Replace the Word Elected with Selected

By David Siegel/ January 15, 2017

 

trump

Russian tampering with the shitpot we call free and fair elections in the USA was a factor in smearing more shit on Hillary Clinton.  The right wing smearosphere in the USA was not satisfied with the $500M worth of smear they had already applied over the last 20 year period to anyone with Clinton as a name.  After all, if you are a Republican, the Ends Justify the Means.  Fraud, theft, murder, treason… after all, these are only words.  This is not the reason that Hillary Clinton lost.

Russian influenced Hypernormalization tactics widely applied by the Trump team were useful in destroying the other Republican candidates and the weak-minded corporate press, but, the deliberate use of chaos and confusion is not exclusive to the Russians.   Hitler & Goebbels went there first in modern history.  Trump has been a big fan of Mussolini’s postures and gestures for quite a long time.  The resemblance is uncanny.  This is not the reason that Hillary Clinton lost.

The Republican bible contains the Book of RatFucking.  All GOP leadership members learn to recite these passages from birth as they attend their Republican Madrassas.  Some famous Ayatollahs of this book include Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Donald Segretti, Mitch Mc Connell, Joe McCarthy and countless other successful Sith Lords.  Now it is not to say that politicians who affiliate themselves with the Democratic party NEVER use any of these tactics from the Book of RatFucking, but rather that the Republicans actually depend upon this book to steal and hold onto public offices they would never win in an actual fair election where only actual truth and actual counting of all votes from all eligible voters would be counted.  They have truly brought RatFucking to the level and a scale of a religious art.  They have also packed the courts with enough acolytes to carefully construct a completely fraudulent “legal” framework to justify their massive crime upon America.   You can see these carcinogenic justices in action.  Look up the Federalist Society and start reading.

The latest Fuck du Jure program of tossing all the Nigras, Mexis, Asians, Democrats, Students, et al off of the voter rolls and into the “Provisional Ballot list”  is called Cross Check.  Their votes were intentionally NOT COUNTED.  All provisional ballots in the Red States are NEVER COUNTED.  The victims of this particular RatFucking are depicted as vote thieves with their names showing up in multiple states and jurisdictions, even though they are not the same person.  Different ages, different SSN’s, different middle names, it does not matter.  They are targeted by Cross Check.  Thousands upon thousands of them.  In States where Republican infested legislatures run the show, Cross Check was in full force.  How is this possible with a black president and two black Attorneys General?  Simple.  They sat on their hands and did NOTHING.  By never refuting the criminally false narrative of the Republican propaganda arm of Voter Fraud, they let them cover up massive Voter Suppression.  Why?  The only plausible answer I can come up with is that the Democratic Leadership and the Obama White House in particular are pretty fucking stupid when it comes to standing up and speaking truth to liars, thieves and murderers.

Only the NAACP has had the balls to sue the bastards when in the year of our Bush, 2000, when thousands of “future” felons in Florida were disenfranchised of their right to vote.  The thousands of illegally disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000 FAR exceeded the prima fascia lead in votes that George W. Bush had gotten.  The NAACP won the suit.  Jeb Bush and Catherine Harris had to admit in open court that they cheated thousands out of their votes.  In the end, what difference did it make?  NO national newspaper reported the whole story.  It never made it to national TV news.   Is there still an NAACP?  Are they famous rappers?

What was the result of this clearly illegal violation of voting rights in this USA?  The selection of Donald J. Trump as dictator in chief with his cabal of right wing Christian Fascists headed by failed governor Mike Pence and the other Hitler Youth.  You cannot ever say that Trump was elected president.  He was selected by massive and coordinated fraud by the Republican Party.  And this is not the first time.

The number of deliberately uncounted ballots far exceeds Trump’s so called victory in at least 3 of the swing states that put him over the top in Electoral College numbers.  That is why Hillary Clinton will not be President 44.  That was all they had to do.  The side benefit was to hold on to the Senate too as liberal candidates like Russ Feingold were also mysteriously denied huge blocks of votes that disappeared between voting time and counting time.  Has Merlin the Magician returned from the dead?  Nope.

How do we know that this is true?  Because the voting tallies do not add up in the democratic leaning precincts in the Cross Check states.  There is a big difference between votes cast and votes counted.  Why haven’t you seen this information in any US Newspaper?  Haven’t you learned by now?  Truth is dead.  For details and the actual evidence, go to Greg Palast’s website.  None of the evidence that he gathered has ever been disputed, proven wrong or been fabricated.  Yet, how come this actual factual evidence never gets into the larger public spotlight?  Why is there such a disconnect in this country?  The media ONLY talks about vote counts.  ONLY.

In Detroit, Michigan, the Republicans added a more blatant tactic, dead vote tally machines.  In the Democratic leaning precincts in Detroit, no votes were counted for Hillary Clinton, democratic candidates for state and local office or anyone else.  Tens of thousands of missing votes gone.  After a recount was demanded as is the right, the Republican fixers used the same broken counting machines to return a confirmation of zero votes cast in those precincts.  They then declared that the recount was over and that the results have been verified.  They then moved to stop all recount efforts and to have no press access to any ballots, which are to be destroyed before anyone can examine them.  Why are they in such a hurry to destroy evidence of their crimes?  They already run the state and under the declaration of Emergency, have been ruling the entire state with emergency powers which they also used to send lead from old pipes into the bodies of black and poor citizens.

If you are black, Hispanic or Asian, your chances of having your vote NOT COUNTED in Republican controlled states is 700% higher than in non-Republican controlled states.  That is not some casual error.  That is not because of illiteracy.  That is because of massive fraud on the part of the Republican party which, in my opinion, should be prosecuted as a RICO case with any and all participants in the Cross Check program going to prison and being fined of all of their holdings and other ill-gotten gains.

This is why we will be stuck with Don the Con and his merry band of organized criminals for the foreseeable future.

Jim Hightower, former Democratic Agricultural Commissioner for the State of Texas put it the best, “I would gladly trade some Republican Tax Cut for a pill that would re-grow spines in Democrats”.

The program to discredit and marginalize any inquiry into Voter Suppression was started long ago by the Republicans.  One of the First rules of RatFucking is to accuse your opponent of the illegal or immoral act you are about to commit.  This tends to immunize the bad player from scrutiny, which is an offshoot of what they call Bumping the Ref.  (Bumping the referee –  if you keep bumping chests with the referee and dispute EVERY call against your team, you may eventually wear his down and make some marginal calls go your way.)  On Faux Newz, several years ago, you started seeing bullshit stories on Voter Fraud which falsely claimed that “illegals” and other scum where voting in large numbers to cheat real Americans (euphemism for Republican Candidates) from winning public office.   This was to cover their deliberate Voter Suppression campaign which includes bullshit Voter ID laws, limiting polling places in minority areas, excluding college students from voting by any means and most recently, Cross Check.

One of the more recognizable voices in the fight against Voter Suppression has been Bobby Kennedy Jr.  So, how do you marginalize him?  RatFucking dictates that you find a weakness and use it to destroy the target.  In the case of Bobby Kennedy, some family friends have autistic children.  Being a lawyer and not a doctor, Bobby rides on the “anti Vaxer” train because emotion wins over science just about every time.  Bobby fell for the invitation to Trump Tower to make him the spokesman for Anti Vaxers.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robert-f-kennedy-jr-donald-trump-vaccines_us_58754032e4b043ad97e64588  What was the outcome of this?  Liberal Media has now labeled him a nut job just like Jenny McCarthy and Jill Stein for that matter.  In order to frame him as a liar on the right wing, they told Bobby he had the job.  Bobby then “ran into” some media folks on his way out of Trump Tower who wrote the story that he was appointed as the spokesman for Anti Vax.  Within the next news cycle, Trump Tower denied any such appointment, thereby labeling him as a liar, just like the rest of them who want to ride on the “robe tails” of King Trump.  Masterful.  Effective.  RatFucking at its finest.  Bravo.

Even Greg Palast has been set up to be discredited.  Piers Morgan (remember him from CNN) set up a honeypot in the classic style in some London hotel with a hired woman who was paid to lure Greg into a sexual tryst.  As Palast put it, I was standing in my hotel room in my shorts when the door bursts open with several photographers taking pictures.  Instantly realizing that I had been set up, all I could do was laugh.  Piers Morgan was working for the Murdock slime press at the time.  His attempt to silence me had the opposite effect of exposing him as a stooge working for the Murdock organization.  He had to get out of town after that and showed up on CNN to replace Larry King.  That did not last too long after people saw his true nature.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.  Let’s light up King Trump and his Christian Taliban with the power of 100 suns.  How much light will it take to show his followers what they really look like?

(Dave Siegel lives in Inglewood, CA.)

 

Posted in Republican Party, Democratic Party, politics, elections, scandals, Donald Trump | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s Failings

Democrats can’t win until they recognize how bad Obama’s financial policies were

By Matt Stoller/ Washington Post/ January 12, 2017

During his final news conference of 2016, in mid-December, President Obama criticized Democratic efforts during the election. “Where Democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte-sipping, you know, politically correct, out-of-touch folks,” Obama said, “we have to be in those communities.” In fact, he went on, being in those communities — “going to fish-fries and sitting in VFW halls and talking to farmers” — is how, by his account, he became president. It’s true that Obama is skilled at projecting a populist image; he beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa in 2008, for instance, partly by attacking agriculture monopolies .

But Obama can’t place the blame for Clinton’s poor performance purely on her campaign. On the contrary, the past eight years of policymaking have damaged Democrats at all levels. Recovering Democratic strength will require the party’s leaders to come to terms with what it has become — and the role Obama played in bringing it to this point.

 Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts. The resulting policy framework of Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department was, in effect, a wholesale attack on the American home (the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of concentrated financial power. The second was the administration’s pro-monopoly policies, which crushed the rural areas that in 2016 lost voter turnout and swung to Donald Trump.

 

Obama didn’t cause the financial panic, and he is only partially responsible for the bailouts, as most of them were passed before he was elected. But financial collapses, while bad for the country, are opportunities for elected leaders to reorganize our culture. Franklin Roosevelt took a frozen banking system and created the New Deal. Ronald Reagan used the sharp recession of the early 1980s to seriously damage unions. In January 2009, Obama had overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress, $350 billion of no-strings-attached bailout money and enormous legal latitude. What did he do to reshape a country on its back?

First, he saved the financial system. A financial system in collapse has to allocate losses. In this case, big banks and homeowners both experienced losses, and it was up to the Obama administration to decide who should bear those burdens. Typically, such losses would be shared between debtors and creditors, through a deal like the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s or bankruptcy reform. But the Obama administration took a different approach. Rather than forcing some burden-sharing between banks and homeowners through bankruptcy reform or debt relief, Obama prioritized creditor rights, placing most of the burden on borrowers. This kept big banks functional and ensured that financiers would maintain their positions in the recovery. At a 2010 hearing, Damon Silvers, vice chairman of the independent Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to monitor the bailouts, told Obama’s Treasury Department: “We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure crisis, or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can’t do both.”

Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) referred criminal cases to the Justice Department and was ignoredWhistleblowers from the government and from large banks noted a lack of appetite among prosecutors. In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder ordered prosecutors not to go after mega-bank HSBC for money laundering. Using prosecutorial discretion to not take bank executives to task, while legal, was neither moral nor politically wise; in a 2013 poll, more than half of Americans still said they wanted the bankers behind the crisis punished. But the Obama administration failed to act, and this pattern seems to be continuing. No one, for instance, from Wells Fargo has been indicted for mass fraud in opening fake accounts.

Third, Obama enabled and encouraged roughly 9 million foreclosures. This was Geithner’s explicit policy at Treasury. The Obama administration put together a foreclosure program that it marketed as a way to help homeowners, but when Elizabeth Warren, then chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, grilled Geithner on why the program wasn’t stopping foreclosures, he said that really wasn’t the point. The program, in his view, was working. “We estimate that they can handle 10 million foreclosures, over time,” Geithner said — referring to the banks. “This program will help foam the runway for them.” For Geithner, the most productive economic policy was to get banks back to business as usual.

Nor did Obama do much about monopolies. While his administration engaged in a few mild challenges toward the end of his term, 2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another busy year. In nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet platforms to airlines, power has concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush’s before it, did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Instead, in the past few years, the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music teachers and ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much a parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy.

With these policies in place, it’s no surprise that Thomas Piketty and others have detected skyrocketing inequality, that most jobs created in the past eight years have been temporary or part time, or that lifespans in white America are dropping . When Democratic leaders don’t protect the people, the people get poorer, they get angry, and more of them die.

Yes, Obama prevented an even greater collapse in 2009. But he also failed to prosecute the banking executives responsible for the housing crisis, then approved a foreclosure wave under the guise of helping homeowners. Though 58 percent of Americans were in favor of government action to halt foreclosures, Obama’s administration balked. And voters noticed. Fewer than four in 10 Americans were happy with his economic policies this time last year (though that was an all-time high for Obama). And by Election Day, 75 percent of voters were looking for someone who could take the country back “from the rich and powerful,” something unlikely to be done by members of the party that let the financiers behind the 2008 financial crisis walk free.

This isn’t to say voters are, on balance, any more thrilled with what Republicans have to offer, nor should they be. But that doesn’t guarantee Democrats easy wins. Throughout American history, when voters have felt abandoned by both partiesturnout has collapsed — and 2016, scraping along 20-year turnout lows, was no exception. Turnout in the Rust Belt , where Clinton’s path to victory dissolved, was especially low in comparison to 2012.

Trump, who is either tremendously lucky or worryingly perceptive, ran his campaign like a pre-1930s Republican. He did best in rural areas, uniting white farmers, white industrial workers and certain parts of big business behind tariffs and anti-immigration walls. While it’s impossible to know what he will really do for these voters, the coalition he summoned has a long, if not recent, history in America.

Democrats have long believed that theirs is the party of the people. Therefore, when Trump co-opts populist language, such as saying he represents the “forgotten” man, it seems absurd — and it is. After all, that’s what Democrats do, right? Thus, many Democrats have assumed that Trump’s appeal can only be explained by personal bigotry — and it’s also true that Trump trafficks in racist and nativist rhetoric. But the reality is that the Democratic Party has been slipping away from the working class for some time, and Obama’s presidency hastened rather than reversed that departure. Republicans, hardly worker-friendly themselves, simply capitalized on it.

There’s history here: In the 1970s, a wave of young liberals, Bill Clinton among them, destroyed the populist Democratic Party they had inherited from the New Dealers of the 1930s. The contours of this ideological fight were complex, but the gist was: Before the ’70s, Democrats were suspicious of big business. They used anti-monopoly policies to fight oligarchy and financial manipulation. Creating competition in open markets, breaking up concentrations of private power, and protecting labor and farmer rights were understood as the essence of ensuring that our commercial society was democratic and protected from big money.

Bill Clinton’s generation, however, believed that concentration of financial power could be virtuous, as long as that power was in the hands of experts. They largely dismissed the white working class as a bastion of reactionary racism. Fred Dutton, who served on the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1970 , saw the white working class as “a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote.” This paved the way for the creation of the modern Democratic coalition. Obama is simply the latest in a long line of party leaders who have bought into the ideology of these “new” Democrats, and he has governed likewise, with commercial policies that ravaged the heartland.

As a result, while our culture has become more tolerant over the past 40 years, power in our society has once again been concentrated in the hands of a small group of billionaires. You can see this everywhere, if you look. Warren Buffett, who campaigned with Hillary Clinton, recently purchased chunks of the remaining consolidated airlines, which have the power not only to charge you to use the overhead bin but also to kill cities simply by choosing to fly elsewhere. Internet monopolies increasingly control the flow of news and media revenue. Meatpackers have re-created a brutal sharecropper-type system of commercial exploitation. And health insurers, drugstores and hospitals continue to consolidate, partially as a response to Obamacare and its lack of a public option for health coverage.

Many Democrats ascribe problems with Obama’s policies to Republican opposition. The president himself does not. “Our policies are so awesome,” he once told staffers. “Why can’t you guys do a better job selling them?” The problem, in other words, is ideological.

Many Democrats think that Trump supporters voted against their own economic interests. But voters don’t want concentrated financial power that deigns to redistribute some cash, along with weak consumer protection laws. They want jobs. They want to be free to govern themselves. Trump is not exactly pitching self-government. But he is offering a wall of sorts to protect voters against neo-liberals who consolidate financial power, ship jobs abroad and replace paychecks with food stamps. Democrats should have something better to offer working people. If they did, they could have won in November. In the wreckage of this last administration, they didn’t.

 
 
Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, economy, elections, politics, Wall Street | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Remedy for Russian meddling should be new election

By Chris Edelson/ The Hill/ January 11, 2016

It sounds like a story lifted from the pages of a spy novel. U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin led a cyberespionage scheme designed to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.

What’s even worse is that Putin’s plan worked and Trump now seems to be siding with Russia against U.S. intelligence agencies. It’s hard to know how to respond to this because it is unprecedented. But it is essential to take whatever action is necessary to make this right, as difficult, complicated and even uncomfortable as that may be.

The hard reality is that the presidential election we just held was delegitimized by foreign interference. This is not some conspiracy theory or fevered fantasy; it is a conclusion that flows directly from the unanimous assessments of the U.S. intelligence community.

It would be an enormous mistake to ignore this, as Trump has suggested we should.

In fact, if we can confirm the intelligence report’s conclusion that Putin intervened with the goal of electing Trump, there must be a new election in the United States.This sounds extraordinary, and of course it is. But it can be done, and indeed must be done in order to uphold the fundamental democratic principle of free and fair elections, a principle undermined by the Russian efforts.

How would this take place? The first step should be to conduct further investigations aimed at determining whether the intelligence agencies’ conclusions are correct. It is dangerous for Trump to suggest, without a shred of evidence, that the intelligence report is wrong. But it would also be a mistake to accept the intelligence report without asking questions and getting more information.

us-pc-6-640x360

 

Last week, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) began holding hearings about Russian interference in the election. The McCain hearings are a good start, but more action is needed, including most importantly the establishment of an independent, nonpartisan body along the lines of the 9/11 commission.

If such a commission confirmed the intelligence conclusions (while also exploring other questions), it would then seek to determine whether Russian interference affected the election outcome and gave Trump a victory.

Trump is desperately insisting that his election was legitimate, including by making misleading statements about the intelligence report’s conclusions. After receiving a briefing last week, Trump tweeted that “Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results. Voting machines not touched!”

This is dangerously deceptive. U.S. intelligence concluded that Russian actions did not affect vote counting, but that wasn’t the point. Russia’s goal was what the intelligence report describes as “influence efforts.”

This included the use of propaganda to praise Trump and denigrate Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and, most insidiously, disseminating stolen data obtained through Russian cyberespionage. This included the content of emails stolen from the accounts of Democratic party officials and disseminated by Wikileaks.

Trump himself certainly believed the information spread by Wikileaks was helpful to his election chances; he talked about it incessantly on the campaign trail. In the last month of the election alone, Trump mentioned WikiLeaks 164 times. In an election decided by fewer than 100,000 votes in three states, it’s quite likely that Russia’s efforts did make a difference

Extensive news coverage often focused on WikiLeaks, which at the very least made it harder for Clinton to advance her own message, and at worst created confusion for voters and journalists who incorrectly thought the WikiLeaks story was connected to an FBI investigation of Clinton’s email server. Julian Assange timed the release of information to inflict maximum political damage on Clinton and the leaked emails succeeded in sowing discord among Democrats and causing tangible harm to the Clinton campaign

It’s not the job of U.S. intelligence agencies to determine whether Russian hacking affected the US election results, and the intelligence report released last week did not resolve this. But an independent commission can and must answer this question.

If it is determined that Russian efforts did indeed put Trump over the top in an incredibly close election, then the next step would be to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a one-time special election to be held as soon as possible.

This would be far from easy, but it is possible with the support of a two-thirds majority in each chamber of Congress, followed with ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. All of this is unlikely, to say the least — especially in light of the disappointing reality that most Republicans in Congress seem to be willing to let Russian election sabotage slide.

But it is well worth trying, as the alternative would be to accept the results of an election tainted by foreign interference. The choice should be clear: Let’s see if elected officials are courageous enough and patriotic enough to take whatever action is needed to set this right.

Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. His latest book, “Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security,” was published in May 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press.


The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Posted in Donald Trump, elections, government, politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

TrumpCare

obamacaare

Image | Posted on by | 1 Comment

Scary Times Ahead

Americans who voted against Trump are feeling unprecedented dread and despair

By David Horsey/ L.A. Times/ December 21, 2016

la-dhorsey-1482306574-snap-photo

I have never seen anything quite like the grief being felt by the majority of American voters who did not vote for Donald Trump.

Back in 1980, there was disappointment among Democrats when Ronald Reagan won. In 2000, after the long Florida recount and the intrusion of the Supreme Court into the decision, there were plenty of upset people who thought Al Gore, not George W. Bush, deserved to be president. But the losing voters in those elections were not despondent. They were not breaking out in tears weeks later. They were not waking up each morning with feelings of dread about what was to come.

This time it is different and, in my experience, unique. This is not simply a case of Hillary Clinton supporters being bad losers. For most of those who feel traumatized by what happened on Nov. 8, this is not about the candidate who won the popular vote, yet lost the election. It is about the candidate who was picked as president by the electoral college on Monday. People are mourning because the fate of their country will now be in the hands of an intellectually disinterested, reckless, mendacious narcissist.

It is not just Democrats. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans among those feeling depressed. Their party has been captured by a man who has no bedrock belief in any principle; a man whose only allegiance appears to be to himself. 

David Frum, conservative Republican and ex-Bush speechwriter, has been very explicit about what he expects from the Trump White House: corruption and authoritarianism. In a series of tweets the day after the election, Frum predicted that Trump will engage in “massive self-enrichment” and, once the media and Democrats begin investigating and criticizing his actions, he will retaliate “by means fair or foul,” utilizing the powers of the presidency and aided and abetted by a compliant Republican Congress.

“Construction of the apparatus of revenge and repression will begin opportunistically and haphazardly,” Frum wrote. “It will accelerate methodically.”

No one — certainly no Republican — contemplated such a scenario when Reagan was elected, or when George H.W. Bush or his son took office. Nobody thought a victory by Sen. John McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012 would have threatened democracy. This time that concern is widespread and far from irrational, given Trump’s words, actions and erratic, bullying temperament.

Those who are troubled by Trump’s ascendancy are almost equally distressed by the mindset of their fellow citizens who voted for him. It is understood that most Trump supporters are decent folks, many of whom have been left behind by changes in the global economy. But how can they believe some of the things they believe? In a post-election survey, the Public Policy Polling organization found that 67% of Trump voters think unemployment increased during Barack Obama’s presidency while only 20% know the opposite is actually true. Though the stock market skyrocketed to record heights during the Obama years, 60% of those who voted for Trump either do not know it or do not believe it. Forty percent of Trump voters also say their candidate won the popular vote, even though Clinton now leads in the count by nearly 3 million ballots. Perhaps that is why friendly crowds at his victory rallies continue to cheer when Trump makes the obviously false claim that he won the election in a landslide. They do not know better.

And then there are those among the Trump loyalists who buy into clearly insane ideas, like the fool who shot up a pizza shop in Washington, D.C., because he believed fake news stories that had identified the restaurant as the headquarters for a child sex ring run by Hillary Clinton. With that muddle-headed level of discernment rampant, it is no wonder Trump gets away with his unending stream of falsehoods.

There have been a number of commentaries written about the need for liberal “elites” to gain a better understanding of those who voted for Trump; the folks in the Rust Belt and rural America who feared for the future because they felt the country they knew was changing too dramatically and leaving them behind. Well, the fear is now on the other side, and not only among so-called elites. It is ordinary Americans of all classes and races who fear that, under Trump, environmental protections will be dismantled, limits on Wall Street greed will be removed, the rights of minorities and women will be undermined and American foreign policy will be run by dangerously unseasoned amateurs with a crush on Vladimir Putin. Such fears are not based on feelings or fake news stories; they are confirmed by the composition of Trump’s Cabinet.

In the presidential campaign, the fears of one group of citizens morphed into a powerful anger that Trump harnessed to propel himself to the White House. Now, another set of Americans — a significantly larger group — is feeling profoundly distressed. If their fears are borne out, their anger, too, will become a political force that could upend an election yet to come.

Posted in Donald Trump, elections, government, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Protecting the White Race

Posted in elections, government, media, politics, race | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Couldn’t Happen Here, Right?

Posted in Donald Trump, history | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

We’ll Soon Start Finding Out

wrong

Image | Posted on by | Tagged | Leave a comment

Another Person (Man) of the Year

Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938

 

Special Request from Edray…Time, January 2, 1939

 

360_hitler_cover

Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Führerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler. 

Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth— or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe’s defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a “hands-off” promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938’s Man of the Year. 

Most other world figures of 1938 faded in importance as the year drew to a close. Prime Minister Chamberlain’s “peace with honor” seemed more than ever to have achieved neither. An increasing number of Britons ridiculed his appease-the-dictators policy, believed that nothing save abject surrender could satisfy the dictators’ ambitions. 

Among many Frenchmen there rose a feeling that Premier Daladier, by a few strokes of the pen at Munich, had turned France into a second-rate power. Aping Mussolini in his gestures and copying triumphant Hitler’s shouting complex, the once liberal Daladier at year’s end was reduced to using parliamentary tricks to keep his job.

During 1938 Dictator Mussolini was only a decidedly junior partner in the firm of Hitler & Mussolini, Inc. His noisy agitation to get Corsica and Tunis from France was rated as a weak bluff whose immediate objectives were no more than cheaper tolls for Italian ships in the Suez Canal and control of the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railroad. 

Gone from the international scene was Eduard Benes, for 20 years Europe’s “Smartest Little Statesman.” Last President of free Czechoslovakia, he was now a sick exile from the country he helped found. Pious Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek, Man of 1937, was forced to retreat to a “New” West China, where he faced the possibility of becoming only a respectable figurehead in an enveloping Communist movement. If Francisco Franco had won the Spanish Civil War after his great spring drive, he might well have been Man-of-the-Year timber. But victory still eluded the Generalissimo and war weariness and disaffection on the Rightist side made his future precarious. 

(Continued)

Posted in media, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Best Case Scenario

prisoner

Image | Posted on by | Tagged | 2 Comments
%d bloggers like this: