Radical Right Wing TX Judge Tries To Smite Obamacare - Will He Succeed?

By now,  most citizens are aware of the news that a radical right wing nut masquerading as a federal judge -  Reed O’Connor -   has issued a ruling to strike down all aspects of the ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare.   Well, we already knew Texas was the home of right wing assassins who plotted (and succeeded)  in taking out JFK in Big D, but who would have reckoned that some 55 years later a  right wing Texas judicial assassin would try to take out 133 million Americans?  Because effectively, all those millions will be left without a medical pot to piss in if this travesty is upheld.

Let's reference that in historical memory the Right's zealots have always bitched about the Left's "activist judges" who they somehow believe constantly interject themselves to settle political disputes best left to congress.   But I warrant not one of the Right's wackos will so much as whisper criticism of this rogue judge who - in the words of two law professors writing in the NY Times-  has conducted "an exercise of raw judicial power, unmoored from the relevant doctrines concerning when judges may strike down a whole law because of a single alleged legal infirmity buried within."

Yet this asshole, another of the extremist mutants  (along with Brett Kavanaugh) inserted into the federal bench by Gee Dumbya Bush, did it.  To grasp what's going on we need to take a stroll down memory lane as regards the ACA, especially in the past year and a half. As readers may recall, the Reeptards were hell bent - following Traitor Dotard's lead - to repeal the entire law. They wanted it more than anything on God's green earth, and actually came within one vote of succeeding in the Senate.

This was by way of what came to be known as "the skinny repeal".  This would have eliminated the individual mandate, the least popular provision of the ACA that requires all Americans to have health insurance or face a fine. It would also remove the employer mandate, requiring certain businesses to provide health insurance to employees, as well as a tax on medical device manufacturers. But, more importantly, it would not touch the Medicaid program for the poor (hence the 'skinny' aspect) .  Bear in mind here that one of the key bases of the ACA was Medicaid expansion in dozens of states.

If this measure had passed the Senate with a simple majority, it would then have entered a conference committee with the House, where Republicans could have reconciled the differences and produced a larger repeal-and-replace measure . (Most likely including Medicaid.)  They could immediately claim 'victory' and that they succeeded in what they set out to do: repeal Obamacare (at least minimally).

This did not happen because Sen. John McCain entered the Senate chamber at the last minute and cast the deciding 'no' vote, killing the cynical skinny repeal effort. The Repukes never forgave or forgot this betrayal, and most regarded McCain as a latter day Benedict Arnold.

Long story short, unable to get the votes to repeal the entire law, the Reeptard Congress just zeroed in on  the tax  penalty, aiming to eliminate it. Again, recall that in 2012 the Supreme Court upheld this penalty as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.   Justice Roberts, in fact, wrote the decision for the five justices in favor.

Backed into a corner like rats, the Repukes did the only other thing they could, fabricate a specious lawsuit to kill the tax penalty.  Given the traitor Trump administration refused to stand up for any part of the law - even cutting back funding for advertising the ACA-  all that was needed to upend it was one renegade  judge to rule against it.  In such an event the whole thing would come crashing down, including the popular parts, i.e. youngsters able to stay on their parents' plan until age 26, and protection for those with preexisting conditions.

Well, the Repukes got their wishes fulfilled when loose cannon judge Reed O'Connor ruled the ACA was "unconstitutional"  and hence the whole law needed to come down.  Right wing screwballs salivating to take down yet another Obama legacy point had endless wet dreams.

 The rest as they say is history, with Texas and and 19 other Reep- dominated states arguing in their junk lawsuit that with zero penalty, the mandate lacked a constitutional basis because it could no longer be enforced via a tax.   The little element they appeared to forget is that under the ninth amendment, health care is a right, one of what we call unenumerated rights of the Bill of the Rights. They forgot that tax penalty or no tax penalty, mandate or not,  you cannot repeal a right using a subterfuge such as invoked by this idiot judge.

But compounding their hubris and disrespect for the ninth amendment-    the  20 rogue states (and the Texas renegade judge O’Connor )   argued  -  that the rest of Obamacare must fall, too. They claimed that the mandate was so central to the A.C.A. that nothing else in it could operate without it.  Of course this is nonsense, because the whole edifice is predicated on health care being an unenumerated right under the ninth amendment. So merely dispatching the tax penalty from the law is immaterial to the centrality of the right.  The right still stands, even if there is no tax penalty.  Indeed, the inference is that the optimal way to validate the right is to maximize health care for all, which would be a single payer system.

Further, the U.S. is a signatory to a 1994 UN Declaration that health care is indeed a right.  But there is a more technical legal basis on which the judge's ruling can also be rejected. It was articulated by two law professors- Jonathan Adler and Abbie Gluck- writing in the NY Times three days ago.   According to the pair:

"That’s not how the relevant law works. An established legal principle called “severability” is triggered when a court must consider what happens to a statute when one part of it is struck down. The principle presumes that, out of respect for the separation of powers, courts will leave the rest of the statute standing unless Congress makes clear it did not intend for the law to exist without the challenged provision. This is not a liberal principle or a conservative principle. It is an uncontroversial rule that every Supreme Court justice in modern history has applied.

Sometimes severability cases are difficult because it is hard to guess how much importance Congress attributed to one provision, especially in a lengthy law like the Affordable Care Act. But this is an easy case: It was Congress, not a court, that eliminated the mandate penalty and left the rest of the statute in place. How can a court conclude that Congress never intended the rest of the statute to exist without an operational mandate, when it was the 2017 Congress itself that decided it was fine to eliminate the penalty and leave the rest of the law intact?"

The pair went on to note that in his vapid  55-page opinion  O’Connor claimed that we  "cannot divine the intent of the 2017 Congress because Congress didn’t have the votes to repeal the entire law but wished it could".   But as they retort:

"That’s ridiculous. Congressional intent is all about the votes. One would not say Congress wished it could repeal the Civil Rights Act if only a minority of Congress supported such a move. It is conservative judicial doctrine 101, as repeatedly emphasized by Justice Antonin Scalia, that the best way to understand congressional intent is to look at the text Congress was able to get through the legislative process."

Profs. Adler and Gluck then ruminate on what happens next, asserting that,  despite this reckless ruling,  the ACA is likely to continue in place while the case moves to the higher courts.   They predict that  the appeal will almost certainly end up in the Fifth Circuit — the federal appellate court that presides over Texas-  with California and other states defending it.   The Dem-controlled  House of Representatives will also likely join the lawsuit, and I would not exclude the possibility of Reed O'Connor being subpoenaed  before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions on his decision.  It's possible!

If the Fifth Circuit reverses Renegade Reed O’Connor, the authors think it unlikely the Supreme Court will take the case.  Why would they when the Supremes already supported the law (including the mandate)  back in 2012?  If the Fifth Circuit upholds the ruling, possible with two new activist justices (Gorsuch and Kavanagh) the authors are skeptical a majority of the  highest court would sustain this weak analysis.  Besides, it would roil the insurance markets and whole health care system as 20 million Americans would lose their health care, while premiums could rise as much as 25 percent for others, according to the analysis on CBS Early Show this a.m. by financial specialist Jill Schlesinger.

On the other hand, as Ms. Schlesinger pointed out, this ruling doesn't change anything for your coverage during 2019 IF you already enrolled.  She also added, for those who haven't decided whether or not to enroll yet:

"If you are considering this, don't listen to this and say 'oh, I shouldn't enroll'. You absolutely should enroll, and again, your coverage will be intact for 2019."

Let's also note, as the  law profs have, that Chief Justice John Roberts is sensitive to allowing the court to be an instrument of politics, particularly when doing so violates separation of powers. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is an expert on statutory interpretation who has previously said that courts should “sever an offending provision from the statute to the narrowest extent possible unless Congress has indicated otherwise in the text of the statute.”

Hell, even the least qualified supreme, Clarence Thomas,  has opined that the kind of hypothesizing on which O’Connor relied is inappropriate:.  Congress’s intentions “do not count,” he wrote earlier this year, unless they are “enshrined” in a text that made it through the “constitutional processes of bicameralism and presentment”.

Even the reactionary WSJ editorial writers agree that O'Connor blew it ('Texas ObamaCare Blunder', p. A16, today) noting  "this judge's ruling will be overturned and could backfire on Republicans" adding:

"When judging congressional intent, a  judge must account for the amending congress as well the original congress..... In any case, the Supreme Court's severability doctrine calls for restraint in declaring an entire law illegal merely because one part of it is"  

Whatever the outcome, this issue has already become a political nightmare for the 'pukes, -even forcing them to go on the campaign trail before the midterms and posture and lie about keeping the best parts of the ACA.  Of course, they were disingenuous to the core given most of these hypocrites had signed onto the lawsuit attacking the ACA even as they vowed to keep the most important provisions, such as allowing preexisting conditions.

And the Kaiser Family Foundation has since found in its latest poll that fully 65 percent of Americans believe "it's very important"  that insurers don't deny Americans coverage based on their health.

Another little aspect neglected: Repukes have yet to come up with a viable replacement for the ACA.  A key aspect they omit is that a mandate is needed for any feasible insurance plan, given that costs can only be controlled if the young and healthy are pooled with the old, sick and unhealthy..  But with no mandate and no penalty there is no reason for the young and healthy to comply.   Then insurers are stuck with a vastly sicker and more expensive consumer base.

In the end the Reeptards and this Reeptardo renegade judge are hoist on their own petards.  So is Dotard Donnie who bragged while lollygagging at Mar-a-lago how "great" this judge's decision is, and oh "we will now have a great health care system".   Sorry, fool, those are two contradictory notions. Given the country's skittishness concerning "socialized" single payer health care, Obamacare is the next best option and every manjack with an IQ over room temperature digits knows it.  Well, except Trump and his lackey judge in Texas.  As the WSJ editorial writers put it (ibid.): "Trump hailed the ruling in a tweet, but he has never understood the Affordable Care Act."

Begging the question: Does this fungal mutt fouling the Oval Office really understand anything?  I doubt it!

See also:

• Republicans freak out over Obamacare decision, with Pelosi and Schumer promising to bring the pain

AND:

read more | Jaime O'Neill's blog | 1 comment | 1 new comment | Rate it | 176 reads

Bill Blum

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Healthcare Policy

Trump and the GOP Will Live to Regret the Obamacare Repeal Ruling

Donald Trump

America in Tatters

by P.M. Carpenter | December 16, 2018 - 7:14am | permalink

Cartoonist Scott Adams Sings an Ode To Dotard's Tweets As 1st Indictment Comes Down

"Hey, I think I'll ditch Dilbert and Use Twitter Troll instead!"

It's really iritating to see a creative guy with some artistic talent (Scott Adams, creator of the 'Dilbert' comic  strip) come to the point of admiring garbage.  It's in some ways analogous to seeing a prof praising Dotard's tweets as fine literature or one's  mechanical engineer  relative demoted to running a landfill.  But how else explain Adams' recent gushing WSJ piece:  "The Power of the Presidential Tweet" wherein he actually writes:

"I'm often impressed by how much work President Trump gets out of his tweets"

Going on to give a number of useless examples, which merely confirm Dotard is an ignorant, half-educated twit. At least Scott is correct when he writes "most are forgettable" - as retweets (but I emphatically disagree they are all "harmless") But then he dives off the deep end by writing

"The good ones are entirely different, and many are gems of persuasion".

Huh? Gems of persuasion? What blend of MJ has this guy been mixing with his vodka cocktails?   NONE of them are "gems of persuasion" but rather regurgitated (most from FAUX News) dreck, and toxic verbal detritus.  Recall back on Saturday, March 4th, Dotard erupted on Twitter when he  launched a series of tweets that began at 5.35am. In one he wrote: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

Far from showing any "humor" or "persuasion" it showed an unhinged nitwit. None of his other alleged "masterpieces" were any better quality, and why should they have been given any communication medium that reduces thought to 140 characters is more verbal cartoon than adult, rational communication.

Perhaps the epitome of "verbal looseness"  was embodied in his  reckless December tweet on expanding U.S.  nuclear capacity, e.g.

"We need to strengthen and expand nuclear capacity until the world comes to its sense regarding nukes."

What the hell was he yapping about anyway? Expand nuclear capacity? Is he nuts, ignorant or just stupid? As a number of strategic analysts have pointed out, including staff from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the U.S. already has just under 5,000 nuclear warheads in its active arsenal and more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. This is more than enough to turn the world to ash about six times over.

Meanwhile the clueless media, especially on TV, kept showing the tweet on large HD screens in bold relief as they scratched their heads. WHY give this degenerate's expulsions any attention at all? They aren't worthy of being put up on the walls of a dump rest room on Skid Row.

But does one really need an I.Q. higher than a hamster's to grasp that tweets  (and most texts) are an inappropriate medium for making nuclear policy?  Must it really be spelled out for the likes of Scott Adams - or is he that much in Dotard's deranged wheel house that his brains are scrambled? Inquiring minds want to know.

Then there was the Dotard tweet attack on Mika Brzezinski ,  with the twisted little maggot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue unleashing his unseemly vitriol on a woman who merely expressed an opinion on his chronic chaos and inability to focus..See the rant here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhhXtCkt9CE

Most recently Dotard, true to form,  barked in tweets over the weekend about the "Dems evil political witch hunt" in respect of the Mueller Trump -Russia investigation. Less than 24 hrs. later we've learned Paul Manafort (Trump's campaign chair)  has been the one charged -indicted along with his sidekick Rick Gates. Manafort's been charged with 12 counts including funneling $75 million through offshore accounts and laundering $18 million. Once that news erupted this a.m., a pall of utter silence finally descended on Trump Twitterdom.  With good reason, as even Dotard's lawyer Ty Cobb would have warned him "when you're in a hole,  stop digging".

While it is true Manafort has been charged with a series of "paper crimes",  they are not in any way minor charges, Failure to register as a foreign agent (when lobbying) is serious as is failing to faithfully complete federal financial forms. Any one of these  - such as money laundering -could earn Manafort up to 20 years in the tank.   The skinny - according to legal specialist Jan Crawford on CBS this morning - is that sitting in an FBI office and being grilled and informed about the penalties, will get a normal guy to crack.  If he cracks it generally loosens his lips to blab on others, to save his own heinie.  This is what could open the floodgates to bring down the rest of Trump's cabal.

Scott Adams should take notice as a confirmed Dotard groupie.

The Trump attacks on the Dems and Bob Mueller's investigation merely herald the latest of an ongoing barrage of tweets directed at assorted targets, including Hillary Clinton, San Juan's Mayor, NFL players, Bob Corker, John McCain, ESPN's Jemele Hiil, Frederica Wilson and numerous others. In the entirety the Dotard's contemptible tweets have represented an ongoing degradation in the level of civil discourse which has now shown up in how Americans perceive the nation's political scene.

According to a University of Maryland- Washington Post poll - conducted nine months into Trump's presidency - 7 in 10 Americans concur that the current divisions are the biggest since the Vietnam War. In addition, 6 in 10 agree that Trump's presidency is making the U.S. political system more dysfunctional.  This dysfunction has manifested as a widespread distrust particularly in Dotard who is now regarded as an "idiot" by nearly one -third of citizens.

This didn't happen by coincidence but seeing Trump's endless stream of disgusting, disparaging tweets which are neither humorous nor persuasive in contrast to Mr. Adams' nauseating ode to the Twitter Troll.  In truth no poll should be needed to expose the starkly pessimistic view of the U.S. most of its citizens have as well as the rest of the civilized world.  That world wonders what bottom pit we've descended into. A pit revealing a rampant distrust of the nation's political leaders and especially the "leader" who's often compared to a clown or an imbecile.

After all, since the Dotard's arrival in January there has been nearly a perfect correlation between the low quality, frequency of his tweets and the increasing American belief that politics has reached a dangerous low point. Of course this would be the case given the nature of the "presidential tweet" as the most debased and crass form of communication - lacking any semblance of decorum. Worse, many now believe we've reached a new normal. A normal in which truth is no longer accepted as a fundamental value, given how Dotard's compulsive, pathological lying has undermined it at every turn and with each tweet.  Does Scott Adams value truth? One wonders given most of his strips concern a cynical and clueless CEO (with 'devil horn -shaped' hair) who incessantly lies to his employees (like Dilbert) in order to protect his misbegotten company at all costs.

As one WSJ writer put it (Oct. 27-28):

"Adams op-ed quickly reveals the value-free of his boundless adulation for Trump by what it doesn't say. There is no mention of the word 'truth'. There is a single use of the word 'true' but only in the context of whether one can imagine a world in which Jemele Hill is 'bad' for ESPN.."

And, of course, Jemele Hill represented another target for attack by the impostor in chief.

Another writer with letter appearing on the same page:

"Missing from Scott Adams' ode to Trump's persuasiveness is any evidence that Mr. Trump has yet to actually persuade anyone.. Despite 1,000-plus tweets since the election, the president's approval rating hovers below - not above-  his election margin."

Instead of being nonplussed at how much "work" Trump is getting out of his tweets, Adams ought to be worried at how much vitriol, dissension and hate is expelled - and which is ripping this nation's seams apart.  Perhaps when Scott Adams is finished cranking out 'Dilbert' comic strips he has another promising venture to look forward to:  Dotard J. Pussygrabber's hagiographer.

In the meantime, the indictment of one of Trump's campaign advisors - though the Trumpies deny any major influence- ought to have Dotard shutting down his Twitter account for now.  Oops, I see that silence didn't last long. The Twitter troll is at it again bawling: "Why aren't Crooked Hillary and the Dems the focus? There is no collusion????"  Attempting the red herring deflection engineered by Devin Nunes and FAUX news to steer the issues to the other side, via an HRC- uranium and Fusion GPS -Dem conspiracy, Don't hold your breath, Donald Dotard, Mueller will not be sidetracked or distracted by BS.

• Read the Indictment (PDF)

Fire, Fury and Foolishness - How The Psycho Putz Could Get Us Into A Nuclear War

We all mostly suspected Drumpf was insane, but his bombastic, ignorant rhetoric yesterday proved it beyond a doubt and showed why this screwball needs to be put into a straitjacket asap. His blabbering about raining "fire and fury ...the likes of which have never been seen before"  emulated Kim Jong Un himself. As one commentator put it "it was as if Trump looked at himself in the mirror and saw Kim Jong Un""   The problem is that this game is deadly serious and even had former Col.  Lawrence Wilkerson, saying that he's frightened - given our commander-in -chief has no sense, and basically controls the nuclear codes.

That this cockeyed numskull already (yesterday morning)  leaked classified satellite information (to do with spotting N. Korean patrol boats)  in a retweet on 'Fox 'n Friends' was bad enough. It confirmed his unreliability as a leader as well as his lack of judgment and instability.  He is, basically, not a man to be trusted and certainly not in a major crisis such as we are facing now. Indeed, 61 percent in a recent poll expressed unease in "Dump's" ability to deal with North Korea. In most other nations such a vote of no confidence would see him replaced.

Sadly, not even his new "minder"-  Gen. Kelly - was able to stop this crazy fool from engaging his Twitter account and - as noted on 'Morning Joe' - jeopardizing U.S. assets and methods.

Then, ensconced at his vacation getaway club at Bedminster, NJ Trump told journalists

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States, They will be met with fire and the fury like the world has never seen.”

In other words, this certifiable maniac is vowing nuclear retribution against the North Koreans merely for making threats.   Try to process that, and the level of mental derangement and lack of judgment to make such a remark, broadcast worldwide.  In the wake of this monkey's performance John McCain told an Arizona radio station:

"I don’t know what he’s saying and I’ve long ago given up trying to interpret what he says. That kind of rhetoric, I’m not sure how it helps.”

Well, that's the point! It doesn't help, only further fuels the crisis and ramps up the temperature.

As I posted earlier, this hotheaded maggot doesn't possess the skill, background historical knowledge or intelligence to steer clear of a conflagration with a nuclear state that would unleash a pitiless assault not on the U.S. (which is currently too far away to strike with a functioning ICBM) but on its South Korean ally. Specifically, the 25 million citizens of Seoul, the "most densely populated city on Earth."

When asked in an MSNBC interview back in April  if Trump would actually attack North Korea, former CIA North Korea specialist Sue Mi Terry responded:

 “I can’t see him following through on this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy. Because you’re putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

 North Korea is not Syria. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s going to have very devastating consequences.  North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within 100 kilometers (60 miles) of the DMZ.  And there’s twenty thousand U.S. military in South Korea and twenty million people in Seoul”

Other experts on North Korea have also warned that this aggressive rhetoric could backfire on Trump, convincing Kim Jong-Un that his regime is in imminent jeopardy and triggering what he sees as a pre-emptive attack.  This is the biggest danger. Given the North is all about survival, anything perceived as an imminent threat to that survival would unleash all their weapons in a last ditch preemptive attack. If the U.S. then responded with a full scale nuclear response to obliterate the totalitarian state it could also draw in the Chinese and even the Russians. At the end we could be looking at a full, all- out thermonuclear war with more than 9,500 hydrogen weapons exchanged.

Daryl Kimball, the head of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said - in response to Trump's reckless rhetoric:

“It is dangerous and reckless and counterproductive for Donald Trump to threaten the annihilation of North Korea. What we need is a dialogue to reduce tension and avoid catastrophic miscalculation. We are currently on the road to a conflict and we have to get to the off-ramp.”

The North Korean regime quickly responded, matching Trump’s bellicosity by saying it was “carefully examining” a plan for a missile strike on the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam. In a separate statement, a military official was quoted as saying Pyongyang could carry out a "pre-emptive operation if the US showed signs of provocation”.

And there we have the linchpin to massive nuclear war, if one side misjudges the intentions of the other.

National security advisor H.R. McMaster has said that the administration is weighing all options, including a “preventative war”.

 

North Korean ICBM test. The Defense Intelligence Agency now confirms the North has miniaturized nuclear warheads to fit atop the missile.

 

East Asia nuclear non-proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis argues it is already too late for that, quoted in the UK Guardian as saying:
“The pre- in preventative means ‘before’,If you start the preventative war after they have the nuclear ICBM’s, it’s just a regular old nuclear war.”

Lest people not take this seriously, the Pentagon - as reported last night - is already trying to prepare military options for Trump. All of this is under the rubric of "preventative war"  Three days ago in the WSJ John Bolton actually presented these "options".   It is as if the military is prepared to back Trump at the expense of the 25 million in Seoul and environs. Presumably they will be "collateral damage" if the lunatic gets his way.  Where is the sanity? Let's recall also that last year the same military minds were appalled when Trump asked: "If we have nuclear weapons why can't we use them?"   Gen. Michael Hayden actually responded that the current U.S. nuclear response system is no longer constructed for deliberation but "rapid and effective" action. In other words, once a decision to launch is made, it's all over.

The last time we came this close  to nuclear catastrophe was in October, 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis. On October 27, 1962 U2 pilot Rudolph Andersen Jr. conducted a reconnaissance flight over Cuba when he was targeted and shot down by two Soviet SA2 surface to air missiles. The Cubans and Russians had fired the first shot in the drawn out Missile crisis (now in its 12th day) and the Joint Chiefs pressured JFK to strike back - with air strikes.  Kennedy, however, correctly suspected that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had not authorized the downing of unarmed reconnaissance planes, and he didn’t want to abandon diplomacy. He resisted the Joint Chiefs - especially Gen. Curtis Lemay (who actually had the temerity to compare him to Neville Chamberlain) which is why we can discuss the events today.

It is not at all clear that Trump possesses anywhere near the sobriety and sense of JFK. Which also means it is not at all evident that he can avoid getting us into a nuclear war.  Maybe in this case, one of Trump's generals (Kelly?) will pull the nuclear football out of his hands before he can do final disastrous damage.

Or at least we can hope

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/lawrence-wittner/74496/playing-nuclear-chicken-with-our-lives

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-stanton/74499/trump-s-psychopathy-threatens-the-internal-stability-of-the-united-states-and-the-world

And:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345961-ex-gop-senator-trump-is-sick-of-mind-should-be-removed-from-office

Clapper & Spymasters Expose Trump As A Fool And A Fraud

"For a President not to be prepared to listen to the myriad of intelligence agencies - from defense intelligence to the CIA - is absolutely mindless" - VP Joe Biden yesterday.

Note the use of Biden's term "mindless" in the above quote which actually may be way too generous. It implies a person mentally vacant for a given task at hand, or job, say like an Alzheimer's victim. But there are many reasons to believe Donald J. Trump isn't mindless, he is simply using his mind in devious ways to undermine the intelligence community and security of this country.  Even if a person might originally have been tempted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in terms of denying the veracity of intelligence reports the past few weeks, yesterday's Senate hearing ought to have quashed that once and for all.

In fact, DNI James Clapper and his fellow spymasters (the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence,  and Director of the National Security Agency) all delivered testimony basically revealing Trump as a fraud, a fool and in no way qualified to hold the office of dog catcher- far less leader of the world's most powerful nation.

Mincing no words, National Intelligence Director James Clapper bluntly stated: "There’s a difference between skepticism and disparagement,”  skewering the Trumpian nonsense that his hesitance to accept the intelligence community's findings was mere "skepticism".

Clapper told a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing into foreign cyber-threats (headed  by Sen. John McCain)  to the US  that intelligence analysts “stand more resolutely” than ever behind their conclusion of “Russian interference in our electoral process”.

The testimony was delivered before Clapper and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI are expected to present their findings on Russian election interference to Trump today, in his Trump Tower redoubt. Asked by Lindsey Graham if he was ready to take on Trump  today, Clapper didn't hesitate, saying "Absolutely!".

The meet with the clown Trump, who has repeatedly scoffed at the hacking claims from the intelligence community, is likely to be highly charged. How can it not be given that Trump the  tweeting troll has all but left the nation's spymasters incredulous at the spectacle of his sheer foolish claims including "I know things other people don't know about hacking".   Thereby leaving the intel community not only in disbelief but hung out to dry with his off the cuff BS and dismissive tweets. (Which VP Biden admonished him to cease saying "Grow up, Donald!")

Indeed, this lout and loon has publicly derided the agencies on the hacking issue.  Also, as reported yesterday (MSNBC) the spymasters are so worried that Trump won't accept their final report that they called members of congress asking them for public support.  They are also clearly worried that Trump this week actually cited a denial by Julian Assange of WikiLeaks that his source for Democratic party emails released during the election was the Russian government or “a state party”.

In the wake of such unfathomable disparagement of their work,  both Clapper and Admiral Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, expressed concerns about intelligence analysts’ morale with Rogers suggesting some may quit.  Many in private have confided that having to deal with such a soon to be leader of the putative free world, has shaken them to their core.

And why not? They will within 2 weeks be under the control of a totally unqualified buffoon who has no more regard for this country than the quality of the crap he sells in the assorted boutiques of Trump Tower.

As 'Exhibit A' one can cite Trump’s confidence in WikiLeaks which has shocked and angered intelligence analysts, who consider Assange at minimum a dupe, and at most a willing tool of Putin. Clapper and Rogers testified they believe Assange has no credibility. “I don’t think those of us in the intelligence community have a whole lot of respect for him,” said Clapper. Then On Thursday morning, Trump denied he was “in agreement” with Assange, tweeting: “I simply state what he states, it is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth.”    But this is too clever by half, and way too coy, even for a president- elect with the impulse control of a three year old.

For one thing, if he took the intelligence community seriously he would not be dignifying the words of a person regarded as a hostile actor or used actor by most intel insiders. The very fact he would state what Assange states discloses he places Assange's words on a par with that of James Clapper and the intel directors. What's wrong with this picture? Well, everything!

If one trusts and accepts the reports - including daily briefs - of the intelligence analysts, then that must be mutually exclusive with accepting the words of a person they consider a hostile actor. Trump like any three year old merely tries to show he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Asked about morale within the intelligence agencies in the wake of Trump’s comments, Clapper said: “I haven’t done a climate survey, but I hardly think it helps it.” Rogers said the “confidence of our leaders” helps motivate intelligence officers, “and without that confidence, I just don’t want a situation where our workforce decides to walk, because that’s not a good place for us to be”.

Even more sobering, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the proposal, Trump is considering diminishing the director of national intelligence and even getting rid of it. This move, according to the head of the 9/11 Commission, would leave this nation even more vulnerable to outside attacks by hostiles, including terrorists.

Does Trump care? I seriously doubt it. He likely cares more about kickbacks and money coming in from foreign visitors to his Trump Hotel in D.C.

Maybe the capper on the whole sordid interlude is that the Russkies were evidently elated by the Trump win, see e.g.

[U.S. intercepts capture senior Russian officials celebrating Trump win ]

Something that ought to make every American cringe is that two top intelligence officials, as reported last night on NBC, have revealed Russian cyber attacks against not only the DNC, but the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and even American companies.   Translation: We are soon to be in the maw of an administration that is friendly with the foreign entity responsible and with a "fellow traveler" holding the top position in the nation.

Instead of seriously dealing with the findings of the report, Trump blabbered in a tweet 'Who gave them this report? Politics!"  Actually no, reality!   But this is the sort of response one might expect from a fellow traveler.The better question is HOW does Trump know things about this recent hacking that no other sources do?  Does he therefore have inside information on how the hack of the DNC was done? Is it really a "fat man on a bed in New Jersey"? Or, maybe Trump himself?

Evan McMullen, former CIA analyst put it in blunt terms on MSNBC 'All In' last night, after Alabama GOOP Rep. Mo Brooks couldn't answer a simple question on whether it was more important to believe Julian Assange or  U.S. Intelligence professionals:

"It's absolutely unfathomable to me that we even have a question about whether we trust our intelligence professionals over an anti-American activist supported by Russia"

Unfathomable though it may be, it is even more so that Trump's followers and voters will likely see absolutely nothing wrong with anything he's done. The "banality of evil" as I referred to Hanna Arendt's perspective in yesterday's post.

WSJ Provides A Reality Check For Trump And His "Paranoid-Style" Groupies

Trump screams at his followers to "punch the hell out of those bums" at a recent rally.

 Let us accept the proposition that Donald Trump (aka Donald Drumpf) is roughly the equivalent of a five year old pitching a fit in order to inflate his self esteem as Bill Maher portrayed him Friday night. As a corollary we can regard his supporters as also five year olds, or perhaps as Peggy Noonan  recently described them in her WSJ 'Declarations' column (March 19, A13):

"Maybe, to be charitable, a lot of Mr. Trump's supporters are 14 year old boys acting out on their mom's computer while she works her second shift"

Which occurs when you behold their over use of f-bombs and the like in their assorted blog screeds and tweets and especially the need to find scapegoats wherever they can, whether in immigrants,, "rag heads", Obummer "apes", "Bernie's  Gestapo", "Killary Feminazis" or sundry others they blame for wrecking Trump's assorted rallies. But funny thing, they never ever blame their Hitlerite hero himself for drawing this negative blowback by the use of violent language and even regarding it as some kind of "entertainment". ("This is fun! A lot better than a boring ol' rally!")

Thus Noonan's subsequent comment (ibid.):

"America is an imperfect country populated by imperfect people, but there would be a reason Mr. Trump draws the particular kind of garbage he draws, what is it?"

Well, it was once accurately described by historian Richard Hofstadter in his book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics as a streak of nasty, angry, scapegoating paranoia that's been seeded almost from the time of the nation's founding.  Many believed it had reached its apotheosis in the McCarthy commie witch hunts of the 1950s. (See the excellent movie 'Trumbo', starring Brian Cranston, to gain an insight.)

At that time the American Right was so paranoid about commies infiltrating the country and hiding under bedroom community beds that it even led to  TOPPS "Know Your Communists" trading cards, e.g..


 The aim was to inculcate ‘Communist Recognition’ in children  from 8- 10 years of age and get them to hate this system even before they knew what it was about. The garish depictions, such as that shown of Mao Tse-Tung with ghoulish green face, helped to reinforce the propaganda.   Hysteria grew as an admixture as grade schoolers - like I was in 1952 - had to duck under desks in regular drills to "escape the fallout from Communist atomic bombs". Oh, and btw, did you know commie H-bombs were much more devastating than the 'Murican variety?

"Commies" then - like Muslims now-  were the "devils" of the 1950s and even the 1960s as the term was unloaded  - usually by John Birchers - on any relatively liberal person and even John F. Kennedy. He came under suspicion first on account of making a hidden deal with Nikita Khrushchev to end the Cuban Missile crisis in October, 1962. (That was to remove all the Jupiter missiles from Turkey six months after the Russians removed theirs from Cuba.)  Then, in August, 1963, Kennedy signed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, also with Khrushchev. The Right went ape shit because it included bans on anti-missile defense systems. Third, JFK signed NSAM 263 to pull all personnel out of Viet Nam by 1965.  That definitely put him in commie territory as he ignored the "domino theory" circulating at the time.

But Kennedy's biggest faux pas - certainly to the then CIA and security state- was initiating a rapprochement with Fidel Castro. That probably sealed his fate as a "commie'" that had to be killed, by the same CIA that learned of it (the public didn't until decades later).

All this, as Hofstadter noted, served to spur on the "paranoid style". As he wrote then (ca.1964):

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority.


 But unknown to him, that presumed apotheosis was a mirage. In fact, it was postponed until the much later incarnation we're seeing now with the rise of Trumpism. No longer is this breed of paranoia confined to a radical right nut like Barry Goldwater - who had zero chance of winning the WH in 1964 anyway-  but to a brash, loudmouth demagogue who has already compiled so many delegates in primaries he could well nail the Reep nomination and also gain the White House.

Hence, it was gratifying to read a WSJ editorial ('A Trump Reality Check', Mar 18, p. A10) that put Trump's so called successes in perspective, not only for this wannabe Hitler but for his groupies too. Imagine if the Weimar German press, ca Jan. 1932, had delineated such a reality check on Adolf Hitler and his rabble rousing anti-Semitic, anti-Socialist, anti-Communist rants, and how that might have altered the outcome of the German elections that year and the next. Hitler, btw, always boasted he had used Weimar Democracy itself to gain power, after which he destroyed that democracy via the 1933 "Enabling Act" ( Ermächtigungsgesetz ) that dissolved the Reichstag and turned all its powers to the newly formed Reich government.

The WSJ editorial notes for example, that despite his claim to be "unstoppable" his actual numbers to date show him to be the "weakest Republican front runner since Gerald Ford in 1976."

For example, the Journal notes that by mid -March of 2012,  Mitt Romney "had carried the popular vote in 21 states and won 57 percent of the delegates."

By comparison, Trump "has 18 states and 47 percent of delegates" - not very unstoppable when one does the comparison. So one has to wonder how it his that the Trumpsters are so worked up  - even dissing on Mitt now - when their own guy is still three states behind and ten percentage point in delegate differential.

Are Trumpies' paranoid delusions messing up their brains? The argument of a divided field sucking up Trump's extra votes also doesn't wash because, as the WSJ notes: Romney "was in a three way race with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich with Ron Paul also nabbing votes"

Adding:

"John McCain in 2008 was even more of a consensus pick ...by this point the Senator had won 24 states and 59 % of allocated delegates."

The WSJ goes on to point out Trump "has fervent support but equally passionate opposition among Republicans", noting his "net favorable rating in the  GOP is only 22 percent" (That is, the share of people with positive views minus those with negative views).

Going on to single out the Real Clear Politics polling average which shows twice as many adults have negative views (61%) as positive (32.5%).  Meanwhile, "Gallup reports he has a higher unfavorable rating than any other nominated candidate from either major party dating back to 1992".

And that includes that socialist guy Bernie Sanders, who the Trumpites believe is dispatching  guerrillas  to disrupt their stupid rallies. (Note: the main protest organizers, Moveon.org, have no relation to Sanders's campaign.)

Of course, none of this ought to make the Dems feel too smug. The reason is that Hillary has negatives almost as high as Trump's. While TIME's Joe Klein often gets things wrong because of his Neoliberal lens, he was correct that Hillary has to be a much better, more nuanced (and less rote - and screaming) persona if she faces Trump in the election (Mar. 28, p. 41).

Her planned appearance at the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) convention this next week (Mar. 20-22) is also not going to help her with the Dem left base, which is already leaning to either staying home on Nov. 8th, or writing in Bernie's name if he concedes or loses out to Clinton.   I mean, the mere sight of her appearing along side the likes of Trump, Cruz and Kasich is not designed to appeal to Left core supporters that she will need in the fall - assuming she still is the nominee.

Hillary in one forum (Town hall)  response conceded she isn't the political charmer who has the "poetry" of those like hubby Bill or Obama. But as Klein put it, "she's our own quinoa and kale salad, nutritious but bland. The human embodiment of the Establishment Trump is running against." In addition, she harkens back to the politicians of 20 or more years ago with "too many oratorical switchbacks"
"Our very own quinoa and kale salad, nutritious but bland". (Joe Klein, TIME, Mar. 28, p. 41)

Klein concludes that if she and Trump square off she will have to grow into a modern politician - with modern oratorical skills beyond that screechy loud voice ("only used if you're angry"), and in a hurry. That has to start now with  her remaining Town halls with Sanders, and also avoiding the wrong optics - especially to Sanders's supporters. (Hint: Stay away from that AIPAC meet which will be seen as blatant pandering for the Jewish national vote.)

Colorado Springs Gazette columnist, Barry Fagin, has described (Mar. 8)  politics as an "accepted form of violence between tribes of voters" in our society.  Charles Krauthammer in his recent column  says "politics is the civilized substitute for settling things the old-fashioned way- laying your opponent out on a stretcher".   He goes on to write: "What is so disturbing today is that suffusing our politics is not just an air of division but an air of menace"

 Indeed, and that menace may well spill over into more overt violence in this election cycle. This worry is real and so long as Trump incites violent memes with his rhetoric we are at risk. But don't look for his lackeys to support that because as one observer noted, he is channeling their Id - like Hitler did of too many Germans in 1932--33.

The problem is, reality check or not, who in the candidate field has the courage, principles, and ferocity to stop his advance and provide a real choice to the American people? I see no one other than Bernie Sanders, but alas, too many of my countrymen are too cowed to vote for him - as opposed to the much worse candidates (including one under current FBI investigation) they do know.

If we are cowardly (or ignorant) in our choice we shall have to live with the consequences after January 20 next year.

Trump Shows His Coward Side By Not Calling Out An Ignorant NH Fool

The televised scene from a Trump NH rally confirmed for many of us that the brash guy called "The Donald" by many, ought to really go by the tamer sobriquet, "The Donna". Because while a real male figure would have put a loser moron in his place for asking a dumbass, insolent, incendiary question "the Donna" just let it roll right by, and remarked "we're gonna get to the bottom of it!". The bottom of what? What a bottomless, brainless, gutless poppet you really are?

The incident was re-related by Chris Matthews last night on Bill Maher's Real Time, noting MSNBC's cameras were rolling at the time, and the camera crew felt it was time for a break, but Matthews said 'hold on'. Good thing he did. Because Trump then called on some loser with a loser look and a loser's dopey ass voice, pseudo-arrogant racist who blurted:

"“We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one, you know he’s not even an American.”

Thereby echoing the infamous Nazi discussion about how to solve the “Jewish question.”

Trump acting the whole weasel wimp let the comment go right by.

That was the point at which the real would-be leader puts the slimy, brainless little asshole in his place, and reams him out good - like John McCain did with another loser moron who - at a rally in the 2008 campaign - referred to Obama as "an Arab". McCain immediately corrected the feeble-minded twit, telling her firmly as he looked into her piggy eyes, "No!" Then as she tried to babble some more, informed her "He's a good and decent man" and "I just have differences with Mr. Obama over policy."

Trump could have done the same and shown he could at least be considered remotely as potential leader material, but he punted, realizing that challenging the goober required more cojones than he actually possessed. He'd have risked being seen as "soft" and less the bully than he projects, and worse, might have lost votes from the Islamophobic base that the racist turkey hails from.

In making no rebuttal he thereby confirmed conservative columnist Cal Thomas' take of being a demagogue, e.g.:

"Trump is a chameleon, having held contradictory positions on various issues over the years as its suits him. He fits the dictionary.com definition of a demagogue: 'a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions sand prejudices of the people'."

For those who might not recall history, that was the M.O. of Adolf Hitler too. (A guy who was also obsessed about being effeminate - hence over compensated by bullying bombast and aggressive posturing).

 In the wake of what has to be the biggest gaffe yet -one of blatant omission - Trump's bona fides are again being called into question and from both sides of the aisle. Even Lindsey Graham said that Trump ought to have immediately corrected the fool instead of letting him blabber on about Obama.

Chris Christie, never shy about criticizing Obama - said the same thing - acknowledging on the “Today” show that he would have corrected the uneducated bozo:

“I’d say that the president’s a Christian and he was born in this country. Those two things are self-evident,”

Bingo!

Most astute observers agree this latest fuckup may be the one that finally puts the stake into the Donna's heart. But we have to see, recalling that Trumpies - like rock groupies - will likely just rally around the Donna even more -seeing him as being attacked by the terrible media, "libruls" and fake conservatives.

Reality testing anyone? The Bushies demolished the last of that during their last run.


See also:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-silent-questioner-calls-obama-muslic-rally-article-1.2365196

Obama Right In Targeting Iran Deal Opponents As Warmongers

As I've written multiple times, I'm not afraid to deliver kudos to the Prez when he's right on an issue, and brickbats when he's wrong (as on the TPP). In this case, he was right yesterday to go after the Iran nuclear deal opponents and basically paint them as warmongering agitators. He was emphatically correct in asserting there is only "one alternative:" to the deal and that is war - of some form - at some stage.

The Reeptard warmongers can deny it all they want but they're either lying or insane.  In this regard, evidently both John McCain and Lindsey Graham took umbrage at Obama's strong remarks and said in a joint statement (WSJ, today, p. A4):

"It is particularly galling to hear the President try to defend his nuclear agreement with Iran by claiming its critics also supported  the war in Iraq".

Ironic, isn't it - that both McCain and Graham actually DID support the war in Iraq.  And Graham, to be sure, has stated clearly that if people vote him in as President (a classically stupid move that's comparable only barely to voting for Trump) he would make plans to go to war with Tehran. So there you have it. Two peas in a warmonger pod (recalling how two years ago, McCain was singing 'Bomb bomb Iran' to the sound of the Beach Boys' hit, 'Ba-Bar- Bra- Ann'. e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRonG87eKw

Funny, but  war with Iran would not be a cakewalk like the Iraq conflict. Again, all these war mongers so het up to get it on really need to see the 1983 film 'Threads' - which makes 'The Day After' look like a walk in the park.

The other brilliant aspect of Obama's attack speech was in framing lawmaker's decisions on the Iran deal as potentially determining not only their own political fates but the future of a U.S. still recovering from more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that has now cost more than $4 trillion. Enough to have not only funded a single payer health scheme, but a Mars trip and rebuilding our collapsing infrastructure.

Obama also delivered sound advice to the lawmakers, including on the Demo side, to "worry less about being labeled as weak, and more about getting it right." Sadly, over much of their palsied, poltroon history Dems have been much more concerned about their image and associated "optics" than getting a legislative position right.

Obama's jibes also made Bibi Netanyahu look like the warmonger he really is, itching to bomb Iran to pieces despite HE IS the one with over 200 nukes! And, of course, Bibi already dug himself into that hole with one of his earlier speeches, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-netanyahu-paranoid-warmonger-yes.html

But the part I loved the best, that had ol'  Mitch McConnell's panties in a twist, is when Obama pointed out the symmetry between the hardliners in both Iran and the U.S. Because just as the hardliners on the Right oppose the deal here, so do the hardliners on the Iranian Right oppose there. Moron Mitch then lost it and fulminated 'How dare the President compares us to those Iranians!" Well, dumb fuck, that 's because you ARE! But like the rest of his GOOPr ilk, he doesn't process the symmetry any more than he does the irony.

The main object for Obama, no matter how the Republicans pout, cry, stamp feet and play the victim, is to get the Dems on board. Once he has the Ds he doesn't have to worry about any votes against the deal by the 'pukes.  This is important, because it isn't just Iran and the U.S. in this deal, we have the UK, Russia, China, Germany and France too. So a defeat would have undesirable implications for all the parties.

Let us hope the Dem Senators pay close attention to Obama's nuclear physicist head of the DOE (Ernest Moniz) and don't stick their head up their asses like the Reepos have!

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/63346/which-u-s-senators-want-war-on-iran

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/63307/obama-s-pragmatic-appeal-for-iran-peace

No, Trump Isn't The Only Crackpot In the GOP Clown Cavalcade

Scott Walker - got away with a number of wacko assertions and actions while the media was all over Trump.

IN the land of the batshit crazy the guy that screeches the loudest and craziest is king. Well, maybe not quite - if you're only paying attention to the squeakiest wheel-  and ignoring  the others that might be just as batshit nuts. (Which could support Chris Hayes' thesis that the Donald's nutso spiels on immigration etc, are giving cover to his GOOPr compadres to tilt even more wacky Right).

After Trump's latest outburst on John McCain, asserting he really "wasn't a war hero because he got captured",  the whole media eye was focused on 'the Donald' while letting the other GOP screwballs get away with rhetorical murder. But what can anyone of intelligence expect from the corpora-press which has the attention of deformed ants and is incapable of blinking, walking and chewing gum at the same time, which is to say in this case, following three screwballs at once.

The Des Moines Register, to its credit, put Trump in his place with a blistering editorial ('Trump Should Pull the Plug On His Bloviating Side Show') where we read that Trump's recent comments:

"threaten to derail not just his campaign, but the manner we choose our nominees for president....his name calling has turned him into the distraction with traction- a feckless blowhard who can generate headlines...not by provoking thought but by provoking outrage."

Which is a no-holds barred calling out, including for Trump to bow out, but misses the point. That is, where is the responsibility of  the idiot Trump supporters for fueling and spurring on this obnoxious gasbag?  I mean, think of it, were it not for these supporters (''crazies" as McCain called them) Trump would have no oxygen, no credibility (via polls) at all. He'd be stuck somewhere around the 1 percent marker along with Lindsey Graham.

So, one cannot call out Trump as a "distraction with traction" and "threatening how we choose our nominees for president" without also calling out the numskulls and looneytunes who prop him up and fill his campaign venues. THEY are also responsible, and indeed, like the pro-Confederacy jokers, disclose how far our country has gone into the crapper. So far apart from Thomas Jefferson's ideal that the "minds of the people must be improved", i.e. to hold their government accountable.

Then there is the blind eye turned to the other crackpots, as I noted. Which makes one believe that it's fine to raise a hullabaloo about one whackjob candidate insulting one guy (McCain) but not other bozos insulting whole classes of citizens. (Ok, Trump did this too with his Mexican remarks, but his recent insult to McCain has left the other clowns - namely Jeb Bush and Scott Walker- to do their own thing).

Bush, for example, when asked at one gathering over the weekend if he'd allow a "path to citizenship" for immigrants, gave a flat out "NO!" for an answer. This is the character who wants Hispanics to believe that because he can speak a bit of good Spanish he's almost one of them. Don't be fooled for a second. This slime ball is no better than his disgusting warmonger brother, only better at concealing the imp within.

Then there's Scott Walker, the candidate who decided to quit college just months short of a degree, disclosing an unserious nature and an inability to complete a complex objective. Not only did this jackass (the same weekend as Trump's gaffe) sign a state budget that erodes tenure for college professors,  he also signed a 20-week abortion ban into law with zero exceptions for rape or even severe fetal abnormalities.

Even worse, which should command every thinking American's attention (and that of the Des Moines Register) is that Walker - if elected- would do whatever he "deemed necessary to terminate the Iran nuclear deal from day one even it means a military attack".

In other words, this stupid turd is gung ho to bring about the very scenario depicted in the horrific movie Threads,
The film is about 1hr and 47 mins long (and last I checked was available online), Brit-made, and if it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either already brain dead, or a zombie and amongst the walking dead.

'Threads 'isn't for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with Iran need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let reps and current presidential candidates  know this thing isn't on - not now or ever. If we could contain the Soviet Union with its 12,700 ICBMs for over 40 years , we ought to be able to contain Iran.

Though based on a hypothetical Soviet-Russian invasion of Iran, which possibility is no longer - since the present day Russians have plowed enormous investment monies into Iran and its reactors, the projected invasion of a U.S. and NATO strike force is accurate to any unfolding future scenario say if Walker got in and did what he said. From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.  Oh, then there's the scene at the end- following the timeline after the exchange and  nuclear winter- when a bat-eared infant with a pig face is born from a survivor.

But why did the media not hold Walker up to scrutiny the same way as they did Trump. Or, is the prospect of setting off a nuclear war less significant than saying a guy is no war hero?

In fact, Walker's whole spiel about what he would do regarding terminating the Iran deal is laughable. It was like looking at some drunken frat boy giving his rendition of a drunken presidential candidate at one of his former frat's beer keggers. It show why, when the clown was still a Milwaukee Alderman, most serious people dismissed him as either ignorant or brainless. No one believed he'd rise any further - certainly not to governor-  but I guess too many overestimated the IQs of Wisconsin voters who didn't do their due diligence.

Last night on 'All In',  Hayes' guest Matt Duss put the Walker episode into perspective, observing:

"Walker says here's what I'm going to do....put sanctions back...and I'm gonna talk to our allies...like he's going to make a few calls to our allies in Europe and they're just going to say 'Okay, you know you're right! This deal that we painstakingly negotiated two years...you're right it's just horrible...so forget it let's scrap it'   This is just unserious. It's completely ridiculous".

Which suggests the problem of the most bombastic getting the most attention while less bombastic (but crazier) get no notice at all, is again  - a problem of the media. If the media then paid less attention to Trump's bombastic balderdash and more to truly insane declarations and actions like Scott Walker's,  American voters would be prepared to think more and react less. But since the media only focuses on the campaign circus and most outrageous rhetoric and behavior, the crazier statements (made with less oomph) get ignored.

Look also at candidate Lindsey Graham this morning on CBS Early Show claiming Obama is "the Neville Chamberlain of our time because he believes over the next fifteen years Iran is gonna change its behavior....'cause this deal doesn't do a damn thing requiring them to change their behavior".

Showing what a stooge he is, and as he was exposed in a recent piece ('Why The Iran Deal Is A Risk Worth Taking')  in TIME by Joe Klein. Klein noted how warmonger Israeli PM Bibi "tells gullible American visitors what they want to hear" about Iran, the bomb and all, and one Israeil intelligence operative then laughing at "the brazen idiocy of it all" (implying Bibi is an idiot for telling it, but Americans are bigger idiots for buying it).  And then there's Lindsey Graham who "used the same line at an Iowa state dinner"

In other words, Graham didn't really believe it either. So he's another two faced turd who employs rhetoric when it suits his fancy. He talks about the big Iran  "nuclear threat" and Obama being "a new Neville Chamberlain"  to get constituents to dumb down just like Bibi does with  the gullible 'Muricans visiting him who are foolish enough to give him their ears and attention.

Yes, the manner in which we choose our presidential nominees is indeed "threatened" - but primarily by the media.   This corpora-media seeks to pose presidential campaigns as horse races as opposed to serious political processes in which all policy positions by whatever candidate need to be given their due and scrutinized. Not just those of the loudest or most brash.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/pierre-tristam/63095/donald-trump-isn-t-the-exception-he-s-the-republican-prototype

McCain Tries to Best Putin – Ends Up Looking Like An American Yahoo Idiot

Here’s a cautionary note to any would be ‘Murican word warriors hoping to get even with Vladimir Putin for his recent NY Times Op-ed or any other “uppity furriners” in the future - i.e. those who may appear in American media : Look before you leap, or rather, think long and hard before you withdraw your word sabers from your scabbards to attack somebody – without first protecting your flanks. It seems Johnno McCain never learned that lesson.

Recall that on September 11th, in The New York Times, there appeared an op –ed by Vladimir Putin entitled “A Plea for Caution From Russia”. This concerned the matter of Syria and American claims to “exceptionalism” that warranted barging in there and starting a war by firing cruise missiles - likely killing many innocents ("collateral damage") along with bystander Russian technicians. Contrary to the American Neo-liberal pro-war for capital crowd, Putin delivered a sober and rational plea for caution to the sole remaining superpower to think before acting again like a rogue. Yesterday, John McCain responded with an Op Ed of his own today in the Russian Publication PRAVDA, entitled “Russians deserve better than Putin”, which appeared on the Pravda.ru website.

Whereas Putin sought to objectively address the Syrian conflict and the potential dangers that it holds, McCain simply resorted to typical American ad hominem, making the subject of his forlorn piece Putin himself, with disastrous results. According to a number of observers, McCain’s pathetic effort to get even “probably constitutes one of the most embarrassing statements made by an American politician to be published internationally in the last 25 years. "

One need only read some of the comments in the wake of his “rebuttal” to see how much influence Johnny Madman had in influencing his intended audience.

Quote:

Timothy John Bancroft-Hinchey в 11:52 19 сентября

“Never in my 30-plus years in journalism have I seen such a blatant display of arrogance, ignorance and insolence, What a difference between President Putin's polite message in the NYT and this... words fail me... What a difference between President Putin and Senator McCain. Well, one was democratically elected as President more than once and the other didn't have what it takes. So, Senator McCain is not big enough to live up to his failure as a human being and as a politician.”

Robert Rosser в 14:58 19 сентября

Thank you, Mr. Bancroft-Hinchey. You have captured my response to McCain's letter in very few words. So I'll endorse your post instead of posting my own 400-word rant. I simply note, in addition, that if "US Leadership" were substituted for "Russia/Putin" in McCain's letter, it would have considerable truth and merit. Words do not fail you, sir. "Arrogance, ignorance and insolence" are right on target. Thank you.

Olga Voroshilova в 14:56 19 сентября

Speaking about the "regime which misrules" Russians today. Does Mr. McCain have any proof that Russian President and Government weren't elected lawfully? No? I suspect he has the same "proof" Obama has got for Assad's usage of chemical weapons in Syria.

adani kalombi в 13:27 19 сентября

america is ruled by the law of big corporate ,,, lobbying+campaign = bribery, corruptions... john mcCain is jealous the success A to Z of russia , it's all about the american greed god bless Russia

Altyn Sultan в 15:26 19 сентября

Putin runs for the US Office, McCain runs for the one in Russia. who get's what - wanna guess?

Yury Panikov в 15:23 19 сентября

To American commentators: Thank you for your support, we in Russia do understand that McCain (as many current American politicians) is frankly speaking like an idiot. The only problem we see, that he is empowered idiot.

Andrew Kirikov в 11:15 19 сентября

if old anti-russian McCain criticises Putin and our government then Putin and the government are moving in the correct direction

Ruchkin Vladimir в 16:49 19 сентября

Thank you, Senator McCain, for your article! You dispelled the last doubts about the viability of the American establishment. The mood has improved.

Milo Hoffman в 11:38 19 сентября

I'm russian. And I can assure you he's saying complete bullshit. He's saying about an absence of freedom of word in Russia and neverthless he writes anti-russian propaganda in *russian* media.

Costantino Ceoldo в 12:35 19 сентября

Of course, Senator McCain is firmly convinced that 9/11 was made by someone in a Afghan cavern... We know that in US everything goes fine: law, job, food... There, people help each other and every day some little cute cats meow to you in the morning. No mafia in US, nor banksters corruption. If someone dies, it's because he puts himself in the line of a free fire, permitted by some constitutional amendment. American cops are gentlemen who shoot only one cartridge per time in the body of a suspect and never, never!, they beat a prisoner. Well... I wake up... it's coffee time!

Out of the mouths of “furriners”. Oh wait, they aren’t! They’re writing in the banner publication of their own country in reply to a certifiable American nutcase, who doesn’t know when to quit when he’s ahead. Maybe it's past time McCain, along with many of his current GOP peers - trying to shut down the government again- read the Constitution. It seems to me that it's their over exaggeration of THEIR rights that is in large measure responsible for turning this nation into some parody of its former self - when words like "liberty", "justice", and the "general welfare" really had meaning. Maybe he and his fellow pols need to process that before they launch into jeremiads of how other countries ought to conduct their affairs!

Rachel Maddow's Theory on the Repuke Political Gamesmanship with Susan Rice is Correct!

There is no gainsaying the fact that Rachel Maddow is one of the most brilliant articulators in all of television. Her intellect stands like a shining beacon as brilliant as a thousand suns compared to all the blow-dried wannabes on the Right, and other pretenders (like Nora O'Donnell) in the mainstream Corporate Wurlitzer. You see, Rachel not only articulates but provides marvelous insight as she does so. Truly, I cannot understand how anyone who adopts the monicker "liberal" isn't watching her night after night.

Two nights ago, Rachel put forward what I believe is the only credible theory concerning the Republicans' continued Benghazi-based witch hunt of Susan Rice. Rice, a Rhodes Scholar, is possibly a nominee for Hillary Clinton's position at State, which is exactly why the Repubs are grand standing and carrying on as if she's really CONDI Rice - one of the inveterate liars that got us into the Iraq mess.

As Rachel asked: What can explain this fixation, which borders on obsessive compulsive disorder, or at least unchecked paranoia? What can explain people like John McCain and Lindsay Graham harassing Ms. Susan Rice when they easily gave Condi a pass for her own appointment at State - for the Bush Jr. first term? What can explain their continued attitude of condescension ("She can't be very bright!" - John McCain) and hostility? Especially when Rice was not even in the State Dept. when the Benghazi attack unfolded but the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. All Rice did was appear briefly on a Sunday morning talk show - not even before any formal court, or after swearing in, and you'd think she was the next thing to Bin Ladin's wife the way Graham, McCain, Bob Corker (TN) and now even Susan Collins (supposedly the most level headed) are carrying on!

Rachel's theory is simple and brilliant: The Reeps are carrying on as if all their sacred cows were gored at once because they are using political theater - under the ruse of the Benghazi incident (which has already been explained to them repeatedly) - as a means to force Obama to appoint John Kerry instead, thereby forcing a special election for his Massachusetts Senate seat. They are betting that their one time Tea Pot hero, Scott Brown, will be the benefactor and thereby return to the Senate! (Some deluded Dems actually don't believe this will be a 'biggie', but they are fooling themselves!)

At first glance, the linear plodding brain has problems, as it does with conspiracies, because it's unable to think at two different levels at once. In addition, the plodding brain can't see that the Repukes are all about exploiting political crises to further their political ends, agendas. "Aw, they'd never make such a fuss just to get an extra Senate seat!" Oh yes they would!  They are just as petty, craven and cynical as they've always been, and they'd stoop to that and even lower! Make no mistake!

Otherwise, why the fuck keep harassing Susan Rice, even after she gave these asswipes an hour of her time, accompanied by the Assistant CIA Director? As I already observed, the intelligence community (including CIA, NRA and NSA) would never have divulged what they REALLY believed  to have transpired at Benghazi in talking points to a UN Ambassador. Thus, the intelligence community would have massaged the actual facts so that too much was not given away...especially to bloodthirsty witch hunters - who as it was, on account of their obsession, had already exposed details of U.S. Embassy security operations!

But will the Reeps acknowledge this? NO! Because to do so means they can't keep their anti-Susan Rice appointment bandwagon (circus?) going!

This is all the more reason why Obama and the Dems must dig in on this and not relent! Obama needs to forthwith formally appoint the well-qualified Ms. Rice and let the chips fall where they may! Most especially, the chips will show a retinue of white Reepos harassing and impugning the character of an intelligent black woman. It will show other minorities that in no way are these Reepos changelings, even after an election in which the minority vote was the deciding factor.

Obama lose "political capital"? Fuck no! The Reepos will for the next election, and the next, and the next....

Footnote (11/30):

Major kudos to Rachel again, for last night's segment in which she showed clips of ALL the Susan Rice opponents campaigning openly and vigorously for Scottie Brown! The clips included: Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), loudly proclaiming Brown as her "ally", Susan Collins (R-ME) yucking it up with Brown at her side at a rally and John McCain loudly proclaiming  "THIS is the man I want in the Senate more than anyone else!"

BUSTED!

Uh, in respect to Rachel's theory, can we now say CASE CLOSED!

Kelly Ayotte, questioned  yesterday about Rachel's theory by Andrea Franklin, dismissed it as "absurd". Maybe, lady, YOU are the one absurd as you take the rest of us for simpletons!