Monday, February 08, 2016

WHY WE MUST TRY By Robert Reich

OH YES!!!!!

WHY WE MUST TRY — from Robert Reich's Blog

Instead of "Yes we can," many Democrats have adopted a new slogan this election year: "We shouldn't even try."

We shouldn't try for single-payer system, they say. We'll be lucky if we prevent Republicans from repealing Obamacare.

We shouldn't try for a $15 an hour minimum wage. The best we can do is $12 an hour.

We shouldn't try to restore the Glass-Steagall Act that used to separate investment and commercial banking, or bust up the biggest banks. We'll be lucky to stop Republicans from repealing Dodd-Frank.

We shouldn't try for free public higher education. As it is, Republicans are out to cut all federal education spending.

We shouldn't try to tax carbon or speculative trades on Wall Street, or raise taxes on the wealthy. We'll be fortunate to just maintain the taxes already in place.

Most of all, we shouldn't even try to get big money out of politics. We'll be lucky to round up enough wealthy people to back Democratic candidates.

"We-shouldn't-even-try" Democrats think it's foolish to aim for fundamental change – pie-in-the-sky, impractical, silly, naïve, quixotic. Not in the cards. No way we can.

I understand their defeatism. After eight years of Republican intransigence and six years of congressional gridlock, many Democrats are desperate just to hold on to what we have.

And ever since the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision opened the political floodgates to big corporations, Wall Street, and right-wing billionaires, many Democrats have concluded that bold ideas are unachievable.

In addition, some establishment Democrats – Washington lobbyists, editorial writers, inside-the-beltway operatives, party leaders, and big contributors – have grown comfortable with the way things are. They'd rather not rock the boat they're safely in.

I get it, but here's the problem. There's no way to reform the system without rocking the boat. There's no way to get to where America should be without aiming high.

Progressive change has never happened without bold ideas championed by bold idealists.

Some thought it was quixotic to try for civil rights and voting rights. Some viewed it as naïve to think we could end the Vietnam War. Some said it was unrealistic to push for the Environmental Protection Act.

But time and again we've learned that important public goals can be achieved – if the public is mobilized behind them. And time and again such mobilization has depended on the energies and enthusiasm of young people combined with the determination and tenacity of the rest.

If we don't aim high we have no chance of hitting the target, and no hope of mobilizing that enthusiasm and determination.

The situation we're in now demands such mobilization. Wealth and income are more concentrated at the top than in over a century. And that wealth has translated into political power.

The result is an economy rigged in favor of those at the top – which further compounds wealth and power at the top, in a vicious cycle that will only get worse unless reversed.

Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals than the citizens of any other advanced nation, for example. We also pay more for Internet service. And far more for health care.

We pay high prices for airline tickets even though fuel costs have tumbled. And high prices for food even though crop prices have declined.

That's because giant companies have accumulated vast market power. Yet the nation's antitrust laws are barely enforced.

Meanwhile, the biggest Wall Street banks have more of the nation's banking assets than they did in 2008, when they were judged too big to fail.

Hedge-fund partners get tax loopholes, oil companies get tax subsidies, and big agriculture gets paid off.

Bankruptcy laws protect the fortunes of billionaires like Donald Trump but not the homes of underwater homeowners or the savings of graduates burdened with student loans.

A low minimum wage enhances the profits of big-box retailers like Walmart, but requires the rest of us provide its employees and their families with food stamps and Medicaid in order to avoid poverty – an indirect subsidy of Walmart.

Trade treaties protect the assets and intellectual property of big corporations but not the jobs and wages of ordinary workers.

At the same time, countervailing power is disappearing. Labor union membership has plummeted from a third of all private-sector workers in the 1950s to fewer than 7 percent today. Small banks have been absorbed into global financial behemoths. Small retailers don't stand a chance against Walmart and Amazon.

And the pay of top corporate executives continues to skyrocket, even as most peoples' real wages drop and their job security vanishes.

This system is not sustainable.

We must get big money out of our democracy, end crony capitalism, and make our economy and democracy work for the many, not just the few.

But change on this scale requires political mobilization.

It won't be easy. It has never been easy. As before, it will require the energies and commitments of large numbers of Americans.

Which is why you shouldn't listen to the "we-must-not-try" brigade. They've lost faith in the rest of us.

We must try. We have no choice.

Share:

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Dream Team: Eliz. Warren now most likely to be Sanders' VP Choice!

Some naysayers warn it would be a mistake to have two progressives on the ticket together.  BUT, for the reasons given in the article below, I think it would be a very smart move.  With Elizabeth Warren on the ticket, poised to be the first woman President in 4 or 8 years, the revolution of the people, by the people and for the people will have succeeded. With a Democratic ticket like this, U.S. voters will be cheering in the streets. The message being delivered to the people of this country by Bernie and Elizabeth is one with which everyone can resonate.  Their authenticity and honesty (so VERY RARE in politics!) registers with most voters, no matter what their party or political leanings. We are all people who want the best for ourselves and our children.  Everyone knows that has not been delivered to us with Big Money ruling and owning the system. When Bernie and Elizabeth recount the crimes of the top 1% perpetrated against the middle class (WE, the people who hold up this great nation), that message resonates.  All we have to do is look at Wall Street and the Big Fat Cats riding herd over the rest of us, paying Congress obscene amounts to vote their interests (and against ours!). This great revolution of the people has been brewing for a long time, and it has finally burst out into full bloom.  Major changes are called for in the way our nation is run.  Those changes will be made with a White House team of Sanders/Warren and a Democratic Congress (which could easily ride in on their coattails).

http://www.politicalpeopleblog.com/progressives-rejoice-elizabeth-warren-is-now-the-most-likely-to-be-bernie-sanders-vp-choice/

EXCERPT:  If the Sanders campaign team are smart and politically aware, which they have proven to be – propelling the "democratic socialist" from 4% nationally to now just under 37% – they will know that if Bernie were to announce Elizabeth as his running mate, the election would be over within minutes. Bernie and Elizabeth have the capability to unify and electrify the progressive grassroots in anticipation of the Presidential election. The pair would be able to offer a vision for America that would be so unique, so innovative, that the GOP would have no chance of winning over moderate Democrats or left-leaning independents (groups that they need to convert in order to increase the share of the vote they got in 2012 and win the election).

Progressives Rejoice: Elizabeth Warren is Now The Most Likely To Be Bernie Sanders' VP Choice

"If Bernie were to announce Senator Warren as his running mate, the election would be over in minutes."

Before you read – it would mean so much if you could check out our podcast and subscribe!

As Bernie Sanders surges in the polls, pundits are beginning to ponder – who is he likely to pick as a running-mate if he were to get the Democratic nomination? A couple of weeks ago, the answer would have been complex and difficult to predict. Now, however, it is becoming increasingly likely that, if Bernie Sanders was to beat Hillary Clinton and win the Democratic nomination – he would chose Elizabeth Warren as his Vice-President.

Why?

Firstly, the grassroots' desire for the pair of progressives to join forces underneath a unifying ideological banner is both undeniable and influential. Recent elections have proven that the key to winning is not appealing to voters from the opposite party – it is re-invigorating your base, mobilizing them and giving them a reason to vote. Just the mere potential coming together of the two progressives has liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents all over America dreaming again, full of hope and energy.

The campaign know of the universally high favorability ratings which Senator Warren has acquired during her tenure in the political sphere – combined with Sanders' equally strong ones – they are an unstoppable force to which political gravity wouldn't apply.

If the Sanders campaign team are smart and politically aware, which they have proven to be – propelling the "democratic socialist" from 4% nationally to now just under 37% – they will know that if Bernie were to announce Elizabeth as his running mate, the election would be over within minutes. Bernie and Elizabeth have the capability to unify and electrify the progressive grassroots in anticipation of the Presidential election. The pair would be able to offer a vision for America that would be so unique, so innovative, that the GOP would have no chance of winning over moderate Democrats or left-leaning independents (groups that they need to convert in order to increase the share of the vote they got in 2012 and win the election).

Need more proof that the grassroots are crying out for a Sanders-Warren ticket? We conducted a poll recently to derive which candidate the grassroots wanted Senator Warren to endorse and support. The results can be found here, but in simple terms ; 97% of over 3500 people wanted Bernie Sanders to be the beneficiary of the endorsement.

sanderswarren

A progressive force for real change

Secondly, Sanders and Warren are ideologically similar – and this counts for a lot when it comes to picking a VP candidate who you want to place your trust in to accurately represent your campaign's political views in the media 24/7. This fantastic comparison between Sanders' policy positions on the issues that matter and Warren's respective ones effectively highlights the undeniable similarities between the two on both economic, foreign and social policy.

As principled people of their word, they have also voted upon the same policy stances they espouse. This summary of their voting records during, this, the 114th congress, derives that Sanders and Warren voted together on 87% of their total votes. What makes this statistic even more remarkable is that Bernie Sanders wasn't a Democrat for the majority of those votes, he was an independent who caucused with the Democrats.

Meanwhile, Senator Warren seems to inherently disagree with former Secetary of State. Hillary Clinton on a whole spectrum of issues, as David Sirota of the International Business Times outlined, "For example, in her 2003 book, Warren slammed Clinton for reversing her previous position as first lady by voting in 2001, as a New York senator, for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005…

Additionally, Warren has been a vocal critic of so-called free trade deals, which create major regulatory protection for intellectual property, patents and copyrights, but often remove such protections for workers, consumers and the environment. Clinton, by contrast, was a key backer of NAFTA and voted for free trade pacts with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her Senate tenure."

An issue by issue comparison of the two female political figures highlights even more policy differences on a variety of issues of importance.

The reason why being ideologically aligned to each other is so integral to a potential Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate partnership is that it enables a party to come together underneath the one banner. We saw in 2008 that a lack of cohesion and connectivity surrounding the thoughts of Presidential candidate John McCain and his running-mate Sarah Palin, partly, cost them the election. If Clinton and Warren were to run together, voters and political spectators would be able to spot a minuscule piece of past conflict between the two candidates, blow it out of proportion and, possibly, cost the Democrats the election. With Bernie Sanders and Warren – there is no possibility of that occurrence.

Finally – we can tell that Senator Warren is now the most likely person to run with Bernie Sanders if he was to win the nomination because of what she, and Sanders himself, have done so far during this campaign. What do I mean by this?

If Senator Warren had any doubt about a possible VP run with Sanders, she would have immediately dispelled the rumors, hype and progressive dreams. But she didn't.

Similarly, when Sanders was asked about whether or not he was considering asking her to be his VP choice he said, "Elizabeth Warren is a very good friend of mine, I have known her for a long time, before she was in the Senate. She is a great US Senator. She has stood up to Wall Street. She has stood up to the Big Money interests. So, she uh, she and I will work together". If Sanders had any reservations he would have immediately publicized them, but he doesn't – he wants Senator Warren to run with him as she is the most suitable candidate to do so.

If ,and it's important we say if, because he hasn't won yet.

If, Senator Sanders wins the Democratic nomination we all know what his next move will be. He will pick up his phone, get on to his "very good friend" Elizabeth and say  "let's do this."


Share:

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Why does Ted Cruz's face make people feel uneasy?

This neurologist is on to something...From day one, I have thought Cruz looks a lot like the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy.  He has the same odious look and makes me want to avoid him. Others feel the same way about him.  He is detested by most Congressional members and it was the same in his school days. (His college roommate says people have asked him why he didn't smother Cruz in his sleep when he had the chance!) This article in Psychology Today gives some clues as to why people are turned off by Cruz. I've included the first 2 paragraphs of the article below.  To read the rest of the article, click on this link:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fallible-mind/201601/why-ted-cruz-s-facial-expression-makes-me-uneasy

EXCERPT:

It's hard to look at Ted Cruz's face. He's a brilliant orator with a sharp legal mind. But his expression unsettles me. I know my reaction is visceral and automatic, but as a neurologist it is my business to notice things out of the ordinary and probe them. The Senator's atypical expressions leave me uneasy.

Before I say why, note how many colleagues and former associates "loathe" him. A Bush alumnus told the New York Times' Frank Bruni, "Why do people take such an instant dislike to Ted Cruz? It just saves time." Former Senate Majority leader Bob Dole says, "Nobody likes him," while Rep. Peter King sees "malice." According to The Washington Post, screenwriter Craig Mazin, Cruz's former Princeton roommate, has called him a "huge asshole," and "creepy." He's Tweeted, "Getting emails blaming me for not smothering Ted Cruz in his sleep in 1988." The distaste for Cruz even extends beyond the US: Germans say Backpfeifengesicht, meaning a face in need of a good punch.

Share:

Liz Looms Large in the Dem Race

Elizabeth was my first choice for President, and I think of the progressive part of the Democrats as the Elizabeth Warren Wing of the party.  She and Bernie are one and the same. In a perfect world, what a ticket they would make together!!! If she makes an endorsement, it will be Bernie over Clinton, of that I am sure.  Elizabeth is the right person to be the first woman President, to come into that position with REAL change.  If Bernie makes it to the White House, she will definitely be one of his chief friends and advisers, and will be poised to become the first woman President after his term(s).  The ENOUGH IS ENOUGH revolution of the people has begun and is gaining in momentum every day!

Elizabeth Warren Looms Large In 2016 Presidential Race

She's not running, and she hasn't endorsed. But her influence is everywhere.

02/05/2016 10:20 pm ET
Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is a strongly felt presence in the 2016 presidential election, even though she isn't running. Some voters are eager to hear where she stands on the matter of Bernie vs. Hillary.

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Betsy Burtis, 52, is one of the most sought-after people in the country this week: She's an undecided voter in New Hampshire.

"I think Bernie speaks to my heart, and Hillary speaks to my head," the Derry resident told The Huffington Post Wednesday after a CNN town hall forum featuring Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. 

Burtis didn't think she'd have to go through all this. She was a volunteer for Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's presidential campaign, until he dropped out after the Iowa caucuses. 

Burtis said if O'Malley were to endorse either former Secretary of State Clinton, or independent Vermont Sen. Sanders, that wouldn't really make a difference in her decision. But there is one person's backing that would: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

"It would make a difference. ... I was really hoping she would run this time," Burtis said, adding that she wanted to see Warren become the first female president. 

Warren, of course, isn't running. She resisted a loud effort to draft her into the race, repeatedly insisting she had no interest in the Oval Office. Although she also hasn't endorsed anyone yet, she is a constant presence in the race. 

Without Warren, Sanders likely would not be the phenomenon he is now. His entire candidacy is based on exploiting an intra-party rift that Warren opened up by talking about Wall Street after the crash. By making corporate accountability a top issue for the party and highlighting the ways Democrats in Washington weren't taking it seriously, she helped create the coalition that is now backing Sanders. 

Sanders' primary message is that big money and corporate interests have tilted the economy and political system against regular people. It's a theme that Warren has long made her trademark, as Sanders readily points out. 

"When I talk about our economy, I use the term a 'rigged economy.' People like Elizabeth Warren and I use that term," Sanders said Friday at a "Politics and Eggs" breakfast forum in Manchester.

Sanders also invoked Warren during Thursday night's Democratic debate when responding to Clinton's resistance to restoring the banking law known as Glass-Steagall. 

"Folks who have looked at this issue for a long time, whether it's Elizabeth Warren or many other economists, will tell you that right now, yes, we do need a 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation," Sanders said. 

But Clinton, too, has tried to associate herself with the Massachusetts senator. On Thursday, Clinton retweeted Warren's criticism of a House GOP bill making it harder for the federal government to go after financial crimes.

Share:

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Dreams of the Dying: NY Times article



This excellent article in today's New York Times reminds me of my husband Tony's dream just before he passed -- of our daughter Susie (who died at age 21) meeting him in an airport as he arrived after a flight.  That dream gave him much peace, and I know in my heart that is just what happened as he crossed over.  I'm glad to see that this kind of understanding is more and more making its way into the mainstream press.  With so much ugly news peppered with lies in the media every day, this is a breath of fresh air -- and real Truth. We are blessed. (~.~)
Much Love to All!








Share:

Friday, January 29, 2016

Robert Reich: WHICH DO YOU WANT? THE "SAME OLD" OR A REAL CHANGE?

EXCERPT:
I came to see what's fueling the passions of voters in the 2016 election. If you happen to be one of the tens of millions of Americans who are working harder than ever but getting nowhere, and you feel the system is rigged against you and in favor of the rich and powerful, you will go in one of two directions.

Either you will be attracted to an authoritarian bigot who promises to make America great again by keeping out people different from you and recreating high-paying jobs in America. Someone who sounds like he won't let anything or anybody stand in his way, and who's so rich he can't be bought off.

Or you'll be attracted to a political activist who tells it like it is, who has lived by his convictions for 50 years, who won't take a dime of money from big corporations or Wall Street or the very rich, and who is leading a grass-roots "political revolution" to regain control over our democracy and economy. In other words, you will be enticed either by a would-be dictator who promises to bring power back to the people, or by a movement leader who asks you to join together with others to bring power back to the people.

...Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have because he's leading a political movement for change.

WHICH DO YOU WANT? THE "SAME OLD" OR A REAL CHANGE?
By Robert Reich

The Democratic contest has repeatedly been characterized as a choice between Hillary Clinton's "pragmatism" and Bernie Sanders's "idealism" – with the not-so-subtle message that realists choose pragmatism over idealism.

But this way of framing the choice ignores the biggest reality of all: the unprecedented, and increasing, concentration of income, wealth and power at the very top, combined with declining real incomes for most and persistent poverty for the bottom fifth.

The real choice isn't "pragmatism" or "idealism." It's either allowing these trends to worsen, or reversing them. Inequality has reached levels last seen in the era of the "robber barons" in the 1890s. The only truly pragmatic way of reversing this state of affairs is through a "political revolution" that mobilizes millions of Americans.

Is such a mobilization possible? One pundit recently warned Democrats that change happens incrementally, by accepting half loaves as being better than none. That may be true, but the full loaf has to be large and bold enough in the first place to make the half loaf meaningful. And not even a half loaf is possible unless or until America wrests back power from the executives of large corporations, Wall Street bankers and billionaires who now control the bakery.

I've been in and around Washington for almost 50 years, including a stint in the cabinet, and I've learned that real change happens only when a substantial share of the American public is mobilized, organized, energized and determined to make it happen. That's more the case now than ever.

The other day Bill Clinton attacked Sanders's proposal for a single-payer health plan as unfeasible and a "recipe for gridlock." But these days, nothing of any significance is politically feasible and every bold idea is a recipe for gridlock. This election is about changing the parameters of what's feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system. In other words, it's about power – whether the very wealthy who now have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well.

How badly is political power concentrated in America among the very wealthy? A study published in the fall of 2014 by two of America's most respected political scientists, Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern's Benjamin Page, suggests it's extremely concentrated.

Gilens and Page undertook a detailed analysis of 1,799 policy issues, seeking to determine the relative influence on them of economic elites, business groups, mass-based interest groups and average citizens. Their conclusion was dramatic: "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically nonsignificant impact upon public policy." Instead, Gilens and Page found that lawmakers respond almost exclusively to the moneyed interests – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

I find it particularly sobering that Gilens and Page's data came from the period 1981 to 2002. That was before the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United opinion, which opened the floodgates to big money in politics, and before the explosion of Super Pacs and secretive "dark money" whose sources do not have to be disclosed by campaigns. It stands to reason that if average Americans had a "near-zero" impact on public policy then, the influence of average Americans is now zero.

Most Americans don't need a detailed empirical study to convince them of this. They feel disenfranchised, and angry toward a political-economic system that seems rigged against them. This was confirmed for me a few months ago when I was on book tour in America's heartland, and kept hearing from people who said they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between supporting Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.

At first I was incredulous. After all, Sanders and Trump are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. It was only after several discussions that I began to understand the connection. Most of these people said they were incensed by "crony capitalism," by which they meant political payoffs by big corporations and Wall Street banks that result in special favors such as the Wall Street bailout of 2008.

They wanted to close tax loopholes for the rich, such as the special "carried interest" tax break for hedge-fund and private-equity partners. They wanted to reduce the market power of pharmaceutical companies and big health insurers, which they thought resulted in exorbitant prices. They were angry about trade treaties that they characterized as selling-out American workers while rewarding corporate executives and big investors.

Somewhere in all this I came to see what's fueling the passions of voters in the 2016 election. If you happen to be one of the tens of millions of Americans who are working harder than ever but getting nowhere, and you feel the system is rigged against you and in favor of the rich and powerful, you will go in one of two directions.

Either you will be attracted to an authoritarian bigot who promises to make America great again by keeping out people different from you and recreating high-paying jobs in America. Someone who sounds like he won't let anything or anybody stand in his way, and who's so rich he can't be bought off.

Or you'll be attracted to a political activist who tells it like it is, who has lived by his convictions for 50 years, who won't take a dime of money from big corporations or Wall Street or the very rich, and who is leading a grass-roots "political revolution" to regain control over our democracy and economy. In other words, you will be enticed either by a would-be dictator who promises to bring power back to the people, or by a movement leader who asks you to join together with others to bring power back to the people.

Of the two, I would prefer the latter. But what about the "pragmatic" Hillary Clinton? I have worked closely with her and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she's clearly the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

But the political system we now have is profoundly broken. Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have because he's leading a political movement for change.
_______

About author ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest, "Beyond Outrage," is now out in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause. His new film, "Inequality for All," is now available on Netflix, iTunes, DVD, and On Demand.

Share:

Monday, January 25, 2016

Why cursive handwriting is still important

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/living/national-handwriting-day/index.html

It's unfortunate that in this technological age, while adding in so many new skills, we are leaving important ones behind in the education of our children.  It's almost as though we are ignoring human traits that need nurturing for a positive development of the personality.  Printing and typing aren't a sufficient substitute for the feelings/emotions that can be expressed and conveyed to others in cursive writing. 
 
I agree that handwriting is important for all the reasons given in this article -- and not even mentioned in it:  the science of graphology* can tell a lot about a person as well. 

*
Graphology is the analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting helpful in being able to identify the writer, indicating psychological state at the time of writing, or evaluating personality characteristics.
Share:

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Hillary blames Bernie for economic hustle authorized by the Clintons


A must-read for everyone before casting your vote in the primaries.  "Chutzpah" is too nice a word for it.  "Hypocrisy" covers it better, but a new word must be invented for this kind of political chicanery.  Bernie Sanders stands tall (and getting taller every day) against the lies and accusations being flung at him by the ever-more-nervous Clintons who now see Bernie as a major threat to their second-time-around White House residency plans.   Please share this with friends.

Hillary Blames Bernie for an Old Clintonite Hustle, and That's a Rotten Shame

By Robert Scheer

The Clintons have no shame, that much you can count on. That stupefying arrogance was on full display in the most recent presidential campaign debate when Hillary Clinton countered Bernie Sanders' charge that she was compromised by her close ties to Goldman Sachs and other rapacious Wall Street interests with the retort: "Sen. Sanders, you're the only one on this stage that voted to deregulate the financial markets in 2000, ... to make the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission no longer able to regulate swaps and derivatives, which were one of the main causes of the collapse in '08."

Hillary knows that the disastrous legislation, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), had nothing to do with Sanders and everything to do with then-President Bill Clinton, who devoted his presidency to sucking up to Wall Street. Clinton signed this bill into law as a lame-duck president, ensuring his wife would have massive Wall Street contributions for her Senate run.

Sanders, like the rest of Congress, was blackmailed into voting for the bill because it was tucked into omnibus legislation needed to keep the government operating. Only libertarian Ron Paul and three other House members had the guts to cast a nay vote. The measure freeing Wall Street firms from regulation was inserted at the last moment in a deal between President Clinton and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, R-Texas, who had failed in an earlier attempt to get the measure enacted. Clinton signed it into law a month before leaving office.

Sanders soon figured out that he and almost all other Congress members had been tricked into providing a blank check for the marketing of bogus collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps made legal by the legislation, of which a key author was Gary Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs partner recruited by Clinton to be undersecretary of the treasury.

Eight years later, when President Obama nominated Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, it was Sanders who put a temporary hold on the nomination, stating: "Mr. Gensler worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and [former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman] Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of AIG and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history."

Today, Gensler is the top economic adviser to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. And the CFMA—key legislation that was "one of the main causes of the collapse in '08," enabling the great recession—is an enormous embarrassment that her husband on occasion reluctantly has conceded was drafted by his top aides and signed into law by him with great enthusiasm.

In an awkward power-couple footnote, Greenspan, chief prophet of radical banking deregulation, is married to NBC journalist Andrea Mitchell, one of the two debate moderators Sunday night, who pointedly challenged Sanders with questions about his integrity in his call for reform of the economy. But not as awkward as Hillary having been prepped by her debate adviser Gensler to attack Sanders for his vote for legislation that Gensler wrote when working for her husband.

Who are these Clintonites who now have the temerity to blame Sanders for the economic hustles they authorized?

Gensler in 1999 testified before Congress in support of the total deregulation of toxic derivatives: "OTC derivatives directly and indirectly support higher investment and growth in living standards in the United States and around the world." As for the credit default swaps, the phony insurance packages that brought AIG to its knees and almost destroyed the world economy, Gensler testified that they should be exempted by his proposed legislation from regulation existing under the Commodity Exchange Act: "swap transactions should not be regulated under the CEA." Had they been, the financial crisis could have been avoided.

Along with Gensler, Robert Rubin, who was Clinton's treasury secretary and a former Goldman Sachs chairman, and Lawrence Summers, a Rubin aide who succeeded the treasury secretary before the bill was passed, engineered this legislation, which became law and which Hillary Clinton now has the effrontery to blame on Bernie Sanders.

The same Rubin-Summers wrecking crew had also destroyed the sensible restraints on Wall Street greed, implemented as the Glass-Steagall Act by the administration of Franklin Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression. Hillary Clinton defends the repeal of Glass-Steagall's separation of commercial and investment banking, while Sanders wants it reinstated.

That repeal, as well as preventing any regulation of the toxic mortgage packages and swaps that still hobble the world economy and wiped out the fortunes of black and brown people with particular severity, is Bill Clinton's horrid legacy, and it is one that his wife now attempts to blame on Bernie Sanders. Shame.


Share:

The GOP'S HELLISH REALITY

I see Trump is bringing in Sarah Palin to endorse him in Iowa today -- what a pair, truly made for each other.  Wouldn't it be something if Trump chooses Sarah for his Vice President running mate?  This is one match-up that John McCain would most certainly applaud and encourage.  McCain hates Trump and would be delighted to see "the Donald" saddled with "the Sarah."  Who knows better than McCain what THAT is like? 

It's interesting that Trump thinks Sarah will be a benefit to his campaign.  I think most Republicans (except for some mouth-breathing knuckle draggers in the Tea Party) would have learned their Sarah Palin lesson by now and see her as a "yuge" detriment.  Trump seems to know what type his supporters are -- he is banking that there are a few morons left in the TP who see Sarah as intelligent (perhaps in comparison to them). 

The ruin of the GOP is upon them and the Trump/Cruz supporters don't even realize how far they have sunk into comic absurdity as their party crumbles beneath them.  The following article tells the tale well:


THE GOP'S HELLISH REALITY (SELF-CAUSED)
By P.M.Carpenter

One can always count on David Brooks to exacerbate his party's snarled predicament while attempting to untangle it. He's adrift in pronounced panic over the haunting spectres of Trumpism and Cruzism, and yet he can't see the fundamental source of either's strength, which is America's presumed and sudden weakness; its debilities, its deformities, its unspeakable decline, all of which are GOP fictions hustled by both tea partiers and Brooks' Establishment for seven distorted years.

Messrs. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Christie and others in the Republican presidential sewer are the voices of hyperpartisan darkness because their party demands it; years of Obamian foulness (or so the party line has gone) have brought the nation to the brink of doom and Lordy Lord what is to be done, indeed what can be done? America is in free-fall collapse, its enemies laugh at us and manipulate us and in general have their way with us, while at home a dystopian stench has set in.

President Obama is an iron-handed dictator who accomplishes every evil he dreams of, although he accomplishes these evils while being hopelessly incompetent. "Feckless" is the GOP's Orwellian word for the president's ruthless effectiveness. And just part — there are many, many parts — of Obama's entrenched evil is that he's indifferent to everyday Americans. Nay, he is positively hostile to everyday Americans. Unlike Trump, who attended Wharton, and quite unlike Cruz, who attended Princeton and Harvard, Obama is an Ivy League elitist who simply cannot "relate" to anyone clinging to guns and religion. Such has been the Brooksian, Establishment party line.

What has Obama's wickedness yielded? Trump and Cruz, of course, who of course terrify the dazed and disoriented David Brooks. Yet Obama's wickedness, indifference and unprecedented despotism have, according to Mr. Brooks today, also yielded a mass of "less-educated voters [who] are in the middle of a tidal wave of trauma." No less than a tidal wave, mind you, and no less than a traumatic one. "Labor force participation is dropping," continues Brooks, "wages are sliding, suicide rates are rising, heroin addiction is rising, faith in American institutions is dissolving."

Let's put aside that labor participation is dropping because America is aging, and that employment gains, under Obama, have been brisk. Let's put aside that though sluggishly, wages have in fact been rising — not sliding. And let us put aside that your average American neighborhood is hardly an opium den of addiction marked by mass suicide, or that American institutions, while weaker, are still standing. Let us try to put all this aside.

Can we — that is to say, can most of Brooks' readers? No they cannot. Why? Because David Brooks and propagandistic friends have been pounding their Establishment message of dystopian gloom ever since the giddy Elysium of George W. Bush faded. Whenever they haven't been labeled absolute evils, healthcare expansion and financial reform and even economic recovery and employment gains have been dismissed by the right's commentariat as mere nothings. Fear, anxiety and fatalism have instead been promoted — dangled relentlessly and recklessly before the reading base and viewing rubes, who've swallowed every last hyper-alarming word of it. The Republican Party is now draped in nothing but darkness.

This, it should be noted with equal relentlessness and no apologies, is what the GOP Establishment hath wrought. It is not a creation of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz; it is, rather, the creation of John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, David Brooks & Ink-Slinging Friends. It has damned them to the narrowest of electoral hells — a damnation they're just now noticing.

Reader's Comment

the blame game

The mystery of the 2016 election looms. We were on the "slippery slope" long before, but the tumble down the mountain side began in earnest as of the 9-11 cataclysmic disaster and its aftermath. While it was mostly an evil "miracle" that it was so successful, that all the details fell in place unnoticed in its planning, it was most definitely planned with the highest players in the US government. In short, a conspiracy. But as in most conspiracies, a lot of accidental things happened along the way to bring it off.

It was the starting point of the present, rotten mess we got, all of which was as well calculated and advanced by a few ring leaders, and the multitudes of greedy vultures on the edges playing along. After bush/cheney, we got obama/geithner. We were totally blind-sided by these last two, and I suppose with the bush business too. This crash was not an accident.

So, now we are playing the blame game, as tho' there is much else to do right now. What is different now than with the guys who precipitated the crash, for them it was easy to derail the train. All you gotta do is screw up the track a little on a steep grade going down, and gravity does the rest. Clearing the wreckage and manufacturing a whole new train takes time and work and money. And a lot of good organization and expertise.

This is where we are now with the crash, only we don't have the money, organization, or insightful expertise to get it done, plus that, we still got a whole bunch of secret saboteurs interrupting the rescue and recovery. And that's not an accident either.

To keep the money flowing to the top and most of us too deep in shock to realize what is happening, just trying to survive, we need all the mayhem, war, and terrorism. It keeps us preoccupied first of all and helpless and losing our rights, scared, and not willing to admit what has been done to us. We refuse to believe people in power could be so conniving and ruthless. It is too horrifying even to imagine.

And to compound our incredulity, we now are fussing over our candidates, arguing and fighting over which candidate can, or will be willing, to do anything about our mess.

And in truth, none of them have the foggiest idea what can be done, first of all, the options are so limited, and second, any candidate who becomes president will be facing the same stacked deck as did Obama. They will be all alone facing an army of well disciplined psychopathic private mercenaries who intend to keep citizens disoriented, and the money flowing to the top.


Share:

Monday, January 11, 2016

Great video: 102-year-old woman sees herself on film as 1930s dancer

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

Can't help but smile seeing this video (~.~)  What a beautiful woman (both then and now)!  Hers has been a life well lived.  ENJOY!
Share:

Another Medical OOPS! Common heartburn drugs linked with kidney disease

Common heartburn drugs linked with kidney disease

Prilosec, Nexium and Prevacid are part of a class of heartburn drugs called proton pump inhibitors. A new study links them to increased risk of kidney disease.

A type of heartburn medication called proton pump inhibitors may be linked to long-term kidney damage, a new study suggests.

Prilosec, Nexium and Prevacid belong to this class of drugs, which treat heartburn and acid reflux by lowering the amount of acid produced by the stomach.

People who use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have a 20 percent to 50 percent higher risk of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers, said lead author Dr. Morgan Grams, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The study was published Jan. 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study doesn't establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the drugs and chronic kidney disease. However, Grams said, "We found there was an increasing risk associated with an increasing dose. That suggests that perhaps this observed effect is real."

Proton pump inhibitors were used by more than 15 million Americans in 2013, according to background notes.

But as many as 70 percent of these prescriptions have been handed out inappropriately, and 25 percent of long-term users could stop taking the medication without suffering increased heartburn or acid reflux, the study authors said.

Use of the prescription heartburn drugs already has been linked to short-term kidney problems such as acute kidney injury and an inflammatory kidney disease called acute interstitial nephritis, Grams said.

Newer studies now show a link between the drugs and chronic kidney disease, in which the kidneys lose their ability to filter blood effectively.

Over time, chronic kidney disease can lead to kidney failure, forcing someone to undergo regular dialysis and possibly a kidney transplant, according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this new study, researchers used data on self-reported proton pump inhibitors use among more than 10,000 people taking part in a national study on hardening of the arteries. The researchers also evaluated data on outpatient PPI prescriptions among nearly 250,000 patients of a health care system in Pennsylvania.

From the start, PPI users in both groups were more likely to have health problems, such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart problems, the study noted.

In both groups, researchers associated use of the drugs with an increased risk of chronic kidney disease over 10 years.

The researchers also compared people using the drugs once a day with people who used them twice a day. They found twice-daily use was associated with a 46 percent increased risk of chronic kidney disease, versus a 15 percent increased risk in those taking one daily dose.

No one is sure how the drugs might damage the kidneys, but a couple of leading theories exist, Grams said. The medications can cause magnesium levels to decline in the body, and a lack of this important mineral could damage the kidneys. The kidneys also might become damaged over time if patients suffer repeated bouts of acute kidney inflammation due to proton pump inhibitors.

Gastroenterologists already are cautious regarding the use of the drugs, because they've been tied to other health problems such as bone fractures and infections of C. difficile and pneumonia, said Dr. Arun Swaminath, director of the inflammatory bowel disease program at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

"We have started to limit the time you have to be on it, and limit the amount you take," Swaminath said.

Because the new study isn't a clinical trial, it doesn't prove that PPI use causes chronic kidney disease, said Dr. Kenneth DeVault, president of the American College of Gastroenterology and chair of medicine at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

"These types of studies, these big data studies, can sometimes suggest a signal that something's going on, but I don't know if they prove it," DeVault said.

It's possible that the drug users suffer chronic kidney disease more often because they have overall poorer health, he said.

Grams said the study authors tried to address that concern by comparing PPI users to people using another heartburn medication called H2 blockers. Both patient groups tended to be equally unhealthy, but PPI users had a 39 percent higher risk of chronic kidney disease, the researchers said.

While this study shouldn't lead anyone to knee-jerk stop using proton pump inhibitors, people who use them regularly should talk with their doctor about whether they really need them, Grams and DeVault said.

"If you don't need these medicines, you shouldn't take them," DeVault said. "That said, there are reflux patients with heartburn who really need the PPIs to help them with their symptoms."

Doctors also might opt to prescribe an H2 blocker like Pepcid, Tagamet or Zantac. "To me, this is a cheaper, safer alternative that might work as well with some patients," Swaminath said.

Share:

Friday, January 08, 2016

Cruz's mother's birth certificate has been "found" Yeah, Right!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/



But do you believe it? I sure don't!  I'll bet it is a forgery! It sure looks fake to me!  I mean, who would believe a photo of something spurious like this, purporting to be a real birth certificate?  The Republicans taught us how phony these things can be with all of their relentless birther investigations re. Obama. Trump still doesn't believe Obama is a legitimate citizen of the U.S.  He and the Tea Party supporters have never believed he is an American citizen, no matter how many birth certificates or proofs have been shown. 

Thankfully the Republicans, for whom there will never be enough proof, have taught us that these things just can't be believed simply because a birth certificate has been presented -- and any such "proof" should always be questioned unendingly--forevermore.  Therefore, Ted Cruz can't possibly be an American citizen, no matter what this phony certificate says about his mother.  No, I'll never believe it!  Please join me in my Birther March against Ted Cruz, starting this afternoon in the downtown area (wherever you live).  We will be joined by John McCain, who just said today that Cruz's claim to U.S. citizenship needs to be looked into further.

Share:

Monday, December 14, 2015

Incontrovertible: a must-see online documentary

I know this is a busy time of year -- and everyone is VERY busy just living life as it comes at us moment by moment.  BUT, if you possibly can.....

Please set aside 2 hours to watch the documentary INCONTROVERTIBLE -- offering the most important education you may ever get about 9/11 and the truth of what happened that day. Credentialed experts, both high-ranking military/government officials and private architects and engineers (as well as firemen and policemen and videos taken on the scene that day) reveal information you may not have heard elsewhere.  After viewing this video, please pass it along if you have learned valuable information from it that you trust and can't forget -- and think others should know.  For the future of our children and our nation, this is one you won't want to pass by.

Educating ourselves to truth is the only real way we can effect change in our world.  Check out this video and see for yourself.  This is an education you will not get from the mainstream media -- but it has more truth in its 2 hours than you'll get watching a lifetime of network or cable news.  At the very least, I guarantee it will give you much food for thought.  If you can't give 2 hours to viewing it, at least watch the first few minutes, which contains incontrovertible evidence you won't soon forget.

"Incontrovertible" 

http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2015/22-interviewnotes/680-int095n
Share:

Architect Richard Gage's letter to Boston Globe editor


No one who has studied the evidence put forth by the thousands of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth could ever believe the WTC buildings collapsed from the planes crashing into them, especially when Building 7, unattacked and undamaged (except for so-called "scattered office fires,") fell symmetrically into its own footprint at 5:00 p.m, obviously from controlled demolition. It was a building full of government records...I wonder why the powers that be wanted it down? Hmmm?  If you are at all curious, follow the links below:
study all the evidence

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Watch the excellent new documentary "Incontrovertible" which presents powerful proof that the fall of WTC 7 was known and reported before it actually happened on BBC news and elsewhere. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing 9/11 news articles from reliable major media sources. Then explore the excellent, reliable resources provided in the 9/11 Information Center.

EXCERPT:
Nearly 2,400 architects and engineers, not including the 109 who signed our petition at the recent annual trade show ABX, have joined us because we stick to science. The physical evidence shows that scattered office fires could not have caused the 47-story WTC 7 to collapse symmetrically into its footprint. The evidence also shows that the twin towers were not leveled by the airplane impacts and ensuing fires. The implications are indeed far-reaching, and that is why we urge people to study all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

Evidence still raises questions over World Trade Center collapses
December 4, 2015, Boston Globe
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2015/12/04/evidence-still-raises-questions...

Alex Beam's portrayal of "architect truthers" is yet another disappointing example of a journalist resorting to ad hominem attacks and avoiding the facts when discussing the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on Sept. 11, 2001 (The 'truthers' and 9/11). Sadly, not one sentence of Beam's column examines the evidence for or against the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. Instead, he devotes 600 words to revealing his own ill-founded bias. Noting that some Americans think that what happened that day hasn't "been fully explained," he declares, "I don't agree," but gives no evidence-based reason for disagreeing. As building professionals, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth try not to let personal feelings interfere with investigating the three worst structural failures in modern history. Nearly 2,400 architects and engineers, not including the 109 who signed our petition at the recent annual trade show ABX, have joined us because we stick to science. The physical evidence shows that scattered office fires could not have caused the 47-story WTC 7 to collapse symmetrically into its footprint. The evidence also shows that the twin towers were not leveled by the airplane impacts and ensuing fires. The implications are indeed far-reaching, and that is why we urge people to study all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

Note: Big kudos to the Boston Globe for being willing to publish this opinion piece by Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Watch the excellent new documentary "Incontrovertible" which presents powerful proof that the fall of WTC 7 was known and reported before it actually happened on BBC news and elsewhere. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing 9/11 news articles from reliable major media sources. Then explore the excellent, reliable resources provided in our 9/11 Information Center.



Share:

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Donald Trump, the Breitbartian candidate, was inevitable

Andrew Breitbart, Fox, Murdoch, Ailes, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Cheney, Dubya Bush, Wolfowitz and the rest of the right wing oxymoron "compassionate conservative" crazies laid the groundwork in the creation of the monster TRUMP and now he is running through the countryside, uncontrolled and bent on destruction of the values -- and the Constitution -- our country was built upon. He appeals to the worst in humans, to the dark shadow side that Cheney warned us he and his puppet Dubya were embracing. ("We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will."   Interview on NBC 9/16/01).  Well, Trump is what has emerged from their work on the dark side -- and they're stuck with him.  And so are the rest of us who are having to witness in horror the bigotry, hatred and prejudice of millions of our fellow Americans, Republican voters who deem themselves to be "Christians," following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Unable to see past their own blindness, they cheer and applaud their new hero, "the Donald" -- a man who gives no concrete proposal as to how he will accomplish the dire deeds he promises, but continually trumpets his "expertise" in everything, while showing them nothing but rhetoric of hatred and fear. 

If you were to point out to the Trump supporters that they are believing and behaving exactly like the Germans in WWII, cheering Hitler as he mowed down country after country, group after group, with hatred and bigotry, they would be  "shocked, I tell you, shocked" that you could think such a thing of them. The only Trump supporters who would agree with your assessment would be the self-proclaimed "white power" neo-Nazis who proudly admire Hitler and love Trump.  I wonder how mainstream Republicans can remain in the same political tent with them. What do our Republican relatives have to tell themselves to justify their membership in the GOP these days? There has to be a heck of a lot of cognitive dissonance going on within their ranks. With the lunatic fringe bumping elbows with them, and some even shouting "Heil, Trump!" at the Trump rallies, what can normal, average Republicans be telling themselves that will allow them to still vote Republican?

Just taking a look at the rest of the GOP's presidential candidates tells you they are all on the dark path prepared for them by Cheney/Bush. Their rhetoric, though not as bombastic as Trump's, is still filled with fear and hatred. And, though they continually excoriate Obama and deny him support for his sensible proposals, none of them dares to point at the REAL culprits Cheney/Bush who plunged us into endless war on LIES when they invaded Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, thereby upsetting the balance that existed in the middle east--and leaving a hole for ISIS to fill.   The following essay gives some good insight into how this all came about.  But each person has to seek careful guidance within him/herself as they consider which candidate to cast their vote for in the presidential election next November.


THE BREITBARTIAN CANDIDATE
By Matt Osborne

I won't say that I saw him coming, but in a media-industrial complex gripped by inane Bothsidesism, where merely questioning the fake statistics and stupid ideas vomited by conservative mouths is still considered a crime on most programs, Donald Trump was inevitable. Entire media organizations now exist for no other purpose than to provide reactionary right-wingers with a parallel reality fabricated from the fantasy conspiracies born in a fever-swamp of social media and lunatic email forwards; Donald Trump is simply taking a natural evolutionary direction within that psychological habitat. The runaway Republican frontrunner touts hate group disinformation to make sweeping authoritarian pronouncements because he knows that he will not be held accountable by anyone who matters. In fact, attempts to hold him accountable merely fuel his fire.

Trump clearly enjoys the ardent enthusiasm of what used to be considered a lunatic fringe, but is now the conservative Republican base. Over the last few weeks, plentiful commentary has examined whether Trump should be considered a fascist, or whether it's more correct to define him as a proto-fascist, yet almost all of these writers have left the maddening crowd at his rallies, and the media channels which enable him, unexamined in any detail. It's as if we tried studying Mussolini without ever looking at his arditi goon squads or his party newspapers. Fascist propaganda masquerades as news to inflame the passions and shape the selection bias of people who desperately want a simple answer to their complex problems; fascism makes a fetish of violence, and in both areas Trump presents as a classical fascist.

Just look at his close and enduring relationship to Breitbart News. Since at least May, Trump has reportedly invested in a payola scheme at the house St. Andrew built, and it is money well-spent. In August, Trump promulgated his plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants from the United States through Breitbart News, where his approach is very much appreciated by border zone alarmists. The staff at Breitbart seems to be on 24 hour standby to dismiss and defend his latest remarks; ever since Trump proclaimed that he had personally witnessed thousands of Muslims cheering the destruction of 9/11 in New Jersey, Breitbart News editor John Nolte has repeatedly defended his comments by inventing facts and altering what Trump actually said. No other media organization does as much to support him.

Although the rest of us might dismiss such hokum for what it is, remember that the average Breitbart News junkie sincerely believes that Huma Abedin is a secret Muslim double-agent, that Hillary Clinton conspired to kill four Americans in Benghazi, and that President Obama wants the terrorists to win. They reject the 'compassionate' conservatism that failed with George W. Bush - especially his defense of Islam as a 'religion of peace.' Darth Cheney's opinion means absolutely nothing to them except in the negative. The proto-Tea Party right were thrilled by Sarah Palin's unfiltered id seven years ago, and now they demand a harsher, sharper, more militant conservatism to channel their demographic paranoia into unbending, unapologetic hatred of the political Other. No longer content to listen for dog-whistles, plainspoken rage is what they have come to demand and expect of their leadership.

When Trump dismisses criticism of his unconstitutional disregard of human rights as "political correctness" - when he declares "I. Don't. Care" in answer to the concerns of other Republicans about his bigotry - he is talking to the Breitbart News demographic, and they eat it up. When the 'politically correct' GOP establishment rejects Trump's divisive words, the average Breitbart News reader loves Trump even more for it.

"There is something going on with (Obama) that we don't know about," Trump intones ominously as he promises to end all Muslim immigration until elected politicians "can figure out what is going on." Perfectly expressing the way President Bush has been flushed down the right wing memory hole, Trump thus pretends that it's all a big mystery how this Islamic State thing came to exist. Much as Hindenburg famously declared that a 'stab in the back' was responsible for Germany's defeat in the First World War, shoving aside any discussion of accountability for the conflict and enabling a renewed militancy that set the stage for Nazi fascism, Trump is indulging an authoritarian populism that demands an even more destructive policy than before, and which is well-primed to accept fanciful explanations which appeal to their preexisting biases.

For Trump did not create the current wave of Islamophobia himself. Anti-Muslim bigotry was a concern after 9/11, but it became more problematic after 2004, when public opinion was shifting on gay marriage and other hot-button social issues even while the occupation of Iraq turned into an undeniable disaster. Whereas gay-bashing was increasingly problematic from a political perspective, Muslims made a very convenient target for demonizing language; by 2008, the conservative donor class had recognized the opportunity.

As seen in the various undying myths about president Obama's birth certificate, as well as the so-called 'Ground Zero mosque' controversy of 2010, a cottage industry of cranks and haters had grown into a mass movement with a high profile, and now they were empowered by big money. Dozens of bills popped up in legislatures around the country proposing to stop the supposed threat of 'creeping sharia,' an imaginary assault on the Constitution attributed to Muslim-Americans. Billionaire national security entrepreneur and Muslim-basher Aubrey Chernick poured his fortune into Pajamas Media, where Robert Spencer of JihadWatch denies the existence of moderate Muslims to justify his counter-jihad. Just months prior to his death - and a few months after a drunken conservative blogger harassed Muslim women at the progressive Netroots Nation conference in Minnesota before reportedly calling him on the phone to ask for help - Andrew Breitbart himself was also reputed to have received more than $9 million in venture capital from Chernick.

If you were wondering why the editorial direction of the website has consistently been so anti-Muslim, now you know the answer: it's in their interest. And Trump, who speaks to their interests like no one else on the debate stage, is their perfect candidate.


Share: