Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Trump: I Work for the People — Bull — He Serves Big Business and Profits “Sad

Whew boy, here we go again

Honed more than ever, right Mr. Trump


Not even in office one week and thus this medical layman's analysis of our new President seems to be true with this short introduction and following post. I strongly believe it is both timely and warranted at this point already in American presidential history. I hope you will agree.
Documented Trail Trump Lies, Denial, Half-truths, Deceit and Deception
Compulsive Lying:
Compulsive lying often develops when individuals are very young and heightens with age when more opportunities for fabrication are presented. Gradually throughout childhood and adolescence into adulthood, lying becomes more and more frequent, eliciting a sense of control in the affected individuals. They experience a sense of power over situations when they lie and become uneasy and uncomfortable when forced to tell the truth. Soon enough, dishonesty becomes habit, which then leads to classification in the compulsive lying disorder category.
Compulsive Lying Disorder: This is frequently confused with pathological lying, but it’s important to recognize the difference between the two.
1.  Compulsive liars engage in dishonesty because it is their automatic response to questions and situations.
2.  Pathological liars do so in order to manipulate other people and achieve their goals with complete disregard for the feelings of others.
However, both compulsive and pathological lying is associated with antisocial personality disorder, more commonly known as “psychopathic behavior.” For more information about the various aspects of personality that can make an individual more or less susceptible to developing disorders such as the ones described above, take a look at this course on the psychology of personality.
Tie this to Mr. Trump’s argument that the Affordable Care Act (ACA – Obama-care) “doesn’t work and provides lousy healthcare.” He quoted former President Bill Clinton as saying the ACA law is “crazy” and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton as saying that the law “is no longer affordable.” 

But, what Mr. Trump carefully, I am sure, neglected to say was that both those comments he cited were are lifted out of context – here is how Fact Check says so.

In both cases, Trump shortened the quotes to present them in a light less favorable than a fuller context reveals. Further, and in both cases above, Clinton and Dayton made comments critical of the ACA, but both said they remained supporters of the law and blamed Republicans for refusing to make changes to improve it.
Thus, I now more firmly believe and documentation proves me correct as well as hundreds of others including medical experts that Donald J. Trump is one or both or combination of the liars described above. Do you agree or not? That is expanded on a bit more below:
Sociopathic Liars: Defined as someone who lies continuously in an attempt to get their own way, without showing care or concern for others. They are goal-oriented.  Even though it might seem hard to believe, lying is focused – they are focused on getting their own way.  Sociopaths don’t have a lot of respect or regard for the feelings and rights of others. They tend to be charismatic and charming, but they will use their exceptional social skills in a self-centered and manipulative manner.
Compulsive Liars: Defined as someone who continually lies from sheer habit, and tends to be their normal manner of responding to any questions from others. They will always bend the truth, regardless of how small or large the question is. For them, telling the truth doesn’t feel right. They are uncomfortable whenever they tell the truth, while lying makes them feel right. Their lying is often thought to manifest during childhood, due to being put into situations and environments where lying became a necessity. Most of the time, compulsive liars aren’t cunning or manipulative, rather they only lie because it has become such a habit for them.
Now he is firmly office, a powerful position for him, which he thrives on and this BS (again):
His statement that he in fact the EC and popular vote due to illegals voting. Now this again from him and further supported by his new W/H Press Secretary, Sean Spicer about that massive voter fraud – illegals and others voting for Hillary Clinton  seen from here:
The White House doubled down on Tuesday, defending President Donald Trump's claim that millions of people committed voter fraud in the November election, even though this claim has largely been debunked.

During Tuesday (Jan 24) daily press briefing, ABC News' Cecilia Vega asked Spicer if Trump believes that millions voted illegally and what evidence does the White House have of widespread voter fraud.

Spicer: “The president does believe that.  He has stated that before. I think he's stated his concerns of voter fraud and people voting illegally during the campaign and he continues to maintain that belief based on studies and evidence people have presented to him.”

Note: Trump first made claims of widespread voter fraud almost immediately after the election was over, tweeting that there was “serious voter fraud” and he would have won the “popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” (Note: Refer to the two tweet extracts above).

Further and according to Politico, Mr. Trump repeated those same beliefs to congressional leaders during a private meeting on (Jan 23). Following several questions after that briefing, NPR's Mara Liasson insisted that if Trump's claims of voter fraud were true, this would be the “biggest scandal in American electoral history,” and then she asked why he's not actively investigating.

Here is how Spicer handled that Mara Liasson question:

“Maybe we will. We'll see where we go from here, but right now the focus the president has is on putting Americans back to work. It was a comment he made on a longstanding belief.” He later confirmed that “there is no investigation, but that anything is possible.”

Whew boy…!!!

My Summary: Looks like all the country can do now is wait and watch (Trump mostly tweeting what he wants us to know – true or false it seems). But in all honestly taking all that Trump has said and done up to this point does not foreshadow well for the ending to this dramatic story, at least in my opinion.

So, stay tuned. Thanks for stopping by and I ask again: “What have we done?”

Monday, January 23, 2017

Trump's Agenda: Erase Everything About Barack Obama, Then Others, Then Wing It



Trump Team or Kangaroo Court

Next on Chopping Block

May Be Approved (Again)

Policy Poster for W/H

FACT: The Trump crew (lead by The Donald himself) hate the media and immigrants from south of the U.S. (and pretty much elsewhere) even more so now as he makes final plans to “build the wall.” Seems in the early days so far that they have already adopted the Latin American Handbook for Dictators. Cite these two recent events:

WASHINGTON (NY TIMES)  — President Donald Trump used his first full day in office on Saturday (January 21st) to unleash a remarkably bitter attack on the news media, falsely accusing journalists of both (1) inventing a rift between him and intelligence agencies and (2) deliberately understating the size of his inauguration crowd.
In a visit to the CIA (past CIA stories here) was intended to showcase his support for the intelligence community he previously had ignored by his own repeated public statements criticizing the intelligence community – a group at one time he compared to Nazis just over a week ago.
[…there] he also called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said “that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration,” a claim that photographs disproved.
Later, at the White House, he dispatched Sean Spicer, the (new) press secretary, to the briefing room in the West Wing, where Spicer scolded reporters and made a series of false statements.
Spicer said news organizations had deliberately misstated the size of the crowd at Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Friday in an attempt to sow divisions at a time when Mr. Trump was trying to unify the country, warning that the new administration would hold them to account.
Now what I wanted to post today ties in the above and believe it or not this article from 2003. See if you agree with it or not, in part or not. Either way, it makes for a good analysis:

“The manual for the perfect Latin American dictator has always had a full chapter of media censorship. Silencing the press is a crucial first step towards eliminating freedom of expression and democracy. “It used to be easier to determine where censorship was imposed. The caudillos, or dictators, so prevalent for much of the 20th century, did it openly.

“Now many of their successors, some elected in fraudulent elections and others who have maneuvered laws to remain in power indefinitely, do so with laws that promote the media to censor themselves or face jail or multi-million dollar fines.

The new way of censoring the press was perfected by the Cuban Revolution in its early days. Newspapers, radio and television stations were expropriated by the government, and soon all the media was controlled by the Castro dictatorship.

Censorship in Cuba was not a Castro invention, however. Strong men in power before the revolution imposed it when times were bad and lifted it when times improved. That is no more. Cuba has not had a free press for over 50 years, and all those who try to use the digital revolution to get their views hears are closely monitored, beaten up or jailed.

“According to the Inter-American Press Association, Cuba is the worst offender; but other countries, particularly those who belong to ALBA (an acronym for Bolivian Alliance for the Americas in Spanish) also censor the media. The oppression comes in different forms, but the goal is the same – prevent the media from seriously criticizing the government. The six major ALBA nations – Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina – are the worst offenders after Cuba. Each writes laws to limit the press. These laws are tailor-made, said Julio Muñoz, IAPA's Executive Director.”

Story continues at the article link.

My analysis: Let’s face it, many people contend and numerous historical events prove that squashing the media, or making them smaller, irrelevant, or petty is the first step to dictatorship. But, it can’t happen in the United States some say – ha!  Better take a closer look and pay attention.

Anyway, I thought the timing of all we have seen just in these few early days of this new administration makes it a worthy topic to monitor tied to the Latin American angle.

As they say: “Time will tell,” or better yet, as Pope Francis said recently about the Trump administration in three words: “Wait and see.” I totally agree.


Thanks for coming by. 


Friday, January 20, 2017

One for All; All for One; Nope, Gone: One for One; Only One; No Exceptions

Our politics is broken and the crack will widen 

It started one-minute past Noon, January 20, 2017


As I say above, it started the minute Donald J. Trump took the oath of office. He officially started breaking the law of the very oath he had just taken. … Cite various legal expert opinions in this fine article (from Media Matters):
SETTING THE SCENE and based on this announcement from Mr. Trump himself wherein he said in part that he will retain an ownership interest in the Trump Organization even while he serves as President as his two sons run the operation.
That statement was made on January 11 during a press conference wherein he said he would “transfer control of The Trump Organization to a trust controlled by his eldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, and Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg,” but, quickly added that he would still retain an ownership interest in the business and receive reports on its finances. Therein lies the legal problems as follows.
Trump’s attorney said the company would also appoint an in-house ethics consultant to review future actions and cancel pending foreign deals. Ethics experts later said these measures were insufficient to resolve conflict of interest concerns. [Reported on by Forbes, 1/11/17; CNN Money, 1/11/17; and the New York Times, 1/12/17]
Now legal opinions from government ethics experts:
Kathleen Clark says that under that plan, Mr. Trump “Will receive money from Foreign Governments and that is what is Prohibited.” In an interview with Media Matters, Ms. Clark, a law professor at Washington University School of Law, and legal ethics expert, raised the Emoluments Clause in criticizing Trump’s business plan with the word: “prohibited.”
Then from these three ethics legal experts: (1) Norman Eisen, a former Obama administration ethics attorney and current chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; (2) Richard Painter, a former Bush administration ethics attorney and current vice chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; and (3) Laurence Tribe, a leading expert on constitutional law and professor at Harvard University Law School.
In their summary, Painter, Eisen, and Tribe conclude that the Emoluments Clause of Constitution requires a total divestment in business interests by Trump and his children, with the divestment process conducted by “an independent third party, who can then turn the resulting assets over to a true blind trust.” Their analysis also explains that Mr. Trump turning over his business operations to his children would not constitute such a blind trust.

That Emoluments Clause is explained this way:

“Under the text and purpose of the Emoluments Clause, a “blind trust” in which Mr. Trump’s children manage his assets and run the business is wholly deficient since payments made (and benefits conferred) by foreign states and their agents would still qualify as “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever.”

More Legal Views:

All of the concerns about blurred loyalties animating the Clause would remain fully implicated. Blindness in this context works only if neither side can reasonably conclude that the seemingly opaque “wall” is actually a one-way mirror that the other side can see through.”

[...]

Commentators have proposed a dizzying array of possible solutions to Mr. Trump’s oncoming Emoluments Clause violation. But the only true solution is for Mr. Trump and his children to divest themselves of all ownership interests in the Trump business empire. That divestment process must be run by an independent third party, who can then turn the resulting assets over to a true blind trust. Even if, as some experts believe, there is nothing that Mr. Trump could do to avoid the significant tax consequences of divesting, fidelity to the Constitution, and to American foreign policy and national security interests, manifestly overcomes all such loss to Mr. Trump or his immediate family (who will remain extremely wealthy, in all events). [Reported on by the Brookings Institute, 12/16/16]

Worthwhile note: According to Eisen and Painter: “Every President in the past four decades has taken Personal Holdings they had before being elected and put them into a Blind Trust in which the assets were controlled by an Independent Party.” [Reported on in the New York Times, 11/30/16]

Finally these two legal opinions:
1.  Mr. Tribe called the Trump “scheme” simply a “deceptive web of mumbo-jumbo rather than a serious way to comply with his constitutional oath.”
Tribe then addresses the Emoluments Clause criticisms directly this way:
“It is important to stress that the ethics officer [that Trump] proposes to install wouldn’t have true independence, and anyway it’s not only that particular transactions would be unethical; it’s that the whole phony setup would make President Trump a living, walking, talking, tweeting violation of the Emoluments Clause each time banks or funds linked to foreign sovereigns are allowed to take steps that Trump will necessarily know are enriching the total value of his family’s mega-business.” [Reported on in Law Newz, 1/11/17]
2.  From Attorney Joshua Matz, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and current appellate litigator, explains this way:
“But Trump’s new plan falls woefully short. His continued ownership interest in the Trump Organization will keep his financial welfare tied to the business. And nobody seriously believes that the affairs of the company will truly become mysterious to Trump.
“To the contrary, he generally will know exactly what assets the company holds and how they will be helped or hindered by his actions. Foreign powers, too, will act with awareness (or at least suspicion) that benefits conferred on Trump enterprises – if not in the form of deals, then in a thousand other forms – may elicit favor or wrath from President Trump.
“Notably, the Trump Organization simply cannot turn over to the US treasury all profit from interactions with foreign powers. For example, consider the significant benefit conferred by a foreign state that decides to host a series of widely advertised functions at a local Trump hotel, greatly increasing the property’s cultural cachet and thus markedly boosting its profit margins and those of other properties branded “Trump”.
“For these and other reasons, Trump will remain in violation of the emoluments clause even if he adheres to this plan. While his lawyer denied that the clause applies to “fair value exchanges” – presumably as distinguished from sweetheart deals – that conclusion defies common sense.” [Reported on in the Guardian, 1/12/17]
Finally, America I ask all of us and more so to all of the Trump voters this simple question: “What the hell have we done?”

So, I guess, stay tuned. BTW: Mr. Trump said in his swearing in speech that the country is in the hands of the voters… So, are we about to see government and the country run by instant polls say from Fox or across Talk Radio la-la land? Whew boy… rough times ahead, folks. Extreme caution needed. Hang on tight.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

CBO-JCT Combined Impact Report of Repealing Obama-care in One Word: Duck...!!!

THE GOP REPLACEMENT PLAN
[click image for larger view as if we needed larger view]

THE GOP REPLACEMENT PLAN IMPACT
[click image for larger map]


Combined synopsis from NY Times and Fiscal Times about repealing the ACA (Obama-care) impact:
The nonpartisan CBO said today (see their .pdf 4 page report here) (January 17, 2017) that repealing major provisions of the Affordable Care Act, while leaving other parts in place, would cost 18 million people their insurance in the first year and could increase the number of uninsured Americans by 32 million in 10 years, while causing insurance premiums to double over that time.
A little more than a year ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated the budgetary effects of H.R. 3762 (Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015), which would repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — eliminating, in two steps, the law’s mandate penalties and subsidies but leaving the ACA’s insurance market reforms in place.
1.  Eliminate the tax penalties for people who go without insurance.
2.  Eliminate spending for the expansion of Medicaid and subsidies that help lower-income people buy private insurance.
3.  Requires insurers to provide coverage at standard rates for any one even regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.
4.  Eliminating the mandate penalties and the subsidies while retaining the market reforms would destabilize the non-group market, and the effect would worsen over time.
Estimates an increase of 32 million people without coverage by 2026 results due to three changes.
(1) 23 million fewer people would have coverage in the individual insurance market.
(2) 19 million fewer people would have Medicaid coverage.
(3) Those changes would be partly offset by an increase in the number of people with employment-based insurance (so, would more employers pick up that slack).

My conclusion for what it’s worth: GOP changes that Trump insists on immediately implementing surely takes us back to the pre-ACA (Obamacare) years and thus “Back to the Future” as it were. So, where are Marty McFly and Doc Brown – fire up the DeLorean, boys, we have a new trip planned in this version of the GOP's installment.
And, hang on tight – wow – talk about “Death Panels” they are coming for sure. Seems that Palin was right all along, um (but for the wrong party).


Friday, January 13, 2017

Come on Mr. and Mrs. GOP Make Up Your Mind: Hate ACA or Love ACA

Conflicted GOP (Super PR Stunt)
[click image for larger view]

GOP Plan for the ACA (Obama-care)
(Oops, no replacement plan right now)
[click image for larger view, but not really necessary]

Historical Healthcare Cost Facts
[click chart for larger view]

FROM the Heritage Foundation and their PAC: “Heritage Action”
It simply cannot be overstated, S. CON. RES. 3 represents the only mechanism to expedite the Obamacare repeal process and thus deliver on six years of campaign promises.”
(I Note: So a campaign promise is the key to tossing 20 million Americans under the bus or in the nearest sewer - I see, I see).
(Updated: It did pass the Senate 51-48 and the House (235-188) straight party line with 4 GOPers who did not vote. The 4 are pending Trump nominees for higher office).
And the Heritage threat or promise to the GOP (mostly to the GOP): We support S. CON. RES 3 and will include it as a key vote on our legislative scorecard to measure how members voted.
Let’s be very clear on this S. Con Resolution 3 (Senate Concurrent Resolution number 3) is NOT law. So, what are concurrent resolutions? (Mostly flair for political points back home).
1.  It is a resolution passed by both the House and Senate but is not presented to the President and does not have the force of law.
2.  In contrast, joint resolutions and bills are presented to the President and once signed, or approved over a veto, then if enacted, have the full force of law.
Concurrent resolutions are generally used to address the sentiments of both chambers or to deal with issues or matters affecting both houses. Examples of what concurrent resolution address are things like the budget and spending limits and now today, set the scene to repeal the ACA (Obama-care). 
Current Resolutions do not have the full force of law based on a 1983 USSC decision that ruled the practice was unconstitutional the case of INS v. Chadha 462 U.S. 919. And thus ended that practice since they were also sometimes used to override executive actions via a mechanism known as the legislative veto, thus not legal.
More from those whacko’s at the Heritage:
The importance of repealing Obamacare is more than simply fulfilling a campaign promise; it is about beginning the process of expanding choice in and lowering costs of a health care system that is currently bankrupting the nation, hurting hardworking Americans, and slowing economic growth.  There is no mystery why Americans, on everyday matters that directly concern them, continue to oppose the ACA law (Obamacare) law. Those reasons:  
1.  Health insurance premiums continue to burden businesses and families.
2.  Obamacare generates big and surprising out-of-pocket costs.
3.  Obamacare reduces insurance competition and consumer choice.
4.  Obamacare destroys jobs and discourages employment.
5.  The overall health care cost curve is “bending” upward.
6.  Obamacare imposes major tax increases on America’s middle class.
7.  Medicare payment cuts threaten seniors’ future access to care.
8.  Obamacare increases deficits and debt.
9.  Obamacare forces Americans, in direct violation of their rights of conscience, to fund abortion through their own tax dollars.
10.  Obamacare imposes arbitrary rules and costly mandates.

I say the GOP’s hatred for Mr. Obama still drives this argument and has since 2010 (when it became law) and probably ever since Mr. Obama took office nearly a full 8 years ago (Noon on Jan 20, 2009) even as the country faced the darkest economic days since the Great Depression. In short, this GOP has no shame, yet they remain shameful.

Their illogical argument follows: Obama is bad and thus so are his policies awful, just terrible, horrible in fact (sounds like words Trump repeats in the same sentence), so we must repeal and replace the ACA (Obamacare) and everything he ever signed into law or by Executive Order since 2009 and then erase any record of him ever even have serve as president…
Related sites with good info:
1.  ABC News.
2.  Kaiser Family Foundation (good health care trackers).
So, can the GOP be one huge bunch of liars and fact seekers at the same time? I say nope, but watch them try their darndest.
Let’s hear it, boys–all together now: Waa Hoo…!!! Now, a timely valid message for the GOP: 






Wednesday, January 11, 2017

POP QUIZ: Spot and Identify the Rex Tillerson BS in His Senate Testimony

THEN: Vlad I Addressed Sanctions — Not Lobby for or Against
(Wink/Wink)

NOW: We at Exxon Lobbied on Sanctions — Not for or Against
(We Didn't Even Like Sanctions)

Introduction: George Orwell, author of “1984” introduced us to the words doublethink and newspeak, but the one word he DIDN'T use, which actually combines the two is: “Doublespeak.”


Doublespeak is saying one thing and meaning another, usually its opposite like he wrote saying that when BIG BROTHER (government) and the Party say PEACE they mean WAR; when they say LOVE they mean HATE; and when they say FREEDOM they mean SLAVERY.

Well that is the same kind of doublespeak we got in the below exchange between Sen. Corker and Rex Tillerson during Tillerson’s Senate confirmation hearing regarding his nomination for Secretary of State.

See if you can spot the slick bullshit lingo in this exchange from Tillerson during that hearing (January 11, 2017).

The full article comes from here and has this headline under the picture of Tillerson testifying:

Trump Nominee Says Exxon Didn’t Lobby Against Russia Sanctions, Despite Evidence It Did

Initially during the hearing, Tillerson was emphatic when describing Exxon’s lobbying, saying point blank:  “I never lobbied against the sanctions. To my knowledge, Exxon Mobil has not lobbied against the sanctions.”
Sen. Corker (R-TN), seemingly confused, interjected, saying: “I think you called me at the time.” 
Then Corker called for an early break before noon. When questioning reopened, Corker’s first question back to Tillerson was to ask him to clarify his earlier statement about the sanctions line of questioning. Corker asked the question this way:Has Exxon simply lobbied on sanctions rather than “against” them?
Tillerson quickly responded:Senator that is correct.”
Then Tillerson just as quickly added to that:I never lobbied against the sanctions. That characterization that Exxon Mobil lobbied against the sanctions is just inaccurate.”
Tillerson’s former employer (ExxonMobile) echoed that latest explanation, saying:As our former chairman said, we provided information about impact of sanctions, but did not lobby against sanctions. The lobby disclosure reports you cited do not contradict his testimony.” (This was provided by Alan Jeffers, a spokesperson for Exxon who spoke to that and to BuzzFeed News).
Background: In 2014, as President Obama began sanctioning Russia for the annexation of Crimea, there were at least three proposed pieces of legislation that, among other things, upped military aid to Ukraine and issue sanctions specifically against Russian energy firms.
Exxon lobbied on all three of those proposals, Congressional filings show even though the filings don’t indicate the details of Exxon’s lobbying effort, Tillerson himself made the company’s views clear at the time in 2014, saying clearly:We do not support sanctions, generally (Tillerson told shareholders) We don’t find them to be effective unless they are very well-implemented comprehensively — and that’s a very hard thing to do.”
Do you see my point in all this? Keep in mind, this is not just a case of clarifying previous words – this is a blatant effort to redesign the original words with clear intent to deceive and cover up possible real motives of Tillerson and about his stated views and purpose if confirmed to get the sanctions lifted for both Russian and ExxonMobil benefit and a huge, huge profit.
Doublespeak – dare I say (but not too loudly)? BTW: I hope you easily spotted the disconnect (the deceptive wording)… clever, but not for me, and I’m sure (and hopefully) not for you.

My final simple Q: How can someone lobby ON something without being FOR or AGAINST that something?
Thanks for coming by… Oh, yeah Tillerson should not get the SOS job, but with this majority of GOPers in charge, well… he will, sadly.

Monday, January 9, 2017

Ignore Time-tested Traditions, Values, and Principles: Market Only the Trump Name

Renaming the Past 

Trump Aims for New Prize
(The country first, then the world)

Things are moving very fast — the latest: Trump will appoint his son-in-law Jared Kushner as special white council… skirting the anti-nepotism law of 1967 or conflicts of interest laws, which all GOPers seem to think is his prerogative as President. Consider this brash statement by Rudy Giuliani on CNN recently: “You do realize that those laws don’t apply to the president, right?”
These are all possible scenarios. But most likely of all is Trump’s option of keeping family members close by, treating them as advisers and informally involving them in presidential business. It’s hard to imagine Trump’s children won’t be frequent guests at the White House. If they’re in the building, there’s little to prevent them from joining the action, even if they’re running the Trump Organization at the same time. There are few ways to stop this outcome.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, charged with monitoring the anti-nepotism law might find it hard to claim jurisdiction over the president. The courts, an obvious limiting authority, might call a president’s personnel practices a “political question” and decline to weigh in and Trump would love that scenario beyond any doubt.
The oath of office that every president takes is to swear or affirm “…to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution” and by extension all laws contained therein, expect I guess laws that Donald J. Trump wants to skirt or totally disregard like this one regarding son-in-law appointment as Special White House counsel. Seems he will comply with laws that he approves of and to test as many others as possible along the way to his achieved end, which is to enrich the Trump family name brand on a much wider national and international stage, which is painfully clear. More examples are:

1.  Trump team tells Ambassadors to be out of office on inauguration day – no exceptions… more or less, just pack it in and get out.

2.  Trump would sell America to pay the debt and make a profit in an April 2016 interview with Washington Post and from here on the same subject.


4.  Trump and GOP run congress both say taxpayers may end up paying for Trump’s wall until deal is made with Mexico to reimburse as Trump promised.

With all of the business-types we see nominated for office, including now, his own son-in-law (discussed above) will Trump and they all try to run the country like some new business acquisition? How about we cite this incredible story from China first with this short instruction to illustrate this question:
As Trump betrays our nation to Putin in some sort of act of treason he is also handing the biggest source of new good jobs to China according to (1) this Think Progress article and (2) this from International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
Just as Trump plans to cut clean energy spending hear at home, we see this from China: 
1.  Beijing’s newest 5-year energy development plan invests a stunning 2.5 trillion yuan ($360 billion) in renewable generation by 2020.
2.  Of that, $144 billion will go to solar, about $100 billion to wind, $70 billion to hydro-power, and the rest to sources like tidal and geothermal power.
3.  The Chinese National Energy Administration said in a statement the resulting “employment will be more than 13 million people.”
4.  China is already doing way better than the U.S. in this regard, and President-elect Trump’s commitment to opposing clean energy will not make things any better.
Further, as IRENA reported last year, China already has over 40 percent of all jobs in renewables, globally, while the U.S. has under 10 percent (refer to the chart below).
So, while Mr. Trump is out there lying about being the savior of a few hundred jobs here and there (Carrier, et al) all the while he has plans to ignore the biggest growth market to come around perhaps since the IT boom.
Time will tell, but folks, it ain’t pretty in this early development stage; not by a long shot.
As always stay tuned and thanks for stopping by.


Saturday, January 7, 2017

Night Scene After Snowfall January 5-6, 2017 and Prior Year With Two Deer

Night tree scene in my front lawn  
(January 5-6, 2017)


Same tree night scene with two deer forging for grass 
(January 13, 2016)


My front lawn: A simple FYI post for those who ever get heavy snow or deer in their yard (or both), even in the city like we do often.





Thursday, January 5, 2017

Intelligence Report Blames Russia Without Doubt Except for Trump

Let the Word Go Forth All Across Mother Russia
(Midnight: November 8, 2016)

[​IMG]
Ensure President Putin Knows About Comrade Donald’s Win 
(Oh, don’t worry, he knew before anyone else)

Russians were somewhat neutral about Trump election night victory and they showed amazing Russkie restraint and pooh-pooh about their hacking and influence, etc. etc., etc. Their calm is amazing... utterly amazing as reflected above, oh, except for this teeny tiny tidbit as it were: 


Everyone is content that any suspicions or doubt they had before have now been confirmed by this report, that is everyone except Donald J. Trump. He is still not content or satisfied. He still blames the CIA for being late about releasing the report as Trump claimed. He even said so in one of those infamous Trump tweets. 

Here is a screen shot of that tweet:


The “Intelligence” briefing on so-called “Russian hacking” was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!

(Note: It was always scheduled for release today, Thursday, Jan 5, 2017 to President Obama first (aw promised) and to Congress and committee chairs for their hearings and inquiries (e.g., Sen. McCain example). 

He was always scheduled to be briefed on Friday and that is after the sitting president was properly briefed first, not the one in waiting.

Trump is lying about any delay, but what the hell, lying is his middle name – it’s SOP with him – comes natural. Sad, isn’t it – that this man will actually be in the Oval Office on Jan 20th?

And, already Trump is pledging to “revamp” the entire Intelligence apparatus to fit how he thinks it should operate. Any bets that our enemies won’t be taking notes?

Also, sorry, folks, a Rick Perry “oops” won’t suffice by the time Trump is done tinkering with the CIA, FBI, NSA, HSD, DNI’s office, and everything in between.

The damage the incoming Trump administration can do, if they get their way, will be enormous and I predict set back our country for decades… we should be improving things we have now, not redesigning them to fit the Trump failed business model.

But, it appears to be kind of late isn’t it, Mr. and Mrs. GOP in charge – but, hey, it’s up to you now – do your duty for the people as you always profess... 

Thanks for coming by.

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Donald J. Trump: Trail of Lies, Denial, Deception, Practices, and False Hope

A Funny Cartoon Yet Very Serious 
(Makes the point about denial)

Take Your Pick: Compulsive or Pathological Lying 
(Can’t be both, right)

This medical introduction to the following post that is both timely and I think strongly warranted at this point in American presidential history – enjoy.
Donald Trump: Documented Trail of Lies, Denial, and Deceit
Introduction and Background:
Compulsive lying often develops when individuals are very young and heightens with age when more opportunities for fabrication are presented. Gradually throughout childhood and adolescence into adulthood, lying becomes more and more frequent, eliciting a sense of control in the affected individuals. 
They experience a sense of power over situations when they lie and become uneasy and uncomfortable when forced to tell the truth. Soon enough, dishonesty becomes habit, which then leads to classification in the compulsive lying disorder category.
Compulsive Lying Disorder: This is frequently confused with pathological lying, but it’s important to recognize the difference between the two.
1.  Compulsive liars engage in dishonesty because it is their automatic response to questions and situations.
2.  Pathological liars skilled at manipulation of people and to achieve their goals with complete disregard for the feelings of others.
However, both compulsive and pathological lying is associated with antisocial personality disorder, more commonly known as “psychopathic behavior.” For more information about the various aspects of personality that can make an individual more or less susceptible to developing disorders such as the ones described above, take a look at this course on the psychology of personality.
Now to this post as I try to tie the above afflictions into the Mr. Trump’s argument that the Affordable Care Act (ACA – Obama-care) “doesn’t work and provides lousy healthcare.”

Mr. Trump continues to have former President Bill Clinton saying the ACA law is “crazy” and that Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton said the law “is no longer affordable.”

But both comments are lifted out of context – Fact Check proves it.

Mr. Trump has vowed all along to work with Congress to repeal and replace President Obama’s signature legislation (the ACA) soon after he takes office on January 20 at high noon. Indeed, on January 3, the new all-GOP Congress took the first step toward that repeal of the law.

And, on the same day, Trump took to twitter (his fav pastime it seems) to argue that even Democrats who once supported the law now think it is bad, ergo: The Clinton and Dayton quotes out of context. He began by referring to comments back in October from former President Clinton, who at the time was campaigning for his wife, Hillary:

People must remember that ObamaCare just doesn't work, and it is not affordable - 116% increases (Arizona). Bill Clinton called it “CRAZY.”

His second tweet a mere five minutes later referenced comments made by Gov. Dayton:

The Democrat Governor of Minnesota said “The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is no longer affordable!” – And it is lousy healthcare.

In both cases, Trump shortened the quotes to present them in a light less favorable than a fuller context reveals. Further, and in both cases above, Clinton and Dayton made comments critical of the ACA, but both said they remained supporters of the law and blamed Republicans for refusing to make changes to improve it.
Thus, I now more firmly believe and much documentation proves me correct as well as hundreds of others including medical experts that Donald J. Trump is one or both or combination of the liars described above. Do you agree or not? That is expanded on a bit more below:
Sociopathic Liars: Defined as someone who lies continuously in an attempt to get their own way, without showing care or concern for others. They are goal-oriented.  Even though it might seem hard to believe, lying is focused – they are focused on getting their own waySociopaths don’t have a lot of respect or regard for the feelings and rights of others. They tend to be charismatic and charming, but they will use their exceptional social skills in a self-centered and manipulative manner.
Compulsive Liars: Defined as someone who continually lies from sheer habit, and tends to be their normal manner of responding to any questions from others. They will always bend the truth, regardless of how small or large the question is. For them, telling the truth doesn’t feel right. They are uncomfortable whenever they tell the truth, while lying makes them feel right. Their lying is often thought to manifest during childhood, due to being put into situations and environments where lying became a necessity. Most of the time, compulsive liars aren’t cunning or manipulative, rather they only lie because it has become such a habit for them.
All the country can do now is wait and watch (mostly his tweets on policy or some raw insult about others for us to absorb). Thus, what to expect or will comes about in the upcoming Trump administration leaves a lot of blank spaces. 
In all honestly taking all that Trump has said and done up to this point does not foreshadow well for the ending to this dramatic story, at least in my opinion.
Stay tuned.