bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘HISPANICS’

TRUMP: INSULTS FOR AMERICA’S FRIENDS, HUGS FOR ITS ENEMIES

In Business, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on June 13, 2018 at 1:24 am

“He appeared to need enemies the way other men need friends, and his conduct assured that he would always have plenty of them.” 

So wrote William Manchester about General Douglas MacArthur in his monumental 1978 biography, American Caesar. But he could have written this just as accurately about Donald Trump, both as Republican Presidential candidate and President.

As a Presidential candidate, Trump repeatedly used Twitter to attack hundreds of real and imagined enemies in politics, journalism, TV and films.  

From June 15, 2015, when he launched his Presidential campaign, until October 24, 2016, Trump fired almost 4,000 angry, insulting tweets at 281 people and institutions that had somehow offended him.  

Related image

Donald Trump

The New York Times needed two full pages of its print edition to showcase them. Among his targets:

  • Hillary Clinton
  • President Barack Obama
  • Actress Meryl Streep
  • Comedian John Oliver
  • Singer Neil Young
  • Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger 
  • News organizations
  • Beauty pageant contestants 

Others he clearly delighted in insulting during the campaign included:

  • Women
  • Blacks
  • Hispanics
  • Asians
  • The disabled
  • Prisoners-of-war 

As President, he has continued to insult virtually everyone, verbally and on Twitter. His targets have included Democrats, Republicans, the media, foreign leaders (most notably North Korea’s “Little Rocket Man” Kim Jong On) and even members of his Cabinet. 

The one major figure that Trump has never attacked is Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

But Trump has no such hesitation about insulting leaders of nations which have been America’s traditional allies—such as Canada. 

On June 10, Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic adviser, accused Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of undermining the US and its allies with comments he made at the G7 economic summit in Quebec.

Related imageJustin Trudeau

The G7 is comprised of France, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, the United States and Italy.

“It was a betrayal,” Kudlow accused Trudeau on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He really kind of stabbed us in the back.” 

Kudlow said the allies should have been more supportive of Trump because of his scheduled June 12 meeting in Singapore with North Korean dictator Kim Jong On.

“They should have said to him, ‘God speed, you are negotiating with the crazy nuclear tyrant in North Korea, and we are behind you.'” 

Related image

Larry Kudlow

On June 9, the prime minister had said in a press conference that Canada would “move forward with retaliatory measures” on July 1. 

The reason for this: Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, the European Union and Mexico

“I have made it very clear to the President that it is not something we relish doing, but it something that we absolutely will do,” Trudeau said. “Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around.” 

And Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, went further: “There’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door.

“And that’s what bad faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference. That’s what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did, and that comes right from Air Force One.”  

Given the sheer brutality of the language, there’s no reason to doubt that Navarro was absolutely reflecting Trump’s own venomous anger.    

“He [Trump[ did him [Trudeau] a favor,” Navarro said. “He was even willing to sign that socialist communique.”

On June 10, Trump tweeted: “Based on Justin’s false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our U.S. farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our U.S. Reps not to endorse the Communique as we look at Tariffs on automobiles flooding the U.S. Market!,” 

But while Trump has made clear his detestation of socialism, he has no qualms about rewarding the aggression of a hardcore Communist like Vladimir Putin. On June 9, he called for Russia to be readmitted to the G7.  

“I think it would be an asset to have Russia back in,” he said during an impromptu press conference at the summit.

“I think it would be good for the world. I think it would be good for Russia. I think it would be good for the United States. I think it would be good for all of the countries of the current G7. I think the G8 would be better.”  

Russia was ousted from the group in 2014 after Putin annexed Crimea—the first violation of a European country’s borders since World War II. 

“Today crystallizes precisely why Putin was so eager to see Trump elected,” said former Obama National Security Council spokesman Ned Price.

“For Putin, this is return on his investment, and it’s safe to say that his investment has paid off beyond even his wildest dreams,” he said in a statement to CNN.   

And, in a turn of events that some might call poetic justice, moments after he arrived in Singapore for his meeting with Kim Jong On, Trump tweeted: “Our Great Larry Kudlow, who has been working so hard on trade and the economy, has just suffered a heart attack. He is now in Walter Reed Medical Center.” 

DID COMEY LOSE CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE? PARTTWO (END)

In History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on April 18, 2018 at 12:02 am

May 9 will mark one year since James Comey was fired as FBI director by President Donald Trump.

On April 17, Comey’s memoirs, A Higher Loyalty, appeared in bookstores. The book has generated massive publicity for Comey. And it has also re-ignited the controversial charge that he cost Hillary Clinton the White House during the closing days of the 2016 election. 

But is this true?

Actually, there were at least nine reasons for Clinton’s defeat.  Part One of this series explored the first five. This part will explore the remaining four.

#6 The coalition that twice elected Barack Obama deserted Hillary Clinton.

Clinton did worse-than-expected among all the groups she was counting on to support her: Blacks, women, youth and Hispanics.

  • In 2012, Obama got 93% of the black vote; in 2016, Clinton got 88%.
  • In 2012, Obama got 55% of the women’s vote; in 2016, Clinton won 54%.
  • In 2012, Obama got 60% of the vote of those under 30; in 2016, Clinton got 54%.
  • In 2012, Obama got 71% of the Hispanic vote; in 2016, Clinton got 65%.

Clinton proved less popular even among whites than Obama: In 2012, Obama won 39% of their votes; in 2016, Clinton won 37%.

#7 Trump, adopting the role of a populist, appealed to blue-collar voters. Clinton offered a “love-your-CEO” economic plan—and suffered for it.

Trump visited “Rustbelt” states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and vowed to “bring back” jobs that had been lost to China, such as those in coal mining and manufacturing. Clinton didn’t deign to show up, assuming she had those states “locked up.”

Most economists agree that, in a globalized economy, such jobs are not coming back, no matter who becomes President.

Even so, voters backed the man who came to promise them a better future, and shunned the woman who didn’t come to promise them any future at all.

In May, 2016, Democratic pollster CeLinda Lake had warned Clinton to revamp her economic platform. Clinton ignored the advice.

“Democrats simply have to come up with a more robust economic frame and message,” Lake said after the election. “We’re never going to win those white, blue-collar voters if we’re not better on the economy. And 27 policy papers and a list of positions is not a frame. We can laugh about it all we want, but Trump had one.”

#8 Hillary Clinton gave only one memorable speech during the campaign.

This was the “basket of deplorables” speech, delivered at a New York fundraiser on September 9. It was the only Clinton speech to be widely quoted by Democrats and Republicans.

She divided Donald Trump’s supporters into two groups. The first group were the “deplorables,” for whom she showed open contempt:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

“He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people—now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”  

Related image

Hillary Clinton (Gage Skidmore photo)

But the second group, she said, consisted of poor, alienated Americans who rightly felt abandoned by their employers and their government:

“But….that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from.

“They don’t buy everything [Trump] says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.” 

#9 After giving this speech, Clinton threw away the good it might well have done her. 

First, the day after making the speech, she apologized for it: “Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half–that was wrong.” 

Many of Trump’s followers were racists, sexists and xenophobes—who deserved condemnation, not apologies. By apologizing, she looked weak, indecisive, even cowardly.  

Second, having eloquently reached out to many of the men and women who were a prime constituency for Trump, she failed to offer an economic package to quickly and effectively address their vital needs for jobs and medical care.

The reason: She had failed to put one together long ago.

And all she had to offer now was boilerplate rhetoric, such as: “Education is the answer.”

Worst of all, Trump turned her speech against her, tweeting: “Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the Polls!”

It did.

Related image

Blaming people like James Comey for her defeat only proves that Hillary Clinton has learned nothing from her failed campaigns of 2008 and 2016.

As long as Democrats and their supporters blame everyone else—and refuse to correct their own weaknesses—they will continue to remain a minority political party.

DID COMEY LOSE CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE? PART ONE (OF TWO)

In History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on April 17, 2018 at 12:10 am

“If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president,” Hillary Clinton told CNN in May, 2017.

“I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off.”

On October 28, 2016, then-FBI director James Comey announced that the bureau was reopening its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State.

Comey wrote in a letter to Congress that the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation “in connection with an unrelated case.”

James Comey official portrait.jpg

James B. Comey

In national exit polls, Clinton’s use of a private email server troubled 63% of voters. Even so, 24% of those voted for her.

Up until then, Clinton had seemed on her way to winning the election. Even Comey believed she would become the first female President of the United States.

And Clinton did win the popular vote: 65,844,954 (48.2%) to Trump’s 62,979,879 (46.1%), beating him by almost 2.9 million votes.

But Trump emerged the victor in the Electoral College, which actually determines the Presidential winner—with 304 votes compared to Clinton’s 227.

Since November 8, 2016, Clinton and her infuriated allies have blamed Comey more than anyone for her loss. And Comey himself has said that the thought of him swinging the election made him “mildly nauseous.”

If Comey’s action played a role in Clinton’s loss, it was just one of several factors that sent Trump to the White House.

Among these:

#1 Hillary Clinton was an uninspiring candidate. When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008, NBC Anchor Tom Brokaw compared his rallies to Hannah Montana concerts. Audiences were excited by his charisma, eloquence, relative youth (47) and optimism (“Yes We Can!”).

Clinton radiated none of these qualities. She was 67 when she declared her candidacy for President—and looked it. Her speaking voice grated like the proverbial fingernail on a blackboard.

Related image

Hillary Clinton

She seemed to have been around forever—as First Lady (1993-2001), as Senator from New York (2001-2009) and as Secretary of State (2009-2013). Those born after 2000 thought of the Clinton Presidency as ancient history. She was offering a resume—and voters wanted an inspiration.

#2 Clinton brought a lot of baggage with her. In contrast to Obama, whose Presidency had been scandal-free, Clinton—rightly or wrongly—has always been dogged by charges of corruption.

During the Clinton Presidency, a failed land deal—Whitewater—while Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas triggered a seven-year investigation by a Republican special prosecutor. No criminality was uncovered, and no charge was brought against either Clinton.

After leaving the White House, she and her husband set up the Clinton Foundation, a public charity to bring government, businesses and social groups together to solve problems “faster, better, at lower cost.”

As Secretary of State, more than half of Clinton’s meetings with people outside government were with donors to the Clinton Foundation. If a “pay-to play” system wasn’t at work, one certainly seemed to be.

She cast further suspicion on herself by her unauthorized use of a private email server. This wasn’t revealed until March, 2015–after she was no longer Secretary of State.

She claimed she had used it to avoid carrying two cell-phones. But, as Secretary of State, she traveled with a huge entourage who carried everything she needed. Her critics believed she used a private email system to hide a “pay-for-pay” relationship with Clinton Foundation donors.

#3 As a candidate for President, she “secretly” worked with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, to ensure that she would get the nomination.

As DNC chair, Wasserman-Schultz was expected to be impartial toward all Democratic candidates seeking the prize. This included Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s chief competitor.

Related image

Bernie Sanders

So Sanders and his supporters were outraged when, on July 22, WikiLeaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the DNC.

The emails revealed a clear bias for Clinton and against Sanders. In one email, Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the DNC, suggested that Sanders, who is Jewish, could be portrayed as an atheist.

#4 The Obamas’ support proved a plus/minus for Clinton. Understandably, President Obama wanted to see his legacies continued—and she was the only candidate who could do it.

So he—and his wife, Michelle—stormed the country, giving eloquent, passionate speeches and firing up crowds on Clinton’s behalf.

Related image

President Barack Obama

So long as either Obama stood before a crowd, the magic lasted. But once the event was over, the excitement vanished. Hillary simply didn’t arouse enough passion to keep it going.

Obama’s supporters found Clinton wanting—in attractiveness, grace, eloquence, trustworthiness and the ability to inspire.

#5 Democrats and liberals fell prey to hubris. They dismissed Donald Trump as a bad joke: Surely voters would reject a bombastic, thrice-married “reality show” host who had filed for corporate bankruptcy four times.

Many liberals believed Clinton would bury him at the polls: Blacks, women, youth and Hispanics will turn out huge for her. Democrats will retake the Senate, and maybe even retake the House.

They didn’t.

TRUMP’S STRATEGY: ILLEGAL ALIENS VS. LEGAL AMERICANS

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 18, 2018 at 1:38 pm

Democrats and Republicans are heading for a showdown.  And the Federal Government is heading for a shutdown.

Democrats are demanding a “fix” for DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that expires in March. Nearly 800,000 men and women—the sons and daughters of illegal aliens who entered the United States decades ago—stand to be deported if a “fix” isn’t found.  

DACA, which began in 2012, protects these people from deportation and allows them to work legally.

In September, 2017, President Donald Trump stripped protections from these “Dreamers” and gave Congress six months to write a law to resolve their plight. 

Republicans, in turn, want a stopgap bill to fund the Federal Government through February 16 to avert a shutdown. But they don’t want to provide protections for “Dreamers.”  

Illegal aliens crossing into the United States

President Trump is pushing his own solution to illegal immigration: A massive, impenetrable wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.  The cost: Billions of dollars.

But there is a more effective—and cheaper—way to attack illegal immigration: Attack the “sanctuary cities” across the nation that illegally shield violators of Federal immigration laws from arrest. 

Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.

These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that forbid municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws.  This usually translates into not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.  

Trump simply needs to cut off Federal funding to those cities which systematically defy the immigration laws of the United States. 

And on March 27, 2017, his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, threatened to do just that.  

“The Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for DOJ grants to certify compliance with [U.S. Code 1373] as a condition of receiving those awards,” said Sessions in a surprise appearance at the White House Briefing Room. 

His reference was to Federal laws which state that cities cannot prevent federal authorities from enforcing immigration laws. 

Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). And in 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), to curb illegal immigration, deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens and strengthen penalize employers who hire them.

“Block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more funding,” Trump said in August, 2016, when he laid out his immigration plans at a rally in Phoenix. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”

New York City, for example, could lose up to $10.4 billion in Federal funding. Its agencies that receive the biggest share of these monies: The Housing Authority, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services.

Mayors from “sanctuary cities” such as New York, Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco have threatened to resist Trump’s threat.

Trump has never before held public office. But, as a businessman, he well knows how to appeal to people’s greed and selfishness. 

Related image

By blocking monies to “sanctuary cities,” Trump will quickly drive a wedge between ardent liberals such as Bill de Blazio and their constituents who depend on those infusions of Federal monies.

In New York, for example, once Federal monies are cut off:

  • Legal American citizens won’t be able to obtain assistance for low- and moderate-income families to rent housing in the private market.
  • American children needing care for their emotional or medical needs will be denied it.
  • Americans wanting to adopt a foster care child will be unable to do so–because there won’t be monies to pay the officials who now staff these agencies.

In short: The beautiful “every-man-is-my-brother” theories of liberal politicians are about to slam head-on into the ugliness of real-world needs and wants.

And when legal citizens can’t obtain the government services they have been used to getting, they will quickly become enraged. 

At first, many—perhaps most—of the people living in “sanctuary cities” will rush to support their elected officials in refusing to knuckle under.

But as time passes, public needs will go unmet while Federal monies continue to be blocked. 

First they will aim their rage at the local—and elected—officials of these cities responsible for “sanctuary” policies. And then they will focus their anger on the illegal aliens being protected by civic officials.

This will be followed by increasing demands by legal—and law-abiding—American citizens for their elected officials to cooperate with Federal immigration agents.

As tensions rise, so will demands for the election of new mayors and supervisors. And the chief demand of those voters will be: “Turn over the illegal aliens and restore our public services!” 

Some citizens will almost certainly take out their anger on anyone who even looks Hispanic, let alone speaks only Spanish.

And those citizens who feel conscience-torn by demanding an end to “sanctuary cities” will console themselves with this literal truth: Illegal immigration is against the law—and local officials have a sworn duty to obey the law at all levels—including those laws they don’t agree with.

LEGAL CITIZENS NO MATCH FOR ILLEGAL CRIMINALS

In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 1, 2017 at 12:32 am

Political Correctness kills.

If you doubt it, ask the family of Kathryn Steinle.

Kathryn Steinle

Steinle was shot on July 2, 2015, while out for an evening stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront. They were walking near Pier 14—one of the city’s busiest tourist areas—when a pistol shot rang out.

Steinle, hit in the aorta, collapsed, crying, “Dad, help me, help me.”

Her father immediately gave her CPR before paramedics arrived and rushed Steinle to a hospital, where she died.

Steinle, 32, had worked for a medical technology company.

And her accused killer?

Francisco Sanchez, 45, had a history of seven felony convictions. He had been deported to his native Mexico five times, most recently in 2009.

Francisco Sanchez

On March 26, 2015, agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) turned Sanchez over to San Francisco police on an outstanding warrant.

On March 27, a San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed charges of possession and distribution of marijuana against Sanchez.

Sanchez was released on April 15.

ICE had issued a detainer for Sanchez in March, requesting to be notified if he would be released.  But the detainer was not honored.

San Francisco has been a “sanctuary city” since 1989. Its officials—acting as though they govern a city-state instead of a small, tourism-dependent city—openly defy Federal immigration laws.

Thus, city and local money cannot be spent on cooperating with Federal immigration authorities.

According to Freya Horne, counsel for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, Federal detention orders were not a “legal basis” for holding someone.

So Sanchez was released on April 15—without anyone notifying ICE.

Seventy-eight days later, illegal alien Francisco Sanchez crossed paths with American citizen Kathryn Steinle—and Steinle died.

San Francisco does not turn over illegal aliens to ICE unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest.

It’s a policy shared by cities openly defying Federal immigration laws and their enforcers.

San Francisco is just one of 31 “sanctuary cities”: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles, Chicago; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.

But the Steinle case is is not the first time San Francisco officials have defied Federal immigration authorities—with brutal consequences for American-born citizens.

One of those officials—Kamala Harris—is now California’s Attorney General.

Kamala Harris

From 2004 to 2011, Harris served as San Francisco District Attorney. In total defiance of Federal immigration law, she set up a secret unit to keep even convicted illegal aliens out of prison—and in the United States.

Click here: San Francisco D.A.’s program trained illegal immigrants for jobs they couldn’t legally hold – Los Angeles Times

Her program, Back on Track, trained them for jobs they could not legally hold.

One such alumnus was Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal alien who had pleaded guilty to selling cocaine. Four months later, in July, 2008, he assaulted Amanda Kiefer, a legal San Francisco resident.

Snatching her purse, he jumped into an SUV, then tried to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing.

The driver slammed on the brakes, sending Kiefer flying onto the pavement and fracturing her skull.

The program, Back on Track, became a centerpiece of Harris’ successful 2010 campaign for State Attorney General.

Until she was questioned by the Los Angeles Times about the Izaguirre case, Harris had never publicly admitted that the program included illegal aliens.

According to Harris:

  • She first learned that illegal aliens were training for jobs only after Izaguirre was arrested for the Kiefer assault.
  • It was “a flaw in the design” of the program to include illegal aliens.
  • “I believe we fixed it,” she told the Times.
  • After Izaguirre’s arrest, she never asked—or learned—how many illegal aliens were in Back on Track.
  • When Harris learned that illegal aliens were enrolled, she allowed those who were following the rules to finish the program and have their criminal records expunged.
  • Harris said it is not the duty of local law enforcement to enforce Federal immigration laws.

From 2005 to 2009, 113 admitted drug dealers graduated from Back on Track. Another 99 were kicked off the program for failing to meet its requirements. They were sentenced under their guilty pleas, the District Attorney’s office claimed.

Meanwhile, Amanda Kiefer left California.

Interviewed by the Times, she said she could not understand why San Francisco police and prosecutors would allow convicted illegal aliens back onto the street.

“If they’re committing crimes,” she said, “I think there’s something wrong that they’re not being deported.” 

On November 30, 2017, more than two years after Steinle’s death, a San Francisco jury acquitted Sanchez of second-degree murder. He was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. 

Sanchez claimed that he found the gun wrapped in a piece of cloth under a swivel chair at the pier. He said he picked it up and it accidentally fired, hitting Steinle in the back. 

Thus, the lives of illegal aliens—even those with a criminal background—are deemed more valuable than those of law-abiding American citizens.

DONALD TRUMP: WAGING WAR ON HIMSELF

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 28, 2017 at 12:15 am

As a Presidential candidate, Donald Trump repeatedly used Twitter to attack hundreds of real and imagined enemies in politics, journalism, TV and films.

From June 15, 2015, when he launched his Presidential campaign, until October 24, 2016, Trump fired almost 4,000 angry, insulting tweets at 281 people and institutions that had somehow offended him.

Related image

Donald Trump

The New York Times needed two full pages of its print edition to showcase them.

Among his targets:

  • Hillary Clinton
  • President Barack Obama
  • News organizations
  • Beauty pageant contestants
  • Women
  • Blacks
  • Hispanics
  • Asians
  • Muslims
  • The disabled
  • Prisoners-of-war

As President, he has continued to insult virtually everyone, verbally and on Twitter. (One notable exception: Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom many believe has compromising information on Trump.)

His targets have included Democrats, Republicans, the media, foreign leaders (most notably North Korea’s “Little Rocket Man” Kim Jong Un) and even members of his Cabinet.  Among these:

  • After NBC News reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a “moron,” Trump told Forbes magazine: “I think it’s fake news, but if he did that, I guess we’ll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell you who is going to win.”  
  • Trump repeatedly humiliated his then-chief of staff, Reince Priebus—at one point ordering him to kill a fly that was buzzing about. On July 28, Priebus resigned.  

So it was probably inevitable that, having waged war on virtually everyone, Trump has finally gotten around to waging war on himself. 

On October 7, 2016, The Washington Post had leaked a video of then Republican Presidential nominee Trump making sexually predatory comments about women. 

The remarks came during a 2005 exchange with Billy Bush, then the host of “Access Hollywood.” The two were traveling on a bus to the set of the soap opera Days of Our Lives, where Trump was to make a cameo appearance. 

A “hot” microphone picked up their conversation—which proved damning for Trump:  

Donald Trump: You know and I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married.

Trump: No, no, Nancy. No this was—and I moved on her very heavily.  In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture….

I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there, and she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look. 

[At that point, they spotted Adrianne Zucker, the starring actress in Days of Our Lives.] 

Donald Trump, Adrianne Zucker and Billy Bush

Bush:  Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.  Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!

Trump: Look at you. You are a pussy.  Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s—

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

When the Washington Post broke the story on October 7, the reaction was immediate—and explosive.

Trump quickly released a statement: “This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course—not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.” 

So it no doubt comes as a surprise that Trump has told at least one adviser and a sitting United States senator that the tape was false or had been doctored. 

According to the New York Times, Trump has suggested this at least twice since January. As with his claims that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he has not offered any evidence to support his charge.

But if the tape was false or doctored, why did Trump issue an apology a year ago?

One point that Trump has not denied: That, on October 18, 2016, NBC News fired “Today” show host Billy Bush for his role in the “Access Hollywood” tape.

The “doctored tape” claim comes after Trump made clear his support for embattled Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.

At least nine women have accused Moore of making unwanted sexual advances toward them—groping, molesting or pursuing relationships with them when they were teenagers and he was in his 30s.  

Trump is reportedly infuriated by the calls for Moore to exit the Alabama race. Supposedly he sees these as similar to the calls for his own exit from the 2016 Presidential campaign after the “Access Hollywood” tape appeared. 

At least 16 women publicly accused Trump of making unwanted sexual advances toward them. He claimed the women were lying and threatened to sue them for slander (as well as the newspapers for printing their accusations). 

But he never sued anyone.

REPUBLICANS: EXCHANGING LINCOLN FOR BOOTH–PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on November 21, 2017 at 12:01 am

By October 14, 2016, at least 12 women had publicly accused Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump of sexually inappropriate behavior.  

On October 11, questioned by a New York Times reporter about the women’s claims, Trump shouted: “None of this ever took place.”

He accused the newspaper of inventing accusations to hurt his Presidential candidacy. And he threatened to sue for libel if the Times reported the women’s stories.

On October 14, at a rally in North Carolina, Trump attacked the character of the women accusing him.

Of Natasha Stoynoff, whom he had mouth-raped, he said: “Take a look. You take a look. Look at her. Look at her words. You tell me what you think. I don’t think so. I don’t think so.”

Of Jessica Leeds—the airline passenger whose breasts he had grabbed—he said: “That horrible woman. Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you.”

Trump—who’s been married three times and often boasted of his sexual prowess—asked why President Barack Obama hadn’t had similar claims leveled against him.

The answer: Because there has never been the slightest hint of scandal about Obama as a faithful husband.

Related image

Donald Trump

Some Republicans excused Trump’s misogynist comments as mere “frat boy” talk. Said Corey Lewandowski, a former Trump campaign manager and now CNN commentator: We are electing a leader to the free world. We’re not electing a Sunday school teacher.” 

But Washington Post Columnist Micheal Gerson took a darker—and more accurate—view of Trump’s comments.  

Appearing on the PBS Newshour on October 7, Gerson said: “Well, I think the problem here is not just bad language, but predatory language, abusive language…demeaning language. 

“That indicates something about someone’s character that is disturbing, frankly, disturbing in a case like this.”  

But this didn’t prevent the Religious Right from passionately supporting Trump.

During the 2016 Presidential campaign, many pundits—–and ordinary citizens—repeatedly asked: “Why are so many evangelical leaders supporting Donald Trump?”

Evangelical leaders like:

  • Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty University: “When they ask [if Trump’s personal life is relevant] I always talk about the story of the woman at the well who had had five husbands and she was living with somebody she wasn’t married to, and they wanted to stone her. And Jesus said he’s–he who is without sin cast the first stone. I just see how Donald Trump treats other people, and I’m impressed by that.”
  • Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition: “People of faith are voting on issues like who will protect unborn life, defend religious freedom, grow the economy, appoint conservative judges and oppose the Iran nuclear deal.”

Evangelicals have long portrayed themselves as champions of “family values.”  So why did they back Trump?

Power.

Power to control the lives of those they have long hated and despised.  

Among these:

  • Atheists
  • Jews
  • Women
  • Homosexuals
  • Lesbians
  • Non-Christians
  • Liberals

They expected Trump to sponsor legislation that will—by force of law—make their brand of Christianity supreme above all other religions.

In 2017, Roy Moore, the twice-ousted former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, entered the race for the state’s U.S. Senator.

Judge Roy Moore.jpg

Roy Moore

Then, on November 9, four women, in a Washington Post story, accused Moore of seeking romantic relationships with teenage girls while he was in his 30s, and even trolling malls for such dates.

The worst of these charges came from Leigh Corfman, who said that, when she was 14, Moore took off her “shirt and pants and removed his clothes,” touched her “over her bra and underpants” and “guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.”

Among Moore’s defenders:

  • STEVE BANNON:  Steve Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News, an online Right-wing news, opinion and commentary website.

“This is nothing less than the politics of personal destruction,” he told Bloomberg News. “And they need to destroy him by any means necessary.”

  • SEAN HANNITY:  Talk show host on Fascistic Fox News. Interviewed on Hannity’s program, Moore said he did “not generally” remember dating teenagers when he was in his 30s.

Meanwhile, many Alabamans have dismissed the reports of Moore’s improper relationships with teenage girls. One who could speak for all of them is Kay Ivey, the state’s Governor:  

“I believe in the Republican party, what we stand for, and, most important, we need to have a Republican in the United States Senate to vote on things like the Supreme Court justices, other appointments the Senate has to confirm and make major decisions. So that’s what I plan to do, vote for Republican nominee Roy Moore.” 

Ted Slowik, a columnist with Chicago Tribune, explains why:

“I think the lesson is that the party must support its candidates, no matter what. Years of GOP messaging has convinced voters that Democrats are evil and must be defeated at all costs….

“The base doesn’t care that the Constitution affords due-process rights to all residents, even ones here illegally….

“The base wants outlaws with firebrand personalities willing to do whatever it takes to advance the cause. The Republican Party can’t win without the base, and the base has no patience for moderates and establishment types who gum up the works and get in the way.”

REPUBLICANS: EXCHANGING LINCOLN FOR BOOTH–PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 20, 2017 at 12:19 am

Republican voters’ love affair with predators may have begun on September 26, 2011.

That was the day that then-Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) thanked an Iowa radio show listener for saying he would rather vote for Charles Manson than President Barack Obama.

Bachmann appeared on Des Moines-based WHO Radio with Simon Conway, a conservative radio host, for an interview and to take questions from listeners.

One caller, “Donna,” said that she had attended several Bachmann rallies and thanked Bachmann for signing a T-shirt. She then said that Obama was a “walking nightmare” who was “blowing up our country.”

“I would vote for Charles Manson before this guy [Obama].  But I’m pulling for you big time, all the way.  Go Michele!”

“Thank you for saying that,” Bachmann replied.

BACHMANN, Michele

Michelle Bachmann

Five years later, on October 7, 2016, The Washington Post leaked a video of Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump making sexually predatory comments about women.

The remarks came during a 2005 exchange with Billy Bush, then the host of Access Hollywood.

The two were traveling in an Access Hollywood bus to the set of the soap opera Days of Our Lives, where Trump was to make a cameo appearance. A “hot” microphone picked up their conversation—which proved damning for Trump:

Donald Trump: You know and I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married.

Trump: No, no, Nancy. No this was–and I moved on her very heavily.  In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.

I took her out furniture [shopping]. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there, and she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

[At that point, they spotted Adrianne Zucker, the starring actress in Days in Our Lives.]

Donald Trump, Adrianne Zucker and Billy Bush

Bush:  Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.  Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!

Trump: Look at you. You are a pussy.  Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s—

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

When the Washington Post broke the story on October 7, the reaction was immediate—and explosive.

The Trump campaign quickly released a statement: “This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course–not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.”

During the second Presidential debate on October 9, moderator Anderson Cooper asked Trump: “Have you ever done those things?”

Trump: “And I will tell you—no I have not.”

On October 12, The Palm Beach Post, The New York Times and People all published stories of women claiming to have been sexually assaulted by Trump.

Among his victims:

  • MINDY MCGILLLIVRAY: Told the Post that Trump groped her buttocks when she visited Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, in 2013.

Within a week of accusing Trump, she told the Palm Beach Post that she and her family were leaving the United States.  The reason: She feared for her family’s safety.

“We feel the backlash of the Trump supporters. It scares us. It intimidates us. We are in fear of our lives.’’

  • NATASHA STOYNOFF: A People magazine writer, in December, 2005, she went to Mar-a-Lago to interview Donald and Melania Trump for a first-wedding-anniversary feature story.

During a break in the interview, Trump said he wanted to show Stoynoff around his mansion. There was one “tremendous” room he especially wanted to show her.

According to her account: “We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat.”

Related image

Natasha Stoynoff

Fortunately, Trump’s butler soon entered the room, and Trump acted as though nothing had happened. But as soon as he and Stoynoff were alone again, Trump said: “You know we’re going to have an affair, don’t you?”

Stoynoff asked her editors—and received permission—to be removed from writing any further Trump features.

  • JESSICA LEEDS: More than 30 years earlier, Trump had made equally unwelcome advances toward businesswoman Leeds, then 38.

Related image

Jessica Leeds

She said she was sitting next to Trump in the first-class cabin of a New York-bound flight when Trump lifted the armrest, grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt.

She fled to the back of the plane.

REPUBLICANS: USING HATE TO WIN ELECTIONS: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 15, 2017 at 12:42 pm

Republicans and their Rightist allies have repeatedly compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. But their propaganda campaign draws heavily on the Nazi leader’s own advice.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler laid out his formula for successful propaganda: “All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials.

“Those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotypical formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”

Adolf Hitler

Consider the vocabulary Right-wingers use to describe their political adversaries:

“Liberals,” “radicals, “bankrupting,” “treason,” subversion,” “slander,” “terrorism,” “betrayal,” “catastrophe,” “shattering the American dream,” “leftists,” “Communists,” “government takeover,” “socialism,” “power grab,” “secularism,” “environmentalism.”

In recent years, the GOP has targeted gays and lesbians as America’s subversive enemies.

These attacks have come as thinly disguised as efforts to “restore religious freedom.”

In December, 2014, Republicans in the Michgan House of Representatives passed “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

The bill would allow public agencies and private businesses to refuse service to anyone under the claim that their “religious beliefs” had been affronted.

And the State government would be legally prevented from intervening if a person claimed that his/her “deeply-held religious beliefs” was the reason for acting—or not acting—in a certain way.

Thus:

  • An emergency room doctor could refuse service to a gay or lesbian needing medical care.
  • A pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription for birth control, or HIV medication.
  • A DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver’s license to someone who’s divorced.  
  • An employer could deny equal pay to women.

The bill seems modeled on a proposed law that the Republican House and Senate in Arizona sent to Governor Jan Brewer in 2014.

Under threat of a nationwide boycott of Arizona if the bill became law, Brewer vetoed it.

Republicans have introduced similar “right-to-discriminate” legislation in other states as well:

  • On March 26, 2015, its governor, Mike Pence, signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This will allow any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party.
  • In Kansas, lawmakers voted to exempt individuals from providing any service that was “contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
  • That bill passed the state’s House chamber on February 11, 2014, triggering national backlash.  It stalled in the Senate and didn’t advance beyond that body.
  • In January, 2014, South Dakota Republicans introduced a bill to let businesses refuse to serve same-sex couples on the grounds that “businesses are private and that their views on sexual orientation are protected to the same extent as the views of private citizens.”
  • The South Dakota bill—which was killed in February, 2014—would have made it illegal for a gay person to file a lawsuit charging discrimination.

Republicans claim they want to “get the government off the backs of the people.” But their fixation  on regulating the sexual lives of Americans ensures government intrusions of the most intimate kind.

Since 9/11, Republicans have warned that Muslims are trying to impose Sharia (Islamic law) on America.

Ironically, Right-wing legislators, in elevating religion above the secular law, may have laid the legal foundations for making that possible.

What will happen when some Muslims claim their right–guaranteed in Islamic religious law–to have as many as four wives?

And when they claim that the “religious freedom” laws protect that right?

Republicans have defended such legislation by equating gays with child predators.

In fact, the Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute states that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women.

Yet Republicans and their Rightist allies have refused to condemn such heterosexual—and Right-wing—child molesters as Dennis Hastert and Josh Duggar.

Josh Duggar, the “all-American” child molester

On May 21, 2015, responding to press leaks, Duggar resigned as director of the Family Research Council, a Right-wing organization dedicated to fighting sexually-oriented issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion and pornography.

In 2002-3, as a 14-15 year-old, Duggar had fondled the breasts and vaginas of five underage girls—four of whom were his own sisters.

And on October 28, 2015, Hastert—Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1999 to 2007–pleaded guilty to structuring money transactions in a way to avoid requirements to report where the money was going.

Dennis Hastert

The reason: To conceal the truth about his past as a child molester. Hastert had abused four young boys when he was their high school wrestling coach.  One was only 14 years old.

Despite such setbacks, the politics of “smear and fear” have been good to Republicans—and their Right-wing allies.  

The Republican “base” refuses to learn that those who portray themselves as morally superior are:

  1. Hypocrites, who are in effect saying: “Do as I say, not as I do,” or
  2. Fanatics, who intend to force their version of morality on others.

So long as millions of hate-filled Right-wingers support the endless succession of “two minute hates,” Republicans will continue to target an endless series of victims.

The good news: As blacks, Hispanics, women, gays and others become a significant political force, Republicans will stop attacking them and court them for votes.

The bad news: Republicans will move on to find other still-helpless scapegoats for America’s troubles.

REPUBLICANS: USING HATE TO WIN ELECTIONS: PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on November 14, 2017 at 12:12 am

In 1953, Red-baiting Wisconsin United States Senator Joseph R. McCarthy finally overstepped himself.

He attacked the leadership of the United States Army as “a hotbed of traitors” and convened an inquiry through the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

But the hearings backfired, exposing McCarthy as the bullying demagogue he was. A Senate committee voted to condemn his behavior, charging that he had “acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.”

Although McCarthy remained in the Senate another two and a half years, his political influence had ended.

Yet even without McCarthy, Republicans rode the issue of anti-Communism to victory from 1948 to 1992.

After holding the White House for eight years under Dwight D. Eisenhower, they lost it in 1960 to John F. Kennedy and again in 1964 to Lyndon B. Johnson.

By 1968, with the nation mired in Vietnam and convulsed by antiwar demonstrations and race riots, Americans turned once more to those who preyed upon their fears and hates.

They elected Richard Nixon, who promised to end the Vietnam war and crack down on “uppity” blacks and antiwar demonstrators.

The same strategy re-elected him in 1972.

After Jimmy Carter won the Presidency in 1976 and lost it in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, Republicans held the White House until 1992.

During the 1970s and 1980s, they continued to accuse their opponents of being devious agents—or at least unwitting pawns—of “the Communist conspiracy.”

Even as late as 1992, President George H.W. Bush and the Republican establishment charged that Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton might be a KGB plant.

George H.W. Bush

Their evidence: During his tenure at Oxford University in 1969-70, Clinton had briefly visited Moscow.

Thus, the Republican charged that he might have been “programmed” as a real-life “Manchurian candidate” to become, first, Governor of Arkansas—one of America’s poorest states—and then President.

What made this charge all the more absurd: The Soviet Union had officially dissolved in December, 1991.

Republicans continued to accuse their opponents of being “Communists” and “traitors.” But these charges no longer carried the weight they had while the Soviet Union existed.

Right-wingers had to settle for attacking their opponents as “liberals” and “soft on crime.”

When riots flared in 1992 after the acquittal of LAPD officers who had savagely beaten Rodney King, President George H.W. Bush blamed the carnage on the “Great Society” programs of the 1960s.

Then, on September 11, 2001, Republicans—and their right-wing supporters—at last found a suitable replacement for the Red Menace.

Two highjacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center in New York and one struck the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

World Trade Center on September 11, 2001

Exit The Red Bogeyman.  Enter The Maniacal Muslim.

Consider:

  • Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.): On July 13, 2012, she sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of Defense; State; Justice; and Homeland Security, demanding a “a multi-department investigation into potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the United States Government.”
  • Rick Santorum:  On supporting the racial profiling of Muslims: “Obviously, Muslims would be someone you look at, absolutely.”
  • Mitt Romney: “Based on the numbers of American Muslims in our population, I cannot see that a Cabinet position [for a Muslim] would be justified.”

The 2008 election of Barack Obama pushed the Republican “treason chorus” to new heights of infamy.

Barack Obama

Almost immediately after Obama took office, he came under attack by an industry of right-wing book authors such as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. 

The following titles vividly reveal the hates, fears and ambitions of their authors–and audience:

  • Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda by Sean Hannity
  • How Barack Obama is Bankrupting the U.S. Economy by Stephen Moore
  • The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists by Aaron Klein
  • The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency by Ken Blackwell
  • Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin
  • Why Obama’s Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster by David Gratzer
  • Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policicies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America by Christopher C. Horner
  • America’s March to Socialism: Why We’re One Step Closer to Giant Missile Parades by Glenn Beck
  • The War On Success: How the Obama Agenda Is Shattering the American Dream by Tommy Newberry
  • Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions by Michael Savage
  • Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism by Ann Coulter

Yet despite Right-wingers’ slanderous and fear-mongering claims, the United States actually prospered during the Obama years.   

  • Thanks to government loans from President Obama, American capitalism was saved from its own excesses during the George W. Bush administration. 
  • Employment went up.  CEOs did extremely well.
  • In contrast to the corruption that had plagued the administration of Ronald Reagan—whom Republicans idolize—no such scandals haunted the Obama Presidency. 
  • There had been no major-scale terrorist attacks on American soil–as had occurred on 9/11 under President George W. Bush. 
  • Millions of Americans who had been unable to obtain healthcare did so under Obama’s Affordable Care Act. 
  • Obama actually stood up to Russian President Vladimir Putin—as opposed to his successor, Donald Trump, who constantly praised him.
%d bloggers like this: