Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Putin's Puppet Day

Happy First Anniversary!

"My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be...”

A day of infamy and betrayal. 

You're with Trump or you're with America now.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Republican Redundancy

“Go back to Africa!” "Go back to Mexico!"

This is the theme we have heard from every white nationalist, NAZI, Klansman and white racist since 1865. 

This racism is now the rhetoric of the Oval Office. It was directed by the Big MAGAt's tweet at four Democratic women of color, suggesting they, "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY], Ilhan Omar [D-MN], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA], and Rashida Tlaib [D-MI] happen to be American citizens.

Never mind a “totally broken and crime infested place” was the Big MAGAt's description of an America that needed to be made great again.

The hypocrisy is obvious to rational people, of course, but this isn’t the issue.  Con-servatives and Republicans will always be hypocrites. Count on it. 

Now we know they are deeply racist as well. I’m tired of hearing their excuses for Trump’s racism.

They voted for the racist Birther in the first place. That alone tells us they don’t have a problem with racism. Now those Con-servatives and elected Republicans are either silent, or openly supportive of Trump’s racism. Maybe one or two Black Republicans will call it racism, but will they denounce their party for its descent into abetting white nationalism?

Trump’s state media sycophants at FOX praised the racist MAGAt for being “very comedic” and "making an important point," while laughing along as they read the vile tweet.

Of course they did. 

After all, they are racist Republicans and con-servative Christians. And there's NOTHING Christian about MAGAts. Their hate violates and rejects the Two Commandments of Christ. Being racist hypocrites in Trump’s cult cancels their faith. 

Let me give them a preview of the judgment their religion tells them they will eventually face:

Sorry, MAGAts, Jesus didn't send Trump to save America. And by your own creed you are all Hell-bound. You serve the "Father of lies" by serving his evil Earthly counterpart. You have chosen hate and racism over love and compassion.

You may hate me, but with this judgment comes my forgiveness for those who repent. Otherwise you can all go to Hell.

- Reverend Dave

Now, where was I?

Shortly afterwards, Lindsay Graham, the most unctuous and odious man in the Senate piled on, accusing the four women of being “socialists” and “communists who hate Israel and America”.

Of course he did. He is a racist puke and liar, too. The racist MAGAt in the White House rewarded his toadie's fealty. “We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of Communists, they hate Israel, they hate our own Country..."

This was followed by another dog-whistle to his white supremacist cult.  "It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me. And all I'm saying — they want to leave, they can leave."

The Nazis, and the Klan, and every white racist in the country have been validated and praised by their Bigoted Big MAGAt. They won't even hide or dodge the facts anymore. The message is clearly "Make America white again".

White nationalist spokesman Tucker Carlson declared Rep. Ilhan Omar is “living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country” and that she is “a living fire alarm, a warning to the rest of us that we better change our immigration, or else.” 

Carlson claimed that Omar “has undisguised contempt for the United States and for its people” and that “maybe that's our fault for asking too little of our immigrants.”

And that is just a hint of his white supremacist rhetoric.

"The creation of America was probably the greatest gift given to black people in 3,000 years."

A guest of Tucker Carlson stated, If Rep. Ilhan Omar "wasn't a member of congress, she would be a member of the KKK"

This racist was echoed by Todd Starnes, another white supremacist at FOX(R):

I title my book Culture Jihad because it's a call to arms for every freedom-loving American -- Christians and Jews, straight and gay, black and white and brown. Folks, we have got a responsibility to stand up to the Orwellian tactics of the leftists and defend liberty, otherwise the culture jihadists will conquer the nation.

As for Congresswoman Omar and other immigrants who find that America, well, just doesn't meet their standards of living, might I just suggest this -- how about a one way plane ticket back to whatever third-world hellhole you came from? And don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

“Culture Jihadists”. There’s some blatant projection only a racist can share.

This is an evil that infects a large percentage of the US population, and it must be called out for what it is.

These facts need to be stated every day.

Trump fuels hate. Trump is a pathological liar. Trump is a racist. Trump is willfully ignorant and indifferent to human suffering. Trump is fond of dictators and extra-judicial killings.

Hate is evil. Pathological lying is evil. Racism is evil. Willful ignorance and indifference to human suffering is evil. Dictators and extra-judicial killings are evil.

Bottom line: Trump is evil. He is rotten and corrupt to the core. And this applies to his party and his supporters.

Those who support Trump wittingly, or unwittingly, support evil.

I’ve had it with the lot of them. Anyone who cannot loudly condemn Trump for his racism is abetting racism. And abetting racism IS racism.

The term “Racist Republicans” has become redundant.

Friday, June 14, 2019

Pro Collusion! Pro Collusion!

Russia, if you're still listening... The Supreme MAGAt has spoken.

I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, (or Russia, or China, or North Korea, etc.) “we have information on your opponent”-- oh, I think I'd want to hear it.,, It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it...It's called oppo research...The FBI director is wrong. 

This is how America is great again. He is not only above the law, he IS the law. The king has spoken.

Get over it, libs. Get over it, Democrats. Get over it Congress, Get over it, Justice Department. Get over it, FBI. Get over it, courts. Get over it, Constitution.

And get over it, Founders. 

"An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents."

- Federalist Paper No. 75

"Fake Founders", amirite?

He is risen! America’s Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers reminds us: “Today is the day that Evangelicals celebrate the birth of their Lord and Savior.”

Merry Trumpmas, everybody! 

Thursday, June 6, 2019

The Longest Day

Seventy-five years ago today the U.S. and our Allies undertook the greatest battle for freedom and invaded Nazi-occupied France. 

They knew the risk and challenge. General Eisenhower was prepared to accept responsibility if the invasion failed, as any great leader would.

Germany's Field Marshall Erwin Rommel comprehended the significance. The invasion of Europe would begin with the "Longest Day".

The Normandy landings by air and sea were hard fought, with thousands of allied troops paying the ultimate sacrifice to liberate Europe from fascism. 

Within a year, Nazi Germany was defeated.

How the wheel turns. 

Today the "America First" president has undermined the alliance born of that conflict. Our Right Wing Authoritarian leader demeans and bickers with allies as he praises tyrants. 

But that's all fine with the clueless dupes and empowered white nationalists of his base. Their Orange Fuhrer can do no wrong. Right Wing Authoritarian followers are loyal to their authoritarian leader, every bit as loyal as Hitler's followers.

The Leader proved he understands this, by bragging he could shoot someone down in the street and his cult would remain loyal. 

White nationalists, Klansmen, and Nazis love him. 

Many would shout, "Hail, Trump". Jews and Blacks would be gunned down by some of them. Liberals would be run over. Bombs would be sent to the targets of their Leader's rage and anger.

They share the Leader's white nationalism, and demand the imprisonment of political opponents. They join their Leader in accusing his opponents and critics of treason.

Trumpism clearly shares these doctrines with Nazism. 

We don't want to find out how far they would follow him into totalitarianism. We're seeing quite enough already.

And they won't relinquish power willingly. Expect them to challenge the election if their Tangerine Tyrant loses. This is a long way from over.

They are fanatics.

They would rather praise their leader than honor the warriors against fascism.

Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, gushed, "We are celebrating the anniversary, 75 years of D-Day. This is the time where we should be celebrating our president, the great achievements of America, and I don’t think the American people like the constant negativity.” 

Right. And she would probably just love to crack the champagne bottle at the launching of the newest aircraft carrier, "USS Bone-Spurs". 

Just ask that woman what she thinks of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, our greatest wartime president since Lincoln. She would call him a socialist commie like all the other fascists did. Just like they accuse Democrats of being socialists and commies today. 

I'm pretty sure she's another "very fine person".

The German Nazis were defeated, but their heirs live on. Understand this. The struggle against fascism never ends. 

But freedom-loving people of the world will always honor those who served, and remember the Longest Day, as long as we survive and defeat the "Longest Presidency".

A final word:

After the war Bertolt Brecht warned:

"Don't yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,

The bitch that bore him is in heat again."

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

What Is A Sociopath?

A public service message. 

What is a sociopath?  It's not a "crazy" or psychotic person. It's not someone holding delusional beliefs that are provably false. This isn't someone suffering from auditory or visual hallucinations from a neurological or mental illness. It's not mania or depression. 

Some argue that sociopaths are mentally ill, but it is different from any treatable mental illness. 

"Sociopath" is a term for a person with an antisocial personality disorder. If you may be wondering if someone is a sociopath, here is the information you need to understand this personality disorder.

This is from the Mayo Clinic:

Antisocial Personality Disorder


Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others harshly or with callous indifference. They show no guilt or remorse for their behavior.
Individuals with antisocial personality disorder often violate the law, becoming criminals. They may lie, behave violently or impulsively, and have problems with drug and alcohol use. Because of these characteristics, people with this disorder typically can't fulfill responsibilities related to family, work or school.


Antisocial personality disorder signs and symptoms may include:

Disregard for right and wrong

Persistent lying or deceit to exploit others

Being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others

Using charm or wit to manipulate others for personal gain or personal pleasure

Arrogance, a sense of superiority and being extremely opinionated

Recurring problems with the law, including criminal behavior

Repeatedly violating the rights of others through intimidation and dishonesty

Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead

Hostility, significant irritability, agitation, aggression or violence

Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others

Unnecessary risk-taking or dangerous behavior with no regard for the safety of self or others

Poor or abusive relationships

Failure to consider the negative consequences of behavior or learn from them

Being consistently irresponsible and repeatedly failing to fulfill work or financial obligations


Can you imagine someone displaying most of those symptoms? They are usually not quite as obvious as we would like. A lack of conscience is easily concealed by skilled or relentless deceit. 

Although they are bullies and cruel, they are often charming or convincing manipulators, easily duping people to get what they want from them. 

Not that anyone comes to mind...besides Capone, Genovese, Gotti, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Putin, Kim Jong Un, Mohammad Bin Salman, Duterte, and all their minions, thugs and henchmen...and their admirers, of course. 

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

The Big Answer

Today's post is the transcript of Robert Mueller's televised statement. He kindly answered the Big Question posed earlier, "To impeach, or not impeach?"

For those with short attention spans or reading comprehension issues, I emphasized key points and summarized the inevitable conclusion.

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel's Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel's Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General's good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel's Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you.

So, what is the "Big Answer"?

We find the answer in these key elements:

"This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity..."

The Trump campaign accepted and benefited from Russian interference.

"Insufficient evidence to charge" doesn't mean there was no evidence. This only shows obstruction of evidence was partially successful, preventing charges of conspiracy. Cooperation, aka collusion" was the "Trump campaign's response".

"That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation." And, "That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation."  And, "the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President."

This means there WAS obstruction. 

The damning conclusion is here: "if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."

Instead he said, "The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

The message to Congress is clearly stated, "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."

For the benefit of those still confused, Mueller has just said, in effect, "Since I cannot legally charge him, Congress must hold Crooked Don accountable for colluding with Russian interference against his opponent, and engaging in multiple attempts to obstruct the investigation."

And there it is. 

The Big Answer to the Big Question, "To impeach or not impeach", is...

...Hell YES!

Sunday, May 26, 2019

The Big Question

To impeach or not impeach. That is the question. 

There are compelling arguments on both sides of the impeachment question.

My reason for opposing impeachment would be Pence would only pardon the crook. Better to vote him out and arrest him. Although something tells me Trump will get away with his crimes, just as Bush/Cheney got away with torture and war crimes.

Polls show a majority against impeachment, but what does that mean?

I would be interested in knowing what the breakdown would be in those opposing impeachment. How many are just Democrats afraid of the process backfiring, compared to Trump loyalists?

Why do people think impeaching Trump will make him more popular? 

Just because his toadies in the Senate love him, doesn't mean anybody else will join the cult. Either way, Trump will gloat about not being impeached, as much as he would crow about the senate's non-conviction.

I wonder if  there are really that many independents who would shrug and say, "Gee, Trump's fellow Republicans in the Senate voted not to convict. I'll have to side with them."

If that is the state of our democracy, we are doomed.

Who bears the greater shame? Authoritarians defending a criminal, or Democrats showing courage of their convictions, who dare to draw the line that has been so flagrantly crossed? Democrats can call on Republican senators to side with either the Constitution or Trump. They cannot stand for both.

The message would be bumper sticker simple. Constitution or Trump?

How will history reflect the Democrats' lack of conviction in the face of a rogue president, especially if he wins? Voters want to see Democrats stand on principle, and show resolve and purpose. This is their chance. 

I understand Pelosi's long game is all about political calculations. Maybe she's right and defeating him is more important than impeaching him. I say go for both. Impeachment is the moral high ground and the Constitutional course of action.

Democrats would be taking a stand for the Constitution and rule of law. They can fairly accuse the Republicans of undermining the Constitution in favor of an autocrat.

At least holding impeachment hearings sends the message that something is very wrong with the Trump Administration. Call them "pre-impeachment hearings" if need be. They will spell out Trunp's crimes and misdemeanors and abuses of power. Imagine the Democrats' message being, "Constitution or con? Choose wisely!"

Perhaps, despite appearances, its not just spineless waffling. Maybe it's Pelosi's plan to time the impeachment hearings closer to the election.

If not, what will the Democrats stand for, if not the Constitution and rule of law? There's no reason they can't promote health care, women's reproductive rights, environmental protections, regulation of commerce, etc. as well as following the Constitution's provision for impeachment.

My concern is if Trump is not impeached, then nobody, or only Democrats, will ever be impeached.  And that would end all illusions of a Constitutional Republic.