TRUMP ENCOURAGES UNNECESSARY POLICE VIOLENCE

 

"After Donald Trump on Friday made remarks which seemed to encourage rougher treatment of people in police custody, several police departments across the country came out and distanced themselves from the president's comments.

Speaking to law enforcement officers in Brentwood, New York, Trump said, "When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you see them thrown in rough. I said, 'Please don't be too nice.' Like, don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody. I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?'"

He added, "When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head you know, the way you put their hand over [their head]. Like, 'Don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head.' I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?'" http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-departments-distance-trumps-comments-encouraging-police-violence/story?id=48931838

 

 

We all know which group of people are disproportionately subjected to police uses of force.   Encouraging violence among white supremacist cops?

ELECTED OFFICIAL SAYS KILL MUSLIMS

The  pro-Trump conservative elected Kalaska Michigan Village President Jeff Seiting is known for his anti-liberal, anti-Muslim posts.  "In the last year, he posted rants on Facebook calling for the United States to kill ‘‘every last Muslim’’ and declaring Islam ‘‘a flesh-eating bacteria.’’ Asked at a village meeting in June whether he would apologize for the posts, Sieting told the room, ‘‘I owe nobody an apology for exercising my First Amendment rights.’’ His stance could cost him his job, but he doesn’t appear to be sorry about that either. According to the Traverse City Record-Eagle, Sieting suspects that the antipathy toward him is coming from nonresidents’ disdain for the president."  [His facebook site has apparently been removed. When protesters rallied, they were met by supporters, many described as 'bikers' who stated agreement with his statements. for more details and pictures, see source http://michiganradio.org/post/kalkaska-town-divided-over-officials-anti-muslim-posts]

"The current allergy to apology meets up with exasperation over so-called political correctness, exasperation that became a selling point of Donald Trump’s candidacy. He won. So, then, did the offenses, insults and assaults he and his campaign not only refused to apologize for but also, in the case of, say, the former campaign staffer and journalist-mauler Corey Lewandowski, swore never happened. Witnesses and contradictory video footage be damned.

‘‘Unapologetic’’ is how The Los Angeles Times characterized Donald Trump Jr.’s defense of his having met with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton last summer, during the presidential campaign. You could see just how un-sorry he was when he tweeted out his damning pre-meeting emails moments before The New York Times published them. In the Trump era, ‘‘unapologetic’’ constitutes a state of mind: There is no shame in flouting norms, exiting accords, jeopardizing international relationships, lying."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/is-being-unapologetic-the-new-patriotic-or-a-form-of-resistance.html?_r=0

TWO BILLS IN CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY VIOLATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Two bills that obviously are violations of freedom of speech have been introduced in Congress, S. 720 and HR 1697.  I am shocked that so many people in congress have co-sponsored these bills, both Republicans and Democrats. What happened to their oath 'to support and defend the Constitution.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22S+720%22%5D%7D&r=1

The bill  S 270, prohibits any U.S. person engaged interstate or foreign commerce from supporting:

• any request to impose any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation, or
• any boycott fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or any request by any international governmental organization to impose such a boycott.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

The other bill HR1697, is similar if not identical.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

• requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or
• requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel . . ."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1697?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr+1697%22%5D%7D&r=1

There are both civil and criminal penalties for violations.

PUTIN AND HIS ADMIRERS ARE DANGERS TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY--A LIBERTARIAN VIEW

Trump and frequent  Republican admiration of Russia’s dictator V. Putin are well documented. (See poll results mentioned below)  If you call yourself a ‘libertarian’  or Patriotic Republican who values freedom and democracy, how can you admire this man and his admirer Trump? Look at Trump’s record on issues important to true libertarians and those who sincerely care about American democracy.   I'm not talking about all Republicans or all libertarians.  I am certainly not talking about Sen. John McCain.[parens by blogger] or anyone at Reason.com

This article from the libertarian website Reason.com tells it like it is.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/07/russias-global-anti-libertaria

Check out this website to see what libertarianism really is.

 

“One of the surreal twists of the past year in American politics has been the rapid realignment in attitudes toward Russia. Democrats, many of whom believe that Russian interference was key to Donald Trump's unexpected victory last November, are now the ones sounding the alarm about the Russian threat. Meanwhile, quite a few Republicans—previously the keepers of the anti-Kremlin Cold War flame—have taken to praising President Vladimir Putin as a strong leader and Moscow as an ally against radical Islam. A CNN/ORC poll in late April found that 56 percent of Republicans see Russia as either "friendly" or "an ally," up from 14 percent in 2014. Over the same period, Putin's favorable rating from Republicans in the Economist/YouGov poll went from 10 percent to a startling 37 percent.”  . . .

Nonetheless, there is a real Russian effort to counter American—plus NATO and E.U.—influence by supporting authoritarian nationalist movements and groups, such as Le Pen's National Front, Hungary's quasi-fascist Jobbik Party, and Greece's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. Today's Russia is no longer just a moderately authoritarian corrupt regime trying to maintain its regional influence. Cloaked in the mantle of religious and nationalist values, the Kremlin positions itself as a defender of tradition and sovereignty against the godless progressivism and the migrant hordes overtaking the West. It has a global propaganda machine and a network of political operatives dedicated to cultivating far-right and sometimes far-left groups in Europe and elsewhere.

Joanna AndreassonTom Palmer, vice president for international programs at the Atlas Network, has been actively involved in projects promoting liberty in ex-Communist countries since the late 1980s; he has taken to warning against a new "global anti-libertarianism." Writing for the Cato Policy Report last December, Palmer noted that "Putin, the pioneer in the trend toward authoritarianism, has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into promoting anti-libertarian populism across Europe and through a sophisticated global media empire, including RT and Sputnik News, as well as a network of internet troll factories and numerous made-to-order websites."

Slawomir Sierakowski of Warsaw's Institute for Advanced Study and Emma Ashford of the Cato Institute have also warned about the rise of an "Illiberal International" in which Russia plays a key role.

Of course, for many libertarians, the post–Cold War international order that Putin seeks to undo is itself of dubious value. For one thing, that order is based on America's role as GloboCop, which isn't very compatible with small government. For another, it enforces its own "progressive" brand of soft authoritarianism, from over-regulation of markets to restrictions on "hate speech" and other undesirable expression. Yet for all the valid criticisms of the Western liberal establishment and its foreign and domestic policies, there is little doubt that the ascendancy of hardcore far-right or far-left authoritarianism would lead to a less freedom-friendly world. And there is little doubt that right now, Russia is a driving force in this ascendancy.  [Notice that the problem is not government regulation, it is 'over-regulation.' The problem is not government per se, but too much corrupt, inefficient and wasteful government that often steps on fundamental rights.  Libertarianism is NOT anarchistic or anarcho-capitalism.] . . .

. "But there are real reasons to worry.While "democracy promotion" in countries with no homegrown liberal tradition is a project likely to remain discredited for the foreseeable future, support for genuine grassroots pro-freedom aspirations in countries that look to America for leadership is a far more complicated matter. Ukraine, Georgia, and even the Baltic states may not be paragons of liberal capitalism today. Yet if they were bullied into a return to Russian vassalage, it would be a net loss for liberty and, arguably, for America as well."

 

CONFEDERATE MEMORIALS, 'FOUGHT HONORABLY'

  I.  This commentary from the Dallas Morning News was written by a writer from East Texas. Parentheticals [ ] by blogger

“As Dallas [like many other cities] debates whether to take down statues of Confederate soldiers, some argue that these men fought honorably and the memorials to them should remain. [what ‘forgot honorably’ means will be discussed at the end]

I agree, the statues shouldn't be removed on the grounds that Confederate leaders were particularly villainous. They should be removed because of the racist symbolism embedded in their commemoration and creation.

Let's start with some history: The Confederate War Memorial in Dallas was constructed in 1896, 31 years after the Civil War ended. The Robert E. Lee Park in Dallas was established in 1909, 44 years after the Civil War ended.

Why were these memorials and parks created so long after the war ended if they were supposedly created to memorialize these men who fought honorably?

History teaches us that these memorials were not erected to "honor" Confederate soldiers, but rather, they corresponded with the rebirth of the KKK at the turn of the 20th century. Members of the KKK and their sympathizers commissioned Confederate memorials to embody the idea of white supremacy, as many historians have noted.

A famous example of this is the carving of the Confederate Memorial at Stone Mountain, Georgia, which coincided with the rebirth of the KKK there in 1915. The KKK held annual treks to the top of Stone Mountain throughout much of the early parts of the 20th century. One of the main leaders in building the memorial, Caroline Helen Jemison Plane, even proposed to add a KKK figure to the memorial. (Her design was denied, thankfully.)  [A hooded man in a long white sheet is not a military hero.  He doesn’t deserve to be honored along with those who obviously fought and may have die.. To add this figure would demean the real intended honorees]

People and organizations related to the KKK constructed these memorials decades after the Civil War to appropriate history for their contemporary, racist ideologies.

The controversial nature surrounding the production of Confederate memorials is not the only problem: The other is that these memorials and statues truly symbolize racism. Some might argue that these memorials portray heritage and history, much like they argue they same for the Confederate flag, but this wrong for two reasons.

1. The story of the Confederacy is the story of racism in America; the two cannot be untangled. Arguments that the Civil War was actually about states' rights have been on the rise recently, but most credible historians in America [including the most award-winning, honored and respected Ph.D. historian, Eric Foner] agree that the Civil War was primarily about slavery. If the roots of slavery and systemic racism were not embedded in the South, the war would not have taken place.  [Don’t agree, try reading a Civil War history by real, highly educated, respected historian.  Caleb Foote is not one of these]

2. People employ symbols of the Confederacy to represent bigotry. For instance, mass murderer Dylann Roof famously posed in a picture holding the Confederate flag and a gun.

We cannot forget how many people have committed acts of terror with images of the Confederacy by their side. We cannot erase the fact that many racist actions have been perpetrated under an ideology that the Confederacy represented.

The statues and memorials in Dallas should not be removed because these men were particularly "evil" or were "villains." They weren't any more evil than the oppressors who maintain injustice in society today. These memorials should be removed because they represent the idea of evil, the history of racism that plagues America's existence, and we could only hope that such erasure would further advance a racially progressive America in 2017.

I read a quote about commemorating the Confederacy once that stuck with me: It is impossible to memorialize without romanticizing.

We should no longer romanticize those who committed atrocities against human nature in hopes that we could perhaps create a more perfect Union today. Instead, we should relocate these types of memorials to museums and history books, away from public commemoration, with cautions that spell out the terrible price Americans paid when racism went unchecked.”

James Chase Sanchez is an assistant professor of writing at Middlebury College, where he studies racism, public memory and cultural rhetorics. He grew up in East Texas. . .   

II.  What does ‘Fought Honorably’ Mean?

Trigger warning.  If you are strongly opposed to tearing down Confederate Monuments, do not read this part.

There is often not much value in arguing about the meaning of words and symbols.  However, let me wade in briefly.  You be the judge.

1.  Does the term ‘fought honorably’ mean only that the soldier fought bravely, hard and with sacrifice for his Army or country (irrespective of the personal motivation for fighting and the main motivation of his state for the fighting.?

2.  Can one ‘fight honorably’ for a dishonorable cause. Consider these two hypotheticals (I am not attempting to equate Confederates with Nazis, its just the clearest hypothetical I could come up with.

A.  Consider a young German boy in 1939,  He is a strong Aryan supremacist and joins the Nazi Party and the Wehrmacht.  He wants to help Hitler make Germany, Austria and other countries “Judenfrei.”  He knows this will require mass murder of innocent people. .  He is the bravest man in his unit, suffers much and dies trying to save a fellow soldier pinned down by Russian machine-gun fire.  We can call agree he ‘fought.’ Did his motive mean he didn’t fight ‘honorably.’

B.  During the Presidential campaign of 1860 this poor Mississipi white farm laborer working on a plantation supervising slaves with a shotgun,  begins to believe that the victory of Lincoln will ultimately result in the freeing of all black slaves in the U.S.  He doesn’t own any slaves himself, but is influenced by slave owners, pro-slavery churches, pamphlets, local and state politicians and others.  He sincerely believes whites are God’s chosen people and that Satan wants blacks to rape and copulate with white women to dilute the power of the superior white race.  He fears that free black males will become uncontrolled sexual predators and rape and impregnate his wife, mother and sisters.  That’s what his pastor has told him.  He sincerely fears white southern culture will collapse because of inferior black and mulatto people.  He believes the only way to save white supremacy is to secede from the Union, even at the cost of an American v. American war.  He realizes lots of northern and southern boys just like himself will die, but it’s worth it to preserve slavery and white supremacy in Georgia and the “Old South”.  He’s seen slaves with large welts on their back from whiplashes. He’s visited the slave market where attractive black women and sold as ‘fancy girls’ (or other euphemisms) are sold to become the sex slaves of rich whites.

He realizes that the war will materially benefit rich slave-owners disproportionately and knows that the Georgia economy is heavily dependent on slave labor and the slave trade. He want to keep Georgia as it is.  He wants to keep the deep South as it is.  He want secession for Georgia and the South no matter what the human cost. He has personal feelings for Georgia, but hates the thought of Georgia with free blacks with a vote and access to white Georgia women.   Abstract and emotional loyalty to Georgia is not his  motivation.  He knows he will lose his job on the plantation if slaves are freed.  He is basically unskilled and fears that free blacks will take most of the ‘blue collar’ jobs because the may work for less than he needs for his family.  He and most of his compatriots don’t understand arguments about state soveriegnty, a constitution,  a right to secede, etc..  He cares nothing about these.  about these.  These are not his worries or motivations.He fights bravely, suffers, encourages others to keep fighting and is killed during Picketts charge at Gettysburg.  He fought bravely and sacrificed all for the cause, did he fight and die for an honorable cause?  Should we honor with statutes and namings those who fought for such a cause.    Don’t get bogged down on spurious side arguments as to who started the war and was it constitutionally justified?  You be the judge   Please post your conclusions regarding scenarios A and B.

 

DANGER AHEAD, WHAT'S BEHIND TRUMP BASHING A.G. SESSIONS?

It’s not hard to see that Trump is intent on getting A.G. Sessions to resign.  Firing him would bring back memories of Watergate. Trump is desperate to get rid of the Special Prosecutor who is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice and some of his family, associates and former staff for a variety of crimes.  No one, not even the President, not even Donald Trump is above the law.  This is a basic tenet of the rule of law which is fundamental our Constitution and freedom.  Here we have a President who wants to avoid the rule of law by trying to quash and investigation of himself and others in his circle.  This is country is not some country run by tin-horn dictator.  It is a constitutional system attempting to secure rights and democracy for all. 

“The spectacle of President Trump’s efforts to humiliate the attorney general into resigning has transfixed the country. But while we are busy staring at the wreckage of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ relationship with the man he supported for the presidency, there is something more insidious happening. . .

The president is attempting to dismantle the rule of law, destroy the time-honored independence of the Justice Department, and undermine the career men and women who are devoted to seeking justice day in and day out, regardless of which political party is in power.” . . .

President Trump claims that it is very “unfair” that Mr. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, a recusal indisputably necessary given Mr. Sessions’ role in the campaign that is now under investigation. At its core, the president’s complaint is that he doesn’t have a political ally at the Justice Department to protect him from the Russia investigation. And he is apparently trying to bully Mr. Sessions into resigning so that he can put someone in place who will.  . . .

 Continue reading the main story [source]

“The president hasn’t stopped there. He has also tried to goad Mr. Sessions into re-initiating a closed investigation of the president’s former political rival. And all of this takes place in the wake of the president’s attempts to persuade the former F.B.I. director James Comey to back off the Michael Flynn investigation, and then firing Mr. Comey when he didn’t.  . . .

President Trump’s actions appear aimed at destroying the fundamental independence of the Justice Department. All the while, he’s ripping the blindfold off Lady Justice and attempting to turn the department into a sword to seek vengeance against his perceived enemies and a shield to protect himself and his allies.”

 

 

EVER WONDER WHAT TO POLITE, CIVIL DISCOURSE IN POLITICS? E.G. THE MOOCH

 

I. Just In Case you Missed it or didn’t know what the *** were,  here are some other reports

Warning Trigger:  Offensive language in quotes below.

Warning Trigger: For those infatuated with Trump, or otherwise dedicated to defending him no matter how outrageous the behavior, there are  offensive allusions below.

If you care about civil discourse, what happened to it, and are a Republican worried about your party, you need to read this.

[PARENS BY BLOGGER WHO USES THE ‘F-WORD’ WHEN ANGRY, BUT NOT IN PUBLIC OR TO REPORTERS]

Of the now former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus: “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic.” [Reince is not the only paranoid in the White House]

Of the White House Chief St7ategist: “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to such my own cock.”  [Ostensibly reporting on a fellow W.H. staff members sexual habits.  Will this become a regular part of ‘the Mooch’ report?]

Of the Beltway ‘swamp’ that wants to undermine Donald Trump: “They’re going to have to go and fuck themselves.”  [The Use of such language suggests that there is another swamp that needs to be cleaned]

Actual quotes from the New White House Chief of Communications about his fellow members of the White House Staff and given to a popular magazine Reports.  [quoted above]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/trump-vulgarity-scaramucci-conservatives.html

II. Some perspective from an excellent analysis by Bret Stephens in the New York Times.  [parentheticals by blogger]

In 1993 The Wall Street Journal published a famous editorial called “No Guardrails,” which tried to locate the source of the moral chaos that had engulfed much of America. “How, in T. S. Eliot’s phrase, did so many become undone?” the editors wanted to know.

Their answer, in a nutshell, was 1968 — specifically, the culture of excess, excuses and permission that abruptly supplanted the old American ethic of modesty, responsibility and restraint.

“Certain rules that for a long time had governed behavior also became devalued,” the editorial noted. “Whatever else was going on here, we were repeatedly lowering the barriers of acceptable political and personal conduct.”

I’ve always admired that editorial, but it needs updating. How did so many of the same people who spent the past 50 years bemoaning the decline of morality and decorum become the agents and enablers of the most morally grotesque administration in American history?

On Wednesday, Anthony Scaramucci, the new director of communications in the White House, phoned Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker to demand the name of an alleged White House leaker. Scaramucci was quoted (and later re-quoted in The Times) saying the following: [quoted above]

. . . Every vote cast for Donald Trump [at least in the future is] was a vote for vulgarity [and abusive attitudes toward women]. His supporters got exactly what they paid for.

A more interesting question is how the conservative movement came to embrace it.

Did it happen in the 1990s with the movement’s embrace of titillated outrage against Bill Clinton?

Top of Form

Did it come with the defeat of John McCain in the 2008 presidential election and the conclusion by rank-and-file conservatives that concepts of honor, service, integrity, independence, compromise and statesmanship — the virtues that just saved the G.O.P. from a political disaster of its own devising in Friday’s health care vote — were for suckers?

Or was it Trump himself who shook free the old restraints, like some kind of reverse Jonathan Edwards preaching a doctrine of sinners in the hands of a bored God who wants to be amused?

Readers will have their own views. Whatever the case, it’s worth noting a striking parallel between 1968 and 2016. In “August 1968,” The Journal noted in its editorial, “the Democratic National Convention found itself sharing Chicago with the street fighters of the anti-Vietnam War movement.”  [Democrats have also been guilty.]

Continue reading the main story

The editorial continued: “The real blame here does not lie with the mobs who fought bloody battles with the hysterical Chicago police. The larger responsibility falls on the intellectuals — university professors, politicians and journalistic commentators — who said then that the acts committed by the protesters were justified or explainable. That was the beginning. After Chicago, the justifications never really stopped.”

Agreed. So it needs to be asked of the conservative intelligentsia today: et tu?

Trumpism wasn’t just some bottom-up movement. It, too, had its professors, politicians and journalistic commentators — the theoreticians, enablers, sanctifiers, excuse makers and Never Never-Trumpers — who gave the movement a patina of intellectual respectability and moral seriousness that Trump himself had done nothing to earn.

They are our new Antinomians, who believe the president and his administration are bound by no law, even the Mosaic one, because they have already been saved by a new version of grace — in this case, the grace of defeating Hillary Clinton. Thought exercise for Trump’s media defenders: If the president were to sexually assault a woman in the Oval Office tomorrow, would you still justify your vote on the view that Neil Gorsuch’s elevation to the Supreme Court made it all worthwhile?

“The first duty of a revolutionist is to get away with it,” Abbie Hoffman said in Chicago in 1968. This might as well be the slogan of this administration and its supporters, too.

In the meantime, we have a “No Guardrails” presidency, in which Trump’s contempt for law, procedure and decorum are a license for the behavior of his minions and a model for future American demagogues and their apologists.

Write A Comment

Scaramucci’s outburst — to a reporter, no less — is insignificant in itself. But it exactly represents what this administration is and will continue to be, with the blessing of an intellectual class that has done as much to betray honorable conservatism as the liberal intelligentsia of the ’60s did to betray honorable liberalism.

As Scaramucci said, paraphrasing a proverb, “The fish stinks from the head down.” Yes, it does, Mooch. And you’re merely the mouth.

 

 

SENATE & W.H. FIDDLE, REAL PROBLEMS IGNORED/INSIGHT INTO PROCESS/PLEA

Is the 7-year embarrassment of Republicans trying to repeal and/or replace the ACA finally over? American government operating at it's worst. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, 'democracy is the worst poltical system until you look at all the others.'

Republicans have no one else to blame but their own leadership. Trump just has too many liabilities and no real leadership skills.  McConnell is a sick joke. 

White Congress fiddled, the world and other priorities burned.  The Koreans reportedly launched a missile with the capacity to reach California.  Might Congress not want to address this issue, at least now?  It may be too late for Congress to act now to protect the country and our allies.   What happened to infrastructure repair? I guess we can now focus on other crucial issues like building a multi-billion dollar wall on our southern border.  That just means billions less spent while real problems fester at home and around the world.

Insight into how politics works is shown by the following from the health care fiasco.

"The recruitment efforts grew more ham-fisted with time. After a vote on Tuesday to proceed to a debate on health care repeal, which only Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Collins opposed among Republicans, Ms. Murkowski received a phone call: Mr. Trump had directed his interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, to remind the senator of issues affecting her state that are controlled by the Interior Department, according to people familiar with a phone call between the two."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/us/politics/john-mccain-health-care-senate-collapse-skinny.html

Congrats to Senator Murkowski for refusing to be bullied!  How many other people in Congress got such calls along the way?  This may be SOP for DC, but it is a serious threat to the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

When are the American people going to get fed up and finally demand and vote for representatives and leadership with ethics, intelligence, leadership skills, veracity, and a real concern for the nation, not just their re-election and their Party.  It's time to stop voting on anger, bromance, emotion, and a whole serious of motives that result in inefficient, corrupt government.  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!

ANALYSIS OF REPUB. HEALTH CARE BILL FAILURE

Republicans have been planning on how to repeal, or at least gut, the ACA (Obamacare) for 7 years.  Trump vowed to repeal and replace.  The have a Republican in the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress.  Congress has been working on it for at least 7 months.  I can’t recall such a huge failure by either party majority and its President in at least the last century. 

Republicans made no attempts at bipartisanship or even unity among party members.  The bills were formulated in private meetings with just 13 Republicans.  Republican female senators were excluded.  When the basic bill was introduced, amendments were made and a vote taken quickly.  As was the case with the original ACA, votes were taken before anyone had time to even figure out what the final bill looked like.  Given the exclusion of many Republican Senators from the process, there was no solid consensus.  Is this how most Americans want Congress of operate?

In spite of Trump’s threat that he would be “angry” is it didn’t pass, Trump provided little help and leadership.  Many argue that he was part of the problem. 

thanks to the alleged 'fake news' New York Times for these excellent analyses.  [parens by blogger]

“This is what you get when you have a president with no fixed principles, indifferent to policy and ignorant of the legislative process,” said Charlie Sykes, a veteran Republican operative and former radio host. He added, “There’s a difference between whiteboards and legislating in the real world. It’s hard to take away benefits once conferred.” . . . But most Republicans believe that their path to repealing the law would have likely succeeded had it not been for Mr. Trump, whose comments about other topics and inconsistent support for their work — he celebrated a House-passed bill in a Rose Garden ceremony only to denounce it as “mean” weeks later — undermined their efforts. . . “I think this is in good measure Trump’s fault,” Mr. Wehner said, echoing what many Republicans said privately and increasingly in public. “He has no knowledge of public policy and is indifferent to it. To try and get massive reform through Congress, even if you have control of Congress, you need the president to be an asset. He isn’t only not an asset, he is an active adversary. He is dead weight for Republicans.”

Members of both parties said that the only path forward for health care — and indeed any legislation — would now have to be a product of bipartisan efforts.

“I believe we have an opportunity now to have discussions on durable, sustainable reforms,” said Representative Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania who opposed the House efforts this year to repeal the law. “I think moderate voices will be important in health care just as they already have been on budgets, appropriations bills and anything else that needs to be enacted into law.”

[There are calls for bipartisanship from both sides of the aisle.  This is not likely.  Many conservative Republicans (e.g. Cruz) really only want repeal.  They don’t want replace.  The Republican closed-door approach to legislation was resented by many Democrats.  Toxic bipartisanship still reigns.  Many on both sides realize that a constant barrage of tweets, White House chaos and scandals have weakened the President.  Hard-core Republicans will not tolerate bipartisan rescue of the ACA.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/us/politics/john-mccain-health-care-senate-collapse-skinny.html

 

SOME BACKGROUND AND HISTORY, IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN YOU THINK [parens by blogger]

“Days after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, Republicans gathered in Philadelphia for their annual retreat, exulting in their November victories as liquor flowed and Trump-themed socks were tucked into gift bags for lawmakers.

“Think of everything we can achieve,” Mr. Trump told them, predicting the busiest Congress in recent history and placing repeal-and-replace at the front of the line.

Health Care in America By THE ASSO

 

Yet in private sessions that week, Republicans worried about being saddled with a politically toxic “Trumpcare,” with some acknowledging that their dual promises — repealing the law swiftly without pulling the rug out from Americans — could not be reconciled.

“Republicans will own it,” Representative Tom McClintock of California said, according to an audio recording from the gathering. “Lock, stock and barrel.”

The House pressed on, slogging through boiling town halls that called to mind the Democrats’ fate in 2009. [The Republicans pushed ahead in the House and then the Senate despite angry protests by voters, polls showing declining support for Republican repeal and replace.  The CBO report showed that millions would lost health care.  Yet, it’s ‘full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes’ (health care woes for the poor, elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, ‘let them eat home remedies’]

Speaker Paul D. Ryan gamely played the salesman, delivering a slide-show presentation on live television with his sleeves rolled up for a bill that his president would eventually deride as “mean.” After pulling a planned vote in March, the House passed its version in May.

Mr. Trump celebrated the one-chamber triumph with a Rose Garden victory ceremony.

Senators were less convinced. From the start, a fissure emerged between those hoping to repeal the law and sort out a replacement later and those who insisted they must be done in tandem. Republican leaders in Congress planned to take the first approach. But that strategy quickly unraveled, with Mr. Trump demanding a simultaneous repeal and replacement.

 . . .

Continue reading the main story

In the upper chamber, where Republicans hoped to develop their own bill, the stumbles arrived quickly. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, assembled a working [closed door] group of 13 senators to draft the legislation — all of them male [Republicans] — excluding Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Collins.

Concerns came not just from moderates like Ms. Collins but from reliable Republicans in some unlikely places: Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who told any reporter within earshot that he did not have enough information to even form a firm opinion.

At the same time, Russia-tinged scandal shadowed Mr. Trump with increasing urgency, delivering a deluge of distractions. . .

In id-May, Mr. McCain, who was at the time not considered a potential swing vote on health care legislation, was asked if Republicans might be more willing to buck Mr. Trump on policy matters given the circumstances.

“Are you kidding me?” the senator shot back. “Do you think that I am not known — you think my reputation is that I go along?”

Even on matters specific to health care, Mr. Trump was not helping. At a lunch with Republican senators at the White House in June, he savaged the House measure and called for a more “generous” bill in the Senate, injecting himself into the chamber’s delicate negotiations.

Ms. Murkowski was seated directly to Mr. Trump’s right. As he ticked off soaring premiums in different states, the president leaned over to her. “I hate to say this to you, Lisa, but in Alaska, they’ve gone up 207 percent on Obamacare,” he said.

Weeks later, at another White House lunch, another fence-sitting Republican, Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, was seated in the same position. “Look, he wants to remain a senator, doesn’t he?” Mr. Trump said.

The recruitment efforts grew more ham-fisted with time. After a vote on Tuesday to proceed to a debate on health care repeal, which only Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Collins opposed among Republicans, Ms. Murkowski received a phone call: Mr. Trump had directed his interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, to remind the senator of issues affecting her state that are controlled by the Interior Department, according to people familiar with a phone call between the two.

[Trump can probably get away with treating House Republicans lke lackeys or toadies, but Senators are a proud, six-year term bunch.  Trump may be gone before the come up for reelection.  Trump just doesn’t understand the Senate.  They demand respect from the President.  Trump had already alienated McCain with his tasteless insult of McCain’s POW days. Anyone who is a veteran, esp. a Viet Nam veteran should have been outraged.  Yet, I’m sure some were in such a bromance with Trump that they voted for him anway.  You don’t insult Viet Nam war heroes.  Further, Trump had alientated many Senators with his attacks on former Senator, now Attorney General, Jeff Sessions.  Trump has met his worst enemy and it is not the media, it is him]

And Mr. McCain’s startling diagnosis of brain cancer had an impact — and not just on him.

“That was the low point,” Ms. Collins said, recalling a phone call with Mr. McCain after the diagnosis. “It made me realize that even though I was under a lot of pressure, it didn’t compare to what he was going through. It reminded me of how very personal and important health care is.”

On that initial vote, Mr. McCain had been a qualified yes, returning from treatment to deliver a short-term balm to Mr. Trump and his fellow Republicans.

But his final decision awaited. At home in Arizona, Mr. McCain had been fielding calls from senators wishing him well. He joked, on his return, that he would soon give them cause to regret all the nice things they had said about him.

Mr. McCain had come back to the Capitol with a plea for his colleagues, delivered on Tuesday in a soaring address from the floor: “Let’s trust each other,” he said, lamenting the state of the institution. “Let’s return to regular order.”

All week after that, Democrats approached him, praising the speech, with a request of their own: Help the Senate get there.

“I know,” Mr. McCain told them repeatedly. “I know.”

As Thursday night slid toward Friday morning, a group of Republicans, including Mr. McCain, demanded assurances from Mr. Ryan that the House would not simply pass the slapdash legislation that many viewed as a placeholder.

The White House thought it had persuaded Mr. McCain by assuaging him on two fronts: Administration officials had been in touch with Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, whom Mr. McCain had looked to for guidance, and nudged the governor to make clear to Mr. McCain that he was in favor of keeping the process going. And Trump aides made certain that Mr. Ryan assured Mr. McCain in a phone call that the so-called “skinny” repeal bill at hand would not become law. Mr. McConnell appeared confident as well, for a time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/us/politics/republicans-health-care-legislation-gridlock.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/us/politics/john-mccain-health-care-senate-collapse-skinny.html

 

 

 

"Lock HIM up" Chants coming?

Before, and after his election, Trump supporters frequently chanted "Lock her up!"  (Trump never mentioned she was entitled to due process.)
Trump supporters noted the same theme on posters, placards and bumper stickers.

Trump criticized former FBI Directory James Comey and the current Attorney General for not further pursuing charges against Hillary.

The Special Counsel and a number of Congressional Committees are investigating Trump for the crime of obstruction of justice, campaign offenses and other crimes relating to Russian contacts.  Many of his associates (incl. son and son-in-law) are also under criminal investigation

Trump has begun looking into his power to pardon.

Although they are all entitled to due process, I wonder how long it will be till we hear  'LOCK HIM UP" chants

TRUMPS REMARKS ABOUT "RUSSIA LISTENING" HURT PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

As anyone who follows the news knows, Trump and many of his advisors are under investigation by the FBI and congressional committees for their involvement with Russia in the 2016 campaign.  You might remember some of his remarks from just a year ago while still campaigning.

"One year ago today, then-candidate Donald Trump raised the issue of Russian election meddling in remarks that had critics crying treason and apparently landed him on the radar of the FBI.

It also became a subject that has dogged him relentlessly. In just three days this week, congressional investigators have spoken to his son, Donald Trump, Jr., his son-in-law, Jared Kushner and the former manager of his presidential campaign about Russian interference in the U.S. election.

On July 27, 2016, Trump was speaking to a crowd in Doral, Florida, when he said: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 (Clinton) emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Trump doubled down on Twitter later that day, writing "If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/27/trumps-russia-if-youre-listening-remark-one-year-ago-today-still-dogging-him.html

Plausible deniability will be hard to come by.

You may have noticed that I have started using Fox News sources. Trump has not accused them of fake news. Hopefully Trump supporters will not try to use this defense against these Fox posts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/27/trumps-russia-if-youre-listening-remark-one-year-ago-today-still-dogging-him.html

CONGRESSIONAL VETS DIVIDED ON TRANSGENDER BAN

"WASHINGTON –  President Donald Trump's decision to ban transgender service in the armed forces drove a wedge through military veterans in Congress, with one camp standing squarely behind the commander in chief and the other decrying his order as an ugly attack on dedicated troops.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a former Army helicopter pilot who lost her legs and partial use of her right arm during the Iraq war, called Trump's announcement discriminatory.

"When my Black Hawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq, I didn't care if the American troops risking their lives to help save me were gay, straight, transgender or anything else," she said. "All that mattered was they didn't leave me behind."
Duckworth said if a person's willing to risk their life as a member of the armed forces "and you can do the job, you should be able to serve — no matter your gender identity, sexual orientation or race."
But Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., applauded Trump for reversing an Obama administration directive issued in 2016 that allowed transgender service members to serve openly in the armed forces.
Russell, a retired Army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Trump prevented the "implementation of a policy that does not enhance readiness, forces all Americans to spend taxes on unnecessary elective surgeries, and would force many military physicians, leaders, and counselors to violate rights of conscience protected under the 1st Amendment."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/27/trumps-transgender-troops-ban-divides-veterans-in-congress.html

Russell is wrong.  The First Amendment does not give military personnel a defense to disobeying lawful military orders and regulation.  Nor does it give anyone a defense to failing to follow the law.  The Rule of Law applies no matter what one's conscience says. I wish people, esp. those in government, would learn something about the First Amendment before making pronouncements on it.  Remember, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Bible.

Finally, Trump is a disaster when it comes to pulling Congress together (witness the never-ending repeal and replace fiasco), he is a master at dividing Congress. 

TRUMPS TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN--CONT

. [parens by blogger]  "WASHINGTON — His agenda stalled and his party divided, President Donald Trump veered into the nation's simmering culture wars by announcing plans to ban transgender people from serving in the military.
Much of the political world — prominent conservatives and Trump administration officials, among them — was surprised and confused by the president's sudden social media pronouncement. But on the ground in North Carolina, Tami Fitzgerald was elated.  . . [Trump irrationally strikes back when he is frustrated, only making the problem worse.  The Republican Party is in real danger when it loses its middle and begins to court the extremes.  Republicans are divided into two camps, 1. the conservative cultural warriors, e.g. evangelicals, alt-right, etc. and 2. the big business conservatives, e.g. U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The Democrats learned this the hard way. Trump may never learn it. ] . . .

          

"Trump's abrupt announcement amounted to a direct political lifeline to his most passionate supporters. In his chaotic first six months in office, Trump has lost sizable support from independents and some Republican voters. But polls show white evangelicals remaining loyal — and essential to stabilizing his political standing.
"Pray for him as he faces critics and opposition," evangelical leader Franklin Graham wrote of the president Wednesday on Facebook, describing the transgender ban as "a bold move."
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-transgender-ban-nod-christian-conservatives-n787026

I am a strong supporter of religious freedom, but when religion is used to contradict the Constitution, rule of law, equal protection of law, and basic American values, it must yield.  Remember when many religious groups supported slavery by using Biblical arguments to bolster claims of black inferiority?  This is what I mean by WHITE CHRISTIAN SUPERIORITY. 

W.H. Press Chief calls W.H. Chief-of-Staff "F'ing paranoid schizophrenic"

Latest from the most dysfunctional White House ever. From Fox News, not yet labelled false news by Trump.

Trump's new Dirctor of Communications Anthony Scaramucci is using vulgar language to lash out against Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and make fun of Senior Adviser Steve Bannon in a new interview.

In a story published by the New Yorker on Thursday evening, Scaramucci asks writer Ryan Lizza to reveal who leaked the details of a dinner the president attended to him. He goes on to accuse Priebus of leaking.

“Reince is a f---ing paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said during a Wednesday night phone call.                                          

He said: “I fired one guy the other day. I have three to four people I’ll fire tomorrow. I’ll get to the person who leaked that to you. Reince Priebus—if you want to leak something—he’ll be asked to resign very shortly.” . . .
Impersonating Priebus, Scaramucci told Lizza: “Let me leak the f---ing thing and see if I can c----block these people the way I c----blocked Scaramucci for six months.”
Scaramucci also claimed that unlike Bannon, he isn’t interested in boosting his profile in the media.

“I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own c---,” he said. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the f---ing strength of the president. I’m here to serve the country.”  . . .                                         
He also accused Priebus of leaking his publicly-available financial disclosure form to the press.
“I’ve called the FBI and the Department of Justice,” Scaramucci said.
Scaramucci told Lizza he believed Priebus would resign soon and vowed to keep cracking down on leakers.
“What I want to do is I want to f---ing kill all the leakers and I want to get the president’s agenda on track so we can succeed for the American people,” he said.
Lizza said Scaramucci, speaking of Priebus, ended the phone call by saying he needed to go so he could “start tweeting some s--- to make this guy crazy.”
Scaramucci didn’t deny the comments in a Thursday tweet.
“I sometimes use colorful language,” he said. “I will refrain in this arena but not give up the passionate fight for @realDonaldTrump's agenda.”

The heat is on A.G. Sessions to resign.  Looks like the heat is on Priebus to resign.  Why not have the guts and courtesy to call them into the Oval Office and fire them if they are so awful. 










http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/27/anthony-scaramucci-uses-vulgar-language-to-lash-out-at-priebus-make-fun-bannon-in-interview.html