All posts for the month March, 2016

Wikipedia reference poster; 2016© TriStar Pictures.

If there were ever a choice between being a ignoramus or a hypocrite, I would choose the latter because at least I would be in control of my actions. I appreciate George Clooney’s body of work, especially the movies “Syriana*,” and “Michael Clayton**.” It is very likely that his new or upcoming movie “Money Monster***,” I will add to my list of favorites. Nevertheless, there is a disconnect between Mr. Clooney’s actions and the archetypes that he portraits, because the archetypes that he defends in fiction does not correspond the way he acts in real life. So the question arises; “Is George Clooney a hypocrite or an ignoramus?”

The archetypal story narrated in “Syriana,” shows how the United States of America bullies other countries to abide to its hegemony. The movie “Michael Clayton” narrates how a person with integrity decides to speak truth to power. The movie to be released in 2016 is called “Money Monster,” I have not watched the movie yet, nobody has, yet the trailer shows how a TV-stock-commentator becomes an ally in discovering the wrong doings of the Wall Street once he is kidnapped. These three movies have the archetypal patterns of integrity and saying truth to power. Yet in real life Mr. Clooney’s behavior reflects the opposite.

Suppose I am famous for acting and producing movies against the mafia, my works narrates how the mafia destroys the fabric of societies and are terrible to the economy. Yet, in real life you find me having dinners and supporting mafiosi presidential candidates. The question one should have for me would be: “Is B. Sandy an ignoramus or a hypocrite?” Apparently, B. Sandy cannot translate his work to real life, the two things that would remain in question would be his intelligence or his integrity.

Photo Courtesy:

Unfortunately, this is how George Clooney appears to me and appears to be. For instance, in “Syriana” he narrates how the USA is wrong by holding a hegemony in the Middle East and yet he supports Hillary Clinton who professes to be a warmonger and it also professes that the USA is entitled to change regimes in Middle East without accountability to facts. She voted for the Iraq War on failed intelligence data and in several occasions echoed the words of Dick Cheney and alike.

Furthermore, in the movie “Michael Clayton” and “Money Monster” George Clooney narrates the lack of integrity of corporations and how it destroys the fabric of the society and yet in real life he supports Hillary Clinton along with her husband who have a history of deregulating banking and giving private speeches at Goldman Sachs at $225,000.00.

Wikipedia reference poster, documentary; 2010© Sony Pictures Classic

It is too linear to say that Mr. Clooney is neither an economist nor a philosopher, he is a producer, director and an actor; yet if he has the common sense to take roles that narrates the corruption in our lives; why is he unable to translate his work to actions? For instance, the actor Matt Damon was very inspired by the calls of “We Can Change,” chanted by Obama’s election campaign. Eventually, he took a job to be the voice-over for the documentary* “Inside Job*4*.” In the movie “Inside Job,” Mr. Damon was able to make a connection from the screen to real life how most of the promises of change did not change the banking industry at all. Since then he cut ties with the Obama administration who supports Hillary Clinton’s nomination.

Evidently Mr. Damon realized that would have been a case of hypocrisy had he narrated “Inside Job” and continued to be supporting the Obama administration. If the banking industry was Too-big-to-fail (TBTF) in 2008, they are much bigger in 2016. The banks left standing were able to consolidate the assets, accounts and liquidity of the smaller banks; translation, the banking oligopoly is now even stronger than 2008. The Federal Reserve assets and power dwarfs in comparison with the banks TBTF when they are combined. While the FED has $4.5 trillions in assets the TBTF has $47 trillions. It is important to consider that many of these trillions of dollars exist because of a psychological condition in economics called “consumer confidence.” Once consumer confidence evaporates trillions of dollars will create a bigger domino-effect with bigger dominoes than we had in 2008.

FED Big-Picture

Source for data: and World Bank

On March 24, 2016 published an articled titled “Clinton Asks For $353K To Sit With The Clooneys*5*;” therefore, it is clear and obvious to have access to Clinton is not a democratic process but a financial process. Such event, is the Democratic Party’s version of Mitt Romney’s closed door dinner for the affluent when he was secretly video-recorded outing the quote that became the infamous citation known as the “47%” quote; “And so my job is not to worry about those people — I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like.”  Will Clooney’s dinner generate a new and similar villainous remark? Or will the Clooney’s security do a good job confiscating every cell phone from all the waiters cooks, coat checkers, dishwasher and busboys who works for the event?

No lobsters are served on dollar-menu

I will not be attending Clooney’s dinner; in fact, I am not even aware if Taco Bell sells lobsters because I only look at Taco Bell’s one-dollar menu. It has not been easy for Matt Damon to take a new stand against Obama’s administration; in his most recent job he was left to die on Mars and survived on planting potato for years*6*. Evidently, in this paragraph I am having problems separating reality from fiction, but I am not the only one. George Clooney is also having the same problem, portraying actors who have integrity; but on real life supporting a political candidate who gives private speeches to Goldman Sachs at $225,000.00 a pop, who accepts contributions from big-pharma, and the military industrial complex, bent on supporting a presidential candidate who will maintain the status quo and American hegemony.

Fiat Lux!

Post Script: To many Clooney’s endorsement is important, please also read my blog “I will not Endorse Bernie Sanders”*7* to learn about the archetypal mechanics of endorsements.

Source*: “Syriana,” 2005© Warner Bros. Pictures.

Source**: “Michael Clayton,” 2007© Warner Bros.

Source***: “Money Monster,” 2016© TriStar Pictures.

Source*4*: “Inside Job,” documentary, 2010© Sony Pictures Classic.


Source*6*: Joke alluding to “The Martian,” 2015© 20th Century Fox.

Source *7*:


This blog was originally posted on March 28, later edited and re-posted at “Los Angeles for Bernie dot Org”

Fiat Lux! \"Share the light:\"

(To hear the audio version of this blog, click play above)

There has been some misunderstandings. My friends and neighbors are under the impression that I am endorsing Bernie Sanders. The truth is that I never did and I never will. The fact that I have made my house available for volunteers from out of state and the fact that I became a precinct captain for Bernie Sanders does not mean that I endorse him, but it means that I support him.

2016-02-17 21.16.42

Out of town campaigning for Sanders in Nevada.

Okay, so what is the difference? Today it is common for people to hear “hey famous actor or famous singer is endorsing Bernie Sanders.” What should the average folk get out of such announcement? Well, we will get to it. However, I am neither a famous writer nor a famous singer, usually endorsements require a certain celebrity status; so it goes.

The main reason why I never endorsed and never will endorse Bernie Sanders; because it is like saying that I endorse Socrates, Pythagoras or Plato. When ancient Greek philosophers prophesied their logic, their words stood without any support. Logic and reason does not need to be endorsed. Should anyone endorse algebra or calculus? Such are the words of Bernie Sanders, his words stands on logic, on reason and on his five-plus decades of fighting for social justice for the American people. While Youtube is an amazing source of politicians flip-flopping their philosophies, Youtube is also an amazing source to hear Bernie Sanders speak the same speech for the last 40 years. Perhaps, it is another reason why Goldman Sachs will not pay Bernie Sanders over $225,000 to hear him speak for an hour; because it is the same unwavering speech for the last decades. There are dozens of videos of Bernie Sanders on Youtube, the only thing that changes in the last decades, is his hair.

Since I am always addressing the mechanics of archetypes, it is time to explain the mechanics of endorsements. Imagine that I have millions of followers. Millions read my blogs and millions buy my books and deep inside I belittle my audience. So I reasoned, “My followers cannot think for themselves so I better endorse Bernie Sanders, otherwise my audience will vote for whoever Goldman Sachs and the Koch Brothers decide.”  Well, I neither belittle my audience nor my friends and to choose a candidate for them is to belittle their intelligence.

Recently, Gloria Steinem made it public that she endorses Hillary Clinton for president. Perhaps Ms. Steinem thinks of her audience as automatons and they need her guidance to be able to choose. In her appearance on Bill Maher’s show, Ms. Steinem extended her opinion not only to her audience but to women in general. Here is her infamous quote in early February 2016.

Women are more for [Hillary] than men are. Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.

“They’re going to get more activist as they grow older. And when you’re younger, you think: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.”[End quote]



Campaigners for Sanders during the weekend of Gloria Steinem’s infamous quote.

Something unique happened during the same weekend that Ms. Steinem made her infamous quote. I was a host for three ladies from California who volunteered to travel to Nevada and canvas in Las Vegas for Bernie Sanders. When I learned of Ms. Steinem infamous quote, I played who-said-it with my guests: A-Donald Trump; B-Carly Fiorina, and C-Gloria Steinem. All three attributed the quote to Trump, they were dumbfounded when they learned that the quote came from Ms. Steinem. One of my guests even exclaimed “What boys? We have passed the age for boys!”

Not only Ms. Steinem belittled her audience’s intelligence by selecting a candidate for them, she also belittled all women who chose to caucus and vote for Bernie Sanders. On Valentine’s Day, 2016; I had the privilege to see Senator Bernie Sanders; he spoke at the Bonanza High School in Las Vegas; at least half of the audience were females; some married, some older and some were lesbians. In the presence of such energy is was easy for me to grasp that for the women who came to the rally, it was more important that their candidate has a matching heart to their hearts than a matching genital to theirs.
Not all endorsements are irrelevant; to some folks it is important to have some guidance. For instance, a lot of laborers do not follow politics; therefore, when their labor union endorses a political candidate, it saves them the time to educate themselves. On the other hand, when the only reason why some folks chose one candidate over another based exclusively on a celebrity endorsement, consequently these folks are subordinating their intelligence, reason and logic, like this: “I’ll never be as intelligent as Gloria Steinem, so if she says that a vagina is the main reason why I should choose Hillary, that’s good enough for me.”


2016-02-20 16.28.51

Caucus Party on February 20th, 2016

Archetypal understanding of endorsements is verily one-dimensional, perhaps it is one dimensional because the mind of many voters are one dimensional as well. On caucus day in Nevada, when I was precinct captain, I had a unique point of view. I stood in front of my precinct and gave a speech on behalf of Bernie Sanders’ campaign. Prior to giving the speech I divided the room accordingly for easier head count. If I may generalize, the appearance of the division was not about choice, but about age; in other words, most of the people on Clinton’s caucus were over 50 and on Sanders’ under 40. On Bernie’s camp I could see hope, on Hillary’s I could read fear. By the way, this is not the first time Hillary Clinton sold fear; in 2008 the most famous political ad was called “The 3AM Call.” Instilling fear on voters who would pick a hopeful and inexperienced senator from Illinois called Barrack Hussein Obama and he would not know what to do if he received a call at 3AM. I did not participate in the Republican caucus; but I talked to a couple of my angry neighbors who caucused for Trump. So the one-dimensional split of the American electorate is separated by hope, anger and fear.

This very one-dimensional approach to the electorate allows the media and the political establishment to control elections (which are in turn controlled by billionaires running lobbying groups). As of the writing of this, Bernie Sanders won more delegates and more states than Hillary Clinton; but the media chose to cover political opinions of Cruz, Trump and Hillary regarding the terrorist attack in Brussels. The one-dimensional approach when comes to endorsements is displaying to the world the level of intellect of the American voter. This means, that the American electorate is so focused on celebrity status and engaged in short term memory that everything else is oblivious to reason.

The creator of Bridge-gate endorses the creator of a pseudo-college called Trump University.

Recently, Governor Chris Christie endorsed Mr. Donald Trump; there was a lot of coverage of the event; when I saw the endorsement it was like watching the creator of Bridge-gate scandal endorsing the creator of a pseudo-college called Trump University. In other words, the corrupt politician endorsed the con-man; here is the insulting part: these are folks being nominated to have access to nuclear codes and the Sixth Fleet, who are selling anger to the their electorate.


Every time one hears from the media say: Palin endorsed Trump; Steinem endorsed Clinton or Killer Mike endorsed Sanders; the archetypal translation should be: “We the media think of the American electorate is too stupid to reason on their own; so we have announced what the celebrities are thinking so they may go back to your video games, reality TV-shows, and your sports fantasies.”  This condition is very sad, very unfortunately and very normal.


Courtesy CNN

There has been centuries of culture and education in Germany, yet Hitler took the lead, there were centuries of culture and Pax Romana yet Mussolini took the lead. Hitler and Mussolini were elected leaders and became dictators; will the United States be a part of a history which tends to repeats itself? Are endorsements part of the process? Shall we resign to the fact that the populous is too dumb and needs celebrities and politicians to make endorsements for them?


Most will see the title of this essay and think that I do not support Bernie Sanders; a few will read this to the end and see the archetypal fallacies of endorsements. It is important to stop listening to endorsements and start listening to our own hearts, reason and logic; that the shape of the candidate’s heart is more important than the shape of the candidate’s genital. This is the reason why I will never make an endorsement; but I will support a politician when the politician brings reason, logic and more than a decade of unflinching history of never being cozy to the banking, pharmaceutical or the industrial military complex and always speaking for the average American who does not have access lobbying power. Before you feel the Bern, it is important to feel your heart; take a step out and think “should I follow endorsements or reason and logic.”


Fiat Lux!


Fiat Lux! \"Share the light:\"

It is important to know the distinction between party affiliation and dogmatic affiliation. If we accept anything that a political party says; our participation stops being a political choice and turns into a dogmatic opinion.

Many will say, I’m a Republican because my parents are Republicans, this very many could say, I’m a Catholic because my parents are Catholic. It is important to make this distinction because we constantly need to bring our politicians to account for their actions. Once again when an action is not questioned, our political stance stops being for a logical reason and starts being for a dogmatic reason.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D. Mass)

Many of us are enamored by the speeches of Elizabeth Warren and how she stands to protect the American consumer and the American people. I’m no exception, I love her speeches.

Recently, there has been an attack on her brain-child—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB for short. Many politicians like Senator Ted Cruz to the surprise of many the Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) also wants to join Senator Cruz in the closing of the CFPB.

Majority of Americans have an intellectual knowledge of the CFPB and very few have an empirical knowledge of the agency. I am of of the few who had an empirical knowledge of it. I would like to relate my experience with the CFPB; however, since I am still engaged in a lawsuit with the entity that I brought to attention of the CFPB, I will keep all names in private for now. Yet, I hold all of the documentation on this matter for examination if my allegations comes in doubt. So it goes…

ACME Corporation

The ACME corporation was creating fraudulent charges to my mortgage account. For instance, ACME added about $1,200 in legal fees to my account in 2012 and ACME and I never entered in litigation until 2014. So in 2012 I did a little research on ACME and I found out that ACME settled with the Federal Trade Commission for harassing their costumers in 2004. According to the FTC webpage, ACME was under still under sanctions until 2014. So, I called the FTC to say that ACME bank had violated the conditions of their settlement; however, the FTC told me that I should contact the CFPB instead, so I did.

I filed a detailed and comprehensive complaint with the CFPB relating all of my allegations by showing copy of statements with fraudulent charges. ACME bank responded to CFPB and said, “No, we did not do it.” I still have one more chance to reply, once again I stated that ACME bank was padding my account with fraudulent charges and the proof is on the statements. In short, the CFPB responded, “This account is closed, because ACME said that they did not do it. You are free to pursue your claims in civil court.” So I did. Currently, I am still in arbitration against ACME.


I felt protected by the CFPB as much as the average American feels protected by Spider-Man. I was totally disappointed with the protection provided by the CFPB, it was a year later that I discovered that the department was a creation of Elizabeth Warren.

Here is my opinion, perhaps my case was an exception, perhaps my case was an average. Perhaps the CFPB really protects the American Consumer, in the same way Homeland Security protects the Nation. Allow me to explain the metaphor. Before Homeland Security the American people had to rely on the FBI, the NSA and the CIA for protection, I think they did a pretty good job during the Cold War, there was no need of Homeland Security. The creation of such agency was to say that the FBI, the NSA  and CIA could not get along? It is like saying that the Army, the Air Force and the Navy will compromise the security of the country unless there’s another agency telling them that they need to cooperate. Conversely, this is my understanding of the CFPB, why create a new department when the FTC was already in charge of protecting the American consumer? The FTC has been protecting the American consumer for years and the creation of a new agency will only create a false sense of security the same way that the Homeland Security does. I don’t think that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA need to be supervised, in my opinion they have been doing a good job.

In other words, a new title is not going to protect the American people more or less, the protection is going to be the same. The creation of a new agency like the CFPB alludes to more protection; however, in a personal note it was a terrible disappointed. I have been fighting ACME since 2012 without the help of the CFPB. I have made the same allegations in court that I did before the CFPB and if the outcome turns out to be different, then I will have valid proof that the CFPB is nothing, but the appearance of protection not the protection itself.

ACME makes donations to politicians, ACME was bailed out by the politicians, the new owner of ACME has been indicted by the Department of Justice for money laundry, racketeering and tax evasion; yet they are allowed to operate. Since 2012 ACME keeps padding my statements with fraudulent charges, they are creating these fraudulent charges in hope that some day the charges would be discounted against their cost to run a business.

I was really disappointed that even though I had proof of racketeering against ACME, the CFPB, basically said, “we review your complaint against ACME; and ACME said that they did not do it; so, the case is closed.” The questions we should be asking are: “How more effective is to have a bigger FTC than a divided FTC? Is the creation of an agency also creating the illusion of protection? Would it be more cost efficient to have one data-bank for fraud instead of two?

In my own experience the creation of the CFPB made no difference in my life and perhaps helped ACME more than it helped me. Did the FTC ever find out that ACME was in violation of their 2004 settlements? Well, perhaps the CFPB never told the FTC about ACME new tricks.

My main point is this, if the government decides to close the Homeland Security; the FBI, the NSA and the CIA are highly competent to continue the job since their inception. Conversely, the closing of the CFPB would be a political slap on Elizabeth Warren but the FTC and the judicial courts of the land are competent enough to pick up the task.

Shields of FBI, CIA and NSA

It is important to remember that before we are Democrats, Republicans, Independents or Non-partisans, we are above all Americans. Only one thing should determine the continuance of the CFPB, my own experience does not count. The only thing that should determine the endurance of the CFPB is efficiency. It is more efficient to have a divided FTC or not? When the media titles their articles in such a way that an attack against CFPB is an attack against Elizabeth Warren, they are not being truthful to the American people. The media is curtailing to the prejudice of being a Democrat, a Republican before being an American. The media is therefore with such titles, circumscribing to dogmatism before efficiency and common sense.


Fiat Lux! \"Share the light:\"

This is a temporary page about my experience in Nevada’s Caucus.
I will eventually make a more detailed blog, with the most important experience–the Caucus Math and distribution of delegates.
Enjoy the photos for now.

Follow this link to facebook, you may not be required to have an account.
If you do, contact me I’ll send a direct link. (click here below)

2016-02-17 21.16.42B

Out of town volunteers for Nevada’s Caucus. It was a privilege to host such a nice group of folks!

The clicking on the photo may lead you to the facebook page as well.
Fiat Lux!!!!


Fiat Lux! \"Share the light:\"