The Impeachable Hypocrisy Of The Congressional Democrats

061215-D-7203T-182tru

 

I’m proud to be one of the prescient millions who foretold the almost immediate crash and burn of Donald Trump in the White House. If a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man, even the blind could see this coming from the onslaught of winking eyes as far back as the primaries. Make no mistake, Trump will turn the heat up on the Republicans so high they’ll have to doff their ongoing participation in providing cover for him and stand out alone in the cold light of common sense and allow themselves to be blown toward the inevitable: either the impeachment and conviction or the resignation of Donald John Trump, destined to have the shortest tenure in the White House of a tenant (I will not refer to him as the president) who was not forced to leave due to serious illness or death.

But, being the faIr-minded Farlefty that I am, it’s now time to out the Democrats for the partisan, opportunistic hypocrites that they are. Granted, Trump has committed more impeachable offenses in the shortest period of time after moving into the White House than all the other real presidents. But, his treasonous, unethical, and illegal transgressions haven’t cost any lives—so far. Contrast that with the treasonous, unethical and illegal transgressions of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. They conspired to concoct a lie that would not only result in thousands (and counting) of American troops and the deaths of millions (and counting) Iraqi troops and citizens, and led to the total destabilization of the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Peninsula regions. They assassinated Saddam Hussein without having a single coherent and workable plan in place on how to fill the governmental vacuum left by his death.

And I said this was all built upon multiple lies, right? And from those lies they started multiple wars, decimating an entire part of the world for their own personal gains and those of their business cronies. Yet, in 2006, with the Democrats once again the controlling majority after winning the midterm elections, Nancy Pelosi made the announcement that impeachment of Bush &n Co. was off the table. The Democrats weren’t even actually in power until January 2007 yet she still kicked the shovel out of all liberals’ hands. And Harry Reid was right there with his foot on the shovel to make sure it remained impotently on the ground.

So, all this public outcry calling for the impeachment of Trump over his dangerously immature, illegal and treasonous activities has a very hollow ring to it. I want the guy out of the White House and relegated to an existence of public disgrace and humiliation, as well as the butt of stand-up comic and late night show host jokes for the rest of his miserable and hopefully less wealthy and connected life. But again, the high crimes and misdemeanors he’s perpetrated up to this point don’t even rise up to the level of the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative through a Robert Novak column just to wreak revenge on her hubby Joe Wilson. But I digress.

So, save me from all this self-righteous chest thumping of the Democrats (albeit rightfully) demanding Trump’s head on a platter held by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. They had and blew their chance at positioning themselves as the sole guardians of the Constitution and safeguarding our democracy and governmental institutions. And following on the heels of the Republicans impeaching Bill Clinton over virtually nothing, they not only wimped out, they sold us out.  Yes, Trump deserves to be both impeached and convicted. But spare us the dramatic posturing and the self-righteous indignation, Democrats. You sound just as phony and self-serving as the Republicans back in 1998-99.

Will The GOP Hold Itself To A Higher Standard Or A Double Standard?

gettyimages-681529300

“Hey, Sergey! I got Sergey here confused with you and told HIM all our classified secrets. You wanna poison him here or wait till you get him back to my hotel?”

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/ar-BBBaWuJ?li=BBnb7Kz

This is it. We’ve just started down the path to Trump’s impeachment. Unless the Republicans choose to show the world they have a double standard when it comes to impeaching presidents.  Bill Clinton was tried (which was a pre-arranged deal between the Democrats and the Republicans anyway) for lying under oath about having sex with an intern inside the Oval Office.

We’re about to find out if allegedly divulging code word classified information to a Russian minister and ambassador INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE is a textbook definition of treason, to add to his growing list of high crimes and misdemeanors already committed by the guy while sitting in the office of the president. I mean, does putting our country at serious risk of being compromised by the sociopathic Russian president who has access to his own nuclear codes rise to the same level as the Satyr-in-Chief telling fibs about getting a blowjob under the Oval Office desk?

We’re about to find out. The Congressional Republicans are now calculating how many black and otherwise Democratic voters they’ll have to purge from the voter rolls using Kris Kobach’s Interstate Crosscheck program to win the midterm elections next year. They’re about to hear Kobach tell them, “You’re gonna need a bigger vote.”

The Progressive Knuckleheads

This morning it was amply demonstrated to me that there are just as many knuckleheads on the Left as there are on the Right. Leftist knuckleheads call themselves “Progressives” because, I guess, the word “Liberal” is too retro for them. Too passé, so yesterday ever since the GOP made the term an object of ridicule. This is what makes people who call themselves “Progressives” weak because they bought into the GOP-overlaid shame in the Liberal name. Bernie calls himself a Progressive and look what happened to HIM?

Anyway, I had a post on Facebook that was based on something my wife said to me last night. She said the election will not come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils. It will come down to a choice of voting for who you hate the least.

Turns out it was much too True Blue for the likes of one admin in a certain “Progressive” (always with a capital P, mind you) Facebook group and so it was deleted it. My wife’s comment spoke the absolute truth. Jill Stein has not one chance in any hell you can imagine, in any hell in this or any other universe or dimension of being elected president. The choice will not be between the lesser of two evils. It will come down to choosing which candidate you hate the least. Which also means that it might be possible that neither candidate gets the majority of the vote, Paul Ryan’s House of Representatives will elect Trump president and Mitch McConnell’s Senate will elect the Vice-President.

I’m fine with that and all it portends for SCOTUS. My conscience is clear because I supported Bernie Sanders who was the ONLY presidential candidate who would’ve beaten Trump or any other Republican presidential candidate hands down. The system is rigged for Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, and you reap what you sow. I did my time under Reagan, two Bushes, Clinton, and Obama and survived them all. I’ve existed quite well under Republican-controlled Supreme Courts and I’ll continue to live the civil-rights circumvented life their decisions have wrought, along with anti-civil rights legislation signed into law by Reagan, the two Bushes, Clinton, and Obama. Bill Clinton helped advance the decline of the middle class and of the labor union movement started by Reagan. Obama did nothing to reverse any of it, choosing to further help all of it along.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump—whoever is president—will finally push both the middle class and labor unions into the toilet and give it a quick flush to end both once and for all because that is who they’ve always been. Unless you’re a woman entrepreneur attempting a very small startup on some Caribbean island or in Africa or someplace (but somehow not in the good ol’ US of A). Then she has big innovative, technology-based ideas on how to help. Because creativity, innovation, technology, and internet access will lift all boats captained by poor, foreign women out of poverty, right? So they can shatter all those glass ceilings and take their rightful places alongside the male powerhouses that Hillary Clinton rubs shoulders with at her elevated, Mt. Olympian altitude high above us all. Too bad she has no innovative, technological ideas for how the internet can lift unemployed American male and female factory workers up to those same exalted heights.

Same goes for all the taxicab drivers now put out of work by Uber. Or public school teachers thrown out of work after their school districts opted to go with charter schools. Or the other jobs and vocations of common folk made obsolete by all the creative, innovative, and technologically-minded Harvard and Yale Law School and MIT graduates-(Thomas Frank in his book “Listen. Liberal” calls the Clintons and the graduates I’ve described as being professionals of the Liberal Class) who’ve creatively innovated millions of people out of work and careers through technology (as well as Democratic/Republican funding and support for the startups created by the professionals of the liberal class who graduated from those Ivy League schools and from MIT.

The Bernie movement is now leaderless. It needs charismatic and brilliant, effective leaders to carry it forward. By next year it will most likely join the news archives with stories about the Occupy Movement. I think that successful mass, national organization along the lines of the Civil Rights and the Anti-Vietnam War movements are a thing of the past. We’re too polarized, too content to let posting on the internet substitute for vast marching in the streets. The political game and the corporate media are solidly and iron-clad aligned against us. Effective this year there is no longer is a political party home for Liberals. We’ve been cast adrift in a movement that I don’t think has been constructed sturdy politically seaworthy enough to carry us to any future destination where Liberals can change the system and win back America.

If anyone has any words of solace or hope, please post them now. Thanks.

Bill Clinton: Big Dog? Big Phony

Bill Clinton. Big Dog. The guy the Democrats trot out every national convention time to rah rah the electorate to a fever pitch to bring the Democratic presidential nominee on home!

Big dog? Big phony. The only thing big about Bill is the stick he keeps trying to bash Bernie Sanders over the head with.

This morning I again heard on the radio the corporate media fiction of Clinton’s “Age of Prosperity” in the 90s. Yes, it was prosperous for some, unless you were poor. If you were lower-working class or among the poor there was little if any prosperity for you.  The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the Republican bill which Clinton signed into law took care of that. It penalized poor children for living with their dysfunctional parent(s).  It forced people with no hope of finding a job to look for work or be removed from the cash grant after two years while a portion of any of the income they might be able to earn or receive was allocated to the child(ren) to further reduce their cash grant. After five years on welfare whether the parent(s) had found work or not the family timed out on welfare entirely.

The Food Stamps program (run by the USDA partly on behalf of agribusiness to sell more crops to sell more food) was slashed by over $20 billion dollars. The AFDC budget was $14 billion—less than 1% of the federal budget. Meanwhile, military spending was increased by about $60 billion over a six-year period, a time when we weren’t officially at war with anybody.  SSI eligibility for children was restricted.  LEGAL immigrants had their eligibility for programs greatly restricted and their benefits cut.

But while the those living in poverty were pushed into living in abject poverty, the rest of us were prospering, right? For some. For awhile. The Bill Clinton Golden Age of Prosperity sat atop the twin dotcom and real estate bubbles and balanced by some fancy shmancy bookkeeping that moved selected Accounts Payable ledger items off the Clinton books and onto the books of the next presidential administration. Yes, Dubya did fine in massively escalating the federal budget on his own but Bill did help his future best buddy along that path.

Yes, it sure was the Age of Prosperity alright, but all that prosperity was paid with credit cards and the bills started to come due in the 2nd financial quarter of 2007. You see, during Bill’s Age of Prosperity he sneaked a couple of things through: repeal of Glass-Steagall and the successful kibosh of the regulation of the sale of derivatives of which—if you saw “The Big Short” credit default swaps played a big part.

So here’s all these stock traders and stockholders becoming prosperous during the 90s but then the strangest stuff started to happen in 2007. Banks started to fail. Brokerage houses started to fail. Mortgage lenders started to fail. A whole lot of prosperous people lost their investments, lost their retirement savings, lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their families, lost their lives.

The Republicans came up with a plan to save it all called TARP. They came up with at near the end of Dubya’s term. Obama replaced Bush but on the first round of voting Senate Democrats stuck to their principles and voted it down. They became unstuck on the second vote and passed it with Obama signing into law in 2009. The problem with TARP was handled was similar to what happens on a baseball sandlot. Kids line up and wait to see which team captain will chose them. The team captain sticks with his favorite players and tries to give the lesser players to the other team. This is what happened with TARP. Obama chose his favorites: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, AIG. The lesser players not chosen: Bear Stearns, Shearson Lehman Brothers, Wachovia Bank, Countrywide, among others didn’t get to play at all because there was no other team to play for.  They had to take their bats and balls and thousands of employees and millions of customers and clients and walk away.

This is reality. This is fact. This is not the Camelot-like “Age of Prosperity” that the Clintons, the Democratic Party (especially the DNC), and the corporate media is attempting to have you still believe. When the lie becomes truth, then what is the truth?

So I will not join in on the Big Dog rah rah stuff. I will not speaking glowingly and nostalgically of the Bill Clinton Golden Age of Prosperity. Too much water has flowed under that bridge. The same floodwater that swept all that “prosperity” away for good. At least it worked out for the poor.  As Janis once sang, “when you got nothin’ you got nothin’ to lose”.

The First Debate Question I Would Ask Hillary Clinton

“Mrs. Clinton, you claim you’re strong enough to lead the most power country in the world, strong enough to stand up to foreign leaders and terrorists. Then my question is why haven’t you been strong enough to stop your husband from cheating on you?”

I contend this is a valid question. If Clinton is elected president, do you think someone like Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping or even Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany would respect a woman who has allowed her husband to be a serial philanderer for decades? Her inability or refusal to control Bill and what’s inside of his pants zipper has be regarded as a core weakness; in more so if she’s in agreement with his extramarital catting around.

So, I can see many females bristling upon what you perceive is a sexist statement. Bullshit. If the roles were reversed and Hillary had been the philandering president and Bill the besieged First Man now running for president I’d say the same exact thing about him.

OK, some of you may respond that whatever Hillary let Bill get away with wouldn’t detract from the fact that as president she would be commander-in-chief of the most powerful military force in the world. Honestly, I would hope to hell that if it came down to that, Hillary’s response to Putin’s further military incursions into Ukraine wouldn’t be “I may be a wronged woman but my gun is bigger than yours.”

Whether Hillary has suffered silently and stoically through his multiple affairs for the sake of their political careers (and Chelsea, of course…) or because Hillary never had a problem with it is their own business, of course. But not after Hillary decided to fulfill her lifelong ambition–again–and run for president. Then I want to know why she allowed herself to be publicly humiliated by the exposure of Bill’s many mistresses and playthings. Strong, confident women stand by their man only up to a point. But in politics when running for president the perception is being divorced is worse than standing by a cheating spouse, again and again and again. Did they stay together to provide Chelsea with a stable family household? I have no idea. But my feeling is that some possibly prenuptial agreement was made to give Bill the complete freedom to follow his penis wherever it would lead him as long as it was kept private. After it all became public after he was president, what could Hillary do?

But these are questions I demand to know the answer to if Hillary wants my primary and general election votes next year. All I want to know if their marriage was more of a business partnership than a marriage. Hillary Clinton is a warmonger; you can see that from her Senate voting record. So I want to know how she thinks she can stare down the likes of Vladmir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and such if she can’t say “No means no, Bill. You can’t have other women and stay married to me.”

Then, I’d like to know from Bill why he married a woman who obviously doesn’t fulfill his sexual needs? Why did he agree to say a marriage vow promising to stay true to his bride only to repeatedly break it. Then why did he marry Hillary?

I may not have a right to those answers from Bill but, as a voter, I certainly have a right to ask those kinds of questions to and receive answers from a presidential candidate who is asking for my vote.

The Hillary Problem

I’m going on record with this prediction: The Republicans will win the White House and retain control of Congress in 2016. OK, let me back up for a moment. If the Democrats run Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee, the Republicans will win the White House and retain control of Congress in 2016.

There have been a number of news stories about the number of makeovers (just about a story for every makeover) that Hillary Clinton’s public persona is being put through, written by Washington Post columnists who tended to practice their pro-Democratic punditry on the all liberal shows which no longer populate MSNBC. In fact, it sheds itself of Rachel and Lawrence (are there any other liberals still left on air?) it will complete its conversion to right wing TV programming by renaming itself Kit, which is a baby Fox. But I digress. Two examples of the ongoing search to find a Hillary Clinton who will click with more than her current voter base.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-inept-bloated-clinton-campaign/ar-AAectUA?li=BBieRxq

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-show-more-humor-and-heart-aides-say.html?_r=0

All of this punditry claiming she’s the front runner because she’s 30 points about of Bernie Sanders among Democrats and is the favorite among female Democratic voters is crap, for want of a better word I don’t want to use here. If anything she’s bleeding poll points and her handlers are looking ahead to looking back at 2008 all over again. If Clinton’s lead was so solid and formidable her handlers would not be tweaking her image so much in a frantic attempt to find something that clicks. So, this week Hillary is “funny” on the talk shows. You can see it on her face and hear it in her voice: “See? I’m being funny! Aren’t I being funny?” And now tough from the tough look on her face and her tough voice: “See? I’m tough! Aren’t I being tough?” And compassionate: “See the concern on my face? And don’t I sound concerned?”

It’s all image. Throughout all the funny, tough, and compassionate performances, not one word of substance has been issued through her mouth or through press releases. She wants to lower the cost of college for students and reduce the student loan debit load for borrowers. But how? “Aren’t I being compassionate?” is as specific as she gets. She’s talked about economic reform (“Aren’t I being tough?”)
while at the same time taking political contributions from corporations who benefit from the current economic policies.

It’s clear that she’s targeted being the first woman president for a long time, possibly before she met Bill. She attempted to share his presidency but she quickly distanced herself from him after Bill couldn’t get the Republican health insurance plan passed by Republicans. I would bet that his mishandling of his affair with Monica further increased that distance behind the scenes.

But apparently now she feels entitled to the presidency and that’s her problem because that’s exactly the way she comes across to liberals. Her supporters are trying to force feed her down the throat of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party using scare tactics to make the harsh medicine go down. “It’s Hillary or a Republican in the White House!”

But the Left isn’t swallowing it. Hence the ongoing efforts of her campaign managers to find a flavor of Hillary that will help the medicine go down. Because every flavor of Hillary tastes artificial. When you hear Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren talk you hear their authenticity, their commitment to their specific stances on issues and their proposed specific policies. Elizabeth Warren is engaging on talk shows, effortlessly being funny and serious by turns. Bernie talks tough because Bernie IS tough. His record on how he stands on issues along with his voting record speaks for itself.

Clinton knows that her voting record is a source of deep concern among liberals with her support of the Iraq invasion and her support of the USA PATRIOT Act and other right wing positions. As a Democratic U.S. senator she made a great Republican. And for that the Left doesn’t trust her and she knows that if she’s to not only snag the nomination and the election she’ll need the Left, Right, and Center of the Democratic Party along with all the Independents and disgruntled Republican voters she can muster.

But again, Hillary Clinton’s problem is one of lack of authenticity. Anyone other than her core supporters have no idea who she really is. And the person they think she is they don’t like or trust. She changes personas like she changes clothes for different political rallies, fundraisers, and interviews. It isn’t “Where In The World Is Carmen Santiago?” but “Who In The World Is Hillary Clinton?” If she and her managers can’t figure out who she is, how will people figure out which Hillary they want to vote for? They can’t and they won’t. That changes the actual threat to “If it’s Hillary there will be a Republican in the White House.” This is the reason the GOP very much wants to see Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign derailed. They never learned how to beat a populist Democratic candidate because they’ve never had to run against one. With Hillary, they’re looking at virtually one of their own. If you remember back to 2000 when Karl Rove derailed John McCain’s presidential campaign, the GOP definitely knows how to take out its own.

The Only Thing Dead Broke Is Hillary Clinton’s Integrity

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/xyf39z/poor—off

Jon Stewart bringing up one of the same points I brought up last week about Hillary’s contention that the Clintons “came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt.” And “we struggled to piece together the MORTGAGES for HOUSES [my emphasis]”. Stewart jumped on the “houses” quote: “When you’re appealing to the middle class you might want to use the singular…when referring to the most valuable asset most people will come in contact with.” That was my point exactly.

Of course, being a lawyer, Clinton had chosen her words (almost) carefully to try to appeal, in Stewart’s words, to “Reagan Democrats”. Not exactly the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party, more like the shadowland between phony Democrats and real Republicans. She could claim the Clintons were “dead broke” because their millions of dollars in investments and in income from those investments were kept in at least blind trusts for the duration of Bill’s presidency. Since officially left office on 1/20/2001 (after Dubya was sworn in), it might have taken a few days after that to transfer those assets out of those blind trusts so that they were once again accessible. But sadly, during those hard and difficult financial days for the Clintons, they had to make do on the hundreds of thousands of dollars Bill and Hillary eked out from speech making in front of various groups. Bill might even have secured a loan from long-time family friend George H.W. Bush to tide them over. Funny that Democrat Bill Clinton has been palling around for decades with Bushes Sr. and Jr., but not so much the only other Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. I guess Bill would prefer to fly around the globe staying in the finest hotels and ballpark luxury boxes instead of getting down and dirty building houses for the poor with Carter.

Oh, the other carefully chosen words from Hillary: “in debt”. Yes, Bill had lots of legal debt from his defenses against “Whitewater” and his sham impeachment over Monica Lewinsky. As both a credit counselor and a bankruptcy counselor, I worked with people who WERE actually dead broke with or without houses but with overwhelming debt they couldn’t pay. Since these people didn’t have assets in blind trusts or multimillion-dollar incomes from speeches and such, their only option was to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (for the non-homeowners OR the homeowners walking away from their home mortgages) or Chapter 13 (for the homeowners who wanted to try to keep their homes). There’s no 2001 record of the Clintons filing for bankruptcy (and this was before the 2005 Republican bankruptcy law “reform”) which means that they paid off all their debts just fine on their own, thank you.

I said before that Hillary Clinton sounded as tone deaf as Ann Romney with this quote, and Stewart alludes to this as well. And I’ll say something else again: Clinton will not be the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee (make no mistake—she IS running) if she continues making stupid, thoughtless statements like these to pretend to us common folk that she’s one of us, or has been one of us. The quote reveals that she never was. Hillary supporters unconditionally accept her statements; those of us who look more dispassionately on the woman, see it for the pandering to the poor voter masses that it is. The only thing dead broke is Hillary Clinton’s integrity