Showing posts with label Big Pharma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Pharma. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 25, 2024

The Exercise Of Imagination

 

“The exercise of imagination is dangerous to those who profit from the way things are because it has the power to show that the way things are is not permanent, not universal, not necessary.”

—Ursula K. LeGuin

The Exercise of Imagination

by C.A. Matthews

My husband has a new hobby. Every evening he turns on the local newscast to view the weather forecast so we know how much watering our garden will need the next day. Lately he waits until the national newscast comes on. This is when his cathartic yelling at the screen begins.

“What the…? It’s not a war, asshole. The children of Gaza are being murdered. It’s a goddamn genocide. Say the word, you stupid bastard!”

Mercifully, the six o’clock newscast runs only about sixteen minutes or else he’d be permanently hoarse. I timed the commercials one night, and discovered the half hour is made up of mostly commercials for Big Pharma. That gives you some idea who their target audience is—older Americans with deep pockets who love popping pills.

National newscasts really don’t provide news as much as they give out headlines. Their headlines tend to be predictable propaganda soundbites courtesy of the Ministry of Truth or the government propaganda machine. The news readers with their Hollywood-movie-star looks aren’t trying to impart factual information as much as they’re trying to persuade and provoke emotions, such as hatred and animosity toward those whom the oligarchy wants us to hate. They want us to despise and fear others so much that we’d be willing to go to war with them and die—or at least we’re okay with our children or grandchildren dying for the cause.

After watching several national newscasts, the emotional manipulation became bleedin’ obvious (as my British husband says). Do the regular consumers of mainstream (legacy) media realize they’re being manipulated to believe and feel a certain way in the first place? (See last week’s post about who does the manipulating and why.) What do they really get out of it? Do they actually enjoy being lied to? Do the lies reinforce their deep-seated prejudices and feed their wildest fears, making them fat and content in their hatred? Is warmongering propaganda a source of entertainment for them?

 

To read the rest of this article, click on this link to go to our Substack page: https://therevolutioncontinues.substack.com  There you'll also see the related article and video links, all the images, and be able to easily leave comments. You can subscribe to receive the weekly blog post in your email box as well. (We'll think you'll like it much better than Blogspot.) Power to the people! 

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

The Price of Complacency



The Price of Complacency

by Coast Watcher

The British National Health Service (NHS) is rightly regarded as one of the jewels in the crown of public life. British people cherish their NHS service and will go to great lengths to avoid using it "unnecessarily." People have been known to take taxis to hospital when they are perfectly justified in using an ambulance, because they don’t want to "tie up an ambulance when somebody else could use it."

Founded in 1948, the NHS is administered by the government but is owned by the British people. It has provided healthcare for millions—yet its fate now hangs in the balance. The very government which is supposed to look after it on behalf of the nation is busily selling it off by stealth.

Yes. Much like the Republican Party of the United States, the Conservative (Tory) Party of Great Britain has never encountered a public asset it doesn’t want to sell off for private profit.

As someone with experience of healthcare on both sides of the Atlantic I can safely say the NHS is by far and away the better of the two. The first question asked in a British NHS hospital or doctor’s surgery (office) is "Where does it hurt?" and not "How are you paying for this?" There are waiting lists for procedures, but the patients will be treated, unlike the US, where they may be treated—if their insurance company gives the go-ahead.

In Britain ambulance journeys are free. Consultations are free. Decisions as to which treatment should be administered are entirely up to the medical professionals—not a death committee of insurance salespeople. Patients are not charged—let alone astronomical prices—for a single aspirin and boxes of Kleenex. Nobody in the UK goes bankrupt from medical treatment, unlike the US where 60% of all bankruptcies are due to unforeseen healthcare costs.

My elderly parents recently required the NHS to step up for them when my mother became ill with Alzheimer’s Disease. Carers were provided for her three times a day, every day, allowing my father to take a break. A special hospital bed was provided for her comfort and to make helping her easier for my father and the carers. Regular doctor’s visits took place throughout the course of my mother’s illness right to the end. And none of it cost my parents a penny.

Yet all this is slowly, subtly changing as the Tory government poison works its way through the British public healthcare system. There is even a small minority who advocate privatization of the NHS, presumably because they’ve been indoctrinated to think this way or stand to benefit from such an arrangement.

A friend of mine is an anesthetist at a university hospital in Britain. I was aware of his growing frustration at the insidious attack on the service so many Britons hold dear, so I wasn’t surprised when he wrote the following letter after witnessing a BBC attempt to whitewash the growing privatization of the NHS. His letter is as follows:

Dear Nikki Fox (BBC reporter),

I have just watched your feature on the above subject and have to tell you that you failed entirely to focus on the real cause of the massive increase in the NHS waiting times.

The NHS has been systematically underfunded for decades which has left it not only totally unable to deal with a pandemic but in a poor position to give patients the treatment they so desperately need.

While I realise that you have to edit such a feature, to have a Conservative MP say to viewers they have the right to choose their treatment but you did not mention that the voting record of Richard Bacon MP would show you that he has consistently voted against funding the NHS adequately, supported not paying its staff a proper and decent wage for what they do and promoted the government in its privatisation of the NHS.

To have this man, who has voted in such a way, to say it is people's choice in how they get their healthcare is galling considering that it is people like him that has forced members of the public to have to spend their pension and savings to get the treatment that they have already paid their National Insurance and should already expect such treatment.

The lack of funds to the NHS is not only due to inadequate funding but the stealth privatisation of the NHS by successive Conservative Governments has led to private companies making profit from patients suffering and ill health, money which could be better spent on treating patients in the first place.

Consistent poor pay rises, usually under that present rate of inflation, has led to not only some nurses needing to go to food banks, (the growth in the number of and use of food banks is another symptom of consistent Conservative Governments), but nurses and health professionals have left the NHS which has left the health service chronically understaffed and struggling even more to match the demands placed upon it.

The termination of the NHS bursary has also seriously affected recruitment in the NHS and the contract forced on junior doctors just increases the numbers leaving the country to practice in other countries.

Further to this the massive student debt incurred by nurses during their university education leaves them saddled with debt for decades and is not an incentive to enter the profession.

I would like to ask you, Nikki, directly why you do not cover any of these subjects in your features?

I have watched the John Pilger documentary The Dirty War on the NHS Why don't you cover the issues in that?

Simon Stevens, the NHS chief executive has a long history working for massive private healthcare companies, as do many other people in the higher echelons of the NHS. Why do you not voice concerns about this?

NHS GP practices have been quietly sold to a private health care company, 37 NHS GP practices have been sold to a private US health company (Centene) yet little is mentioned of this in the BBC news. Could you report on this please?

I find that the BBC news frequently bashes the NHS but never actually explains the real causes of what is happening in the NHS.

I have not touched on:

The Naylor Report and its effects on the NHS, lack of PPE at the start of the pandemic, the investigation before the pandemic which showed the NHS had inadequate PPE to deal with a pandemic, the many examples of cronyism where the Conservative government gave untendered contracts to individuals and companies which have close contacts with the Conservative party, including having made donations to the party, refusing to increase NHS salaries after real terms pay cuts for a decade, the hypocrisy of clapping for the NHS during the pandemic and refusing proper investment and salary increase, the lack of attendance of the Prime Minister at the initial COBRA meeting, (while he "holidayed" at his residence at Checkers), spending massive amounts of money on an unnecessary refurbishment of the Downing Street press room and 10 Downing Street itself when NHS staff are struggling with debt and visiting food banks, the protection of Dominic Cummings when he broke lockdown rules when the population of this country were suffering the loss of loved ones and abiding by the lockdown rules, ignoring any comparisons to death rates in other countries where despite a denser population their death rates have been far lower than ours, and reporting on the consistent lying of the Prime Minister during his time in Parliament.

I look forward to your reply about these points. The BBC is no longer viewed as impartial in its reporting of the actions of the government, and since the new chief executive of the BBC has close links to the Conservative Party, I do not see it improving.

I do not expect you to read this e mail out in future episodes of Look East however I would appreciate an answer as to why you do not report on such subjects and give them the attention they deserve. After all it is your taxes and the healthcare of you and your relatives that we are talking about. We will all need the help of the NHS during our lives, and this Conservative government is gradually taking it away from us while making profit from its demise for themselves, donors and colleagues.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen T.

"I am tired of the abysmal reporting of the BBC news concerning the NHS and really have had enough of listening to such misleading half truths and right wing bias. I doubt they will even bother to answer." --Stephen

Sobering, even sickening reading. The NHS, a much-loved institution is under direct threat from the very government that is supposed to administer it on behalf of the public.

Healthcare services the world over are under incredible strain due to the Covid-19 pandemic, yet publicly-owned healthcare services have shown time and again they are far superior to private systems such as that of the United States. 

The people of Britain are in imminent danger of losing their precious public asset because of typical Tory greed and insensitivity. After generations of agitating for a National Health Service, the British people got one in 1948. Please, people of Britain, do not let this wonderful service fall to pieces through your complacency. Stand up and demand the Tory government rescind all privatization measures and restore the service to what it should and must be.


BIO: Coast Watcher hasn't forgotten his fellow countrymen in the UK. He can see what the Tories are up to with their privatization schemes, and he knows how Big Pharma and the for-profit Health Insurance Industry works from his time in the US. His advice: Keep your eyes open. If there's some way for a corporation to make a profit at the public's expense, expect shenanigans. Fight complacency.

 

***


A taste of justice. Justice served on Derek Chauvin. Guilty on all three counts. Bail revoked. It was a quick verdict. Yet it is so rare that police officers are convicted -- one in 2,000 over the last 15 years for killings by police. It doesn’t bring George Floyd back. But, hopefully, it will give pause to some police who think they can kill with impunity. Six white jurors, six people of color, united on what they saw in those nine minutes of horrifying video. 
   
 
If it wasn't for the video, made by an outraged bystander, Chauvin would not be behind bars now. But not for Breonna Taylor, not for Tamir Rice, not for Rodney King, and not for the more than 135 unarmed Black people killed at the hands of police — 75 percent of them white — over the past five years.

Days before the verdict came down, police shot Daunte Wright in his car outside of Minneapolis. Hours before the verdict, police shot 16-year old Makiah Bryant in Columbus. Painful reminders that one conviction can never undo systemic racism or transform policing.

  
   
For millions of Americans, this trial put a spotlight on the terror that many people of color feel when a cop car cruises by them while walking. Or when red lights flash behind them while driving.
“Could this be it for me?

We're confronting racist policing, militarized forces in our communities, mass incarceration, and a massive racial wealth divide that has existed since slavery. Both corporate parties are responsible. Biden is arming police with more military weaponry than Trump did. States are passing anti-protest laws and building walls around government buildings. Pelosi responded to the verdict by thanking George Floyd for his sacrifice. He didn't choose to die. He was murdered.
 
 
The close-knit activist community in Minnesota can take pride in putting pressure on public officials to prosecute the case in a visible manner, giving them months to research and build their unequivocal case. 


Chauvin was convicted, but the biggest culprit is the system that produced him. We must demand a complete overhaul of our police departments and the academies that train them. We must divert funds from policing and military hardware toward services rooted in the community, like better schools, mental health, housing for all, and community policing. We must end the militarization of police and mass incarceration. 

A just verdict. But far from justice.


In Solidarity,

Nick Brana
National Coordinator
People's Party

  

***

 

The verdict is in: Derek Chauvin is guilty on all charges. We hold George Floyd’s family in our hearts and minds as they wade through the inescapable and seemingly insurmountable challenges this trial has presented. Although Chauvin has been convicted of murder, nothing will bring back George Floyd.

For weeks, we watched Chauvin’s defense lie, victim-blame, and rely on anti-Black tropes — doing everything possible to blame George Floyd for his own murder. It took over 40 witnesses and two weeks of testimony for a jury to prove what we all saw with our own eyes.

We also know that one conviction doesn't end violent policing or keep Black people safe. That's why Color Of Change immediately demanded a Dept. of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department and other police forces that threaten Black lives. Today, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the DOJ is opening a sweeping investigation into policing practices in Minneapolis.1

We're encouraged by this action, but we know that Minneapolis is not alone. The state-sanctioned murder of Black people by police must end. This is a national crisis, and we have to keep fighting to dismantle systems of oppression that threaten Black lives.

That’s why we’re demanding more. It’s time for an investigation into police forces that threaten the lives of Black people across the country. Because the issue of police violence is MUCH deeper than Derek Chauvin or one police department — it’s systemic.

The Justice Department has the power to investigate police departments across the country for civil rights violations and to examine their pattern and practice of inappropriate use of force, particularly targeting Black people. This is an important step forward to win structural change and defend Black lives.

The dept. of justice must investigate now

President Biden has already promised to address the “unbearable human costs of systemic racism,” and to rebuild the Department of Justice with a greater emphasis on racial justice and civil rights. Let’s make one thing clear: That vision must include investigations into systemic racism in policing, and court-monitored consent decrees to end anti-Black violence inflicted by local police departments in Minneapolis and across the country.

The fight for accountability starts with dismantling an entire police system that fails to keep Black people safe. We’re not safe to walk down the street, sit at a traffic stop, sleep in our own beds, go for a jog, or even ride a bike without fear that it might lead to a deadly police encounter. Derek Chauvin’s guilty verdict will not change these material conditions for Black folks.

Join us as we make sure President Biden keeps his promise to Black voters by using the power of his administration to defend Black lives — in Minneapolis, in Toledo, and across the country.

Add your name now to call on the Biden DOJ to immediately investigate police departments across the country and demand safety for Black people.

We shouldn’t have to wait for the next tragedy for policymakers to enact tangible reforms. Since the Chauvin trial began on March 29, police in the U.S. have killed more than 3 people every single day. Police in Columbus, OH murdered a young Black girl named Ma'Khia Bryant just minutes after the Chauvin verdict was announced.2 That’s unacceptable. We can’t afford to sit silently while people in our communities are dying.

We need your help calling on the Biden administration to act NOW by initiating an investigation into racist police departments across the country.

Add your name: Demand a DOJ investigation of police departments in Columbus, Rochester NY, Louisville, and everywhere Black lives are threatened by militarized police departments.

Until Justice Is Real,

Scott, Rashad, Arisha, Erika, Malachi, Megan, Ernie, Ariel, Madison, Ana, McKayla, Trevor, Palika, and the rest of the Color of Change team


References:

  1. "Justice Department launches investigation into Minneapolis policing practices." NBC News. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/301756?t=7&akid=50586%2E3399430%2EsVXi_l
  2. "Throughout Trial Over George Floyd’s Death, Killings by Police Mount." NY Times. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/301233?t=9&akid=50586%2E3399430%2EsVXi_l

***

From Public Citizen:

I think it’s important to remember the initial statement by Minneapolis police after one of them killed George Floyd on May 25, 2020.

For starters, the statement is titled, absurdly, “Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction.”

Then there’s this line:

“Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress.”

The gruesome death of George Floyd — as a police officer murdered him in broad daylight over a span of more than nine minutes — is reduced to “and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress.”

If not for local residents who bravely stopped and took the cellphone video now seen by the entire world, that official police statement may well have been the final word on the murder of George Floyd by former, and now convicted, police officer Derek Chauvin.

Policing in America is broken — from rampant racial profiling to hyper-militarization to the fact that law enforcement has already killed 319 people this year. (We’re only 111 days into 2021, so that’s almost three police killings a day.)

Tell Congress:

It is long past time for comprehensive, structural changes to the way policing is conceived and carried out in America. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would take significant steps to combat misconduct, excessive force, and racial bias in law enforcement. Pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Now.

Add your name.

Thanks for taking action.

For justice,

- Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen 



Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Hillary Clinton's Blood Money

Crouching Bernie, Hidden Hillary by Jaeil Cho
www.jaeilchoart.bigcartel.com



Hillary Clinton's Blood Money
by Cindy A. Matthews

In the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton asserted that Bernie Sanders wasn't tough enough on guns and claimed she was an "enemy" of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Sanders correctly replied that he'd received failing marks from the NRA and was no friend of theirs. Bernie Sanders was rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record, while Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped on the topic of gun control as this video demonstrates:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33906-focus-hillary-clinton-should-apologize-to-bernie-sanders

After recent mass murder events in California, Georgia and Colorado, Senator Sanders spoke from Capitol Hill about these recent tragedies and gun safety legislation that should be passed. The following short video gives a good overview of his gun control proposals:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4564606/sanders-calls-common-sense-gun-safety-legislation
 
Bernie Sanders proposes ten ways to eliminate gun violence in America, including expanding background checks, renewing the assault weapons ban, closing the "terror gap" and insuring mental health treatment for those who need it when they need it. (To read more about his proposals, please click on this link or click on the "Bernie Sanders on Gun Control" page link listed on the sidebar.)

Mrs. Clinton has been fairly quiet since the latest shooting in San Bernardino. She issued the standard Twitter statement like most political candidates do, but she's not made any particular big fuss over the recent massacres or denounced the NRA and demanded more stringent gun control laws. Why is that? She claims she isn't a friend of the NRA--and they probably agree with her-- but could Hillary Clinton's silence indicate guilt over her family's foundation taking money from other countries and groups which have killed indiscriminately?
The following links and article quotes show a worrisome pattern of behavior. They indicate that the former secretary of state has readily accepted large sums of money from foreign powers and others with blood on their hands.
…the Clinton Foundation failed to report tens of millions in foreign donations in their tax documents, a revelation that has forced the organization to re-file at least five years' worth of returns. … Some of those many undisclosed donations (which violated Hillary's transparency pledge) were related to a troubling transaction in which (a) the Russian government obtained the rights to a large chunk of US uranium interests, (b) investors and magnates connected to the deal profited handsomely, (c) the Clinton Foundation (and the Clinton themselves) pocketed millions, and (d) Hillary's State Department signed off on the whole thing -- before "repeatedly breaking" promises to mitigate national security concerns.
Particularly troublesome is that the Clinton Foundation--a charitable organization created by Hillary and Bill Clinton--isn't always forthcoming as to the names of their supporters.
Trump states that Clinton Foundation not very open about who actually does give it money. Trump has also repeatedly criticized Clinton for the lack of public transparency on her charitable foundation’s dealings.
“If this was a Republican sitting right there, this would absolutely be considered illegal,” Trump said in April of the organization’s activities...
During Mrs. Clinton's time as secretary of state, several Middle Eastern countries with abysmal human rights records were very generous supporters to the Clinton Foundation--and rewarded in turn with lucrative arms deals.
The Qataris denied the Guardian report, while the Clintons said that philanthropy shouldn’t sit in judgment on its benefactors. That’s probably what they hope voters will think about politics too, but the problem for the Clintons is that all of these corrupt relationships cross traditional liberal constituencies. It’s tough to be pro-LGBT if you’re enabling regimes that throw gays off of rooftops, and it’s tough to be pro-worker when you’re shaking hands with people who are killing them by the dozen to build sports stadiums as monuments to their rule.
In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.
The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department.


If you're hoping against hope that foreign governments and big corporations donating large sums to the Clinton Foundation can't possible influence Mrs. Clinton's decisions while  in office, this Washington Post article will put that hope to rest:
The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.
Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.

Hillary Clinton also claims that she is an "enemy" of Big Pharma and the Health Insurance Industry, and yet health insurance and drug companies have been some of her biggest financial supporters. Who's to say her "enemy" the NRA and related gun lobbyists aren't donating to her campaign or to the Clinton Foundation as well? As previous article links demonstrate, the Clinton Foundation isn't always forthcoming about the name of their donors and their accounting practices.
In 2008, Clinton was among the three biggest recipients of campaign cash from pharmaceutical-related companies, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics... The center reports that Clinton also raised more than $1.2 million from the insurance industry -- which includes health insurers.
On top of those campaign contributions, the Clintons and their family foundation have benefited from their ties to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
In 2011, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) -- the primary trade association representing drug companies -- paid Bill Clinton $200,000 for a speech, as the organization was lobbying the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. Last year, the Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies Association, a trade group whose members include major pharmaceutical companies, paid her a $250,000 speaking fee.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/14/hillary-takes-millions-in-campaign-cash-from-enemies
Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. 
More recently, the Clinton Foundation has also benefited from these groups’ donations. Donors and grantors who have given between $1 million and $5 million include Pfizer, the Procter & Gamble Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina and Humana Inc.
A handful of the Fortune 100 corporations were missing lobbying disclosures from one or more years of Clinton's tenure, suggesting more may have lobbied the agency during that time. The Clinton Foundation did not return a request for comment.
How do we know the NRA or other gun lobbyists weren't among these corporations? We don't. We must take Hillary and Bill Clinton's word for it. We can trust them, right?  It's not like the Clintons have made millions from their foundation and their lobbying efforts, right? Oh, yes, they have... They have made millions. Hundreds of millions of dollars.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31474-hillary-clinton-s-wall-street-address
 ...While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her department “approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data…
Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar, each of which “gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.”
Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold those arms and their delivery systems also shelled out heavily to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota, “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.”
 
Is it any wonder Hillary Clinton never spoke out against Citizens United until after she'd received large sums of money for her Super PACs? The Clintons' support of Big Business over the best interests of ordinary Americans has been well documented. She may pretend to be a "progressive" and attempt to imitate Bernie Sanders' positions on the issues, but her actions prove otherwise. Further evidence of her pro-Big Business/pro-Wall Street agenda can be found in these articles:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/33875-clinton-super-pac-donor-is-former-goldman-exec-and-foreclosure-crisis-profiteer
 

How "progressive" of you, Mrs. Clinton!

 
So much money--so many lives lost or permanently harmed by wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. So much money--so many lives cut short because health care isn't a universal right in the US and pharmaceutical companies are free to charge astronomical prices. Remember Martin Shkreli's recent 5000% price hike of an AIDS drug? We'd likely see more of this abhorrent activity in a Hillary Clinton administration.
Donations for arms deals... Donations for legislation favoring the billionaires over the working poor... All this "blood money" has touched the hands of Bill and Hillary Clinton through their Clinton Foundation.
To quote Sen. Richard Lugar, a ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while Hillary was secretary of state: “The Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a donation."  Sen. John Kerry, current secretary of state and the committee's chairman at the time, called Lugar's concerns over the Clinton Foundation a "legitimate question." (Read more at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html)

Hillary Clinton accuses Bernie Sanders of not being tough enough on gun control?  It's laughable when you consider how much money she's taken from cold-blooded killers.

Vote for a candidate you can trust to put ordinary Americans' health, safety--our very lives--before pleasing billionaires and instead of lining his own pockets with immoral multi-million dollar "donations" from foreign governments and Wall Street to a family-owned foundation with questionable accounting practices. Vote Bernie Sanders.


(Special thanks to Denise Silva, Scott Galindez and A.J. Matthews for providing links, video and memes.)