Don't Believe The Corporate Media: Bernie Sanders Is Very Much Alive

Following Super Tuesday, the corporate media machine has been working overtime to hijack the Democratic Primary narrative.

The race is over, they say. Hillary Clinton has the nomination wrapped up. Bernie Sanders is done. The Revolution is dead. It's time for him to drop out and fall in line behind Hillary.

To make their case, they use bogus math. On CNN, MSNBC and Google, they bombard us with lopsided charts and graphs that say Hillary is dominating the race. They claim that she leads by an insurmountable margin of 1,052 to 427.

These numbers are incredibly misleading because they include both regular delegates and super delegates.

CNN, MSNBC, Google & countless others fail to mention one very important fact: super delegates do not matter one bit at this point. They do not vote until the Convention in July. They are free to change their vote based upon how the race unfolds. For example, Hillary also had a big super delegate lead in 2008, but a vast majority of them ended up switching their vote to Barack Obama when it became clear he was the better candidate.

It's also important to remember that super delegates are not chosen by the people, only the regular delegates are. Super delegates are Establishment insiders. Many of them are lobbyists and donors. They are the powerful party elites and they're rigging the game to make sure Hillary get elected.

Simply put, the corporate media is using these crooked numbers to brainwash the American people into thinking the race is over. They want to demoralize and silence the Political Revolution by making it seem like Hillary is a shoo-in. Stop organizing. Stop going to rallies. You lost. It's over. Time to put away childish things and come support Hillary.

Why is the corporate media pushing this narrative? Because it's in their best interest that Hillary wins. She represents the establishment. She defends the status quo, which keeps them in power and makes them billions of dollars every single year.

As Lee Fang of The Intercept reported recently, many TV pundits you see on cable news are tied to the Hilary campaign, yet the networks never disclose this to the viewers. They trot them out as "independent" or "neutral" analysts, then they proceed to bash Bernie and sing Hillary's praises.

And it's not just the on-air pundits who are in the bag for Hillary. As Fang pointed out on Twitter, many TV executives have contributed maximum donations to her campaign.

The truth is that, in terms of pledged delegates, the race is very close. The score is not 1052-427.

It's 596-407.

Only 15 states have voted. 35 more remain and many of them are very favorable to Bernie, including Michigan, Ohio, Maine, West Virginia, Alaska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Oregon and California, the grandaddy of them all with over 400 delegates up for grabs.

On Super Tuesday, Hillary won in Southern states that will vote overwhelmingly Republican in the general election. Meanwhile, Bernie won by 20 points in a crucially important swing state (Colorado), and also scored big wins in Minnesota and Oklahoma, a landslide victory in Vermont and a virtual tie in Massachusetts, a Democratic establishment stronghold.

Bernie raised over $40 million in the month of February, so money is not an issue. We have plenty of cash to compete until the end. Time is on our side as well. Bernie's message resonates once people get a chance to meet him and hear him speak. In some places in America he is still relatively unknown. The more he campaigns, the more recruits the Revolution receives.

We cannot let the corporate media manipulate us. We cannot let it get us down. We must stay positive, stay the course, continue to organize, phone-bank and canvass.

If Bernie had lost Colorado or Minnesota, the Revolution may have ended Tuesday night.

But it didn't.

We're still in the game. And we're growing stronger each day.

We're taking it all the way to the Convention.

#FeelTheBern

Why Won't Hillary Clinton Release Her Goldman Sachs Speeches?

At the height of the 2012 presidential race, a secret video emerged showing Republican Nominee Mitt Romney disparaging the 47% of Americans who are "dependent upon government" and "unwilling to take personal responsibility for their lives."

The video changed the entire race. It destroyed Romney's candidacy because it exposed the multi-millionaire as out of touch, arrogant and unsympathetic to the middle class and the poor. If the 47% video never emerged, who knows if Barack Obama gets re-elected. That's how much of a game-changer it was.

Four years later, there's an outside chance that we could see history repeat itself. Except this time, the bombshell secret video will torpedo the would-be Democratic nominee, not Republican.


DUCKING THE ISSUE

Over the past two years, Hillary Clinton has received $2.5 million in paid speeches from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. In total, Bill and Hillary have made an astounding $125 million from paid speeches since 2001.

When a reporter from The Intercept dared to ask Clinton about the paid speeches, she laughed and turned away.

Because the speeches are made in complete private and are not available to the public, the American people are left to wonder: Why is Hillary so reluctant to talk about them? More closely, what exactly does Clinton say to the oligarchs and plutocrats when she thinks no one is listening?

Maybe this is why: according to Goldman Sachs executives who have attended these $200,000 speeches, Clinton often "reassures" them and "boosts their morale" by repudiating the Occupy Wall Street movement and denouncing Elizabeth Warren-Liberals.

"Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone... But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish... Certainly, Clinton offered the money men -- and yes, they are mostly men -- at Goldman's HQ a bit of a morale boost... [Clintons's remarks] did register as a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Senss. Elizabeth Warren..."

SHE JUST DOESN'T GET IT

Last week, at a Democratic town hall hosted by CNN, Hillary was asked about her decision to accept $675,000 from Goldman Sachs. "That's what they offered," she replied.

Then, at the last debate before the New Hampshire Primary, Hillary was asked whether she would release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches. Her response? "We'll look into it."

Hillary's ultra-casual handling of the Goldman issue is incredibly symbolic, not only of her closeness to Wall Street but also her cluelessness about what the American people actually think and feel in their heads and in their hearts.

Simply put, Hillary does not understand why this issue is so important to the American people. She is genuinely surprised that her speaking fees are garnering so much attention. This speaks volumes to how out of touch she is with regular Americans.

Nearly a decade ago, the greed and recklessness of Wall Street caused the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, costing us millions of jobs and destroying the economic security of countless Americans.

Eight years later, millions of Americans are still hurting. Their lifetime savings are gone. They are working longer hours for lower wages. They see all the new wealth going to the top 1%. They see Wall Street CEOs making ungodly sums of money while the rest of us are struggling to get by.

Now they see Hillary personally profiting off the illegal behavior of Wall Street, getting paid more in one-hour than many of us make in five or six years. These dollars are tainted by greed, yet Hillary accepts them anyway. Then she has the audacity to act like it's no big deal, like regular Americans are stupid for even asking about it. That's what makes it so infuriating and upsetting.


IT'S TIME TO COME CLEAN

It's been confirmed that every one of Hillary's speeches have, in fact, been transcribed. (All of her speaking contracts include a $1,250 fee to pay for the stenographer).

As a result, Hillary can only hide behind the "we'll look into it" cop-out for so long. The transcripts exist. It's up to her whether or not they see the light of day.

This puts Hillary in an exceedingly difficult position. If she fails to release the speeches, it will be widely assumed that they are so politically damaging that she would rather deal with the firestorm of speculation than the fallout of what they actually say.

On the other hand, if she does release them and they show her gushing over Wall Street, bashing Elizabeth Warren and defending the plutocrats who tanked our economy, it will all but destroy her campaign, handing Bernie Sanders not only the nomination, but likely the White House as well.

I don't envy Hillary's position. In many ways it's a lose-lose. She made a deal with the devil after leaving the State Department. Yes, the speeches made her rich. But now she is forced to deal with the radioactive fallout that surrounds them.

If I were Hillary, I would release the speeches. If they incriminate her as an out of touch, Wall Street-loving elitist, I would publicly apologize and return the money to Goldman Sachs. This is the only way for her to put the issue to bed and regain the trust of regular Americans.

Or she can continue to obfuscate and risk the emergence of a 47%-type video showing her bowing down to Wall Street executives in the cozy confines of Manhattan boardroom.

The first option could very well save her campaign. The second option would end up destroying her candidacy entirely.

The choice is hers.

Confessions Of A Liberal Democrat: Why I'm Voting For Bernie Over Hillary

For the first time in my life, I am learning what it truly means to be a Democrat.

Growing up in the Bush Era and then spending my 20s in the Age of Obama, it all seemed pretty black and white to me, politically speaking.

Bush was the bad one. So were all the Republicans. All they cared about was invading countries and giving tax breaks to millionaires. They loved guns, hated gay people and didn't believe in Climate Change.

The Democrats were the good guys- and I was proud to be one of them. We fought for the middle class, not the super-rich. We believed in science, protecting the environment, providing health care and social security and education to every American. We were anti-War and pro-peace. We were hippies and children of hippies.

Obama was our savior. He was going to fix Bush's mess and bring us back from the abyss. He was going to fundamentally change the country, transforming America into a more open, inclusive, liberal society.

Call it naive, but this was my perspective growing up.

Now that I'm older, I see things differently.

For the first time in my life, I now realize that there are two kinds of Democrats.

One kind is personified by Hillary Clinton. She represents the mainstream, middle of the road Democrat. By and large, the centrist, moderate Democrat is more hawkish on foreign policy, more willing to intervene in places like Iraq, Syria and Libya. They are friendlier to Wall Street and the big banks, often accepting millions from them in the form of paid speeches and campaign contributions. Simply put, they are the status quo. They are the establishment. They are in the business of ensuring that the train keeps moving. No stops. No turns. No changes.

The other kind of Democrat is embodied by Bernie Sanders. He is not a centrist. He is not a moderate. He is a proud progressive, stoic and statuesque in his positions.

He's been preaching the same gospel for nearly 50-years. He does not flip-flop or change his opinion based on poll numbers. He is authentic in a way no other contemporary politician is. He gets his campaign contributions from middle class Americans donating thirty bucks a pop, not million dollar checks from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.

Bernie wants to keep us out of costly, never-ending MidEast wars. He wants to expand social security. He wants Single Payer health care for all. He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. He wants free college tuition. And he wants to pay for all of these things by enacting a tax on Wall Street speculation and closing tax loopholes that only benefit the super wealthy. All of these positions are considered "radical" by the media and partisan pundits, but they are wildly popular with the American people.

Our democracy is broken. We face enormous problems that cannot be ignored. Income inequality, the disappearance of the Middle Class, Climate Change, big money in politics, a broken immigration system, a corrupt criminal justice system, crippling student debt, crumbling infrastructure as far as the eye can see.

If we elect another moderate, centrist Democrat, nothing will change. After all, establishment politics got us into this mess in the first place. The game is rigged, and they're the ones that rigged it.

We need to chart a new course. We need to elect a leader in the mold of FDR, someone who welcomes the hatred of Wall Street. Someone who is unwavering in their convictions. Someone who tilts the axis away from the rich and powerful and back to the common man.

I do not hate Hillary. I respect her long record of service to the country. She is by far the most qualified candidate in the field. In all honesty, I would love to cast my ballot for the first female President. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will absolutely vote for her in the general election.

But until she wins the nomination, I am fighting like hell for Bernie. And as a Liberal Democrat, you should too.

After all, who knows if we'll ever see another political revolution like this again.

Donald Trump's Dangerous Game

At first, I must admit, I enjoyed the rise of Trump.

As a Democrat, I loved seeing him skewer his fellow Republicans and cause chaos in his party. Yes, his behavior was grotesque and absurd, but I could laugh it off because, after all, there was absolutely no way he could actually win. So sit back and enjoy the ride, I thought. It won't last long.

A part of me also respected the fact that Trump spoke his mind. In a world where almost every politician is corrupt and lies through their teeth, Trump's brash honesty felt refreshing. Sure, his words are racist and hateful and divisive, but at least he's telling you what he really believes.

As summer turned to fall, it became increasingly clear that Trump was here to stay. And amazingly, the more outrageous his rhetoric grew, the more popular he became. Mexicans are rapists. John McCain isn't a war hero. Megyn Kelly had blood coming out of her whatever. It didn't matter. Trump was defying political convention, rising higher in the polls with every controversial statement. It was almost too surreal to comprehend, too unbelievable to grasp.

Soon, every interview and campaign rally became must-see TV. You felt compelled to tune in just to see what Trump would say next. It quickly became a game of "how far can he go?"

This week, we may have finally found the answer to that question.

With his proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the country, it's now clear that Trump has gone off the deep end.

All of a sudden, his act is no longer funny. It is shameful, sad and dangerous.

Normally, I cringe at Hitler comparisons. But with the rise of Trump I fully believe we are witnessing a Hitler-like movement take hold in our country.

A highly nationalistic strongman is rising to power by stoking racist hatreds and paranoia. He speaks in apocalyptic terms and promises to restore the country to its past greatness. He uses minorities and immigrants as scapegoats. He vilifies large groups of people based on their religion. This is the playbook of a fascist.

Sadly, we are already starting to see the results of Trump's highly-inflammatory, anti-Muslim rhetoric. In Texas, heavily-armed citizen mobs are stalking mosque-goers. In Philadelphia, pigs heads are being thrown at mosques. And all across the country, Middle-Eastern-looking American citizens are being harassed in schools and on busses.

It's scary to think where this dangerous path will lead.

At first, Trump was just giving the GOP a bad name. But now, with his proposal to ban all Muslims, he is giving us all a bad name, Democrats and Republicans alike. He is tarnishing the image of America. He is making us look like ignorant, bigoted laughingstocks on the world stage.

If a bright side exists, it's that only 10-15% of the population supports Trump. And although he very well could win the nomination, Trump's Hitler-like antics have made him unelectable in a general election.

But between now and November, Democrats can't just continue to sit back and watch the show. We must turn off the TV entirely.

Thanksgiving, Syrian Refugees and What It Means To Be American

Following the Paris Attacks, a growing number of Americans have demanded that the United States reject Syrian refugees.

On the surface, this sentiment seems to make sense. With hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring out of Syria, many Americans are fearful that ISIS could exploit the greatest mass migration since WWII by posing as migrants in order to gain passage into Western countries, where they could then commit acts of terror.

Amidst the backdrop of Paris, it sounds like a legitimate fear to have. However, when you really dig deep, this collective anxiety does not hold up to scrutiny.

First off, Syrian refugees are not terrorists. They are victims of terror. They are predominantly women and children whose lives have been destroyed by Assad barrel bombs and ISIS barbarism. 

Secondly, America has one of the most thorough and extensive refugee screening processes in the world. As Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson recently explained, refugees must pass multiple levels of background checks, medical tests and interviews in order to gain entrance into the United States. The entire process takes two years to complete.

Thirdly, why would ISIS waste two-years trying to pass the screening process when they already have thousands of foreign fighters with European passports who are ready to commit acts of terror right now? After all, none of the Paris attackers were refugees from Syria. They were all native Frenchmen and Belgians. They weren't foreigners, they were homegrown. 

When thinking about the refugee crisis, we must remember that one of ISIS's main goals is to "eliminate the gray-zone of co-existence between Muslims and the West." They hope that by terrorizing the West with Paris-style attacks it will cause backlash against Western Muslims as a whole, forcing them to abandon the West and join the Caliphate, which ultimately strengthens ISIS.

Muslims living in the West would soon no longer be welcome in their own societies. Treated with increased suspicion, distrust and hostility by their fellow citizens as a result of the deadly shooting, Western Muslims would soon be forced to "either apostatize... or migrate to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens."

Sadly, we are seeing this ugly trend take shape in America. Since the Paris Attacks, anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise. Donald Trump has led the charge nationally, catapulting even higher in the polls thanks to his inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric. Ben Carson even compared Syrian refugees to rabid dogs. In Texas, armed gunmen are now "hunting for terrorists" by stalking worshippers who enter mosques. This anti-Muslim backlash is exactly what ISIS.

Every time Trump calls for mass surveillance of Muslims or Chris Christie refuses to accept 3-year-old refugee orphans, ISIS jumps for joy on the streets of Raqqa. It strengthen's their apocalyptic narrative that the East is at war with the West, and that the West is hostile toward Islam. It allows ISIS to say to the refugees "Look, the West is evil. They don't want you. They don't respect you. You must stay in Syria. Your only true home is the Caliphate."

Bombs and bullets can only accomplish so much in the fight against ISIS. In order to fully destroy the Islamic State, we must decimate their ideology. Simply put, we can kill a thousand ISIS jhadists every day, but as long as the ideology that motivates them lives on, more and more fighters will take their place. The only way to end this revolving door of horror is to expose the ISIS ideology as barbaric and bankrupt and un-Islamic. 

We all have a role to play in this fight. As everyday Americans, our job is to condemn anti-Muslim rhetoric. In doing so, we prove that America is not at war with Islam. We prove that Western values like tolerance and pluralism are the ultimate antidote to extremism. Nothing would infuriate ISIS more.

As Americans, we have a moral obligation to accept refugees fleeing Syria. To turn our backs on them in their time of need would go against everything our country stands for. After all, the Statue of Liberty says "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." It doesn't say "sorry, not our problem."

History has taught us that when it comes to refugees, our actions have real consequences. In 1939, the SS St Louis was carrying over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust. It was forced to turn around before it reached Florida. More than 250 people on that ship ended up being killed by the Nazis. All because we turned them away. Most Americans look back on this episode with disgust and shame. Why, with the benefit of hindsight, are we willing to make the same mistake by closing the door on today's refugees fleeing Syria?

Finally, as we sit around the table this Thanksgiving, surrounded by family, delicious food and the sound of football in the background, we should also remember that many of our earliest ancestors, including the ones who celebrated the first Thanksgiving in 1621, were themselves immigrants and refugees.

We must honor that legacy by showing compassion to today's Syrian refugees. 

Anything less would be un-American.

Why Black Lives Matter

Every few weeks we are reminded of what it's like to be black in America.

We see Trayvon Martin gunned down a block from his home, his life taken from him by a neighborhood watchman who deemed him "suspicious" despite the fact he had only skittles and iced tea in his hands.

We see Eric Garner choked to death on the streets of New York city for selling loose cigarettes, his endless cries of "I can't breathe" completely ignored by the NYPD officers surrounding him.

We see 12-year-old Tamir Rice executed on a Cleveland playground, sentenced to death for playing with a toy gun.

We see Sandra Bland assaulted on the side of a dusty Texas road, tossed in jail and mysteriously killed, all for a minor traffic violation.

We see Walter Scott shot in the back multiple times as he's running away from police after being pulled over for a broken tail light.

We see Freddie Gray thrown into a Baltimore police van and given a "rough ride," his spine severed, his life ended, simply for possessing a legal switchblade.

Now we see a teenage girl violently assaulted by a school resource officer in South Carolina. Why? Because she was using her cell-phone and refused to exit the classroom.

Across America, there are two major reactions to these types of events when they take place. Half of the country is disgusted, ashamed, depressed, saddened, confused and upset. We keep asking ourselves the same questions. Why does this keep happening? Why are African Americans treated so unfairly? 

The other half of the country sees these events through a completely different lens. Their is no shared sense of guilt or bewilderment. No long, deep soul searching. No uneasiness over the fact that their fellow Americans are being treated unjustly. They see a teenager killed by a neighborhood watchman or a student tossed aside like a rag-doll and think they must have done something to deserve it. They should have respected authority. They were probably guilty anyway. They got what was coming to them.

These two conflicting perspectives grow more and more entrenched after each tragic event, deepening the divide between law enforcement and communities of color, causing further polarization among everyday Americans.

WHY BLACK LIVES MATTER

When the topic of racial injustice is brought up at the 2016 presidential debates, the candidates on both sides are often asked whether "all lives matter" or "black lives matter." 

Republicans say "all lives matter." They are dismissive of the black lives matter movement. They argue that it's divisive and antagonistic and anti-police. They do not believe it raises legitimate concerns about police brutality or the corrupt nature of our justice system.

However, with each passing day, it's getting harder and harder to ignore the reality of the situation we face. These incidents keep happening. We can argue over the reasons why they keep happening, but that doesn't stop them from taking place. 

Recently, President Obama brilliantly explained the reason why black lives (and not all lives) matter.

I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase "black lives matter" was not because they were suggesting nobody else's life matters. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that is happening in the African American community that's not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we've got to address.

Simply put, the tragic events we keep witnessing do not happen with the same frequency in white communities. White kids wearing hoods aren't deemed to be "suspicious." They aren't gunned down in their own neighborhoods. They aren't beaten up by cops in their own classroom. White women aren't pulled over for minor traffic violations, assaulted and mysteriously killed in police custody.

I know this because I grew up in a white community. I made many of the same "mistakes" but never once did I fear for my life. Why? Because I'm white. 

Because of the color of my skin, I am given a free pass, a presumption of innocence, a perpetual benefit of the doubt. I don't have to worry about going out at night, or the clothes I wear, or how I have to speak to police if I'm pulled over for a broken tail-light.

African Americans are not afforded these same rights.

That is the essence of white privilege.

WE STILL MUST OVERCOME

Despite taking place hundreds of years ago, the sinful legacy of slavery lives on in America. African Americans may no longer be held in bondage, but they are still not afforded full citizenship under the law. In many ways, they are still treated as 3/5 of a person.

A powerful new video by the The Equal Justice Initiative brilliantly illustrates this sad reality. As the narrator explains, slavery didn't end in 1865, it evolved. We see it everyday in the form of violent policing and mass incarceration. 

Recently, FBI Director James Comey blamed the rise of violence and racial tensions over the past year on "the Ferguson effect." He argued that officers are "under siege" and unable to "protect and serve" because they worry about being caught on a career-ending cell-phone video.

This completely misses the point. Simply put, if the only thing that motivates you to act properly is the threat of being caught on tape then you are not fit to be a police officer in the first place. 

To fix the situation, we must reform the way we police. We must also reform our corrupt criminal justice system that preys upon African Americans and leads to mass incarceration.

But changing our laws can only do so much. In order to fully exorcise the racial demons that plague us, we must overcome our own individual prejudices. We must learn to empathize with our fellow Americans who are drowning in injustice.

We must reject the long lasting biases, left over from centuries of oppression, that cause us to see African Americans as innately guilty and somehow less human, less worthy of full citizenship and protection under the law.

We must learn to see Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, the young girl in the South Carolina classroom and the countless other unnamed victims of racial injustice not as thugs who got what they deserved, but as fellow Americans who are being denied their rights.

We must remember what Martin Luther King Jr. told us: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Barack Obama: Climate Champion or Climate Hypocrite?

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama famously stated that his ultimate goal as president, if he were lucky enough to win, was to act as the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan: a transformational figure who "changed the trajectory of America" by placing us on a "fundamentally different path."

In many ways, Obama has achieved this goal. He brought us back from the worst financial collapse since the Depression. He saved the auto industry. He passed health care reform. He ended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He killed Bin Laden. Under his watch, the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.1%, the Stock Market has soared and Marriage Equality is now the law of the land.

This isn't to say that Obama hasn't made mistakes. He has. Chief among them is the fact that he placed way too much faith in Republicans in the early and mid years of his presidency, naively hoping they would meet him in the middle and help move the country forward. Instead, he got rebuffed at every turn, resulting in years and years of political gridlock where nothing got done.

When it comes to climate, Obama appears as a truly dedicated, compassionate and focused leader in the fight to save our planet. He listens to the science and shames those who don't. He makes countless speeches about the severity of the environmental threat we face, urging us all to act.

Legislatively, Obama has enacted sweeping new EPA regulations to cut carbon pollution, a key component to his overall climate plan. In addition, he has also put into place the most ambitious fuel efficiency standards in our nation's history. In 2009, he signed into law the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which protected 2 million new acres of land across nine different states. Overall, he has designated nine new National Parks during his presidency.

All the while, Obama has been a vocal champion of renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

But if he's so committed to combating climate change, why is he allowing Shell to drill for oil in the Arctic?


HALFWAY MEASURES ARE NOT ENOUGH

To be a transformational president, you can't ride the fence on important issues. You must adhere to your northern compass and never let public opinion or outside influence lead you astray. You must always be guided by the courage of your convictions (regardless of whether something is unpopular) so that no one ever questions where your loyalties lie. This is what makes you authentic, which in turn allows you to be successful, and therefore, transformational.

It cannot be questioned whether or not Obama is transforming the climate conversation. He is. He has brought the issue to the forefront and taken meaningful, legislative action to protect our planet and limit the worst effects of climate change. For this, he should be commended.

However, he has also made the terrible decision to allow Shell to exploit and destroy one of the last truly pristine wild spaces left on Earth: the Arctic.

This is an awful, crushing blow to the overall environmental movement because it allows our never ending addiction to fossil fuels to continue unabated. Instead of taking a principled stand against further oil extraction, Obama has gifted a new, untapped piece of wilderness to the filthy rich oil industry so they can profit even further off the plundering of our planet.

Giving Shell the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic means that even more oil will be sold and burned on the global market. More fossil fuels will evaporate into the air. More greenhouse gases will be trapped in our atmosphere, causing our planet to warm and our storms to grow more intense and out of control.

It also means that the Arctic is now under severe threat of a catastrophic oil spill that could spell environmental disaster for one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet. After all, despite Shell's braggadocios safety promises, we all know that oil rigs are prone to leaking or breaking.

The BP oil spill in 2010 occurred in the tranquil, warm waters of the Gulf and it still took months to cap. Some five years later, the ocean and coastal areas still haven't recovered. Imagine if a similar spill took place in the Arctic. It could take weeks just for icebreakers and equipment to reach the full disaster zone. It could take months, even years, to cap and fully contain the spill, causing unimaginable environmental devastation.

ALL OR NOTHING

When speaking about climate change, Obama always uses the science to bolster his argument and motivate others to act. He constantly cites the 97% of scientists who say that climate change is real and caused by human activity.

However, Obama is also selective in his use of science, which makes us question just how committed he is to the overall cause.

For example, the scientists say that in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change we must keep at least 75% of all remaining fossil fuels in the ground. Anything less than that is an assured death sentence for our planet.

The scientists also say that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at 10x the rate than previously thought, which will cause the sea level to rise at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.

We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meter sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migration and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.

By allowing Shell to open up a brand new oil excavation site in the Arctic, Obama is directly going against the scientists. In this scenario, Obama is acting like a doctor who advises a lung cancer patient to quit smoking, then offers them a carton of Marlboro cigarettes on their way out the door.

When asked why he decided to allow Shell to drill in the Arctic, Obama told reporters that "our economy still needs to rely on oil." This "economy" argument has long been used to justify doing nothing. This type of thinking is not going to solve our climate crisis. After all, what good will protecting the economy do if our planet is destroyed beyond repair? A million dollars won't mean much in a Mad Max-post Apocalypse world where the planet is no longer habitable.

When it comes to combating climate change, we must take an all or nothing approach. Halfway measures will not keep the planet from warming or the seas from rising. Protecting wilderness areas, enacting bold fuel efficiency standards and championing solar and wind are great. But they are meaningless in the big picture if you then turn around and allow places like the Arctic to be destroyed and millions- even billions- more barrels of oil to be extracted and burned.

If Obama wants to be a true climate champion, he must stop playing both sides of the issue. He can't publicly decry the threat of climate change one day and then allow Shell to profit off the destruction of our planet the next.

Tell President Obama that his decision to allow Arctic drilling is wrong and must be reversed. Sign the petition here >> https://www.savethearctic.org/