After Corey Lewandowski's Performance House Dems Need To File Articles Of Impeachment

 Corey Lewandowski delivering his bully performance yesterday, aided and abetted by  Republican House traitors including Ken Buck (CO) and Matt  Gaetz (FL)

"It was a depressing scene, and quite a way to honor Constitution Day. Five hours of nastiness made clear that the revolting politics of this moment, though aggravated by Trump, are larger than him — and will outlast him if people such as Lewandowski gain election."  - Dana Milbank, Washington Post today,  'Corey Lewandowski Debuts His Senate Campaign: Unbridled Nastiness'.

"Article III of the Nixon impeachment was based on this kind of obstruction  of Congress by President Nixon".  -Rep. Jerrold Nadler, quoted in WSJ today, p. A4


To use the standard schoolboy analogy of what transpired yesterday in the House Judiciary "Impeachment" Hearings,  Corey Lewandowski kicked pebbles in the Dems' faces, spat on them, took their lunch money then stuffed them all into lockers.  That was how bad it was as this detestable imp tried to invoke "executive privilege" when he'd no longer even been near the White House or the executive branch.

In other words, the Trumpie maggots have now mocked the House Democrats and their pursuit of oversight even more, nearly turning them into political cuckolds. On 'All In' last night Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee sounded ominous notes of how Lewandowski would be held accountable, but under pressure from Chris Hayes she could offer no real steps to achieve that end.  Find him in contempt? Sure, but then what?  Unless he's actually tossed into a jail - like an ordinary person would be - it means nada. As Chris put it:

"Here's the problem. The White House has exerted extremely broad power to stop witnesses including for people not even currently working in the administration, to testify at all. The privilege they are invoking is extremely controversial in legal circles, and some are even talking about a blanket immunity, i.e. 'You can't talk to anyone we don't want you to talk to'.  That's the fundamental issue and the question is you can't actually do anything until you break that. So how do you break that?"

Fair question. So how did Rep. Jackson Lee respond?

"You're absolutely right and we're in the courts. We insist we have the right to question Mr. Porter, Mr. Dearborn, Mr. Mc Gahn.  We're hoping positively that we will prevail in court.  Not later, but sooner than later. The courts will see that we have nothing but obstruction, not from the particular witnesses but from the President of the United States.  We cannot have witnesses disrespecting the Article I body which is the United States congress."

TO which Chris replied:

"You keep saying you 'can't have this'  but that's what you did have yesterday."

Indeed, Lewandowski taking the Dems' lunch money and stuffing them into lockers without any punch back or response.  Then laughing as the  Reepo bullies and reprobates urged him on.

Rep. Jackson Lee herself, bless her heart, didn't seem to realize that Trump's M.O. through his history has been to play the long game in the courts, and winning more often than not. Hence, depending on the courts to find justice is a fool's errand.

As one Politico reporter put it after the hearings, on MSNBC - replying to the standard 'What can they do?' question from anchor Nicole Wallace:

"First, file articles of impeachment.  Then stop any cooperation with Trump including on his trade bills or farm bailouts. The way it is now he isn't being punished for his bad behavior, so he will keep on doing it."

Former VP Al Gore provided the best response at the end of last night's 'All In':

"I do get the political calculus, but it can't end up there.  Because of the risk that we end up normalizing the most obscene behavior I've ever seen from a President of the United Stated. And if we did not challenge this behavior I think we'd be making a mistake.  Yes, the Senate in its present form would fail to convict. But I think we have an obligation beyond all of that to the Constitution."

Indeed. So either the Constitution means something or it is just a piece of paper. Either the House in its Article I oversight role has equal power and authority to the executive, or it is merely a redundant sham and anachronism.  The Democrats' failure to act decisively and aggressively has only emboldened the criminal in the Oval Office more - and at the same time made the House Dems appear neutered- or political eunuchs. So the power they wrested from the GOP in the 2018 midterms with a "blue wave", amounts to nothing - because they're unable to use it, or they refuse to use it.

 As we approach the political high season for the 2020 campaign the Dems can either continue their exercise in euphemisms and posturing or finally hold the Swine -in- chief to account along with all his lackeys and enablers.  Yes, there are attendant political risks but there are also political risks for doing nothing and being made to look like impotent political cuckolds. We will see which risk is activated more in the general election next year!


See also:

The Trump Administration

Corey Lewandowski Unravels as Democratic Lawyer Grills Him over His Lies and Actions in the Mueller Report

And:
Corey Lewandowski debuts his Senate campaign theme: Unbridled nastiness

And:

Impeachment

Why Are Democrats So Scared of Impeachment?

by Bill Blum | May 21, 2019 - 6:23am | permalink

Excerpt:

"Sooner rather than later, Democrats will have to find the fortitude to set aside their fears. The president and his new attorney general, William Barr, are daring them to initiate impeachment proceedings, refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas and document requests seeking, among other items, Trump’s tax returns, and the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller.


As New York Times reporters Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt recently noted, “As the White House and Congress escalate their constitutional showdown, President Trump and his team are essentially trying to call what they see as the Democrats’ bluff. The message: Put up or shut up. Impeach or move on.”

How The Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord Will Affect the U.S. And The Planet

"How many times do I gotta tell you? I don't care about this damned planet! Only how much money I can make off it!"

As most of us suspected, Trump yesterday confirmed that he will withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement.  In effect, this move (likely inspired by Steve Bannon) ensures the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases will quit the international effort to address dangerous global warming.

Let me be clear here that in my opinion the Paris accord was more like a kind of posturing, given it wasn't written by actual climate scientists. This is the lot who are aware of the risks of a planet subject to a radiative heating effect equivalent to 2.5 x 10 ⁷  TJ injected each year into the atmosphere or roughly 400,000 Hiroshima size A-bombs.  Had these scientists written the 25-page document it would have excluded fluffy, fuzzy words like: aim, encouraging, striving, facilitate, assisting and mobilizing.   Indeed, only two specific goals are stated:

1) To hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 C by 2100.

Which has already been rendered outdated by new data that shows at least a 4C rise.

And:

2) To achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of the 21st century.

None of these was ideal, apart from the fact all the goals stated were voluntary, i.e. signed on to by 197 nations with the understanding that their agreement to the emissions cuts was entirely based on trust. But rather than simply change its stated goals, the U.S. under Trump entirely removed itself from the deal, joining Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries not party to the Paris agreement. Again, there will be no penalty for leaving, with the Paris deal based upon the premise of voluntary emissions reductions by participating countries.

Invoking the sort of cretinous codswallop for which he's famous, Trump said yesterday in the White House rose garden :

"In order to fulfil my solemn duty to the United States and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accords or a really entirely new transaction, on terms that are fair to the United States,”

Adding:

“We will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.”

But really the only one the U.S. can possibly negotiate with is itself!  The very notion of "renegotiation" of the Treaty is ludicrous given that each nation has already voluntarily set its own goals.  In the case of the U.S.  that would mean re-doing the original target of reducing emissions between 26 and 28 percent (below 2005 levels) by 2025.  Rather than withdraw like a bloody idiot, Trump could just have said we will instead aim for 15% or 20% of  2005 emissions by 2025. He essentially has tossed the baby out with the bathwater and cost the U.S. hundreds of thousands of renewable energy jobs in the process. As a reference marker, there were 260,000 solar energy -related jobs created last year compared to 53,000 for coal. China plans a $361 b investment in renewable energy by 2020.  This is projected to create 13 million new jobs for the Chinese middle and working classes, most starting at an equivalent of U.S. $15/hr. WHO do you think will be the big winner by the U.S. backing out?

Thus, the bottom line is that it is the U.S. economy that will be most seriously hit, even before the inevitable climate consequences kick in. (Most experts predict about 3 billion tons of additional CO2 in the atmosphere per year, and 0.5C of increased mean global temperatures by 2050. If we're already on a track to hit 3.0 C, that would mean 3.5 C instead and likely more than enough to melt most of what's left of Antarctica as well as Greenland. The Arctic having been melted down long before.)

Even if the U.S. did what it promised under the Treaty it is clear that all the above would merely be postponed, but it would be better than doing nothing and as I noted, the economic consequences are huge as well.  Trump, hitting his best fake blather form, also told the crowd outside the White House:

“The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries should expel any doubt as to why foreign lobbyists should wish to keep our beautiful country tied up and bound down … That’s not going to happen while I’m president, I’m sorry.”

Which is a total misrepresentation. The Paris "deal" hamstrings no one, no nation,  because it is based on each nation's having accepted emissions goals it designated for itself.   This,  again, discloses Trump has no use for truth and his only response is to justify his outrageous actions through lies,  deceit and dog whistle bull pockey to energize his daft supporters.

Barack Obama, issued a rare statement saying the new administration had joined “a small handful of nations that reject the future”. But he said that U.S. states, cities and businesses “will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got”. Former vice-president Al Gore called the move “reckless and indefensible”, while among the business leaders to express regret over the move was Jeff Immelt -  chair and CEO of General Electric  - who said “climate change is real” and “industry must now lead”.

Typical of his fondness for schmaltz and fake optics, Trump spoke after being introduced by a warm-up band playing the George Gershwin classic Summertime, and argued that the Paris agreement disadvantaged the U.S. to the benefit of other countries, leaving workers and taxpayers to absorb the costs and suffer job losses and factory closures.

Again, all lies. In fact, what it will cost the U.S. is an estimated two million green, renewable energy jobs. Most of those would have benefited Trump's own followers, voters in the industrial states.  According to Prof John Schellnhuber, a climate scientist and former adviser to the EU, Angela Merkel and the pope, the U.S. will be actually be the primary  loser from its withdrawal. He said:

  “It will not substantially hamper global climate progress but it will hurt the American economy and society alike.  China and Europe have become world leaders on the path towards green development already and will strengthen their position if the US slips back. The Washington people around Trump fail to recognize that the climate wars are over, while the race for sustainable prosperity is on.”

Trump’s decision also risks destabilizing the Paris deal, with remaining participants faced with the choice of trying to make up the shortfall in emissions cuts or following the U. S.  lead and abandoning the agreement entirely. The U.S. emissions reduction pledge was to account for a fifth of the global emissions by 2030. An analysis by not-for-profit group Climate Interactive showed that a regression to “business as usual” emissions by the U.S. could warm the world by an additional 0.3C by 2100.   This is almost certainly an underestimate. Indeed, to keep global temperatures from rising to only that modest increment and no more, man-made emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be reduced to zero by 2050. Ain't gonna happen, especially with only voluntary limits.

The most hilarious brain burp from Trump:

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

This elicited the following response from Bill Peduto, the Mayor of Pittsburgh, to its citizens:

"The false hope that you're being spoon fed by the president isn't going to rebuild our region. If our economy is going to advance in the twenty first century then we have to decide if we're going to be a part of it. Or if we're going to be left behind."

And he also advised the Donald not to speak for him or his city, as Pittsburgh plans to do all it can to make the emissions cuts as underscored by the agreement.

Undoubtedly, the withdrawal is a victory for the nationalist ideologues in Trump’s administration, such as his strategist Steve Bannon. These fools have argued the Paris deal undermines an “America first” approach, harms domestic coal production and hinders efforts to repeal Barack Obama-era regulations such as the Clean Power Plan.  But again, if you knew (and now you do - see above) that 263,000 solar energy jobs were created last year in the U.S. compared to 53,000 for coal, which way would you go?  Better, how in the hell does costing this nation millions of new jobs translate into "America First"?  Of the 2.6 million new jobs (e.g. wind turbine technician) in renewable energy that have been created in the past five years in the U.S.,,  half have been in the states that Trump won. How will he now explain the possible loss of those jobs?

Imagine then U.S. solar firms now going abroad to try to sell more solar systems and being greeted by skeptics - whether in Germany, Barbados or other places who say: "Well, you guys and your President just walked away from future deals. You're not committed to real green energy change!"

This is exactly why hundreds of large businesses, including Apple, Google and Walmart, also threw their weight behind the deal, with even fossil fuel firms such as ExxonMobil, BP and Shell supporting the accord as the best way to transition to a low-carbon economy and stave off the perils of climate change.. Now, in one fell swoop, Trump has obliterated all of that.

Another ideological imp behind the withdrawal was Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency head who has called Paris a “bad deal” that should be discarded.  Clearly, here's an idiot that needs to be educated about this country's already extensive investments in alternative energy jobs from solar energy engineer to wind turbine technician.

In his speech, Trump sought to frame his decision as part of this nationalist agenda, saying:

“The Paris agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense,”

Again, no external entity is doing anything at "America's expense". The national emissions cuts were agreed to by each country on its own, no external agency or committee forced it.

In a bid to calm the frayed nerves of countries most at risk from rising temperatures, the EU and China announced an alliance to stay the course earlier on Wednesday. Their joint declaration called climate change a “national security issue” and a “multiplying factor of social and political fragility.” The Paris pact is a “historic achievement” and “irreversible”, the document says.

Former CIA acting director Michael Morrell put it thusly:

"When I think of the world and the threats to the preservation of the nation there are only three. The first is nuclear war with Russia, the second is a natural catastrophe from a biological agent, and the third is climate change. If this goes through and the next president doesn't change it then it's going to have serious national security implications."

As for the U.S. and its future fortunes, John Kerry put it best:

"This step does not make America first, it makes America last."

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/73228/climate-change-isnt-the-hoax-trump-is

On Social Security's 80th - The Solutions To Save It Are Clear

Bernie Sanders: His proposal to expand Social Security is common sense and can be achieved by increasing the wages covered by the payroll tax, and halting raids on the retirement fund.

As Social Security's 80th anniversary approaches, "solutions" are a dime a dozen to save the program - but in fact- most on offer (especially by Republicans)  would either kill it, or make seniors' lives unbearable.  Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders - now besting Hillary in NH primary polls (44 % to 37%) - has made expanding Social Security one leg of his progressive platform.

By the simple, straightforward expedient of applying the payroll tax to all wages (instead of only the first $118,500) then 66 percent of the current shortfall would be wiped out overnight. The rest could easily be wiped out by ceasing to raid Social Security monies and instead doing what Al Gore always suggested back in 2000 - put it into an effective "lockbox". The idiot media made fun of it at the time, but by implementing the sequestration of S.S. monies from all other - no shortfall would emerge - assuming all wages are also subject to the payroll tax.

Meanwhile, we have conservative curmudgeons like Sen. Orrin Hatch barking (in response to Sanders' expansion proposal):

"Where will they get the money? They don't even care how they are adding to the debt and how long it will take to dig out of it!"

Excuse me, Sen. Hatch, but that debt was YOUR party's doing!  You and your ilk implemented that ill-advised Medicare drug expansion (mainly at the behest of PhRMA) in 2003, and also implemented the Bush tax cuts while waging two wars that exploded the debt by $4 trillion. So don't hand me any BS about the debt and how Social Security was responsible! Hell, you bastards even raided it to help pay for the Iraq occupation to disguise the amount actually used for military operations, materials.

The other "solutions" now mainly being put forward by the conservos and Neoliberal Dems include:

- Increasing the retirement age (the age to receive full S.S. benefits) to 68 or even 70. But this really amounts to a benefits cut. And a severe one. It is claimed this would wipe out 29 percent of the shortfall but would more likely wipe out 29 percent of the most indigent seniors.

- Implement a "chained CPI" which decreases the cost of living adjustment received each year. This assumes that seniors would degrade their buying habits each year the COLA cuts are operative. So while they might afford chicken one year, for the next it will be sardines, and then the next kibbles, and the next....dumpster garbage.

Then there is the problem of Social Security Disability heading toward insolvency. As I noted earlier, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/07/with-social-security-disabiiliy-nearly.html

  both parties are to blame for this, having cut in half the payroll taxes collected for almost two years. Ending up with a loss nearly equal to the current disability fund deficit. WTF did they expect would happen when they embraced such folly?

Now the solutions are few, either redirect revenue from the much larger S.S. retirement fund to S.S. disability or ...let the disability fund empty in which case an immediate 19 percent benefits cut goes into effect.

The Repukes don't like the Dem solution of redirecting funds because "that would be like robbing seniors to pay the disabled."

But that "lockbox" pretension doesn't hold them back from continually robbing seniors to pay for more military toys like the F35, or increased defense plants. The fact is that there is no magic line or box separating the retirement fund from the disability fund, any more than a magical barrier separates the retirement fund from general revenues.  So any transfers are simply a matter of account shifting.

If the Repubs were really so worried about disabled folks "robbing seniors" they'd have implemented a lockbox from the time Gore first mentioned it 15 years ago. In fact, since 1992 legislation entitled "the budget enforcement act' has existed to do just that. But it's never ever been enforced, despite the urgent need to do so.

The following data shows how much has been raided each year up through 2011, the data from the same Trust Fund sources and GAO:

Year:  ................Amount raided

2011.................$67.0 billion

2010.................$87.0 billion

2009...............$137.0 billion

2008...............$180.2 billion

2007...............$186.0 billion

2006...............$185.5 billion

2005..............$173.5 billion

2004..............$151.1 billion

2003.............$155.6 billion

2002.............$159.0 billion

2001.............$163.0 billion

2000.............$151.8 billion
----------------------------

TOTAL:  $2.63 TRILLION

 Any person with a single neuron for a brain would realize that it doesn't matter if you fill a one gallon bucket with a cup every day (equal to 6 oz.) if there are massive holes in the bottom that let out 12 oz. in the same time! 

Thus, the worker-to -beneficiary ratio is also a red herring meant to deflect attention from the REAL problem which is the yearly raids on monies received from payroll taxes and intended to go to future beneficiaries! So long as these raids continue unabated, NO solution or "re-tooling" of the program will work, not raising payroll taxes, not making cuts, NOTHING!  The raiding has to stop first.
Add in expanding the wages covered by the payroll tax, targeted cuts to the bloated defense budget and Social Security can be expanded.

Will the Reepos pull their heads out of their asses on this issue? No way! No more than Jeb  is capable of pulling his head out of his Bush ass on who is responsible for the rise of ISIS in Iraq. Obama for pulling out, as he claims? FUCK NO! His stupid ass brother for barging in in the first place and ousting a totally secular regime that had kept the Muslim factions (Shia and Sunni) at bay!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/63439/80-years-later-republicans-are-still-fighting-social-security


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-social-security-expansion-bill.html

'Al Jazeera America' - Will 'Muricans Be Too Spooked by the Name to Watch?

'Al Jazeera'- the very name probably dredges up fear and loathing in most of the American population who exhibit suspicion about anything remotely Muslim-sounding, especially a news network. And especially since 9/11. The aftermath of the fear and paranoia meme still looms large.

And so it was as we tuned into the first news broadcast last night, wifey sat in her recliner with a certain amount of trepidation. While her knuckles weren't white, she did express reservations: "Why are YOU watching that station? Why can't we just stick with ABC and Diane Sawyer?" Well, uh, because I want to get a different slant and emphasis on the news, not just the corporate brainwashing.

This isn't new! It's also why I often tuned into the Russian news while in Germany. You got a more balanced perspective, and you saw things the American broadcast networks left out. Like the huge anti-fracking demonstrations, protests around the world. But coddled, brainwashed Americans at home probably believed there were hardly any protests at all. They might even believe based on network news broadcasts from ABC, NBC, CBS that most of the world accepts it.

Anyway, as the news came on, Janice might have half expected a raving Muslim madman named Ali Abu Akhbar to pop onto the screen and begin screaming anti-American epithets and propaganda. She held her breath, I didn't hold mine because I knew the network - despite the name-  wasn't as the lamos and numb nuts portrayed it.

And so who appeared on the screen? Was it Ali Abu screaming his head off 'Death to America!'?

Nope. It was John Siegenthaler, former long time NBC and MSNBC  news host and now the anchor for Al Jazeera America.  The lead off segment? A piece on how cheap clothing being made in places like Bangladesh is undermining the welfare of people living in such poor nations. This was followed by a segment on the fires being fought in Idaho and Calif. and then the cut off of military aid to Egypt. Later an in depth piece on force-feeding prisoners in California and the excessive use of solitary confinement.

No screaming propaganda, just more in depth reporting and taking longer for each segment, as opposed to the facile, sound bite 2 minutes allotted on corporate American network news. Which, frankly, I believe contributes to Americans' shrinking attention spans.

Most segments were also followed by more in depth discussion to allow better insight. For example, following the Egypt segment Siegenthaler interviewed a prof from Brooklyn College who stated emphatically aid should be got off because too much was going to "American defense corporations".

Also, the Egyptian military didn't warrant such aid after what it had done, already killing over a thousand Egyptians.

Even better, the irritating advert frequency that drives one to distraction on the regular corporate networks wasn't noticeable at all.  One ad (mainly for 'AJ America' itself) every 20 minutes, as opposed to every 6 minutes. And Lordy! NO prescription DRUG ads! No Cialis! No Viagra! No whatever.....

It was refreshing to say the least. On the next program, 'Considering This' we saw how cholera deaths continue in Haiti, with 8, 000 this year so far. And up to now the UN has not admitted any responsibility, thereby delaying monetary assistance, despite the evidence being overwhelming that Nepalese peace keepers brought it with them - since the disease had never been widespread in the country before. See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/11/haitian-cholera-outbreak-of-nepalese.html

Then on 'Real Money'   one learned of the problems to be faced by those living in poorer states such as Mississippi (which ranks 50th in obesity control, and 50th in infant morality) when the Affordable Care Act (ACA or 'Obamacare') comes on stream.  The primary problem? Too few doctors! In fact, by 2020 the nation will have 45,000 fewer family primary care physicians with the shortage worst in states like MS.

The only alternative the people living in the Mississippi  Delta have is to rely on medics returning from Iraq, Afghanistan. As one MS official noted, no professional who studied years to get a medical education would want to come to such a state.

As for insurance premiums, they are likely to rise for a majority of Americans since Obamacare actually cuts back on federal support for insurance companies, i.e. in treating less healthy folks, figuring that enough people will sign up to pay for all. But this is doubtful. With all the anti- ACA propaganda out there, it is more likely too many will opt out. Also the penalties for opting out are way too low.

Al Jazeera America deserves a fair chance and hopefully more Americans will check it out. As its broadcast motto goes:

"More viewpoints, more stories, more of what Americans want to know."

Oh, and fewer commercials!

Al Jazeera America bought out Al Gore's 'Current TV' and is now on that channel (358) on Direct TV. Readers will have to check their own cable or Dish TV offerings to locate it.

D-Day: Democrats Be WARNED! You may have to CONTEST the Election!

One of the reasons I became an independent (to be specific, a Socialist, like Bernie Sanders) is that I've always doubted Democrats had the 'fire in the belly' especially to fight for their constitutents and demographic constituencies when the time arrived. We beheld this sort of wimpish behavior in both 2000, when Gore conceded too early and didn't demand ALL FLA counties to be recounted, and also in 2004, when obvious chicanery in Ohio to do with provisional ballots and Diebold voting machines went unaddressed by Kerry. Many on the Left, including me, took this to mean that Kerry truly was the wimp (as opposed to real warrior) depicted by the Swift Boaters. The sting of that failure still remains, which is one big reason we don't wish to see the Ds punk out again in arguably the most epochal election in our lifetimes.

Now, fast forward to today - election day, or D-Day for Democrats - demanding every scintilla of moxie and courage they have to fight on, to contest the election - if needed. This applies to four "battleground" states, including Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado ....where we know Hart Intercivic machines are ensconced, as well as the Diebold and ES&S systems that helped steal Ohio for Bush in '04. Already, massive voter suppression tactics - i.e. scaling back early voting days - have failed to work in Ohio and Florida as judicial rulings have tempered the negative effects. But that means the electronic machines are the last firewall for a Repuke theft, or as I prefer to call it ...a coup.

Don't believe me? I noted in a blog some days ago about Repukes in Colo. beseiging Reep Secretary of State Scott Gessler to "recalibrate" all the electronic machines. This was even before we learned of the so-called  uncertified "computer patch" implemented in Ohio compliments of their Repuke Troglydyte, Jon Husted (who worked with Karl Rove in '04 on the OH theft). See the previous blog for more details on this current "patch", including articles and signed affidavits by computer techs.

Then, at precisely 8.30 Mountain time this morning, wifey and I stared spellbound while watching KOAA-TV, as the newscaster noted two electronic machines in Adams County had 'switched' voters' choices for President - from Barack Obama to Mitt Romney! Like smart citizens who check their grocery receipts for errors after each purchase, the voters checked their paper printouts and sure enough.....there on the paper was 'Mitt Romney (R)- Paul Ryan(VP)' instead of 'Barack Obama(D)- Joe Biden (VP)'. The voters complained and precinct specialists attempted to replicate the errors, but to no avail. However, they then performed the legit fail -safe action (demanded) of taking the machines out of commission. (Btw, to see Machine Vote Switching in action, check out the video at: http://wonkette.com/488754/watch-this-pennsylvania-voting-machine-hilariously-refuse-to-accept-a-vote-for-barack-obama

Three blogs earlier I described how this switching could be done internally via program cards, and even disguised by bogus paper records. In this case, obviously, the machines hadn't been "recalibrated" enough to deliver a bogus paper copy but the switched record - which the voters could then complain to poll workers about. Fortunately, enough voters complained of the switching to take the machines out of service.

But how many thousands of these machines, many of them Romney-based Hart Intercivic,  Diebold, or ES& S remain taking ballots in Colorado, Virginia, Florida and Ohio  to steal votes by switching them from Barack to Romney? How many voters will even check their actually cast votes against the paper records? Or, in how many cases will phony paper duplicates be generated by the machines (i.e. thanks to the new Ohio patch)  which mirror the voters' choice, but which were actually switched internally by the machines' program cards? There would be no way to check in the latter case!

This morning, Obama advisor David Axelrod was almost giddy on 'Morning Joe' when asked about Obama's chances in Virginia and Ohio, and he kept on referring to "increased voter turnout" in both states. But no one on the panel, not even the usually alert Tavis Smiley, asked about how Axelrod would ensure all the votes were correctly and faithfully tallied. No one even addressed the new computer patch in Ohio which will affect tallies in 39 counties. It was evident Axelrod simply assumed they would be, but such an assumption is unwarranted, as seen from the previous blog.

Here's the point: If the election is razor- thin close and Romney "wins" in Ohio, Colorado, Florida and Virginia, but Obama wins in the exit polls - then Obama's legal team has to take this to the next level. They cannot accept the exit polls as "non-conforming" but  have to officially contest the tallied vote counts in all those states and in addition, demand access to the internal program card records of ALL the electronic voting machines- then tally them against the paper records delivered to voters in those states. I don't give a flying fuck if it takes an extra year to get this all done, they have to do it - refusing to concede early - or be declared wimps and washouts like John Kerry in '04.

Just as critical is to ensure ALL provisional ballots are counted, especially in Ohio and Florida. We know in Ohio, for example, Husted the R-punk changed the rules so when one delivers an absentee ballot of any kind he or she now is obliged to fill out a special information and identity sheet which in times past was done by poll workers. If there is even ONE error, no matter how minuscule - the voter will have to cast a provisional ballot instead. Some estimates have been upwards of 200,000 for these ballots - many of which weren't counted in '04 and likely cost Kerry the election...but wouldn't have if he'd had the balls to fight on.

In this case, Obama's margin for victory may be 130,000 or less, and if at least that many provisional ballots are uncounted, he could lose Ohio, and with it the election. What we do know - is that the deadline to tally all the Ohio provisional ballots is Nov. 17th, which means the Ohio results would not be known  - and likely the national result- until early December. This means Obama's team has to have lawyers and others overseeing the critical provisional ballot vote tally to make sure every vote cast for Obama is actually registered.

Now again, efficiency - a typical American syndrome -  isn't the priority here. We do not need to know for sure who the winner is by tonight or even tomorrow morning. Much more important, and to make it emphatically clear this isn't just a media side show, is that EVERY last vote is counted. If it takes until December or longer to get a result, so be it. I'd rather the final reckoning be done slowly, methodically and correctly than with Jack Spradle haste - to suit the race fetish media - with the wrong result.

Unlike in 2004, miillions of Democratic voters - many of whom have waited seven or more hours in lines in Ohio and Florida - want to make damned sure their votes are counted this time. Provisional ballots or not! If they are not, and the Dems punk out of legally pressing a contested election with unseemly haste, then why should anyone bother next time? Answer me that!

As for the other Reepo-Teepee obstructionists, the 'True the Vote' assholes, trying to intimidate voters in key swing states - if any of these fuckers approaches you in line and demands to see Voter ID tell them to STFU, and if they really want a piece of you...you will meet them in the parking lot after wards!