Friday, December 22, 2017

The real cost of the Tax Cut for the Wealthy

What is the real cost of this ts bill for each American?  What will they get for their temporary tax reduction, if indeed they get them?

The NY Times tax bill calculator below does not ask for your real estate taxes or state of residence which could make a significant difference,so results will vary. New Yorkers would usually do worse because of state and local taxes not being fully deductible in some cases.

So with the tax calculator you can get a rough idea of how you will do.  But how much more of the National Debt will each person owe?

The average American's portion of the increased debt from this bill individually is about $4300, and it's $8600 for a couple and $17,200 as the share of the increased debt for a family of 4. (The Increased Debt = $1,500,000,000,000 divided by 350,000,000 Americans to get $4300 each person.) This is your share of the debt individually you've incurred for the extra $25 a week you will receive from the tax cut if you are married with 2 kids and make between $25,000 and $75,000 per year. The exact details on your status will make a difference.

But this does not count the decrease in government services that you would have had access to that you will not have access to in the future that is sure to follow. If they cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by $1,000,000,000,000 your total new debt plus LOSS OF FUTURE SERVICES would be about $7,100 individually or $28,400 for a family of 4.

Yet even this total does not count the increase in premiums from higher health care insurance costs which this tax bill would cause. If that is also $1,000,000,000,000 you are now in the hole for $10,000,000 or $40,000 for a family of 4! This is what you'd get for the extra $25/week based on my assumptions.

But here is the final straw; if you are priced out of the health insurance market due to premiums being too high and you get ill - your loss can be almost any amount - leading to bankruptcy. And if Obamacare is gutted to the point where pre-existing conditions are cause to be denied coverage, you could be dead.

Now of course the above math goes for the wealthy as well - but what is $10,000 in total to a rich person or $40,000 to a rich family when they may see $100,000 or much more in lower taxes every year, not to mention the decrease in the Estate Taxes for their heirs or the PERMANENT  tax cuts for corporations owned primarily by the wealthy? And that is why this tax cut is for the wealthy.

The Coalition of Decency

There are two separate aspects to the tribalism now engulfing the U.S. One tribalism involves a moral chasm and the other is a dogmatic economic chasm.

The dogmatic economic chasm is the difference in economic and political governance between the extreme right and moderate left/center; an example is the extreme right wing idea that a tax cut for the wealthy is good for the country vs. the moderate left/center idea that income inequality is really at the root of slowing economic growth in the U.S. It is my opinion that the extreme right wing position is delusional and that the problem of income inequality is objectively obvious. Please note that I have not mentioned policies that could address this problem but instead only identified what I think the underlying problem.

The second aspect of U.S. tribalism in a sense is more important in my opinion; people of good will could be in error on economic policy - it is not an exact science. A person of good will can be excused for getting the economics wrong.  The second, more important aspect is a question of  moral values.  Simply put, the extreme right has a thread of racism/intolerance/sexism/greed running through it. Those "right wingers" not in that camp reject these "values" can include otherwise economic dogmatic right wingers, such as Jeff Flake or John McCain or George Will, etc.  They can be "forgiven" for their "errors" and be bargained with, one could hope.  They are not loathsome.  I would say they are simply wrong in their economic opinions.

However, here are the moral issues that a large segment of the extreme right and the President's supporters accept, embrace and promote:

Racism (birtherism, anti-immigrant sentiment, White Nationalism and Supremacy, etc.)
Intolerance (Islamophobia, Christian fundamentalism and privilege, homophobia, anti-transgender bathroom bills, etc.)
Sexism (acceptance of sexual assault, pedophilia, male chauvinism, etc.)
Greed (cutting taxes for the wealthy and rich corporations while not funding CHIP, and threatening to end Obamacare with no replacement, cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy)

These last items are MORAL issues; they are about right and wrong in the sense of harming or helping actual people directly. A morality that is divorced from actual harm or well being of persons is a useless morality even if it is claimed it is the supposed "word of god." Acceptance of obvious harm to many others in the name of a dogmatic belief (such as religion, tradition, dogma or "free markets") is USELESS.

And here is the embodiment of the moral rot that is at the core of the tribalism in the U.S.: former senatorial candidate Roy Moore, supported and endorsed by the Republican Party and the President as well. He stands for every immoral position listed above and he was the candidate of the extreme right, the Republican party and the President. I can forgive economic wrong-headedness, but the immorality of Roy Moore and those who supported him is unforgivable and cannot be reconciled with people of good will.  This tribe of moral indecency MUST be opposed.

This leaves us to ponder our options for the future; we must consider working with all those who support moral decency even if their economic policies are not ideal or are even what we consider "wrong."  We must now have a "Coalition of Decency" and work of people of good will with opposing views on non-moral issues.  We cannot afford to lose otherwise.

Trickle Down?

The origin of "trickle down" economics apparently was a joke by Will Rogers many years ago. But nothing is too crazy that a lot of people won't believe it anyway.

Bottom line: if you want economic growth, more money to the wealthy is NOT the answer - they tend to hoard their money and spend less of their earnings than the non-wealthy. Instead, more money and net income to lower income persons who spend most of their income will increase demand for goods and motivate businesses to expand. Duh!

This article is from 2015 and is not an anti-Trump reaction article.

Is it Objective to be Disgusted?

The "anti-Trump" texts sent between FBI agents were released in December 2017 to lawmakers and the shocking thing about them is that THEY ARE NOT SHOCKING AT ALL!

They are certainly less shocking than the chants of "lock her up" encouraged by the so-called President's former NSA director. They are less shocking than a million things said by congresspersons who were supposed to "objectively" investigate the Benghazi nothingburger or the Clinton email server nothingburger. They investigated and found nothing - but they sure said a lot!

The "anti-Trump" texts are actually indicative of what an OBJECTIVE PERSON would feel about a person running for the highest office in the country or in the highest office in the country who was a) a lying racist birther b) a lying candidate who spread vicious lies about his competitors (such as Lying Ted Cruz's father helped assassinate JFK b) was bigoted against Muslims as per his proposed Muslim ban d) bragged about groping and sexually assaulting women and invading the privacy of teenage beauty contest contestants e) insults and provokes a fellow loathsome idiot with nuclear weapons named Kim Jong Un, f) lies all the time and g) other items too numerous to mention. None of this is in dispute.

Yes, objectively, the so-called President IS loathsome; objectively he IS an idiot; objectively his presidency IS terrifying. Anyone who does not see this is NOT objective or fair.

And remember, those who disagree are persons we know to be NOT objective. "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said. THOSE voters are NOT objective ACCORDING TO HIM.

Any FBI agent who does NOT see the so-called President as loathsome or an idiot or terrifying is oblivious. He or she should not be an FBI agent. 

Saturday, October 21, 2017

The "grown-up" has left the room

The so-called President's Chief of Staff, General John Kelly is not what we have been told he is. We have been told he is the "grown-up" in the room and that he stood between the so-called President and chaos. He is not the "gown-up" in the room. He has become just another alternative fact machine that works in the White House.
The so-called President began this episode when he was asked about the incident in Niger that led to the death of 4 U.S. soldiers. He failed to explain the incident and instead chose to attack previous presidents who, he claimed, failed to call the families of fallen soldiers, while he claimed to have called "virtually" all the families, an issue he was NOT asked about. The so-called President's claim about the other presidents was a lie and so was his claim about his calling the families himself. This lying is something we have come to expect of this so-called President as is his immediate politicization of an important issue while at the same time accusing his critics of the politicization!
To bolster his false claim, he told the press to ask General John Kelly whether Obama ever called after his son had died in Afghanistan. It turns out the General Kelly had attended a breakfast or two for Gold Star families with the Obamas, though technically they may not have spoken on the phone.
Furthermore, since the so-called President had not called the families of the 4 recently fallen soldiers (and probably others previously) he rushed to do so soon after his false  claims.
Apparently the call by the so-called President to the family was not well received and present to hear the call (as they were on their way in a car to pick up his body) was Rep. Wilson, a former mentor and long time family friend to the fallen solider, La David Johnson. When Rep. Wilson retold the account of the call, the White House attacked.
The so-called President sent General Kelly the next day to a press conference to do his dirty work where, to deflect from the fact that he basically was confirming Rep. Wilson's version of the call, he retold the story of Rep. Wilson behaving poorly at a building dedication years before where she took credit for the funding of the building:
"“A congresswoman stood up, and in a long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there in all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call, he gave the money – the $20 million – to build the building, and she sat down, and we were stunned,” Kelly said during his extraordinary press conference.
All of the above retelling was UNTRUE. Please take note that General Kelly mentioned that she "stood up there" presumably to make her speech and "she sat down and we were stunned" when she ended her speech. Please note on the actual video of the actual event, she never mentioned the $20million, and that she received a STANDING OVATION after her very appropriate and professional speech in which she was magnanimous to the FBI, Republican Rep. John Boehner and Republican Senator Marco Rubio.
General Kelly either lied or mis-remembered. No matter what, he was wrong. Here is how we now know he is not the "adult in the room." The next day, the White House re-doubled their attack on Rep. Wilson. No apologies. They simply claimed her grandstanding was not on tape even though what General Kelly described, "her standing up and sitting down," was precisely what the tape contained. Who are you going to believe - the so-called President and his Chief of Staff, or your lying eyes?

Just what you should now expect from the Chief of Staff of the so-called President.

Friday, October 20, 2017

Graceless so-called President

The so-called President claims President Obama did not call the families of fallen soldiers and implied that he did not call Gen. John Kelly when his son was killed in Afghanistan.

A few things about this:

First, no one had asked the so-called President whether HE had called the families of fallen soldiers. HE instigated this politicization of this issue ALL BY HIMSELF when he failed to answer a question about what had happened in Niger and instead chose to falsely bash previous previous presidents for not calling such families. ( )

Second, Gen. Kelly did not ask that the so-called President publicize the fact that Obama did not call him after his son's death. ( )

Third, President Obama, may not have directly called Gen. Kelly, "but a person familiar with the breakfast for Gold Star Families at the White House on May 30, 2011, told NBC News that Kelly and his wife attended the private event and were seated at first lady Michelle Obama’s table." (NBC News, below)

OK, maybe they did not speak on the phone but they did have breakfast at an event specifically for the families of fallen soldiers. Gen. Kelly sat at Michelle Obama's table.


Niger and the unfit so-called President

*The so-called President was asked, in a press conference, about the deaths of 4 soldiers in Niger a few weeks ago. The question was asked because most Americans did not know that U.S. soldiers were in harm's way in Niger.

Here is the actual ENTIRE question: "Why haven't we heard anything from you so far about the soldiers that were killed in Niger? What do you have o say about (OFF-MIKE)?" 

PLEASE NOTE that the question did not include any query about whether he had called the families.  In fact, he did not answer the actual question which was a question about the situation that led to the deaths of the soldiers or the situation in Niger itself with which most Americans were not aware of.

But now look at part of the so-called President's answer which he volunteered without being asked: "...if you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make calls. A lot of them didn't make calls. I like to call when it's appropriate, when I think I am able to do it."

It was the so-called President who IMMEDIATELY politicized the situation. No one had asked about whether he had called the families but he got defensive anyway. This defensive reaction is a part of his unfitness.

But it gets worse. He does finally eventually call the wife of one of the fallen soldiers, LaDavid Johnson's wife, Myeshia Manual. "In the call, Trump told her, “He must have known what he signed up for,” according to an account of Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.), who was riding in a limousine with the soldier’s family when the president called and heard the conversation on speakerphone. Wilson said Trump’s comments made the young woman cry...When she actually hung up the phone, she looked at me and said, ‘He didn’t even know his name.’ That’s the worst part,” Wilson said Wednesday on CNN’s “New Day...”

OK, anyone can have a tough day, and perhaps the so-called President had North Korea on his mind. But wait! There's more! He needs to put his signature on this story - BY LYING!

From WAPO: "Trump pushed back in an early-morning tweet Wednesday, saying Wilson “totally fabricated” her account of the phone call — and that he has proof... I didn’t say what that congresswoman said; didn’t say it all. She knows it,” Trump said when asked about the exchange by a reporter.

"(Rep.) Wilson, who met Johnson while running a mentoring program for black youths in Miami, stood by her statement, saying she was not the only person who heard the call. In a Facebook message to The Washington Post, Cowanda Jones-Johnson (the mother of the fallen solider) said that she, too, was in the limousine, and that (Rep.) Wilson’s account of the conversation was accurate. 
President Trump did disrespect my son and my daughter and also me and my husband,” Jones-Johnson said."

Though he ignored the death of the 4 soldiers in Niger for days and days, saying nothing, when he was finally asked about it he chose, instead to bash President Obama; and then lie about what he said when he finally did call the family of one of the soldiers. But this does not stop the hypocrite-in-chief and his supporters from bashing football players who protest racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem. Some patriot!

The so-called President is unfit for the office of President of the United States.

The so-called President attends hate group summit

The so-called President spoke to a "Voter Summit" organized by a "hate group" (according to the by the Southern Poverty Law Center) the Family Research Council ( ) and distributed at the summit was a flier from another designated hate group - Mass Resistance . ) So the so-called President is now hanging out in person with "hate groups" rather than apologizing for them from afar.

This is what he told those at the "Voter Summit" according to NPR: "President Trump spoke to one of the most faithful blocs of his base on Friday, telling attendees of this year's Values Voter Summit that in America "we don't worship government, we worship God."

Actually, we only worship a god or gods IF WE WANT TO. Idiot.

Who says the so-called President is unfit?

Those damn liberals! They are spreading the fake news that the President is unfit for the office!

Oh wait!

These are Republicans saying this! Is there some sort of pattern here? Is this "fake news?" Or is there some reason why even people in his own party and nearly everyone outside of his party believe the so-called President is unfit for the office?

Such as:

Sen. Jeff Flake, Rep. Justin Amash, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Rep. Bradley Byrne, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Rep. Barbara Comstock, Sen. Mike Crapo, Rep. Charlie Dent, Businesswoman Carly Fiorina, Sen. Deb Fischer, Gov. Bill Haslam, Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Former New York governor George Pataki, Sen. Rob Portman, Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Gov. Brian Sandoval, Sen. Ben Sasse,

Kellyanne Conway should be quiet

Kellyanne Conway tweeted today "“It took Hillary abt 5 minutes to blame NRA for madman’s rampage, but 5 days to sorta-kinda blame Harvey Weinstein 4 his sexually assaults.”

Hillary therefore beats Ms. Conway's record for assigning blame to a sexual assaulter by about 1 year.

"After the (Access Hollywood) tape leaked, Conway supported Trump’s excuse that this was just locker room talk and said Trump has always been “gracious and a gentleman... After millions of women marched to protest Trump’s inauguration last month, Conway told ABC News that she “didn’t see the point.”" (Huff Post)

Here is the scoring update: Hillary Clinton, no longer in office or working for the government, condemns Weinstein, a former donor, in 5 days; Kellyanne Conway, 1 year after the Hollywood Video came out is still an adviser to her friend, the so-called President who bragged about sexually assaulting women and who has had a dozen women confirm the assaults.  She just called the tape "locker room talk" and obviously is ignoring the actual claims of assault.  Yeah, but Hillary…


Excuse me for trying to simplify things - Einstein did say it was a virtue to make things as simple as possible but no simpler. I suspect that the issue of racism, or racism or white nationalism, bias, and bigotry, etc. is being over-analyzed. It is likely that natural selection has selected a trait in humans that leads to tribalism (which benefited tribes and therefore assisted the survival of those tribal members) and it is a powerful trait in some of us and less so in others. This trait also does not have to be based on skin color, but could be based on other physical attributes, gender or even non-physical belief systems.

I remember watching a documentary on TV about a fellow (African in ethnicity but light skinned and who could pass for white) who could get brown-eyed people all worked up against blue-eyed persons in his seminars in a matter of minutes. The audiences did not seem to realize they were being manipulated to be against the blue-eyed people. They were ready to persecute the blue eyed people even though their own "ethnicity" varied from European, African to Asian, etc.. They united against the "blue eyes." It was easy.

Here is my point; us humans are often largely irrational. We are largely idiots. We are subject to impulses that may have been useful in some way in the past in order to survive but are useful no longer.  Once upon a time, if an individual’s “tribe” was more likely to survive, the individual was more likely to survive as well.  We therefore became tribal in behavior.  We began to be biased towards the traits of those in our "tribe."   Now, however, the world has shrunk – we are pretty much now all in the same tribe.  Tribal behavior can be dangerous in this world.

The struggle is to behave rationally and with concern for others. This is no easy thing. We often fail. It could be anyone one of us at one time or another. We need to continually question our beliefs and behaviors to make sure they are rational and compassionate.

Charlottesville again

Written October 8, 2017 in Facebook

There was another march in Charlottesville by White Nationalists last night. Here are two observations:

1) There was no Antifa or other organized militant counter demonstrators. As a result, the only thing there is to talk about is how idiotic, disgusting and awful the White Nationalists were, in my opinion. This is a good thing. The White Nationalists want nothing more than some unhinged counter protesters to be there and look bad. That is the only way they can look good.

2) Instead of mentioning how awful the White Nationalists were, the so-called President tweeted the following after sending VP Mike Pence to a NFL football game, who promptly left after some payers knelt during the National Anthem, the next day: "I asked @VP Pence to leave stadium if any players kneeled, disrespecting our country. I am proud of him and @SecondLady Karen."

Yes, the so-called President ignores the White Nationalist march but calls out the football players for putting the spotlight on unequal treatment of minorities by law enforcement. We understand, but unfortunately, so does his base.

Who shall we be cruel to today?

It seems as though, day by day, the current administration is finding new ways to be cruel to "outsiders." Minorities, Hispanics, Muslims, women, and of course, the current favorite whipping horse and those least likely to cause harm to others - transgender Americans. There is no reason to make their lives demonstrably worse except for petty revenge and viciousness. Revenge against whom? The answer, of course, is revenge against those who simply oppose the so-called President and the method of revenge is simply to do whatever will cause them pain or pain to those they support - in this case transgender Americans.

What good will the removal of protections against discrimination for transgender persons do for anyone? It will do zero good for anyone but except for those with ignorant hate in their hearts and much harm to a group of people who struggle every day with their sexual identity through no fault of their own. For the so-called President, the misery this will cause is no problem.

Kill the gays - U.S. says maybe

The U.S. joined Saudi Arabia in voting AGAINST a UN resolution condemning the death penalty for gay sex, blasphemy, adultery and other taboos. Of course, although, for example, adultery is not a particularly admirable behavior, the penalties are more likely to be imposed against women or other targeted individuals. Of course blasphemy is aimed at believers of the non-preferred religions or non-believers and is not a moral wrong in any way. EVERYONE is a blasphemer in the eyes of someone else after all. As far as death for gay sex - is this a crumb thrown to the likes of supporters of Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore?

The Yemen raid

Can you imagine the endless investigations Republicans would be having if Obama was President and Hillary Clinton was still Sec. of State?

This is far more egregious than Benghazi; a Navy Seal died, 10 children as well, and it was instigated in order to make the so-called President look bolder than Obama. Even after the U.S. realized that the element of surprise was lost and secrecy had been compromised, they decided to continue the mission. A complete disgrace. In one month the so-called President managed to screw up worse than Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton in 8 years - for no reason other than to try to make himself look good.

The stupidity of Antifa

The article below contains interviews with some Antifa members. It is hard to believe that they can be this stupid. One of the main objections to fascism is their animus towards free speech. This is what an Antifa members says:

“We don’t think fascism deserves free speech,” Bonnie said. “You give a platform to fascism, they will kill you. We want to shut that down before we get killed.”

Of course, this corresponds exactly to what a fascist would DO to the free speech rights of their opponents (although they would publicly deny such an intent) and it is completely lost on this fool. Someone should tell Antifa that the First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. You cannot convict or accuse others of a crime in advance of the crime as well.

The two sides are not equivalent; Hitler, Mussolini were fascists. Almost nothing compares to them. Antifa, in a country where the police in Berkeley, for example, are NOT tools of the fascists, only get in the way of justice and in fact, give actual fascists some cover when the fascists then generalize about their opposition. The tactic that will be used by White Nationalists, the KKK, neo-Nazis and others will be to paint all their opponents as free speech haters such as Antifa. And it will work to a large degree.

Thanks for nothing.

Shouldthe NFL "fire those sons of bitches"?

Should someone be fired if they brag about sexually assaulting women? Is it worse to kneel during the National Anthem to bring attention to the disparity of the use of force by police against minorities or to brag about sexually assaulting women?

Should someone be fired if they mock a disabled person for their disability? Is it worse to kneel during the National Anthem to bring attention to the disparity of the use of force by police against minorities or to mock a disabled person for their disability?

Should someone be fired if they insult an American who was a prisoner of war for being captured? Is it worse to kneel during the National Anthem to bring attention to the disparity of the use of force by police against minorities or to insult an American who was a prisoner of war for being captured?

Should someone be fired if they insult the family of an American killed in service to their country? Is it worse to kneel during the National Anthem to bring attention to the disparity of the use of force by police against minorities or to insult the family of an American killed in service to their country?

Do deplorables prefer "Crazy"?

Rep. Massie is a Republican libertarian from Kentucky. In an interview earlier this year, he reflected that voters may not have been as motivated to vote for him for his libertarianism as much as for he being the craziest SOB in the race.

If he is right, and he probably is to a degree, this would explain to some degree the victory of Roy Moore for the Republican nomination for the Senate in Alabama who, without a doubt, would be the craziest SOB in all of Congress and that is saying a lot. This also says all quite a bit about certain voters - if this is true. In some circles, insanity is favored over sanity. This is not a joke. In Alabama, Republicans have nominated a person who just may favor executing gays, stoning women who are not virgins when they get married and who believes government should enforce Christianity. 

And the so-called President will support his candidacy. Is this deplorable?

Moore vs. Jones for Alabama Senator; where do YOU stand?

Republicans nominate Roy Moore for the senate in Alabama: the Taliban is HERE! This is not a joke. Alabama, you cannot elect this guy. The support that Steve Bannon gave him is disgraceful even for Steve Bannon. And if the so-called President supports him, it's more disgrace upon a mountain of disgrace.

From Esquire: "And, not for nothing, but Moore’s opponent is a guy named Douglas Jones. In 2001, Jones convicted two men for the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963, one of the iconic white supremacist terrorist acts of that period. One of those bastards already died in prison and the other keeps getting denied parole. If you’d rather be represented in the Senate by a lawless theocratic lunatic, rather than a guy that finally got justice for four murdered little girls, well, you deserve anything that goddamn happens to you."


Written Septemer 26,2017 inFAcebook

The Republicans have nominated the closest thing to a member of the Taliban for the senate in Alabama, former Judge Roy Moore. He was NOT the candidate of the "Swamp" (also known as the Republic establishment.) No, this is the "answer" to the "Swamp" and was supported by the likes of Steve Bannon and Sarah Palin; Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell supported Moore's opponent Luther Strange, the current senator, who lost the nomination. Here is what I am trying to say: the voters of the Republican Party are even more deplorable than their leadership, which is saying a lot! Would anyone say that voting for a candidate who cannot bring himself to oppose the execution of gay persons is not deplorable?

It is DEPLORABLE to cast a vote for Judge Roy Moore. A majority of Republicans in Alabama voted for Roy Moore. You do the math.

Where does the so-called President stand on this? During the campaign for the nomination, he endorsed Luther Strange, who had been very loyal to the so-called President, maybe even perfectly loyal. But here's the amazing thing; while most other Republicans leaders will be fleeing Roy Moore, I suspect that the so-called President will embrace Roy Moore, because Roy Moore loves the so-called President. That is all the so-called President will need to know.

Our politically correct so-called President

There are more than few supporters of the so-called President who appreciate the fact that he is not "politically correct" and believe he is a first amendment supporter. What frauds!

He tweeted: "If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!" 

You could argue that by firing these players, the NFL would be exercising their right to free speech. Perhaps. But the point is "political correctness." The reason they would be firing and suspending players would be over a "political correctness" encouraged by the so-called President. If the players were saying "Make America Great Again" the so-called President wouldn't be tweeting.

What could be more politically correct than this? What is more chilling to free speech than the so-called President calling for people who defy his version of "political correctness" to be fired or suspended. This is the definition of political correctness. Duh.

He is a total fraud. Sad.

What would make someone "deplorable"?

Written August 22, 2017 in Facebook

A lot of people take exception to candidate Hillary Clinton's description of many of the so-called President's supporters are "deplorable." As a political tactic, it was a mistake. As far as accuracy, I present the following.

In Alabama, two Republicans are fighting for the nomination to run for the U.S. Senate, and since this is a very "red" state, the winner of the nomination is very likely to win the election. What is interesting is that BOTH candidates are ardent supporters of the so-called President. THEY ARE ARGUING BETWEEN EACH OTHER ABOUT WHO SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT THE MOST. The candidate that the so-called President did NOT endorse, Roy Moore, however, is something akin to the American Taliban, and the Taliban are almost, but not quite, owed an apology for this comparison. Yet, the American pseudo Talibaner is ahead in the polls.

Why? He appeals to the most "deplorable" instincts in Alabama's Republican voters apparently. Is this right?

From Huffington Post: "In February, several months after being suspended from court for defying federal orders on same-sex marriage, Moore appeared on the radio show of a pastor who has claimed the Bible calls for the death penalty for gay people. He’d appeared on pastor Kevin Swanson’s program several times over the years, and there was a clear affinity between the men who believe they are two lone crusaders for Christ. Moore lamented to Swanson: “Our problem today is we’re denying that there is even a God or that he has sovereignty over our country.”

When the pastor asked him: “What does one do when God’s laws conflict with man’s laws?” Moore responded, “God’s laws are always superior to man’s laws.” It’s an extreme view that would put an elected judge far outside the bounds of the legal mainstream: The U.S. government relies on its judicial branch to maintain checks and balances and uphold the law of the land. But, for Moore, there’s no contradiction. The Vietnam veteran and lifelong Christian holds the view that the U.S. Constitution is a kind of extension of the Bible, and that the Founding Fathers intended their America to be a Christian nation."

Here is a tidbit about a section of the American public: "23 percent of Americans still think that same-sex relationships should be illegal..." (Gallup polls)!mn-topics . Would these be more likely Clinton supporters or the supporters of the so-called President.

To get more specific, here are some facts about Alabama: " Public Policy Polling (PPP) revealed... that 21 percent of likely GOP voters polled in Alabama believe that interracial marriage should be illegal."

Alabama Republican voters also thought Obama was a Muslim (45%); and evolution is fake (60%). (2012)

American Taliban. Supporter of the President. Leading in the polls for the Republican Alabama Senate nomination. If he is elected, would those voting for him be "deplorable"?

Sean Spicer at the Emmy's

Sean Spicer made an appearance at the Emmy's where he claimed that the Emmy's audience was the largest in history, a parallel lie to the lie he told at his first press conference after the inauguration that the so-called President's inauguration also had the largest audience in history.

If Spicer had previously publicly apologized and started to make amends for all the many lies he told while working for the so-called President, such as by listing all his lies and explaining why they were lies, and why he told them, I could accept him joking about it at some point. But he has done none of this yet. He'd better start soon or this was just cynicism and the joke is still on him.

The so-called President in unfit to be President

Written September 17, 2017 in Facebook

This is not normal behavior for a President. It is not fit behavior for a President. Is there any reason anyone should respect this President when he obviously behaves so disrespectfully towards others?

He brags about sexually assaulting women because he is a powerful man.

He spreads lies about President Obama place of birth to legitimize the first black President.

He lied about being wiretapped in Trump Tower.

He lied about seeing thousands of Muslims on roofs celebrating 9-11 to increase prejudice and anger against Muslims.

He lied about millions of people illegally voting for his opponent to increase mistrust of democracy and legitimize himself in an election where a foreign government worked to get him elected.

He lied about most Mexican illegal immigrants being rapists and murderers to increase bigotry against Mexicans.

He called global warming a Chinese hoax to increase prejudice against the Chinese and environmentalists.

He lied about the size of his inauguration crowd to inflate his own ego.

He lied about Ted Cruz's father being a part of the assassination of JFK to help himself get elected.

He retweets racists memes such as one that claimed blacks murder whites at incredible rates then never retracts them. ( )

He constantly spouts fake news (see above) then accuses the mainstream media of spreading fake news when they point this out, all for the sake of undermining the ability of Americans to know what the truth is.

He is a lying, crazy ego-maniacal bigot. Is any of the above false? Are any of the conclusions ridiculous?

How the so-called President could lose his base

Written September 16, 2017 in Facebook

I have written this before: the only way that the so-called President could lose a portion of his base of support is NOT if he shoots somebody on 5th Avenue; it's if he does something rational and compassionate.

His tentative agreement with Democrats to find a way to allow DACA kids to stay legally in the U.S. is rational and compassionate but does not change his mental unfitness. However, it does highlight that many of his supporters are disgraceful for ignoring his unfitness and embracing his very worst qualities while actually rejecting best quality - his lack of political ideology (other than serving himself.)

This, in a nutshell is the whole deal about the so-called President and his base.

McCain still fighting!

John McCain will not go away quietly. In fact, as he faces his greatest challenge, he seems more determined to do the right thing as senator as opposed to doing the thing he would be ideologically be expected to do.

From the Hill: "Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) is backing a bipartisan bill that would block President Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military.
“When less than one percent of Americans are volunteering to join the military, we should welcome all those who are willing and able to serve our country,” McCain said in a statement.

“Any member of the military who meets the medical and readiness standards should be allowed to serve — including those who are transgender," he said."

Way to go, Sen. McCain!

The son of Netanyahu has a fan in David Duke!

This article will make your head spin! The son (Yair Netanyahu) of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently posted on his Facebook page an image that "appeared to be a local take on a classic anti-Semitic cartoon suggesting that Jews control the United States. It has appeared widely on extreme right websites. In this instance, it depicted his father’s perceived foes: American Jewish billionaire philanthropist and investor George Soros, outspoken former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, activist Eldad Yaniv and Meni Naftali, a former housekeeper for the Netanyahus who successfully sued them for mistreatment."

This is a classic antisemitic meme, in this case tailored to attack PM Netanyahu's opponents which include Ehud Barak and other bogeymen such as George Soros. The fact that it falsely attacks Jews other than Netanyahu does not change the fact it is a bigoted fake news meme. How can we be sure of this? David Duke tweeted “Welcome to the club, Yair — absolutely amazing, wow, just wow.” If it has David Duke's seal of approval, you know it's wrong. But Duke was restrained compared to the so-called President loving Daily Stormer: “Yair Netanyahu is a total bro,” Andrew Anglin wrote in the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer. “Next he’s going to call for gassings.” Read it all in the article linked below.

Apologists for the extreme right, who typically support the right wing Netanyahu, will claim that this isn't bigotry - George Soros and his cronies really DO control the U.S. It's just fact they'll say. Then they'll say that criticizing Netanyahu is the real antisemitism! Their brains are so twisted.

What could have lead a 19 year old Israeli to think this post was OK? Stupidity? His parents influence? Did you know that Israeli police are readying a criminal indictment of Mrs. Netanyahu for personal corruption? What a family! I'm sure this was just a terrible misunderstanding. Yeah, right.

The "Law"

Written August 26, 2017 in Facebook

The so-called President pardoned Sheriff Arpaio who was convicted of Contempt of Court. Never mind that birther Arpaio behaved precisely as a bigot would behave. Never mind that the ex-sheriff was an early and ardent supporter of the so-called President. Never mind he was totally unapologetic. 

Consider this:
What will restrain other law enforcers around the country to curb their illegal activities if it is an activity the so-called President supports?

Violate the rights of prisoners? Pardon.

Violate the rights of some minority? Pardon.

Violate any law that the so-called President does not like? Pardon.

Keep in mind that ex-sheriff Arpaio did not yet have his appeal of his conviction - he was pardoned in advance of his appeal and sentencing. The Department of Justice did not have a chance to review the case for a pardon, which is customary. Why pardon him so soon? Because, in other words, the system is not to be trusted, according to the so-called President.

This is basically a pass to law enforcement to flout any law the so-called President does not like - he's got their backs.

It's as if there is no law in the country. The so-called President is the law.

Why punish transgender persons?

Our compassionate so-called President signed the directive to discriminate and stigmatize transgender persons in the military.

It read: "The presidential memorandum also bans the Department of Defense from using its resources to provide medical treatment regimens for transgender individuals currently serving in the military." Trump also directed the departments of Defense and Homeland Security "to determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving based on military effectiveness and lethality, unitary cohesion, budgetary constraints, applicable law, and all factors that may be relevant."

The White House official who briefed reporters on the memo on Friday evening declined to say whether current transgender troops would be allowed to remain in the military under those policy guidelines. (From CNN)

The excuse being used was the cost of treating such persons which has been estimated to be about $5million to $10million per year. This is equal to about 3 or so trips to Mar A Lago by the so-called President.

This is a small fraction of what it costs to treat erectile dysfunction, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD and so on in the military which no one has suggested be withheld. Why is the so-called President doing this?

Here is the answer: the so-called President's motivation is to satisfy his bigoted base and more importantly PUNISH those who oppose him. He does not care who gets harmed in pursuit of his revenge.

From FoxNews: ""Anybody who hits me, we’re gonna hit them ten times harder," Trump stated."

The Arpaio Pardon

Written August 25, 2017, in Facebook

The so called President has pardoned convicted Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio is the sheriff who targeted and racially profiled Hispanics in Arizona for over a year after being told by courts to stop violating their rights. He was convicted of contempt. 

One of the talking points of the supporters of the so-called President will be that it was a political prosecution because it was announced just before the vote for the sheriff's position - which Arpaio then lost. However this excuse does not explain his actual conviction - he was indeed guilty.

The key reason for Arpaio's pardon is Arpaio's support for the so-called President. Arpaio endorsed the so-called President for the nomination and was a fellow birther; "Trump is likely a fan of Arpaio’s because Arapio is a fan of his—an early supporter who also went all in for birtherism, at one point sending members of a so-called Cold Case Posse to Hawaii to dig up something incriminating about Barack Obama’s birth certificate..." from the New Yorker.

That's the answer; they both promoted racist theories and policies - it's that simple.

Was the 2016 election covered fairly?

One of the myths that has already developed about the 2016 election was that the mainstream media somehow tried to help Clinton, or tried to hurt the so-called President or generally was not fair and objective in their coverage, with their liberal bias favoring Clinton. To me this is just an indication of our short memories and the bias against facts that underpin the beliefs of supporters of the so-called President.

The media, mainstream and fake news alike, helped get the so-called President elected. They did this by covering his campaign events to the exclusion of covering the rallies of other candidates. This is too obvious to dispute.

But they also covered him in a way that they did not cover the other candidates. His lies, irrationality, ugliness were normalized while the indiscretions of others were inflated even though the transgressions of the so-called President were magnitudes greater. He called other candidates "lying Ted Cruz", "little Marco", "crooked Hillary," and worse. He accused them of things we all know he had done many times over; he lied and insulted the families of other candidates.

He begged Russia to hack the emails of his opponents.

This is not a biased memory - it is fact. No other candidate in the history of the country got as many breaks and as much coverage and as much a second chance to display some competence, humanity and decency. He never showed any.

If the press were fair they would have ALWAYS noted he was a liar, a bigot, a misogynist and ignorant. That would have been fair and objective. By not doing so, they gave him a break that they gave no one else. Studies are coming out that support the obvious. Please read:

Does the KKK love the so-called President?

Written August 23, 2017 on Facebook

One of the things supporters of the so-called President are saying, and that he said at his rally, is that he criticized hate groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis in his statements. They overlook his waffling in other parts of his statements of course, but they point to some things he said and claim it means he is not a bigot.

But what do the actual bigots really think?

Washington Post: "Less than a half-hour after Trump’s live remarks, the Daily Stormer had declared the president’s words as a signal of tacit support for their side: 'Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us.'

And David Duke - he GUSHED over the so-called President!

So here is what the supporters are saying; "we don't care if the KKK and neo-Nazis feel that the so-called President supported them or feel that he has their backs. We believe whatever the so-called President tells us..."

Read for yourself:


There is increasing talk about the possibility of the so-called President suffering from some form of dementia. A lot of people criticize those who raise this question, especially since the conclusions are not based on in-person examinations. But there is no blood test for dementia, nor is there an X-Ray or MRI that would reveal the condition. It would all be based on observation - something we all can do from afar. The biggest and most justifiable objection to suggesting dementia is the emotional response many have to this president, and that this emotion may cloud someone's judgment.

But there ARE some markers for dementia. Memory, irrationality, impaired judgment, etc. These are things that make dementia the problem it is.

The article below is from February this year and refers to many things he has done and said in the past. It's scary.

Dog Whistles

Written August 22, 2017 on Facebook

The so-called President's visit to Phoenix may be partially intended to goad protesters into committing violence - and unfortunately there could be some protesters who may fall into the trap. If he pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio he will of course be excusing someone who goes out of his way to persecute the Hispanic community. The so-called President's base would love it.

But the temptation to disrupt rallies of those you disagree with and even of those you believe are racist or otherwise immoral must be resisted - always and by everyone.

There is a narrative that the so-called President is trying to create - the narrative that his opponents want to destroy everyone's free speech and enforce a political correctness on everyone. Never mind that that the so-called President wants to force everyone to say "Merry Christmas, " wants no Muslims or Hispanics to enter the country, enjoys the support of White Nationalists and worse; it's the LEFT that threatens our freedom! Never mind that his primary opposition in the past election, Hillary Clinton and her supporters are the most middle of the road politically in the country - they will get lumped in with anarchists and whatever left wing group that gets violence.

Since his supporters are lo-info, all he needs are a handful of idiots to allow him to smear the entire opposition - and make it stick with many. Unfortunately there is never a shortage of idiots within any group.

This is the plan of the so-called President - goading some tiny fraction of his opponents into disrupting and possibly even attacking his supporters with his "dog whistles." All he cares about is winning even if it ruins the country.

The "real" story of Charlottesville

There is nothing so dumb that it would prevent many people from believing it. Someone actually thinks it is "plausible" that "liberals" staged the violence and it was funded by George Soros to boot! Yup, he's an elected official.

Never mind that White Nationalists promoted the event which included David Duke as a speaker and the car-driving accused killer was known Nazi sympathizer. It was really the "liberals." Somehow they made the White Nationalists do it and kill one of the counter-protesters.

From AOL news:  "(Idaho State Rep.)  Bryan Zollinger, who serves the state’s 33rd District, took to Facebook over the weekend and shared an article that suggests a cabal of liberals may have staged the conflict to “smear” President Trump."

The "real" cause of the Civil War

Written August 19, 2017

Here is a post from a fellow who took exception to criticism of the alt-right White Nationalist rally in Charlottesville. Here is what he wrote on Facebook:

"The extreme racist who started the war in 1860 was Lincoln. He invaded the nation of the Confederate States of America with the sole purpose of keeping the tariffs and other taxes flowing from the South to the North and to make sure that the South had to keep buying expensive Northern products instead of cheaper imported ones. Every descendant of slaves today should get down on their knees and thank God that their ancestor was put on that boat. Blacks in America live better than any nation in Africa. You do realize that the first slave owner in the British colonies was a black man? You do realize that it was Yankee ships that brought slaves to the US? Or are you a total historical illiterate? You do realize that slavery is still practice in Muslim nations?"

Please note after excusing slavery throughout his paragraph and criticizing Lincoln as a racist for imposing tariffs(?), he then slams Muslims for still having slavery in some countries as if that was a terrible injustice all of a sudden.

This is certainly not the first time someone has told me that the slaves and their descendants should be thankful; the other times it was for being indoctrinated into Christianity.

Yes and the White Nationalist rally in Charlottesville was about free speech. It actually was for crazy speech.


AntiFa is going to be a problem in opposing the so-called President. This group will be the convenient and easy excuse for him to justify selective crackdowns and moral equivalencies. Please note that AntiFa assumes in advance that their opponents are violent - in other words their opponents, they assume, typically the alt-right or worse, have ALREADY been violent and deserve a physical confrontation.

Now I understand that the KKK and neo-Nazis actually exist to HARM others and that AntiFa claims to exist to DEFEND, but that defense is not guaranteed to be within the bounds of legality if their definition of defense is to "disrupt" alt-right rallies for example.

Of course, all this is EXACTLY what the alt-right wants them to do so that they can say that the left wing is the real danger to the US. This scenario is not unlike Al Qaeda hoping the the US would attack in Iraq so that they could promote the narrative of the US being at war with Islam. And AntiFa will deliver in this case to the alt-right. Let's not encourage this movement.

Alt-right false flag?

The alt-right loves to make claims that "liberals" like President Obama plant "false flags" - in other words, create incidents to make the right wingers look bad, like the Newtown Massacre where over 20 children were gunned down by a mentally ill person with a high powered automatic weapon. The 'liberals" created this incident, they say, to promote gun control. Seriously! And they believe it.

But here is a story that may be a true "false flag" where a supporter of the so-called President carried a "Rape Melania" sign among neo-Nazi counter protesters in order to smear the counter protesters. Disgusting. But the so-called President defends the alt-right neo-Nazis and calls out the counter protesters. Sick and disgusting.

The so-called President's family and the KKK

Was the so-called President's father involved with the KKK? According to a copy of an old New York Times article in 1927, Fred Trump was arrested in conjunction with a riot between the police and the KKK in New York and a person arrested most likely was indeed Fred Trump, father of Donald.

More details are lost to history but there is more evidence that Fred Trump was a KKK sympathizer than Ted Cruz's father helped kill JFK, a meme that the so-called President promoted in the campaign.

Snopes calls it a mix of truth and speculation.

Written 8/15/17 on Facebook

Today the so-called President compared George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Is he right or wrong to do so?

Is it fair to compare two of the country's founding fathers, who owned slaves, to Confederates who attempted to destroy America and preserve slavery through violent means?

Is the so-called President right in that all of these men are equally bad? Is there a moral equivalence between George Washington and Robert E. Lee?

I don't think so. We now understand, centuries later, that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not perfect men. They did not have a complete vision of freedom. They did, however, advance the cause of freedom, albeit very imperfectly. But please remember that slavery existed before they did and that the United States was a revolutionary experiment in freedom that, to this day, still needs improvements.

Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, however, stood opposed to the advancement of freedom. They believed deeply in slavery. They were deeply racist and had not progressed as others did in the decades after Washington and Jefferson. They had a choice to make that Washington and Jefferson were never confronted with - go to war over slavery or end slavery and preserve the Union. They chose war and slavery. It is very possible that Washington and Jefferson would have decided otherwise if given the opportunity. We can never know.

We do know this: if there is any common-sense definition of treason, Lee and Jackson fit it perfectly; and all for the cause of slavery. The so-called President ignores this or embraces this; he is mentally unfit for the job.

The origins of racism; the story of the first "Phineas Priest"

Where does White Nationalism come from? The answer is complex and the sources of ideas for it are many, varied and not all of them are related to each other. But at least some of the rationale comes from religion.

For those in some degree of denial, please be aware that there is some biblical basis for the racism of White Nationalists; the story of Phineas, who murdered an inter-racial couple in cold blood. Some racists refer to themselves until today as "Phineas Priests." 

God apparently did not approve of inter-racial marriage. This story is not lost on racist leaning Christians. Here is an excerpt from the Old Testament in the Book of Numbers:

Numbers 25:6-13
6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 
7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 
8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 
9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
10 The Lord said to Moses, 
11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. 
12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. 
13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.”

The so-called President's war on transgenders

Some will say that the so-called President is clever by starting this culture war against transgender persons in the military. Many Americans, as ignorant as the so-called President himself, will see merit in this policy and will actually believe that transgenders will pose some kind of risk and expense to the armed services. However the cost of treating transgender persons is estimated to be under $10,000,000 per year - basically the cost of a few of weekends at Mar-a -Lago - and less of an expense than the loss of the experience and training those persons represent. Do we need to mention the ingratitude shown to those who have volunteered for their country this would represent?

Persons who ultimately require a gender confirmation surgery are rare; it is not something you look forward to having. For those who need the surgery, it is their only path to peace of mind. There is no reason to deny them treatment any more than denying a person treatment for post-traumatic stress syndrome.

In the short run there may be some gain for the President. In the long run it will be a total loss for the country. This is just another disgrace by the so-called President.

Some "Friend" the so-called President is turning out to be

Written July 26, 2017

The so-called President bans transgenders from the armed services. Of course he said during the campaign he would be the LGBTQ community's "best friend". LIAR!

John McCain calls the ban "inappropriate" and cites both the process (there was none) and the substance as the as the Department of Defense “has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving.”

Supporters of the so-called President are probably now busy thinking of ways to rationalize these lies of the so-called President and inventing new lies about transgenders persons as we speak.

Was there any need to do this today? Was there any need to do this WITHOUT the input of the military? Answer: NO!!

This was done to please his base and punish his opponents. If he has to throw transgender persons under the bus, no problem. DISGUSTING!

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

The so-called President's Assault on Free Speech and Freedom,of Religion

The so-called President continues his assault on all the virtues of our country. Now he's continuing and expanding his assault to freedom of religion:

"And finally, we believe that family and faith, not government and bureaucracy, are the foundation of our society,” Trump said in a video on Instagram. “You’ve heard me say it before on the campaign trail, and I’ll say it again tonight – in America we don’t worship government, we worship God.”

Not all of us worship a god. But even more, would the so-called President concede that "Allah" is a god, or "Yahweh" or "Zeus" or "Shiva". I doubt it. Only the so-called President's god is a "real" god to the so-called President and I would guess it would be a god that has nothing but praise for the so-called President.

Remember last December (2016) when the so-called President said ""We’re gonna start saying ‘merry CHRISTmas’ again," Trump told the Michigan audience. "How about all those department stores, they have the bells and they have the red walls and they have the snow, but they don’t have 'merry CHRISTmas'? I think they’re gonna start putting up ‘merry CHRISTmas.'"

How did he think he was going to force people and businesses to do this? I shudder to think...