WONDER WOMAN MEETS REPUBLICANAZI MAN
“Don’t worry, Wonder Woman. You can’t get pregnant if it’s legitimate rape.”
Posts Tagged ‘REPUBLICANS’
HITLER DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN: PART FOUR (END)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 10, 2025 at 12:10 amOn September 15, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgaden, Germany.
The reason: Hitler had threatened war with Czechoslovakia—and even with Great Britain—if the Czechs did not cede to Germany the “Sudetenland.” This consisted of the northern, southwest and western regions of Czechoslovakia, inhabited mostly by ethnic Germans.
Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler
To Chamberlain’s surprise, Hitler denied he intended to use force to gain his ends.
Then, without warning, the Fuhrer switched to an aggressive mode: “I shall not put up with this any longer. I shall settle this question in one way or another. I shall take matters in my own hands!”
Suddenly, Chamberlain seemed alarmed—and possibly angry: “In the circumstances, it is best for me to return at once. Anything else now seems pointless.”
Hitler was taken aback by the unexpected show of defiance. He realized he was about to lose his chance to bully the British into accepting his latest demands.
So he offered to consider the Sudetenland according to the principle of self-determination.
Chamberlain said he must immediately return to England to consult with his colleagues “and then meet you again.” He then agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland.
Three days later, French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier did the same. No Czechoslovak representative was invited to these discussions.
Chamberlain met Hitler again in Godesberg, Germany, on September 22 to confirm the agreements. But Hitler aimed to use the crisis as a pretext for war.
He now demanded not only the annexation of the Sudetenland but the immediate military occupation of the territories. This would give the Czechoslovak army no time to adapt their defense measures to the new borders.
To achieve a solution, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini suggested a conference of the major powers in Munich.
On September 29, Hitler, Daladier and Chamberlain met and agreed to Mussolini’s proposal. They signed the Munich Agreement, which accepted the immediate occupation of the Sudetenland.
The Czechoslovak government had not been a party to the talks. Nevertheless, it promised to abide by the agreement on September 30.
It actually had no choice, having been deserted by its pledged allies: Britain, France and the Soviet Union.
Chamberlain returned to England a hero. Holding aloft a copy of the worthless agreement he had signed with Hitler, he told cheering crowds in London: “I believe it is peace for our time.”
Neville Chamberlain
Winston Churchill knew better, predicting: “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war.”
Hitler—still planning more conquests—also knew better. In March, 1939, the German army occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain would soon be seen as a naive weakling—even before bombs started falling on London.
Hitler next turned his attention—and demands—to Poland.
When his generals balked, warning that an invasion would trigger a war with France and Britain, Hitler quickly brushed aside their fears: “Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich.”
Adolf Hitler with his generals
Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939—unintentionally triggering World War II.
In time, historians and statesmen would regard Munich as an object lesson in the futility—and danger—in appeasing evil and aggression.
But for the postwar Republican party, Hitler’s my-way-or-else “negotiating” methods would become standard operating procedure. Latest case in point: President-elect Donald Trump’s aggressive moves toward Greenland.
“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on December 23.
The next day, Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede told Trump to back off: “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”
The Kingdom of Denmark holds control of the semiautonomous Greenland.
Trump had previously floated the idea of the U.S. buying Greenland in 2019, which the Danish prime minister at the time called “absurd.”
This is not a time for the United States to endanger its relationship with Greenland—which is more than the world’s biggest island.
It’s home to America’s Pituffik Space Base which “detects and reports attack assessments of sea-launched and intercontinental ballistic missile threats in support of strategic missile warning and missile defense,” according to the base’s website.
Greenland is strategically significant to the United States because it sits between Russia and the eastern coast of the United States, and is the fastest way from Europe to New York.
It’s also located beside the Norwegian Sea, which connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Arctic Ocean and the Barents Sea, where the Russian navy’s northern fleet operates.
Some critics have speculated that Trump is floating headline-getting assaults on other nations to divert attention from his domestic agenda—which includes deporting millions of men, women and children from Hispanic countries.
And while Trump picks needless fights with America’s longtime allies, China—the first peer competitor that can challenge America economically, militarily, and technologically—is deepening its ties with Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other countries that seek to weaken U.S. power.
HITLER DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN: PART THREE (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 9, 2025 at 12:10 amContrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler did not constantly rage at everyone. On the contrary: he could, when he desired, be charming, especially to women. He used rage as a weapon, knowing that most people feel intimidated by it.
In his “negotiations” for control of Austria with Austrian Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg. Hitler opened with insults and threats at the outset of their discussion. Then there was a period of calm, to convince the Austrian chancellor the worst was over.
Finally, he once again attacked—this time with so much fury that Schuschnigg was terrified into submission.
With one stroke of a pen, Austria became a vassal-state to Nazi Germany.
Seven months later, in September, 1938, Hitler turned his rage and aggression against Czechoslovakia.
Once again, he opened “negotiations” with a lie: The Czechoslovak government was trying to exterminate 3.5 million Germans living in the “Sudetenland.”
This consisted of the northern, southwest and western regions of Czechoslovakia, inhabited mostly by ethnic Germans.
Then he followed this up with the threat of war: Germany would protect its citizens and halt such “oppression.”
For British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the thought of another European war erupting less than 20 years after the end of World War I was simply unthinkable.
The Cenotaph, in London, honoring the unknown British dead of World War 1
Something had to be done to prevent it. And he believed himself to be just the man to do it.
He quickly sent Hitler a telegram, offering to help resolve the crisis: “I could come to you by air and am ready to leave tomorrow. Please inform me of earliest time you can receive me, and tell me the place of the meeting. I should be grateful for a very early reply.”
Once again, another head-of-state was prepared to meet Hitler on his home ground. Again, Hitler took this concession as a sign of weakness. And Chamberlain’s use of such words as “please” and “grateful” only further convinced Hitler of another impending triumph.
Chamberlain was determined to grant Hitler’s every demand—so long as this meant avoiding a second world war.
As a political party, Democrats have generally copied this same “strategy” when dealing with Republicans.
On January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump—supported by at least 147 Republicans in the House and Senate—incited a treasonous coup to remain in office. This despite the overwhelming evidence that he had lost the 2020 election to former Vice President Joseph Biden.
By the time the Biden administration neared its end, not one Republican House or Senate member supporting such treason had been indicted for that infamy. Let alone tried, convicted and imprisoned.
Had this occurred, the Biden administration’s agenda would have been far more advanced than it is. Republicans who were raising funds for re-election campaigns would have been forced to raise them to pay huge legal bills.
They would have had far less time to plot to overthrow democracy. Instead, their attention would have been increasingly focused on their upcoming trials for treason.
Even more important: Donald Trump should have been indicted for treason by no later than mid-2021. Even then, the evidence was overwhelming that he had instigated the coup attempt.
Yet it wasn’t until November 18, 2022, that Jack Smith was appointed Special Counsel to oversee the criminal investigations into Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol attack and his illegal storage of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
And Smith allowed Trump-appointed Florida Judge Aileen Cannon to repeatedly postpone the stolen documents trial.
Meanwhile, Trump won repeated delays in his trial for inciting a violent attack on the Capitol. His victory on November 5 guarantees he will not be prosecuted for any of his crimes.
To bring down Mafia “boss of all bosses” John Gotti, the FBI waged a seven-year, $75 million campaign—which included the use of electronic bugs and recruitment of informants.
To date, there is no evidence that the Bureau applied such an effort against Trump—although he, unlike Gotti, threatens the very foundations of American democracy.
To avert war, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgaden, Germany, on September 15, 1938.
Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler
During their talks, Chamberlain said he had come to discuss German grievances. But, he added, it was necessary in all circumstances to exclude the use of force.
Hitler appeared to be shocked that he could be accused of such intentions: “Force? Who speaks of force?“
Then, without warning, he switched to an aggressive mode. He accused the Czechs of having mobilized their army in May. They had mobilized–in response to the mobilization of the German army.
“I shall not put up with this any longer,” shouted Hitler. “I shall settle this question in one way or another. I shall take matters in my own hands!”
Suddenly, Chamberlain seemed alarmed—and possibly angry: “If I understood you right, you are determined to proceed against Czechoslovakia in any case. If this is so, why did you let me come to Berchtesgaden?”
Hitler was taken aback by the unexpected show of defiance. He realized he was about to lose his chance to bully the British into accepting his latest demands.
HITLER DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN: PART TWO (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 8, 2025 at 12:10 amBy studying the “negotiating” methods used by Adolf Hitler, Americans generally—and Democrats in particular—can learn much about the mindset and “negotiating” style of today’s Republican party.
Consider President-Elect Donald Trump’s recent threats against not only Canada but Panama—specifically, to retake control of the Panama Canal.
On December 25, Trump told a conservative conference in Arizona that Panama was charging US ships “ridiculous, highly unfair” fees to use its namesake canal.
The United States built the canal during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt and opened it in 1914. It remained controlled by the United States until President Jimmy Carter signed a a 1977 agreement for its eventual handover to Panama in 1999.
Panama Canal (in white)
But this week, Trump threatened that if shipping rates were not lowered, “we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, quickly and without question.”
He accused China of operating the canal and lamented that the United States “puts in Billions of Dollars in ‘repair’ money, but will have absolutely nothing to say about ‘anything.’”
On December 25, Trump posted on his website, Truth Social: “Merry Christmas to all, including to the wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal.”
“There is not a single Chinese soldier in the canal,” the president of Panama, José Raúl Mulino, told reporters the next day, adding that there is “absolutely no Chinese interference.”
Trump’s threats against Panama may be connected with the outstanding tax evasion case he faces in the country.
In 2019, the owners of a Panama City hotel tower that was previously managed and operated under the Trump brand accused the Trump Organization of pocketing money meant to pay taxes. According to a lawsuit, Trump’s companies simply kept the money, “intentionally evading taxes” and leaving the new owner liable for millions.
Yet the blunt truth remains: Unless Trump goes to war with Panama, his threat to take over the canal is effectively meaningless.
During the 2024 Presidential campaign, Trump denied reading Adolf Hitler’s notorious book, Mein Kampf (“My Struggle.”)
In the past, however, he has acknowledged owning a copy of it. And he has adopted the same “negotiating” style as the late Fuhrer: Do-as-I-say-or-I’ll-destroy-you.
A classic example of Hitler’s “bargaining style” came in 1938, when he invited Austrian Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg to his mountaintop retreat in Obersalzberg, Germany.
Kurt von Schuschnigg
Hitler, an Austrian by birth, intended to annex his native land to Germany. Schuschnigg was aware of Hitler’s desire, but nevertheless felt secure in accepting the invitation. He had been assured that the question of Austrian sovereignty would not arise.
The meeting occurred on February 12, 1938.
Shuschnigg opened the discussion with a friendly compliment. Walking over to a large window, he admired the breathtaking view of the mountains.
HITLER: We haven’t come here to talk about the lovely view or the weather!
Austria has anyway never done anything which was of help to the German Reich….I am resolutely determined to make an end to all this business. The German Reich is a great power. Nobody can and nobody will interfere if it restores order on its frontiers.
SCHUSCHNIGG: We simply have to go on living alongside one another, the little state next to the big one. We have no other choice.
And that is why I ask you to tell me what your concrete complaints are. We will do all in our power to sort things out and establish a friendly relationship, as far as it is possible to do so.
HITLER: That’s what you say, Herr Schuschnigg. And I am telling you that I intend to clear up the whole of the so-called Austrian question—one way or another. Do you think I don’t know that you are fortifying Austria’s border with the Reich?
Adolf Hitler
SCHUSCHNIGG: There can be no suggestion at all of that—
HITLER: Ridiculous explosive chambers are being built under bridges and roads—
This was a lie, and Hitler knew it was a lie. But no matter. It gave him an excuse to threaten to destroy Austria—as he was to destroy so many other nations during the next seven years.
HITLER: I have only to give one command and all this comic stuff on the border will be blown to pieces overnight. You don’t seriously think you could hold me up, even for half an hour, do you?
Who knows—perhaps you will find me one morning in Vienna like a spring storm. Then you will go through something! I’d like to spare the Austrians that.
The S.A. [Hitler’s private army of Stormtroopers] and the [Condor] lLegion [which had bombed much of Spain into rubble during the three-year Spanish Civil War] would come in after the troops and nobody—not even I—could stop them from wreaking vengeance.
Schnuschigg made a cardinal mistake in dealing with Hitler: He showed fear. And this was precisely what the Nazi dictator looked for in an opponent.
Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not constantly rage at everyone. On the contrary: he could, when he desired, be charming, especially to women. He used rage as a weapon, knowing that most people feel intimidated by it.
HITLER DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN: PART ONE (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 7, 2025 at 12:10 amOnce again, Republicans are ruthlessly playing “chicken” with the nation’s financial and military security.
Even before taking the oath of office as President on January 20, 2025, Donald Trump has rushed to make an enemy of America’s longtime ally—Canada.
At a November 30 dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s estate in Palm Beach, Florida, he told Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Canada could become the 51st state of the United States.
Canada’s Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who attended the dinner, insisted that Trump was joking.
But on December 2, Trump threatened to impose a 25% tax on all products entering the United States from Canada and Mexico unless they stopped the flow of drugs and illegal aliens.
Donald Trump
And on December 3, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform an AI-generated image of himself standing on a mountain with a Canadian flag beside him. Its caption: “Oh Canada!”
Trudeau had requested the Mar-a-Lago meeting to convince Trump that the northern border is completely different from the southern one with Mexico.
“Less than one percent of migrants coming into the United States irregularly come from Canada and 0.2 percent of the fentanyl coming into the United States comes from Canada,” Trudeau said in Parliament.
During the last fiscal year, American customs agents seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border, compared with 21,100 pounds at the Mexican border.
Most of the fentanyl reaching the U.S. is made by Mexican drug cartels using precursor chemicals smuggled from Asia.
Utterly unmentioned in Trump’s demand: It’s America’s insatiable demand for illicit drugs that is the root cause of the drug trade.
Justin Trudeau
CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
On immigration, the U.S. Border Patrol reported 1.53 million encounters with would-be illegal aliens at the Mexican border between October 2023 and September 2024. At the Canadian border, there were 23,721 such encounters.
Also unmentioned—if not deliberately ignored by Trump: Canada plays a substantial role as a U.S. trading partner. About 60% of U.S. crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of U.S. electricity imports as well.
Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminum and uranium to the U.S. and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon eagerly desires. About 77% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S.
Trudeau pleaded with Trump not to impose the tariff because because it would “kill” Canada’s economy.
Trump responded: “So your country can’t survive unless it’s ripping off the US to the tune of $100 billion?”
His comments referred to the US trade deficit with Canada.
The U.S. had a $75 billion trade deficit with Canada last year but a third of what Canada sells into the U.S. is energy exports and prices have been high.
Trudeau left the meeting without reassurance that Trump would not impose a 25% tariff on products from Canada.
Republicans, in short, are one again utilizing the same “negotiating” strategy as Nazi Germany’s Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.
And Democrats—out of cowardice or an ignorance of history—are once again refusing to publicly make this comparison.
By studying Adolf Hitler’s mindset and “negotiating” methods, we can learn much about the mindset and “negotiating” style of today’s Republican party.
Robert Payne, author of the bestselling biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973), described Hitler’s “negotiating” style thus:
“Although Hitler prized his own talents as a negotiator, a man always capable of striking a good bargain, he was totally lacking in finesse.
“He was incapable of bargaining. He was like a man who goes up to a fruit peddler and threatens to blow his brains out if he does not sell his applies at the lowest possible price.”
A classic example of Hitler’s “bargaining style” came in 1938, when he invited Austrian Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg to his mountaintop retreat in Obersalzberg, Germany.
Hitler, an Austrian by birth, intended to annex his native land to Germany. Schuschnigg was aware of Hitler’s desire, but nevertheless felt secure in accepting the invitation. He had been assured that the question of Austrian sovereignty would not arise.
Kurt von Schuschnigg
The meeting occurred on February 12, 1938.
Shuschnigg opened the discussion with a friendly compliment. Walking over to a large window, he admired the breathtaking view of the mountains.
HITLER: We haven’t come here to talk about the lovely view or the weather!
Austria has anyway never done anything which was of help to the German Reich….I am resolutely determined to make an end to all this business. The German Reich is a great power. Nobody can and nobody will interfere if it restores order on its frontiers.
SCHUSCHNIGG: I am aware of your attitude toward the Austrian question and toward Austrian history….As we Austrians see it, the whole of our history is a very essential and valuable part of German history….And Austria’s contribution is a considerable one.
HITLER: It is absolutely zero—that I can assure you! Every national impulse has been trampled underfoot by Austria….
I could call myself an Austrian with just the same right—indeed with even more right—than you, Herr Schuschnigg. Why don’t you once try a plebiscite in Austria in which you and I run against each other? Then you would see!
PUSSYGRABBER FOR PRESIDENT—PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on December 27, 2024 at 12:33 amOn October 12, 2016, The Palm Beach Post, The New York Times and People all published stories of women claiming they had been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump.
Trump’s reaction: “Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never.”
For “proof,” he attacked their physical appearance.
Of one accuser, Natasha Stoynoff, 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 another accuser, Jessica Leeds, Trump said: “Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you. Whoever she is, wherever she comes from, the stories are total fiction. They’re 100% made up. They never happened.”
In short: They were too ugly for Trump to consider them worth sexually harassing.
And he threatened: “All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.”
To date, Trump has not filed a single lawsuit for defamation. No doubt he realizes:
- He would have to take the witness stand and testify under oath; and
- There is simply too much evidence stacked against him.
By October 14, 2016, at least 12 women had publicly accused Trump of sexually inappropriate behavior.
Donald Trump
Many Right-wingers defended 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.”
And Fox News host Sean Hannity went Biblical to excuse Trump: “King David had 500 concubines for crying out loud!”
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.”
By April, 2019, the total number of women accusing Trump of making improper advances had risen to 23.
And, in June, yet another woman came forward to accuse Trump of sexual assault: E. Jean Carroll, an advice columnist for Elle magazine.
E. Jean Carroll
Carroll alleges that Trump attacked her in the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996 at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York.
She claims claims that, while gift shopping, Trump pressured her to try on lingerie and grabbed her arm to pull her toward the dressing room.
“The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips.
“I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.
“The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway —or completely, I’m not certain—inside me.”
True to form, Trump responded by exonerating himself on the basis of the woman’s appearance: “I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type.”
Then he accused the accuser: “Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for themselves, or sell a book, or carry out a political agenda….
“It’s just as bad for people to believe it, particularly when there is zero evidence. Worse still for a dying publication to try to prop itself up by peddling fake news—it’s an epidemic.”
Also, predictably, he portrayed himself as the innocent victim of yet another vast conspiracy: “If anyone has information that the Democratic Party is working with Ms. Carroll or New York Magazine, please notify us as soon as possible.”
On May 9, 2023, a New York jury jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million in a judgment.
Jurors also found Trump liable for defaming Carroll over her allegations. Trump did not attend the civil trial and was absent when the verdict was read.
And, just as predictably, Republicans rallied around Trump.
“Quite honestly, as somebody who had a front-row seat to the Kavanaugh hearings, we’ve seen allegations that were false,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). “We’ll let the facts go where they are, but I take [Trump’s] statement at face value.”
“Yes, I believe the president.” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy when pressed on whether he believed Trump.
There’s an old saying: “If one person tells you you’re drunk, and you feel fine, ignore him. If ten people tell you you’re drunk, you need to lie down.”
More than a score of women have come forward to say that Donald Trump—the former and future President of the United States—is a sexual predator.
Yet no one in the Republican party is willing to acknowledge it.
PUSSYGRABBER FOR PRESIDENT—PART ONE (OF TWO)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on December 26, 2024 at 12:05 amDonald Trump—the soon-to-be President of the United States—has a woman problem.
Or, to be more accurate, a series of women problems.
First, he’s been married three times—and divorced twice:
- In 1977, Trump married Czech model Ivana Winklmayr. The couple divorced in 1992, following Trump’s notorious affair with actress Marla Maples.
- Maples and Trump were married in December 1993—and divorced in 1999.
- In 1998, Trump met Slovenian model Melania Knauss. They married in 2005.
Ivana Trump and Donald Trump
Donald and Melania Trump
And Trump has never been known for marital fidelity:
- He was still married to Ivana when he carried on a highly publicized extramarital affair with Marla Maples.
- Trump was still married to Maples when he entered into an affair with Melania Knauss.
- And only four months after Melania gave birth to their son, Barron, Trump had his now-infamous tryst with porn “actress” Stormy Daniels.
He has often boasted about his sexual prowess:
- When his 2016 Republican rival, Marco Rubio, joked that Trump’s hands were small, Trump said: “Look at those hands, are they small hands? And, [Rubio] referred to my hands—‘if they’re small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee.”
- Trump equated avoiding STDs during the late 1990s with serving in Vietnam: “I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world, it is a dangerous world out there. It’s like Vietnam, sort of. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave solider.”
John F. Kennedy—another notorious womanizer—never felt the need to boast of his prowess.
Trump’s most infamous “take” on women appeared during the 2016 Presidential race. The remarks happened 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 caught Trump’s boast of trying to pick up a married woman:
“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.
“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….
“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. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
When the Washington Post broke the story on October 7, 2016, 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.”
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, 2016, 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, then 34, 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 a “tremendous” room in the mansion.
Recalled Stoynoff: “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.”
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.
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.
LOAN-TEST CEOS LIKE WELFARE APPLICANTS: PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on December 20, 2024 at 12:19 amRobert Benmosche, the CEO of American International Group (AIG) had some blunt advice to college graduates searching for work.
“You have to accept the hand that’s been dealt you in life,” Benmosche said in a 2013 interview on Bloomberg Television. “Don’t cry about it. Deal with it.”
As is typical of one-percenters, Benmosche blamed willing-to-work college graduates for the refusal of rich employers to offer jobs instead of excuses.
AIG’s way of “accepting the hand that’s been dealt you in life” was to go crying to the Federal Government for a bailout loan—which eventually ballooned to $182 billion.
If college graduates should “deal with” the hardships of finding a responsible, hiring-inclined employer with a stiff upper lip, as Benmosche advised, the same advice should work wonders on greed-fueled CEOs.
Greed-test CEOs for future government loans.
After all, drug-testing welfare recipients has become the new mantra for Republicans.
Some bills have even targeted people who seek unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence that the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs.
The concept of background screening is actually sound. But Republicans are aiming it at the wrong end of the economic spectrum.
Since 2008, the government has handed out billions of dollars in bailouts to CEOs of the wealthiest corporations in the country.
The reason: To rescue the economy from the calamity produced by the criminal greed and recklessness of those same corporations.
In 2008, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before Congress about the origins of the Wall Street “meltdown.”
He admitted that he was “shocked” at the breakdown in U.S. credit markets and said he was “partially” wrong to resist regulation of some securities.
“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity—myself especially—are in a state of shocked disbelief,” said Greenspan, who had ruled the Fed from 1987 to 2006.
.jpg&docid=sOkRc_ehpi7xFM&tbnid=RqUpfRRKBX9_7M%3A&vet=1&w=300&h=250&bih=470&biw=790&ved=2ahUKEwiljoPgqZraAhXD-lQKHYAMDR4QxiAoAXoECAAQFQ&iact=c&ictx=1)
Alan Greenspan
As a disciple of the right-wing philosopher, Ayan Rand, Greenspan had fiercely held to her belief that “The Market” was a divine institution. As such, “it” alone knew what was best for the nation’s economic prosperity.
“Enlightened self-interest,” he believed, would guarantee that those who dedicated their lives to making money would not allow mere greed to steer them—and the country—into disaster.
As he saw it, any attempt to regulate greed-based appetites could only harm that divine institution.
This had been the prevailing attitude among businessmen prior to the 1929 Wall Street crash that brought on the Great Depression. It proved wrong then.
And it proved wrong for Greenspan—and the country—in 2008. And the nation will be literally paying for such misguided confidence in profit-addicted men for decades to come.
So if Republicans want to protect the “poor, oppressed taxpayer,” they should demand background investigations for those whose addiction truly threatens the economic future of this country.
That is: The men (and occasionally women) who run the nation’s most important financial institutions, such as banks, insurance and mortgage companies.
Thus, in the future, all CEOs—and their families and topmost executives—of financial institutions seeking Federal bailouts should be required to:
- Undergo “full field investigations” by the FBI and IRS.
- Submit full financial disclosure forms concerning not only themselves but all members of their immediate families.
- Be subject to Federal prosecution for perjury if they provide false information or conceal evidence of criminal violations.
- Periodically submit themselves for additional background investigation.
- Be subject to arrest, indictment and prosecution if the background investigation turns up evidence of criminal activity.
In addition:
- If a bailout-seeking financial institution refuses to comply with these criteria, it should be refused the loan.
- If a CEO and/or other top officials are judged ineligible for a loan, the company should be asked to replace those executives with others who might qualify.
- Those alternative executives should be subject to the same background investigation requirements as just outlined.
- If the institution refuses to replace those executives found ineligible, the Government should refuse the loan.
- If the Government is forced to take over a troubled financial institution, its CEO and top executives should be replaced with applicants who have passed the required security screening.
The United States has a long and embarrassing history in worshiping wealth for its own sake. Part of this can be traced to the old Calvinistic doctrine that wealth is a proof of salvation, since it shows evidence of God’s favor.
“The man who builds a factory,” eulogized President Calvin Coolidge, “builds a temple. And the man who works there, worships there.”
Another reason for this worship of mammon is the belief that someone who is wealthy is automatically endowed with wisdom and integrity. If that were true, Mafia bosses would be the moral equivalent of Saint Augustine.
Following these beliefs to their ultimate conclusion will transform the United States into a plutocracy—a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
Every day—from President Donald Trump on down—we see fresh evidence of the destruction wrought by the unchecked greed of wealthy, powerful men.
When they—and their paid shills in Congress—demand, “De-regulate business,” it’s essential to remember what this really means.
It means: “Let criminals be criminals.”
LOAN-TEST CEOS LIKE WELFARE APPLICANTS: PART ONE (OF TWO)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on December 19, 2024 at 12:11 amThe late Robert Benmosche, then CEO of American International Group (AIG), had some blunt advice to college graduates searching for work in a tight job market.
Robert Benmosche
“You have to accept the hand that’s been dealt you in life,” Benmosche said in a 2013 interview on Bloomberg Television. “Don’t cry about it. Deal with it.”
Typical advice from a one-percenter whose company, AIG, suffered a liquidity crisis when its credit ratings were downgraded below “AA” levels in September, 2008.
So how did AIG “deal with” its own crisis? It went crying to its Uncle Sugar, the United States Government, for a bailout.
Which it promptly got.
The United States Federal Reserve Bank, on September 16, 2008, made an $85 billion loan to AIG to meet increased collateral obligations resulting from its credit rating downgrade—and thus saving it from certain bankruptcy.
In return, the Government took an 80% stake in the firm.
(The bailout eventually ballooned to $182 billion in exchange for a 92% stake.)
College graduates, said Benmosche, needed to seize the opportunities that become available to them, even if their options are limited.
“They want me to talk to the students and give them a sense of encouragement, especially with the high unemployment,” said Benmosche.
“My advice will be, ‘Whatever opportunity comes your way, take it. Take it and treat it as if it’s the only one that’s coming your way, because that actually may be the truth.’”
Yes, if you have the opportunity to cry yourself into a multi-billion dollar loan from the Federal Government, by all means, do so.
Of course, willing-to-work college graduates who can’t find willing-to-hire employers won’t be able to count on a generous bailout from the Federal Government.
To which most of them will owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans.
It’s long past time to apply to “untouchable” CEOs like Robert Benmosche the same criteria that Right-wing Republicans demand be applied to welfare recipients.
Republican lawmakers have vigorously pursued welfare drug-testing in Congress and more than 30 states.
Some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs.
The concept of background screening is actually sound. But Republicans are aiming it at the wrong end of the economic spectrum.
Since 2008, the government has handed out billions of dollars in bailouts to the wealthiest corporations in the country.
The reason: To rescue the economy from the calamity produced by the criminal greed and recklessness of those same corporations.
For example:
- The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has invested $118.5 billion in restoring liquidity to the financial markets.
- Federal Reserve rescue efforts: $1.5 trillion invested.
- Federal stimulus programs designed to save or create jobs and jumpstart the economy from recession. $577.8 billion invested.
- American International Group: Multifaceted bailout to help insurers through restructuring, minimize the need to post collateral and get rid of toxic assets. $127.4 billion invested.
- FDIC bank takeovers: Cost to FDIC fund that insures losses depositors suffer when a bank fails. $45.4 billion invested.
-
Other financial initiatives designed to rescue the financial sector. $366.4 billion invested.
-
Other housing initiatives designed to rescue the housing market and prevent foreclosures. $130.6 billion invested.
According to the Special Inspector General for the TARP bailout, the total commitment of government is $16.8 trillion dollars with the $4.6 trillion already paid out.
And it’s equally important to remember that welfare recipients did not:
- Hold CEO positions at any of the banks so far bailed out;
- Run such insurance companies as American International Group (AIG);
- Administer the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac;
- Command the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae.
The 2010 documentary Inside Job chronicles the events leading to the 2008 global financial crisis. One of its most insightful moments occurs at a party held by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
“We can’t control our greed,” the CEO of a large bank admits to his fellow guests. “You should regulate us more.”
Greed is defined as an excessive desire for wealth or goods. At its worst, greed trumps rationality, judgment and concern about the damage it may cause.
Greed begins in the neurochemistry of the brain. A neurotransmitter called dopamine fuels our greed. The higher the dopamine levels in the brain, the greater the pleasure we experience.
Cocaine, for example, directly increases dopamine levels. So does money.
Harvard researcher Hans Breiter has found, via magnetic resonance imaging studies, that the craving for money activates the same regions of the brain as the lust for sex, cocaine or any other pleasure-inducer.
Dopamine is most reliably activated by an experience we haven’t had before. We crave recreating that experience.
But snorting the same amount of cocaine, or earning the same sum of money, does not cause dopamine levels to increase. So the pleasure-seeker must increase the amount of stimuli to keep enjoying the euphoria.
In time, this incessant craving for pleasure becomes an addiction. And feeding that addiction–-with ever more money–becomes the overriding goal.
Thus, the infamous line—”Greed is good”—in the 1987 film, Wall Street, turns out to be both false and deadly for all concerned.
But the situation need not remain this way.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, ANNE FRANK, AP, AS I LAY DYING (BOOKK), BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BELOVED (BOOK), BEYONCE, BILL O'REILLY, BLACK LIKE ME (BOOK), BLOOMBERG, BLUESKY, BOOKS, BRAVE NEW WORLD (BOOK), BUZZFEED, CATCH-22 (BOOK), CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DIARY OF A YOUNG GIRL (BOOK), DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (BOOK), DRACULA, ERICH FROMM, ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM (BOOK), FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FLORIDA, FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON (BOOK), FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS (BOOK), HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, INVISIBLE MAN (BOOK), KILLING JESUS (BOOK), KILLING REAGAN (BOOK), LADY GAGA, LES MISERABLES (BOOK), LIBRARIES, LORD OF THE FLIES (BOOK), MEDIA MATTERS, MERRIMAN-WEBSTER’S ELEMENTARY DICTIONARY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NATIVE SON (BOOK), NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, OPRAH WINFREY, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, RIPLEY’S BELIEVE IT OR NOT, RON DESANTIS, SALON, SCHINDLER’S LIST (BOOK), SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE (BOOK), TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ADVENTURES OF TOM SAWYER (BOOK), THE ATLANTIC, THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MALCOM X, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE FOUNTAINHEAD (BOOK), THE GUARDIAN, THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, THE HANDMAID’S TALE (BOOK), THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (BOOK), THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WINDS OF WAR, THE WINDS OF WAR (BOOK), THINKPROGRESS, THURGOOD MARSHALL, TIME, TONI MORRISON, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, X
CENSORSHIP: IT’S THE REPUBLICAN WAY
In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 16, 2025 at 12:12 amRepublican Governor Ron DeSantis likes to refer to his state as “the free state of Florida.”
But for those who cherish the right to read whatever they want, Florida’s legislative agenda offers anything but freedom.
Among those books pulled from public libraries—temporarily or permanently—are John Green’s “Looking for Alaska,” Colleen Hoover’s “Hopeless,” Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” and Grace Lin’s picture story “Dim Sum for Everyone!”
Florida’s Martin County school district removed dozens of books from its middle schools and high schools. Among these: Toni Morrison’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Beloved,” James Patterson’s “Maximum Ride” thrillers, and numerous novels by Jodi Picoult.
Ron DeSantis
Bill O’Reilly, the former Fox News host, staunchly supported Florida’s book ban laws enacted by DeSantis. Then two of his own books—Killing Jesus and Killing Reagan: The Violent Assault That Changed a Presidency—were temporarily removed from the Escambia County School District.
Suddenly, O’Reilly changed his mind.
“It’s absurd. Preposterous,” O’Reilly told Newsweek. He threatened to “find out exactly who made the decisions … [and] put their pictures on television and on my website … and I’m going to ask them for a detailed explanation of why they did that.
“When DeSantis signed the book law, I supported the theme because there was abuse going on in Florida. There were far-left progressive people trying to impose an agenda on children, there’s no doubt about it.”
So O’Reilly believes it’s OK to censor books promoting a “far-left progressive” view. Censorship is wrong only when it condemns his books to oblivion.
Bill O’Reilly
Bill O’Reilly at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia.jpg: World Affairs Council of Philadelphiaderivative work: Karppinen, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Under Florida’s HB 1069 bill, affected titles include dictionaries, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and Anne Frank’s Diary of a Young Girl.
A partial list of the 1,600 books banned in Escambia County, Florida, includes:
Nazi book burning
All of which means: If you want to read something forbidden by the State and can’t meet the high prices of bookstores, you’re not going to read it.
At least, not in Florida.
In 1969, the Young Rascals sang:
All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free.
But this ignores a grim and fundamental truth: Many people don’t want to be free. And they don’t want you to be free, either.
Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm noted this in his 1941 bestseller, Escape From Freedom.
Its thesis: People who can’t accept the dangers and responsibilities that come with freedom will probably turn to authoritarianism.
Democracy has freed many people, but it also makes others feel alienated and dehumanized. Many Germans turned to Nazism for a sense of belonging and purpose.
Many people hold a twisted concept of what accounts for freedom. They accuse their enemies of being tyrants, while fiercely supporting a dictatorship of their own. A favorite marching song of Hitler’s SS went:
Clear the streets, the SS marches!
They will take the road from tyranny to freedom!
Such people fervently believe that they are being persecuted if they aren’t allowed to persecute those they hate.
Thus, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, millions of Republicans believed themselves victims because they weren’t allowed to
(1) discriminate on the basis of race or sex; and
(2) deny medical care to millions of poor and middle-class Americans.
The same holds true for the followers of Ron DeSantis.
Share this: