House Democrats Need To Get Over Their Latent "Rebellion" And Back Nancy Pelosi!

Nancy Pelosi - The only rational choice to head the House when Dems assume majority rule next year.

Enough already about the hackneyed calls from the Right- and clueless "centrist" Democrats- to infuse "new blood" into the House leadership next year.   (Last week, 32 members of the House Democratic caucus  voted against Nancy Pelosi in a secret ballot vote. She can afford to lose no more than 17 member in the main vote in January.)

Make no mistake this revolt against Ms. Pelosi is counterproductive and will undermine Democratic House members' efforts to form a coherent plan going forward for  legislation,  as well as holding Dotard Donnie accountable for his sundry lawless actions, including treason.  What's more , the aimless babble about "new blood" is an idiotic meme that does no good, and sabotages Democratic unity when they need a strong and experienced leader to take the helm. And as journalist Mike Littwin put it: "This is no time for Dems to abandon a proven leader in Nancy Pelosi."

Littwin, in a recent piece in the COS Indy, made no bones about who he prefers and why, and I totally agree. As he noted ('Pelosi Attackers Miss The Big Picture',  Nov. 21-27, p. 7), if the midterms just held truly were the "most important in our lifetime" why in hell would you now consider dumping a person "who hardly any Democrats deny has been an effective speaker". As he adds:

"I'm puzzled, at minimum, about the timing of the rebellion."

Well, I am as well. I hate to invoke conspiracy memes, but it almost appears that the uprising against Pelosi has its roots in right wing elements who seek to provoke House Democrats into rejecting her at the final vote in January.  (See any number of recent WSJ editorials  attacking her, e.g.

The Pelosi Steamroller - WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-pelosi-steamroller-1543453343

And what, pray tell., might be the worst outcome should that transpire? Say Nancy getting fewer than the 218 votes minimum in January?  Well, House Reep Punk extremist Kevin McCarthy - who might get all the other votes - or become de facto leader by default.  This is what "rebellious" Dems need to bear in mind when considering who ought to assume duties as House majority leader.  Given this admittedly outside outcome, as Mike Littwin writes:

"It's hard for me to think of anything more politically misguided than for Democratic centrist rebels in the House to try to kick Pelosi out now."

Note he identified these Dem mutant mutts as "centrists" in other words, idolizers of the Neoliberal state. So why wouldn't they be opposed to a hard core San Francisco liberal like Pelosi?

One of the top rebels is from Colorado, named Ed Perlmutter.  In 2016 he nominated  rebel Tim Ryan to go up against Pelosi, and as Littwin admits "that might have been a good time to change leadership". But no longer! Not after we've seen first hand two years of the Trump fanatics destroying the fabric of our government and the Reepo House majority aiding and abetting at every step.  Littwin again:

"Now is a precarious time, an almost certainly counterproductive time, a time far too important to risk the chance of failure or to toss in someone who needs to learn/grow on the job."

In other words, my friends, given the total absence of checks and balances on the Trumpites, this is not the time for a new be to take control in the House and to be put on a learning curve. No, we don't need wet behind the ears neophytes but an experienced, wily and wise leader. That is Ms. Pelosi, like her or not.

As Littwin put it (ibid.):

"The rebellious House Dems have yet to identify anyone who could do a better job taking on Trump. "

And going on to note that given this,

"The absolute worst reason to dump Pelosi id that the Republicans don't like her. I mean, the idea that Pelosi is uniquely an albatross for Democratic candidates is absurd. Yes, her approval ratings are brutally low (29 percent in a recent Gallup poll) but better than Mitch McConnell's (24 percent)"

And the more cogent point:

"If it weren't Pelosi being demonized it would be someone else. Anyone else. Demonizing Democrats, particularly Democratic women, is what Republicans have long done and what Trump specializes in."

In other words, the Repuke shtick is demonization and it's done to try to tarnish or knee cap effective women leaders. They can no longer emulate their Fuhrer Dotard in pussy grabbing so they try to do it this way.  This is why I am confident the new infusion of House Dem women will prevail on the House rebels like Perlmutter and newly elected CO member Jason Crow, to grow up - put aside childish things - and back Nancy Pelosi.

As I said, having finally come to power after some 8 years in the political wilderness  (since the Tea Party revolt  took control in 2010) this is no time for House Dems to lose their minds, their spines or direction.

Gaslight King Trump Drives Unhinged "Mob is coming for ya" Rhetoric Out of Utter Desperation

One of the king of gaslights' recent comments to a MAGA mob went;

"You don't give matches to an arsonist and you don't give power to an angry left wing mob."

Which, seriously, is the sort of linguistic lickspittle only a certified moron  or Reeptard would swallow, but from the looks of things our nation harbors millions of them.  In any case, as yesterday's Denver Post editorial pointed out, such rhetoric and demagoguery is downright dangerous as it attempts to paint the political opposition as sinister and violent enemies which  - according to the same Post editorial - "is rich when you consider all the Tea Party members who brought loaded rifles to ACA rallies"  i.e. some 7-8 years ago.

But hey, in the demented Dotard era of inverse reality where lies become truths, and truths lies, that's about how it rolls....downward.  And the only way to put this nation back on a course of sanity will be for millions to vote to ensure at least one house of congress is D-controlled, to put a check on Dotard's most dangerous impulses.

As the Post editorial also notes, it's no secret why Trump and the GOP are resorting to this political gas lighting maneuver. Basically, they "are getting no traction"  either out of their tax cuts or the Kavanaugh  fiasco.  In each case, the  polls show a clear majority of Americans - not the Trumpites, obviously- object to the tax cuts as well as Kavanaugh's confirmation.

But that hasn't stopped a blitz of propaganda to try to get Americans to believe that instead, it is the left and Dems out to destroy the country.  If  you truly believe that horse manure ask yourself why Trump was in Montana at a rally whipping up a crowd of his "ghoulish followers"  (in the words of WaPo columnist Jennifer Rubin) applauding Repuke slimeball Greg Gianforte who body slammed a Guardian reporter 5 months ago, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/05/gop-gangster-bum-greg-gianforte-body.html

If you're convinced that applauding body slamming of a reporter who merely asked a Reep congressional candidate a health question is about democracy - and the real thugs are on the left - there's not much I can do or write to change your mind. How to say it? You've imbibed the Dotard -GOP  kool aid.

As a further clear example of inversion, it takes some colossal chutzpah to write, as WSJ hack Dan Henninger did last week ('You Cannot Be Civil') that Hillary  "has aligned herself with Trump's view of the Democratic party". Say what?   Henninger clarifies:

"Mr Trump has been using his rallies to denounce the 'radical Democrats' as an angry mob and on Tuesday Mrs. Clinton told CNN 'You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about."

Which is perfectly rational and true.  I mean, why make nicey with guttersnipes and knavish knuckledraggers whose only accomplishment has been to insert a bestial, shit -eating mutt into the White House?   A demented degenerate who insults women on his Twitter account like he lies with impunity to his masses of deplorables at his insane brown shirt rallies.

That Trump is no icon of civility ought to be obvious. The swine-in-chief has repeatedly accused women of having “fat, ugly” faces and of repelling voters because of their looks. He called one woman a “crazed, crying lowlife” and said another was a “dog” who had the “face of a pig.” He said Hillary Clinton’s bathroom break during a 2015 presidential debate was “too disgusting” to talk about. He has repeatedly mocked women for being overweight.

Omarosa Manigault Newman was described by Trump as "that dog" and a "crazed, crying lowlife".

Trump  described Stephanie Clifford as “Horseface” in a tweet last Tuesday, adding her to a long list of women he has attacked by demeaning their looks, mocking their bodily functions or comparing them to animals.  Trump’s verbal assault came as he gloated about a federal judge’s decision to dismiss a defamation suit filed by Ms. Clifford, who is known professionally as Stormy Daniels. Ms. Clifford’s lawyer responded by calling the president “a disgusting misogynist.” 

Needless to say the swine's antics and infantile rhetoric disgraces and defiles the office of the presidency - which may now take a generation to clean up. Even Republicans are getting fed up, as the midterms loom.  “To say this is unbecoming of any man, let alone the POTUS, is a vast understatement,” tweeted Representative Ryan A. Costello, a Pennsylvania Republican.

When Trump attacks women, as he did with Ms. Clifford in his tweet last Tuesday, he often goes after their faces. As he battled his rivals for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination,  Trump made fun of Carly Fiorina’s face on television, saying that people wouldn’t vote for the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard because of her looks.

“Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” 

Well, it beats the brat face of a  died blonde, mop topped,  orange Orangutan!

Trump, for his part, has continued to make crude comments about women’s bodies since taking office, repeatedly testing the limits of the public’s acceptance of a president’s locker-room vocabulary.  Incredibly, the WSJ's Henninger actually believes Dotard's incivility to women, his total depraved nastiness and misogyny,  is somehow on a par with the women who "shrieked" during Kavanaugh's confirmation. He is totally deluded and we can aver this is false equivalence on steroids.

Deluded hack that he is, Henninger also ruminated on "exactly when the Democrats shifted the national focus from Trump and onto their own behavior."

"Their own behavior"?  As if on any remote par with Trump's and the GOP's?   You need  a better class of anti-hallucinatory med, chief!

Henninger, like a dog worrying a used up bone,  asserts this occurred with the Kavanaugh confirmation farce, failing to appreciate that the "shrieking from the gallery" he associates with incivility and the "mob" was actually the anguished collective cry of women (many assault victims themselves) scorned by the assembled GOP, Judiciary Committee  Senators. I refer here to the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch and others.  They insulted not only Christine Blasey Ford but all female victims of sexual assault, diminishing their experiences and attacking them as victims for coming forward.

 It was clear Christine Ford didn't trust the bullies and buffoons of the Senate GOP to do any proper investigation, and by the end of the two months that was obvious. Hell, the pair of  elderly GOP Senate Judiciary Bozos  - Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch- didn't even pick up on Kavanaugh's assorted lies.  (I suspect they willfully ignored them.)  Hatch himself had the noxious gall to claim Dr. Ford was "mixed up".

What Henninger attributes to incivility then, was actually a fervent cry for justice in the face of a confirmation farce perpetrated by a clique of entitled white male assholes.    That Henninger doesn't recognize this indicates he is one himself, and has a vested interest in abetting this narrative.  Well, hell, of course they all do, given they've gotten no traction on their illustrious tax cuts - which now 61 percent recognize as no good for the country.  As one retired AF vet wrote in a recent letter to the CS Indy:

"Corporations and their wealthy CEOs have been rewarded with these tax breaks while we work paycheck to paycheck, our health care gets gutted, our retirements are threatened, and our workplaces made less safe."

That is a citizen who has his head screwed on straight.

Henninger also fumbles badly insisting the rage shown wasn't real but "mostly a practiced act".    He also conspiratorially ties it to the "San Francisco Democrats which stand for the party of the unelectable Left".  Well, he will see just how "unelectable" the Dems are next month, namely on November 6th - when all the women insulted by the Repukes' brash behavior cast their ballots.

  Be civil?  This is laughable for anyone - especially an unapologetic PR scribe like Henninger -   to demand of the  left or Dems when the latter are the sole bulwark against Trumpism and chaos - undermining and defiling all democratic norms.  Even worse, normalizing this degenerate behavior at the expense of an outrage-benumbed populace which finds it ever more difficult to keep up even with daily news, far less Trump's litany of transgressions.

And yet to read Lance Morrow's WSJ claptrap ('We've Grown Accustomed To Trump', p. A19, today) is to wring one's hands in despair that we've already crossed that Rubicon.  He claims for example:

"Trump's peculiarities don't seem unusual when compared with the extreme bizarreness, not to mention pathology, on the Left".

Adding, as if in mindless afterthought:

"People can get used to the strangest things, once the novelty has passed."

Seriously, you brainless nincompoop?  So an unhinged, rabid mutt that cages infants, praises thugs who body slam reporters, and adulates a retrograde,  Mideast oil kingdom that chops up journalists is not unusual and vermin to be ostracized.? Merely something "one can get used to once the novelty has passed".  Heaven, or whatever influence out there, help us if that is now to be accepted. We're already nine tenths down the same rabbit hole (actually a contracted mind virus)  that mutated the Weimar Republic into the Nazi  Reich.

But Morrow wasn't finished, leaving the most off -the -wall remarks until near the end, even invoking the Stockholm syndrome, in which kidnap victims begin to cooperate and even admire their captors.  He writes:

"Familiarity and the passage of time may breed a certain kind of acquiescence, even grudging acceptance.  We see a touch of the Stockholm syndrome.

My guess is that the variations on Stockholm syndrome will play a role in the minds of independent voters in the 2018 midterms, producing a slightly friendlier inclination toward Mr. Trump and anyway, toward Republicans."

In other words, this hack is predicting an entire swath of voters - by virtue of exposure and "familiarity" to Dotard's excesses -  will  "acquiesce"  and mutate into a form of kidnapped victims. In such a condition, like compliant captives, they will be more inclined to vote Trump and the GOP.  If this is indeed the case, and I hope to hell independents have more self awareness and intelligence than that, we are truly in "duck's guts" - to use the Bajan phrase.

But it's clear to me that Morrow, who I once admired when he wrote sensibly for TIME, has now devolved into a whore for the WSJ-FOX News axis.  Evident by his shameless peddling this "Left is pathological" bunkum, as well as a Stockholm syndrome kind of submission to an insane, autocratic dingbat.  Further, his judgment can no longer be trusted if he - like Henninger- resorts to such egregious (and outrageous) false equivalence, and acceptance of the gross, deranged and disreputable.

The masterful trick attempted by Morrow as well as Henninger and their pals at FOX News -  and Dotard himself -  has been to portray themselves  as the aggrieved little victims when their obnoxious side of enabling thugs controls congress, the presidency and now the highest court.  Worse, with each passing day, as the Post editorial described, they are wreaking untold havoc on the nation's democratic norms. Thereby the danger is increasing that as time goes on this despicable behavior will become  as accepted as whipped cream on strawberry shortcake.

 At the same time those who seek to express their views are derided as "the mob" and anarchists, or "radicals, when the  protesters  of Kavanaugh were merely exercising their free speech rights. But see, this is the nature of authoritarian and fascist rule: it criminalizes and marginalizes all speech and behavior intended as  rigorous criticism of the reigning cabal or autocrats. Ask the Philippines' Duterte or Turkey's Erdogan, or even better the Saudi Prince Trump loves so much - who had WaPo journalist Jamal Khashoggi chopped up into tiny pieces and then bagged at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. What was Khashoggi's "crime"?  Criticizing the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for his anti-democratic moves, including house arrest of members of the same Saudi family! See e.g.  Mr. Khashoggi's final column.

That incident alone - as well as Trump's self admitted fondness for tyrants -   ought to convince you his lot are not on the side of democracy. Oh no.  And no, it is emphatically not a case of  "Americans not processing Trump correctly" - as WSJ idiot Holman Jenkins Jr. claimed in his eponymous op-ed today.

To say the coming election is epochal and historic is to put it mildly.  If, in fact, the lawless, Reep party maintains its control of all branches of government we will have entered a parlous, perilous period indeed. Perhaps the most perilous in the nation's history.  This is given that in such a case the protection of traitor Trump will be doubled down on even as the GOOps are emboldened to enact even more vile policies, including extending their budget busting tax cuts to impoverish the next generation and cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

In addition, such a ghastly scenario would mean, in the words of David  Leonhardt's NY Times piece:

"Total victory for the G.O.P. would mean Trump unleashed."

In Leonhardt's own words:

"It would be validation for Trump, who could then brag that he had defied the experts once again. It would mean he had outperformed Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, all of whom suffered drubbings in the first midterm election of their presidency. It would embolden Trump to push even harder toward the America he wants — where corporate oversight is scant, climate change is ignored, voting rights are abridged, health care is a privilege, judicial independence is a fiction and the truth is whatever he says it is."

So multiply all the craziness, all the chaos and vileness,  by about one hundred, and you'd get some idea what we'd be in for.

Flat bottom line?  There will have to be a blue wave large enough to at least flip the House to the Dems, or we are all in deep trouble.  If you think the past two years was a nightmare, imagine a nightmare on hallucinogenic steroids!

Update:  Oct. 22 -  As if Dotard's "crazy Dem mobs" wasn't enough, the deranged fucker is now trying to harness the Honduras-originating caravan through Mexico - headed toward the U.S. - into the mix, scribbling on his Twitter:

"The Caravans are a disgrace to the Democrat Party. Change the immigration laws NOW!

1:14 PM - Oct 21, 2018

Again, this misfit maggot creates hysteria out of strawmen for his fool base, given the Dems have nothing to do with the caravan.  It is composed of thousands seeking only to escape the relentless gang violence in their homeland.  But having exhausted issues to rev up his cult of toadies and morons, this is all he is left with - incendiary rhetoric along the lines of "this mob of foreigners is coming for ya and the Dems are behind it."  Even more reason, as if we needed any more, to be sure to put a check on this asshole via a D-congress.  . 

See also:

Trump Openly Celebrates the Assault of a Journalist While Campaigning in Montana

Excerpt:

On Thursday, Trump made it clear he's not ashamed of Gianforte's actions — he's proud of them.
"By the way, never wrestle him," Trump said of Gianforte at the campaign rally. "You understand that? Never. Any guy that can do a bodyslam, he's my kind of ... he's my guy. I shouldn't say this. But there's nothing to be embarrassed about!"


And:

P.M. Carpenter

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

The Trump Administration

Imagining Trump On An Even Worse Day

As We Feared: Trumpies Are Hopeless Brain-jacked Zombots- But WHY?

In the wake of Trump's ascension to power, many academics and others have been working overtime to try to explain how so many could fall for this character's codswallop to the extent of allowing him entry  to the most powerful position in the world. The race to understand has ramped up as Trumpies - as we call them - merely shrug their shoulders at multiple outrages, including: Trump's absurd cabinet picks, and especially the release of the declassified intelligence report on the hacking of the recent  election.

Many of us in the reality-based community feared that too many on the other side would yet again shrug shoulders, yelp 'sour grapes' or express contempt. We feared, and it now seems we are proven right, that this country truly is divided across perception lines which bodes ill for its future. Because a house divided against itself - certainly in terms of common perceptions - cannot stand.

A NY Times article from Sunday, exposed the mental, perceptual fault lines clearly, and showed Trump voters exist in a bubble of their own, devoid of historical or political insight.  One is also led to contemplate that their bubble excludes rational thought, though that may not mean they are of low IQ.

Work by Dr. Robert Altemeyer, for example, discloses a subset of humans he calls "right wing authoritarians" whose choices are largely driven by fear. Thus, they are largely immune to rational exchange and any digression from an authority template is violently rebuked, or dismissed. It is not lack of intellect that governs this but fear. Fear of the unknown, of the "liberal" (or Muslim) "other",  As one commentator on this blog has put it: "At heart, these people are afraid to the extent of cowardice and they will accept anything buttressing their conception of safety...no matter how ridiculous or absurd the prophylactic / remedial measure may be."

In a way this also dovetails with work by Erich Fromm on the  "Necrophilous personality".  Harvey Hornstein's profile of the necrotic personality (p. 41) is especially chilling ( 'Cruelty & Kindness: A New Look At Altruism and Aggression'):

"(These) intolerant, prejudiced, authoritarian people are ill at ease. The baggage of their youth is filled with inescapable hates and fears. Mistrusting their own impulses, they are wary of others and the impulses they might possess. Their world becomes a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized because it is filled with human beings who harbor the 'evil' that they painfully learned to deny in themselves."

The upshot from this is that their perceptions and political choices are skewed and distorted in much the same way Robert Altemeyer attributes to "right wing authoritarians". That is, they view the outside world  - economic and political - as "a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized" but also rejected if it doesn't comport with their Zeitgeist.

All of this is necessary to grasp the examples illustrated in the Times' piece. Let's look at a few of them, dealing with reaction to the declassified intelligence report (which I have also read and found compelling to the extent we have a national emergency on our hands):

"From the parts of the report I’ve seen,” said Rob Maness, a retired Air Force colonel who twice ran for Senate here as Tea Party favorite, “it seems silly.”

Silly? Really? That a foreign entity is intruding into our elections, something that would have elicited at least overt alarm in 95 percent of citizens even thirty years ago. But his remark shows the extent to which brains -minds have  evidently been twisted toward the authoritarian mindset, likely by decades of PR and propaganda that render them numb to reason, objectivity.

"There are genuine concerns about Russia’s cyberoperations", Maness said, but ""the notion that they changed the outcome of the election was absurd". (The report made no determination on how they affected the election, but this is not the same as Trump's claim that no affect on outcome was concluded.)

Of the comments he had seen from fellow Trump supporters on Facebook and in emails, he added, “90 percent of them are like, ‘What’s the big deal?’”

The Russians may have very well gotten involved, several people said. They added that kind of interference should be combatted. But many assumed that foreign actors had long tried to play favorites in American elections (NOT true) and that the United States had done the same in other countries’ elections (true, as with Chile in the 1970s, and Mossadegh in Iran, overthrown in 1953). 

A most disturbing theme that recurs is "Even if the Russians did do it what difference did it make?" 

And typically, many Trump voters did not need the Russians to make up their minds about Mrs. Clinton.  Hence, blaming her loss on the Russians was, as one Trump supporter said, “ just being sore losers.”

No reference (from the report) that the Russians had ALSO hacked the Republicans, but they simply didn't use what they found against that party.

Incredibly, even among those who were troubled by the hacks, few felt that Russia was a serious threat. That country was “a basket case,” (not true)  or not the powerful foe it once was (false, as they still have nearly 400 more nuclear warheads than the U.S.), Others said that North Korea, the Islamic State and China were the real threats   A claim difficult to reconcile with the fact that Russia has more than five times the nuclear warheads and missiles as all these other entities combined.

That those on the political right seemed to be warming to Russia was not seen as a particularly unusual development to the Trumpies interviewed, though some joked about the incongruity of the left putting such faith in the Central Intelligence Agency..  This, of course, is a variant of the post hoc fallacy, that because the political left may have earlier had issues with the CIA (e.g. during the Church Committee (FISA) hearings of the 1970s) they must have issues in all later years.

Another form of dismissal pivots on Trump's personality, or what Trumpies are confident is his personality.

Thus, one woman insisted “Trump is Trump,” adding “Do I think he’s going to become more of a friend to Russia because of this? No I don’t. I think — I hope — his focus will be on making America great again.”

Again, this reflects the clouded judgment of a right wing authoritarian who is prepared to dismiss obvious character  faults (e.g. lack of impulse control)  in the interest of embracing a faint hope of national betterment ('making America great').

Perhaps the most disturbing reaction of all was this, in response to the issue of the Russians hacking actually affecting the electoral outcome:

“If that’s what it took, I’m glad they did it.”  In the words of one guy from Louisiana.

Sadly, his remark says all we need to know about how our nation is now in the grip of unreasoning authoritarian zombots, inhabiting their own bubble, to the detriment of the nation.

Trump's Mocking of Handicapped Reporter Shows He's Unfit To Lead

Trump imitating NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski at SC Rally

I am not sure how many in the South Carolina audience at Trump's recent rally were appalled, but if they all had their brains where they need to be anatomically positioned they should have been, It was a disgraceful, crass exhibition of buffoonery and outright vile behavior that ought to disqualify any candidate from public office beyond dog catcher.

Well, let me amend that. That would have been in normal, sane times when the media's spotlight on assorted candidates' peccadillos and lies brought them crashing down before they could reach the big stage. From spotlighting Gary Hart's mistress shenanigans to Pat Buchanan's pro -Nazi, nativist  rhetoric in a 1992 screed, to David Duke's rabid racism years later.

Today though, blinded by Tea Party anti-government hysteria, too many people have had their gray matter hijacked and - according to polls and surveys - will support a splenetic asshole like Trump no matter what he says or does - or who he makes fun of. Clearly, these supporters have lost their moral compasses as well as their common sense and perspective. When a candidate mocks a disabled person, that ought to be going too far in anyone's book.

The recent brouhaha erupted after "the Donna" insisted he had seen Muslims erupting in jubilation in Jersey City, NJ after the twin towers came down. When media tried to point out he was confusing the scene with images of Palestinians in the Middle East the nitwit just doubled down. As if repeating it made it so. But recall here that Hitler once said "if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it". Well, perhaps in some parts of what I call 'Amerikka', the Reich wing, mainly Red State segment blind to anything the Donna does or says - but not in the remaining sane nation that is disgusted by his latest exhibition.

Anyway, Trump tried to use a 2001 article by Mr Kovaleski to back up  his widely disputed, nonsense claim that "thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Kovaleski has denied any such reporting, and given he's a serious journalist as opposed to a buffoon like Trump one must take his word before the Donna's (Not to mention the WaPo and other media outlets backing him up)

As Mr Kovaleski  put it:

"The sad part about it is, it didn't in the slightest bit jar or surprise me that Donald Trump would do something this low-rent, given his track record,"

Then at a South Carolina rally on Tuesday night, Trump called Mr. Kovaleski "a nice reporter" as a prelude to mocking his condition. (Mr Kovaleski has arthrogryposis, a condition that affects the movement of joints and is noticeable in his right arm and hand.)

Trump  - who had met and seen the reporter a number of times before (in the 1980s) - then went into his harangue. saying:
.
"Now the poor guy, you gotta see this guy..."

before launching into an impression of Mr Kovaleski, waving his arms around with his hands at an odd angle - the same way brutish kids in the early 50s used to make fun of those peers with polio.

"Uhh I don't know what I said. Uhh I don't remember. He's going like 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said.'"

In the wake of the disgusting act out, a New York Times spokeswoman told news site Politico: "We think it's outrageous that he would ridicule the appearance of one of our reporters,"

Of course it is, but one now wonders how many accomplice buffoons won't be the least bit disturbed by his antics and merely say - as one knothead did on a CBS news segment three nights ago: "To errr is human, so we forgive him!" (This was after being shown his 9/11 claims were unsubstantiated.)

Meanwhile, the arrogant turkey has actually demanded an apology from the New York Times.  Methinks his brain has now farted one too many times: It is Trump who owes the nation, as well as the Times and Mr. Kovaleski  a heart felt apology.

If Trump's numbers don't sink after this episode, it is safe to say that at least one third of the Repuke base needs to be officially declared sociopathic.

A Youthful European Leftist That Millennials in the U.S. Could Emulate!

Catarina Principe exudes the kind of Leftist energy we need in the U.S.

Catarina Principe is an energetic young Leftist from Portugal who exudes the youthful zest for life and energy we desperately need in the U.S. While the crazies in the Rightist Tea Party just celebrated their fifth anniversary - still holding 'Don't Tread on Me' signs they don't fully grasp, the left movement in the U.S. remains dormant after the Occupy movement fizzled out. Maybe we need Catarina to cross the 'pond'  and get things moving here!

What is so special about this twenty-nine year old firebrand? What isn't?   Start with the fact she's been a dedicated leftist since the age of 15 - unheard of in the U.S. where kids of that age are more enmeshed in selfies and twitter than political movements. Principe rose to lead her student union and then organized a protest at her high school against corporate education reforms. She also pushed for the introduction of (real) sexual education classes, not the bilge passed off in the U.S. as such. The girl, in other words, was way ahead of her time and leading the charge - not rotting away in some social media vacuum.

She joined the Left Bloc in 1999, an organization which includes radical elements from across Portugal and which today claims eight parliamentary seats.  (She moved to Germany in 2011, forced out by the same economic collapse that's brought activists like her to the forefront of European politics).

As reported by 'In These Times',  Catarina was recently in Athens to celebrate the election triumph of Syriza (Synaspismós Rizospastikís Aristerás) the acronym for the Greek coalition of the radical left. The ascendance came after years of austerity measures imposed by your typical right wing government - one which could also materialize here in the U.S. if voters are stupid enough to insert a right wing President (like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Rand Paul) into power.

Recall the right wingers had brutally stripped away the pensions of the elderly to bare bones sustenance so they were literally begging on the streets or raiding garbage cans for food. Job cuts increased the misery- as well as shuttering numerous government services, leading to the collapse of health system as well.. All of which provoked violent rioting in the streets and ultimately the triumph of Syriza. 

The Greek people, unlike Americans, basically said 'Enough is enough!'   But it just didn't happen. People, especially the youth, had to get off their butts and basically engage with the political system. No surprise then for the last five to ten years it's been the scene of very intense mobilizations that  have not only introduced an entire generation to politics but also created the social structures that allowed Syriza to grow. No similar organic development occurred here in the U.S. as with Occupy Wall Street. Perhaps because it didn't spread across enough age groups.

In her interview, Catarina makes two points on the difference between failed and successful movements: 1) the ability to coordinate social movements, so different ones don't act at cross purposes, and 2) the ability to engage in grassroots community organizing - extending to trade unions and the rest of society.

There are lessons here if the  Occupy movement is ever revived, and one hopes the youth in the U.S. can emerge as activist, engaged and coherent as the groups (including Podemos) that came together in Greece.

Greece's problems are by no means resolved, but there is at least a better leverage position available now than when the austerity fetishists were in charge and driving a race to the bottom - bargaining with the larger EU for ever more 'bottom' at the expense of the people. As Catarina noted, the same United Left didn't succeed in Spain because of being too invested in the same austerity politics. Just like pregnancy, one can't be "a little committed to austerity".

Americans, take note!

Don't Buy the BS: Maddow Shows GOOPs Only Want to "Stop Obama'- AGAIN!

Rachel Maddow: Showed an RNC News Conference proving these turds have no interest working with Obama.

All across the corpora-media the refrain is being heard that the Reepos intend to meet Obama "half way" and do compromise, because well, their long term interests dictate this sane path. The media loves the word "bipartisanship" but we already know to the Repukes it's considered "date rape" (Google Grover Norquist and the term together and learn more).

One notable exception has been MSNBC analyst Rachel Maddow two nights ago, who actually televised clips you will never see on most other stations, including FOX. She noted:

 "If the Republicans REALLY want to do something other than 'stop Obama' here's a chance to actually make policy - to fund a response to ISIS and Ebola- as Obama has proposed.. To decide on a response. Day one, did Republicans go to Washington to make any sort of policy? Or did they just go there to destroy the President. This is a test. This is the first test and it arrived early on day one."

She then  referred to a Reepo Press Conference featuring all the usual top dogs of the RNC and there in the background, a glaring red sign: STOP OBAMA - FIRE REID. She also played a clip from Limburger's show in which he referred to a Republican "mandate" (which is more hog shit) and then showed the porker howling:

"It is very clear what that mandate is: It is to stop Barack Obama. It is to stop the Democrat Party. There is no other reason why Republicans were elected yesterday. Republicans were not elected to govern. How can you govern with a President that disobeys the Constitution?  How can you govern with a President that is demonstrably lawless? The Republican Party was not elected to fix a broken system. The Republican Party was not elected to compromise."

If anyone with half a functioning brain had any doubts that this was how things would play out, they got their wake up call. And it makes total sense. Why the fuck should the GOOPrs change a damned thing when it's already worked so well for them? Why change one tune in their retread, sick obstruction song when it even led them to win likely 54 seats in the Senate when all the dust clears? There is absolutely no reason to change!

So this is how these assholes intend to work with Obama to get something done? STOP Obama, a mild variant of their original pig call from Obama's term one?  Block him at ever turn- no stimulus votes (think of the Depression we'd be in now if that's happened and no Dem majority existed), no energy or infrastructure repair legislation, no food stamps, no nothing!

Look, any sensible person understands, as if Maddow even had to show the evidence, that these mutants intend no compromise and no working with the President on ANYTHING! It will be their way or the highway, including passing the odious Keystone XL Pipeline, lowering all regulations on the banks so they can spread credit default swaps again in bonds to create another financial meltdown, no working on immigration, and hold your breath- REPEALING Obamacare!

The news conference with Boehner was especially laughable when he referred to Obama "playing with matches" if he intends any executive actions to get things done. But the long and short of it, from a strategic perspective, is that this will be the only way for him to get things done because Boehner and his Reepo crazies (some of whom were quoted in the press as saying Hillary was "the antichrist" and "women need to obey their husbands") have no intent to work seriously with him anyway.

Also, as Chris Hayes noted in his own show ('UP'), Obama playing the executive action card is guaranteed to incite the unhinged GOP factions, i.e.  the rabid Tea Party  ("Constitutionalist")  nuts and their ilk, and show Americans again why these fools aren't fit to have the Presidency in 2016. Why the fuck should they be rewarded with the presidency when they can't even cooperate to bring one single positive bit of legislation through? And we know this, in advance, never mind what much of the bought and sold whore media says.

One of the most insightful takes on it all was offered in a salon.com piece by Jim Newell yesterday from which I quote a segment:

"Let’s do a thought experiment. Say Barack Obama dropped his plan to take executive action on immigration in order to foster cooperation with Republicans on passing comprehensive immigration reform. What would happen? He’d be denounced by a significant portion of the Democratic base, perhaps irreparably. And then the Republican leaders in the House and Senate would proceed to do exactly nothing on immigration, because it’s not in their members’ interests to cut a comprehensive immigration reform deal with Barack Obama. And then Obama, because he is the president, would get the blame for nothing “getting done” in Washington. What possible reason is there for him to delay executive action on immigration? He can either improve the lives of millions of people, excite the members of his party, and have Republicans hate him or improve the lives of no one, depress the members of his party, and have Republicans hate him."


Read it carefully, and if you're a Dem especially, or even independent, tell me with a straight face that you disagree with that assessment. If you do, I really want to know what brand of rope you're smoking.  As the author also adds, for good effect:

"the current Republican Party’s identity is forged on being oppositional to Barack Obama. If it were to agree with him on some significant piece of legislation, then that would make Barack Obama something less-than-Satan, which would make the Republican Party … what?"

Read it and weep, my friends, but don't look for anything positive politically to emerge over the next two years. As I said before, Obama needs to have his veto pen at the ready....and now his executive action pen too. Don't give one bloody inch to these rabid refuseniks!

GOP & Tea Baggers Want You To Get Sick From Fouled Water

We know from past history that the shtick of the GOP and its Tea Bagger faction is to sink government in a bathtub if they can get enough dumb people to believe they can do it. The primary principle or precept is that "big gubmint" is bad and dammit, we're going to stop it from protecting workers' interests - say from slaving away in a mine filled with methane, or people drinking water from a lake laced with cryptosporidium.

The GOP and its conservo Huns who assert the Constitution is their main book (but can't tell you the difference between the 9th and 10th amendments and the meaning of unenumerated rights) thus would rather you die from being gassed in a mine, or from cryptosporidium than that the government extend its power to protect you, the citizen. (But, the same lamos won't blink when gov't is perverted to protect the interests of corporations).

Enter now House bill, H.R. 5078, which overrides a rule proposed in March by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, seeking to clarify two Supreme Court decisions that had made it difficult to determine whether waterways that are dry for part of the year are protected by the Clean Water Act — confusion that polluters have readily taken advantage of.  (As seen in several recent cases including in West Virginia and North Carolina - where tens of thousands were left without drinking water for weeks)

The new rule would give the EPA regulatory authority over millions of acres of wetlands along with about 2 million miles of small streams, the latter of which feed into rivers, lakes and reservoirs that provide drinking water for more than 115 million Americans (all of whom, presumably, prefer that water to be pollution-free). It would also protect critical fish and wild habitats.


The EPA emphasized (quite ardently) that it would not be expanding the Clean Water Act, only reasserting its authority over water sources that have historically been protected.

”We are clarifying protection for the upstream waters that are absolutely vital to downstream communities,”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in March, going on to point out - as if it was really necessary - though these days you have to wonder:

"Clean water is essential to every single American, from families who rely on safe places to swim and healthy fish to eat, to farmers who need abundant and reliable sources of water to grow their crops, to hunters and fishermen."

 How much cancer H.R. 5078 will generate is hard to say, but over time it's a good guess that at least 1 in 10 of the 115 million affected will develop a cancer of the liver, kidneys, pancreas or bladder, and possibly brain - not to mention leukemia. Will the GOP lay out their big pocket books to pay for all those cancer treatments? I somehow doubt it. Hell, they even have a boner to kill Obamacare. So why would they give a damn if some destitute farmer in the Appalachians were to develop cancer?

They wouldn't.

Then there is the illness we know will spread from fouled water, including from pollutants as well as the sort of red algae pollution that recently fouled the water of Lake Erie - not to mention the violent illness from crypto-sporidium. Ask the 490,000 people of Milwaukee who became ill from such an outbreak back in 1994.

It seems quite evident to me that if people seriously want their water protected - and with it their health interests- they will have to besiege the House and its anti-government buffoons with letters, emails, cards, whatever..... and let them know in no uncertain terms that their override is unacceptable.

Unless, of course, they have no problem with getting ill and having to deal with the inevitable mess and medical bills all by themselves. Which option is kind of incredible even given the purported Yankee affinity for "self reliance" - and the fact that the corporations meanwhile are laughing all the way to the bank over all the help the government is giving them. (For example, monumental corporate welfare to the tune of $180b each year, including tax "inversion".)

Europeans, by contrast,   would never tolerate such nonsense. They demand and expect their governments to have THEIR interests at heart which is why - for example - one beholds much greater degrees of data protection, as well as health costs covered. Oh, and having all GMO foods labeled, which Americans have been convinced (by their own gov't and corporations) isn't necessary.

Will Americans ever wake up to insisting that their government - and ALL political parties - protect their interest, otherwise known as the "general welfare"?

Doubtful, given that many don't even know the general welfare clause exists and is clearly stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. Maybe these Americans need to re-read it sometime.

"48 Liberal Lies on American History"? Exposing Larry Schweikart's Book For the Dreck It Is

"Where's Larry? We wanna learn 'bout Liberal Lies!"

It's almost a given that when you hear or see some right winger, who professes to be an "independent thinking researcher" on matters of history and politics, he or she is really a gullible pawn who doesn't know squat from squash. The first test, especially when they sound off about "liberals revising history",  is asking them to list four or five examples off the top of their heads. Nine will get you ten they can't do it, but will instead say "Read Larry Schweikart's book about 48 Liberal Lies!'

In such a case, rather than waste time on dreck (most of us who are college educated are choosy on how we invest our intellectual capital - or should be!) we check out the background of this purported history guru who would lead us libs from profound "ignorance" to the one and only truth.

It turns out if one even does a modest amount of research much can be learned about Schweikart. For example, he used to be a drummer for the 60s rock band 'Steppenwolf'. (According to an Arizona Tea Party site). Who'da thought?  I last saw those guys live in New Orleans in 1969 but they were only ok - not as good as the Stones, for example.

Other information we learn:

- He's a frequent guest on Fox and Friends, and also a "darling of the Right' including being pals with David Horowitz and Larry Prager

- He's had extended appearances on Limbaugh, bloviating at length

- His book '48 Liberal Lies About American History' has appeared in numerous Right wing venues including the hysterical 'Free Republic' to the somewhat more rational National Review.

So much for "independent thinking". Sounds more like dittohead "thinking".

Looking at Schweikart's list,  the discerning and historically- educated person, who's also worked in academia, can immediately spot two commonalities in the "lies". All are based on the strawman fallacy - which is attributing to an opponent or opposed group positions which they don't really hold or generally hold, and red herrings - contrived positions confected by Schweikart himself in order to distract from more substantive points or issues.

I'm not going to waste blog space with all of his listed BS idiocy but will just cite a few. Those who want to see the full list  of howlers (underwritten by his two endemic fallacies)  can easily Google them:


Lie #5: John F. Kennedy Was Killed by LBJ and a Secret Team to Prevent Him from Getting Us Out of Vietnam

Lie #6: Richard Nixon Expanded the Vietnam War

Lie #7: The "Peace Movement" Activists Were Not Dupes of the KGB 

Lie #8: Ronald Reagan Knew "Star Wars" Wouldn't Work but Wanted to Provoke a War with the USSR


The first alleged liberal lie listed is easily shot down - thanks to more than 20 years of released FOIA files on the assassination, and the obvious and evident exposure of the Warren Report as a political fraud. In combination with other facts released,  LBJ  has definitely been shown to have had a role, if not as the ultimate mastermind, then as a cooperative agent. Most of this I already showed in previous posts,  e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/lbj-was-reluctant-warrior-it-doesnt.html

Noting especially that LBJ faced prosecution in the Bobby Baker scandal just days after the Dallas motorcade - with money trails to be released by the press and also a full judicial inquiry. Thus, actively cooperating in the assassination  (e.g. helping plan the motorcade route through Dealey Plaza) provided an expeditious solution to all his troubles - plus catapulted him into top dog position.   As for the "secret team" stuff, if Schweikart means the CIA or elements within it, e.g. 'Staff D' , a SIGINT operation also mandated for assassinations -   then he'd be correct and I already expatiated on how that was done, e.g.

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

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

Of course, those too damned lazy to do independent research would never learn that.

The claim that Nixon expanding the Vietnam war is a lie, is also a lie. Everyone not stoned or semi-conscious at the time,  and who has read the Pentagon Papers, knows damned well of Nixon's bombing campaign in Cambodia. By the very definition,  when you add another nation to your bombing sorties and attacks you have expanded a war. So I've no idea WTF Schweikart's all about.  It seems he believes his readers are brain dead zombies or totally illogical. I'm not sure which.

The Peace movement blather ("lie #7")  is a similar pile of horse manure, mainly for the consumption of right wing stooges who were either comatose during the 1960s or weren't born yet. Anyone alive then knows it was the FBI's COINTELPRO which actually infiltrated the protest groups including the Weather Underground, Yippies, the SDS as well as less well known groups. The basic strategy was to dress these undercover imps like hippies then "join" the groups and spread havoc from within by telling lies or planting false info. (Google COINTELPRO and learn more about it!)  Had the KGB really had a hand in any of the protests the FBI would already have had its people in on busting - exposing their influence. Hoover was a hyper-paranoid so would have  known if the KGB had any role!

The Star Wars tripe (#8)  has been circulating in the circles of the semi-educated Reich wing for decades. But a simple resort to picking up the special 'Directed Energy Weapons Report' in Physics Today from April, 1989 will disclose how Star Wars was totally exposed as a white elephant and fraud - a colossal waste of money.  The Report, all 30 odd pages of it, shows how the media and the Reaganites were led by the nose on this absurd program that had about the same chance of working as shooting an ICBM down with a rifle.  In that sense, the simple media PR emanating from the damned program would have clearly spoofed the Russkies into really thinking there was something there.

Oh, let's not forget another  liberal "lie":


Lie #20: Lee Harvey Oswald Shot JFK Because He Was a Deranged Marine, Not Because He Was a Communist 103

And, of course, neither is true. Oswald wasn't "deranged" at all but was portrayed that way by the puppet press which was cowed before LBJ's egregious political solution. . (See my  2 earlier links above to see how I skewer this crap.)

Other comments, from those who've reviewed Schweikart's book on amazon include the following:

1) I fear that if you're an educated conservative, and you've had the misfortune of reading this book, you've already pulled a good deal amount of hair out of your head like I have, internally pleading with Schweikart not to be such a bad writer and worse a bad spokesman for a cause.

Look: forget that these aren't really common things anyone is taught in school. Forget that many of these arguments are in fact originated by anti-government types. Forget that Schweikart is an abominable writer and harms the conservative movement by making it look like buffoonery. IN FACT.......you know what? .....Just forget this book ever came out.

2) Wow. This guy is an idiot. Reconstruction ended as a compromise of the 1876 disputed presidential election. By the 1920s it was fifty years behind us. The New Left never amounted to a true block of scholars as they discredited themselves and promoted unsustainable positions decades ago. In fact this is my main complaint about Schweikart, he discredits lies that he himself invented and attributed to liberals to make himself appear the hero. It is like the exterminator who releases mice into your house then charges you to get rid of them.


3) Of Schweikart's 48 "lies" I (who attended both American public schools and American public colleges) had never heard of most of them. In Lie #1 he claims that liberals believe American presidents were isolationists. No president has ever been a true isolationist. Lie #2 claims business interests promoted wars with Mexico and Spain. Actually, one cannot compare these two wars so simply as they were fought in different periods of our history under different sets of values. In 1898 the concept of imperialism was not unpopular with many, only a minority which included Andrew Carnegie.


4) Lie #34 truly demonstrates Schweikart's ignorance about Indians. He claims the lie is the first Thanksgiving took place because the Indians saved the Puritans from their own ineptitude. Larry, there is no lie here, this is exactly what happened. First of all the Pilgrims were not Puritans, they were separatists. Puritans wanted to "purify" the Anglican church. The Pilgrims saw Anglicanism as a lost cause not worthy of saving. So they set sail for Holland and lived there for a few years. But then they sought a greater degree of separation so they set sail for America, in September. When they arrived in November they realized they had no way of providing food for themselves through the New England winter. If the Pilgrims were so capable, why would they set sail in the fall, with no chance of planting a crop before winter? They truly were inept as the massive numbers of deaths from starvation that first year reflect.

5) Schweikart and scholarship are two words that really do not belong in the same sentence...cull 48 "liberal lies" from statements made at one time or another by "liberals" and then "demolish" same in 5 or 6 pages....seriously....that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack (and, by extension, could have prevented it) is a lie that a liberal would propagate?.

6) Looking at his other books, they're purely political in nature and not objective in the slightest. It's no wonder that they're on the reading list for conservative and religious book clubs. They're so filled with hero-worship of the Founding Fathers and the other "Great Men" of US history that they are utterly useless as legitimate history books. No, I am not offended as a liberal but as a historian.

Take this book for what it is: a puff piece intending to make historically illiterate American, conservative Christians feel superior for being historically illiterate American, conservative Christians.


7) This book is a perfect example of the false "two-model" approach common to (but not exclusive to) fundamentalist thinking - we see it in the discussion of politics, religion, and regularly in most any broadcast media debate. This book is rife with allegedly "liberal" opinions (and often just conspiracy theories), many of which are certainly not taught in schools and universities. The book seeks to cover an array of topics, but in the end, sadly it says very little. It reads more as a reactionary quasi-tirade against illusory "liberal" foes somewhere in academia, the author being "true" history's courageous advocate. The writing itself bears the faint din of paranoia.

As for the genuine seeker of historical truth -  intelligent and educated people who wish to learn about the REAL lies taught about our history-  I recommend James Loewen's excellent and quality book, 'Lies My Teacher Told Me'

Enough said!

 

Tea Baggers Calling Out "Collectivists"- Do They Even Know What the Word Means?

Yet another bunch of bull pockey parroted by the "constitution loving" Tea Party adherents is that those who disagree with them (they call them "anti-Constitutionalists" but are really anti-Tea Baggers) are "collectivists". Hence, again, they disclose their lack of education by confusing definitions - in this case of "collectivism" with socialism.

Collectivism, according to the definition given in the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, means "supporting or promoting the takeover of all means of production by the state". But no liberal I know supports any such thing, nor do the democratic socialist nations such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Barbados.  In fact, what these tea bagger zealots are really attacking is socialism - which means "the redistribution of resources from the well off to those who have less."  In our country this is usually done via taxation (for example, the FICA tax) which allocates money from current earners to beneficiaries in the Social Security system. While it is a form of redistribution, the most well off largely escape because the payroll tax threshold is at $118k - so the richest have to cough up only a tiny fraction of their total earnings each year. But to the hard core Randian Libertarian, or Fiscal conservative it still qualifies as "socialism", because the force of coercion (stiff prison sentence) is invoked if you fail to pay the taxes to support it.

Now, again, the tea bagger - given his lack of perception and insight - is likely to grab on to this and then carelessly declare all progressives, liberals, as "socialists".  However, if he receives ANY kind of government benefit - even VA disability - then HE is a socialist too, or at least supporter of socialism! As any true right winger, Tea Party advocate or Libertarian will attest- any unearned gov't benefit (which is to say not accrued via current paid employment) means you are reaping the rewards of others' earnings via the tax and benefits systems). Thus, all Social Security is included under this banner as well as Medicare, Tri-Care, Medicaid, Social Security disability and all VA benefits. (To the Libertarian and arch -conservative the response: "I earned those benefits serving in the Army, Air Force etc." doesn't count  - because you're still benefiting now from a gov't redistribution program based on tax coercion).

I actually winced four years ago, as I tuned into Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show just for the hell of it (I always like to keep up with the whack nut drivel from time to time).  At the time a nervous guy from Indiana had phoned in and asked El Rushbo if he could still be conservative if he took his Social Security disability as he "needed it". Rush lit into him like a Komodo dragon after a wayward rat,

"If you accept any government benefit" Rush blustered, "then NO, you are not a real conservative nor do you respect the Constitution. That applies to Social Security, Social Security disability and even VA benefits. Anything received which others have to currently pay for with current wages is SOCIALISM!"

Ouch! But it brings home the point.  That was also reinforced in a recent scurrilous attack (latest issue of Intertel INTEGRA) by Thomas Nelson on all forms of altruism (including "political"), where he actually invoked the ultra-Libertarian Ayn Rand. Recall Rand once compared receiving Medicare to bank robbing. Rand's actual words were (from her 'Virtue of Selfishness', pp. 82-83):

'Isn't it desirable the aged should have medical care in times of illness?' "Considered out of context, the answer would be 'yes' it is desirable. Who would have reason to say no? But the fog hides such facts as the enslavement and therefore the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice and the sacrifice of professional integrity...

"There would be no controversy about some young hoodlum who declared: 'Isn't it desirable to have a yacht, a penthouse, and to drink champagne?' And stubbornly refused to consider that he robbed a bank and killed two guards to achieve that desirable goal."

"There is no moral difference between these two examples: the number of the beneficiaries does not change the nature of the action, it merely increases the number of victims. In fact, the private hoodlum has a slight edge of moral superiority: he has no power to devastate an entire nation and his victims are not legally disarmed."

Rand isn't any easier on the military! On page 116 she asserts:

"Since the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force...in a fully free society, taxation, or payment for government services, would be voluntary. Since the proper services of government - the police, the army, the law courts - are demonstrably needed by individual citizens, and affect the individual's interests directly, they should be willing to pay for such services as they pay for insurance."


Thus, she dismissed the importance of the military as being either worthy of citizen taxation or support, but instead ought to be "done by insurance contract' (ibid.) That is, the government negotiates a private insurance contract to support its forces - which can then obviously be only limited. We would never get to the stage of 4,400 bases around the world.  Or nearly $4 trillion blown on useless, wasteful excursions. Rand's take on military benefits is the same and follows logically from her take on military insurance contracts. In other words, if military benefits or disability payments are advocated they also need to be done via insurance contract. You pay for the insurance at the outset, and if you suffer X, or Y injuries - say from Agent Orange or PTSD - you are compensated according to the payment provisions in the contract and no more. In effect, a private business or company is taking care of your needs, which you originally committed to via contract.

You aren't depending on the government's taxation of others to provide the benefits, never mind all the flag waving about "giving back for their service".  To Rand, that's basically a non sequitur. If a nation or a citizen is insecure (about mishaps or external threats) then it is obvious that insurance is the answer,  not government use of force by taxes to amass its armies or benefits.

Again, Rand is a self-proclaimed Über-defender of the "Constitution and Freedom" just like many self-proclaimed "constitutionalists".

This take is supported by Nelson in his Intertel Integra (July, p. 18) piece, wherein he states:

"Tax money is used for whatever the politicians decide to label as altruistic at the moment, This will be perverted into schemes to make an ever-increasing stratum dependent on government benefits for their daily needs."

Again, by Nelson's and Rand's take the stalwart defender of liberty and the Constitution takes no largesse from any government source, for ANY reason. If you do, then you are actively benefiting from redistribution of income and to all technical intents are a "socialist" or at least support socialism as defined earlier.

It would seem, again, the "constitutionalists" (aka Tea Baggers) are hoist on their own petards - in this case not being able to see that if they receive any benefits they are no different from progressives or liberals- at least from the POV of the most rigorous "freedom and constitution" lovers!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/57577/the-entitlement-of-the-very-rich

Can the Dem Base Do What the Reepo Base Did to Cantor in VA?

The fear and trepidation in the Beltway is almost palpable this morning after the stunning loss of Eric Cantor in Virginia to a Tea Party favorite, Dave Brat.  The fear extends not only to legislation likely now tabled this year for good (e.g. immigration reform) but also migrating to other issues the Teepees felt that Boehner's House got too lax on: e.g. raising the debt ceiling. In other words, Brat's win possibly foretells more gridlock in Washington after the November mid-terms.  Make no mistake that as one commentator remarked on 'Morning Joe' this a.m., the Republican establishment is once more trembling as its angry base rears its 'Don't tread on me' head.

The question obviously becomes why can't the Democratic Left base do the same, to punish the Neoliberal Demos who talk left populist out of one side of their mouths and talk Neoliberal (as well as act Neoliberal) on the other?  Why, in other words, can't we get the Democratic establishment to fear its base (as well as respect it) like the Reepos do theirs? The fault, I suspect, is not in our "stars" but in our embrace of pathetic 'hope' as opposed to courage, see e.g.


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/hope-is-for-dummies-and-sissies-what-we.html

We need, in other words, the courage to support genuine Left populists as opposed to Neoliberal poseurs. To do this we must have the courage to acknowledge 'lesser of two evils' in the proper context. In this, the lesser of two evils can only be the non-Neoliberal. Sadly, as per a recent op-ed in the WaPo, most Democrats remain committed to the Neoliberal model of "free markets über  alles". We must find a way to punish them for their fecklessness and embrace of this idiom, while not gutting the party itself. (Which is the only practical counterpoise to the ever more far Right Reepos.)

A recent piece in 'Democratic LEFT',  the Democratic Socialists of America Newsletter, described one way in which Demo candidates are sized up in each district in terms of their Neoliberal votes. If they heel too excessively to Neoliberalism, at the expense of their districts,  then opposing candidates who are genuinely Left are chosen to primary the bastards. This is the only way we can clean house of the Neoliberal cancer over time.

"But they will outspend us and blow us away!"

Not so! For the record, Tea Party favorite Dave Brat spent an estimated $122,000 while Eric Cantor spent nearly FORTY times more, this according to Frank Luntz - GOP pollster and analyst this morning. So what was the deal on how Brat did it? It is because his supporters never flinched, they ditched the false hope and had the courage to vote their conscience and beliefs - never mind how perverted and skewed they were.

Brat's platform might be called "standard Confederate": gut all federal spending (even for the sickest and neediest), kill Obamacare, chisel out Social Security and Medicare, and no more debt ceiling increases without capitulation on multiple other fronts, and no regulation of automatic or semi-automatic weapons, not to mention a visceral embrace of "free markets" so what we have in Brat is a Confederate Neolib.

This, even as the media mouthpieces kept echoing this morning:

"The lesson from this is: Don't get too far from what your base wants!"

Maybe for the Repukes, but the Dems dismiss their base with impunity. Let us not forget the infamous meeting several years ago in the White House with several Left groups. At one point, Obama Consigliere Rahm Emmanuel grew so frustrated with the demands made, that he unleashed a string of epithets and referred to the gathered base as "morons". Really? Maybe, a lesson needs to be taught Dems like Emmanuel? (Of course, such lessons presume Dem voters arrive to cast ballots in primary elections!)

I got fed up with the Dem Neoliberal poseurs long ago, which is why I left to become an independent and join the Democratic Socialists of America. No, we may never win the White House, but we can raise enough hell to make the Neoliberals pause and not think they've conquered everyone's brains.

I could tick off a long list of where the Demo Neolibs are wrong:

- Going after Edward Snowden as a "traitor" (Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry et al)

-  Voting for a misbegotten FISA law that actually retrospectively legalized Bush's illegal wiretapping

- Voting for the Military Commissions Act in 2006, to repeal habeas corpus

- Vigorously pushing natural gas fracking on communities that want no part of it, and fobbing it off as a "blessing" and "safe for the environment" (Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colo.)

- Proposing a chained CPI to cut Social Security - and offering it as a bargaining chip to the Reep rats

- Proposing a means test for Medicare beneficiaries at the ridiculous level of $47,000/ yr.

- Fueling unrest in the Ukraine in order to establish a Neoliberal'/NATO foothold, thereby provoking Russia to respond, and then blaming Russia for protecting its own geopolitical interests

- Continuing to fund military expansion and being bought by defense contractors' lobbyists

- Supporting the TPP (Trans -Pacific Partnership) for trade, as they did NAFTA - which will see American jobs outsourced.

- Cutting food stamps by $9 b in a farm bill, while allowing Reeps more military spending in a bill passed in December last year.

All of these ought to outrage a serious citizen - who is educated enough to grasp that rampant Neoliberalism is at the root of this country's metastasizing inequality.  In turn, they all - in concert - ought to spur people of the Left to action, much the same way doing all the opposite has spurred the Teepee crowd as in ousting Cantor.

We need a new vision. We need courageous people - citizens to step forward to enter primaries and unabashedly advocate for an anti-Tea Party platform that fundamentally acknowledges the prime precept in the Constitution to "promote the general welfare".

Beyond all that, we need Democratic Left voters to get up off their asses and VOTE in primaries, not just in general elections. One huge reason the Dem base isn't taken seriously is because of its absence in primaries - not to mention mid-terms. This needs to stop.

If it can, then for every step the Tea Party Reeps make to reduce this general welfare, we take two in the opposite direction to advance it. If that means removing Neolib Democrats - who've grown too comfortable with their lobbyist perks and campaign donations - then so be it.

One thing for sure, the status quo cannot go on if we hope to keep any semblance of a country of the people, by the people and for the people!

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/11/cantors_demise_brings_huge_lesson_heres_why_the_tea_party_is_so_coddled/