Dotard tRump's Position On Trade (In Part) Won Him The Presidency. Why Sanders Or Warren Must Be The Democratic potus Nominee

For decades, the leaders of both parties preached the gospel that free trade was a rising tide that would lift all boats. Great rhetoric -- except that the trade deals they negotiated mainly lifted the yachts — and threw millions of working Americans overboard to drown -- Elizabeth Warren (Elizabeth Warren Goes After Free Trade Agreements in First Speech as 2020 Contender. 11/29/2018).

The following is excerpted from a 7/12/2019 conversation on the Thom Hartmann Program (a Progressive Political talk radio program that airs on Free Speech TV). Thom and Lori Wallach (the Executive Director Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch) discuss Trump's renegotiation of NAFTA (The USMCA) and where Congressional Democrats and the Democratic presidential candidates stand on the issue - the USMCA and the corporate benefiting "free trade" policies bought into by New Democrats Clinton and Obama.

Thom Hartmann: You and I agree that the neoliberal trade policies that really came in with the Reagan Administration in a big way - they negotiated NAFTA - George Herbert Walker Bush's Administration finalized those negotiations - this has always been republican trade policy. There has always been large chunks of the Democratic Party that have opposed this. In the modern era, it's the Sherrod Brown's... and yet, the guy who has successfully pushed back against it is Donald Trump.

It helped get him elected. Running on a Democratic position. Which is - yes, we need tariffs. Yes, we need protectionist policies. And yes, these so-called trade agreements actually suck. They're destroying American jobs. So, it puts us in this very awkward position of saying, thank God Trump is having a conversation about this. Because we've had two Democratic presidents (Clinton & Obama) who have been unwilling to. And a lot of Democratic members of Congress won't. Although some of them are out there screaming into the wind. From Bernie Sanders to Sherod Brown.

But, on the other hand, Trump is doing it completely wrong. He's demagoging this issue. So... how is the whole trade thing going? ... where are the Democrats on all this?

Lori Wallach: Obviously NAFTA has to be replaced. Almost a million jobs have been certified to the government to be lost to NAFTA. It's probably [more like] 4-5 million... Trump repeated what Democrats have said for a long time. Democrats in Congress tried to stop NAFTA. However, the deal Trump signed to replace NAFTA wouldn't stop the job outsourcing. Because the labor and environmental improvements and their enforcements are not strong enough. But he let Pharma put protections in there. So it [the USMCA] would raise medicine prices. It won't fix the existing problem, and it would lock in high prices here.

In that regard it's worse than the status quo. On the other hand he got rid of the outrageous corporate tribunals that have taken hundreds of millions of tax dollars, attacking environmental laws, etc. So, where are the Democrats? Miraculously, the Democrats are 100 percent united. Pelosi is being tough in saying to Trump - either you renegotiate your renegotiated agreement -- fix the labor and environmental standards so it means something. To stop the outsourcing and to raise wages in Mexico so the draw of jobs [away from the US] is stopped. And you have to take out that Pharma garbage. Or no vote. And she's holding firm. Now the showdown is -- what will the administration do?

[skip]

Thom Hartmann: When Bill Clinton first embraced NAFTA in 1992, he was in the minority among Democrats. He was loudly attacked by a lot of Democrats. Many Democratic voters -- apparently half of Ross Perot voters were actually Democrats - but, over time, the Democratic Party moved in that Direction. At least, much of it. ... These so-called free trade deals -- managed trade deals for the benefit of corporations -- have always been deeply embraced by Republicans [before and during the Trump administration -- explaining why his only option is to go it alone and apply tariffs by executive fiat]. Where is the Democratic party as a whole -- at the Federal level on this now? How does this break down in the House and Senate.

Lori Wallach: Right now, in respect to this NAFTA deal, the House Democrats are remarkably unified with the Speaker. Even the corporate Democrats -- the New Democrats -- the ones who have been for TPP - they say the environmental and labor standards need better enforcement and the Pharma crap has to come out. They sent a letter to the president that said - don't make the mistake of putting in this agreement... Congressional Democrats have always been better than the presidential wing [Clinton, Obama and many currently running to unseat Trump].

The candidates running for president have all signed a pledge that they would oppose any NAFTA renegotiation that included the Pharma goodies and didn't have strong labor and environmental standards in it. Including Beto O'Rourke and Joe Biden. But the truth is Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris -- those guys are basically in the same place that Clinton and Obama were on trade. They're not good on trade.

You have Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Tim Ryan [who] have been real champions on trade. ... If you have another Democrat, like Biden, who Trump can run against in Wisconsin and Michigan the way he did Clinton - "oh, you're for having more jobs outsourced. You're so sad TPP didn't pass"... We're going to lose again in those states. We have to have someone to the Left of him on trade. We have to have Sanders or Warren.

[End Thom Hartmann Program 7/12/2019 Excerpt]

Prior to New Democrats Clinton and Obama opposing free trade was the Democratic position. And on the side of the corporations (and against the workers) were the Republicans. That changed with Clinton. Then President Obama pushed the TPP and Hillary Clinton called it the "gold standard". Although she later (under pressure from Sanders) backtracked and vowed that, if elected, she would not sign the TPP. But many voters did not believe her. One reason was that her VP choice, Tim Kaine, also supported (then renounced) the TPP.

This (in part) explains tRump's win. Blue collar Democrats who voted for Obama decided to vote for tRump because of his views on trade. Many of them were for Bernie Sanders because of his opposition to job-killing free trade agreements. When Sanders didn't become the nominee they switched to Trump. A mistake because Trump does not know WTF he's doing. The United States needs a Trade Policy and NOT a president imposing tariffs by presidential fiat.

Me, I'd rather Bernie Sanders had been the nominee in 2016. It is my belief that he could have beat tRump. Because Blue collar Democrats who were swayed by the con man tRump would have voted for Bernie Sanders. And Bernie Sanders would have had the Progressive caucus on his side and thus been able (or better positioned to) change US trade policy through Congress. tRump can't do this because Congressional republicans oppose protectionism and protecting American jobs from outsourcing.

This is why we must not nominate a Democrat with the wrong position on trade. The nominee must be either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Either of these two candidates would have the best chance of beating tRump in 2020. If the nominee isn't Sanders or Warren - tRump will quite likely "win" a second term (with, as before, help from Putin). Even though tRump's tariffs have not succeeded in their goal of bringing back American jobs. And his attempts to renegotiate our crappy trade deals have been a failure (and driven many soy bean farmers into bankruptcy).

Yet, despite going bankrupt, these farmers continue to support tRump (for some reason). I guess they think that some pain must be endured before tRump is eventually victorious. But that won't happen. Their Chinese customers have gone elsewhere to buy their soybeans, etc. These farmer are screwed. They just don't realize how screwed they are yet.

In any case, before the New Democrat movement, it was the Democratic Party that represented Blue Collar workers and opposed the so-called "free trade" deals that outsourced their jobs. Clinton and Obama betrayed them, costing the Democratic party (and the entire nation) dearly. Their betrayal allowed a con-man like Dotard tRump the opportunity to take up the anti-globalism, pro-American worker mantle (even though he lied and is actually 100 percent for the plutocrats).

Democrats need to reclaim by nominating Sanders (my first choice) or Warren. Either Sanders or Warren could get the job done and fix our broken trade policies, IMO. Unlike tRump, who lies, does a bad job, and failed to do what he promised. The only thing the Orange Turd has "achomlished" is to make things worse.

BTW, I'm starting to think Warren might be a better choice than Sanders. Due to the bad rap "socialism" has among low information voters. And, even though Warren's positions are very similar (where they are not identical) to those of Sanders, he calls himself a "socialist" while she does not. A fact that could make the difference. Given the fact that demonizing "socialism" is going to be a bigly tactic of the Orange Turd campaign in 2020.

Video: Lori Wallach Exposes How Trump Got Trade Wrong. Published 7/12/2019. 9:10.


 swtd-415 

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 3rd Way Is The Wrong Way! A Big Reason Why A Reality TV Buffoon Will Be The Next potus

The rise of Trumpism makes perfect sense. Both parties have sacrificed the working class at the altar of globalism ~ Thom Hartmann (dob 5/7/1951) tagline from his 3/23/2016 article They abandoned the 90 percent: How the Reagan Revolution and Third Way politics led America to ruin.

The following excerpt is from the 1998 book Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by American philosopher Richard Rorty.

Members of labor unions and unorganized skilled workers will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time those workers will realize that suburban white collar workers themselves, desperately afraid of being downsized, are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point something will crack. The non-suburban electorate will decide that they system has failed, and start looking around for a strongman to vote for. Someone willing to assure them that, once he's elected, the smug bureaucrats, the tricky lawyers, the overpaid bond salesmen and the postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. One thing that is very likely to happen is the gains made in the past 40 years by Black and Brown Americans and by homosexuals will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. (As read by progressive Talker Thom Hartmann on the 1/10/2016 airing of his program).

As per Wikipedia "several writers have cited a passage of the book, in which Rorty predicts the rise of an authoritarian strongman who gains popularity among blue-collar workers, as prophetic of Donald Trump's rise to political power".

Yeah, I think so. Even though I still believe (KNOW, I'd say) that Trump was aided greatly by the Republican election fraud scheme known as Interstate Crosscheck (see DSD #54 & SWTD #358).

I do acknowledge, however, that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. Also (and I think this is an important point) Barack Obama (IMO) shares a lot of the blame. Because of his support for the TPP. The blue collar workers who voted for Trump did so because "their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported".

If Bernie Sanders had been the candidate? I think the Democrats could have won. Because he has always been against these kinds of job-killing free trade deals. Unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (WJC signing NAFTA and BHO's support for the TPP). And don't forget that HRC initially (at least) supported the TPP (calling it the "Gold Standard") and ran as a 3rd term for Obama.

So, while she said she wouldn't sign it as president, people didn't believe her. Ironically, they believed she was just saying what she needed to in order to get elected. I say ironically because (as most/all voters who opposed Trump know), the thin-skinned reality TV buffoon lied his ass off during the campaign.

For the record, I view presidential campaigns as aspirational. In that the candidate states what he'd LIKE to do, not what he (or she) thinks they can do. Realistically they know they will only be able to accomplish a portion of what they're running on. Bernie Sanders what criticized for his proposals supposedly being unrealistic. He'd never be able to get his proposals through Congress, his detractors said. Perhaps, but I believe he would have tried. Trump, on the other hand? I believe was outright lying.

His VP choice (Pence, who is pro-TPP) and the Republican Congress (also in favor of the TPP) told me that Trump was not serious about bringing jobs back. He simply told Blue collar workers what they wanted to hear. Just like he told his dupes that he wouldn't cut Social Security or Medicare, yet cutting these programs are on Speaker Ryan's agenda to be brought up quickly. Bernie Sanders challenged Trump to issue a veto-threat so Congress doesn't waste a lot of time on debating and passing legislation that might not go anywhere (if Trump vetoes). So far no response from Trump.

Anyway, what's clear to me is that the Democrats need to return to their FDR roots. The Democratic Party went astray with the election of 3rd way Democrat Bill Clinton. That is when, according to William Greider of The Nation, the Democratic Party lost it's soul and "abandoned its working-class base".

The shift away from the people was embraced most dramatically when Bill Clinton's New Democrats came to power in the 1990s. Clinton double-crossed labor with NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements, which encouraged the great migration of manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies. Clinton's bank deregulation shifted the economic rewards to finance and set the stage for the calamity that struck in 2008. Wall Street won; working people lost. Clinton presided over the financialization of the Democratic Party. Obama merely inherited his playbook and has governed accordingly, often with the same policy-makers. (How the Democratic Party Lost Its Soul. Dec 1-8, 2014).

The Democratic Party needs to get a hell of a lot more Progressive. It's looking like they realize this (fortunately), but it took a horrific defeat (by a thin-skinned liar who has no idea what he's doing as far as the potus job goes) and a (very likely) disastrous Trump administration for them to get the message.

I am dreading the next four years, during which I anticipate rights to be rolled back for African Americans and gay people, our social safety net to be greatly weakened, the wealthy to get even wealthier, the middle class to shrink, the ranks of the working poor to swell, and a recession (possible depression). As well as more war (Trump knows how to defeat ISIS... yeah, right). Possibly a world war.

Video: SNL video making light of the fact that HRC began adopting more and more of the positions of Bernie Sanders as the campaign progressed. Because the voters wanted a more progressive candidate (1:55).

SWTD #367

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

Joe Scarborough Speaks Unspeakable Truth Re Fact That Republican Policies Benefit The Wealthy & Hurt Everyone Else

Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate ~ David Stockman (dob 11/10/1946) former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under preznit Ronny Raygun.

The following soundbite via the 3/6/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Program.

Morning Joe: The problem with the Republican Party over the past 30 years is they haven't (I'll say we haven't) developed a message that appeals to the working class economically in the way that Donald Trump has. We talk about cutting capital gains taxes - the 10k people who are in the crowd cheering for Trump - they're never going to get a capital gains cut, because it doesn't apply. We talk about getting rid of the death tax [estate tax]. The death tax isn't going to impact these people. We talk about how great free trade deals are? Those free trade deals never trickle down to those 10k people. Herein lies the problem with the Republican Party. It never trickles down. Those 10k in Trump's crowd, those are the people who lost jobs when they were moved to Mexico. The Republican donor class were the ones that got rich off it because their capital moved overseas and they made higher profits.

And the American people are finally figuring that out... according to Thom Hartmann. I'm not 100 percent sure of this. I think this realization explains why Bernie Sanders is doing so well. Yeah, it looks like Hillary will be the nominee, but the fact that a democratic socialist Jew is actually making a good showing against the establishment's choice? I think that says a LOT regarding the voters FINALLY waking up to the fact that Republican policies favor the wealthy and that the economic system that works so well in Europe (and worked so well under FDR) is something we should be doing more of (The 12 best reasons to be a democratic socialist).

That free trade benefits the "Republican donor class" is why Hillary Clinton was forced to backtrack on the TPP. Previously she referred to it as the "gold standard" and now she is saying she doesn't support it (45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes).

Yet, Trump says he's a "free trader", he'd just negotiate better deals. But he is not for ANY of the other pro-rich policies that never "trickle down" to the non-wealthy. Trump is proposing MASSIVE tax cuts for the wealthy with a 15% max tax rate, no "death tax" and no corporate tax (Donald Trump's Tax Plan Would Make the Rich Richer, Uncle Sam Poorer).

Clearly the Trumpeteers are NOT figuring it out. And (imo) Hillary voters aren't figuring it out either. She's moved to the Left, but she's been pushed there by Sanders (and likely not stay there after elected). Hillary is not a Progressive, but a moderate. In her own words! (HRC 9/10/2015: "You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty").

If people actually were figuring it out Donald Trump wouldn't be poised to claim the nomination on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be winning on the Democratic side. And primary voting turnout wouldn't be "massive" on the Republican side, it would be MASSIVE on the Democratic side (Here's Just How Massive Republicans' Super Tuesday Turnout Was).

And the massive turnout would be for Bernie Sanders. He's a once in a lifetime candidate, IMO. The country NEEDS Bernie Sanders. Hillary might be OK and push some incremental change. Trump (or any other of the Republicans) would further harm our nation (Bernie Sanders Is a Once in a Lifetime Presidential Candidate. The Time Is Now).

Under a Sanders' presidency income and jobs would soar. This is according to Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor. His analysis shows that, under Sanders, "median income would soar by more than $22k, nearly 26 million jobs would be created and the unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%".

BTW, that tool Chuck Todd says (when Scarborough is speaking) "you sound like Bernie Sanders". Clearly upChuck was taken off guard by Scarborough's honesty. Honesty Thom Hartmann found astounding. Yeah, me too.

Video: Joe Scarborough gives up the game: After 30 years, the GOP base realized "it never trickles down" by David Edwards. RawStory 3/8/2016 (6:55, 1:25-2:30 for Scarborough comments).

SWTD #331

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

Trump Announces Preznit Run! Will RN Hold Willis To Eating His Hat, Tie & Trousers? (Also, Trump Right On Trade Albeit Wrong On Everything Else)

Ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States... ~ Donald Trump (dob 6/14/1946) an American business magnate, television personality and professional blowhard in a 6/16/2015 speech from Trump Tower in NYC.

During a discussion concerning The Donald "savaging" the current Republican POTUS hopefuls and the possibility of Trump himself declaring a run for the White House, the small "L" libertarian blogger Willis Hart made a promise to do something if Trump actually ran for president. And the Objectivist/Libertarian "fiscally conservative" blogger rAtional nAtion replied by stating that he'd make sure Willis followed through with his promise.

Willis Hart: I'll eat my hat (along with my tie and trousers) if this guy [Donald Trump] runs [for president]. (5/24/2015 AT 08:13:00 PM EDT). rAtional nAtion: I'll hold you to it Will. (5/24/2015 AT 10:35:00 PM EDT). Willis Hart: I thought that the odds of Palin running in 0-12 were zero and if I could come up with a lower number than that for Trump running this go around I would. This is all about publicity I am sure. (5/24/2015 AT 11:19:00 PM EDT).

OK, so The Donald, contrary to the prediction offered by Mr. Hart, is now running for preznit (a prediction that Willis also made on his blog with a 6/7/2015 commentary titled "On Why Donald Won't Run").

Real-estate mogul and television personality Donald Trump announced his 2016 presidential campaign Tuesday morning [6/16/2015]. "Ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again!" Trump said. The Republican businessman made the announcement at the namesake Trump Tower in New York City. In his wide-ranging and, lasting about 45 minutes, lengthy speech... [insulting Obama as well as GOP POTUS hopefuls while letting everyone know how amazing he is] ...Trump flirted with previous campaigns for higher office without ultimately running... But Trump has taken numerous steps that suggest he could be much more serious this time around, including hiring staffers in key primary states, forming a political fundraising committee, and setting plans to release financial disclosure documents. (Donald Trump is running for president by Colin Campbell. Business Insider 6/16/2015.

So... will Mr. nAtion hold Mr. Hart to his promise to eat his hat tie and trousers now that the Trumpster said he's running? He may drop out fairly quickly, but now that there has been an announcement that he is indeed running, I seriously doubt zero running will follow. He will at least have to run for a shot period to not look like a total fool. So I say this qualifies as "running" and Willis now has to make good on his promise.

I suggest Willis film his eating of the articles of clothing he said he would and post the video on Youtube. Otherwise he can SAY he ate those clothing items while not actually doing so. Although I suspect nothing will be said and Willis will simply expect nobody will hold him to his promise.

Is rAtional prepared to fly to Willis' state in order to hold him to it? Otherwise I don't think Willis will follow though.

As for this Trump-tastic announcement, the previously quoted Business Insider article says "Democrats seemed amused by Trump's candidacy". I'd wager that many Independents and at least a few Republicans are amused as well (although I am NOT going to be eating any non-food items if anyone proves me wrong on this).

As for Trump's financially disclosing his net worth to be 9 billion, upon hearing this my reaction was one of disbelief. I Googled "Trump" and "9 Billion" and found an article from the Washington Post that says... probably not. This figure (they say) probably comes from taking the value of his properties, overestimating how much they are worth, and also not subtracting what he owes (a mind blowing 5 billion). His actual net worth is likely closer to 4 billion... which is still a hell of a lot of money.

(Which, by the way, illustrates why the real estate market is so heavily regulated. Because there is a lot of money to be made in it. Something Willis Hart apparently does not understand, as he attempts to push the discredited meme that it was OVER regulation that lead to the financial crisis in a recent blog post.

ThinkProgress notes that "The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s" and that "Fannie and Freddie [did not purchase subprime loans] due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements [until they] lowered their standards in 2006 to buy riskier products [but] they were too late to the game to cause the subprime frenzy". Yet Willis is among the idiots who point to both the CRA and Fannie/Freddie specifically as strongly contributing to the crisis).

So Trump is a very wealthy man and he (as a result) has an extremely big ego. Which might explain how he's deluded himself into thinking he has any chance at all of being elected preznit. Or maybe he's just doing it for the attention and he'll place the blame elsewhere when he inevitably has to drop out (others made a huge mistake in not getting behind/supporting The Donald).

Although, while I disagree with most of The Donald's ideas on what policies would lead to increased economic activity for all, I must say that when it comes to free trade... The Donald is on the right track.

...in order to create more American jobs; mandate a 15% tax for outsourcing jobs and a 20% tax for importing goods... I'm for free and fair trade... But look at... the trade imbalance... [the trade deals Obama is making] will further erode American manufacturing and kill more American jobs [as NAFTA did and the TPP will]. I'm sick of always reading about outsourcing. Why aren't we talking about "onshoring"? We need to bring manufacturing jobs back home where they belong. Onshoring, or "repatriation", is a way for us to take back the jobs China is stealing. We know that China's wages are increasing. Also, China lacks certain natural resources that we have in abundance. If we exploit those two key facts, we can begin making the case to companies that they should bring their manufacturing facilities home to America. You only have to look at our trade deficit to see that we are being taken to the cleaners by our trading partners. We need tougher negotiations... We need to ensure that foreign markets are as open to our products as our country is to theirs. Our long-term interests require that we cut better deals with our world trading partners. (Donald Trump on Free Trade 2000 Reform Primary Challenger for President).

Note that this information is from 2000, but I think Trump still hold the same positions on trade, given his recent slamming of the TPP as a "disaster" and he (correctly) noted that "They're not addressing the number one cause of the unfairness which is the currency manipulation". So... Trump is right on trade, even if he is wrong in his other economic prescriptions which include traditional Conservative plans to "kill the death tax, lower the tax rates on capital gains & dividends, [and] eliminate corporate taxes".

Here Trump is in agreement with the other bad plutocrat-enriching ideas every other Republican endorses. Including the idea that the Affordable Care Act needs to go, because as Trump says in his announcement, "Obamacare really kicks in in 2016. Really bigley".

"Bigley"?

Anyway, these other positions are why I would never vote for him (if, by some miracle, he were to win the GOP nomination). But he might get quite a bit of support from blue and white collar Republican voters based on his stance on trade, which is that we should bring back American jobs destroyed by bad free trade agreements championed by both Republicans and Democrats.

Remember that Ross Perot ran on opposing the outsourcing of American jobs and (as Wikipedia notes) "was the natural beneficiary of populist resentment toward establishment politicians". Due to the establishment politicians' support for job killing free trade agreements. As a result of his stand on this ONE issue "in the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes, making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election".

A feat that NO Libertarian candidate for president has EVER come close to matching (Gary Johnson received 0.99% of the popular vote in 2012, amounting to 1.27 million votes). I'd eat MY hat if Gary Johnson declared he was running again, entered the race as a Libertarian, and ended up winning as many votes as Perot did in 1992.

I make this bet ONLY because I am one hundred percent positive there is zero percent chance of this happening. Also, I do not own a hat. But I'd eat Willis' hat if Gary were miraculously able to accomplish what Ross did, given the fact that Gary is FOR destroying American jobs (Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, "period").

Frankly, I'd bet that The Donald could get more votes than Gary if he ran 3rd party (nobody would take the bet if he ran as a Republican, if he somehow managed to win the GOP nomination, because OF COURSE he'd get more votes under that unlikely scenario). I would not promise to eat a hat, however, as I only think it likely that he'd get more votes (due to his stance on free trade). I'm not as sure about that as I am about Gary not ever receiving as many votes as Perot did (I'd never make a bet concerning eating a hat unless it was a sure thing).

Which Willis apparently thought not Trump entering the race was (a sure thing). Now we know he was wrong. And now we await the eating by him of his hat. In addition to his tie and trousers. Or rAtional nAtion (if he is a man of his word) and I await this eating of clothing by Willis (who I suspect is not a man of his word).

Update 7/20/2015: Some report that Trump said "big league", not "bigley". I'm not sure. Sounded like "bigley" to me.

SWTD #291, wDel #76.

Schmuckery Of Claim That Civil War Began Over States' Rights

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free ~ Abraham Lincoln (2/12/1809 to 4/15/1865) the 16th president (3/4/1861 to 4/15/1865) as quoted in a 8/22/1862 letter to the New York Tribune. This section of Lincoln's letter follows the more often quoted portion that reads "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that".

As commander of the Northern forces during the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant apparently said "The sole object of the war is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists... I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side".

Or maybe he didn't say that. None-the-less the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart cites this quote as proof that the civil was wasn't about slavery - and on this matter commenter Rusty Schmuckelford whole-heartedly agrees, saying (2 comments)...

Rusty Schmuckelford: As I said before... the Civil War began over states rights... slavery was a secondary issue. [AND] Its unfortunate there are still american's suffering from a bad case of "white guilt". These deluded folks see a racial aspect in everything. They cant fathom the civil war being fought for anything but slavery... of course they are dead wrong, yet due to their guilt cannot accept the truth. (3/18/2014 at 8:42pm AND 3/9/2014 at 12:12pm).

Rusty may have said it before, but he was as dead wrong then as he is now. And a schmuck for thinking "white guilt" is any kind of factor for those who acknowledge the facts. Fortunately bullplop like Rusty's is pretty easy to disprove - all one has to do is take a look at the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States which all cite slavery as their reason for leaving the union. And, as pointed out in a 2/25/2011 WP opinion piece by the historian James W. Loewen "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery".

Between 12/20/1860 and 11/20/1861 13 states ratified ordinances of secession, with four states - "Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas also issued separate declarations of causes, in which they explained their reasons for secession". (quoted from Wikipedia).

What follows are brief excepts from the Declaration of Causes documents issued by the four previously mentioned states...

12/20/1860, South Carolina: The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due". [complaint about the North not returning escaped slaves, as per the 4th amendment's Fugitive Slave Clause].

1/19/1861, Georgia: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property... [another complaint about the North not returning escaped slaves].

2/1/1861, Texas: [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding [into the Confederated Union], maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race... a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

6/6/1861, Mississippi: ...the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...

As you can plainly see, all four documents cite slavery as the reason the state in question decided to leave the union. None cited States' Rights as a determining factor, or any kind of factor at all. The Civil War was fought because of slavery; case closed. Also, in regards to that "quote" from Ulysses S. Grant - there is serious doubt as to whether or not he actually said it.

The words have been removed from Wikiquote, with the remover giving the reason of... "I hate to admit it but Grant did not say [it]". Also, on the website Dead Confederates: A Civil War Era Blog, blog proprietor Andy Hall concludes that the quote is "given as a years-old reminiscence by a third party and printed in The Democratic Speaker's Handbook [and that no] serious person can attribute [it] as an actual quote, in good faith". (Note: "Dead Confederates" is listed on the Center for Civil War Research's resources page. The Center was established by the University of Mississippi in 2009).

Finally, in regards to the assertion by the blogger being rebutted here that "we could have done what England did and purchased the freedom of the slaves"... compensated emancipation was proposed by Lincoln in a 3/6/1862 message to Congress, but "the southern states, now in full rebellion, ignored the proposals" (source: Wikipedia).

Doesn't the fact that such a proposal was offered by Lincoln pretty much prove that the Civil War was fought over African Americans in bondage and forced servitude? I mean, here Lincoln is specifically offering a solution to the succession problem that phases out slavery. And Lincoln's message to Congress also points to that Grant quote being almost certainly false as well. Are we to believe that Grant was unaware of Lincoln's proposal? If the quote were true wouldn't Grant have resigned his commission and carried his sword to the other side? (Note: both Lincoln's message to Congress on compensated emancipation and the supposed Grant quote have a date of 1862 attached to them).

So that, I believe, pretty much debunks and refutes all (or most of) the nonsense about the Civil War not being fought because of slavery but because of tariffs or States' Rights from the blog of Will Hart. Both assertions are false and a disservice to those who seek an honest accounting of history. Because without such an honest accounting we cannot acknowledge our mistakes and learn from them - which is exactly what many who dissemble on this issue desire. They don't want us to learn from history. Their desire is that minorities should continue to be discriminated against and deprived of their voting rights.

I'm not saying this is Mr. Hart's motivation, but he surely is not a part of the solution with his recent (and numerous) Ahistorical commentaries on the subject of the Civil War and slavery.

SWTD #242. See also OST #6.

Indian Economic Liberalization Winners & Losers (Another Straw Man Courtesy of Mr. LB)

...trade liberalization... tends to benefit elites more and thus to increase income inequality ~ The WTO and the OECD (excerpt from a 2009 study, as quoted in the article Winners And Losers: The Human Costs of "Free" Trade by Peter Costantini, Huff Post World 12/14/2009).

The country of India is proof that Libertarian economics is the shiznit, or so says a Libertarian blogger in a recent commentary...

Libertarian Blogger: Back in 1991 the government of that country instituted freer trade, deregulation, privatization, and a significant change in tax policy. This is the Indian economy, folks *graph showing the Indian economy growing*. For the first 43 years of its existence it was tightly managed by government. You see what happened? And do you see what happened when they finally liberalized the sucker? Yeah, huh? (12/31/2013 at 8:42pm).

The Libertarian blogger believes this is irrefutable evidence that decreasing regulation and eliminating tariffs is key to economic success. And he posts on this subject because he thinks Progressives oppose "liberalization" and support "strong government controls". But this is just another strawman from Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart (AKA the Libertarian blogger or "Mr. LB").

But Mr. LB is wrong about Progressives. Progressives acknowledge that the private sector is key to a healthy economy. Although we do know that smart regulations and tariffs are NEEDED to protect workers (the 99+ percent that actually drive the economy) and the environment. I suspect Mr. LB favors "liberalization" because it allows the plutocrats to run roughshod over both (workers and the environment). A regulatory system that works well, isn't corrupt and protects workers and the environment should be our primary concern (not liberalization). Although "liberalization" certainly is not a bad thing (necessarily). But the two need to be balanced.

In any case, the Indian economy was not quite "liberalized". Certainly not to any kind of degree that proves or lends any credence what-so-ever to full-on Libertarian economics, as pointed out by Live Mint (India's second largest business newspaper), in an article titled "The myth of liberalization?"...

Manas Chakravarty, writing for Live Mint: Laura Alfaro of Harvard Business School and Anusha Chari of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [examined the data and found] an economy still dominated by the incumbents, state-owned firms, and to a lesser extent, the traditional private firms, that is, those firms that existed before the first wave of reforms. [The] evidence [shows] continuing incumbent control in terms of shares of assets, sales and profits accounted for by state-owned and traditional private firms. (Live Mint & The Wall Street Journal, 10/31/2009).

State control, crony capitalism, and corruption still are VERY much a part of the picture, in other words... all opposed by Progressives, BTW. So, is India a case study that proves that when Libertarian economics is adopted success follows? The answer depends on how you define success. The following Wikipedia excerpt explains the downside of Liberalization...

Wikipedia/Economic liberalization in India: Since 1992, income inequality has deepened in India with consumption among the poorest staying stable while the wealthiest generate consumption growth. As India's GDP growth rate became lowest in 2012-13 over a decade, growing merely at 5%, more criticism of India's economic reforms surfaced, as it apparently failed to address employment growth, nutritional values in terms of food intake in calories, and also exports growth - and thereby leading to a worsening level of current account deficit compared to the prior to the reform period.

So, what really happened is that the Indian government instituted limited "liberalization", and the plutocrats rushed in to take advantage of the cheap manual labor and the cheap skilled labor... provided thanks to India's socialist educational system. Wikipedia notes that "the various articles of the Indian Constitution provide for education as a fundamental right".

Wikipedia also notes that in India "the medium of education is English". This explains why so many of our White-collar jobs were outsourced to India. Under Liberalization jobs that can be outsourced go to the lowest bidder. India underbid American workers (who couldn't go lower due to a higher cost of living in the United States). Indian workers won, in that they got decent paying jobs... in the context of what the cost of living is in India (or at least some of them did) and American workers lost.

But there was another, even bigger winner... and those winners were the plutocrats (or the elites mentioned in the quote at the top of this commentary). The plutocrats are always the BIG winners under Libertarianism. But the strawman Mr. LB presents is that any country adopts Libertarian economic policies will come out ahead... and that just isn't true. India is proof of this. India experienced impressive economic growth because they were a poorer country to begin with. And the fact that their population benefits from a socialist educational system didn't hurt either.

What Libertarian economics does is pit wealthier workers against poor workers (worldwide). The wealthier workers invariably lose, and their wealth is transferred to the poorer workers... with the plutocrats as the middlemen who skim off a very healthy percentage for themselves. I don't know about you, but I think there are better ways of achieving economic success without the plutocrats taking such a very large cut for themselves.

Me, I'm thinking Fair Trade (as opposed to Free Trade) might be a part of the solution. Governments should act in the best interest of all it's citizens, instead of pitting workers against each other for the benefit of the plutocrats. This would involve us increasing our tariffs to protect American jobs (less liberalization). Impoverishing American workers so the plutocrats can become even richer is utter stupidity, IMO. But clearly Mr. LB disagrees.

SWTD #221, wDel #43.

Rebuking Chimpanzee Capitalism (Labor Offshoring)

You're helping to destroy your own country. It's one thing to make patriotic noises on the 4th of July; it's quite another to help to gut the manufacturing base of your homeland. Do you really want the rest of the country to become like Detroit? Because that's where things are headed ~ Geoffrey James, writing for the personal finance website CBS News Money Watch on 6/27/2011... this being the number 9 reason of the Top 10 Reasons Offshoring is Bad For Business.

Free trade is an awesome deal for the American people; and even if it isn't we must bend to the will of the globalizers as an act of charity to the inhabitants of third world countries. So what if we destroy good paying American jobs in the process? The low paid wage slaves in whatever country we outsource our labor to will gladly accept whatever pittance those who run the transnational corporations deign to gift them.

But, more importantly... this "charity" of ours will result in lower priced goods for us! No matter that some workers here will be screwed and our economy will suffer, LOWER PRICED GOODS for the people who still have jobs (people like a certain politically "moderate" individual I've mentioned here before) are what is important. OK, so the plutocrats will pocket the difference between the good wages they used to pay here and the low wages they can get away with paying abroad.... and make a significant amount of money in the process. But don't think about that! Think about the great charity we are doing these unfortunate people! Sure, the wages might be low and the working conditions quite often are horrific, but they should thank us, none the less.

Why should they thank us? I'm guessing it must be because these third world workers are only deserving of low wages and poor working conditions that may lead to their deaths (suicide, collapsing buildings, etc). Does this sound the least bit racist to you? How about if I told you this "Moderate" referred to this type of labor as chimpanzee jobs? Maybe not, as he is also insulting American workers in addition to foreign workers. But I think he'd call the American workers lazy for taking pride in jobs he wants to export to other countries for the benefit of the plutocrats (primarily).

Specifically this "Moderate" asked me why did I "want to chase these chimpanzee jobs that clearly can be done so much more efficiently overseas?". By "efficient" he means more cheaply. MUCH more cheaply. Do NOT tell me that isn't what he meant, because suggesting American workers are less efficient is outright bullplop. No, Mr. Hart, we all know what you meant with your code word "efficient". More "efficient" workers benefit the consumer (in his mind), which is why he then asked me, "Why do you hate the consumer so much?". But this "efficiency" also benefits the plutocrats (and MUCH more so than the consumer, who it ultimately HURTS).

This is why he'll talk up anyone who shares his misguided views on trade, as evidenced by a post he authored on 6/11/2013, titled "Kenyan Activist and Economist James Shikwati, Unplugged"...

Willis Hart (quoting Shikwati): The anti-globalization crusaders could help Africa more if they would advocate for the promotion of free trade and abolition of subsidies in the West. Lift the protective barrier in the developed countries and allow consumers to sample African products. To empower the poor economically, give them a chance to trade. (6/11/2013 AT 9:48pm).

James Shikwati is a Libertarian economist. Willis forgot to mention that. In addition to his wrong-headed views on globalization, Shikwati also says, "As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice".

Does that sound absurd? You betcha. But this type of absurdity is par for the course when it comes to Libertarians (regardless of race or nationality). University of Columbia economics professor Jeffrey D. Sachs agrees, calling "Shikwati's criticisms of foreign assistance shockingly misguided and amazingly wrong". Sachs correctly points out that "this happens to be a matter of life and death for millions of people, so getting it wrong has huge consequences".

Absolutely. But Shikwati probably doesn't care if the people of Africa suffer because he has a good job (as an economist). As far as his "activism" goes, I say he's an activist all right, an activist for the plutocrats. And I say this with some degree of confidence... because one of the personality traits Libertarians are known for is selfishness.

Those who worship at the altar of the "great" Ayn Rand are convinced that selfishness is a virtue! This explains why the Hartster strongly identifies with Libertarian economics... and adheres to the Libertarian philosophy of "survival of the fittest and screw the poor because they only have themselves to blame... but we'll use them as slave labor to enrich ourselves and call it charity". You KNOW at least some of them have to be laughing about that!

Harsh? No, I think not. These neoliberals (the true believing ones) delude themselves with fictions of it being charitable of us to export good paying American jobs to impoverished nations, but it's total baloney. I'm not opposed to trade. I am actually a strong supporter of trade. What I oppose is that which we call "free trade", but in reality isn't trade at all. Free trade is actually labor offshoring... The large transnational corporations exploiting the workers of poor countries to line their pockets.

I SUPPORT trading with manufacturers located in other nations. Manufacturers that are homegrown and pay living wages, and not simply huge transnationals that are USING a foreign country to exploit it's workers who are so desperate they will work for a pittance and under horrific conditions. THAT is the real debate. But corporate stooges like James Shikwati misrepresent that argument by LYING about the developed nations having a "protective barrier" that does not allow them to "sample African products".

That is complete nonsense. I'm ALL FOR allowing the importation of "African products". I'm OPPOSED to products that used to be made in America being imported sans tariff from any country where the workers are paid low wages (and thereby destroying America Jobs). Fools like Willis supports this when they present the words of Libertarian economists and say "looky here. Listen to the words of a highly educated person who agrees with me". Especially this Libertarian, who Willis clearly believes has authority to speak on the subject, seeing that he is from Africa. But he parrots the same Libertarian garbage as all the other Libertarian economists. Shikwati is no different then them at all.

It is the greedy "Chimpanzee Capitalism" championed by Libertarians we can blame when factories collapse and workers die (for example). A 6/3/2013 Guardian article says "majority of Bangladesh garment factories vulnerable to collapse". A MAJORITY.

Also, remember the Foxconn suicides? Foxconn is a Taiwanese multinational electronics contract manufacturing company that churns out products for companies like Apple, Dell, HP, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, and Sony. They exploit Chinese laborers to enrich themselves. Working conditions got so bad that "employees attempted suicide with fourteen deaths; many after working longer than 72 hours with no breaks".

And the Foxconn example is hardly unique. All around the world workers in developing nations are being exploited by transnational corporations for the benefit of the plutocrats... aided by Libertarian economists and the stooges who wittingly or unwittingly propagate their labor offshoring masquerading as "free trade" bunk. I say it is bad for the economies of both developed and developing nations - and we need tariffs to deal curb this abuse. Tariffs that will protect American jobs and greatly benefit our economy.

The "free traders" warn the result will be higher prices, but this is also largely bunk. Reduced outsourcing means more jobs and more economic activity when those workers spend their wages on goods and services. More economic activity gives us a healthier economy that leads to higher wages for all. The prices of goods may rise a little, but we'll all have more money thanks to the increased economic activity. This would be a TRUE case of a rising tide lifts all boats.

When Conservatives use the phrase it's to justify tax cuts for the wealthy, but tax cuts for the wealthy BENEFIT THE WEALTHY, not the rest of us... just like labor offshoring primarily benefits the wealthy and not the rest of us.

SWTD #165, wDel #29.