Donald Trump–Quitter-In-Chief?

http://www.bbc.com/news/38261374

“Donald Trump to stay as Apprentice executive producer”

This is one reason why I agree with Michael Moore’s prediction that Trump may quit before he assumes the presidency. At the very least I don’t expect Trump to serve out his entire term. I think he puts more value on his business investments and his income than he does on being the leader of one of the most powerful countries on earth (in many ways China has become more powerful and Putin’s strengthening Russia by increments to return it to its USSR state).

I’ve believed from the start of Trump’s campaign that he will refuse to sell off his holdings or put them all into a blind trust for the duration. I’ve also said no way will Trump accept a pay cut to be president. Trump has yet to show that he has ANY interest in being president. Look at his cabinet nominees. He’s taken a perverse joy in naming people either totally unqualified for the job or people who hate the agency or department they have been named to head. He plans to install people who will reverse decades-long policies and remove protections we’ve come to depend on. What he plans to bring to the federal government is outright anarchy as well as open rebellion and conflict across America as battle lines are drawn between the far right wing and everyone else. And then he’ll step aside and let President Mike Pence deal with it all.

I expect that if all of these nominees are confirmed by the Senate and President Trump or Pence allows them to ride roughshod over the Constitution and attempt to return the USA to the dark ages of the 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th centuries, it will once again be the overreach of the GOP which will bring them crashing down along with the country. Huge, severe damage will be done that will take decades to reverse–if we have that much time left. That may mean the end of the GOP as we’ve known it unless they permanently fix the electoral system so that they never lose again.

However, the problem remains that while the implosion of the GOP is still imminent, the Democratic Party implosion already happened, thanks to Hillary Clinton and the DNC. The party has never been the same since the coup d’etat in 1963 when JFK was murdered, followed by LBJ pursuing victory in Vietnam to his own political destruction and that of the country. So, while there’s a vacuum on the Left, Trump is about to create one on the Right. Who will step in to fill it is too worrisome to contemplate now, considering the possibilities we presently have to choose from. Trump is no Hitler but Pence’s successor very well could be.

Advertisements

The Stooge In The House

I will preface this post by reminding people I do not support Hillary Clinton in any way, shape, or form. That being said, I avidly hope that the House of Representatives does vote to impeach her in an election year.

AAfE1Ft.img

Why? Because for a Republican-controlled House of Representatives to impeach a Democratic presidential candidate would be absurdist political theatre at its best. It would make the Republicans the laughingstock of the the world–even more than they are now. Because it would put into sharp relief how partisan and loony that Party has become that they would reach that far and stoop that low to take someone they view as a danger to their own presidential candidates out of the race.

And it shows how utterly stupid a person and politician Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala) is. It brings out the Curly in me to want to shout “Oh Mo! Oh Mo! Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.”

That’s right, Mo, give your party yet another poke in the eye.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-lawmaker-floats-impeachment-for-clinton/ar-AAfE1ti?li=AAa0dzB

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.

2014 Midterm Elections: Where Do We Go From Here? It Doesn’t Look Good

Like many other Democrats, I was angered by the GOP’s near-sweep of national and state races. There were pockets of Democratic victories but by and large the United States will be much redder starting January 2015.

I said I was angered, but I wasn’t surprised. In fact, none of us should have been surprised. All the signs were there and this GOP victory had been predicted months in advance. Besides, this has been years in the making. Young Republican college students like Grover Norquist hooked up with the Koch Brothers back in the 70s and formulated the basics of this plan, revising and expanding it over the years. The Kochs had enough money and enough time to take the long view for achieving their goal of total dominance over the American political system. And, based on last Tuesday’s elections, it looks like the plan is working. Karl Rove has been quoted as saying his plan to lead and to keep the GOP in political dominance extends to 2020, which happens to be the year in which it is predicted that Hispanics will make up the majority of the populace in Texas and perhaps in other areas.

Look at what Koch and other wealthy right wing powerhouses have wrought: they virtually control the corporate media, they control the US Supreme Court, many state governments, most of the US District and Courts of Appeal, and now Congress. Under normal conditions, I would agree with some liberal columnists who claim that with the GOP in control of Congress, they will fail dismally as they always do, angering voters to the point where the pendulum will again swing leftward in 2016.

I’m not so sure that prediction will be borne out this time. As I said, for the first time people like the Kochs now control almost all political, legislative, judicial processes and the media in this country. So, they not only control what their minions see, hear, and read, I believe they just about control the election process as well which has given them control of everything else that I’ve mentioned.

This didn’t happen in a vacuum. Check the voting records of many Democrats over the years. How do you think the five Koch employees on the US Supreme Court were appointed? And all of the right wing judges in the US District Court and Court of Appeals systems? I don’t remember any Democratic filibusters against any of these nominations. The Democrats also supported all the takeovers and mergers which allowed just a few media companies to monopolize control of all communications in this country.

The Democrats have proven to be wimps, unorganized without the capability of creating and instituting a Liberal plan along the lines of the GOP plan which would wrest control of the political, legislative and judicial processes from the hands of the Kochs, et al. A successful, 50-state plan was created and managed by ex-Gov. Howard Dean after he became the Democratic National Committee chair in 2005. In return for this great plan and his successful fundraising work has been totally snubbed and discarded by the Obama administration and by the DNC. Under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC has mismanaged Democratic campaigns and getting the Democratic message out to voters to such an extent that we now have a Republican-controlled Congress in fact. Since 2010, the GOP has had de facto control of Congress.

President Obama deserves his fair share of blame for the right wing takeover of corporate media. He has been no different from his Republican (and some Democratic) predecessors in appointing industry hacks to run and sit on the board of the FCC. The most egregious example of this is current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Consequently, control of printed, broadcast, and telecast media along with cable systems are concentrated in very few but extremely powerful corporate hands, all of them run by CEOs and boards who lean very far to the Right. As I write this, the FCC is poised to introduce a proposal that ignores the will of 3.7 million protestors as it will virtually eliminate net neutrality, placing the internet under the control of those same very few but extremely powerful corporate hands. And there’s not one thing any of us can do about it. If the President ignores our protests, and the new Congress will certainly ignore them, what peaceful options are left to us?

So, in 2016 we will be entering a media and political environment totally hostile to Liberal and Democratic politics. The one and only goal of people like the Kochs will be to embed in cement GOP and right wing control of virtually all aspects of life in this country for their own personal political and financial enrichment. Expect more voter ID laws to pass in states controlled by the GOP since SCOTUS has placed its imprimatur on it; more GOP gerrymandering of state and congressional voting districts, and more control of the voting and vote counting processes. And, of course, SCOTUS effectively gave control of political campaign contributions to the GOP via Citizens United.

This is why I believe that approval of Congress could sink to 0% by 2016 and almost all Republican incumbents along with Republican challengers will still be elected. Maybe I’m being overly pessimistic and paranoid here, but the creeping grasp of the GOP hand over most of everything that happens in this country. What’s the answer? That’s for Liberals and Democrats to organize and figure out. The answer might be a totally new coalition of voters disgusted with both Democratic and Republican parties. That could result in candidates and voters in large enough numbers to offset the GOP control of our elective process. Or maybe not.

The Bizarro World Of The Ultra-Farleftys

I’m a farlefty. My blog name validates this or it wouldn’t be called Farlefty. My world is ruled by logic, common sense, and deductive reasoning and opinions based on research. Then there’s the world of the ultra-farleftys in which President Obama is lying about ISIS/ISIL and the threat they pose to our American way of life. They claim he just wants to phony up a war in Iraq just like the Bush administration did. They also claim we are being lied to about the threat ISIS/ISIL poses to Syria along with the threat Assad poses to his own Syrian people. These people claim the puppet masters behind the marionette show which is Congress, SCOTUS, and the White House are hungry for more oil fields and the plentiful natural resources laying around all over the place in the Middle East and that’s what’s really going on. Well, I agree with that up to a point—especially about most of Congress and the five Koch Brothers employees on SCOTUS being puppets.

But here’s the problem as I see it with the overwhelming paranoia on the Far Left: If Obama is just as much of a liar as George W. Bush was, then this country is already lost to the likes of the Koch Brothers. It’s game over, folks; there’s no Blue and there’s no Red, just Purple. If this is to be believed, then there’s not a thing we can do about it because the game is rigged and no matter who you believe or who you vote for, you’re wrong. I believe Obama to be a basically good man of good intentions for this country, but it’s undeniable that for most of his presidency he’s been in the pockets of the likes of Goldman Sachs (look at how many people from GS he chose to fill White House and Federal Reserve Bank positions) and the banksters (Jaime Dimon being his good buddy). But given all this, Obama did sign into law bills that have helped—for the most part—consumers and homeowners.

These same ultra-farleftys also think Vladimir Putin is an innocent victim of worldwide disinformation intended to frame him as a despot intent on returning the Ukraine piece back to the jigsaw puzzle that was the Soviet Union. They claim that it’s Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine, who’s the real villain, trying to gain the world’s sympathy by falsely claiming Russian nationalists and operatives had invaded Ukraine and started shooting wars to capture and control the southeastern region of the country. Ultra-farleftys also point to interviews and articles on Russia Today (where else) that claim it was Ukraine that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 near Donetsk in the that the ensuing global outrage would result in a world war against Russia.

The world of the ultra-farleftys is like the Bizarro world in the Superman comics. The good guys are the bad guys and the bad guys good. Everything you know is wrong, which is true up to a point. I think that intelligent people who are also congenitally insightful are intuitive enough to discern truth from fiction, lies, and propaganda. When you read a book by Paul Krugman, you just know he is truthfully and accurately relating what went wrong with the financial system in this country and how to fix it. When you read books by Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulter, you know they’re lying pieces of shit.

Ultra-farleftys may be intelligent folk—many of them seem to be—and some may well be well-meaning but unknowing purveyors of disinformation while others are in on the scam. I don’t know. But what I do know is that people on the far left can go so far to the left, and people on the far right can go so far to the right that both groups meet in the middle. It’s one thing to be faced on both sides with lunacy, but to be surrounded by it creates a vacuum empty of knowledge and truth. Nature abhors a vacuum but tyranny loves it.

The Only Thing Dead Broke Is Hillary Clinton’s Integrity, Part 2

My original commentary on Hillary Clinton’s integrity was supposed to be a one-shot but I’ve gotten such push back from some Democrats who are either overly-avid Hillary supporters or have been hired by her presidential campaign to stamp out negative Hillary comments all over the socialnetworksphere—or both—about my criticism of the Hillary Clinton’s claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House that it justifies a part 2, if only to humble these partisan guardians of Clintondom by waving the Clintons’ 2001 1040 tax return before their denying eyes.

This is a link to the Clinton’s 2001 federal income tax return: http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/clintontaxes/2001.pdf

Their TAXABLE income was $14,427,526.00. They paid $5,935,425.00 in taxes on that income. Simple math shows that they cleared $8.5 million. Anyone want to convince me that’s the income of a family that “dead broke”? And Hillary said they were “dead broke” when the left the White House but she didn’t say for HOW LONG, did she? Because they never were. I told you they were making millions in speech making fees, and there was $154,952.00 in wage income. And they had a $152,000 pension fund they drew income from for an total income $16,165,110.00. And we’re not even talking about travel and lodging charged to their various foundations. Please, anyone, defend this as “dead broke” from any perspective you choose, even the argument that their 2001 income was less than that for the years 2000 and 2002 (which I haven’t looked at yet). Those of you who are backing and defending Hillary Clinton are, in the words of Vin Scully, seeing her with your hearts and not with your eyes.

Anyone still want to argue the Semantics of the Rich and Famous? Why is it so important to many of you to believe totally in Hillary Clinton? Just because you view her as the Great Female Democratic Hope of 2016? Total wishful thinking on your part. If she keeps this up, just watch the growing backlash against her from the truly Liberal wing of the Democratic Party along with most Independent voters.

Hillary Clinton has lied about the Clinton non-flow of income for 2001. She finally says as she’s again running for president that her 2002 vote to authorize The Iraq War Resolution was a mistake, based on the intelligence she had at the time. But then, she now says this: “My lack of confidence in the Bush Administration went back to the fall of 2002, when it was boasting of ironclad intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. After weighing the evidence and seeking as many opinions as I could inside and outside the government, Democrats and Republicans alike, I voted to authorize military action in Iraq, if the diplomatic efforts, meaning the U.N. weapons inspections, failed.” She also wrote that she “made the best decision I could with the information I had…I feel I was totally briefed.” Except that she never consulted those who dissented with that report, including Florida Sen. Bob Graham, chair of the Senate intelligence committee who also opposed the war.

http://www.propublica.org/article/all-the-things-hillary-clintons-book-doesnt-say-about-iraq

Rewrite history much, Hillary?

The anticipated 2016 presidential matchup is tentatively predicted to be between Clinton and Jeb Bush. We all know that Jeb ALLEGEDLY stole the 2000 election for brother George in Florida. Some Democrats have boosted the GOP terrorist alert to Orange over the prospect that not voting for Hillary (should she get the nomination) is tantamount to electing Jeb Bush president. That scare tactic has GOP written all over it because George W. constantly used it when his approval numbers were dropping. So, Democrats are now being told who to vote for on the basis that our liar is more honest than their liar? That’s where the bar is set now? If some Democrats are afraid that some Republican will be elected president in 2016 then pushing Clinton on us will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The corporate media—including public broadcasting, is pushing the fiction that people now think that Republicans are better on the budget, healthcare, and national security. Sure, it’s a myth based on skewed right wing polling but that’s what the media is preaching all day, every day. The corporate media is utilizing the Nazi propaganda technique that is people hear the same lie repeated enough times they will come to accept it as the truth. There are a lot of independent voters out there who already distrust the Clintons and with that constant barrage of propaganda mixed in with Hillary Clinton’s own lies, they will vote for the Republican who runs against her if and when given the choice. The people who support Clinton now are so close to the subject of their adoration that they can’t see this entire picture, and they refuse to step back far enough to view it in its entirety.

The “dead broke” line was not merely a matter of viewing that financial condition from a wealthy perspective as if that expression is all relative; it was a downright, pandering lie, as I said earlier. Someone who sees herself in that manner or is selling herself in that matter is not someone I want seated in the Oval Office. We’ve had enough of those since 1981. I don’t want another Bush, another Clinton, or another Obama in the White House. I would just like, for once, a liberal running the country supported by a Democratic and fairly liberal majority in Congress. That is exactly what this country needs now.