Trump is NOT the answer

[mountain_jim]

Now I remember why I quit visiting this folder.

[Pam]

It's NOT about hating the MAGA hats. It's about calling out the young man wearing it for his provocative behaviour. It's as plain as the smirk on his face that he was targeting the drummer and intending to intimidate him.

It's odd to me that even after the MSM narrative on this fell apart, and defamation lawsuits have already been launched, with retractions being made left and right, you still somehow think that standing still and smiling is "provocative behavior" that makes the lying professional victim artist a real victim.

As usual, feelings count more than facts.


Dear "Voice ... "

I’d like to explain what I find wrong with the media coverage of the “standoff”. It’s not that the media were wrong in what they showed. Where they erred was in not showing any of the original confrontations between the Covington students and the group of black protesters who had been hurling abuse at the white students only a few minutes before the video started. Maybe they could have found video on someone’s cel phone regarding this disturbing verbal assault, and showed it along with the video footage that they based their story on. But they did not, for whatever reason. If they had, the media would have supplied some inkling of the thinking of the Covington students i.e. that they had been insulted and intimidated by a hostile group. As such, I think that their disrespectful and provocative reactions to the native elders would have been given an understandable context, and could be seen for what it was: disdainful payback to an inferior group that would not fight back. The man banging the drum was an easy target for their intimidation, and by confronting him they could salvage some of their pride.

As for the claim that the drummer had approached the group of boys and was standing in front of, that part may have been true, if the direction of the boys’ path had been on the other side of Phillips, the drummer. But that does not appear to be the case.

What is evident, however, is that the celebrated (at least by the Covington crowd) boy who is seen having a showdown with the native drummer is there by choice. He was not suddenly surprised by the approach of the drummer, nor was his path blocked, except directly to his front, where the drummer was standing. Sandmann took up the position in front of the drummer, after having walked some distance through the crowd in order to face the man. There are wide spaces to his left and right, and, initially at least, two to three body widths of space behind him. He had plenty of wide open options for movement. If anything, it was he who was blocking the path of the Phillips.

Here’s a link to the “entire” video, as later posted:

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/23/18193174/covington-catholic-school-native-american-students-video

In it, it’s easy to see that Sandmann first appears 9 seconds in, standing far back from the front, on the steps. In order to get in front of Phillips, he would have had to walk 5 or 6 steps through the crowd. As the video begins, the crowd is already mocking the native presence with pseudo chants, crying out, and performing the insulting “tomahawk chop”. The kids are clearly trying to intimidate the native protesters; during a pan across them, one of the students has his head shoved from behind by one of his classmates, in an effort to force contact between the boy and the drummer. During a pan back to the left, at 25 seconds, Sandmann is still visible on the steps in his original spot. The panning continues back to the right, and when it pans left again, Sandmann can now be seen in his chosen spot, at the 41 second mark. This is a full 15 seconds and 5 paces from his original location in the video. The drummer, on the other hand, has stopped moving forward, and has been rooted to the spot when Sandmann approaches him.

Sandmann’s maneuvering into place in front of the drummer was calculated to be in the best place possible for demonstrating to his buddies that he was a “big man”. As for demonstrating his feelings to the native protesters, it was his rarely broken smirk that told the tale.

So, to sum up, the media erred in not telling the whole tale. What they got right, though, was in portraying the disrespectful behaviour of a gang of white boys toward a native American peacemaker. The media commentary that ensued may have been excessive, but that will be very hard to prove in a court of law. All one has to do is watch the video.

Namaste,

Brian

Why don't you provide the videos of the disturbing behavior of these boys? I suppose you were next to being a saint when you were that age?

Namaste,
Pam

[Fellow Aspirant]

It's NOT about hating the MAGA hats. It's about calling out the young man wearing it for his provocative behaviour. It's as plain as the smirk on his face that he was targeting the drummer and intending to intimidate him.

It's odd to me that even after the MSM narrative on this fell apart, and defamation lawsuits have already been launched, with retractions being made left and right, you still somehow think that standing still and smiling is "provocative behavior" that makes the lying professional victim artist a real victim.

As usual, feelings count more than facts.


Dear "Voice ... "

I’d like to explain what I find wrong with the media coverage of the “standoff”. It’s not that the media were wrong in what they showed. Where they erred was in not showing any of the original confrontations between the Covington students and the group of black protesters who had been hurling abuse at the white students only a few minutes before the video started. Maybe they could have found video on someone’s cel phone regarding this disturbing verbal assault, and showed it along with the video footage that they based their story on. But they did not, for whatever reason. If they had, the media would have supplied some inkling of the thinking of the Covington students i.e. that they had been insulted and intimidated by a hostile group. As such, I think that their disrespectful and provocative reactions to the native elders would have been given an understandable context, and could be seen for what it was: disdainful payback to an inferior group that would not fight back. The man banging the drum was an easy target for their intimidation, and by confronting him they could salvage some of their pride.

As for the claim that the drummer had approached the group of boys and was standing in front of, that part may have been true, if the direction of the boys’ path had been on the other side of Phillips, the drummer. But that does not appear to be the case.

What is evident, however, is that the celebrated (at least by the Covington crowd) boy who is seen having a showdown with the native drummer is there by choice. He was not suddenly surprised by the approach of the drummer, nor was his path blocked, except directly to his front, where the drummer was standing. Sandmann took up the position in front of the drummer, after having walked some distance through the crowd in order to face the man. There are wide spaces to his left and right, and, initially at least, two to three body widths of space behind him. He had plenty of wide open options for movement. If anything, it was he who was blocking the path of the Phillips.

Here’s a link to the “entire” video, as later posted:

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/23/18193174/covington-catholic-school-native-american-students-video

In it, it’s easy to see that Sandmann first appears 9 seconds in, standing far back from the front, on the steps. In order to get in front of Phillips, he would have had to walk 5 or 6 steps through the crowd. As the video begins, the crowd is already mocking the native presence with pseudo chants, crying out, and performing the insulting “tomahawk chop”. The kids are clearly trying to intimidate the native protesters; during a pan across them, one of the students has his head shoved from behind by one of his classmates, in an effort to force contact between the boy and the drummer. During a pan back to the left, at 25 seconds, Sandmann is still visible on the steps in his original spot. The panning continues back to the right, and when it pans left again, Sandmann can now be seen in his chosen spot, at the 41 second mark. This is a full 15 seconds and 5 paces from his original location in the video. The drummer, on the other hand, has stopped moving forward, and has been rooted to the spot when Sandmann approaches him.

Sandmann’s maneuvering into place in front of the drummer was calculated to be in the best place possible for demonstrating to his buddies that he was a “big man”. As for demonstrating his feelings to the native protesters, it was his rarely broken smirk that told the tale.

So, to sum up, the media erred in not telling the whole tale. What they got right, though, was in portraying the disrespectful behaviour of a gang of white boys toward a native American peacemaker. The media commentary that ensued may have been excessive, but that will be very hard to prove in a court of law. All one has to do is watch the video.

Namaste,

Brian

Why don't you provide the videos of the disturbing behavior of these boys? I suppose you were next to being a saint when you were that age?

Namaste,
Pam

It's pretty clear to me that you have not read or understood what I have written. Why would I post disturbing video of the boys? I just did.

At issue is the behaviour of Sandmann. I am objecting to the interpretation of his facial expression as being a benign smile when it was actually a smirk. The problem with the smirk is outlined here:

Here's an interview, done by Anna North, with an expert in education, especially of the form enjoyed by privileged rich children, in which he explains what he finds wrong with the behaviour of the Covington students:

"The smirking silence with which Sandmann confronted elder Nathan Phillips was actually incredibly telling, according to Adam Howard, an education professor at Colby College and the author of "Learning Privilege: Lessons of Power and Identity in Affluent Schooling". Sandmann’s expression clearly “communicates that I’m better than you, that I don’t even have enough respect for you to even say anything to communicate,” Howard told me.

The student’s behavior was the embodiment of privilege, Howard said, and nothing that came after the initial viral video changes that.

I reached out to Howard, who previously wrote for Vox about the culture of elite private schools, to ask how that culture might help us understand the March for Life video and its aftermath. In a phone interview, which has been condensed and edited, he said that the video and the reactions to it expose not just the problem of privilege in America but our inability as a society to reckon with that problem.

Anna North

What did you see when you saw the March for Life video for the first time?

Adam Howard

When you saw the young man’s face looking at the elder, and just the smirk, and then having a whole group around him of his fellow classmates, all boys, doing the various things they were doing — chanting, doing tomahawk things, racist behaviors — this is what privilege looks like. This is what he has learned not only from his schooling but also from other sources of education, which include family and the larger national context.

What he’s learned is this contempt toward others, this kind of privileged white male gaze that communicates, “I’m better than you, I don’t even have enough respect for you to even say anything to communicate, but I will communicate everything I need to through my body language.” That overconfidence, and that sense of entitlement, all of it was being performed in that moment.

As I was reading the articles, the ways in which people were trying to make sense of that initially, none of the conversation really focused on privilege and that these were a group of privileged boys from a privileged institution.

Anna North

What was your reaction when you saw additional videos released after the initial viral video, and the conversation around those subsequent videos?
Adam Howard

Even in the other videos, [Sandmann] was still looking stone-faced, smirking. That privileged white male gaze that every minority is very familiar with — when that gaze is upon you as a minority, you know what it communicates, and it communicates that “you’re inferior to me, I have a particular kind of perception of myself that places me above you.” That performance was also being reinforced by all his classmates kind of cheering him on.

Silence plays an incredibly important part in that performance, because as soon as the boy says something, then we can confront him, we can dissect it, we can challenge it, and so part of it was that he wasn’t even giving anything over to be challenged in any way.
We don’t know what he was exactly thinking at that moment, because he didn’t communicate anything verbally. That’s how privilege works — it’s constantly performed and embodied in particular ways where it’s hard to challenge it.

Anna North

It sounds like you’re saying we can see privilege at play in this video regardless of Sandmann’s statement or the longer video that was released later. Is that right?

Adam Howard

Yes. And therefore, it would be useful for us to begin to ask the questions of, how do young people learn those lessons that allow them to be okay with showing such contempt toward others who are different from themselves? Do they learn that through their education? Do they learn that through their religion? Do they learn that through their family? [Do they learn that through] the national context, and what’s going on in our country and what’s going on in the larger world?
I would argue that all of those things are teaching them incredibly important lessons, and we need to be more mindful and intentional about the kinds of lessons we want to teach young people.

Anna North

Earlier in our conversation, you mentioned that the video reminded you of something that happened at your institution. Can you talk about that incident?

Adam Howard

Several years ago, we had this incident on campus, and it sent shock waves throughout our small, elite liberal arts college. It involved members of a male sports team. Shortly after this incident, I was asked, along with another faculty colleague, to lead and facilitate this community conversation.

Several hundred people attended, and it was a three-hour event, and it was emotionally charged — people crying, and raised voices every once in a while. It was very obvious that a lot of people were affected by this in pretty profound ways.
What was interesting is that the first two rows of this gathering space were all teammates of the guys who were involved in this incident, and they sat there and didn’t say a word for the entire three-hour period. They had that smirk on their faces, their arms crossed, and even though they didn’t say anything, their contempt for what was going on, everything they were communicating without saying a word — it completely overshadowed everything that we were trying to do.
We were trying to heal our community, and we weren’t fully able to. It was so destructive; it was so disruptive. Anytime you challenge privilege, there’s going to be attempts to disrupt those efforts.

Anna North

How should the fact that Covington Catholic is an all-boys’ school factor into our understanding of this incident?

Adam Howard

When I research all-boys’ schools, the headmasters and others will claim that it allows students to express themselves freely, and that they’re more involved in the arts and in creative endeavors and that they’re not negatively impacted by having girls present and the peer pressure that goes along with that. I think that’s a bunch of crap.

I think it instead reinforces very toxic ways of thinking about what it means to be a boy and what it means to be a man. The fact that you don’t have women there often limits the opportunities for you to develop healthy, productive relationships across gender.

Often you have this kind of mob mentality that forms, because elite schools, part of what they do is teach their students to always prove that they’re the best. So what ends up happening is that it’s always a contest of who’s the best man. A lot of that is connected to sexual conquest, proving certain things that just aren’t very healthy ways of thinking about what it means to be a man.

Anna North

What can we learn as a society from this whole incident — the first video, but also the longer video and the reactions to all of it?

Adam Howard

What’s problematic from this larger incident, if you take [it] from the moment this goes viral to now, is that we easily dismiss things that need to be discussed. People are trying to find holes in the original narrative, and as soon as they find those holes, then that gives us permission to not discuss what we need to be discussing.

Part of that is, what are privileged, white, young men learning about themselves, not just through their education and their family but through what’s going on at the national level? How they are making sense of themselves, others, and the world around them, and then how are they acting on that? Those are the types of conversations that we need to be [having], and I don’t know how we get there. It requires us to actually be willing to get past, “This narrative is flawed, therefore there’s nothing to be discussed here,” to, “What can we learn from this?”

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/23/181931...students-video

I still see only a howling horde of kids, Tomahawk-chopping and roaring with laughter at a Native American, one smirking young man in the center. I see the same display of unearned, unexamined, vaguely menacing privilege that I did on Saturday.

In the days since the incident on the National Mall, the revelation which is supposed to have changed everything is that Nathan Phillips approached the group of kids, and not the other way around. Who approached whom is only relevant if one 64-year-old man with a single drum is more menacing than a gang of teenage boys. The kids are still cackling at an elder, still mocking him with war whoops. The behavior, in its most generous interpretation, is dishonorable.

The smirk of privilege, framed by MAGA hats and mocking laughter, is all that’s there, despite what the kid in the picture—via the public relations firm his family had the means to retain—says. It is unmistakable, which is why the image was shared as widely as it was. It would not have gone viral if it didn’t resonate, if we hadn’t seen this particular strain of American smirk as long as we’ve had photography.

We’ve seen it on the faces of the white people intimidating black patrons at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, in the pictures of freshly-integrated high schools in Little Rock. We’ve seen it in our own personal histories, if we have ever been that terrifying combination of young and different in any way. We saw that smirk with our eyes, but we felt it in our stomachs.

[Denise/Dizi]

[QUOTE=Fellow Aspirant;1276855]Hmmm. Could you give me an example or two?
An example of what ... some of your uses of complimentary or pejorative adjectives ?

Yes.

B.
Okay, thanks. I had supposed, at first, that your attempt to make me retract my statements/leave the thread was based on a personal dislike. Now it's clear that it's my interpretation of the incident that you object to. In other words, you think it necessary to speak on behalf of those forum members who disagree with my point of view, and to protect them from my thinking. Staggering.

Brian

??? I never saw anything that suggested that you retract anything, or any suggestions that you exit the thread? Did I miss something? This comment from you was quite surprising for me, so I scrolled back to find those suggestions, and I never saw them..

(If it did happen, I apologize for not finding them, but if didn't, I think it fair that I say what I say below... )

He may have noted that he disagreed with your interpretation of the information, But I NEVER saw him ask you to rewrite anything, or leave the thread at all.. And by suggesting as much, that's not fair to Paul OR Avalon. You're suggesting that an ADMIN is CENSORING CONTENT.. That's A BIG ACCUSATION...

And for those just reading the last few posts, I wanted to make sure other knew it just wasn't true so far as I could tell..


As far as the MAGA hat debate.. Here is my opinions on the matter....

I believe that we are spending too much time focusing on "speculation" as to what was going through the mind of that one young man. And assuming we know what he was thinking...(Remember, the reporters who originally reported the story, did so from THEIR point of view as well, that doesn't necessarily mean it's from the PROPER perspective.. Hence the disagreements.... ) And as such, debating that.. It can be reduced to one of two things, either he was inappropriate or not. And regardless of THAT outcome, we have the ability to change it in NO WAY WHATSOEVER...So essentially pondering it, serves no useful purpose.

UNLESS you are a reporter, a journalist, etc.. Then a debate about how it was presented would serve a valuable purpose...

The media efforts to "Divide and conquer", distract and otherwise mislead the population to focus on things that make no real effect overall is WORKING in this way.. We have people spending a great deal of time debating a child's intention in a video that we cannot go back and change in any way. In my eyes, I see it as a distraction from REAL issues.. And as such won't participate in the debate..

I wouldn't give such a video that much of my effort. It cannot be changed, if this boy feels privileged over that native gentleman, there is nothing I will be able to say or do to change his opinions. Perhaps some more energy trying to help people come together for a change, would be a better use of my energy. I do not KNOW this boy so I couldn't try to alter his views in any way so I focus my energy on those I can ...

Again, this is just the way I see things.. You're more than welcome to debate such things... Enjoy the thread.. I will go find one that better suits my interests..

[DNA]

What they got right, though, was in portraying the disrespectful behaviour of a gang of white boys toward a native American peacemaker.
As you likely know by now, some of us disagree with the view you present, through your particular choice of complimentary or pejorative adjectives.
I disagree with this dude so much I put him on ignore.

I find his language and views so disrespectful they put me on the offensive, and then I would find myself getting a vacation for reacting in a manner that I felt was totally even when considering the post I was responding to.

I find the ignore option to be the best choice for me when dealing with folks practicing extreme left politics, because what I consider a normal response to these folks has been considered by the mods here vacation and ban worthy.

As such I reached the conclusion that if I wanted to stick around these parts I had best start ignoring these folks, and the best method for doing this seems to be just using the ignore feature so I don't even see their posts.

Apparently ignorance is bliss when dealing with the left on this forum.

Oh, and just for sh!ts and giggles here is Dr. John Coleman's explanation of how the elite will destroy the United States, he wrote this back in 1993.



I hate watching older videos. Probably because most of the time I feel as if anything older than a couple of years can't in any way tell me something I don't already know, this is silly I admit but it goes through my head and probably quite a few others. I was thinking this when I began watching this video and I'm glad I stayed the course and watched the whole video. This video is from 93 and is a presentation based on Coleman's 1992 book.


Dr. John Coleman is what I had always hoped Jordan Maxwell would be. Jordan making too many personal interpretations out of too little data in my opinion. Coleman by contrast is an astute scholar who spent his life researching in the oldest libraries of the world. Coleman is not vague, Coleman names actual families and tells you their direct relationship to the groups controlling the world. The information seems so prophetic.




Dr. John Coleman states that the "committee of 300" are a group of super rich individuals whose family made their money by being the share holders of the "East India Trading Company" back in the 1700's. This company made incredible amounts of money by dumping opium on China.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRqx1YgIBMw

The information below is from Coleman's 1992 book "BEYOND THE CONSPIRACY, THE COMMITTEE of 300".




21 Goals of the Illuminati and The Committee of 300

By Dr. John Coleman.(Written ca. 1993)
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/johnc...nati.shtml#top (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/johncolemangoalsofIlluminati.shtml#top)
21 Goals of the Illuminati and The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman (ca. 1993) (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/johncolemangoalsofIlluminati.shtml#top)

F rom: Conspirators' Hierachy: The Story of The Committee of 300 (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/johncolemancommof300order14mar05.shtml)
1. To establish a One World Government/New World Order with a unified church and monetary system under their direction. The One World Government began to set up its church in the 1920:s and 30:s, for they realized the need for a religious belief inherent in mankind must have an outlet and, therefore, set up a "church" body to channel that belief in the direction they desired.
2. To bring about the utter destruction of all national identity and national pride, which was a primary consideration if the concept of a One World Government was to work.
3. To engineer and bring about the destruction of religion, and more especially, the Christian Religion, with the one exception, their own creation, as mentioned above.
4. To establish the ability to control of each and every person through means of mind control (http://educate-yourself.org/lte/spiresrisegwenretired12dec10.shtml) and what Zbignew Brzezinski called techonotronics, which would create human-like robots and a system of terror which would make Felix Dzerzinhski's Red Terror look like children at play.
5. To bring about the end to all industrialization and to end the production of nuclear generated electric power (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fukushimaradiationpsyops19may12.shtml#EndNuclearEn ergy) in what they call "the post-industrial zero-growth society (http://educate-yourself.org/lte/fukushimaruse31may12.shtml)". Excepted are the computer- and service industries. US industries that remain will be exported to countries such as Mexico where abundant slave labor is available. As we saw in 1993, this has become a fact through the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA. Unemployables in the US, in the wake of industrial destruction, will either become opium-heroin and/or cocaine addicts, or become statistics in the elimination of the "excess population" process we know of today as Global 2000.
6. To encourage, and eventually legalize the use of drugs and make pornography an "art-form", which will be widely accepted and, eventually, become quite commonplace.
7. To bring about depopulation of large cities according to the trial run carried out by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. It is interesting to note that Pol Pot's genocidal plans were drawn up in the US by one of the Club of Rome's research foundations, and overseen by Thomas Enders, a high-ranking State Department official. It is also interesting that the committee is currently seeking to reinstate the Pol Pot butchers in Cambodia.
8. To suppress all scientific development except for those deemed beneficial by the Illuminati. Especially targeted is nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (http://educate-yourself.org/lte/letterfromjapan05dec12.shtml#ReplaceNuclearPower). Particularly hated are the fusion experiments currently being scorned and ridiculed by the Illuminati and its jackals of the press. Development of the fusion torch would blow the Illuminati's conception of "limited natural resources" right out of the window. A fusion torch, properly used, could create unlimited and as yet untapped natural resources, even from the most ordinary substances. Fusion torch uses are legion, and would benefit mankind in a manner which, as yet, is not even remotely comprehended by the public.
9. To cause. by means of A) limited wars in the advanced countries, B) by means of starvation and diseases in the Third World countries, the death of three billion people by the year 2050, people they call "useless eaters". The Committee of 300 (Illuminati) commissioned Cyrus Vance to write a paper on this subject of how to bring about such genocide. The paper was produced under the title "Global 2000 Report" and was accepted and approved for action by former President James Earl Carter, and Edwin Muskie, then Secretary of States, for and on behalf of the US Government. Under the terms of the Global 2000 Report, the population of the US is to be reduced by 100 million by the year of 2050.
10. To weaken the moral fiber of the nation and to demoralize workers in the labor class by creating mass unemployment. As jobs dwindle due to the post industrial zero growth policies introduced by the Club of Rome, the report envisages demoralized and discouraged workers resorting to alcohol and drugs. The youth of the land will be encouraged by means of rock music and drugs to rebel against the status quo, thus undermining and eventually destroying the family unit. In this regard, the Committee commissioned Tavistock Institute (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/tavistockarticlesindex04jun04.shtml) to prepare a blueprint as to how this could be achieved. Tavistock directed Stanford Research to undertake the work under the direction of Professor Willis Harmon. This work later became known as the "Aquarian Conspiracy".
11. To keep people everywhere from deciding their own destinies by means of one created crisis after another and then "managing" such crises. This will confuse and demoralize the population to the extent where faced with too many choices, apathy on a massive scale will result. In the case of the US, an agency for Crisis Management is already in place. It is called the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), whose existence I first enclosed in 1980.
12. To introduce new cults and continue to boost those already functioning which include rock music gangsters such as the Rolling Stones (a gangster group much favored by European Black Nobility), and all of the Tavistock-created rock groups which began with the Beatles.
13. To continue to build up the cult of Christian Fundamentalism begun by the British East India Company's servant Darby, which will be misused to strengthen the Zionist State of Israel by identifying with the Jews through the myth of "God's chosen people" (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/britishisraelhiddenhand10jul05.shtml), and by donating very substantial amounts of money to what they mistakenly believe is a religious cause in the furtherance of Christianity.
14. To press for the spread of religious cults such as the Moslem Brotherhood, Moslem Fundamentalism, the Sikhs, and to carry out mind control experiments of the Jim Jones and "Son of Sam" type. It is worth noting that the late Khomeini was a creation of British Military Intelligence Div. 6, MI6. This detailed work spelled out the step-by-step process which the US Government implemented to put Khomeini in power.
15. To export "religious liberation" ideas around the world so as to undermine all existing religions, but more especially the Christian religion. This began with the "Jesuit Liberation Theology", that brought an end to the Somoza Family rule in Nicaragua, and which today is destroying El Salvador, now 25 years into a "civil war". Costa Rica and Honduras are also embroiled in revolutionary activities, instigated by the Jesuits. One very active entity engaged in the so-called liberation theology, is the Communist-oriented Mary Knoll Mission. This accounts for the extensive media attention to the murder of four of Mary Knoll's so-called nuns in El Salvador a few years ago. The four nuns were Communist subversive agents and their activities were widely documented by the Government of El Salvador. The US press and the new media refused to give any space or coverage to the mass of documentation possessed by the Salvadorian Government, which proved what the Mary Knoll Mission nuns were doing in the country. Mary Knoll is in service in many countries, and placed a leading role in bringing Communism to Rhodesia, Moçambique, Angola and South Africa.
16. To cause a total collapse of the world's economies and engender total political chaos.
17. To take control of all foreign and domestic policies of the US.
18. To give the fullest support to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank of International Settlements, the World Court and, as far as possible, make local institutions less effective, by gradually phasing them out or bringing them under the mantle of the UN.
19. To penetrate and subvert all governments, and work from within them to destroy the sovereign integrity of the nations represented by them.
20. To organize a world-wide terrorist apparatus [Al-queda, ISIS, ISIL, etc.] and to negotiate with terrorists whenever terrorist activities take place. It will be recalled that it was Bettino Craxi, who persuaded the Italian and US Governments to negotiate with the Red Brigades kidnapers of Prime Minister Moro and General Dozier. As an aside, Dozier was placed under strict orders not to talk what happened to him. Should he ever break that silence, he will no doubt be made "a horrible example of", in the manner in which Henry Kissinger dealt with Aldo Moro, Ali Bhutto and General Zia ul Haq.
21. To take control of education in America with the intent and purpose of utterly and completely destroying it. By 1993, the full force effect of this policy is becoming apparent, and will be even more destructive as primary and secondary schools begin to teach "Outcome Based Education" (OBE).




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRqx1YgIBMw

[PurpleLama]

https://www.rt.com/usa/452810-wapo-offers-correction-covington-lawsuit/

RT reporting on the recent retraction published by WaPo in reference to the false reporting in the Covington kids' case. I am sure a retraction will simply cause Fellow Aspirant to double down on his position, again.

FWIW, when I look at that grinning kid, I see a teen who is scared sh!tless. If you think a MAGA hat is a hate symbol on par with the burning cross or a swastika, then it's no surprise that his nervous smile would turn into a sneer in your mind's eye....

[Pam]

It's NOT about hating the MAGA hats. It's about calling out the young man wearing it for his provocative behaviour. It's as plain as the smirk on his face that he was targeting the drummer and intending to intimidate him.

It's odd to me that even after the MSM narrative on this fell apart, and defamation lawsuits have already been launched, with retractions being made left and right, you still somehow think that standing still and smiling is "provocative behavior" that makes the lying professional victim artist a real victim.

As usual, feelings count more than facts.


Dear "Voice ... "

I’d like to explain what I find wrong with the media coverage of the “standoff”. It’s not that the media were wrong in what they showed. Where they erred was in not showing any of the original confrontations between the Covington students and the group of black protesters who had been hurling abuse at the white students only a few minutes before the video started. Maybe they could have found video on someone’s cel phone regarding this disturbing verbal assault, and showed it along with the video footage that they based their story on. But they did not, for whatever reason. If they had, the media would have supplied some inkling of the thinking of the Covington students i.e. that they had been insulted and intimidated by a hostile group. As such, I think that their disrespectful and provocative reactions to the native elders would have been given an understandable context, and could be seen for what it was: disdainful payback to an inferior group that would not fight back. The man banging the drum was an easy target for their intimidation, and by confronting him they could salvage some of their pride.

As for the claim that the drummer had approached the group of boys and was standing in front of, that part may have been true, if the direction of the boys’ path had been on the other side of Phillips, the drummer. But that does not appear to be the case.

What is evident, however, is that the celebrated (at least by the Covington crowd) boy who is seen having a showdown with the native drummer is there by choice. He was not suddenly surprised by the approach of the drummer, nor was his path blocked, except directly to his front, where the drummer was standing. Sandmann took up the position in front of the drummer, after having walked some distance through the crowd in order to face the man. There are wide spaces to his left and right, and, initially at least, two to three body widths of space behind him. He had plenty of wide open options for movement. If anything, it was he who was blocking the path of the Phillips.

Here’s a link to the “entire” video, as later posted:

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/23/18193174/covington-catholic-school-native-american-students-video

In it, it’s easy to see that Sandmann first appears 9 seconds in, standing far back from the front, on the steps. In order to get in front of Phillips, he would have had to walk 5 or 6 steps through the crowd. As the video begins, the crowd is already mocking the native presence with pseudo chants, crying out, and performing the insulting “tomahawk chop”. The kids are clearly trying to intimidate the native protesters; during a pan across them, one of the students has his head shoved from behind by one of his classmates, in an effort to force contact between the boy and the drummer. During a pan back to the left, at 25 seconds, Sandmann is still visible on the steps in his original spot. The panning continues back to the right, and when it pans left again, Sandmann can now be seen in his chosen spot, at the 41 second mark. This is a full 15 seconds and 5 paces from his original location in the video. The drummer, on the other hand, has stopped moving forward, and has been rooted to the spot when Sandmann approaches him.

Sandmann’s maneuvering into place in front of the drummer was calculated to be in the best place possible for demonstrating to his buddies that he was a “big man”. As for demonstrating his feelings to the native protesters, it was his rarely broken smirk that told the tale.

So, to sum up, the media erred in not telling the whole tale. What they got right, though, was in portraying the disrespectful behaviour of a gang of white boys toward a native American peacemaker. The media commentary that ensued may have been excessive, but that will be very hard to prove in a court of law. All one has to do is watch the video.

Namaste,

Brian

Why don't you provide the videos of the disturbing behavior of these boys? I suppose you were next to being a saint when you were that age?

Namaste,
Pam

It's pretty clear to me that you have not read or understood what I have written. Why would I post disturbing video of the boys? I just did.

At issue is the behaviour of Sandmann. I am objecting to the interpretation of his facial expression as being a benign smile when it was actually a smirk. The problem with the smirk is outlined here:

Here's an interview, done by Anna North, with an expert in education, especially of the form enjoyed by privileged rich children, in which he explains what he finds wrong with the behaviour of the Covington students:

"The smirking silence with which Sandmann confronted elder Nathan Phillips was actually incredibly telling, according to Adam Howard, an education professor at Colby College and the author of "Learning Privilege: Lessons of Power and Identity in Affluent Schooling". Sandmann’s expression clearly “communicates that I’m better than you, that I don’t even have enough respect for you to even say anything to communicate,” Howard told me.

The student’s behavior was the embodiment of privilege, Howard said, and nothing that came after the initial viral video changes that.

I reached out to Howard, who previously wrote for Vox about the culture of elite private schools, to ask how that culture might help us understand the March for Life video and its aftermath. In a phone interview, which has been condensed and edited, he said that the video and the reactions to it expose not just the problem of privilege in America but our inability as a society to reckon with that problem.

Anna North

What did you see when you saw the March for Life video for the first time?

Adam Howard

When you saw the young man’s face looking at the elder, and just the smirk, and then having a whole group around him of his fellow classmates, all boys, doing the various things they were doing — chanting, doing tomahawk things, racist behaviors — this is what privilege looks like. This is what he has learned not only from his schooling but also from other sources of education, which include family and the larger national context.

What he’s learned is this contempt toward others, this kind of privileged white male gaze that communicates, “I’m better than you, I don’t even have enough respect for you to even say anything to communicate, but I will communicate everything I need to through my body language.” That overconfidence, and that sense of entitlement, all of it was being performed in that moment.

As I was reading the articles, the ways in which people were trying to make sense of that initially, none of the conversation really focused on privilege and that these were a group of privileged boys from a privileged institution.

Anna North

What was your reaction when you saw additional videos released after the initial viral video, and the conversation around those subsequent videos?
Adam Howard

Even in the other videos, [Sandmann] was still looking stone-faced, smirking. That privileged white male gaze that every minority is very familiar with — when that gaze is upon you as a minority, you know what it communicates, and it communicates that “you’re inferior to me, I have a particular kind of perception of myself that places me above you.” That performance was also being reinforced by all his classmates kind of cheering him on.

Silence plays an incredibly important part in that performance, because as soon as the boy says something, then we can confront him, we can dissect it, we can challenge it, and so part of it was that he wasn’t even giving anything over to be challenged in any way.
We don’t know what he was exactly thinking at that moment, because he didn’t communicate anything verbally. That’s how privilege works — it’s constantly performed and embodied in particular ways where it’s hard to challenge it.

Anna North

It sounds like you’re saying we can see privilege at play in this video regardless of Sandmann’s statement or the longer video that was released later. Is that right?

Adam Howard

Yes. And therefore, it would be useful for us to begin to ask the questions of, how do young people learn those lessons that allow them to be okay with showing such contempt toward others who are different from themselves? Do they learn that through their education? Do they learn that through their religion? Do they learn that through their family? [Do they learn that through] the national context, and what’s going on in our country and what’s going on in the larger world?
I would argue that all of those things are teaching them incredibly important lessons, and we need to be more mindful and intentional about the kinds of lessons we want to teach young people.

Anna North

Earlier in our conversation, you mentioned that the video reminded you of something that happened at your institution. Can you talk about that incident?

Adam Howard

Several years ago, we had this incident on campus, and it sent shock waves throughout our small, elite liberal arts college. It involved members of a male sports team. Shortly after this incident, I was asked, along with another faculty colleague, to lead and facilitate this community conversation.

Several hundred people attended, and it was a three-hour event, and it was emotionally charged — people crying, and raised voices every once in a while. It was very obvious that a lot of people were affected by this in pretty profound ways.
What was interesting is that the first two rows of this gathering space were all teammates of the guys who were involved in this incident, and they sat there and didn’t say a word for the entire three-hour period. They had that smirk on their faces, their arms crossed, and even though they didn’t say anything, their contempt for what was going on, everything they were communicating without saying a word — it completely overshadowed everything that we were trying to do.
We were trying to heal our community, and we weren’t fully able to. It was so destructive; it was so disruptive. Anytime you challenge privilege, there’s going to be attempts to disrupt those efforts.

Anna North

How should the fact that Covington Catholic is an all-boys’ school factor into our understanding of this incident?

Adam Howard

When I research all-boys’ schools, the headmasters and others will claim that it allows students to express themselves freely, and that they’re more involved in the arts and in creative endeavors and that they’re not negatively impacted by having girls present and the peer pressure that goes along with that. I think that’s a bunch of crap.

I think it instead reinforces very toxic ways of thinking about what it means to be a boy and what it means to be a man. The fact that you don’t have women there often limits the opportunities for you to develop healthy, productive relationships across gender.

Often you have this kind of mob mentality that forms, because elite schools, part of what they do is teach their students to always prove that they’re the best. So what ends up happening is that it’s always a contest of who’s the best man. A lot of that is connected to sexual conquest, proving certain things that just aren’t very healthy ways of thinking about what it means to be a man.

Anna North

What can we learn as a society from this whole incident — the first video, but also the longer video and the reactions to all of it?

Adam Howard

What’s problematic from this larger incident, if you take [it] from the moment this goes viral to now, is that we easily dismiss things that need to be discussed. People are trying to find holes in the original narrative, and as soon as they find those holes, then that gives us permission to not discuss what we need to be discussing.

Part of that is, what are privileged, white, young men learning about themselves, not just through their education and their family but through what’s going on at the national level? How they are making sense of themselves, others, and the world around them, and then how are they acting on that? Those are the types of conversations that we need to be [having], and I don’t know how we get there. It requires us to actually be willing to get past, “This narrative is flawed, therefore there’s nothing to be discussed here,” to, “What can we learn from this?”

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/23/181931...students-video

I still see only a howling horde of kids, Tomahawk-chopping and roaring with laughter at a Native American, one smirking young man in the center. I see the same display of unearned, unexamined, vaguely menacing privilege that I did on Saturday.

In the days since the incident on the National Mall, the revelation which is supposed to have changed everything is that Nathan Phillips approached the group of kids, and not the other way around. Who approached whom is only relevant if one 64-year-old man with a single drum is more menacing than a gang of teenage boys. The kids are still cackling at an elder, still mocking him with war whoops. The behavior, in its most generous interpretation, is dishonorable.

The smirk of privilege, framed by MAGA hats and mocking laughter, is all that’s there, despite what the kid in the picture—via the public relations firm his family had the means to retain—says. It is unmistakable, which is why the image was shared as widely as it was. It would not have gone viral if it didn’t resonate, if we hadn’t seen this particular strain of American smirk as long as we’ve had photography.

We’ve seen it on the faces of the white people intimidating black patrons at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, in the pictures of freshly-integrated high schools in Little Rock. We’ve seen it in our own personal histories, if we have ever been that terrifying combination of young and different in any way. We saw that smirk with our eyes, but we felt it in our stomachs.


So, really what do you expect of a teenager? He is with his friends and someone is in his face beating a frigging drum. Someone else is recording it. He's a kid, he has to save face for his peers. I would have done the same thing at his age. I would want to look like the whole thing didn't bother me..I find it kind of pathetic that adults now have to turn on kids with their virtue signalling, PC bunk "The smirk of white privilege", you have got to be kidding me

[AutumnW]

Hey, time out! Fellow Aspirant, could you provide a link to the video that supports your point of view? I found after watching all of the videos, the one that seems to have hoodwinked me was the one edited to make it appear that the kid WAS smirking, when he may have been putting on a brave face or been slightly embarrassed.

When I watched the longer videos that provided more context, my opinion changed.

imho, those who wear MAGA hats may as well be advertising the fact that they support a mobbed up neo-con whitehouse. But..they obviously don't see it that way.

So maybe we should just agree to disagree on this one, with respect. You are one of my favorite members here. I really value your opinion 99% of the time!:heart:

[ThePythonicCow]

Six weeks after the original event, the Washington Post issues a correction to its original reporting of this Covington event: WaPo issues correction to Covington kids story – 6 weeks & 1 lawsuit later (https://www.rt.com/usa/452810-wapo-offers-correction-covington-lawsuit/):

==============

WaPo issues correction to Covington kids story – 6 weeks & 1 lawsuit later

by Reuters / Madalyn McGarvey, Published time: 2 Mar, 2019 00:43

The Washington Post has corrected its erroneous coverage of the confrontation between the boys from Covington Catholic and the activist Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial, two months after publishing the misleading story.

Admitting that "subsequent reporting, a student's statement and additional video" either contradicted or didn't support the initial story, the belated editors' note acknowledges the Covington boys did not taunt, provoke, or stand in the way of Phillips. It also removed a tweet quoting Phillips' claim that they did exactly that, in which the paper falsely refers to the Native American protester as a Vietnam veteran.



The Post has issued an Editor's Note about updates to its initial coverage of the Jan. 18 incident at the Lincoln Memorial: https://t.co/rhzKZ1715K

We've also deleted this Jan. 19 tweet in light of later developments. For more, see the Editor's Note. pic.twitter.com/O7qCSnBMPO
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 1, 2019

The Post's correction follows a $250 million defamation lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann, the 16-year-old protagonist of the viral video that inspired the original story. Like most other mainstream media outlets, the Post framed Sandmann and his classmates as instigators and Phillips as a victim, focusing on the boys' "white privilege" and apparent political affiliation without attempting to fact-check the content of the video or contact the people involved.

Sandmann, his classmates, and their families were doxxed and received death threats as the story spread across social media.

After the full-length video of the confrontation was widely circulated, exonerating Sandmann and his classmates, a few of the celebrities and media figures who had demanded the boys' heads on Twitter apologized. Most didn't, and Sandmann's lawyer Lin Wood said the lawsuit against the Post is "only the beginning," reportedly sending warning letters to the New York Times, CNN, the Guardian, NPR, and such boldface names as Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Elizabeth Warren and Joy Reid, advising them not to destroy any "evidence" relating to the case.

The Post's apparent discomfort pleased many on Twitter.



I could live off the nourishment this tweet provides.
— Jessica Fletcher (@heckyessica) March 1, 2019

At this point yall should just hire @MichaelAvenatti; he will only lose you 200k and his dignity
— Rex Wilkinson (@TheChinchilla) March 1, 2019

That $250 million lawsuit from Nick Sandmann is scaring the s**t out of the Washington Post https://t.co/XQGKhklFae
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) March 1, 2019

Though some thought it wasn't enough.



It would have been a lot easier to say, "We made a mistake. We ran with a story without knowing all of the facts. We're sorry." We get it. You're human. You wanted a scoop. All this double speak just makes you look like you don't want to own up to it.
— MartyinDE (@MartyinDE) March 1, 2019

Except it wasn’t a mistake. They threw away even the smallest journalist standards because they hated a child’s politics. They should be run out of business.
— Kristine (@Tine244) March 1, 2019

We're really very sorry.

To see how sorry, SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
— J.G. Petruna (@jgpetruna) March 1, 2019

==============

[ThePythonicCow]

What they got right, though, was in portraying the disrespectful behaviour of a gang of white boys toward a native American peacemaker.
As you likely know by now, some of us disagree with the view you present, through your particular choice of complimentary or pejorative adjectives.
I disagree with this dude so much I put him on ignore.
If I wasn't supposed to moderating this forum, I might well do the same (ignore).

Yes, that Coleman video is a treasure.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Hey, time out! Fellow Aspirant, could you provide a link to the video that supports your point of view? I found after watching all of the videos, the one that seems to have hoodwinked me was the one edited to make it appear that the kid WAS smirking, when he may have been putting on a brave face or been slightly embarrassed.

When I watched the longer videos that provided more context, my opinion changed.

imho, those who wear MAGA hats may as well be advertising the fact that they support a mobbed up neo-con whitehouse. But..they obviously don't see it that way.

So maybe we should just agree to disagree on this one, with respect. You are one of my favorite members here. I really value your opinion 99% of the time!:heart:

Sure, AutumnW. Glad to. My first reference to the video was in Post #738. In it, I explain my interpretation of what the video shows. To save you the scrolling, here's a chunk containing the link:

Dear "Voice ... "

I’d like to explain what I find wrong with the media coverage of the “standoff”. It’s not that the media were wrong in what they showed. Where they erred was in not showing any of the original confrontations between the Covington students and the group of black protesters who had been hurling abuse at the white students only a few minutes before the video started. Maybe they could have found video on someone’s cel phone regarding this disturbing verbal assault, and showed it along with the video footage that they based their story on. But they did not, for whatever reason. If they had, the media would have supplied some inkling of the thinking of the Covington students i.e. that they had been insulted and intimidated by a hostile group. As such, I think that their disrespectful and provocative reactions to the native elders would have been given an understandable context, and could be seen for what it was: disdainful payback to an inferior group that would not fight back. The man banging the drum was an easy target for their intimidation, and by confronting him they could salvage some of their pride.

As for the claim that the drummer had approached the group of boys and was standing in front of, that part may have been true, if the direction of the boys’ path had been on the other side of Phillips, the drummer. But that does not appear to be the case.

What is evident, however, is that the celebrated (at least by the Covington crowd) boy who is seen having a showdown with the native drummer is there by choice. He was not suddenly surprised by the approach of the drummer, nor was his path blocked, except directly to his front, where the drummer was standing. Sandmann took up the position in front of the drummer, after having walked some distance through the crowd in order to face the man. There are wide spaces to his left and right, and, initially at least, two to three body widths of space behind him. He had plenty of wide open options for movement. If anything, it was he who was blocking the path of the Phillips.

Here’s a link to the “entire” video, as embedded in the Vox article:

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/23/181931...students-video

Here's a link to just the video:

https://youtu.be/sIG5ZB0fw1k

In it, it’s easy to see that Sandmann first appears 9 seconds in, standing far back from the front, on the steps. In order to get in front of Phillips, he would have had to walk 5 or 6 steps through the crowd. As the video begins, the crowd is already mocking the native presence with pseudo chants, crying out, and performing the insulting “tomahawk chop”. The kids are clearly trying to intimidate the native protesters; during a pan across them, one of the students has his head shoved from behind by one of his classmates, in an effort to force contact between the boy and the drummer. During a pan back to the left, at 25 seconds, Sandmann is still visible on the steps in his original spot. The panning continues back to the right, and when it pans left again, Sandmann can now be seen in his chosen spot, at the 41 second mark. This is a full 15 seconds and 5 paces from his original location in the video. The drummer, on the other hand, has stopped moving forward, and has been rooted to the spot when Sandmann approaches him.

Sandmann’s maneuvering into place in front of the drummer was calculated to be in the best place possible for demonstrating to his buddies that he was a “big man”. As for demonstrating his feelings to the native protesters, it was his rarely broken smirk that told the tale.

So, to sum up, the media erred in not telling the whole tale. What they got right, though, was in portraying the disrespectful behaviour of a gang of white boys toward a native American peacemaker. The media commentary that ensued may have been excessive, but that will be very hard to prove in a court of law. All one has to do is watch the video.

Namaste,

Brian

[Fellow Aspirant]

Hi Dizyblueyez

Re:
"??? I never saw anything that suggested that you retract anything, or any suggestions that you exit the thread? Did I miss something? This comment from you was quite surprising for me, so I scrolled back to find those suggestions, and I never saw them..

(If it did happen, I apologize for not finding them, but if didn't, I think it fair that I say what I say below... )

He may have noted that he disagreed with your interpretation of the information, But I NEVER saw him ask you to rewrite anything, or leave the thread at all.. And by suggesting as much, that's not fair to Paul OR Avalon. You're suggesting that an ADMIN is CENSORING CONTENT.. That's A BIG ACCUSATION..."

My take:

The exchange reminded me of a scene from an old western movie where the newcomer is confronted by the Sheriff with the "We don't much take to your kind around here, mister. I reckon you'd best be movin' along." It was a clear message from an administrator that my ideas were unwelcome. Here's how it went:

Posted by Fellow Aspirant :

"What they got right, though, was in portraying the disrespectful behaviour of a gang of white boys toward a native American peacemaker."

To which Paul replied:

As you likely know by now, some of us disagree with the view you present, through your particular choice of complimentary or pejorative adjectives.

What, I wondered was he referring to? Had I transgressed the bounds of decent discourse? So I asked what I had posted that was so objectionable. The response was to draw my attention to my use of the words “disrespectful”, “gang” and “white”. Although later “A Voice From the Mountains” in post #738, urged Paul to likewise include the word “white” because he was sure that I had used it in an unacceptable way.i.e.:
“You could have bolded the word "white" because I guarantee you (from experience on other threads) that he's using that as a pejorative, too.”

Anyway, it seemed to me that none of the words I had used were actually curses or insults per se, so I asked him if it wasn’t really my attitude or point of view that he found problematic. Turns out it was. I wrote:

Okay, thanks. I had supposed, at first, that your attempt to make me retract my statements/leave the thread was based on a personal dislike. Now it's clear that it's my interpretation of the incident that you object to. In other words, you think it necessary to speak on behalf of those forum members who disagree with my point of view, and to protect them from my thinking. Staggering.

Paul then confirmed his ideologically driven objection with his one word response in Post #745 …

“Staggering.

Yeah. “


Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Brian

[Pam]

Fellow Aspirant, you keep saying this. You use the term Native American Peacemaker . . Here's a few questions for you;

Would you be upset if it was a white guy he was smiling at? Would you be upset if he did that to another kid? How about a woman that was in his face? How do you know he is a Native American ? Is it now a PC faux pas to smirk or smile if you are uncomfortable? How do you know he is a peace maker? How do you know he wasn't there to get a video that would go viral?

Even Native Americans can sometimes have less than savory motives. Apparently he lied about being in active duty as a Viet Nam war veteran, that kind of crappy don't you think?

[DNA]

imho, those who wear MAGA hats may as well be advertising the fact that they support a mobbed up neo-con whitehouse. But..they obviously don't see it that way.

Except the NEO-CONS hate Trump.

And the same media that supported and never questioned a NEO-CON directive hate Trump.

And the administration that ran on CHANGE ended up giving us more of the same, and Obama was loved by the NEO-CONS so much so as to have earned the title DEMO-CON.

I will now allow my hand to slide over and pick up my MAGA hat, place it on my head and beam with pride.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1427/9954/products/Official-Donald-trump-Make-America-Great-Again-Hat---Red---Crop_1000x.jpg?v=1513056385

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH61hFsma24

[AutumnW]

Hmmm. Could you give me an example or two?
An example of what ... some of your uses of complimentary or pejorative adjectives ?

Yes.

B.
See emboldened words for three pejorative words, then three complimentary words:

What they got right, though, was in portraying the disrespectful behaviour of a gang of white boys toward a native American peacemaker.

Okay, thanks. I had supposed, at first, that your attempt to make me retract my statements/leave the thread was based on a personal dislike. Now it's clear that it's my interpretation of the incident that you object to. In other words, you think it necessary to speak on behalf of those forum members who disagree with my point of view, and to protect them from my thinking. Staggering.

So, on with the 'discussion'. Time for some more food for thought. Here's an interview, done by Anna North, with an expert in education, especially of the form enjoyed by privileged rich children, in which he explains what he finds wrong with the behaviour of the Covington students:

"The smirking silence with which Sandmann confronted elder Nathan Phillips was actually incredibly telling, according to Adam Howard, an education professor at Colby College and the author of "Learning Privilege: Lessons of Power and Identity in Affluent Schooling". Sandmann’s expression clearly “communicates that I’m better than you, that I don’t even have enough respect for you to even say anything to communicate,” Howard told me.

The student’s behavior was the embodiment of privilege, Howard said, and nothing that came after the initial viral video changes that.

I reached out to Howard, who previously wrote for Vox about the culture of elite private schools, to ask how that culture might help us understand the March for Life video and its aftermath. In a phone interview, which has been condensed and edited, he said that the video and the reactions to it expose not just the problem of privilege in America but our inability as a society to reckon with that problem.

Anna North

What did you see when you saw the March for Life video for the first time?

Adam Howard

When you saw the young man’s face looking at the elder, and just the smirk, and then having a whole group around him of his fellow classmates, all boys, doing the various things they were doing — chanting, doing tomahawk things, racist behaviors — this is what privilege looks like. This is what he has learned not only from his schooling but also from other sources of education, which include family and the larger national context.

What he’s learned is this contempt toward others, this kind of privileged white male gaze that communicates, “I’m better than you, I don’t even have enough respect for you to even say anything to communicate, but I will communicate everything I need to through my body language.” That overconfidence, and that sense of entitlement, all of it was being performed in that moment.

As I was reading the articles, the ways in which people were trying to make sense of that initially, none of the conversation really focused on privilege and that these were a group of privileged boys from a privileged institution.

Anna North

What was your reaction when you saw additional videos released after the initial viral video, and the conversation around those subsequent videos?
Adam Howard

Even in the other videos, [Sandmann] was still looking stone-faced, smirking. That privileged white male gaze that every minority is very familiar with — when that gaze is upon you as a minority, you know what it communicates, and it communicates that “you’re inferior to me, I have a particular kind of perception of myself that places me above you.” That performance was also being reinforced by all his classmates kind of cheering him on.

Silence plays an incredibly important part in that performance, because as soon as the boy says something, then we can confront him, we can dissect it, we can challenge it, and so part of it was that he wasn’t even giving anything over to be challenged in any way.
We don’t know what he was exactly thinking at that moment, because he didn’t communicate anything verbally. That’s how privilege works — it’s constantly performed and embodied in particular ways where it’s hard to challenge it.

Anna North

It sounds like you’re saying we can see privilege at play in this video regardless of Sandmann’s statement or the longer video that was released later. Is that right?

Adam Howard

Yes. And therefore, it would be useful for us to begin to ask the questions of, how do young people learn those lessons that allow them to be okay with showing such contempt toward others who are different from themselves? Do they learn that through their education? Do they learn that through their religion? Do they learn that through their family? [Do they learn that through] the national context, and what’s going on in our country and what’s going on in the larger world?
I would argue that all of those things are teaching them incredibly important lessons, and we need to be more mindful and intentional about the kinds of lessons we want to teach young people.

Anna North

Earlier in our conversation, you mentioned that the video reminded you of something that happened at your institution. Can you talk about that incident?

Adam Howard

Several years ago, we had this incident on campus, and it sent shock waves throughout our small, elite liberal arts college. It involved members of a male sports team. Shortly after this incident, I was asked, along with another faculty colleague, to lead and facilitate this community conversation.

Several hundred people attended, and it was a three-hour event, and it was emotionally charged — people crying, and raised voices every once in a while. It was very obvious that a lot of people were affected by this in pretty profound ways.
What was interesting is that the first two rows of this gathering space were all teammates of the guys who were involved in this incident, and they sat there and didn’t say a word for the entire three-hour period. They had that smirk on their faces, their arms crossed, and even though they didn’t say anything, their contempt for what was going on, everything they were communicating without saying a word — it completely overshadowed everything that we were trying to do.
We were trying to heal our community, and we weren’t fully able to. It was so destructive; it was so disruptive. Anytime you challenge privilege, there’s going to be attempts to disrupt those efforts.

Anna North

How should the fact that Covington Catholic is an all-boys’ school factor into our understanding of this incident?

Adam Howard

When I research all-boys’ schools, the headmasters and others will claim that it allows students to express themselves freely, and that they’re more involved in the arts and in creative endeavors and that they’re not negatively impacted by having girls present and the peer pressure that goes along with that. I think that’s a bunch of crap.

I think it instead reinforces very toxic ways of thinking about what it means to be a boy and what it means to be a man. The fact that you don’t have women there often limits the opportunities for you to develop healthy, productive relationships across gender.

Often you have this kind of mob mentality that forms, because elite schools, part of what they do is teach their students to always prove that they’re the best. So what ends up happening is that it’s always a contest of who’s the best man. A lot of that is connected to sexual conquest, proving certain things that just aren’t very healthy ways of thinking about what it means to be a man.

Anna North

What can we learn as a society from this whole incident — the first video, but also the longer video and the reactions to all of it?

Adam Howard

What’s problematic from this larger incident, if you take [it] from the moment this goes viral to now, is that we easily dismiss things that need to be discussed. People are trying to find holes in the original narrative, and as soon as they find those holes, then that gives us permission to not discuss what we need to be discussing.

Part of that is, what are privileged, white, young men learning about themselves, not just through their education and their family but through what’s going on at the national level? How they are making sense of themselves, others, and the world around them, and then how are they acting on that? Those are the types of conversations that we need to be [having], and I don’t know how we get there. It requires us to actually be willing to get past, “This narrative is flawed, therefore there’s nothing to be discussed here,” to, “What can we learn from this?”

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/23/18193174/covington-catholic-school-native-american-students-video

I still see only a howling horde of kids, Tomahawk-chopping and roaring with laughter at a Native American, one smirking young man in the center. I see the same display of unearned, unexamined, vaguely menacing privilege that I did on Saturday.

In the days since the incident on the National Mall, the revelation which is supposed to have changed everything is that Nathan Phillips approached the group of kids, and not the other way around. Who approached whom is only relevant if one 64-year-old man with a single drum is more menacing than a gang of teenage boys. The kids are still cackling at an elder, still mocking him with war whoops. The behavior, in its most generous interpretation, is dishonorable.

The smirk of privilege, framed by MAGA hats and mocking laughter, is all that’s there, despite what the kid in the picture—via the public relations firm his family had the means to retain—says. It is unmistakable, which is why the image was shared as widely as it was. It would not have gone viral if it didn’t resonate, if we hadn’t seen this particular strain of American smirk as long as we’ve had photography.

We’ve seen it on the faces of the white people intimidating black patrons at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, in the pictures of freshly-integrated high schools in Little Rock. We’ve seen it in our own personal histories, if we have ever been that terrifying combination of young and different in any way. We saw that smirk with our eyes, but we felt it in our stomachs.

Nathan Phillips, a veteran in the indigenous rights movement, was that man in the middle.

In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.

Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.

Phillips said a few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant, “Build that wall, build that wall,” though such chants are not audible on video.

“It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ ” Phillips recalled. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.”

Phillips kept drumming and singing, thinking about his wife, Shoshana, who died of bone marrow cancer nearly four years ago, and the various threats that face indigenous communities around the world, he said.
“I felt like the spirit was talking through me,” Phillips said.


Brian

Hi Brian


I appreciate her comments but she is wrong, as it seems she did not watch the full video footage. These boys were being typical teens and whether they be white black or polka dotted, teens display some typical social behavior. Often shyness and feelings of social awkwardness create a stiff or easily misinterpreted body language. Smirking or smiling broadly in a stunned looking fashion are also signs of embarrassment.

There are many forces aligned attempting to create social dischord. My own feeling is the Anglo American elite are fracturing, have differing agendas and affiliations and it is showing up in both alternative and msm and academia. The alternative media will NOT criticize Trump for anything. The mainstream fault him for everything. They are both wrong, biased, not to be trusted.

Academia is too narrowly focussed on demonizing EVERY aspect of a society that is still at least partly a meritocracy, partly hierarchical based on individual competency. It's not all about brute power, exlusively. They frame everything in terms of dominance structures without examining dominance in a more subtle analytical style.

Academia is going to create the monsters it's trying to combat. It is so extremely weird to me and so undermining of society, I almost think gender studies in universities could be funded by hard right fundamentalist Christians, knowing perfectly well there will be a huge backlash.

I'm a very proud Canadian liberal Democratic Socialist and I see nothing but heart ache coming from this

[AutumnW]

imho, those who wear MAGA hats may as well be advertising the fact that they support a mobbed up neo-con whitehouse. But..they obviously don't see it that way.

Except the NEO-CONS hate Trump.

And the same media that supported and never questioned a NEO-CON directive hate Trump.

And the administration that ran on CHANGE ended up giving us more of the same, and Obama was loved by the NEO-CONS so much so as to have earned the title DEMO-CON.

I will now allow my hand to slide over and pick up my MAGA hat, place it on my head and beam with pride.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1427/9954/products/Official-Donald-trump-Make-America-Great-Again-Hat---Red---Crop_1000x.jpg?v=1513056385

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH61hFsma24

Dude,

You've got some 'splainin' to do if you consider John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Steve Bannon anything other than the hardest neo-cons itching to implement foreign policy agendas that have been on the back burner for decades. Elliot Abrams and Central and South America?? Do some research.

[PurpleLama]

The alternative media is criticizing Trump plenty for all the Goldman Sachs and neocons in his cabinet. FS's tendency to double down on what is an obviously fallacious commentary should be seen for what it is.

FFS

[DNA]

Dude,

You've got some 'splainin' to do if you consider John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Steve Bannon anything other than the hardest neo-cons itching to implement foreign policy agendas that have been on the back burner for decades. Elliot Abrams and Central and South America?? Do some research.


Those guys are softcore make out porn compared to the beastiality of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield and now McCain.
If you want to understand what is going on then you need to know your enemies.
The folks you mention are small potatoes, they are roma tomatoes, they are pawns and diet pawns.
In the NFL it is common practice to take the player from a guy who didn't make the squad in your division. The thought here is that you are basically enlisting someone who understands the playbook of your enemy. I think Trump is doing the same thing in enlisting some of the Goldman Sachs guys and what not.

In all honesty Autumn I learned what I think I know from truly out there sources.
I honestly believe Cathy O'Brien, her description of Dick Cheney as a psychopath who enjoys traumatizing people because of his sadistic streak is difficult to endure.
I absolutely believe Sue Arrigo, and her stories about the neocons will shake you to your very core.
I believe Dr. John Coleman who straight up sounds like a prophet in terms of predicting how things would unfold.
The elite alternate which hand they use when strangling the freedom out of the population of the earth.
They've used the right hand so much it has become predictable, and right now they are using their left hand.
Trump has slowed their plan in his rise to prominence.

[AutumnW]

DNA, Darn, I just lost my last post!

If Venezuela remains whole and doesn't get 'democracy' and get it good and hard from the likes of Bolton, I'm happy to accept your explanation.

[Kryztian]

Telangana man worships photo of Donald Trump every day
Jun 21, 2018 22:03 IST
Srinivasa Rao Apparasu
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/telangana-man-worships-photo-of-us-president-everyday-gives-aarti/story-lu3kt2rHjHj9xbvwzA8DiO.html
Hindustan Times, Hyderabad
(https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/telangana-man-worships-photo-of-us-president-everyday-gives-aarti/story-lu3kt2rHjHj9xbvwzA8DiO.html)

Bussa Krishna says he began worshipping Donald Trump after he was pained by the killing of Srinivas Kuchibotla in an alleged hate crime in the US.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/rf/image_size_960x540/HT/p2/2018/06/21/Pictures/_95b29acc-7555-11e8-ad22-53d0ea2909b4.jpg

For Bussa Krishna, US President Donald Trump is no less than a god.

The 31-year-old small farmer from the remote Konne village in Telangana’s Jangaon district has installed a photograph of Trump in his puja room and worships it every day along with other Hindu gods. He offers vermillion, turmeric, flowers and at the end of his prayer does “aarti” to the photograph.

The idea of worshipping the US president struck Krishna after Srinivas Kuchibhotla, a software engineer from the state, was killed by a US navy veteran in an alleged act of hate crime in February last year.

“I was very much pained at the incident. I thought the only way the US president and his people could understand the greatness of Indians is to display our love and affection towards them. That is why I started worshipping Trump with a hope that the prayers would reach him one day,” he said.

“I believe Indians can win over anyone with their spiritual powers. When you cannot take on a mighty person directly, you can win over him with love and worship and that is what I am doing,” he added.

Worshipping politicians is not new to Indians as followers across the country have given divine status to political leaders as well as movie stars by erecting their statues and building temples to them.

Fans of late movie star turned chief minister MG Ramachandran have built several temples and shrines in neighbouring Tamil Nadu. His protege and late AIADMK leader J Jayalalithaa was also worshipped as a goddess and called Amma or mother by many of her supporters.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/rf/image_size_960x540/HT/p2/2018/06/21/Pictures/_1242b53a-7557-11e8-ad22-53d0ea2909b4.jpg

Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a temple dedicated to him in Rajkot, a city his home state of Gujarat. He was later removed after he expressed his disapproval, saying he was appalled.

Ironically, Krishna does not know much about Trump.

“I only know that he is the most strong and invincible leader in the world. What I liked about him was his bold attitude. Since he took part in World Wrestling Federation (WWF) competitions, he must be very powerful,” the school dropout said.

Krishna regularly posts photographs of him worshipping the US president on his Facebook page – Krish Raj.

“Nobody took me seriously and some people even called me a mad fellow, wondering how prayers in a remote village would reach Trump. But I have a strong faith in what I am doing,” he said.

Krishna even claimed that he received a message from Trump on Twitter on June 19.

“Krish from India is a very close friend of mine; out of the billions and billions of Indians, he is my favourite. He’s able to channel dragon energy from worshipping my photos; may be low-energy Jeb Bush should give it a try; I’d be happy send him a pic! See you soon Krish!” the message read.

It could not be independently verified whether the message was genuine but Krishna was on cloud nine.

“I am extremely happy to receive a message from Trump. I am sure he will remember me if he comes to India,” he said.

First Published: Jun 21, 2018 19:15 IST

[onawah]

President Donald Trump’s new budget proposal would cut Social Security payouts by $84 billion over the next decade.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-budget-cut-social-security-by-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-5acf9bfd2b43/
MAR 11, 2019
"The cuts come from a variety of changes to how the program’s disability insurance component functions. Though Trump has previously made repeated promises to shield Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits from the budget ax, his administration asserts that cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) do not constitute cuts to the Social Security program writ large.

“None of this is the government’s money,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, an organization that works to protect at-risk populations. “We pay for all of Social Security, and they’re saying we’re going to reach into your pocket and take it from you.”

Lawson pointed to a proposal that would cut $10 billion in Social Security payments over the next decade.President Donald Trump’s new budget proposal would cut Social Security payouts by $84 billion over the next decade.

The cuts come from a variety of changes to how the program’s disability insurance component functions. Though Trump has previously made repeated promises to shield Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits from the budget ax, his administration asserts that cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) do not constitute cuts to the Social Security program writ large.

“None of this is the government’s money,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, an organization that works to protect at-risk populations. “We pay for all of Social Security, and they’re saying we’re going to reach into your pocket and take it from you.”

Lawson pointed to a proposal that would cut $10 billion in Social Security payments over the next decade.Under current law, people are entitled to a maximum of 12 months worth of retroactive payments when they receive final approval for their disability insurance claims. Currently, the disability review system is so severely backlogged that the average application takes 18 months to process, which means that eligible recipients are already losing money that a thorough review process has determined they should have gotten.Trump’s budget halves the retroactivity cap, down from a year to six months. That means that beyond this new six-month limit, people who have a valid disability claim would never get the back pay owed to them. The change would reduce Social Security costs by $316 million in the first year, more than $1.4 billion in 2029, and just a hair more than $10 billion over 10 years, according the president’s budget proposal.

“You wait in line for a year and a half. They say, ‘oh yeah you do qualify for it.’ So you should get benefits retroactive to when you apply,” Lawson said. “There’s already this unfairness where you’re not getting the benefits that you earned. And now they’re just arbitrarily shrinking that to six months.”

The budget plan also projects $47.5 billion in additional cuts to SSDI from unspecified “new approaches to increase labor force participation.”

The budget tables list a series of other changes to the disability insurance system that each generate smaller cuts, with a total of $84.09 billion in savings over the decade.

This assault on disability insurance and other major benefits programs violates one of Trump’s campaign promises. Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, has previously boasted that he convinced Trump that disability insurance is different from other Social Security programs. But all three benefits programs in Social Security are funded by the same pool of money ponied up by workers themselves.“He turns around and guts these programs. Our programs, taking our money, that we earned,” Lawson said. “A budget is a moral document, and what this budget shows is that we have an immoral administration occupying the White House right now.”

The budget also chips away at Social Security in smaller ways. It proposes a $400 million year-over-year cut to Social Security Administration funding, for instance.

Presidents lay out their proposed funding levels against the prior year’s backdrop. But that one-year snapshot conceals the reality of Trump’s Social Security Administration (SSA) slashing, which can be seen more clearly with the context of successive year-over-year cuts going back nearly a decade.

Powerbrokers at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue have been obsessed with deficits throughout that time. Though activist coalitions staved off multiple attempts to cut benefits for Social Security participants, the political sacredness of retiree payments doesn’t extend to the people in charge of making the retirement and disability systems actually function.

And while SSA budgets have been slashed each year since 2010, the agency’s clientele has exploded in that time, as baby boomers started to hit retirement age. The double squeeze on SSA’s capacity has had predictable and avoidable negative effects.

Callers to the agency’s toll-free help line now spend almost 20 minutes on hold before getting the human assistance they need, up from a three-minute average wait in 2010. The incidence of callers getting a busy signal has more than doubled as well.In-person customer service is also harder to obtain now than it was before lawmakers started hacking away at SSA’s funding. The agency laid off 3,500 field office workers from 2010 to 2018 in response to the cuts. It closed 64 of its 1,200-plus permanent field offices and shuttered another 500-plus part-time “contact stations” that also provided face-to-face answers for people who run into an issue with their benefits.

These may seem small issues. The SSA itself has downplayed the impact of its retreat from traditional customer service, urging beneficiaries to lean on its online help systems to troubleshoot lost cards, benefit appeals, and other common issues. But for people living on a fixed income, any issue that threatens a delay in benefit payments can often present existential threats: eviction, a bare cupboard, lost means of transportation to visit loved ones and doctors.

But anything that makes the Social Security system marginally more annoying to use helps chip away at the political forces that protect it from the kinds of dastardly “entitlement reform” schemes long touted by politicians willing to misrepresent the program’s financial situation. The cliché about Social Security benefits being a third rail of American politics is true in part because people are able to get exactly what they paid for in an efficient, reliable fashion. Screwing up the customer service Americans get from the program could, in time, reduce the voltage of the voter backlash that rightly scares many politicians off of the entitlement reform bandwagon.

And while the budget expects a continued undermining of customer service that people actually need, the administration is apparently ready to ask the same staff already floundering to keep up with beneficiaries’ needs to take on a new and insidious task: snooping on disability insurance recipients’ social media feeds.

Unlike the budget’s proposed cuts to Social Security, Trump’s team could force SSA staffers into policing disability recipients’ Facebook posts without any help from Congress. And the agency has reportedly already worked up a plan for such a disability panopticon – “[u]nder pressure from the White House,” according to a Sunday report in the New York Times – that would see SSA undertake the new surveillance work sometime next year."

[East Sun]

Trump is defiantly the answer. YES, defiantly the answer...............

[Pam]

President Donald Trump’s new budget proposal would cut Social Security payouts by $84 billion over the next decade.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-budget-cut-social-security-by-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-5acf9bfd2b43/
MAR 11, 2019
"The cuts come from a variety of changes to how the program’s disability insurance component functions. Though Trump has previously made repeated promises to shield Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits from the budget ax, his administration asserts that cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) do not constitute cuts to the Social Security program writ large.

“None of this is the government’s money,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, an organization that works to protect at-risk populations. “We pay for all of Social Security, and they’re saying we’re going to reach into your pocket and take it from you.”

Lawson pointed to a proposal that would cut $10 billion in Social Security payments over the next decade.President Donald Trump’s new budget proposal would cut Social Security payouts by $84 billion over the next decade.

The cuts come from a variety of changes to how the program’s disability insurance component functions. Though Trump has previously made repeated promises to shield Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits from the budget ax, his administration asserts that cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) do not constitute cuts to the Social Security program writ large.

“None of this is the government’s money,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, an organization that works to protect at-risk populations. “We pay for all of Social Security, and they’re saying we’re going to reach into your pocket and take it from you.”

Lawson pointed to a proposal that would cut $10 billion in Social Security payments over the next decade.Under current law, people are entitled to a maximum of 12 months worth of retroactive payments when they receive final approval for their disability insurance claims. Currently, the disability review system is so severely backlogged that the average application takes 18 months to process, which means that eligible recipients are already losing money that a thorough review process has determined they should have gotten.Trump’s budget halves the retroactivity cap, down from a year to six months. That means that beyond this new six-month limit, people who have a valid disability claim would never get the back pay owed to them. The change would reduce Social Security costs by $316 million in the first year, more than $1.4 billion in 2029, and just a hair more than $10 billion over 10 years, according the president’s budget proposal.

“You wait in line for a year and a half. They say, ‘oh yeah you do qualify for it.’ So you should get benefits retroactive to when you apply,” Lawson said. “There’s already this unfairness where you’re not getting the benefits that you earned. And now they’re just arbitrarily shrinking that to six months.”

The budget plan also projects $47.5 billion in additional cuts to SSDI from unspecified “new approaches to increase labor force participation.”

The budget tables list a series of other changes to the disability insurance system that each generate smaller cuts, with a total of $84.09 billion in savings over the decade.

This assault on disability insurance and other major benefits programs violates one of Trump’s campaign promises. Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, has previously boasted that he convinced Trump that disability insurance is different from other Social Security programs. But all three benefits programs in Social Security are funded by the same pool of money ponied up by workers themselves.“He turns around and guts these programs. Our programs, taking our money, that we earned,” Lawson said. “A budget is a moral document, and what this budget shows is that we have an immoral administration occupying the White House right now.”

The budget also chips away at Social Security in smaller ways. It proposes a $400 million year-over-year cut to Social Security Administration funding, for instance.

Presidents lay out their proposed funding levels against the prior year’s backdrop. But that one-year snapshot conceals the reality of Trump’s Social Security Administration (SSA) slashing, which can be seen more clearly with the context of successive year-over-year cuts going back nearly a decade.

Powerbrokers at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue have been obsessed with deficits throughout that time. Though activist coalitions staved off multiple attempts to cut benefits for Social Security participants, the political sacredness of retiree payments doesn’t extend to the people in charge of making the retirement and disability systems actually function.

And while SSA budgets have been slashed each year since 2010, the agency’s clientele has exploded in that time, as baby boomers started to hit retirement age. The double squeeze on SSA’s capacity has had predictable and avoidable negative effects.

Callers to the agency’s toll-free help line now spend almost 20 minutes on hold before getting the human assistance they need, up from a three-minute average wait in 2010. The incidence of callers getting a busy signal has more than doubled as well.In-person customer service is also harder to obtain now than it was before lawmakers started hacking away at SSA’s funding. The agency laid off 3,500 field office workers from 2010 to 2018 in response to the cuts. It closed 64 of its 1,200-plus permanent field offices and shuttered another 500-plus part-time “contact stations” that also provided face-to-face answers for people who run into an issue with their benefits.

These may seem small issues. The SSA itself has downplayed the impact of its retreat from traditional customer service, urging beneficiaries to lean on its online help systems to troubleshoot lost cards, benefit appeals, and other common issues. But for people living on a fixed income, any issue that threatens a delay in benefit payments can often present existential threats: eviction, a bare cupboard, lost means of transportation to visit loved ones and doctors.

But anything that makes the Social Security system marginally more annoying to use helps chip away at the political forces that protect it from the kinds of dastardly “entitlement reform” schemes long touted by politicians willing to misrepresent the program’s financial situation. The cliché about Social Security benefits being a third rail of American politics is true in part because people are able to get exactly what they paid for in an efficient, reliable fashion. Screwing up the customer service Americans get from the program could, in time, reduce the voltage of the voter backlash that rightly scares many politicians off of the entitlement reform bandwagon.

And while the budget expects a continued undermining of customer service that people actually need, the administration is apparently ready to ask the same staff already floundering to keep up with beneficiaries’ needs to take on a new and insidious task: snooping on disability insurance recipients’ social media feeds.

Unlike the budget’s proposed cuts to Social Security, Trump’s team could force SSA staffers into policing disability recipients’ Facebook posts without any help from Congress. And the agency has reportedly already worked up a plan for such a disability panopticon – “[u]nder pressure from the White House,” according to a Sunday report in the New York Times – that would see SSA undertake the new surveillance work sometime next year."

Recently I have had to deal with a couple Federal government agencies which I have rarely ever had to do in the past. I was absolutely appalled at the total lack of access to any of these agencies. They have one phone loop after another, none of them letting you talk to a real person. They indicate how accessible they are and it is a total lie. The only way you can hope to have access is to know a name and extension. In desperation I started making up common last names to gain access to the roster of names so I could talk to a real person and not one of them answered the call. The system is truly broken. They are supposed to be serving the people and yet they are inaccessible.

I had a huge problem with the federal government before, now I have disdain for this monstrosity of bumbling inefficiency, waste and corruption.

[onawah]

From Food & Water Watch's email update
3/15/19
Trump's Oily Plans

"At a time when we need to put the brakes on all fossil fuel development, Trump continues to double down on dirty energy, including a push for dangerous offshore drilling.

Our planet, our environment and our communities can't endure more oil and gas extraction. And we shouldn’t gamble with the future of our coasts.

Tell the Department of the Interior to protect our climate, our oceans and our safety by halting offshore drilling!
https://petitions.signforgood.com/nooffshoredrilling/?code=FWA&j=171200&sfmc_sub=226138821&l=35&mid=100001791&utm_source=MarketingCloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FWW_Energy_Offshore+Drilling+Joint+Petition+(FWW%2c+noGL)_MC0319&ms=onor-em-03152019-FWW_Energy_Offshore+Drilling+Joint+Petition+(FWW%2c+noGL)_MC0319&oms=onor-em-03152019-FWW_Energy_Offshore+Drilling+Joint+Petition+(FWW%2c+noGL)_MC0319&eml_name=FWW_Energy_Offshore+Drilling+Joint+Petition+(FWW%2c+noGL)_MC0319&eml_id=171200&gs=GxlJbkxjcq%2B8UZOd9mKlA%2FrUqmVv9Bhub1uCcnoOsk%2FAQ6T%2FAXyET%2BMg3cRAarznAdzGoo51DzWpg7%2Fz%2BAX UDaE1x%2F4E6M31GGoZYU1jiyF5w%2FaCNxIAfcqLiNEd0p9J&af=yPy0mzWPwwnpaypjbtzj1J8WlpGjDAPARXCLhp5CTun66iS4S76%2FJwsaM9b2IcOMWyEGCWpv7Ymb5fD9zd78TuYKLjhEDE% 2BX73YVnyUP4URorV%2FmRtpF1yZJIz8Y10qpg%2BBnnT7PPKhZMWhelgAURfZ8QEHS2viaxr6mH4GR%2BjJ12csr3D7R9%2BdYa AQZ25nJ

What’s even worse is that Trump also wants to repeal the rules authorized after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster to prevent future drilling accidents.

We know the devastating impact of oil spills and leaks from offshore drilling — birds, fish, whales, sea turtles and dolphins dying off, people getting sick and severe economic losses for our coastal communities. After the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Gulf Coast tourism industry lost about $22.7 billion, and the commercial fishing industry lost $247 million.

We can’t allow a disaster like that to happen again.

No Offshore Drilling
Together — and thanks to your actions — we’ve beaten back previous attempts to expand offshore drilling along our coasts. We can do it again!

Join Food & Water Action – our political arm – as we stand with a dozen other organizations to oppose offshore drilling. Tell Trump NO to offshore drilling."
Sign the petition here: https://petitions.signforgood.com/nooffshoredrilling/?code=FWA&j=171200&sfmc_sub=226138821&l=35&mid=100001791&utm_source=MarketingCloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FWW_Energy_Offshore+Drilling+Joint+Petition+(FWW%2c+noGL)_MC0319&ms=onor-em-03152019-FWW_Energy_Offshore+Drilling+Joint+Petition+(FWW%2c+noGL)_MC0319&oms=onor-em-03152019-FWW_Energy_Offshore+Drilling+Joint+Petition+(FWW%2c+noGL)_MC0319&eml_name=FWW_Energy_Offshore+Drilling+Joint+Petition+(FWW%2c+noGL)_MC0319&eml_id=171200&gs=GxlJbkxjcq%2B8UZOd9mKlA%2FrUqmVv9Bhub1uCcnoOsk%2FAQ6T%2FAXyET%2BMg3cRAarznAdzGoo51DzWpg7%2Fz%2BAX UDaE1x%2F4E6M31GGoZYU1jiyF5w%2FaCNxIAfcqLiNEd0p9J&af=yPy0mzWPwwnpaypjbtzj1J8WlpGjDAPARXCLhp5CTun66iS4S76%2FJwsaM9b2IcOMWyEGCWpv7Ymb5fD9zd78TuYKLjhEDE% 2BX73YVnyUP4URorV%2FmRtpF1yZJIz8Y10qpg%2BBnnT7PPKhZMWhelgAURfZ8QEHS2viaxr6mH4GR%2BjJ12csr3D7R9%2BdYa AQZ25nJ

[onawah]

Chlorpyrifos: EPA fails, lawmakers step up
http://www.panna.org/blog/chlorpyrifos-epa-fails-lawmakers-step?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=groundtruth&utm_campaign=gt-03-28&link_id=3&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&email_referrer=email_513807&email_subject=lawmakers-step-up-on-chlorpyrifos-farmer-spotlight-global-pesticide-problem
From Pesticide Action Network
3/22/19

"Once again, this Administration is proving they value pesticide industry profits more than children’s health. This is not heated rhetoric, it’s a clear-eyed observation.

In February, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appealed a court decision ordering them to protect children and farmworkers from the brain-harming pesticide chlorpyrifos. They argue that the science is “unsettled,” and want to keep this product on the market until at least 2022 — per the request of Dow Chemical (now Corteva).

New laws, instead
Of course our lawyers are ready to fight back (again — see below), but the appeal means yet more delay as kids and workers continue to be exposed. This is wrong.

Since EPA is refusing to do its job, we’re organizing. Late last week, a “ban chlorpyrifos” bill dropped in California, another was filed yesterday in Oregon, and a bill is already in motion in Maryland. All these proposed laws build on the historic ban the “Protect our Keiki” coalition won in Hawaiʻi last year.

At the national level, Rep. Nydia Vazquez (D-NY) reintroduced her bill for a national chlorpyrifos ban in early January. She has 64 co-sponsors to date, with Representatives from both sides of the aisle signing on.

It makes sense that there’s bipartisan support for this bill. Getting a known brain-harming pesticide off the market to protect children, farmworkers and rural families is not a partisan issue. Urge your Representative to support HR230 too.



The ban that wasn’t
The fact is, none of these laws should be necessary.

In March 2017, EPA was poised to withdraw all uses of chlorpyrifos in food production per the recommendation of the agency’s own scientists. The review had been set in motion by our 2007 lawsuit, which — after years of delay from EPA — resulted in a court-ordered deadline to act.

Since our initial suit, the science linking low-dose chlorpyrifos exposures with learning disabilities, autism and ADHD has only gotten stronger. In their 2016 review, for example, EPA scientists found that infants were exposed to levels in their food that are 140 times what’s considered “safe.”

Yet after closed-door meetings with the maker of chlorpyrifos (yes, that’s Dow Chemical, now Corteva), then-Administrator Scott Pruitt announced his agency was scrapping the planned ban. We’re quite sure this had nothing at all to do with the million dollar donation Dow executives had made to the president’s inaugural committee (a committee which is now, of course, under investigation).

Case study in corporate influence
In the current chaotic political landscape, reversing the planned ban of one pesticide may seem a small thing. But the chlorpyrifos story is much bigger than this single chemical.

Yes, the health of children, farmworkers and rural families across the country will be better protected when this chemical is off the market. But the chlorpyrifos case also puts a spotlight on a core question about our democratic institutions: Who are our public agencies working for?

We think they should be working for all of us, to protect the public good. Instead, they appear to be working for corporations to protect their bottom lines. Of course now that Dow has merged with DuPont, it’s busy rebranding itself as Corteva. And Bayer is hoping everyone forgets Monsanto ever existed — but that’s another story.

For now, please join us in pressing Congress to pass a law to ban chlorpyrifos, since this EPA won’t:
http://www.panna.org/take-action/protect-children-not-corporate-profits

[ichingcarpenter]

Jimmy Kimmel has proof of Trump's Narcissist personality disorder

Take a look at Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder and go through the check list.

Jimmy goes through with Donald's real statements on video

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)


(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love


(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)


(4) requires excessive admiration


(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations


(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends


(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others


(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her


(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes


LEMklCZYwVg

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Dude,

You've got some 'splainin' to do if you consider John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Steve Bannon anything other than the hardest neo-cons itching to implement foreign policy agendas that have been on the back burner for decades. Elliot Abrams and Central and South America?? Do some research.

Have you missed all the news stories of these guys having policy disagreements with Trump?

Trump put a bunch of globalists into his administration too, like Gary Cohn and General McMaster. Does that make Trump a globalist too?

How much experience do you have hiring people to perform specific roles in an organization?

Jesus Christ wasn't available to be assigned to a cabinet position.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Jimmy Kimmel has proof of Trump's Narcissist personality disorder

Take a look at Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder and go through the check list.

Jimmy Kimmel is projecting. He's a Hollywood sleezeball and will go down with the rest of them when all of this is said and done with. He knows it and he's desperate, just like all of the other Hollywood scum.

Projection:


Jimmy goes through with Donald's real statements on video

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

What are Kimmel's qualifications to make psychiatric diagnoses such as narcissism? Professionals are required to actually examine patients and not just accusations based on what is portrayed in media. Oh yeah, that's right, Jimmy Kimmel is a comedian.

I think he has the exaggerated sense of achievement, talent, self-importance, etc., to be spewing all of this biased crap without any relevant expertise, other than the expertise of being a clown.


(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

Completely unlike multi-millionaire Hollywood celebrities like Jimmy Kimmel, right? Right. More projection.


(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

Like hypocritical Hollywood elitists? Trump is a businessman who took an inheritance of millions and turned it into billions in one of the most cut-throat real estate markets in the world.

Kimmel, on the other hand, not only wants to associate with, but prostitutes himself to his owners for his millions. He goes on TV and says what his parent company tells him to, with absolutely no integrity. More projection, same as for Podesta's buddy Colbert and other sleezebags on late-night TV.


(4) requires excessive admiration

Based on whose determination? Hollywood's Jimmy Kimmel? Do you even realize how laughable and completely devoid of self-awareness his whole diatribe here is?


(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

You mean like comedians expecting to have their political opinions given extra weight? Let alone their psychiatric analyses. Every single one of these points is just projection from a very desperate man.


(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

Again, totally unlike anyone he works with in Hollywood.


(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

I didn't realize Kimmel was also a mind-reader, to determine Trump's true motivations for everything he has done throughout his career to help people in need. You've probably never seen these kinds of stories anyway because you get your news from MSNBC or some other MSM network running the "orange man bad" narrative.


(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

Are you really sure this list wasn't actually meant to be about Hollywood celebrities?


(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Like comedians presuming to be moral, political, and psychiatric authorities?

Compare to Kimmel's reaction to the Harvey Weinstein scandal:


Jimmy Kimmel Defends Lack of Harvey Weinstein Jokes: I’m Not the ‘Moral Conscience of America’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jimmy-kimmel-defends-lack-of-harvey-weinstein-jokes-im-not-the-moral-conscience-of-america

What's up with that? Can't have it both ways. Kimmel himself is a member of the Hollywood swamp.

[DNA]

This is so funny, Alex Jones on his most recent Podcast was talking about how people in the United States are leaving main stream media formats in droves.
But, he states they are tuning in to late night talk shows in droves, and they are taking these late comedian driven programs as factual news.
Alex Jones went on to give sources showing Jimmy Kimmel is so ingratiated to the liberal agenda that he regularly visits with Chuck Schumer for talking points on his late night talk show.
Same thing for Steven Colbert who was regularly in contact with HRC and the DNC for talking points on his show.



There is an agenda here folks.
Just like in 2001 when the media was hijacked to support the 9/11 narrative so to how the media been hijacked to support the current liberal agenda.
Two different puppet shows that the elite alternate depending on which objectives they wish to accomplish.
Main stream media has obviously been in control of the elite for decades but the elite have expanded their influence now to include comedians and Hollywood in general.
Comedians who hint at the truth are now driven into irrelevance and or their careers are sabotaged.

[onawah]

Trump budget proposal slashes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
March 20, 2019
by Diane Archer
https://justcareusa.org/trump-budget-proposal-slashes-medicare-medicaid-and-social-security/?link_id=2&can_id=855d6133b6e7cfa658d46dbe9b0d5678&source=email-trump-budget-slashes-medicare-and-social-security&email_referrer=email_515546&email_subject=trump-budget-slashes-medicare-and-social-security

(No different than run of the mill politicians, Trump did not keep his campaign promises to seniors.)

"Last Monday, Trump released his 2020 budget proposal. In it, he calls for slashing Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, breaking his campaign promise not to hurt these programs. If passed, his budget would put more holes in an already fragile social safety net.

The Trump budget cuts $845 billion from Medicare over ten years. Much of this money would come out of the pockets of doctors and hospitals. Some of the money would simply reduce the amount Medicare pays doctors who are based in hospital outpatient departments to the level that it pays doctors for the same services out of hospital. Some of the money would be taken out of the pockets of rehab facilities, home health providers and skilled nursing facilities. Of note, however, President Trump does not propose cuts to Medicare Advantage plans.

The President also proposes cutting $1.5 trillion from Medicaid. He would undo Medicaid expansion and health insurance subsidies provided for by the Affordable Care Act. He would require some Medicaid enrollees to work. And, he would block grant Medicaid, which experts say would mean cuts to the program, as the grants are not expected to keep pace with inflation.

Finally, the President proposes cutting SSA’s budget by $400 million for no good reason. Social Security has a $2.9 trillion surplus and money for Social Security administration comes out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security needs this money to meet the needs of Social Security enrollees. According to Nancy Altman, President, Social Security Works, “This will lead to office closures and longer wait times, making it more difficult for Americans to access the benefits they’ve earned.” Moreover, Trump’s budget also cuts $25 billion from Social Security disability benefits.

All these proposed Trump budget cuts endanger the health and financial security of older and low-income Americans. The President looks to be using these cuts to pay for his big tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest Americans."

Here’s more from Just Care:

Congress should scrap the Social Security cap
Congressman Larson introduces the Social Security 2100 Act
Majority of Americans oppose GOP plan to slash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
Social Security: What to know before claiming benefits
People with serious health needs more likely to disenroll from Medicare Advantage plans

[Deux Corbeaux]

~

Let's take time for a little interlude and watch Donald Trump's Unseen "Personal" Side.

Just for the balance......

~


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hckahqTqsA0

[petra]

I'll watch this shortly, thanks :)

I can't help but wonder about Trump as a person, at this point. I just finished Googling what kind of music he listens to out of curiousness, and ended up on Quora.

Funny thing: In the related Quora questions, people are also asking what kind of music did Jesus Christ listen to (ha ha). The Jesus answer you need to be 13+ to read (so I didn't sign in), but the Trump answer is available to all ages.

[Deux Corbeaux]

I'll watch this shortly, thanks :)

I can't help but wonder about Trump as a person, at this point. I just finished Googling what kind of music he listens to out of curiousness, and ended up on Quora.

Funny thing: In the related Quora questions, people are also asking what kind of music did Jesus Christ listen to (ha ha). The Jesus answer you need to be 13+ to read (so I didn't sign in), but the Trump answer is available to all ages.

Well, this is for you, Petra.

Donald Trump's Favorite Song (and the Surprising Music He Also Loves)

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/donald-trumps-favorite-song-and-the-surprising-music-he-also-loves.html/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M

[Deux Corbeaux]

Trump budget proposal slashes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
March 20, 2019
by Diane Archer
https://justcareusa.org/trump-budget-proposal-slashes-medicare-medicaid-and-social-security/?link_id=2&can_id=855d6133b6e7cfa658d46dbe9b0d5678&source=email-trump-budget-slashes-medicare-and-social-security&email_referrer=email_515546&email_subject=trump-budget-slashes-medicare-and-social-security



Since Diane Archer picked out just a few points to ventilate her personal opinion and fear, here is the President’s whole 2020 Budged for everybody to reflect upon.

Scroll down to page 39 - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/budget-fy2020.pd


A BUDGET FOR A BETTER AMERICA
PROMISES KEPT. TAXPAYERS FIRST.

-
Funding Highlights:
• The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to protect and strengthen the health and well-being of Americans through effective health and human services for the American people and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.

• The Budget addresses the Nation’s critical public health needs through investments that combat the opioid epidemic and support mental health services, increase efforts to eliminate infectious diseases, support high priority biomedical research, speed access to new innovative technology, and enhance emergency preparedness and health security. The Budget also offers strategies to reduce drug-related costs, improve the health of older Americans, and strengthen work requirements to promote self-sufficiency.

• The Budget also invests in child care to support America’s working families, and promotes work among able-bodied adults receiving assistance.

• The 2020 Budget requests $87.1 billion for HHS, a 12-percent decrease from the 2019 estimated level. The Budget proposes $1,248.8 billion in net mandatory health savings, reducing longer-term deficits.
-

The president’s 2020 Budget:

The Budget supports the mission of HHS while creating a streamlined Federal Government that promotes the most efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars.
The Budget invests in the highest priority public health needs of the Nation—combatting the opioid epidemic, supporting services for serious mental illness, and preparing for public health threats.
The Budget launches an initiative to end HIV/AIDS in America, an ambitious, yet necessary effort to eliminate a disease that has plagued the Nation for more than three decades.
In addition, the Budget takes bold steps to increase access and reduce drug costs for Americans, empowers consumers and States to regain control over health- care and increase affordability and consumer choice, and strengthens and protects the Medicare program for America’s seniors.

- Combats the Opioid Epidemic.

- Addresses Mental Health Needs.

- Reforms Drug Pricing and Payment.

- Empowers States and Consumers to Reform Healthcare.

- Modernizes Medicaid to Enhance State Flexibility.

- Reduces Wasteful Medicaid Spending.

- Improves Program Integrity for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP.

- Strengthens and Protects the Medicare Program.

- Supports Access to Innovative New Medical Technology.

- Launches an Initiative to End the HIV Epidemic in America.

- Reforms and Improves the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (Corps).

- Prioritizes Critical Health Research.

- Strengthens Health Services for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

- Enhances Emergency Preparedness and Health Security.

- Advances Medical Product Safety.

- Tackles the Epidemic of Youth E-Cigarette Use.

- Serves Older Americans.

- Strengthens Work Requirements to Promote Self-Sufficiency.

- Supports Children and Families in Achieving Their Potential.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/budget-fy2020.pdf


——

[onawah]

It's rather difficult to believe that Trump's budget could be doing anything for seniors if Social Security and Medicare are being slashed.

[Deux Corbeaux]

It's rather difficult to believe that Trump's budget could be doing anything for seniors if Social Security and Medicare are being slashed.

Is it?

A good Dutch expression jumps to mind: “Een mens lijdt dikwijls het meest aan het lijden dat hij vreest, maar dat nimmer op komt dagen”, or “Man suffers most from the suffering he fears, but which never appears.”

Just wait and see what will happen.

[onawah]

What I'm hoping will happen is that Congress won't go for it.


It's rather difficult to believe that Trump's budget could be doing anything for seniors if Social Security and Medicare are being slashed.

Is it?

A good Dutch expression jumps to mind: “Een mens lijdt dikwijls het meest aan het lijden dat hij vreest, maar dat nimmer op komt dagen”, or “Man suffers most from the suffering he fears, but which never appears.”

Just wait and see what will happen.

[Deux Corbeaux]

What I'm hoping will happen is that Congress won't go for it.

The Democrats, who now have the majority, will never go for any of Trump’s ideas. Even if they would be good or necessary.
So you don’t have to worry.

[onawah]

Ah, but it's never really that simple!


What I'm hoping will happen is that Congress won't go for it.

The Democrats, who now have the majority, will never go for any of Trump’s ideas. Even if they would be good or necessary.
So you don’t have to worry.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Any digging into the Social Security and Medicare funds would show that they are already essentially bankrupt as the money has been taken out of those "accounts" to spend on any number of other government projects. This has been a problem for many years.

Canada's socialized healthcare system was praised by the left for years, and now it's facing bankruptcy as well, and the situation of Canadians paying less for their healthcare is quickly changing, if it hasn't flipped already. This isn't hard to understand when you consider that the government footing the bill for all this healthcare only leads to the usual pork-barrel type of spending, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies overcharging the government, being awarded monopolies, and not having to compete with one another. These are all problems with socialist programs in general.

Even in the 1600s to 1800s, as primitive as technology was back then, and with no government welfare at all, the sick and elderly were taken care of, and homelessness was virtually unheard of. How do you think they managed that? By actually acting on this "love," "kindness," and "charity" that so many people today claim to value but then pass on in practice. In practical terms, local communities came together voluntarily, often around their church organizations, to feed the hungry, give people places to stay, and provide medical treatment to the best of their ability for those times. They didn't shirk their responsibilities to pass it off on the government to just sign a blank check. Imagine that! What a radical idea.

[Flash]

Any digging into the Social Security and Medicare funds would show that they are already essentially bankrupt as the money has been taken out of those "accounts" to spend on any number of other government projects. This has been a problem for many years.

Canada's socialized healthcare system was praised by the left for years, and now it's facing bankruptcy as well, and the situation of Canadians paying less for their healthcare is quickly changing, if it hasn't flipped already. This isn't hard to understand when you consider that the government footing the bill for all this healthcare only leads to the usual pork-barrel type of spending, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies overcharging the government, being awarded monopolies, and not having to compete with one another. These are all problems with socialist programs in general.

Even in the 1600s to 1800s, as primitive as technology was back then, and with no government welfare at all, the sick and elderly were taken care of, and homelessness was virtually unheard of. How do you think they managed that? By actually acting on this "love," "kindness," and "charity" that so many people today claim to value but then pass on in practice. In practical terms, local communities came together voluntarily, often around their church organizations, to feed the hungry, give people places to stay, and provide medical treatment to the best of their ability for those times. They didn't shirk their responsibilities to pass it off on the government to just sign a blank check. Imagine that! What a radical idea.

The American plans for medicare were the worst I have ever seen in the Western Hemisphere - the worst, completely sold to the big pharma, completely. No way it would ever work, ever. Layman with not much understanding in this could see it with naked eyes.

The healthcare system in Canada has worked up to now. The main reason it presently has difficulties is because the population is getting too old (no new children, we make less than in the USA) and old people spend a lot more on healthcare than the younger ones.

I am not correcting your post for your understanding, but rather for the rest of the members and forum readers.

On healthcare, the system in Canada is still quite just. It does not let people end up in the street as beggars just because they have been sick.

Which happens regularly in the USA.

And I am not even a leftist, yet I see the truth of it. The system was created before the take over of large corporations throughout the world, because today, the extremely hungry international corporate world would never let it pass.

Now, tell me, the whole western hemisphere, which has socialized medicine is wrong, only the USA is right? How closed minded one can be.

In Canada, the tax system is crumbling too and the RRSP (401) also since the old people which will be one full third of the population in a few little years are paying less taxes and are getting their money out of their RRSP.

When you write all your extreme rights false reasons for our systems in Canada to fail, not even listening to Canadians about it, and then you tell us what living in the 1600s was, allow me to think that you do not know what you are talking about.

You read a lot, but your thinking is not at par.

[Chanie]

Deleted my post as it was not related to the subject of this thread.

[Deux Corbeaux]

The problem with healthcare in the US is the high price of prescription drugs, doctors’ salaries, hospitals and health insurers.
A good affordable healthcare program is not possible if that issue is not taken care of first.

"Sky-high prices of everything make US healthcare the world's most expensive"

America spends twice as much on health as 10 other rich countries, due to the high cost of everything from prescriptions to doctors

The United States spends twice as much on healthcare as 10 other high-income nations, driven by the high price of everything from prescription drugs to doctors’ salaries, a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds.

Recent attempts to reform American healthcare have assigned blame for the high cost of care to nearly every sector – from drug companies to hospitals to health insurers.

However, a co-author of the new study said those arguments ignore the “800-pound gorilla”: sky-high prices everywhere.

“Most countries get to lower prices one of two ways: they either have a very strong price setter, usually a government agency, or more efficient markets,” said Dr Ashish Jha, co-author of the study by researchers at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health. “The US has figured out how to do the worst of both.”

n the study, America was compared to 10 other countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan, Sweden, France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Researchers used 98 indicators to compare countries across seven areas: general spending, population health, structural capacity, utilization, pharmaceuticals, access and quality and equity. The majority of the data came from international organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. What researchers found was not a single sector with high prices, but that every sector had extraordinary price tags.

For example, the average salary for a general practice physician in the other countries was between $86,607 and $154,126. In the US, the average salary was $218,173.

Per capita spending for prescription drugs in other nations ranged from $466 to $939. In the US, per capita spending was $1,443.

The US also spends more on administrative costs. Other nations spend between 1%-3% to administer their health plans. Administrative costs are 8% of total health spending in the US.

This results in US health costs that, as a percentage of gross domestic product, are nearly double that of other nations. In 2016, the US spent 17.8% of GDP, compared to 9.6%-12.4% in other countries.

At the same time, America often had the worst population health outcomes, and worst overall health coverage.

The US ranked last in life expectancy; had the worst maternal mortality rates (nearly triple that of the United Kingdom); more infant deaths than any other country, and a high rate of low birth weight babies.

Other countries had universal, or near universal, health insurance rates. The US ranked last. Just 90% of Americans have health insurance, leaving about 27 million people without access to healthcare.

Jha said whether the US moves toward more private healthcare, as advocated by Republicans, or to single-payer healthcare, as advocated by liberal Democrats, price tags on all American health services need to be addressed.

“I’m happy to move in either direction that will allow for lower prices, but right now we’re not even having that debate,” said Jha. “We’re fighting over all sorts of other things.”

The study’s possible weaknesses include comparability of data, with different countries having “modest” differences in data collection.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/13/us-healthcare-costs-causes-drug-prices-salaries

On this "critical" Trump thread I can't help sharing this article, as one will never hear this on mainstream media.
Let's say some positive thing about the guy for a change. :behindsofa:


"How Team Trump is bringing drug prices down"

https://nypost.com/2019/02/07/how-team-trump-is-bringing-drug-prices-down/

[onawah]

There are several pro-Trump threads where this article would be more appropriate. This thread is for the side of the Trump Admin. that pro-Trumpers don't want to look at. Whether one would see it on mainstream media or not isn't really much of an issue on Avalon, in any case.



On this "critical" Trump thread I can't help sharing this article, as one will never hear this on mainstream media.
Let's say some positive thing about the guy for a change. :behindsofa:


"How Team Trump is bringing drug prices down"

https://nypost.com/2019/02/07/how-team-trump-is-bringing-drug-prices-down/

[Flash]

There are several pro-Trump threads where this article would be more appropriate. This thread is for the side of the Trump Admin. that pro-Trumpers don't want to look at. Whether one would see it on mainstream media or not isn't really much of an issue on Avalon, in any case.



On this "critical" Trump thread I can't help sharing this article, as one will never hear this on mainstream media.
Let's say some positive thing about the guy for a change. :behindsofa:


"How Team Trump is bringing drug prices down"

https://nypost.com/2019/02/07/how-team-trump-is-bringing-drug-prices-down/

If Trump is doing something good, even if this thread is anti him, why not mentioning it. From all Western rich countries point of view, the health care system in the USA is literally scandalous. It is the optimum of corporate greed. Bringing any price tag down in the US would be a start albeit a tiny one.

Americans need that information Onawah, wherever they get it.

[Deux Corbeaux]

There are several pro-Trump threads where this article would be more appropriate. This thread is for the side of the Trump Admin. that pro-Trumpers don't want to look at. Whether one would see it on mainstream media or not isn't really much of an issue on Avalon, in any case.

Oops .................

Any other threads with the word Trump in the title? Show me.

[onawah]

The existence of Trump's name in the title of the thread is not necessarily an indicator that the thread is pro or anti-Trump.
I think that you probably know quite well which threads are which.
If it's that important to you, why not start a thread of your own with Trump's name in the title?


There are several pro-Trump threads where this article would be more appropriate. This thread is for the side of the Trump Admin. that pro-Trumpers don't want to look at. Whether one would see it on mainstream media or not isn't really much of an issue on Avalon, in any case.

Oops .................

Any other threads with the word Trump in the title? Show me.


[
If Trump is doing something good, even if this thread is anti him, why not mentioning it. From all Western rich countries point of view, the health care system in the USA is literally scandalous. It is the optimum of corporate greed. Bringing any price tag down in the US would be a start albeit a tiny one.

Americans need that information Onawah, wherever they get it.

So is there a movement afoot again to censor any information on the forum that is somewhat critical of the Trump Admin.?
Is the Web so bereft of pro-Trump info that we cannot afford to have one thread on Avalon that is more neutral and open to examining policies that may not be favorable to the people?

[Deux Corbeaux]

So is there a movement afoot again to censor any information on the forum that is somewhat critical of the Trump Admin.?
Is the Web so bereft of pro-Trump info that we cannot afford to have one thread on Avalon that is more neutral and open to examining policies that may not be favorable to the people?

I’m nor pro nor contra, but neutral, examining policies, which, I discovered, were not favorable to you.

Dear onaway, come on, take a moment for a gift ..... and breathe.

[onawah]

Somehow your post didn't come across to me as "neutral", Deux. Can you see why? I'm breathing just fine, thanks, and staying neutral enough to maintain that this thread was not intended by the OP to say some "positive things about the guy for a change", particularly since there are several threads devoted to saying positive things about him ALL the time. And which are VERY quick to censor anything negative about Trump expressed on them.
Let's keep our boundaries intact, please.



On this "critical" Trump thread I can't help sharing this article, as one will never hear this on mainstream media.
Let's say some positive thing about the guy for a change. :behindsofa:


"How Team Trump is bringing drug prices down"

https://nypost.com/2019/02/07/how-team-trump-is-bringing-drug-prices-down/

[Deux Corbeaux]

I’ve put out good information, but I’ll step back. You have the floor all to yourself.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The American plans for medicare were the worst I have ever seen in the Western Hemisphere - the worst, completely sold to the big pharma, completely. No way it would ever work, ever. Layman with not much understanding in this could see it with naked eyes.

There is rampant corruption in our healthcare system, yes, but they are murdering people with radiation and chemo in Canada just the same, even if you've been getting a discount on it until lately, so maybe some self-reflection is in order before going so overboard in your anti-Americanism.

Not to mention we've also had socialized healthcare since ObamaCare was shoved down the American peoples' throats, and I won't ask why you aren't defending that piece of legislation, as I'm sure you'll be tempted to blame all of its faults on "the other." Not sure who you have to blame in Canada for all of the problems I'll lay out here, though, or the healthcare problems in other countries that have government-controlled industries, either.


The healthcare system in Canada has worked up to now. The main reason it presently has difficulties is because the population is getting too old (no new children, we make less than in the USA) and old people spend a lot more on healthcare than the younger ones.

Those aren't the only problems. Let's add a few more: over-priced drugs (even if you pay via taxes rather than directly at time of treatment), ballooning costs, lack of competition, increased wait times (measured in months -- hope it's not urgent, or you're dead!), and the growing prospect of bankruptcy.

Wait times, from 2014:


If Universal Health Care Is The Goal, Don't Copy Canada

The heated and often emotionally charged debate over the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) hasn’t subsided despite it being the law of the land for more than four years. Indeed, with the VA scandal, continuing problems in the rollout of aspects of Obamacare and the upcoming mid-term elections, the likelihood of increased acrimony is high.

One aspect of the health care debate in the United States that is, unfortunately, riddled with misinformation is the state of Canada’s single-payer health care system. Too often advocates of Canadian-style health care in the U.S. present limited or even misleading information about the true state of Canada’s health care system and worse, often times present the ideal of Canadian health care rather than its reality.

It’s first important to recognize that a single-payer model is not a necessary condition for universal health care. There are ample examples from OECD countries where universal health care is guaranteed without imposing a single-payer model.

Amongst industrialized countries -- members of the OECD -- with universal health care, Canada has the second most expensive health care system as a share of the economy after adjusting for age. This is not necessarily a problem, however, depending on the value received for such spending. As countries become richer, citizens may choose to allocate a larger portion of their income to health care. However, such expenditures are a problem when they are not matched by value.

The most visible manifestation of Canada’s failing health care system are wait times for health care services. In 2013, Canadians, on average, faced a four and a half month wait for medically necessary treatment after referral by a general practitioner. This wait time is almost twice as long as it was in 1993 when national wait times were first measured.

[...]

There is also considerable evidence indicating that excessive wait times lead to poorer health outcomes and in some cases, death. Dr. Brian Day, former head of the Canadian Medical Association recently noted that “[d]elayed care often transforms an acute and potentially reversible illness or injury into a chronic, irreversible condition that involves permanent disability.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/13/if-universal-health-care-is-the-goal-dont-copy-canada/#2715724578d5

Ouch. Sounds like ObamaCare. Private care could literally save your life in these situations.

Looks like this has been going on in Canada for over a decade. This one is from 2005, nearly ten years earlier than the previous article:


Canadian Health Care In Crisis

A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.

Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.

"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the government.

"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," said Pelton.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canadian-health-care-in-crisis/


One more on having to wait for dangerous amounts of time to actually receive any treatment:


The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

[...]

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

But single-payer systems—confronting dirty hospitals, long waiting lists, and substandard treatment—are starting to crack. Today my book wouldn’t seem so provocative to Canadians, whose views on public health care are much less rosy than they were even a few years ago. Canadian newspapers are now filled with stories of people frustrated by long delays for care:

vow broken on cancer wait times: most hospitals across canada fail to meet ottawa’s four-week guideline for radiation
patients wait as p.e.t. scans used in animal experiments
back patients waiting years for treatment: study
the doctor is . . . out

As if a taboo had lifted, government statistics on the health-care system’s problems are suddenly available. In fact, government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who’d get a doctor’s appointment.

[...]

And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/ugly-truth-about-canadian-health-care-13032.html


Over-priced drugs (you may not pay at the counter, but your taxes are certainly paying the price) -- from 2016:


Canadian drug price gouging for generics called 'hard to celebrate'

Canadians spend extra $1 billion a year compared with other industrialized countries

There's almost a 20 per cent gap between generic drug prices in Canada and foreign markets, according to a new report, a price difference one expert called gouging.

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) is a federal watchdog on drug prices. In a report titled Generics360 released Tuesday, the board examined the prices of 554 generic drugs representing more than $1 billion in Canadian sales in 2014.

[...]

In 2010, Canadian prices were 40 per cent higher than in 11 industrialized countries: France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand.

"There has been a shift towards a lower extent of gouging, but basically that's hard to celebrate," said Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who studies drug pricing.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/drug-prices-generic-1.3441080

I guess the mentality in Canada must be that Big Pharma is evil in America, but in Canada, where taxpayers collectively foot the big, Big Pharma suddenly becomes Jesus Christ and would never overcharge the government.

That's the kind of naive thinking endemic to socialism, frankly. And it is just as crazy as it sounds. Even your own government-run media is admitting that you pay more for generics than Americans do, government subsidies or not.


Another Canadian source raising the same problem:


The worst-run industry in Canada: Health care

The real crisis ruining universal medicare is bad management. Here’s how to fix it.

If the Canadian health-care system were a corporation, it would be among the biggest in the world. Last year, the total amount paid into the system — or the revenues it pulled in, depending on how you look at it — topped out at a record $183.1 billion, enough to earn it third place on the Fortune 500, between oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron. And if it were a corporation, it would be in a state of dire crisis.

Of course, Canadians are used to hearing this sort of thing. No matter how it’s framed, the phrase “health-care crisis” is so often bandied about by politicians, media and the general public that it’s become old news. As costs and dissatisfaction mount, most Canadians believe that the problem is rooted in either insufficient funding, demographic overload or corporate profiteering. But according to a growing chorus of health economists, policy analysts and doctors, the real issue is mismanagement — horrible, pervasive inefficiency that is preventing the system from running even close to as well as it could. More than anything, they say, the failure to adopt even basic business management principles is what’s standing in the way of preserving universal health care for generations to come.

It may be our most cherished social benefit, but what the system needs, experts argue, is corporate sensibility: more rational and co-ordinated leadership, better information on health outcomes and a ruthless determination to eliminate duplication and waste. Because at present, says Robert Evans, a leading health economist and founding member of University of British Columbia’s Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (CHSPR), we’re spending far more than we need to on everything from drugs to doctors to hospitals. Meanwhile, as customers continue to pour money in, they’re increasingly disappointed with what comes out. Quite simply, says Duncan Sinclair, former dean of medicine at Queen’s University, “if [the Canadian health-care system] were a business, it would be out of business.”

https://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-strategy/the-worst-run-industry-in-canada-health-care/


Ballooning expenses and the prospect of bankruptcy of the program:


The Rising Cost of Canadian Healthcare

There is a looming financial nightmare facing our health care system, and we need to start making fundamental changes now or we’re going to be in big trouble. In 1984, the year the Canadian Health Act was instituted, Ontario’s government spent approximately 32% of the provincial overall budget on health care. Today in 2014, that percentage has risen to 42%. With the number of adults over the age of 65 in Ontario expected to double in the next 15 years and the rising cost of new medications and technologies, it’s projected that within the next decade we could be spending 50-80% of the total provincial budget on health care (Ontario Ministry of Finance 2010). This is clearly not sustainable.

https://canadiem.org/rising-cost-of-canadian-healthcare/


Same is happening in France, and this from a left-wing (socialist New Yorker) American news source:


France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

The country’s ultragenerous health-care plan is going broke

Anita Manfredi got nine massages and 18 mud baths at a luxury spa in November. The French government paid two-thirds of the $1,022 bill. “The treatment has done me a lot of good,” says Manfredi, a French retiree who suffers from arthritis and enjoys a three-week retreat at the southern spa town of Dax every year. “I no longer have flare-ups.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-03/frances-health-care-system

Most of that article is behind a paywall, but just the opening paragraph alone should be sufficiently illuminating as to why France's socialized healthcare is going broke. I wish I could make other citizens pay for my mud baths and massages. (Not really. I'm nowhere near that entitled.)


Despite (or rather because of) the Canadian government bankrolling Big Pharma via taxpayers, socialized medicine is still not preventing its citizens from being hit in the wallet by outrageously over-priced drugs and treatment, no different than in the United States:


Health issues and health care expenses in Canadian bankruptcies and insolvencies.

Abstract
Illness can contribute to financial problems directly, through high medical bills, and indirectly, through lost income. No previous in-depth studies have documented the role of medical problems among Canadian bankruptcy filers. We obtained the bankruptcy filings from a random sample of 5,000 debtors across Canada and mailed surveys to them seeking information about the medical antecedents of their bankruptcy. A total of 521 debtors responded (response rate of 10.4%), of whom 40.1 percent reported losing at least two weeks of work-related income because of illness or injury in the two years before their filing; 8.3 percent reported a similar income loss because of caregiving responsibilities for someone else who was ill. Although 60.1 percent of respondents reported being responsible for a medical bill within the previous two years, only 6.9 percent had bills over $5,000 (all amounts in Canadian Dollars). Prescription drugs were cited as the costliest medical expense by two-thirds of debtors reporting bills > $5,000, with dental bills cited by 22.2 percent. Universal health insurance affords Canadians protection against ruinous doctor and hospital bills. Inadequate coverage for prescription drugs and dental care, however, leaves some with unaffordable out-of-pocket costs. In addition, illness is a frequent indirect cause of bankruptcy through loss of work-related income.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24684082



I am not correcting your post for your understanding, but rather for the rest of the members and forum readers.

Same, but I notice that people who have subscribed to socialist economic theories usually have done so for emotional reasons rather than logical ones, and it doesn't do any good to talk to them anyway.

It seems to me that socialists look at the government as a parent that is supposed to take care of them, shifting their own responsibilities as citizens onto the government as if that's ever been a good solution to anything. But when people are just looking to feel safe and secure that mommy and daddy government are going to take care of them, that's all they really need. Until the whole thing collapses, because, as it turns out, governments are prone to financial and economic corruption. I bet you would have never seen that one coming!


Which happens regularly in the USA.

I hear there was no homelessness at all in Stalin's USSR, either. If Canadians follow socialism out to its logical conclusion, they'll reap those same benefits in short order.


Now, tell me, the whole western hemisphere, which has socialized medicine is wrong, only the USA is right? How closed minded one can be.

The US is different than most of the rest of the world in many more ways than that, and yet we aren't the ones begging for bail-outs from the central banks like you see in the EU and elsewhere in the world. Usually it's our tax money going around the world to fund everyone else, and I hope it gets 100% cut off, including defense support. I hope we bring it all back home. Then we will see how many countries can afford giving their citizens free mud baths and massages.

How are meat prices in Canada lately, by the way?

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-12/5/11/enhanced/webdr11/enhanced-7824-1417797323-14.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/56/cb/28/56cb2815e50ff6942379e58d40a895af.jpg


Food Prices In Canada To Surge, And Trudeau’s Carbon Tax Will Make It Even Worse

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/12/04/food-prices-in-canada-to-surge-and-trudeaus-carbon-tax-will-make-it-even-worse/

That's it, you sold me! I'm moving to the socialist paradise of Canada!


When you write all your extreme rights false reasons for our systems in Canada to fail

The sources above aren't "extreme right." Most of them are either Canadian or otherwise leftist sources. Someone must have spent billions trying to convince you that your healthcare system is awesome.

I have never heard of reading making anyone stupider, either. You can start with all the Canadian and leftist articles I just posted above.

[onawah]

Putting information-- whether it's good or not, which may be a matter of opinion-- in the right context, in the appropriate thread, is also a necessary part of the process.
I am not seeking "the floor", thanks, just compliance with the forum's ground rules.

I’ve put out good information, but I’ll step back. You have the floor all to yourself.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Putting information-- whether it's good or not, which may be a matter of opinion-- in the right context, in the appropriate thread, is also a necessary part of the process.
I am not seeking "the floor", thanks, just compliance with the forum's ground rules.

I’ve put out good information, but I’ll step back. You have the floor all to yourself.

I think my contribution to this thread was relevant and good information.
It was a reaction to your Post#780. So in the right context in the appropriate thread. Where else do I have to react?

But sorry for not knowing this particular thread was a "no discussion thread".
I thought a forum is actually for discussion. But I could be wrong.

If my "Interlude", Post #781 was, according to you, out of place, then I'm sorry. It was my sense of balance that made me do it.
And NO, I'm not familiar with Pro Trump threads. I'm aware of Q threads, but I seldom go there, because I've nothing with the Q- phenomenon.

You can PM me if you want to discuss this further, since this is derailing the thread now.

:focus:

[PurpleLama]

Putting information-- whether it's good or not, which may be a matter of opinion-- in the right context, in the appropriate thread, is also a necessary part of the process.
I am not seeking "the floor", thanks, just compliance with the forum's ground rules.

I’ve put out good information, but I’ll step back. You have the floor all to yourself.

I think my contribution to this thread was relevant and good information.
It was a reaction to your Post#780. So in the right context in the appropriate thread. Where else do I have to react?

But sorry for not knowing this particular thread was a "no discussion thread".
I thought a forum is actually for discussion. But I could be wrong.

If my "Interlude", Post #781 was, according to you, out of place, then I'm sorry. It was my sense of balance that made me do it.
And NO, I'm not familiar with Pro Trump threads. I'm aware of Q threads, but I seldom go there, because I've nothing with the Q- phenomenon.

You can PM me if you want to discuss this further, since this is derailing the thread now.

:focus:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90590-Transition-into-Trump

Here is one of the pro-Trump threads, no longer maintained by a former forum member.

[onawah]

CIA Secret Air Wars [signatures needed]
From: Win Without War
https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/ban-cia-drone-strikes-now?source=em20190329_1&t=4&akid=3322%2E192854%2Edfu3nV

"Red Alert: This month, Trump signed an Executive Order that could allow the CIA to become a secret killing squad, with no way to know how many people they kill.

Drone strikes have tripled under Trump. He already sneaked the CIA dangerous authority to conduct shadow drone wars around the world that are killing civilians, including Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. And now there is literally nothing in U.S. law requiring reporting on civilian casualties by the CIA — making those wars completely invisible.

But Congress can stop the CIA from waging secret air wars around the world — by banning the CIA from conducting drone strikes entirely. So it’s time for us to make sure Congress hears us loud and clear:

Tell your members of Congress to ban the secret CIA drone strikes NOW!
https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/ban-cia-drone-strikes-now?source=em20190329_1&t=4&akid=3322%2E192854%2Edfu3nV

Since Trump took office, finding out who the U.S. is killing through lethal air wars has become nearly impossible.

The Pentagon claims it has killed no civilians in its Somalia drone war over the last 2 years. But we know drone strikes have killed civilians in Somalia — and the U.S. is the only government conducting airstrikes in the country [2]. In other words: the CIA is almost certainly launching secret drone strikes killing Somali civilians, and then flat-out lying about it!

Halimo Mohamed Abdi was hit by a drone strike in Bariire, outside of the Somali capital of Mogadishu. Before losing consciousness, she saw three little boys, ages 9, 10, and 16, die in explosions. The strike broke her hips, left shrapnel in her thigh and terrible burns on her chest. After being hospitalized for 3 months, she returned to her home in ruins and 25 of her goats dead. She was forced to move to a camp housing tens of thousands of Somalis fleeing U.S. airstrikes, and fighting between Al Shabab and the Somali government. [3]

We cannot let our government conduct unchecked, secret wars that kill and displace people around the world. That’s why we have to get Congress to ban CIA air wars NOW.

Act Now: Tell US Representatives to ban CIA drone strikes.
https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/ban-cia-drone-strikes-now?source=em20190329_1&t=4&akid=3322%2E192854%2Edfu3nV

Thank you for working for peace,

Tara, Kate, Mariam, and the Win Without War team"

[onawah]

Tell Trump: Being Hungry Won’t Help Anyone Find a Job.
Food Policy Action
3/29/19

"It’s time to speak out! When the administration issues rules like these, they are required to provide time for comments from the general public—and we have a short timeframe to let them know this is the wrong way to go. By adding your own personal experience to the sample email, you help make an effective case. • Have you been on SNAP? • Do you know someone who has? • How did being hungry affect you? • Would you have been able to focus on finding a job? • Make your email personal!"

The deadline is Monday, 4/2 at midnight. Have you sent in your comments yet?
https://p2a.co/8xZN3jn

The Trump administration is creating harsh work requirements and further reporting requirements for some SNAP recipients who might be unemployed, under-employed, or who struggle with unpredictable hours or multiple jobs. In some cases, they could be denied food assistance for up to three years.

Being hungry and having to worry about the next meal will make finding a job that much harder to do.

We don’t want hungry workers and families hurt by these mean-spirited rules.

Let’s fight these regulations.

If you haven’t already told your story, use the “Comment Today” button below. Tell the Trump Administration that it is wrong to punish the most vulnerable. Add your voice and share with your family and friends so they can tell their story, too. Thank you!

Warmly,

Monica

P.S. Taking action at this urgent moment will help us make sure that those who most need help with food assistance will continue to get it. The deadline is Monday at midnight!"
Take action: https://p2a.co/8xZN3jn

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Tell Trump: Being Hungry Won’t Help Anyone Find a Job.

Getting endless free stuff for nothing won't encourage anyone to get a job, either, actually.

[onawah]

Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 Puts Big Pharma First, America Second
By Eric Levitz
3/19/19
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/trumps-nafta-2-0-usmca-trade-deal-puts-big-pharma-first-america-second.html

"If there’s anything Donald Trump hates more than globalist trade deals that restrict U.S. sovereignty, it’s the exorbitant cost of pharmaceuticals in this country.

“The next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs,” the president said in his most recent State of the Union Address. “It is unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place.”

And yet, the president’s new version of NAFTA — the uncreatively named United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) — actually forbids the U.S. Congress from curtailing Big Pharma’s patent monopolies on some of the world’s most expensive drugs. In other words: Trump’s “America First” trade deal restricts U.S. sovereignty, for the sake of locking in high drug prices.

In the U.S. today, drug companies that produce new “biologics” — specialty drugs made with living cells — are provided 12 years of immunity from generic competition. This awards such firms monopolistic pricing power over their (often life-saving) medicines for more than a decade after their wares hit the market. The rationale for this policy is that companies will not invest in high-cost biologic research if they aren’t guaranteed windfall profits for their innovations. But even if one accepts this (tendentious) premise, a 12-year monopoly appears both arbitrary and excessive. In Mexico, biologic makers are only immunized against competition from so-called “biosimilars” for five years; in Canada, such protections last eight. Congressional Democrats have drafted legislation that would cut the duration of biologic monopolies down to seven years.

But if Trump’s revised version of NAFTA takes effect, Democrats will not have the legal authority to advance that legislation — because the USMCA guarantees biologic makers at least a ten-year monopoly on their new drugs across all three of North America’s major economies.

House Democrats say that’s unacceptable. As the administration pushes to get its trade deal through Congress, Nancy Pelosi’s caucus has made striking the provision on biologics one of it top demands.If the rule isn’t rolled back, “I don’t think candidly that it passes out of my trade subcommittee,” Earl Blumenauer of Oregon told the Associated Press in February. “The biologics are some of the most expensive drugs on the planet.” Even staunchly pro-trade border-state Democrats are drawing a red line on the rule, with Texas’s Lloyd Doggett calling it “totally contrary to Trump’s professed interest in lower drug prices.”

It isn’t hard to see why Democrats are picking this fight. Few issues are more salient to a broader, more bipartisan swath of voters than the rising cost of prescription drugs. In January, a Politico-Harvard poll found 80 percent of Americans saying that congressional “action to lower prescription medicine prices is extremely important,” making it the top issue for voters in both parties. Meanwhile, in recent focus groups with soft Trump supporters, Democratic operatives say that the biologics issue has proven explosively potent. As USA Today reports:

In December, Stanley Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster and strategist, conducted focus groups in Michigan and Wisconsin with Trump voters who weren’t affiliated with the Republican Party. Some had previously voted for Barack Obama. Others called themselves political independents. They’re the kinds of voters Democrats hope to attract in 2020.



Greenberg said he was “shocked” by the intensity of their hostility to drug companies — and to the idea that a trade pact would shield those companies from competition.



“It was like throwing a bomb into the focus group,” said Greenberg … He said the voters’ consensus view was essentially: “The president was supposed to go and renegotiate (NAFTA) so that it worked for American workers. But it must be that these lobbyists are working behind the scenes” to sneak in special-interest provisions.

Trump hasn’t been feigning concern about the cost of prescription drugs for his health. Outrage at Big Pharma is prevalent throughout the electorate, but it may be even more acute among the Republican Party’s graying base, whose dependence on pharmaceuticals leaves them especially vulnerable to price shocks.

What’s more, unlike most of Congress’s complaints about drafted trade agreements, Democrats’ opposition to exporting decade-long biologic monopolies is shared by America’s trade partners. When Congress demands further concessions from foreign countries before ratifying a trade deal, the White House can insist that they simply lack the power to force such changes. But in this case, Canada and Mexico have no interest in increasing drug costs for their citizens. The entity foisting the biologics rule on the U.S. isn’t a foreign government, but a (widely reviled) domestic interest group. Democrats can therefore stand their ground while credibly claiming that they aren’t mere obstructionists.

Finally, Nancy Pelosi’s caucus simply has more leverage in the broader ratification fight than the White House does. True, domestic industries will place great pressure on Democratic representatives to ratify the deal. And the agreement isn’t without its substantive virtues: Trump’s updated NAFTA would curb the undemocratic investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, which allows foreign corporations to sue national governments when they enact regulations that reduce their firms’ profits. And it also raises wage standards for auto workers across North America, and encourages Mexico to expand collective bargaining rights (although these provisions lack adequate enforcement mechanisms, a detail that Nancy Pelosi has described as a dealbreaker).

Nevertheless, awarding Donald Trump a bipartisan victory on trade policy on the eve of the 2020 campaign simply isn’t in the Democratic Party’s best interests. The president has a lot to gain from returning to Wisconsin next year with a new, more worker-friendly NAFTA in tow. Team Blue has much to lose by helping him do that. Thus, if Democrats are going to put their substantive goals above their electoral interests — and approve the USMCA — then that agreement can’t very well prohibit them from achieving their substantive goal on the most salient issue in American politics.

Or, at least, it can’t do that unless Big Pharma has way more clout on the left side of the aisle than the Democratic leadership would like us to believe."

[onawah]

Rick Scott’s Company Committed Historic Medicare Fraud. He Will Now Lead Trump’s Health-Care Push.
By Matt Stieb
4/1/19
"If the Trump administration has a domestic policy doctrine at this point, it could be described as the following practice: the appointment of industry insiders to Cabinet-level positions in order to deregulate or otherwise surgically dismantle the protections of a given department.

In this spirit comes the announcement that Florida Senator Rick Scott intends to deliver on President Trump’s promise that the GOP “will soon be known as the party of health care.” On Thursday, Trump told reporters that Scott, and fellow Republican Senators John Barrasso of Wyoming and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, will lead the party’s push on health-care reform.
“They are going to come up with something really spectacular,” the president said.

If by spectacular, he means a candidate who was at the helm of a company that pleaded guilty to historic efforts to defraud Medicare, the president has found his man. In the 1990s, Scott was the CEO of Columbia/HCA, a company that, under his direction, owned more than 340 hospitals, 135 surgery centers, and 550 home-health locations by the time Scott resigned in 1997. That year, federal agents announced an investigation into whether or not the company defrauded Medicare and Medicaid on a massive scale. Turns out, they did: According to Politifact’s summary of the settlement Columbia/HCA made with the Justice Department, the company took the following actions while Scott was CEO:

Columbia billed Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs for tests that were not necessary or ordered by physicians;
The company attached false diagnosis codes to patient records to increase reimbursement to the hospitals;
The company illegally claimed non-reimbursable marketing and advertising costs as community education;
Columbia billed the government for home health-care visits for patients who did not qualify to receive them.
As part of the settlement, Columbia/HCA agreed to plead guilty to 14 corporate felonies — charges that involve financial penalties, but no jail time. (Corporations are people, but they cannot be sent to prison.) Over two settlement rounds, Columbia/HCA wound up paying the government $1.7 billion in criminal fines, civil damages, and penalties, in what the Justice Department called “the largest health-care fraud case in U.S. history.

Naturally, Democrats have attempted to use this information to weigh down Scott’s electoral prospects in a state with one of the highest rates of Medicare beneficiaries as a percentage of the population. But Scott has been able to rise above the fray, in part by the virtue of spending a ridiculous amount of his own money. In 2010, Scott spent $75 million of his own fortune to become the governor of Florida; after vowing he wouldn’t do that again, Scott then spent $12.8 million of his family’s money to propel his 2014 reelection campaign. To make it something of an exorbitant tradition, Scott self-financed his 2018 campaign to the tune of $63.6 million.

In his eight-year career in politics, Scott has wavered in his positions on health care more than the average Republican. Coming into the governor’s mansion, Scott refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. But in 2013, he agreed to accept federal funds for Medicaid expansion and by his second term, Scott reversed his position on the expansion.

Still, as the Orlando Sentinel notes, since November 2018, “Scott has written four op-eds stressing the urgency of repealing Obamacare.” And on a Sunday appearance on Face the Nation, Scott discussed the possibility of the Republican “alternative” to the ACA: Despite having nine years to come up with a viable replacement, the only concrete policy the senator could commit to was that the GOP’s future policy would protect patients with pre-existing conditions. Scott, a lawmaker, also surprised host Margaret Brennan when he told her that he “look[s] forward to seeing what the president’s going to put out.”According to a report from Axios, noted legal expert Donald Trump is not confident that the lawsuit attempting to strike down the ACA is going to succeed. Rather, the president is concerned that Democrats will hammer him on health-care issues in 2020 — thus the pivot to “the party of health care.” Rather than actually develop an actionable policy portfolio after the Obamacare-repeal failures of 2017, Axios reports that Trump intends to “brand” his party as caring about pre-existing conditions, and that he “plans to repeat this message again and again and again.”

If the motion sounds hollow, at least it’s consistent with his party’s greater efforts on health-care reform. Senate Republicans are reportedly hoping Trump will soon drop the idea, and when Chuck Grassley was asked if the two Senate committees overseeing health care policy intended to draft an ACA replacement proposal, he responded with a firm “no.”

[onawah]

Why Trump’s Goon in Charge of Medicare and Medicaid Should Resign Immediately
Verma’s attacks on Medicare are more subtle but no less dangerous
4/1/19
by Alex Lawson
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/04/01/why-trumps-goon-charge-medicare-and-medicaid-should-resign-immediately
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/views-article/seema.jpeg?itok=yDgShTPH
"From Tom Price’s $1 million in private plane travel to Scott Pruitt’s attempt to get his wife a Chick-fil-A franchise, officials in the Trump administration appear to be having a competition with each other to see who can be the most nakedly corrupt. Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), is a top contender. Price and Pruitt are two of the many Trump officials who have already resigned in disgrace. It’s past time for Verma to do the same.

Last week, the depths of Verma’s corruption were exposed when an investigative report revealed that she spent millions of taxpayer dollars on hiring Republican communications consultants to “bolster her public profile.” Verma’s agency already has around 24 in-house communications staff, but apparently that wasn’t enough for her. She saw the opportunity to funnel huge sums of money to her political buddies, and eagerly took it.

Verma does have good reason to be concerned about her public image. Her tenure running Medicare and Medicaid has been marked by attacks on both programs and their beneficiaries. Since these programs are extremely popular, attacking them is a great way to get a terrible reputation.

Her assault on Medicaid has been relentless. Before joining the Trump administration, Verma was the head of SVC Inc., a consulting firm that worked on making state Medicaid programs as cruel and stingy as possible.

When Mike Pence was governor of Indiana, he paid her firm $3.5 million of taxpayer money to design a Medicaid program that forced beneficiaries to pay premiums or go without needed care—defeating the entire purpose of Medicaid, which is specifically intended for people who can’t afford health care. Simultaneously, Verma’s firm was paid an additional $1.2 million by the Hewlett-Packard corporation, which had contracts to administer the Medicaid program she designed. Her work in Indiana, foreshadowing her tenure at CMS, was the height of both cruelty and corruption.

Once Trump put Verma in charge of CMS, she wasted no time in finding another way to attack Medicaid beneficiaries. Under her leadership, CMS has approved waivers from six Republican states allowing them to add so-called work requirements to Medicaid. In Arkansas alone, nearly 50,000 Americans could lose their health care due to these bureaucratic hurdles. Experts agree that this is a cruel and terrible policy, for reasons that should be obvious: It’s much more difficult to look for work when you are sick and going without treatment.

Verma’s attacks on Medicare are more subtle but no less dangerous. Under her leadership, CMS has been exhibiting blatant favoritism to Medicare Advantage plans, which are run by for-profit insurance corporations, over traditional Medicare. This is very dangerous for seniors because unlike traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans restrict patients to a limited number of doctors and frequently and improperly deny people the care that they need. These plans lure seniors in with perks like gym memberships. It’s only when people become sick that their hidden downsides become evident.

Verma’s CMS has issued several regulations to push people toward Medicare Advantage, such as allowing these plans to cover services traditional Medicare is forbidden from covering. Further, the agency has been essentially acting as a marketing arm of Medicare Advantage plans, sending emails to Medicare beneficiaries pushing the plans with subject lines like “Get more benefits for your money.” Verma frequently cheerleads for Medicare Advantage in her public remarks, tweets, and op-eds.

The reason she loves Medicare Advantage so much could be that corruption loves company as much as misery. The corporate insurers that make up Medicare Advantage also like to just bilk the taxpayers, according to a recent whistleblower lawsuit exposing that the “amounts in question industrywide are mind-boggling: Some analysts estimate improper Medicare Advantage payments at $10 billion a year or more.”

Seema Verma’s attacks on Medicare and Medicaid, along with her close involvement in the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken and destroy the Affordable Care Act, have hurt Verma’s public image. Paying $3.5 million in taxpayer money to her Republican consultant friends has done nothing to help. If Verma wants to do something that’s actually popular with the public, the answer is simple: Resign.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute."

[onawah]

Potential Federal Reserve board member Herman Cain frequently promoted scammy financial emails
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/01/31/potential-federal-reserve-board-member-herman-cain-frequently-promoted-scammy-financial-emails/222717
https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2019/01/31/Herman-Cain-Federal-Reserve.png

(Seems like Trump keeps on scraping the bottom of the barrel. Is this really draining the swamp?)

"Right-wing commentator Herman Cain, who is reportedly being considered for a Federal Reserve seat, has spent years pushing scammy financial emails to his mailing list. Those sponsored emails touted a “weird trick” that supposedly “adds up to $1,000 a month to Social Security checks”; advice on “the best place to hide your money”; and financial trades that could “turn $1,000 into $1.6 million.”

Bloomberg reported today that Cain, who has been a radio host and often appears on Fox News, “is being considered by President Donald Trump for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board. … Cain ran for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination but dropped out in late 2011 after allegations he engaged in sexual harassment when he led the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.”

Trump, who himself has been reported for sexual misconduct by more than 20 women, defended Cain at the time. As CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski and Chris Massie reported, Trump told Fox News in November 2011 that the women who reported Cain “probably do love their names splashed across the front pages. … I think Herman should take very, very strong action, even if he has to bring a major lawsuit against the women.”

After dropping his 2012 presidential bid, Cain profited off his email list of supporters by sending sponsored content. (Those emails contained the following disclaimer at the end: “The sender of this email may receive compensation for the advertising contained in this message. Any products or services offered by sponsors or advertisers have not been evaluated by Herman Cain and as such no warranty or claims are made.”)

As Ben Adler wrote in The New Republic in January 2014, Cain is one of several conservatives who “are pioneering a new, more direct method for post-campaign buckraking. All it requires is some digitally savvy accomplices—and a total immunity to shame.”

Media Matters has documented over the years how politicians like Cain -- including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, U.S. Ambassador Scott Brown -- and right-wing publications have been bilking their followers with scammy emails from questionable sources.

With Cain poised to potentially join the Federal Reserve board, here are some of the scammiest financial emails that he has sent over the years.

Maryland teacher “collects $4,891 piggybacking ‘Canadian Social Security’”
Cain sent a sponsored email from Agora Financial suggesting that Americans could piggyback “onto ‘Canadian Social Security’” and collect “extra benefit checks between $400 and $4,700 every month.” CNBC criticized Agora Financial for the ad, stating: “There's only one problem: that's not the way it works, according to authorities.” Mother Jones’ Tim Murphy reported that “Agora and its subsidiaries have been accused of crossing the line between aggressive salesmanship and deception.” "
See the link for many examples of Cain's scammy emails. https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/01/31/potential-federal-reserve-board-member-herman-cain-frequently-promoted-scammy-financial-emails/222717

[Fellow Aspirant]

We haven't heard much lately about how the "Swamp" is being drained. There's much evidence, however, that shows just the opposite, that it's really just business as usual in Washington, and the water us just getting higher and more murky. Take this post, for example, by Matt Agorist, about the leniency with which convicted child abuser/trafficker Jeffery Epstein (he of 'Lolita Express' fame - whose passengers included luminaries like Bill Clinton) is being let off for crimes that surfaced decades ago. Far from signaling a time of reckoning for such criminals, it's obvious that the Trump administration is not just turning a blind eye to their activities, but is actively defending such:

"On Wednesday, Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta appeared before a budget appropriations subcommittee to testify about the effectiveness of the Labor Department’s 2020 budget which calls for a 10 percent cut in programs affecting millions of workers. When it came time for Acosta to testify whether or not he could safeguard children from illegal labor practices and combat human trafficking, multiple lawmakers grilled him over the sweetheart deal he gave convicted billionaire pedophile Jeffery Epstein who is also suspected of running a massive child sex trafficking ring.

During the testimony, Acosta defended his cuts to multiple programs, noting that the new budget provides “greater investment in programs that work, eliminates programs that do not, and generally bolsters opportunities for working Americans through common-sense reforms.’’

However, some of these cuts are to programs designed to stop child trafficking which makes very little “common sense” given the administration’s ostensible view on the matter. When the cuts to these programs designed to prevent human trafficking were brought up, lawmakers were given the green light to bring up the Epstein conspiracy.

“This is not the first time you have ignored human trafficking,’’ said Massachusetts representative Katherine Clark.

As TFTP has reported on multiple occasions, Epstein is a convicted child molester and sexually abused no less than 40 underage girls. Despite this fact, Acosta protected him while serving as a U.S. Attorney in Florida. Had Acosta actually prosecuted Epstein for his crimes, Epstein would have gone to prison for life.

However, instead of going to prison for life, as he should’ve considering the evidence against him, Epstein only got 13 months and was allowed to stay in the Palm Beach County Jail in his own private cell where he was allowed to leave the prison six days a week for “work release.”

In February, a federal judge made a bombshell ruling which stated that the prosecutors who worked under then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta—now Trump’s Labor Secretary—broke the law when handling the case of the billionaire pedophile.

According to the ruling, the prosecutors acted illegally when they concealed a plea agreement from more than 30 underage victims who had been sexually abused by the New York hedge fund manager.

“The government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years,’’ Brad Edwards, who represents Courtney Wild — Jane Doe No. 1 in the case — said. “Yes, this is a huge victory, but to make his victims suffer for 11 years, this should not have happened. Instead of admitting what they did, and doing the right thing, they spent 11 years fighting these girls.’’

As the Miami Herald—who has been a critical in shining light on this most dark area—points out:

The deal, signed in 2007, was done in secret, and it was sealed so that no one could know how many girls Epstein abused or who else was involved in his scheme. Moreover, Acosta’s staff agreed to demands by Epstein’s lawyers that the victims not be made aware of the federal non-prosecution agreement until after it was signed and executed.

This illegal deal came up during the budget testimony on Wednesday.

“The judge found you broke the law, Mr. Acosta, when you chose not to tell the victims about this deal and you gave them the impression that the investigation was ongoing,’’ said Clark at the hearing. “Was the judge right?’’

Acosta attempted to avoid the question before Clark interrupted, saying, “I asked you a yes or no question.”

Still, Acosta avoided answering the question.

After Clark grilled him, Rep. Lois Frankel joined in and told the Labor Secretary “many people in my community are upset that you allowed a sexual predator on the loose.”

Again, Acosta defended his position and noted that his actions sent Epstein to jail for 13 month—a laughable defense for a disgustingly lenient sentence and when we take a closer look, it’s not at all true.

Epstein never really went to jail. This was a fact admitted by Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw during a radio interview last week on WLRN. During the interview Bradshaw explained how Epstein spent almost no time in jail and had a private driver pick him up daily and drive him to his office where he was allowed to go about his life as normal.

“All we did was house him,’’ Bradshaw told Luis Hernandez, host of the station’s Sundial program, according to the Herald. “He met the criteria for work release. He was not adjudicated as a violent sex offender — he wasn’t even adjudicated as a sex offender.’’

Still, Acosta defends his actions.

“Let me just say I understand the frustration, but if the state prosecuted him, he was going to get off entirely …it was the work of our office that resulted in him going to jail and it was the work of our office that made it so the world was put on notice that he is a sex offender.’’

These claims are entirely unfounded as civil case after civil case have all been successful leading to untold millions being paid out to his former victims, not too mention that the sheriff himself denied the fact that Epstein served any significant time behind bars.

Despite this glaring case of special privilege given to a person who preyed on dozens of children, Acosta was appointed to his position in the federal government, a disturbing notion indeed.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/epstein-acosta-grilled-congress-special-deal/?utm_source=getresponse&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rssfeednewsletter&utm_content=The+Free+Thought+Project+Newsletter


Matt Agorist

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Here's a wee dose of the reality that I, and 35 million other Canadians live in:

40365

Why would you even bother to post such incredibly insane lies about Canadian food prices? It's so easy to Google the reality of real food prices. What weird agenda are you following? Or do you really believe such crazy information?

Brian

[onawah]

What are you referring to here? What post about Canadian food prices?
Here's a wee dose of the reality that I, and 35 million other Canadians live in:

Why would you even bother to post such incredibly insane lies about Canadian food prices? It's so easy to Google the reality of real food prices. What weird agenda are you following? Or do you really believe such crazy information?

Brian

Update: Never mind--Flash illuminated me.

[Franny]

Dang, very low prices. Last time I saw strawberries they were $7 a 6 oz clamshell, chicken was $9 a lb., sardines are about $3 a tin.

[Flash]

Here's a wee dose of the reality that I, and 35 million other Canadians live in:

40365

Why would you even bother to post such incredibly insane lies about Canadian food prices? It's so easy to Google the reality of real food prices. What weird agenda are you following? Or do you really believe such crazy information?

Brian

WOW, where are those no Frill prices? Got to go buy there. Not in Montreal for sure those prices.

One thing to remember, Canada is vast, from one side of the country to the other side is a complete different world, and for Southern part to far Northern parts, another world again. 3$ for Sardines is a dream price for Inuits for example.

NOW 64$ for a cooked chicken!!! Really!! even in Inuit land, this is ludicrous, and it is the only place where prices may get that crazy.

Once again, and again, and again, Voice in the Mountain, could you just use your brain a little instead of spreading false anything from an ultra right view point and skewing any data you may find anywhere to justify your ultra right point of view.

Again false news, lies and screwed up thinking published on the net, shadowing anything related to truth and some views that would help humanity and giving zero credit to anything on the web to future forum readers.

Anyone, do not listen to the stupidities he spread, not worth it.

Yes reading seems to make you stupider Voice, cause you seem not to be able to process what you read and think independently. Stiff stiff processing.

[onawah]

Ah, that explains it. I have made good use of the Ignore option. :nod:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Why would you even bother to post such incredibly insane lies about Canadian food prices? It's so easy to Google the reality of real food prices. What weird agenda are you following? Or do you really believe such crazy information?

Those aren't lies, those are real Canadian meat prices, albeit from the far northern parts of Canada.

What's the CBC's agenda? They seem pretty leftist to me.


Your grocery bill could rise 3.5% in 2019, study predicts

But cost of meat and seafood set to fall as more Canadians adopt plant-based diets

The price of food could increase by up to 3.5 per cent in 2019, an annual study of food prices predicts, but there's good news for Canadian consumers buying meat and seafood, which are projected to become cheaper.

Meat and seafood have seen sharp increases in recent years, but a shift away from eating meat to a more plant-based diet is reducing demand.

Canada's Food Price Report 2019, an independent analysis produced by university researchers, predicts the price of meat will drop by up to three per cent and seafood by two per cent.

But those drops are more than offset by rising prices in other areas, led by a 4-6 per cent hike in the price of vegetables.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-food-price-report-2019-1.4930130

Articles like this are hilarious to me, because it's obvious that Canadians are eating less meat because the prices are going up, not because of some sudden wave of vegetarianism.


I laugh about what you guys pay for beer too:


The price of a 24 of Molson varies pretty widely across the country. The cheapest 24 in Canada can be purchased in Quebec for $26.99 and the most expensive is $56.65 in the Northwest Territories. The reason for the big discrepancy? Varying taxes and transportation costs. Between these two extremes there is some more nuanced pricing. Ontario ($34.95) and British Columbia ($34.99) are relatively inexpensive. Prices rise a little in the sparsely-populated Prairies, with Manitobans paying $40.49, Albertans shelling out $44.99, and Saskatchewanians getting their drink on for $46.49.

https://www.theloop.ca/where-is-beer-cheapest-in-canada-2/

The cheapest case of 24 beers here is about $15.

I don't drink beer, but if I did, good Lord, I wouldn't live in Canada. Same if I smoked cigarettes. I heard it's $12 a pack up there. Only about $4 down here.

No need to get so mad and start calling people stupid, guys. You're the ones who like high taxes and socialism, not me.

[onawah]

Actually, if you do a Google search for the flyer image that Voice posted, it is a current flyer from a box store chain in various parts of Canada called No Frills.
Not sure if you have to buy in quantity to get those prices or not, though.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Actually, if you do a Google search for the flyer image that Voice posted, it is a current flyer from a box store chain in various parts of Canada called No Frills.
Not sure if you have to buy in quantity to get those prices or not, though.

No-Frills is a chain here in Ontario. My regular grocery store for 20 years. Those prices are for single unit purchases, I believe, and were published within the last month. There are more expensive places to buy, and I'll go to Loblaws if I want a higher end selection. There are also a couple of cheaper chains as well. Food Basics, for one, and Farm Fresh. Anyway, food can get really expensive around here, and never seems to get cheaper (within the category). I wouldn't want to be poor and try to feed a family.

B.

[East Sun]

What is the question you think trump is not the answer to ?

[onawah]

Read the thread.
What is the question you think trump is not the answer to ?

[onawah]

From Social Security Works
4/1/19

"Tell the Acting Commissioner of Social Security:

"We demand that you abandon the new fee for replacement cards and end your attacks on Social Security.
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have made their stance on our Social Security system clear: They want it cut. They want to cut our earned benefits, and they want to make those benefits harder to access by crippling the Social Security Administration.

Over the last decade, Republicans in Congress have insisted on cuts to the Social Security Administration, forcing long wait times in offices, long hold times on the 800 number, a backlog in benefit applications, and the loss of staff expertise. The strategy is clear: If every interaction with SSA is just a little bit worse, or less frequent, maybe they can get the American people to fall out of love with Social Security.

Now, the Trump administration is rolling out its latest policy that amounts to a cut to Social Security and undermines Social Security offices and staff. Starting this year, the Social Security Administration will begin charging a fee to replace a Social Security card.

The new fees eat into our already modest Social Security benefits―and this policy disproportionately impacts women because the most common reason for a replacement card is a name change after marriage.

But, this new policy is more insidious than just a new fee. We already pay into Social Security with every paycheck, and that includes the extremely efficient, world-class service from the Social Security Administration.

A new card will cost $25 at an SSA office, or $7 online. Charging more than three times as much for access to a Social Security office is an attempt by the Trump administration to shift even more service away from offices and staff. They want to justify the closure of even more offices, forcing some Americans to have to travel further when they need to make important decisions on retirement planning, or to apply for disability benefits.

Stand with Social Security Works and our partners in calling on the Acting Social Security Commissioner to abandon the administration’s newest policy which is yet another example of the administration’s slow drip-drip-drip of attacks on our Social Security system.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has repeatedly broken his promise to protect our earned benefits―proposing budgets that would cut trillions of dollars from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

After years of underfunding the Social Security Administration, the SSA has had to scale back operations to the public―undermining the services we receive and ultimately undermining confidence in the program.

Each cut; each office closure; each policy that makes it more difficult for us to access our earned Social Security benefits is an intentional attempt to destroy the entire system.

Sign the petition to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security to end the slow drip-drip-drip of policies that are aimed at destroying Social Security.
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/ssa-cards?source=group-social-security-works&referrer=group-social-security-works&action=ssa-fees&link_id=2&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&email_referrer=email_528760&email_subject=trump-admin-attacks-social-security-for-women
It’s up to us to defend and strengthen Social Security and to hold the Trump administration accountable to their policies that undermine and underfund the program."

Thank you,

Michael Phelan
Social Security Works "

[onawah]

From: Win Without War--$750 BILLION Pentagon Budget??
https://winwithoutwar.org/
4/14/19
(I've deleted some of the original wording in the following that has to do with the Mexican border--which is too divisive a subject -- but left in the parts about the Pentagon budget, which I think most will agree is unconscionable. As usual, until another way is found, I think that if any progress is to be made, it will only come when both sides can agree. )

"Trump’s team proposed increasing Pentagon spending to an inexplicable, mind-boggling 750 BILLION DOLLARS next year."

"Instead of opposing this absurd proposal, House Democrats “countered” by offering 733 BILLION DOLLARS to the Pentagon — a figure Trump’s Republican Congressional allies have called for — continuing to make funding for the war machine a priority. [1]

Democrats control the House, which means they control the purse-strings, so why on earth would they give Trump exactly what he wants?! And that’s why it’s a HUGE deal that last week, an unheard-of rebellion in the Democratic caucus, led by progressives, beat back the obscene budget proposal. [2]

We cracked the door open for the fight to come and showed that we won’t stay quiet for political expediency. And it wouldn’t have happened without progressives like you making a ruckus.

But this is only the beginning and it’s going to be a uphill battle to prevent the Pentagon from gobbling up all our resources, so we need your help to fight back.
We reject the absurd notion that the Pentagon needs more money, when it can’t even account for what it already spends, can't even spend the obscene amount of money Congress already appropriates, and can’t rein in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Right now, our opponents are setting the terms of debate: Spending billions of dollars on war is seen as perfectly acceptable, while using resources to tackle the existential climate crisis, horrific state of health care, and woefully underfunded childcare in our country are dismissed as financially irresponsible.

It is beyond time to set our priorities straight.

And Democrats in the House should not be tying our hands behind our backs to get these critical priority programs off the ground by continuing to give the Pentagon a blank check..."
That’s why we’re proud to be leading the charge behind the scenes, in public, and in the media to support the rebellion in the ranks that’s finally saying ENOUGH.

We built some momentum last week when the Democrats heard our progressive priorities loud and clear. And now we need to use this energy to sway Congress as they decide how much will be spent on the Pentagon this year."

Everyone told us that we couldn’t win the fight on Yemen, but we just proved them wrong. Now’s our chance to do the unthinkable again and break the war machine’s control of Capitol Hill. We hope you’ll join our fight.

Thank you for working for peace,

Erica, Kate, Ben, and the Win Without War team"

[onawah]

Trump Urgently Pushes for 5G--Elon Musk Issues WARNINGS
WeAreChange
Published on Apr 15, 2019
rmbW7ktlV5I

Trump administration to unveil big 5G push
by Kim Hart Apr 12, 2019
https://www.axios.com/trump-administration-to-unveil-major-5g-push-81430fba-bb31-4b0f-9e18-7a912ff62f91.html

"President Trump and his top telecom regulator will announce plans today to unleash the largest-ever swath of radio frequencies in the U.S. and a $20 billion fund to help wireless companies to keep pace with global rivals — specifically China — in the 5G race.

Why it matters: Proponents maintain that a significant economic advantage will be won by the first country to broadly deploy 5G networks, which will deliver wireless speeds 100 times faster than today's mobile internet. The U.S.'s lead in building current 4G technologies led to smartphone ubiquity and apps like Uber and Spotify. The next generation is expected to power self-driving cars and smart cities.

Show less
Fears that China has the edge in the global 5G race sparked some (including Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale) to call for a government-directed national network, similar to China's own approach.

The White House disagrees. "The Trump Administration is supportive of a private sector, free enterprise approach," per a White House official. "We believe the U.S. is winning the race to 5G with record deployments in cities across the United States."
So does the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the nation's communications networks.
"I draw the lesson from the development of the wireless industry over the past three decades, including U.S. leadership in 4G. The market, not the government, is the best way to drive innovation and investment. That's the general approach we've taken and it's proven to be successful."
— FCC Chairman Ajit Pai
Details: At a White House event today, Trump and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai plan to make two announcements.

1. Airwaves: The FCC will auction off three big slices of millimeter-wave airwaves that are crucial to connecting new devices at high speeds.

The auction, slated to begin Dec. 10, will offer the wireless industry the biggest-ever chunk of airwaves the FCC has ever auctioned off for commercial use.
2. Funding: The agency will announce a "Rural Digital Opportunity Fund" to spend $20.4 billion over 10 years in rural broadband.

The investment will be made in the form of subsidies available to eligible companies through a competitive auction to build out fiber lines in unserved areas.
Fiber-optic infrastructure is expensive to install, but it's essential to carrying wireless network traffic back to the core of the internet.
The initiatives are part of the FCC's "5G Fast Plan" to position the U.S. ahead of competitors.

The auction that will be announced today will be the third airwave auction in as many years, collectively releasing nearly 5 gigahertz of airwaves for 5G use. (That's more airwaves than are currently in use by all mobile users combined, Pai said.)
The FCC also capped fees and permitting requirements by cities, to speed up the deployment of the millions of antennas needed to deploy 5G connectivity. (Several cities have sued to stop those restrictions.)
Yes, but: The U.S. is hampered in other areas. No American company manufacturers 5G network equipment, leaving the U.S. to rely on foreign-owned Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung. China is poised to dominate that market with Huawei, its fast-growing telecom firm that has been shunned by the Trump administration out of fears of espionage.

Dominating the equipment market could give China extra influence in setting future standards as the technology evolves.
The wireless industry is aggressively pushing the FCC to free up more "mid-band" airwaves that can carry signals over further distances. This will be important for serving less urban areas.
The bigger picture: Wireless companies including Verizon and AT&T are in the early stages of 5G roll-outs, with limited services in handful of markets so far and 92 deployments planned by the end of the year. But widespread deployment will happen over the course of a decade, requiring a steady pipeline of spectrum and fiber projects.

"Virtually every sector of the economy is dependent on wireless technologies," Pai said, including areas like ports, mines, manufacturing and agriculture. "To advance the ball, these critical building blocks are absolutely essential."

[onawah]

The Trump Admin is going to lose a lot of senior votes if they don't lay off Social Security, Medicard, Medicaid
From Social Security Works today:
"Donald Trump believes that seniors are the key to his reelection. It’s up to us to prove him wrong.

Axios just reported: Trump’s campaign spent $4.5 million on digital advertising in the first quarter of 2019, with nearly half of it targeting voters aged 65 or older.1

Trump is making a bet: His campaign thinks they can scare older Americans with false, racist claims about immigration so much that seniors forget that Trump has proposed cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in each of his budgets.

Social Security Works members are key to fighting that narrative. We’re pushing back with the TRUTH.

And the truth is that nearly every Democrat in Congress is on the record in favor of expanding Social Security and Medicare, increasing benefits for millions of Americans. Trump and his Republican enablers have been fighting for generations to cut and privatize our earned benefits.

The choice is clear. But we need to break through Trump’s ad blitz to inform every 2020 voter on the truth about Social Security and Medicare.Social Security Works has more than 430,000 followers on Facebook, and our posts reach millions. We are laser-focused on seniors with Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug prices."

Alex Lawson
Social Security Works

[Ba-ba-Ra]

Wasn't sure where to put this, so also put it on the Q Anon -An opposing Viewpoint thread (Mods do what you want)

More from Seething Frog. His take is that whether Q is or isn't a LARP, Q woke many up and that's important. (Which I have agreed with from beginning). Of course, I'd be thrilled with and hold a space for the reality of Q. But if not, it served an amazingly positive purpose.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL1Btz5f9e4

[onawah]

No Iran War
From World Without War
4/18/19
"The Trump administration just took another giant step towards war with Iran by designating part of Iran’s military as a “terrorist organization.” This is the first time the U.S. has ever done something like this, and it’s a really, really bad sign.

But then things got worse. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused to rule out attacking Iran under the 2001 AUMF — the authorization for the use of military force that has been used to justify endless global war around the world. [1]

And as scary as this all is, there’s also a ray of hope. Congress can make crystal clear to Trump’s war cabinet that it does not have the power to take the U.S. to war with Iran, and a bipartisan group of senators, led by Senator Tom Udall, just introduced a bill that puts a giant road block between Donald Trump and war with Iran. Right now, the bill is stalled, but if enough of us demand action, we can break the deadlock and help prevent a devastating war with Iran.It’s hard to believe, but it gets even worse. Sec. Pompeo also tried to (falsely) claim (again) that Iran is working with Al Qaeda — an idea so unfounded in reality that the U.S. Military Academy at West Point’s own report has a completely opposing analysis.

Yes that’s right: Team Trump is trying to make us believe that Iran is to blame for the horrors of 9/11 — to justify war — just like Team Bush did with Iraq.

Members of Congress see the writing on the wall — Senator Rand Paul directly told Sec. Pompeo “you do not have permission for war with Iran.” But we need to build a broad coalition in Congress that is willing to go toe to toe with the war hawks to stop them. And that’s where you come in.

Will you ask Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton to support Senator Udall’s bill, S.1039 to stop the Iran war hawks?

Normally, a very senior U.S. official leaving the door open for another major war in the Middle East, using the same exact logic the George W. Bush administration used to sell the war in Iraq, would be major topic of conversation.

But in this Trump-era of scandal and personality driven politics, it’s up to us to raise the alarm and make sure everyone understands — and helps stop — this drum beat towards war.

As villages face devastating flooding across Iran, with economic sanctions limiting relief aid — let us do everything we can to stop a war from further harming the Iranian people.

Thank you for working for peace,

Ben, Stephen, Kate, and the Win Without War team "
Source: https://lobelog.com/team-trumps-iran-war-rationales-are-nonsense/
That article follows:
Team Trump’s Iran War Rationales Are Nonsense
by Ben Armbruster
https://lobelog.com/wp-content/uploads/20180524115055003_hd.jpg
"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pushed the Trump administration’s campaign for regime change and possible war with Iran during a Senate hearing on Wednesday by continuing to promote a dubious link between Iran and al-Qaeda. In turn, he refused to rule out whether the 2001 congressional authorization for war in Afghanistan could be used to justify war with Iran.

When asked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) whether the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) applies to Iran or the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the Trump administration this week controversially labeled a terrorist organization, Pompeo demurred.

“I’d prefer just leave that to lawyers, senator,” Pompeo replied, even though he went to Harvard Law School and worked as a lawyer at a prominent Washington, DC law firm upon graduation.

“But you’re unwilling to state unequivocally that…Iran had something to do with the attacks on 9/11?” Paul then asked.

“The legal question I’ll leave to counsel,” Pompeo said, claiming though, that Iran’s connection to al-Qaeda “is very real.”

Pompeo first promoted this bogus claim of strong links between al-Qaeda and Iran when he was CIA director. The claim is seemingly part of the Trump administration’s wider years-long effort—which has included withdrawing from the Iran deal, ramping up bellicose rhetoric, and goading Iran into violating the nuclear agreement—to put the United States back on a path to war.

But not only is the connection between al-Qaeda and Iran weak, the suggestion that the 2001 AUMF would therefore apply is complete nonsense.

A 2012 report by the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point found that the relationship between al-Qaeda, a Sunni terrorist group, and Iran, led by Shiite clerics, is “not one of alliance” but “highly antagonistic” and “largely based on indirect and unpleasant negotiations over the release of detained jihadis and their families, including members of Bin Laden’s family.”

And a study last year by the New America Foundation came to a similar conclusion. It found “no evidence of cooperation…on planning or carrying out terrorist attacks” between Iran and al-Qaeda and that any cooperation or relationship was one of either expediency or calculation.

When Pompeo first floated this link back in 2017, experts at the time said that they’ve “never seen any evidence of an active collaboration,” dismissed the connection as an “oversimplification of the facts.” They said that any relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda has largely been “an on-again, off-again marriage of convenience pockmarked by bouts of bitter acrimony.”

Given that the al-Qaeda-Iran connection isn’t what Pompeo and Team Trump are making it out to be, and they have offered no proof that Iran had anything to do with 9/11, the 2001 AUMF in turn has nothing to do with Iran.

Even granting some of the Trump administration’s claims—for example, that al-Qaeda operatives are living in Iran—Steve Vladeck and Tess Bridgeman of Just Security note, that “it’s questionable whether the 2001 AUMF would apply to a country harboring AQ today, as opposed to a country that ‘harbored’ (past tense) those groups on or before 9/11, the clear intent of the statutory authorization.”

During Wednesday’s hearing, Sen. Paul agreed. “I don’t think that dog hunts very well,” he said, referring to Pompeo’s claim of “very real” links between al-Qaeda and Iran. He added:

I am troubled that the administration can’t unequivocally say that you haven’t been given power [to start a war with Iran]. I can tell you explicitly that you have not been given power or authority by Congress to have a war with Iran.

Indeed, Congress has not given any authorities for Trump to start a war with Iran. In fact, just this month, a bipartisan group of senators (including Paul) led by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) introduced a bill that actively forbids the White House from starting a war with Iran without congressional approval.

Pompeo’s remarks are indeed troubling, as Paul noted, not only because of the signal they send about U.S policy, but also because of the relatively little attention they have received.

Normally, a very senior U.S. official leaving the door open for another major war in the Middle East, using the same exact logic the George W. Bush administration used to sell the war in Iraq, would be major topic of conversation. Although news outlets did pick up the exchange between Paul and Pompeo, its Trump-era newsworthiness has been quite limited. Pompeo’s remarks, for instance, were featured in a story on page A8 in today’s New York Times.

Ben Armbruster is the communications director for Win Without War and previously served as national security editor at ThinkProgress."

[onawah]

Stop Trumponomics
From Greenpeace 4/19/19
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/sign-the-petition-keep-trumponomics-out-of-the-federal-reserve-reject-stephen-moores-appointment-to-the-board-of-governors?source=20190329_RejectMoore_Greepeace&referrer=group-greenpeace-usa

"Trump has done it again. Just when you thought the swamp couldn’t get any swampier, Trump has nominated Stephen Moore, a right-wing amateur economist, to the Fed’s seven-member board of governors, a slot usually reserved for respected economists equipped to make decisions affecting the pocketbook of every American (think interest rates and inflation).

Sign the petition: Reject Trump’s Fed pick Stephen Moore: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/sign-the-petition-keep-trumponomics-out-of-the-federal-reserve-reject-stephen-moores-appointment-to-the-board-of-governors?source=20190329_RejectMoore_Greepeace&referrer=group-greenpeace-usa

Stephen Moore is grossly unqualified for the Federal Reserve Board. He is a pro-Trump, ultra-conservative crony who served as an advisor to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. But Moore isn’t just a terrible economist he’s also a climate denial zealot.

Moore is a regular Fox News contributor, where he often pontificates on the science of climate change, despite the fact that he is not a scientist. According to Moore, man-made climate change is a "dingbat idea" and the "biggest scam of the last two decades." Moore has also proposed replacing the preservation of federal land with the potentially devastating approach of "use and explore" (i.e. drill and destroy).

We cannot afford a Fed board member that does not have the American people’s interest at heart.

Add your name: Reject Trump’s Fed pick Stephen Moore!

Thanks for taking action with us,

Chris Eaton
Senior Digital Campaigns Manager, Greenpeace USA"

Sign the petition: Keep Trumponomics out of the Federal Reserve. Reject Stephen Moore’s appointment to the Board of Governors.
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/sign-the-petition-keep-trumponomics-out-of-the-federal-reserve-reject-stephen-moores-appointment-to-the-board-of-governors?source=20190329_RejectMoore_Greepeace&referrer=group-greenpeace-usa
"The Federal Reserve is the Supreme Court of our economy. The Fed decides how many jobs there are at any given time, impacting employment rates, wages, and quality of life across the country. Each member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate to serve 14-year terms. Like Supreme Court Justices, Fed Governors are powerful officials who preside over the entire financial system and make important decisions about where to set interest rates and how to regulate banks.

This is why it is crucial that we ensure that the Federal Reserve consists of people who have working families’ interests at heart, not right-wing Trump cronies with a lengthy track records of extreme positions and inaccurate economic predictions.

Donald Trump has said that he plans to nominate the unqualified Stephen Moore to the Federal Reserve Board. How unqualified is Moore? Just check out what he says about himself:

"I'm kind of new to this game, frankly, so I'm going to be on a steep learning curve myself about how the Fed operates, how the Federal Reserve makes its decisions," Moore said Friday in an interview. "It's hard for me to say even what my role will be there, assuming I get confirmed."

Moore is being considered because of his history of promoting Trump’s ultra conservative, racist agenda by serving as a campaign advisor on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Moore even published a Trump-approved book titled Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy.

Moore sold his discredited theories to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, and after his “Kansas experiment” caused the state’s economy to tank, he brought it to the federal government, designing the 2017 GOP tax scam. Moore also founded the Club for Growth, a Tea Party precursor responsible for electing white supremacist Steve King and other extremists to Congress, and has worked with ALEC, the Heritage Foundation, and other right-wing organizations to suppress voting rights, deny climate change, and elevate corporate power over workers’ wages.

What’s Moore? Stephen Moore is a tax evader who owes over $75,000 in unpaid income taxes and penalty of interest fees.

Since the last recession, the Fed has generally prioritized its full employment mandate, keeping interest rates low and allowing for the creation of millions of jobs. Moore wants to eliminate that mandate altogether, even though it is the main tool the Fed has to reduce unemployment and help working families. Stephen Moore would be a disastrous addition to the Fed’s Board of Governors -- and his appointment would last until 2030, meaning he will be able to wreak havoc on the economy long after Trump is gone.

The good news? We can stop this nomination.Last year, we fought hard to oppose another Trump Fed nominee who wanted to gut the full employment mandate -- and we successfully blocked that nomination. We are ready to do it again.

Sign the petition today telling the Senate to reject Stephen Moore for the Federal Reserve."

[onawah]

Why Is Trump Pushing 5G So Hard? w/ Josh Del Sol (The CE Show)
Collective Evolution
Published on Apr 17, 2019
"Our phone call segment from episode 5 of The Collective Evolution Show.
We speak to Josh Del Sol about BIG 5G questions.
Listen to our podcast episode where we take the Trump and 5G conversation a lot deeper: https://explorers.collective-evolution.com/trump-pushing-5g/
Watch full 3 hour broadcast on CETV: https://cetv.one "

RHlJGi9zX1Y

[waree]

Why Is Trump Pushing 5G So Hard? w/ Josh Del Sol (The CE Show)
Collective Evolution
Published on Apr 17, 2019
"Our phone call segment from episode 5 of The Collective Evolution Show.
We speak to Josh Del Sol about BIG 5G questions.
Listen to our podcast episode where we take the Trump and 5G conversation a lot deeper: https://explorers.collective-evolution.com/trump-pushing-5g/
Watch full 3 hour broadcast on CETV: https://cetv.one "

RHlJGi9zX1Y

I started to feel the same here. Q and Trump seem more and more like the distraction to push for 5G and all the Brave New World scenarios.
If AI controls us, No human can rise up against TPTB anymore. Skynet is starting... Facial recognition to replace passport...
With 5G we will lose all freedom no matter if we can have guns or not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/05/new-york-police-department-deploys-drone-fleet-searches-events/2212569002/?fbclid=IwAR04SqE3cXuv7gysKHk_x7b9AplgcrF1KA4JVOsUlvlUMl7pojaPlQEmmX8

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2019/04/17/orlando-and-tampa-airports-ramp-up-facial-recognition-scanning-for-international-passengers?fbclid=IwAR0eibJegXqp5lMJyD3VWkDKrd-jamJdkKq7RIcGPoZ-aMUuCWyLZUEx9VA

[onawah]

Win Without War
https://winwithoutwar.org/

"We are gearing up for one of the most important fights of this generation: stopping deployment of a terrifying new nuclear weapon that blurs the lines between conventional and nuclear war.

President Trump and his nuclear policy cronies want this new nuclear weapon precisely because they think they could use it and get away with it.

And the first of these terrifying warheads could be ready as soon as September! [1]

We cannot go down this road. The silver lining is, the Pentagon doesn’t have the funding to finish the project — and that gives us an opening to get Congress to say no way.

Our team has been furiously building opposition with lawmakers, raising the alarm in the media, and getting progressive partners on board, and we need your help:

The Pentagon has been pitching the Easy Fire Nuke as a "usable" weapon -- smaller than the enormous payloads typically used in nuclear weapons. But there’s no such thing as a “usable” or “safe” nuclear weapon. Once a nuclear weapon is used, there’s no guarantee that larger, more powerful nukes won’t be used. You cannot control escalation to a full-scale nuclear war.

But if Trump THINKS his new nukes are somehow easier to use, then he is more likely to launch them. And that fact alone makes Trump’s “usable” nukes unimaginably dangerous.

Let me repeat again. There. Are. No. Usable. Nukes.

And what’s more, is there’s zero need for more dangerous nukes. We already have a nuclear stockpile of roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons that the Pentagon plans to spend $1.7 TRILLION on in the coming three decades!

Last year we got unprecedented support for a bill that would reject the use of nukes. This year we helped send the Democrats’ Pentagon funding plan back to the drawing board. We’ve built an unprecedented amount of opposition among lawmakers to military spending, and a key committee chair has already said he’s against the idea of an Easy Fire Nuke. Now we need to take this easy fire nuke option out of the President’s reach
Thank you for working for peace."

Erica, Cassandra, Annika, and the Win Without War team

---

[1] The Nation, "The World’s Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon Just Rolled Off the Assembly Line"
https://www.thenation.com/article/mini-nukes-nuclear-weapons-trump-war/

[1] The Hill, "Armed Services chair plots move 'to kill' Trump's plan for low-yield nuke".
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/433647-armed-services-chairman-plots-move-to-kill-trumps-low-yield-nuke

[onawah]

Social Security Trustees confirm we can afford to expand benefits of millions
Alex Lawson, Social Security Works
4/22/19

" Donald Trump ran on a promise to protect our earned benefits. And yet, each budget proposal released by his administration reads more like a Tea Party wish list written by his Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney: Massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- all to pay for Trump’s tax scam for the rich and corporations.

Today, the Social Security Trustees released their annual report, and instead of the need to cut our earned benefits, the report shows that when millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, we can afford to EXPAND Social Security benefits for millions of Americans.

We have the evidence. Now it’s time for action!

Click here to demand Congress act to expand Social Security and increase its modest benefits for current and future recipients:
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/2100act/?link_id=1&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-breaking-social-security-trustees-confirm-we-can-afford-to-expand-benefits-of-millions-3&email_referrer=email_533493&email_subject=breaking-social-security-trustees-confirm-we-can-afford-to-expand-benefits-of-millions

The new report shows that:

Social Security has a large surplus―projected to reach roughly $2.9 trillion next year;

Social Security continues to be extremely affordable with less than one penny of every dollar spent on administrative costs (this is a fraction of what other industrialized countries pay for similar programs);

Social Security can pay out ALL benefits owed for the next 16 years―until 2035―at which point it can still pay 80% of benefits owed.

All we need is for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share and we can extend the lifespan of the trust fund and expand benefits for millions of Americans.

Right now, the average annual Social Security benefit is about $16,000. And the new Trustees Report confirms that expanding vs. cutting Social Security’s modest benefits is a question of values and choice, not affordability.

And yet, Wall Street, Republicans in Congress and their propaganda machine want us to believe that the only way to “save” Social Security is by raising the retirement age and cutting benefits.

Stand with Social Security Works and demand that Congress act to expand Social Security’s modest benefits for millions of Americans.

Right now, Rep. John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act has over 200 cosponsors in the House. And Rep. Larson has held several hearings on his bill.

With your support, we can pass this critical bill out of the House and get one step closer to expanding Social Security for millions of Americans.
Together, we’re telling Washington politicians where the American people stand: Expand, don’t cut, Social Security!"

Thank you,

Alex Lawson
Social Security Works

[onawah]

Trump is going to renege on his promises to seniors re Social Security, Medicare, etc. from the looks of it.
Neo Conservatives should be delighted.
Since Social Security funds itself, it seems clear the real agenda now is much more about culling the aged population, in accordance with the elite's general depopulation agenda, striking as always, at the most vulnerable first.
If votes are counted correctly in the next election, I wouldn't be that surprised if Sanders wins, as he will have many seniors voting to preserve and expand Social Security.

This from Alliance for Retired Americans today:
"CAUTION: They’re Lying About a Social Security “Crisis”
Media outlets and Wall Street interests are at it again. This week’s news is filled with false “doom and gloom” and warnings that Social Security is “going broke.”

That’s false. The Social Security Trustees just released their annual report. It found that the system is on track to fully cover expenses until 2035 -- a full year longer than previously projected.

Support is growing in Congress to expand Social Security and increase benefits. But we need more senators to get on board.

Media outlets and Wall Street interests are at it again. This week’s news is filled with false “doom and gloom” and warnings that Social Security is “going broke.”

That’s false. The Social Security Trustees just released their annual report. It found that the system is on track to fully cover expenses until 2035 -- a full year longer than previously projected.

Support is growing in Congress to expand Social Security and increase benefits. But we need more senators to get on board.

Will you submit a message to your Senator to help us urge them to join the expand Social Security caucus?

Congress must require the wealthiest Americans to actually pay their fair share in Social Security contributions. If this happens, benefits will be increased and the system will be solvent far into the future.

Expanding Social Security is completely affordable and doable. If we don’t act now, extremists and special interests will call for cuts to your earned benefits.

Insisting your Senators commit to Social Security expansion is crucial.

Please submit a message asking your lawmakers to stand with retirees and join the expand Social Security Caucus.

It won't be easy, but together we can save our earned benefits and ensure retirement security for future generations.

Thanks for all you do.

Richard Fiesta
Executive Director
Alliance for Retired Americans"
https://retiredamericans.org/our-issues/social-security/

[onawah]

America’s Elderly Are Twice as Likely to Work Now Than in 1985
Twenty percent of those age 65 and up haven’t retired. Many can’t afford to.
By Suzanne Woolley
April 22, 2019
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-22/america-s-elderly-are-twice-as-likely-to-work-now-than-in-1985

"Just as single-income families began to vanish in the last century, many of America’s elderly are now forgoing retirement for the same reason: They don’t have enough money. Rickety social safety nets, inadequate retirement savings plans and sky high health-care costs are all conspiring to make the concept of leaving the workforce something to be more feared than desired.


For the first time in 57 years, the participation rate in the labor force of retirement-age workers has cracked the 20 percent mark, according to a new report from money manager United Income (PDF).

As of February, the ranks of people age 65 or older who are working or seeking paid work doubled from a low of 10 percent back in early 1985. The biggest spike in employment has gone to college-educated older workers; the share of all employees age 65 or older with at least an undergraduate degree is now 53 percent, up from 25 percent in 1985.

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i7CnaY908sXI/v1/800x-1.png
Source: United Income; Current Population Survey

This rise of college-educated older workers has pushed the demographic’s inflation-adjusted income up to an average of $78,000, 63 percent higher than the $48,000 older folks brought home in 1985. By comparison, American workers below the age of 65 saw their average income rise by only 38 percent over the same period, to an average of $55,000. United Income’s calculations draw on recently released data from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

There’s a mismatch between older workers who need the income the most and those who are able to work and working, said Elizabeth Kelly, senior vice president of operations for United Income and a former special assistant to the president at the White House National Economic Council during the Obama administration.

“These are the more educated, wealthier individuals in better health who are continuing to work, but it’s probably their less-educated, working-class counterparts who need to work the most,” Kelly said.

The BLS expects the big wave of aging baby boomers to represent the strongest growth in the labor force participation rate through at least 2024. “By 2024, baby boomers will have reached ages 60 to 78,” a BLS report noted. “And some of them are expected to continue working even after they qualify for Social Security benefits.”

http://https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iMZORo0JrsEE/v1/800x-1.png

The retirement math is ugly, even for those who are seemingly well-off. Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at the New School for Social Research, has estimated that Social Security replaces about 40 percent to 50 percent of one’s pre-retirement income. The general thinking is that people need around 80 percent of pre-retirement income to get by after they stop working. (Online retirement calculators can give a rough sense for what you need to save, and earn on savings, to get there.)

The typical worker in the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution, earning less than $40,000 a year, has no retirement savings. Those in the middle 40 percent of income distribution, earning from $40,000 to $115,000, have a median amount of $60,000 saved, according to Ghilarducci’s research.

Workers in the top 10 percent of income distribution making more than $115,000, meanwhile, have a median amount of $200,000 saved. They, too, are woefully under-saved, although it’s worth noting that these calculations don’t include real estate and other tangible assets, or the chance of an inheritance.

Ghilarducci’s rough estimate of what a typical college-educated professional must amass to retire fairly comfortably? “Over $1 million or 2.” No wonder more people are working longer. "

This hits home for me and for many. Because the amount of Social Security one gets at retirement age depends on how long and how much you were earning during your working years, for those who had to work for low wages, or were simply unable to work, Social Security Retirement often isn't really enough to survive on. Having to work past age 60 is tough enough, but having to compete with younger workers in the job market in a country that is still primarily youth oriented is even tougher.

[onawah]

Trump Administration's Weak New Overtime Rules.
From: Social Security Works
4/26/19

"In 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) attempted to strengthen overtime regulations for working people.

The updated overtime pay rule would have raised the overtime salary threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 in 2016, and by 2020 it would have automatically increased to around $51,000. That rule would have benefitted 13.5 million working people―making 4.6 million newly eligible to receive the overtime pay they deserve, and strengthening the rights of 8.9 million more.

Unfortunately, this long-overdue update was blocked in the courts by business interests and Republican-led states, and the Trump administration refused to defend the updated rule.

EPI research shows that the Trump administration’s lack of action has already cost working people more than $1.6 billion in lost overtime pay.

Now, the Trump administration has published a new proposal that would dramatically weaken the DOL’s 2016 overtime rule―leaving behind 8.2 million people, including 4.2 million women, 3.0 million people of color, 4.7 million workers without a college degree, and 2.7 million parents of children under the age of 18, who would have gotten overtime protections under the 2016 guidelines.

We’ve provided a proposed comment, which you should feel free to update to have an even greater impact such as including the city and state in which you live, your occupation and if you make less than $47,476 per year and do NOT receive overtime pay when you work more than 40 hours per week. (Please DO NOT change the subject line as that is needed in order for your comment to be considered.)

Your name and comment will be published in the Federal Register."
https://actionnetwork.org/letters/submit-your-official-comment-tell-the-department-of-labor-to-reject-trumps-weak-overtime-rules?source=20190412OvertimeComm_SSW&referrer=group-social-security-works&link_id=1&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&email_referrer=email_536539&email_subject=this-isnt-a-normal-petition

[onawah]

Make our Meat More Safe
From: Environmental Working Group
4/26/19

"In the midst of an E. coli outbreak across 10 states, the Trump administration is moving forward with plans that could make our meat even less safe!

More than 56 tons of contaminated ground beef have been recalled and already 156 people have fallen ill.

Earlier this month the Trump administration decided to let the pork industry take over safety inspections at factory farms, including all tests for deadly pathogens like E. coli. And now, as The Washington Post recently reported, the Trump administration is considering giving the same deal to the beef industry!

Instead of USDA veterinarians, untrained factory employees will now be in charge of testing for deadly pathogens in our meat.

That’s insane! We need the USDA to protect public health, not meat industry profits.

Will you stand with EWG and our friends to fight back against the meat industry and stand up for our health?

TAKE ACTION: Tell the USDA to protect our health! We need trained professionals who answer to taxpayers inspecting our meat, not industry goons!

Foodborne illness is serious. More than 48 million Americans get sick from food each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We need to do MORE to prevent deadly pathogen outbreaks, not less.

Already more than one million Americans get sick from contaminated beef or pork products every year, and more than 100 die. That’s with independent inspectors in place.

The Trump administration plans to cut the number of food safety inspectors by roughly 40 percent, replacing them with factory workers – without requiring any training!

We shudder to think how many more will get sick – or worse – if we don’t stop these proposals.

Stand up for your health! Tell the USDA and the White House to stop these dangerous proposals and make our meat safe!
https://petitions.signforgood.com/safemeat?code=EWG&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fact.ewg.org%2fonlineactions%2fOjvR1vYoPkGWw96Wn5S9DA2

Thanks for standing with us.

- EWG Action Alert[COLOR="red"]

[onawah]

Trump says "5G must cover every community...."
sZGotQnwf2U
Is 5G Worth the Risks?

by IISHANA ARTRA FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
MAY 3, 2019
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05...rth-the-risks/

"In recent months there’s been a lot of talk about 5G – the next generation of wireless technology. 5G is being touted as a necessary step to the ‘internet of things’ – a world in which our refrigerators alert us when we’re low on milk, our baby’s diapers tell us when they need to be changed, and Netflix is available everywhere, all the time. But what we’re not hearing is that evidence-based studies worldwide have clearly established the harmful effects of human exposure to pulsed radiofrequency radiation from cell towers, cell phones and other devices – and that 5G will make the problem exponentially worse.

Most people believe that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) carefully assesses the health risks of these technologies before approving them. But in testimony taken by Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, the FCC admitted it has not conducted any safety studies on 5G.

Telecom lobbyists assure us that guidelines already in place are adequate to protect the public. Those safety guidelines, however, are based on a 1996 study of how much a cell phone heated the head of an adult-sized plastic mannequin. This is problematic, for at least three reasons:

+ living organisms consist of highly complex and interdependent cells and tissue, not plastic.

+ those being exposed to radiofrequency radiation include fetuses, children, plants, and wildlife – not just adult male humans.

+ the frequencies used in the mannequin study were far lower than the exposures associated with 5G.

5G radiofrequency (RF) radiation uses a ‘cocktail’ of three types of radiation, ranging from relatively low-energy radio waves, microwave radiation with far more energy, and millimeter waves with vastly more energy (see below). The extremely high frequencies in 5G are where the biggest danger lies. While 4G frequencies go as high as 6 GHz, 5G exposes biological life to pulsed signals in the 30 GHz to 100 GHz range. The general public has never before been exposed to such high frequencies for long periods of time.

This is a big deal. It turns out that our eyes and our sweat ducts act as antennas for absorption of the higher-frequency 5G waves.[1] And because the distances these high-energy waves can travel is relatively short, transmitters will be required closer to homes and schools than earlier wireless technologies: the build-out will add the equivalent of a cell tower every 2-10 houses.

But former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has made it clear the Telecom-dominated FCC does not put health first: “Stay out of the way of technological development,” he said. “Unlike some countries, we do not believe we should spend the next couple of years studying… Turning innovators loose is far preferable to letting committees and regulators define the future. We won’t wait for the standards.” In response to questions about health concerns, Mr. Wheeler said: “Talk to the medical people”.[2]

Good idea.

The “medical people” have conducted over 2,000 international evidence-based studies that link health impacts with pulsed radiowave radiation from cell towers, routers, cell phones, tablets, and other wireless devices. These studies tell us that RF radiation is harmful at even low and short exposures, and that it impacts children and fetuses more rapidly than adults. Among the findings are that RF radiation is carcinogenic, causes DNA damage, affects fertility and the endocrine system, and has neurological impacts. Pulsed electromagnetic frequencies have also been shown to cause neurological symptoms: depression, anxiety, headaches, muscle pain, attention deficits, insomnia, dizziness, tinnitus, skin tingling, loss of appetite, and nausea.[3]

The U.S. Government has known of these risks since at least 1971, when the Naval Medical Research and Development Command published a bibliography containing 3,700 references reporting 100 biological and clinical effects attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation.

Recent findings, such as the $30 million 2018 U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study, have corroborated the findings of all well-designed heart and brain cancer studies of people with 10 or more years’ exposure to cellular radiation from cell towers and cell phones. They all agree: RF radiation causes cancer.[4]

What has been the response to these findings?

Scientists are urging the World Health Organization (WHO) to update its classification of RF from a Group 2B Carcinogen to a Class 1 carcinogen – making RF and 5G comparable to arsenic and asbestos. Annie Sasco, former Chief of WHO’s Research Unit of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, says, “Enough is enough, how many more deaths would be needed before serious action is taken? Evidence just continues to accumulate.”

Ronald Melnick, the designer of the NTP study, says that the study “shows clear evidence of a causal link between cancer and exposure to wireless cell phone signals.” He adds that “An important lesson that should be learned from the NTP studies is that we can no longer assume that any current or future wireless technology, including 5G, is safe without adequate testing.”[5] Meanwhile, 231 scientists from 42 nations have signed the 5G Appeal, which urgently calls for a moratorium on the technology. Steps are being taken to slow the deployment of 5G in Italy, Belgium, Israel, Switzerland, and The Netherlands, and in the states of California, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Oregon.

But so far, not enough political leaders have been willing to heed the warnings. Or perhaps they are deferring to President Trump, who said that 5G antennas “must cover every community and they must be deployed as soon as possible…. No matter where you are you will have 5G and it is going to be a different life. I don’t know that it will be better… but I can say that technologically it won’t even be close.”[6]

Wireless technology has become so ubiquitous that most of us have been lulled into believing it is safe. Now, the hazards are about to be ratcheted up dramatically. More citizens and legislators need to join those who are actively resisting the reckless push for 5G.

Iishana Artra, PhD is a public health and safety advocate and EMF testing professional in Brattleboro, Vermont.

NOTES:

[1] “The Human Skin as a Sub-THz Receiver – Does 5G Pose a Danger to It or Not?”, and “The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin” (Betzalel 2017, Betzalel 2018) https://principia-scientific.org/stu...-5g-radiation/

[2] “5G network being pushed on the public with zero concern for safety”, Nexus Newsfeed.com

[3] “Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health”, American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

[4] These peer-reviewed published papers are compiled in the BioInitiative Report, which you can view at BioInitiative.org.

[5] Melnick, Ronald, “There’s a clear cell phone-cancer link, but FDA is downplaying it”, The Hill, Nov 13, 2018.

[6] “Remarks: Donald Trump discusses deployment of 5G wireless networks”, Factbase, April 12, 2019. See: https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-remarks-wireless-5g-network-april-12-2019

[onawah]

Trump--Fast-Track the Dangerous Keystone XL Pipeline
From: Natural Resources Defense Council
5/5/19
https://act.nrdc.org/letter/kxl-update-190425?source=act_nrdcnewsletter&tkd=315001&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=mainlink&utm_campaign=email&t=5&akid=4679%2E315001%2EsEJaHV

"President Trump is attempting to bypass a federal court ruling—which said the administration’s environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline was flawed, outdated, and required extensive revisions—by issuing a new permit to revive the pipeline and allow construction to start this year. This move completely disregards concerns about the lack of essential environmental protections for our climate, wildlife, and communities. While NRDC continues to fight in court, tell the Trump administration to drop its misguided attempt to fast-track this dangerous pipeline yet again.

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry up to 830,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil each day from Canada’s boreal forest through America’s heartland—threatening our land, our drinking water supplies, our climate, and our clean energy future.

A federal court halted the Keystone XL pipeline last year, but President Trump is now attempting to fast-track its construction by means of unlawful executive action. We must do everything we can to stop him.

Tell President Trump you oppose the Keystone XL pipeline and any other attempts to fast-track dangerous pro-polluter schemes at the expense of our climate and our clean energy future."
Take action here:
https://act.nrdc.org/letter/kxl-update-190425?source=act_nrdcnewsletter&tkd=315001&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=mainlink&utm_campaign=email&t=5&akid=4679%2E315001%2EsEJaHV

[onawah]

Trump's offshore drilling plans run into NRDC's legal firewall
From: Natural Resources Defense Council
5/6/19

Take action here: https://act.nrdc.org/letter/ocs-legal-setback-190506?source=EMOOCSLPET&tkd=315001&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=actr&utm_campaign=email&t=9&referring_akid=4737.315001.n2_I1g
"Big news: President Trump's Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is putting an indefinite hold on the Trump administration's radical plans to ramp up offshore drilling along America's coasts.

Why the delay? Bernhardt cited NRDC's dramatic courtroom victory earlier this month that blocked President Trump's moves to open areas of the remote and wildlife-rich Arctic Ocean and our Atlantic coast, vital marine areas protected by President Obama, to drilling.

Our legal victory was a major blow to President Trump's dangerous drill-at-all-costs agenda.

But Bernhardt's pause is only temporary. The Trump administration will almost surely appeal the court's ruling and meanwhile is just retooling its plans to foist as much of its dirty offshore drilling agenda on the American people as it can.

Now that the courts have spoken, it's crucial that you send a message to President Trump and Interior Secretary Bernhardt telling them to shelve their wildly unpopular and dangerous offshore drilling plans once and for all.

Bernhardt's surprising comments — made to The Wall Street Journal — said our court victory was "discombobulating" plans for ramping up new offshore drilling.

The lawsuit, brought by NRDC and our partner Earthjustice on behalf of a coalition of Indigenous and environmental groups, was a direct response to President Trump's 2017 executive order that attempted to illegally remove protections for large swaths of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans.

Trump's order was meant to pave the way for a new five-year offshore oil and gas drilling program — a plan we were expecting to see any day — that would have exposed our oceans, coastal communities, and marine wildlife to risky oil and gas development and the threat of catastrophic oil spills and pollution.

Any plan by Trump to expand drilling would also keep us shackled to the climate-busting fossil fuels of the past, all for the benefit of polluting energy giants and their profits.

And even as offshore drilling is in limbo, the administration has already issued permits for destructive seismic testing — the practice of barraging our undersea environment with deafening airgun explosions to find oil deposits. These seismic blasts cause senseless harm to thousands of whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals, including endangered species like the North Atlantic right whale.

Welcome as this respite is, this is much too early to declare victory — the Trump administration has not yet given up on its quest to sacrifice our coastlines to polluters. So NRDC will continue fighting the Trump administration by:

Strengthening our Legal Firewall: We expect the Trump administration to appeal the court's ruling. While an appeal may take months or years, NRDC's legal team will continue waging this fight until our coasts are protected.
Continuing to Bolster Congressional Opposition and Local Alliances: Along with our sister organization, the NRDC Action Fund, we will continue building major bipartisan opposition to Trump's offshore drilling plans with representatives from coastal states. And we'll be mobilizing governors and local leaders to speak out.
Mobilizing Grassroots Opposition: We'll continue galvanizing millions of people in coastal states and across America to speak out for our climate and against offshore drilling by writing letters, making phone calls, signing petitions, attending public hearings, and more.
So, please support this fight right now by telling the White House and the Interior Department to tear up their plans for new offshore oil and gas drilling."

Sincerely,
Niel Lawrence
Alaska Director and Senior Attorney, NRDC

Take action here: https://act.nrdc.org/letter/ocs-legal-setback-190506?source=EMOOCSLPET&tkd=315001&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=actr&utm_campaign=email&t=9&referring_akid=4737.315001.n2_I1g

[onawah]

One more promise Trump reneges on--vaccines
qqIIXr405I0

[onawah]

White House Has 'Monsanto's Back on Pesticides,' Newly Revealed Document Says
5/7/19
https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-t...document-says/

"Posted on May 7, 2019 by Carey Gillam
Internal Monsanto records just filed in court show that a corporate intelligence group hired to “to take the temperature on current regulatory attitudes for glyphosate” reported that the White House could be counted on to defend the company’s Roundup herbicides.

In a report attached to a July 2018 email to Monsanto global strategy official Todd Rands, the strategic intelligence and advisory firm Hakluyt reported to Monsanto the following:

“A domestic policy adviser at the White House said, for instance: ‘We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have with, for example, the EU. Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation from this administration.”

In the email accompanying the report, Hakluyt’s Nick Banner told Rands the information related to issues both for the United States and for China. The report notes that “professional” staff has “sharp” disagreement with “political” staff on some areas, but that the concerns of some of the professional staffers would not get in the way.

“We heard a unanimous view from senior levels of the EPA (and USDA) that glyphosate is not seen as carcinogenic, and that this is highly unlikely to change under this administration – whatever the level of disconnect between political and professional staffers.”

The report said that a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lawyer and a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) official confirmed that both agencies see the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen as “flawed” and incomplete.

“There is little doubt that the EPA supports the use of glyphosate,” the report says. It quotes a current EPA lawyer as saying: “We have made a determination regarding glyphosate and feel very confident of the facts around it. Other international bodies… have reached different conclusions, but in our view the data is just not clear and their decision is mistaken.”

The report also suggests similarities between the Trump Administration’s support for glyphosate and its actions around a pesticide called chlorpyrifos that is the active ingredient in an insecticide made by Dow Chemical, now DowDupont. There is a large body of science showing that chlorpyrifos is very damaging to children’s brain development and that children are most often exposed through the food and water they consume. Chlorpyrifos was due to be banned from agricultural use in 2017 because of its dangers but the Trump administration postponed the ban at the request of Dow and continues to allow its use in food production. The Hakluyt reports says:

“The way the EPA under the Trump administration has handled Chlorpyrifos might be instructive in how it would handle new science or new developments related to glyphosate.”

At the time the report was delivered to Monsanto last July, Monsanto had just been acquired by the German company Bayer AG and was in the midst of defending itself in the first Roundup cancer trial. That San Francisco case, brought by cancer victim Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, resulted in a unanimous jury verdict handed down in August ordering Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson. The judge in the case later lowered the amount to $78 million. A second trial, also held in San Francisco in a separate case, resulted in an $80.2 million verdict for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman.

A third trial is underway now in Oakland, California. Closing arguments are scheduled for tomorrow in that case, brought by a husband and wife who both have non-Hodgkin lymphoma they allege is due to their decades of using Roundup.

The documents that include the Hakluyt report were filed in Alameda County Superior Court by lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the current case – Alva and Alberta Pilliod.

The filing is in response to Monsanto’s effort to tell jurors about a recently released EPA glyphosate assessment in which the agency reaffirmed its finding that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The Pilliod lawyers say the Hakluyt communications with Monsanto speak “directly to the credibility of the 2019 EPA glyphosate evaluation, issued by an administration which holds itself out as favoring Monsanto’s business interests.”

Widening rift reported between political and professional staffers in regulatory agencies

The Hakluyt report to Monsanto also notes that increasingly professional staffers inside “most” federal agencies are feeling at odds with political staffers on issues such as pesticide regulation, climate science and other matters.

“While this appears to be true of various agencies – Health and Human Services, Commerce, Education, Interior, the Food and Drug Administration, and so on- the EPA may be the leading example of this phenomenon.”

The report quotes a prominent Washington DC law firm partner who has “extensive contacts at the EPA as saying:

“In essence, the political leadership favors deregulation and dismisses the expert risk analysis. It is especially averse to theoretical risk analysis, for example, on the risks of glyphosate, about which a scientific consensus is yet to form… With regard to glyphosate, in particular, the differences between political and professional staff are sharp.”

The professional staffers, those scientists and others who typically have been within an agency for many years through multiple administrations.

Within the EPA, professional staffers are said to have “doubts about glyphosate,” but those doubts “are not shared by the EPA’s leadership.”

The report also provides feedback on Monsanto’s reputation and provides a cautionary note to Bayer, which had just closed the purchase of Monsanto a few weeks before the July 2018 communications:

“Developments in California on glyphosate are striking a chord with the public… The company regularly goes to ‘DEFCON 1’ on the slightest challenge from the environmental, academic or scientific community.”

“Even within the EPA there is unease about your ‘scientific intransigence.'”

According to the Hakluyt report, an official with the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs said: “There is growing unease in this office at what seems like scientific intransigence by Monsanto to give credibility to any evidence that doesn’t fit their view. We would agree with them that such evidence is non-conclusive, but that does not mean that it is without basis.”

For more information and updates follow @careygillam on Twitter."[COLOR="red"]

[onawah]

Has anyone else noticed Trump is backing Monsanto, vaccines & 5G?
See the preceeding posts if you are uncertain.

[Kryztian]

Trump Is Being Set-up for War with Iran

Paul Craig Roberts
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/12/trump-is-being-set-up-for-war-with-iran/

Trump destroyed his chance at being a successful president by the stupid appointments he has made. At the moment he is being set up by his national security advisor John Bolton and Israel for a war with Iran.

Using the same format of lies that was used against Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Venezuela, Bolton has accused Iran of “troubling and escalatory indications” of a forthcoming Iranian attack on American forces in the Middle East. To help protect against the attack, Bolton has ordered Patriot missile batteries, an aircraft carrier strike group, and a bomber strike force to the region.

Even the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, pointed out that Bolton failed to identify the “troubling and escalatory” Iranian actions. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/u-s-sends-patriot-missiles-to-the-middle-east-to-counter-iranian-threats-1.7221997 No one else has seen any sign of them.

The reason for the Patriot missiles is not to deter Iran from an attack, but to prevent successful Iranian response to an attack on Iran.

This is the likely situation: The deal between the Washington Ziocons and Netanyahu is that either Israel will attack an American ship or whatever is selected, and it will be blamed on Iran, thus forcing Trump to “defend America” and retaliate, or Israel using American disguise will attack Iran, thus provoking a response from Iran.

Iran is already on hair trigger from having been provoked excessively by Washington withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear agreement, reimposing sanctions, and making endless false accusations against Iran, as Washington has done against Russia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Yemen. It wouldn’t take much more to set off Iranian emotions.

Trump is clearly set-up. If Bolton and Netanyahu want the US at war with Iran, it is their call.

And they do want the US at war with Iran. Iran and Syria back Hezbollah, and Hezbollah prevents Israel’s annexation of southern Lebanon, which Israel has twice tried only to have its army, which is not good for anything except killing unarmed women and children in Gaza, quickly defeated by Hezbollah. Thus, eliminating support for Hezbollah is a high priority for Israel and its neoconservative allies in Washington.

The neoconservatives have an additionall reason for delivering chaos to Iran. If Bolton can produce a situation in Iran like the one the US created in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, American-supplied jihadists can be infiltrated into Muslin provinces in the Russian Federation as punishment for Russia’s independent stance in world affairs.

The stakes for Russia are higher in Iran than in Syria. Russia can stand aside only at huge cost to itself.

China also has an interest. Until the Russian energy pipeline to China is completed, China needs Iranian oil. Disruption of Iran by chaos is a way of throttling China by reducing China’s energy supply.

The war that Bolton and Netanyahu are preparing to spring on Trump is likely to be much larger than they think.

[Kryztian]

Did Trump Find Religion? Don’t Hold Your Breath


https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/05/08/did-trump-find-religion-dont-hold-your-breath/ (https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/05/08/did-trump-find-religion-dont-hold-your-breath/)

https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Donald_Trump_Jesus_1088x725-700x470.jpg

President Donald Trump last week claimed that leaning on God has helped him make it through the “witch hunts” he has been subjected to.

It makes sense for the president to pander to Christian conservatives, who are among his most ardent supporters. But is his claim of being religious credible?

In 2016, before Trump had even secured the Republican nomination, WhoWhatWhy investigated his assertion that, because he is a “strong Christian,” he was being audited by the IRS — and therefore could not release his tax returns.

Back then, we went through all of his books to find evidence of this strong faith. We discover very little apart from claims he made when he was already running for president.

Since then, nothing has changed that would convince us that Trump has actually found religion. On Sundays, the president usually worships golf, and he has set records when it comes to bearing false witness.

The only thing that is different now are his reasons for why he cannot release his tax returns.

Now that he once invoked his faith, we believe it is worth taking a deep dive again into what is one of Trump’s most ridiculous claims among thousands of lies.

https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2-5-1024x682.jpg

“I’m always being audited by the IRS, which I think is very unfair… maybe because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian and I feel strongly about it.”

This was perhaps the quintessential Trump moment of the year. It came after a Republican debate in late February when the GOP frontrunner claimed that the IRS was targeting him because of his religion.

It was classic Trump. He used the IRS audit as an excuse for not revealing his tax returns — even though experts and the IRS both said nothing would preclude him from doing so — and tried to score with evangelical Christians in the same breath.

The reaction of CNN host Chris Cuomo (56 seconds into this video) says it all. Even though Trump is winning the evangelical vote, it is almost easier to believe that Mexico will build him a wall than that he is a “strong Christian.”

So we investigated. After all, Trump is not just a public figure but a very public figure. He has written many books, including some semi-autobiographies and others laying out what he thinks about the world, and he is seemingly on TV all the time.

Trump loves to talk. In fact, he’ll say just about anything. He certainly wasn’t shy when he was hinting at the size of his genitals during last week’s Republican presidential debate. And in 2006, he said he would date his then 24-year-old daughter if they weren’t related.

But he has a tendency to get a bit tongue-tied when talking about religion.

What We Know

Trump was confirmed in June of 1959 in the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, New York.

“I am Presbyterian, Protestant. I go to Marble Collegiate Church,” Trump told reporters when asked about his religion. “The church I was originally with was the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, which is out in Queens, New York. And I’ve had just great experiences in church, whether it’s Sunday school or whatever it may be. But, now I go to Marble Collegiate Church.”

But the church denies that he is an active member.

“Donald Trump has had a longstanding history with Marble Collegiate Church, where his parents were for years active members and one of his children was baptized,” the church said in a statement to WhoWhatWhy and other media outlets.

“However, as he indicates, he is a Presbyterian, and is not an active member of Marble.”

But he does have a long-standing history with the church that includes Trump getting married there to his first wife in 1977. And, according to The New York Times, it’s also where he met Marla Maples, the woman with whom Trump cheated on his first wife and who would become his second wife.

According to Trump’s own writing, the most lasting impact Marble Collegiate seems to have had on him was through the sermons of Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, who led the church for half a century and authored The Power of Positive Thinking.

Trump talked about his pastor in July at the Iowa Family Leadership Summit. He said Peale, who died in 1993, would give “unbelievable” sermons that made him feel disappointed when they were over.

In the next breath, by the way, Trump said he had never asked God for forgiveness.

“I think if I do something wrong, I think I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture,” Trump said.

“When we go to church and when I drink my little wine, which is about the only wine I drink, and have my little cracker, I guess that’s a form of asking for forgiveness,” he added. “And I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed. But to me it’s important I do that.”

Of course, why would Trump be an active member of Marble Collegiate Church? After all, it is not his denomination.

In an email to WhoWhatWhy, Catherine Ortiz, the church’s director of Marketing Communications, stressed that “Marble Collegiate Church is part of the Reformed Church in America, and is not a Presbyterian Church.”

The church did not respond to follow-up questions whether its leaders believed that Trump’s campaign was consistent with Marble Collegiate’s stated mission of diversity and inclusion.

Two Corinthians Walk into a Bar…

It would not be terribly shocking if Trump did not know the difference between denominations. With regard to religion, there is very little he seems to know or be certain of. Which is surprising because he has repeatedly said that the Bible is his favorite book.

When he addressed students at Liberty University earlier this year, members of the audience laughed at him for citing a passage from “Two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians.”

Trump blamed Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, for the error. Perkins had given him some notes ahead of the speech and had (correctly) written out the scripture reference that Trump had hoped to score points with as “2 Corinthians 3:17.”

While this gaffe allowed Trump’s rival Ted Cruz to wisecrack about Trump’s religious naivete (“Two Corinthians walk into a bar …”), ultimately the joke is on Cruz, the son of a minister, because these missteps have not hurt the frontrunner.

Still, the Liberty University video is representative of how unsure of himself Trump appears when talking about religion or, even worse, having to answer questions about it.

Even when the interviewer is friendly and asks simple questions, Trump always has the appearance of a student who is called on by the teacher to discuss the reading assignment he had forgotten was due on that day. Trump’s responses always lack specifics.

In researching his own words for this article, we were unable to find a single instance in which Trump gave an answer on a religious topic that could even remotely be labeled as “deep.”

When asked about his favorite Bible verses, Trump says he does “not want to get into specifics” and then whiffs on the follow-up question on whether he is more of an “Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy.”

Trump thinks for a second and answers: “Probably equal, I think. It just an incredible…the whole Bible is an incredible…” and then starts talking about how he jokes that his own book The Art of the Deal is only his second favorite book.

The Art of the Deal

Which brings us to Trump’s own writing. In total, we looked at five of his books and focused on the ones that are either autobiographical or about the state of the United States.

Donald Trump’s bestseller The Art of the Deal, which was published in 1987, is an autobiography/business book billed as “an unguarded look at the mind of a brilliant entrepreneur.” Trump dishes on his upbringing, family, business and his success.

He doesn’t, however, talk about religion, faith, God, or the Bible.

In fact, a search for the words “faith”, “religion”, “church”, “Christian”, “God”, “Jesus”, “Bible”, “Presbyterian” and “Protestant” yielded five combined hits. None of the words were used in a religious context and certainly not in describing Trump’s spirituality.

The America We Deserve

The second book we looked at is The America We Deserve. It was published in 2000 and is described as Trump’s “position paper on major political issues facing our country.”

The worldly view he expresses in this book appears to be at odds with the need for a country built on Christian values that evangelical voters would like to see. In a 2015 poll, 57% of all Republicans, and 94% of the supporters of Mike Huckabee, the one-time champion of the religious right, supported the establishment of Christianity as the national religion.

In the book, Trump referenced “faith” nine times. However, it is used only once in a context that is related to religion:

“Americans support a wall of separation between church and state because it protects their religious organizations from government encroachment, and also because it ensures that no denomination or faith is able to seize power,” Trump writes.

“Religion” is mentioned twice but only in the context of how the terrorists and the Chinese don’t believe in freedom of religion.

“Church” is used 11 times, but there are no references to Trump’s own.

“God” is mentioned three times but the only remotely religious context in which it is used is when Trump writes “God bless” Americans who help others.

“Jesus” is mentioned once, but only because that was the first name of the designer of the book’s cover.

And Trump’s “favorite book,” the Bible, is not mentioned at all.

Never Give Up

Of the five Trump books we examined, Never Give Up might have been the most interesting. Published in 2008, it is billed as follows:

“In Never Give Up, Donald Trump tells the dramatic stories of his biggest challenges, lowest moments, and worst mistakes — and how he uses tenacity and creativity to turn defeat into victory. Each chapter includes an inspiring story from Trump’s career and concludes with expert commentary and coaching from adversity researcher and author Paul Stoltz. Inspirational and intelligent, Never Give Up will help you deal with your own personal challenges, failures, and weaknesses.”

It would seem like the perfect opportunity for a religious person to talk about how his faith helped him overcome obstacles and maybe thank God for being a source of inspiration in those low moments.

“Faith in yourself can prove to be a very powerful force,” Trump wrote. “…Sometimes when you are fighting a lonely battle, keeping yourself company with positive reinforcement and faith in yourself can be the invisible power that separates the winners from the losers. Losers give up.”

That sounds a lot like Norman Vincent Peale, the pastor Trump so admires. Peale, by the way, is mentioned several times in the book while “Jesus” or “Christ” are not referenced at all and “God” just once (when Trump writes about how a former New York parks commissioner considered some plans he gave her “a gift from God”).

The Bible is, once again, not mentioned.

Time to Get Tough

In 2012, Trump was seriously flirting with a presidential run for the first time. To lay the groundwork, he wrote Time to Get Tough, which was published in 2011. The book is a scathing critique of President Barack Obama and lays out Trump’s plan to “Make America #1 Again.”

Contemplating a White House run, Trump for the first time really dips his toe into religion — at least a little bit. He writes about the country having to “resolve to keep the faith,” and how Islamic terrorists “hate our religion.”

Trump refers to somebody as a “fellow Christian” and calls marriage “the greatest anti-poverty program God ever created.” He even cites the Gospel of Matthew once.

Still, Time to Get Tough is only the precursor for what was to come.

Crippled America

Crippled America was released in November of 2015 — when Trump was already the frontrunner in the race and less than four months before Iowans cast the first votes — and it describes his vision of what it takes to make America great again.

Basically, it is Trump’s way of distributing his campaign platform and getting paid $25 per hardcover copy sold (we’re a non-profit and got the $3.99 online version). It even has pictures — the kind that will appeal to Republican voters. One shows Trump with Ronald Reagan, but there is also one of Trump on his confirmation day at First Presbyterian Church.

While it is short on specifics, Crippled America references religion more than all of the other books combined.

In a segment on “Values,” Trump writes that the happiest people are those with “great families and great values.”

“Religion also plays a very large factor in happiness,” he adds. “People who have God in their lives receive a tremendous amount of joy and satisfaction from their faith.”

Trump also described the two churches he attended: First Presbyterian and Marble Collegiate Church (which stated that he is no longer an active member). And he once again writes about Rev. Peale.

He also notes that people are “shocked” when they learn that he is a Christian and a “religious person.”

“They see me with all the surroundings of wealth so they sometimes don’t associate that with being religious,” Trump writes. “That’s not accurate. I go to church. I love God, and I love having a relationship with Him.”

He then immediately describes how “the Bible is the most important book ever written.”

In the space of three paragraphs (and he goes on for another page or so), published after he was already running for president (his campaign manager is mentioned in the acknowledgements), Trump writes more about his faith, God and the Bible than in the hundreds of pages in similar books that were published in the nearly three decades before he ran.

In short, our extensive review of Trump’s record, his books, many public statements, interviews in which the subject of spirituality came up, etc. allows only one conclusion: If Donald Trump is being audited for being a “strong Christian,” then the late Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, might also have been on the IRS’s short list.

[onawah]

Trump’s Plans for Protecting Polluters Have Been a Devastating Success
By MEKELA PANDITHARATNE
MAY 10, 2019
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/trump-bannon-administrative-state-epa-rosenstein-polluters-win.html

"In the first days of the Donald Trump presidency, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon famously described the administration’s plans for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” Despite the constant apparent chaos in parts of the West Wing, Trump officials throughout the executive branch have lived up to this promise to use bureaucratic tools to throttle federal law enforcement of polluters and corporations with an almost zealous meticulousness.

Across the Trump administration, top agency officials have been busy building a bureaucratic scaffolding to stymie federal enforcement actions against the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful players. Officials in the Justice Department, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among others, have been moving to muzzle agencies’ fact-finding powers, add layers of bureaucratic control, complicate chains of command, and strip power from regional officers and enforcement specialists. The result has been historic declines in enforcement actions against banks, corporations, and corporate executives—precisely as Bannon promised.

The Trump administration has more than lived up to that initial slashing tone. Through its tenure, the administration has ramped up immigration enforcement, while presiding over a precipitous drop in enforcement of environmental and civil rights laws, and of regulating corporate crime. For polluters and corporations, the administration has doled out a handful of meager reprisals, wielding bureaucratic tools such as memoranda and fortified top-down structures to chill agencies’ enforcement powers.

Across the agencies, enforcement actions against polluters, banks, and corporations have dwindled. The Environmental Protection Agency collected a mere $69 million in civil and administrative penalties from polluters in 2018, the lowest amount levied by the agency in more than a decade. Criminal fines collected by the EPA from polluters plunged to $88 million, the lowest total for such penalties assessed in a decade. In 2018, EPA referred the fewest new criminal cases to the Justice Department in any year since 1988.

The nation’s financial sectors also received a reprieve. Corporate penalties imposed in Justice Department prosecutions plummeted by 72 percent during the first 20 months of the administration, compared to those levied during the final 20 months of the Obama presidency. Meanwhile, penalties imposed and illicit profits ordered returned by the Securities and Exchange Commission fell by 62 percent. The volume of publicly announced enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Donald Trump’s tenure has also steeply declined.

Often, the enforcement decline is less a product of slash-and-burn practices than slow bloodletting and bureaucratic sandbagging. Staffing re-allocations, buyouts, and mass resignations have diminished parts of the Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency, including the divisions responsible for civil rights and environmental enforcement. Several agencies have curbed their fact-finding activities, ensuring there is little grist for the enforcement mill. Formal guidance issued by top officials has sewed confusion and injected additional supervision and control over lower-level investigators and enforcement lawyers. And reporting relationships between boots-on-the-ground staff and senior agency officials have, at times, been replaced by commands to seek approval from political appointees.

At the EPA, a 2017 memo signed by the agency’s former director for civil enforcement instructed regional enforcement officers to seek permission from Washington before ordering certain air and water pollution tests. These tests are often necessary to determine whether companies violated environmental laws. The result was to clog the case-building pipeline, causing such fact finding activities to decline in at least two of the agency’s most active regional offices. The messaging has caused confusion and dampened spirits among many of the agency’s investigators. The agency additionally inspected fewer industrial facilities during 2018 under Trump than at any time in the preceding decade.

Across the agencies, enforcement actions against polluters, banks, and corporations have dwindled.
Again, the dismantling project has been virtually across the board. As one example, last year the Trump administration softened its stance on an Obama-era Justice Department memo prompting companies to report on individuals involved in corporate misconduct. As a result, the agency now requires fewer details to be produced by companies to secure government leniency when misconduct occurs. Though the impact of the decision on prosecutions is disputed, it capped off a series of policy changes weakening the agency’s corporate prosecution program. Rod Rosenstein, the outgoing deputy attorney general, ordered federal prosecutors to avoid “piling on” penalties against companies being investigated for the same wrongdoing by multiple regulators and countries, lessening the financial penalties businesses can expect to pay. The agency also issued guidance scaling back the deployment of corporate monitors in criminal matters.

The CFPB, an agency created during the Obama administration to police predatory lending by financial institutions, meanwhile, announced last year that it would no longer perform routine examinations of financial lenders for possible violations of the Military Lenders Act, baffling lawmakers and the Defense Department. Under Mick Mulvaney, the bureau’s former acting director who has since been promoted to chief of staff, lawyers in the enforcement office were instructed to write summaries justifying every active enforcement matter. Mulvaney also severed channels of communication between enforcement officials and the senior career officials in charge of divisions, requiring employees to present their cases to newly established intermediary directors appointed by Mulvaney himself.

All of these issues have been compounded by resource constrictions and staffing shortages. High-level signaling has seeded doubt and demoralization among lower-level officials who typically collect the kindling to spark enforcement actions.

All administrations shuffle enforcement priorities, and some observers have posed contextual quibbles over the data documenting the decline. But the overall scale at which the Trump administration is pulling back on enforcement actions against corporate actors, banks, and polluters would be shocking under any other administration. As fewer cases gestate within the agencies’ ranks, companies will be emboldened to violate with greater impunity laws meant to protect public health, safety, and financial well-being. That’s bad news for all of us. "

[onawah]

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
5/13/19
https://act.nrdc.org/donate/may-campaign-appeal-190508?source=EMOMAYDON2&tkd=315001&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=text1&utm_campaign=email&t=2&akid=4787%2E315001%2EaKGr9c
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/T-giKcZa2wv9k2opjotXxu9LYtTS9AOJOmOwDJ7X9DtgklZxWI7sZ9eAdqMymCAzLX9e=s162
"What do you call a council of 15 people with deep ties to the trophy hunting lobby and the National Rifle Association?

President Trump calls it his "International Wildlife Conservation Council."

But don't be fooled for one second by that name. While Trump's council pretends to conserve imperiled wildlife, it's nothing more than a front for this group of loyal supporters to advance their deadly agenda: to make it easier for Americans to gun down elephants, giraffes, lions, and other species and import them as souvenirs.

It's more than a moral outrage — it's a flagrant violation of the law.

In creating this sham "council," the Interior Department failed to meet requirements that federal advisory committees, which are funded by taxpayers, be objective and free of special interests.

So NRDC hauled the Trump administration into federal court.
Scientists have for years been sounding the alarm about trophy hunting and poaching that threatens iconic wildlife.

Entire herds of elephants are slaughtered at horrifying rates: As many as 35,000 African elephants are killed each year by poachers. Lions are fully extinct in 90% of the land they once roamed. And giraffe populations have plummeted by an alarming 40% over the last 30 years, in part because they're a favorite target of trophy hunters.

The Trump administration's so-called council is not the answer, and never will be. The Interior Department has flat-out refused to appoint even one actual policy expert or conservation scientist to the council.

At the same time, an alarming new U.N. report released earlier this week details the horrifying threats that these wildlife — and our global ecosystems at large — already face due to habitat loss, overconsumption, worsening climate change, and pollution.

NRDC is fighting on all possible fronts, in and out of the courtroom, to protect wildlife — to stop Trump's proposed rollbacks to the critical Endangered Species Act ... to block seismic testing and oil and gas drilling off our Atlantic and Arctic coasts that threatens whales and other marine mammals ... to uphold vital protections for gray wolves and rusty patched bumblebees ... and more.

We're determined to put an end to the Trump administration's latest illegal charade — and fight to protect elephants, lions, giraffes, whales, wolves, and countless other wildlife whose lives are at stake. But we urgently need your help.

End this abuse of power by rushing a gift to NRDC now. For this limited time, every dollar you send will double in impact.

There is a very real possibility that we will forever lose some of the world's most beloved species — unless we compel our government to act at this critical moment. And that's why NRDC is taking the Trump administration to court again and again in defense of wildlife.

Thanks so much for standing with us."

Sincerely,
Mitch Bernard
Chief Counsel, NRDC
Natural Resources Defense Council

[frankstien]

https://i.ibb.co/BgqGgHH/trump-parrot-12x9-w.jpg

[Didgevillage]

How many times was "Hillary" mentioned in this thread?
Just asking.

T is a much better choice than H. That's all I will say.

[frankstien]

Both T and H were bad choices.

https://i.ibb.co/qmKH03L/haiti-grinder-Ink-2016-w.jpg

The awful truth in the last election: there wasn't one good choice.

[onawah]

And that, unfortunately, isn't saying much at all, which was the point of this thread.
There was no need to mention HC here--her crimes got plenty of coverage elsewhere; I doubt anyone here was rooting for her, in any case.
But you are certainly free to go back and count, if you really think that's an issue.

How many times was "Hillary" mentioned in this thread?
Just asking.

T is a much better choice than H. That's all I will say.

[Didgevillage]

Yes, T and H are both bad choices.
But which one is worse?

Both T and H represent unseen forces in America.

T has the backing of certain military generals, who want to restore Constitutional America, and other forces (who might have assassinated Justice Scalia in 2016).
H has the backing of Zionist forces in America who want Ginsburg still alive.

The recent presidential election in Ukraine reminds me of the 2016 US elections.
Ukrainians got sick and tired of Poroshenko who made a failed stated out of Ukraine (his business expanded 10 times in the meantime) while he kept on premising and delivered nothing.
Many Ukrainians also realized that the so-called westernization of Ukraine is responsible for the war in Donbass.

[onawah]

That remains to be seen as we are only 2 years into Trump's administration.
His accomplishments thus far only amount to winning battles against one faction of the Deep State; not much to brag about, considering the state of things on the planet.

Yes, T and H are both bad choices.
But which one is worse?

[Didgevillage]

That's correct.
Politics is never what meets the eye.
It takes time to evaluate the whole situation.
It's not a matter of personal vendetta of one politician against another.

Like I was saying, the situation in Ukraine is also very fluid. People wanted to get rid of Poroshenko ASAP, and they really cared little who the other candidate was.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

His accomplishments thus far only amount to winning battles against one faction of the Deep State

Middle class income highest on record (https://www.theepochtimes.com/middle-class-income-rises-to-highest-on-record_2660932.html)
Consumer confidence 18 year high (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/consumer-confidence-september.html)
Jobless claims lowest since 1969 (https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2018/08/30/jobless-claims-lower-than-expected-four-week-average-hits-lowest-level-since-1969/)
Youth unemployment hits 52 year low (https://www.wsj.com/articles/youth-unemployment-hits-52-year-low-1534455755)
Black unemployment lowest levels in history (https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/63-record-low-african-american-unemployment-august)
US now the world's top oil producer (https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/12/investing/us-oil-production-russia-saudi-arabia/index.html)
Highest manufacturer optimism in US history (https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/trump-says-tax-cuts-allow-workers-to-pocket-more)
3.2% GDP growth in the first quarter alone this year (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/trump-gdp-inflation)

That's just a handful of economic items, without even getting to him putting conservatives back into the Supreme Court who uphold traditions, instead of progressive activist hacks unconstitutionally legislating from the bench. That's also not getting into him kicking transvestites out of our killing force, fighting against the endless hordes pouring over our southern border, reversing globalist trade deals, reinvesting in a dominant military position, standing up against big tech censorship, standing up against globalist communist worldwide, and on and on and on. He's also dismantling government bureaucracies and returning more authority to the states to make their own decisions.

You know all those things he does that piss you off, like preventing China from taking over our fossil fuel industry and polluting even worse than we do? It's a lot of things Trump does that you don't like, huh? Well, to the other side of the aisle, those are accomplishments. Just because he's not doing things that you like doesn't mean he's accomplished nothing.

[Didgevillage]

The Federal Reserve is the bastion of the Deep State.

As Eustace Mullins exposed first (upon a request from Ezra Pound), the Fed is a private bank.
Not in his book, but in an interview, Mullins said the criminal banksters in 1913 only wanted the Fed to generate money during their lifetime, meaning WWI and artificial bust in 1920s, but this evil institution lasted over 100 years.

Trump and the Fed
oOZ0PiS9a5k

[Blue Mobius]

Look friends, the president is doing a damn good job considering he is one man, with an highly organized deep state manipulating everything in their power to impeach him, with the lying fake news media attacking him daily, as well as embedded holdovers from previous administrations sabotaging all they can, along with mass censorship of his supporters. I can go on but to be frank let’s try to consider why the media is manipulating everyone with a weak enough mind to believe them that he is every horrible thing you can think of. It’s because they fear him and they should. Look how much corruption has already been exposed. He is clearly empowering free God fearing Americans who are seeking a fair chance at taking care of their families, building incentives to innovate and lead man back into space, and does in fact have the guts to lead with strength. No more apologetic tours around the world suits me just fine. Iran wants to chant death to America they better believe an aircraft carrier is going to be knocking on their door. The geopolitical complexities are really not thought out by some people here. Let’s withdraw completely from the Middle East and allow authoritarian China to waltz right in as soon as they are finished with planting their strategic power in Africa which is nearly complete. The war is wrong in so many way but what worse is after all the blood to abandon everything now and create another opportunity for extremism to flourish before those nations are stable enough allies. He is an elected official not a dictator. Things have to be done as such. Dare I say he is the first real
American president since Reagan.

[Blue Mobius]

I have to say yes man kind has many shortcomings. We have wicked people in this world who lust for power. But you know what, if good men and woman can rise up and create incentives to keep that evil in check, to keep that evil in fear of the good and decent than the world will be a place that’s no so bad.

[Gracy]

Look friends, the president is doing a damn good job considering he is one man,

Do you feel the same about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton? the neocon way of bully stick diplomacy, placing strangling sanctions on innocent people and instigating coups is a legitmate part of the political spectrum, albeit a very cruel and dangerous one.

Mr. Trump was against all this during the campain, what happened?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

the neocon way of bully stick diplomacy, placing strangling sanctions on innocent people and instigating coups is a legitmate part of the political spectrum, albeit a very cruel and dangerous one.

The carrot and stick routine isn't a trick of neocons. It's a negotiation strategy that everyone uses, because it works.

They can talk to Trump directly, or they can "talk" to John Bolton. That's the carrot and the stick. It's their decision.

Iran is not a bunch of saints either, you know, and they are a rogue nuclear weapons operation led by religious extremists. The Iranian people themselves may be mostly okay, but their government is North Korea-level nuts.

[Gracy]

the neocon way of bully stick diplomacy, placing strangling sanctions on innocent people and instigating coups is a legitmate part of the political spectrum, albeit a very cruel and dangerous one.


The carrot and stick routine isn't a trick of neocons. It's a negotiation strategy that everyone uses, because it works.

Hi voice, well first off who is everyone? Second, I don't see any carrots just bully sticks. Third, can you name me anyone else in the world that relies solelyon bully negotiation tactic like U.S. does today?

[Didgevillage]

Iran is not a bunch of saints either, you know, and they are a rogue nuclear weapons operation led by religious extremists. The Iranian people themselves may be mostly okay, but their government is North Korea-level nuts.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the US (as a proxy for Israel) won't attack a country with nukes.
That's the reason for North Korea's eagerness to develop nuke missiles. But it went too far and got obviously chastised by China, its real boss.

Iran's situation is similar but not the same. Iran knows the modus operandi of the CIA (The Shah regime was installed by the CIA) and there are plenty of anti-religious factions there.
Iran also paid dearly for the war started by Saddam, a CIA asset.
Iran knows that Afghanistan is ungovernable, so it stayed out of the trouble there. A wise move, because Bin Laden was also a CIA asset.
Iran also knows that the Saudi Wahhabis are a bunch of phonies and merely represent Zionist interests, but Iran is refraining from meddling with the internal affairs of the Gulf states.
Iran can't let a Zionist regime change in Syria and thus continues to support the fellow Shia militias in Lebanon and Syria.

[onawah]

Interesting reads (thanks to Delight, who posted this first one here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106821-The-US-Vaccine-issue-is-more-than-just-about-the-Shots-it-is-about-totalitarian-tiptoe&p=1291916&viewfull=1#post1291916

https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-disintegrated-mind-the-greatest-threat-to-human-survival-on-earth/
which leads to
https://feelingsfirstblog.wordpress.com/key-articles/cannot-trap-magic-rat-geopolitics/
which leads to
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The carrot and stick routine isn't a trick of neocons. It's a negotiation strategy that everyone uses, because it works.

Hi voice, well first off who is everyone?

Obviously more than just neo-conservatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick


The phrase "carrot and stick" is a metaphor for the use of a combination of reward and punishment to induce a desired behavior.
[...]
The earliest uses of the idiom in widely available U.S. periodicals were in The Economist's December 11, 1948 issue and in a Daily Republic newspaper article that same year that discussed Russia's economy.

You really feeling arguing that neo-cons invented the carrot and stick strategy for some reason? :confused:


Second, I don't see any carrots just bully sticks.

The carrot is an open invitation to sit down and have peaceful negotiations. If that doesn't sound like a carrot to them now, it will soon enough, when the economic and military pressure reaches a sufficient point.


Third, can you name me anyone else in the world that relies solelyon bully negotiation tactic like U.S. does today?

International relations throughout history have relied upon such tactics and far worse. I don't believe you have ever actually studied realpolitik throughout history to ask such a question. Next you will express disbelief that wars occur in order for countries to force one another to align with various agendas. OMG.




Iran can't let a Zionist regime change in Syria and thus continues to support the fellow Shia militias in Lebanon and Syria.

Don't forget that the US and Europe funneled billions of dollars into Iran in recent years to fund black projects there on behalf of Western (Soros-aligned Zionist) factions. They aren't detached from the New World Order, just attached in an unusual configuration between regional powers and ideologies, it seems.

Obama's "iran Deal" saw literal pallets of millions upon millions of American taxpayer dollars being landed on runways in Iran. The same billions of dollars that God forbid ever be spent on fixing our own country, but they can sure as hell be given to governments that openly preach our destruction.

[Gracy]

Second, I don't see any carrots just bully sticks.

The carrot is an open invitation to sit down and have peaceful negotiations. If that doesn't sound like a carrot to them now, it will soon enough, when the economic and military pressure reaches a sufficient point.

It's fine if thats the way you see matters of foreign affairs, we simply disagree on that as a decent way to do business around the world but so be it, and thank you for your honesty.

if you dont mind voice i have another question. if i have a gun and you only have a knife, would this fall under the carrot and stick way of negotiating if i want to kick you out of your house so i can live there, and there is no law powerful enough to stop me?

Maybe i wouldn't even need to use the gun if i could just get you to leave by blockading you from bringing food in and cutting you off from your money. Eventually you might just break and do what i want. Or, i would be forced to shoot you in that case. :)

Or, is that different?

[Blue Mobius]

Point taken Gracy. Bolton is a very questionable advisor but as far as I know Pompeo is a patriot and has the nations interest at heart. Also mountains has a very good point. These nations have many wonderful people whom I feel bad for but let’s not kid ourselves, the regime is totally and completely oppressive and tyrannical. Keep in mind that many people of that nation contribute to that oppression and you would allow nuclear arms to be developed and produced unfettered by not sanctioning. It’s not the people we sanction it’s the government the people allow that we sanction. If Trump was failing his campaign promises we would be in full scale deployment in Syria and prob Yemen maybe Lybia. Btw Teddy Roosevelt said the best diplomacy is to speak gently but carry a big stick (taken from an African proverb). Leadership is to be kind and compassionate but carried on the bones of indomitable strength. Do we announce to the world that it’s ok for authoritarian nations to develop nuclear weapons or do we announce that they could try but will have extrem consequences. Which message makes for a safer world?

[Blue Mobius]

Your a kind and lovely soul Gracy but to be frank...... not very strategic. We live in a world where strategy is the foundation of peace. Maybe a day will come when we all receive the Savior and do away with envy, greed, lust, and hate. Until then strength is what determines peace and prosperity. Let’s be thankful that the strength I speak of is in the hands of the most benevolent nation the Earth has known or seen.

[onawah]

I disagree. IMHO, peace is not founded on strategy in any world--true peace is founded on wisdom, not on cunning.
There are different kinds of strength--brute strength is the strength of the coward.
Gentle strength is the strength of the wise.
If it's the US you are speaking of, it is now the most greedy and destructive nation on Earth.
We know a fraction of this planet's history, and there may have been others more destructive.
But the US is leading the current race to near extinction with its cunning strategies, and it is just as much a pawn of the real puppet masters of the world as any other nation, if not more so.
Which is a great shame, because at one time it seemed that wouldn't be the case. But it is now, and it's going to take a hell of a lot to correct the course.


Your a kind and lovely soul Gracy but to be frank...... not very strategic. We live in a world where strategy is the foundation of peace. Maybe a day will come when we all receive the Savior and do away with envy, greed, lust, and hate. Until then strength is what determines peace and prosperity. Let’s be thankful that the strength I speak of is in the hands of the most benevolent nation the Earth has known or seen.

[AutumnW]

Let’s be thankful that the strength I speak of is in the hands of the most benevolent nation the Earth has known or seen.

That's so off the mark, it's more amusing than annoying:ROFL:

[AutumnW]

The carrot and stick routine isn't a trick of neocons. It's a negotiation strategy that everyone uses, because it works.

Hi voice, well first off who is everyone?

Obviously more than just neo-conservatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick


The phrase "carrot and stick" is a metaphor for the use of a combination of reward and punishment to induce a desired behavior.
[...]
The earliest uses of the idiom in widely available U.S. periodicals were in The Economist's December 11, 1948 issue and in a Daily Republic newspaper article that same year that discussed Russia's economy.

You really feeling arguing that neo-cons invented the carrot and stick strategy for some reason? :confused:


Second, I don't see any carrots just bully sticks.

The carrot is an open invitation to sit down and have peaceful negotiations. If that doesn't sound like a carrot to them now, it will soon enough, when the economic and military pressure reaches a sufficient point.


Third, can you name me anyone else in the world that relies solelyon bully negotiation tactic like U.S. does today?

International relations throughout history have relied upon such tactics and far worse. I don't believe you have ever actually studied realpolitik throughout history to ask such a question. Next you will express disbelief that wars occur in order for countries to force one another to align with various agendas. OMG.




Iran can't let a Zionist regime change in Syria and thus continues to support the fellow Shia militias in Lebanon and Syria.

Don't forget that the US and Europe funneled billions of dollars into Iran in recent years to fund black projects there on behalf of Western (Soros-aligned Zionist) factions. They aren't detached from the New World Order, just attached in an unusual configuration between regional powers and ideologies, it seems.

Obama's "iran Deal" saw literal pallets of millions upon millions of American taxpayer dollars being landed on runways in Iran. The same billions of dollars that God forbid ever be spent on fixing our own country, but they can sure as hell be given to governments that openly preach our destruction.

The Iran fiasco is a manufactured crisis that has been in the planning stages for some time. A country like Iran, operating under constant threat from Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is almost forced to develop nuclear weapons to protect itself when the U.S. throws the nuclear treaty they had with the U.S. out the window.

There is not a single country in the Middle East (unless it is a U.S. proxy) that will be allowed to evolve peacefully due to Israel's intense paranoia. They have created a hornets nest and then stand back and go, "See, these people are SO primitive. We MUST protect ourselves." It's a typical self fulfilling prophecy stoked by war profiteers like Netanyahoo.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

It's fine if thats the way you see matters of foreign affairs, we simply disagree on that as a decent way to do business around the world but so be it, and thank you for your honesty.

Whether or not it meets anyone's definition of decency becomes irrelevant when every nation of any size on the planet is run by mobsters of one flavor or another. I can not think of a single exception to this.

Can you think of a country that isn't run by some network(s) of organized criminals of some form or another?

You can imagine an ideal world, and project that onto the real world, but if it's not a factually sound assessment, then being decent is not ultimately going to be a successful policy. In fact, being that naive will likely only reward you with assassination or being taken out of politics by some manufactured scandal. No one "pure" gets through without a fight or having dirt on them, or both.


if i have a gun and you only have a knife, would this fall under the carrot and stick way of negotiating if i want to kick you out of your house so i can live there, and there is no law powerful enough to stop me?

No, that's not carrot and stick, and I don't see how this analogy relates to anything. No one is trying to kick Iran out of their house. Do you know what the relevant foreign policy disputes are ultimately about here? There are several to choose from, but I don't know of any that are border disputes or wanting to make Iranians move anywhere.

Also, remember that it was the CIA that was responsible for the fundamentalist radicals taking over the Iranian government in the first place. Before that, they were a secular, modern power, developing nuclear energy peacefully.

[Praxis]

I just realized I should not post but I do applaud Macy for the contributions.

[Blue Mobius]

There seems to be this organized cabal/mob runs things in every country mentality proliferating here. In reality each and every nation has a government their people allow or tolerate. There always was and probably will be those who scheme among the good and decent but so long as most are true, good, and morally decent evil cannot succeed. In response to your comment Autumn, perhaps you have an anti American sentiment built up by the more than obvious propaganda of anti Americanism along with anti western values that’s being endoctrinated in universities all around the world. Does it annoy you that your nation along with many free nations around the world are kept safe by American forces? does it annoy you that the Nazis were stopped by Americans? does it annoy you that the Japanese empire was stopped by Americans? does it annoy you that the oppressive mass murdering soviets were put in check by Americans? Does it annoy you that American tax payers dish out billions of dollars annually for the purpose of humanitarian aid? Does it annoy you that Americans established the Monroe doctrine which completely and unequivocally protects the Western Hemisphere from any threats that obviously benefit the peace, security, and prosperity of your nation which I love btw. America is not perfect but the corrections of our historical flaws are also something to be proud of. No nation has gained as much power and abused it less than the Untied States. I absolutely know that there are problems, things are not perfect, but for the most part, the good that has resulted in this world because of the USA is incomparable to any other civilization currently or previous. Btw does it annoy you more than 70% of every convenience you have in your life was invented by an American? I won’t mention the fact that there was no such thing as the concept of a nation governed by their own empowered people (by the people, of the people, for the people) before the USA. You like many have been sold the bill of lies of how terrible America is with out actually looking for yourself the reality of the world and it’s history.

[Blue Mobius]

Thank you for your response Onawah. We can play the semantics game but strategy is the product of wisdom etc. You mention the word cunning in a negative light. I would say that to be cunning can be wise if it’s based on a benevolent outcome. Your claim that the US is the most destructive civilization may be true. But that which the US has destroyed are exclusively that which the world can be thankful are destroyed. You can reference my response to Autumn for specifics.

[Blue Mobius]

I also felt it important to remind some friends here that Israel is the only democracy in that region where people of all
Faiths can live among each other in peace. If they weren’t paranoid they would be failing their people considering their situational reality and previous history. So before you feel sorry for the poor Tyrants of Iran that would rule your life under an oppressive system of law inspired by radical beliefs consider that.

[Gracy]

It's fine if thats the way you see matters of foreign affairs, we simply disagree on that as a decent way to do business around the world but so be it, and thank you for your honesty.


Whether or not it meets anyone's definition of decency becomes irrelevant when every nation of any size on the planet is run by mobsters of one flavor or another. I can not think of a single exception to this.

Can you think of a country that isn't run by some network(s) of organized criminals of some form or another?

Ah, ok, thank you for helping me see more clearly where you are coming from with that voice. Maybe this is the foundation of America's "might is right" forein policy, because we're all just gangsters here, and there's not even the old honor among thieves being applied? No negotiations required, except that everyone else adhere to US demands on bended knee?

If this is the case then it makes more sense now why the Iran nuclear deal would be ripped up to the dismay of the rest of the world, tell Iran they can no longer even ship their own oil through the straits, with an ongoing blitzkrieg propaganda campaign with help from a compliant media to paint Iran as the cheats, liers and reckless aggressors, even as a carrier group awaits off their shores just daring them to so much as sneeze wrong. Do i have this about right?


if i have a gun and you only have a knife, would this fall under the carrot and stick way of negotiating if i want to kick you out of your house so i can live there, and there is no law powerful enough to stop me?



No, that's not carrot and stick, and I don't see how this analogy relates to anything. No one is trying to kick Iran out of their house.

Let this country girl try and make it more clear. i kick you out, but your house stays. Kick the government out, but the country stays. I assume control of your house, the US reassumes control of their oil just like they want in venezuela, the US has further control of the Persian Gulf with a friendly puppet now running iran, and Benjamin Netanyahu is very pleased as well. All wrapped up with a nice pretty bow on top.

What could possibly go wrong?


Also, remember that it was the CIA that was responsible for the fundamentalist radicals taking over the Iranian government in the first place. Before that, they were a secular, modern power, developing nuclear energy peacefully.

Um, me thinks you got 1979 mixed up with 1953.

[Praxis]

It's fine if thats the way you see matters of foreign affairs, we simply disagree on that as a decent way to do business around the world but so be it, and thank you for your honesty.


Whether or not it meets anyone's definition of decency becomes irrelevant when every nation of any size on the planet is run by mobsters of one flavor or another. I can not think of a single exception to this.

Can you think of a country that isn't run by some network(s) of organized criminals of some form or another?

Ah, ok, thank you for helping me see more clearly where you are coming from with that voice. Maybe this is the foundation of America's "might is right" forein policy, because we're all just gangsters here, and there's not even the old honor among thieves being applied? No negotiations required, except that everyone else adhere to US demands on bended knee?

If this is the case then it makes more sense now why the Iran nuclear deal would be ripped up to the dismay of the rest of the world, tell Iran they can no longer even ship their own oil through the straits, with an ongoing blitzkrieg propaganda campaign with help from a compliant media to paint Iran as the cheats, liers and reckless aggressors, even as a carrier group awaits off their shores just daring them to so much as sneeze wrong. Do i have this about right?


if i have a gun and you only have a knife, would this fall under the carrot and stick way of negotiating if i want to kick you out of your house so i can live there, and there is no law powerful enough to stop me?



No, that's not carrot and stick, and I don't see how this analogy relates to anything. No one is trying to kick Iran out of their house.

Let this country girl try and make it more clear. i kick you out, but your house stays. Kick the government out, but the country stays. I assume control of your house, the US reassumes control of their oil just like they want in venezuela, the US has further control of the Persian Gulf with a friendly puppet now running iran, and Benjamin Netanyahu is very pleased as well. All wrapped up with a nice pretty bow on top.

What could possibly go wrong?


Also, remember that it was the CIA that was responsible for the fundamentalist radicals taking over the Iranian government in the first place. Before that, they were a secular, modern power, developing nuclear energy peacefully.

Um, me thinks you got 1979 mixed up with 1953.

You just made the same mistake I did. It is why I removed my post.

He is not actually confusing the different coups. He is trying, BUT FAILING MISERABLY, to use sarcasm.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

There seems to be this organized cabal/mob runs things in every country mentality proliferating here. In reality each and every nation has a government their people allow or tolerate.

The only reason Americans and others allow corrupt networks of criminals to occupy their political offices is because so many of them are so ignorant of the situation, not because they are consciously allowing their politicians to be so corrupt.

For toleration, it's the same. You cannot say people are "tolerating" criminal institutions when they are completely ignorant of their operation.

Most people in modern society aren't completely ignorant about corruption, but they don't often take the time to actually put the whole picture together. Maybe some of them watch this documentary or read that article, and put a few pieces together, and think that's sufficient information for their needs. So you have a country where a majority of people may believe that we were lied to about JFK, yet LBJ gets elected to his own term in office, and then later George Bush Sr., when they both are very obvious suspects in the blatant conspiracies around JFK's murder.

Really it boils down to the media not doing its job, which is why it's truly the enemy of the people. Without a corrupt media, none of this would have been possible.

Also, for whatever it's worth, it was mostly the Soviets who defeated the Nazis. Over 90% of the fighting in Europe was between the Third Reich and USSR. They had battles with D-Day casualties for every single day for weeks on end, on the Eastern Front. In the big picture, being realistic about it, the US only showed up in Germany in time to prevent the Soviets from taking over the rest of Europe.




Ah, ok, thank you for helping me see more clearly where you are coming from with that voice. Maybe this is the foundation of America's "might is right" forein policy, because we're all just gangsters here, and there's not even the old honor among thieves being applied? No negotiations required, except that everyone else adhere to US demands on bended knee?

That's preferable to "pretend I'm Jesus and allow the rest of the world to sodomize me while I simply turn the other cheek." Crude way of expressing ideas here but we understand each other's metaphors anyway I guess, right?


If this is the case then it makes more sense now why the Iran nuclear deal would be ripped up to the dismay of the rest of the world,

You mean to the dismay of our European "partners" who were partners in crime with the Obama administration. Why send plane loads of cash money if everything was being done by the law?

You'll be hearing more about that deal in the future, too. In the court systems, I mean. You can count on that.

Remember the Iran-Contra scandal? They were sending cash money then too, right? And do you remember why?


Let this country girl try and make it more clear. i kick you out, but your house stays. Kick the government out, but the country stays. I assume control of your house, the US reassumes control of their oil just like they want in venezuela, the US has further control of the Persian Gulf with a friendly puppet now running iran, and Benjamin Netanyahu is very pleased as well. All wrapped up with a nice pretty bow on top.

That would never work in Iran. Iran is not Iraq. And no one is seriously suggesting that anyone is even kicking that idea around except the most manic talking heads on MSM, who will literally say anything at this point.

If you have any example of a more credible source seriously entertaining this idea, of essentially occupying Iran through a conventional military campaign, then I'd like to see it.



Also, remember that it was the CIA that was responsible for the fundamentalist radicals taking over the Iranian government in the first place. Before that, they were a secular, modern power, developing nuclear energy peacefully.

Um, me thinks you got 1979 mixed up with 1953.

No, 1979 would never have happened if not for 1953, and it was the West that was harboring Khomeini for all of those years in between. The same CIA and western allies who were giving weapons and training to a guy named Osama bin Laden around the exact same time. Remember him? He may have been framed for 9/11, but I'm sure that aside from that, he really was just a super nice, cool guy, too.


We can disagree all day about whether or not the US should take a firm or bent-over position in front of other countries, and maybe that just boils down to natural differences between the sexes, but I hope we can at least agree that what we did to Iraq is not quite comparable to economic sanctions or even potential forced blockades.

The idea that Trump is a neocon or obsessed with quagmiring US troops in another Iraq War is an idea disconnected from reality. This is a president who went out of his way to break tradition and criticize a former president from his own party because of the Iraq War, even when the other Republican nominees refused to do so. His campaigning on changing Middle Eastern policy (but not bending over in front of everyone like Obama literally did with his embarrassing bows) was a central part of his campaign.

Obama did far more to continue neocon policy in the Middle East, by starting the wars in Libya and Syria, than Trump has done. For those who have still missed it, almost all the old Bush neocons hate Trump, from Bill Kristol to Bush Jr. himself. John Bolton is one of the few exceptions, and he strikes me more of an aggressive opportunist than an ideologue.

[onawah]

I am just going to short circuit this and put you on my Ignore list, BM, and request the Mods take some action to help get this thread back on topic.

Thank you for your response Onawah. We can play the semantics game but strategy is the product of wisdom etc. You mention the word cunning in a negative light. I would say that to be cunning can be wise if it’s based on a benevolent outcome. Your claim that the US is the most destructive civilization may be true. But that which the US has destroyed are exclusively that which the world can be thankful are destroyed. You can reference my response to Autumn for specifics.

[AutumnW]

So....Voice...Mark your calendar. I am going to agree with something you posted! I know..it's appalling. When my Mom was dying, one of her care aids was a recent immigrant from Iran. We had some very interesting political discussions. After the Ayatolluh came to power in Iran, her grandfather was tortured by the regime and never the same. They were an elite family, somewhat close to the Shah's family through academic circles. Her immediate family, with the exception of her mother, remained in Iran

When things began to really heat up in the Middle East her brother immigrated, likely around 2003. She followed around 2008.

The shah may very well have been installed. But...according to my friend, so was the Ayatolluh. The shah wanted to turn Iran into a nuclear power and that is when his problems began. She claimed the CIA had a replacement ready. I guess they figured the Ayatolluh would be a compliant figure.

The U.S. was played, as they played the Middle East....and they have never forgotten it and will work really hard to exact revenge for decades. And of course, revenge always carries with it benefits for somebody. Ongoing tensions will likely never amount to anything with Iran but it's great to whip up animosity and fuel the military industrial complex and sanctions can cripple Iran.

I don't think Trump realizes what's going on in the Middle East. He's listening to Pompao and Bolton. He should give them the heave ho. Trump would be happy to put resorts in Iran. He really has to drain the swamp properly and not restock it with pirhana.

[AutumnW]

I am just going to short circuit this and put you on my Ignore list, BM, and request the Mods take some action to help get this thread back on topic.

Thank you for your response Onawah. We can play the semantics game but strategy is the product of wisdom etc. You mention the word cunning in a negative light. I would say that to be cunning can be wise if it’s based on a benevolent outcome. Your claim that the US is the most destructive civilization may be true. But that which the US has destroyed are exclusively that which the world can be thankful are destroyed. You can reference my response to Autumn for specifics.

What? You don't like political screeds run through a Hallmark card program? Seriously...What's not to love?:happy dog:

[Gracy]

Let this country girl try and make it more clear. i kick you out, but your house stays. Kick the government out, but the country stays. I assume control of your house, the US reassumes control of their oil just like they want in venezuela, the US has further control of the Persian Gulf with a friendly puppet now running iran, and Benjamin Netanyahu is very pleased as well. All wrapped up with a nice pretty bow on top.


That would never work in Iran. Iran is not Iraq. And no one is seriously suggesting that anyone is even kicking that idea around except the most manic talking heads on MSM, who will literally say anything at this point.

If you have any example of a more credible source seriously entertaining this idea, of essentially occupying Iran through a conventional military campaign, then I'd like to see it.
YG7DqFM6uxc

[AutumnW]

Good catch, GRacy May.

Bolton is such an odious fellow, full of bad will for all. I imagine it was Trump's Israeli and perhaps Saudi connections who suggested he hire Bolton and Pompao for the roles they are playing. For all his faults and his sabre rattling I don't think Trump is an immoral war monger. He is more an amoral resort builder and huxter who is so ignorant of the world, he listens to the wrong people. Now Pence? He scares me. Something very very unholy about that guy.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

So....Voice...Mark your calendar. I am going to agree with something you posted! [...]

The shah may very well have been installed. But...according to my friend, so was the Ayatolluh. The shah wanted to turn Iran into a nuclear power and that is when his problems began. She claimed the CIA had a replacement ready. I guess they figured the Ayatolluh would be a compliant figure.

So the part you are agreeing with is that the US (or the West in general) had its hand in both regime changes. By the way, I don't support our country overthrowing governments like this lightly. Obviously it is an act of war and should be treated with the same seriousness as going to war, which is to say, extremely seriously.

Having said that, if we can agree that "we" were responsible for putting the Iranian regime into position in the first place, then it's not a great leap to consider that the current Iranian regime still has connections to the CIA rogue state and is involved in the same criminal activity that the CIA is famous for. At any rate, religious fundamentalists or not, they're not above bloody business.

AND they were sent billions in cash money.


I don't think Trump realizes what's going on in the Middle East. He's listening to Pompao and Bolton. He should give them the heave ho. Trump would be happy to put resorts in Iran. He really has to drain the swamp properly and not restock it with pirhana.

I think when the whole bandwagon mocks someone as stupid for long enough, it's easy to begin believing that the mockery and satire is a legitimate stand-in for reality. Actually, Trump is not mentally retarded, from what I've seen. Unless every single military and intel staffer lies to him every single day, I would be very surprised if he's not making very good use of the most sophisticated spying capabilities in the world.

Trump can even use FISA courts too now, and listen in on all those juicy conversations that John Kerry keeps having with the Iranians. :)

[onawah]

What is the Chained CPI and why won’t it go away?
From Social Security Works email update 5/22/19
(I deleted their requests for donations, but if you want to donate, go to the link at the end of this message)

"Donald Trump’s recent budget proposal included billions of dollars in Social Security cuts. The proposed cuts were a huge betrayal of his campaign promise to protect our Social Security system. Fortunately for Social Security’s current and future beneficiaries, he has little chance of getting these cuts past the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats.

So Trump and his budget director/chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who has long been hostile to Social Security, are trying another tactic to cut our earned benefits. They are pursuing a long game to reach their goal. In a divide-and-conquer move, the focus is not Social Security. At least, not yet.

Last week, the Trump administration revealed that it is planning to employ the so-called chained Consumer Price Index (CPI) in a way that does not need congressional approval.1 “Chained CPI” might sound technical and boring, but anyone who has closely followed the Social Security debate knows better. It has long been proposed as a deceptive, hard-to-understand way to cut our earned Social Security benefits.

Trump plans to switch to the chained CPI to index the federal definition of poverty. If he succeeds, the impact will be that over time, fewer people will meet the government’s definition of poverty—even though in reality, they will not be any less poor. The definition is crucial to qualify for a variety of federal benefits, including Medicaid, as well as food and housing assistance. The announcement was written blandly about considering a variety of different measures, but anyone who knows the issue well can easily read the writing on the wall.

So, what does this have to do with Social Security? Like the poverty level, Social Security’s modest benefits are automatically adjusted to keep pace with inflation. If not adjusted, those benefits will erode, slowly but inexorably losing their purchasing power over time. These annual adjustments are already too low,2 but they are better than no adjustment at all. The chained CPI would make these adjustments even less adequate.

Thanks to our work together, we’ve defeated the chained CPI before. We’re going to go all in to stop it this time too―but we can’t do it alone.

The top line of the following chart shows what a more accurate adjustment would look like. The line below it shows what the current adjustment does to benefits, and the bottom line shows what the stingier chained CPI would do:

Graph: Annual Social Security Benefits under the CPI-E, Current Law CPI-W, and Chained CPI
https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/chained_cpi_chart.png

Proponents of the chained CPI say that it is better at measuring “substitution,” but don’t be fooled. The current inadequate measure already takes into account substitution of similar items. This is the idea that if the price of beef goes up, you can substitute chicken. In contrast, the chained CPI involves what are called substitutions across categories. If your planned vacation abroad goes up, you can stay home and buy a flat screen television and concert tickets instead.

Of course, neither form of substitution is much help to seniors and people with disabilities whose health care costs are skyrocketing.

There’s no substitution for hospital stays and doctor visits. Those who propose the chained CPI are apparently fine with letting seniors who can’t even afford chicken substitute with cat food.

The idea of substitution within or across categories makes no sense for people with no discretionary income. If all of your money goes for medicine, food and rent, how does substitution make sense? If you are so poor that your children go to bed hungry, how do you substitute?

Back in 2012, President Barack Obama proposed a so-called Grand Bargain to cut Social Security using the chained CPI, in return for Republicans agreeing to increase taxes on the wealthy. The goal of this Grand Bargain was ostensibly to reduce the deficit, despite the fact that Social Security does not add a single penny to the deficit.

Grassroots activists around the country fought back, and Obama ultimately realized his error. He removed the chained CPI from his budget proposals and endorsed expanding, rather than cutting, Social Security’s modest benefits. Social Security expansion is now the official position of the Democratic Party.

We changed Obama’s mind by working together and educating the public on this obscure technical issue. With Trump, we’ll have our work cut out for us.

Republicans have still continued to push Social Security cuts, including the chained CPI. Back in December 2017, they passed a massive tax cut for corporations and the super-wealthy. Afterwards, they used the predictable deficits their tax cuts caused as an excuse to call for cutting Social Security. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans made well-publicized statements about the so-called “need” to cut Social Security. What was much more secret was a provision in the tax bill which replaced the measure used to index the tax brackets with the chained CPI.3

Now, Trump wants to apply the chained CPI to the calculation of poverty rates. This will directly hurt many seniors and people with disabilities by making it more difficult to qualify for programs many rely on, including food and housing assistance. It is also a long-term threat to Social Security itself.

We know how to deal with threats to Social Security―we unite the progressive movement and organize massive resistance.

The strategy is clear: Trump and his Republican supporters in Congress plan to apply chained CPI everywhere else, and then say that it is only common sense that we apply it to Social Security as well.

Trump thinks that he can get away with executing this long-game attack on Social Security quietly, while the media and public are focused on his tweets, name calling, and scandals. But we must not be distracted. If we do not stop this attack in its tracks, our earned benefits will be next.

We are going to launch a campaign that Congress can’t ignore: No chained CPI! No chained CPI for our earned benefits! No chained CPI for the most vulnerable among us!

Join our campaign to protect and expand Social Security!

This quiet effort to embed the chained CPI is a fight Trump does not want to have, certainly in an election year. But it is one we will bring to him. Grassroots activism defeated the chained CPI before. This time it will be harder because Trump can substitute the chained CPI without legislation. That means we have to simply fight harder. If we stick together, we surely will win. And we must. All of our economic security depends on it.

Thank you,

Nancy Altman
President
Social Security Works "

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/trumpsabotage?link_id=2&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-what-is-the-chained-cpi-and-why-wont-it-go-away&email_referrer=email_552206&email_subject=what-is-the-chained-cpi-and-why-wont-it-go-away

References
1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/07/2019-09106/request-for-comment-on-the-consumer-inflation-measures-produced-by-federal-statistical-agencies
2 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/social-security-benefits_b_8285322
3 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/get-ready-for-a-post-election-push-to-slash-social-programs

[Franny]

What good reason is there for Trump and the Reps to cut Social Security to balance the budget when it has nothing to do with balancing the budget? Even Obama and Bush had to back off, but they want to try again

Since it has nothing to do with the budget it must be something else. Would it be, perhaps, to siphon that money off to other unmentioned (unmentionable) projects? Do they want seniors to have less money and Medicare as they age so they can die earlier and get access to more of the SS money? It has beed drained off on a regular basis for decades, this just gives quicker access? Maybe not a good political move as many seniors are Reps, but perhaps that's not an issue.

Any other ideas?

[onawah]

Depopulation--getting rid of more "useless eaters", probably the agenda behind so many insane policies.


What good reason is there for Trump and the Reps to cut Social Security to balance the budget when it has nothing to do with balancing the budget? Even Obama and Bush had to back off, but they want to try again

Since it has nothing to do with the budget it must be something else. Would it be, perhaps, to siphon that money off to other unmentioned (unmentionable) projects? Do they want seniors to have less money and Medicare as they age so they can die earlier and get access to more of the SS money? It has beed drained off on a regular basis for decades, this just gives quicker access? Maybe not a good political move as many seniors are Reps, but perhaps that's not an issue.

Any other ideas?

[onawah]

"The Chained CPI is back. And new analysis shows its devastating impact.

We’ve been focused on its potential cuts to Social Security benefits―but a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities1 shows that the Chained CPI would immediately be devastating to American families:

More than 250,000 older Americans and people with disabilities would pay higher premiums for prescription drugs because they’d lose, or receive less help from, the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy Program.

More than 250,000 adults would lose Medicaid coverage. Children, people with disabilities and more would be impacted by this underhanded proposal from the Trump administration.


Check out this chart from the CBPP’s report, which shows the many ways that tying the Chained CPI to the federal poverty line would negatively impact everyday Americans:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/S0B7CLHF1dN70vG7YTUODPd-QZe59Ki7QX8PsODTBW6AYb12FHrdFxRVx_tYPcg6f7_WGcTVqNbGzW23RRwW30XQ01ApB7WRZ5QVscLQRqpjJ-stCwRFRe9ueU0dbXemVwaCYGYC

40639

Within ten years of the implementation of the Chained CPI, federal health programs would see cuts worth billions of dollars with millions of people either losing coverage or paying significantly more out of pocket.

Using the Chained CPI to re-define “poverty” may reduce the number of Americans classified as “poor,” but it won’t help anyone. It’s another way the Trump administration is seeking to play fast and loose with the truth, no matter the consequences for people who can’t afford a Mar-a-Lago membership.

Social Security Works is organizing our coalition partners to oppose Donald Trump’s Chained CPI. We know that when we make our voices heard, we can stop bad ideas from taking root.

We’ve stopped the Chained CPI before, and we can do it again!

Thank you for standing with us in a fight to protect the health care and retirement security of millions of Americans.

Michael Phelan
Social Security Works

[onawah]

Trump’s go-to law firm targets Greenpeace
Annie Leonard, Greenpeace
5/25/19


( From their email update today--I deleted requests for contributions, but if you want to, you can contribute here:
https://engage.us.greenpeace.org/onlineactions/AqV3a2KD0kOOZWXvQHrxKA2?r=true&am=15&_ga=2.211129490.645411719.1558812999-177828300.1558812999 )

"Greenpeace is under attack. Multi-billion-dollar, climate-destroying corporations can’t beat us with science or in the court of public opinion, but think they’ve found a new way to shut us up or shut us down:

Unleash an army of slick corporate lawyers to hit us with lawsuit after lawsuit.

These SLAPPs (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) have one purpose — to silence and intimidate Greenpeace activists and supporters like you.

Because anyone who knows Greenpeace knows we will never be bullied into silence.

Not by Resolute Forest Products, which filed a SLAPP against us for leading the fight to stop the logging giant from laying waste to Canada’s Boreal forest.

And not by Energy Transfer, which filed a $900 million lawsuit against Greenpeace and our allies for speaking out against the company’s infamous Dakota Access Pipeline and other disastrous pipeline projects.

Both of these huge corporations sued Greenpeace under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act — the law written to fight organized crime! It’s a sign of how effective our voice — your voice — is and how desperate they are to silence us.

Although these lawsuits are utterly baseless — in fact, RICO claims were dismissed in both cases earlier this year — the battle is not over. We still must fight Resolute’s limited defamation claims in federal court, and Energy Transfer, undeterred by the dismissal of its case in federal court, has filed a new suit against Greenpeace and our allies in state court, repackaging many of its original claims.

These baseless lawsuits are designed to force us to spend precious time and resources in court, defending our right to speak and advocate for the environment.

And that’s the whole point of a SLAPP. It’s an abusive attempt to overwhelm us with litigation, peel away our focus from our critical environmental work, and make us back down from the next great environmental battle, but that’s something Greenpeace will never do.

Thanks to committed friends like you, these baseless lawsuits have not and will not ever interfere with our critical work.

As long as Greenpeace speaks truth to power, these corporate bullies will keep coming after us. We have to be ready.

Thank you for all that you do.

Sincerely,

Annie Leonard
Executive Director, Greenpeace USA"

[AutumnW]

My brother and I get together and run different scenarios regarding future of the U.S. and the one scenario that keeps popping up for us is the high probability that the cutting of social programs is a way of steering the entire society in the direction of fundamentalist Christianity. A theocratic state is much desired by religious fascists. The infrastructure is already built out and running.

The cutting of social programs will likely be synchronized with major funding for the "charitable" outreach programs of mega churches.

The U.S began a slow collapse in 2008. The next economic cycle is going to usher in an era of intense poverty and the fundamentalists will be there to help the vast number of dispossesed while basically coercing them into becoming Christian

The Roman Catholic church extended and consolidated the remnants of the Roman empire. The U.S could end up doing something similar.

[AutumnW]

Onawah, again....thanks for being on top of what is actually going on. YOu have a gift for finding material that rejects the veneer and sees the ugly beneath it.:flower:

[onawah]

You are most welcome, Autumn.
Sometimes that gift feels more like a curse, but once one sees, one cannot un-see, so might as well put discernment to good use, if possible.
With all the prophecies about the "last pope" and the general tragectory of the NWO, I imagine what the Vatican plans to do in time is to incorporate itself into the New World Religion.
One ring to rule them all, and all that...
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/lotr/images/3/33/One_Ring_To_Rule_Them_All/revision/latest?cb=20080727043003

Onawah, again....thanks for being on top of what is actually going on. YOu have a gift for finding material that rejects the veneer and sees the ugly beneath it.:flower:

My brother and I get together and run different scenarios regarding future of the U.S. and the one scenario that keeps popping up for us is the high probability that the cutting of social programs is a way of steering the entire society in the direction of fundamentalist Christianity. A theocratic state is much desired by religious fascists. The infrastructure is already built out and running.

The cutting of social programs will likely be synchronized with major funding for the "charitable" outreach programs of mega churches.

The U.S began a slow collapse in 2008. The next economic cycle is going to usher in an era of intense poverty and the fundamentalists will be there to help the vast number of dispossesed while basically coercing them into becoming Christian

The Roman Catholic church extended and consolidated the remnants of the Roman empire. The U.S could end up doing something similar.

[Kryztian]

So Jared Kushner is off to Montreux, Switzerland this Friday, for a lovely weekend of golf and Bilderberg.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jared Kushner, Google’s Schmidt and Microsoft’s Nadella to attend secret Bilderberg Meeting

The annual Bilderberg Meeting, designed to foster warmer relations between the United States and Europe, starts Thursday in Switzerland and runs through Sunday.
The event’s website says about 130 participants from 23 countries have confirmed their attendance this year.


Jared Kushner, senior advisor to President Donald Trump, is set to attend this year’s Bilderberg Meeting in the Swiss town of Montreux this week.

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting was designed to foster warmer relations between the United States and Europe. The annual talk fest is considered secretive because guests are not allowed to reveal who said what at the meeting.

The Bilderberg guest list typically includes top politicians, business leaders, financiers, academics and influential members of the media. The event’s website said Tuesday that about 130 participants from 23 countries have confirmed their attendance this year.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Article continues at https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/28/kushner-google-and-microsoft-to-attend-secret-bilderberg-meeting.html

[onawah]

Trump’s new pick to head Social Security
From Social Security Works email update today
5/31/19

( I've removed the appeals for donations, but you can donate at the link below if you wish)
"Donald Trump has a track record of nominating completely unqualified nominees to key cabinet positions. But his latest nominee for Commissioner of Social Security is utterly frightening.

Andrew Saul, who graduated from the Wharton School with Donald Trump in 1968, has zero background in Social Security. However, he did serve on the board of the right-wing Manhattan Institute, which has consistently been extremely hostile to Social Security.

The Senate could hold initial votes as early as Monday on Saul’s confirmation to head the Social Security Administration! We’re working with Senate allies to defeat this destructive nominee, and we need your support..
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/opposeandrewsaul?link_id=0&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-utterly-frightening-trumps-new-pick-to-head-social-security&email_referrer=email_557079&email_subject=utterly-frightening-trumps-new-pick-to-head-social-security
Saul is not only unqualified, he also has a history of illegal and unethical behavior.

In 2007, Saul was forced to drop out of a U.S. Congressional race due to unethical campaign contributions.

In 2012, Saul tried to lie “his way out of a trespassing rap by falsely identifying himself as a police commissioner.”

This is not someone who should be in charge of a program that is an essential lifeline for over 60 million Americans and their families.

Together, we’re defending Social Security from repeated attacks by the Trump administration, and telling Washington politicians where the American people stand: Expand, don’t cut, Social Security!

Thank you,

Michael Phelan
Social Security Works"

[onawah]

Don't let Congress rubber-stamp a bad NAFTA deal
From Citizens Trade Campaign's email update today
5/31/19

http://org.salsalabs.com/o/1034/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=23660
"The White House and corporate lobbyists are attempting to rush a shoddy NAFTA deal through Congress. Rather than making critical changes to the pact, the White House just submitted a final round of required paperwork that could allow its harmful NAFTA proposal to hit Congress in as little as thirty days.

Tell Congress: Don't rubber-stamp a bad NAFTA deal that fails to end the ongoing outsourcing of jobs and that contains new giveaways for Big Pharma!

Throughout the NAFTA renegotiation process, we were exceptionally clear about the changes necessary to win our support. Over a thousand organizations and hundreds of thousands of individuals reached out to U.S. negotiators outlining the type of deal that would finally put working families, consumers and the environment ahead of corporate profits.

Unfortunately, the White House decided to put CEOs and corporate interest groups first. The NAFTA 2.0 text that the Trump administration is pushing fails to include the strong labor and environmental standards with swift and certain enforcement that are needed to stop outsourcing, raise wages, protect worker rights and safeguard the environment.

Under Trump’s bad NAFTA deal, employers would continue outsourcing jobs to Mexico to take advantage of sweatshop wages, labor rights abuses and the ability to dump toxins.

Even worse than business-as-usual, the Trump administration also snuck new language for Big Pharma into its NAFTA proposal that would block competition from generic medicine makers in order to lock in outrageously high prescription drug prices.

Urge your Members of Congress to oppose a vote on NAFTA 2.0 unless and until critical changes are made to protect jobs, the environment and public health.

Working people throughout North American deserve a real NAFTA replacement — not another corporate power grab. Please take action now.
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/1034/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=23660
Together, we can make a difference.

Many thanks,

Arthur Stamoulis, Executive Director
CITIZENS TRADE CAMPAIGN "

[onawah]

Trump’s Pipeline Crusade
LUCAS LIBERTY
5/29/19
https://www.lakotalaw.org/news/2019-05-29/trumps-pipeline-crusade

( No answers are being given by the mainstream about advanced technologies that would solve our energy problems. and neither side in the US has come up with a feasible, sustainable plan, including Trump.)

"The Goliath was slain. Or so we thought. In 2015, President Barack Obama seemingly took a hardline position against the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, vetoing a bill passed by Congress that would approve its construction. He said that approval of the pipeline would reduce the United States’ influence on other countries to commit to green policies. Environmentally mindful members of the country let out a sigh of relief.

Then on Nov. 8, 2016, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. In the first days of his presidency, Trump happily approved not only Keystone XL but also the now-completed Dakota Access pipeline. His executive mandate spat in the face of the courageous individuals—many from Indigenous communities—who had worked hard to protect lands and communities from the needless environmental destruction embodied by Keystone XL.

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/lakota-peoples-law/uploads/_600x218_crop_center-center/Pipeline-tweet.png

Are there really no downsides, Mr. President?

Throughout his presidency, Trump has continued to be a proponent of the fossil fuel industry, and, more specifically, oil pipelines. Even though individuals from around the country and all walks of life have spoken out against the construction of such environmental pariahs as the Dakota Access and Keystone pipelines, Trump and his supporters continue to advocate for more unnecessary fossil fuel infrastructure to benefit private oil companies.

Executive Negligence
Earlier this year, the president threatened to issue executive orders to promote the development of oil and gas pipelines by limiting the power of the states to block construction. He issued two such orders on Apr. 10 of this year. Citing national security, Trump claimed that additional pipelines would consolidate the United State’s international “economic growth and power” and security from “the Russians.”

The inclusion of Russia in the president’s reasoning seems to be more than coincidental, considering that the Mueller Report was on the brink of release and Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen had just testified before Congress. Even at the very beginning of his administration, Trump’s first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship for negotiating a deal between Russia and his company ExxonMobil.


Trump’s first Order can be best summarized as an appeasement for oil companies. It signals the administration’s prioritization of free market economics and a commitment to dismantle the power of the Environmental Protection Agency by limiting its ability to review policies relating to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a law that creates a division of powers between the state and federal level to regulate construction projects that affect bodies of water.

This order does not change the existing law. The law in question still requires oil companies to get approval from state governments before beginning construction on new infrastructure. Pipelines may have been given the green light by Trump, but if fossil fuel companies try to use this to bypass state governments, they may be met with hostility in the form of lawsuits.

In the second Executive Order, there is much more to worry about. This directive is yet another attempt by Trump to supersede the authority of Congress by taking executive control over several regulatory areas involving the approval, denial, or amending of infrastructure projects that cross borders—powers that should not be under the sole discretion of a single person, even the president. The areas included under the order are the “construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of”:

1. Pipelines
2. Facilities that import or export water or sewage
3. Facilities that transport “persons or things, or both”
4. Bridges
5. Below- or above-ground versions of the aforementioned
6. Border crossings for land transportation (motor and rail)
When Obama used executive authority to deny Keystone XL, his veto was a response to massive public outcry and in recognition of the current climate crisis. Trump, on the other hand, is attempting to subvert a system of checks and balances in defiance of the will of the people to approve a pipeline that is arguably no longer financially or legally viable.

If left uncontested, the second executive order could be the potential means that the president uses to cram through his border wall, deportation policies, and swift approval of pipelines and other fossil fuel projects. By implementing sole executive authority over the creation of buildings and systems along the border, Trump is effectively setting himself up to create any “practical” border policies he sees fit—the word “practical” here emphasizing that these structures could possibly reduce legislative oversight.

Thankfully, the Indigenous Environmental Network filed a lawsuit last month to prevent the president from issuing a new permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, arguing that Congress, not the president, has the ability to issue these types of permits. The lawsuit argues that the presidency should not consolidate any more unnecessary power, especially when this order would both exacerbate the primary impacts of climate change and and reduce our ability to deal with subsequent impacts. The most recent round of scientific reports—including one from Trump’s own administration—declare that we only have 11 years left to curb our greenhouse gas emissions before we are wedded to climate catastrophe. This reality is no longer something we can ignore.

Checks and Balances?
The executive branch’s powers are vast but not limitless. Fortunately, a separation of powers exists in the United States Constitution, preventing all the powers of the government from being concentrated in one office. Congress and the courts have the real power in the pipeline debate because their respective responsibilities and obligations have the potential to limit the actions of the president. The courts have the power to strike down any action the president takes if it violates the Constitution or existing laws.

In 2017, New York state’s environmental regulatory body (Department of Environmental Conservation or NYSDEC) found that an oil pipeline company—Constitution Pipeline—had not sufficiently met environmental standards in accordance with the Clean Water Act to ensure the protection of the local ecosystems. The company sued, but the federal court upheld New York’s decision. Attempting to appeal to the Supreme Court, Constitution Pipeline was denied.

Earlier this year, Bloomberg reported that NYSDEC also blocked a permit requested by William Partners LP to build a pipeline on the East Coast that would pump natural gas from the Marcellus shale formation. Extending from New York to West Virginia, the Marcellus formation is one of the most abundant fields of natural gas in the world, with estimates pointing to as much as 84 trillion cubic feet of gas within the region. The William Partners’ pipeline was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but given the axe by New York state, which cited concerns over water quality in congruence with standards outlined in the Clean Water Act.

Thankfully, certain officials at the federal level can also curtail the president’s crusade for pipelines. Federal Circuit Judge Brian Morris issued a ruling in February preventing further construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, stating that the pipeline’s builders failed to adequately address the issues noted in environmental findings from the Obama Administration. In fact, the ruling stated that the Trump Administration blatantly ignored factual findings in order to push through the construction of the pipeline without seriously weighing—or even understanding—the consequences of its construction. Despite this wave of environmentally-driven resistance from both the courts and the public, Trump continues to attempt to revive the so-called “zombie pipeline,” even if that means stepping on states’ rights to do it.


No Such Thing as a Safe Pipeline
Although pipelines are considered a “safer” form of transportation for petroleum products, they are still not “safe” by any rational standard.

The massive reserves of oil and gas in the Marcellus Shale have been the source of both profit for oil and gas companies and chagrin for the citizens who live near pipelines. Due to the high amount of extraction in this region, companies have pushed pipeline infrastructure to its limit. For example, many pipelines are now being altered to flow in different directions in order to relieve pressure on the system in a process known as flow reversal. Most pipelines being utilized for flow reversals are old and fail to conform to today's safety standards, making catastrophe more and more likely.

The pipeline infrastructure that currently webs across the United States is rapidly aging and proving to be more dangerous than the industry lets on. Leaks and explosions are still all too common, and they hurt ecosystems, the climate, and human lives.

For example, the San Bruno pipeline explosion in 2010 caused millions in property damage, wounded dozens, and killed eight people. Gas, oil, and energy companies, like Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) have failed to adequately ensure that their infrastructure is safe enough for their customers. Because PG&E has a monopoly on energy distribution in Northern California, the company should be even more conscientious about its infrastructure and the dangers it poses to people living above gas lines.

Moving forward, we cannot continue to invest in infrastructure that proves both dangerous and unsustainable—especially when renewable infrastructure is available, cheaper, and much less risky. The Trump administration’s fossil fuel fixation is leaving America behind in the race to a green future.

States of Resistance
President Trump’s actions reveal his administration’s lack of interest in holding fossil fuel companies to high safety standards through regulation. In fact, the current administration appears to want exactly the opposite. From the recent executive orders, to cabinet member selection, to allowing monopolies to run rampant, the current administration is doing everything in its power to remove barriers that ensure the financial and physical safety of the people of this nation.

Fortunately, as previously noted, the Trump administration is not unchallenged. After being continually pushed around by the federal government, Indigenous communities and environmental activists alike are working through the states and utilizing the separation of powers between the levels of government to do what they must to protect our common home.

Even if President Trump wants to do away with the rights granted to the states with the Clean Water Act, he can’t. The Executive Branch has little power in this matter, for the time being. Unless Congress or the Supreme Court decide to abdicate or misuse their power, pipelines can be delayed indefinitely—but states must continue to demand high standards for pipeline construction.

In an ironic turn of events, states’ rights—something long championed by libertarians and the conservative right concerned with federal powers over issues like gun laws, abortion, and discrimination—is now finding new interest from environmental activists and the progressive left as they fight to preserve a healthy environment for themselves and future generations.

In the state of Nebraska, for example, a court case headed to its Supreme Court will reexamine the legitimacy of the permit given to the Keystone XL pipeline from state officials. This fight can be won on the state level. Trump’s issuance of a new permit does not make the pipeline untouchable.

It is beyond clear that this president has gone out of his way to protect dated methods of producing energy. Instead of utilizing time and money to kickstart the Green New Deal, or a similar initiative, to reinvigorate the U.S. economy and make it environmentally friendly, the president has doubled down on methods that will only worsen the existential crisis that is climate change. Others have been fighting and will continue to fight. Will you?"

[silvanelf]

Are there really no downsides, Mr. President?


Tar sands aren’t your average crude!

No downside .... blah blah ... steep environmental and economic costs ... any questions?


Keystone and Tar Sands
Beneath the wilds of northern Alberta’s boreal forest is a sludgy, sticky deposit called tar sands. These sands contain bitumen, a gooey type of petroleum that can be converted into fuel. It’s no small feat extracting oil from tar sands, and doing so comes with steep environmental and economic costs. Nevertheless, in the mid-2000s, with gas prices on the rise, oil companies ramped up production and sought additional ways to move their product from Canada’s remote tar sands fields to midwestern and Gulf Coast refineries.


https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

[onawah]

Should we ignore the " what me worry" POTUS's attitude? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvBbtf8WkAANTN3.jpg.

...who tells us we all SHOULD get our measles vaccines
...rules in favor of fracking, GMOs, destruction of the environment and wildlife continuing wars and aggression against other nations
...is busy stripping seniors and the disadvantaged of the most basic necessities of life, while awarding more tax breaks to the filthy rich
...does nothing to help clean up our air, water, food of dangerous contaminants
...but instead gives more privileges to the corporations that are poisoning us
...does nothing to help courageous whistleblowers like Assange or RF Kennedy Jr.
...and does nothing to stop the growing policy of censorship worldwide that is threatening to create the reality of Big Brother within our very lifetime.

While he "drains the swamp" of some swamp critters, he fosters and empowers other swamp critters, and though he is in favor of protecting the US/Mexican border, he is doing nothing to protect the world from other very real and huge threats.

It's great that the Clintons and that faction of the elite are beginning to be exposed, but when the day comes when Trump and the elite faction he is part of could be exposed, will we even have enough freedom of the press for that to occur?
Or will we all be so sick and brain damaged and mind controlled by that time that we won't even care?

[Mark]

Why Trump Is Soft on White-Supremacist Terrorism (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/trump-white-supremacist-terrorism-synagogue-mosque-shooting.html)

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=40697&d=1559658322

Last week, President Trump repeated his absurd claim that he had never called the Nazi protesters who descended on Charlottesville in 2017 “very fine people.” On Saturday, yet another white-supremacist attack (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/what-we-know-about-the-california-synagogue-shooting.html), on a synagogue in California, demonstrated the point that Trump and his allies wish to obscure: Right-wing terrorism is a more extreme version of Trump’s own political style. It draws inspiration from his ideas and some measure of protection from his political power.

Conservatives have long denied any links whatsoever between the brand of white supremacy represented by Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan and Republican-style conservatism. Conservative books like Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning and Dinesh D’Souza’s The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left have tried, absurdly, to identify these movements with the left side of the ideological spectrum.

The rise of Donald Trump has made this strained argument preposterous. Trump is not a white supremacist; if I showed you a block of text from one of his speeches side by side with a speech by David Duke, you would be able to tell the difference. But Trump’s rhetoric has excited and mobilized white supremacists because it teases the same theories that they make explicitly. Trump paints unauthorized immigrants as bloodthirsty rapists and murderers and touts their arrival as part of a geopolitical conspiracy to demographically transform the United States.

“A lot of people say” the caravan he hyped was funded by George Soros, Trump suggested (http://go.redirectingat.com/?xs=1&id=1025X1162200&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2019%2F04%2Ftrump-white-supremacist-terrorism-synagogue-mosque-shooting.html&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-wouldnt-be-surprised-if-democratic-megadonor-george-soros-is-funding-the-migrant-caravan%2F2018%2F11%2F01%2F9ea196a0-ddcf-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html%3Futm_term%3D.221e0f7b1e04&xcust=__p_cjv2f46qn00007jy6ogyzscx0__z_m__d_D__t_w) last fall. (Trump favorite Lou Dobbs (http://go.redirectingat.com/?xs=1&id=1025X1162200&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2019%2F04%2Ftrump-white-supremacist-terrorism-synagogue-mosque-shooting.html&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fjoshtpm%2Fstatus%2F1056324117329297409%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Etfw%257 Ctwcamp%255Etweetembed%257Ctwterm%255E1056324117329297409%26ref_url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fnymag.com%2 52Fintelligencer%252F2018%252F10%252Ftrump-pittsburgh-shooting-anti-semitism.html&xcust=__p_cjv2f46qn00007jy6ogyzscx0__z_m__d_D__t_w) is one of the people who was saying this.) Trump’s closing campaign ad railed against “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities,” juxtaposing this inflammatory claim over images of Soros and other Jewish figures.

The message is surely lost on the vast majority of Trump’s voters, but not on the white-supremacist movement. The shooters in New Zealand, Pittsburgh, and California all articulated this nativist theory in their manifestos.

To be sure, Trump formally denounces terrorist attacks on Jewish and Muslim worshippers. But he is not very good at masking the difference between those condemnations he offers grudgingly and those that have real passion behind them. When asked last month if he considered white-supremacist terror a growing threat, he demurred, “I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems, I guess.” Trump portrays white supremacists as a tiny force disconnected from politics. In contrast to his rhetoric about ISIS or other Islamist terrorism, which he insists must be labelled Islamic, Trump shrinks from placing white-supremacist terror in its ideological context. Just a handful of crazy nuts with big problems.

Some apologists ascribe the president’s reticence to mere stubbornness: Trump resents being pushed into a corner by the media, they say, and so he refuses to back down from any statement. The problem with this theory is that a certain softness about white-supremacist terror is official Republican doctrine.

In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security wrote a classified report highlighting the dangers of right-wing domestic terrorism. The report outraged conservatives by predicting, accurately, that the election of a black president would stoke far-right violent extremism. One hook Republicans used to discredit the report was its claim that white supremacists would target service members and law enforcement for recruitment, which they claimed was a slur against veterans.

The right’s primary objection to the report was in the link it posited between violent extremism on the one hand and the backlash against Obama and the federal government on the other. “It’s no small coincidence that Napolitano’s agency – referring to Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano – “disseminated the assessment just a week before the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests,” argued Michelle Malkin (http://go.redirectingat.com/?xs=1&id=1025X1162200&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2019%2F04%2Ftrump-white-supremacist-terrorism-synagogue-mosque-shooting.html&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2009%2Fapr%2F16%2Fright-wing-extremism-alarm%2F&xcust=__p_cjv2f46qn00007jy6ogyzscx0__z_m__d_D__t_w). The Drudge Report hyped the story with a banner warning, “She Is Watching You.” John Boehner insisted Napolitano “owes the American people an explanation for why she has abandoned using the term ‘terrorist’ to describe those, such as al Qaeda, who are plotting overseas to kill innocent Americans, while her own Department is using the same term to describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation.”

This episode took place at a time when Republicans were committed to presenting the tea party as a movement of principled deficit hawks sincerely concerned about inflation and debt-financed outlays. Yet their backlash against the Homeland Security paper reflected their recognition of a political affinity between their brand of anti-Obama panic and the violent kind identified by the department. The paper did not make the connection between tea-party protests and paranoid or violent extremism; Republicans drew the connection themselves.

The dynamic has only intensified in the Trump era. At a hearing on white-supremacist terrorism earlier this month, Republicans kept derailing the conversation. “Every time Democrats talked about President Trump’s anti-immigrant remarks, or how government agencies should do more to fight the spread of white nationalism, Republicans pivoted to criticism of identity politics, anti-Semitism on the left and off-topic foreign policy issues,” reported NPR (http://go.redirectingat.com/?xs=1&id=1025X1162200&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2019%2F04%2Ftrump-white-supremacist-terrorism-synagogue-mosque-shooting.html&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2019%2F04%2F10%2F711693266%2Fhouse-hearing-on-white-nationalism-deteriorated-into-partisan-bickering&xcust=__p_cjv2f46qn00007jy6ogyzscx0__z_m__d_D__t_w).

Republicans do not wish to defend white supremacists, but they feel enough kinship with them to treat them as political allies and to consider measures directed against them as a shared threat. The way you can tell Republicans are soft on white-supremacist terrorism is that white-supremacist terrorism is a partisan issue.

[AutumnW]

If a government as important as the federal government under Trump doesn't come out four square against racism and all symbols of racism (Charlottesville statue) it represents an automatic default position that supports racism. Trump should have unequivocally condemned the alt right and Neo Nazis who rallied around this issue. It's sad that the term, 'Patriot,' has now become a dirty word in the U.S.

And those who equatie 'anti semitism' with what happened in Charlottesville are either flat out stupid or manipulative. There are those on both the left and right who are anti-Israeli government. This isn't anti-semitism, not by a long shot.

[AutumnW]

Even worse than business-as-usual, the Trump administration also snuck new language for Big Pharma into its NAFTA proposal that would block competition from generic medicine makers in order to lock in outrageously high prescription drug prices.

Onawah, just wanted to highlight this from your post as it will effect so many of Trump's base. Oh, and all of those jobs that will be leaving China because of tariffs, some of his base think they will be 'coming home' No, they will be going to Viet Nam or Indonesia or some other very low wage country. This will also have a direct effect on his base, as they are expecting some high paying jobs to return. Aint going to happen. But by the time the reality hits, he will be firmly back in office for another 4 years.

[onawah]

What Catherine Austin Fitts says starting at 36:40 in here:
R6huOxBtQFI
...says it all.
"It makes it look like everyone is fighting. The reality is that the Trump Administration and Republican and Democratic members of both houses of Congress got together and took the books secret. That is the single greatest increase in the Deep State's power in the history of our country, and they ALL did it together."

She's referring to the government's budget, which has now become secret and elsewhere she says that that means that the US is no longer a Republic.

It was not a faction of the Deep State that did this, it was a concerted effort of the WHOLE Deep State including the Trump Admin., which proves that the elite controllers are still in agreement and working together when it comes to core issues, even though the factions may squabble about lesser issues.

Much more of great significance in that talk, which everyone should listen to if they really want to know what's going on, and from a source that few even try to discredit.

[frankstien]

SHOCK (?) as Trump signs executive order that will end most regulations and oversight on genetically engineered food
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-06-12-trump-signs-executive-order-genetically-engineered-food.html

https://i.ibb.co/BzQY0vD/trump-aid.jpg

[Wind]

If by now you haven't figured out that Trump doesn't care about the common people then you need to awake from your delusion.

[silvanelf]

I found it quite interesting to read about Trump's "The Art of [Breaking] the Deal." Trump is a real estate mogul, who tries to use the same methods in the field of international policy. But in most cases the strategy of "breaking the deal to get a better deal" didn't work in foreign affairs.

A quote from a discussion about Trump’s Plan to Impose Steel & Aluminum Tariffs, published March 2018:


And I think there’s another factor here, the fact that Trump is breaking the trade agreements, just as he was—America was trying to push forth the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements, that Lori has been very good at criticizing. And, in fact, she should be overjoyed—I’m sure she is—at Trump’s action, because he wrote this wonderful book, The Art of Breaking the Deal. I think the publisher called it The Art of the Deal. But he made all of his money by breaking deals, which is why nobody will deal with him. The suppliers won’t deal with him in New York, because he’ll make a deal: “I’m going to pay you this much for what you supply for the hotel.” Then it comes time to pay: “Oh, I didn’t like it. I’m going to pay you 50 cents on the dollar.” He screwed his suppliers, his manufacturers. The banks won’t deal with him.

This kind of businessman’s behavior—that is how businessmen make money, by breaking deals—it doesn’t work that way internationally.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48910.htm

[jcking]

Also, and this is kind of a minor point for his larger issues of course, but for this site I think it's worth thinking about:

June 16, 2019 Washington, D. C. – President Donald Trump was asked by ABC News commentator George Stephanopoulos in his weekend news program This Week with George Stephanopoulos: “As President, you have access to all the information in the world — all the mysteries out there. I was struck the past couple of weeks of reading more and more reports about U. S. Navy pilots seeing lots and lots of UFOs. What do you make of that?”

Trump: “I think it’s probably — I want them to think what ever they think. They do say — I’ve seen and I’ve read and I’ve heard and I did have one very brief meeting on it. They say they are seeing UFOs. Do I believe it? Not particularly.”

Stephanopoulos: “Do you think you would know if there is evidence of extraterrestrials?”

Trump: “Well, I think our great pilots would know. And some of them really see things that are a little bit different than in the past. So we’re going to see. We’re watching and you’ll be the first to know.”

I grabbed that from Linda Moulton Howe's Earthfiles page
https://www.earthfiles.com
because I was just there, but I saw it reported on ABC and elsewhere as well.

Of course he's talking out both sides of his mouth (like usual, as I see it), but he also voices his own opinion (that he doesn't particularly "believe it") while allowing for the possibility that the pilots know something he doesn't.
Just remember "not particularly" the next time a Trump believer or Q Anon fan starts talking at you about how Trump is going to be Mr Disclosure president, when it seems pretty clear that he was quickly briefed (read: told) that this "controlled disclosure" narrative was going to get rolled out, even if he didn't believe the pilots were seeing UFOs in the first place. Yeah, super powerful president, isn't he? :facepalm:

[East Sun]

bol**c*s is the answer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you know by now that no human being is the answer...…………..
Trump is trying!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what he's up against...Look back and look forward again....Got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Mike]

bol**c*s is the answer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you know by now that no human being is the answer...…………..
Trump is trying!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what he's up against...Look back and look forward again....Got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



I don't think the software would edit out "bollocks". So this self-censorship gave me a little chuckle:)

I think most of the people in this thread are clear that no one person is the answer. I do understand your frustration my friend, but this mostly thoughtful thread is in response to those folks who really do think one person is the answer:wink:.

[AutumnW]

Thanks Mike. I second that thought. It's for people who are looking across the political spectrum and acknowledging that at the pinnacle there are no good guys. Part of it is systemic and part of it is individual pathology. But...lower down the chain, there are likely some good people.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Also, and this is kind of a minor point for his larger issues of course, but for this site I think it's worth thinking about:

June 16, 2019 Washington, D. C. – President Donald Trump was asked by ABC News commentator George Stephanopoulos in his weekend news program This Week with George Stephanopoulos: “As President, you have access to all the information in the world — all the mysteries out there. I was struck the past couple of weeks of reading more and more reports about U. S. Navy pilots seeing lots and lots of UFOs. What do you make of that?”

Trump: “I think it’s probably — I want them to think what ever they think. They do say — I’ve seen and I’ve read and I’ve heard and I did have one very brief meeting on it. They say they are seeing UFOs. Do I believe it? Not particularly.”

Stephanopoulos: “Do you think you would know if there is evidence of extraterrestrials?”

Trump: “Well, I think our great pilots would know. And some of them really see things that are a little bit different than in the past. So we’re going to see. We’re watching and you’ll be the first to know.”

I grabbed that from Linda Moulton Howe's Earthfiles page
https://www.earthfiles.com
because I was just there, but I saw it reported on ABC and elsewhere as well.

Of course he's talking out both sides of his mouth (like usual, as I see it), but he also voices his own opinion (that he doesn't particularly "believe it") while allowing for the possibility that the pilots know something he doesn't.
Just remember "not particularly" the next time a Trump believer or Q Anon fan starts talking at you about how Trump is going to be Mr Disclosure president, when it seems pretty clear that he was quickly briefed (read: told) that this "controlled disclosure" narrative was going to get rolled out, even if he didn't believe the pilots were seeing UFOs in the first place. Yeah, super powerful president, isn't he? :facepalm:

I think inarticulate boob sums it up pretty well. I don't think he's doing intellectual jujitsu moves here!

[AutumnW]

bol**c*s is the answer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you know by now that no human being is the answer...…………..
Trump is trying!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what he's up against...Look back and look forward again....Got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

East Sun, rather than scanning left to right and back and forth, you should take a long hard look up and down. As far as looking forward, I like to understand and analyze what I am looking at in the rear view mirror first. I understand your frustration and also the anger that Trump supporters feel though. But the potential for things to get really ugly is there and he is not the leader to becalm people but rather one who is leveraging power off of this anger.

Oh and !@##!!:bigsmile:

[waves]

bol**c*s is the answer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you know by now that no human being is the answer...…………..
Trump is trying!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what he's up against...Look back and look forward again....Got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

East Sun, rather than scanning left to right and back and forth, you should take a long hard look up and down. As far as looking forward, I like to understand and analyze what I am looking at in the rear view mirror first. I understand your frustration and also the anger that Trump supporters feel though. But the potential for things to get really ugly is there and he is not the leader to becalm people but rather one who is leveraging power off of this anger.

Oh and !@##!!:bigsmile:

I totally agree how the title of this thread can easily be misinterpreted. I really hated this finger wagging choice of wording when it arrived right after Trump won. To capitalize NOT right after Hillary lost when everyone's partisan heat was flaming, it clearly came off as "you all made the wrong choice of the two" or "Trump isn't the answer - but there is an answer and any Trump supporter didn't make the right choice".

It does NOT read "Trump isn't the answer EITHER". Huge difference.

East Sun, I agree no human is the answer, but only because there are too many psychopaths behind the scenes in collusion at all times with much more money and weapons over and over and over and over throughout history. Nothing up front is the real story and Trump 'trying' is the front story. He's taking orders like all the rest and putting out a front of give and take to control the credibility factor, but really all is as usual. All the privacy eroding, freedom eroding, vaccine escalation, little guy protection and war mongering agendas Trump promised to stand up to are moving forward just fine with his support and signatures.

[frankstien]

https://i.ibb.co/Zzv99VH/kissinger-trump-balloon-color-w.jpg

[East Sun]

bol**c*s is the answer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you know by now that no human being is the answer...…………..
Trump is trying!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what he's up against...Look back and look forward again....Got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

East Sun, rather than scanning left to right and back and forth, you should take a long hard look up and down. As far as looking forward, I like to understand and analyze what I am looking at in the rear view mirror first. I understand your frustration and also the anger that Trump supporters feel though. But the potential for things to get really ugly is there and he is not the leader to becalm people but rather one who is leveraging power off of this anger.

He may be part of an agenda which is fine, all politicians are to a degree, but please look at the other side.
I am not Rep, or Dem, but try to look at the big picture.

E S

Oh and !@##!!:bigsmile:

Well, B'etc. may not be much of an answer on it's own but the ramifications involved in it are IMO.
Don't you think I have taken a long look up and down and sideways.

I ask you to take a good look at the alternative and tell me what you think.
We can agree to disagree if need be.

I am not Rep. or Dem. but look at the big picture.

ES

[AutumnW]

I'm a progressive Socialist Canadian, East Sun, so the choice is out of my hands. But if I was an American I'd probably go with Elizabeth Warren. I'm beyond libtard right into near Communist territory by the hard right's definition. I like 'safe spaces,' you know, like hospital beds for terminally ill patients and homes for the homeless. Call me crazy!

[T Smith]

My main criticism with Trump is I believe he will eventually be duped or outright lied to or deceived into war, or buckle to the pressure of the Deep State and the far right of his base. Not so sure how long he can hold off, but as of today, I'm more impressed than I was yesterday.

If we are to believe this (http://www.koco.com/article/reports-trump-approved-military-strike-on-iran-canceled-after-plan-was-underway/28127301) 150 people are alive today who wouldn't be given every other POTUS I can think of going back to JFK.

[kfm27917]

China should nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Price
http://thesaker.is/trumps-trade-threats-are-really-cold-war-2-0/

[AutumnW]

My main criticism with Trump is I believe he will eventually be duped or outright lied to or deceived into war, or buckle to the pressure of the Deep State and the far right of his base. Not so sure how long he can hold of, but as of today, I'm more impressed than I was yesterday.

If we are to believe this (http://www.koco.com/article/reports-trump-approved-military-strike-on-iran-canceled-after-plan-was-underway/28127301) 150 people are alive today who wouldn't be given every other POTUS I can think of going back to JFK.

Hmmm...yeah. And that would have nothing to do with the fact he becomes unelectable in 2020 if he starts a war? Plus Saudi Arabia and Israel face potentially grave consequences if the U.S. goes berserko on Iran The drone was shot down over Iranian territory btw. It's framed by the media as a total affront to the U.S. though.

[AutumnW]

My main criticism with Trump is I believe he will eventually be duped or outright lied to or deceived into war, or buckle to the pressure of the Deep State and the far right of his base. Not so sure how long he can hold of, but as of today, I'm more impressed than I was yesterday.

If we are to believe this (http://www.koco.com/article/reports-trump-approved-military-strike-on-iran-canceled-after-plan-was-underway/28127301) 150 people are alive today who wouldn't be given every other POTUS I can think of going back to JFK.

Poor Trump. His once noble visage showing the strains of higher office. His head bowed with the humility and humanity that is part of his essence, his core being. He will never bend to the pressure, rest assured, because the man has a steely resolve to always do the right thing. He is selfless.:bigsmile::bigsmile:

[T Smith]

My main criticism with Trump is I believe he will eventually be duped or outright lied to or deceived into war, or buckle to the pressure of the Deep State and the far right of his base. Not so sure how long he can hold of, but as of today, I'm more impressed than I was yesterday.

If we are to believe this (http://www.koco.com/article/reports-trump-approved-military-strike-on-iran-canceled-after-plan-was-underway/28127301) 150 people are alive today who wouldn't be given every other POTUS I can think of going back to JFK.

Poor Trump. His once noble visage showing the strains of higher office. His head bowed with the humility and humanity that is part of his essence, his core being. He will never bend to the pressure, rest assured, because the man has a steely resolve to always do the right thing. He is selfless.:bigsmile::bigsmile:

I understand this is sarcasm. However, your observations still merit comment. I think you misunderstand. If he does not bend to the pressure (this remains uncertain as far as I'm concerned), it has nothing to do with his steady resolve to do the right thing (or anyone's delusions regarding his motives). Who bestows the polished veneer of the professional politician, let alone sainthood on Trump?

Refusing the gambit is all about him. And "winning" the move. Perhaps what he thinks is right, if anything.

If Trump refuses to bend to pressure it is because he's defending his own ego.

[T Smith]

My main criticism with Trump is I believe he will eventually be duped or outright lied to or deceived into war, or buckle to the pressure of the Deep State and the far right of his base. Not so sure how long he can hold of, but as of today, I'm more impressed than I was yesterday.

If we are to believe this (http://www.koco.com/article/reports-trump-approved-military-strike-on-iran-canceled-after-plan-was-underway/28127301) 150 people are alive today who wouldn't be given every other POTUS I can think of going back to JFK.

Hmmm...yeah. And that would have nothing to do with the fact he becomes unelectable in 2020 if he starts a war? Plus Saudi Arabia and Israel face potentially grave consequences if the U.S. goes berserko on Iran The drone was shot down over Iranian territory btw. It's framed by the media as a total affront to the U.S. though.

Of course the drone was shot down over Iranian territory. This is the second orchestrated "provocation". Another will follow. And another. There will likely be casualties to come, until the POTUS takes the bait. This is my point. I'm not sure Trump is strong enough to resist.

Simply, the Powers That Be are baiting Trump to war. Isn't that obvious? If that is not obvious per your understanding of events, what do you think is going on?

On that front:

Hard to say how taking the bait affects the 2020 election. Typically the sheeple support a war president, especially if the POTUS is responding to a direct attack, e.g. Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, etc. A false flag provocation to lure US to war with Iran will likely galvanize support behind Trump. Not sure why you think war would hurt the POTUS reelection bid. You are giving the war-hungry and revengeful electorate way too much credit.

[T Smith]

My main criticism with Trump is I believe he will eventually be duped or outright lied to or deceived into war, or buckle to the pressure of the Deep State and the far right of his base. Not so sure how long he can hold of, but as of today, I'm more impressed than I was yesterday.

If we are to believe this (http://www.koco.com/article/reports-trump-approved-military-strike-on-iran-canceled-after-plan-was-underway/28127301) 150 people are alive today who wouldn't be given every other POTUS I can think of going back to JFK.

Hmmm...yeah. And that would have nothing to do with the fact he becomes unelectable in 2020 if he starts a war? Plus Saudi Arabia and Israel face potentially grave consequences if the U.S. goes berserko on Iran The drone was shot down over Iranian territory btw. It's framed by the media as a total affront to the U.S. though.

Of course the drone was shot down over Iranian territory. This is the second orchestrated "provocation". Another will follow. And another. There will likely be casualties to come, until the POTUS takes the bait. This is my point. I'm not sure Trump is strong enough to resist.

Simply, the Powers That Be are baiting Trump to war. Isn't that obvious? If that is not obvious per your understanding of events, what do you think is going on?

On that front:

Hard to say how taking the bait affects the 2020 election. Typically the sheeple support a war president, especially if the POTUS is responding to an attack, e.g. Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, etc. A false flag provocation to lure US to war with Iran will likely galvanize support behind Trump. Not sure why you think war would hurt the POTUS reelection bid. You are giving the war-hungry and revengeful electorate way too much credit.

But let me respond to my own observation here. What will happen is, the media will be aghast at the attacks and will tacitly demand a strong response (inaction will be deemed weak; inaction will hurt his 2020 bid), but the minute the POTUS responds they will flip the script and change the narrative. Immediately. The media may even out the US and the Trump administration as the "bad guys" in the conflict.

Grounds rife for impeachment.

Words of advice for Trump -- DON'T ... TAKE... THE... BAIT!!!!

[AutumnW]

TSmith, I totally get what you're saying here and agree up to a point. I would just take it a step further and say that people who support him get the intent wrong. If it serves him he will stoop lower than a sewer rat to do whatever needs to be done for Donald Trump. If that is the best the U.S. can do, in terms of foreign policy, then I'll take it, if his hands off Iran policy continues after the election.

He is, however, pulling a Venezuela on them by sanctioning them so harshly. This is war of another kind and may be just as brutal in its own way. He has to stop listening to Israel and Saudi Arabia and start acting like the president of his own country and not the entire globe.

[kfm27917]

Escobar: One Quadrillion Reasons Why Washington Fears Iran's "Maximum Counter-Pressure"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-23/escobar-one-quadrillion-reasons-why-washington-fears-irans-maximum-counter-pressure

[AutumnW]

KFM,

Welcome to the forum! Your article is a great catch and certainly illuminates the possibly deeper reason, beyond mere military reasons, that the U. S. under Trump will refrain from starting another hot war in that region. And in as much as I think Trump is a self interested dumb ass, I do respect that fact that his self interest manifests in a strong desire to make resorts not war, too. So for that reasons, his self interest is a good thing....sometimes. The mistake his supporters make is mistaking the dollar signs in his eyes for peace signs!

Highlighted below is a paragraph from your Escobar link (He was my favorite writer for Asia Times Online)

"As I previously reported, shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market; and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world’s $80 trillion GDP and causing an unprecedented depression.

Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5 million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000."

[Franny]

Hey there...I posted a video with Catherine Austin Fitts and Dark Journalist a couple of days ago in the CAF thread. It seems to have gotten buried quickly and not much noticed so I wanted to cross post it here as I think it's pretty significant.

It's not being talked about in MSM or much at all in alt news sources yet it will have an affect on everyone in the country and by extension the rest of the world.

CAF and Dark Journalist talk about FASB 56 and how it takes the Fed budget dark, that is, classified, and the effect it has on the country, swamp, economy and the commoners.


lNuk70L5Ccc


A few bullet points by CAF from the first few minutes:


The US govt just changed it's model from a Constitutional Republic to fascism through an obscure accounting policy
HUD says it needs the secret budget
SEC takes most US securities markets dark
Adopted during the Kavanaugh hearings when it looked like a war (apparently a distraction for public consumption)
Govt Accountability Office and Office of Management and Budget needed to approve it
Bi-partisan approval in Senate, House and White House
They agreed to the greatest increase of the Swamps power since the 47 and 49 Act


Much, much more, enjoy :facepalm:

It leaves me wondering about swamp draining and where Qanon would stand on this. It does not look much like 5d chess to me. I haven't been following it much the past month or 2 - anyone know what Q says about the big improvements to the swamp?

[Kryztian]

So, if you want to be an important figure in the Trump Administration, you have to be pro-torture.

Swamp creatures: Leaked docs of Trump transition team show ‘opposition to torture’ is 'red flag'
Published time: 24 Jun, 2019 02:12 Russia Today
https://www.rt.com/usa/462529-torture-red-flag-petraeus/

https://cdni.rt.com/files/2019.06/l/5d10306efc7e93ae2e8b45c1.JPG
Kellyanne Conway, campaign manager and senior advisor to the Trump Presidential Transition Team, stands next to two "Naked Cowboy" themed street performers in the lobby at Trump Tower in New York.

Former CIA director David Petraeus was considered for secretary of state, but there were “red flags”: he was against “torture” and a “military solution in Syria,” according to leaked vetting documents from Trump’s transition team.

A trove of internal vetting documents, compiled by the Republican National Committee (RNC) at the behest of then-president-elect Donald Trump’s team, were leaked to Axios, which reported the scoop on Sunday.

While there is nothing unusual in a vetting process during which candidates’ histories are checked for potential problems, the documents give a glimpse into Washington’s “swamp,” and have been picked apart for eye-catching quotes by commentators and Twitter ‘pundits.’ Some were dumbfounded by the RNC choice of that particular concern.

For instance, four-star general Petraeus, who was mooted for the secretary of state job, had many red flags in the eyes of those who combed through his biography – and one of them was that the former CIA chief was opposed to torture.
____________________________________

Rest of the story available at rt.com (https://www.rt.com/usa/462529-torture-red-flag-petraeus/).

[Mypos]

I have just watched the series When they see us and found out that Trump put out an add to call for the death penalty against some innocent black kids. You really want to put your hope in the arms of such a man? The more i learn about Trump the less i have faith in him standing up against the deep state. The man is totally bonkers. Did you see the things he said about his own daughter? That he wants to have sex with her? If there is anybody in this world today an Anti Christ it is him.

[AutumnW]

Thank you Mypos,

Yes, being a complete ***hole predated his presidency. Thanks for your post!

[T Smith]

From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time discerning the difference.

[Mypos]

From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

[T Smith]

From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

I assume you are referring to this (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html)? If so, every last comment cited here, in its proper context, is the exact definition of "boorish", i.e. all these comments are in bad taste and speak of a man who has an inflated sense of self-importance--the key word being "self"--but in none of these comments does he ever say he wants to have sex with his daughter. These comments are all about him, and the beauty he bestowed upon the world.

The very reason boorish people offend so easily is because one can "infer" all kinds of offensive meanings from their ego-centric behavior. This in one reason we humans have "polite" society in the first place, so people don't get the wrong idea about our actions.

As far as the death penalty comments go, you can make those comments about race, if you wish, but is that also not just an inference? And a weak one at that? The case was about a gang of 5 kids who were convicted of brutally raping a jogging woman through the park (all of whom admitted guilt). If one believes Trump's reaction to the crime is racist, one then must also believe Trump would have never taken such a stance if the five thugs were not of ethnic persuasion.

Again, one can embrace those beliefs, but those beliefs would just be speculation. And more to the point, they are more likely beliefs manufactured by the agenda underlying the identity politics of our times rather than beliefs founded on solid critical connection.

A more accurate "inference" of Trump's actions back in 1986, if we must speculate, per this man's psychological profile, speaks more to his staunchly rigid understanding of "strong" men taking necessary action to protect "helpless" women. If anything, these are sexist comments. I do not believe Trump would have taken out this ad in the New York Times, regardless of what race the attackers were, if the jogger were a man.

In other words, the psychology of Trump's actions, including paying for a full page ad in the New York Times, is more likely a chivalry thing on display (which would fit his Hugh Hefner image) rather than a racist thing.

The points here are not to defend Trump's comments or action. They are all very embarrassing. But rather to put them in their proper context. Someone who so rashly and passionately and publicly argues for the death penalty, for example, could be very dangerous. One could make a very convincing argument that said person has no business being in such a high position of power in the government, e.g. POTUS. Now that's the kind of thing we should be discussing here...

[Mypos]

From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

I assume you are referring to this (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html)? If so, every last comment cited here, in its proper context, is the exact definition of "boorish", i.e. all these comments are in bad taste and speak of a man who has an inflated sense of self-importance--the key word being "self"--but in none of these comments does he ever say he wants to have sex with his daughter. These comments are all about him, and the beauty he bestowed upon the world.

The very reason boorish people offend so easily is because one can "infer" all kinds of offensive meanings from their ego-centric behavior. This in one reason we humans have "polite" society in the first place, so people don't get the wrong idea about our actions.

As far as the death penalty comments go, you can make those comments about race, if you wish, but is that also not just an inference? And a weak one at that? The case was about a gang of 5 kids who were convicted of brutally raping a jogging woman through the park (all of whom admitted guilt). If one believes Trump's reaction to the crime is racist, one then must also believe Trump would have never taken such a stance if the five thugs were not of ethnic persuasion.

Again, one can embrace those beliefs, but those beliefs would just be speculation. And more to the point, they are more likely beliefs manufactured by the agenda underlying the identity politics of our times rather than beliefs founded on solid critical connection.

A more accurate "inference" of Trump's actions back in 1986, if we must speculate, per this man's psychological profile, speaks more to his staunchly rigid understanding of "strong" men taking necessary action to protect "helpless" women. If anything, these are sexist comments. I do not believe Trump would have taken out this ad in the New York Times, regardless of what race the attackers were, if the jogger were a man.

In other words, the psychology of Trump's actions, including paying for a full pay ad in the New York Times, is more likely a chivalry thing on display (which would fit his Hugh Hefner image) rather than a racist thing.

The points here are not to defend Trump's comments or action. They are all very embarrassing. But rather to put them in their proper context. Someone who so rashly and passionately and publicly argues for the death penalty, for example, could be very dangerous. One could make a very convincing argument that said person has no business being in such a high position of power in the government, e.g. POTUS. Now that's the kind of thing we should be discussing here...

We can of course also discuss your last point if you want. People who show no wisdom at all at one side and at the other side show clear hatefull actions are imo indeed not fit for the position. Sadly our world is run by people like that in general. There are far more powerfull and more evil men who run this world then Trump.

The examples i named of Trump being more then just boorish like you say are just two. There are far far more examples to name. If someone says something degrading or racist or incestous 1 or 2 time it can be a mistake or something that doesnt speak to there personality. If someone shows this kind of behavior often you can indeed speculate that they are not just boorish but in fact bigots or racist. If someone shows this why not call it that?

If you need me to name all the examples of this behavior here i can do it but i think you are allready aware of it?

[T Smith]

From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

I assume you are referring to this (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html)? If so, every last comment cited here, in its proper context, is the exact definition of "boorish", i.e. all these comments are in bad taste and speak of a man who has an inflated sense of self-importance--the key word being "self"--but in none of these comments does he ever say he wants to have sex with his daughter. These comments are all about him, and the beauty he bestowed upon the world.

The very reason boorish people offend so easily is because one can "infer" all kinds of offensive meanings from their ego-centric behavior. This in one reason we humans have "polite" society in the first place, so people don't get the wrong idea about our actions.

As far as the death penalty comments go, you can make those comments about race, if you wish, but is that also not just an inference? And a weak one at that? The case was about a gang of 5 kids who were convicted of brutally raping a jogging woman through the park (all of whom admitted guilt). If one believes Trump's reaction to the crime is racist, one then must also believe Trump would have never taken such a stance if the five thugs were not of ethnic persuasion.

Again, one can embrace those beliefs, but those beliefs would just be speculation. And more to the point, they are more likely beliefs manufactured by the agenda underlying the identity politics of our times rather than beliefs founded on solid critical connection.

A more accurate "inference" of Trump's actions back in 1986, if we must speculate, per this man's psychological profile, speaks more to his staunchly rigid understanding of "strong" men taking necessary action to protect "helpless" women. If anything, these are sexist comments. I do not believe Trump would have taken out this ad in the New York Times, regardless of what race the attackers were, if the jogger were a man.

In other words, the psychology of Trump's actions, including paying for a full pay ad in the New York Times, is more likely a chivalry thing on display (which would fit his Hugh Hefner image) rather than a racist thing.

The points here are not to defend Trump's comments or action. They are all very embarrassing. But rather to put them in their proper context. Someone who so rashly and passionately and publicly argues for the death penalty, for example, could be very dangerous. One could make a very convincing argument that said person has no business being in such a high position of power in the government, e.g. POTUS. Now that's the kind of thing we should be discussing here...

We can of course also discuss your last point if you want. People who show no wisdom at all at one side and at the other side show clear hatefull actions are imo indeed not fit for the position. Sadly our world is run by people like that in general. There are far more powerfull and more evil men who run this world then Trump.

The examples i named of Trump being more then just boorish like you say are just two. There are far far more examples to name. If someone says something degrading or racist or incestous 1 or 2 time it can be a mistake or something that doesnt speak to there personality. If someone shows this kind of behavior often you can indeed speculate that they are not just boorish but in fact bigots or racist. If someone shows this why not call it that?

If you need me to name all the examples of this behavior here i can do it but i think you are allready aware of it?

I believe I am aware of many of the examples you may be talking about. And there may be instances of where Trump has uttered a genuine racist remark, but all the instances I know of speak more to his detractors dishonestly pinning a racist label on his lapel by spinning his words or taking them out of context. I have yet to discern a genuine proclivity for racism that isn't contrived (which doesn't only apply to Trump, BTW. Racism is a highly emotional and charged construct, so it is very easy to weaponize it. This is basically the political trick du jour politicians and media and public relations gurus love to employ to sabotage their opponents).

For example, the 2017 Charlotteville protests in the U.S. (which resulted in more than 30 deaths) were characterized inaccurately by the media as a violent White Nationalist revolt (inspired by Trump) to "take America back" (presumably for Jim Crow, etc.). Gleaning from the headlines and spin, one would presume, especially from afar, that not only was this protest a clash between a violent group of racists and bigots and those who reasonably opposed them, but that Trump himself was a cheerleader for it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The protest was actually about the removal of a statue of Confederate icon Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park (among other Confederate monuments from public spaces, etc.). The vast majority of demonstrators were either peacefully protesting political correctness and the erasing and censure of history itself in full Orwellian fashion or advocating for the removal of the statues because they glorified a period of history characterized by institutionalized racism. In any case, the vast majority of the demonstration--as in 99% of it--was peaceful and had nothing to do with White Supremacy--or even racism (this last assertion being debatable).

I'm sure some may disagree with this assessment and we can certainly discuss further. However, the point is, like anything else, people are expressing valid opinions on both sides of the debate; whereas the media's portrayal attempts to de-legitimatize one side entirely by skewing the facts, and in so doing conveniently throws Trump under the bus.

The bottom line is, this type of reporting is agenda-ridden, manipulative, and inaccurate, not to mention the main source of information on which the vast majority of detractors base their opinions.

Now, that said, there were some White Supremacists present at the protest and there were some bigots and racists present. One of them drove a car through the crowd that killed people, which is the angle the media seized on and ran with. So when President Trump pointed out there were "good people" on both sides of the protest (his words), the media opportunistically seized on his sentiments to imply he was condoning and even defending murderous White Supremacists, those who believe in Jim Crow laws, institutionalized racism, etc., when this is simply not the truth.

My point is, these are the kind of examples folks use time in, time out (among other things) to cite claims that Trump is racist. It's hard for me to take those regurgitated and manufactured hit points seriously.

Of course we could go case by case testing out this analysis--and perhaps you are aware of some things I am not where this doesn't apply--but that would be exhaustive, and honestly, my intent is not to defend all Trump's words and actions.

I just think at the end of the day most of the racist (and incestuous) aspersions are mostly dishonest. Anyone who is in politics understands well they need to be very careful with their words and self censor themselves at every public occasion, lest they be unduly characterized for what they are not. But these are two things Trump simply does not know how to do.

[Mypos]

From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

I assume you are referring to this (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html)? If so, every last comment cited here, in its proper context, is the exact definition of "boorish", i.e. all these comments are in bad taste and speak of a man who has an inflated sense of self-importance--the key word being "self"--but in none of these comments does he ever say he wants to have sex with his daughter. These comments are all about him, and the beauty he bestowed upon the world.

The very reason boorish people offend so easily is because one can "infer" all kinds of offensive meanings from their ego-centric behavior. This in one reason we humans have "polite" society in the first place, so people don't get the wrong idea about our actions.

As far as the death penalty comments go, you can make those comments about race, if you wish, but is that also not just an inference? And a weak one at that? The case was about a gang of 5 kids who were convicted of brutally raping a jogging woman through the park (all of whom admitted guilt). If one believes Trump's reaction to the crime is racist, one then must also believe Trump would have never taken such a stance if the five thugs were not of ethnic persuasion.

Again, one can embrace those beliefs, but those beliefs would just be speculation. And more to the point, they are more likely beliefs manufactured by the agenda underlying the identity politics of our times rather than beliefs founded on solid critical connection.

A more accurate "inference" of Trump's actions back in 1986, if we must speculate, per this man's psychological profile, speaks more to his staunchly rigid understanding of "strong" men taking necessary action to protect "helpless" women. If anything, these are sexist comments. I do not believe Trump would have taken out this ad in the New York Times, regardless of what race the attackers were, if the jogger were a man.

In other words, the psychology of Trump's actions, including paying for a full pay ad in the New York Times, is more likely a chivalry thing on display (which would fit his Hugh Hefner image) rather than a racist thing.

The points here are not to defend Trump's comments or action. They are all very embarrassing. But rather to put them in their proper context. Someone who so rashly and passionately and publicly argues for the death penalty, for example, could be very dangerous. One could make a very convincing argument that said person has no business being in such a high position of power in the government, e.g. POTUS. Now that's the kind of thing we should be discussing here...

We can of course also discuss your last point if you want. People who show no wisdom at all at one side and at the other side show clear hatefull actions are imo indeed not fit for the position. Sadly our world is run by people like that in general. There are far more powerfull and more evil men who run this world then Trump.

The examples i named of Trump being more then just boorish like you say are just two. There are far far more examples to name. If someone says something degrading or racist or incestous 1 or 2 time it can be a mistake or something that doesnt speak to there personality. If someone shows this kind of behavior often you can indeed speculate that they are not just boorish but in fact bigots or racist. If someone shows this why not call it that?

If you need me to name all the examples of this behavior here i can do it but i think you are allready aware of it?

I believe I am aware of many of the examples you may be talking about. And there may be instances of where Trump has uttered a genuine racist remark, but all the instances I know of speak more to his detractors dishonestly pinning a racist label on his lapel by spinning his words or taking them out of context. I have yet to discern a genuine proclivity for racism that isn't contrived (which doesn't only apply to Trump, BTW. Racism is a highly emotional and charged construct, so it is very easy to weaponize it. This is basically the political trick du jour politicians and media and public relations gurus love to employ to sabotage their opponents).

For example, the 2017 Charlotteville protests in the U.S. (which resulted in more than 30 deaths) were characterized inaccurately by the media as a violent White Nationalist revolt (inspired by Trump) to "take America back" (presumably for Jim Crow, etc.). Gleaning from the headlines and spin, one would presume, especially from afar, that not only was this protest a clash between a violent group of racists and bigots and those who reasonably opposed them, but that Trump himself was a cheerleader for it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The protest was actually about the removal of a statue of Confederate icon Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park (among other Confederate monuments from public spaces, etc.). The vast majority of demonstrators were either peacefully protesting political correctness and the erasing and censure of history itself in full Orwellian fashion or advocating for the removal of the statues because they glorified a period of history characterized by institutionalized racism. In any case, the vast majority of the demonstration--as in 99% of it--was peaceful and had nothing to do with White Supremacy--or even racism (this last assertion being debatable).

I'm sure some may disagree with this assessment and we can certainly discuss further. However, the point is, like anything else, people are expressing valid opinions on both sides of the debate; whereas the media's portrayal attempts to de-legitimatize one side entirely by skewing the facts, and in so doing conveniently throws Trump under the bus.

The bottom line is, this type of reporting is agenda-ridden, manipulative, and inaccurate, not to mention the main source of information on which the vast majority of detractors base their opinions.

Now, that said, there were some White Supremacists present at the protest and there were some bigots and racists present. One of them drove a car through the crowd that killed people, which is the angle the media seized on and ran with. So when President Trump pointed out there were "good people" on both sides of the protest (his words), the media opportunistically seized on his sentiments to imply he was condoning and even defending murderous White Supremacists, those who believe in Jim Crow laws, institutionalized racism, etc., when this is simply not the truth.

My point is, these are the kind of examples folks use time in, time out (among other things) to cite claims that Trump is racist. It's hard for me to take those regurgitated and manufactured hit points seriously.

Of course we could go case by case testing out this analysis--and perhaps you are aware of some things I am not where this doesn't apply--but that would be exhaustive, and honestly, my intent is not to defend all Trump's words and actions.

I just think at the end of the day most of the racist (and incestuous) aspersions are mostly dishonest. Anyone who is in politics understands well they need to be very careful with their words and self censor themselves at every public occasion, lest they be unduly characterized for what they are not. But these are two things Trump simply does not know how to do.

The picture you paint about the events at Charlotteville are absolutely wrong. Where do you get your information? Of course it started out about a conflict about the statue of Robert Lee but on the 12th of August it was clearly something more. On July 8 there had allready been a demonstration of the KKK in Charlotteville and on 12 of August it was a demonstration of a large group of right wing and white nationalist groups called "Unite the right". These are all just basic facts.

And then Trump gave his support to the hatefull alt right side. For me its pretty clear to see. Its also clear to see that you say you "are not here to defend Trump or his actions" but you are exactly doing THAT. So thats not really fair is it? Speak your truth because now you are not.

[Deux Corbeaux]

The picture you paint about the events at Charlotteville are absolutely wrong. Where do you get your information? Of course it started out about a conflict about the statue of Robert Lee but on the 12th of August it was clearly something more. On July 8 there had allready been a demonstration of the KKK in Charlotteville and on 12 of August it was a demonstration of a large group of right wing and white nationalist groups called "Unite the right". These are all just basic facts.

And then Trump gave his support to the hatefull alt right side. For me its pretty clear to see. Its also clear to see that you say you "are not here to defend Trump or his actions" but you are exactly doing THAT. So thats not really fair is it? Speak your truth because now you are not.


Here are the facts about Trumps “both sides” remark. (The whole transcript)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/


Here’s a small part that has been left out by the MSM most of the time.....

Trump: "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?

"Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day --

" I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent.“





—

[T Smith]

The picture you paint about the events at Charlotteville are absolutely wrong. Where do you get your information? Of course it started out about a conflict about the statue of Robert Lee but on the 12th of August it was clearly something more. On July 8 there had allready been a demonstration of the KKK in Charlotteville and on 12 of August it was a demonstration of a large group of right wing and white nationalist groups called "Unite the right". These are all just basic facts.

And then Trump gave his support to the hatefull alt right side. For me its pretty clear to see. Its also clear to see that you say you "are not here to defend Trump or his actions" but you are exactly doing THAT. So thats not really fair is it? Speak your truth because now you are not.

Hello Mypos,

Your observations support what I'm saying. We aren't in disagreement; but I'll clarify so there are no misunderstandings regarding my observations:

The KKK group on July 8 consisted of 20 - 30 people. One could probably gather twice as many people in a city half the size of Charlottesville to march for the flat earth (say 40 - 60, for sake of illustration); that would not make a protest of thousands and thousands of people about the flat earth, regardless of how brilliant the psyop was executed and regardless of how brilliantly the media created the desired public perception.

The Unite the Right group on August 12 was larger, estimated at approximately 400 according to the permit. They came from all over the country (not just Charlottesville). These numbers arguably represent the fringe on the right, but still only represent a minuscule fraction of the conflict, which had been ebullient for many months. There are many people rightly concerned about the Orwellian development of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" in the United States, where statues and history are disappearing from the public lexicon and the assessment of history itself can be construed as "thought crimes" by a charged mob. This is a very dangerous development. I would submit to you authoritarians and the MSM are exploiting this in a agitprop way to evoke the very responses you have leveled at my post. The Unite the Right group was also but a fraction of the people in protest on August 12. Most of the protesting, probably 10 to 1, was done by leftist groups, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Standing up for Racial Justice, and Congregate Charlottesville. Some of these leftist groups were peaceful, some were violent.

I acknowledge radical people do exist; I also acknowledge there were radical people at the rally. But allow me to be more precise: this was psyop; the 400 or so radical right were confronted violently by a much larger group on the radical left, and the Charlottesville police were ordered to stand down (https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=57686) to let these groups clash. Why do you suppose this was so? The city of Charlottesville could have diffused this situation entirely and we wouldn't even be discussing this today (or even aware of it). I am also on record multiple times in many related conversations here on Avalon observing an extremely "charged" (by design) atmosphere; sometimes it only takes a teaspoon of gasoline and a spark to create the desired explosion.

I would submit to you -- trying to put aside our prejudices -- that we need to discern what this means in context. Donald Trump is on record condemning the violence and hatred on both sides... I'm a little confused about how pointing this out constitutes a defense of Donald Trump. But if so, and if by pointing out the psyop and the media's dishonest betrayal of the events constitute a defense of Donald Trump, then I would say, yeah, a guess I am defending Trump on this particular point.

Kind Regards,


T Smith

[AutumnW]

Condemning the violence, "on both sides" was a bizarre way of framing a series of events where people died due to the actions of a hard right lunatic. And that was the clear intent. The guy was out to kill people with his vehicle.

It doesn't matter how much verbiage, mental gymnastics are used. It was not in the least, or in any way, fair, even handed. It was just the opposite. It may not have come off to some pro Trumpers as an invitation to commit atrocities, but taken with the entire gist of his presidency, it has fueled the flames of racism.

[T Smith]

Condemning the violence, "on both sides" was a bizarre way of framing a series of events where people died due to the actions of a hard right lunatic. And that was the clear intent. The guy was out to kill people with his vehicle.

It doesn't matter how much verbiage, mental gymnastics are used. It was not in the least, or in any way, fair, even handed. It was just the opposite. It may not have come off to some pro Trumpers as an invitation to commit atrocities, but taken with the entire gist of his presidency, it has fueled the flames of racism.

People died because two violent groups on opposite ends of the political spectrum showed up on the streets of Charlotteville with helmets, tear gas, chemical bombs, and weapons--and in the case of one hard-right lunatic, an automobile. The police let them fight. It's honestly a miracle more people weren't maimed or killed. This "street brawl" was the culmination of a months-long conflict between folks in the middle of the political spectrum (many of whom I have to assume are peaceful and decent people, on both sides, to paraphrase the President) regarding the removal of statues and the renaming of parks, etc.

How else should this be framed?

[AutumnW]

Watch the documentary, "Altright" on Netflix. Even discounting for the bias of the filmmaker, it is still a huge eye opener. I didn't know too much about the whole Charlotteville fiasco until I watched the film. And it certainly doesn't portray what you would call, the Left, in a pleasant light either.

You simply can't create a moral equivalency argument out of what occurred there. Anti-fa is disruptive, breaks things, maybe beats people up. (I don't know. I don't follow it closely)

But the neo-fascist movements attract people who want to KILL. There are many among them who are simply disenfranchised and angry, but there is a contingent among that crowd who are also paranoid and that begets acts of terrorism.

It is up to the leader of the free world to differentiate fascists and racists in the alt right, who use coded lingo, like "patriots" etc... with those who are stridently opposed.

[Gracy]

Condemning the violence, "on both sides" was a bizarre way of framing a series of events where people died due to the actions of a hard right lunatic. And that was the clear intent. The guy was out to kill people with his vehicle.

Yes he was, and he was just convicted,but if there weren't "both sides" committing violence there, what is happening in this short clip? Surely this isnt the white nationalists fighting themselves?
nUv7hIVXKFQ

The msm still mostly refer to violent left wing actions on the street as "counter protesters", after that episode many of us began to learn who antifa is.

Here is antifa on display more recently in Portland Oregon, where they are allowed to roam free, they could have killed Andy with those head shots but he *only* wound up in the hospital instead. His crime? Being on the right side of the politacal aisle while reporting.

8WzMZxT-41k

edit to add. 1 person was murdered in cold blood that day, the two others were state troopers whose chopper crashed.

[T Smith]

Watch the documentary, "Altright" on Netflix. Even discounting for the bias of the filmmaker, it is still a huge eye opener. I didn't know too much about the whole Charlotteville fiasco until I watched the film. And it certainly doesn't portray what you would call, the Left, in a pleasant light either.



I will watch the Netflix documentary. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeOQaYen6YA) is another firsthand account by a right-wing reporter who was there covering the event in real time. According to her reports of the events (and even accounting for her political bias) the majority of the violence was waged from the left. So I would say this sort of dynamic is similar to road rage. You have two angry groups going head-to-head. When you have crazy and rabid leftists hurling feces and tear gas and urine at crazy alt-right White Nationalists (one of whom was unstable, as in the case of the man who drove his car into the crowd), you are describing a powder keg.



But the neo-fascist movements attract people who want to KILL. There are many among them who are simply disenfranchised and angry, but there is a contingent among that crowd who are also paranoid and that begets acts of terrorism.

Agreed. But are you implying your insights here only apply to the Unite the Right coalition? If so, you are vastly underestimating Antifa (and some factions of Black Lives Matter and Standing up for Racial Injustice). They are exactly the same type of fascist groups, but organized on the left, angry and disenfranchised, and in many cases, wanting to kill... This is human nature and tribalism 101; it is not unique to the bigoted alt-right with backward views...


It is up to the leader of the free world to differentiate fascists and racists in the alt right, who use coded lingo, like "patriots" etc... with those who are stridently opposed

The problem is--and I will be blunt--the media did not characterize these events honestly or accurately. Let's take this to the next step. Trump compensates for media dishonesty and agenda-ridden coverage in his rhetoric (mostly because they use their dishonesty against him), which is suddenly spun by the media as if he is "defending" a horrible tragedy and atrocity and condoning alt-right fascists. I assume your take comes from a similar perspective. And yes, I understand how people have come to these kind of conclusions, but in my opinion, after a more objective and thorough analysis of the facts, I think the majority of people--and especially those who maintain a left-leaning bias, have a contrived understanding of the Charlotteville protests.

Specifically, people maintain their understanding of events through the media--even when they take media biases with a grain of salt. So people are very easily manipulated to believe anything the media wants them to believe. The President did condemn the radical right, as Deux pointed out above; what exactly could he have done differently, especially when the media takes his words to create whatever reality they want to create anyway? When Trump "corrected" the media coverage of the event (in this case, the media fraudulence and malpractice), this was spun as if he was condoning alt-right fascists. And of course this type of response is pure gold to the media; they run with his statements further to wrap them around his neck to hang him by.

I will not condone the opinions or beliefs of the fanatic groups on the right that showed up to march in Charlottesville, but I will say they filed for a permit to protest. I will also submit, with a fair degree of certainty, were they not violently confronted (had they been ignored or at the very least peacefully protested) nothing would have come of these protests. We would all view the White Supremacists as the fools they are. The violence occurred because they were provoked and confronted violently with tear gas, chemical balloons, clubs, and weapons. Moreover, the anti-protestors did not have a permit to protest; they simply descended upon the march and started a street brawl with a gang of alt-right radicals, for lack of a better description. What would you expect might happen given this dynamic?

Here are some questions to ask:

Should we assign any blame on these leftist groups? Even if we are tempted to give Antifa et. al the moral high ground and exonerate them of any blame, should we ignore their role in this tragedy altogether, as the media did? Should we instead spin the tragedy simply as the result of an angry group of White Nationalists who drove a car through a crowd of peaceful protestors and killed a woman?

These are the main problems I have when I dissect these issues. The whole thing just reeks of psyop....

[AutumnW]

Not supporting anti-fa. Please watch the flick and get back to me through pm or here. Thanks

[Deux Corbeaux]

French NETFLIX doesn't have the documentary, but I found it on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/HCse43Y1CBE

[T Smith]

Not supporting anti-fa. Please watch the flick and get back to me through pm or here. Thanks

Hello AutumnW,

The documentary was interesting and informative. Thank you for sharing. However, it seemed more like a documentary on Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and Daryle Jenkins, rather than a film on the broader "Alt-right" and the broader radical left response. I assume this is because these men are leaders of their respective movements. But the documentary does not touch upon the scope (or lack thereof) of their followings. Had it delved into that topic critically and with a little more gravitas I would have sat up and took more notice, probably with the same alarm and concern you had. In that sense I was a little disappointed and would point out a critical distinction between the radical ideologies of three men and the broader movements they attract.

For those who don't know who these men are, Richard Spencer coined the term "alt right" and is the President of the National Policy Institute, a White Supremacist think tank that helped organize the August 12 Charlotteville Unite the Right rally; I would describe Jared Taylor as a throwback "southern gentleman" who publishes a White Supremacist website, and Daryle Jenkins as the affable (and charismatic) public face of Antifa. One thing that surprised me and caught me off guard is none of these men seemed particularly angry or hateful. They all seemed cheerful and affable and charming, despite their odious ideals.

A few more comments/observations:

I applaud the filmmaker for defining the Alt-Right at the beginning of the film. This is critically important if we are to have any meaningful discussion about Charlottesville and the Alt-Right movement in general. But yes, as defined in the documentary, we are in full agreement the alt-right is disturbing and alarming. However, I would point out the MSM, and particularly the left-leaning agitprop sect of it (which is mostly all of it), has cast much too wide an umbrella above the Alt-Right movement in my view. It casts the ideologies explored in this film not only upon the President of the United States and the majority of his followers (Hillary Clinton's infamous "basket of deplorables" comment comes to mind) but also upon virtually everyone left of center on the political spectrum. This is a common Alinsky tactic (see rule 13) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2DL7qRSXrw), where engaging in thoughtful discourse on ideas is countered with sensational ad hominem typecasting and spurious character assassinations on anyone who disagrees. One can accomplish this quite effectively by first establishing what is deplorable, e.g. the alt-right (as defined in the documentary) and then casting the aspersion wide and far upon those who have nothing whatsoever to do with the charge.

To be specific, the Alt-Right, according to the definition in the film, embraces the following tenets: Pro-white, Anti-Semitic, Socially Conservative, Segregation of Races, and Authoritarianism. My main criticism with the documentary, then, isn't a political dispute with the expose of their odious, hateful, and dangerous ideas, as it is the documentary's implication that this ideology applies to a much broader political spectrum and specifically to the constituency responsible for electing Donald Trump. In other words, millions and millions of people. This idea is alluded to and implied throughout the film with no supporting evidence whatsoever. It is simply presented as given.

For example, Alt-Right ideology, as defined above, is interchanged with phrases like "in the Age of Trump" and with "Trump Supporters" and "How Trump Got Elected" throughout the film. I will say these assertions are not only misleading, but patently false. If the filmmaker disagrees with me, by all means, make the argument and support the claims with facts. I would like to understand the connection if I have overlooked something so important.

Specifically, how is any of this connected in any way to Donald Trump and his followers? How is his platform pro-white (and by implication, anti-ethnic)? Specifically? How is he Anti-Semitic? Specifically? How is he segregationist? Specifically? How is he authoritarian, exactly (aside from the empty charges leveled?). Have I really overlooked something so egregious?

At the end of the day, I simply have to conclude the charge that Donald Trump and so-called Trump Supporters being Alt-Right is largely contrived. Saying it is so, over and over, doesn't do much to persuade me. Call it a weakness; I need to see a critical connection. This, of course, has little to do with the documentary, aside from the subliminal suggestions throughout the film interchanging the political climate in America today on the right with the Alt-Right in the film.

But let's put this in its proper perspective. The August 12 rally that turned violent and resulted in three deaths was an alt-right rally of 400 people, among thousands. Yes White Supremacists exist. Yes they organize. Yes they attract the disenchanted. So do obscure cults you've never even heard of. No reasoning person would dispute this, and the film does an outstanding job documenting this. But the question is, what exactly are they documenting? A movement of millions of people? Or a small group of misguided radicals that are relatively insignificant to the broader political discourse? This latter question is so counter an idea to the MSM narrative one might be appalled by the mere suggestion of it. We hear over, and over, and over again that we are surrounded and being over-taken by White Supremacists, and DJT is encouraging this. We hear this so much so we simply absorb it as given. But let's examine. Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor were able to successfully fill a Marriott conference room spouting their ideals; the National Policy Institute raised a whopping $50,000.00 last year, and American Renaissance (Jared Taylor's publication) had 30k twitter followers before he was banned for violating Twitter's hate speech rules. To put that in perspective, the Stoic Emperor, an anonymous tweeter who delivers short meditations daily in the vein of Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smalley), has 30k followers. The Kashi Ashram, an obscure religious cult with a Judeo-Christian foundation, claims to touch the lives of 300k members. Have you ever heard of them? Know somebody involved with them? If not, I would point out they are easily ten times larger in scope than the alt-right cult the filmmakers explored in this film.

In short, the alt-right, as defined in bold above, is mostly but another Alinsky tactic (see rule 9) (http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html) and is about as significant as any other obscure cult you've never heard of.

Another example of very subtle propaganda the filmmaker exploited was the idea the militia in the rally supported the Neo-Nazis. This is also not true. According to the independent report, the militia was present at the rally to keep the peace on both sides of the dispute, yet the subtle implication in the film depicts a militarized neo-nazi brigade. Chilling (and alarming) if one does not have access to the facts.

I don't want to downplay the Alt-Right or condone their ideas. As always, my criticism isn't with the ideas or tools social engineers employ to manipulate public opinion to exploit fear and to distort reality for political expediency. My dispute is with the social engineers themselves and their tactics. The media is fully responsible for this. After the 1975 blockbuster film Jaws, nearly half the population, 43%, reported a phobia of swimming (some won't step in as little as four feet of water) even though the odds of a shark attack are roughly 1 to 4,000,000. Let's think about that, and how powerful propaganda is.

Funny how that 43% is roughly the same amount of people who can swing elections and drive the march of hidden agendas.

[onawah]

Chris Hedges & Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections
Nov 27, 2019
Empire Files

(Although unfortunate that Hedges seems to have bought the global warming lie, his views on the advanced state of decay in current US politics are right on target, imho.)

"Abby Martin sits down with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges to discuss the ignored reality behind Trump, the bipartisan road from neoliberalism to fascism, how the Democratic elite are an institution of corporate power, and how there's no way out through the #2020election without destroying the system."
6dQW4X6oC-c

[onawah]

Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges on his latest book, America: The Farewell Tour
Oct 8, 2018
WGBHForum

"Chris Hedges, who writes a regular column for truthdig and was a foreign correspondent for The New York Times for nearly two decades, seeks to jolt us out of our complacency about the current state of affairs, while we still have time. In conversation with Chris Lydon, producer & presenter of WBUR’s “Open Source”, Hedges discusses his latest book, America: The Farewell Tour."
Aj1-47VqgOs

[East Sun]

why would anyone think that trunp is the answer to anything.
I asked this before, "Do you think that any Politician is the answer to anything of real significance?"

Not at his time. Defiantly.

The criminal cabal that we all know about, well, not all know about, sadly,
are OUT as anything we want, ever.

SO , Trump ends up being all we have to rely on and I think he knows it. Is he an answer to
anything remains to be answered, as always in politics .

See you on the flip side as JP Farrell says.

[AutumnW]

Thanks for response, TSmith. I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Sorry I didn't respond sooner!

[sunwings]

Q43mD3pUP7I

Christopher Hitchens gives his POV about politicians in the year 2000. He also mentions Trump. A very funny watch!

[AutumnW]

Chris Hedges. Amazing guy and completely depressing. Not recommended viewing if you're already bummed out. Abby Martin supports Sanders. I like him but he is really too old. Always looks like he's about to pop an artery. Can we get some young blood in there already?

[Haujean Contactee]

I have to say that I firmly disagree with every post in this discussion. I recommend going to www.larouchepac.com and learning about how the corrupt system works and how it has been undermining president Trump. Then learn how to mobilize to turn this mess around.

[onawah]

Self-Validating Circle Jerk Of War Psyops: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
by Caitlin Johnstone
12/7/19
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/07/self-validating-circle-jerk-of-war-psyops-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/

https://i0.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Screen-Shot-2019-12-07-at-1.03.15-PM-1.jpg?w=858&ssl=1

"Everyone made fun of Billie Eilish the other day for not knowing about Van Halen. Meanwhile most of them still think they live in a free democracy where the news reporter tells you true facts about the world.

Here’s how politicians, media and government could eliminate conspiracy theories if they really wanted to:

Stop lying all the time
Stop killing people
Stop promoting conspiracy theories (Russiagate)
Stop doing evil things in secret
End government opacity
Stop conspiring
I actually envy the pro-establishment types. What pleasant lives they must have lived to be able to trust authority with such pure, blind faith like that.

On the right they often refer to deaths under 20th century communist governments. On the left they talk a lot about Nazi Germany. What doesn’t get nearly enough attention is how the tyrannical force that’s doing the killing and oppressing right now is the US-centralized empire.

If a reporter in the mass media advances the establishment line in a clever and skillful way, they’ll be published, praised and promoted. Those who figure this out quickly rise to the top. Those who don’t get fed bottom-tier assignments no one reads until they find new careers. This is all you’re seeing when you see blue-checkmarked media figures smearing Assange or shrieking about the Evil Dictator Of The Week. You’re seeing ambitious reporters who understand how the game is played signal their understanding to current and future employers.

Nowhere in the mainstream news cycle is the difference between fact and narrative highlighted more clearly than in the difference between the facts of Trump’s dangerous escalations against Russia and the narrative about his softness toward Russia. Same planet, different worlds.

The devious and depraved individuals who work in government agencies know that many great evils can be hidden behind people’s entirely irrational tendency to dismiss their own suspicions with a “No, my government would never do something that devious and depraved!”

It’s not ****ing complicated. If a narrative serves the interests of powerful groups with a known history of lying, be skeptical of that narrative. This should be extremely obvious to everyone.

How to avoid being called a Russian agent online:

Don’t be Russian
Support all US wars
Trust the CIA
Believe everything the TV tells you
Get excited for President Pete
Reject the evil Hawaiian woman
Believe all problems began January 2017
Obey
Obey
Obey
Obey
Con artists prefer lies by omission because they are cowards and they would prefer not to look you in the eye while lying. The same is true for the imperial media. Omissions like not reporting on OPCW leaks are the same as straight-up lies. It’s fake news by omission.

We really cannot afford to lose the battle to free Assange. If we’re going to let them imprison a journalist for life because he exposed US war crimes then we might as well tap out and hand the imperialists the keys to the world forever, because we’ll never reclaim what we lost.

Anybody who isn’t loudly protesting Assange’s imprisonment is now caping for Trump’s diabolical attack on the free press worldwide. Silence is complicity right now. This is endgame; without a free press holding power to account, we are done and we will freefall into dystopia.

Things that make me sick about the Assange case:

The fact that we keep trying to appeal to journalists’ self-preservation to get them to support him because we know their moral compass is not enough.
#Resistance Democrats happy to see him die in jail because “He helped Trump.” Even if that was true (it’s not), how psychopathically authoritarian do you have to be to condemn someone to death because they have different politics to you?
And the hypocrisy of it all. My God. They’re like, “Hey kids! Don’t forget to #Resist tyranny and fascism by cheerleading a Trump administration agenda to make it possible for the US government to imprison journalists for exposing US war crimes!”
Another thing that makes me side-eye my fellow man when it comes to Assange: so many Australians tell me they are disgusted by what’s happening but very few of them are willing to speak out publicly. Bloody wusses. They might as well tie the noose for all the good they’re doing.
One thing that gives me hope: the cool-factor is building momentum around Assange here in Australia. I think maybe it’s because Australians generally loathe that church-lady busy-body tsk-tsk tone that typifies the general narrative on Assange. It’s so uncool. So there’s that.

People often say if MSM reporters don’t defend Assange then they’ll be next behind bars. One problem: it’s not true. And they know it’s not true. If you serve power, nothing you publish will get you into trouble. If they’re silent on Assange, they’ve openly chosen to serve power.

Every single person who still believes Hillary Clinton would have made a decent president has simply spent the last few years adamantly refusing to do intellectually and emotionally honest research into the things that she did as a secretary of state and senator.

Democrats who continually object to centrists being criticized from the left within their party while also simultaneously shrieking about Jill Stein running as a third party candidate are really just saying “No one’s allowed to be to the left of Hillary Clinton. Ever. At all.”
https://twitter.com/KamalaNation/status/1188116139215224834?s=20

Broke: Buttigieg is a Rhodes Scholar, isn’t that awesome?
Woke: Corey Booker is also a Rhodes Scholar, but nobody makes a big deal about a Black man’s achievements.
Bespoke: The Rhodes Scholarship is just a training program for CIA-aligned establishment swamp monsters.

I’m almost certainly wasting my breath here, but the Bernie crowd vs. Tulsi crowd sectarian feuding I’m seeing on social media will be over and irrelevant in a few months, so maybe it would be a good idea to contemplate how wise it is to say hurtful/damaging things to/about each other in the meantime.

Trump is doing countless evil things right out in the open, yet instead his “opposition” focuses on imaginary Russia conspiracies and an impeachment that can only fail, much like a pro wrestler stomping on the mat next to his downed “opponent” to avoid hurting the other actor.

I’m going to start mentally replacing the label “conspiracy theorist” with “Iraq rememberer”.

The reason it’s so important to stay enraged about Iraq is because it’s never been addressed or rectified in any real way whatsoever. All the corrupt mechanisms which led to the invasion are still in place and its consequences remain. It isn’t something that happened in the past; it’s happening now.

It’s just so insane how Bush showed up, launched two full-scale ground invasions based on lies, murdered a million people, launched unprecedented domestic espionage programs, and then the news churn just moved on and now we’re only supposed to care about Trump’s rude tweets.

If you lack a deep, visceral loathing of the Bush administration for the evils it unleashed and the precedents it set, then you also lack (A) any framework through which to correctly understand the world, and (B) a conscience.

QAnon is Fox News in puzzle form. It gives adherents a bunch of cryptic hints leading them down artificial rabbit holes which just so happen to result in their all believing mainstream GOP narratives like Trump is awesome, everything’s Obama’s fault, and Iran needs regime change.

The NED-funded Bellingcat isn’t toxic on its own. What makes it toxic is the way it’s aggressively elevated and promoted by mainstream news media, who then cite it as an authoritative source in their own imperialist propaganda. It’s a self-validating circle jerk of war psyops.https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1201418120541458437


There’s a very common, very stupid notion that if you criticize the US government, you also have to criticize other governments equally. Ask which specific governments must be criticized, and out of all the corrupt governments in the world they’ll name only those targeted by US imperialism. Nobody will ever bitch at you for criticizing the US government without criticizing corrupt governments like Egypt, the Philippines or Saudi Arabia. They only ever want you to attack the governments their TV tells them to attack: Russia, China, Iran, etc.

The capitalism cultist’s solution to caring for developmentally disabled children is that their families care for them at home for their entire lives. Society gets those families’ labor, for free. Free stuff! Sweet, huh? But the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people’s free labor.
Everyone talks about “free stuff” but no one talks about free labor. The carers of children, the disabled, and the elderly do free work all day every day, but that’s fine, just don’t give them any free stuff because that would be immoral. Everyone loves to say “Not everything is about money,” but only when it comes to carer’s work. Otherwise it’s all “Taxation is theft!” and “Don’t coerce me in to caring for others!” Carers are just meant to retire on good feelings and pay their rent with sweet sentiments. Or depending wholly on the charitable inclinations of an industrious man. Who hopefully is the nice kind of man and tough luck if he isn’t.
And don’t hyperventilate at me about violence and coercion. The current system is based on coercion and force when you’re a primary carer. You can’t leave even if your situation is abusive, you don’t get paid so you can’t even retire. That’s as coercive and forceful as it gets.

I’m really looking forward to when we’ve won this thing and the people have wrested their rightful power away from their oppressors so I don’t have to stay plugged into the news cycle 24/7 keeping track of what bull****’s spewing out of people’s televisions today.

If we make it out of this mess, it won’t be because anyone’s ideology won out over the others, it will be because we fundamentally changed the way we function as a species. It will be because we completely transformed our relationship with abstract thought and mental narrative."

Also posted here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106650-The-thread-of-Caitlin-Johnstone-s-words&p=1326694&viewfull=1#post1326694

[AutumnW]

Both parties are pro-war. And...pro-war all the time. Their economy depends on it. The social system, using the military as a kind of socialist welfare programme makes it necessary.

That's all I need to know. To think that Trump is more powerful than both war parties combined is laugh out loud funny. Placing countries under siege, like Venezuela and Iran, in order to pretty much starve them into surrender is a covertly aggressive act and as unhumane as a direct act of war.

It's pretty much the same as rape, be it fast or slow, it's still rape.

Wait til his second term, when the gloves really come off, before deducing he is some kind of pacifist. His first term is enough for me to see he is part of the same system.

[onawah]

I posted this in the wrong thread--meant to put it in the thread about Caitlin Johnstone, which I will post there now.

[Pam]

Chris Hedges & Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections
Nov 27, 2019
Empire Files

(Although unfortunate that Hedges seems to have bought the global warming lie, his views on the advanced state of decay in current US politics are right on target, imho.)

"Abby Martin sits down with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges to discuss the ignored reality behind Trump, the bipartisan road from neoliberalism to fascism, how the Democratic elite are an institution of corporate power, and how there's no way out through the #2020election without destroying the system."
6dQW4X6oC-c

OMG...Onawah, thank you so much for giving us Chris Hedges. I had never heard of this man and I found what he has to say really profound. I see he has a book and I am going to read it. He is certainly worthy of a thread. His ability to understand human nature along with an ability to look at our current situation objectively is very rare..

BUMP.

[onawah]

Trump signs executive order to fight antisemitism on US campuses
12/11/19
( From Houman's post today here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?40941-Horus-Ra-as-the-Archontic-Alien-Parasite-A-follow-up-interview-with-Maarit&p=1327121&viewfull=1#post1327121
and Houman's comment: "ADL'S VICE TIGHTENS ON CAMPUSES

For those of you still blind enough to trust or have hope in Trump, note that he is issuing an executive order that will make the ADL's definition of antisemitism controlling on campuses - which means that almost any criticism of Israel or Israeli actions (like shooting a Palestinian nurse in the back) would be antisemitic. with penalties specified for individuals AND their institutions."
https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Antisemitism/Trump-expected-to-issue-executive-order-against-antisemitism-on-campus-610540?fbclid=IwAR1rsRMohFfZun_W14cx_LbxcJuNJxZ5LbzIR7lPUa7FDLuxzba9u3F95_A

[onawah]

Trump is supporting the movement to create a new, very expensive branch of US armed services devoted not to peaceful exploration of space, but to war in space (so far, at least, and it would be very difficult or him to back-tread at this point).
DARK JOURNALIST X-SERIES 75: SECRET SPACE FORCE UFO DEFENSE NETWORK
12/13/19
5JHKbquFeDY

Also see: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?109414-USAF-Secretary-Congressman-want-to-Declassify-Secret-Space-Programs&p=1327359&viewfull=1#post1327359

[onawah]

21,176 people died the last time this was tried
Alex Lawson, Social Security Works
12/21/19

(From Social Security Works email update today)

"American workers contribute to Social Security with every paycheck. When they do, they are earning comprehensive insurance protections. Social Security insures against the loss of wages due to old age, disability, or (for the surviving family of a worker) death. While Social Security is best known as a retirement program, disability and survivor’s benefits are equally essential.

The Republican strategy depends on dividing us.

An attack on any part of Social Security is an attack on the entire system and all current and future beneficiaries. The latest proposal from Donald Trump’s administration, which is designed to rip benefits away from hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities, amounts to a declaration of war on Social Security.

The Trump Administration proposal1 would require millions of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries to re-prove their eligibility for benefits as often as every six months—far more frequently than is currently the case.2 There is no justification for this policy. The United States already has some of the strictest eligibility criteria for disability benefits in the world. More than half of all claims are denied.3

We should be making it easier for workers to claim the Social Security benefits they’ve earned with every paycheck, not harder. And ripping benefits away from current beneficiaries, who rely on them to survive, is even worse.

We know what the effects of the Trump proposal would be, because Ronald Reagan implemented a very similar benefit cut back in the 1980s. Reagan’s policy ripped away the benefits of 200,000 Americans with disabilities. The New York Times reported that “people with obvious physical and mental disabilities” lost their benefits “without having been interviewed.”4

Ultimately, Reagan was forced to reverse his attack on Social Security after massive public outcry, and bipartisan condemnation from Congress—but not before 21,176 people died,5 including several who died by suicide, “because their benefits were cut off.”

We need to stop this cruel policy before it costs any more lives. Social Security Works is rallying progressives to a massive public comment campaign to stop Trump’s plan before it is implemented!

Donald Trump himself might not be a diligent student of history, but his advisers—men like Mick Mulvaney,6 Trump’s chief of staff and a longtime enemy of Social Security—know exactly what they are doing. They want to resurrect Reagan’s Social Security cut knowing full well that it killed people.

This could impact any of us, even those of us who are currently healthy. Imagine that you are hit by a car tomorrow, and suffer life-altering injuries that prevent you from working. You’re faced with crushing medical bills, and you’ve lost your income. In such situations, SSDI benefits are a crucial lifeline. Donald Trump wants to rip that lifeline away.

Trump and Mulvaney are targeting people with disabilities first, because they perceive them as politically vulnerable. But if they are allowed to get away with this attack, it will be only the beginning. They want to destroy every part of Social Security, including retirement benefits, and turn it over to their criminal friends on Wall Street.

We must stop Trump’s plan. The Social Security Administration is collecting comments on the proposal until the end of January. You can comment opposing the plan here. Everyone must also call their elected officials. Congressional condemnation played a huge role in forcing Ronald Reagan to reverse his version of the attack, and it can stop Trump in his tracks.

If we let the politicians in Washington, D.C., take away some people’s earned benefits, it means they can take away all of our earned benefits. Thank you for fighting with us."

Alex Lawson
Social Security Works

P.S. Our user-friendly public comment campaign will launch in the new year. But you can register your displeasure today using Regulations.gov."

1 https://www.inquirer.com/news/social-security-ssi-ssdi-trump-administration-disability-20191212.html
2 https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-cdrs-ussi.htm
3 https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015/11/04/124904/social-security-disability-insurance-a-bedrock-of-security-for-american-workers-2/
4 https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/14/us/reagan-suspends-benefits-cutoff.html
5 https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-12-04-8903150162-story.html
6 https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/11/30/trumps-budget-director-reveals-plans-attack-social-security-and-medicare

[TomKat]

Trump IS the answer! And so is Joe Biden! Left/right, negative/positive -- required to generate energy... but for whom?

[thepainterdoug]

SOLUTIONS? I always ask , once some intellectual person has sighted the ills and made the comparisons to past dire signposts etc , WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

in the above video with Chris Hedges , towards the end of his talk he suggests as a his solution , complete resistance to the system, anachary, revolution and such.

The hows? who starts it, who's first in line and so on ,is my question. Its usually the think tank people who wash their hands of such messyness as its implied that work is left up to the everyday drones and have nots.

It also brings to mind the person who hears a hurricane is coming, goes out and buys supplies to board up his house, and in his preparation, accidentally kills himself while doing so.
This actually just happened to someone in the recent Hurricane in Florida. The Hurricane never hit his area.

Observing nature teaches us to adapt, use stealth, camouflage ,cunning and cleverness as the terrain changes . I have never lived any different in my life despite who the President was.
I suppose I have been very fortunate to do so as I came close to being drafted during the Viet Nam war. But aside from that, I have developed skills that transcend present trends and live under the radar in a good but modest fashion.

This drastic division in opinion alone, how today even good friends are at each others necks with, anger , righteousness , finger pointing , is more dangerous than the coming storm, and Im not so sure its even coming . So what do ywe do ? I have no answers but for myself . Read the play as best you can

All I can say is , this so called evil guy in office just signed a 1.3 billion dollar bill to aid and research Autism so he's not doing a very good job of being a Nazi.

Don't let the machine divide us! happy holidays

[onawah]

I just work on not being naive these days, and that 1.3 billion bill might turn out to be just like those bills that have gone to "aid and research" cancer, and have done nothing good at all, though they have certainly helped line Big Pharma's pockets.
In any case, we already know what is causing the Autism epidemic: vaccines.
I dare say Trump knows it too.
Who said Trump is a Nazi?
I didn't, but he's certainly not a Superman either.
The best answer now that I can see is massive public activism and uprisings.



All I can say is , this so called evil guy in office just signed a 1.3 billion dollar bill to aid and research Autism so he's not doing a very good job of being a Nazi.

[onawah]

Taxpayer funded Ivanka jewelry
From Social Security Works' email update today:
12/23/19
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/verma_q4?link_id=0&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-taxpayer-funded-ivanka-jewelry-2&email_referrer=email_689237&email_subject=taxpayer-funded-ivanka-jewelry

"In recent days, we’ve been shining a light on the Trump administration’s cruel new regulations that will deny benefits to hundreds of thousands of Social Security recipients―all claiming to increase “efficiency” and prevent government waste. We’re fighting back―chip in today!

This is straight out of the playbook of Trump’s Medicare and Medicaid Administrator, Seema Verma. She cut her teeth working for Gov. Mike Pence in Indiana—crafting cruel and burdensome restrictions to make it harder for families to qualify for Medicaid.

Donald Trump was so impressed by that resume that he put Verma in charge of running Medicare and Medicaid. Verma is using that position to fly around the country, promoting for-profit Medicare Advantage plans over traditional Medicare, attacking Medicare For All, and imposing Medicaid restrictions across the country.

Verma doesn’t believe in publicly funded health care. But she does believe that taxpayers should pay for her stolen Ivanka Trump jewelry.

Social Security Works is fighting to expose the corruption of Trump cronies like Seema Verma, and fight their cruel policies.

While Verma was busy giving a speech bashing Medicare For All, her luggage was stolen from a rental SUV. Verma filed a claim for taxpayer reimbursement of $47,000 in stolen goods—including a $5,900 Ivanka Trump brand pendant and a $325 moisturizer.

And earlier this year, she was billing taxpayers millions for her personal PR agency to plant puff pieces about her in the press.

Verma’s spent her career taking health care away from people who desperately need it. But when she’s the one in need of some overpriced moisturizer, she demanded that the public pay up.

Social Security Works today to power our fight to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from Verma and her fellow Trump appointees.

Thank you for fighting with us,

Alex Lawson
Social Security Works"

[Pam]

Taxpayer funded Ivanka jewelry
From Social Security Works' email update today:
12/23/19
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/verma_q4?link_id=0&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-taxpayer-funded-ivanka-jewelry-2&email_referrer=email_689237&email_subject=taxpayer-funded-ivanka-jewelry

"In recent days, we’ve been shining a light on the Trump administration’s cruel new regulations that will deny benefits to hundreds of thousands of Social Security recipients―all claiming to increase “efficiency” and prevent government waste. We’re fighting back―chip in today!

This is straight out of the playbook of Trump’s Medicare and Medicaid Administrator, Seema Verma. She cut her teeth working for Gov. Mike Pence in Indiana—crafting cruel and burdensome restrictions to make it harder for families to qualify for Medicaid.

Donald Trump was so impressed by that resume that he put Verma in charge of running Medicare and Medicaid. Verma is using that position to fly around the country, promoting for-profit Medicare Advantage plans over traditional Medicare, attacking Medicare For All, and imposing Medicaid restrictions across the country.

Verma doesn’t believe in publicly funded health care. But she does believe that taxpayers should pay for her stolen Ivanka Trump jewelry.

Social Security Works is fighting to expose the corruption of Trump cronies like Seema Verma, and fight their cruel policies.

While Verma was busy giving a speech bashing Medicare For All, her luggage was stolen from a rental SUV. Verma filed a claim for taxpayer reimbursement of $47,000 in stolen goods—including a $5,900 Ivanka Trump brand pendant and a $325 moisturizer.

And earlier this year, she was billing taxpayers millions for her personal PR agency to plant puff pieces about her in the press.

Verma’s spent her career taking health care away from people who desperately need it. But when she’s the one in need of some overpriced moisturizer, she demanded that the public pay up.

Social Security Works today to power our fight to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from Verma and her fellow Trump appointees.

Thank you for fighting with us,

Alex Lawson
Social Security Works"


How in the world could she possibly expect the taxpayers to pay for that? Shouldn't she make a claim to her auto insurance if she has that kind of coverage. Who would expect their employer to pay for stuff stolen from their car? Also, who in their right mind lugs 47, 000. oo worth of trinkets around with them?? And the taxpayers are just supposed to take her word for it and cough up that kind of money? Dear god, the corruption and entitlement is just beyond pale. Imagine the number who could be insured for that amount?

[onawah]

It doesn't surprise me all that much, but then I've just finished watching the 2019 movie, "Where's my Roy Cohn?" about Donald Trumps mentor.
In those kinds of circles, there are no ethics; "winning" is all that matters.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Where%27s_My_Roy_Cohn%3F.jpg
See: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7193362/

[onawah]

Trump Proposes Ending Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands
'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands'
Published on
Monday, December 16, 2019
by Jake Johnson, staff writer Common Dreams

"Donald Trump and his advisers know that this will kill people, and they do not care. Every current and future Social Security beneficiary must band together to defeat this horrific proposal, or else all of our earned benefits will be next.

Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments.

The proposed rule change was first published in the Federal Register last month but has received scarce attention in the national media. Last week, the Social Security Administration extended the public comment period on the proposal until January 31, 2020.

Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams that the rule change "is the Trump administration's most brazen attack on Social Security yet."

"When Ronald Reagan implemented a similar benefit cut, it ripped away the earned benefits of 200,000 people," Lawson said. "Ultimately, Reagan was forced to reverse his attack on Social Security after massive public outcry—but not before people suffered and died."

"Every current and future Social Security beneficiary must band together to defeat this horrific proposal, or else all of our earned benefits will be next."
—Alex Lawson, Social Security Works
Patient advocate Peter Morley, who lobbies Congress on healthcare issues, called the proposal "a national disgrace."

"This is not over," said Morley. "We will all need to mobilize."

The process for receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is already notoriously complicated, and the Trump administration is attempting to add yet another layer of complexity that critics say is aimed at slashing people's benefits.

As The Philadelphia Inquirer reported last week, "those already receiving disability benefits are subject to so-called continuing disability reviews, which determine whether they are still deserving of compensation for an injury, illness, or other incapacitating problem as their lives progress."

Currently, beneficiaries are placed in three separate categories based on the severity of their disability: "Medical Improvement Not Expected," "Medical Improvement Expected," and "Medical Improvement Possible." People with more severe medical conditions face less frequent disability reviews.

The Trump administration's proposed rule would another category called "Medical Improvement Likely," which would subject beneficiaries to disability reviews every two years.

According to the Inquirer, "an estimated 4.4 million beneficiaries would be included in that designation, many of them children and so-called Step 5 recipients, an internal Social Security classification."

Step 5 recipients, the Inquirer noted, "are typically 50 to 65 years of age, in poor health, without much education or many job skills [and] often suffer from maladies such as debilitating back pain, depression, a herniated disc, or schizophrenia."

"This seems like the next iteration of the Trump administration's continued efforts to gut Social Security benefits."
—Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.)
Jennifer Burdick, supervising attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, told the Inquirer that placing Step 5 recipients in the new "Medical Improvement Likely" category and subjecting them to reviews every two years would represent "a radical departure from past practice."

Lawson of Social Security Works said "Donald Trump and his advisers know that this will kill people, and they do not care."

"Every current and future Social Security beneficiary must band together to defeat this horrific proposal," added Lawson, "or else all of our earned benefits will be next."

In addition to lack of coverage from the national media, most members of Congress have also been relatively quiet about the Trump administration's proposal.

Two Pennsylvania Democrats—Sen. Bob Casey and Rep. Brendan Boyle—condemned the proposed rule change in statements to the Inquirer.

The proposal, said Casey, "appears to be yet another attempt by the Trump administration to make it more difficult for people with disabilities to receive benefits."

Boyle said the "changes seem arbitrary, concocted with no evidence or data to justify such consequential modifications."

"This seems like the next iteration of the Trump administration's continued efforts to gut Social Security benefits," Boyle added." "

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/16/national-disgrace-trump-proposes-social-security-change-could-end-disability

[AutumnW]

From Onawah's post about Social Security Benefit requirements being altered.

Step 5 recipients, the Inquirer noted, "are typically 50 to 65 years of age, in poor health, without much education or many job skills [and] often suffer from maladies such as debilitating back pain, depression, a herniated disc, or schizophrenia."

They are tightening criteria for those already on disability to requalify every couple of years. It is already next to impossible for relatively healthy people to navigate the bureaucratic maze of benefits programs. Imagine somebody with schizophrenia trying to do this, regardless how well they are doing on the new class of medication.

And in the case of paranoia, imagining 'the government' is out to get you might be better than dealing with the harsh reality of a government willing to leave you all alone...completely and totally alone.

And they will make those with back injuries requalify too. Hmm...well, lots of people who voted for him are former coal miners , farmers, laborers, on disability for bad backs. In which case, the ironic meme, 'get government off my back' is going to be used to their distinct disadvantage.

Oh man...what a country.

Thanks for the info, Onawah!

[AutumnW]

In any case, we already know what is causing the Autism epidemic: vaccines.
I dare say Trump knows it too--Onawah

You could say, we don't know for absolute certain and the 1.3 billion will cement this ignorance by the funding being either directly or indirectly channeled to big Pharma. There is NO WAY the federal government (whose biggest controller after the banks and oil industry, is big pharma), is going to take a chance that their cash cow is gutted instead of milked.

[onawah]

I'm certain you're right Autumn, and that Trump knows a lot more than his fans think, who are constantly making excuses for his supposed ignorance about so many issues, including the things he actually lies about.
...Such as the following from Alliance for Retired American's email update today:

"Looks like retirees got the president's attention last week.

On Wednesday, President Trump told the world that cuts to Medicare and Social Security were “on the table” as soon as this year.

On Thursday, he sent a tweet promising that he would never cut Social Security or Medicare.

Sounds good -- but he’s trying to cut Social Security RIGHT NOW.

The Trump Administration is trying to shove through a plan to deny hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans -- including veterans and children -- the disability benefits they have already qualified for.*
Every budget the President has submitted to Congress included steep Medicare cuts that would mean less care at a higher cost to retirees.
His advisors - including the White House Chief of Staff -- have been open about pushing the president for more cuts.
We can’t forget that his allies on Capitol Hill are ready to help. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says cutting earned benefits is his top priority for 2021. And Sen. Mitt Romney is trying to pass a law creating a secret panel that will deliberate in private and create plans to cut Social Security and Medicare.

So far we’ve been able to stop them. But we must stay vigilant and defend the health care and retirement benefits we have earned. The best way to do that is to pay attention to what the Administration does, not what the President says.

We promise to keep you updated on this and other important retiree news.

Sincerely,

Richard Fiesta
Executive Director

*Thanks to the more than 10,000 Alliance activists who stepped up and told the Social Security Administration to reverse course on the cruel Social Security disability insurance changes. We are grateful and will keep you updated in the coming weeks."

(Following are some excerpts from LA Times articles the Alliance has referenced.)
By MICHAEL HILTZIK BUSINESS COLUMNIST
JAN. 23, 2020
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-23/trump-social-security

"With his penchant for saying the quiet parts out loud and assuming no one is paying attention, President Trump on Wednesday opened the door to cutting Social Security and Medicare later this year.

The word came at the very end of an interview conducted by Joe Kernen of CNBC, in connection with Trump’s appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Here’s how it unfolded, according to the tape and transcript from CNBC:


http://projectavalon.net/Davos_2020_CNBC's_full_interview_with_President_Trump.mp4
Source: http://projectavalon.net/Davos_2020_CNBC's_full_interview_with_President_Trump.mp4

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/davos-2020-cnbcs-full-interview-with-president-trump.html

“KERNEN: Entitlements ever be on your plate?

“PRESIDENT TRUMP: At some point they will be. We have tremendous growth. We’re going to have tremendous growth. This next year I — it’ll be toward the end of the year. The growth is going to be incredible. And at the right time, we will take a look at that. You know, that’s actually the easiest of all things, if you look, cause it’s such a—
Hillary Clinton is going to destroy your Social Security and Medicare. ... I am going to protect and save your Social Security and your Medicare."

DONALD TRUMP, 2016
Trump then wandered off into a string of false and incoherent claims about the economy. “We’ve never had growth like this,” he said, even though economic growth during Trump’s term is nowhere near a record pace.

What’s important is that Trump appears to be falling into lockstep with the more general Republican position that closing the federal deficit requires cutting back on Social Security, Medicare and other social safety net programs. Never mind that the deficit was opened into a gaping maw by the tax cut Trump signed in December 2017, which went mostly to corporations and the wealthy, the effect of which goosed economic growth for a short period but has faded.

Other commentators have underscored the conflict between Trump’s appearing open to tampering with Social Security and Medicare, and his promise during the last presidential campaign to leave those programs alone.

Mitch McConnell, John Barrasso, Joni Ernst
BUSINESS
Column: A Republican senator hints at gutting Social Security ‘behind closed doors’
Sep. 6, 2019
“Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security,” he said in one appearance. “They want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that. And it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years.” Just before election day 2016, he claimed: “Hillary Clinton is going to destroy your Social Security and Medicare. ... I am going to protect and save your Social Security and your Medicare.”

Cutting benefits has been part of Republican orthodoxy for decades, but the drumbeat has gotten louder. In September, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) talked about the need to go “behind closed doors” to reform Social Security, because it’s clear that the American public won’t stand for it being done in the open. A year earlier, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) labeled Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — so-called entitlements — “the real drivers of the debt” and called for them to be adjusted “to the demographics of the future.”

It’s worth noting that proposals to cut social insurance benefits are certain to be dead on arrival as long as Democrats control at least one chamber of Congress, as they do currently. Indeed, the Democratic Party, through its representatives in Congress and its candidates for president, has shown itself to be strongly in favor of expanding and increasing Social Security benefits, not cutting them back.

Trump still can do a lot of damage to these programs by starving their administrative budgets or tinkering with administrative rules, as he’s proposed to do with Medicaid and Social Security Disability Insurance.

US-POLITICS-TRUMP
Column: Mitch McConnell says it out loud: Republicans are gunning for Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare next
Oct. 19, 2018
As I’ve reported before, Trump’s cavalier approach to these programs isn’t really a secret.

His proposed 2020 budget would have pared as much as $1.5 trillion from Medicaid, partially by repealing the Medicaid expansion enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act, and partially by converting the program to a block grant to states — a system that destroys the program’s ability to match funding with costs and results in a massive shortfall over time.

Trump’s budget would gut the nation’s disability programs by $84 billion. At least $10 billion of that would come from Social Security disability through changes in eligibility rules. An additional $400 million would come out of the Social Security Administration’s administrative budget, which is already strapped for cash, in the next year alone. Beneficiaries could expect more busy signals on the phone lines and longer waits at Social Security offices.

In October, Trump signed an executive order bristling with stealth attacks on Medicare. Buried within the order was a provision that would destroy Medicare by driving its costs to an unsustainable level. He also proposed to turn more of the program over to commercial insurers. As I wrote then, “Put simply, he’s proposing to privatize Medicare.”

Again, all this has been hiding in plain sight. Trump’s latest remarks have gotten a lot of attention, because they appear to be so blunt. But the danger the Trump administration poses to programs that protect America’s most vulnerable populations has been evident almost from the first."



In any case, we already know what is causing the Autism epidemic: vaccines.
I dare say Trump knows it too--Onawah

You could say, we don't know for absolute certain and the 1.3 billion will cement this ignorance by the funding being either directly or indirectly channeled to big Pharma. There is NO WAY the federal government (whose biggest controller after the banks and oil industry, is big pharma), is going to take a chance that their cash cow is gutted instead of milked.

[onawah]

In Win for Bayer-Monsanto, Trump EPA Claims Cancer-Causing Weedkiller ‘Safe’
Alex Formuzis Environmental Working Group
THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2020
https://www.ewg.org/release/win-bayer-monsanto-trump-epa-claims-cancer-causing-weedkiller-safe?utm_campaign=EWG+Content&utm_content=1580425135&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

"WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency reaffirmed its claims today that the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s carcinogenic weedkiller Roundup is safe, ignoring a growing body of independent research showing a strong connection between glyphosate and cancer in humans.

“Today’s announcement underscores that the Trump administration’s willful ignorance of science and abject fealty toward the chemical pesticide industry knows no bounds,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “No American should believe for a second that Trump and EPA chief Andrew Wheeler ever give a thought to whether their policies could harm public health.”

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup, is the most widely used pesticide in the world. It is largely used as a weedkiller on genetically modified corn and soybeans. But it is increasingly being used for crop management and applied pre-harvest to a number of non-genetically engineered crops, including oats.

Last year, a report in Environmental Sciences Europe documented how the EPA ignored a large number of independent, peer-reviewed studies that link glyphosate to cancer in humans. Instead, the report found, the EPA used research paid for by Monsanto to support the agency’s position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

Since 2018, three separate juries found glyphosate caused cancer in four California residents who were exposed to the herbicide while handling Roundup, and awarded multimillion-dollar damages to the plaintiffs. There are now more than 13,400 similar cases against Bayer.

Last April, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released an analysis that gave weight to studies connecting glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and recommended monitoring children’s exposure to the toxic weedkiller.

In 2015, 17 of the world’s top cancer researchers convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reviewed hundreds of studies on glyphosate and voted unanimously to classify the weedkiller as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In 2017, California added glyphosate to its official list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

Three rounds of laboratory tests commissioned by EWG found glyphosate in nearly every sample of oat-based cereal and other breakfast products at levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective for children’s health with an adequate margin of safety. Last week, Kellogg’s announced it will take steps to phase out the use of glyphosate to dry oats and wheat before harvest.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

[onawah]

Trump is pro-fracking, but new research by Food & Water Watch exposes the deceptive spin behind the supposed climate benefits of the switch from coal to fracked gas-sourced electricity.

The research finds that largely as a result of the fracking boom, methane emissions from fracked gas used for electricity have an even greater climate impact than the CO2 emitted at power plants themselves.

The report, Fracking’s Bridge to Climate Chaos: Exposing the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Deadly Spin, underscores the toll that fracking has taken on clean air, clean water and a safe climate. https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/rpt_2001_frackingbridgetoclimatechaos-web.pdf

[onawah]

U.S. Funding of Islamist “Charity” Groups Triples Under Trump
JANUARY 28, 2020
|JUDICIAL WATCH
https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/u-s-funding-of-islamist-charity-groups-triples-under-trump/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20200203150847

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/judicialwatch_web_corruptionchronicles-islamgroups_1920x1080_v1__1_-768x432.jpg

"The amount of American taxpayer dollars that go to Islamist organizations has drastically increased under the Trump administration, which has doled out millions to radical nonprofits, including a recent allocation to a terrorist front group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism financing trial. Between 2017 and 2018 the U.S. government more than tripled its funding to organizations either influenced or controlled by Islamist activists from $4 million to $13.5 million, according to an analysis conducted by a think tank dedicated to protecting Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

The Philadelphia-based nonprofit, Middle East Forum (MEF), reviewed millions of dollars in government grant data and found that the Trump administration is dedicating a lot more to radical Muslim groups than the Obama administration, which gave Islamist-linked organizations an average of $1.7 million annually. A big chunk of the money, around $8.7 million, has gone to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a surrogate of the south Asian paramilitary group Jamaat-e-Islami, which was recently banned by the Indian government under anti-terrorism laws. An ICNA subsidiary known as Helping Hand for Relief and Development has openly partnered with the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was involved in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack that killed 164 people. The $8.7 million was delivered in 2018 for “disaster assistance projects,” according to the government data obtained by MEF.

Other radical groups whose coffers have been filled by the Trump administration include Islamic Relief ($800,000), which is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and has been designated as a terror-financing organization by Israel and the United Arab Emirates; the Islamic Institute of Knowledge, which is linked to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Iranian regime, has received $780,000 from the U.S; the Muslim American Society, identified by MEF as the Muslim Brotherhood’s leading activist organization in the U.S., got $160,000 from Uncle Sam. The group’s Philadelphia branch recently broadcast a disturbing video of kids at its center singing about chopping off the heads of Jews. Dar al-Hijrah, an extremist mosque in Virginia that the U.S. government says operates as a front for Hamas, received $100,000. Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Aulaqi was the imam at the Falls Church mosque and two of the 9/11 hijackers attended his sermons as well as Nidal Hassan, the Ft. Hood terrorist sentenced to death for murdering 13 and wounding dozens of others at a Texas Army base.

Just a few months ago, another $100,000 went to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) via a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program. CAIR is a terrorist front group that was named as a co-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy Land Foundation. For more details read a Judicial Watch special report on Muslim charities. CAIR was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine. The Obama administration allowed CAIR to transform the way U.S. law enforcement agencies conduct anti-terrorism training by permitting the group to bully agencies at the local, state and federal level to alter materials determined to be discriminatory against Muslims. This includes getting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to purge anti-terrorism training curricula of material coined “offensive” to Muslims. Judicial Watch uncovered that scandal, obtained the FBI records and published an in-depth report. CAIR also got several local police departments and the U.S. military to eliminate anti-terrorism training materials and instructors deemed anti-Muslim.

The Trump administration seems to have maintained a cozy relationship with CAIR, recently joining forces with the group by suing a Michigan suburb for rejecting a Muslim organization’s zoning request to construct a mosque within city limits."

(Especially interesting considering that Judicial Watch's usual coverage of Trump is favorable.)

[Philippe]

U.S. Funding of Islamist “Charity” Groups Triples Under Trump
JANUARY 28, 2020

If all this funding is factual, why would they do that? The funding by the Obama administration of the Muslim Brotherhood that took power in Egypt for some time, was explained as a means of keeping control of them. Is it the same strategy that continues ? Seems crazy but we do not have the total picture. But even that picture will be totally crazy as the whole conflict is fomented by opposing crazy religions.

[Wind]

I'm calling it now, Bernie has a really good chance of winning the election if he gets to go against Trump. That is if he gets to, because the DNC is so damn corrupt and they will try everything in order they can to stop him with the help of msm, because he ain't in it for the corporations and their puppets.

I have to say that I have feel like he is one of the few genuine candidates since JFK who is in it for the people and not for the corporations. That is giving me hope when it comes to politics, because otherwise I think that it's a total sham. Especially in US where the whole system is so corrupt as money is involved in politics.

The rhetoric about him being a socialist isn't affecting his popularity, if anything all the hits he is taking is only increasing it. I find it that most americans are totally clueless about socialism and social democracy anyways.

If people are not ready for true change then of course things will stay as they are, except that maybe division and chaos will be increasing as it always happens in these kind of situations with these kind of leaders.

Trump isn't the problem, but he's just a symptom of the problem. Can anyone honestly say that America (https://youtu.be/VYOjWnS4cMY) truly has been getting great again in these past three years and that the world looks more peaceful now? Looks like to me that it's only been getting worse (https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/) and divided. At least that's how the rest of the world sees it. I think you have to have blinders on if you think otherwise and I mean no offense, but I have to be frank about it.

It's not about left vs right or liberal vs conservative, it's about common sense. The world desperately needs more of it.

[Sarah Rainsong]

I'm really skeptical of the DNC putting anyone out that can beat Trump. While Bernie has got good support among D's I don't think it's enough to get him to the WH and not enough to actually help people. The parties are too divided.

As it appears right now, it will be a repeat of 2016. Both sides will dig their heals in. While one will end up in the WH, it will not be a win. It will be a loss for everyone because it will only create more anger, more distrust, more division.

We need someone who will represent the interests of the people, not the banks or oligarchs or corporations. Someone who actually puts the good of the people above money, who stops relying on production as a measure of the well-being of the people in our nation.

But neither the DNC or the GOP establishment will ever get behind such a candidate. They will dismiss, discredit and flat-out ignore him. If people really want unity, really want to kick out the establishment and get someone to actually represent them, they're going to have to ignore the candidates that are propped up by that establishment.

I don't know what it's going to take to get us there.

[onawah]

Federal regulations for school lunches—never strong to begin with—are about to get worse.
From Organic Consumers Association
2/4/20
https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/tell-usda-kids-deserve-healthy-organic-fruits-and-veggies-not-more-junk-food

"If Trump’s U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pushes through its proposed new rules, schools will be allowed to serve up more processed junk food (pizza and fries), and fewer fruits and vegetables.

The rules, masquerading under the pretense of giving schools “greater flexibility” and reducing food waste, are another gift to corporate lobbyists, like the Corn Refiners Association, the Snack Food Association (SNAC International) and yes, the School Nutrition Association.

TAKE ACTION: Tell the USDA: Add Healthy Organic Fruits and Veggies to School Meals, Not More Junk Food! https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/16633/petition/1

Under changes, proposed by USDA Deputy Under Secretary Brandon Lipps, schools would be allowed to cut the amount of fruit served at breakfast in half, and substitute sweet pastries or granola bars.

The new rules would also let schools replace leafy green vegetables with french fries—never mind that in addition to being fried in unhealthy oils, because schools aren’t required to source organic potatoes, those fries will come from potatoes drenched in a toxic soup of pesticides.

Colin Schwartz, deputy director of legislative affairs for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the Washington Post that the proposed rules, if finalized, “would create a huge loophole in school nutrition guidelines, paving the way for children to choose pizza, burgers, french fries and other foods high in calories, saturated fat or sodium in place of balanced school meals every day.”

In other words, the USDA proposes to undermine kids’ health by feeding them junk foods linked to childhood obesity and chronic disease.

Some 30 million children participate in the National School Lunch Program, and 22 million are from low-income families. Lowering the nutritional standards for school meals could have disastrous implications for those kids.

The food low-income children eat at school is often their only chance for a healthy meal. That’s why we think the USDA should be raising the standards for school meals, not lowering them. School breakfasts and lunches should include more healthy organic foods that are pesticide-free—not more processed junk food."

[onawah]

House to vote on disapproval resolution of Medicaid block grants
From Action Network email update today 2/4/20
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/sign-the-petition-dont-let-donald-trump-destroy-medicaid/?link_id=1&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-add-your-name-stop-trump-from-cutting-long-term-care-for-seniors-2&email_referrer=email_716318&email_subject=sign-if-you-agree-tell-congress-to-protect-medicaid-funding-from-trumps-cuts

"Donald Trump isn’t waiting for Congress anymore. He’s doing an end-run on Congress and unilaterally trying to destroy Medicaid through a system of “block granting.”

Under this awful policy, states would receive a fixed amount toward Medicaid, regardless of their health care spending. This is nothing more than a continuation of a long-term Republican goal: cutting health care spending everywhere they can, regardless of who is harmed. Now, they are trying to do administratively what Trumpcare failed to do legislatively.

Together, we are going to stop him.

Sign the petition: Don’t let Donald Trump destroy Medicaid with block grant cuts! Tell Congress to reject Trump’s plan to cut long-term care.
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/sign-the-petition-dont-let-donald-trump-destroy-medicaid/?link_id=1&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-add-your-name-stop-trump-from-cutting-long-term-care-for-seniors-2&email_referrer=email_716318&email_subject=sign-if-you-agree-tell-congress-to-protect-medicaid-funding-from-trumps-cuts
For people with disabilities, seniors who need long-term care, children, and others who receive Medicaid coverage, ending Medicaid’s coverage guarantee state-by-state is unacceptable and dangerous.

In short, Trump’s “block grant” scheme would cut Medicaid funding. And that would lead to long-term care budget cuts, forcing seniors from nursing homes and causing their health to suffer.

Thankfully, Democrats are pushing back. And we are going to stand with them.

In the coming days, the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that will reject Trump’s block grant plan.
The Hill writes:

“The controversial Medicaid plan will let states apply for a waiver to scale back Medicaid spending by converting part of their Medicaid funding into a block grant.

Democrats have been arguing the administration doesn’t have the authority to approve such drastic changes, and Medicaid advocates argue the changes would hurt low-income people and invite states to cut costs and reduce coverage.”

The Affordable Care Act, while not perfect, has expanded Medicaid in 37 states so far, leading to millions more people gaining access to health care. Trump’s decision to go the opposite direction is spiteful and dangerous.

Having failed in Congress to take away more people’s health care by enacting Trumpcare, Trump is planning to wreck Medicaid on his own, bypassing Congress with a presidential order.

If we had Medicare for All, every single American would finally be able to receive health care. Period. But until we get there, we must defend what we have. Together, we must fight against Trump’s scheme to cut Medicaid by allowing block grants to erode Medicaid’s vital coverage.

Sign the petition: Don’t let Donald Trump destroy Medicaid!" https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/sign-the-petition-dont-let-donald-trump-destroy-medicaid/?link_id=1&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-add-your-name-stop-trump-from-cutting-long-term-care-for-seniors-2&email_referrer=email_716318&email_subject=sign-if-you-agree-tell-congress-to-protect-medicaid-funding-from-trumps-cuts

Thank you for your support,

Michael Phelan
Social Security Works

[Bluegreen]

We have reached a new nadir of national embarrassment

http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/trump-pelosi-rip.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/img/print/u-g-PDDKCY0.jpg?w=550&h=550&p=0

[Sarah Rainsong]

Yep. I woke up to these two headlines:

CBS News: Trump Snubs Pelosi Handshake
CNN: Nancy Pelosi Rips Up Trump's State of the Union Speech

National embarrassment is right.

Maybe this November we should add the role of 'Official Capitol Hill Babysitter' to the ballot.

#sarcasm #disgusted

[frankstien]

https://i.ibb.co/tXDRgF7/quaint-beliefs-12x9-ink-on-paper-2019-w.jpg

[Ba-ba-Ra]

Regarding those that are reporting that Trump snubbed Pelosi's handshake:

I went back and watched it several times. He was already turning away from her when she held out her hand. Did he see it? I'm not sure, but in my mind, there is a good chance he didn't. Decide for yourself. OTOH, Pelosi was mumbling to herself and to Pence (who ignored her) throughout the speech, as well as making faces that were inappropriate. Her tearing of the speech was quite dramatic. Some believe it was to shift the speaking points from: What a great speech" to upstaging him by her actions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPlvYeEfceU

[Kryztian]

Regarding those that are reporting that Trump snubbed Pelosi's handshake:

I went back and watched it several times. He was already turning away from her when she held out her hand. Did he see it? I'm not sure, but in my mind, there is a good chance he didn't. Decide for yourself. OTOH, Pelosi was mumbling to herself and to Pence (who ignored her) throughout the speech, as well as making faces that were inappropriate. Her tearing of the speech was quite dramatic. Some believe it was to shift the speaking points from: What a great speech" to upstaging him by her actions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPlvYeEfceU


Ba-ba-ra,

If you read through some of the posts on this thread and what kind of criticism has been leveled here against Donald Trump, it would be clear to most people (perhaps even some Q-anon followers) that the people who post on and read this thread regularly, give a cumulative total of zero flying f*cks about Donald Trump's alleged snubbing gesture to other political leaders. We also give zero flying f*cks about the innuendos in his tweets, about his romantic/sexual relationships, and all the other "drama" that makes the news coverage of Washington D.C. politics look like a remake of "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" or some other reality show.

What we have been focusing here are issues like how Trumps assistance's to Israel is helping the genocide of the Palestinian people, his militarization of outer space, his destruction of environmental laws that keeps us from exposure to toxic chemicals, his policies that put more of the world's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

[onawah]

Exactly!! :bumping:
Not to mention advocating cutting Social Security and Medicare, food for the poor, school lunches,flu shots, doing nothing about vaccines dangers, supporting Big Pharma, Monsanto....etc. etc.


Regarding those that are reporting that Trump snubbed Pelosi's handshake:

I went back and watched it several times. He was already turning away from her when she held out her hand. Did he see it? I'm not sure, but in my mind, there is a good chance he didn't. Decide for yourself. OTOH, Pelosi was mumbling to herself and to Pence (who ignored her) throughout the speech, as well as making faces that were inappropriate. Her tearing of the speech was quite dramatic. Some believe it was to shift the speaking points from: What a great speech" to upstaging him by her actions.




Ba-ba-ra,

If you read through some of the posts on this thread and what kind of criticism has been leveled here against Donald Trump, it would be clear to most people (perhaps even some Q-anon followers) that the people who post on and read this thread regularly, give a cumulative total of zero flying f*cks about Donald Trump's alleged snubbing gesture to other political leaders. We also give zero flying f*cks about the innuendos in his tweets, about his romantic/sexual relationships, and all the other "drama" that makes the news coverage of Washington D.C. politics look like a remake of "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" or some other reality show.

What we have been focusing here are issues like how Trumps assistance's to Israel is helping the genocide of the Palestinian people, his militarization of outer space, his destruction of environmental laws that keeps us from exposure to toxic chemicals, his policies that put more of the world's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

[Philippe]

If you read through some of the posts on this thread and what kind of criticism has been leveled here against Donald Trump, it would be clear to most people (perhaps even some Q-anon followers) that the people who post on and read this thread regularly, give a cumulative total of zero flying f*cks about Donald Trump's alleged snubbing gesture to other political leaders. We also give zero flying f*cks about the innuendos in his tweets, about his romantic/sexual relationships, and all the other "drama" that makes the news coverage of Washington D.C. politics look like a remake of "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" or some other reality show.

What we have been focusing here are issues like how Trumps assistance's to Israel is helping the genocide of the Palestinian people, his militarization of outer space, his destruction of environmental laws that keeps us from exposure to toxic chemicals, his policies that put more of the world's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.


And his unrestricted support for the 5G, the biggest threat to the so called free world ! As much as we were relieved that Hillary was stopped from going to war with Russia, we see how big bad business is in full swing. Look at politics for what it is, a distasteful show of actors.

[onawah]

See Dennis Leahy's post here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106650-The-thread-of-Caitlin-Johnstone-s-words&p=1334624&viewfull=1#post1334624

[onawah]

Surprise! Trump lied in the State of the Union
Social Security Works
2/6/20
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/trumpslies?link_id=3&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-surprise-trump-lied-in-the-state-of-the-union-2&email_referrer=email_718185&email_subject=surprise-trump-lied-in-the-state-of-the-union

("But just two weeks ago, President Donald Trump went to Davos to hobnob with Wall Street billionaires. While there, Trump sat for an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen, who asked him if “entitlements” would “ever be on your plate.” “At some point they will be,” Trump replied." NO DOUBT THE "SOME POINT' HE INTENDS WOULD BE AFTER HE IS RE-ELECTED. WHEN WILL PEOPLE REALIZE THAT CAMPAIGN PROMISES ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED? )

"This week, in his State of the Union address, Donald Trump told a great number of lies.

I’m glad I don’t have to fact-check all of them, but there is one lie that we cannot let stand: In last night’s State of the Union, he falsely pledged that “we will always protect your Medicare and we will always protect your Social Security.”

But just two weeks ago, President Donald Trump went to Davos to hobnob with Wall Street billionaires. While there, Trump sat for an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen, who asked him if “entitlements” would “ever be on your plate.” “At some point they will be,” Trump replied.1

His comments rightfully created quite a stir, since “entitlements” is how elites like those gathered in Davos refer to Social Security and Medicare. Trump ran in 2016 on a promise not to cut Social Security and Medicare.2 Insider code is necessary because cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not only terrible policy but deeply unpopular even with voters who make up Trump’s base.3 He’s been breaking that promise ever since, but his Davos comments are the first time he’s overtly admitted that he lied to the American people.

Either Trump was lying to the Wall Street billionaires in Davos, or he was lying to the American people last night. Trump’s pre-2016 history on Social Security, his actions while in office, and the people he’s surrounded himself with reveal the truth.

Trump thinks he can win re-election by lying to seniors about his own record. Social Security Works is setting the record straight.

In 2000, before he ever had aspirations of running for President as a Republican, Trump released a book with a chapter on Social Security.4 In this chapter, he displayed utter contempt for Social Security and its beneficiaries.

Trump referred to Social Security as “a ponzi scheme.” He called for raising the retirement age to 70, because “How many times will you really want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon?" He said that he “plans to work forever”, which is easy enough for someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But what about everyday people who work in careers such as nursing or construction that involve hard physical labor?

Trump added that destroying Social Security by privatizing it “would be good for all of us.”

What happened between 2000 and the 2016 election? Trump developed a keen understanding of the politics of Social Security. He realized that, once you leave the Mar-a-Lago crowd, voters of all political affiliations overwhelmingly oppose cutting benefits. Yet Republican politicians, at the behest of their billionaire donors, go against the will of their voters by supporting cuts.

Trump exploited these divisions ruthlessly in the Republican primary, tweeting that “I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.”5

But just because Trump realized that publicly supporting benefit cuts is politically toxic doesn’t mean that his real views have changed. Trump’s selection of Mike Pence as a running mate foreshadowed how he would govern. Pence supports raising the retirement age 6 and led a group of House Republicans in criticizing George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization plan—for not going far enough!7 Someone genuinely committed to protecting Social Security would never select Pence as their top deputy.

Once elected President, Trump threw his commitments to protecting Social Security out the window. His most recent budget proposal would cut $25 billion from Social Security and $845 billion from Medicare. Fortunately, House Democrats have declined to pass that budget into law. But, since then, Trump has found sneakier ways to attack Social Security.

Trump’s administration is in the process of jamming through a rule change that’s designed to rip Social Security benefits away from Americans with disabilities. When Ronald Reagan made a similar rule change, hundreds of thousands wrongly lost their benefits and over 20,000 people died.8 The Reagan administration was forced to reverse the policy after massive public outcry. Now Trump wants to bring it back.

Social Security Works led an effort to deliver more than 150,000 public comments opposing this rule. But that’s not the only way we’re fighting back.

Trump’s administration is cutting Social Security right now. Trump, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to make more cuts in the future. But the plan was to keep that quiet until after the November election.

In Davos, surrounded by billionaires salivating over the prospect of gutting the American people’s earned benefits, Trump accidentally let the mask slip. At the State of the Union, he tried to put it back on.

It’s up to us to make sure that everyone in America sees what’s underneath before it’s too late.

Thanks,

Linda Benesch
Social Security Works"

References
1 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/davos-2020-cnbcs-full-interview-with-president-trump.html
2 https://medium.com/senator-bernie-sanders/14-times-donald-trump-promised-not-to-cut-social-security-medicare-and-medicaid-99beefa9f584
3 https://www.people-press.org/2016/03/31/campaign-exposes-fissures-over-issues-values-and-how-life-has-changed-in-the-u-s/
4 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/trump-on-social-security-in-his-2000-book-a-ponzi-scheme-we
5 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/596338364187602944
6 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boehner-pence-social-security-retirement-age_n_674793
7 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boehner-pence-social-security-retirement-age_n_674793
8 https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-12-04-8903150162-story.html

[onawah]

Trump a Zionist puppet like all previous presidents (apart from JFK)
Truther News Wire
22 hrs
(I am not familiar with this source, but they've provided a good list of articles to research)

https://www.facebook.com/TrutherNewsWire01/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARDamYxiior2rSJPAwxnNMZ-obEWG3eQ7M7hBl6jrt-DwZ0_OT3_saOeTvSxgUUb8g1QF0klix-snN06&hc_ref=ART1klqGqneEJXlm-ncgJUlPrWk2i4zzE8bFzoA9iAZawUzSzX99ard1IQoWz6K-lZI&fref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARDrOndJ5nmDMZ8U-6UhWvRcwKqMSzWDGZfXF7eyQa7zplcq2yL2zZlbx92_WnoBMy2IaRRwkrChSgxcrZfwPcXuVyOo3yZZQqxcbzaAKgoE9GsmDxcAl 6kk90ySrshuOruNle5U1SFi3mdZklQR25p8_Y1y-866s_-CDToTWsJN3PHNNo-eu5bQBCMqszBKimtloU-FAR95WxdGIhLTwc2cRSBUTq5T7nQx2HPMbOIYpPgnYcC5dr2g5XjreuI7w5n7QKcKBOFJocph8Js1B6sjZaIo6eVFC_kC9qkwKoe vffmcQhqeOCSuYCDBykvLlunfl5VkeiV5N2KA3yU0hAY

"Here's some information about Donald J. Trump supporters who believe he's fighting the deep state (Israel) like John F Kennedy did.
If you believe Trump is against the deep state/Israel then we have bad news for you all who support Trump.

Read these articles and you will see he's a Zionist puppet like all previous presidents (apart from JFK) -

*Trump Becomes First Sitting U.S. President to Visit Western Wall*: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/trump-s-first-foreign-trip/trump-becomes-first-sitting-u-s-president-visit-western-wall-n762891

*Sheldon Adelson (Zionist) to donate $100m to Trump and Republicans, fundraisers say*: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/10/sheldon-adelson-trump-donation-republicans-congress

*Trump’s ‘deal of the century'*: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trumps-deal-of-the-century-delivered-to-be-rejected-it,13553

*Israel drawing up map for West Bank annexations*: Netanyahu: https://news.immitate.com/2020/02/09/israel-drawing-up-map-for-west-bank-annexations-netanyahu-reuters/

*United States/Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_recognition_of_the_Golan_Heights_as_part_of_Israel

*Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and Orders U.S. Embassy to Move*:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html?searchResultPosition=1

*Trump Signs Executive Order to Punish Critics Of Israel With Jeffrey Epstein’s Lawyer By His Side*:https://www.winterwatch.net/2019/12/trump-signs-executive-order-to-punish-critics-of-israel-with-jeffrey-epsteins-lawyer-by-his-side/ "

[onawah]

“It’s not a cut, it’s a reduction.”
Alex Lawson
Social Security Works
(From the Social Security Works email update 2/14/20)
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/notacut_areduction?link_id=0&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-its-not-a-cut-its-a-reduction-3&email_referrer=email_725400&email_subject=its-not-a-cut-its-a-reduction

"This week, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) took down Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Trump’s disgusting budget proposal.

Sen. Cortez Masto: “This budget actually requests a cut of $90 billion for seniors on Social Security, correct?”

Sec. Mnuchin: “I believe it’s not a cut, it’s a reduction in the rate of increase.”

Here’s what I wish she’d asked next: Why are Social Security benefits scheduled to increase over time?

The answer is, Social Security benefits receive an automatic adjustment every year to help them keep up with inflation. Reducing that growth means that more of every Social Security check is eaten up by rising medicine, housing, and food costs. If that’s not a benefit cut, I don’t know what is.

Fight back against the Trump administration’s lies about Social Security and to rally the American people to expand, never cut, our earned benefits!


Only a true creature of Wall Street could try telling people that even though they are getting less money it isn't really a cut. If Social Security benefits were to stay flat every year, they would quickly begin losing value due to inflation. We need to make annual cost-of-living adjustments more generous, not less!

This Trump budget seeks to extend the Trump tax breaks for the wealthy, increasing their cost from $1.9 trillion to $3.1 trillion. At the same time, it cuts Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Don’t let Steven Mnuchin’s Washington-speak fool anyone. Fight back against the Trump administration’s lies and policies that are meant to hurt seniors and people with disabilities just to make the rich even richer.

Trump will continue to lie about his record on Social Security. It’s up to us to educate and rally the American people against these dangerous policies and demand accountability from this corrupt administration.


Thank you,

Alex Lawson
Social Security Works"

[T Smith]

The answer is, Social Security benefits receive an automatic adjustment every year to help them keep up with inflation. Reducing that growth means that more of every Social Security check is eaten up by rising medicine, housing, and food costs. If that’s not a benefit cut, I don’t know what is.



This is a systemic problem. I can't speak to the specific budget proposal (and would like to learn more) but unfortunately, even if the adjustment is honored every year, and my guess is it will be--remember Congress will approve or disapprove of this cut--it really has nothing to do with Trump, save for his Administration proposing the cut based on the touted lower rate of inflation of a supposed robust Trump economy--it is still a cut nonetheless. The official adjusted rate of inflation--something like 2%-- is nominal relative to the real rate inflation, which is many percentage points higher. So no matter how much it increases it still being cut.

Frankly I will be surprised if my future social security check (which I could technically draw in eight years if I'm so inclined) will cover a new car payment, let alone health insurance or other necessities.

[onawah]

Trump approves bee-killing pesticides
From Food and Water Action's email update today
2/16/20
https://www.foodandwateraction.org/
"BREAKING: Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just re-approved the widespread use of bee-killing pesticides — despite the fact that its own research shows that the pesticides are toxic to bees and other wildlife.1

Bees are an essential part of our food system. In fact, bees are responsible for ONE out of every THREE bites of food you eat.

Right now, we are in the midst of a massive global bee die-off caused in large part by the overuse of pesticides that are poisonous to bees. These pesticides are leading to bee colonies collapsing all over the world. We must stop the use of more bee-killing pesticides.2

Food & Water Action is mobilizing on every front to force Trump’s EPA to reverse this decision before it's too late. Your donations are making it possible to send our lobbyists to Congress, send our lawyers to the courts, and to organize protests in the streets — all to demand protection for the bees we all depend on for our food. And we’re calling on state and local governments to give the bees a lifeline by banning bee-killing pesticides locally until Trump is gone.Last year, U.S. beekeepers lost more than 40% of their honeybee populations.3 It’s a continuation of a trend that began in the 1980s, when bees began dying at an alarming rate. Now we have just a fraction of these vital pollinators left alive.4

We know the culprit: Scientists have uncovered a mountain of evidence showing that a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids are a leading cause of bee die-offs. The widely used pesticides cause nervous system problems in bees that stop them from pollinating and breeding as they should.5

The European Union passed a moratorium on the most widely-used pesticides, and several state and local governments have issued bans or restrictions as well.6,7 But not Trump’s EPA. It told giant agribusinesses to keep on using these killer chemicals. Bees pollinate 80% of our crops and are critical workers in our food supply. Join us to take emergency action for bees now.

First, we’re calling out the EPA for ignoring its own research. This decision isn’t final, and we’ve seen them back off under pressure before. In addition, Congress can take action to stop bee-killing pesticides, and we’re backing efforts at the state and local levels to ban neonics to give bees a lifeline until Trump is gone."

[Alan]

I guess there's 2 sides to every story.

https://slate.com/technology/2017/06/the-data-do-not-support-the-idea-that-neonics-hurt-bees.html

Do Neonics Hurt Bees? Researchers and the Media Say Yes. The Data Do Not.
A new, landmark study provides plenty of useful information. If only we could interpret it accurately.

By Jon Entine
June 30, 20175:14 PM

[onawah]

I wasn't convinced by the article. This can't be swept under the rug so easily:
"This much-anticipated two year, $3.6 million study is particularly interesting because it was primarily funded by two major producers of neonicotinoids, Bayer Crop Science and Syngenta."
...and this isn't particularly reassuring:
"They had no involvement with the analysis of the data. The three-country study was led by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, or CEH, in the U.K.—a group known for its skepticism of pesticides in general and neonics in particular."

Judging from the many conflicting results from the many and various studies, there is still not a lot of official agreement, unsurprising since we know well how biased such studies can be, particularly when they are done by such as Bayer and Sygenta.
On the whole, I doubt very much that the bias of studies done by activists and environmentalists are as untrustworthy.


I guess there's 2 sides to every story.

https://slate.com/technology/2017/06/the-data-do-not-support-the-idea-that-neonics-hurt-bees.html

Do Neonics Hurt Bees? Researchers and the Media Say Yes. The Data Do Not.
A new, landmark study provides plenty of useful information. If only we could interpret it accurately.

By Jon Entine
June 30, 20175:14 PM

[onawah]

Lawsuit Launched Over Trump’s Massive Rollback of Clean Water Act Protections
By: Waterkeeper Alliance
2/18/20
https://waterkeeper.org/news/lawsuit-launched-over-trumps-massive-rollback-of-pollution-protections-for-rivers-wetlands/

"Conservation groups filed a formal notice of intent to sue the Trump administration today for eliminating longstanding Clean Water Act protections for the nation’s waters, including approximately half of all wetlands and potentially millions of miles of streams. The Trump rule allows polluters to pave over wetlands and to dump pesticides, mining waste, and other pollutants directly into these now-unprotected waterways.

The impacts of this rollback were revealed in part by a leaked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis that indicates arid states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada could lose protections for the vast majority of their waters. The loss of protections puts hundreds of endangered species at greater risk of extinction, including the Chiricahua leopard frog, Chinook salmon, and southwestern willow flycatcher.

“Trump’s despicable giveaway to polluters will wipe out countless wetlands and streams and speed the extinction of endangered wildlife across the country,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Even as we’re fighting this in court, the polluters will rush to fill in wetlands and turn our waterways into industrial toilets. So go outside, take a swim, or go fishing at your favorite spot now, because the deluge of pollution unleashed by Donald Trump will soon touch waterways from coast to coast.”

The final rule limits protections only to wetlands and streams that are “physically and meaningfully connected” to larger navigable bodies of water. The radical change repeals long-standing protections for wetlands, streams, and rivers that have been in place since the Nixon administration and that are responsible for major improvements in water quality nationwide.

President Trump’s Executive Order 13778 required EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to review the rule defining which waters deserve Clean Water Act protections. The agencies decided to protect only those waters that have “a relatively permanent surface connection” to a territorial sea or commercially navigable body of water such as a shipping channel—a myopic legal interpretation that ignores decades of settled law and the basics of hydrology. The rule partially follows the minority legal view of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, which was never adopted by the Supreme Court, but goes even further to eliminate protections for many other waters across the country.

“This reverses more than 40 years of progress and settled law,” said Kelly Hunter Foster, senior attorney at Waterkeeper Alliance. “Because the rule establishes arbitrary categories of protected waters, EPA and the Army Corps do not have the data necessary to fully identify the waters that will lose protection and they haven’t even assessed the impacts of leaving these waters unprotected where adequate data is available. Their actions are not only reckless—they are illegal.”

“The culture, heritage, and biodiversity of the desert Southwest are intertwined with the health of waterways throughout the region,” said Jen Pelz, Rio Grande Waterkeeper. “The dirty water rule fundamentally undermines efforts over the past half-century to protect clean water and restore the integrity of these vital arteries of life.”

“The 2020 dirty water rule recently rolled out by the Trump administration attacks long-standing protections for wetlands and small streams which will have far-reaching negative impacts on North Carolina’s environment and its residents,” said Matthew Starr, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper. “We cannot stand idly by while important clean water protections are dismantled.”

“Most of the waterways that crisscross Palm Beach County between Lake Okeechobee and the Lake Worth Lagoon will lose protection with this rule change, needlessly endangering the environment and public health, and allowing polluters to ruin the foundation of our economy,” said Reinaldo Diaz, Lake Worth Waterkeeper.

“Missouri has some of the most ecologically significant watersheds in mid-continental North America. The Meramec River basin, for example, is home to 31 species of global importance, many that are found nowhere else on Earth,” said Rachel Bartels, Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper. “As an ecologically significant wildlife area relied on by many anglers and conservationists, increased pollution and habitat degradation as a result of this rule will have devastating consequences.”

In rushing to comply with Trump’s executive order, the agencies violated both the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. Both laws require the federal government to “look before you leap” and ensure that the environmental consequences of a particular action will not cause unintended environmental damage.

“Clean water is the single most important resource for countless species, including humans,” says Annalisa Batanides Tuel, advocacy and policy manager at the Turtle Island Restoration Network. “Right now, we’re facing the reality of climate change and widespread habitat loss. It is critical to expand Clean Water Act protections—not shrink them—if we want to avoid mass extinction.”

Today’s notice of intent was submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Waterkeeper Alliance, Center for Food Safety, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Humboldt Baykeeper, Lake Worth Waterkeeper, Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper, Monterey Coastkeeper—A Program of the Otter Project, Rio Grande Waterkeeper, Sound Rivers (Upper Neuse, Lower Neuse, and Pamlico-Tar Riverkeepers), Russian Riverkeeper, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, and Snake River Waterkeeper.

The organizations are represented by the Indian and Environmental Law Group."

[onawah]

New Leaked evidence shows that Trump lied--Assange arrest came after Wikileaks publisher refused to name sources
https://thewatchdog.net/2020/03/02/leaked-evidence-shows-that-assange-arrest-came-after-wikileaks-publisher-refused-to-name-sources/?fbclid=IwAR1gA9yMQLQXcX3nvIqx41OnrQlpeGddPhDiUPGJGPAh5RtMqXSgOe1ztSc
"U.S. President Donald Trump offered Julian Assange clemency in return for confirmation that Seth Rich was the source of leaked Democratic Party emails — only to push for the indictment of the Wikileaks founder when he refused to comply.

Text messages released last week by Kim Dotcom, the internet entrepreneur and close associate of Assange, revealed how he helped facilitate a 2017 meeting between the 48-year-old Australian and former U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal).

After his first meeting with Trump in April of that year, Rohrabacher travelled to meet Assange — then arbitrarily detained in Ecuador’s London embassy — after Dotcom brokered the arrangement through his friend and Fox News host, Sean Hannity.

In personal messages between the two, Hannity told Dotcom that the idea of a presidential pardon was “met with enthusiasm” by Trump (demarcated as T in the exchanges). That followed a number of Dotcom’s messages urging the cable news host to push for the arrangement.

“Remind T about the art of the deal,” one of them read.

“I have discussed it [the Assange deal] with him many times,” Hannity responded.

Important Release @Wikileaks
I brokered the deal via Trumps best friend (name redacted) to get Rep. Dana Rohrbacher to offer a pardon to Julian. Trump lies when he says he had nothing to do with the pardon offer. After Julian refused to disclose his source Trump got him indicted. pic.twitter.com/iNEPHi9gHD

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) February 25, 2020 "

More posted here : http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1338972&viewfull=1#post1338972

[Dennis Leahy]

A thought just hit me:

May I ask if any Trump supporters - current Trump supporters - actually figured it out on your own that Obama was a warmonger and corporatist, working for the Deep State?

Honestly.

Did you figure it out, by observing his actions and dismissing his words?

Be honest with yourself, you don't have to make any public statement at all... I'd just invite you to self-examine this.

Or, after your brutally honest self-examination, did you simply assign "Deep State" to Obama because he was from the other US political party, and that your major clue was, "if he's a Democrat, he's Deep State" (or bad guy, or war criminal, or the major cover-up team captain for 9/11, or follower/facilitator of the agenda of Empire Elite...") Did you honestly just catch on because you were observant and watched his actions? He was the coolest president in US history: suave, debonair, sink a 3-pointer, whip out the charm, disarm the tough inquiry with a witty remark. He was the best whistleblower stomper, the cognitive dissonance he spread destroyed "the left", the real left, the anti-war, anti-Empire left. He was the best president that the Global Corporate Network (the ruling elite) and their military industrial complex and fossil fuel multi-national energy syndicate ever had. The best. There are still Democrats - plenty of them, some I know quite personally - who will never break the spell, who will always think Obama was a good guy, a great guy, a hero and role model, and utterly dismiss all of his actual ACTIONS.

So, the next question to ask yourself - just a conversation between the parts of your brain that express thoughts and the part that listens and examines the thoughts - is:

If you figured Obama out (not just that he was on the other political gang's team), why haven't you figured Trump out yet?

Are you unaware of his actions? Yes, I'm sure you know his WORDS (just like my old Democrat buddies knew Obama's words), but are you actually unaware of his ACTIONS?

Have you ever actually looked at a list - true history, not some hatchet job - of Trump's actions? (Israel, Syria, Iran, Venezuela... picked up where Obama left off on EVERYTHING (just as Obama had picked up where W Bush left off), didn't overturn the Patriot Act nor NDAA, brokered a huge arms deal to Saudi Arabia, knowingly attacked Syria with bogus "he gassed his own people!" lies known to be lies and exposed as lies by a few brave/crazy souls that wouldn't play along with the White Helmets and OPCW bosses lies, refused to help the Palestinian people and instead helped the genocidal Israeli government, finished off smashing Standing Rock for the oil companies, weakened the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act (the last piece of either citizen-centric or eco-centric rather than corporate-centric legislation passed in the US), signed off on a foreign mining consortium that is well-known to be ecocidal and exploitative to create a sulfide mine in the headwaters of the Mississippi River, condones and praises torture, made racism safe again, made one of the most obvious 9/11 co-conspirators his personal lawyer, hobnobbed with Epstein and oopsie-doodle, suicided him for his own sake and all the other scum elite bastards that sexually exploit kids, and can't even successfully find and prosecute the DNC corporation operative that ordered the "Russian call girl pee pee" dossier or Seth Rich's murder.

(that's just what pops to mind without actually looking anything up)

So, I'm not asking you to ask yourself why you like him - that's not the point. Hey, I remember when he said the words that he was going to get to the bottom of 9/11! Hot damn, that was awesome talk! And he said he was going to "drain the swamp" but then only went after the low-hanging fruit in the Democrat swamp contingent and made swamp monsters into his cabinet. He did keep his campaign promise about torture though - torture is still legal and still going on in "black/covert" prisons and torture centers around the world, and he has ordered the torture of Assange. So, he was a "man of his word" there on that sociopathic issue. He barked at Big Pharma once! He said that Hillary Clinton was a criminal! Oh wait, he also said the Clintons were good people... (well, I wasn't able to come up with much in the plus column, but he did say some awesome things. Man, I could play the clip of Trump saying he was going to get to the truth on 9/11 all freaking day long! Great words! Big words! The most biggest words! Some were even phrases, and I think occasionally full sentences. But yeah, he said some stuff.

Oh wait a minute, I thought of something that Trump DID! He was not Hillary Clinton!

So anyway, if you are a Trump supporter currently (and not just stuck in 2016 with the "not Hillary" thing), I challenge you to examine Trump's actions, the real ones, not Q's spin or partisan toddler thinking, and figure out how in the hell you saw through Obama but you can't see through Trump. Be honest with yourself. Don't lie to yourself. You don't have to tell us, just be brutally honest with yourself. Remember, ACTIONS, not WORDS. You're examining actions.

[jaybee]

Oh wait a minute, I thought of something that Trump DID! He was not Hillary Clinton!



That was good enough for me - still is...

And in November NOT being Joe Biden (or whoever but it looks like Biden?) will be good enough for me - (I like Tulsi Gabbard but she is too much of an Independent thinker for the Globalist dominated Democrats - so as we are seeing she isn't getting the support to get the candidacy - )

But I'm not American so I won't be deciding / voting - :)

Trump could have done better in some areas like curbing the Fascist like censorship that is creeping all over the internet - even Alex Jones is preparing to make an issue of that although he still broadly supports / loves him... Infowars is making stickers for people to put over their mouths at Trump Rallies as a silent non disruptive protest about it -

As a non American I trust Trump more when it comes to World Peace than the Democrats on offer - just before the 2016 election Hilary was talking about a no fly zone over Syria and ramping all that up which could have lead to serious conflict / war with Russia -

[jaybee]

Remember, ACTIONS, not WORDS. You're examining actions.

I liked it when he met with Kim Jong Un and treated him with respect on the World Stage even though he called him Rocket Man at first - :)

I think he has shown restraint with Syria - trying to reign in the warmongers who are still after Assad/the country - that time when he authorized a bit of bombing after the chemical weapon hoax - I think he was conned by the people around him and felt obliged to make some sort of response but it was minimal in terms of fatalities -

but like I said I'm not American so you will need an American when it comes to details about Domestic Policy -

He pulled out of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) on the first day of his Presidency - I don't know much about that but I gather it was going to be a trade organization giving Corporations too much power - even over Governments.... people were against it but never gave Trump credit for his actions because the Hate Trump Operation had begun through the MSM - so it all went very quiet -

[Ratszinger]

Everyone thinks they have an idea of what is going on but the truth is they only have what they have been told, or I should say fed! What they've been fed is agenda to groom them toward a particular course or action the leaders of this world want to go. Six people run the planet! Six! Three of those six are popes, the black pope, the white pope, and the one seen in the public by everyone! Who are the others? It doesn't really matter does it the fact is they run the show. Trump answers to one of those three, Hillary answers to one of those three, and every other prez or prez candidate or anyone in any position at all answers to them in the end! Q likely answers to them too if Q isn't one of them himself or herself!

They all work toward the same goal! That goal is to lead the sheep and the sheep don't need to know anything other than to follow their directions so they lead them right to where they want them! Trump leads the world in the exact same direction Obama took us painting blurry pictures for all to see so as to hide the fact he is actually on the same page as Obama in every way as far as doing the bidding of his masters is concerned. We still move toward the same new world order of a one world central bank and a one world government they always wanted and each day it gets closer to them reaching their goal! There seems to be a lot of smoke and mirror action with Trump shuffling people in and out so fast at times that it gets hard to focus but the fact is Trump answers to the same people Obama answered to.

By the way I knew Barry before anyone ever heard of him! Before he was a politician at all he was a "Bob Marley" wannabe and dressed like him too! And for that matter he smelled like him but the guy has never been honest about anything ever! Barry was a foreign student when I met him and he lived in Chicago at the time. My understanding when I met Barry and when my friend Harry met him, we both understood him to be from Nigeria as a foreign student going to school! He later lived next door to Harry my friend for over 10.5 years with Michelle and then when he got to councilman and started hanging with penguin suits suddenly Barry took on a new look after going to spa to get cleaned up, and Michelle smiled and showed her teeth for the first time and they were white!

Before this you never saw that side of either of them! Harry and I stood back and watched as the democratic party took this smelling foreigner off the street, cleaned him up and groomed him for president in disbelief much the same way they took Hillary early on when raw, sent her off to spa and next thing you know she is up there on the stage waving to someone like she knows them the same way all the others do! All phony! All taught to them just to deceive a dumb public to asleep at wheel or too busy struggling through life to see the con game these elitists play with us! Barry was a phony from the word go and we witnessed it! He told his mailman, who I know by the way, to his face that he was going to be president! Barry said that not as if, not as if I want to be prez, but point blank that he knew, he knew even then that he was set to be prez and said so to that man that I know and he has said this to me publicly and on tape that Barry did this yet no one hears! OUR ELECTION IS CRAP! HE was selected just like Trump was end of story~!

[jaybee]

Everyone thinks they have an idea of what is going on but the truth is they only have what they have been told, or I should say fed! What they've been fed is agenda to groom them toward a particular course or action the leaders of this world want to go. Six people run the planet! Six! Three of those six are popes, the black pope, the white pope, and the one seen in the public by everyone! Who are the others? It doesn't really matter does it the fact is they run the show. Trump answers to one of those three, Hillary answers to one of those three, and every other prez or prez candidate or anyone in any position at all answers to them in the end! Q likely answers to them too if Q isn't one of them himself or herself!

They all work toward the same goal! That goal is to lead the sheep and the sheep don't need to know anything other than to follow their directions so they lead them right to where they want them! Trump leads the world in the exact same direction Obama took us painting blurry pictures for all to see so as to hide the fact he is actually on the same page as Obama in every way as far as doing the bidding of his masters is concerned. We still move toward the same new world order of a one world central bank and a one world government they always wanted and each day it gets closer to them reaching their goal! There seems to be a lot of smoke and mirror action with Trump shuffling people in and out so fast at times that it gets hard to focus but the fact is Trump answers to the same people Obama answered to.

By the way I knew Barry before anyone ever heard of him! Before he was a politician at all he was a "Bob Marley" wannabe and dressed like him too! And for that matter he smelled like him but the guy has never been honest about anything ever! Barry was a foreign student when I met him and he lived in Chicago at the time. My understanding when I met Barry and when my friend Harry met him, we both understood him to be from Nigeria as a foreign student going to school! He later lived next door to Harry my friend for over 10.5 years with Michelle and then when he got to councilman and started hanging with penguin suits suddenly Barry took on a new look after going to spa to get cleaned up, and Michelle smiled and showed her teeth for the first time and they were white!

Before this you never saw that side of either of them! Harry and I stood back and watched as the democratic party took this smelling foreigner off the street, cleaned him up and groomed him for president in disbelief much the same way they took Hillary early on when raw, sent her off to spa and next thing you know she is up there on the stage waving to someone like she knows them the same way all the others do! All phony! All taught to them just to deceive a dumb public to asleep at wheel or too busy struggling through life to see the con game these elitists play with us! Barry was a phony from the word go and we witnessed it! He told his mailman, who I know by the way, to his face that he was going to be president! Barry said that not as if, not as if I want to be prez, but point blank that he knew, he knew even then that he was set to be prez and said so to that man that I know and he has said this to me publicly and on tape that Barry did this yet no one hears! OUR ELECTION IS CRAP! HE was selected just like Trump was end of story~!


I enjoyed that post :)

The thing about Trump being selected though - if this were true wouldn't he have the teeny weenyist bit of support from the MSM who appear to be in complete tandem with, and controlled by, the Shadowy Deep State socially engineering the flock -

Whatever the good or bad about Trump I still feel his election victory was a nasty surprise to the Globalist Elite, who wanted Clinton -

[T Smith]

did you simply assign "Deep State" to Obama because he was from the other US political party, and that your major clue was, "if he's a Democrat, he's Deep State"...If you figured Obama out (not just that he was on the other political gang's team), why haven't you figured Trump out yet?

Dennis, in many of your posts you continue to advance the assumption that your readers somehow assume "Deep State" = "Democrat". I enjoy contemplating your posts but frankly you lose me a little bit when you continually push this assumption. First, the assumption is an oxymoron. "Deep State" is not partisan, by definition. Second, the implication you bestow on the reader--particularly those who either support Donald Trump or do not judge him to be a deep-state stooge--and/or who do not summarily dismiss him because he has an (R) next to his name --is the notion the reader subscribes to "Republican = Good", "Democrat = Bad." Your analogy is kind of like charging the reader with the belief that "the Commissioner of Baseball" = "New York Yankees..."

Yes, the term "deep state" has crept into the public lexicon and many people who understand the world through the propaganda arm of deep state itself (MSM) may equate "deep state" with "democrats". The irony is many of your readers, particularly those who support the current POTUS, are neither Republican or Democrat. I do understand the point you are making--but virtually everyone with whom I interact on this forum, even those who support Donald Trump, are fully aware that Rob Manfred (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioner_of_Baseball) is not part of the New York Yankees organization.


Have you ever actually looked at...Trump's actions?...didn't overturn the Patriot Act nor NDAA...

Presidents can't overturn or repeal Acts of Congress... the congress does that--and then the president can either execute or veto the Act--if and when Congress repeals the Patriot Act or NDAA and DJT vetos, I'm fully on board with your argument here--but regardless of whether or not DJT is a puppet of the Deep State, the claim that he hasn't overturned deep state legislation is not a very convincing argument by itself, in my opinion.


...brokered a huge arms deal to Saudi Arabia, knowingly attacked Syria with bogus "he gassed his own people!" lies known to be lies and exposed as lies by a few brave/crazy souls that wouldn't play along with the White Helmets and OPCW bosses lies, refused to help the Palestinian people and instead helped the genocidal Israeli government, finished off smashing Standing Rock for the oil companies, weakened the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act (the last piece of either citizen-centric or eco-centric rather than corporate-centric legislation passed in the US), signed off on a foreign mining consortium that is well-known to be ecocidal and exploitative to create a sulfide mine in the headwaters of the Mississippi River, condones and praises torture, made racism safe again, made one of the most obvious 9/11 co-conspirators his personal lawyer, hobnobbed with Epstein and oopsie-doodle, suicided him for his own sake and all the other scum elite bastards that sexually exploit kids, and can't even successfully find and prosecute the DNC corporation operative that ordered the "Russian call girl pee pee" dossier or Seth Rich's murder.

As far as this entire paragraph goes, we can certainly discuss point by point if it serves the topic of this thread. And there is certainly some ground for agreement here. However, I would point out (with some degree of irony) that many of the points appear to me to be simplistic "partisan-like" spin on a much more complex dynamic.

As I often point out in these type of discussions, the United States Government is a colossal--I mean a vastly colossal corporate bureaucracy, with corruption deeply metastasized in every fiber of its over-reaching and rotting being. We can argue whether the current presidential administration is "at war with" or but "an extension of" said corruption, and this would be a valid discussion, also a complex and dynamic one. But to claim because POTUS has failed to root out all corruption and deep state shenanigans as evidence he is simply "more of the same" is not a very convincing argument, imho.

[Ratszinger]

Everyone thinks they have an idea of what is going on but the truth is they only have what they have been told, or I should say fed! What they've been fed is agenda to groom them toward a particular course or action the leaders of this world want to go. Six people run the planet! Six! Three of those six are popes, the black pope, the white pope, and the one seen in the public by everyone! Who are the others? It doesn't really matter does it the fact is they run the show. Trump answers to one of those three, Hillary answers to one of those three, and every other prez or prez candidate or anyone in any position at all answers to them in the end! Q likely answers to them too if Q isn't one of them himself or herself!

They all work toward the same goal! That goal is to lead the sheep and the sheep don't need to know anything other than to follow their directions so they lead them right to where they want them! Trump leads the world in the exact same direction Obama took us painting blurry pictures for all to see so as to hide the fact he is actually on the same page as Obama in every way as far as doing the bidding of his masters is concerned. We still move toward the same new world order of a one world central bank and a one world government they always wanted and each day it gets closer to them reaching their goal! There seems to be a lot of smoke and mirror action with Trump shuffling people in and out so fast at times that it gets hard to focus but the fact is Trump answers to the same people Obama answered to.

By the way I knew Barry before anyone ever heard of him! Before he was a politician at all he was a "Bob Marley" wannabe and dressed like him too! And for that matter he smelled like him but the guy has never been honest about anything ever! Barry was a foreign student when I met him and he lived in Chicago at the time. My understanding when I met Barry and when my friend Harry met him, we both understood him to be from Nigeria as a foreign student going to school! He later lived next door to Harry my friend for over 10.5 years with Michelle and then when he got to councilman and started hanging with penguin suits suddenly Barry took on a new look after going to spa to get cleaned up, and Michelle smiled and showed her teeth for the first time and they were white!

Before this you never saw that side of either of them! Harry and I stood back and watched as the democratic party took this smelling foreigner off the street, cleaned him up and groomed him for president in disbelief much the same way they took Hillary early on when raw, sent her off to spa and next thing you know she is up there on the stage waving to someone like she knows them the same way all the others do! All phony! All taught to them just to deceive a dumb public to asleep at wheel or too busy struggling through life to see the con game these elitists play with us! Barry was a phony from the word go and we witnessed it! He told his mailman, who I know by the way, to his face that he was going to be president! Barry said that not as if, not as if I want to be prez, but point blank that he knew, he knew even then that he was set to be prez and said so to that man that I know and he has said this to me publicly and on tape that Barry did this yet no one hears! OUR ELECTION IS CRAP! HE was selected just like Trump was end of story~!


I enjoyed that post :)

The thing about Trump being selected though - if this were true wouldn't he have the teeny weenyist bit of support from the MSM who appear to be in complete tandem with, and controlled by, the Shadowy Deep State socially engineering the flock -

Whatever the good or bad about Trump I still feel his election victory was a nasty surprise to the Globalist Elite, who wanted Clinton -

Thank you. I believe that everyone is playing their role. Q even hints to this at times in posts made calling it a show all the time as if it is all scripted and one wonders based on the predictive accuracy if that isn't the case. It all indicates illusion of two sides when in fact there is just one dude behind both making each play their specific parts. At some point a larger part of the pop. will overwhelmingly come into the Trump camp to support him after the game plays out and one side falls. As a necessary part of the plan the plan requires the people to support it to drive it all home in the end so it has to be engineered to have support of the people behind the leader of the flock to work.

The people in this case will unknowingly demand the new world order just as I stated in another post. If they actually knew the facts of what was going on they'd never be behind it but the plan calls for making this old world order so uncomfortable, so horrid as to make the people demand change and then the people will literally shove the NWO right into place and the elitists close the gate and the hammer comes down on the world at that point cause the people walked themselves right into where the elitists running the show wanted them all along!

As I also pointed out when Trump took over he went right into North Korea, then Syria and he has been working both over and now Iran just as I predicted he would in 2016. He picked up right where Barry left off and once each of those last three countries with their own currencies falls they'll get new central FED banks and the new world order commences. I believe Trump was selected just to usher in their NWO!