NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label tea-baggers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tea-baggers. Show all posts

07 October 2016

Mike Pence and the Failure of the Republican Establishment. In their hearts, they know they are wrong. 4OKT16

Image result for trump pence meme
WILL the 2016 presidential election be the end of the republican party? Will so many republicans be disgusted with their loss of the election (my optimism) that they finish the civil war within the party, depose the leadership and force the party to return to their core "values" of greed and representing the interest of the rich and powerful? Or will the right wing political extremist, the tea-baggers, neo-nazis, racist, sexist, authoritarian xenophobes formally take over the party leaving the gop moderates out in the cold? Many believe that has already happened, thus the drunpf/trump-pence ticket. This from +Mother Jones alludes  to that, and does a great job outlining why drumpf/trump-pence is  a very serious threat to the future of our nation, our Republic.

Mike Pence and the Failure of the Republican Establishment

In their hearts, they know they are wrong.

OCT. 4, 2016 11:23 PM

When Mike Pence took the stage for the vice presidential debate, he was not there only as Donald Trump's second; he was also representing the Republican establishment that has cravenly acquiesced to Trumpism. As something of a surrogate for the entire GOP, Pence, the governor of Indiana, often tried to sidestep Tim Kaine's pointed criticisms of Trump. But he could not avoid defending his running mate on key matters—and cleaning up after the GOP's acerbic nominee.
Pence claimed it was untrue that he and Trump had praised Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. (They have both called him a strong leader.) He said Trump would not support legislation to punish women who obtain abortions. (Trump has said"some form of punishment" would be necessary if abortion were made illegal.) He declared Trump would implement "broad-shoulder" leadership in foreign affairs and adopt a muscular stance against Russia's military intervention in Syria. (Trump has said Russian airstrikes in Syria were "okay" with him.) He denied Trump has called for spreading nuclear weapons to nations that don't currently possess them. (Trump has.) Pence scoffed at Kaine's insistence that Trump has hurled abuse and invective on the campaign trail and asserted it was Hillary Clinton who was mounting an "insult-driven" campaign. He defended the Trump Foundation—which has been cited for various violations and which Trump has apparently used for his own personal and pay-to-play ends—while attacking the Clinton Foundation falsely for spending only 10 percent of its funding on charitable work. (The figure is close to 90 percent.) All the thrusts and parries aside, Pence's most important role was serving as normalizer-in-chief.
As many Republicans say—some in public, some in private—Trump is at best not a serious man and at worst a threat to the nation. He is arrogant, impulsive, and erratic, a loudmouth and boorish know-it-all who doesn't know nearly as much as he believes. He has mocked the disabled. He exhibits no discipline. He threatens war too readily and expresses admiration for tyrannical leaders (especially Putin). He shows signs of a troubled and troubling personality. He cannot admit error and doesn't take advice. (After the first debate, his aides had to complain about Trump's lack of preparation and poor performance to New York Times reporters in order to get his attention.) He is a serial purveyor of outlandishly false claims and crackpotconspiracy theories, including birtherism (which he hardly renounced). He changes positions on a whim. He denies saying what he has already said (or doesn't remember). He routinely derides minorities and denigrates and body-shames women. He attacked a Gold Star family and equated his business career with the sacrifice of military service. (He also likened trying to avoid STDs while sleeping around in the 1970s with serving in Vietnam.) He speaks and tweets recklessly. He has encouraged violence. He has threatened to undermine electoral democracy. He has egged on Russia to hack the United States. He refuses to disclose key information about his business dealings and finances, which include hefty loans from overseas banks. He runs a crooked foundation. He is no model family guy. He has been accused of fraud in several lawsuits. He stiffed working-class contractors. He exploited the tax system to live like a billionaire—which he may well not be—while possibly paying no federal taxes.
Many GOP leaders realize all this and earlier in the presidential campaign expressed their anti-Trump views. House Speaker Paul Ryan criticized Trump for making "racist" remarks. Sen. Marco Rubio called the celebrity mogul "dangerous," insisting that he was a "con man" unqualified to be president. Texas Gov. Rick Perry saidTrump "is without substance when one scratches below the surface. He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: A toxic mix of demagoguery and mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued." Top Republicans considered Trump harmful to their party—his campaign was alienating the voting blocs GOPers had hoped to court: women, Latinos, African Americans—and to the national political discourse. Many believed that a President Trump could jeopardize the country's well-being.
Yet most of the GOP top dogs have jumped on the Trump trolley, even though they see an unstable and risky fellow is at the helm. Ryan, Rubio, and Perry are now official endorsers of Trump. So is Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whorefuses to talk about Trump. ("Because I choose not to," he explains.) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), whose wife and father were insulted by Trump and who tried to define himself as a principled conservative by not endorsing Trump at the GOP convention in July, eventually kissed the ring. On Monday night, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) declared that Trump "absolutely" was a role model. (After that remark sparked a social-media controversy, Ayotte, who is in a tight reelection battle, claimed she had misspoken.) And consider the pathetic case of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Trump started his presidential campaign by blasting McCain for being a loser who was captured in Vietnam. And yet McCain says he is supporting Trump.
All these Republicans know Trump was unfamiliar with the nuclear triad. They know he is lying when he says he knows more about ISIS than the generals. (Before the first presidential debate, while on Facebook Live, I asked Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, a prominent Trump supporter, if she thought Trump was better informed about ISIS than the US military leadership. She kept attempting to change the subject. I pressed her repeatedly. She would not answer the question—for the obvious reason.) Most GOP leaders know a Muslim ban is a stupid idea, an act of bigotry that cannot be implemented and that would be counterproductive to the effort against violent extremism. (Pence tweeted last year that it was "offensive and unconstitutional.") They also are smart enough to realize that encouraging supporters to chant "lock her up" demeans the national debate and undermines political stability. In another setting, they probably would acknowledge that such ignorance, arrogance, and bullying ought to be a disqualification for anyone seeking to become the commander in chief.
Still, most of the GOP elite—including elected Republican officials and the brass and staff at the Republican National Committee—have accepted Trump, and Pence is the grand marshal of this parade. A former House member and a stalwart conservative, he was a wise pick for Trump because he had the cred to legitimize Trump. And Pence has enthusiastically tried to wrap the cloak of normalcy around the former reality television star. As a loyal No. 2, he repeatedly makes excuses for Trump's conduct—even when it contradicts Pence's core principles. In 1990, Pence ran for Congress and lost in a race that was notably marked by a barrage of nasty ads from Pence's side. Afterward, he swore off such tactics and wrote a confessional article in which he denounced negative campaigning. "First, a campaign ought to demonstrate the basic human decency of the candidate," he opined. "That means your First Amendment rights end at the tip of your opponent's nose—even in the matter of political rhetoric." He added that negative attacks are "wrong" because they distract voters from the important issues. He claimed that after his loss in the 1990 election, he underwent a "conversion" on the topic of negative ads: "A campaign ought to be about the advancement of issues whose success or failure is more significant than that of the candidate."
With that noble tenet in mind, Pence went on to win a House seat. Yet as Trump's sidekick, Pence has had to put his principles in a blind trust and kick his clean-campaigning values to the curb. It is without question that in modern times Trump has been the nastiest major-party presidential candidate. He bullied and name-called his way to the GOP nomination, and he has maliciously assaulted Clinton, labeling her a criminal, claiming in fact-free and sexist fashion that she does not possess sufficient "stamina" or a "presidential look," and, most recently, accusing her of cheating on her husband (without offering any evidence). And Pence has been Trump's defender at each turn. To make the situation even more ludicrous, Pence has lashed out at Democrats when they have criticized Trump, saying, "I don't think name calling has any place in public life." Unless you're on the ticket with the best name-caller of all time. Pence, it seems, is playing the Michael Palin part in Monty Python's famous Dead Parrot sketch: denying the obvious to an infinitely absurd degree. At the debate, he continued to depict Trump as the victim of harsh assaults.
With such a performance, Pence essentially speaks for the GOP elite, refusing to acknowledge the reality of Trump. Many Trump-accepting Rs will say they have no choice because they find Clinton so odious. Oh, they don't believe the balderdash about Benghazi or the conspiracy theories about the Clinton Foundation, and they don't think the the email controversy is a capital crime. In fact, many of them feel more comfortable with Clinton's centrist foreign policy reflexes than Trump's inconsistent stances and Putin-coddling. Their problem is not with Clinton; it's with their own voters.
During the Obama years, the GOP base has been encouraged to believe the worst about President Barack Obama—he's a secret socialist Kenya-born Muslim who is plotting to destroy America!—and that hatred has been easily transferred to Clinton, who in the 1990s, with her husband, was the primary target of right-wing loathing. Republican elites cannot get on the wrong side of this raging Clinton animus. Nor can they stand against the bigotry and populist anti-government antipathy within their party that they have fueled or played footsie with. One example: In 2012, Mitt Romney eagerly embraced Trump, when the real estate developer was going full birther. (Romney, earlier this year, was one of Trump's chief antagonists. But he has gone silent in recent months. A Romney confidant tells me that Romney reached the conclusion that further attacks from him could well help Trump.) Another example: Three years earlier, when a couple thousand tea partiers gathered on Capitol Hill to protest Obamacare, they questioned Obama's citizenship, depicted him as Sambo, and called him a traitor. Referring to Obamacare, the crowd shouted, "Nazis! Nazis!" The entire House Republican leadership, led by Rep. John Boehner, was there, and Boehner did not admonish the crowd for its excessive rhetoric. He got into the spirit, calling Obamacare the "greatest threat to freedom I have seen."
By exploiting instead of addressing the anti-Obama fever within their party, Republicans leaders helped set the foundation for Trump's towering candidacy. And with his nomination came crunch time. The choice was this: keep trying to ride the tiger or denounce the beast within. Not prepared to confront a plurality, if not a majority, of the GOP base and trigger a bloody all-out civil war that could well put their own political careers at risk, Republican poobahs had only one course of action: to pretend that Trump is acceptable. They did not have the courage, spunk, or fortitude to take on the forces they had encouraged. So now many GOPers must make-believe that Trump would be a fine president and offer a never-ending series of excuses and rationales—that is, when they cannot avoid talking about him.
This is not ideological. Trump is no conservative hero for whom Republicans must fall in line. Michael Reagan this week said that neither Nancy Reagan nor his father, Ronald Reagan, would have supported Trump. But doing so is no problem for Pence, who proudly describes himself as a Reagan conservative. Pence also is a self-proclaimed evangelical who is now crusading for a fellow who has not practiced family values. And he has had to put aside bedrock policy principles—free trade and support for the Iraq War—to saddle up with Trump.
Pence is the GOP's primary justifier for Trump—his only serious, brand-name surrogate. (Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie have become clownish Trumpbots.) This is his job. And as unattractive as it might look from the outside, this might be a better position than that of a losing gubernatorial candidate, for his reelection prospects were dim. (All this national attention could be helpful should he run for president in 2020 or 2024.) So when Trump says Obama was the "founder" of ISIS, Pence explains what Trump really meant. When Trump says Clinton's Secret Service detail should be removed, Pence explains what Trump really meant. When Trump falsely claims that Clinton started the racist birther allegation, Pence explains what Trump really meant. He has regularized Trump's cruelty, bigotry, vulgarity, and say-anything dishonesty.
In 1964, Republicans adopted this slogan in support of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater: "In your heart, you know he's right." Fifty-two years later, it's pretty clear that for many elite Republicans, this mantra does not apply in this election. In green rooms across Washington, DC, Republicans admit that and shake their heads, upset that their party has reached this (sad!) point. In their heart, they know Trump is wrong for the White House. They just don't have the guts to do anything about it.
DAVID CORN
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook.
Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you.  or  to help fund independent journalism.

RELATED

17 March 2016

Marco Rubio Ends His Presidential Campaign 15MAR16


ANOTHER extreme right wing fascist neocon drops out of the 2016 republican primaries. Bye bye little marco, bye bye, we won't miss your lies. Maybe you'll quit the senate too? From +NPR .....

Marco Rubio Ends His Presidential Campaign

The Florida senator is dropping out of the White House race after losing his home state's GOP primary to Donald Trump.

29 February 2016

The secretly-elected Heritage crew creates new headaches for House Speaker Paul Ryan 26FEB16

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 12: Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R) looks over his notes before President Barack Obama's State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill January 12, 2016 in Washington, D.C.  In his final State of the
THERE isn't anything Christian about the heritage foundation's federal budget demands. They represent the gospel of greed and pervert the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am tired of their apostasy for the benefit of the wealthy to insure their continued financial support. Rep paul ryan r WI now has to deal with this monster of his own creation. Hey speaker ryan, BOHICA!!!!! 
The secretly-elected Heritage crew creates new headaches for House Speaker Paul Ryan
For a former budget committee chairman—and GOP golden boy—House Speaker Paul Ryan is proving astoundingly inept at leading his conference in coming up with a budget. He began the Congressional session in January promising that once the House failed one more time to repeal Obamacare, they'd get the 2017 budget and spending bills done first thing. “First thing” has turned into March, and March is clearly going to turn into maybe sometime before November. Because the House Republican conference can't be led, except by the Heritage Foundation, with all the money its attached Heritage Action group has to spend.
Further complicating Speaker Paul Ryan's effort, the Heritage Foundation—the right's most influential think-tank—unveiled a budget blueprint that goes far, far beyond anything Ryan is proposing when it comes to slashing government spending.
The aggressive conservative wish list, provided to POLITICO, is likely to increase unrest in the Republican conference and boost hardliners’ resistance to leadership’s pitch of sticking to a spending deal made with President Barack Obama.
“The point of the blueprint is both to educate the public but also to influence Congress and the presidential candidates,” said Paul Winfree, director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
The public would be horrified by reading what Heritage has in store for them in their wish list. Of course there's the obligatory defunding of Planned Parenthood, and cutting off of funds for clean air and water enforcement. But they go all the way down to things like eliminating grants under the Violence Against Women Act (make those domestic violence shelters have bake sales!), disaster assistance for small businesses, and healthy food for school children. This is what the House maniacs are going to line up behind.
Meanwhile, the current budget chairman and Ryan are working within the realm of budgeting and spending that they inherited from the agreement outgoing speaker John Boehner worked out, the one that could actually pass in both the House and Senate and be signed by the president. But they have been working with the Freedom-y types toward something those guys might not totally oppose, "a compromise in which discretionary spending would remain at the higher level, but the House would pursue significant cuts to mandatory and entitlement spending through the appropriations process or in a reconciliation bill." That might lose them some fed-up Republicans and all Democrats—and thus would make it impossible to pass. And now that Heritage has released its marching orders, a compromise probably isn't going to be good enough for all the Freedomy folks.
So Ryan is in the thickets, where any Republican "leader" is going to end up. Meanwhile, John Boehner must be kicking his feet up with a bourbon and a cigarette, having a great time not having to deal with this particular set of clowns.

04 January 2016

THE KOCH BROTHERS & THE 1% This is what oligarchy looks like 4JAN16


OLIGARCHY , PLUTOCRACY. You may not be familiar with these words but you should be because the koch brothers and those of the 1% like them are paying the majority of the republican party (local, state and national) and too many third way democrats (again, local, state and national) to turn our Republic into a plutocracy. citizens united was a huge step in reaching that goal. The money the 1% is pouring into the 2016 elections, especially the presidential campaigns, is astounding. Much of that money funds the various right wing, conservative, "religious" propaganda machines that keep various groups of poor, working class and middle class Americans opposing each other through misinformation, deception and fear at a time when we should all be united in opposition to cutting government investment in our infrastructure, cutting government funding of education, cuts in funding of protecting our environment, health care, emergency services like FEMA as well as police and fire fighters, and severe cuts in the social safety net that too many Americans needed during the recent recession (unemployment benefits, SNAP/Food Stamps, housing and health care) and those who still need assistance due to economic inequality and insecurity. These people are determined to end Social Security when it should be expanded, and are determined to end Medicare and Medicaid and vets benefits. These same republicans and third way democrats are focused on more tax breaks for the rich and powerful, damn the American social contract they have have a moral and financial responsibility to. The koch brothers and the 1% like them do not care if you, your family, your children, parents, friends and neighbors have enough food to eat, access to affordable health care, a good education, decent housing, and fair pay for the work you do. They really are that cold and calculating. The want more, more wealth, more power, they want to be in control. They are waging class warfare and we have to fight back. +Senator Bernie Sanders I VT is the ONLY candidate for president not accepting money from super pacs or American oligarchs. Check out this statement from his campaign, click the Bernie 2016 button to go to his campaign website and if you can make a donation. Join the only campaign fighting back against the 1% and the politicians they own!

"This is our movement.

It's time to get big money out of politics.

We are at a moment of truth. We need to face up to the reality of where we are as a nation, and we need a mass movement of people to fight for change.

I believe America is ready for a new path to the future.

Make a contribution to our presidential campaign today. I can't wait to see what we will accomplish together."
- Bernie Sanders



ol·i·gar·chy
ˈäləˌɡärkē/
noun
noun: oligarchy; plural noun: oligarchies
  1. a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
    "the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president"
    • a country governed by an oligarchy.
      "the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century"
    • government by oligarchy.
       
      plu·toc·ra·cy
      plo͞oˈtäkrəsē/
      noun
      noun: plutocracy
      1. government by the wealthy.
        • a country or society governed by the wealthy.
          plural noun: plutocracies
        • an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.
           
      Plutocracy (from Greek πλοῦτος, ploutos, meaning "wealth", and κράτος, kratos, meaning "power, dominion, rule") or plutarchy, is a form of oligarchy and defines a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. The first known use of the term was in 1652.

      Bernie Sanders for President


      “I like to give on a scale where I can see impact...” - David Koch
      Earlier this year, a number of Republicans flew to California to make fundraising pitches to more than four hundred wealthy conservative donors attending a private conference hosted by the Koch brothers.
      It’s worth taking a moment to ask the question, who are the Koch brothers, and what do they want?
      The Koch brothers are the second-wealthiest family in America worth $82 billion. For the Koch brothers, $82 billion in wealth apparently is not good enough. Owning the second-largest private company in America is apparently not good enough. It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process.
      This issue isn't personal for me. I don't know the Koch brothers, but I do know this. They have advocated for destroying the federal programs that are critical to the financial and personal health of middle class Americans.
      Now, most Americans know that the Koch brothers are the primary source of funding for the Tea Party, and that’s fine. They know that they favor the outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and that’s their opinion. It’s wrong, but that’s fine as well.
      But it is not widely known that David Koch once ran for Vice President of the United States of America on the Libertarian Party ticket because he believed Ronald Reagan was much too liberal. And he ran on a platform that included the following:
      • “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.”
      • “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
      • “We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws…”
      • “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
      In 1980, David Koch’s presidential ticket received one percent of the vote from the American people. And rightly so. His views were so extreme they were rejected completely out of hand by the American people.
      But fast forward almost thirty-six years, and one of the most significant realities of modern politics is just how successful David Koch and the like-minded billionaires attending his retreat have been at moving the Republican Party to the extreme right. The ideas above that were dismissed as downright crazy in 1980 are now part of today’s mainstream Republican thinking.
      The Koch brothers, and billionaires like them, have bought up the private sector and now they’re buying up the government. It’s up to us to put a stop to them, but it will require all of us standing together with one voice on this issue.
      Your donation to our campaign today is a contribution towards the dismantling of a corrupt system of campaign finance held in place by the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends:
      Here’s the truth: The economic and political systems of this country are stacked against ordinary Americans. The rich get richer and use their wealth to buy elections, and I believe that we cannot change this corrupt system by taking its money. If we’re serious about creating jobs, health care for all, climate change, and the needs of our children and the elderly, we must be serious about campaign finance reform.
      So far in this election, less than four hundred families have contributed the majority of all the money raised by all the candidates and super PACs combined. According to media reports, one family will spend more money in this election than either the Democratic or Republican Parties.
      This is not democracy. This is oligarchy.
      Our job is not to think small in this moment. The current system of campaign finance in this country is utterly corrupt. That is one of the reasons I am so proud of how we have funded our campaign — over 2.5 million contributions from working Americans giving less than $30 at a time. But our campaign is unique.
      We must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and I will not nominate any justice to the Supreme Court who does not make it abundantly clear that she or he will overturn that decision. We need legislation that requires wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going. And more importantly, I believe we need to move towards the public funding of elections.
      Our vision for American democracy should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful.
      Tomorrow afternoon I’ll be in New York City to deliver a major speech about our need to create a financial system that works for all Americans, not just the few. I’ll be in touch shortly after. I hope that you’ll keep an eye on your inbox for my message.
      In solidarity,
      Bernie Sanders

       
      Paid for by Bernie 2016
      (not the billionaires)
      PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE
       

04 December 2015

What If Getting a Gun Were as Hard as Getting an Abortion? 4DEC15

THIS will never pass in Missouri where the legislature would like to impose "christian sharia" laws on the residents of the state (but not applicable to state legislators), but I would love to see it passed in a progressive state or D.C. and see the reaction of the repiglicans and tea-baggers. It actually is a valid question to be considered and discussed. From +Mother Jones .....
| Fri Dec. 4, 2015 1:03 PM EST
After multiple shootings across the country in the past week, including a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, that killed 14 people, a Missouri state lawmaker decided to take a provocative approach toward gun control. State Rep. Stacey Newman, a Democrat, prefiled a bill this week for the next legislative session that, if passed, would subject potential gun buyers to the same rigmarole of restrictions—a 72-hour waiting period, an explanatory video, a doctor meeting, a facility tour, reviews of photographs, and more—that are already imposed on or have been proposed for Missouri women seeking abortions.
From the bill, HB 1397:
Prior to any firearm purchase in this state, a prospective firearm purchaser shall, at least seventy-two hours prior to the initial request to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer located at least one hundred twenty miles from such purchaser’s legal residence, confer and discuss with a licensed physician the indicators and contraindicators and risk factors, including any physical, psychological, or situational factors, that may arise with the proposed firearm purchase. Such physician shall then evaluate the prospective firearm purchaser for such indicators and contraindicators and risk factors and determine if such firearm purchase would increase such purchaser’s risk of experiencing an adverse physical, emotional, or other health reaction.
The bill also requires gun purchasers to watch a 30-minute video about firearm injuries, to tour an emergency trauma center at an urban hospital on a weekend night, when rates of gun-shot victims are high, and to meet with two families who have experienced gun violence and two local faith leaders who have officiated a funeral recently for a child killed by gun violence.
This symbolic bill is reminiscent of the trend that cropped up several years ago, when legislators across the country filed tongue-in-cheek measures proposing restrictions on vasectomies corresponding to state abortion restrictions. None of those measures passed, and Newman's bill is also virtually guaranteed to fail in Missouri's Republican-controlled legislature. Newman's intent is to highlight the high hurdles to getting an abortion in Missouri relative to the lack of accountability required for buying a gun.
"If we truly insist that Missouri cares about 'all life', then we must take immediate steps to address our major cities rising rates of gun violence,'" Newman told St. Louis magazine. "Popular proposals among voters, including universal background checks and restricting weapons from abuser and convicted felons, are consistently ignored each session. Since restrictive policies regarding a constitutionally protected medical procedure are the GOP’s legislative priority each year, it makes sense that their same restrictions apply to those who may commit gun violence."


Hannah Levintova

Reporter/Associate Editor
Hannah Levintova reports and edits in Mother Jones' DC bureau. For more of her stories, click here. Follow her on Twitter or send her an email at hlevintova[at]motherjones[dot]com. RSS |

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

23 January 2015

Six Weeks’ Paid Leave Opposed By People With Thirty-Three Weeks’ Paid Leave & Oxfam: Richest one percent set to control more wealth than the bottom 99 percent & Richest One Per Cent Disappointed to Possess Only Half of World’s Wealth 22&20JAN15

LOOK at the faces of the repiglicans and tea-baggers during Pres Obama's State of the Union speech. The are amazed someone is actually comparing what they consider to be their right to the reality of the rest of the nation. Thanks a lot all you stupid, lazy and self-centered people who voted for this lot or who didn't bother to vote at all! We've got a least 2 years of their oligarchical, plutocratic bullshit to put up with! I just hope you are the ones who suffer the most from the 114th Congress' policies! From +Andy Borowitz, +Oxfam GB and +World Socialist Web Site .....

Six Weeks’ Paid Leave Opposed By People With Thirty-Three Weeks’ Paid Leave
By Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—President Obama’s proposal to give workers six weeks of paid leave is meeting strong opposition from a group of people who annually receive thirty-three weeks of paid leave.

Members of the group heard the President’s proposal on Tuesday night, one of the few nights of the year when they are required to report to their workplace.

The opponents of paid leave, who show up for work a hundred and thirty-seven days per year and receive paid leave for the other two hundred and twenty-eight, were baffled by other moments in the President’s speech.

For example, they were confused by Obama’s challenge to try to survive on a full-time job that pays fifteen thousand dollars, since they all currently hold a part-time job that pays a hundred and seventy-four thousand dollars.


Oxfam: Richest one percent set to control more wealth than the bottom 99 percent
By Andre Damon

The richest one percent of the world’s population will have more wealth next year than the other 99 percent combined, according to a report issued Monday by the Oxfam charity. The report shows that, far from moderating or reversing, the pace at which the global financial oligarchy is monopolizing society’s wealth is increasing.


The report observes that while the wealth of the world’s 80 richest people doubled between 2009 and 2014, the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s population (3.5 billion people) was lower in 2014 than it was in 2009.

In 2010, it took 388 billionaires to match the wealth of the bottom half of the earth’s population; by 2013, the figure had fallen to just 92 billionaires. It fell to 80 in 2014.


Oxfam timed the release of its report to coincide with the opening of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Some 1,700 private jets are expected to descend on and around the resort town, bearing about 100 billionaires and over 2,000 corporate executives, celebrities, central bankers and heads of state. They will be joined by a small army of journalists.
US Secretary of State John Kerry will join French President François Hollande, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, along with another 35 world leaders.
Other participants will include Jack Ma, who made $25 billion in the initial public offering of Alibaba last year, and Bill Gates, the world’s richest man. Google’s Eric Schmidt, with a net worth of some $8 billion, will co-chair the forum. Some 4,500 Swiss military personnel will be deployed to protect the 2,500 attendees.
The millionaires and billionaires assembled at Davos, to whom Oxfam is appealing, constitute the very social layer whose obscene enrichment is decried in the group’s report.
The growth of social inequality documented in the report is the consequence of policies enacted by the ruling class in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, which a significant share of this year’s Davos participants helped trigger. Governments responded to the collapse of asset values and the insolvency of major banks by pumping some $12 trillion dollars into the financial markets by means of bank bailouts, near-zero interest rates, and central bank money-printing (quantitative easing).
This virtually free cash was used to drive up the world’s stock markets and corporate profits to record highs. The same governments and central banks pursued brutal austerity policies against the working class, driving tens of millions into poverty.
The day the Oxfam report appeared, bankers and speculators around the world were rubbing their hands in anticipation of an expansion of quantitative easing by the European Central Bank at its policy-setting meeting this week.
The Oxfam report notes that “2010 marks an inflection point in the share of global wealth” going to the top one percent. This was also the year that the US Federal Reserve’s money-printing operation was expanded with the Fed’s second round of quantitative easing.
Oxfam also found, “In 2014, the richest 1 percent of people in the world owned 48 percent of global wealth, leaving just 52 percent to be shared between the other 99 percent of adults on the planet.” It added, “Almost all of that 52 percent is owned by those included in the richest 20 percent, leaving just 5.5 percent for the remaining 80 percent of people in the world”—some 5.6 billion people.
Oxfam, citing figures from Forbes, noted that there were 1,645 billionaires in the world, nearly thirty percent of whom (492 people) live in the United States. “Billionaires from the US make up approximately half of the total billionaires on the Forbes list with interests in the financial sector,” the charity wrote.
In a reflection of the parasitism that has become embedded in the world capitalist system, the financial and insurance sector minted more billionaires than any other industry. The report states: “Since March 2013, there have been 37 new billionaires from these sectors, and six have dropped off the list. The accumulated wealth of billionaires from these sectors has increased from $1.01tn to $1.16tn in a single year, a nominal increase of $150bn, or 15 percent.”
Oxfam Director Winnie Byanyima will be one of the co-chairs of the Davos event, along with World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and Google’s Schmidt. The charity declared, “Byanyima will use her position at Davos to call for urgent action to stem this rising tide of inequality, starting with a crackdown on tax dodging by corporations.”
The attempt to present the gathering at Davos as a forum for addressing social inequality takes on an absurd and grotesque character. In the press release announcing its report, Oxfam quotes Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the chair of the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism, as saying: “All those gathering at Davos who want a stable and prosperous world should make tackling inequality a top priority.”
Lady Rothschild is married to British financier Evelyn de Rothschild, whose net worth is estimated at $20 billion. She spoke at an Oxfam event Monday. The press release for the event declared, “Inequality is spiraling out of control, but consensus on taking action against this issue of our time is gathering pace. From…Barack Obama to Pope Francis, there is clear agreement that extreme inequality is damaging societies, governance and economic growth.”
These warnings about the growth of inequality are rooted in fears within the financial aristocracy that the ever more obvious and repulsive gap between the super-rich and everyone else will have revolutionary consequences.



Richest One Per Cent Disappointed to Possess Only Half of World’s Wealth
By Andy Borowitz


DAVOS (The Borowitz Report)—A new Oxfam report indicating that the wealthiest one per cent possesses about half of the world’s wealth has left the richest people in the world “reeling with disappointment,” a leading billionaire said on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters in Davos, Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum, the hedge-fund owner Harland Dorrinson said, “I think I speak for a lot of my fellow billionaires when I say I thought we were doing a good deal better than that.”

Calling the Oxfam findings “sobering,” he said that he hoped they would serve “as a wake-up call to billionaires everywhere that it’s time to up our game.”

“Quite frankly, a lot of us thought that by buying politicians, rewriting tax laws, and hiding money overseas, we were getting it done,” said Dorrinson, who owns the hedge fund Garrote Capital. “If, at the end of the day, all we control is a measly half of the world’s wealth, clearly we need to do more—much more.”

In Davos, Dorrinson is huddling with other billionaires in the hopes of setting an ambitious goal for the top one per cent: to own the other half of the world’s wealth by 2025.

While he considers this target “doable,” Dorrinson said that he does not underestimate the challenge of wresting the other half from the “vise-like grip” of the approximately seven billion people who comprise the bottom ninety-nine per cent.

“Getting that other half is not going to be a walk in the park,” he said. “But ten years from now, when Oxfam says that the top one per cent owns everything in the world, it’ll all have been worth it.”




19 September 2014

"Three of five detainees swapped (for Bowe Bergdahl) are now ISIS leaders." 15SEP14

WHILE the website this is from has a proven track record of spreading lies and misinformation many racist repiglicans and tea-baggers will continue to spread it around the internet. From +PolitiFact .....

Have three detainees swapped for Bowe Bergdahl now joined ISIS?

This is a screenshot of a portion of a movie-trailer-style video reportedly released by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
A reader recently sent us a link to a rather startling claim -- that three of the five Guantanamo detainees released by the United States in late May in exchange for Taliban prisoner Bowe Bergdahl have now taken up arms for the Islamic State.
That’s the militant group sometimes known as ISIS or ISIL that has taken control of portions of Iraq and Syria and has beheaded two American journalists and at least one other Westerner.
The claim stems from a website, politicalears.com, that ran a post on Sept. 15, 2014, with the headline, "Three of five detainees swapped are now ISIS leaders." The post, which was also linked to elsewhere on the Internet, goes on to say:
"It is being reported that at least 3 of the 5 detainees involved in the swap have joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq as commanders and are using that rank to usher in an 'Islamic Caliphate' (a Sunni Islamic Theocracy -- contrary to Obama's claims that ISIS is not Islamic).
"The 'Taliban 5' who were transferred from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to custody in Doha, Qatar, are Mohammad Fazl, Khairullah Khairkhwa, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Norullah Noori, and Mohammad Nabi Omari. They have largely disappeared from view since they were dropped off in Doha, but eyewitnesses place Fazi, Wasiq, and Noori in Iraq and Syria fighting with ISIS."
If true, this would be a major story. But it’s not.
President Barack Obama took significant heat at the time for releasing the five detainees, with some critics also taking issue with the ex-detainees’ new terms of custody -- being transferred to the Persian Gulf state of Qatar with restrictions on their political behavior but relative freedom of movement within the country.
We didn’t find any news reports about what the ex-detainees have been up to recently, but we quickly noticed a couple of red flags that made us suspicious of the email’s claims. For starters, the claim in politicalears.com is entirely unsourced.
In addition, we’d run into politicalears.com before and found the site less than credible. Earlier this month, we looked at its claim that "over 73 percent of all donations raised" from the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge "are going to fundraising, overhead, executive salaries, and external donations." We gave it a Pants on Fire.
Experts who study the region told us the claim was wrong. The ex-detainees "are all in Qatar. This is nonsense," said Barnett R. Rubin, director and senior fellow at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that while he doesn’t doubt that the ex-detainees are dangerous to United States interests, "there is literally zero evidence" that the detainees have been spotted on the battlefield with ISIS.
Gartenstein-Ross added that the claim doesn’t even make much logical sense and betrays the author’s weak grasp on the region’s nuances.
"The ex-detainees "were in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater," Gartenstein-Ross said. "Based on these guys’ social networks and who their points of contact were, it’s pretty unlikely they’d be able to quickly find a way to the battlefield and have a command" in the Iraq-Syria border region.
"They are not native Arabic speakers, and it would be unfamiliar terrain culturally. They would face a lot of obstacles," he said.
When we asked the White House if there was any evidence that one or more detainees has joined ISIS, spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said, "There is no truth to these reports."
Our ruling
Bloggers said that "three of five detainees swapped (for Bowe Bergdahl) are now ISIS leaders." The claim has nonexistent sourcing, has been published by sites with questionable track records for accuracy, and has been knocked down by independent experts. We rate it Pants on Fire.

About this statement:

Published: Thursday, September 18th, 2014 at 2:01 p.m.
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Subjects: Foreign Policy, Military, Terrorism

Sources:

Politicalears.com, "Three of five detainees swapped are now ISIS leaders," Sept. 15, 2014
National Report, "Terrorist Exchanged For Bowe Bergdahl Now Top ISIS Commander," Sept. 16, 2014
Atlas Shrugs, "Treason: GAO Says Five Enemy Combatants Obama Swapped for Bergdahl Was Illegal Deal," Sept. 16, 2014
NBC News, "Ex-Gitmo Militants Are Free To Move Around Qatar: Source," June 3, 2014
Snopes.com, "Exchange Berate," Sept. 16, 2014
Email interview with Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Sept. 17, 2014
Email interview with Barnett R. Rubin, director and senior fellow at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, Sept. 16, 2014
Email interview with Caitlin Hayden, White House spokeswoman, Sept. 16, 2014

12 September 2014

If You're Upset About Obama's Golf Game, Here's Reagan Goofing Off During Major Events 25AUG14

ALL the repiglicans and tea-baggers howling about Pres Obama playing golf on Martha's Vineyard after his press conference about isis and the beheading of James Foley need to explain these presidential events in history.....

A particularly intolerable meme continues to play out in the news media and online: Apparently U.S. history began on January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated. In case you were unaware, President Obama is evidently the first president to take vacations; he's the first president to play golf; he's the first president to be photographed without a suit or tie; and he's the first president to routinely use a teleprompter. If you believe any of that, then you're a moron who needs to crack a good book -- anything prior to the events of 2009 will do. There you'll find that not only are Obama's vacations and so forth in line with most previous presidents, but in terms of overall time off, he's taken the fewest vacation days of any modern president other than Bill Clinton.
As reported recently by The Daily Banter's Tommy Christopher and Michael Luciano, the latest round of outrage directed at the president has to do with his so-called "bad optics" -- inappropriate, non-presidential behavior. In this latest case, Obama's crazy decision to remain on vacation following the horrifying beheading of American journalist James Foley. A cursory check of AM talk radio, Fox News Channel and conservative Twitter reveals the usual double standard and historical amnesia we've seen over and over again.
So, in the interest of history and the obvious inability of Republican concern-trolls to actually do the research themselves, I decided to set the way-back machine to the beloved Ronald Reagan presidency. Here's a series of harrowing events from the 1980s, along with the comparatively AWESOME optics from Reagan, the now-sainted chief executive. The photographs are all from the specified dates.
EVENT, October 10, 1981 -- The funeral of assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
REAGAN OPTICS, October 10, 1981 -- Reagan went horseback riding at Camp David.
reagan_sedat

EVENT, August 29, 1983 -- Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in Beirut.
REAGAN OPTICS, August 29, 1983 -- Reagan remained on vacation at Rancho Del Cielo, California.

EVENT, September 1, 1983 -- Reagan was still on vacation in California when the Soviets shot down Korean Airlines Flight 007.
REAGAN OPTICS, September 1, 1983 -- According to Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace, as well as contemporaneous accounts, Reagan planned to remain on vacation until he was photographed horseback riding and was convinced to return to the White House.

The Washington Post, 9/4/83 -- At this point, [Press Secretary Larry] Speakes was interrupted and asked if Reagan was going back to Washington. He ignored the question and read a statement on the Middle East. Asked again if Reagan was going back to Washington, Speakes answered, "There are no plans for the president to return to Washington earlier than anticipated."

FOX NEWS CHANNEL'S CHRIS WALLACE: I was covering Ronald Reagan at that time. He was in Santa Barbara at his ranch when that happened, and quite frankly he didn't want to leave. And his advisers realized how terrible this looked, and eventually persuaded him he had to fly back to Washington and had to give this speech to the nation, but it did take him four days.

EVENT, October 22, 1983 -- The administration began planning its military incursion into Grenada.
REAGAN OPTICS, October 22, 1983 -- Reagan remained on vacation at the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. Repeat: golf resort. Here are three strikingly presidential photos from Augusta -- the golf resort! First, Reagan in his jammies being briefed on the Grenada plans, then, later hitting the links. Where were the Republicans of 2014 to scold him?
reagan_pajamas1
reagan_pajamas2
C17837-10
President Reagan was still on vacation at the GOLF! resort the next day when the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed, killing 241 Marines.

EVENT, July 18, 1984 -- 21 people were killed and 19 wounded when a gunman entered a San Ysidro, California McDonald's and opened fire.
REAGAN OPTICS, July 21, 1984 -- On the day when many of the gun massacre victims were to be buried, Reagan went horseback riding at Camp David.
C23285-16

EVENT, April 2, 1986 -- Four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack at a TWA counter at the Athens Airport, Greece.
REAGAN OPTICS, April 4, 1986 -- Two days later, here's Reagan's uber-presidential optics, while on vacation (!!) at Rancho Del Cielo:
reagan_4486
reagan_horse4486

EVENT, September 5, 1986 -- The Pakistani military stormed the hijacked Pan Am Flight 73. Twenty-two people were killed, including two Americans, and 150 were injured.
REAGAN OPTICS, September 6, 1986 -- Again, while on vacation at his California ranch, Reagan went horseback riding with the First Lady and was photographed with a "Just Say No" sign.
reagan_justsayno
Presidential optics! Any questions?
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Nicole Naum.

 

Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go