Did Rafael Cruz Help Lee Oswald Kill JFK? Another Pile Of Bollocks

In St. Gallen, Switzerland in Sept., 2014, with former Swiss Spezialdienst Rolf, discussing JFK assassination.

It is not without good reason that Barbadian psychologist Pat Bannister carefully distinguished conspiracy culture from the conspiracy research community, and also conspiracy analysts from conspiracy "theorists". The former exercised full rationality and sobriety in the service of an objective investigative pursuit. The latter simply bloviated opinions without any basis in data, statistics or history. In this sense, those who have spawned and peddled the latest crap about Ted Cruz' dad Rafael being in league with Lee Oswald in the Kennedy assassination are engaged in utter codswallop. Worse, these type of juvenile conspiracy conjectures are what give serious conspiracy investigations a bad rap. Especially as the JFK assassination doesn't need any more wacky, half-baked inputs from delirious amateurs.

When I ran the latest tripe past my Swiss friend Rolf, who I referenced in my September 20, 2014 post (noting his insights into the Kennedy assassins in Switzerland) he almost passed out from laughing convulsions over Skype.  "Preposterous! Utterly preposterous!", he roared.

First, the image passed around was clearly during Lee's sojourn in New Orleans as a pseudo-member  for the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" in the summer of 1963, on Canal St. This was to pry open the workings of Guy Banister's operation in a building that had two entrances, one on 544 Camp Street the other from 531 Lafayette. Banister was conducting "Operation Mongoose" operations and maintained his office in conjunction with the CRC or "Cuban Revolutionary Council".  Rolf's best guess is that the character portrayed as Rafael Cruz was actually an innominate CRC member.

Second, there is absolutely no evidence, zero, that Oswald was involved in the assassination in any case and Rolf totally concurred with previous posts I'd made in 2013 that he was framed by David Atlee Phillips and his cohort out of the CIA's Mexico City station, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

As Rolf put it, "The guy was a patsy just as he claimed".  He also backed up the James Douglass' account ('JFK and the Unspeakable') of an Oswald "double" - observed by  U.S. Air Force Sgt. Robert Vinson while trying to return  to Colorado Springs on Nov. 22, 1963.    This "double" would have explained all the disparate occasions for aberrant behavior reported before the assassination, including the pro-commie rant at a Dallas car dealer's and his actions on a firing range.  Sgt. Vinson reported encountering the Oswald look-alike during a C-54 flight to  Lowry AFB near Denver, but which stopped first at Dallas' Trinity River area. There, Vinson described two men boarding just after 3:30 p.m. central time:  one a "Latino", 6' or 6'1" weighing 180-190 lbs. and wearing a mustache, the other 5'7" to 5'9" and Caucasian, 150-160 lbs.  Only later, i.e. when press photos materialized did Vinson realize the latter guy was the spitting image of Lee Harvey Oswald.  

None of this astonished Rolf who also knew the SD (and its affiliate Projekt 26)  readily exploited what they called “doppelgangers” for assorted tasks. He theorized other clandestine services also did this and a “doppelganger” might have played a role in the April, 18, 1990 assassination of Herbert Alboth.

But that Rafael Cruz (or the real Lee Oswald) was in any way involved in the JFK assassination is total nonsense.

Rolf's theory is that disinformationists tossed this out to be spread by unscrupulous U.S. sources in a heated election cycle. "It happens all the time" he said.

As Rolf noted two years ago, Oswald’s rifle could never have made the shots attributed to him on Nov. 22, 1963.   He agreed that my FAQ post on the rifle tests is the "absolutely correct" one, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html

And anything else being circulated is "disinformation", likely "from Warren Commission apologists".

As noted in the link even the WC's own test trials failed.  Hence, Rolf's take that the Warren Commission Report was little more than a “PR joke” mainly done to “cover Johnson’s ass”. Like me, he is convinced LBJ had a hand in orchestrating the hit, clearly to protect himself as he faced certain prosecution in the Bobby Baker scandal. He also offered that it was “sad” that no U.S. investigation had come near to the truth but “How could they if an agency of the government itself was involved?”  
As he put in during the Skype chat: "Americans have a lot more to worry about than  JFK conspiracy fables made up by poseurs. They shouldn't get distracted by carnival fluff but keep their minds on the issues."

I couldn't agree more!

Hillary's Superdelegates Need To Grow Up And Stop Whining

As Daniel Denvir noted in his salon.com column today, it appears Hillary's super delegates are pitching hissy fits about being "bothered night after night" by Bernie's passionate supporters. Many of these Hillary super delegates (giving HRC her mammoth lead) have professed the belief that "this isn't what we signed up for". Well, tough! You should have thoughtfully considered that before signing on to be the de facto 'thumbs on the scales' Dem primaries featuring a corrupt DNC system that trumps the will of primary voters.

I mean, why the hell should a responsible Dem voter go out for hours to caucus for Bernie if some little Schlub behind the curtains is just going to trump his vote by virtue of a political caste privilege? In this case the business and lobby class over the 'hard working Joe' class.  It makes no sense. Of course, the voters - as well as campaign canvassers-  would be livid, since it means all their work translates to zero benefit. Thus, even in states where Bernie stomped Hillary, he's not winning all the delegates he should because of the subversive super delegate system.

So no wonder Bernie supporters are passionate, peevish and more than ready to pour their ire onto these system-anointed tinhorns who believe their bounden duty is to keep the party establishment pure - with no unsightly independents running as Ds in the mix, and winning. (Never mind the Dems will need at least 50 % of the Independent vote which Bernie is carrying by huge margins now.)

As Denvir points out - correctly I might add- these people have NO right to be left alone or unchallenged on their actions. They may have signed on to be behind the screens controllers of the DNC and HRC destiny, but not to have it done in citizens' names without them strongly protesting. They ought to be thankful in fact that they aren't receiving death threats like some Republican honchos have been here in Colorado (after Ted Cruz snatched all Trump's 34 state delegates via a meet and greet system as opposed to the popular vote).

Trump's consiglieri arrived too late to make a dent, and by the time he had, Cruz' team had already snatched 6 delegates. As The Denver Post put it in an editorial from two days ago, it's too late to cry now and the Trump team ought to have known the rules before barging in and making wild statements that the state's system is "rigged". It wasn't, it just wasn't readily transparent to them - just as the D-system of super delegates isn't to Bernie voters.

But our side doesn't make death threats, we just get the names and telephone numbers and pester them. Sorry, but if you're a Hillary SD you're not entitled to live in the rarefied realm of domestic tranquility or no botheration- with people acting the part of sheeple. You can be bothered and you will unless you give a very good account of yourselves in this truly rigged system and why you're going for Hillary instead of Bernie - even in states (like HI, AK) where he clobbered her.

As Denvir made clear in his salon.com article, Bernie will bring a host (1,000+) of delegates to Philly, even if he fails to win the nomination. One of the things he ought to use them for - apart from getting more concessions from Hillary before signing on his supporters (such as NO more invasions, wars in the Middle East) - is to finally remove the super delegate system once and for all.

In the meantime, the Dem super delegates need to stop whining and moaning about Sanders' supporters calling them and protesting or demanding explanations. That is the cost of the democracy - the democratic voices - they otherwise believed they could skirt.

Brussels Attacks Fear? You're Still More Likely To Be Killed By An NRA -Backing Terrorist With An AR-15

Bwaaaaa! Daddy Reepo pwotekt me fwum dem bad guys! Bwaaaahahah

"Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for the purpose of a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Here we go again, another brutal ISIS attack, this time in Brussels - horrific scenes unfolding after one scumball detonated a suitcase bomb at the airport, and another POS blew himself up with his suitcase at a subway station. And what is the response from too many in the "land of the free and the home of the brave"? Well, to summarize a headline from salon.com: "panic, hysteria and Trumpism". 

How manifested? To take an example we beheld Ted Cruz in the hours after the attacks knee-jerk spouting that we "need to empower law enforcement to patrol in Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized". To which NYPD chief Bill Bratton on CBS this a.m. fairly spat: "He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about! I have 1,000 Muslim officers on my force and all are dedicated. The last thing we want is alienating law abiding Muslims because once they do become radicalized it's much harder to de-radicalize them."  But Cruz' stupid take was echoed by Trump and the Trumpkin brigade.

Seriously, it is depressing to witness these types of fearful reaction - especially by someone who lived through the Cuban Missile crisis when the entire world was threatened with vaporization and we had only the good sense and judgment of JFK to rely on. Thankfully, he rejected the Joint Chiefs'  demand to bomb and invade Cuba which would certainly have caused Castro to unleash at least 93 Russian made IRBMs on the eastern U.S., followed by a massive U.S. counter strike then a Soviet counter counter strike. Total nuclear exchange within 8 hours? About 690 megatons with 400 million dead and the rest of the world wishing they were. 

THAT was something real to be terrified about because it affected directly the existence of every man, woman and child on Earth. All stood to lose their lives either in the initial exchanges or from radiation sickness later. Today, in the wake of an isolated Brussels terror attack? Not so much. It barely makes the higher alert register - or should. Hence, I was glad to see Obama attending a baseball game in Cuba yesterday instead of rushing home in a panic, reinforcing the panicked portrayals and endless loops of Brussels' bedlam by the sensation-sotted U.S. media.

Well, there are some media exceptions. A Dec. 5, 2015 NY Times editorial in the wake of the San Bernardino killings noted, for example:

"The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks -- 45 people -- is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.... And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period.”

Now, any dumbo even with zero math background can surely see that 200,000 >> 45! I mean, how hard can this be? And that greater number was accomplished by high powered weapons and handguns, almost all purchased legally with the benediction of the NRA.  In other words, we're killing each other at a rate more than 4,400 times that which the terrorists are!

So why isn't this being processed? There are two possible reasons: 1) Americans are prevented from knowing the facts, the stats and hence don't process the ridiculous difference in threat, and 2) their reptilian brains over react to isolated terror events - magnifying them as proximate threats when they are distant ones. In such cases, the TV scenes have taken control of their amygdalas and viewers are then ruled by atavistic emotions more than reason.

 The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological or random but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.   Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, the Huffington Post found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies' but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.

See e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/65051/what-rough-beast-slaughter-is-the-standard-in-the-us

These killings were not done by 'crazies'  or Islamic terrorists but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.
In this light, and as the NY Daily News back in December featured on its headline, it is the NRA's Wayne LaPierre who qualifies as the real terrorist because it is HE who has made available the millions of lethal weapons to kill so many Americans (many more than ISIS could) by refusing to implement sane gun laws.

The purpose of all this? To show the relative risk of an American being killed in a terrorist attack here in the States is vanishingly small. Small enough not to lose sleep over, cancel plans for an outing - say to a cinema or ball game, and certainly so small that one would not wish to suspend civil liberties for any demographic in our population. Because to do so would be to play directly into the hands of the ISIS vermin and their zombie lackeys.

Be alert and aware, of course, but in an intelligent as opposed to paranoid and hysterical sense. Note things unusual and report them, but don't go off the rails seeking to expunge the basic principles embodied in the Bill of Rights, especially the fourth amendment. If we give in to fear we cease to be who we are and mutate instead into a fear-governed caricature unworthy of liberty.

As for the Brussels' news, tune in to get the occasional update but don't stay glued to the tube and this kind of news on an endless loop. It just feeds fear, and more panic and hysteria.

And besides, you risk becoming a Trumpkin.

Will Mitt's Anti-Trump Broadsides "Shake Some Sense" Into Trump Supporters?

"Here's what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. He's playing the members of the American public for suckers. He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.....the bullying, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics...is not the temperament of the stable, thoughtful person we need as leader." - Mitt Romney yesterday at Hinckley Institute

Former Reep Presidential candidate Mitt Romney  tore into The Donald yesterday morning leaving no insult unmentioned and indirectly calling down Trump supporters to halt their addiction to the guy. But will it work?  Will the Trumpy addicts be swayed by Mitt's 17 minute diatribe? Somehow, given nothing else has phased them, I doubt it.

Addressing a Republican National Committee (RNC) meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, Romney opened his speech by drawing on Ronald Reagan’s framing of the 1964 election as “a time for choosing”. The 2016 election, he argued, posed a similar crossroads for the American people. The Mittster conceded:

“I’m no Ronald Reagan, and this is a different moment in time, but I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time of choosing – one that will have profound consequences for the Republican party and, more importantly, for our country,”

Make no mistake Romney’s speech lived up to all the hype, including lacerating almost every Trump invention, idea or speculation - from Trump University to closed (bankrupt)Trump casinos and everything in between.. Portions of it had already been released to stations (e.g. MSNBC) hours before he delivered it. On 'Morning Joe' it was noted that the purpose was to "shake up Trump supporters and get some sense into them".  

The speech itself marked an unprecedented moment in American politics, with a growing number of prominent Republicans now desperately seeking to stop in his tracks a candidate who increasingly resembles the presumptive nominee. Romney laid out a case that was in equal parts scathing and urgent, while stating that “the prospects for a safe and a prosperous future are greatly diminished” if Republicans were to nominate Trump.

Indeed, Trump's Tuesday victories even have the Europeans going ballistic and dredging up memories of another charismatic, bombastic demagogue from 80 years ago.

The alarm has even made its way to the front pages of Der Spiegel, with the red-lettered word ('Wahnsinn' or 'Crazy Man' ) at the bottom.


Although Romney did not offer an endorsement, he praised candidates Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Ted Cruz and essentially suggested voters should support each of the three and pave the way for a brokered convention. Countering the rabid enthusiasm of Trumpies, Romney declared:

“One of these men should be our nominee,”

Noting the real estate mogul would precipitate another economic recession and weaken America’s standing overseas. Then adding as evidence for Trump's disqualification:

 “He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.”

Thursday’s speech was the first time Romney has delivered such comprehensive put down remarks on the state of the 2016 race. Romney weighed in on almost every would be pratfall from Trump’s debunked claim that “thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the September 11 terrorist attacks to his mocking of Senator John McCain for being captured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, to the mockery of a NY Times disabled reporter,  e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/trumps-mocking-of-handicapped-reporter.html

“Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics,” Romney said.

Romney’s appeal to reject Trump arrived less than 48 hours after the splenetic front runner picked up overwhelming victories on Super Tuesday, as Republicans in 11 states went to the polls. But this was not before other conservative media "powerhouses" -  including The Wall Street Journal  - had weighed in, e.g. with Trump-skewering columns by Brett Stephens and Holman Jenkins, Jr..

Brett Stephens in his 'Staring At The Conservative Gutter', wrote (after the KKK misstep):

"It would be terrible to think that the Left was right about the Right all these years. Nativist bigotries must not be allowed to become the animating spirit of the Republican Party. If Donald Trump becomes the candidate he will not win the Presidency but he will help vindicate the Left's ugly indictment. It will be left to decent conservatives to pick up the pieces".

Thereby implying anyone who votes for Trump is not a "decent conservative".

Holman Jenkins Jr. was even more blunt about Trump followers in his WSJ piece ('Trump Voters Need a Mirror', March 2, p. A15):

"To be honest and impolitic, the Trump voter smacks of a child who unleashes recriminations against mommy and daddy because the world is imperfect"

Adding:

"Until Trump and his fans show otherwise, he seems but the latest vessel of denial for voters who don't want responsibility. They want mommy and daddy"

Ouch! But columns like these two helped set the stage for Mitt Romney's lashing of Trump Thursday morning as well as the subtext  for his supporters to wake up from their agitated stupor. Which, let's face it, could also be fed by the desire for an emotional opposite to Obama's "no drama", Spockian, highly nuanced reactions and demeanor. (See: 'President Obama Created Donald Trump', WSJ, p. A13, today). This was an effect even moderate hack Joe Klein warned about in a TIME essay several years ago.

With the probability of a Trump nomination on the rise, the GOP establishment and its media have clearly been desperately in search of an alternative but left without a clear consensus candidate. At the same time, their columnists and spokespersons are incredulous people could actually be taking Trump seriously to run the country. The unspoken, unwritten subtext is 'What the hell are they drinking or smoking?'.  Even moderate media spokesperson(former anchor for NBC)  Tom Brokaw wondered Tuesday night if these supporters had lost touch with reality and didn't understand our checks and balances in the federal system.

"What if Trump can't deliver?" he asked. "What if our dispersed system of power prevents him from getting any of his promises done, like building the wall? What will they do?"

Good question! What indeed? Will they riot in the streets and screech how they were betrayed? Will they express severe buyer's remorse and never vote for anyone again - establishment or other?  But the fact is, Brokaw is correct, and they are all being set up for a massive letdown because the universe in which Trump could carry out his phantasmagorias is not the one that exists. The one we inhabit. . Because short of a takeover of government by Trump there is no way any of his claims to action can be manifest.

Romney didn't hesitate to tell the Hinckley site crowd of 500 that the party’s focus should be on defeating Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton,  “but a Trump nomination enables her victory”. (Well, not quite! At least one rep from Emily's List two weeks ago (on 'All In')  expressed fear and trepidation she would confront a "mad monkey with a gun" and one never knows what such a creature might do.)

Meanwhile, Romney himself, anticipating the Donald's reaction,  asked:

“Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low-road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.”

In fact, Trump referred in a speech to his endorsement of Mitt back in 2012 claiming "If I ordered Mitt to drop to his knees he would have".

So much for vindicating what Romney projected.

Sadly, none of these efforts is likely to have any effect at halting Trump's momentum. So long as his many followers want the macho "tough guy" or strong man to take all the bad guys down. So long as so many are addicted to this sort of brash approach Trump will continue on his road to the magic number of 1237 delegates - which if reached will commit those delegates to stick with him and not to bolt - say for Cruz or Kasich.

As Der Spiegel put it:

"Trump takes every opportunity in this campaign to portray his country as a down-and-out weakling. According to his strategy, when a nation's feeling of self-worth has hit rock bottom, it experiences a growing desire to overcome the "status quo" -- and for a strong man at the top."

SO long as so many believe the Trump narrative that the nation is a weakling, his coalition will continue to build on itself - and may even overturn Hillary's plans to make history. The only way to prevent that would be for every youthful Sanders' voter-supporter to throw his or lot in for HRC if and when Bernie departs.

Whether they actually will is another question.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/66263/an-open-letter-to-evangelical-trump-voters 

WSJ's Dan Henninger: Trump Running As An Independent Within Republican Party

I really had to laugh yesterday a.m. as I read the WSJ front page piece ('Some Married Couples Vow, Til Death- Or Donald - Do We Part')  on how married Repubs have to now avoid watching political TV at the same time, if one is a Trumpster.  The piece focused on several couples in different cities, including one featuring a "normal" wife who blurted: "I don't know who he is any more. Is this the man I married?"   Her hubby meanwhile, fairly gushed over the attributes of the Donald including saying he was a "breath of fresh air" and now he will "go all the way".

Well, maybe, unless the GOP establishment can find some way to halt his Donald Trump steamroller.

Meanwhile, the pundits and media have been scratching heads furiously to try to figure out why so many are rendered delirious and hang on his every word. Two nights ago, one night before last night's GOP debacle....errrr....debate....MSNBC's 'All In' featured a clip from VOX trying to explain Trump's appeal - across all class lines, ideological lines and even education. We learned:

"the psychological trait undergirding Trump's popularity is authoritarianism — a personality style characterizing people who are particularly sensitive to signs that the moral order is falling apart. When they perceive that the world as they know it is descending into chaos, they glorify their in-group, become highly intolerant of those who are different, and feel drawn to strong leaders who promise to fix things, and who do not seem shy about using force to do so."


Not long ago, The Economist (Dec. 5, 2015, p. 30)  posited Trumpsters as single mindedly seeking "scapegoats" for the nation's ills - including Obama, immigrants, Muslims, and other perceived "out groups" and also these supporters are:

"Typically members of the white lower middle class, they are at once jealous of the small privileges that distinguish them from the toilers below, and bitterly resentful of the faraway government that provides their Social Security, VA care and Medicare."

All this has, in turn, has incited controversy over whether Trump is a genuine conservative politician or a poseur, a pretender. Some opponents, including in the conservative media, have gone so far as to label him a "Clinton plant" to put up a candidate sure to be overwhelmed in the general election so that if he loses "the GOP will look like a forest shredded by a tornado"

Those words were written by the Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger  (Feb. 25, p. A11) who recognizes the threat if Trump is nominated and gets blown out as many predict. But at the same time he offered perhaps the most insightful take on the Trump candidacy as he noted (ibid.):

"Donald Trump is properly understood as running an independent candidacy from inside the formal structure of the Republican Party, as Mike Bloomberg did to run as Mayor of New York City. Nothing remotely resembling a political party is associated with Mr. Trump."

This is important to explore as it also shows the basis for Trump support. Henninger is averring that Trump is in reality an independent - with no allegiance to Republican Party principles or agendas. In this sense, we recognize that all political parties are formal political structures with consistent principles and platforms reached by consensus by the party's Pooh-Bahs. But Trump is outside this constellation of insiders and that's exactly what energizes his supporters.  He is also beholden to no one for his financial support so doesn't have to abide by what one or other Pooh-Bah dictates or tries to impose.  Again, it is this independence from the Beltway insider network that excites his supporters.

If Henninger's take is correct, and I believe it is, then if the GOP attempts to undermine Trump or contest his nomination, he will break off and go the independent route- fulfilling the role that he actually represents. At that juncture his independent candidacy will itself become formal and no longer a 'Trojan horse' within the formal party structure.

The problem is that not only will Trump likely lose the general election, but also peel off enough GOP votes (like Ross Perot did in 1992) to cause the Republican "formal" candidate - whether Rubio or Cruz - to lose as well.

Super Tuesday will certainly show who the pretenders are and whether The Donald's subversive indy candidacy within the Repub party really has momentum.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/66178/the-gop-debate-another-roiling-party-collapse

D.C. Snowstorm A "Sign from God"? How About A Howler Alert Here?

Tian -Tian the Giant Panda at the D.C. Zoo enjoys rolling around in the latest "sign from God" - according to some evangelicals.

The latest bunkum polluting the web is that the mammoth D.C. snowstorm was a "sign from God" basically with the deity inflicting this white pain because of the way the capitol has treated Israel and "glorified Iran". Reading some of these screeds it's hard not to erupt in howling laughter at the sheer gullibility of people. Especially those on the Right, and especially given that at the same time they are targeting the gov't (mainly the Dems and Obama, of course) their own pet boy Cruz is making friends with a turd (Mike Bickle) who evidently has it in for Jews. According to Right Wing Watch, e.g.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-welcomes-endorsement-mike-bickle-who-believes-oprah-forerunner-antichrist

Excerpt:

"Back in 2004, Bickle declared that as the End Times approach, all Jews will be given a chance to accept Jesus, warning that if they do not accept "the grace" of Christ, God will then "raise up a hunter" who will kill two-thirds of them "and the most famous hunter in recent history is a man named Adolf Hitler":

Jeebus Crisp, with a "friend"  like this piety 'puke who the hell needs enemies?  The Jews of Israel (or anyplace else) surely don't! This asshole is so stupid he actually believes that Oprah Winfrey is a forerunner of the Antichrist:. This turkey is best known for starting "IHOP" - the International House of Prayer, which is really more a clearing house and platform for loads of right wing Christian bollocks - such as spreading the rot about Hitler being a "hunter of Jews" sent by God to get them on the right path. (Seems that didn't work out too well!)

So given this mutt just conferred his endorsement on Ted Cruz - the new banner carrier for the evangelical Right - it's kind of funny that another segment of this bunch is actually asserting the D.C. snowstorm is a "sign" from the deity about the maltreatment of his people - the Jews of Israel. Anyone else not see something wrong with this picture?

I mean, give me a break! Leaving out any Jewish references or issues (given the disparity of the Right's twisted treatment of them -from "victims" to rightfully "hunted"), have these people never ever heard of nor'easters? Have they not heard or learned that they tend to strike in the part of the country just clobbered? (Mid-Atlantic to NE) In this case a mass of frigid air that left our region (of the Rockies) about four days ago then met up with warmer, moist air off the Atlantic and created the biggest fuckin;' storm since Sandy in 2012. The reason this son of a bitch was so fierce (30" in Washington, D.C. up to Saturday afternoon) is precisely because the air was more moisture laden. In case the howlers of the Right don't get it - warmer air (as from global warming) always holds more moisture. Thus, as warming ramps up (2015 was the hotted year on record - see my blog post from yesterday) such major storms will become even more common.

In other words, when you boil all the factors down, there is no supernatural sign at work here, simply a natural phenomenon (nor'easter) on "steroids" because of much more moisture laden air resulting from protracted warming. This is a condition of our atmosphere that won't change anytime soon - so look for even bigger storms next time - maybe dumping 40" instead of 30".

In general,  the problem with invoking "divine signs" is that they are all subjective (apart from being uniformly negative) and say more about the psyche of the invokee than those against whom the signs are invoked. Thus, when the horrific tsunami struck Japan back in 2011, and thousands were killed, we heard off the wall Xtians professing it was a "sign" of God's anger that they had embraced Shintoism and Buddhism and not Christianity.  We heard the same type of bullshit after Haiti was struck by an earthquake in 2010 - in that case it was a "sign" of God's anger that too many still practiced voodoo and other pagan rituals. Then, after 9/11, we heard and saw other self-righteous assholes (like Pat Robertson) asserting the attack was a "sign" of God's displeasure with the fact the nation still had too many "homos" and carried out abortions.

And it's  interesting to me these "signs" are always invoked after the fact. We never get a sign prediction in advance, say like "God will send thirty inches of snow upon Washington, DC as punishment for the Obama administration's treatment of Israel and Netanyahu"  . Nope, it's always ex post facto,  citing the ambiguous words in scripture about "signs" such as for the "last days". Which, of course, can be read so many ways and with such interpretative latitude that anyone could drive a metaphorical Mack truck through them.

So please, spare me the signs B.S. Here's a bigger sign for all my Right Wing friends and family: The sign that Ted Cruz is NO friend of Jews or Israel is his acceptance of the endorsement of the Jewish hater Mike Bickle, who could actually believe in his heart of hearts that a God of love would create a murderous beast like Adolf Hitler to "hunt" the Jews for their refusal to kowtow to salvation dictates. Oh, and that he would also prophesy that unless the Jews convert then this God will vouchsafe to send another "hunter" after them.

As for the radical Right's howling about the Obama administration releasing $100b in Iranian assets over the weekend, that is also misplaced. Let's first clarify those assets belong to Iran, not the U.S.. It was also fair to repay Iran 1.3 percent interest on what was essentially a loan kept for over 35 years. Try to get that kind of lender interest from a bank, now or in the past!

As nuclear compliance specialist Joe Cirincione ('Ploughshares Fund' President) put it:

"This is a way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. without going to war. It has its risks, but those pale compared to the alternatives."

Indeed. He then elaborated on the parameters, to which most critics are oblivious when they yelp that Iranians are too "wily" and have "every incentive to cheat". (Implying the IAEA isn't up to the job of inspection).

"This is not based on trust, this is not based on good intentions. It's not based on the technologies we've used in Iraq, for example. This is 21st century technology, state of the art, fiber optics seals, cameras, sensors, audits, inventories allowing 24/7 inspections in all the declared facilities and the right to inspect suspect facilities including the military sites so much in dispute. One might possibly evade one layer of these inspections but the chances of evading all are quite remote . We can track every aspect of Iran's  production and with those inspections there's no expiration date."

This is critical because it means the harshest critics - namely the Repukes, the Wall Street Journal op-ed bunch  and Netanyahu-  are not aware of the modern in situ sensor inspection capacity, i.e. that allows the Iranian facilities to be electronically "spy"  monitored 24/7. And let me make the further point Iran earned those assets back by its nuclear compliance.  Those still skeptical may wish to consult this report from the American Institute of Physics:

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/68/12/10.1063/PT.3.3014

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/65657/five-reasons-ted-cruz-is-even-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump

"The GOP Debate From Hell"

Ok, I did tune into the GOP debate last night - very briefly - but the general tenor of the loaded questions asked by the FOX Business channel  bunch - combined with the barrage of clownish, ignorant answers from the 7 on stage nitwits  - became too much so that after twenty minutes I had to 'phone it in.' There is a limit to how much bare bullshit a person can absorb at one time.

Anyway, for those who wish to see a take that pretty well agrees with mine - but which P.M. Carpenter had the energy and ambition to actually write, here is the link to his piece "A GOP Debate from Hell".

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/65560/a-gop-debate-from-hell


Excerpt:

"Two ghastly hours of infantile Obama-bashing and Clinton-cussing; a vile, vertiginous romp through the most exotic of right-wing fantasylands; and the shocking, unspeakable realization that the degenerate Donald Trump is probably the most presidentially capable among the whole squalid bunch. That was my Thursday night. How was yours?

It was at times unbearable. By 9:15 Eastern I was praying for 11:00 p.m. Eastern. When 11:01 came and they were still at it, I turned it off; I turned off the wrenching spectacle out of a surfeit of wrench. The assault on one's consciousness, the rape of national dignity, the unprecedented degradation of the presidential chase itself — all were almost indescribably brutal.

The only honorable moment came in Trump's eloquent defense — in response to the immeasurably offensive Ted Cruz — of New Yorkers. Otherwise hateful untruths, distortions, slanders and fashionably partisan stupidity gushed from the stage in malevolent torrents.

No, Hillary Clinton is not under FBI investigation; yes, Christie did support the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor; no, presidents don't go to war over poor navigation; yes, astronomical tariffs have been proposed by The Donald; no, the answer to stopping mass shootings is not "simple"; yes, the mere mention of "New York values" will always amuse the tee-heeing rubes; and no the United States is not weak, it still has a monstrous military and a monstrous military budget to prove it."

------
As for the next Dem debate - which ought to be a hum dinger as Bernie's poll numbers tie or exceed Hillary's - that will be scheduled on MSNBC at 9:30 p.m. ET  - after the last NFL playoff game Sunday, between the Steelers and Broncos.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her DNC crew now need to hope the game doesn't go into double overtime thereby depressing the numbers of viewers.

But hey, in a way that's just what the Hill-allied DNC wants to keep Bernie's name profile low. It won't work.

Donald Trump Actually Talks Sense For Once in REEP Debate #5

Let's first be honest and point out that - as Guardian UK columnist Richard Wolffe put it, this fifth Reepo “debate” was "about as convincing as the gondolas gliding along the supposedly Grand Canal outside the  (Venetian) casino."  If you've ever been to the Venetian you know what Wolffe's talking about, including the faux blue skies and the whole artificial setting, e.g.


A Venetian gondolier - from our trip to Vegas in 2006.

So it was almost to be expected this debate would reflect the artifice of the environment. We beheld Trump, for instance, "ambling in like the character he plays on 'The Apprentice': the judge on a reality show."  And where other candidates embraced the audience as potential voters, "Trump weakly applauded them as apprentices aspiring to his hiring." You had to admire his chutzpah.

But the main takeaway is that most of these guys believe the American people (or at least those who actually vote) are a bunch of whiny little 'fraidy cats or infants, e.g.

"Pwotekt me, Mista Goopa!"

 And can be drumbeaten into the GOOPr fold by manic, unhinged rhetoric spewed out in a hawk fest more appropriate to the meeting scene in 'Dr. Strangelove'. (Google to learn the connection if you never saw the flick.)

There was Jeb! boasting how he wanted to "increase defense spending" to fight ISIS despite the fact we are now spending $667 billion a year. WTF does he want? Another $3 trillion squandered like his dumb bro pissed away in the Iraq War?  In any case, the last thing we need is another Bush in the White House to complete the descent of this country into 2nd class nation status. And then there was Cruz who intended to "carpet bomb" Raqqa - the HQ for ISIS -  but which actually is a city of over 400,000,  with mostly civilians. Collateral damage, anyone? How about intentional genocide?

We also had the really immature dolts going after Russia, which nation I guess they really believe is a "paper tiger" as one deluded WSJ poppet put it a week ago in an op ed. There was John Kasich (who I once took to be the GOP "adult") bragging he intended to "punch Russia in the nose". Good luck on that, pally, but you are going to have to go through Vladimir Putin first, and somehow I don't think you're up to it against the former KGB head who walks with a "gunslinger's gait". (As noted in a report on the news last night, from having his weapon at the ready on that right side.)

Then we have the heavyset (putting it mildly) turkey,  Chris Christie,  who actually wants to outdo Gen, Curtis LeMay (from 1962's Cuban Missile Crisis) vowing he would effectively  start World War III if he had to by shooting down Russian pilots over Syria - if he put up a no fly zone. He even defended it this morning, essentially insinuating if he put up such a zone the Russians would not dare disobey it, "if they knew the consequences". One wonders what manner of marijuana edibles or candies this fool was ingesting.

Amidst all this huff and puff it was therefore gratifying to at least see Trump separate from the hawkathon and especially inveighing against the insane GOP yen for 'regime change". We've already seen in Iraq (ousting Saddam), Libya (ousting Muammar Ghadaffi) how this game plays out and now also the eagerness to supplant Assad in Syria. Mincing no words, Trump emphatically stated that the $4 trillion blown on those regime change operations would have been better spent here at home for roads, infrastructure, schools, etc. He also added that any future trillions that the interventionists might wish to blow, would be better spent here in the U.S. To which the harpy-witch Carly Fiorina responded he was "talking more like Obama". Actually no, you ignorant misfit, he was talking sense!

By contrast, the odious slob Chris 'Crisco' Christie instantly disqualified himself by asserting that he'd have no qualms shooting down a Russian plane over Syria after installing a dopey "no fly" zone. So, he'd risk incinerating billions in a third world (nuclear) war to prove his security bona fides and that his Pillsbury doughboy frame really had the balls to do it. (Recall in 'Oct. 62 JFK had to restrain Gen. Curtis LeMay who wanted to bomb Cuba into the stone age, despite the fact there were 93 fully armed IRBMs  aimed at the eastern and central U.S.)

What Christie really showed is how easy it is for one's ass to occupy one's brain, when bravado supersedes common sense and intellect.

Christie, while lamenting the sense of fear gripping the United States,  then ended up stoking as much fear as possible, talking at length in dog whistle style about the bomb threat that closed the Los Angeles Unified school system on Tuesday. But somehow ignoring that the New York authorities in his backyard decided the same threat was a hoax. (The reason given by the NYPD Police commissioner is that the email sender referred to "allah" and not Allah.)

By contrast to Christie and the other warmongering, take 'em all out Reepo yahoos,  Trump showed forbearance and sound judgment- at least by his stated unwillingness to intervene and overthrow yet another Middle Eastern state and for nothing.  (Of course, he later more or less neutralized the quantum of rationality displayed then by his stance on killing the families of terrorists. As Rand Paul asked: "Ever heard of the Geneva Convention?")

Let's recall the Bush bunch are the original regime changers so no surprise Jeb! had to butt in to do an indirect defense of his incompetent brother.

Late in the debate, for example,  Jeb! jabbed at Trump for "getting his national security advice from retired generals on cable TV.". But Trump simply stepped out of the exchange to critique his rival and the moderators – retaking his role as judge rather than participant.

At one point Jeb clearly lost it,  barking:

“You’re never going to be president of the United States by insulting your way to the presidency,”

“Well, let’s see,” said Trump, “I am at 42 and you’re at three,” he added citing recent polls. “So, so far, I’m doing better.”

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz tried to talk with a certain Texan swagger on how he'd "wipe out ISIS" and basically do everything Obama "isn't doing"  now. Except Obama is, including sending in more strategic ground forces for support. But as I noted before, it's easy for imps like Cruz and Rubio to try to out swagger each other with empty rhetoric when they hold no real positions of power. It's likewise easy for a pompous porker like Christie to vow he'd shoot down Russian planes when the only really nasty thing he's done up to now (as NJ Governor) is shut down a key bridge backing up traffic in his state for miles- and hours.

The most important aspect of last night's debate was to show that the Reeps -most of them - can only "win" by instilling fear. Fear of the terrorists and fear of our own shadows, if we let the lizard brain take over the prefrontal cortex.  People need to bear in mind the only political leverage the Reepos hold is the terror card. And if they can get enough of us to submit, and believe terrorism trumps all else - then we will have truly fucked ourselves to a far thee well in next year's elections.

The facts speak otherwise, that this era and period is nowhere near as terrifying as many in the past, including the Cuban Missile Crisis which I lived through when we came within a hair's breadth of WW III. Our much bigger fear ought to be of the millions of assault weapons in our midst which too many seem to be quite content to leave alone, at least their regulation, out of a misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. Meanwhile mass murders go on daily, not by terrorists or ISIS sympathizers but by fellow Americans too ready to settle things or act out with their AR-15s. There've been 200,000 slaughtered since 9/11 by these weapons in the hands of fellow citizens, vs. 45 killed by terrorists. Do the math! And if you are still terrorized by ISIS,  or any other random jihadi terror,  you don't deserve to call yourself an American - or at least claiming that you belong in "the home of the brave".

And if you believe Chris Crisco Christie is the answer- as some expressed in an MSNBC focus group this morning-  you definitely don't know which end is up or what WWIII would look like. So I suggest you get the movie 'Threads' and watch it - maybe several times - to let it sink in.

If this fifth debate did anything it showed the Dems still are the adults in the room, and the party most likely to feature a sane and temperate leader in a world too overrun by fear, panic sand over-heated rhetoric. But, of course, the election next year will ultimately depend on adults - not fearful infants - to make the decision that best serves the nation.

And when one writes that Donald Trump was (relatively speaking) the most rational on the stage tonight, you have some idea of just how fucked up the GOP really is.

Scientific Experts Flunk Nearly All GOP Prez Candidates On Climate Change

It just doesn't get any better than this: At the request of the Associated Press, eight climate and biological scientists (university professors) graded the top dozen presidential candidates on what they have said regarding climate change-global warming.  That includes: in debates, tweets and in interviews, e.g. on radio or TV. (Source: The Denver Post, 'GOP Hopefuls Not Even Warm', NOv. 23, p. 11A)

To eliminate the possibility of bias all the candidates' comments were stripped of identity, names and instead given randomly generated numbers so none of the professors would know who exactly made each comment that they were grading. All of the scientists were selected by professional scientific societies as being the most capable of assessing the level of fact, fiction or distortion in any given statement.

The end results were noting short of amazing, well, okay - assuming you didn't know that the Reepos are the anti-science party.  A summary of the findings, grades follows:

- Hillary Clinton had the highest score at 94.

- Martin O'Malley scored 91, although three of the professors didn't assign grades, saying his statements were more about policy.

- Bernie Sanders scored an 87, and according to press releases was "dinged for exaggeration" when he said global warming "could make the Earth uninhabitable"

But let's be fair here. Technically, global warming itself would not make the planet uninhabitable, BUT - if global warming accelerated to the runaway greenhouse effect, it absolutely would render Earth uninhabitable.  See, e.g.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html


Moving on:

- Jeb Bush was the only Republican candidate to "almost" pass at 64. (Though in the end the profs agreed to given him a passing grade, I guess because they couldn't bear to see all the Reeptards fail)

- Gov. Chris Christie scored 54, though like O'Malley, two profs deferred grading because they believed his statements were more about policy than science.  (Which suggests to me that the realms of policy and science can often overlap)

- John Kasich scored 47

- Rand Paul scored 38

- Carly Fiorina scored 28

- Marco Rubio scored 21

- Donald Trump scored 15

- Ben Carson score 13

- Ted Cruz scored 6. (All eight professors put Cruz at the bottom of the class)


Some example comments and reactions:

Rubio confronted the issue in a Sept. 16 debate, arguing that:

"China is now the top greenhouse gas emitter and the U.S. can do little to change the future climate"

But one prof from Macalester College (Louisa Bradtmiller) responded that the fact the U.S. still spews out 17 percent of the world's CO2 shows "big cuts would still make a difference"

To Rubio's claim that China isn't doing much, Prof. Andrew Dressler - a climate scientist at Texas A & M called "nonsense" and is "out of date".

Cruz earned bad grades for telling an interviewer:

"If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years there's been zero global warming. That satellites say it ain't happening".

But Florida State's James Elsner called bollocks and noted ground data show every decade has been warmer than the last since middle of the 20th century and that satellite-based observations "show continued warming over the past several decades"

Climate scientist Michael Mann observed, when the comment for Cruz' random numbered comment came up:

"This individual understands less about science and climate change than the average kindergartner."

In fact, federal ground-based data (which scientists aver is more reliable than satellites) show 15 of the 17 years since 1997 have been warmer than 1997, and 2015 is on track to top 2014 as the warmest ever year on record. So much for the nonsense of a "global warming pause".

Meanwhile, "the Donna" (as in prima donna) - in a September radio interview, said:

"It could be warming but it's going to start to cool at some point. And you know in the 1920s people talked about global cooling".

But as I pointed out in several previous posts,  while the global cooling zeitgeist originated in the 1920s it was  picked up again in the mid to late 1970s. It was soon left in the scientific dustbin, after it was discovered a decade or so later, that it had been incepted by particulates and aerosols in the atmosphere.  After the Clean Air Act and similar bills were passed overseas (e.g. in the UK), those particulates disappeared and the cooling was no longer evident. (Aerosols remained and gave way to the global dimming phenomenon which also concealed the worst of global warming - but when aerosols were also controlled - after similar legislation, global dimming also receded and warming assumed dominance.)

Harvard's James McCarthy - a former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)  called Trump's comments "nonsense". Emmanuel Vincent, a climate scientist at the Univ. of California-Merced said:

"The candidate does not appear to have any commitment to accuracy"

The general assessment of all the Reepo candidates who failed?

Roughly the level of advanced kindergartners or first graders. Totally unfit to govern a nation faced with perhaps the greatest crisis in human history.

GOP Candidates Talk Tough But They Have NO Serious Plan Superior To Obama's On Eradicating ISIS

In his book, Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free , political and cultural critic Charles Pierce exposes at multiple levels:  including politics, economics and religion-  how too many Americans have become hostages to stupidity. This is mainly because they were never taught logic or critical thinking in the first place.Mostly, they are only good at regurgitating the insane, idiotic blather of their "heroes" - whether El Rushbo on talk radio, or "The Donna" Trump (aka "little Hitler") out on the hustings.

Evidence is pouring in that current events confirm Pierce's take, including new polls that show 53 percent of Americans want no Syrian refugees entering the country  - even women and children - despite the fact this nation has one of the most rigorous systems in place to screen newcomers. A screening far more intense and all -encompassing than allowed for the nation's gun buyers.

Additionally, 11 percent demand only Christian Syrians be permitted entry. They clearly demand ultra safety in this terror age redux. The question that arises is let's even say their demands are met (again mostly echoed and recycled from the GOP poppet parade) how are they going to protect kith and kin when the next AMERICAN mass shooter opens up on them at a cinema or a church, given the NRA won't even allow the sale of smart guns or universal background checks? 

The key aspect these ninnies don't get is that so long as we have loose gun laws no one is going to be safe from slaughter. Why can't they process that rigorously regulating the guns in this country is more important than regulating the entry of Syrian refugees already subject to intense screening - much more powerful than anything the NRA allows?

As Connecticut governor Dannell  Malloy put it in an "All In" interview Monday night, referring to this nonsense:

"From 2004 through 2014 according to the GAO report, we sold 2,042 guns to people who are on the terrorism watch list. Why? Because the NRA  has refused to allow people who are on the watch list as ineligible to buy guns in the United States. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

Got that? The NRA has disallowed those on terror watch lists being ineligible  to purchase high powered weapons. Looks like the real terrorists these 53% and 11% ought to be fretting about are the NRA, because as I observed in yesterday's post:

"I'd just add that the loss of future lives in these United States is much more likely to come from unregulated guns in the hands of the wrong people,  as opposed to Syrian refugee babies strapped with IEDs as the GOOPrs fear."

But the caterwauling hasn't stopped, because like any political opportunists, these shameful assholes - including "The Donna", The Cisco Kid (Rubio) and Canuck Cruz have all been increasing their bombast to try to prove how rough and tough they'd be with ISIS and how they'd solve the problem with "ground forces" (despite no 'Muricans in any poll are for that, given the cost in lives and treasure) or with bombing 'em into oblivion like The Donna wants.

They also haven't held back on the nutso rhetoric including "shutting down all mosques in the country" and yapping:

"Obama was primarily angry at the Republicans rather than the terrorists who did this!" (The Donna)

And he also blabbed:

"We can't take a chance that some of these people coming in are ISIS"

Er, ok, how about a lone wolf American - totally off the watch list and screening grid, but radicalized by ISIS videos - how you gonna protect yourself from him making a soda can bomb (such as depicted on the ISIS rag 'Dabiq') and setting it off in a theater or restaurant? OR - buying a Kalashnikov at a gun show and spraying rounds into a crowd? You can't put cops everywhere!

It shows how stupid this blather is.

Then there's this choice remark from Cruz:

"I would encourage you, Mr. President, come back and insult me to my face".

Really? This from the putz who barely 12 months ago put up a campaign video on a website with him prancing around in women's wear? What, are you going to wave your panties at Obama?

Earlier on the same "All In" Monday night, Charles Pierce skewered all these idiots and showed using statistics and attention to logic and critical thinking that NONE of these dopes would really do anything other than Obama is doing if actually in office.

As Pierce put it, you can say anything you want as a candidate because there's no accountability. You can even claim you will defeat the bad guys with a super weapon or special strategy hitherto untried, and you can bet there will be enough dumb Americans to believe it.

Pierce also put a lot of the blame, as I do, on a corporate media that has failed itself to hold this cavalcade of yahoos to account in asking the tough questions when they pop off.  You see it every time they have a debate, such as the last one on the FOX business channel, and you see it in all the assorted spot interviews. They let each of them, whether Cruz, Trump or Rubio pop off without bounds, but then don't push back with critiques or hard questions - as Cronkite would have done back in the 60s.

Rubio did get one thing  partially right when he said:

"ISIS can only be defeated by a ground force  the bulk of which is made up of Sunnis themselves who reject their (ISIS) ideology and defeat them militarily"

 However, as I already noted, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-ground-war-only-way-to-crush-isis-bugs.html

this still wouldn't be enough - an adequate ground force would have to include well trained troops from the two recent victim nations: France and Russia.

Finally, to confirm Ben Carson and his campaign are part of Idiot America check out his erroneous map of the U.S. here as appended to the 'We're Saying No' area - on who is rejecting Syrian refugees:

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2015/11/ben-carson-states-wrong-map/

Colorado To Accept Syrian Refugees - Never Mind the Howling Monkey GOOPs

As the GOP candidate field blusters and fulminates over allowing war torn Syrian refugees into this country, several points need to be borne in mind as also elucidated by CT Governor Dannell Malloy on Chris Hayes "All In' last night:

1- The vetting process to screen entrants is the most rigorous in the world, taking up to 18-24 months to complete and is performed by the National Counterterrorism Center and the FBI Terrorist Screening Center. . As an example, Malloy cited the stats of 23,000 Syrian refugees who had originally applied some four years ago, 7,000 were subsequently accepted and 2,300 have only now been settled  in states across the nation, including FLA, GA, AL

2- Three fourths of the refugees are women and children.  Barely 2 percent of those finally allowed entrance are young males.

3. Many of the refugees had actually assisted the U.S. in gathering intelligence (humint) and now would be slaughtered by ISIS if left behind.

4. It is nuts and absurd to fret about the odd chance of some radical getting through the exhaustive screening process and getting a Kalashnikov when at the same time the GOP and NRA is adamantly opposed to universal background checks.

In respect to (4) as Gov. Malloy pointed out last night:

"From 2004 through 2014 according to the GAO report, we sold 2,042 guns to people who are on the terrorism watch list. Why? Because the NRA  has refused to allow people who are on the watch list as ineligible to buy guns in the United States. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

Indeed, and as Malloy added,

"in the next year 30,000 Americans are going to die from gun violence and those same governors that came out today to say they wouldn't take refugees are the same governors who oppose common sense gun control laws in America. Why don't we have universal background checks?"

Good question! And yet the same Repuke guvs are going to cry and whine about a possible Syrian baby being strapped with an explosive device - while letting 30,000 ordinary Americans get slaughtered from the lack of adequate gun regulation, because they don't want to upset the NRA.

In fact, those 2,000 -odd Syrian refugees have been living in this country for the past year or so even as more than 200 people - innocents - have been slaughtered in mass murder gun incidents because the GOP wants to protect its cash flows, contributions from the NRA.

If you're going to preach about "being safe, not sorry" you at least need to make sure you're being consistent and that includes gun regulation. Incredibly the GOOP brigade won't even allow the sale of smart guns (which can only fire if the proper owner is ID'd) because their NRA overlords don't want them around.

All this is background to why the sane citizen ought to turn a deaf ear to all the screeching and howling  erupting from the GOP presidential candidate field - and also the 30-odd Repuke gubernators who now have also said they won't accept these refugees.

Fortunately, not all states are so blinkered and devoid of humanity. As reported in yesterday's Denver Post (p. 9A, 'Colorado Will Accept Refugees') Colorado will not join the states whose governors are asking to block the White House from sending in Syrian refugees. (DO any of these halfwits even know how many hundreds may already be residing in their states?)

Of course, it's all huff and puff because the White House has no intention of blocking refugee processing - given the length of time it takes - and how our nation takes fewer than any other country in the world. (The GOP idiots, like Ted Cruz, are also off in saying no Muslim nations take them in. Well, Lebanon has nearly 1.2 million among its 4 million population, and Turkey has almost 2 million. But what would you expect from an ignorant demagogue like Canuck Ted?)

As Gov. John Hickenlooper put it, quoted in the piece:

"Our first priority remains the safety of our residents. We will work with the federal government and Homeland Security to ensure the national verification process for refugees is as stringent as possible. We can protect our security and provide a place where the world's most vulnerable can rebuild their lives."

Meanwhile, the Denver Post editorial in the same edition, decried the reaction of the Republican fear mongers - all out to get the panties of their base wet out of trepidation that "Obummer" will let "bad guys" in when they are much more likely to get shot by an American who bought an AR-15 via a straw purchase or at a gun show.  Thanks to their precious NRA militating again sane gun regulations.

The Post editorial ('A Panic Attack on Syrian Refugees') observed:

"The idea that this nation of more than 300 million people can't find a home for 10,000 refugees that the Obama administration has pledged to accept - and do a thorough job of screening them - is difficult to accept. How about starting with families with children?"


The Post went on to commend Gov. Hickenlooper for his acceptance while also pointing out:

"The U.S. refugee process is nothing like the seemingly helter skelter dash for the borders that the world has witnessed in Europe in recent months."

The Post also tweaked the noses of the Reich wing critics by noting that several of the terrorists in Paris were French nationals, not outsiders at all. Also, the mastermind of the Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud,  was a Belgian national and evidently - according to news this a.m. - was captured in the Paris suburb of Saint Denis last night in a gun battle lasting 90 minutes.

 As the Post's editorial  accurately noted:

"Life will never be risk free and terrorism is a possibility so long as radical Islam remains a potent force."

This is also why the new bill Paul Ryan and Co. are proposing, which would mandate any screening done "certify the refugee is not a security threat" is total bollocks. It is as daft in its own way as a gun dealer certifying under some (existing) state law that the purchaser of a mint AK-47 would never use it in a mass murder. You simply cannot legislate risks to zero and the GOP's clowns know that -showing it's a basic political play - which, of course, they deny.

I'd just add that the loss of future lives in these United States is much more likely to come from unregulated guns in the hands of the wrong people,  as opposed to Syrian refugee babies strapped with IEDs as the GOOPrs fear.

Never mind, Ryan and his howling monkey chorus of stooges will likely try to shut down the government if they can't get their way.

If A Kristallnacht Event Occurred in the U.S. Would Anyone Recognize It?

Kurt Braun, former Hitler Youth,  showing scenes of 1930s Nazi rampages in 1978

Kurt Braun, a late good German friend of wifey and myself (originally of Janice, from a skiing trip to the Austrian alps in 1960 when she met Kurt and his gf Ute) had amassed an archive from footage of Nazi depredations by the time we saw him in Frankfurt-Am-Main in 1978. One night, he asked if we'd like to see some of his films and we said 'yes' then sat spellbound as we watched the horrors of the Reichstag Fire, then Kristallnacht and assorted scenes of Jews as well as Marxists being dragged from their homes and beaten mercilessly in the streets of assorted towns and cities.

Kristillnacht - which anniversary was marked yesterday, occurred in 1938 and saw Nazis, mainly their S.S. thugs, smashing Jewish Synagogues  (the shattered glass from the windows giving the event its name) then desecrating them and setting them on fire- as they beat the Jews that escaped nearly to death. Even the re-screening caused uneasiness in Kurt, who was forced to join the Hitler Youth under threat of rape to his mother, but he wanted us to see the events unedited as they unfolded. Not after they'd been sanitized in a media presentation.

The thing that stood out in the film was how the Jews were singled out and then persecuted for their beliefs as well as for erroneous beliefs cast upon them, i.e. that they were "vermin".Later, based on misshapen Nazi dogmas they were rounded up, bungled onto transports to concentration camps, and slaughtered in gas chambers.

Might the same happen in the U.S. at some future date?

In his alarming Wall Street Journal piece, 'From Kristallnacht to the Kindertrasnport to Finally, America', Kristallnacht survivor John H. Lang believes we should all be on our guard. He is clearly one of those who subscribes to George Santayana's warning: "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it".

But, interestingly, his worry is not for any victim subset in America but for Christians in the Middle East when he writes:

"In the shadow of the Kristallnacht anniversary I see that the Christian communities of the Middle East are being savaged by Islamic terrorists"

He then describes the beheadings, women "condemned to acts of depravity" and churches burned, all of which ought to raise alarms.  But what about closer to home? Might we not have a "subclass" right here in the U.S. earmarked for methodical extermination?

The idea was first brought out in an obscure 1992 Playboy magazine article when contributing writer Joe Bageant described an evangelical conference that approved of using gas chambers to kill all the anti-Christian "vermin" fouling the U.S. including atheists, pornographers, gays and others. The article received little attention because most believed Bageant was exaggerating. Christians, famous for professing love of God and fellow man, couldn't possibly attempt such vile acts!

Then, last night, Rachel Maddow revealed a conference held by extremist Christians featuring speeches and discussions with strategies to murder gays. The confab (National Religious Liberties Conference) included methods on the best way to do it, e.g. throwing off cliffs, stoning, shooting etc. The instigator was a bug-eyed religious freak from Colorado named Kevin Swanson who went on a minutes -long harangue of how it was justified - quoting the Bible, of course. I swear it was as painful to watch as Kurt's films of Nazis throttling and killing Jews.

Swanson invoked Leviticus 20:13 ("it says we can kill homosexuals, not my words but God's") as well as Romans 1, where we're told Paul gave Xtians special dispensation to stone them to death. However, the putz was generous enough to say "we don't need to kill the gays now" since "we will give them time to repent". Cheeze, that's damned gracious of you, asshole! How about atheists, will you give us time to repent too?

Note that this knuckledragging turkey isn't even aware that homosexuality is a result of epigenetic changes not a personal choice. Epigenetics constitute  heritable changes caused by factors other than DNA. Instead of traits getting passed down through the genes, epigenetic change happens because of the way genes are regulated, or turned on and off

Hence, according to a recent paper in the Quarterly Review of Biology  homosexuality arises from heritable changes and consequent epigenetic changes leading to the action of so-called "epi-marks". (If a gene is a blueprint, the epi-mark is the construction foreman who makes sure the product gets built.)

 Thus, if an epi-mark that keeps a mother from getting exposed to high testosterone in development gets passed on to her son — the opposite sex — it could desensitize him to testosterone, contributing to his sexual preference for men. These findings  explain why twin studies show that homosexuality runs in families, but no "gay gene" has been found.

In other words, this demented fucktard Swanson is demanding gays "repent" for some biological, epigenetic influence not under their control. It would almost be like demanding a short man "repent" and become tall. (I guess he could if he finds the right elevator shoes!)

The goofball then welcomed the three Presidential candidates in attendance to the stage: Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal.

He's then seen asking Cruz how a President ought to act each day and Cruz responds :"He ought to start each day on his knees".   Er, no, Cruz,we don't want any Christian Mullahs.

Needless to say, Cruz, Jindal and Huckabee ought to be disqualified for high government office just on the basis of attending this "religious liberties" confab. The irony of the name surely lost on the 1700 attending Jacobins hell bent to kill gays born with an epigenetic divergence.

Back to the point:  Given this Conference on killing gays convened in plain sight in Dubuque, will Americans pay any attention if the day comes when gays are dragged from their homes and sent off  to their deaths like the Jews?  Will any respond to help, or will they merely watch like impotent Germans did 78 years ago in Kristillnacht? When gays are dispatched to "Bible-based retribution camps" will Americans go after the self-righteous killers, or allow gays' bodies to be piled up like cord wood as we saw happen to Jews, e.g. at Mauthausen and Auschwitz?

That is the sixty four dollar question and let's hope we never reach the stage we have to provide an answer.

See also:

http://republic-of-gilead.blogspot.com/2015/11/freedom-2015-kevin-swanson-comes-unglued.html

WSJ's Gerald Seib Needs A Reality Adjustment

The Wall Street Journal's Gerald R. Seib now embodies the deaf, dumb and blind media tool so immersed in his own BS he can't even get reality correct. Sadly, with John Stewart no longer around to expose these conservo twerps and their misguided influence, someone else has to.. What I refer to is Seib's latest column ('Summer of Trump May End Up Helping GOP Rivals'. p. A4, Aug. 11) which is the biggest bunch of media malarkey since Sarah Palin was hailed as the huge "game changer"  asset for the GOP - before Katy Couric exposed her in 2008).

While Trump is definitely a crackpot, Seib's too myopic to see the rest of the GOP field is equal to or exceeding Trump on the crackpot spectrum. They may not bellow as much drivel - but their policy positions betray a bunch of psychos just as unhinged. As Hillary put it, while what Trump said ahout Megyn Kelly was "outrageous" what the other candidates are saying about women and denying them abortions - even in cases of rape and incest-  is equally outrageous. 

Let's see who Seib is praising and why he's daft.

Marco Rubio, aka the Cisco Kid -has a "fresh life story and a young face."

Uh no, Seib. Cisco is the usual right wing Cuban whiner (a 'dime a dozen' in Miami's  Little Havana),  with his own sob story of how "that big bad Fidel chased me family out with nothing, and we had to start with nothing in the U.S.....and my momma had to wash the neighbors' laundry all day long and I had to study by candle light". I will have more sympathy for punks like Rubio when his lot have more empathy for the 73 innocents murdered on Cubana Airlines Flight 455 off Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976. Blown up by Right wing Miami Cubans from Alpha 66 colluding with a Venezuelan rat with CIA links, Luis Carriles Posada

Rubio may have a young face but he also has an old solution for poor women who face death by medical complications rather than be able to get an abortion: Let them die!  Also, any young women impregnated by rape or incest under a Marco Rubio administration better not look for help from him or his lot!  You're better off leaving the country for Canada.

Rubio is also claimed to be "well schooled on national security matters" which goes to show how big an advantage it can be to have Alpha 66 lineage in one's background- especially when they were in the employ of the CIA. (Probably the DRE)

More mystifying even than Rubio, is Seib's selection of Ted Cruz and Ben Carson as "more sane outside conservative voices". Really?

Ted Cruz, let us bear in mind, is definitely not "sane", e.g.


 http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-real-life-greg-stillson-from.html

He has all the hallmarks of an egomaniac and would love, if elected by enough morons, to usher in Armageddon and finally fulfill Biblical prophecy like the fictional nut ( Greg Stillson ) in 'The Dead Zone',

Carson isn't much better and is incompetent besides. To remind people who may have forgotten, Carson is the one who asserted anyone taking the AP  U.S. history course last year would "be ready to join ISIS".  Then, earlier this week on CBS Early Show, when asked about allowing abortion exceptions for mothers with medical complications (that might lead to their deaths if they gave birth), Carson said: "Oh, our medical advances have now taken care of things like that!". A total, bald -faced lie laden with ignorance.

Carson is also the bozo who's made basic mistakes  in various forums, including: suggesting the Baltic states are not part of NATO,  not knowing the main political parties in Israel and (no kidding!) believing Alan Greenspan had been Treasury Secretary instead of former Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  Any one of these bonehead errors would ordinarily disqualify a candidate as surely as Rick Perry (in 2012) failing to recall the DOE as one  of the main federal agencies.

If these two are the only "sane" alternatives the Reepos have to Trump, they could as well nominate the other Donald: Donald Duck. At least they'd gain in gravitas.

Oh, but let's not forget Scott Walker, because Seib hasn't. To Seib he's a "solid but conventional conservative". In other words, if you love your women barefoot and pregnant (especially after they've been raped) he's the guy for you. Also, if you want your university profs working with no tenure, and your unions all dissolved so that 52 -hour weeks become the norm along with unpaid overtime  - Scottie is also your guy.  This is a turkey who couldn't even complete college yet wants to lead the nation. How is he going to meet the exalted goals confronting the country, including getting its debt under control - as well as malignant inequality - if he couldn't meet the much more humble goal of completing the final term for a 4-year degree?

Do people really want to cheer a character who starts a 5 k race, is within 100 m of the finish line, then drops out?   Or a guy who is within 4 moves of checkmating his opponent then resigns?

Glaring by its absence was any mention of the sole sane person on the debate stage, John Kasich. Kasich was notable for his no-nonsense demeanor as he robustly defended Medicaid for the poor in his state as well as same sex relationships. Of course, his name may have been left out because most of the base that loved the names Seib did cite would be too "reep-tarded" to appreciate a candidate like Kasich. (Who now, by recent polls, has even African-Americans leaning more his way than Hillary's)

If Gerald Seib wants to be taken seriously on who the sane candidates are, he needs to leave out the screwballs. But, of course, he has to be able to recognize them first.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/where-were-miamis-cubans-when-terrorist.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/08/reepo-debate-more-fun-than-barrel-of.html