Nazism took hold in Germany during the worst economic depression since the Dark Ages. Most people were crushingly poor. Wheel barrels filled with useless cash rolled around cities fighting sky-rocketing inflation. People worried that it would take generations to get better, the world was pulling itself apart by the seams. In was within this difficult context, with all the suffering and fear pulsing through the German nation in that period, that Hitler rose. He blamed all of those societal ills on Jews. Hitler created the perfect group of “others” upon which his followers could pin all their pain. It didn’t matter in the least that it made no sense, that no link existed, and it was obviously meant to just enrage people. I give you Ann Coulter: Tell me again that immigration isn't the most important issue. From Ronald Reagan to this: https://t.co/EAKKKqF72Q — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 12, 2020 Now, I think it is important to note that several people on Twitter said that the textbook highlighted is from a graduate class at one of the universities, and not an 8th grade class on human sexuality. But obviously that is not the issue. That tweet went out to 2.2 million people, and forwarded to who knows how many. If you are still asking yourself what you’re missing, what Ann might be referencing which links immigration and the sex-ed issue, you’re not missing anything. There is no link. Ann created a convenient link without regard for the fact that there are completely separate, one doesn’t relate to the other. Ann Coulter is using a the Nazi tactic. She took something seen as bad, and pins that perceived evilness on the group she detests, “immigrants.” Look at some of the comments responding to her: This is sick and wrong. The DEMONRATS and their ilk need to be stopped. — Col (R) DJ Western (@DJWestern5) January 12, 2020 Apparently they don’t teach critical thinking in our military. Actually, they do, just some slip through. Plus, “Demons”? Yet another tactic. Dehumanize the people you want to crush. Takeaway their personhood. We are demons, now. There really is a fundamental mental disorder involving liberals. Science needs to study them because this is a hairline away from true mental illness! — Lena Sull (@lena_sull) January 12, 2020 And now we are mentally ill. The mentally ill require treatment, voluntary or involuntary, they are subject to someone else’s decision-making. I don’t need to belabor the point. Yes, there are a lot of responses noting that one doesn’t have anything to do with the other. After all, if that is a real textbook for 8th graders (and I seriously doubt that it is, some common sense need be applied here), then I might have some issues on just how far I’m letting the public schools go in teaching sexuality to my child. But we cannot know whether is real because we already see that an agenda is driving the accusation, one that has nothing to do with education. She is obviously engaging in propaganda. When propaganda is distributed solely to inflame hatred or violence, such as when one implies that young children are taught sexual “blood sports,” it becomes propaganda of the Nazi-type. There is no other way to put it. It is meant to fuel hatred with white […]
We speculated yesterday that McConnell might have just been sounding people out, throwing statements around, by saying he had unanimous agreement with a bought and paid for Republican party (millions to Collins), to move forward on an impeachment, utilizing rules in place during Clinton’s impeachment, which do not accommodate the record and need for testimony in this matter. Of course, McConnell cannot proactively acquit anything. And Pelosi hasn’t sent anything over, yet. On this – taking her sweet time in sending the articles over – she was using political genius rarely seen. I believe she caught McConnell off-guard. She will not send impeachment over until she has a fair agreement about the process. We aren’t the least bit surprised by McConnell. We figured he would find the most politically shameless, most politically self-satisfied, most politically cynical and most brilliant option available to McConnell. I don’t know much about the Clinton procedure, but we can trust McConnell to deliver. Can McConnell trust that the American body politic will allow him to get away with business as usual? Impeachment and war seem to be two topics that are less susceptible to the usual derp political layering. The voters aren’t fooled near as easily with respect to war and impeachment. It is starting to show: According to Rawstory, the polls are aligning against Trump in those two areas. Demands for transparency and allowance of new witnesses increased Monday after Trump’s former national security advisor John Bolton announced he would testify before the Senate if issued a subpoena. Greg Sargent opined at The Washington Post Tuesday that there “is a reasonable possibility that Bolton has a level of direct knowledge of Trump’s thinking and motives in freezing military aid to Ukraine—one of the most corrupt acts at the core of this whole scandal—that exceeds that of any other living human being.” Society wants a trial. They want to know that the matter was sufficiently investigated, and a final assessment was made based upon the evidence. Polls consistently show that up to 70% of Americans agree that the trial requires witnesses and evidence. We all also know that an innocent man doesn’t act this way. It is ironic that it has become so easy for Republicans to shamelessly do the bidding of a madman, no questions asked, that the enormity of what they are doing is lost on them. “The cover-up that Senator McConnell is engineering here has to be broken at some point and my colleagues will be put on record whether they are going to be part of aiding and abetting the Trump-McConnell cover-up,” I am not sure that Republicans actually know that the non Fox portion of the nation knows exactly what their behavior “means” as applied to Trump’s guilt or innocence. Let me summarize it as thus: For months the Republicans wailed daily about the fact that the president was denied due process, his witnesses, his evidence, always wanting that one thing it could not have. When the proceeding was controlled by Trump forces, and Trump Republicans could have whatever they wanted, with respect to witnesses and the process utilized, the only process they could trust to exonerate Trump was hiding from all the evidence, rushing all procedures, and acting as angry and put off as possible, crying “hoax” the whole […]
It says a great deal when one examines the low expectations one has now for an “acceptable” presidential speech. Nowadays, any speech in which Trump doesn’t commit, or pledge to commit, a crime is a pretty good one. I listened to Trump’s speech on Iran and didn’t notice anything too amiss, which – again – just goes to show where things stand. Because the net noticed that Trump sounded way more monotone, out of it, detached. He slurred through quite a few words. Of course nothing will really come of it. But his performance in this speech seems to have brought out some criticism with an edge to it. One cannot ignore the context. It comes a day after a phone call about bombs dropping on (Or near, we find out) US troops. He may have to actually work in this next period, maybe square up and get familiar with the issues. Anyway. Trump is high as a kite on some drug he sniffed. — parislady1492 (@parislady1492) January 8, 2020 Trump looks & sounds like he's overloaded on adderall. He's sniffing, slurring his words, robotically reading words off teleprompter. His remarks were vapid, rambling, incoherent.No substance or detail.Trump's entrance was staged like a light show. We get cheap theater. https://t.co/e7eWNerk3P — Charles Campisi (@1813Doncarlo) January 8, 2020 Every single time Donald Trump gives a major speech, he has the sniffles. This is a discussion that needs to be had. Has any major outlet every asked Donald Trump directly whether he uses Adderall? The American people have a right to know if the president has a drug dependency. This is interesting. I happen to disagree. I don’t think we have a right to know the president’s prescription drug regiment. That goes down a slippery slope on which I don’t want to step. We do have a right to know that his prescriptions and access to medicines are all being overseen properly, reviewed on occasion, that it is proper, all of that. If he is “on” a medicine that is not prescribed, well, that is an issue which touches back upon our rights because we do have a right to know if he is physically able to do the job. It also throws us right back into the whole “crime” thing. Meanwhile, Trump used this speech to both frighten the nation about his substance use, and to explain how it is that everything that is going wrong right now with respect to Iran is because a black guy used to head-up this joint that Trump runs. You know what that means. The last guy made some bad decisions, according to Trump’s speech today. It was a shame. Actually, that is the part of the speech that stands out. Trump’s hatred for Obama and Democrats deepens by the week. He had to make a half dozen (approximation) snide comments on the last administration versus what he has done. His enmity for Democrats (and especially Obama) far surpasses any for Iran. His feelings about Iran are likely neutral. What can they give him? There was some good humor that came of the criticism of the speech. It is possible that the dead-flat affect is not due to Adderall, but could be the result of a tranquilizer. The biggest, and most consequential dose ever distributed. whoever […]
The brazen killing of Iran’s second most important leader, General Qassem Soleimani, a revolutionary freedom fighter with enough personal charm and charisma to be worshiped as a folk hero, and considered as a presidential candidate, was not the smoothest move that the United States could have made in foreign policy. But then, we have a person in power who has not the slightest clue about diplomacy. Diplomacy is about a step by step approach, a loosening of boundaries and gradual widening of parameters — but not to Donald Trump. He lacks the intellect and life experience to conceive of solving anything in other than a disruptive, turn the table over, kind of fashion. Well, he’s certainly done so now. There is no way that Iran can or will sit by quietly in the face of this level of insult and the entire world is watching and waiting for the other shoe to drop. Der Spiegel: Soleimani was considered to be the second-most powerful man in Iran and his assassination is nothing short of a declaration of war. At almost the exact same time, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un threatened to carry out new nuclear weapons tests. Two crises that Trump had promised to contain have now become more acute and threatening than they had been for some time. The killing of Soleimani is the epitome of Trump’s capriciousness. The ploy of unexpectedly changing directions, of making threats and surprise attacks has not managed to extricate the U.S. from the Iraq-Iran-Syria quagmire. Washington has continued to be dragged into conflicts in the Middle East. Ever since the U.S., under Trump’s leadership, backed out of the nuclear deal with Iran, Tehran has changed course. It has responded to the Trump administration’s strategy of “maximum pressure” with provocations, for example by attacking American facilities in the Middle East. The Iranian regime had hoped the approach might force the Trump administration back to the negotiating table. […] That [war with Iran] is the greatest danger currently facing the world, but it isn’t the only potentially dangerous consequence of Trump’s instinctual foreign policy. North Korea’s Kim Jong Un also remains unpredictable. For a brief moment, it looked as though he might respond positively to Trump’s personal approaches and scale back his nuclear program in exchange for economic concessions. Since his bellicose New Year’s address, however, in which he directly threatened America, it has become clearer than ever that the Bomb is more important to Kim than economic relations with the U.S. Trump has no respect for experts. The derailment of the State Department and diplomacy has been going on since day one of this misadministration. Rex Tillerson gutted the State Department and under Mike Pompeo things are no better. This has resulted in internal problems, where diplomats and career professionals like Marie Yovanovich have felt the lack of support that they previously were able to take for granted, but it goes far beyond that. The ignorance of this administration is known world wide. America has lost all credibility as a world power under Trump and that’s the long and the short of it. Trump is beyond the bull in the china shop, he’s a bull in a china shop on roller skates and the roller skates are rocket powered. Trump’s failure holds a lesson both for the U.S. government […]
Two days after the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer published a letter he sent to the U.S. government urging her release from federal prison, whistleblower Chelsea Manning issued a response welcoming the...
No one would fault Mick Mulvaney for sweating a bit over his exposure in the whole Ukraine matter. Makes sense. After all, if the worst happens, and Trump is deposed, Pence will surely pardon Trump “for the good of the nation.” But the pardon wouldn’t likely extend to Mulvaney, who may well end-up being blamed for the entire damned thing, inside a nation dearly wanting someone to suffer “real punishment” for the matter. Mulvaney seems to realize this, and is attempting to take subtle steps to distance himself from Trump, fooling absolutely no one. Wanna know what all this means? It means that the last chapters in the impeachment book haven’t been written yet, Kinda like the sequel to my novel, which has been 90% done for two years. I just cannot figure out if one of the characters has to die. Trump won’t die in this chapter in American history, but his dream of being the “chosen one” who is president for life, or even another year, might. Anyway, Salon has Mick figured out, quoting parts of the New York Times article that I told y’all was a paradigm shift, just this morning: From the NYTimes as quoted by Salon: Mr. Mulvaney is said by associates to have stepped out of the room whenever Mr. Trump would talk with [Rudy] Giuliani to preserve Mr. Trump’s attorney-client privilege, leaving him with limited knowledge about their efforts regarding Ukraine. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he learned of the substance of Mr. Trump’s July 25 call [with Zelensky] weeks after the fact. Let’s all say it together, both parts. First: Bullshit. Second: So what? Doesn’t mean he didn’t know everything and kept the plan moving. Salon notes: It sure sounds like Mulvaney is setting up the possibility of throwing the president under the bus, by suggesting that he was simply following orders, and that Trump and Giuliani were the only people who knew why those orders were being issued. Riiight. Mulvaney not knowing “why” the orders were issued is about as likely as me winning the Nobel Prize for literature. Actually, I might well win it if I keep writing such clever analogies. Onward. Salon dispenses with the bullshit by noting: That story (Mulvaney knew nothing) rests on the premise that Mulvaney, Trump’s top aide, had no curiosity about why his boss was bucking a legal requirement to release aid that would boost Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Moreover, we’re asked to believe that Mulvaney continued not to be curious, even though Trump was already under a cloud of suspicion for his enthusiastic support of Russia, a hostile foreign power that just so happened to have illegally interfered with the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf. To say nothing of the fact that Mulvaney stood at a podium, admitted what happened (after the fact, true) and told everyone to “get over it.” He did not, in point of fact, stand there and say; “Look guys, I wasn’t personally there, and I know that some of the appearances are not quite right, but there is going to be some politics in foreign policy, and I think that is all that happened here.” (If I were Trump’s press secretary he would get in far less trouble) Salon noticed the same thing, while noting that […]
Sen. Bernie Sanders called on people across the United States Sunday night to "recommit to standing together to defeat bigotry, violence, and anti-Semitism" in the wake of a violent attack on a Hanukkah celebration...
As hard as it is to believe, we have underestimated the intensity and breadth of the fight within the White House about Trump’s hold on Ukrainian aid. Surprisingly high and formerly undisclosed officials desperately fought against Trump’s plan. A devastating new report in the New York Times led by Maggie Haberman, practically screams that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and National Security Director John Bolton must testify, as democracy’s fate might ride on whether the Senate suppresses this critical testimony or a majority manages to compel subpoenas. The new information, never previously reported, involves two critical matters. It reports the intensity of a fight that was entirely out in the open among staff. This reckless and explosive plan was not closely guarded by a secret small group of people. Second, new information includes the fact that the people fighting the issue included officials at the highest levels of our government. Pompeo, Esper, Bolton, not mere White House staffers, but Senate approved department heads clashed with Trump and Mulvaney. These cabinet officials knew of the plan. They involved themselves in an attempt to talk Trump out of it, and damn well knew that the entire thing was about helping Russia and attacking Biden, and not Ukrainian corruption for godsake. They knew exactly why Trump was taking a selfish, Russian-based and illegal risk. If these men do not testify, history will recored that the entire trial was a political hit job by Republicans, Trump, and quite possibly, the Russians. The fight started early: In June, Trump first asked about putting aid to Ukraine on hold — and on June 27, aide Robert B. Blair warned, “Expect Congress tobecome unhinged.” Blair feared that Trump’s request would further the narrative that he was pro-Russian government. No wonder the administration attempted to hide and find a legal justification, for keeping the matter from Congress. Should we note that “fighting Ukrainian corruption” is inconsistent with fear that withholding aid will appear pro-Russian. In a “previously undisclosed” Oval Office meeting that took place in late August, according to the NYT, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton “tried but failed to convince” Trump that “releasing the aid was in interests of the United States.” Trump was doing this at least as much to help the Russians as helping his own campaign. Of course, the dual motivation is one in the same. As summarized by Rawstory: A key figure in the turmoil during that 84-day period was Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who the Times describes as a “conduit for transmitting Mr. Trump’s demands for the freeze across the administration.” And the Times reports that “by September, after the freeze had become public and scrutiny was increasing, the blame game inside the administration was in full swing.” They knew shit was coming, that possible arrests were in their near future and they were scared shitless, probably still are. They needed McConnell, and they needed Collins to cover this entire thing up. “The task of dealing with the president’s demands fell primarily to a group of political appointees in the West Wing and the budget office, most with personal and professional ties to Mr. Mulvaney,” And not a single […]
It took Republicans and their need to please Trump to invent the term “electoral college landslide” to describe one of the closest elections in American history, one in which Trump came in second with respect to total votes. I find it critical to remember how narrowly Trump won, because it is easy to forget. He governs like he was unanimously elected, and anyone arguing otherwise is citing “fake news.” Thus it is, that when AP has a report that Trump is in major trouble in Iowa, a state he won comfortably, it is extremely significant. Per Rawstory: In 2016 Trump easily defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Iowa, wrapping up 93 of Iowa’s 99 counties, but times have changed. According to former Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsak, “They’ve gone too far to the right and there is the slow movement back. This is an actual correction.” Umm, only if you view “too far right” as synonymous with “insane” and “tariff-crazed.” Iowa has perhaps suffered the greatest damage under Trump’s “easy to win” tariff war with China, and I suspect they don’t appreciate it. But the damage is not coming from the agricultural communities so much as from the suburbs and exurbs. “Iowa’s metropolitan areas, some of the fastest growing in the country over the past two decades, have given birth to a new political front where Democrats saw gains in 2018. The once-GOP-leaning suburbs and exurbs, especially to the north and west of Des Moines and the corridor linking Cedar Rapids and the University of Iowa in Iowa City, swelled with college-educated adults in the past decade, giving rise to a new class of rising Democratic leaders.” The consensus is that “Iowa is in play.” Iowa has only six electoral votes, and will likely not swing the election on its own. But the lesson is in the emerging importance of those darn suburbs, with those college-educated people who aren’t as racist, watch the news and don’t particularly like Trump. Iowa has growing suburbs and it is giving Trump’s campaign problems. Wanna know another state with lots of suburbs and soccer moms that aren’t racist? Texas. Yes, Texas. It has become increasingly purple, and though no Democrat has won Texas since LBJ, the 2020 Democratic nominee has a chance at winning Texas for the same reason that Iowa may be in play. Simply put, Texas swung way to the left in 2018, and may be poised to go further in 2020. The state’s increasing competitiveness is due in part to its diversifying population, since people of color are more likely to support Democrats. The Census Bureau data put the state’s Hispanic population at nearly 40 percent. Trump is also struggling to win over higher-educated and wealthier voters in the suburbs. Immigration will likely continue to be a top issue for voters in the border state. When you put Hispanic immigrant children in cages, and then campaign in a state that is 40% Hispanic, you are going to have – deservedly so – huge problems. And here’s the good part, if Texas goes Democratic, forget Republican presidents for a long time. Texas has 38 electoral votes, second only to California. The reliably Republican nature of Texas has almost offset the advantage that Democrats have in California. If Republicans now lose Texas, […]
Denouncing Corporate Climate Profiteers, Comedy Icon Lily Tomlin Arrested at #FireDrillFriday Protest in DC
Octogenarian actor and comedian Lily Tomlin was arrested Friday on Capitol Hill for participating in the weekly climate-focused civil disobedience campaign launched in October by her longtime friend and co-star Jane Fonda. Video clips of...