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 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

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 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 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.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Trump Dislikes the DOJ, the FBI, Due Process, and the Federal Prison System

Trump Follows the Putin Model: I am the only one in charge — No One Else
(You, sit down and STFU)

AKRON, OH [Reuters] – GOP nominee Donald Trump urged the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if donors to the Clinton Foundation got special treatment from the State Department when it was run by his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

Trump accused former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, his opponent in this race, of turning the Clinton Foundation charity into a “pay-for-play scheme” in which wealthy donors, foreign and domestic, got favors from the State Department during Hillary Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as Secretary of State.

Trump then went on again to fault the DOJ and FBI both for not indicting Clinton over her use of her private email server saying FBI Director James Comey cited her careless handling of classified emails but opted not to prosecutor her. (Trump and GOPers have been furious ever since about that outcome).

Trump further said: “The Justice Department is required to appoint a special prosecutor because it has proved to be, sadly, a political arm of the White House. Nobody has ever seen anything like it before.” (I guess he forget Richard Nixon)?

This latest appeal also comes on the same day a conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, released 725 pages of State Department documents, including some it said were examples of preferential treatment provided to donors at the request of former Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

Trump then continued in the speech appealing to black voter saying that Democratic politicians had not been able to stem crime and poverty in inner cities despite pledges to do every election year, adding: “I say it and I'm going to keep saying it and some people say: Wow that makes sense and some people say: That's not very nice. And I say it with such a deep-felt feeling, what do you have to lose? We’ll bring jobs back. We’ll bring spirit back. We'll get rid of the crime.”

Now I wade in: Okay, Mr. Trump, fair enough – now tell us how you would do those things and be specific not just “we’ll do this or that, etc. Fill in the blanks.”

Just simply lay out your specific policy proposals that you would try to get passed as Federal policy and then implemented across the board in the country coast to coast.

Oh, yeah, just skip the part about it being okay for Americans to be held and processed with due process justice in Gitmo just like you said recently in remarks reported on in the Miami Herald and seen in this short video.

Let’s be honest shall we. To me, and I’m sure to millions of others, Trump is certifiably nuts and continue to be a man totally out of control with his one-man show and need to be front and center all by himself. All the while he would blast everything and fire any cabinet official probably on a weekly if not daily basis while keeping only ass-kissers and family members nearby as props to explain is actions probably on Twitter and Facebook

That has been his style all his life – and he is in capable of change in any way except to benefit himself. He would be more likely to resign office if he did not get his way 100% of the time … I think that aspect is certain.

Thank for stopping by.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Trump Wants To Cut Off Internet Access to ISIS and Other Similar Groups

“Shut Down the Internet” – How Do I Know – Just a Suggestion

Very good article follows by Bree Fowler, AP Technology Writer (The Associated Press) (little changes in format to fit the blog – otherwise fully intact).

INTRODUCTION NEW YORK (AP) -- Donald Trump constantly has called for the U.S. and allies to cut off Internet access to the ISIS and other extremist organizations. Problem is, there isn't a way to do it. Trump first made the demand during a debate back in December, saying in part that the government should work with “brilliant people in Silicon Valley to keep violent extremists offline, even if that means shutting down parts of the Internet.”

But that's not possible from a technical standpoint. The U.S. can't turn off the Internet in other parts of the world. And even if could, such a move would likely hurt more than potential attackers, and it would hinder the government's ability to keep tabs on them.

Here's a look at Trump's idea and why it won't work.

More recently, in another speech Trump blamed Hillary Clinton and President Obama for the rise of ISIS and the instability in the Middle East, he pledged to pursue military operations to “crush and destroy ISIS,” adding that Internet attacks and financial warfare will be essential in dismantling Islamic terrorism and concluding: “We cannot allow the Internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy. We must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.” His proposed actions wouldn't be limited to ISIS as he singled out al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah as necessary targets.

THE FIRST OBSTACLE IS THE INTERNET ITSELF: The U.S. doesn't control the Internet – no one does because the Internet is a global web of networks that are all owned by different governments, companies or individuals, no single entity has the ability to turn it off in parts of the world that it doesn't control.

The only recourse is to destroy the electric grid and other infrastructure in that region — but that's extreme, and it still might not work with the availability of power generators and such. Even within the U.S., ferreting out extremist groups and kicking them off the Internet isn't realistic, given how rapidly the Internet grows and changes. And people have a long history of finding their way around Internet restrictions, whether it's democracy activists in China or Iran, or tweens looking to circumvent their school's firewall.

THE SECOND OBSTACLE IS THE SOCIAL MEDIA: Groups such as the Islamic State have mastered social media for recruiting and spreading their message. Both Twitter and Facebook say they don't tolerate posts that promote violence and will remove such posts when reported by users. Accounts linked to such activity are shut down. Twitter said Thursday that it's suspended 235,000 accounts for the promotion of terrorism over the past six months. But there's nothing stopping banned users from opening new accounts under different names, turning such efforts into the equivalent of “Whack-a-Mole.” So far, Internet companies have resisted preemptively blocking posts, partly because that would require judgment calls about what constitutes terrorism — a definition that differs around the world.

THIRD OBSTACLE (the main one that Trump apparently does not like one bit) IS THAT PESKY FIRST AMENDMENT: Civil libertarians say any attempt to filter out the online activities of extremist groups would inevitably infringe on the free-speech rights of Americans, because it's impossible to block out that speech without blocking legitimate speech, too. While First Amendment protections don't extend to people in other countries, the law enforcement and intelligence communities have mixed feelings about shutting down terrorist chatter online. They say such chatter can help them monitor terrorist activities and prevent a future attack.

THE FOURTH OBSTACLE IS WHAT DO ABOUT CYBER WARFARE: Trump says cyber warfare is one of his key strategies for destroying extremists, but it's not an entirely novel concept.

In theory, hackers for the U.S. or its allies could mount an Internet attack to shut down a terrorist group's recruiting or communications operations, or they could just hack in to surveil the group. While they may not admit it, most countries that have spies now have state-sponsored hackers, too. Many of them see cyber warfare as a cheaper and safer alternative to traditional military action, sanctioned or otherwise. China is widely thought to be behind last year's hack of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. And some experts believe Russia is behind the recent breach targeting the DNC and other DEM Party entities.

Many experts say the U.S. and Israel fired the first shot of the cyber warfare age and were both behind Stuxnet (explained here and also seen in this 10-minute  video). Stuxnet was (and still is) a computer virus that disrupted an Iranian uranium-enrichment facility beginning in 2010 and set back Iran's nuclear ambitions. Neither the U.S. nor Israel has acknowledged any involvement.

My summary: Thinking and proposing things the way Trump does is one thing and encouraged by anyone running for the office, but folks, what he proposes flies in the face of logic, common sense, and any semblance of rational or proven facts about most of anything. The man is shallow when it comes to politics and government and running the country let alone our national defense. He may be good in business and even that is suspect in some circles and logically he should be nowhere near the Oval Office except maybe on a guided tour, even if that is possible, either.

Donald J. Trump is potentially a very serious menace to our entire system and processes of government, cherished freedoms, liberty, and even our basic and overall security (this from the Washington Post). That is not a narrow view from any rabid partisan standpoint, either. It is my honest assessment of Mr. Trump, and I’m pretty sure it’s the same view of millions of others. But, will find out for sure in November won’t we? Hang on tight ~ ~ ~

Thanks for stopping by.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

“The Making of Donald Trump” Out in Print for the World to Read and Evaluate

A Book for Your Library or Kindle

A man that needed closer scrutiny long before now. Why wasn’t this out months ago?

Why has this information been on the “back burner?” I suppose it was timing to wait for David Cay Johnston book to come out? Well, it's out and so is his interview, seen below. It is a great investigative report and analysis as well as very excellent interview.  David Cay Johnston is a very smart man, well-informed, extremely savvy, well-spoken, and a Pulitzer Prize investigative reporter who also is an expert on taxes.

Related from here with Bill Moyers. This below interview about 15 minutes. Enjoy, and thanks for stopping by. Feel free to share the video with others.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Donald J. Trump has a Serious Medical Affliction: Foot in Mouth Disease

Trump: Size 10 Shoe Strong Possible 

Two key issues today that run in tandem about my accurate caricature of Donald J. Trump, who has become the GOP banner carrier and de factor Republican Party leader with his nomination for President:

First Issue from The Hill: Just imagine if these 50 top Republican national security officials are against Trump, how millions of others must feel or have felt all along.

Today (Monday, August 8, 2016) they penned a letter warning that Donald Trump doesn’t have the experience to serve as president and would jeopardize the country’s safety (The New York Times).

The letter, signed by aides and Cabinet members of past GOP administrations included that of George W. Bush and Richard Nixon. They declared that none of them (the officials) will vote for the GOP nominee because they “are convinced that he would be a dangerous president and would put at risk our Country’s national security and well-being, saying specifically:

“Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about the belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”

Some of those prominent officials include:
  • Michael Hayden (former director of both the CIA and NSA,
  • Michael Chertoff (former Secretary of Homeland Security for both Mr. Bush and then President Obama),
  • John Negroponte (former director of National Intelligence under Mr. Bush,
  • Tom Ridge (former first Director of HSD under Mr. Bush and former governor of PA.

Others who had served as trade representatives, national security advisers, and ambassadors were the other signers.

Second Issue from here and other sources: This ties into the part I highlighted above (in red), with this headlines:

Trump comments about Somalis stir outrage from Minnesota to Maine


Donald Trump’s comments about Minnesota Somalis and from here have drawn outrage among Muslim Americans in those two states (MN and ME) that have large refugee populations.

For example, at a rally in Maine, Trump quoted a 2015 Washington Times article about Minnesota’s resettlement of Somali refugees, saying the state has become a “rich pool of potential recruiting targets for ISIS and other Islamic terror groups.”

Note: Since 2014, there have been at least nine Minnesota men arrested for allegedly plotting to join ISIS in Syria – punishment has to date for all nine has been swift:

In June, three: Guled Omar (21), Mohamed Farah, and Abdirahman Daud (both 22), were found guilty by a federal jury.

Six others had already pleaded guilty to the terror charges.

Trump continued his pitch: “It’s happening. It’s happening. You see it and you read about it. You see it. And you can be smart, and you can be cunning and tough, or you can be very, very dumb and not want to see what’s going on, folks.”

Minnesota’s Somali community — population estimated to be at more than 70,000 — was quick to condemn Trump’s comments and so did Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison (D), the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. He called Trump’s comments “nonsense.”

So, the caricature stands as a stark reminder of what country has to ponder and measure between now and November 8, 2016. Stay tuned, and as always thanks for stopping by.

I honestly think this is the GOP’s Trump dilemma:

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Scrabble: Pick a Word, Phrase, Definition, or Emotion to Define Trump

This Donald J. Trump: Wants to be President

I very seldom ever use the word “hate” that is directed towards any person. I hate the lousy weather, I hate the service at xyz place, I hate my Cable Company, etc.  But, right now at this point in our politics, I hate Donald J. Trump.

For all he has ever said in this campaign, all the name-calling, all the cheap childish insults, and his string of utter nonsense and outright lies and fear-mongering I make that statement. 

See this short clip that drives that point home just recently:

Definition of traitor from Cornell Law:

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Trump is a nasty evil man. If he were to resemble anyone or anything in this life or the next, it would be this character hands down:

Yes, that Donald J. Trump, seeks to be our next President. That must never happen.

Thanks for stopping by. His rant about Army Sgt. Bergdahl pushed me over the line today — maybe it did you, too.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Military's Freedom of Speech vs. Political Involvement: Easy Rules of the Road

Active Duty Military: One Simple Rule
(After service like any other American)

What the Country Should Do
(including Donald Trump)

Somewhat timely subject: Is the military being dragged into the political race? If so, how, but more importantly, what is the long-term impact, if any?

For example, Chairman, JCS, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford recently reminded current senior officers (those still on active duty) to remain apolitical so that the next Commander-in-Chief (CINC) has the trust and the confidence that the military in his own words: “… is completely loyal and completely prepared to do what must be done. Importantly, as an institution, the American people cannot be looking at us as a special-interest group or a partisan organization. I will exercise my right to vote, but no one knows the lever I pull.”

(My insert: I totally agree with that statement and I believe it still applies across the board at least from my view and experience and watchful eyes and ears over the years).

Gen. Martin Dempsey (more from him here) and others, including Duke University military historian Peter Feaver, all acknowledge that political participation by retired generals and admirals is not new.

For example: Army Five-Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was a Republican, is still the most-recent former General Officer to be elected president although Retired Army General Wesley Clark ran for the White House as a Democrat in 2004. Then Retired Army General Colin Powell served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, and he had been seen as a prospective presidential candidate in the past. So all that is not new.

However, (now that infamous however or but): However, the difference many critics argue is that when Generals run for office, they become politicians and are held accountable by the public.

In the current cases we see and hear today, retired officers are simply using their military status to endorse a candidate without being held accountable by the public.

My final note: I can agree with this all except the final premise about NOT being accountable to the public if they speak out after service. Retired officers or enlisted members of the Armed Forces for that matter have served the nation faithfully and loyally and speaking out after retirement should not have any restrictions. As far as being accountable to the public – not a deal breaker of an issue of great concern.

They have from my experience served the public and the nation as a whole in a bi-partisan, non-threatening political fashion while on active duty being accountable to their chain-of-command the country. That is has been and should remain so.

After their service, all bets are off. They are and should remain free to speak their minds openly anywhere and at any time just every other American exercising that right of free speech. They have protected and earned that right, but after service is the key point.

Related – FYI:

PRI - 

NPR - 

The Hill - 

Thanks for stopping by – hope you enjoyed the stay.

Monday, August 1, 2016

Trump Gives Hateful Labels — For Him: DDT: Double-Down Tweetnut Donald

How Trump Sees Himself Each Time He Passes a Mirror

Trump Team Says He is Evolving
(He sees himself)

Heavily opinionated and for good reason: It's all true.

How does Trump react when confronted with this own words and actions? Does he apologize or rephrase the original words or insults – nope he doubles down or worse, blames the person or group of persons – like he combat death of Army Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim-American KIA in Iraq in 2004 who was mentioned a the DNC by his father Khiz Khan.

Case in point: Eleven Gold Star Families penned a letter to Trump demanding an apology for “repugnant and personally offensive” remarks he made toward the parents of Capt. The letter was published by Vote Vets Action Fund, the progressive advocacy wing of the political action committee for Vote

The letter, released Sunday night, comes after Trump's response to the parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan, who made headlines at the Democratic National Convention last week. Khizr Khan gave a speech in which he called Trump's proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S. unconstitutional, while making the dramatic gesture of pulling a copy of the Constitution from his pocket and asking Trump directly: “Have you even read the United States Constitution?”

Khan went on to say that Trump had “sacrificed nothing and no one,” in his scathing rebuke of Trump. Then Trump opened fire again.

This time on the on the Sunday show ABC this week with George Stephanopoulos Trump said he had made a lot of sacrifices for the country, including employing thousands of people. Trump also insinuated that Khan’s wife Ghazala, who stood beside him as he spoke, was silent during the speech because of her religion. Mrs. Khan later told ABC News she did not speak at the convention because it would have been too painful.

“Your recent comments regarding the Khan family were repugnant, and personally offensive to us,” reads the joint letter published on Vote “When you question a mother's pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from speaking public.”

Then adding insult the original injury Trump naturally tweeted. He said his perceived lack of respect for the family of a fallen soldier served as a distraction from issues that were more pertinent to the presidential campaign and precisely tweeted:

This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!”

Trump is not correct. It is about the Khan family and their loss / not Trump’s gain, and for sure, it not about Donald J. Trump “The Insulter-in-Chief Wannabe” who wants everything all the time to be about himself and no one or anything else except that keeps him limelight no matter how or why. He is the typical me, myself, and I PR road hog.

He also almost always says: “Wake up America.”

You know what Mr. Trump that is the first thing I can agree about what you have ever said and guess what? America is wide awake and on November 8th we will put you back where you belong – back in your Ivory, no wait, Golden Tower and not in the White House. Better in the sewer where you belong with all the nasty rats.

So, yes, we are awake and we paying attention – very close attention. You sir, are about to become a piece of junk in the landfill for waste material.


Thanks for stopping by.