Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts

Sep 26, 2025

Trump's Retribution Against Democrats' Political Prosecutions Is Self Defense

"When the wolves of hate are loosed on one people, then no one is safe."
Ralph McGill, referencing Shakespeare   

Commentary

Update: "James Comey Was Sure He Was Above The Law. Supporters Hope He's Right"

As James Comey is arraigned, new documents show the FBI under his watch criminally investigated first, and looked for reasons later. Democrats have rediscovered why political prosecutions are the enemy of Americans in the wake of the federal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, (U.S. DoJ)," reports Matt Taibbi in Racket News.
---

Liberals, in response, are telling us why this Comey political indictment is a betrayal.

They are not wrong, but libs are leaving out a lot.

Honestly, did folks really think Democrats and the liberal establishment regard voters as competent to make the correct decision in the 2024 elections and reelect Joe Biden?

Afterall, democracy was at stake last year, and the hated Trump needed to be indicted by Democrats, lest that pesky American electorate elects Donald Trump again in November, after clear instruction not to vote the wrong way.

It was clear that Democrats in New York, D.C. and Fulton County, [what the hell is wrong with those people?], conducted partisan witch hunts to 'get Trump,' and make him a defendant in four criminal proceedings to preclude the possibility of voting for Trump.

How many times did Democrats exclaim, 'Trump is a convicted felon' during the subsequent 2024 general elections campaign? 

Everything went like clockwork for the liberal establishment right up to Election Day, so liberals believed.

Then, the American people disregarded liberal instruction and voted Trump in again as president. 

Trump has likely ended for a generation tit-for-tat prosecutions of major presidential candidates and party figures.

With out-of-control Democrats, who have even less understanding of classical liberal democracy than Trump, we can be reasonably sure Democrats are not so stupid as to launch a new round of political prosecutions, if they win 2028.

I don't believe Trump is thinking peace and civil liberties today, or even mutual assured destruction, but I guess this is what passes for victory when the major political parties are so steeped in hate and corruption. 

Jul 13, 2024

Kamala Harris Needs Unscripted Town Halls — No Preapproved Questions, No Preselected Audience

Remarks by President Biden in Press
Conference
, July 11, 2024
Update: Make that Kamala Harris.
Madison, Wisconsin — President Joe Biden's reelection campaign can win confidence from the electorate by appearing in a series of unscripted, unvetted, town hall-type, question-and-answer events in swing states.

No preselected questioner pools, no campaign-approved questions. Scripted press conferences won't do the job.

In town hall-type, question-and-answer events, campaigns honor people asking questions, by not engineering questions, vetted by the campaigns.

Readers attending speakers in rooms 2650, 3650 of the Humanities building on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus know, for example, what unscripted questions-and-answer sessions are.

Questioners should ask, probe, and challenge political candidates who should be seeking mandates.

Political campaigns now-a-days treat unscripted people-centered events as unnecessary risks, akin to trial attorneys asking questions of witnesses, without knowing testimony.

Campaigns looking to win a mandate from the people for whom we have a country should avoid fake campaigns, such as what we see almost daily, like the plague.

Aug 3, 2023

Trump Indictment Serves Dual Purpose for Democrats

United States v. Trump is part of Democrat scheme to establish
and enforce authoritative State voice on public affairs; and
criminalize wrongthink, thought deemed incorrect.
In modern American history no political Party has targeted free speech as systemically as Joe Biden and the Democrats.

Richard Nixon; 1960s Milwaukee police attempted banning wrong kind of newspaper; 1960s-70s wannabe state totalitarians are trivial next to today's Democrats' intricate censorship-industrial complex.

It is through this lens of audacious thought-control that we should consider the indictment, United States v.Donald J. Trump, (August 1, 2023).

The politcal compound of thought-control and political hatred is explosive in a democracy, with shattered civil liberties as primary objective, not remnant waste.

Anticipating the Aug. 1 indictment, American civil libertarians mused that powerful First Amendment free speech protections from the 1960-70s would likely doom Justice Dept attempts to join Trump's Jan 6 speech and the Capitol violence.
 
Noted Glenn Greenwald:

Any prosecution of Trump on the ground his Jan 6 speech "inspired" violence at the Capitol - even though he told them to act "peacefully" - would be a grave assault on seminal 1st Am protections of Brandenburg and Claiborne.

But, to them, anything is justified to stop Trump.

See also, The Insidious and Unreported Legal Assault on Landmark Free Speech Rulings, From BLM Leaders to Donald Trump; Greenwald.

Greenwald was right. The DoJ backed down, and instead contrived a bizarre indictment where speech and politcal activity are recognize in one paragraph and criminalized in the next.

The indictment accuses Donald Trump of falsity in his expressed beliefs and statements made prior to Jan. 6, 2021; but backed down from criminalizing Trump's rally and address on the Ellipses on Jan 6, 2021.

Writes Jonathan Turley:

[Special Counsel Jack] Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration for a politician on false claims made during and after an election.

The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.

Whatever Democrats may believe, the indictment critically relies on criminalizing protected speech, and the U.S. government's determination that speech is "false" or true, to chronicle Trump's alleged criminal scheme.

If a guilty verdict is reached at trial, no way U.S. Supreme Court lets this indictment prevail against Trump and American citizens who are the beneficiaries, call them Americans, of value we place on political speech.

The ACLU refused a comment on the merits of the indictment. ACLU is a shell of its former self.

But free speech, one can predict, lives on.

As Justice William Brennan writes in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964):

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. (New York Times v. Sullivan).
Trump is wrong-headed in most of his statements he made after the 2020 Nov presidential elections.

Speech and analyses are called for, not a criminal indictment.

Nov 6, 2020

Joe Biden Needs to Speak the Truth

Madison, Wisconsin — Joe Biden's response to Trump's imprecations during ballot tabulation is apt.

But the time for sophistry and hollow rhetoric — and there is occasion for this — has passed.

Biden's communications sound like a hostage reading a script he neither believes nor understands.

His 'stay-calm' posturing omits mention of the psychopath in the White House, and the lunatic's design on our democratic process.

Just a minor disagreement about priorities while democratic processes work themselves out, Joe?

While Biden's neo-lib speechwriters are vested in a comm strategy that speaks to people like they are a collective group about to leap from a building, candor about what Trump is doing is critical.

We the people can handle the truth, and we would appreciate a president-elect who gets this.

Sep 30, 2020

Joe Biden Was Weak, Unsteady; Trump Was Rude, and White Supremacist-Loving

Liberals want to protect slow Joe by cancelling the next two debates


The fist two issues debated last night — Roe v Wade and healthcare — are human rights matters, and Joe Biden should have owned them.

Biden was absent, not in the moment, and when presented with Trump's false claim that his nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, has "unknown" views and intentions on Roe, Biden was silent.

No empathy with a woman's right to choose, no soliloquy on the question of women's health. No declaration of Barrett's record.

Here's the transcript of the end of the exchange on Roe:

President Donald J. Trump: You don’t know her view on Roe V. Wade? You don’t know here view.

Chris Wallace: Well, all right. All right. Let’s talk. We’ve got a lot to unpack here, gentlemen. We’ve got a lot of time. On healthcare, and then we’ll come back to Roe V. Wade.

Vice President Joe Biden: All right.

Trump later continued his love affair with white supremacists and police, both cut from the same cloth.

Trump was loud, abrasive and discourteous.

Joe Biden was no match in this rhetorical theater.

If Biden is elected president, corporate America will be running the show.

Joe Biden will remain a figurehead resembling the character in Weekend at Bernie's (Kotcheff, 1989) more than a president with the knowledge and determination to protect American families.

Led by CNN, liberal pundits are calling for the next two debates to be cancelled, lest Biden be revealed again as a befuddled, kindly old man who stumbled onto the Democratic Party nomination.

Sep 14, 2020

Popular Joe Rogan Offers to Moderate Four-Hour Pres Debate Format; Trump Accepts, Biden Is Silent

Two popular media hosts made big political news this morning after Joe Rogan offered to moderate a presidential debate in which far-ranging discussion and defense of positions are the rules.

No 30-second answers, no sound-bytes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden would have to defend their positions against an incisive political mind.

Rogen made his offer on the media platform of another political-cultural talk host, Tim Kennedy

Rogen and Kennedy are popular military veterans who host widely viewed political-cultural talk shows.

Writes Tim Kennedy:

On my podcast with Joe Rogan, he offered to moderate a debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. It would be four hours with no live audience. Just the two candidates, cameras, and their vision of how to move this country forward. Who wants this? #debates #Election2020

Donald Trump quickly accepted the offer, tweeting "I do." Joe Biden is silent.

Dopey Joe is silent for two compelling reasons: Biden needs to hide from the American people, and Biden does not think the people deserve a no-holds-barred event in which candidates must defend their positions.

Sep 13, 2020

Working Families Eviscerated as Biden, Democrats Hold Fundraisers amid Silence on Stimulus

Horror stories from coast to coast abound as families are devastated by lack of healthcare, jobs, safe water, and food.

But that was before COVID 19.

Now, Democrats and Republicans are playing games to kill major stimulus relief.

And there is no Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Student Loan Forgiveness or any major jobs programs in the political offing in 2021.

That's because Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden are all committed to killing progressive legislation, and for the same reasons — Wall Street, health insurance companies and other huge donor interests such as real estate. Google "Biden holds $1000,000 fundraiser" and scan the voluminous results.

Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore are warning Biden's handlers not to shaft American families again.

Their warnings fall on deaf ears.

How out-of-touch is Joe Biden? Consider healthcare.

Biden and his consultants believe that because the former senator and vice president received free, tax-payer-financed healthcare for his family through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, it follows that the American people should not be obtain the same tax-payer-financed healthcare for their families.

Explains Joe Biden in his healthcare spot
that seems to run as often in Wisconsin as Mike Lindell's My Pillow ads: "HealthCare is personal to me."

Joe Biden does not have to live with the same worries of working families. 

Biden doesn't stress about deductibles, exclusions, massive debt and bankruptcies.

He just takes in corporate America's millions and screws American families, as Democrats say, thank you.

In his ad, Biden ironically takes a dig at health insurance companies, the same companies that finance his campaign for president and every elected office he has sought, more than any other Democratic Party candidate in 2019-2020, (In These Times).

Biden's dishonest and ridiculous stance on healthcare evokes defeated Gov Scott Walker's (R-Wisconsin) infamous "I care too much about the people of this state" to allow them to enroll in Medicaid, federal money already allocated.
---
COVID 19

Joe Biden has been in office for several decades so comparisons with the Trump administration should be formulated as Trump resembles Biden in considering policy stupidity in COVID 19 response.

In late Oct, Trump issued a sweeping moratorium on residential evictions through the Centers on Disease Control and Prevention.

The moratorium seems a rare bold, public health initiative. It's not and it exemplifies policy not even approaching half-measure value on a still-growing crisis.

What a massive stimulus bill should do to address this swath of policy is send federal money directly to landlords to pay for tenants in need of help. 

The subsidy could can be free, or payback without interest or whatever. This would solve the problem for the tenants, the landlords, the banks and the coming worst-yet liquidity crisis. 

In context, the moratorium is dishonest. Tenants in need are just pushing off eviction until after Jan 1 because after that they’ll be expected to come up with a pile of money for back-rent, penalties and they won’t have it.

If Trump were smart, he'd push, as he is able, a major stimulus legislation that includes a residential landlord stimulus.

But comprehensive public policy solving crises is not what Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden do.

They all play political games and likely Democratic Party officeholders will receive a new memo advising Dems to blame everything on the Russians.

Jul 25, 2019

Mueller and Dems Fall Flat

 Robert S. Mueller III was evasive and impenetrable
yesterday in his two appearances before Congress.
An unconvincing star and a congressional cast held in contempt by most of the public combined for instantly forgettable political theater yesterday.

"[T]he movie Americans tuned into on Wednesday was not the blockbuster Democrats had sought," summed up the New York Times in its fair-minded coverage.

It didn't have to be.

Two congressional chairs could have made it plain to former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III in opening statements what they were looking for:

Look, we're not looking for a reading list. You just took an oath to speak the truth. That's what we want. Tell us what you think. Explain your reasoning. Tell the American people the truth. The stakes are high.

Plain-speaking candor was absent yesterday.

There was no Sam J. Ervin Jr. winning the country's hearts in the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities.

''Because I can understand the English language. It's my mother tongue,'' said Ervin famously in an exchange with the odious John D. Erlichman who claimed national security explained the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist.

Make no mistake, for the purpose of the committees eliciting truth, Mueller was a hostile witness.

Few appeared intent on holding Mueller to account.

The American people have cause to doubt the integrity of Mueller's team, and the commitment to truth in the evasive man on national television yesterday.

Feb 6, 2018

Chicken Trump

Trump is afraid to answer questions under oath and faithfully execute the office of President of the United States


President* Trump is the opposite of a stand-up guy.

Trump is both evasive and stupid, and runs from any situation in which candor is necessary.

Now, Trump is facing the possibility of testifying under oath in the Russia-Trump-collusion probe and already Trump's lawyers are floating the legal team's opposition, (NYT, MSNBC).

This opposition to merely speaking the truth stems from two concerns: Trump is a pathological liar, not-too-bright and the related concern that lies in a federal investigation are felonies.

So, Trump will back down faster than his 'bone spurs' got him out of military service in the Vietnam War.

President chicken-hawk is chicken-hearted.

Can you imagine Trump in a legal forum in which telling the truth in itself determines guilt and innocence?

From the Lawrence O'Donnell show last night:

Dec 3, 2017

Robert Mueller Will Echo John Doar, Citizens Today Must Match 1970s Citizens

Robert Swan Muller III
The late John Doar, (1921-2014) is from New Richmond in northwestern Wisconsin.

Doar served as special counsel, (1973-74), to the House Committee on the Judiciary investigating the Watergate scandals leading to three Articles of Impeachment.

There was significant Republican hesitancy to impeach Richard Nixon but all three impeachment articles drew Republican support, leading ultimately with other acts of corruption to Nixon's resignation.

The service to our country hastening the demise of Nixon is a testimony to the meticulous and fair-minded Doar supported by committed staff, a principled judiciary, investigative journalism and mass citizen action.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee is populated by hacks, dolts, evangelicals, racists and unreconstructed segregationists who make a serious impeachment inquiry of the deranged President* Trump unthinkable.

We can expect nothing from Judiciary Committee or any other Republican-led House committee; and the appointment of anyone approaching John Doar is unthinkable.

Robert S. Mueller III, United States Department of Justice

Fortunately, the current preeminent investigation of Trump headed by Robert S. Mueller III, United States Department of Justice, appointed May 17, 2017 is proceeding apace in a manner that would do John Doar proud.

The immense public trust that Mueller has assumed in heading the Trump-Russia investigation is focused on "Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters."

Mueller is acting in a manner beyond reproach, and thus we can expect today's toxic brand of Republicans to engage in character assassination of Mueller and every human resource involved in the probe, starting with the FBI.

It's begun this weekend, following report after report of covert Russian interference in the presidential election of a target country, the United States.

The coming Republican assault against the rule of law will make Trump's late October fuming over indictments appear a boo at a football game by comparison.

As citizens we are placed in a position in which we will called upon to act in defense of our country supporting the Mueller investigation against a rightwing political death squad, the scope of which our nation has never seen with a president who is emotionally disabled, displaying clinical symptoms with potentially devastating consequences.

Gaming out scenarios it's likely we will have a new president, perhaps a new vice-president in 2019. Consider what would Donald Trump do in retaliation before then?

Trump is not moored by normal concerns of public servants.

Now, it's the time to back the rule of law and act against corruption. It's distinctively possible that within 18 months we will be facing a president effectively holding America and the world hostage.

We need an aroused citizenry supporting Robert Mueller.

Without engaged Americans, driving Nixon from office would never have happened, and Donald Trump is much more dangerous than Richard Nixon.

Jan 19, 2017

Save Social Security and Medicare from Paul Ryan and Republicans

Senior abandonment by Paul Ryan and
Republicans is a betrayal and moral
dislocation unprecedented in American
history. Join the fight for the people
who made America and bequeathed
us our very lives
.
From the moment you received your first pay-check in the day when paychecks were paper, you may have wondered what that FICA deduction figure, (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), represents on your pay-stub (IRS).

FICA represents the contribution by workers and employers to Medicare and Social Security—the most successful federal programs in United States history.

Last year these earned-benefits, social insurance guarantees, enjoyed sky-high popularity as critical earned benefits: Medicare (77 percent), Social Security (83 percent), (Kaiser). This level of support is persistent across decades, continuing today.

As Paul Ryan and the Republicans target Social Security and Medicare for phase-out and privatization, seniors are scared; afraid that without Social Security and Medicare, "they won't be alive," in the words of one senior-care advocate in Madison, Wisconsin.

Donald Trump promised not to cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Few believe anything Trump has said.

Noted Bernie Sanders in questioning the right-wing Rep. Tom Price (R-Georgia), Trump's nominee for secretary of the U.S. Dept of  Health and Human Services:

During the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump said over and over again that he would not cut Social Security, not cut Medicare, not cut Medicaid. Let me read some quotes. On May 7th, 2015, Mr. Trump tweeted, ‘I was the first and only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.’ On April 18th, 2015, he said, quote, ‘Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, 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 who have been paying in for years and now all of a sudden they want it to be cut,’ end of quote. August 10th of 2015 Mr. Trump said, quote, ‘I will say Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will be saved without cuts. We have to do it, people have been paying in for years and now many of these candidates want to cut it,’ end quote.

March 29th, 2016, Trump said, ‘You know, Paul Ryan wants to knock out Social Security, knock it down, way down. He wants to knock Medicare way down, and frankly, well, two things. Number one, you’re going to lose the election if you’re going to do that. I’m not going to cut it and I’m not going to raise age limits, and I’m not going to do all of the things they want to do. But they want to really cut it. and they want to cut it very substantially, the Republicans and I’m not going to do that,’ on and on and on.

Point being, this is not something he said in passing. I think it is likely he won the election because millions of working class people and senior citizens heard him say he was not going to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Congressman Price, a very simple question:  Is the president-elect, Mr. Trump, going to keep his word to the American people and not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Or did he lie to the American people?

Will Donald Trump stand up for seniors and others in need of healthcare? The universe of those needing healthcare would include everyone.

But if Republicans get their way in throwing seniors into the health insurance market, seniors will re-live the trauma of exclusions, per-existing conditions, benefit caps, sky-high deductibles and all the red tape that health insurance companies employ with the aim of making them give up and leave.
---

By Bill Walsh of the AARP

As Donald Trump was mounting his insurgent candidacy for president, he repeatedly set himself apart from the Republican field by vowing to protect the Social Security and Medicare Americans have come to know.

He assured older voters, who proved to be a decisive voting bloc, that those programs would remain intact and the benefits delivered as promised.

"Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security. They want to do it on Medicare. They want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that,” he said at a New Hampshire rally during the primaries. “It’s not fair to the people who have been paying in for years.”

Yet within days of Trump’s historic election, the guaranteed health coverage provided by Medicare was cast in doubt. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) revived his plan to replace it with a fixed-dollar subsidy that beneficiaries would use to buy private health insurance. Meanwhile, Congress is expected to move quickly to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which could have the effect of erasing the consumer-friendly Medicare benefits that the law created.

Stirring Fears and Uncertainty

As news of Ryan’s proposed Medicare overhaul spread, it stirred fears among the 57 million beneficiaries who rely on it to cover prescription drugs, doctor visits and hospitalizations. Democrats lined up to pledge their opposition. It also prompted an outcry from consumer groups, including AARP.

What remains to be seen in January, as Congress reconvenes and the president-elect takes office, is how Trump’s campaign assurances to protect Medicare will hold up against House lawmakers intent on revamping the popular health program.

Trump contributed to the uncertainty by announcing House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) as his pick to run the Department of Health and Human Services. Price has been an advocate of Ryan’s Medicare approach, which supporters call “premium support” and critics decry as a “voucher system.” Trump’s website further raised questions about his plans for Medicare. It says he wants to “modernize Medicare,” which is often seen as Washington code for the type of changes Ryan wishes to make.

Since the election, Trump has not made any comments about Medicare. But in an interview with ABC News on Dec. 4, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Trump “made it very clear in the course of the campaign that we’re going to keep our promises in Social Security and Medicare.”

The Ryan Approach

Ryan’s Medicare overhaul, a version of which passed the GOP-controlled House, would fundamentally change how Medicare works.

Since its creation in 1965, Medicare has been a “defined benefit” program, guaranteeing a certain level of health coverage. It now pays about 80 percent of costs associated with doctor and hospital visits. Beneficiaries are responsible for paying monthly premiums, copayments and annual deductibles.

57 million Americans rely on Medicare to afford health care Ryan would convert Medicare from a “defined benefit” to a “defined contribution” program. Instead of a guaranteed level of coverage, a dollar amount would be set for Medicare beneficiaries to pay premiums on insurance they would buy from private-sector companies (this is why Ryan calls it “premium support”). Ryan’s plan would also increase the eligibility age from 65 to 67.

A former chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan wants to limit how much the government spends on Medicare. In 2015, Medicare accounted for 15 percent of the federal budget, a proportion expected to grow as the number of beneficiaries rises.

“The reforms we’re talking about do not affect the benefits for anyone in or near retirement,” Ryan said last month. “But for those of us in the younger generations, it won’t be there for us if we stay on the current path.”

The Mounting Opposition

Consumer advocates also want to address growing costs in the health care system, including Medicare. But they contend that Ryan’s approach would erode much-needed coverage and shift costs to many who live on fixed incomes and continue to struggle in the shadow of the Great Recession.
While Ryan says the annual subsidy would be greater for low-income people, critics say it is unlikely to keep pace with the rising costs of insurance. The result, they say, is that beneficiaries would shoulder more of the financial burden — or go without needed medical care. Although Ryan also says people would be allowed to stay in traditional Medicare, critics argue his approach is designed to gradually increase out-of-pocket costs in the program and nudge beneficiaries into private plans with no guaranteed level of coverage.

Opponents also say that there are better cost-saving options available. One of the most popular is giving Medicare the authority to negotiate prescription drug prices directly with drug companies. The change would help the federal government control a cost that accounts for $1 out of every $6 Medicare spends. That idea was supported by more than 80 percent of people in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in 2015. As a candidate, Trump also embraced the idea, another potential point of friction with House Republicans, who generally oppose it, as does the pharmaceutical industry.

The Impact of Obamacare Repeal

What Trump and GOP leaders wholeheartedly agree on is that the first order of business will be repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Republican congressional leaders want a repeal vote in January so that a bill can be on the president’s desk right after he is sworn in.

77 percent of people say Medicare is a “very important” program Although it has received little attention, a full repeal of Obamacare would eliminate Medicare benefits created by the law. Among other things, it improved Medicare’s financial outlook by slowing the growth of spending and clamped down on fraud, waste and excessive payments. It also enabled tens of millions of Medicare beneficiaries to get free preventive services such as flu shots and screenings for cancer and diabetes. And between 2010 and 2015, nearly 11 million Medicare beneficiaries saved $20.8 billion on prescription drugs—an average of $1,945 per person — because of the gradual closing of the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole.

While Obamacare remains controversial — in part because of its mandate to purchase health insurance and because premiums have increased for some plans—the Medicare provisions have proved popular with beneficiaries.

Medicare’s Enduring Popularity

Even in an era of hostility toward the federal government, support for some programs has remained strong. A Kaiser poll found that 77 percent of people say Medicare is a “very important” program, just below the level of support for Social Security at 83 percent.

Trump’s campaign assurances about protecting Medicare and Social Security undoubtedly played a role in his Election Day victory, especially among older voters. Those 65 and older supported him with 53 percent of the vote, compared with 45 percent for Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to the Pew Research Center. There will be a lot at stake for them when Congress reconvenes.

Next: Our AARP Plan

Jul 19, 2016

Opposing Fascism Means Supporting Hillary Clinton Now

Watching the Republican National Convention is an exercise in observing crooks, liars, cheats and the rituals of the white fascistic party.

As a lifelong Wisconsin progressive and avid Bernie Sanders supporter, am now working to elect Hillary Clinton as president.

Not that anyone particularly gives a shit, but working for the election of Hillary Clinton is something I must do and state publicly.

Watching my franchise as a voter effectively veer in the status of bystander is something I cannot do.

The Republican Party resembles nothing so much now as a suicidal, racist cult.

Jun 7, 2016

Support Bernie Sanders, Hope Insider Dems Come to Their Senses

Hillary Clinton is hopelessly corrupt and out-of-touch


Now is the time to support Bernie Sanders and work up to the Democratic Convention, the week of July 25, to help super-delegates come to their senses. Super-delegates are unbound and cannot vote until the Convention.

The media has anointed Hillary Clinton after the corporate media conducted secret phone calls with Clinton super-delegates yesterday, which both the media and the super-delegates will not disclose in detail. Notes Gleen Greenwald:

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of 'superdelegates': the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.

...

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.

Clinton accepted the latest attempt to impose a corporate-owned subsidiary onto the United States, after feigning surprise. Typical deceitful Hillary Clinton. You don't have to settle for a Clinton.

From the Bernie Sanders campaign:

Tuesday marks the largest set of primaries and caucuses in the Democratic nomination process with six states voting for president and 694 pledged delegates up for grabs.

Pundits and the political press want to call this race early before every last person votes. That threatens to suppress voter turnout in New Jersey, California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico. But we’re not going to let that happen. On Tuesday, we’re going to defy the pundits once more and reach for the kind of high voter turnout that will again shock the establishment.

We won’t settle for the status quo. We won’t settle for a rigged economy held in place by a corrupt system of campaign finance. We won’t settle for a fossil fuel industry hell-bent on harming our planet to pad their profits. We won’t settle for a health system that doesn’t cover everyone. In California, a high voter turnout won’t just mean a victory for our movement.

With large numbers of young people hitting the polls, we’ll boost so many Democrats in major primaries that right-wing Republicans will be locked out of general election ballots for some of the most important House and Senate races of the fall.

Members of the media and political establishment may have anointed Secretary Clinton from day one, but we know that this race is going to carry on until the delegates cast ballots at the convention in Philadelphia.

We should let the voters decide who they want the Democratic nominee to be rather than having the media decide for them. I am asking you to continue to stand with Bernie in pushing for the political revolution.

Corporate Media Fans Hysteria

Have you heard what Donald Trump did? He fired the Rule
of Law, and then nuked Article III through the power of his
words. Lovers of liberty, Donald Trump is coming, Trump is
coming. Or, perhaps hysteria and delusion have set in.
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,   
The people will waken and listen to hear   
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,   
And the midnight message of Chuck Todd.

(Longfellow)
NBC News political director Chuck Todd made an appearance on Morning Joe Tuesday, championing the federal judiciary.

Tracing his lineage to Gutenberg, Todd offered to take criticism emitting from Donald Trump against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel on behalf of the "press," warning Trump should stop saying mean things about federal judges such as Curiel.

Trump is "eroding the rule of law," ... "eroding trust in the judiciary," warned Todd. "That's a slippery slope."

Todd didn't specify the darkness to which the slippery slope leads, but his comments follow by days the hysteria of Adam Liptak and the New York Times in similar grandiose posturing regarding the judiciary and the rule of law.

As a historical figure, surly Todd has studied in some detail the American judiciary and its oppression of American citizens who sometimes look to the judicial branch when, most commonly, individual states target Constitutional rights of disfavored swaths of the citizenry.

Have not noticed Todd defending civil liberties against incursions from the Republican-ruled red states. Or for that matter from the Federalist Society's approved federal judges who carry out the intentions of the Koch brothers and the Bradley Foundation.

Libel Law

Should we be concerned Donald Trump will loosen federal libel doctrine as Trump once blustered. No. How would Trump accomplish this? Trump didn't say, and neither has Todd, the Times nor the Post. [In February, Trump said, "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," (The Politico)].

Trump is hardly the first politician to express dissatisfaction with, or to venture the outlines of a bone-headed argument against New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).

Federal Judiciary Deserves No Trust

Perhaps Todd could cast his gaze at the United States Supreme Court. Immigrant families face a more present danger from rightwing judges as they await word whether the corrupt and ideologically bankrupt U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's attacks will carry the day in United States v. Texas, (No. 15-674) (Denniston, SCOTUSBlog).

Hanen and his ilk are human garbage. Much more dangerous than the ravings of the whiny and incoherent Donald Trump.

Federal litigants face a roll of the dice in the federal judiciary. Nothing better.

Meanwhile, the farce of the American electoral process continues, with no alarm sounded by Chuck Todd and the New York Times, (CounterPunch).

Morning Joe Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Jun 6, 2016

Liars and Lunatics Define 2016 Campaign

The Big Con

Scamming Our Country

Updated: Bill Clinton called Bernie Sanders voters, "toast," this weekend, a stance Clinton offers to non-Clinton-donating Americans, (Yilek, The Hill).

The corporate media continues its Hillary Clinton-poised-to-win-[if-we-add-in-super-delegates] mantra prior to its declaration Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. In fact, super-delegates are unbound and cannot vote until the Convention.

After talking "politics" by phone with Bill Clinton last year, Donald Trump persists in his loosely staged wrestling match that Trump appears to be throwing with outrageous racial taunts against the fastest growing demographic in the electorate.

Bernie Sanders maintains defiance of the corporate-Hillary-DNC axis asking questions corporate media will not touch about American society and funneling wealth to the One Percent ... then to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton laughs and refuses to answer queries asking
if Clinton will release transcripts of her paid talks to
Goldman Sachs. See the video of Hillary Clinton at The Intercept.
Some questions not being asked:

Why were Bill and Hillary Clinton talking politics with the leading birther, Donald Trump, last summer? Why would the Clintons even associate with a slime like Trump?

Why is the media including super-delegate totals, (since last year), in its reporting on the presidential primary? Why doesn't the media state the truism that super-delegates are unbound and cannot vote until the Convention?

What did Hillary Clinton say that compelled Goldman Sachs to pay her $Millions.

See

  • Hillary Clinton Laughs When Asked if She Will Release Transcripts of Her Goldman Sachs Speeches (Fang, The Intercept)
  • Hillary Clinton Again Declines to Disclose What She Told Big Banks in Her Paid Speeches (Fang, The Intercept)
  • Hillary Clinton Won’t Say How Much Goldman Sachs CEO Invested With Her Son-in-Law (Fang, Moltke, The Intercept)
Why did the Clinton Foundation accept $Millions from human garbage in Saudi Arabia?

Jun 4, 2016

NYT Finds an Independent Judiciary and Rule of Law

Update: Think federal judges cannot be the problem? Meet Andrew Hanen, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, (SCOTUSBlog, Ballotpedia).
---
Here I was thinking corruption, ideology and cold-blooded dogma define the federal judicial branch, citizens litigating in federal court are at the mercy of a shake of the dice.

Adam Liptak and his editors at the New York Times have declared in the news columns that not only do we have an independent judiciary and the rule of law as defining features of the judicial branch, but Donald Trump, he of the many incoherent and bigoted rants, is a threat to same.

At least we enjoy an independent judiciary; that's a relief.

If a reader looks near the bottom of Liptak's some-1,800-word piece, she can find this: "Many of Mr. Trump’s statements about legal issues were extemporaneous and resist conventional legal analysis."

Still, Trump's candidacy is a threat. Interesting.

And no legal scholars were available for knocking down the thrust of Liptak's piece.

Here I am mistakenly thinking Trump is an unpolished lunatic but reflecting the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Thanks for sounding the alarm that Trump is something different, Mr. Liptak; was not aware how independent and incorruptible federal judges are.

Nor was it clear how vulnerable the judiciary is to the ravings of Donald Trump.

Jun 3, 2016

Hysteria Against Trump Requires Turning Away

Update: Think federal judges cannot be the problem? Meet Andrew Hanen, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, (SCOTUSBlog, Ballotpedia).

Why would any American not defend the inherent right of Donald Trump to give voice to the vitriol and hate behind his movement?

It's because the liberties animating a non-authoritarian politics face determined enemies across the political spectrum in the American political culture.

The substance of anti-Trump arguments, such as there exists substance, suggests implicitly or explicitly a denial of Trump's right to excoriate a federal judge such that the denial promotes a greater social good.

For example, as one line of reasoning goes, because Trump's view are racist, Trump no longer enjoys the right to voice his views.

This reasoning should require no further comment, but this is the USA and defense of liberty usually stops at the bumper sticker or comment below the political column.

Right Wisconsin's Charlie Sykes offers a more nuanced and equally absurd take: Because Trump is a candidate for the presidency of the United States, Trump no longer retains the right to criticize a federal judge. Writes Sykes:

Reflect on this for a moment. A candidate for president of the United States using his pulpit to personally attack a federal judge presiding over litigation involving that candidate’s fraudulent business practices. At best, it was yet another petulant outburst; at worst, it was intended to bully and intimidate the judge, perhaps an attempt to push him to step down. In either case, Trump is using his political position to try to derail his own day in court.

And yet, we are told, this is the man we will should trust with the future of the judiciary?

The tyranny of the judiciary is long documented in America, but one case ought to suffice to goad political commentators in considering Trump's rights vis a vis the federal judiciary, and the question how exactly is Trump bullying and intimidating Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California?

Sykes doesn't say, but all he references are the absurd rants of Trump which, if Sykes were more rigorous, he would recognize as no departure from the neo-facsist Repulbican Party. [Note: Trump's silly remarks amount to: Because Trump has proposed a wall between Mexico and the U.S., and the mass deportation of Mexican immigrants, (presumably without due process in Trump's view), the Mexican "heritage" of Judge Curiel is a disqualification of Curiel's impartiality in hearing federal litigation involving Trump.

Sykes on the other hand argues that because Trump as the presumptive Republican Party nominee is arguing his position publicly as a component of his presidential campaign, Trump is improperly impugning the impartiality of the judiciary branch. Both are ludicrous positions, but Trump as well as Sykes retain their First Amendment rights to state their positions, irrespective to the soundness and rigor lacking in both arguments.]

United States v. Dellinger et al

As to that one case, consider the 1969-1970 indictment, trial and convictions, (along with a mistrial), of peace and social justice activists in United States v. Dellinger et al, overturned on appeal, (472 F.2d 340; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6620; 22 A.L.R. Fed. 159) (February 8, 1972, Argued; November 21, 1972, Decided).

The Chicago Eight were peace and social justice activists who faced prosecution for allegedly violating federal Anti-riot Act, (18 U.S.C.S. § 1821), and a host of other ludicrous charges steaming from protests at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Party Convention. Ironically, the Anti-riot Act was a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

The defendants were David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bobby Seale, John Froines and Lee Weiner, all of whom were friendly to or intimately associated with the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, MOBE, to name one conspiring organization, "others identified in the record being Professor Sidney Peck, Western Reserve University, Professor Donald Kalish, University of California at Los Angeles, Msgr. Charles O. Rice, Pittsburgh, and Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Atlanta. Rennie Davis, aged 28, was MOBE's Project Director for these activities and set up an office in Chicago." (NexisLexis).
 
These activists continually ridiculed the presiding U.S. District Judge Julius Jennings Hoffman, and the U.S. Attorney Thomas Foran.

The defendants were ultimately vindicated, legally and morally.

Now, if say George McGovern or Edmund Muskie had ridiculed Judge Hoffman as an imbecile and a fascist as part of their campaigns for the presidency, would McGovern and Muskie had been accused of bullying and intimidating the judiciary branch? Of course not.

Or would McGovern and Muskie's complicity in bullying behavior be dependent on whether McGovern and Muskie were directly party in federal litigation involving Judge Hoffman? If you believe what Charlie Sykes writes.

Sykes and others' are ludicrous positions, as is the failure to call for the rights of Donald Trump as part of one's own political commitment.

In America hysteria is usually more popular than history. I'll have to look and see if the federal Anti-riot Act, (18 U.S.C.S. § 1821), is still around, because not a few would like to see the provisions used against Donald Trump.

Jun 1, 2016

Trump Has Every Right to Speak Against Federal Judge

Donald Trump is engaged as a defendant in federal civil litigation, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California presiding.

Trump feels aggrieved and wronged by Judge Curiel and has stated his objection in a press conference on political issues of the current presidential campaign of which Trump is the presumptive Republican Party nominee.

Trump has every right to so voice his opinions, no matter how crude, racist, unwise and ugly Trump's opinions are.

The liberty interests of the First Amendment exists for Donald Trump as it does for all of us.

Judge Curiel should so state his commitment to the First Amendment after calling into question Trump's right to speak without fear of judicial retaliation.

Oct 8, 2015

The Guardian: Donald Trump Is Here to Stay in GOP-land

If Paddy Chayefsky ever lived to write about American electoral politics, it's unlikely even he could have imagined Donald Trump.

Yet, Trump is here to stay, Ben Jacobs writes convincingly in The Guardian today.

One can hope.

The sheer lunacy of Trump rips into the American political system the openings Bernie Sanders needs in a country hollowed-out, corrupt and approaching the tipping point of veering into a dystopian police-prosecutor state run by corporate goons and imbeciles.

Heard Bernie at a small, private talk in the Madison area in the late 1980s, and he talked and talked to an audience already convinced of the tenets behind his arguments. Cogent, brilliant and passionate, Bernie offered a needed dose of sanity.

Point is Bernie has been around the country working for decades.

The next time you hear Chris Matthews speak with confidence asserting Bernie Sanders is not serious, and is just so much water from the splash of a heavy object dropped into the electoral pool, you may want to consider Matthews has no idea what he's talking about—and Sanders does and has for decades.

Sep 18, 2015

Bernie for Democracy; Trump for Racism and Birtherism

This is the golden age of political journalism, fortuitous as we are able to witness the slow-motion downfall of American democracy and efforts to save it.

All in with Chris Hayes, The Rachel Maddow Show (TRMS) and The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell feature a murderers' row of political analysis.

Yesterday is typical.

Amid the same traitor-terrorist-treason-socialist dictator rhetoric (joined in by Hillary Clinton's SuperPAC this accelerated election cycle) as the last presidential election comes two polar opposite on the mantel of simple decency: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Sanders and Trump meeting in the general election is a distinct possibility as Clinton has again misread the election. This is not a 'change' election, it's a 'we're-sick-of your-shit' election.

TRMS and Sanders

Bernie Sanders offers a compelling defense of government for the people and by the people on TRMS in an exclusive interview.

Sanders excoriates the American rightwing accusing conservatives of 'a concerted attack against every major public institution.'

Video below.

Lawrence O'Donnell Show and Trump's Birtherism Comes Back

At the Lawrence O'Donnell show a piece features Donald Trump resorting to birtherism again yesterday in an extemporaneous, unscripted question-and-answer event in Rochester, New Hampshire. (Second video below)

Trump said before the very first question at the Rochester event, "This man, I like this guy," referring to the questioner.

The questioner said, "We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. Our current President is one. We know he’s not even an American."

Trump responded, "We need this question," and laughed.

"We have [Muslim] training camps growing where when they want to kill us. That's my question, when can we get rid of it," the questioner asked Trump.

No problem.

Responding to the question, Trump said, "We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. A lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things."

Somehow I really didn't expect Trump to call the guy a nut-job, racist, and an indecent human being. If there were ever time for Trump's insults, it was at this event in Rochester New Hampshire. (Tuohy, New Hampshire Union Leader)

McCain

O'Donnell noted a similar occurrence in 2008 and contrasted Trump's response with the response by Sen. John McCain who shot down a bigoted question in a similar setting when a woman said to McCain, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him. He's an Arab." (another bad thing, to this woman's mind)

Reports CBS News in October 2008:

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:
'No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about.'
O'Donnell's segment featured an interview with Trump’s Iowa campaign co-chair, Tana Goertz, who proceeded to melt under O'Donnell's questioning.

Trump's campaign released a statement to O'Donnell reading, "Christians need support in this country. Their religious liberty is at stake."

Incredible, no it's America today.

---
Bernie Sanders Interviewed on TRMS
Lawrence O'Donnell Show and Trump's Birtherism Comes Back