No RAT (Like Mick Mulvaney) Should Be Put In Charge Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was launched with great fanfare back in 2012 when President Obama finally had to act on behalf of consumers who'd too often been taken to the cleaners by assorted financial rats.  The biggest scam of all, of course, was the use of credit default swaps and their role in the 2008 financial meltdown.  These were basically financial bets - say on losses to be had by this or that bank, mortgage company, pension source - and were buried in dozens of financial instruments, especially collateralized mortgage obligations or CMOs.

In one FORTUNE article, ‘The $55 TRILLION Question', October, 2009, p. 135).Frank Partnoy- an economics professor and Morgan Stanley derivatives salesman was quoted thusly:

"The big problem is there are so many public companies- banks and corporations, and no one really knows how much exposure they have to CDS (credit default swap) contracts."

Since most CDS contracts were made "on the fly" in no formal mode, and often by word of mouth on cell phones (ibid.) no one even knew where all the $55 trillion of this toxic waste was buried. As another hedge fund operator (Chris Wolf) quoted in the article put it:

"This has become essentially the dark matter of the financial universe"

When the stuff was located, as banks etc. had to come clean (finally) it nearly brought down the entire financial system via a vast credit seizure.  In the wake of this debacle, President Barack Obama knew he had to act and approved of the  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - the original brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

At the time Obama named Richard Cordray, a respected former attorney general of Ohio, to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, after giving up hope for a confirmation vote in the Senate. The appointment meant the agency would be able to oversee a vast swath of lending companies and others accused at times of preying on consumers with shady practices.

In political terms, some media outlets portrayed Obama's move as "unapologetically brazen, the equivalent of a haymaker at Republicans in the Senate who had blocked his nominee". But in more sober and rational terms, Obama simply responded in kind to the fierce opposition and GOP obstructionism which had paralyzed many facets of his administration since he came to office.

The first move of the new  CFPB head, and one long overdue, was to demand simplified language for credit card and financial forms  (e.g. loans) . Hitherto, the language had been so dense and replete with mumbo-jumbo escape and conditional clauses that most Ph.D.s  in linguistics or English couldn't make sense out of it. In fact, had the Repukes  truly been for the little guys that they claim, they'd have applauded such simplification instead of trying to retain it.

But as we know Repukes are in the pockets of Business, whores to corporations and hyper-rich fatcats like the Koch brothers.   They view the "little guy"  basically as a collection of stupid pawns to be sacrificed when and where they see fit - to feed the extras to the rich.

That is exactly why the generic Repuke hates the CFPB.

Consumer groups hailed Obama's decision but as one might expect, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce balked and warned it was so legally shaky that the consumer bureau's work may be compromised. Of course, this is palpable horse manure. It isn't legally "shaky" at all, except in the minds of those who would screw consumers.

Flash forward now to the current impasse with Cordray having left but who promoted his assistant Leandra English  to interim director of the CFPB  on Friday. Trump, a.k.a. Dotard, countered by naming the Mick Mulvaney - already director of the Office of Management and Budget.  Recall Mulvaney is an incorrigible sleaze bag and rat who pushed for a despicable Donnie  Dotard budget back in March to cut programs such as "Meals on Wheels".   

The program is often the only lifeline many  oldsters and disabled vets have to getting decent nutrition because they're no longer mobile or able to drive.  The Meals on Wheels personnel also provide regular social  contact for people who may otherwise see no one for days or even weeks. As one WaPo writer noted at the time, one year's benefit from 'Meals on Wheels' for a senior is equivalent to his spending one day in the hospital.

Mulvaney at the same time also insisted on scrapping the School Meals program, claimng  "there is no demonstrable evidence school meals programs actually work". In fact, there is ample evidence, including here in Colo. where many kids depend on those meals to get them through the day's classes, so they aren't distracted by hunger. Of, course, the POS Mulvaney probably never had to go through a day's hunger at his posh elementary school.

But this is the rat the Mega -Rat Dotard has now appointed as head of the CFPB.   The stage was set for conflict  yesterday, when Leandra English and Mulvaney duly sent rival emails to the CFPB’s 1,600 employees, the Washington Post reported. First, English wrote: “I hope that everyone had a great Thanksgiving. With Thanksgiving in mind, I wanted to take a moment to share my gratitude to all of you for your service.”  She signed off the message with the title “Acting Director.”

But it was Mulvaney, carrying a paper bag of doughnuts for staff, who entered the Director’s office at CFPB headquarters. He fired back: “It has come to my attention that Ms. English has reached out to many of you this morning via email in an attempt to exercise certain duties of the acting director. This is unfortunate but, in the atmosphere of the day, probably not unexpected. Please disregard any instructions you receive from Ms. English in her presumed capacity as acting director.”

The White House and congressional Republicans expressed confidence in Dotard's "authority" based on a 1998 federal law.   But recognizing the illegitimacy of the whole operation Leandra English filed suit on Sunday night in the US district court for the District of Columbia, asking for a declaratory judgment and a temporary restraining order.  If law has any more meaning in Trump's Amerikka  she  ought to get that restraining order. Even better, tossing Mulvaney into the ape or rat cage he really belongs.

Let us note here for the sake of clarity, that the CFPB was created as an act of moral authority and initiative  on behalf of millions of citizens besieged by all manner of finance (loan, banking, credit card) sharks. Up to now, the CFPB has spared citizens more than $12 b in fraudulent hits that would have been extracted from their hides had the agency not existed.  Does Mick Mulvaney car about any of this? Hell no! NO more than he cared in March about seniors not getting food from 'Meals on "Wheels' or hungry kids getting fed via the School Meals program.

Let's also be mindful of the fact that on Nov. 16 Mulvaney actually stated:

"I don't like the fact that CFPB exists, I will be perfectly honest with you."

Now, if he hates the fact the very existence of the agency he is supposed to lead, then it follows that he has NO moral authority to lead it. One cannot at the same time be against an agency's very existence and also head it. At least not in any moral capacity.   That would be like Adolf Hitler appointing Himmler in charge of the Theresienstadt  camp and Himmler saying:  "I don't like the fact that Jews exist, I will be perfectly honest with you."

Would you really expect Himmler to attend to the needs of the Jews in that camp? Or, would he more likely dispatch them to the nearest gas chambers at Auschwitz?  I defy anyone to convince me Mulvaney's motives are any different with respect to the life, activities and influence of the CFPB!

Mulvaney, therefore, is just a large rat "guarding" the vulnerable eggs in a henhouse. In this case, instead of eggs the latter is full of citizen safeguards in respect of finance. Also, appointed by the illegitimate Dotard (himself a treasonous Russian backed rat) Mulvaney has no legal authority either.  That is my take and you are free to disagree with it if you will - but there it is.  And I don't give one damn what any judge rules.

Barney Frank, the retired Massachusetts Democrat who was one of the authors of the law that created the CFPB, told CNN on Monday that Trump and Republicans were seeking to weaken the agency in an administrative fashion, rather than legislative, because it was popular for its work standing up to banks, mortgage companies, loan companies and debt collectors on behalf of ordinary Americans.
The CPFB, he said, was “fighting the big interests on the battlefield every day”.

Dem Senator Dick Durbin perhaps put it best in terms of Mulvaney, Wall Street and the CFPB:

"Wall Street hates it like the devil hates holy water,” Durbin said. “And they’re trying to put an end to it.”

And those of us who've studied the Malleus Malleficarum know that the "Devil" needs  demons to do his dirty work for him. That, of course, is where Mick Mulvaney comes in - keeping our analogies straight.

See also:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141394/meet-mick-mulvaney-trump-goon-wants-poor-kids-go-hungry

Another Despicable - Andy Puzder-- Bites The Dust As Trumpies Go Ape Shit Over Leaks

Tens of thousands of actual hard working people rejoiced today as the second cabinet level pick in three days went down n flames: the despicable turd named Andy Puzder. This is the asshole Trump had named as Labor Secretary who was anything but friendly to labor, and who paid millions for cheesy ads with half clad chicks when he could have paid higher wages to his Carl's Jr. workers. He is also the character who said he'd rather have robots working for him because they never get sick, or take time off and you wouldn't have to pay overtime or benefits.

Puzder,  Donald Dump's controversial choice to run the Department of Labor, withdrew his nomination as questions about his byzantine business interests, details about his acrimonious divorce and revelations that he employed an undocumented immigrant as a housekeeper mounted.

Interestingly it wasn't Dems who scuttled Puzder’s nomination (they didn't have the numbers)  but the Republicans, who grew increasingly concerned about his background and business record. Especially after a 27-year old tape from an Oprah show surfaced on Politico, featuring his wife at the time describing how Puzder dragged her around, beat her severely  (leaving her with two ruptured cervical discs) and warned if she got uppity he'd "see her in the gutter".  Jeez, maybe the son of a bitch was practicing for how he'd like to treat his future workers at Carl's Jr. Yuh think?  (Note: his ex wife recanted but the tape remains as fairly good evidence that what she was relating wasn't just made up. Readers ought to check it out for themselves.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren had this to say after viewing the tape:

"I have watched the episode in which she appeared and I believe every Senator should. I found it extraordinarily troubling alongside his company's poor record of treatment of female employees, his highly explicit and sexualized ads and his snide comments about sex discrimination. There is ample evidence that Mr. Puzder is a terrible choice ."

Puzder, the chief executive of CKE Restaurants, the billion-dollar parent company of the fast food chains Carl’s Jr and Hardee’s, was due to appear before the Senate health, education, labor and pensions committee on Thursday- after a series of delays.  However, in a statement issued on Wednesday afternoon Puzder said he was withdrawing his nomination: “While I won’t be serving in this administration, I fully support the president and his highly qualified team.”  Right, a highly qualified team dedicated to destroying the agencies to which they've been appointed by president Dump.

Much of the basis for Pudzy's withdrawal can be traced to activist protests across the nation - featuring many workers from Hardee's and Carl's Jr, including some dressed up as robots. Others carried signs of protest that provided horrific optics for the putative backers in the Senate, e.g.
.
It also didn't hurt that cause that Sen. Elizabeth Warren  sent a blistering letter to Puzder Monday in which she charged him with "a sneering contempt for the workers in your stores and a vehement opposition to the laws you will be charged with enforcing." Indeed, workers say that wage theft, discrimination, and sexual harassment are rampant at Puzder's chains. Those allegations are backed up by publicly available data .  But again, it was his wife beating antics that got him to finally pull out, confirming he's as despicable as the two other female assaulters, Steve Bannon and pussy grabber Trump himself.

Incredibly even the conservative magazine the National Review published an editorial titled “No to Puzder”.  The magazine railed against Puzder’s support for “comprehensive immigration reform” and argued that in light of the series of unflattering revelations, “his case for confirmation had diminished to the point of disappearing."

Who'd have thought?

Meanwhile, Trump and his lackeys and media whores (like former BushCo toady Fran Townsend)  are now trying to portray the intel leakers as the criminals. The zany fake news Breitbart -style media are also spinning that Mike Flynn was some kind of upstanding citizen - as opposed to a felonious rat who violated the Logan Act- and blamed "leakers" for the whole fiasco.  Trump himself, now evidently suffering from Alzheimer's scale memory loss on top of his other mental deficits, also blamed "the intelligence agency leakers, the fake media, and Hillary supporters" for Flynn's demise. Evidently forgetting that only a day earlier he asserted Flynn had lost his trust and so was removed.

But let's understand that nearly all criminal administrations (like Nixon's) start out by laying the blame on the leakers, then go too far and end up snaring themselves in their pursuit of the leakers. As John Dean (fmr. Nixon attorney) pointed out last night on 'All In'

"Watergate itself was very much born in leaks. It was the setting up of the so-called plumbers unit that was investigating leaks for Nixon that had Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy - the two principal guys that organized it, that led to the eventual exposure.. The reason the White House was involved in Watergate was because of the things they were involved in while working at the White House, mainly breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office trying to find out if he was up to more leaks. 

It all started with the White House obsession with stopping leaks. Now we have another President who seems equally obsessed. Hopefully he's learned something from history if he's old enough to remember Watergate, and he'll avoid the kind of leak cures used by Nixon."

He added:

"Presidents have to be very open about what they are going to do. They can't have secret squads looking for leakers, or have enemies that they want to punish because of their leaks. It's part of the territory. With Trump it was inevitable because of the way he's been approaching his presidency. He was planning to shake things up, but there are going to be bureaucracies in the White House, National Security Council, permanent staff, Office of Management and Budget. Those people aren't going to like it so this is going to be a very leak-prone presidency. Not to mention what will happen out in those departments and agencies with these cabinet members who want to take apart the agencies they're going to be running. So it's going to be a leak prone presidency. If there's anything that Nixon has taught it is just let it flow."

But, of course, Trump and his minions are too stupid to do that - so they will likely overreach in trying to plug the inevitable leaks like Nixon did.  Hell, they can't even adopt which reality they will accept - with Trump blaming "fake media and unfair leaks"  when merely 30 hours earlier he laid the blame on Flynn's own untrustworthiness. WTF can't this ass wit make up his mind? Oh wait, he doesn't have one!  It's easier to blame the "conspiracy theories" on the intelligence community - the guys watching his back - when HE is the one who has plenty of 'splainin to do.  After all, Donald Jr. stated flatly in 2008 to a real estate conference that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of our a lot of our assets...We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia".  So why not  keep the Russians happy including with collusion to ensure a friendly guy is elected who can keep the dollars pouring in?

Now with the report Trump campaign  aides were cozying up to the Russians over the campaign, there's not only smoke, but some hints of fire.   After all the Steele dossier exposed a well developed conspiracy managed on the Trump side by Paul Manaforte and  Carter Page.   To quote Peter Wahner,  Senior Fellow at the conservative  Ethics and Public Policy Center :

"There's smoke here and there's fire, we just don't know the nature of the fire. If there was collusion going on it could lead to the ruination of the Trump presidency"

Hence can only hope that those patriot intelligence officers doing the leaks will continue  - placing country over cynical laws, like Snowden did.

Make no mistake those of us who want to get to the bottom of the Trumpian snake pit that passes for a White House, want the leaks to continue unabated - to press further investigation as occurred in Watergate.  A recent column in the Columbia Journalism Review was even titled 'Flynn Resignation Shows Leaks Under Trump Are Working - Keep 'Em Coming"  The author argued, and I totally agree - as does John Dean- that "leaks to the press are vital to democracy".  Indeed they have the same import and value as whistle blowing on the power mongers, especially when they are acting without any transparency.

Even conservative Joe Scarborough on his show commended whoever leaked the information, He said:

"The only reason we're finding out about it now is because a patriot did leak this to the Washington Post. Did get this information out there or else we wouldn't even have known about it."

Of course, the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee - careful to keep his aide in Trump;s favor to further a despicable agenda - says he will ask the FBI to investigate "the recent rash of leaks". Well, good luck, buddy! But there are some in this land who remain true patriots and will not be deterred by the threats.  These leakers, whether from the intel agencies or Trump's own NSC, are freaking PATRIOTS and deserve as many medals as Edward Snowden.

Lastly, the Senate Intelligence Committee led by Sens. Charles Grassley and Dianne Feinstsin have sent a formal letter to the Dept. of Justice requesting transcripts of all of Flynn's Russian  communications  the FBI has in its possession. The problem? The FBI is now under control of Jess Sessions who used to work in the Trump campaign. The bastard has failed to recuse himself and it is quite evident any guy who worked in the Trumpy campaign is not going to go after it now. I doubt this Johnny Reb from Alabama can be an independent voice for the law - as most of us feared when he was approved.

Fortunately, European Intelligence services have transcripts of all Trump campaign communications dating from August last year. This according to Kurt Eichenwald speaking last night on MSNBC. Thus, even if Sessions' DOJ tries to destroy the key evidence showing collusion, it is bound to turn up from other venues, agencies and still sink the Trump Imperium.

All the signs now point to the need for a totally independent Special Prosecutor, such as we had in the Watergate case. We simply cannot trust Jess Sessions to be independent.

See also :'Let's Consider the Evidence Trump Is A Traitor'

Excerpt:

"Trump’s presidency has many of the traits of a criminal enterprise and a financial shakedown operation, masquerading as a democratically elected government."

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/16/none-dare-call-it-treason-in-the-wake-of-the-flynn-scandal-what-more-proof-do-we-need-that-donald-trump-is-a-traitor/

Neil Gorsuch Needs To Be "Borked" - Along With Every Other Trump SC Nominee

The Donald crawled out of his chaotic rat warren last night to make his first Supreme Court pick. As predicted, it was a conservative extremist albeit straight out of central casting. The guy named? Neil Gorsuch whose trail of judicial terror was revealed last night in the course of several Dem Senatorial comments. 

Before I get to them, let's go through a few of Gorsuch's recent cases to show what a pathetic loser he is and why he needs to be "Borked" - the term derived from when Robert Bork was advanced in 1987 as a Reagan nominee and he had to be jettisoned by the Gipper.

1) Ryan Wilson excessive force and wrongful death case:

In maybe the most infamous, young Ryan Wilson, 22, was tasered in the head and side by aggressive cops in Lafayette, CO after an MJ grow was discovered near Hecla Lake and Wilson ran from the scene. The death came as a result of the kid having a heart condition and his parents subsequently  filed a lawsuit asking for a trial based on excessive force in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Judge Neil Gorsuch tossed the case out on the basis of "holofied immunity"  which protects all law enforcement from civil liability for damages. So even if the cops crashed into your home  in a patrol car while on a chase, and accidentally killed grammy sitting in her rocker, they'd get off. This is the putz the Reepos put up.

2) Hobby Lobby case:

Gorsuch was the guy who put forward the initial whacko argument for the Hobby Lobby case, in which the company's owners were entitled to exemption from the ACA's contraception provision based on their individual religious beliefs.  The outrage at the time was upper decibel level, with one Philly-based federal appeals court pithily objecting that:

“Businesses do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously motivated actions.”

This was important, given historically  the Court has never recognized a for profit corporation's "religious rights" under federal law or the Constitution.  But Gorsuch's ruling took no account of that at all, apart from the nonsense of referring to corporations as "people"- which only a madman would do.

3) Little Sisters of the Poor case:

This howler of a case was also ruled on by Gorsuch. To quickly summarize: the Little Sisters yelped about being "forced" to provide artificial contraception to public employees of theirs against their conscience. This was via the Affordable Care Act. They were then offered a way out where all they had to do is simply sign a form to be granted an exception and they pitched a fit about that too. They claimed the very act of signing the exemption form would also detract from their "religious freedom" - and in his ruling in their favor Gorsuch concurred.

Apart from these cases which clearly show Gorsuch has a background we don't want and can't afford (especially as he's only 49 years of age, and could be on the Court decades) there is the other matter of that Supreme Court seat having been "stolen" by the Repukes. They sat on their asses for nearly a year after Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland and didn't even have the grace or courtesy to allow a hearing. Not even a hearing. Some Reepo Senators went so far at the time to insist that even IF Hillary won they'd hold off any Supreme Court hearings for her picks - whether 4 years, 8 years, whatever. In other words, the unspoken new rule was that Democrats didn't get to make SC picks.

Hence, liberals now are enraged and not prepared to see the Senate Dems allow anyone to get through a Supreme Court nomination. Gorsuch, nice guy though he may  be  - and even relatively "mainstream" as extremists go, is simply caught in the crossfire of political  polarization. Which is too bad, but then Merrick Garland was too, and at least Gorsuch will get his hearing.

Anyway, Sen. Elizabeth Warren had this to say about Gorsuch last night, with which I totally concur:

"President Trump had a chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court but to the surprise of absolutely nobody he failed that test. Instead he kept a promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activists and groups that were financed by big Business interests.

Judge Gorsuch has been on this list for four months. His public record, which I have viewed in detail, paints a clear picture of his record. Before even joining the (federal) bench he advocated for making it even easier for public companies to defraud investors.

As a judge he twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure rules favored giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He sided with employers who denied wages for improperly fired workers and retaliated against whistle blowers for 'misconduct'.  He's ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases.

He's demonstrated hostility toward women's access to basic health care. For years, powerful interests have executed a full scale assault on our federal judiciary, trying to turn the Supreme Court into one more rigged game that works only for the rich and powerful. 

They spent millions to keep this seat open and Judge Gorsuch is their reward."

This is why the Democrats must now put aside all memes or fantasies that they are engaged in a "debate" with Marquis of Queensberry rules. No, this is now full throttle political combat and requires them to go all out, not only denying this nominee but the next as well.  And if the Repukes are stupid and brazen enough to remove the filibuster - which they might be, knowing "Bitch" McConnell -then all out blockage, and procedural sabotage must be used - as well as huge protests from the base -including in front of Republican Senators' homes.

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/70999/trumps-choice-of-gorsuch-endangers-civil-human-and-environmental-rights

And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/70973/trump-s-supreme-court-pageant-a-silly-show-to-fill-a-stolen-seat

Update:

Now that we've learned Gorsuch helped found "Fascists Forever" at his Catholic High School, we have much additional fodder for the Dems to do some "brain" surgery probes into his background. One thing we know, they must not be deterred by media editorials taking them to task.

So WHY Hasn't Elizabeth Warren Endorsed Bernie?

The interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Rachel Maddow last night was interesting for being basically uninformative. We learned, for example, that the Repukes brought Trump's extremism on  themselves by tolerating extremist obstruction in the Senate. This included blocking every Obama initiative (like the ACA, closing Gitmo and immigration reform) as well as appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and other agencies. And now we have their latest posturing, in the Supreme Court impasse,  another case of the Repuke Senators "refusing to do their jobs" -  e.g. in exercising advise and consent for a soon to come Obama nominee. As many have noted, refusing to even hold hearings is not advise and consent it's delay and obstruct. But we already knew all this and hopefully the extremist Rs will pay at the ballot box on Nov. 8.

Less illuminating was when Maddow asked Warren about the lack of endorsement whereupon  Warren launched into this 7 minute long spiel about "this great democratic conversation" - totally dodging the question while flattening distinctions between Hill and the Bern.  The way Warren seemed to put it: Why should she have to make a choice with two terrific candidates in play? Well, at least  in comparison to the Repuke clowns.  She also left an air of neutrality hanging at the end, almost emulating perfectly the geopolitical strategy of Switzerland. But it doesn't wash, not for Elizabeth Warren.

Anyone who knows anything about Warren and Sanders is aware that Sanders is the inheritor of the same progressive forces and memes that swept Warren to her senate victory in 2012.  I mean they're like two peas in the proverbial pod, They’re perfectly aligned on every issue of consequence. Indeed, at least one salon.com columnist writing a piece for the Jan. 26 web edition noted Warren gave a speech on the Senate floor on Jan. 21. She spent most of her time outlining the steps Congress could take to purge dark money from our political process. Dark money? Like from the Kochs? Where, from whom, have we heard that before? Anyone?

The most relevant takeaway is that Warren's Senate speech already qualified as an indirect endorsement of Bernie.

She said - in part:

“We have a problem: money. Six years ago today, the United States Supreme Court made the problem worse – a lot worse. Thanks to the Supreme Court, our system of elections is riddled with corruption. Money floods our political system. Money that lets a handful of billionaires shape who gets into Congress and may decide who sits in the White House.” 

“Washington works great for a handful of wealthy individuals and powerful corporations that manipulate the system to benefit themselves…It works great for the lobbyists and the lawyers who slither around Washington, day in and day out, but for everyone else, Washington’s not working so well. And if we don’t change, this rigged political game will break our country.”

“We are headed into another presidential election and I speak out today because I’m genuinely alarmed for our democracy…It is time to fight back against a complete capture of our government by the rich and powerful.”

Look over the transcripts of any of Bernie's recent speeches and note  how indistinguishable these remarks are from what you've  heard in his stump speeches. Warren’s agenda is Sanders’s platform, and this speech left no doubt about that. Even the specific phrases Warren uses, like “rigged political game,” mirror Bernie’s language.

The problem with a Senate speech pseudo "endorsement", of course, is that few citizens are likely to see or hear it unless it goes viral. That is about as plausible as aliens landing and kidnapping Donald Trump and hauling him to the third planet in the Zeta Reticuli system for a brain harvest. So, unless the endorsement is public and stand alone - it won't get much media attention or help the candidate who needs it, in this case Bernie.

Some may say, well she is just dithering a bit because she might believe HRC is more "electable" and she'd favor getting things done if even in a more incremental way. But this simply doesn't pass the political smell test. No way.   As the beneficiary of outsized speaking fees from the big banks, Clinton is simply too much a captive of Wall Street. The same Axis of Financial Evil that Warren has spent her entire career battling. To use the analogy of one Boston Globe columnist —" it would be as if an antiabortion candidate like Marco Rubio were giving paid speeches to Planned Parenthood affiliate."

Any putative Hillary endorsement also doesn't wash if one investigates the history of Warren's criticisms of her. For example,  in a 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, Warren accused Clinton, then a senator from New York, of voting for a bankruptcy bill that was sought by the financial industry and that Clinton had previously opposed as first lady.  Asked why Clinton switched, Warren blamed the financial industry donations lining Clinton’s war chest. Of the big banks, Warren said Clinton “worries about them as a constituency.”

Thus, for Warren to endorse Hillary, she’d have to repudiate not only the anti-Wall Street crusade that carried her into office, but also her own words.  She'd look not just like a fool but a malicious, capricious and cynical fool who's been manipulating her supporters all along. Saying one thing and doing another.

This still leaves open why she hasn't explicitly come out for Sanders. Some have said she still truly is of two minds, and cited Warren's signed 2013 letter (with the other Democratic women in the Senate) encouraging Clinton to run for president. Since then, Warren has clarified that it shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement. Given Clinton’s entanglements with Wall Street, it’s easy to see why.

Another possible explanation was offered by  one commenter on reddit.com

"She's keeping her powder dry to use at the convention to helping to bring the Sanders folk on board by getting concessions (whatever those are worth) from Clinton. If she endorses now, that leverage is spent."

Maybe. But now is the time - in the middle of the primary season - when Bernie could really really use her support, especially with key industrial states coming up for grabs next Tuesday. One, unambiguous, no nonsense endorsement for Sanders could be a game changer. It could net him a majority of those states and delegates, and make his chances for later convention gravitas much stronger.

At the convention, the pressure from Hillary's superdelegates and DNC honchos for all to conform (and toe the party line) may simply be too great. It is doubtful that in such conditions Warren's supposed supporting voice would even be heard, especially if Bernie's delegate count is much less than 1,000. If that is so, Hillary will feel she has no real obligation to endorse Bernie's proposals far less use any of them- even in a minor way.

Now is the time to make a stand, which could be more critical than any other speech  - or any interview - that Elizabeth Warren has given.

Will she have the courage or foresight to commit to it? That remains to be seen. For Bernie Sanders's campaign's sake let us hope she commits soon. Like before Tuesday!

Sen. Bernie Sanders Enters the Presidential Race: At Last The Antidote to Neoliberalism

The news yesterday of Bernie Sanders entering the presidential race has to warm the cockles of any true liberal's heart.  With total wackos on one side (the Repukes) and only one (centrist) candidate on the other side (one who, btw, signed on to the Iraq War and is more center-right than centrist) the Dem faithful and liberals in general had little hope for any choice or even powerful voices to speak against the rising Neoliberal tide.

Two weeks ago, in an appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show, Sen. Sanders made it clear he'd run for president if we wanted him to. Well, we do! We need a voice of reason in the 'ring'  against the Neoliberal insanity, especially as Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made it clear she isn't interested in running.  Besides she has her hands full in the current TPP battle with the Neoliberal Obama.

Make no mistake that Sen. Bernie Sanders - who will be running as another Democratic candidate (making it clear 3rd party candidates have no chance given the duopoly) has no more chance of winning a presidential contest than well......extraterrestrials landing and kicking the Neolib mutts in D.C. out and setting up a new ET government.  Nevertheless, when Democratic voters finally get it through their heads that Elizabeth Warren really isn't in the game, a lot of votes ought to free up and fall Sanders' way.

Still, we know the neo-conservatives and Neoliberals hate the thought of real competition, so Sen. Sanders will be tarred from the get go with the hated word "socialist."

Barely two and a half months ago, in fact, WaPo hack George Will unloaded on him in a vitriolic, uninformed piece that basically conflated socialism with communism in a clear effort to scare off any potential voters. However, intelligent and informed voters know the difference so won't be put off by malarkey sure to come from the crazy Right.  I mean we're talking about dopes that really believe Hitler was a socialist because he used the term "National Socialists" for his party. They aren't even remotely aware of how he dispatched his S.A. thugs to beat up socialists, communists and trade unionists.

Will, like too many other nincompoops who have no clue what they write, also claimed any Sanders campaign would be yet another experiment in "collectivism".  (He reels off a number of historical examples of failed Socialist efforts to get into the political system).

In fact, Sanders' warp and woof is to control the spread of oligarchic -driven income inequality. In debates, for example, he will be able to keep any Democratic candidates honest, especially where they stand on the Neoliberal imperative. He will be able to ask Hillary up front if she is for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or against it. Also, if she is in favor of expanding Social Security or cutting it. Will she be a clone of Obama or be a true middle class champion?  These are questions all Dem voters need to have addressed, as well as Independents like myself,  who want to be able to do more than hold our noses and pull levers for the lesser of two evils!

In one of Sen. Sanders' most memorable articles, 'NO, to U.S. Oligarchy '(The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, p. 1), he nailed the toxic effluent of Neliberalism ruining this country.

"The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, 22% of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps.

And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000 to 2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.

But not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases, the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper crust of extremely wealthy families is hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle class that has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place, the very wealthy are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country."

I am glad Bernie is in this race, even though he has virtually no chance to win. Never mind, we need a powerful oppositional voice to the prevalent Neoliberal narrative that has turned almost everyone in our political system into mindless zombies unable to think for themselves. Hence, unable to help any real citizens.  We need a REAL alternative and Sanders is it!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/62009/hillary-veers-left-to-head-off-sanders

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/lefties_meet_your_candidate_why_bernie_sanders_is_the_only_authentic_alternative_to_hillary_clinton/

TPP Still A Bad Deal, NO Matter What Obama Says!

"Hmmmmm......if we can just sneak this by the People all will be well!"


Barack Obama’s claim that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would be beneficial to the average American worker must still be taken with a grain of salt. Just over a year and a half ago I noted that - via Britain's Guardian - WikiLeaks had released the draft text  of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.    

This is a Neoliberal-generated multinational "free trade" treaty that - like NAFTA and GATT before it - promises much but delivers precious little to the average citizen.   The full agreement covers a number of distinct areas but the chapter released by WikiLeaks 17 1/2 months ago focuses on intellectual property rights - an area that influences as many other areas as civil liberties and pharmaceuticals. Most noteworthy, at the time Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group, remarked that:

"Lots of people in civil society have stressed that being more transparent, and talking about the text on the table, is crucial to give treaties like this any legitimacy. We shouldn't have to rely on leaks to start a debate about what's in then."
 

Indeed!   And the most damning indictment that the whole enchilada is bogus and only favors the elites and power brokers is the fact that the 30,000-word intellectual property chapter disclosed a vicious intent to  increase the term of patents, including medical patents, beyond 20 years, and lower global standards for patentability.

The day after the leaks, smikringchimp.com blogger Thomas Hartmann observed:

" This week, Americans got a peek behind the curtain of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and what we found is frightening. On Thursday, Wikileaks published a complete draft of the “intellectual property rights” chapter of the TPP, and it poses a serious risk to free speech and information access. The document contains proposals that would change copyright and patent laws, so-called fair use practices, and the liabilities for alleged violations.

The provisions would stifle innovation, creativity, and information sharing, all under the guise of protecting intellectual property. And, many of the proposed changes are being suggested by US negotiators. Opposition to these restrictive policies is coming from other nations, like Canada, Chile, Malaysia, and New Zealand."

 

Right, so now many citizens will be rendered poorer because of increased costs to their meds, negating or disallowing the emergence of lower cost generics. Copyright restrictions are also bound to stifle creativity, making it much more difficult to reference previous work to either build upon or critique. Then there is the double standard on hacking, disallowing it for the usual n'er do wells but allowing exceptions: protection can be broken in the course of "lawfully authorized activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes".

Given what segments had been disclosed it was clear the rest of the TPP agreement would be even worse. Indeed on Wednesday night's Rachel Maddow show Maddow played a clip from the president’s appearance on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” on Monday, in which he actually said that progressives who oppose the TPP "prefer the status quo,” .

Actually no, Mr. Prez, we prefer a world and level playing field without Neoliberal hijinks and economic manipulations! THAT is the status quo right now, which TPP doesn't do one scintilla to break!

He also went on saying that while he believes Senator Warren to be an ally on many other issues, in this case “she’s just wrong.” Well, duh, of course she'd be seen as "wrong" if she stands up for the crumbling middle class against advancing Neoliberalism!

Maddow noted that although Obama believes the TPP to be "the most progressive trade compact in American history", progressives in his own party — in particular, Senator Warren — strongly oppose it. And she's absolutely right because we believe the playing field can't be tilted any more than it is toward Neoliberalism and markets dominating over the pro- human agenda. We cannot afford to have in place anything where government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative

 

Warren  correctly informed Maddow that one of the problems with the TPP is that the public has no access to it. Senators and representatives can read it, but they’re not allowed to discuss the details of it in public — which effectively means that Obama is asking the American people to take his word that the deal would have a favorable effect on the quality of middle-class American lives. But one could ask Mr. Prez if an informed citizenry is the basis for democracy, why are we being kept in the dark? Perhaps because we no longer have a democracy  but a corporatocracy! (And I won't even get into how much data, and how many files are being blocked from citizen scrutiny with the Obama administration now deemed the most secretive in U.S. history)

But that is the other prop the Neoliberals depend upon: citizen inertia, ignorance,  stupidity or belief in impotence, i.e. that they only have "opinions" - which carry no weight.  Also, they don't want citizens pursuing truth - information outside the media they promote, which is more invested in propaganda. This, my friends, is the Neoliberal paradigm at work. Whether it's preventing more disclosure on the exact details of the TPP,  or releasing all salient CIA files to do with the JFK assassination. (Which the National Archives refused to do in 2013, the 50th anniversary year - thereby enabling disinfo specialists and quacks like John McAdams to shamelessly continue their crusades to mock the conspiracy template.).
 

Meanwhile, the administration said Wednesday that the agreement will be made available online, and that there will be a period of "public comment  on it. Maddow noted this before asking Warren if that move would assuage some of her concerns.  But Sen. Warren wasn't biting:
 

“They’re asking us to vote now to grease the skids,” Warren replied, “so there won’t be any chance to amend or block it, won’t be any chance to slow it down.” She claimed that the administration is saying, “Give all that up, and you’ll get a chance to see the deal on the other side.”


 Sen. Warren didn't think that was acceptable and neither do I. It is instead a form of extortion. Indeed, the only thing that the American public has been able to learn about the deal is who was negotiating it — corporate lobbyists.  Well, we saw how that worked out when these same parasites wrote and negotiated the 2003 "Medicare Modernization Act" which ended up costing nearly 3 times more than originally promised and delivered a lump sum of corporate welfare equal to $13.6b to Big Phrma thanks to those who pushed it through like Billy Tauzin (La) who then became a lobbyist. Anytime corporate lobbyists are involved you know: a) the bill or agreement is toxic, and b) it is thoroughly in Neoliberal interests, not the people's.

To Maddow's question, Sen. Warren responded:

“My view is when the process is rigged, the outcome’s likely to be rigged too.”

Maddow then asked:
 

"You’re saying that the corporate interests don’t just have access to see what’s in [the TPP], they helped shape what’s in it?”


To which Sen. Warren replied:

“They’ve been in there for months and months and months during the negotiations,”

In other words, watching like the predators they are to make sure every damned 't' is crossed and every 'i' is dotted - in the favor of Neoliberal hegemony

Watch the entire interview via “The Rachel Maddow Show

And here is the letter of Sens. Warren and Sherrod Brown to Obama after his most recent attacks:

Your Administration has deemed the draft text of the agreement classified and kept it hidden from public view, thereby making it a secret deal… It is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement. And while you noted that Members of Congress may “walk over ... and read the text of the agreement” -- as we have done -- you neglected to mention that we are prohibited by law from discussing the specifics of that text in public.

Before Congress votes to facilitate adoption of the TPP, the American people should be allowed to see for themselves whether it’s a good deal for them.

If we really are a democracy then we need to heed Hartmann's words:

"Unions, civil rights advocates, environmental activists, and many other groups are demanding that the details of the TPP are made public. Before this massive trade deal is signed, Americans have the right to know what it contains, and the right to demand that our elected leaders say “No” to the TPP. -"

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/61928/hey-mr-president-transparency-applies-to-the-tpp-too

Excerpt:

What do we know about the TPP? Well, according to Public Citizen, we know that the TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.

We know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards. And we know that the TPP could make corporations even stronger and undo what few reforms are left on Wall Street.

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/61952/what-s-obama-up-to-with-his-tpp-and-ttip