friday to address a conference on social, economic, and environmental justice. Pope Francis, who is currently in Greece addressing the Syrian refugee crisis, was not in attendance, but Sanders praised the pontiff’s commitment to social justice and made several pointed remarks on the rising inequality between the world’s rich and everyone else — and how that wealth inequality affects the planet.

An excerpt from his speech:

The widening gaps between the rich and poor, the desperation of the marginalized, the power of corporations over politics, is not a phenomenon of the United States alone. The excesses of the unregulated global economy have caused even more damage in the developing countries. They suffer not only from the boom-bust cycles on Wall Street, but from a world economy that puts profits over pollution, oil companies over climate safety, and arms trade over peace. […]

Our youth are no longer satisfied with corrupt and broken politics and an economy of stark inequality and injustice. They are not satisfied with the destruction of our environment by a fossil fuel industry whose greed has put short term profits ahead of climate change and the future of our planet. They want to live in harmony with nature, not destroy it.

Sanders’ comments mirrored much of what he has been saying on the campaign trail, but some in the church doubt the Senator’s appearance at the Vatican will have much of an impact on Catholic voters. “I don’t think that Bernie Sanders going to the Vatican is going to help Bernie with Catholics any more than Ted Cruz going to a matzo factory is going to help him with the Jewish vote,” Matt Malone, editor of Jesuit magazine America, told the Associated Press, pointing out that conferences such as this are exceedingly common, and the Pope rarely attends.

You can read the full text of Sanders’ speech here.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

This article – 

Sanders addresses the Vatican on how income inequality is killing the planet

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sanders addresses the Vatican on how income inequality is killing the planet

Paul Krugman Is Annoying

by LonLaboureyas Posted on April 8, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Paul Krugman doesn’t think much of Bernie Sanders. Krugman being Krugman, that means he’s been flooding the zone with anti-Bernie columns and blog posts. This hasn’t gone over well with many of his erstwhile fans:

Greg Sargent gets this right. These days, nobody is allowed to be anti-Bernie or anti-Hillary simply because they disagree with them. There has to be some hidden, crypto-conservative agenda involved. In reality, though, this is just Krugman being his usual self. It’s what he does. Lefties are now learning why conservatives find him so annoying.

Original article:  

Paul Krugman Is Annoying

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Paul Krugman Is Annoying

Bernie Sanders Has Really Pissed Off Margaret Archer

by Yvonne9866 Posted on April 8, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Bernie Sanders is headed to the Vatican:

Whether or not the pope shares the Vermont senator’s enthusiasm for Eugene Debs, he’s “feeling the Bern” enough to have invited the Jewish presidential candidate to speak at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, during a conference on social, economic, and environmental issues. Sanders will head to Rome immediately after the April 14 Democratic debate in Brooklyn.

But apparently the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences is decidedly not feeling the Bern:

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders reached out to obtain his invitation to the Vatican and showed “monumental discourtesy” in the process, a senior Vatican official said.

“Sanders made the first move, for the obvious reasons,” Margaret Archer, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which is hosting the conference Sanders will attend, said in a telephone interview. “I think in a sense he may be going for the Catholic vote but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly—not that he will.“

Huh. I wonder what Bernie did to piss off Margaret Archer? Maybe it has something to do with his views on conflation:

Margaret Archer argues that much social theory suffers from the generic defect of conflation where, due to a reluctance or inability to theorize emergent relationships between social phenomena, causal autonomy is denied to one side of the relation. This can take the form of autonomy being denied to agency with causal efficacy only granted to structure (downwards conflation). Alternatively it can take the form of autonomy being denied to structure with causal efficacy only granted to agency (upwards conflation).

…In contradistinction Archer offers the approach of analytical dualism. While recognizing the interdependence of structure and agency (i.e. without people there would be no structures) she argues that they operate on different timescales. At any particular moment, antecedently existing structures constrain and enable agents, whose interactions produce intended and unintended consequences, which leads to structural elaboration and the etc. etc.

Does that help? No? Sorry about that. I guess someone will have to ask Archer just what Bernie did that was so monumentally discourteous. Was it merely asking for an invitation in the first place? Is it the fact that Bernie is pro-choice? Or something more? We need someone to dig into the Vatican gossip machine and let us know.

Read this article:

Bernie Sanders Has Really Pissed Off Margaret Archer

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Has Really Pissed Off Margaret Archer