Showing posts with label Chuck Schumer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chuck Schumer. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

LATE BREAKING: Trump walks out on Pelosi/Schumer meeting


Trump walks out of Pelosi/Schumer meeting
Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it "very, very, very strange," adding, "sad" referring to a meeting at the White House with Donald Trump, which included Sen.Chuck Schumer. Pelosi described Trump's walking out of the meeting as "an orchestrated — almost to a 'poor baby' point of view" situation."

Here is Trump's tweet retort...
"So sad that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will never be able to see or understand the great promise of our Country."
 In another, he warns, "You can’t investigate and legislate simultaneously - it just doesn’t work that way."
Later trump heard Pelosi accused him of "engaging in a cover up," and apparently he went postal. One of his minions said...
"Bottom line: if Nancy Pelosi had not come out this morning and said what she said about "cover up," they would still be in there right now meeting on infrastructure." 
According to CNN, What Pelosi said: Pelosi on Monday night said the committees were on course to be successful and Democrats' message must be "No one is above the law," and that they are witnessing "the cover-up." The California Democrat also said they all agreed they needed to get to the truth, but that the public believes kitchen table issues must also be dealt with.


Wednesday, May 8, 2019

The disgraceful Mitch McConnell lies to Congress


Who the hell does Mitch McConnell think he is by assuming that he has the right to close the Mueller probe with a quick statement and a wave of the hand? This arrogant and obnoxious oaf is described in an Esquire article by Charles P. Pierce as a person who...
So he thinks
"Will Not Act in Good Faith, Even When the Security of the Country Is at Stake."
That's heavy but not unexpected. The Senate dictator has performed feats of unbelievable proportions solely for the sake of his ego and the Republican Party in the past, while completely ignoring the good of the country. But getting back to the headline and the fact that McConnell lied on the Senate floor, ThinkProgress says...
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spoke from the floor Tuesday and lied about several aspects of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election."
He stated emphatically that the investigation (Mueller probe) was finally over so the Democrats should accept that fact and move on. He then rambled on...
“What we’ve seen is a meltdown, an absolute meltdown. An absolute inability to accept the bottom-line conclusion from the special counsel’s report, which said the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. That’s the conclusion.”
A bare-faced lie since Robert Mueller's report did not draw any conclusions, and over 450 ex-prosecutors have stated "special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he holds." The maniac continues...
“Two years of exhaustive investigation and nothing to establish the fanciful conspiracy theory that Democratic politicians and TV talking heads had treated like a foregone conclusion. They told everyone there had been a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. Yet … the special counsel’s finding is clear. Case closed.”
Well, it isn't, and nothing this moron can say will change the fact that it is pretty much universal that Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, protected only by the chair he sits in. Now "the Democratic controlled-House Judiciary Committee has requested Mueller testify as early as next week to discuss the report and investigation," according to CNN. Schumer rebuked McConnell...
"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded to McConnell, saying 'it's not done' and accused the majority leader of 'whitewashing' Trump's conduct and attempting to protect the President from accountability." 
"The leader says, 'Let's move on. It's sort of like Richard Nixon saying let's move on at the height of the investigation of his wrongdoing."
The comparison with Nixon is highly appropriate, but just wish Chuck Schumer had been more critical of his mentally challenged colleague.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Mitch McConnell deserves the firing squad


The McConnell maniac at work
Can you imagine the line that would form to take up a gun in the shooting party? There's Chuck Schumer to start with, then Elizabeth Warren followed by Barack Obama, most recently John McCain, and most notably himself, if he could be two places at once. There are more, many that hide their real feeling for this political mutant, because he is so powerful and has absolutely no qualms about what he does. As long as it furthers Mitch McConnell's sick agenda. I realize my proposal is cold-heartened, of course undoable, but I wonder how many Americans would join me in this?

Most of you know that I am an advocate of gun control and solidly against gun violence, but this scenario seems fitting for McConnell who in 2016, "...cut the legs out from a bipartisan effort to keep suspected terrorists from buying guns." Meaning simply that U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, is in favor of terrorists being able to acquire guns in this country. Say what you want, but that's the only way to define it. I know it all sounds bizarre but this is the way the mind of this deranged individual works. To take it even further, you wonder how long before he just becomes fruit loops.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “No majority leader wants written on his tombstone that he presided over the end of the Senate.” He added...
“Breaking the rules to change the rules is un-American. I just hope the majority leader thinks about his legacy, the future of his party, and, most importantly, the future of our country before he acts.”
But these aren't the words of Chuck Schumer. They were delivered "...in 2013, by then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), when Democrats pushed through a similar filibuster change for lesser nominations." It just illustrates once again how muttonhead McConnell will do anything, no matter its damage to the country, to get what he wants. Washington Post writer Dana Milbank wants Mitch McConnell's tombstone to read, "...that he presided over the end of the Senate." Milbank wants to also say this...
“'He broke America.' No man has done more in recent years to undermine the functioning of U.S. government. His has been the epitome of unprincipled leadership, the triumph of tactics in service of short-term power."
I'm just waiting to see his tombstone. 

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Time to dump the Democratic Party...as we know it


The Democratic National Committee fired its entire staff. That even includes longtime Dem pundit, Donna Brazile, who just recently owned up to the fact that she had slipped Hillary Clinton debate questions based on her connections with CNN. Brazile had earlier fired Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was responsible for the Party being in the shape it is today. She stood by with her finger in her nose while Republicans took over political seats starting with city, county and state, all the way to the House and Senate, resulting in a loss of the White House. These people are a disgrace to the Party.

As The Blaze put it, "... a humiliating rout in an election that pundits widely believed would fall their [Democrats] way..." I am not sure just what good this will do, considering the guy doing the firing is a Dem hardliner. The Party couldn't see past their noses when Bernie Sanders tried to tell them that Keith Ellison was the man for the DNC job. They are, of course, both Progressives. And that brings me to the title of this blog, "Time to dump the Democratic Party...as we know it." As Kenny Rogers put it, "ygot to know when to hold 'em / Know when to fold 'em." Now's the time to fold 'em."

We need to revive the Progressive Party in the format of Bernie Sanders Our Revolution and make it a viable political movement that will give disillusioned Democrats/liberals a place to organize and establish a platform that makes sense to the modern day left. That said, did you know the Progressive Party was first organized in 1912 by Theodore Roosevelt after he lost the nomination of the Republican Party to his former protégé, President William Howard Taft. The Bull Moose version of the Party was dissolved in 1916. No more real activity until 2016 when the Bern came on the scene.

An early attempt at continuing the political positions of Bernie Sanders is by Cenk Uygur, founder of the Young Turks, who has started a movement called, Justice Democrats, whose goal is to put a significant number of Justice Democrats in the Congress. You can see their platform here. And to show how grave the situation was, here is Uygur's comment, "I was hoping someone else would do this, but when no one else was, somebody had to do it.” And of course there are the Progressive Democrats of America, who also mirror the Bern's movement. But so far, we're disjointed.

To correct this there must be a coordinated effort to officially structure a party apparatus that will withstand the organizational challenges of the developing members and the constituents. It will take a strong leader, and, of course, who better than Bernie Sanders? I do not think Sanders is too old to run in 2020, but if the consensus is that he is, there is Elizabeth Warren, and as a dark horse, how about Chuck Schumer? The Senate minority head even supported the Bern's pick of Keith Ellison to head up the DNC, who, unfortunately lost.

If we are to be ready for 2020, things must get moving pretty soon and it will take Bernie's organizational skills to ramp it all up. I will be a constant supporter from my blog and am sure there are many others like me, including the Young Turks. The cry is out there senator Sanders and only you can answer the call.


Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Is it possible Jeff Sessions is a bigger liar than Trump?


In the Senate hearings to confirm Jeff Sessions for Attorney general under the new Donald Trump administration, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn) asked him a simple question of had he had contacts with the Russians. Sessions reply...
“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."
Not only was he in contact with a Russian, he met with the Russian ambassador. And more than once. Nancy Pelosi, the House's minority leader, says that Sessions lied to Congress and must resign. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader also called for Sessions to resign. When Sessions did everything he could think of to change his story and rearrange the facts, all of which still didn't work, he recused himself...
"...from any and all investigations into the 2016 campaign by the Justice Department, a clear attempt to throw a bone to the howling pack in hopes that the controversy would die down."
It didn't, has only gotten worse, and Donald John was reportedly furious for his action, enough to start the maniac on another tirade accusing Barack Obama of ordering the wiretapping of the Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign. Completely unsubstantiated...nada...zip to back it up. But then, that's Donald Trump, a part of his formula to spread misinformation about anyone who crosses him or disagrees with him. The other part of his formula is outright lies, a technique he has employed from the first day of his presidential campaign, perhaps all his business life.

One can understand why Trump would be frantic over Jeff Sessions recusing himself since it is no doubt his Attorney General would have overseen an investigation of the Russian impact on Donald Trump's winning the election. And we all know from experience that Sessions is simply another of Donald John's yes men, ready to do his bidding no matter what. So, what's next? According to CNN...
"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday that Sessions' acting deputy attorney general, Dana Boente, should appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation."
If they drag their feet...
"We will then urge (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) and (House Speaker Paul Ryan) to work with Democrats and create a new and improved version of the independent counsel law, which would give a three-judge panel the authority to appoint an independent counsel," Schumer said.
Yeah, lots of luck on that. Here's what PoliticusUSA had to say about a McConnell reaction...
"Given his support for Trump, expect Majority Leader McConnell to resist calls for an investigation, but when even he has to admit that there are unanswered questions, the President has big problems."
With trump's luck so far, his star will rise even higher because his numb nuts followers will scream their fried President is being persecuted. So, if Congress isn't going to do anything and his supporters will only glory in their man's "maltreatment," what's left? Well, it comes down to an anemic left that has been so disjointed in the past that they can't even help themselves, much less try to bring charges against the President. I want you to understand that I do not take pleasure in the fact that, the dozing Democrats under Debbie Wasserman Schultz were grossly outsmarted by the Republicans. Pathetic!



Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi calls for Jeff Sessions to resign have fallen on deaf ears in the Republican Congress and in the White House. The Washington Post's take on this says that, even as the democrats mount their opposition against Sessions, his own Party is faltering with some trying to dump him altogether, and others avoiding him in the cloak room. In politics, everyone knows the laws of survival and when you lie, especially in front of a Senate committee, your supporters have a tendency to shun any relationship with you. WP comments...
"If Sessions's response on Thursday morning was the best that he can offer to defend himself, you can expect that the few people sticking up for him right now will dwindle to his immediate family sometime very soon. And when you lose your friends while under heavy fire from your opponents in political Washington, it's almost always curtains."
Jeff Sessions and his spokeswoman have repeatedly tried to explain the whole thing away as a routine act of the Senator as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman, said...
"Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak [the Russian ambassador]."
Neither the Russian ambassador, nor his spokesperson were available for comment but...
"The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year."
Chuck Schumer said in the Daily Beast...
"...Sessions had tried to 'dramatically mislead' Congress. He stopped an inch or two short of calling his former Senate colleague a liar, but made it clear he thought Sessions had concealed the full truth from the Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing. “If there was nothing wrong” with meeting Ambassador Kislyak, Schumer asked, why didn’t he just come clean and tell the truth?'”
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak with Jeff Sessions
Schumer talks about a special counsel to investigate Jeff Sessions and the Beast thinks that idea willIn 1999 he was a key proponent of prosecuting then-President Bill Clinton for allegedly lying under oath when Clinton was accused of perjury over statements he made regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Shoe on the other foot.
"avalanche" now, even with Senators that aren't in deep Red states. The downside of all this starts with Donald Trump who nominated this second-rate politician who is an avowed racist, and who has a past that should haunt him in this issue.

Lindsay Graham said in a tweet, "If Jeff Sessions spoke with Russian diplomat, then for sure you need a special prosecutor." Another republican Senator, Rob Portman, from Ohio joined in the call for a prosecutor. Here's a kick. Some thirty years ago, Sessions was too much of a racist to be a federal judge but now all of a sudden he has become Attorney General of the United States, which is on a higher level than the judgeship he wasn't qualified for. Just what happened in those thirty years to better  certify him for this job? I think nothing.

Friday, March 3, 2017

Is Charlie Manson's "Helter Skelter" lurking in the White House?


Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's chief strategist and top adviser, has already established his credentials as a white nationalist, racist and anti-Semitic. As an avid reader, he espouses to "The Fourth Turning, a book by William Strauss and Neil Howe, that history unfolds in cycles of 80 to 100 years. At the end of the cycle, the old order is destroyed and replaced." It would appear that Stevo plans to be there at the end of the cycle and implant the Trump/Bannon, perhaps the other way around, vision of common national purpose Trump announced in his first address to Congress on Monday.

As far as the speech goes, it was well received by Republicans as one would suspect but Sen. Chuck Schumer's comment was that, "Trump's speeches and the realities are very, very far apart. Until his reality catches up with his speeches, he's got big trouble," Others said he even looked a bit presidential, hoping he might maintain that and not revert to the crude behavior he has exhibited on Twitter and otherwise since entering office. But these hopes were born and played out before and it only took one news cycle to send Donald John romping down the crass road to vulgarity again.

Here are some comments by Lacy MacAuley, an activist and member of the Washington DC Antifascist Coalition...
"I absolutely think Steve Bannon is connected to a network of white nationalists. Just in the last few years there have been contractual obligations between white supremacist James O’Keefe at Project Veritas and Breitbart."
"Mr O'Keefe was known, she said, for taking down institutions and organisations via fake news."
"I would say that Steve Bannon is the advocate for white nationalism in the White House and there’s no doubt in my mind on that. It’s not just through Breitbart, it’s through his entire line of work."
There is the indication that Steve Bannon, when recruiting to fill out the National Security Council position, added himself to the NSC without Donald John knowing. Grounds for dismissal by most anyone, except someone with a hidden agenda. He was able to do this since he was the one writing the Executive Order, not Trump. The President was pissed but the fact that Bannon stays put is evidence of just how powerful the man is. Daryle Lamont Jenkins, executive director of the anti-racist organisation One People's Project exclaims...
"We've been dealing with a cluster of white supremacists within the beltway of the Washington DC area who do just that (using theories and academia to justify their racism): they try to back up their racism and justify why they should have a separation of the races, and justify a more strident attack on African Americans in the name of 'fighting crime'."
That's about as scary as it gets. Beginning to sound like Charlie Manson's Helter Skelter, starting a war between blacks and whites. Charlie was a confirmed white supremacist who went to the extreme of carving a swastika into his forehead with a knife. He had a following he mesmerized by convincing them that he was Jesus Christ, turning them into killers that would do his bidding. I'm not saying Steve Bannon is another Charlie Manson, but I am saying that Donald Trump, normally a man who seems to need no one, is definitely enthralled by Stevo's philosophies. That's what's scary.



The UK Independent reports that last July Breitbart had "...become the 'platform for the alt-right'. Now his platform has become the government." Well, that's even scarier. Donald John has been guilty of racially insensitive remarks in the past, and during his campaign refused to condemn the white supremacists who advocated for him, like David Duke and Richard Spencer. Here are some examples during his drive for the presidency...
  • He attacked Muslim Gold Star parents
  • He claimed a judge was biased because “he’s a Mexican”
  • He questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States
  • He even trashed Native Americans
  • He stereotyped Jews and shared an anti-Semitic image created by white supremacists
Just a few, but you can see more here. Huff Post says in a blazing headline, "President Trump’s VOICE Is About Justifying White Supremacy." VOICE means, Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. So far it sounds like... 
"...the program will be limited simply to undocumented immigrants, but will also include crimes committed by legitimate VISA holders, Green Card holders and possibly even permanent residents who are not naturalized citizens.
But then HP blasts, "Let’s call this what it is: VOICE is racist government propaganda." And isn't it interesting that Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart, had a section called Black Crime, which documented the crimes of immigrant communities, when it is known that immigrants are actually less likely to commit a crime than non-immigrants. Brian Stone of Huff Post adds...
"Creating this hate-list will do nothing except provide official government sanction to the opinions of white supremacist groups and the alt-right."
Remember Pat Buchanan, a presidential wanna-be from 1992, 1996 and 2000, who ran on a platform of right-wing populism and who also was a white supremacist? As far back as 2015, he was backing Trump along with other white supremacists, including David Duke. Buchanan regretted what he called the end of white America "...due to immigration and increasing rights for people of color." This is a statement that is hard to believe coming from someone who is supposedly educated and worldly. It can only be attributed to someone who is a true racist and white supremacist.

Most of this crowd doesn't believe in violence, a fact that is not true of Trump’s rank-and-file supporters. One such Donald John follower was Dionisio Garza III, 25, also a Muslim hater, who went on a shooting spree back in early 2016 in Houston, leaving one dead and six injured. In another instance...
"Jim Sherota, 53, [who]works for a landscaping company and attended Trump’s rally in Mobile, Alabama, on Friday, [August 2015] told The New York Times before Trump’s arrival that he hoped Trump would announce a plan to issue licenses for hunting undocumented immigrants and offer $50 for 'every confirmed kill.'”
Couldn't stand the heat
A bounty? Now that's interesting because back in 2015 just escaped El Chapo placed a $100 million
bounty on Donald Trump's head when the then candidate accused the Mexican government of letting him go tweeting...
"El Chapo and the Mexican drug cartels use the border unimpeded like it was a vacuum cleaner, sucking drugs and death right into the U.S."
Jake Tapper of CNN pushed Trump to disavow David Duke and rebuke any vote from him or any other white supremacists. It was a typical brainless meandering by the candidate...
"Trump claimed that he didn’t know anything about white supremacists or about Duke himself. When Tapper pressed him twice more, Trump said he couldn’t condemn a group he hadn’t yet researched."
A Virginia leader of the Ku Klux Klan told a TV reporter, “The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes, we believe in.” And that's the scariest yet. In closing, here is a list of his "white supremacist fan club" compiled by Huff Post reporters...
"The Daily Stormer, a leading neo-Nazi news site; Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute, which aims to promote the “heritage, identity, and future of European people”; Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, a Virginia-based white nationalist magazine; Michael Hill, head of the League of the South, an Alabama-based white supremacist secessionist group; and Brad Griffin, a member of Hill’s League of the South and author of the popular white supremacist blog Hunter Wallace."

Monday, February 27, 2017

Poltiical Satire: Can the Democrats/Progressives recover? Why not!


The left is in, perhaps, the worst shape it has been in for decades. Not that it has had that much past luck in Congress, the only positive recently being Barack Obama who was stonewalled by the GOP during his entire eight years. But the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton proves the inability of Democrats to nominate an electable candidate to run against a weakened Republican Party. They had one in Bernie Sanders but blew it allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to run the show and bar his nomination through unethical tactics, for which she was fired.

There are all kinds of perceptions of whether or not the Bern would have beat Trump, but what is sure is the fact that he would have given him a better run for his money than Hillary Clinton did. Sanders awakened the younger crowd, which could have been his ace in the hole against Donald John. But this is all history and the focus now is how to bring Democrats/Progressives back to the forefront. If my experience with the Demographic grassroots volunteer organization is any indication of the competency of this group, this is where the most work is necessary.

With both Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders I volunteered my services repeatedly; in both cases, with no takers. That's right, my background in database management, including computer modeling , along with research and market predicting was made available several times to apparently deaf ears. Due to my physical condition I couldn't go out and knock on doors, but time and again I offered to make my full office and experience available. Most recently, I contacted Bernie Sanders' campaign right up to the bitter end of his running for the nomination. Both in my state and national. Nothing.

And today Democrats are divided over how to handle Donald Trump, with one group wanting an all-out war, the other wants to try and guide him to the center. It should be obvious by now to anyone, you don't push Donald John in any direction but his own. And then there's the realization that with all the support to oppose Trump, the congressional Democrats just may not have the power to accomplish what they want. Impeachment now would take some strong support from Republicans and that isn't likely to happen. Of course, 2018 could turn the tide.
Bernie Sanders

But there has always been a leader from the left that stood out when minds were being made up aboutBernie Sanders stood out as the candidate of choice but denied his right. The American public was screaming for change, and the Bern offered that in a way that would most benefit the working class. What they got was Donald Trump, the voice of...Donald Trump.
campaigns and elections to come. Names like F.D.R., John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton most recently. There was a clear point at which the obvious was there to see in 2016, and that was when

One Democrat from a left-leaning state, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is Vice Chairman off the Democratic Governors Assn., spoke of massive support for resistance against Donald John's Executive Order banning refugee admissions and travel from seven majority Muslim countries. Gov. Inslee has backed a lawsuit that challenges Trump's Executive Order and commented that by "...undermining Mr. Trump across the board..." The Dems will eventually hope to split Republicans away from the President. Not sure the likes of Mitch McConnell are bright enough.

The Democratic Party is so weakened that several Congress members from red states are afraid to oppose Trump for fear of losing their seats. But what good are those seats to the left if they have no voice. The answer is none. I am having a problem here wondering why we aren't getting fire and brimstone from a team of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer. They are, combined, the strength of the Senate and the Democratic Party. The Republicans doesn't hesitate to gang up against the left when the opportunity presents itself.

However, this is what the Dems are up against. A House and Senate controlled by the GOP. A Republican in the White House, although with such a lack of direction in his first month in office, the unknown will be the biggest problem. And if, probably when, Neil Gorsuch is installed in the Supreme Court, it will be five conservatives against four liberals. Insurmountable odds? Maybe not. Leo Jennings, a Democratic consultant from Youngstown, Ohio, days the Party must adopt a more Progressive economic agenda. Progressives must reclaim the Party.

Jennings, a Sanders supporter, said...
"If we don't start talking about the things that we can do to make it better for all working-class voters, we're bankrupt as a party."
Jennings feels you should lump whites and blacks (people of color) together in the Party's approach, but not rule out identity politics altogether. A state Party organizer who is black said, "If the Democratic Party wants to be around in the future, they need to go left." Precisely what Bernie Sanders was doing when his campaign was ruthlessly side-tracked. The public saw Hillary Clinton as too middle of the road and much too connected to the financial community to be on the side of the consumer. Some Sanders' supporters did vote for Hillary butt it was all too late.

I mentioned the potential magic trio earlier of Sanders, Warren and Schumer, the latter also Senate minority leader, thinking how much power is held by three of the most forceful Democrats in the Senate. What if we now add former President Barack Obama to the formula as a civilian, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, if they are of a mind, plus any other Progressives that want to join the new club. Now, looking forward to 2018, and a takeover of the Senate, and the House too, this consortium could be unbeatable. Is there any reason why these people couldn't and shouldn't work together?

There is at least one skeptic, Chinemerem Onyeukwu, 23, the Party organizer from Ohio, who is worried that, "...Democrats are going to keep running what he called '90s-style campaigns despite Clinton's loss." He has reason to believe that when, in light of the changing analytics of the 2016 Primaries, the Dems were still under the spell of the wicked witch from Florida. There is hope with the election of a new Democratic National Committee head yesterday, Tom Perez. It wasn't the pick of Bernie Sanders and the rest of the Party left, so the future remains to be seen.







Friday, December 16, 2016

Bernie's full-steam lost on Clinton


"Will Democrats and their friends and allies question their belief that the political professionals are best suited to decide who runs?" Not my question, it comes from Progressive Magazine and wonders what the future for our movement is. Bernie Sanders had the momentum and the message many voters were looking for, in a parallel with Donald Trump's appeal, although Bernie did it with class. But thanks to an underhanded Democratic National Committee, Clinton was favored.

Of course, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former disgraced head of the DNC, was the culprit that pulled the strings that prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. She's gone, thanks to Bernie, but the damage was done and we ended up with...Donald Trump. The latter's differences with Bernie was the fact that Trump added immigrant -bashing, tax cuts for the wealthy and a future for white male supremacy, along with racist and white nationalists' views.

Bernie Sanders did not get the nomination and Hillary Clinton was not able to capitalize on his support, particularly the millennials, so we lost the White House and a chance to reclaim the Senate. But there is still hope with Bernie Sanders Revolution in motion and Chuck Schumer as new minority leader in the Senate. And there are rumbles everywhere about progressive grass-roots movements being pursued. Even if Donald Trump lasts a term, it won't be easy for him or Republicans.



Obamacare demand surging for 2017


Tom Priice
Donald Trump says he will repeal Obamacare and the Senate head idiot, Mitch McConnell, says that it is his priority in the new Congress. Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell warned Monday that a repeal of Obamacare without  a replacement in place first would cause chaos in the health care industry. In the face of all this rhetoric, over 4 million people signed up for the coverage, in effect, telling Trump and McConnell to put their repeal where the sun don't shine. This repeal crap is not for the good of the country, it s simply child-like retaliation against Barack Obama.

The 4 million includes 1.1 million new subscribers, with 2.9 million re-upping. Even states with their own exchanges are seeing an increase in interest. The Obama administration has created the hashtag #CoverageMatters to let enrollees share how health care reform has benefited them, to prove to the American public just how valued the program is. Although Tom Price, Trump's new HHS Sec. "hates" Obamacare, and Trump and Obama and McConnell have indicated their intentions...
"...it's expected that they will delay putting an actual end to the law for two or three years while they come up with a replacement plan."
Price is connected to the Tea Party and that always spells trouble when you are talking about social programs. He's a former chairman of the conservative Republican study committee, with his website describing him as “devoted to limited government and lower spending.” The new Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, claims that Tom Price is way out of the mainstream of what the American public wants. But, then, that describes whole Tea Party, an organization that has caused more damage to this country that all of its wars. Here's a quote from Scumer:
"Nominating Congressman Price to be the HHS secretary is akin to asking the fox to guard the hen house."
Old but very appropriate!

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Is it time to look at Dems working with Trump


Sen. Chuck Schumer, NY
He is the President-elect, although on last count Hillary Clinton was 1.7 million popular votes ahead of him. Major consideration for getting rid of the Electoral College but that's another story and possibly already in the works. So far I have been on Trumps back because during the ugliest U.S. election in many years, he said and proposed some terrible things. Degrading everything from Mexicans to women, never once apologizing, seemingly proud of everything said and done.

It's hard as hell to vote for someone like that; I didn't. It's hard as hell to like anyone like that; I still don't. But if this country is to recover from the vicious competition of the 2016 election, someone has to make a move. And Sen. Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) has done just that. Schumer is new Dem head of the Senate and has shown how we can work with the President-elect. Here's what he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press:
“Surprisingly, on certain issues, candidate Trump voiced very progressive and populist opinions,” Schumer said. “For instance, getting rid of the carried interest loophole, changing our trade laws dramatically, a large infrastructure bill.”
There's more positive input, Schumer names helping American workers with improved trade deals, on carried interest, and rebuilding the infrastructure. It's a good start and there's also a tough side. The new Senate head draws a line on the repeal of Obamacare, not going to roll back Dodd-Frank,” the 2010 law that imposed financial regulations on Wall Street after the 2008-09 crisis, and says Dems won't help him build the wall, instead comprehensive immigration reform .

Schumer doesn't like cabinet appointee Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who Trump picked to be national security adviser for his suggestion that fearing Muslims is rational. But strangely, no mention of Trump's powder keg appointment of Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. I'm just waiting for the real fireworks.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

The latest in gun control


What we need is big time gun control
There’s a hitch in the passage of gun control laws in the Senate with Republicans objecting to the Democrats who want some record keeping when it comes to passing a law to require background checks.  The Guardian reports that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants private sales made at gun shows and through the internet, not only to be put through the FBI-maintained National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), but they also want such sales to be recorded.”  The GOP (and the NRA) says no.

The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) led by head gun fanatic Wayne LaPierre, has always been against any kind of registry of names on who owns guns fearing that once that is in place, the government will come into gun owning homes and take away their weapons.  "There absolutely will not be record-keeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners," Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican, said.  This kind of thinking should illustrate to the American public just what a group of gun worshipping maniacs LaPierre and his NRA minions are.

And Chris Matthews, progressive anchor for MSNBC’s Hardball, said: “Support Gun Control or an American President Could Be Murdered,” in a closing commentary in a show last week.  It is worth repeating, below:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this: I was in a big city hospital recently and the issue of gun control, gun safety came up. The doctor said if I wanted to know the impact of guns, he could show me, take me down and show me. Look, gunshot wounds can be truly horrible. The reality justifies the discussion, today, about the need to try and do something about the proliferation of assault rifles, huge ammo magazines and the loopholes in the requirement that there be background checks. People have told us of the horrible sight of those young kids up in Newtown, Connecticut. I personally don't want to be part of a movement to keep those semi-automatics flying into the hands of all sorts of people as they are today, the hoarders, the survivalists, the paranoid, the criminal and downright politically nutty.

Why? Because the next mass shooter could well emerge out of this pack. Check the shooters of John F. Kennedy and Jerry Ford, who got shot at twice. Look at the men that shot Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King and Malcolm X and George Wallace. They all had political motives and they all had guns. Got them easy and put them easily to use. And if you're not against this movement, you're with it. Write your congressman and say what you think and what you feel. Do it tonight before you go to bed. The address of Congress, for all the congressmen is Congress, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., 20515. That's Washington, D.C. 20515. It will get there. And that's Hardball for now. Thanks for being with us.

Well done!

Did you know that the United States, specifically Waikiki, Hawaii, is a haven for tourists who just want to shoot guns, all kinds of guns, because the gun laws in this country allow you to do pretty much anything you want with a firearm?  There are four shooting ranges along Waikiki’s Kalakaua Avenue where they learn how to shoot assault weapons.  A large majority of these tourists are Japanese, who are frequent visitors to Hawaii anyway, here because they can get their hands on guns they are not allowed to own in Japan.  There, only shotguns are legal.

USA Today says that, “…fewer than 1% of Japan's population owns a gun and the death rate from gun-related violence is extremely low.”  There were only 19 gun-related homicides in Japan in 2010 and in comparing that with gun violence in the U.S., “47% of Americans own a gun, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, and 8,583 Americans were killed in gun-related homicides, according to the FBI's 2011 crime report.”  It is pretty pathetic to think that tourists coming to America do it because of loose gun laws, which causes the gun carnage in the U.S.

But on a final note, at one of this country’s largest firearms manufacturers, Beretta USA, one of its lunatic executives, Jeffrey Reh, the company’s general counsel, is quoted in The Washington Free Beacon as saying, “Maryland Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 is ‘tantamount to a legislative effort to ban certain books.’”  Just when you think you’ve heard it all.  Wacky Wayne would be proud of this sycophant of the gun rights fruitcakes who probably, himself, has never read a book outside the law.  Amen

Thursday, September 6, 2012

GOP Party Platform the height of arrogance on gun rights

When you think you have reached the epitome of gun rights demands by the gun nuts—they, along with the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), have gutted gun control laws for the last few years—here comes an election and the Republicans are demanding even broader gun rights.  I can’t imagine what is left to gain other than the possibility that we establish an open air market where anyone can go, 24/7, and purchase a gun, taking it anywhere they want to.

Romney VP, Paul Ryan "packing"
I can see it now.  On the front row of displays will be an assortment of assault weapons and magazine clips that hold 100 or more rounds.  Behind that an array of handguns designed to kill with just one shot.  All for self-defense, of course.  Gun vendors would exclaim how the NRA has finally won its battle for gun rights and from now on everyone from Paul Ryan to a James Holmes can own the weapon of his or her choice and do with it as they choose.  NRA Nirvana.

To hell with human life like the lives lost in gun carnage from Columbine to the Wisconsin Sikh Temple.  And these are just the ones that get the attention.  Look at Chicago recently; hardly a day goes by without multiple killings.  Since March I have documented shootings in the U.S. with results of 1,056 shootings leaving 432 dead; these figures are very conservative coming only from the media.  The CDC reports 31,347 gun deaths annually, 10.2 per 100,000 population.

The above alone is reason enough to re-elect Barack Obama, even though he hasn’t come out forcefully enough for gun control, while at the same time knowing we will get nothing, zero, from the Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan gang.

Gun control advocates call it an “audacious” answer to those calling for more regulation after the mass shootings.  I call it pure disdain for those killed and wounded at the mercy of loose guns, and a highly insulting slap in the face to one of their own, Gabby Giffords, former U.S. Representative from Arizona who was severely wounded in the 2011 Tucson massacre where 6 died and 13 more injured.  By guns.  It is this kind of Bizarre thinking that kills Americans daily.

NY Sen. Chuck Schumer on Democrats and gun control:

Dan Gross, Pres. Of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence laments that by pushing this gun rights platform, The GOP have, "put themselves farther out of touch with their constituents."  In a Pew Research Poll following the Aurora, Colo. movie shooting, 47% of Americans favored more gun control compared to 46% who don’t.  With those figures, and considering the firearms bloodbaths in 2012 alone, any thinking individual knows that something must be done.

Does that mean the NRA and its members and supporters don’t think?  Their ability in this area is questionable, but the real reason is they just don’t care.  These gun fanatics value their arsenals over human life and this is despicable.

On July 24, 4 days after the Aurora, Colo. shooting, The White House hinted that President Obama might address the gun control issue.  His spokesman Jay Carney even recapped Obama’s support for an assault weapons ban.  But just 2 days before this Jay Carney was reported as saying the President doesn’t believe new gun control laws are needed.  And in a later statement in August, Carney insisted the problem isn’t guns, it’s violence.

Where the hell does Carney and the President think the violence comes from?  This bullshit about guns don’t kill, people do, is just that, bullshit.  It takes a person to pull the trigger and the reason there are so many triggers to pull is the GOP conservatives, prodded with money from the NRA, repeatedly loosen gun laws.

The Democratic convention started this week and the platform does have some mention of gun control, as follows: “Guns: We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms.”  See the whole platform here.

But a headline in the Charlotte Observer on Monday read, “Don’t wimp out on gun-control platform,” with a subhead of “Democrats, let’s see a platform that pushes for more limits.”  In other words, they didn’t do enough. 

The author questions why the NRA thinks the President is the “most anti-gun president in modern times,” followed by a quote from the article saying, “Obama hasn’t proposed any anti-gun legislation during his first term, and his talk about gun control has been almost non-existent these last four years.”  I think we would be elated to hear something from Obama on gun control in his address tonight.  But we all will be satisfied if he just does something about it in his 2nd term.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

The real downside of the Supreme Court and Arizona’s anti-immigration law

Are we sure why many of us disagree with Arizona’s case on illegal immigration in the Supreme Court?  After 40 years that brought 12 million Mexican immigrants into the U.S., more than half illegally, many have decided to shut their own door to the border and stay in Mexico.  A report by the Pew Hispanic Center says more illegals returned South of the Border in 2010 and 2011 than entered the U.S.  But Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer and Russell Pearce want them all out.


Russell Pearce with Jan Brewer

Russell Pearce is the author of Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB-1070 and the former state Senator who was removed from office because of his radical views on immigration.  Yet he, along with Brewer, was in Washington last week pushing the Supremes.  It might have done some good, along with the fact that many of the Justices, including the liberal ones, don’t completely agree with the feds’ case.  It’s the old “States Rights” issue raising its head again.

The case is not a test of the legality of racial profiling in Arizona but rather a challenge to the federal government which says SB-1070 is unconstitutional because it preempts federal law.  In a Salon article there is a list of the four provisions for preemptive concern as outlined by Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS blog.  They are:

  1. individual’s legal right to be in the U.S., if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” of illegality.  If arrested, the individual cannot be released until his legal status is verified by the federal government.  That is the law’s Section 2(B).

  1. A provision making it a crime under state law for an individual to intentionally fail to obtain and carry legal immigrant papers with him while in Arizona (Section 3). 

  1. A provision making it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job, publicly solicit a job, or actually work in AZ (Section 5[C]). 

  1. And, a provision that allows police to arrest without a warrant any person for whom the officer has “probable cause to believe” that the individual has committed any crime, anywhere, that would make that individual subject to being deported (Section 6). 


Hispanic Supreme Court Justice
Sonia Sotomayor

An editorial in the Phoenix Arizona Republic said, “This case is not about civil rights. It's about state vs. federal power. Chief Justice John Roberts made that clear as arguments began. Civil-rights questions are the subject of other lawsuits. ‘So this is not a case about ethnic profiling,’ Roberts said.”  That was followed by the following from the paper:

“Yet those are the deeply troubling aspects of SB 1070. The law put a shadow of suspicion over all Latinos, created painful divisions in our state and gave Arizona an ugly reputation.”

The implication is that many of us progressives disagree with the law, as well as those copy-cats in other states, due to their violation of civil rights.  It is a known fact that law enforcement in Arizona was stopping individuals simply based on the color of their skin, for minor violations, arresting many, some legal residents.  The feds have initiated a program of rounding up illegals but they are only interested in the ones with criminal records, turning minor offenders loose.

Fareed Zacaria of CNN wonders if Mexicans are “giving up on U.S?  He cites the delicate economy here and how NAFTA has made Mexico more competitive.  Some of their exports are even cheaper than China’s.  Zacaria thinks we are losing our “allure.”  He refers to our demographic advantage that is shrinking due to an older median age, which produces less needed young workers.  That had been satisfied to some degree by legal and illegal immigrants entering the U.S.

Illegals are scared to death in states with stringent immigration laws, afraid to leave home without the proper papers.  The issue has also caused a drop in citizens from Latino communities reporting crime, a reaction which has become a major problem for law enforcement.  But, again, this case is not about civil rights.  But it is for those who believe in human rights, so the question is what to do.  The Democrats plan to force a vote in Congress to invalidate Arizona’s SB-1070.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York has announced his intention of bringing up his “fallback legislation” in the Senate if SCOTUS upholds the law  which probably has little chance of passing there or in the GOP House.  But it would certainly make points with the Hispanic community and act as the prelude to what the Dems might accomplish in November with Obama winning re-election and an increase in numbers in both the House and Senate.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Warren Buffett for President? Read on

Buffett/Secretary taxes
I received one of those forwarded emails recently that I usually delete without reading but when I noticed Warren Buffett’s name in the headline I took notice.  I am a big admirer of Mr. Buffett because he is one of us; the simple folk who try to keep this insane country headed in the right direction.  When Buffett said he shouldn’t pay less taxes than his secretary, I thought there would be a major rush to sign him up for the nation’s number one job.

The "Big Guys" discuss money
But the cagey investor knew, as most of us progressives do, that we have a great President in Barack Obama and all he needs is some support.  Hence, the “Buffett Rule” was born and the man told the President he could run with it and he did.  It is well known by most that this tax on millionaires would make only a small dent in the deficit, but it is the nature of the inequity between what the wealthy pay in taxes and what the simple folk like you and I do.

Mitch McConnell
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, poop pooped the idea when it was introduced and even some Democrats were soft in their support.  But the American public was solidly behind the concept.  A Gallup poll in April found that 60 percent of Americans supported the proposal, including 63 percent of political independents.  Chuck Schumer, a Democratic Sen. from New York said it’s “proof positive” the GOP is on the defensive over taxes.

So it’s agreed that Barack Obama is the one for November.  So what else could Warren Buffett do to help the President in his re-election?  In a recent CNBC interview he claimed, “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes.  You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”

How the Buffett Rule works by Warren Buffett:
In another Gallup poll taken in February, Congress was at a record-low of 10 percent, down from 13 percent in January alongside another previous low of 11 percent.  Congressional approval averaged only 17 percent in 2011.  With all of these facts in the books, it was only natural that the financier would come up with some proposed legislation of his own.  His idea is the “Congressional Reform Act of 2012.”  Here are the sections of his bill.

1.    No  Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2.    Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into                 
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3.    Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4.    Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5.    Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6.    Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7.    All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 1/1/12. The American people did not  make this contract with
Congressmen/women.

Warren Buffett comments that “Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.  Right now there is 90 percent of the country that would agree.

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...