Bill Clinton Predicted Trump Presidency. Then He & Obama Helped Bring It About

Angry people have become the middle of the political spectrum ~ Geert Wilders (dob 9/6/1963) a Dutch nationalist politician and fan of DJT who has been criminally accused of inciting hatred and discrimination.

Progressive Radio host Thom Hartmann has stated his belief many times that "whichever party first reinvents itself successfully will begin winning elections the way the Democrats did in the 1932-1968 era" [1]. The "reinvention" he refers to is to be pro-worker by opposing sending our jobs overseas.

Unfortunately this past potus election has proven that Thom Hartmann was right. I did not disagree, but I did hope that it would be the Democrats who reinvented themselves. The Democratic potus candidate should have been Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders has proven that he is pro-worker by opposing job killing free trade agreements. Bernie Sanders votes against them.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, championed the job killing free trade agreement known as the TPP. This was after suggesting that he might renegotiate NAFTA during his first campaign. Hillary Clinton (viewed by many as a 3rd Obama term) was initially in favor of the TPP. I say that if Bernie had not run that she wouldn't have flipped. She would have run as the pro-TPP candidate.

Trump, an outsider, was the right candidate at the right time. He ran against the TPP, which White Rust Belt Blue-collar voters knew would cost them their jobs. Trump also promised he'd stop brown people (here) and yellow people (overseas) from stealing their jobs (he played the race card). I'm not saying everyone who voted Trump did so because they're racist, but a LOT of them did.

The Trump presidency was, btw, predicted by former president Bill Clinton. He predicted the ascendency of a Trump-like leader with his New Covenant speeches (a series of speeches WJC delivered "at his alma mater, Georgetown University, in late 1991 to outline his political philosophy at the start of his campaign for the presidency").

WJC: ...we're offering a new radical approach to economics. Economics as if people were really important. If we offer these hard-working families no hope for the future, no solutions to their problems, no relief for their pain, then fear and insecurity will grow, and the politics of hate and division will spread. If we do not act to bring this country together in common cause to build a better future, David Duke and his kind will be able to divide and destroy our nation. (Excerpt from then-Governor Clinton's 11/20/1991 New Covenant speech).

Donald Trump offered "hope for the future, solutions to their problems, and relief for their pain" in the form of his rejection of the TPP. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, which is why we got gwb [2]. And Obama and Hillary both spoke favorably of more job-killing free trade. Hillary reversed herself on the TPP, although she was pushed/forced to do so by Bernie Sanders.

Now, most of us know that Donald Trump is a con-man who just said what he needed to in order to get elected. But enough people were fooled. Previously middle class workers (White people in the flyover states, by and large) saw their jobs go overseas due to the Bill Clinton-signed NAFTA. And they feared that it was going to happen again. Obama (for some bizarre reason that baffles my mind) tried to sell the same snake oil [3].

He thought he could ram it though before his administration ended, I guess. Hillary Clinton reversed course because of Bernie Sanders. "I've got to be more like Bernie" she decided (because the voters were responding to Bernie's anti-TPP stance). But the damage was done. Nobody believed her. The White middle class who lost (or could lose) their good paying jobs because of job killing free trade didn't believe her (btw, I thought the bill would pass before the Obama administration came to an end, Obama would sign it into law, HRC would be elected, then she'd put the blame on Obama).

She wanted it, but wouldn't touch it (if she were elected and it had not passed) because it would damage her politically. This is why I blame Obama and I blame both Clintons for the Trump presidency. Trump hijacked the Republican Party and "reinvented" it. Thom Hartmann knew whichever party was first to come out against job killing free trade would win. Bill Clinton PREDICTED what would happen if he failed to offer these workers "relief for their pain". But he went ahead and signed NAFTA anyway.

According to Thom Hartmann, "Donald Trump lead a full-scale war against the Republican establishment and elites, particularly through his attack on both their military and their trade policies". Trump, as president, chucked the TPP. An easy campaign promise to fulfill. The military situation we're in is another story.

He strongly opposed continuing the futile fight in Afghanistan as a candidate. Now he sends more troops? Did that disillusion some of the #trumpdupes? I suspect some were disillusioned. Others will continue to believe that anything Trump does is great. Because he's White. According to the racist blogger Rusty Shackelford.

Rusty Shackelford: Now, now WD... even you would have to admit DJT is so much stronger then the moolie. We are fine with the Pres changing his mind after having all the information presented to him... that's the sign of a strong leader... not a limp wristed dufuss. (8/21/2017 at 9:44pm).

"David Duke and his kind will be able to divide and destroy our nation", Bill Clinton warned. Now it has happened. At the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville David Duke said "the event represented fulfilling the promises of President Trump". He was talking about White racists "taking our country back" after a Black guy got elected president twice.

Regarding Trump's hardcore base, Jamelle Bouie writes (in a 9/1/2017 Slate article) "it's become harder to deny that people support the president not just for being president, but for his core message of White resentment and grievance" (visit the WYD blog and you'll see what I mean).

Bill Clinton both predicted and helped bring this disaster about. His signing of NAFTA and Obama's championing of the TPP lead directly to Trump. Trump was the "white resentment and grievance" candidate. Of course the majority of us realized that Trump was a huge liar and saying whatever he needed to to get elected (except for the racism stuff. Trump IS a racist). This is why he lost the popular vote (the smart people voted for Hillary).

Trump did get rid of the TPP, however. But Bernie Sanders would have done that. Then go on to champion programs to help people harmed by decades of job-killing free trade agreements. Unlike Trump, who wants to kill such programs (the ACA, for example). Additionally Trump wants to hurt poor people by cutting Social Safety net programs drastically and push through enormous tax cuts for the benefit of the wealthy (he's a typical Republican in this regard).

Bernie Sanders should have been the Democratic potus candidate. I'm not saying I think he would have won, only that I KNOW he would have had a better shot. Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate (even though I'd have liked to see a woman elected president, and YES, I did vote for her). But Bernie Sanders (with his record of opposition against job-killing free trade agreements) was the better candidate. He'd still of had to contend with the Russia meddling. And, instead of misogyny and Clinton-hate, he'd have faced antisemitism and bullshit about him being a Commie who was trying to buy votes with "free stuff".

Bernie Sanders would have won the votes of previously Democratic-voting Rust Belt Blue-collar workers (people who were with him in the primary, but switched to Trump when Bernie didn't secure the nomination). And that, I think, would have made the difference. There would have been no sabotage from James Comey either.

Footnotes
[1] "From 1932 to 1968, the Democratic Party was obviously the majority party. During that time period, the Democrats had won seven out of nine presidential elections, and their agenda gravely affected that undertaken by the Republican Eisenhower administration" (source: Wikipedia/Timeline of modern American conservatism). This period of time is know as the New Deal coalition. As per Wikipedia, "FDR forged a coalition that included the Democratic state party organizations, city machines, labor unions, blue collar workers, minorities (racial, ethnic, sexual and religious), farmers, white Southerners, people on relief, and intellectuals".
[2] "...it was the 1993 fight over the North American Free Trade Agreement that saw the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party stick the knife deep into the back of its longtime ally, organized labor". (Source: How the Democrats Lost Touch on Trade by Thomas Frank. Politico, September/October 2016).
[3] As per a 4/23/2015 CBS News article, "in 2008, then-Sen. Obama ran as a skeptic of free trade agreements and even vowed during the primary to renegotiate NAFTA"... according to the former president "I think that we had a stretch of a couple of decades where, in part because of globalization, you had manufacturing moving to other places in search of low wages, no environmental standards, no labor standards. So trade deals haven't always worked for us".

SWTD #390

The Psychopath potus (It's DJT, Not BHO)

This post concerns another internet meme found at the top of the Right-wing, Trump-supporting blog Who's Your Daddy.

(The image is from remarks Obama made in East Room of the White House on 1/5/2016 while discussing proposed gun control measures following the Sandy Hook shootings).

So, as people who've visited this blog know, the proprietor likes to change up the memes at the top of her blog regularly. This one is gone now, but it was there for a few days prior to the publication of this post. In any case... is Obama a psychopath because of the way he wiped away tears? And is this according to The Body Language of Liars by behavioral analyst Glass?

As it turns out... no. Lillian Glass says "a popular meme misconstrued one of her quotes and made assertions that aren't credible or ethical".

According to Dr. Glass, the thrust of the meme is unequivocally false. Whether folks believe President Obama's tears at the 1/5/2016 appearance were legitimate or not, the meme based on that moment in no way represents the analytical work of the body language expert to whom it is attributed. (Crocodile Jeers by Kim LaCapria. 1/7/2016 Snopes).

Also, I think it's pretty sick to suggest that President Obama's tears (in reaction to 20 small children being blown away) were fake. Anyway, as far as psychoanalysis of presidents go, my go-to guy is Dr. Justin Frank (author of Bush on the Couch & Obama on the Couch).

Regarding Obama, Dr. Frank says Obama is "an admirable and down-to-earth individual who is generally in excellent mental health". NOT a psychopath, in other words.

As for incoming pee-otus Trump? Dr. Frank confirms that the orange buffoon is 100% certified nuts (my paraphrase). "I think that he and his thin skin allows him to tune into narcissistic loss and pain. And so he can feed his audience and be fed by them" Frank said on the 12/6/2016 airing of The Thom Hartmann Program.

Justin Frank: And so one of the senses that I have psychologically of Trump's power is that he really understands how to have power, how to execute power, and how to scare people. ... His father was a very successful businessman who also scared people and bullied people. And he said the most important thing is to win. Trump competed with his older brother ... Fred Trump Jr. was just too nice a guy and easy going to be a killer. And Trump's father wanted somebody who was going to be really tough and Donald... turned out to be that kind of kid who was a fighter in school, got into fights, who was very much of a bully and didn't really believe in rules and had to be sent to military academy in order to calm down. I think that it was also that [Fred Trump Jr's] alcoholism, part of the destruction has to do with turning their back on him because he was just a nice guy and that's what narcissistic and sadistic parents do. And the competitiveness with the brother, Donald, is what is called, and Anna Freud talks about identification with the aggressor [1+2]. If the father kicks the son, the son kicks the dog. And this is what we've got.

So, Frank is saying that Fred Trump Sr was "narcissistic and sadistic" to his brother, Fred Jr, because he was a nice guy (unlike Donald) and that Donald helped his father destroy his brother. Regarding Trump's tweeting, Frank said it shows that, unlike past presidents who acted as "father figures", Trump is "very similar to a ten-year-old child". Frank further remarks on "the danger that Trump invites because of his bombastic behavior and his incitement to hate".

Justin Frank: ...if you're a father, you have a super-ego function. You have to help your children learn about the Ten Commandments, learn about right and wrong, learn about not killing, learn about respecting other people, learning about paying attention, not coveting this and that. Trump is not that kind of person. He is not going to be a super-ego leader in this nation. He's going to be a super-ego permission giver. So just this morning the New York One television station said that there's about a hundred and twenty percent increase in violent crimes since the election. ... Hate crimes, rather, not violent, hate crimes. I mean that's really, that has to do with a permission to hate and a permission to be destructive.

"He shouldn't be President [because] this is a person who hates reality". Compare that to Obama, who Frank described as "an admirable and down-to-earth individual". In response Thom said "now we have a child king, basically. It's like the boy king in the French court in the 17th century". Although Thom said maybe Trump is malleable. That if you flatter him perhaps he'll listen to, and be influenced by what you have to say (meaning there may be some hope).

Frank's response was that Trump is "not malleable. ...look, for 8 years Obama thought Mitch McConnell would be malleable. He's not. Trump is even less malleable".

As to whether the Orange One is a psychopath, neither Frank nor Hartmann asserts that Trump is. Because Dr. Frank, an author who practices and teaches psychoanalysis, and Hartmann, a former psychotherapist, wouldn't offer an diaginosis of psychopathy because "there is no actual diagnosis of psychopathy in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (How is psychopathy diagnosed?).

Although I would say that DJT checks off all the boxes. Among the characteristics of a psychopath we find: superficial charm, grandiose sense of self worth ("I'm really smart"), need for stimulation/prone to boredom, pathological lying, conning/manipulative, parasitic lifestyle (paid no taxes for 20 years), poor behavioral controls (tweeting), promiscuous sexual behavior (hits on women even when married), many short term relationships (3 wives), juvenile delinquency (From The Art of the Deal: "As an adolescent, I was mostly interested in creating mischief"), etc.

Yep, Donald Trump is a psychopath. My opinion, as I am not in any way qualified to make a diagnosis of anyone's mental health. But I think all the evidence says the Orange One has the "personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits". We know for sure that he is a thin skinned narcissist who is COMPELLED to lash out at every slight (often via tweet). That's proof enough to conclude that this man has some serious mental problems, I think.

Video: Thom speaks with Dr. Justin Frank on his radio program (12/6/2016) about Donald Trump (20:02).

Footnotes
[1] "Identification with the aggressor was first described by Anna Freud in her book The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, first published in German in 1936" (International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Copyright 2005 Thomson Gale).
[2] Austrian-British psychoanalyst Anna Freud (12/3/1895 to 10/9/1982) "was the 6th child of Sigmund Freud and Martha Bernays".

Update 12/29/2017: Technically speaking, Trump is a sociopath. Although, even if what is claimed in the meme at the top of this post is true, Obama would also be a sociopath. As per Healthyplace.com (the largest consumer mental health site on the net), "Sociopaths are often called psychopaths and vice versa but there are differences between a psychopath and a sociopath. Psychopaths, for example, are far more likely to get in trouble with the law while sociopaths are much more likely to blend in with society. And while sociopaths and psychopaths do share some traits, sociopathy (antisocial personality disorder) is generally considered less severe than psychopathy". NOTE that the title of my post is what it is (and I will leave it unchanged) because the meme claims that Obama is a PSYCHOPATH, not a sociopath.

SWTD #370

The Poorly Educated

Above image found at the top of the Right-wing, Trump-supporting blog (first image).

ok, so I'd say president Obama made America better. Especially given the fact that the last guy crashed the economy and Obama reversed course, put us back on the right track and started growing the economy again (President Obama Is Handing a Strong Economy to His Successor. NYT 12/2/2016). #thankyouobama.

But if I did think that Obama made things WORSE, that's what I'd say. Also, according to one of the TOMs (1 of 4) "inauguration" is spelled "inorgaration". This idiot complains that "Andre Borchli" won't sing for Trump at his sham swearing-in (a sham because Trump cheated and will be an illegitimate president).

Although it was only "under pressure from a backlash by his fans on social media" that Bocelli backed out. Instead "Jackie Evancho, a runner-up on America's Got Talent five years ago" will perform (Andrea Bocelli Backs Out of Trump Inauguration Performance After Backlash).

BTW, that Obama caused hatred, social unrest and racism by being Black, is, I think something the dumb-dumbs that voted for the KKK-endorsed Trump are responsible for. As for not helping minorities, not reducing crime and not reducing poverty, they're thinking of the Republican obstructionist Congress. Also, the foreign policy that lead to chaos, instability and terrorism? That would be the last president, gwb. You know, the guy who let OBL go (SWTD #33) and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 after lying about WMD (SWTD #312). Idiots.

The great deceiver? That's hilarious given how suckered by the Orange buffoon the #poorlyeducated #TrumpDupes are going to eventually realize they've been. Or not. They'll probably find someone else to blame, even though the Republicans have complete control.

image-1 image-2

 swtd-365 

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

Jimmy Fallon & BHO Catapult The Propaganda During Prez 6/9/2016 Tonight Show Appearance

See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda ~ George W bush (dob 7/6/2016) 43rd USA preznit (unelected).

The Urban Dictionary says "catapult the propaganda" means "to promote acceptance of lies/damn lies/statistics, through repetition and assisted by the blind obedience and willful omissions of the lapdogs posing as independent media".

Regarding BHO's appearance on the Thursday 6/9/2016 airing of The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, promoting of the lie that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be good for American workers was promoted. Although I don't know how much repetition there might be. I've heard that msnbc (1) fired Ed Schultz for criticizing it and (2) "cut away from live coverage of a Bernie Sanders press conference, just as he was condemning the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement".

So, there has been some prior catapulting, but inserting propaganda into a popular late night show is definitely a low point in the Obama presidency, IMO.

MONOLOGUE... Fallon: ...so much has happened during president Obama's administration. ObamaCare was passed, same sex marriage was legalized, he worked with 11 other countries to sign the historic Trans Pacific Partnership... WHICH THEN SEGWAYED INTO A SLOW JAMMING OF THE NEWS... Obama: I believe it is of the utmost importance to work alongside other world leaders... That's why I negotiated a new trade deal called the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP. Fallon: Now hold on there Prez dispenser (laughter) are you saying you're down with TPP? Obama: Yeah, you know me (more laughter). Look, Jimmy, the TPP allows American businesses to sell their products both at home and abroad. The more we sell abroad, the more higher paying jobs we provide here at home. It's that simple. Fallon: So what you're saying is this trade deal will help put everyday Americans back to... Tariq Trotter: (singing hook from Rihanna song) Work, work, work, work, work. Obama: (off key, sans music) Work, work, work, work, work (laughter).

Clearly this propaganda was inserted into the Slow Jam The News segment because they knew it would not only be seen by people viewing it live, people viewing in on their DVRs, but also by clip watchers via the internet. Providing maximum exposure to the target viewer, which would be the low-information voter.

And, with Bernie Sanders out of the way and only Trump speaking against it, surely some people will be swayed by a comedic push of this bad trade deal (Trump and Sanders Are Right: Obama's Trade Deal Is a Dud). Yeah, Hillary has said she opposes it in it's current form, but (1) the TPP may be passed by a lame duck Congress and signed by a lame duck Obama, and (2) HRC may referse her opposition to the TPP and go back to supporting it. Remember she said the "TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" and referred to it as "the signature economic pillar of our strategy in Asia" (in her 2014 memoir Hard Choices). Although, I'm thinking she'd rather Obama sign it. And take the blame on his way out the door.

Even given reporting from the Washington Post that says no.

Hillary Clinton has signaled that if she is elected president in November she would oppose a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord during a lame-duck session of Congress, sharpening her differences with President Obama as he is ramping up his sales pitch on behalf of the deal. Clinton, the Democratic pres­idential front-runner, responded in writing to a question on the lame-duck session from a coalition of Oregon labor unions and environmental groups by stating: "I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election". (Clinton does not back Obama trade vote in post-election congressional session by David Nakamura. Washington Post 5/5/2016).

It sounds like Chris Matthews thinks HRC is going to flip flop back to supporting it, however. On the 6/15/2016 airing of msnbc's hardball he said "my view is that part of (Bill) Clinton's economic success for the 90s was free trade or trade agreements. I think Hillary Clinton is a trader. Maybe not a total free trader, but she's much more on the side of the importance of trade as part of being part of the international economic community than Bernie Sanders is".

Hopefully this is one concession that Bernie Sanders can extract in exchange for his support. Perhaps a plank in the Democratic Party platform indicating support for keeping jobs here (tax incentives for companies that bring jobs back, as opposed to the opposite). Fact is, I was thinking that the TPP might have come up during Senator Sanders' 6/9/2016 meeting with the president. Although this Tonight Show appearance was taped BEFORE Obama and Sanders met, Obama might have anticipated that Sanders would bring it up.

Who knows. What I do know is that Obama's disgusting shilling of the TPP (with an assist from willing stooge Jimmy Fallon) made my blood boil. Seriously, when the "slow jam" got to the TPP I said "f*ck you" to our sellout president. WHY he's betraying American workers on his way out the door is a mystery to me. Otherwise he has been an excellent president. For the most part. But this is not something I can excuse. Especially if it is passed by a lame-o Congress and President.

Will HRC (as president) keep her word? Even though there is ample reason to believe that Hillary Clinton's position on trade is total bullsh*t? The reason being the many many many times she has flip-flopped on the issue. I refer not just to her current flip-flop, but to previous flip-flops on other trade agreements (see the linked-to article for an accounting of HRC's shifting position re trade. Seems she was all in re bad trade deals when holding office and against them while running for office).

And, speaking of being against shipping jobs overseas (AKA "trade") while running for office, then breaking promises after being elected, Obama made a campaign pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, then reversed himself as potus. (Obama Reverses Campaign Pledge to Renegotiate NAFTA).

I guess this stance puts me in the camp that says they don't trust HRC. Not that I WANT to be in this camp (and, in the past, people saying that they didn't trust HRC perturbed me). I thought, why? Because of the decades long campaign of lies against her? Because of this BS concerning her email server that she's NOT going to be prosecuted over... not because the fix is in re Obama manipulating things so she is not charged, but because there's nothing to prosecute her for (Report on Clinton Emails Is a Big Nothing Burger).

So, I don't not trust her for any of those reasons... but I do not trust her in regards to the TPP. I hope she doesn't reverse herself, but I think she might. WHY oh WHY couldn't the electorate have gone for Bernie Sanders? Him, I absolutely trust on this issue. He's been consistently opposed to all these bad trade deals for his entire career.

And there is also the fact that the American people are opposed to such trade deals. This explains why Ross Perot, as a result of his warning of the "sucking sound" of American jobs departing for Mexico, garnered 19% of the vote, making "him the most successful 3rd-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election" (his opposition to NAFTA being one of the primary planks of his 1992 campaign).

BTW, when Jimmy Fallon said that Obama "worked with 11 other countries to sign the historic Trans Pacific Partnership" that was a LIE, as the "signing" was symbolic ("Of course, the signing is a totally meaningless bit of theater"). The TTP has to be voted on by Congress first. Which has not happened yet. A president can't sign legislation INTO LAW until Congress approves it. (symbolic signing took place on 2/4/2016 in Auckland, New Zealand).

I truly hate to say it, but I've GOT to wonder WHY Obama is so eager to put Americans out of work. Is there a BIG payday awaiting him after he leaves office IF he accomplishes this (given that the TPP is SURELY high on the oligarch's wish list)? Or is he just incredibly naive?

Video: Jimmy Fallon and Barack Obama Slow Jam the news. And the TPP propaganda (7:06).

SWTD #337

On Chris Matthews' Unending Efforts To Smear Bernie Sanders As A Soviet-Style Socialist

Chris Matthews is trying to say that Bernie Sanders doesn't believe in capitalism or the market, which is a complete lie. Either Chris Matthews is profoundly ignorant - which I don't believe for a second. I think he's one of the smartest guys out there. Or this is the leading edge of the establishment/insider spear thrown against the outsider Bernie Sanders ~ Thom Hartmann (Progressive talk radio host) on his eponymous program, 8/3/2015.

It's getting ridiculous. Yes, Matthews is clearly in the bag for Hillary Clinton, but his constant distorting of Bernie's politics is really pissing me off. Right now I'm watching the "pre-debate" (ahead of the 5th Democratic debate) and this a-hole breaks out the dictionary definition of "Socialism". Of course he definition-shopped and chose the one that says government owns the means of production.

And, even though Howard Dean is a Hillary Surrogate (as well as a sell out), he still had enough integrity to correct Matthews, saying NO, Berie isn't a (Soviet-style) Socialist, but a Social Democrat like in the UK.

This is one of the reasons I've largely given up on msnbc. Up until Bernie showed that he is a viable contender (with his virtual tie in Iowa and his likely upcoming win in New Hampshire) msnbc was all Trump all the time. Now I expect more of the Bernie bashing (although I'm sure they'll continue with the Trump coverage as well unless he implodes).

The voters are so hungry for the genuine populism of Bernie Sanders that he's pushed Hillary to the Left. But I'm wondering that if Hillary is elected... how long will her populist views last? Remember in 2008 Barack Obama said he'd renegotiate NAFTA? Now he's pushing the job-killing TPP. And Hillary, before being pushed to the Left by Sanders, said the TPP was the "gold standard" (Politifact says HRC is guilty of a "full flop").

Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz (for crying out loud!) said she thought either of the two could beat the Republican. This she said in spite of an incredulous Chris Matthews' disbelief at what he was hearing. I've been hearing that the Repubs will break out the Hammer & Sickle if Bernie is the nominee, but Chris is practically doing that already. Proof the Corporate Dems are afraid of Bernie's populism, I think.

2/11/2013 Update: Thom Hartmann, in a discussion with Chris Matthews on the 2/2/2016 airing of his eponymous program said "Bernie doesn't believe that government should be involved in the means of production and supply. He isn't a Marxist"... to which Matthews replied "Uhhh, it hasn't come up yet. I don't know him that well. I just know that everytime I hear him talking it's a government solution". So Matthews apparently genuinely believes that Bernie is a Soviet-style socialist?

This despite the fact that Bernie himself has said (in a speech on democratic socialism at Georgetown University on 11/19/2015) "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production". OK, so shouldn't Matthews, as a political commentator know this? Chris either has his head in the sand re "it hasn't come up yet", or he's lying.

SWTD #321

On Hillary Clinton Saying (During the Democratic Debate) That She is "A Progressive That Likes To Get Things Done"

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time ~ Maya Angelou (4/4/1928 to 5/28/2014) an American author, poet, dancer, actress, and singer.

Note: This commentary concerns the 1st Democratic Party presidential debate, which was held on 10/13/2015 in Las Vegas NV at the Wynn, a luxury resort and casino owned by self-described "job creator" Steve Wynn. This would be the whiner who bitched about the Obama administration painting a "bulls-eye" on his back by promoting "class warfare" (a slight increase in taxes on the wealthy by returning to the Clinton-era rates) prior to Obama's election to a 2nd term.

Hillary, when asked by Anderson Cooper if she identifies as a Progressive, said she does. This is an example of Hillary "casting herself as a liberal fighter who has been progressive for her entire life". (Something a CNN article says her campaign is doing). However (the CNN article goes on), "to many on the left, those lines never really rang true".

To which I say yes, Hillary claiming to be a Progressive does not ring true for me. First of all, as Anderson points out, Hillary just recently said "you know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center [to which] I plead guilty" (at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio on 9/10/2015). I think that statement represents the truth of where Hillary stands politically. She is not a Progressive, but claiming to be one because that is what Democratic presidents of late do... they run to the Left but move to the Center (Right) after they're elected. Bill Clinton did it and so did Barack Obama.

I'd like to believe Hillary on this, but, given the fact that she JUST identified as a Moderate, I can't. Does this fit in with the Right's "untrustworthy" narrative? No. They're referring to bogus "scandals" regarding her email (SWTD #313) and the phony-baloney never-ending House "investigation" into Benghazi. This would be the "investigation" that CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy recently admitted was a politically-motivated waste-of-taxpayer-money effort to damage her presidential campaign.

So, while I recgonize that these bogus scandals are no reason to find HRC "untrustable" (the palinism used by the former potential Boner replacement), I don't trust HRC to act as a "liberal fighter". Unless by "act" you mean to play a part. For example, she says that now she's opposed to the extremely bad trade deal being pushed by the Obama administration known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But, while serving as Obama's secretary of state, she referred to it the "gold standard" (as well as exciting, innovative, groundbreaking... and numerous other superlatives).

When AC360 brought this up Hillary's response was that she had hoped it would be the gold standard, but now she has concluded that it isn't. Not a biggie, perhaps. Even though PolitiFact concludes that Hillary revising her past statements on the TPP is "half true" because "her previous remarks actually gave the impression that she had confidence in the deal as it stood". However, as a member of the Obama administration, she couldn't very well come out against it. Surely it would be awkward if she had publicly contradicted an administration she was a part of?

The important thing is that she is against it now, right? Except... is she? Remember when Obama was running for office he said "we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced". And, according to PolitiFact, Sherrod Brown was "absolutely confident Barack Obama [would] reopen the negotiations on NAFTA" because the administration "assured [Brown that] his [Obama's] position is constant". But did Obama do squat in regards to NAFTA after getting elected?

Not only did Obama renig on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA after his election, he "warned... against a strong impulse toward protectionism" and then BSed the American people, saying he was still "serious about changing NAFTA". Now, in the final days of his administration, he pushing another negotiated-by-and-for-the-plutocrats job-destroying (bad) trade deal? He does this as he's leaving because he won't have to face the voters to answer for his trade treachery.

But, given Obama's campaign fictions regarding renegotiating NAFTA, nobody should be overly surprised he's pushing the job-killing TPP. He is, after all, a self described Blue dog Moderate Democrat. None-the-less, I must say that I am incredibly disappointed. Which isn't to say that I regret my vote, as he absolutely was a better choice than McCain or Romney.

Both of these losing potus candidates, being members of the more-plutocrat-friendly party, support exterminating American jobs via "free trade". In fact, regarding the TPP, McCain says to would be "crazy" to "squander a historic opportunity" to send American jobs to low wage countries, while Romney says expatriating US jobs so the plutocrats can become even richer is "good for America".

But polls show that, while "Americans tend to support trade, they oppose an expansion of status quo trade policies". The status quo being trade agreements (like NAFTA) that destroy American jobs. Although Americans knew NAFTA would cost American jobs back when Hillary's husband ran for president, which is why he said "American companies must act like American companies again, exporting products, not jobs" when he accepted the nomination.

Then, after his election, WJC, in a betrayal of one of his New Convenant promises, signed NAFTA (on 1/1/1994) and, as a result, American citizens heard the "giant sucking sound of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits".

This was exactly what Ross Perot warned us about. Americans knew that Perot, who ran on this SINGLE topic was right, which is why he received 18.81 percent of the popular vote, "the most won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912". (And Perot, had he had not dropped out of the race and later re-entered it, might have ended up with an even higher percentage).

"Will you say anything to get elected" the Coop asked HRC in regards to her flip-flop on the TPP (in addition to other positions she has "evolved" on... see video below). Hillary said no. But was she being completely honest or simply giving her sales pitch... one designed solely to sell her as president?

Three words help explain why Hillary Clinton now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord - after once laying the groundwork for it as secretary... Her newfound opposition... protects her left flank against Bernie Sanders' challenge; it helps her solidify her support with organized labor... It's also consistent with modern Democratic politics: In the 2008 Democratic primaries, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton railed against NAFTA and free trade accords. But after winning the Democratic nomination, Obama warmed up to free trade... he's now made this TPP trade accord a chief goal in his final months in the White House. So it wouldn't be surprising if Clinton makes a similar move back to the middle if she wins the nomination next year. (Hillary Clinton Protects Left Flank With TPP Opposition by Mark Murray. NBC News 10/7/2015).

While I'd welcome a genuine change of position (re the TPP) and identification (Moderate to Progressive) from HRC, I frankly do not believe her reversal is genuine. It might be, and if she is the nominee I will vote for her and hope that she does not move to the center, but why take that chance when the possibility that we might get snookered again is a strong (IMO) possibility? Why not vote for the true Progressive in the Primary and make Bernie Sanders our nominee?

Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Progressive caucus, is a lifelong Progressive with a proven track record. He does not need to move to the Left for the election because he's always been to the Left. Which, IMO, is what America desperately needs... a genuine Progressive in the White House. This is what America wants, as WJC and BHO lying about their positions on free trade during their respective campaigns proves. They were saying what they needed to in order to get elected, that is. I'm not saying they did not believe what they were saying at the time.

But, that both of our previous Democratic presidents moved to the Left during their campaigns, is proof that America wants a genuine Progressive as their next president. And the ONLY genuine proven Progressive is Bernie Sanders, which is why I'm supporting him for president. At least until HRC defeats him in the primary. Which, if this happens, will mean that the American people bought her sales pitch. It will mean they listened to the naysayers who don't believe that a Democratic Socialist can win the general. But I think that he can, because he's the president America needs. And if enough Democrats realize and vote for him in the primary - he will win in the general.

BTW, in regards to Steve Wynn, US News & World Report notes that he "leans Republican but calls Democratic debate hosting a point of pride". So what's going on here? Does Wynn's pride stem from the fact that he can curry favor with both sides? Is this an indication that he'd be OK with HRC being elected the next potus? I think the answer to this question is YES, and is yet another reason why Democrats should be voting for Bernie.

Video: Hillary Clinton says she is a "progressive who likes to get things done"... but does she mean that she's a progressive (only while running for the Democratic nomination) and that what she'd like to "get done" is getting elected potus #45? (transcript).

SWTD #315

America Great Due To Easy Availability For Purchase Of Firearms By Racist Rightwing Gun Nutty Murderers Sez Dennis Marks

...there's no serious case that President Obama is trying to take people's guns. Guess what grade the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Obama after one year in office? He got an "F" for his gun stance, or lack of same. This after the NRA predicted that he would be the most anti-gun president in history ~ Timothy Egan, writing for the NYT opinion pages. Excerpted from the article Gun Nuts in a Rut 12/1/2011.

Yes, you read that right... Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) believes America is great because of the 2nd Amendment. Specifically the misinterpretation of it by the gun nut Right... via a pretending that the phrase "well regulated militia" is absent from it.

First, before the gun nuttery from the confirmed gun nut Dennis, the news story that prompted said nuttery.

Charleston SC... A 21-year-old white man [Dylann Storm Roof] has been charged with nine counts of murder in connection with an attack on a historic black South Carolina church... and media reports said he had hoped to incite a race war in the United States. ...U.S. President Barack Obama said Thursday the attack stirred up "a dark part" of U.S. history and showed the continuing dangers of liberal gun laws. (Families of South Carolina church massacre victims offer forgiveness by Edward McAllister, Harriet McLeod and Alana Wise. Reuters 6/19/2015).

In response to the comment by our president concerning our liberal gun laws, a Libertarian gun nuts blogger posted an angry commentary on his gun nut blog.

Constitutional Insurgent: Waving the bloody shirt... The bodies in the tragic South Carolina shooting have barely cooled, when POTUS took to the airwaves, and without a shred of reporting as to how the firearm in question was obtained, lambasted the allegedly "easy availability of guns" and went on to use the event as a lazy political jab at those who would see our Constitutional rights infringed beyond recognition. The jackass couldn't even follow his own script when he stated "Now is the time for mourning and for healing". Apparently not Mr. President... apparently its time to play politics. Stay classy Obama... (6/18/2015 AT 4:19pm via the blog Libertas And Latte).

And, in a comment attached to this blog post is where Dennis made his comment about what he thinks makes America great.

Dennis Marks: Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, [the 2nd amendment is] what makes this country. great. What's a shame is that some very wrongheaded politicians act with apparently glee when incidents like this happen and try to use them to push their agenda of confiscation, and harassment of people who never did anything wrong. (6/19/2015 AT 7:05am via the blog Libertas And Latte).

What utter nonsense. Exceeding offensive nonsense. Dennis and the Insurgent believe that the 2nd amendment allows for no restrictions on gun ownership AT ALL. And Dennis and the Insurgent go after our president with a vile lie about the agenda of the non-gun-nutters including them being "gleeful" at the loss of life? OK, so the Insurgent draws a line at "gleeful", he simply says the "jackass" (President Obama) is "playing politics".

The "agenda" being a life-saving agenda, BTW. Although Dennis refers to this agenda aimed at saving lives (by decreasing gun violence) as "harassment of people who never did anything wrong".

Our president pointing to the easy availability of guns as playing a part in yet another gun massacre is NOT "playing politics"! And pointing to the fact that we should do something about the gun violence surely does not make Obama a "jackass". The actual jackasses are those who say people concerned about gun violence and think we should do something about it are "playing politics" or "gleeful" about the deaths (gleeful because they think it will further their gun confiscation agenda, I gather).

Except for the fact that the side that wishes to reduce gun violence is losing. Even after the slaughter of 20 children and 6 adult staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on 12/14/2012 in Newtown CT - nothing was done. There was talk of closing the gun show loophole, but in the end the NRA and it's agenda of selling as many guns as possible (and lying about gun violence being a price America must pay due to the 2nd amendment) won out.

This continued failure as a result of the NRA bribing our elected officials to further their money-making agenda of death brings SADNESS, not glee! And, for an extreme gun nut like Dennis to proclaim that our president felt GLEE over these death is beyond sickening.

That the pro-gun-murder lobbyists (lead by the NRA) and their dupes (gun nuts like Dennis Marks and the Insurgent) have the gall to suggest that the anti-gun-murder side is "gleeful" or "playing politics" when their agenda is saving lives is something the rest of the world does not understand.

World shocked at enduring racism, gun violence in US (article excerpt) ...the attack renewed perceptions that Americans have too many guns and have yet to overcome racial tensions. ... Especially in Australia and northeast Asia, where firearms are strictly controlled and gun violence almost unheard of, many were baffled by the determination among many Americans to own guns despite repeated mass shootings... "The USA is completely out of step with the rest of the world. We've tightened our gun laws and have seen a reduction", said Claire Taylor, the director of media and public relations at Gun Free South Africa (AP article by Christopher Bodeen. 6/19/2015).

We're "great" because the gun plutocrats and gun nut dupes have perverted the 2nd amendment to our Constitution to protect (1) their ability to make money off death, and (2) insane nuttery that involves tossing "well regulated" from it? This is not a "greatness" the rest of the world agrees with. It is also not a "greatness" the let's-do-something-about-all-the-gun-murdering-already contingent within the US agrees with.

A contingent that is a majority, according to the polls. Yet the gun plutocrats, due to their money, are forcing their agenda of death down our throats. One (deliberately?) flawed Pew poll not withstanding, Americans support reasonable gun control regulations that save lives... as such laws have done in other countries.

Yet it will not happen. This act of racist terrorism - the attack on a Black church by a White shooter who said he was there to kill Black people (which Fox Nooz attempted to spin as an attack on Christianity) - will not result in any change in our our gun laws at all. Because of the power of the NRA, but also due to some whining by extremely duped individuals like Insurgent and Dennis. Which, while I agree that our Bill of Rights does make us great, is not great (that the NRA has so much power). It isn't great at all that big money interests have perverted one of our Bill of Rights amendments to further an agenda of profit and death.

It is, in fact, the exact opposite of great. Also far from great is this regurgitation of NRA talking points by dupes like Insurgent and Dennis. If anyone is gleeful it is the gun manufacturers and their lobbying arm, the NRA. Gleeful that they have been able to exert so much control over the US political process, and gleeful over their duping of the gun nuts. Nuts who race out to buy more of their product because they fear Democratic/Obama "confiscation". F*cking dumbsh*ts.

Image: A cartoon depiction of the Constitutional Insurgent worrying that Obama is coming for his guns? Or is is dmarks?

SWTD #292, dDel #23. See also TADM #68.

Straight from The Warped, Psychotic, Brain-diseased, & Idiotic Mind of A Lunatic Libertarian Douchebag

The Bowles-Simpson proposal has become a kind of short-hand in Washington for what a balanced, bipartisan deficit-reduction deal could look like. When given a closer look, the plan is anything but balanced. Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of "hard choice" we need to be making. We should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income ~ Jan Schakowsky (dob 5/26/1944) the Democrat representing Illinois's 9th congressional district, serving since 1999. The Congresswoman was a member of the 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (AKA Bowles-Simpson Comission). The Rep voted against the commission's final proposal.

Refuting lies about me in regards to past comments ("old bones" some might say) on another blog are why I have decided to author this commentary. Lies from the blog "Contra O'Reilly" put forward by one Willis Hart in a blog post of his from 7/12/2014.

Willis Hart: On the Assertion that Bowles-Simpson is a "Conservative Plan"... Only in the warped, psychotic, brain-diseased, and idiotic mind of a lunatic leftist douchebag would anything even remotely along these lines even be considered. The fact of the matter here is that the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1, and the only reason that it's even this high is because of interest apparently having been included. Compare this to the ratios of the ACTUAL conservative debt consolidation packages which have consistently put forth a cuts to revenue ratio of approximately 5 or 6 to 1... or even to that deal which Obama almost had with Boehner which was pretty damned close to 4 to 1 and, if anything, Bowles-Simpson is probably a little bit to the left of center. Of course, if you yourself are so brazenly to the left that you actually consider people like Bernie Sanders, Van Jones, Francis Boyle, and Bill Ayers as mainstreamers, and even go as far as to quote Joseph Stalin, you're probably going to think that pretty much anything is "conservative", I would think. (7/12/2014 AT 12:32pm).

Yet another post from this doofus in which he, for some strange reason, makes it out to be that I alone in the entire world hold a position that is so incredibly ridiculous that all those negative adjectives are necessary. And he lies about people I view as "mainstream", none of which I really view as "mainstream".

I like Bernie Sanders, and I like Van Jones. Senator Sanders describes himself as a socialist. His voters seem to like him, although I will absolutely admit that Senator Sanders is to the Left of mainstream... although Bernie Sanders is the founder of the House Progressive Caucus, which is the largest Congressional Congress. Isn't being the largest a hallmark of being mainstream?

Van Jones I would describe as a Progressive that fights for the Middle Class. The Middle Class isn't "mainstream"? But he may be a little to the Left as well when compared to the Democratic Party at large, which I would describe as skewing Conservative. Bill Clinton described himself as a New Democrat, which means he considered himself a Democrat who was "economically neoliberal".

New Democrats claim to be "an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party" but their adoption of neoliberal policies also advocated for by the Right makes New Democrats CONSERVATIVE Democrats.

New Democrats were more open to deregulation than the previous Democratic leadership had been. This was especially evident in the large scale deregulation of agriculture and the telecommunications industries. The New Democrats... were responsible for the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). (Wikipedia/New Democrats/Bill Clinton as a New Democrat).

Also, under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) the Democrats began (more) aggressively pandering to the business community (which the deregulating and free trading advocating was a part of) in order to secure more campaign cash (bribes). DLC/New Democrats viewed their past losses (losses that sent Reagan and Bush Sr) to the White House as being related to Republican campaigns being better funded. Better funded because GOP candidates had greater greater access to the Conservative Business (plutocrat) money pool.

The "New Democrat" movement was a response to this funding issue. Incorporate Conservative ideas in order to get Conservative business money. New Democrats are Conservative Democrats.

The Blue Dog Coalition "is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify themselves as moderates and conservatives". This caucus was formed in 1994 during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wikipedia notes that "the term Blue Dog Democrat is credited to Texas Democratic Rep. Pete Geren... who later joined the Bush Administration.

Our current president, the fellow who appointed Bowles and Simpson to co-chair the so-called "bipartisan" commission tasked to produce debt reduction legislation, is a self described Blue Dog. Erskine Bowles is a Conservative Democrat [1] who served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Alan Simpson, a former Republican Congressman who "George H.W. Bush reportedly considered Simpson for the vice presidency in 1988".

So what we have in this "debt reduction" commission is Conservative Democrats partnering with Republicans. And, if that is not enough information to know for a fact that ANY "compromise" that MIGHT have come out of the commission would most certainly skew to the Right, there is also the fact that reducing the government's debt in response to a poorly performing economy (AKA austerity) is an ENTIRELY Conservative idea.

Keynesian economics - the economic theory subscribed to by TRUE Leftists and Left of Center Democrats - "is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy)". Talking debt reduction (austerity) in response to an economic downturn is a wholly Conservative concept.

Heck, the NAME of the commission was the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. "Fiscal responsibility" is code for "austerity". The idea that austerity is the answer to economic downturns is in complete opposition to the theory behind Keynesiansim.

As such, NO debt reduction (i.e. austerity) plan coming from such a commission could in any way NOT be Conservative! Now, if the Democrats had proposed a commission in which cutting waste and improving efficiency were components - but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas - THAT would be a plan truly befitting Democratic economic ideals.

But a plan of action that immediately concedes that the very ideals the Democratic Party is built upon are wrong and capitulates that the Republican austerity is the way to address an economic downturn? Such a plan is CONSERVATIVE from the get-go. It does not matter if "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1".

And there is also the fact that the spending cuts included items that would actually hurt our economy like using the (bogus) chained-CPI to take money out of the pockets of Seniors (and other Social Security recipients). Non-conservatives view the chained-CPI as a non-starter.

The Nation: [Bowles-Simpson and the White House] depicted [the chained CPI] as a "more accurate" formula that "will reduce deficits and improve Social Security solvency". ...but there's no debating these simple points: Chained-CPI is both a benefit cut and a tax increase. (Top 5 Myths About Chained-CPI, Debunked by George Zornick, 4/11/2013).

In addition to the chained CPI, Bowles-Simpson wanted to "increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075". But the problem with all these Social Security cuts is that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has nothing to do with our national debt!

Truthout: [The Social Security trust fund is invested in Treasury Securities amounting to] $2.7 trillion... [This] came about not because entitlements are out of control and the government has been forced to borrow to meet retiree benefits, but rather because future retirees have paid more taxes than necessary to meet benefit obligations. Workers have essentially been prepaying into the Trust Fund in order to provide for their future benefits. So it makes no sense to try to solve the supposed problem of too much government debt by cutting benefits for current and future Social Security recipients. (The $17 Trillion Delusion: The Absurdity of Cutting Social Security to Reduce the Debt by Marty Wolfson, 1/11/2014).

So, not only is the Chained-CPI a non-starter; ANY cut Social Security benefit cut is a non-starter (this includes raising the retirement age, which also is a cut). The ABSURD idea of cutting SS benefits to "reduce the debt" is CONSERVATIVE in nature.

Other "reforms" that would take money out of the pockets of ordinary Americans included cuts to all other "inflation-indexed programs... [such as] the military and civil service retirement system". Still other "reforms" included cuts to student loan programs and cuts that would increase out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. All which would be cuts in opposition to the theory of Keynesianism which says cutting (austerity) makes economic downturns WORSE, not better.

So, again, it DOES NOT MATTER that "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1" because it is a CONSERVATIVE idea that austerity is economically beneficial!

Now, I'm not saying that Bowles-Simpson had nothing positive in it at all. There were actually some proposals Democrats could get behind in the Debt Reduction plan (such as reforming farm subsidies), but it absolutely did skew Conservative (for the reasons I just outlined).

Now, here I should note that Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky released an alternate proposal that actually did provide for balanced deficit reduction. A proposal that did not place so much of the deficit reduction burden on seniors, the middle class, and low-income families.

Rep. Schakowsky's plan proposes increased investment in jobs, infrastructure, education, and research and development to strengthen the economy and generate growth. The plan also calls for the protection of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare while proposing additional steps to bring down the cost of health care overall. The plan would raise the top tax rates on the wealthy and end tax subsidies for big oil and highly-profitable corporations that ship jobs and profits overseas. It would eliminate wasteful military spending and focus on modern threats. The plan proposes additional revenue opportunities to strengthen Social Security and achieve long-term solvency without cutting benefits. (9/12/2012 Press Release as posted to the Congresswoman's website).

The Schakowsky plan is considerably closer to what I was previously talking about a plan that included cutting waste and improving efficiency, but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas. The Schakowsky plan IS the Progressive answer to the CONSERVATIVE Bowles-Simpson proposal.

And, if I am "so brazenly to the Left" as Willis asserts, then so too must Jan Schakowsky, as well as other critics of Bowles-Simpson, including Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who "criticized the deficit report for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund" and Paul Krugman, who wrote that "Simpson-Bowles... raises the Social Security retirement age because life expectancy has risen completely ignoring the fact that life expectancy has only gone up for the well-off and well-educated, while stagnating or even declining among the people who need the program most".

Lastly, I have to wonder why the hell names like Francis Boyle and Bill Ayers are added to the mix of people he THINKS I view as "mainstream". They aren't. I've actually spoken against the views/actions of both of these individuals. Not that it matters, I suppose, as in the minds of the idiots who post/comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog disagreement by me somehow becomes agreement.

Hence the reference by Willis to me quoting Joseph Stalin, which he thinks I did to "buttress my opinion"... a claim that is complete bullpucky. That I quoted Stalin (which I did) to "buttress my opinion" (I did not) was something the Hartster imagined happened.

And in regards to imagining things, commenter Dennis Marks added canards concerning me defending "Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views [and] Mao worshiper Van Jones [by equating] Maoism to ending police brutality".

The truth is these are both vile lies (although quite typical for the scumbag Marks). *If* Noam Chomsky HAD "pro-Khmer Rouge" views I would NOT defend them. And *if* Van Jones was a "Mao worshiper" I would not defend that either. Both assertions are false, however [2+3].

Also, Maoism has nothing to do with ending police brutality. Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao AND advocated against police brutality. But these were two separate things. The advocating against police brutality did not come from the reading of literature by Mao (there is/was no linkage).

In any case, Mr. Jones has changed his mind in regards "world-views and philosophies" that he experimented with in his youth. Van Jones now firmly believes our regulated market system is the best way to achieve desired reforms that will allow the middle class and working poor to prosper.

Footnotes
[1] "Like a lot of technocrats, Bowles is a conservative Democrat who has struggled to find a niche in elective politics". Source: Keep Erskine Bowles Away from Treasury By Timothy Noah, The New Republic 11/8/2012.
[2] The boring truth about Chomsky: he does not support Pol Pot by Michael Brull, The Drum 7/5/2011.
[3] Severe Conservative Delusions: Van Jones Maoist Edition SWTD #144 5/6/2013.

SWTD #269, wDel #69.

World Nut Daily (WND) Sez "Impeach Obama For Aiding Terrorists" (Re Bowe Bergdahl Prisoner Swap)

This is something that I would do again and I will continue to do wherever I have an opportunity, if I have a member of our military who's in captivity ~ President Barack Obama talks about his decision to do the right thing (6/6/2014).

The Extreme Rightwing publication known as World Net Daily, or WND (or "World Nut Daily") has a petition up on their website calling for the impeachment of President Obama. The reason? The Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap amounts to Obama aiding terrorists (and is the last straw)!

WND is, by the way, the Obama-hate-site that generates a lot of traffic by pandering to racists in a BIG way... being a publication that ruminates NOT infrequently on the danger of "Black mobs" (although WND sez they "consider it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators...").

According to the "expert" opinion of one ex-military man scumbag named William Boykin, President Obama is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in regards to the Bergdahl swap (among other things). Boykin, a crayZee Conservative "Christian" who was caught on a hot mic saying "Jews are the problem" and the "cause of all the problems in the world" and "that President Obama identifies with and supports Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood", is quoted in the petition as saying Obama ignored federal law in pursuit of an administration goal.

A Slate article by Emily Bazelon says the problem is that Obama "didn't tell Congress about the prisoner release 30 days ahead of time, as a recent federal law requires... [although] to justify this omission, the administration has invoked Obama's signing statement, which he added to the law for certain circumstances, like negotiating over detainee transfers, in which it would violate constitutional separation of powers principles to consult Congress".

Emily Bazelon refers to this as Obama's "Gitmo Fail" (the title of the article), but frankly I don't give a shit. LET the Repubs TRY to go after Obama on this. The truth is that they are all fking hypocrites in regards to the stink they are currently raising, as MANY Cons criticized the President for not doing enough (previously) to bring Bergdahl home.

"Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding Every Effort Be Made To Free Bergdahl" (ThinkProgress 6/3/2014, excerpts) ...many of the administration's loudest critics have previously demanded that it do more to bring Bergdahl to safety. ...John McCain told Anderson Cooper in February that he "would be inclined to support an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man", like the one Taliban officials had offered in 2012. He has since labeled Obama's deal "ill-founded" and a "mistake". Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also thinks that "the administration's decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests"... But since 2011, Ayotte has issued multiple press releases and public statements calling on the Obama administration to "redouble its efforts" to find Bergdahl. "I renew my call on the Defense Department to... find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family" she wrote just one week ago. Sen. Jim Inhofe - the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee - has also said that the U.S. "must make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family". But appearing on Fox News just days after Bergdahl's release, Inhofe criticized the administration for agreeing to free "people who have killed Americans, people who are the brain power of Taliban". (article by Igor Volsky).

I don't know how bringing home a US serviceman, especially given that we were going to release five Taliban Gitmo prisoners anyway, could possibly be a "mistake". OBVIOUSLY the motivation for the Repub criticisms NOW over the deal that brought Bergdahl home - when they were critical of the administration NOT DOING ENOUGH previously - is ENTIRELY political in nature, and SHAMELESSLY so.

"Why The Five Taliban Detainees Had To Be Released Soon, No Matter What" ThinkProgress 6/2/2014, excerpts) The US is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 AUMF. It remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the US in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016. When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Gitmo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of US involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Gitmo detainees be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over. In traditional conflicts, both sides would release their prisoners at the conclusion of hostilities. This is not a traditional conflict, however, and the Obama administration rightly had no expectation that Sgt. Bergdahl would have been released when US forces [left] Afghanistan. As that date neared, any leverage the US possessed would have been severely undermined. (article by Ken Gude).

Furthermore, the ThinkProgress notes the following (IMO) pertinent facts...

Conservative critics... refuse to appreciate the cunning maneuvers that secured the release of the lone American soldier taken prisoner in Afghanistan at little risk to the security of the United States. ...the evidence demonstrates that the Obama administration has been remarkably successful at preventing detainees it has released from Guantanamo from engaging in militant activities against the United States. Statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show that only 6 percent (5 in total) of Guantanamo detainees released during the Obama administration have been assessed to have potentially engaged in militant activities. That compares with a rate of nearly 30 percent under the Bush administration. (Attribution same as above).

The issue of whether or not Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter is separate, and can addressed in full now that he is in our custody and can present his side of the story. What we absolutely should not have done was to deem Bergdahl guilty and that the "punishment" would be to allow him to remain a Taliban POW (and possibly be executed by them).

(Although there are some who say they have "never argued that we shouldn't have tried to repatriate Bergdahl", but now that we have him, he should be given a trial as a "formality" and then put to death. And with the putting to death there are some who agree).

In regards to the desertion charge, obviously that is something that a soldier absolutely can NOT do. Surely Bergdahl could have objected in another manner if that was his inclination (and it is my understanding that it was). However, according to the Libertarian Reason Magazine (a 5/6/2014 article by Sheldon Richman) "[we] shouldn't blame Bowe Bergdahl for deserting in the fog of endless war".

Reason article excerpts... The "fog of war" is a reference to the moral chaos as well as the rampant confusion on the battlefield. Individuals kill others for no other reason than that they are ordered to. Things deemed unambiguously bad in civilian life are authorized and even lauded in war. ...Bergdahl seems to have been plagued by this question [his responsibility in regards to the deaths of innocent civilians].

The author of the Reason article goes on to quote Anand Gopal, author of No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes.

By mid-2002 there was no insurgency in Afghanistan: al-Qaeda had fled the country and the Taliban had ceased to exist as a military movement. Jalaluddin Haqqani (whose "network" held Bergdahl captive) and other top Taliban figures were reaching out to the other side in an attempt to cut a deal and lay down their arms. [However], driven by the idée fixe that the world was rigidly divided into terrorist and non-terrorist camps, Washington allied with Afghan warlords and strongmen. Their enemies became ours, and through faulty intelligence, their feuds became repackaged as "counterterrorism".

So, death for Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier with a conscience who questioned his role in combat that lead to innocents being killed, but no repercussions for those at the top who got us involved in this pointless war (the war criminals in the bush administration)?

That, I've got a huge problem with. I've also got a huge problem with our current president keeping us involved in said war... and even foolishly "surging"... based on the dishonest idée fixe that surging worked in Iraq (when it did not).

An article by Jean Mackenzie of Global Post (via the Salon website) notes that "Bergdahl was a troubled young man, with naive and very unrealistic views on his service in Afghanistan [who] thought he was joining the Peace Corps with guns, going over to help Afghans".

So, who is responsible for the soldiers who were killed while looking for Bergdahl? Obviously Bergdahl bears some responsibility, but what about those who made the decision to involve us in this unwinable conflict? And why the hell did we think we could prevail when the Soviets did not?

Yes, those deaths were regrettable, but Bergdahl obviously shouldn't have been there to begin with. Or he should have been removed from that situation as soon as those around him realized he was "troubled". In regards to that point, I'd place some of the blame on the stigma that is attached to the mental health issue... and in regards to that the same Global Post article I just quoted notes the following...

...journalist Matthieu Aikins, who reports regularly from Afghanistan, tweeted: "Does running unarmed into Taliban terrain seem sane to you? Maybe Bergdahl's act should be seen through PTSD/mental health prism".

Maybe. Surely I would not be so stupid/uncaring as to say the "dude is going to be just fine", or that "I have no concern for Bergdahl per se, [instead] my concern is the principle of the matter"... when we're talking about a job (being a soldier) that involves KILLING people. Surely only a moron could not see that this might affect a person's ability to think rationally.

So, yes, I do have some concern for Bergdahl. I've also got concern for the war criminals who stupidly decided to get us bogged down in a pointless and unwinnable war - especially given the fact that the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden prior to our invasion but bush refused to negotiate (as the author of the Reason article points out)... concern that they will never be held accountable for their actions. And I've also got concern for the Obama administration that let the bush war criminals off the hook.

But assholes like William Boykin and those at WND who are calling for impeachment while citing the fake Benghazi and fake IRS scamdals? And the hypocrite asshole Repub politicians who are criticizing Obama for bringing Bowe Bergdahl home when the previously criticized him for not doing enough to bring Bowe Bergdahl home? F*ck them. And f*ck the idiots and racist bigots who are signing the petition too.

I'm not going to say f-you to whoever created a petition at the White House site to punish Bergdahl, however. He did break the rules and these people - the creator and the 19,156 individuals who signed to thus far - are entitled to voice their opinion on the matter.

I surely am not going to sign it, however. I found the petition after doing a Google search looking for a White House petition in SUPPORT of Bergdahl. Apparently there isn't one. In any event, my f-you is reserved for, as Grung E Gene of the blog Disaffected And It Feels So Good puts it, the "dishonorable conservative hypocrites [who] piss on the troops, veterans and Bowe Bergdahl".

Well said, Gene. I must say that I agree completely that these evil individuals hate our servicemembers. For the record, I added the word "evil", and if you think that is too harsh, keep in mind that the definition of evil is something that is "morally wrong or bad".

Is it morally wrong or bad to use service members as political cudgels - by first calling for an administration you seek to destroy to "free Bergdahl by any means necessary" - and then attacking the administration when it does just that... well, that is most certainly morally wrong and bad in my strong opinion.

(By the way, the Taliban has never been designated as a terrorist organization, so the Obama administration did not "negotiate with terrorists". Finally, I was very disappointed to see the WND impeachment document quoting Jonathan Turley who "says Obama's deserter-for- terrorists deal proves that 'what's emerging is an imperial presidency'". And he said this on Sean Hannity's program for crying out loud. Ugh).

Notes
[1] h/t to Infidel753 for the word "scamdal" in reference to the fake Obama administration scandals.
[2] h/t to Grung E Gene for the link to the story concerning the "by any means necessary" January 2014 petition created by the conservative opinion and commentary website PJ Media.

See also: OST #17.

SWTD #259