Saturday, September 24, 2016

More Gun Deaths Yet the NRA and GOP Won't Budge on Common Sense Reform

How the NRA and GOP View “Gun Control” – Even Common Sense

How Most Americans Define “Gun Control” – Stop the Killings


My update and add-on to the following original great piece from Vox.com in part and from my previous blog post – same subject seen here.

The only gun “control” most Americans want, some 2/3rd of the public, is not to “for them to come and take your guns, or to infringe on the 2nd Amendment and all it truly stands for,” it is this in clear and uncertain terms:

To hardcore Conservative Republicans, unlimited and untouchable guns and the more the merrier, have become their last-ditch effort to impose control on a world they believe is slipping away. Imagine this scenario of a typical GOP conservative gun owner.

He is an older white male, say, in his 50s, living in the Rust Belt or Deep South. He will tell you that when he was growing up, there was living memory of a familiar order: Men working hard in an honorable trade or manufacturing job, women tending home and children, Sundays were for church, hard work yielding a steady rise up the social ladder to a well-earned house, yard, and car were dreams to be had by everyone. That social order in his memory was crumbling just as our gun owner inherited it.

The honorable jobs are gone, or going (even though he refuses to believe it’s his political side that shipped jobs off-shore for huge profits and tax shelters).  It's pure hell to find good-paying work (even he refuses to support raising the minimum wage and having decent affordable healthcare). Jobs with any benefits are for shit. He can’t put much aside for retirement because he doesn’t make much to take home. His kids are struggling with debt and low-paying jobs and high college debt (even though he won’t push his members of Congress to take steps to lower student debt). They know, all the gun owners know, that their kids probably aren't going to have a better life than the did — that the very core of the American promise has proven false for them, for the first time in generations and they are fed up.

It's a bitter, helpless feeling for them. For someone naturally attuned to “order, structure, closure, certainty, consistency, simplicity, and familiarity,” well, it’s damn scary and they are quick to tell you that, too. The role he thought he was meant to play in the world, the privileges and respect that came along with that dream, have been thrown into doubt. Everything is shifting under his feet.

Over the last few years, our gun owner has found a whole network of TV channels, radio shows, books, blogs, and Facebook groups that speak directly to his unease. They understand the world he heard about from his father and grandfather, the world that's being lost; they understand the urgency of saving what's left of it. Most of all, with his already heightened sensitivity to threat further aggravated by economic uncertainty, they finally help him see who's to blame. 

They show him the immigrants crowding in, using up jobs and benefits that were promised to American workers. They show him minorities demanding handouts that are paid for with his taxes, even as they riot, even as they kill each other and the police. The show him terrorists making a mockery of weak American leadership. They show him elitist liberals, professors and entertainers, disdaining his values and mocking his religion.

And it is such a relief, to finally put a face to all the ambient dread, to have some clarity again, to know who the good guys and bad guys are. Our gun owner is a good guy, thankfully, from the kind of self-reliant stock that settled this country.

It seems like America's decline is a done deal, that the tide of liberal rot is unstoppable. But the one place he knows he can draw the line is at his door, on his private property, because he has a gun. He can defend his own.

If the minorities riot again, or immigrant criminals move in nearby, or terrorists attack, or some wackjob goes on a shooting spree, or Obama comes for his guns ... well, that's what the guns are for. He's given up a lot, but he won't give up his autonomy or the safety of his family. He'll defend that to the end.

To our gun owner, another mass shooting is not an argument for getting rid of guns. It's a confirmation of his every instinct, another sign of moral and societal decay, another reason to arm himself and defend what he's got left and in fact, increase his arsenal. You can tell him about Canada and Australia until you're blue in the face — the lower rate of gun deaths, the hunting exemptions, the seemingly intact freedoms that they have. You can cite high popular support for restrictions on gun and ammunition sales. You can tell him that not every incremental tightening of standards is a slippery slope that no one wants to confiscate his guns. And, the vast majority of Americans support gun rights, they also want some more gun controls for our national sanity.

But then you are just another self-righteous liberal on another self-righteous crusade, too blind or stupid to see how governments always use people like you to disarm their citizenry. You've taken enough: his taxes, his freedoms, and his culture. He won't give you anything else or any more. 

Our gun owner is not going to change his mind, not when he considers his opinions over facts. Truth always gives way to rumor. Compromise is a dirty word to the NRA and GOP hardliner gun nuts. And, Donald J. Trump feeds on this attitude.

Thanks for stopping by. Try to do what you can to help overcome this tragedy in our country due to too many guns, not a shortage.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Trump Prepping Us for His Post-Election Reality Show: "How They Cheated Me"

Thank Goodness “The Donald” Passed on the Olympics (whew boy)
(Next Event: How to Lose an Election Without Even Trying)

What is their destiny??


What follows is an absolutely great analysis of Hillary Clinton vis-à-vis Donald Trump and the media attention span towards each of them from here (Media Matters.org)…

A must read at least for rational-thinking persons, most of whom drink at this trough of enlightenment, right? (Smile). The lead from the article starts next:

“Like cigarette smokers who have admitted they have a nicotine problem but can’t stop puffing, can journalists who have already admitted they use a weaker standard to score Republican nominee Donald Trump make a clean break while grading the Republican’s debate performance next week?

“By all indications, reporters know using the double standard is wrong, and that it’s not okay to demand Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton regularly clear higher hurdles than her opponent. They know adopting different standards to grade presidential candidates disregards rules of campaign fair play for the press.

“Yet even though the double standard has been widely acknowledged in recent weeks, there’s still a likelihood it will be employed for debate analysis. That’s how strong the allure seems to be.

“Already we’re hearing rumblings that Clinton has more to lose at the debate, and that if Trump manages to not insult large portions of the electorate, the event will represent a victory for him. What’s doubly concerning is that Trump already appears to be actively trying to intimidate the debate moderators in hopes they’ll go easy on him. (e.g., according to network news executives, moderators Lester Holt from NBC and Fox’s Chris Wallace were chosen to appease Trump). (I also note: That plus all his rigging charges and weak theories).

“If Trump bullies the moderators and the press uses a weaker standard to grade him, then the debates are no longer fair campaign fights because a media-sanctioned victory for Clinton will be that much harder to obtain.

“He won't have to win policy arguments or outshine Clinton's qualifications – anyone who's been watching this race will already know he can't do either,” noted U. S. News & World Report contributor Cary Gibson, who wrote that Trump is “Generally held to a lower bar than Clinton and this dynamic is likely to prevail during the debates. But if he makes it through the debates with no major gaffes and his composure intact, his performance could get high marks anyway.”


Thanks for stopping by.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Memo to the Trumpettes: Stop Your Utter Ignorance About Everything American

Are We There Yet???
(Almost)


Trump trademark just like a lot of his followers: basic stupidity>>> cite this article.

Read it carefully – to see his own words, NOT mine or anyone else's, and naturally, he said that utter nonsense on FOX “News.” That in and of itself tells a sad story about Mr. Trump.

During a Fox & Friends interview Monday morning, GOP nominee Donald J. Trump blamed the weekend attacks in New Jersey and New York City on refugees, a lack of profiling by law enforcement, and a basic constitutional freedom.

Trump sounded off on refugees at length — despite the fact that suspect identified by authorities in the weekend attacks is a naturalized U.S. citizen, not a refugee, and that of the hundreds of thousands of refugees resettled in the U.S. since 9/11, only three have been arrested for planning terrorist activities.

Later, one of the hosts asked Trump what he would do to stop “people who are radicalized here.”

Trump, in reply, said that “freedom of the press,” a protected constitutional right, was to blame, Trump dug that hole much deeper saying: “They’re all talking about it so wonderfully because, you know, it’s called ‘freedom of the press,’ where you buy magazines and they tell you how to make these same bombs that I saw. They tell you how to make bombs. We should arrest the people that do that because they’re participating in crime. Instead they say oh no you can’t do anything, that’s freedom of expression.”

Hey, Mr. “T” when you find yourself stuck in a hole as you are frequently like in this story, just stop frickin’ digging.

Thanks for stopping by.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Trickle Down Economics: Trump Sustains the GOP Myth and Stale Tradition

Dating Back to the Days of Ronald Reagan

Trump Reinforces “Trickle Down” in Detroit Policy Speech

Donald J. “More Trickle-down” Trump and his tax plan benefits whom? Ha, ha.

Trump poses as a working-class populist, but about his new economic plan would be a gusher for the wealthy, and almost nothing would trickle down to anyone else.

1.     He’d knock down the top tax rate on businesses from 35 percent to 15 percent, thereby richly rewarding the investor class.
2.     He’d cut taxes the top tax rate on the wealthy from 39.6 percent to 33 percent, another boon to the top.
3.     He’d eliminate the estate tax – now paid by a relative handful of families whose net worth exceeds $5.5 million.
4.     Not incidentally, this is an especial windfall for the Trump family. If Trump is worth as much as he says, his heirs would get a tax break of $4 billion to $7 billion.
5.     He’d let global corporations pay just a 10 percent tax rate on untaxed offshore profit –  another mammoth gift to big shareholders.
6.     Apple, Pfizer, Microsoft, and other global American giants who now hold $2.4 trillion in earnings abroad, and owe some $700 billion in taxes on these earnings wouldn’t even touch them.
7.     Trump’s 10 percent tax rate would raise only about $150 billion. It wouldn’t even generate new investment in America. 
8.     A similar tax amnesty was tried in 2004 and it was a dud. Thud – Ker plunk. 
9.     Yes, he’d also lower taxes on lower-income Americans. But the biggest beneficiaries by far are the wealthy.


Thanks for stopping by – hang on to your wallet.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Memo to Mr. Trump: Backpedal All You Want, But You Can Never Erase Your Past

Mr. Trump: Your past can never be erased 
(No matter how hard you tap dance)

AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio and “The Donald” GOP’s Fav
(BFF's)

Now, Donald J. Trump admits President Obama was “Born in the United States, period” even after all his claptrap crap and again with this string of lies here.

Then in true Trump fashion he goes on to completely distort the chain of events by claiming Hillary Clinton “was all in on the birther movement” dating back to 2008.

Most of the recent talk started after Hillary Clinton suspended her presidential campaign about dehydration and pneumonia, but now is back in full campaign mode.

The only thing she officially has ever done is deny any accusation of starting a whisper campaign and the record since 2008 (Trump’s claim date) well… let’s ask the experts on these things…

Politifact.com here rates the Trump 2008 claim as:

In a word, Donald J. Trump is a lying scumbag human being who has a very long documented record of statements and backtracking and such that show precisely he is a pathological, compulsive liar of the worst kind. 
How anyone can support him in any way is truly astonishing. But, Trump, one supposes, still supports whackjobs like AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio (seen above and here).
Thanks for stopping by.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton Most Examined, Most Hated, Most Qualified to be President: Go Figure

Smart is the Operative Word, but Not on Trump's Vocab List

Absolutely 100% Spot On

I purposely intend for this post to be short and direct.

You may not agree, but the fact remains: Hillary Clinton has gotten more attention, more scrutiny, more political hype, and more GOP shit thrown at her as they hope something will stick and ruin her, bring her down, damage her, and more likely as the new Trump rally call says: “Lock her up” which the most utter craziness than anyone who ever sought the presidency as ever withstood, and yet she is still standing.

Hillary Clinton has real “true grit,” and she will make a very good president. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

That is for logical thinking people who pay close attention to these kinds of GOP dirty tricks, mud-slinging shenanigans that goes far beyond belief and rational comprehension.  

At least in my view. Thanks for stopping by.


Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Undocumented "Immigrants" Flooding Western Structures is Worldwide Problem

Many Flee from North Africa to Europe

Walled Camps and Tent Cities Offer Some Safety



Sub-Text: Taxpayers will pay 2 million pounds for the 13-foot high, one-mile long concrete barrier along motorway to stop migrants sneaking across the Channel into the UK. 
  1. The wall will stretch nearly a mile along the main motorway to port of Calais…
  2.  It will be a 13 foot concrete barrier to replace wooden fencing that has failed to stop stowaways… 
  3.  Supporters say wall would halt the flow of migrants and keep drivers safe…
  4.  Critics claim the barrier is a “scandalous waste of taxpayer cash…”
  5.  Examine closely the two photos above to see the kind of persons sneaking into France, the UK and other EU counties as they flee their homelands. 

A few major and logical questions regarding the “who and why” of this trend over the last few years: 
  • Is it just to escape war-torn regions?
  • Is it to seek a more lucrative life in the West (a job, education)?
  • Is it to avoid military service in their own countries?
  • Is it for adventure?
  • Are they “sleeper cell” recruits? 

Will they follow instructions from terrorist-run groups already in place in countries we have seen attacks over the past year or less? Far fetched? Hardly – not in this day and age.

Look at those photos carefully: (1) Young men who appear healthy, (2) out of work, (3) probably poorly educated, (4) nothing to go back home for (no job, no opportunity, no nothing in essence), but (5) lots of hope for a new life.

Hopefully nothing nefarious as I said. But all those young men, single, even perhaps angry and certainly disgruntled. This situation warrants close scrutiny since there are so many flowing into EU countries and now apparently stretching their social networks to their limits.

In a nutshell, it is a serious security issue on top of a critical humanitarian crisis. Why are so many escaping their homelands?

Some simple possibilities: Their native government have fewer mouths to feed, fewer to house and provide for, or one less family to worry about in hard times. In short, many of governments are unstable and happy to see their citizens flee.

However, what does it say about the countries expected to take them in and provide for them. As I said, many if not most are stretched thin in many ways and then factor in the bad guys in France, Brussels, and other EU countries who have inflicted great harm and pain and death that we read and see almost daily, if not weekly. That is a major concern and freedom-loving nations may have open arms and borders and compassion, but don’t they deserve safety and security. That takes its toll on the citizens who take them and try to work with them.

I simply say to those countries where so many are fleeing that they need to clean up their own messes and provide for their own people. That is not harsh thinking, but reality. What see today on this massive scale cannot be sustained much longer in some of those generous countries.  

Finally, I want to be clear. I do not advocate more walls (ala Donald Trump who wants to block off the U.S. form Mexico) or anything of that sort. I do advocate international cooperation to end the wars in Syria and Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere to stop the killing and flow of citizens fleeing for a safety net that is getting full and stretched to their limits.

What we see is a world-wide problem that needs a world-wide solution. Thanks for stopping by.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Obamacare Troubles as Insurance Providers Bail Due to Greed and Selfishness

Effective But Will It Be Enough to Stop Provider Exits

Real Motivator 
(Insurance Provider's Bottom Line)

Background: The ACA (Obamacare) was enacted in March 2010 and is still not fully implemented. Its growth has been hampered in part by partisan gridlock that has further undermined the exchanges. The question is why? Some reasons follow:

For example: Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health says: “They haven’t changed the law since it was passed, and it was passed in a very convoluted, rushed state. Normally, what you would have had was a whole series of technical changes over the last six years to make the law better, but they haven’t been able to do it.”

Now and ever since the bill was signed into law and the USSC ruling keeping it alive, we have had this from the GOP: “Kill it; Repeal it; Replace it; Scrap it; etc. etc.

Now GOP nominee Donald J. Trump continues that line and says he will scrap it altogether on day one.

But, Hillary Clinton is expected to try and rescue it even as it enters a new and worrying stage in its development.

Some facts: By many measures the program has been a tremendous success. Some 20 million more people now have insurance; those under the age of 26, who often skip insurance, can be covered by their parents’ plans; and, people with existing conditions cannot be discriminated against.

However, the ACA relies on competition between insurers to provide affordable coverage, and that is dwindling. Under the ACA, health insurance marketplaces, also called health exchanges, were set up to facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Customers are free to choose from a set of standardized healthcare plans from participating insurers, and those policies are eligible for federal subsidies. 

Some insurers have been fleeing the exchanges, arguing that healthy persons vs. sick persons “are loss makers and the types of people attracted to them make the risks too great for the insurers to provide affordable (and profitable) policies.”

David Howard, an associate professor at Emory University’s department of health policy and management, said the ACA included provisions to keep the marketplaces stable, but some of those were watered down in the push to get the deal through Congress, and in other cases the provisions have not been enacted in the way people expected. Then he added: “That means the exchanges are potentially on the cusp of falling apart.”

Why this insurance abandonment? Coverage to millions of young adults, who are reaching the cutoff point, are at risk falling through the gaps. The marketplaces are unstable in part because they are new, and all the parties involved – from insurers to those who need insurance – are trying to figure out where they fit into the equation. Quite simply: The system needs healthy people to enroll to help offset the costs of sicker people, but that is not what is happening – there are fewer enrollees than projected, and they are sicker than anticipated.

On top of that, premiums are expected to rise, which makes insurance from the marketplaces less attractive to the healthy, young people they need. “They’re eventually going to get to the point where premiums go up, healthy people drop out of the market, which causes premiums to go up more, then more healthy people drop out of the market, and eventually the whole thing just falls apart,” said Howard.

Others argue this period of instability, while a problem, is a natural - and temporary – part of the cycle.

As for me, I believe the solution best expressed by more than 2,000 physicians is the easiest and simplest and would solve any long-term problems: They want a single-payer system similar to Canada. They also say the Affordable Care Act didn’t go far enough in that regard.

Continue the story at this link from The Guardian.

Thanks for stopping by. 

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Trump Should Never Be in Any Official Position to Speak or Make U. S. Policy

A Message for All Americans on November 8, 2016
(Remember that at the polls when you vote)

His “Impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful Southern border wall”
(His words from that Phoenix Speech)

I don’t even know where to begin with this post about Trump’s visit to Mexico and subsequent immigration speech in Phoenix. But, here goes and all from my point of view. The entire story is here (check it out for more coverage).

I picture the “Wall” that Trump would build this way based on his own description in his own words from the Phoenix speech: It will look more like a tourist attraction just like everything else gigantic that Trump has ever built, and all for his own self-gratification and personal profit, and not much else.

Background: Emerging from a hastily organized meeting with Mexico's president, Trump then flew to Arizona. There he not only renewed his pledge that America’s southern neighbor would fund “an impenetrable, beautiful border wall” but added that it would be built in “record time” and at a “reasonable price,” adding: “We will build a great wall along the southern border — and Mexico will pay for the wall - 100 percent. They don’t know it yet, but they're gonna pay for the wall.” 

Then Trump hailed the “great people and great leaders of Mexico” following his visit he kept insisting, “they’re going to pay for the wall.”

In the Phoenix speech he said: “On Day One, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall. We will use the best technology, including above and below ground sensors. That’s the tunnels. Remember that. Above and below. Above and below ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance, and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels, and keep out criminal cartels, and Mexico, you know, will work with us. I really believe it. Mexico will work with us. I absolutely believe it.”

I note: Why does Trump always repeat and reinforce words like he does so much in speeches and general talking? That is troubling to hear him repeat key words and phrases over and over and yes, I mean over and over, and again and again. So, you got what I mean now? I mean do you really have it now, or not that I mean do you got it now? (See my point).

Stay tuned for more on this for sure and yes, thanks for stopping by.

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Trump Wants to Deport Illegals Here Except His Illegal Models

Models Worked for Trump and Worked Here Illegally


Highlights of this story come from Mother Jones here in part and here posted after original was posted from CNN.money on the same story (March 2016).

Donald Trump has placed immigration at the core of his presidential campaign – although his precise position and “plan” as changed a number of times.

For example: He has claimed that undocumented immigrants are “taking our jobs and taking our money.” He has to deport all of them en masse, and has vowed to build a wall on the Mexican border and have them pay for it.

At one point he demanded a ban on Muslims entering the country. Speaking to supporters in Iowa recently, he said he would crack down on visitors to the United States who overstay their visas and declared that when any American citizen “loses their job to an illegal immigrant, the rights of that American citizen have been violated.”

However, his New York modeling agency, named: “Trump Model Management” has profited from using foreign models who came to the United States on tourist visas that did not permit them to work here and they did and that according to three former Trump models, all non-citizens, who shared their stories with Mother Jones.

Financial and immigration records included in a recent lawsuit filed by a fourth former Trump model show that she, too, worked for Trump's agency in the United States without a proper visa.

Foreigners who visit the United States as tourists are generally not permitted to engage in any sort of employment unless they obtain a special visa, a process that typically entails an employer applying for approval on behalf of a prospective employee. 

Employers risk fines and possible criminal charges for using undocumented labor.

Trump Model Management was founded in 1999 and according to Trump “has risen to the top of the fashion market.” On his Trump Organization's website, he boasts that the name “symbolizes success.”

According to a financial disclosure filed by his campaign in May, is shows he earned nearly $2 million from the company, in which he holds an 85 percent stake. However, some of the former Trump models say they barely made any money working for the agency because of the high fees for rent and other expenses that were charged by the Trump firm.

For example, Canadian-born Rachel Blais spent nearly three years working for Trump Model Management. After she first signed with the agency in March 2004, she said she performed a series of modeling gigs for Trump's company in the United States without a work visa.

At Mother Jones' request, Blais provided a detailed financial statement from Trump Model Management and a letter from an immigration lawyer who, in the fall of 2004, eventually secured a visa that would permit her to work legally in the United States.

These records show a six-month gap between when she began working in the United States and when she was granted a work visa. During that time, Blais appeared on Trump's hit reality TV show, The Apprentice, modeling outfits designed by his business protégé.

Trump broke the law when he allowed them to work on visitor visas and get paid any amount… or if they were not paid, yet he made money from them, it’s still a serious crime.

Now what? Stay tuned. 

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

The ACA (Obama Care) Still Under GOP Pressure Since 2010

GOP's Main Law Firm Helping Them Dismantle and Repeal ACA


The headlines leading up to this update on the ACA (Obama-care) is from here and here:

GOP plans to eliminate ACA employer mandate and revamp 
Cadillac tax 

Introduction: The GOP will be delighted about this story as they continue with their dream to dismantle or repeal the ACA – since day one – that story is here from Vox.com.

In recent months, some large health insurance plans have quit Obama care, including, most notably, Aetna and United Healthcare. Those exits have raised short-term concerns that the Obama-care marketplaces will have very little competition 2017.

Impact: One in four healthcare.gov counties will have just one insurance plan on the marketplace next year. But it is also true there are areas (mostly those that are urban, with large populations) where the marketplaces remain quite competitive. The level of Obama care competition, in 2017, will vary hugely from place to place. 

Beyond next year, there are now long-term worries about whether Obama care can transform the country’s insurance markets as supporters had hoped. The law was meant to be the beginning of America’s transition to a new health care system — one where consumers rather than large companies would buy their own health insurance. In the early 2010’s, economists would speculate that big companies would drop their workers onto the marketplace rather than remain saddled with rising premium costs.

The marketplace failures to attract a robust group of health plans to many areas suggest it will be quite difficult for Obamacare’s insurance expansion to deliver on that vision. Companies haven’t shown any interest in moving workers to the marketplaces. They’re still using benefit packages as a way to attract top employees.

What is Obama care for if it’s not a major transformation of the health care system? Most experts think it will become like other safety-net programs we know, offering limited services to a predominantly low-income population. The plans sold on the marketplace now tend to be inexpensive, but offer a relatively small choice of doctors and hospitals. A former Obama official calls this the “Medicaid-ization” of Obama care. (Odd word to use to say the least)…!!!
  
Whether you view this as a bad outcome for Obama care likely depends on what policy goals you consider important. The health care law has undoubtedly driven America’s uninsured rate to an all-time low. Twenty million more people have health insurance because of Obama care.

Two key points at this stage of this development:

(1)  If you’re someone who cares about expanding coverage, this is a big win, but it's still true that the law is a far cry from what health wonks envisioned just a few years ago when they saw the health care marketplaces reshaping the industry.

(2)  If your key priority with Obama care was building a more consumer centric insurance marketplace, then the law is quite clearly falling short — and possibly on the path to failure.  

Stay tuned. Thanks for stopping by.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Assange and WikiLeaks (2nd Update): A Serious Threat to Our Electoral Process

Assange on the trail of personal revenge against Hillary Clinton

One key step Assange manages to skip

More on Julian Assange, hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London while ducking rape charges by Swedish authorities. Here is another look as his weak-ass WikiLeaks threat that is shown here and in two posts that follow. In sum it all is his serious attempt and stated purpose to undermine our entire election process by ruining Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House.

Based on this exchange between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Rand Paul (this from Breitbart.com) subject: Arms involved in the uprising and ouster of Gaddafi shows how Assange lies, twists the facts, and implies anything he chooses just to get revenge on those he personally dislikes, and in this case Hillary Clinton. The details follow with my notes (in RED for emphasis):

Assange claims Hillary Clinton knew that the US was sending weaponry from Libya to Syria in 2011, despite she claiming under oath to have no knowledge of the situation based on the following exchange with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

Assange went on to highlight his version of the information which was contained in the hacked and leaked DNC emails wherein he claims that Mrs. Clinton lied under oath during her post-Benghazi attack public testimony in 2013.

Sen. Paul interrogated Clinton during the testimony and explicitly asked whether as the former Secretary of State that she had any knowledge of gun exports leaving Libya this way and that exchange unfolded this way:

Sen. Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, that annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?”

Hillary Clinton: “Well, Senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And, I will see what information was available.”

Sen. Paul: “You’re saying you don’t know?”

Hillary Clinton: “I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.”

Then Assange went on to to have an interview with Democracy Now highlighted this way:

Assange claim: “Hillary Clinton was untruthful during that public testimony,” stating in part: “Those Hillary Clinton emails connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, create a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates.”

Assange continued: “So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails.”

Assange concluded: “There are more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection that we have released, just about Libya alone.”

It is irrational to think that Assange’s threat to release “an October surprise” is anything except a weak revengeful ploy on his part. He has zero bona fide facts or proof positive to draw any logical or rational conclusion. 

Assange is aiming for the Moon and missing it by a country mile. Specifically I strongly believe that on this issue, Assange is a bully and a thug – cut and dried — pure and simple, no questions asked.

Please continue with this coverage with the two posts that follow this update, and as always, thanks for stopping by.


Assange-WikiLeaks Designed to Influence and Harm the General Election

Not Crying Wolf – Addressing Possibility

Great Campaign Strategy


This update supplements the original post about Assange and WikiLeaks next bombshell that follows below:

Assange and his lastest WikiLeaks threat is about to seriously undermine our entire election process.

For example, say for example that he does “leaks” stuff about Hillary Clinton that he claims is riveting?

Say she loses due to the public buying into the “leaks” but then later it is proven to be totally false. What then? An apology? A retraction? A new election? What?

The damage to our entire system and process will be gone forever. The public trust will be lost perhaps even worse than that lost as a result of Watergate and all that damage it levied on us even still today.

These kinds of “leaks” especially those he has stated he wants to use to ruin Hillary Clinton and her chances for the White House surely should have some restraints.

What if such “leaks” result in a phony war or a similar world-wide event?

Wait one huge lie did start a war. Can you spell Iraq vis-à-vis Ahmed Chalabi and his bullshit lies about “Curveball?” Also, these tidbits relating to that invasion: Mushroom clouds, duct tape, WMD's, even Judy Miller’s reporting, etc. Those are things we heard and saw that built the bogus case for that war and here we are still today – still stuck in Iraq.

Curve ball admits it was a lie in this 6-minute video – a lesson is here to be re-learned again. Also, revealed here.

I firmly believe that the Supreme Court must somehow wade in preemptively on this narrow and very critical subject. How of course, remains the key question. But, we must be prepared, shouldn’t we?

So, what is at stake? Only the future of our country and folks, I am not one to cry wolf – but, this case deserves immediate high level attention before there is even a wolf anywhere nearby named Julian Assange.

Thanks for stopping by.


Friday, August 26, 2016

Fox News; Julian Assange; and WikiLeaks a Direct Threat to Our Electoral System

Julian Assange Hiding in the Ecuador Embassy in London

Assange's Weapon of Mass Deception
(In some cases)


Original Post is this quick update from here: NEW YORK, August 26 (Reuters) –  Hillary Clinton lead over Donald Trump is down to 5 percentage points among likely voters, down from a peak earlier this month of 12 points, according to the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll just released.

The August 22-25 poll found that 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton ahead of the November election, while 36 percent supported Trump.

Some 23 percent would not pick either candidate and answered “refused, other or wouldn't vote.”

I want to call that drop and shift “The Assange-WikiLeaks Effect” (see next post below). Then factor in the rabid dogging by the GOP over the emails and other old (very old) issues the GOP just won’t let go.

During the past week, Mrs. Clinton has been dogged by accusations by Trump and others, which she has denied, that donations to her family's charitable (The Clinton) foundation influenced her actions while she was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.


Plus, questions have also surfaced again about her use of a private email server and address rather than a government one during her period at the State Department.

Meanwhile, Trump and Clinton have sparred over who would be a better advocate for African Americans and other minorities. Trump hinted that he could soften his hard line stance on immigration too (Note: Trump now, it seems, is adopting JEB Bush’s approach on undocumented in the U.S. as his own).

ORIGINAL POST FROM HERE:  Julian Paul Assange is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of the organization WikiLeaks, which he founded in 2006.

His stated sole purpose based on documented hatred towards Hillary Clinton is to undermine and influence the outcome of our election process.... it must not be allowed.

During an interview recently on FOX with Megyn Kelly (3-minute clip), Assange said his group would release “significant documents, perhaps turning the tide of the 2016 election.” 

All this is very troubling and FOX is also involved for giving Assange a wide TV platform … they should be ashamed – but I assume they are not since they are firmly in Trump’s corner, too.

FYI - how does the public measure the accuracy and validity of any “hacked or leaked” government or other information (e.g., the DNC emails, etc.) that WikiLeaks publishes? Are we supposed just to take Assange's word for that validity and truthfulness? Hardly.

BTW: Assange is a fugitive hiding (for 4 years) in the Ecuador embassy in London from Swedish authorities on rape charges.  He is supposed to be trustworthy – yeah, right.

This a very serious matter and believe it or not, we have some segments of the voting public (obvious Trump supporters) who will believe anything on Fox, over Talk Radio, or spewing from WikiLeaks and other such GOP-leaning entities.

All legal steps must be employed to stop this narrow aspect of WikiLeaks on our voting system and especially for FOX to stop giving Assange TV time…

Do what you can and tell our representatives to get involved in this and stop it. Our whole system is at risk.

Thanks for stopping by.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Trump Claims to Be the Smartest: However, American History is His Achilles Heel

Trump's Weakness is Himself 
(In fact, he is real heel)

Trump says in NH that Clinton email scandal is like Watergate all over again seen in this short clip:


Trump apparently does not know American history, the constitution for sure, and for damn sure zero about Watergate … he speaks in riddles and sound bites that have zero substance.

Flashback shall we?

A few days after the Watergate break-in, President Richard M. Nixon arranged these two key elements to hide the crime:

1.  He provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in “hush money” to the DNC HQ burglars.
2.  He and his aides hatched a plan to instruct the CIA to impede the FBI’s investigation of the crime.

These things fell out along the way vis-à-vis those two key events:

1.  It became an abuse of presidential power and a deliberate obstruction of justice.
2.  Seven conspirators were indicted on charges related to the Watergate affair.
3.  At the urging of Nixon’s aides, five pleaded guilty and avoided trial; the other two were convicted in January 1973.

By that time, a growing handful of people — including Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, trial judge John J. Sirica, and members of a Senate investigating committee — had begun to suspect that there was a larger scheme afoot.

At the same time, some of the conspirators began to crack under the pressure of the cover-up.

Then some of Nixon’s aides, including White House counsel John Dean testified before a grand jury about the president’s crimes.

Those aides also testified that Nixon had secretly taped every conversation that took place in the Oval Office. If prosecutors could get their hands on those tapes, they would have proof of the president’s guilt.

Nixon struggled to protect the tapes during the summer and fall of 1973. His personal lawyers argued that the president’s executive privilege allowed him to keep the tapes to himself, but Judge Sirica, the Senate committee, and the Independent Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, were all determined to obtain the tapes.

When Cox refused to stop demanding the tapes, Nixon ordered that he be fired, leading several Justice Department officials to resign in protest. These two events, which took place on October 20, 1973, are known as the Saturday Night Massacre.

Eventually, Nixon agreed to surrender some — but not all —of the tapes.

Then early in 1974, the cover-up began to fall apart:

1.  On March 1, a grand jury appointed by a new special prosecutor indicted seven of Nixon’s former aides on various charges related to the Watergate affair.
2.  The jury, unsure if they could indict a sitting president, called Nixon an “unindicted co-conspirator.”
3.  In July, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes.
4.  While Nixon dragged his feet, the House voted to impeach him for (1) obstruction of justice, (2) abuse of power, (3) criminal cover-up, and (4) several violations of the Constitution.

On August 5, Nixon finally released the tapes, which provided undeniable evidence of his role and complicity in the Watergate crimes.

In the face of certain impeachment by the Senate, the president resigned on August 8, 1974.

Six weeks after the new president former Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in, he pardoned Nixon for any crimes he had committed while in office. Some of Nixon’s aides were not so lucky (see list below).

They were convicted of very serious offenses and sent to federal prison.

Nixon himself never admitted to any criminal wrongdoing, though he did acknowledge using poor judgment.

His abuse of presidential power had a negative effect on American political life, creating an atmosphere of cynicism and distrust.

While many Americans had been deeply dismayed by the outcomes of the Vietnam War, Watergate added further disappointment in a national climate already soured by the difficulties and losses of the past decade.

Results: The Watergate scandal resulted in 69 government officials being charged and 48 being found guilty, including these close aides to Nixon:
  1. John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States who resigned to become Director of Committee to Re-elect the President, convicted of perjury about his involvement in the Watergate break-in. Served 19 months of a one- to four-year sentence.
  2. Richard Kleindienst, Attorney General, convicted of “refusing to answer questions” (contempt of court); given one month in jail.
  3. Jeb Stuart Magruder, Deputy Director of Committee to Re-elect the President pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to the burglary, and was sentenced to 10 months to four years in prison, of which he served 7 months before being paroled.
  4. Frederick C. LaRue, Advisor to John Mitchell, convicted of obstruction of justice. He served four and a half months.
  5. H. R. Haldeman, Chief of Staff for Nixon, convicted of conspiracy to the burglary, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison.
  6. John Ehrlichman, Counsel to Nixon, convicted of conspiracy to the burglary, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison.
  7. Egil Krogh, aide to John Ehrlichman, sentenced to six months.
  8. John W. Dean III, counsel to Nixon, convicted of obstruction of justice, later reduced to felony offenses and sentenced to time already served, which totaled 4 months.
  9. Dwight L. Chapin, deputy assistant to Nixon, convicted of perjury.
  10. Herbert W. Kalmbach, personal attorney to Nixon, convicted of illegal campaigning.
  11. Charles W. Colson, special counsel to Nixon, convicted of obstruction of justice. Served 7 months in Federal Maxwell Prison.
  12. Herbert L. Porter, aide to the Committee to Re-elect the President. Convicted of perjury.

The Watergate Burglary team:
  1. G. Gordon Liddy, Special Investigations Group, convicted of masterminding the burglary, original sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Served 4½ years in federal prison.
  2. E. Howard Hunt, Security consultant, convicted of masterminding and overseeing the burglary, original sentence of up to 35 years in prison. Served 33 months in prison.
  3. James W. McCord Jr., convicted of six charges of burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping. Served 2 months in prison.
  4. Virgilio Gonzalez, convicted of burglary, original sentence of up to 40 years in prison. Served 13 months in prison.
  5. Bernard Barker, convicted of burglary, original sentence of up to 40 years in prison. Served 18 months in prison.
  6. Eugenio Martinez, convicted of burglary, original sentence of up to 40 years in prison. Served 15 months in prison.
  7. Frank Sturgis, convicted of burglary, original sentence of up to 40 years in prison. Served 10 months in prison.
Thanks for stopping by. So, how will Trump top himself next time after this? Stay tuned.