Saturday, September 24, 2016

How Frequently Do Con Gun Nuts Dream About Firearms?

To see a gun in your dream represents aggression, anger, and potential danger. You could be on the defensive about something. Or you may be dealing with issues of passiveness/aggressiveness and authority/dependence. Alternatively, a gun is a symbol of power and pride. Perhaps you are looking for shelter or protection in your dream. From a Freudian perspective, a gun represents the penis and male sexual drive. Thus, the gun may mean power or impotence, depending on whether the gun went off or misfired... excerpt from the "Gun" entry, the Dream Dictionary.

Over the last few days I've received multiple emails (both from NewsMax and Glenn Beck) that try to tempt me to open them via a contest in which I could win $1500 bucks that I can put toward my "dream gun".

Upon opening the NewsMax communication, I found that it was a "special message from our advertising sponsor, United States Concealed Carry Association". NewsMax sez "our sponsors help us keep our news service free, though we do not necessarily endorse this message".

Don't endorse 1500K for a "dream gun"? I'm guessing that's standard legalize to protect themselves. If, for instance, someone wins the "dream gun" and then kills someone with it. United States Concealed Carry Association could be sued, but not NewsMax.

Here is a pic of what a NewsMax reader's "dream gun" might look like.

1281X679

Note that the "prize" is actually a gift certificate (to what store, the fine print doesn't say). Also, if you enter, they'll for sure grab your email address for their own use (and possibly resell it).

Anyway, looks like any of these would be just what one would need to hunt deer with. Or blow away an "oxygen thief" (AKA a home invader)... likely a Black male or males named Dre, Mookie, Ray-Ray and Slice.

Because blowing away one of their fellow humans is a Conservative male base racist fetish. I don't find it hard to believe at all that many of them lay their heads on their pillows and night and, after drifting off, dream of using their hand-gun or assault rifle to kill violent Black home invaders there to vacuum up their oxygen.

Video: A lyric from the Prussian Blue song, Aryan Man Awake, says "and black masked men with guns come bashing down the doors". Something that the White racists live in fear of. "Turn your fear to hate" is the advice PB gives. And shoot that violent Black man dead. As YouTube commenter Austin Gooden said "this song should be our new national anthem! seig heil!!!!!" (4:27).

BTW, Prussian Blue videos are still up on YouTube, despite "the fact that Youtube is run by the same people who run Google and we all know how biased... those leftists are" (proof Willis Hart is an idiot).

PS: I'm not saying all gun nuts are neo-Nazi White Nationalists. But I bet a lot of them are. And I also bet that all White Nationalists are gun nuts. Yet another reason increased gun control might be a good idea.

SWTD #352

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Heil, Herr Trump, Our Possible Future Führer

The Nazi salute or Hitler salute... is a gesture that was used as a greeting in Nazi Germany. The salute is performed by extending the right arm in the air with a straightened hand. Usually, the person offering the salute would say "Heil Hitler!"... In Switzerland, France, Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden, the salute is illegal hate speech if used for propagating Nazi ideology. (Wikipedia/Nazi Salute).

I submitted a comment concerning Trump's endorsement by 88 generals to a progressive website, but the host dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory". I remain, however, 99 percent convinced that the following is true.

In a move to boost his national security credibility, Donald Trump released an endorsement letter signed by 88 retired military figures. Now some are questioning if there is a hidden anti-Semitic message behind the statement - since the number 88 is a well-known code for "Heil Hitler". (Is Donald Trump's Endorsement by 88 Retired Generals a Secret Neo-Nazi Code? by Lilly Maier. Forward.com 9/7/2016).

I'm convinced this is VERY likely true because this is the Trump strategy - to get a greater percentage of the White vote than Mitt Romney. According to Rollcall.com "to win, Donald Trump likely needs to run the table with white voters".

With his appeal to the Alt-right (hiring of Steve Bannon, for example) Trump is attempting to get the votes of White people who don't ordinarily turn out. Because the GOP isn't racist enough for these KKK-types. On the other hand, a more direct appeal would turn off many more tolerant White Republicans. Although (IMO) these people have to know what's going on (disenfranchisement of Black voters, demonization of Hispanics, etc).

But, as long as it's kept on the down-low, it's OK with them. Apparently. Even the previous head of the RNC, Michael Steele, was willing to ignore/deny the fact that the GOP is still employing Nixon's Southern Stragety.

And White Nationalists are KNOWN to speak in code. So, IMO, of course the Trump campaign is using this code to speak to the White racists, saying (wink, wink) "Trump is with you". Like I said, it's been his strategy all along. People need to wake up to this fact.

Possible VP Pence knows this is the strategy as well, which is why he refused to condemn David Duke as a deplorable in a recent interview. In a 9/12/2016 interview with Wolf Blitzer, the Blitz asked Pence if he'd call Duke "deplorable", and Pence said no. Because he isn't in the business of "name calling"! (This would be the same David Duke who said that "Voting against Trump is treason to your heritage").

Right. It isn't that Pence is opposed to "name calling". The reason is because Trump needs the deplorable vote to win. Or, he's betting that it will give him the win. Hence his adoption of their coded communications. This explains why Trump would retweet a meme originally tweeted by @WhiteGenocideTM.

Innocent enough, huh? It's just a picture of Jeb with a "vote Trump" sign. But what about the name attached to the Twitter account, "White Genocide"?! Why would Trump retweet something from this account? And, no, I don't think he overlooked who he was retweeting.

Here's another of @WhiteGenocide's photoshopped images.

That's a Nazi Trump executing Senator Bernie Sanders. No, Trump didn't retweet this picture, but this IS an image designed to appeal to the kind of people Trump wants the votes of. Which is why he made the "mistake" of retweeting a anti-semitic image of Hillary Clinton.

750×523

Although, when called on the source of the image (came from "8chan's /pol/ — an Internet message board for the alt-right, a digital movement of neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and white supremacists"), he had his social media team doctor up the pic (replacing the Star of David with a circle).

Dog whistling to deplorables while not getting too much attention from the media can be tricky. But it is ABSOLUTELY what the Trump campaign is doing. It's not a "conspiracy theory". (Note: no disrespect to the owner of the aforementioned blog intended. I simply disagree with her on this. We aren't talking about a conspiracy theory here, but the Trump campaign strategy).

SWTD #351

Sunday, September 11, 2016

The Day The Terrorists Won (Tuesday, September 11, 2001)

The terrorists won after 9/11 because we chose to invade Iraq, shred our Constitution ~ excerpt from a 11/15/2015 Salon article by Bret Weinstein.

Note that by "the terrorists" I refer to the Saudi Nationals who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the Pentagon, as well as their financiers. In addition, among "the terrorists", I include the accomplices in the bush administration. Accomplices in that george w bush knew a terrorist attack was likely. Knew the likely target. And knew an attack was imminent. Yet he did nothing.

Remember the PDB (presidential daily brief) from 8/6/2001 that warned Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US? Condi Rice fibbed and said "the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting". Implying there was no reason for them to act... "historical information based on old reporting".

But that is CLEARLY bullshit, given the in Ladin Determined To Strike in US warning contained within the PDB. You don't act when you're being WARNED?

An excerpt from the PDB.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America". *snip*

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ----, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks...

Al Qaeda members ---- including some who are U.S. citizens ---- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. *snip*

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks...

Yes, there is "historical" data here, but it also says that bin Laden IS DETERMINED. More attacks WILL come. And this warning (and it absolutely was a warning) was delivered less than 4 months before the 9/11 attacks occurred. There were other warnings, however. Warnings that date back the early days of the bush presidency.

They're coming here: Bush admin. ignored multiple pre-9/11 warnings (11/14/2015 RT article excerpt) Disclosures from more than 100 hours of exclusive interviews with 12 former CIA directors reveal that the George W. Bush administration ignored repeated warnings of an Al-Qaeda attack before September 11, 2001, according to a new Politico report. ...

A key meeting took place on July 10, after the head of the Al-Qaeda unit at the CIA... "The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw" [Cofer Black, a CIA chief of counterterrorism] said. ... "It was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die" [according to Black].

Black and [CIA director George] Tenet requested an urgent meeting at the White House and met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The president was on a trip to Boston at the time. Rice was told there would be significant terrorist attacks against the US in the coming weeks or months.

"The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States", said [Al Qaeda unit head, Richard] Blee, according to Tenet. Rice asked what they thought they needed to do, and Black blasted "We need to go on a wartime footing now!". Despite this warning, Black said the administration sat back.

But, instead of taking the warnings seriously, the author of the Politico article concludes that the warnings were actively ignored (referred to by Senator Al Franken in his book Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them as "operation ignore").

Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called "the Blue Sky paper" to Bush's new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat - "getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan"

"And the word back", says [CIA director George] Tenet, "was we're not quite ready to consider this. We don't want the clock to start ticking"... Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they'd been warned. (11/12/2015 article by Chris Whipple).

So it isn't just me who thinks that the bush administration ignored the threat that an attack was coming, and that, had they acted, they might have prevented 9/11. Note that the "word back" was that they did not want "the clock to start ticking", not that they weren't convinced.

That the attacks were ALLOWED to occur is a solid conclusion, IMO. As a pretext for invading Iraq. As per the stated desire of PNAC for a "new Pearl Harbor". (Wikipedia/Project for a New American Century/Critics: Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans).

The bush administration was also warned that hijacked planes might be used as weapons.

WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility".

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement. The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?", warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

[Also] the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer [2000] that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools. (What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11).

Then there is the fact that the WTC was bombed previously, due to it being seen by al Qaeda as a symbol of the United State's economic power. On 2/26/1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower, killing 6 people and injuring more than a 1,000. Given the fact that the 1993 plan basically failed, in that those responsible had intended to bring down the entire structure and kill many more, I think our government should have assumed that another attempt was likely and only a matter of time.

So, while I don't believe that bush knew EXACTLY what was going to happen (that al Qaeda would fly planes into the WTC), I do think the bush administration might (or should) have been able to connect the dots and make some educated guesses as to what al Qaeda may be planning, but they chose not to (didn't want the clock to start ticking).

bush, IMO, likely knew there would be an attack, but they had NO idea how bad it would be. My conclusions (which many others have reached) don't represent a "strange hate" (as a Libertarian blogger called my conclusions awhile back). Not strange and not hate. Only a rational conclusion based on an examination of the facts. Although I think hate surely would be justified.

Also, I say he LIKELY knew. I (of course) do not know with 100 percent certainty that bush knew an attack was coming. Given the fact that he (as president) was an incompetent doofus, maybe Cheney played him for the useful idiot (and that it's Cheney who is truly evil)?

Me, I'm thinking that Cheney (who was one of 25 people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, while bush wasn't) wanted a "benevolent global hegemony" which would be brought about by toppling Saddam. i.e. the domino theory which said that if the US "overthrows Hussein and creates a pro-Western democratic regime in Iraq, the example will increase internal pressure to open closed societies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria").

Whereas bush wanted to take out Saddam because he allegedly tried to kill his daddy.

During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons - in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, "After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad".

He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after US-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton.

While the alleged plot was never cited officially as a cause for going to war, some pundits... have speculated that revenge or some oedipal desire to show up his father may indeed have been one of the factors that drove him to Baghdad. (So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? by Jim Lobe. 10/19/2004 Republished by Common Dreams).

Which is why I conclude that, given the fact that 9/11 was an evil act, that bush (as a participant in that event) is an evil man. Because of his inactions. BTW, most evil people don't view themselves as evil. Remember that Osama bin Laden thought he was leading a religious crusade against the Great Satan. And believed he was on the side of God (AKA Allah).

Point is, we always determine evil by what evil does. Or what evil people do. In this case the evil of george w bush in ignoring the warnings and allowing 9/11 to happen. Something the evidence strongly suggests happened.

"Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" Public Policy Polling asked in 2009.Wikipedia notes that "27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded YES".

And that the plan to hijack airplanes and fly them into the Twin Towers actually got an assist from the then sitting president? That is why I say the terrorists won. This was the event with which OBL kicked off his jihad against the West. A jihad that rages on today (in the form of ISIS). It also provided the bushies with the excuse to invade Middle Eastern countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) that they were hungering for.

If not for the "failures" of the bush administration I think that ISIS would probably not exist. Something to think about on this, the 15th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on our nation. That a former president HELPED the terrorists and (with his illegal invasion of Iraq) GREATLY empowered our enemies (DSD #31).

Image: gwb and OBL meet prior to 9/11/2001 to coordinate their plans to bring down the Twin Towers. Note that I am not a 9/11 Truther. My commentary from 11/17/2009 titled "Best Friends George and Osama" (SWTD #30) was a work of satire. But only in part.

w:300 h:225  

SWTD #350. See also OST #168.

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

Lying Gary AKA Dishonest Johnson / Ayn Rand Hated Poors #5

Hoi polloi is an expression from Greek that means the many or, in the strictest sense, the majority. In English, it has been corrupted by giving it a negative connotation to signify deprecation of the working class, commoners, the masses or common people in a derogatory... sense ~ Definition via Wikipedia.

According to a new Gary Johnson ad, Bill Weld (his Libertarian VP pick) has deemed his running mate "Honest Johnson". In said ad he describes how Johnson is "one of the most honest people" he's met. Almost "painfully honest", he sez. (Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson").

But I agree with Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann, who, on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program, said (in regards to Gary and Bill) "they're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

For example, they use the words freedom and liberty a LOT. But what do they really mean when they use these words? Obviously (look at their platform) what they're talking about (primarily) is freedom from taxation. And, that's freedom for rich people to not have to contribute to funding the social safety net (DSB #44).

Proof of this is their stated objective of "we should eliminate the entire social welfare system" (Source: Official Libertarian Party Website). But, in spite of the f*cking platform, Lying Gary says "we can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without" (SWTD #343).

But we already have a safety net. We need to strengthen it, not "create" it. I assume Lying Gary says "create" because he's thinking the private sector is going to create a new one after the Libertarians (should they get their way) completely destroy the one we already have (their STATED objective).

Now Lying Gary KNOWS that's NOT the take-away the majority of people get from his message of "nobody goes without". Few people are thinking... YES, nobody goes without means we're going to completely dismantle the safety net (the one we have currently). By "eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest" (direct quote from the LP website).

Sure, all politicians lie (or shade the truth to some degree), but lying about what your freaking platform explicitly states? Me, I'd say the moniker "honest Johnson" ABSOLUTELY does not apply. If a nickname denoting how truthful Gary might be is what Bill wants, I say we go with "Lying Gary" or "Dishonest Johnson".

As for the "painful" part, YES, I think the dismantling of our entire safety net would be QUITE painful for a lot of people. Perhaps not for rich people (unless they have consciences). Although Libertarians believe that it's more morally objectionable to "steal" from people (i.e. tax them), so many (if not all) of them might be fine and dandy about their policies (if instituted) killing people.

I mean, it is a fact that the Ayn-Rand worshiping Libertarian considers the unwashed masses to be worthless trash (parasites and takers). As their heroine wrote "what are your masses of humanity but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it".

This being a quote from the original version of Rand's book We The Living. Although this quote was altered when the book was reissued years after its original publication (according to a poster on the Thom Hartmann message board as well as a number of other sources) [1].

Further proof that Rand hated poor people. Heck, I'd say she clearly and indisputably loathed them after reading this comment. Although if they're "fuel" that kinda belies her characterization of them as "moochers" and "parasites". Sounds to me like she's saying they're good (to take advantage of) for their cheap labor (a sentiment shared by many Libertarians and Republicans).

But that's NOT the reason Libertarians like Lying Gary will cite when they talk about eliminating the minimum wage. No, they'll spin BS about how no minimum wage is a GOOD thing, in that it will lead to higher employment. Self-serving baloney (in that it benefits the rich owners) which has been proven false. But that's what you get from Libertarians like Lying Gary (falsehoods that benefit the Oligarchs and hurt everyone else).

BTW, in regards to the "hoi polloi" definition at the top of this post... the Wikipedia entry also notes further synonyms (for the Greek term) that also express the same or similar distaste for the common people, including the great unwashed, the plebeians or plebs, the rabble, the masses, the dregs of society, riffraff, the herd, the proles (proletariat), sheeple, and peons.

Reminiscent of lice, moochers and parasites - the terms Ayn Rand used. Which goes to show that hating poors goes back a LONG way. The goal with this language being to justify the wealthy class having most of the wealth. They deserve it. And they deserve to get it by screwing lower classes. And disguising this fact (they're taking more than they deserve) by painting poor people as undeserving.

Although Rand was more or less honest about her hatred of the less fortunate. I mean, yeah, she denied it, and you might say she was more indifferent than seething with hatred... but you'd be wrong. Her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged being proof of that. In that she engaged in some serious mass casualty porn in her 1168-page doorstop. In that millions of worthless poors got their just deserts. By which I mean they died via starvation, train "accidents", etc. (SWTD #303).

That a similar die-off of the worthless eaters might occur under a Johnson administration is a no-brainer. Although he'd still have to contend with Congress. But, if Republicans controlled both houses? I think he could ram through quite a bit of his anti-poor and anti-middle class agenda. Anti these lower classes in that a Johnson administration would seek to push us further along the path to full blown oligarchy.

OK, so Lying Gary says "it's game over on any chance of winning the White House if he does not make it to the debate stage" and THAT is an honest statement. But it would also be game over is Gary got into the debates and then proceeded to tell the truth about the Libertarian platform.

Not that Lying Gary would stand a chance either way (in or out of the debates). Donald Trump locking up a larger percentage of the rube vote than Gary. And he gets it his fake populism (appeal to working people). Mostly by saying he's opposed to the TPP. While Lying Gary is in favor of it.

Point is, we've got populists running on both sides (or, that's how they're presenting themselves). Which is why it was game over from the get-go for a poor-hating, anti-populist, pro-rich stooge like Lying Gary Johnson. Even though Lying Gary is doing slightly better this time (due to support from Never-Trumpers and scarily uninformed Bernie Sanders supporters).

Video: Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson" (1:02).

Footnote
[1] Check Google and you can confirm the validity of this quote, although I first heard it from Thom Hartmann on his program, as broadcast on Free Speech TV on 8/11/2016. Thom also referred to Rand as "one sick puppy"; a sentiment I agree with 1000 percent. I also Googled it, and found a discussion on the Objectivism Online Forum.

SWTD #349. ARHP #5.

Sunday, September 04, 2016

Julian Assange Wants Donald Trump To Be The Next US President

True information does good ~ Julian Assange (dob 7/3/1971) an Australian computer programmer, journalist and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which he founded in 2006.

The following is an excerpt from the 8/26/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program (edited for brevity and clarity by me). Thom welcomes Ellen Ratner from Talk Media News to the program and, during their discussion Ellen shares news she has heard regarding Julian Assange and his threats of releasing hacked data that will send Hillary Clinton to prison (data that was either obtained by Russian hacker groups or DNC staffer Seth Rich - who HRC had murdered for his betrayal).

Ellen Ratner: Julian Assange is saying he's going to do a new leak from WikiLeaks. Now, I have to tell you something, my brother Michael was Julian Assange's attorney before he died (that's before Michael died, Julian Assange is still alive)... and a lot of people think that what Julian Assange is actually doing is, he has made a bet that he's going to do better under Trump than Hillary Clinton, so he's going after Hillary Clinton.

Thom Hartmann: Really? That's a very bad bet.

Ellen Ratner: That's what the inside score is telling us. I'm hearing that from the behind-the-scenes folks.

Thom Hartmann: In other words Assange is using WikiLeaks for his own purposes.

As I discussed in SWTD #342, Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

The title of my commentary was "On The Possibility Of The WikiLeaks Release Of DNC Hacked Material Throwing The Election To Donald Trump", and, at the time, my belief that Julian Assange was just going with the material he had. That is, he has material regarding HRC, but not regarding DJT. And that he was just doing what his organization does - leak governmental material.

I mean, the guy isn't a US citizen, so it doesn't matter to him as much if DJT becomes president. But now, with this revelation from Ellen Ratner (an individual I trust), it's looking like Assange WANTS Trump to be president. I'm not sure what Ellen is referring to by Assange betting that "he's going to do better". Except to guess that Assange is worried about being snatched by the US and spirited away to the United States for trial.

The reclusive figure fears he will ultimately be sent to the US where he could face the death penalty. In an interview with The Times magazine, Mr Assange claimed it had become too dangerous to even poke his head out the embassy's balcony doors. [Due to] fears he will be assassinated or even "droned" by the American intelligence services if he leaves his hideout within the Ecuadorean embassy. (Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claims he'll be killed by CIA drone if he leaves embassy by Tom Batchelor. 8/30/2015 express.co.uk).

Assange may also not want HRC to be president (and be trying to use WikiLeaks to tip the election in favor of Trump), as he has written "I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States" (Source).

I don't know what cables Assange has read, but I think he has a point. Although we're already in a fight with ISIS and I think whoever is president will have enough on their plate without starting any new conflicts. But HRC is definitely a hawk (SWTD #323).

But if Assange is going after HRC to see if you can influence US elections and get DJT elected president? I say he should f*ck off. Especially if his motivation is that DJT will consider him a friendly (like he does with Putin) and not try to prosecute or kill him. I haven't heard anything about the US wanting to prosecute Assange. Not recently, anyway.

I thought Assange got into this line of work for altruistic reasons. Because he's a believer in governmental transparency. But now he's trying to get Trump elected to save his own skin? That's IF he's correct and that a president Trump would call off the assassins and circling drones. Me, I don't know if Assange is mostly paranoid here or if his fears are genuine.

I'm sure our government doesn't like him. And I don't think that would change under a Trump administration. In any case, Assange said (re any possible Trump leaks) "we'd be very happy to receive and publish it". But he says he has nothing. And he also says "the problem with the Trump campaign is it's actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth every second day" (Assange: WikiLeaks's Trump info no worse than him).

So this definitely sounds possible. Unless Assange was able to obtain (or has) Trump's tax returns (showing he pays no taxes, owes a lot of money to Russian oligarchs, has a net worth that is a lot lower than what he says it is, shows he donates very little or nothing to charity, etc), actual physical results (not that BS letter from Dr. Bornstein), and other unknown secrets.

BTW, that's not counting the horrible stuff that's out there but that the press is ignoring. Such as the fact that he raped his ex-wife Ivana (sometime before 1992) and the pending lawsuit regarding his alleged rape of a 13YO in 1994.

And then there's the marginally covered ugly Trump facts, first among these being his pandering to the alt-Right racists and the fact that (IMO) he's a huge racist himself (SWTD #347). As well as a sexist and possibly an anti-semite (we know his new campaign manager Steve Bannon is a racist, a homophobe and an anti-semite).

So how about you, Julian Assange, stop trying to make this man our next president? I mean, I'll take HRC over DJT any day of the week. Fact is, I think she'll make a decent president (even though I was for Bernie Sanders), while Donald Trump would be a disaster in more ways then I think we can possibly imagine. The racist "alt Right" is LOVING Trump, and you KNOW a Trump presidency would further embolden them (SWTD #347).

Which is why I say that, whatever "true information" Assange has on HRC, if it swings the election to DJT, that will definitely not be good. It will, in fact be bad. Very bad.

Video1: Megyn Kelly interviews Julian Assange. Fox Nooz, of course, being receptive to dirt that could bring down the HRC campaign (3:27).

Video2: Rightwingers call for Julian Assange to be assassinated. Institutional Democrats call for him to be prosecuted. I'm opposed to either, especially given the fact that Assange is not a US citizen and not subject to our laws (2:42).

SWTD #348

Saturday, August 20, 2016

GOP The Party Of Racism & Bigotry, Henceforth To Be Referred To As Trumpism

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose - you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down ~ Bill Bennett (dob 7/31/1943) former Reagan education secretary. 9/28/2016 comment by Bennett from his nationally syndicated radio program, Morning in America.

It is time to dump Reaganomics and bring back the Great Society, but the rise of Donald Trump may present a problem in that regard. Trump has given voice to the racists on the Right (the silent bigot minority) and they won't go away if/when Trump loses. Although, that IS the direction it has been nudging toward for a long time. But now, under Trump, the racists are reinvigorated. They're LOVING Trump and his embrace of their hardcore bigotry.

The following is an excerpt from the 8/17/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program (edited for brevity and clarity by me). Thom, reacting to an African American caller saying "this party has been at the root of all the ills of our country" (and blaming Reaganomics), shares his thoughts on LBJ's Great Society and the enormous economic damage Reaganomics has done.

Thom: I'm absolutely agreeing with you. You pointed out the damage that Reaganomics did to communities of color in this country. We were just a generation into the Great Society. It was just starting to strengthen the Black middle class. And it was also strengthening the White middle class, and it was dealing with poverty in White communities. I would say that White working class communities have been devastated by Reaganomics as well.

This piece Justin Gest wrote for Politico called "Why Trumpism will outlast Trump" [shows why this is the case]. Gest says "I solicited white Americans' support for Donald Trump, but also for a hypothetical third party dedicated to stopping mass immigration, providing American jobs to American workers, preserving America's Christian heritage, and stopping the threat of Islam — essentially the platform of the UK's right-wing British National Party, adapted to the United States".

65% of White Americans said they agreed with it. Now, I think that probably the biggest thing they're agreeing with is providing American jobs to American workers. But the reality is that there is a large base of pissed off White people too. And they've seen their jobs devastated by Reaganomics, too. Donald Trump is pumping that With rage and he's directing a lot of that White/Right rage toward communities of color.

It's a variation of, back in the 40s, 50s and 60s when politicians like George Wallace and Pat Buchanan were saying those Black workers (back when the unions were segregated) are going to take your jobs. This is an old playbook. We've seen this before. Detroit used to be the richest city in American... [but it was destroyed by Reaganomics].

Caller: The car manufacturing jobs moved to the Southern states that have right to work laws. Their [Trump voters] anger is so misdirected and they're so easily manipulated by rich white people [the oligarchs]. (Note: comment paraphrased).

[End 8/17/2016 Thom Hartmann Program Excerpt]

This is scary stuff. As the article notes, Trump supporters are "more likely to be males under 40, of lower socioeconomic status, without a university education and ideologically conservative - in other words, the Republican Party's longtime base. ...this is not a phenomenon likely to pass quickly".

"Trumpism is Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George bush Republicanism" Thom Hartmann said after returning from the break. Pointing out the fact that, since Nixon's Southern Strategy, the GOP has been the home of the nation's racists.

Republican strategist Lee Atwater started the meme that cutting taxes and the social safety net would hurt the ni**ers and racist Whites should vote Republican for that reason. Prior to LBJ's signing of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, it was the Dems who were the party of the racists (SWTD #228). But that changed with Richard Nixon. He saw that the White racist votes were up for grabs, and he decided that racists should vote Republican (and that is how he'd win). The GOP has been a home to the racists ever since.

Many of the "Reagan Democrats" switched over to the GOP because, as Atwater (who advised RWR & GHWB) said (in 1981) "You start out in 1954 by saying, ni**er, ni**er, ni**er. By 1968 you can't say ni**er - that hurts you. Backfires. So [now] you're talking about cutting taxes... totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites".

"Boy, do we have an opportunity. We can get all these White Southerners who are hysterical about race to vote for insane economic policies that are going to destroy their own lives and make us [the ruling elites & the oligarchs] richer. Simply by talking to them in code. And we've got a new code, which is that government is bad because it helps Black people", Hartmann said later in program. Black people, Hispanic people, Muslim people and Gay people too. Democrats support these minorities and Republicans demonize them.

"The GOP has happily replaced the Democratic Party as a safe haven for bigotry" Bob Herbert (an African American journalist) wrote in a 10/6/2005 NYT article (the same article I pulled the Bennett and Attwater quotes from). Black people KNOW this, and this is why they vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities (94% of the black vote went to Johnson the year he signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In the Obama Vs Romney contest BHO garnered 95% of the Black vote).

Former RNC chair Michael Steel claimed that "the idea of the Southern Strategy is over. I announced that when I was chairman. We're not doing that anymore" (SWTD #274). But he didn't last long in that position. Largely because he spoke against the idea that the GOP would abandon the racists and go for a larger percentage of the Black and Latino vote, IMO (that, and because he's Black).

The GOP, despite the autopsy report that said they'd start losing presidential elections going forward if they didn't convince minority voters to vote Republican, have gone farther Right instead.

"Bill Bennett's twisted fantasies are a malignant outgrowth of our polarized past. Our job is to keep them from spreading into the future" Herbert wrote in 2005. But the malignancy is spreading into the future. Racism and bigotry has a new name; they can now be referred to using the term "Trumpism". Due to the attention paid to the White Nationalists and "Alt Right" by the GOP under Donald Trump. Proof racists and bigots should now be called "Trumpists" is his selection of Breitbart bigot Steve Bannon.

Alt Right Rejoices at Donald Trump's Steve Bannon Hire (Daily Beast article by Betsy Woodruff and Gideon Resnick, excerpt) Donald Trump's campaign is under new management - and his white nationalist fanboys love it. The campaign's new chief executive, Stephen Bannon, joins from Breitbart News - where he helped mainstream the ideas of white nationalists and resuscitate the reputations of anti-immigrant fear-mongers.

BTW, rememeber when Trump tweeted that pic of Hillary with a Star of David next to it? The one that was captioned "most corrupt candidate ever". Well, if Trump isn't an anti-semite, then why is he "turning his campaign over to someone who's best known for running a so-called news site that peddles divisive, at times racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" (this is a quote from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook excerpted from the Daily Beast).

Time for people to open their minds and see the GOP of today for what it is, not what they want it to be [1]. If you're a Conservative voter who is "holding your nose" and voting for Trump, KNOW who you're voting for! Initially I thought that Trump was only USING the racists (a Southern Strategy on steroids being what he thought could be his path to the White House. Or at least the GOP nomination). Now, given his past history, I'm thinking that Trump is totally a racist.

That history being the Trump apartment renters being screened by race ("one rental agent said Trump's father had told him not to rent to blacks"). A young DJT, who was president of the Trump business at the time, decided to go to court to fight the discrimination charges (Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows).

Then there's Trump's reaction to the Central Park jogger attack, which was to pay for $85k for newspaper ads calling for the death penalty for the so-called Central Park Five. Five young African American males who were convicted of the "assault, rape, and sodomy of Trisha Meili, a female jogger, in NYC's Central Park, on 4/19/1989" (a crime it was later determined had been committed by another individual, and for which the 5 young men had been railroaded into confessing to by the cops).

But the Bannon hiring has changed my mind on this. Trump is now, and has always been a racist. Unless one was a sociopath, how could a person live with himself, doing what he's doing? I'm talking about pandering to the Alt Right to win the presidency (if it is enough to win, and I pray to God it isn't). Not that I don't think Trump isn't a sociopath. He may be. That's in addition to being a total narcissist, a misogynist, a bigot and a racist.

"I was from an area that was all Democrat. And, frankly, over the years, I have — and especially as I have gotten more and more involved — I have evolved" Trump said on the 8/23/2015 airing of Face The Nation. PolitiFact notes that "Trump has changed his party affiliation 5 times since registering as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987".

I not sure what he means by "evolved", but I do think this conspiracy theory that says the Democrat Trump was talked into running as a Republican by Bill Clinton so his wife could win... it's bullshit. Trump ran as a Republican because his racism is a PERFECT fit for the Republican party, NOT the Democratic party. Trump is a racist. His supporters are racists. Those who vote for him in November are racists or naive duped enablers of racism and bigotry. And remember that we're not talking about your average racists or bigots, but the absolute scum of the earth, the Alt Right/White Nationalists.

Something to keep in mind when you go to the ballot box in November. IF you vote for Trumpism, the fallout will BE ON YOU! You can't say later you weren't warned. I'm not talking about being warned by me (as nobody, or VERY few people will read this), but by Trump's actions. He's a racist and he's making it very clear that he's a racist. His decision to cozy up to the Breitbart bigots being proof positive of this.

Footnote
[1] My modification of a comment from Sid Andrews, left in response to my 1/22/2014 commentary Highly Dubious LBJ Quote & What It Says About Those Who Eagerly Believe It (commentary that, according to Blogger stats, is my #1 most popular post). BTW, LJB was a racist and he did use the N-word. But he, I would argue, was a product of his times and place of birth. Not that this excuses his racism. But he did sign the legislation because he knew it was the right thing to do. And despite knowing that signing the 1957 CRA would cost the Democratic Party the South "for a generation".

Video: Footage from a Donald Trump rally in Phoenix AZ 6/18/2016 featuring Trump supporter Zachary Fisher who screamed "...build that fucking wall. For me! Trump! I love Trump!". "Fisher also has the number 43 tattooed beneath his left armpit. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the number is used by members of the racist skinhead group Supreme White Alliance". (1:41).

SWTD #347

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

You've Been Reported!

Attention! If your Blogger ID & site are on the list below, you've been reported to Blogger for violating their Terms of Service (TOS). Specifically, your ID and blog are potentially about to be found guilty of being in violation of Blogger's content policy, which prohibits copying content from someone else's blog ("someone is copying my content" AKA plagarism) as well as harassment ("harassment or bullying" or "blog attacking" according to the complainant).

In alphabetical order, the offending blogs are as follows.

Dog Report (D) Flying Junior.

FreeThinke (CC) FreeThinke.

The Oracular Opinion & Blogger Sleuth (C) Pamela D. Hart.

Progressive Eruptions (D) Shaw Kenawe

Rational Nation USA (C) Rational Nation USA.

Sleeping With The Devil (D) Dervish Sanders.

Who's Your Daddy (CC) Lisa.

(C: Conservative, CC: Crazy Conservative, D: Democratic).

If you find your Blog/Blogger ID on this list? You might want to take the situation seriously. Very seriously. Because Blogger takes violations of it's Terms of Service and Blogger Content Policy seriously.

Blogs/Bloggers on the list above may be subjected to the following penalties.

Delete the offending content, blog post or blog.
Disable the author's access to his/her Blogger account.
Disable the author's access to his/her Google account.
Report the user to law enforcement. (Source).

On the other hand, you may decide to not take this "reporting" seriously, given who the complainant is. It's a crazy, paranoid, deluded troll who thinks everyone is attacking him & plagiarizing his blog posts.

Luke: Since you insist on stealing my posts, I'll post them on your thread and make it easy for you. [Full text of post from Luke's blog Speak Your Mind titled The Clinton Machine]. (7/27/2016 AT 5:43pm).

Luke: I proved Shaw stole my post 3 times. You did miss it lying asshole and I'm not reproving it for a lying asshole like you. Again, check my blog for that Nader post lying asshole. Say what you want my blog proves alll of you lying assholes. By asshole. (8/07/2016 AT 3:23pm).

According to Luke Spencer's (his Google Plus ID) blog sidebar "their goal seems to be to force bloggers to close down their blogs". And he added "If they attack you, report it to Blogger, I did". "Their" being the bloggers on the list above. Apparently all these bloggers (myself included) are "buddies".

Although I know for a fact that nobody I mentioned initially is a buddy to either Lisa or Free Thinke. Also, Luke attributes "Dog Report" to -FJ, who, as far as I know is not Flying Junior. They're 2 different bloggers.

The following is the comment moderation note from Luke's Speak Your Mind blog.

Due to continuous attacks on my blog by Rational Nation and multiple other aliases (RN), The Oracular Opinion and Blogger Sleuth (Pam), Progressive Eruptions (Shaw), Sleeping With The Devil and 5 other blogs (Dervish Sanders) and their continuous plagiarism of my posts, I have set moderation. If you have trouble with these nasty trolls report them to Blogger, I did.

Anyway, as "buddies" all these bloggers are apparently harassing poor Luke by plagiarizing his posts and attacking his blog. Now, I don't know if anyone else is plagiarizing his posts, but I can speak for myself. And I can say I'd never heard of this Luke character until he showed up on my blog and submitted one of his posts as a comment (the first one I quoted above).

And it looks like Luke is super pissed at Shaw Kenawe because she stole his posts 3 times! I asked him for proof in the form of some links to where this "stealing" occurred, but he refused. So I concluded it never happened. I think you've got to prove something ONCE before you can "reprove" it.

As for the "Nader post" Luke talks about, he submitted a commentary titled "Hillary's Convention Con" from Ralph Nader's website to the RNUSA blog (as a comment) without saying where it came from (making it look like he was submitting it as something he had written).

Shaw Kenawe: For a troll who runs around the internet accusing people of plagiarizing his work, it is hilarious to read "Luke's" two comments which were taken word-for-word from Ralph Nader's site. At the end of his post on the DNC convention and Hillary, it does say "share and enjoy." But "Luke", who accuses people of stealing his work (false, BTW), should have either linked to the original text or at the very least, put Nader's name to it. So it goes. (7/31/2016 AT 09:25:00 AM EDT).

Luke didn't see the problem with him posting this on the RNUSA blog without attributing it to Ralph Nader. Apparently it says (somewhere) on Ralph Nader's site that people should copy and paste his articles onto as many blogs as possible. And, when you do that, you should never tell anyone where you got it or who wrote it. I don't know if this is true or not. I looked around Nader's site but all I found is the "share and enjoy" notation after each Nader commentary.

Maybe Luke thinks it says "share and annoy"? Which I think people were. Although I think they were more annoyed by Luke's accusations of theft. He tried it on Pamela's blog, and she promptly deleted everything he had written and banned him.

Pamela Hart: Luke, you aren't welcome here anymore. I will not tolerate you accusing me of plagiarizing your posts. (8/8/2016 AT 12:59pm).

As for the plagiarism accusations, nobody stole any posts from Luke's blog. Or maybe they did. He comments on Lisa's blog (Who's Your Daddy, AKA "the stench trench") and a lot of spoofing goes on there, apparently. I look every once and awhile, and see people saying that some comments are from sock puppets. I think someone there spoofs Shaw's ID. And maybe the Shaw spoof stole from Luke's blog? But that's a guess. Only problem with that theory is that Luke says Shaw stole from his blog and posted it on her blog (as if she had written it). (Luke told me to check Shaw's blog for his content).

The same accusation he made against me and against Pamela. I know I never stole his stuff, and I very seriously doubt Shaw or Pamela stole his posts (there is no proof). So I'm going to go with Luke being crazy. That, or he thinks it's funny to pretend to be crazy. Although he does apparently write his own stuff (excepting the Nader post, which is on his blog). I ran a few of his commentaries through a plagiarism checker and the checker said it didn't find anything.

I did this because he made a huge stink when Jerry Critter called him "Cut and paste Luke", which caused him to call me an a-hole and swear at me a lot. Because (in response to Jerry), I asked "you know who he's cutting and pasting from this time"? (the other time being copying from Ralph Nader).

Perhaps I'd say, "sorry I implied you stole everything on your blog. That doesn't appear to be the case". But stealing was the accusation he made against me with his very first comment on my blog! And the dipshit KNOWS I never stole his stuff. So f*ck him. Perhaps I should report him! Although I'm quite sure absolutely NOTHING will come of this "reporting".

Because this has happened to me before. I did something that another blogger was convinced was going to get my Blogger account blocked.

dmarks: I forwarded all [of Dervish Sanders'] comments to Google as spam, which often results in them classifying an account as spam and blocking it. (2/24/2013 AT 11:55am) See also SWTD #124.

This was back in February of 2013, and my account was never classified as spam and blocked. Mainly because dmarks never actually forwarded my comments to Blogger. I determined later (via reading his comments regarding what he did) that he just checked the box next to each of my comments and then clicked the spam button (while in the Blogger dashboard). Doing this does NOT forward comments to Blogger. And it NEVER (let alone "often") results in an account being classified as spam and blocked.

Blogger is only interested in spam blogs put up by professional spammers. Or "posting comments on other people's blogs just to promote your site or product" (source). They aren't interested in comments that someone (dmarks) might consider spam but are actually only annoying. Which is what my comments were. I annoyed him for a little while after he banned me because I called BS in regards to post he wrote concerning guns and Chicago (a post in which he put forward the gun nut argument, which is that Chicago is proof that gun regulation doesn't work).

Which isn't to say that Luke did something similar (only thinks he "reported" the blogs in question). Maybe he really did Report inappropriate content (on the linked to page). None-the-less I predict nothing will come of it. Especially considering the fact that Luke's accusations are all completely bogus.

Nobody is "harassing" him, nor is anyone stealing his content. Although, even if anyone was, it looks to me like Blogger is only concerned with copyrighted material (as they cite their copyright policy under this section). Has Luke copyrighted his blog posts? I doubt it. Not that anyone stole his posts anyway, so obviously this policy wouldn't apply either way.

Also, "harassment" has a legal definition, and, according to FindLaw "not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety". It doesn't mean "someone is annoying me by submitting comments to my blog when I don't want them to".

This also has happened to me (someone claimed I was "harassing" them and said they were going to report me). The person told me to not comment on their blog anymore but I didn't listen (submitted more comments). And, while I don't know if he followed through and "reported" me, I do know nothing happened (OST #15).

The point being that nobody should be worried about being reported by Luke. Not that I think anyone is. If they've visited his blog and seen the notice (via his sidebar or comment moderation note) that says Luke reported them. Or that he's encouraging others to report "these nasty trolls" (IDs listed above). Nobody else will report anything. Because what Luke alleges never happened. And I seriously doubt Blogger cares about imaginary harassment or imaginary plagiarism.

BTW, if you want to report Luke, you can do so here (report inappropriate content). Then select either to report Luke for "harassment or bullying" or "Spam" (re him spamming his content to other blogs). Not that either of these actually apply. Since, as I pointed out, Blogger is really only concerned with copyrighted material and actual bullying (NOT someone being annoying). But if Luke can report other Bloggers for imaginary offenses, certainly those he is reporting can do the same.

8/30/2016 Update: Luke Spencer changed the title of his blog to "Words & Music".

SWTD #346

Friday, August 12, 2016

Donald Trump, Founder Of American ISIS (Theory)

The 2016 candidate has more in common with the terrorist group than he does with America ~ Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in his 12/9/2015 TIME article "What Donald Trump and ISIS Have in Common".

"Here's the reason you should shoot her, she started ISIS. He was literally saying that". "Her" being Hillary Clinton and "he" being Donald Trump. This observation from Suzanne Westenhoefer, guest on the 8/12/2016 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show.

Now Trump claims he didn't mean it. Again. Tweeting "Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) 'the founder' of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?".

Sarcasm? But when Trump was given an out by Conservative Talker Hugh Hewitt, he clarified that YES, he meant that BHO and HRC founded ISIS. Literally.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night [8/10/2016] in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace".

Trump objected. "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS", Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton".

Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is "not sympathetic" to ISIS and "hates" and is "trying to kill them".

"I don't care", Trump said, according to a show transcript. "He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?"

Hewitt and Trump went back and forth after that, with Hewitt warning Trump that his critics would seize on his use of "founder" as more example of Trump being loose with words. (Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally by Tal Kopan. 8/12/2016 CNN).

"Lose with his words"? I don't think so. Trump knows what he's saying. Previously I said that Trump speaks without thinking. I retract that. When he suggested that "2nd amendment people" should assassinate Hillary Clinton he meant it and he meant to say it (DSB #52).

That was a shout-out to the misogynist HRC haters on the Right. I don't believe that Trump actually wants anyone to shoot HRC. But that is what he said and what he meant. No doubt (despite some not being able to accept that he was talking about assassination).

This is the Trump MO. He'll say something "beyond overboard". And he absolutely means it when he says it. It's his way of speaking to the base. "I'm with you, *wink, wink*" he says. Then he walks it back. But the base gets the message.

"He was NOT suggesting assassination" the Conservative blogger Rational Nation insists, but he WAS. Saying outrageous things (that the crazy bigoted rubes want to hear) is an essential component of Trump's con.

"He's a truth teller! He's speaking to us" the rubes say. This explains why Trump jumped on the Birther bandwagon (Obama a Kenyan-born Muslim) and why he's demonizing HRC as "crooked" and suggesting she should be assassinated (she'll appoint SCOTUS judges who will get rid of the 2nd amendment, she co-founded ISIS). BHO (Black man) and HRC (Clinton, woman) being the focus of intense hate from the insane hate-fueled Right.

The trouble is that almost everyone outside the Trump base finds such statements crazy and objectionable. So he says these crazy and objectionable things (speaking to the base) but then walks them back (no, I don't mean exactly what you heard me say).

Donald Trump is a dangerous con man. I'd say he hijacked the Republican Party, but the truth is "you built that" Republicans. With your stoking of resentment for our first Black president ("racism" of Obama, Holder, et al, have hurt race relations, not racist bigots who are angry that a Black is in the White House).

It's one of the reasons people joined the Tea Party and why anti-government militias have surged since Obama was elected. A 2/4/2016 NewsWeek article says that "Right-wing extremists are a bigger threat to America than ISIS", and I agree.

And right now Trump is speaking for them. The scary thing is that if Trump wins or if Trump loses, he has riled them up... and they're going to be MAD (anger intensifying due to Trump losing, or anger intensifying when Trump wins and they figure out he was bullshitting them).

I honestly believe that it might only a matter of time before (in addition to Muslim extremist terrorist attack) we start seeing more Right-wing terrorism. Which is why I predict that the candidacy of Donald Trump might end up founding an American version of ISIS.

Yes, I seriously think this could happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president (something that seems more likely than not). One of the first orders of business being the carrying out of the assassination as ordered by their candidate (from whom the election was "stolen").

For the record... I agree with Hewitt in regards to that vacuum that lead to the creation of ISIS. Although the vacuum was created by gwb's illegal invasion of Iraq. gwb created ISIS and is their (former) MVP. Although I guarantee you they never "honored" him. (gwb did not "found" ISIS, however. That would be Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).

Video: President Obama and "crooked Hillary" co-founded ISIS, according to Donald Trump (0:28).

8/15/2016 Update: I was alerted to PROOF my theory regarding Trump may be correct my way of the Thom Hartmann program today. That proof? An 8/14/2016 "Blue Nation Review" titled Trump Is Seeking a White Nationalist Awakening NOT the White House. According to the author of the article, Peter Daou, Trump "realized he couldn't defeat Hillary so he simply aimed HIGHER than the presidency". The goal? Trump is "seeking to lead an uprising — and perhaps a violent one".

SWTD #345

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Donald Trump On Corporate Inversions & Titties

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest - and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault ~ Donald Trump tweet, 5/8/2013.

I'd say that I agree with Donald Trump about Corporate Inversions, but I don't trust the guy. He says he's against them, and so am I, but would he follow through and try to do something to stop them if "elected" president? I'm thinking he wouldn't.

Obviously he also likes titties, and (as a guy) I have to admit I like them too. Although I think a man can appreciate this aspect of the female form and not be a misogynist like Trump. btw, unlike with all his political positions, I absolutely trust him on this.

Trump: We'll also end job killing corporate inversions and cause trillions of dollars in new dollars to come pouring into our country. And, by the way, into titties like right here in Detroit. (remarks from a 8/8/2016 address to the Detroit Economic Club).

"There was someone in the front who was very endowed and he had his eyes on her boobs", a commenter on the YouTube page I got the video from (see below). And I had to look at a few different ones, as most cut off the part about corporate inversions. Because (I'm guessing), nobody knows what they are. Or cares.

I was watching Stephanie Miller today, and when she played the clip, "voice deity" Jim Ward said "Hun, corporate inversions"? The implication being that Trump was speaking gobbledygook (BTW, it isn't Jim Ward's job to know these things, but Miller should have known. Or looked it up. Or at least chose a clip that started playing after that part. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Stephanie Miller fan, but she's nowhere near as knowledgeable as Thom Hartmann).

In any case, Wikipedia says a corporate inversion "is the practice of relocating a corporation's legal domicile to a lower-tax nation, or tax haven, usually while retaining its material operations in its higher-tax country of origin... [the practice] involves creating a new parent company that sits on top of the corporate structure and is incorporated in the desired foreign jurisdiction".

Me, I say that, if a business operates in the US, they should pay US taxes. ESPECIALLY if the majority of their business is done in the United States.

But back to Trump on corporate inversions... Looking at what he's said (on his on the issues page), I'm not sure Trump knows what they are.

Trump: What's happening right now is something that not been a subject of conversation by politicians. They haven't talked about a corporate inversion. Companies are leaving the United States to go to other countries. They have trillions of dollars in those other countries. They can't get their money back in. It's probably two and a half trillion. All of that money could be used to rebuild our country. (Get U.S. money back into U.S.: address corporate inversion).

"They can't get their money back in"? He doesn't mention the fact that corporate inversions are done to dodge taxes. Instead, it sounds to me like he's talking about giving corporations tax breaks if they bring their money back to the United States.

That issue HAS been discussed by politicians. Republican politicians who want to offer corporations with money overseas a repatriation tax holiday. This is what he's talking about when he says "they can't get their money back in"... repatriation.

...income is subject to the (typically higher) U.S. tax rate minus the Foreign Tax Credits... There are currently hundreds of billions of dollars of Foreign direct investment in CFC's (controlled foreign corporations) because of the disincentive to repatriate those earnings.

So, maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like Trump doesn't know what the hell he's talking about re corporate inversions. And nobody on his team caught this?

BTW, being a guy and liking titties doesn't mean I don't think him commenting on his daughters' assets isn't scuzzy. Because it REALLY is.

In 1994 episode of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous", the bombastic billionaire — already known for making creepy comments about his older daughter — and his then-wife Marla Maples opened up about their infant daughter, Tiffany...

Robin Leach: Donald, what does Tiffany have of yours, and what does Tiffany have of Marla's?

Donald Trump: Well, I think that she's got a lot of Marla. She's a really beautiful baby, and she's got Marla's legs. We don't know whether she's got this part yet (gestures toward his chest), but time will tell. (Donald Trump comments on 1-year-old daughter's breasts in disturbing 1994 interview).

What a creep. As well as a boob. As for how high DJT's IQ is... clearly his is higher than that of many of his followers, but "one of the highest"? I think the evidence says no.

Video1: Trump wants to end corporate inversions (AKA give huge tax breaks to corporations) which (he says) will help titties. I had to look at a few versions of this video to find one that included the part about corporate inversions. Which is why I selected one where the person captured it by videoing their TV (which I'd normally avoid). Looks to me like everyone focused on him saying "titties" and totally missed that he apparently doesn't know what a corporate inversion is (0:26).

Video2: Donald Trump interview from 1994 in which he speculates about the future size of his then 1-year-old daughter Tiffany's breasts (0:16).

SWTD #344

Thursday, August 04, 2016

Libertarian Candidate 4 potus Gary Johnson Is A Despicable Colossal Liar

If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course ~ Ayn Rand (1/20/1905 to 3/6/1982) creator of the Objectivist theology and the inspiration for Libertarianism; commenting on the poor man.

The man futily running for potus for potus as a Libertarian, Gary Johnson, appeared on the 7/29/2016 airing of Comedy Central's The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore. The following is an excerpt from Wilmore's interview of the 29th Republican Governor of NM (1995-2003).

Larry Wilmore: What is Libertarianism, and is Libertarianism as kooky as Libertarians?

Gary Johnson: Libertarianism does reflect most people in this country. Keep government out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom. Let's stop with these military interventions. Let's bring the world together with free trade and diplomacy. Non aggression principle. Look, don't use force unless force has been applied to you.

Larry Wilmore: So it's... get out of the bedroom, get out of the wars, get out of my pocket. What do you get into?

Gary Johnson: Liberty and freedom. Always come down on the side of choice. That we as individuals should always be able to make choices in our lives. As long as those choices don't adversely affect others.

Larry Wilmore: What do you think about the three biggest issues that we're facing right now, and as a Libertarian candidate, how do you propose we address those issues?

Gary Johnson: Well, government is too big. It takes too much money out of our pocket books. So, lower taxes, balancing...

Larry Wilmore: Does lowering taxes itself reduce the size of government? I mean, that just reduces the ability of government to do the shit it's ineffectively doing right now, right?

Gary Johnson: I think you hit on it. Do any of us believe government is running on all 8 cylinders? No. So, we're headed to a fiscal cliff if we don't address some really big issues. And that's going to be the entitlements. Look, we can do this effectively. We can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without. That's issue number 1.

Issue number 2... just liberty. Personal freedom. A woman's right to choose. Marriage equality. Let's legalize marijuana. [discussion from this point concerns legalization of marijuana. Then Gary calls both Trump and Clinton polarizing, Gary thinks he's going to get voters both from the Republican and Democratic side and get in the debates, shrink government, get out of Afghanistan].

The number one issue is slashing entitlements (his platform calls for a 43% reduction of all federal government spending) and he says "nobody goes without"? Clearly that's a lie. First of all, "slashing government spending, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security" involves stealing from people. What they already paid in? You're not getting that back under a Johnson administration.

Fact is, Libertarians want to completely do away with the safety net according to their own platform.

Healthcare: We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Retirement and Income Security: Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. (Libertarian Party Platform, As adopted in Convention, May 2016, Orlando FL).

Also, the following from the same website (official website of the Libertarian Party).

End Welfare ... It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended. We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. (Poverty and Welfare).

So, under a Libertarian government, we'd phase out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid... and end (completely) the "entire social welfare system" and end result will be that "nobody goes without"? Revising my prior comment concerning Johnson lying... That nobody is going to go without is clearly a HUGE lie.

The primary reason that people would go without is that the Libertarian "belief" that "members of society will become even more charitable" is total bullplop.

[Some say that] Charity can fill in any holes that develop [if government spending on welfare programs are cut]... But charity experts say that's a mathematical impossibility. ... Overall, the US government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry [while] Feeding America, the largest food charity in the US (and one of the largest charities), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year. But even that is a drop in the bucket compared with SNAP.

"No charity in the history of the planet could come up with the $80 billion for SNAP", said Ross Fraser, director of media relations for Feeding America. "It doesn't make sense to talk about charity alone helping the hungry. It'd be like saying, why not let the military rely on charitable contributions".

The total of US philanthropy is currently $300 billion... The amount represents all the money that people give away, most of it to churches and other religious institutions - 32%, or nearly $96 billion. A good deal of the rest goes to hospitals, universities and cultural institutions such as museums, noted Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch... Just a small portion of those dollars goes to help the poor, noted Borochoff. "You have to think of charities as icing on the cake", he said. "They do not do the heavy lifting".

Many activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect. For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2% of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say... (Private charity no match for federal poverty aid, experts say by Alfred Lubrano. 5/20/2013 The Seattle Times).

I'll also point out that before Social Security, many people faced destitution in old age. The point is that Libertarians know private charity can't and won't meet the need that exists. Heck, even though we spend as much as we do on welfare (not enough even though it is significantly more than private sector charity) people STILL go without.

Feeding America reported the hunger and poverty facts and statistics in 2014; stastics that said that "46.7 million people were in poverty}, or 14.8% of US citizens. In addition, 10% of seniors (4.6 million people) live in poverty.

Yet this asshole Johnson said that if we SLASHED anti-poverty programs that NOBODY will go without. Because all the lazy Takers will get jobs and for those people who are genuinely needy, private charities will step up. That, or he's saying private charities will spend MORE than government is spending now.

Plus, we have to remember that Libertarians want to get rid of the minimum wage, which would affect the working poor, many of whom need these programs to survive (so Johnson wants to make their situations a LOT worse). Frankly I'm convinced that, when Libertarians like Gary Johnson say "nobody goes without", they mean NOBODY LEFT ALIVE goes without. That would be after millions starve to death.

This is a stated goal of the Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand, an evil woman who fantasized about the utopia that would emerge after the nation's poor died in great numbers (fantasies that took the form of a novel in which large numbers of moochers or "parasites" are exterminated when rich "Makers" go "on strike").

Although Libertarians would take no responsibility for the consequences of eliminating the safety net. They place the blame entirely on poor people. "Not choosing to live" (as per the Rand quote) being "choosing" to not work. And "nature taking it's course" being starving to death and dying. Meaning, in the twisted and immoral mind of the true-believing Ayn-Rand-worshiping Libertarian, poor people are basically committing suicide (something many more Poors would undoubtedly do under a Johnson administration).

Something (committing suicide by not working) I imagine Libertarians like Johnson believe people should have the freedom and liberty to do. If they choose. In any case, we are definitely not "in this together", nor are we "our brother's keeper". This explains why Libertarians are atheist, I suppose. Although their ideology has been adopted by Satanists (the article Satanism and Objectivism from the Church of Satan website, notes that "Objectivism... is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey").

Which is why I say I am NOT unfairly judging Gary Johnson (as one supporter recently claimed). Not given my view (based on the stated objective of Libertarians to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" so that parasites will die) that Objectivism and Libertarianism are evil ideologies.

It's a shame that Larry Wilmore didn't call Johnson on his HUGE whopper ("We can still still create a safety net. Nobody goes without"). And note that, while he said he's opposed to "military interventions" he also said "don't use force unless force has been applied to you". Which is his out for continuing the fight against ISIS in the highly improbable event he's elected president.

I mean, I think the "foreign interventions" are over (we aren't going to topple any more foreign governments by sending in occupying forces). At least for a few generations. After Afghanistan and Iraq the American people are DONE with them. So he'd end the war in Afghanistan (which I'm strongly in favor of). But he'd continue the fight (boots on the ground) against ISIS. My point being him saying "let's stop with these military interventions" is meaningless. We already did them and aren't likely to do anymore (so he thinks he's taking a "stand" by saying he's not going to do something we aren't going to do anymore anyway).

Similar to how, when he ran for potus in 2008, he said that he was in favor of gay marriage. And that Barack Obama was chicken because he didn't come out in favor of it at that time. But the hypocrite Johnson, while governor of NM, didn't use his position to push for it. This guy seems to mostly take "principled stands" when taking the "stand" is meaningless. I mean, it wasn't like he had a chance of winning the presidency in 2008, so what the hell difference did it make that his position on gay marriage might have cost him votes?

"All politicians lie" is a criticism I hear often. Especially from Libertarians and the Right. But Johnson's lies concern the core principles of Libertarianism! He says "Nobody goes without", yet the fact that Libertarians want to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" is clearly stated on the official website of the Libertarian Party (this would be the party that Johnson is running as the potus candidate of)!

Oh, and Gary Johnson absolutely does share Ayn Rand's views when it comes to the "parasitical takers".

Gary Johnson: ...I view big government in the same way that the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand did - that it really oppresses those that create, if you will, and tries to take away from those that produce and give to the non-producers. (Gary Johnson on Principles & Values. On The Issues) [1].

So, why isn't it "oppressive" to those who give to charity? If the money is going to "non-producers" (and surely it MUST, if NOBODY is going to go without). Apparently people will decide to voluntarily oppress themselves (via significantly more charitable giving).

Obviously Johnson's claim that "we can still still create a safety net" and that "nobody goes without" (under a Johnson administration) is a f*cking lie. Obviously the Takers who still refuse to work (at a job where they would earn a NON-Living wage, due to Johnson abolishing the minimum wage) would go without. And die, which is WHAT THEY WANT! (as stated by Ayn Rand).

The end result would be a huge increase in the working poor. We'd probably have to create a new term, as "working poor" won't come close to describing HOW POOR these people would be (slums and shanty towns would surely proliferate under a Johnson presidency). And death for those who "refuse to work".

Including many who can't find work (I seriously doubt Johnson believes he'd be able to magically bring about full employment. Or that he'd even want to, given the fact that a tight labor market causes wages to rise... and Libertarians want to keep wages LOW). And, many of the people who "refused" to work would be doing so due to health or disability reasons (don't forget that Social Security provides for many disabled people and Gary wants to "phase it out").

All of which leads me to conclude that, not only would would the safety net be significantly harmed (causing MANY more people to go without), but that we'd quickly deteriorate into a 3rd world hellhole with one of the greatest divides between rich and poor on the planet. Not that we're doing great in that regard anyway. But under an improbable Johnson presidency (one under which Congress worked with him, which, given the fact that Libertarians and Conservatives both hate Poors, they likely would), extreme poverty would assuredly increase astronomically.

Footnote
[1] Wikipedia: On the Issues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site. The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.

Image: Gary Johnson wants a government that's big enough (and taxes enough) to pay for a "strong defense", which I would assume includes fighting ISIS. And he's also for a regressive consumption tax. According to Brookings "if you move the tax from income to consumption, you're raising the relative burden on low savers, which are low and moderate income households, so almost any revenue neutral shift from the income tax to a consumption tax will be regressive in that manner".

See Also: Gary Johnson, Libertarian Fraud (DSD #26).

8/17/2016 Update: In regards to Gary Johnson and his VP nominee William Weld, Thom Hartmann (on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program) said "They're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

SWTD #343. ARHP #4.