Trump is Done: Third Debate Was His Last Chance to Catch Up To Clinton & He Failed

OCTOBER 21, 2016 BY PATRICK ANDENDALL LEAVE A COMMENT
With the race starting to pull away from Trump, he needed the last debate to be a change-changer or at least a game-alterer; it wasn’t, and it’s now over for Donald Trump unless something super-crazy breaks in the next few weeks.

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981) October 20th, 2016 /Development/Public Policy Professional, Freelance Writer/Journalist/Consultant/Historian
Oh how the GOP has fallen. Trump as the mascot was foolhardy.
AMMAN — It’s over for The Donald.

Ladies and gentleman, the long national nightmare is almost over; not the other nightmares that existed before this election season that are alive and well, but, still, the current elephant in the room is being shooed out, and, barring a disaster or something incredible or crazy, Hillary Clinton will defeat Donald Trump and take office as President on January 20th, 2017.

I know many people were saying this as of several weeks ago, as of the “#TrumpTakes” sex-groping scandal, even before that. I maintain that such pronunciamentos were premature and reflected wishful thinking—hardly entirely baseless, but wishful thinking nonetheless—that made the mistake of saying the door was shut, the window closed for Trump. But after this final debate, we can now safely say Clinton will be president unless something crazy—a major terrorist attack, an economic crash, incredibly high and consistent polling errors, some shocking WikiLeaks revelation (none have been shocking so far), etc.—happens in the next few weeks.

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and a (at least slightly surprisingly) fair-minded Chris Wallace each did their part at the debate last night to ensure that Trump’s path to victory—again, barring something shocking even by the standards of this election—is now blocked beyond any ability of Trump’s to break through.

Why do I say this? Given the current state of the race, in order to stay competitive in the final weeks, Trump needed one or more of the following to happen last night: he needed to really seriously damage Hillary, she needed to inflict serious damage upon herself, the moderator had to significantly damage Clinton, or he had to have done something himself to grow his shrinking tent of support.

None of this happened.

Let’s look at each and how the outcome Trump needed did not happen regarding of these hypotheticals.

Trump Did Not Hurt Clinton: Trump failed to land any big blows on Clinton. He got some great blows in during the second debate, but his attacks this time were so unfocused and rapid that his flurries either failed to really have an impact or missed entirely. And it’s not like he did not have ample opportunity to provide focused attacks on Clinton: he could have gone into detail on any number of issues, including some new ones that have just surfaced in recent reporting. He could have given a shout out to Pat Smith, the mother of a victim of the Benghazi attacks who blames Clinton for her son’s death, but he didn’t; it would have been smart for him to say to Clinton “Pat Smith is here, and her son, who died bravely in Benghazi, is dead because of you. What do you have to say to her, and to the victims of those attacks, who are dead because you failed them?” He actually didn’t even mention Benghazi at all during the debate. He mentioned Clinton’s e-mails only three times, twice just in passing, and didn’t really sustain his attack the other time. In fact, he spent more time talking about himself and defending himself that attacking Clinton, responding to every little needle and bait she laid out, diverting precious time away from being on offense and keeping the focus on himself rather than focusing on what would have been either tactically or strategically beneficial to his candidacy. He actually had ample chances to go into detail uninterrupted with deep, specific attacks, but his lack of preparation was so painfully obvious as he kept repeating himself with lists that were more often mere mentions than any built-up, organized, coherent attacks.

Clinton Did Not Hurt Herself: Clinton herself also performed extremely well. Was it an amazing performance, or full of things that would increase her support dramatically? Was she as bold as she could have been in her attacks? No, and that was not necessary. But her performance was a masterclass in demeanor, in self-control, in maintaining composure, in maintaining focus, in staying on offense, in how to pivot from explanation to attack, in how to deliver succinct yet substantive explanation, in how to get under an opponent’s skin and baiting him into behaving on her terms. She didn’t stumble once, she didn’t lose her cool once, she didn’t appear weak once, and she took every swing from him gracefully and came back with a solid response each time, as well. Clinton in no way can be said by any reasonable person to have damaged herself, then, with this performance.

Moderator Chris Wallace Did Not Hurt Clinton: When it comes to Chris Wallace, after having some time to process the debate more I have to say he was the best moderator of all moderators at the debates. He was fair, tried to keep both candidates in line, was quick to tell the audience to stay quiet, allowed both candidates to speak while also keeping them mostly on topic. He stayed away from the muck and the tawdry and from spending too much time on the scandals, and kept the debate focused on issues. He asked Clinton questions that could have damaged her but she was prepared for them and no damage was done. I’ve had my issues with Chris Wallace in the past, and he’s still one of the least fat kids at the Fox News fat camp, but last night he did an exemplary job. Rather than attacking either candidate, he let the candidates attack each other and performed his moderation role well. So, no way did Wallace do any damage to Clinton. It is very possible that Wallace could have been much harder on her, and been much more aggressive in asking her about her e-mail problems. But he wasn’t, just as he wasn’t terribly aggressive with Trump either. Fair and balanced, in the end, and I am not being sarcastic.

Trump Did Nothing or Next to Nothing to Increase His Support: OK, so, no we know that the debate did not do anything to bring Clinton down from her current, rising levels of support. So Trump’s final option to make himself competitive again was to increase his support. While Trump by far had his best tone and kept his composure the most throughout this debate relative to his other two performances, it is hard to imagine this alone leading to anything but perhaps the slightest of gains, if any. What he did do was just repeat the same policy quips he used in the other debates, nothing new that would grow his tent, especially not with his poor handling of the questions about his “lewd” talk and the swamp of sexual assault allegations in which he has found himself. He even failed to bring up his new policy ideas of congressional terms limits or a bold new student-debt plan, some of his best ways to possibly bring in undecideds. For the most part, Trump did not cover any new ground during this debate and it is extremely hard to envision people not in his camp moving into it as a result of said debate.

So, with Trump currently substantially behind Clinton both nationally and in most battleground states, he needed the debate—the last time substantially large numbers of Americans will see the two of them together or talking in any detail about their plans—to fundamentally change the race or at least its trajectory. That did not happen. And, yes,I noted how bad the second debate was, but if you think this last debate redeems out democracy, think again: that only 1 of the 3 presidential debates was serious, and that it has come this close, and that so much damage has been done, so many bad precedents set and normalized, so many dark doors opened for future demagogues, should worry us all.

But at least Trump won’t be entering the White House, barring a political miracle. The real battles now are over control of Congress and, after that, the fight over governance once Clinton takes office. But for now, the worst has been avoided.

Second Amendment Cry Babies – Meet Your Maker

The Irrelevant Second Amendment Argument

My Way:

Second amendment sloganeering and bumper stickers. This is dead simple a) The 2nd amendment is not unambiguous, plus there remains controversy over the precise grammar that impacts its intentions, b) the Constitution by definition changes every time the Supreme Court makes a ruling, and there have been such rulings and most importantly c) if any action taken by the Government is unconstitutional—then that is why we have the Supreme Court in the first place—so what the hell are they worried about. Like all things Stupidparty—it is simplistic sloganeering to rile up an uninformed fearful base.

The Second Amendment is getting out of hand.

Brian’s Way:

By Brian E. Frydenborg  LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter (you can follow me there at @bfry1981)

The individual right to keep and bear arms as part of the state militia is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. What does that have to do with today’s citizenry? Nothing.

Perhaps the most depressing thing about the gun-control debate in the United States, apart from the continuous stream of deaths that still have yet to merit not even a modestly serious policy response, is that for as many times as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—part of what is termed the Bill of Rights—is invoked, nearly as many times there is a total lack of historical context of that very amendment presented alongside.

Into this vacuum, all sorts of creative reasoning has flooded, to such a degree that the highest law courts and judges of the land, too, have fallen to such erroneous thinking that ignores the history and tradition from which the Second Amendment emerged.

J. G. A. Pocock correctly notes that “[i]t is notorious that American culture is haunted by myths, many of which arise out of the attempt to escape history and then regenerate it,” and the Second Amendment is a textbook example of this phenomenon.

There are around thirty-two amendments proposed in the United States by the Government. Out of these, only six were accepted by the United States Congress and four were still opened and in pending status. One got closed and the other three were failed by the terms and conditions. We can check this site out to know more about the amendment among parties.

J. G. A. Pocock correctly notes that “[i]t is notorious that American culture is haunted by myths, many of which arise out of the attempt to escape history and then regenerate it,” and the Second Amendment is a textbook example of this phenomenon. The roots of this amendment go back to Saxon culture in the era of the Roman Empire. When Rome decided to withdraw from its provinces in the British Isles early in the fifth-century to consolidate its withering power in the rest of the West, the Saxons, Angles, (from which England got its name) and other Germanic tribes eventually filled the power vacuum the Romans left. The most visible presence of Roman governmental authority had been the army, the professional, standing Roman legions that had been stationed in Britain. Security after their withdrawal became nonexistent, but the Saxons, after a bloody conquest, imported a tradition of theirs from mainland Europe with them: that of the fyrd, as the U.S. Army’s official history explains.

In this system, all adult males had to engage in military training, and, in times of war, would be expected to fight. This tradition continued throughout English history. The English freemen, like the Saxons before him, were given the right to bear arms as part of a contract in which their responsibility was to train in their local militia and defend the realm when necessary. This part is important: there is no tradition in English history of the local peasants having an institutionalized right to keep and bear arms without the responsibility of being part of an organized militia which would act to defend the land when needed; the right to bear arms does not exist without the militia, and the militia does not exist without the peasants being trained for and participating in a militia.

There is no tradition in English history of the local peasants having an institutionalized right to keep and bear arms without the responsibility of being part of an organized militia which would act to defend the land when needed; the right to bear arms does not exist without the militia, and the militia does not exist without the peasants being trained for and participating in a militia.

Fast forward centuries later to the establishment of English colonies in the New World, in particular, the colonies that would form the United States of America’s original Thirteen. Most of these colonies were founded by the English and those that were not, came under English rule long before the American Revolution. The state militias were merely the continuance of the colonial militias after America broke off from Britain by the declaration in 1776, by treaty in 1783. One has to think of the massive technological changes that occurred between 1791, when the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, and today, and then it should be obvious that the same system is not in place. For one thing, back then almost the whole population lived in the countryside, not cities, where there were lots of dangerous animals and pesky French, Spanish, and British troops prowling around, plus many Native Americans tribes that did not like their land being taken from them. This militia system made perfect sense in such a physical environment for almost all Americans except for a tiny minority in coastal cities lived in rural areas and on the frontier.

It also made sense especially when one considers that many of the founders had a philosophical opposition to a large standing army, keeping in mind the warlords of republican Rome and (the more recent) example of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army which had not helped the brief experiment of England with republicanism in the mid-seventeenth-century. Theoretically, an army composed of state militias, tied to their localities, would be harder for a tyrant manipulate. Yes, some units of the Massachusetts colonial militia have survived in some form as they morphed, along with other units, into the U.S. National Guard, the direct descendant of the state militia system referenced in the Second Amendment. Yes, all adult males do register for the draft via the Selective Service.

But registration is generally all that is required for adult males except for a few drastic eras in U.S. history. And the average men today do not regularly train and are not expected to keep and bear arms of their own. Even those in the military, Guard or otherwise, do not own the weapons they will use in combat and cannot keep them in their homes. Even just by 1865, the state militia system, which evolved dramatically during the course of the four years of the Civil War, bore little resemblance to the system referenced in the Constitution, and after the first two decades of the twentieth-century, only a few vestiges of that system nominally existed. From WWI forward through the Vietnam War, the federal government brought in, trained, and equipped the vast majority of troops that fought, not the National Guard, which today is only a small part of the overall U.S. Military. The average adult man is not the only one, then, in the U.S. that has nothing to do with the National Guard; the average U.S. man in a military uniform has nothing to do with the Guard either and is part of a force structure that is only supplemented by the Guard. That should not, of course, discount the brave service of Guard units that served in Afghanistan and Iraq, or those that helped after Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. But the U.S. Military today is overwhelmingly a professional, fully federalized, standing army. Even the Guard itself is composed of units structured in such a way that they bear virtually no resemblance in practice (even if they may in spirit) to the state militias referenced in the Second Amendment when it was written in 1789 and adopted in 1791.

Rabid supporters of the Second Amendment and their refusal to accept modern times for what they are.

As far as the arms that need to be “kept” and “borne” if you’re in the Guard today you cannot bring a personal firearm you keep and own as an individual to bear while on active Guard duty. No, the weapons that will be borne into battle are owned by the U.S. Government, are kept on base, and not taken home or owned by the Guardsmen. Effectively, modern Guard practice destroys the traditional relationship between keeping and bearing arms and wholly separates those acts from service in the militia. In the end, all three major components of the Second Amendment—keeping, bearing, and serving in the militia—are transformed by modern Guard practice into relics from a past era that do not function or work together at all in the way they did in the late 1700s. Both its rights and the duties might still exist on paper, but they do not exist at all in practice and they apply to no one since no one keeps their own arms to bear in the capital M “Militia.”

The year after the Second Amendment was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights, Congress passed a law requiring all fit adult males to enroll in the militias, with each man required to provide his own basic equipment…Within months of its adoption by the states, the right to keep and bear arms as part of the militia allowed by the Second Amendment was coupled with the individual’s responsibility to enroll in the militia and to provide his own basic equipment, including his weapon, for his training and service in the militia.

The year after the Second Amendment was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights, Congress passed a law requiring all fit adult males to enroll in the militias, with each man required to provide his own basic equipment. Though enforcement of this law would prove very problematic, it is very important to realize how important the passage of this law is to understanding Congress’s conceptualization of the Second Amendment as Congress passed at the time it was passed: within months of its adoption by the states, the right to keep and bear arms as part of the militia allowed by the Second Amendment was coupled with the individual’s responsibility to enroll in the militia and to provide his own basic equipment, including his weapon, for his training and service in the militia. The point is this: the right does not exist without the responsibility. This goes back to the Saxons and early English, where this tradition began. This is not merely conjecture: the entire concept of citizenship in the late eighteenth-century minds of the Founding Fathers, almost universally educated in the Greek and Roman classics, was the same of republican Rome, Founding Fathers’ inspiration for a republican government of checks and balances and divided government from which they created the American government and U.S. Constitution. In the ancient Roman republic, the Roman concepts of a right and citizenship are counterbalanced by the concepts of responsibility and duty: a right as a citizen is enjoyed because the responsibility of duty is accepted. And in today’s system, the responsibility to keep and bear arms in order to be of service to the militia is not a responsibility for all fit adult makes; in fact, it’s the responsibility of virtually no one.

Who is runnin' this system of American military

Today, the Second Amendment is still on the books. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is a clear reference to an existing right, longstanding in English tradition going back to fyrd and the individual’s roles, responsibilities, and rights in reference to the militia. Does that mean that there is not a right to bear arms for an individual person, who today is almost certainly not in a capital M “Militia?” That is an interesting question and an interesting debate. The Second Amendment clearly references an absolute right, one that is part of a clear and explicit pre-existing tradition going back to Late Antiquity.  The mainly English colonists-turned Americans would have generally understood this and the reading of the Second Amendment to them would have been clear, especially to the educated Founding Fathers, many of them lawyers who would have had to have known about English law, the legalities of this tradition of militia service, and the rights and responsibilities this service entailed.  They would also have been familiar with Lord William Blackstone‘s landmark Commentaries on the Laws of England, one of the great legal treatises in the history of the English-speaking world; published in four volumes from 1765-1769 in decade before the American Revolution, it was well known in its day and was the main source of knowledge on English law on the American continent both in the years before and for many decades after the American Revolution (one American printing of the fourth volume was pre-ordered by sixteen of the fifty-six future signers of the Declaration of Independence, including John Adams, and by the father of John Marshall, one of the great Supreme Court justices of early United States history.  In the very first part of this massive work, Lord Blackstone made clear that there were two types of rights for Englishmen in English common law: absolute rights and auxiliary rights, the latter subject to limits and regulation, and the individual right to bear arms in self-defense was explained as one of the key auxiliary rights of Englishmen:

THE fifth and laft auxiliary right of the fubject, that I fhall at prefent mention, is that of having arms for their defence, fuitable to their condition and degree, and fuch as are allowed by law. Which is alfo declared by the fame ftatute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due reftrictions, of the natural right of refiftance and felf-prefervation, when the fanctions of fociety and laws are found infufficient to reftrain the violence of oppreffion.

And, again, this is not some new concept imposed upon English law by Blackstone; it is simply him putting into writing what had already been understood for generations after generation.  Thus, whether on one side of the Atlantic or the other, Englishmen in the era of Blackstone—the same era as the American Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment—would have understood that there were two sets of rights related to the keeping and bearing of arms: an absolute right as part of the ancient English militia tradition and coupled with the responsibility of militia service, and a second auxiliary personal right to bear arms for self-defense but subject to various conditions and regulations.

But in the context of today’s society, the debate about an individual right to bear arms is one about which the Second Amendment, and the Constitution, is silent, as they only discuss the absolute militia right, not the auxiliary personal right. Ironically, those “militia” groups which are such religious believers in their concept of the Second Amendment are not even referenced in it since they are not the actual “well regulated Militia” referenced in it. Sure, groups like the NRA and the Republican Party are among the uninformed, and the Supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of a very different interpretation of this. But this is the same body that ruled free African-American men were not U.S. citizens just before the Civil War. Legal does not have to mean something is right in the sense of being correct (just think about slavery), and the rulings of ideologically driven justices may be law but are hardly accurate when they wholly ignore the history and tradition described above. It’s time to leave the Second Amendment out of the current policy debate as it is, clearly, irrelevant, despite modern distortions and inventions.

Dinesh D’Souza and his “Hillary’s America” Seen Through the Eyes of Two Idiots Posing as Film Experts

Evidently this movie, “Hillary’s America” by Dinesh D’Souza,  has just been released in it’s DVD format—

—ready for the 73% of gullible Stupipdarty disciples who believe that elections are suddenly rigged or that 1,600,000 Zombies will rise from the dead and vote, or that Donald Trump can turn any women into his sex slave.

I do love investigating the relationship between the Arts and the Stupidparty, and boy does this new Stupidparty film take the cake. By analyzing in great detail the one positive review, (a review by a non “Top Critic”) we can find out if this movie has any integrity at all. The results are stunning.

A convicted criminal director and his one fan.

The conclusions are often not only stunning but seemingly mathematically impossible. What I mean by this is how can I possibly make statements such as progressive movies are literally infinitely better than Stupidparty movies? Or that Stupidparty music sucks, or that relatively speaking Stupidparty humor is almost non-existent?

Movies are the reflection of everyone’s real life. So, the movies should be very good enough to even watch by the kids and the elders. Infinity is the word in mathematics which means it has no end it will continue without end. The music in the movies should be very rhythmic and sweet to hear. All children will get attracts to the catchy music easily. So, if the songs are good, the movie will become a massive hit. There is the best site to watch movies online.

The concept of infinity is one of most powerful and misunderstood notions—since the human mind can just never wrap its head around it. But the number zero is also powerful, it is so nice and round, no beginning, no end, for ever, and that allows for a certain mathematically sanctioned leeway. Below is a chart put together before a recent right wing propaganda movie onslaught:

Movies for vs against Stupidparty values

It is within this context that we can comfortably review a review of a brand new and particularly Stupidparty movie—Hillary’s America.

This movie has achieved the seemingly impossible—stretching the notion of infinity all the way down into an inescapable black hole, the black heart that lies at the epicenter of the Stupidparty parallel universe.

How did we get here? Let's ask the artists.

Hillary’s America: The reviews from “Top Critics” are in, and they add up to one big ZERO.

Rotten tomatoes has categories for top critics and then a more unreliable category for all reviews which allows sometimes riffraff critics to share their reviews, hence this discussion of Ari Offers absurd review. Not even the fact that News Corp has a massive media presence could entice a single professional movie critic on their payroll to sacrifice their soul, take one for the team, and help promote a truly rotten “artistic”product.

So while Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, Sky News, The (London) Times, The Sun, have certainly towed the line in their coverage of purely political news, so far the rot has not gone beyond that part of its media empire.

"Hillary's America," like other D'Souza films, received a 0% on Rotton Tomatoes.

But surely we can find a positive review—there is always one person who can slip through the net, their sycophantic allegiance to an agenda, used to promote a crap movie. Sure enough I found one review written by a non-Rotten Tomatoes accredited review site:

A review of "Hillary's America".

According to this one truly rotten tomato, Hillary’s America is “A searing, power and persuasive expose.”

The Citizen Kane of movie critics, Avi Offer, promotes his movie “NYC Movie guru” status via his 159 followers on Twitter. This  social media heavy weight compares with the 803,000 twitter followers of the deceased critic, Roger Ebert.

Offer's twitter does not suggest he can be considered a well respected critic.

I am not suggesting that any one movie critic can always be trusted.  I still have a beef with Roger Ebert for his amateurish review of the the Fellowship of the Ring (I knew it was amateurish because it became clear that Ebert, having read the Hobbit as a child, did not understand the very large tonal difference between Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, and that was why Peter Jackson later tried to avoid directing the Hobbit because he knew that bridging the gap would be well nigh impossible).

But back to our polar opposite to Roger Ebert, our self imagined citizen movie critic Avi Offer…

I am going to post very single word of Avi Offer’s review, and in doing so, we are also going to get the scoop about both the director of this pathetic movie, Dinesh D’Souza, and its only critic fan, Avi Offer.

So here we are, the review by Avi Offer, my clarifications and observations will be provided after each of Avi’s little thoughts:

Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party is a searing, powerful and persuasive exposé on the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Just like in America: Imagine the World Without Her, director Dinesh D’Souza…

Wow, another film by this same director with a Rotten Tomatoes score of ZERO% and here again to the rescue came our loyal lap dog Avi Offer:

D'Souza's film receives a 0% rating on Rotton Tomatoes.Almost all reviews of D'Souza's film are negative.

One has to wonder where this guy Dinesh Joseph D’Souza, the director gets his funding.

Well, that should hardly be difficult to figure out once you see the director’s, a convicted criminal, resume. As Salon Reports:

But in his public life he’s (Dinesh Joseph D’Souza) pathologically drawn to pushing the bounds of civil discourse, often with a disinterest in backing up his assertions with facts. While this approach has won him hundreds of thousands of fans of the Joe the Plumber variety, it has eaten away at his respectability in intellectual circles. Few members of the media elite, he complains, have been willing to publicly defend him…”Once a wunderkind of the conservative elite, Dinesh D’Souza has made a fortune with increasingly wild-eyed books and documentaries, including one about Obama’s “rage.” Now serving time for campaign-finance fraud, D’Souza says he is being punished for his beliefs.

The film’s producer Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart News, the right wing loony news site and described by the Bloomberg news as  the “Most Dangerous Political Operative in America”, he runs the new vast right-wing conspiracy—and he wants to take down Hillary Clinton, and he is rabid in his efforts, even going so far as to write his own movie “Clinton’s Cash” based on a book by Peter Schweizer, makes numerous unproven charges, but these charges will still be repeated in the Murdoch media empire.

What they never point out is that the Clinton Charity received donations from a massive array of people and most world  governments. Thus any prick can suggest that a certain country was given preferential treatment, in return for  charitable donation. When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, every one knew of potential conflicts of interests, and rules were set right form day one. How about simply accepting the bloody obvious, the Clinton Foundation is massive, it positively impacts a stunning number of lives, but like any massive organization if you want find procedural errors you will find such errors.

But then charities get graded!!!

The Clinton Foundation receives an A rating on Charity Watch.

But people like Avi Offer could not give a damn about people lives, about how a Charity is graded—not if they can maliciously slander people to take a cheap shot. The whole speaking fee argument is also a non starter. You get what the market will bear. Hardly anyone would turn down a speaking fee, if such a fee was worth one’s time. This is just more red meat diversions to the wandering zombies.

Donald Trump: Trump reportedly earned $1.5 million per speech for a series of seminars in a private online learning company’s “real estate wealth expos,” Forbes reports. That was in 2006 and 2007, though.

In light of recent news, his star power may be decreasing.” While I have contempt for Trump, I have never been stupid enough to harp on his speaking fees. But facts do not matter to this crowd. Bannon is trying to be the next world’s worst weasel Roger Ailes, who was the man most responsible for the vast amount of right wing conspiratorial claptrap that is proving deadly for America, for mankind. These are the people who without any integrity make people so mad they they just want to tear everything down—hence the massively irrational support for a megalomaniac who could not a shit about anything except for the size of his name. It just haunts me that as Ailes thankfully departs in shame, shame, shame—it is just like when we take down the leader of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or ISIL: another snake rapidly materializes. Steve Brannon fits that profile.

Dinesh Joseph D’Souza  is an Indian-American political commentator, author, filmmaker and Christian apologist.

Dinesh D'Souza on Twitter

D’Souza is affiliated with a number of conservative organizations and publications, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution—i.e. D’Souza is a puppet of the far right propaganda machine, the Koch bothers and the others who have forged an America that is seriously entertaining a like-minded fascist in waiting: Donald Trump as President of the USA.

These guys all had a wet dream a couple of years ago: let’s slander Hillary during her convention, and we can get Roger Ailes, Fox news, Breitbart News, Drudge, and all of hate radio to market the hell out of it, at the time they came up with this plan they probably never considered that the very creature that they created would come back to eat them for lunch.

Undaunted Ari Offer continues his review of Hillary’s America:

…..re-examines American history and highlights the facts that should make you horrified and alarmed if you’re a critically-thinking individual. Yes, you might find yourself in denial at first, but denial is a crucial and natural step in the process of coming to terms with a harsh truth.

This is hardly what one would say if you were objectively reviewing a film. This is what a propagandist might say, this is what Lord Haw-Haw might have said during the second world war.

D’Souza includes some re-enactments and archival footage which help to enliven the film so that it’s not just a bunch of talking heads. The fact that D’Souza remains calm and collected, unlike Michael Moore, throughout the film, is a testament to his strengths as a documentarian and investigator.

Attacking Micheal Moore, whose highly entertaining, fact-checked movies have a Rotten Tomato average literally infinitely higher than D’Souza’s two Hillary movies on Rotten Tomatoes is not simply absurd but also culturally revealing.

Michael Moore has an impressive array of critically acclaimed films.

We have a large segment of society that cannot handle facts, and who lie and distort in order to make their rather sick world view make any sense at all.

Have you ever debated a Trumpeteer?

If you have, then you would soon realize that they have literally nothing intelligent to say—never. Garbage in and garbage out, one big fat infinite zero. That is why it becomes so important to figure out how these people get so stupid and then we can figure out who to blame—who to cut off at the knees. Thus we really should pay attention when charlatans like Avi Offer successfully distort reality.

Avi Offer now embarks upon a disingenuous history lesson because Hillary Clinton was evidently born in 1760.

Did you know that it was actually the Democratic Party that was racist during the Civil War?

This is totally irrelevant to politics in 2016. Not a single living Democratic politician has anything to answer for on the issue of slavery. The GOP has moved from the party of Lincoln to the party of bigotry—a process that has been accelerated by the D’Souza employers, and their various media megaphones in the guise of people like Avi Offer.

Or that the “hood” or “ghettos” are essentially the modern versions of plantations? In other words, the Democratic Party is still just as racist now as it was back in the Civil War, but Democrats, will, of course, deny their racism.

At this point the critic has shed any last presence of objectivity, or intelligence. The Dems will likely capture 80-95% of the non-white vote—and they do this by being racist? Yet the GOP and Trump promoted the “Birther” theory—and if you are a birther you are a racist, because you choose to believe claptrap. This shows how ignorant and how bigoted the GOP base has become because of people like Avi Offer.

51% Are “birthers.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49554.html

57% Believe Obama is a Muslim.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/03/22/scary-new-gop-poll.html

24% Believe he may be the Antichrist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/americans-believe-obama-anti-christ-global-warming-hoax_n_3008558.html

If you want to ban Muslims, you are racist, if you choose to believe that “some” Mexican’s are good people, then you are a racist. Avi Offer, by promoting this junk like Trump, uses this this fodder for actual racists, proving he is either a racist himself, or something much worse—actively inciting racism, actively rationalizing racism

 Did you know that the KKK originated from the Democratic Party and its members were Democrats themselves?

Here he goes again, repeating his repugnant racist enabling disingenuous bile.

Or how about that Planned Parenthood is mostly found in areas where minorities can be found is a form of eugenics started by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood?

Here the critic plays the same far right wing trick. What Planned Parenthood  said before the War is not relevant to today. Eugenics did not become debased as a theory till Hitler took it to an extreme and people to view it with disdain. But before the  1939-1945 war it was a notion discussed across the political spectrum as people debated its merits. Society evolves—eugenics just like slavery, rape, genocide, torture, sexual harassment, the woman’s right to vote, gay marriage are all subjects that have evolved. In thirty years time people who support the death penalty today, or who carried on driving fossil cars after 2025, or who ate inhumanely slaughtered meat, or any meat will be viewed as barbarians. The thing is, it is never the conservative brain that evolves from the barbaric troglodyte status quo culture, it is always the progressive brain than evolves.

Hillary Clinton just so happens to consider Margaret Sanger to be a role model.

And why not—just consider the millions lives saved by this women, Margaret Sanger: she was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  She promoted sex education and birth control. Can you imaging a world without these things. Well I accept that an idiot could—but in fact the world would be far more misogynistic, have massively more poverty, more unwanted Children, more abortions, disease, death and war. You really have to be a very sick and ignorant pro-death person to complain about planned parenthood.But it is a red meat issue for Zombies and Avi Offer has no qualms in feeding the pitch fork mob.

D’Souza explains something that you ought to know about Hillary: her mentor was writer Saul Alinksy who began scamming people early on in his college days by ripping off his school’s cafeteria while convincing others to take part in the scams as well. That scam serves as a microcosm of what Hillary Clinton plans to do in our country.

He did come up with a system to get a free meal whilst at the University of Chicago, which lasted for few months (something that I had done in my youth, and it felt immensely satisfying to get a free three course meal at a certain Bank’s and various Insurance Company’s employee cafeteria’s, rightly or wrongly), Zalinski had no regrets, he was penniless and hungry. But linking this to Hillary is just stupid—perhaps one should figure out why Hillary found Zalinsky so interesting. Well let’s do a quick refresher course on Saul Alinsky:

Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. In the course of nearly four decades of political organizing, Alinsky received much criticism, but also gained praise from many public figures. His organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America. In the 1950s, he began turning his attention to improving conditions in the African-American ghettos, beginning with Chicago’s and later traveling to other ghettos in California, Michigan, New York City, and a dozen other “trouble spots”.

His ideas were adapted in the 1960’s by some U.S. college students and other young counterculture-era organizers, who used them as part of their strategies for organizing on campus and beyond.[5] Time magazine wrote in 1970 that “It is not too much to argue that American democracy is being altered by Alinsky’s ideas.”[6] Conservative author William F. Buckley, Jr. said in 1966 that Alinsky was “very close to being an organizational genius”.[7]

Alinksy clearly had no empathy, and neither does Hillary Clinton for many reasons including that she, along with Bill Clinton, took money that other countries, such as Haiti, and put it into the charity known as the Clinton Foundation.

Now this tinpot quack film critic goes full conspiracy claptrap mode on the whole Clinton Foundation thing, taking advantage of peoples ignorance on the subject to fill that void with garbage. But luckily I can resolve that by the attached factual analysis of the Clinton foundation here and here.

However, she didn’t commit to her promise of making the necessary improvements in Haiti using that money other than building a factory there. She forgave her husband for his sexual affairs, i.e. with Monica Lewinsky, because she wanted to manipulate, control or use him as a stepping stone to pave the way to become President herself.

This is simply in the reviewers imagination—it does not belong in a film review, or even in professional journalism. This critic gets to pass judgment on Hillary’s family decisions, how she brings up their child—it really is disgustingly inappropriate.

Hopefully, that won’t happen. Her lack of accountability during the recent Email Scandal shows you just how unreliable, immature and narcissistic she is as a human being–

It shows no such thing. It was a manufactured political scandal, nothing else—here are than facts…

to be fair, though, Narcissistic Personality Disorder and corruption run rampant in American politics, so she’s a small part of a widespread problem that will probably never go away. She will become a big problem for America if she were to become President, but the same can be said about Donald Trump whom this doc ignores. You don’t have to vote for Hillary or Trump come election time.

Well if you do not vote for Hillary then we know what side you would have chosen in Germany 1928. Avi Offer has created caricature based upon his own imagination, fertilized by Koch brother, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh etc inspired conspiracy theories and then he gets say “oh she is just like Trump.” Critical thinking and objective professional analysis just does not work like that.

Just because they have a lot of money for their political campaign and are good “actors”, that doesn’t mean they’ll be a good President. I’ve mentioned this before in my review of Vaxxed, but I’ll mention it again: there should be mandatory mental health assessments for every single politician. They receive a physical assessment, so why not a mental one as well? Pilots and soldiers need to be mentally fit for their jobs, so don’t politicians need to be mentally fit as well? What’s undeniable is that Hillary Clinton would surely fail that test.

I totally agree—in fact I have such test for all politicians, prospective voters and for Avi Offer and D’Souza. People can take it here—it should be easy-peezy.

Why would she perform worse than any other candidate? What is undeniable to anyone remotely interested in the facts of the matter that Hillary Clinton happens to be one of the most honest politicians around as can be factually proven by actually bothering to fact check something this moronic critic, director, producer have zero interest in doing.

You’ll never look at Hillary Clinton the same way again after watching this eye-opening doc. Consider it your patriotic duty to see Hillary’s America, a must-see for everyone who cares about the future of America. It would make for an interesting double feature with Free State of Jones.

I will never look at this critic or the Director of this film again, as they have both proven to be extraordinarily ignorant and puppets of the very people who have been seeking to steer America so that 158 families and a few alpha male billionaires can run the country for their singular benefit. Avi Offer has his final flourish, so must I. Patriotic duty? USA! USA! USA! You would think that Avi Offer, who sees himself as a historian would be somewhat sensitive to the conditions of Germany 1928, can you not hear the sound of jackboots on cobbled stones?  Whose side would you be on Avi? You cannot spot the traits of a fascist?

You claim you are a patriot, but  are you? Why not ask your self a simple question: what would Trump do in exchange to being able to plaster his name, under license, all over Moscow’s tallest buildings, their greenest Golf Courses, newfangled casinos? Give up Ukraine, nullify NATO, break up Europe, separate America from its allies? You are not a patriot, you are a racist fascist enabling Traitor, a pawn in the hands of the Oligarchs in waiting.

Voting for Jill Stein? Don’t

I would guess that I am in the top 1% when it comes down to my personal green credentials.

Either on the top or the bottom, doesn’t matter unless you are competing in something. Life is not a competition, but a journey; so choose things very carefully as you need to hang with it for long. just like the trading accounts that you open with many normal brokers, this site webpage will give you the list of best trading platforms for all cryptocurrencies that will give you great returns.

Friends have told me that my most likely fate will be a family member smothering a pillow over me as I sleep–driven to madness by my efforts to ban the use of the dryer, AC in the summer, central heating in the winter, insistence on LED lighting, complaints that Americans have not figured out how to make energy efficient double hung windows, my loathing of Hummer drivers, and my excitement that from 2025 on, Norway will ban the sale of newly manufactured fossil Cars.

Al Gore: If You Care About The Climate Crisis, Don’t Vote For A Third Party

“In my experience, it matters a lot.”

I used to give large sums to environmental charities, but then I was struck by a depressing thought. What’s the point of hugging a tree if G.W. Bush is President? He and his kin will devote the full force of the US Government to maintaining an energy policy that has created today’s mess and promoting an environmental policy designed to destroy the environment. I felt that I had a higher calling. My “God” (ha) told me that I must tackle the problem at the root. Expose and destroy StupidParty. Therefore to protect the planet, to protect humanity, I had to devote all my energies to taking the Stupid out of StupidParty. I do not really care who gets in the way of this objective–all such barriers must be destroyed even it that means going after a fellow “greeny”— if they are a threat to my planet, my home.

Voting for Jill Stein is the same as voting for Trump. (OK, not a precise mathematical fact-but let’s not get too geeky)

According to Trump, a vote for Stein helps him

Trump’s actual Quote:

“I think a vote for Stein would be good–that’s the Green Party. Because I figure anyone voting for Stein is gonna be for Hillary. So I think vote for Stein is fine.”

Jill Stein is officially beyond redemption: 

Picture

That’s the Math. Jill Stein does not have the slightest chance of winning anything. People who advocate for Jill Stein are effectively wandering off into the woods and jerking off. Meanwhile by enabling a party that relishes raping and pillaging the planet, endangering, torturing and slaughtering wildlife and livestock these self-serving intellectual prima donnas would only find themselves naked and afraid standing in a desiccated forest holding  onto their spent penis’s withering in their sticky hands. They wanted to achieve a more perfect union, but to no avail. Today, in 2016, these “Steinway greenies” are helping to promote the decades of fact devoid extreme right wing propaganda about Hillary–whilst never bothering to get the actual facts about her. All to save one bloody tree. This is quite embarrassing for me and it makes environmentalist just look stupid.  To people who now find themselves attacking Hillary, to Hillary haters, please stop picking up your fruits from the poisoned tree of the StupidParty.

What you need are the  facts:

http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2016/07/hillary-clinton-liar-or-patron-saint-honesty.html

Plus http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2015/12/to-those-who-say-a-pox-on-both-your-houses-i-say-a-pox-on-you.html

Plus  http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2015/12/climate-agreement-victory-lap-is-quiet-patient-obama-quite-brilliant.html

Plus http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2016/06/benghazi-hearing-gops-embarrassing-shame-clintons-triumphant-vindication-2.html

Plus   http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2015/05/increasing-minimum-wage-good-but-not-the-holy-grail.html

Plus http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2015/01/a-farewell-to-romney-who-was-once-again-circling-over-the-carcass-of-the-american-middle-class-but-clearly-didnt-get-the-green-light-from-the-stupidparty-establishment-who-have-bigger-fools-t.html

Steinway greenies attacking Hillary and thus enabling Trump have allowed themselves to become patsys  to the very people looking to destroy America. They would undermine America’s newly found drive to be part of the solution to Global Warming. By enabling the GOP they  are allowing Florida to disappear under the rising tides, they would allow Elon Musks‘ enemies to pounce, thus delaying the destruction of fossil fuels and ceding the technological expertise to China or to regular Fossil car auto manufacturers.

But so far it seems Jill Stein really has been given a free pass. It is not like she has ever had to endure twenty-five years of nonstop slander from the inventive but fact free vast right wing conspiracy. It was sad to see how rapidly sour grape Bernie or Busters were willing to buy into these nonstop fabrications. It is also sad to see how quickly Jill Stein was willing to surf off the backs of these Bernie or Busters and hijack all the unproven talking points. She offered him the chance to head up the Green party–a transparently empty gesture, knowing dam well we would never try and enable Trump to be President by accepting.

But when Stein sinks to the level of a Trump apologist by being determinedly disingenuous about Trump conspiracy theories, why the hell is she even given air time? Why would any one take her seriously?

But it gets much much worse: 

Interestingly, the Green Party’s candidate for president for 2016, Dr. Jill Stein, also attended the RT gala dinner  (“gala” celebrating the 10th anniversary of another Russian state propaganda organ), RT (formerly known as Russia Today, until they realized they needed to nix the word “Russia” in their name if they were going to be successful in getting audiences to buy the Kremlin’s propaganda) and proudly advertised this fact on her campaign website, addressed an RT-organized panel before the dinner (begging the question if she was paid by RT for this), and sat at Putin’s table along with Gen. Flynn.  She recently suggested Clinton could be worse than Trump and has also been featured heavily on RT, and while in Moscow she very pointedly and extensively criticized U.S. foreign policy, “American exceptionalism” (similar to Putin’s views on this subject), and U.S. human rights abuses while only offer relatively very muted criticism on the same issues of Russia, if at all.

Jill Stein is a little mini-me Trumpeteer:

“Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and ignoring the climate. Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things,”

Jill Stein, a medical doctor, has also shown Trumpesque anti-science notions in order to pander to certain homeopathic constituents on the leftist fringe–here she is causing confusion about vaccines:

“There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.”

As The Washington Post explained:

Stein’s warning about corporate influence in the vaccine approval process is often voiced by “anti-vaxxers.” In reality, most members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee work at academic or medical institutions, not drug companies. But for Stein, the fact that people saw corporate and lobbying influence running rampant meant that some skepticism was warranted.

most members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee work at academic or medical institutions

Stein consistently panders to the rainbow left–people who the right find easy to ridicule, and can make an easy target once they have been herded together. (Common guys, you have great ideas, but they need to be promoted by an economist or statistician wherever possible. Is Wi-Fi in schools endangering kids physical heath? It seems highly unlikely, so politicians like Stein should be careful before using the right wing’s favored strategy–the irrational fear factor. Personally, I prefer organic farming, I  loathe Monsanto, loathe GMO’s–but I do not write about it because the evidence for organics is iffy, and the evidence against GMO’s is shaky, to say the least. Yes GMO food products should be labeled, Monsanto needs to be seen as non-objective party, but one really needs to be careful when going into negative campaign mode, hustling for well meaning  harmless fringe voters–because if we just make shit up and look like dodo’s, what makes us better than StupidParty (notwithstanding the whole hate thing))? It is only because of my guttural unsubstantiated aversion to these suspect farming practices that I am not being a lot harsher about Jill Stein’s rhetoric.

Jill Stein also harps on (correctly or incorrectly) about a rigged system, how great the Brexit vote was, about protectionism. It is not that I object to the underlying arguments, it is that right now that this message, coming from the left, is uniquely strategically insane. The best way to promote such an agenda is stay with Bernie, follow his lead, not too embarrass him, diminish him. It is insane because it mirrors the rhetoric of Donald Trump–even though we know that Trump is making it up as he goes along and presumably Jill Stein is not, but allow me to provide some analogies to show the terrible strategic error of having this fight right now.

Let us simply presume that Jill Stein is correct. Analogy 1) Let’s presume that vegetarians are correct—the wrong strategy is to go after carnivores, the correct strategy is to go after animal cruelty, in the food production system and allow and allow humans to organically evolve from there, rather than polarization leading to a stalemate, which equals the status quo, such animals carry on being tortured.  Analogy 2) Let’s assume that single payer is the correct healthcare system (

Analogy 1) Let’s presume that vegetarians are correct—the wrong strategy is to go after carnivores, the correct strategy is to go after animal cruelty, in the food production system and allow and allow humans to organically evolve from there, rather than polarization leading to a stalemate, which equals the status quo, such animals carry on being tortured.

Analogy 2) Let’s assume that single payer is the correct healthcare system (Duh. Of course it is), but people are fearful and reject it. The correct strategy was to try and implement the public option–with which there was no argument against it, and this can organically lead to a single-payer dominated system. But even this failed only because the political system is bought and paid for. The issue of free trade is infinitely more complex–any over reaching will end up with society more polarized and solutions far harder to agree on. (I happen to believe in a rather specific middle course, which I never see debated).

But Jill Stein has exhibited something worse than anything above. In the UK the battle to replace David Cameron was fought between two women–one was a political pro, the married but involuntarily childless Theresa May, the other was a political lightweight Andrea Leadsam. But barely before the battle had really begun, the amateur made a fatal mistake.

“I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children, so I don’t want this to be, ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’, because I think that would be really horrible.” But she added: “Genuinely I feel that being a mum means you have a real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.”

Soon after these comments Andrea Leadsam had to throw in the towel, without a vote being cast. Why do I mention this other than as an illustration that other developed countries have a massively lower tolerance for really cruel and stupid comments.

Jill Stein is not much better than Andrea Leadsom. This was what Jill Stein Tweeted:

I agree w/ Hillary, it’s time to elect a woman for President. But I want that President to reflect the values of being a mother. #MothersDay.

The fact that in America, no body gives a dam about this is really a sad indication of the break down of basic humanity in American political debate. This has been brought about by Roger Ailes and his brotherhood, who have debased facts as the domain of elitists. I would not say Hillary is perfect on this score, I am not really sure. But in my opinion the worst thing that Hillary has ever done was show political cowardice during her 2008 primary campaign against Obama by not rejecting the racists within the Democratic party–for yes they do have some, especially in the rural counties of Red States. But this political cowardice  was not vindictive, not mean spirited—as Jill Stein has just shown herself to be.

Jill Stein and her kidnapping of the the Green movement can only set back the goals of environmentalists every time it undermines the vital and now historic opportunity to destroy the StupidParty. Only once the StupidParty is killed off and then reborn (without the stupid) can America even begin to have enlightened conversations about what the rainbow “loony” left feels so strongly about. Only then can mainstream voters begin to see that sometimes the loony left is correct and sometimes they are just loony, but nice.

As The Huffington Post has pointed out

The whole charade of Stein’s media-driven candidacy covers over the fact that the Green Party has no ground game. This is a one-candidate show, not a genuine reformist party working to change a system from the local level. Unlike the Libertarian Party, the Green Party doesn’t hold a single state house seat. If this was a party sincere about its mission, it would be building infrastructure. Instead, we have what amounts to a celebrity campaign seemingly designed to foil the Democrats. In a year where our democracy is threatened by a terrifying demagogue, the Green Party is revealing itself to be reckless and full of hot air… Liberals deserve better than Jill Stein. Luckily, with the assistance of Bernie Sanders, they already have the most progressive Democratic Party platform in history.

Of  course Jill Stein  has a great agenda–bully for you. My god, you really think that you are so smart in supporting that agenda. Most of it is just so bloody obvious, yet you walk around thinking that you are Einstein reincarnated. Jill Stein getting zero in the electoral college is going to achieve that agenda–you are looking quite so smart now?

Oh you say, ” I can not vote against my core principles”  STFU.

The mathematics of stupidity

Meanwhile you have enabled the exact opposite. This strikes me as the end game of a moron. So you figured that clean energy is the way to go. Whoopsy do, that does not make you brilliant. It just means that you can add 2+2. Voting for a clear cut loser who can only raise very limited funds, has zero ground game, and is simply a Nader reboot, is that smart?

Remember Nader, his voters keep rationalizing this deadly obstinacy and it lead to Florida 2000. Still have doubts that about that history, about the value of history  lessons? I will let  Gallup remind you.

Is Mike Pence Honestly Stupid, Stupidly Honest or Just Stupid?

The one time talk radio host “Rush Limbaugh on decaf” who chats his way to the Governorship, the guy who blew his Presidential aspirations over his cock up in his handling of Indiana’s Orwellian named religious liberty law, the guy who evidently Trumped regretted picking as his VP even before Trump officially picked him as his VP—”CNN’s Dana Bash and NBC News’ Kelly O’Donnell both reported that Trump got cold feet Thursday night over his apparent veep choice, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. According to Bash, Trump was “so unsure” about his offer to Pence that “around midnight last night, he asked aides if he could get out of it.” O’Donnell tweeted that the real estate mogul was on the phone late into the evening on Thursday, “asking if he could change course on VP pick.” It is not like the negative feeling is not mutual -no it is much worse than that – The National Review’s Tim Alberta reported in April that longtime friends of Pence’s said the governor “loathes” Trump. Alberta stood by that reporting on Friday. A match made in hell then. Yes meet the StupidParty of 2016, a year when every day is Christmas day…

Meet Mike Pence, the Governor of Indiana…
Stupidity is now a religion in Indiana. Thanks Mike.

Mike Pence struggles with the simple stuff:

 

Evolution                          fail

Global warming               fail

Was World Created in Seven days            fail

Too Stupid to Understand that Campaign  donations are not a personal piggy bank

The Washington Post reported: “Mike Pence was a young lawyer on the rise, challenging a longtime Democratic congressman in a Republican-leaning Indiana district. And then, scandal. Campaign finance records from the 1990 effort showed that Pence, then 31, had been using political donations to pay the mortgage on his house, his personal credit card bill, groceries, golf tournament fees and car payments for his wife.” But I guess that such stupidity had never surfaced before —”Experts say that subsequent rules passed by the Federal Election Commission barring the use of campaign funds for personal needs were the direct result of ethics concerns raised by Pence’s actions.”

Mike Pence wanted his own Taxpayer funded News Service. On becoming Governor his first brilliant idea had the country rolling on the floor in laughter: Like the any little dictator (perfect for Trump)  his failed plan to make a taxpayer-funded state-run news service that would produce content for Indiana papers about the Pence administration, along with other miscellaneous stories. I am sure that Trump will rekindle this great idea, as he remolds the country’s news services.

Ethics Fail

Self Awareness  Fail

Mike Pence wants more Religious Freedoms: All these values are pseudo Christian values.

 

Abortions: He has decimated access to abortion: In March 2016, Gov. Pence signed a measure prohibiting women from obtaining an abortion because of the race, gender, or disability of the fetus, making Indiana only the second state in the nation to do this. He slashed funding for planned parenthood – an organization that uses Zero taxpayer money for abortions. Going after planned parenthood, restricting access to abortions, means that numerous women will die, or get consigned to poverty. It is an act of misogynist manslaughter which I prove here. Replacing planned parenthood centers with  religious based scam health centers is also deadly—which I prove here.

StupidParty is Deadly

Abstinence Education – simply does not work, but Mike Pence is simply too simple to worry about life saving, abortion reducing, facts:

Mike Pence announced he was awarding a $3.5 million contract to Pennsylvania-based Real Alternatives, which had already received $1 million for a pilot project in Indiana.

Mike Pence is at pains to state that he is not a bigot, yet this is what his website stated when he ran for Congress:

The “Pence Agenda” supported “an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus,” and went further to say resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.” Under the headline “The Pence Agenda: A Guide To Renewing the America Dream,” he said, “Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a ‘discreet and insular minority’ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.”

So how could this be deadly?

INDIANAPOLIS — A team of high-ranking federal officials will visit Indiana on Tuesday to get a firsthand look at the response to an HIV outbreak of more than 140 cases, one of the largest in recent years, in the hope of learning ways to prevent similar occurrences.”This is one of the worst documented outbreaks of HIV among IV users in the past two decades,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. “It’s of import to the CDC as well as the people of Indiana.”

Gov. Pence then declared an HIV epidemic in south east Indiana, an epidemic that he caused because of his attitudes toward homosexuality (being curable etc), sex education, abstinence and doing away with the needle exchange program.This declaration was in response to 79 new cases, all linked to IV drug use. He also gave authorities the OK to begin a 30-day needle exchange program. So seeing his errorhe re-instigates the needle exchange program for just 30 days—so what is the point of that?

Needle Exchange Programs

Needle Exchange programs are massively effective. It is estimated that NEPs across the country have reduced HIV transmission rates by two-fifths to one-third overall. Such a program would cost Indiana about $160,000 a year, but treating an AIDS patient costs $120,000 – one does not need to be a math major to do a cost benefit analysis. But that Math is too complex for Mike Pence. However he does feel a tad guilty about the epidemic he has unleashed- so what does he do? He re-introduces the program for 30 days—brilliant, just enough time for his short horizon intellect and midget conscience to run it’s naturally myopic course.  Additionally, addicts who use NEP programs are five times more likely to go to rehab than those who don’t. A lot of the time, these programs can be used to help get people into treatment. So if it is not about money -then mathematically it must surely be about hate?

Help prevent HIV. Don't abuse needles.

 

Abortion  Fail

Abstinence Education Fail

Women’s healthcare Fail

AIDS Epidemic  Fail

Needle Exchange  Program  Fail

Bigotry   Fail

Picture

Economics  Fail

Competency Fail

As Andy Horowitz satirically wrote in The New Yorker

In a history-making decision, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana has signed into law a bill that officially recognizes stupidity as a religion. Pence said that he hoped the law would protect millions of state residents “who, like me, have been practicing this religion passionately for years.”The bill would grant politicians like Pence the right to observe their faith freely, even if their practice of stupidity costs the state billions of dollars…

 (and costs countless lives)

So what was the inspiration for this outburst? Well as Governor Mile Pence passes a religious liberty law that apparently allows business’s in Indiana to have the liberty to discriminate against gays. He denies that he or the law is prejudiced, which does not quite fit this picture:

Mike Pence signs into law SB101

Mike Pence refused to identify the bigots in the photo -I guess he figured that professional Journalists would just not be able to figure it out. Mike Pence then defends the bill by saying it is like other states and similar to federal law -statements that are just not true:

Here’s the easily substantiated truth behind the bill. Its supporters explicitly intended it to legalize discrimination against gay people—especially gay couples, who, lately, have faced discrimination from florists, bakers, and photographers who refuse to serve them. To ensure the law achieved this goal, its drafter inserted two monumentally important provisions, neither of which is found in the federal religious freedom law signed by President Bill Clinton. First, the bill explicitly permits for-profit businesses to exercise their religious beliefs, rather than limiting its effects to regular human beings. Second, the bill protects businesses against private lawsuits in addition to state suits.

But it’s really the next provision that gives the Indiana law its startling and unique breadth. The federal religious freedom law was designed to protect individuals from government overreach, like a state law barring ritual drug use by American Indians. Indiana’s law, on the other hand, lets people (and businesses) cite their religious freedom as a defense in private lawsuits, even when they’re accused of violating a civil rights law. In practice, that means a baker who is required by a nondiscrimination ordinance to serve all customers may cite her religious opposition to homosexuality in order to refuse service to a gay couple. Here, then, is the true license to discriminate: A secular baker is still bound by the law; a Christian baker has a special religious right to kick out customers she dislikes due to her religion.
This law can hardly be good for business with Indiana generating a massive amount of bad press and business’s refusing to do business in Indiana.

Salesforce: The largest tech employer in Indiana has canceled all corporate events in the state. Indiana’s governor has halfheartedly attempted to walk back from the law’s discriminatory potential, but Benioff is not swayed.

Angie’s List: The local business review website Angie’s List put an expansion of its Indianapolis headquarters on hold while it waits to see how the law hashes out. It is actively looking for different locations.

Wilco: The rock band Wilco has canceled upcoming concerts in Indiana.

Nick Offerman: The comedian and Parks and Recreation actor Nick Offerman has canceled a scheduled performance in Indiana.

AFSCME Women’s Conference: The public services employees union is moving its annual women’s conference out of Indiana for good.

A Judge’s Message to the Mike Pence the Xenophobe:

A federal district judge in Indianapolis punctured this fiction (that terrorists could infiltrate the United States as refugees despite a resettlement process that is one of the strictest in the world) last week in blocking the attempt by Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana to cut off federal resettlement funds for Syrian refugees who had passed a vetting process that took up to two years. Mr. Pence’s order was unconstitutional and “clearly discriminates” against Syrians compared with other refugees, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in a suit brought by a nonprofit resettlement agency. The judge found that Mr. Pence’s move to withhold resettlement funds was “in no way” justified by his claim that his main concern was the safety of Indiana residents.

America already has the highest Incarceration rates in the world.Picture

The far right (half the country evidently) love high incarceration rates as this is a tool for voter suppression, intimidating minorities, creating jobs (prison guard and prison construction jobs in local communities),  getting funds from For Profit Prisons, and best of all, virtual slave prison labor for large corporations. One reason why so many large American companies loved Hitler between circa 1924-1945 was lack of regulations, lack of Democracy, no independent Judicial oversight and most importantly, by the end of the second World War 25% of the labor force was Slave labor. I discuss this issue in depth here.

But being number 1 is just not good enough for Mike Pence, plus For Profit Prisons contribute to Indiana StupidParty politicians, including Mike Pence and that is why Indiana StupidParty politicians like Brian Bosma, the Indiana State House Speaker who has been quoted as saying:

“As an entry drug, I think marijuana is more powerful than it’s given credit for,” he said. “I know some states have taken that step (to legalize it), but I don’t find it advisable at this point.”

As Media Matters reports:

Pence Signed Legislation Enacting Harsh Sentencing For Drug Offenses Opposed By Indiana Legal Groups. In the spring, Pence signed into law an Indiana House bill imposing 10-year mandatory minimum prison terms for people convicted of second offenses for crimes involving methamphetamine or heroin. The legislation was opposed by the Indiana State Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section, the Indiana Judicial Conference, and the Indiana Public Defender Council, which all argued that legislation to combat drug use should focus on treatment rather than harsher punishment. [The Times of Northwest Indiana, 3/21/16; TheIndianaLawyer.com, 3/21/16] Pence, A Supposed Criminal Justice Reform Candidate, Has Actually Passed Numerous Measures That Support Mass Incarceration. In a review of the legislative moves of several lawmakers backed by the nominally pro-criminal-justice-reform Koch brothers, ThinkProgress pointed out that the oil billionaires have “thrown their financial weight behind candidates who have a record of putting more people in prison, keeping them there for longer and spending more money on mass incarceration,” including Pence. The article explained that, while Pence signed a broad criminal justice reform bill after he took office, his budgets have reflected a commitment to expanding and protecting the prison-industrial complex.

Does Mike Pence actually give a dam about the People of Indiana?

As reported by Mother Jones

He has made life harder for low-income families: Between 2006 and 2009, Pence voted against raising the minimum wage, expanding health coverage for low-income kids, and providing additional funding for Section 8 vouchers, which help low-income families pay rent.

He refused to comply with Obama administration rules aimed at reducing prison rape: In 2014, Gov. Pence wrote to the Department of Justice to argue that the new rules “work only to bind the states, and hinder the evolution of even better and safer practices.” He said Indiana would not follow them.

He has supported deporting undocumented children and sick people and favors building a fence on the border (sound familiar?): In 2009, Rep. Pence co-sponsored a bill that would have eliminated automatic citizenship for children born on US soil to undocumented parents. A few years earlier, he voted in favor of bills that would have allowed for the detention of undocumented immigrants seeking hospital treatment. He also voted yes on a bill—foreshadowing Trump’s current platform—to build a fence on the Mexico border.

Mike Pence is Honestly Stupid:

Privatizing Social Security: It is not simply that Mike Pence supports privatizing Social Security  – I explain why this is a deadly stupid idea here –but it is his explanation as to why people would be financially safer with his reform that is just totally moronic –so moronic that it actually makes standard conservative orthodoxy on the subject seem quite brilliant by comparison.

At the time, one of the big liberal objections to privatization was that private accounts were far riskier than conventional Social Security — and retirees could be left in the lurch if their investments went south.

In his talk, Pence had a strange answer to this: He argued that the average rate of return on investments in the stock market would be so much larger than the average Social Security benefit that it would be simple for the government to guarantee nobody would end up with less money in the new private system than they would have been entitled to under the old system. After all, most people would do so much better under the new system that the government would only need to pay up to make the guarantee work for a small number of people.

I raised what I thought was an obvious objection to this: moral hazard. If you promise people they’ll get a bailout if their private investments go south, you encourage excessive risk taking and bigger losses in the future.

My expectation was that Pence would have some kind of answer to this: a technical solution or a plan for a regulatory fix or a promise to think about it harder or something. But he had nothing. He seemed to just not understand at all what the problem was. The idea that a government guarantee could change behavior appeared to be totally unfamiliar to him, even though in most cases it’s a bedrock of conservative economic policy thinking.

Is Mike Pence Honestly Stupid, Stupidly Honest or Just Stupid?

The one time talk radio host “Rush Limbaugh on decaf” who chats his way to the Governorship, the guy who blew his Presidential aspirations over his cock up in his handling of Indiana’s Orwellian named religious liberty law, the guy who evidently Trumped regretted picking as his VP even before Trump officially picked him as his VP—”CNN’s Dana Bash and NBC News’ Kelly O’Donnell both reported that Trump got cold feet Thursday night over his apparent veep choice, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. According to Bash, Trump was “so unsure” about his offer to Pence that “around midnight last night, he asked aides if he could get out of it.” O’Donnell tweeted that the real estate mogul was on the phone late into the evening on Thursday, “asking if he could change course on VP pick.” It is not like the negative feeling is not mutual -no it is much worse than that – The National Review’s Tim Alberta reported in April that longtime friends of Pence’s said the governor “loathes” Trump. Alberta stood by that reporting on Friday. A match made in hell then. Yes meet the StupidParty of 2016, a year when every day is Christmas day…

Meet Mike Pence, the Governor of Indiana…
Stupidity is now a religion in Indiana. Thanks Mike.

Mike Pence struggles with the simple stuff:

 

Evolution                          fail

Global warming               fail

Was World Created in Seven days            fail

Too Stupid to Understand that Campaign  donations are not a personal piggy bank

The Washington Post reported: “Mike Pence was a young lawyer on the rise, challenging a longtime Democratic congressman in a Republican-leaning Indiana district. And then, scandal. Campaign finance records from the 1990 effort showed that Pence, then 31, had been using political donations to pay the mortgage on his house, his personal credit card bill, groceries, golf tournament fees and car payments for his wife.” But I guess that such stupidity had never surfaced before —”Experts say that subsequent rules passed by the Federal Election Commission barring the use of campaign funds for personal needs were the direct result of ethics concerns raised by Pence’s actions.”

Mike Pence wanted his own Taxpayer funded News Service. On becoming Governor his first brilliant idea had the country rolling on the floor in laughter: Like the any little dictator (perfect for Trump)  his failed plan to make a taxpayer-funded state-run news service that would produce content for Indiana papers about the Pence administration, along with other miscellaneous stories. I am sure that Trump will rekindle this great idea, as he remolds the country’s news services.

Ethics Fail

Self Awareness  Fail

Mike Pence wants more Religious Freedoms: All these values are pseudo Christian values.

 

Abortions: He has decimated access to abortion: In March 2016, Gov. Pence signed a measure prohibiting women from obtaining an abortion because of the race, gender, or disability of the fetus, making Indiana only the second state in the nation to do this. He slashed funding for planned parenthood – an organization that uses Zero taxpayer money for abortions. Going after planned parenthood, restricting access to abortions, means that numerous women will die, or get consigned to poverty. It is an act of misogynist manslaughter which I prove here. Replacing planned parenthood centers with  religious based scam health centers is also deadly—which I prove here.

StupidParty is Deadly

Abstinence Education – simply does not work, but Mike Pence is simply too simple to worry about life saving, abortion reducing, facts:

Mike Pence announced he was awarding a $3.5 million contract to Pennsylvania-based Real Alternatives, which had already received $1 million for a pilot project in Indiana.

Mike Pence is at pains to state that he is not a bigot, yet this is what his website stated when he ran for Congress:

The “Pence Agenda” supported “an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus,” and went further to say resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.” Under the headline “The Pence Agenda: A Guide To Renewing the America Dream,” he said, “Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a ‘discreet and insular minority’ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.”

So how could this be deadly?

INDIANAPOLIS — A team of high-ranking federal officials will visit Indiana on Tuesday to get a firsthand look at the response to an HIV outbreak of more than 140 cases, one of the largest in recent years, in the hope of learning ways to prevent similar occurrences.”This is one of the worst documented outbreaks of HIV among IV users in the past two decades,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. “It’s of import to the CDC as well as the people of Indiana.”

Gov. Pence then declared an HIV epidemic in south east Indiana, an epidemic that he caused because of his attitudes toward homosexuality (being curable etc), sex education, abstinence and doing away with the needle exchange program.This declaration was in response to 79 new cases, all linked to IV drug use. He also gave authorities the OK to begin a 30-day needle exchange program. So seeing his errorhe re-instigates the needle exchange program for just 30 days—so what is the point of that?

Needle Exchange Programs

Needle Exchange programs are massively effective. It is estimated that NEPs across the country have reduced HIV transmission rates by two-fifths to one-third overall. Such a program would cost Indiana about $160,000 a year, but treating an AIDS patient costs $120,000 – one does not need to be a math major to do a cost benefit analysis. But that Math is too complex for Mike Pence. However he does feel a tad guilty about the epidemic he has unleashed- so what does he do? He re-introduces the program for 30 days—brilliant, just enough time for his short horizon intellect and midget conscience to run it’s naturally myopic course.  Additionally, addicts who use NEP programs are five times more likely to go to rehab than those who don’t. A lot of the time, these programs can be used to help get people into treatment. So if it is not about money -then mathematically it must surely be about hate?

Help prevent HIV. Don't abuse needles.

 

Abortion  Fail

Abstinence Education Fail

Women’s healthcare Fail

AIDS Epidemic  Fail

Needle Exchange  Program  Fail

Bigotry   Fail

Picture

Economics  Fail

Competency Fail

As Andy Horowitz satirically wrote in The New Yorker

In a history-making decision, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana has signed into law a bill that officially recognizes stupidity as a religion. Pence said that he hoped the law would protect millions of state residents “who, like me, have been practicing this religion passionately for years.”The bill would grant politicians like Pence the right to observe their faith freely, even if their practice of stupidity costs the state billions of dollars…

 (and costs countless lives)

So what was the inspiration for this outburst? Well as Governor Mile Pence passes a religious liberty law that apparently allows business’s in Indiana to have the liberty to discriminate against gays. He denies that he or the law is prejudiced, which does not quite fit this picture:

Mike Pence signs into law SB101

Mike Pence refused to identify the bigots in the photo -I guess he figured that professional Journalists would just not be able to figure it out. Mike Pence then defends the bill by saying it is like other states and similar to federal law -statements that are just not true:

Here’s the easily substantiated truth behind the bill. Its supporters explicitly intended it to legalize discrimination against gay people—especially gay couples, who, lately, have faced discrimination from florists, bakers, and photographers who refuse to serve them. To ensure the law achieved this goal, its drafter inserted two monumentally important provisions, neither of which is found in the federal religious freedom law signed by President Bill Clinton. First, the bill explicitly permits for-profit businesses to exercise their religious beliefs, rather than limiting its effects to regular human beings. Second, the bill protects businesses against private lawsuits in addition to state suits.

But it’s really the next provision that gives the Indiana law its startling and unique breadth. The federal religious freedom law was designed to protect individuals from government overreach, like a state law barring ritual drug use by American Indians. Indiana’s law, on the other hand, lets people (and businesses) cite their religious freedom as a defense in private lawsuits, even when they’re accused of violating a civil rights law. In practice, that means a baker who is required by a nondiscrimination ordinance to serve all customers may cite her religious opposition to homosexuality in order to refuse service to a gay couple. Here, then, is the true license to discriminate: A secular baker is still bound by the law; a Christian baker has a special religious right to kick out customers she dislikes due to her religion.
This law can hardly be good for business with Indiana generating a massive amount of bad press and business’s refusing to do business in Indiana.

Salesforce: The largest tech employer in Indiana has canceled all corporate events in the state. Indiana’s governor has halfheartedly attempted to walk back from the law’s discriminatory potential, but Benioff is not swayed.

Angie’s List: The local business review website Angie’s List put an expansion of its Indianapolis headquarters on hold while it waits to see how the law hashes out. It is actively looking for different locations.

Wilco: The rock band Wilco has canceled upcoming concerts in Indiana.

Nick Offerman: The comedian and Parks and Recreation actor Nick Offerman has canceled a scheduled performance in Indiana.

AFSCME Women’s Conference: The public services employees union is moving its annual women’s conference out of Indiana for good.

A Judge’s Message to the Mike Pence the Xenophobe:

A federal district judge in Indianapolis punctured this fiction (that terrorists could infiltrate the United States as refugees despite a resettlement process that is one of the strictest in the world) last week in blocking the attempt by Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana to cut off federal resettlement funds for Syrian refugees who had passed a vetting process that took up to two years. Mr. Pence’s order was unconstitutional and “clearly discriminates” against Syrians compared with other refugees, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in a suit brought by a nonprofit resettlement agency. The judge found that Mr. Pence’s move to withhold resettlement funds was “in no way” justified by his claim that his main concern was the safety of Indiana residents.

America already has the highest Incarceration rates in the world.Picture

The far right (half the country evidently) love high incarceration rates as this is a tool for voter suppression, intimidating minorities, creating jobs (prison guard and prison construction jobs in local communities),  getting funds from For Profit Prisons, and best of all, virtual slave prison labor for large corporations. One reason why so many large American companies loved Hitler between circa 1924-1945 was lack of regulations, lack of Democracy, no independent Judicial oversight and most importantly, by the end of the second World War 25% of the labor force was Slave labor. I discuss this issue in depth here.

But being number 1 is just not good enough for Mike Pence, plus For Profit Prisons contribute to Indiana StupidParty politicians, including Mike Pence and that is why Indiana StupidParty politicians like Brian Bosma, the Indiana State House Speaker who has been quoted as saying:

“As an entry drug, I think marijuana is more powerful than it’s given credit for,” he said. “I know some states have taken that step (to legalize it), but I don’t find it advisable at this point.”

As Media Matters reports:

Pence Signed Legislation Enacting Harsh Sentencing For Drug Offenses Opposed By Indiana Legal Groups. In the spring, Pence signed into law an Indiana House bill imposing 10-year mandatory minimum prison terms for people convicted of second offenses for crimes involving methamphetamine or heroin. The legislation was opposed by the Indiana State Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section, the Indiana Judicial Conference, and the Indiana Public Defender Council, which all argued that legislation to combat drug use should focus on treatment rather than harsher punishment. [The Times of Northwest Indiana, 3/21/16; TheIndianaLawyer.com, 3/21/16] Pence, A Supposed Criminal Justice Reform Candidate, Has Actually Passed Numerous Measures That Support Mass Incarceration. In a review of the legislative moves of several lawmakers backed by the nominally pro-criminal-justice-reform Koch brothers, ThinkProgress pointed out that the oil billionaires have “thrown their financial weight behind candidates who have a record of putting more people in prison, keeping them there for longer and spending more money on mass incarceration,” including Pence. The article explained that, while Pence signed a broad criminal justice reform bill after he took office, his budgets have reflected a commitment to expanding and protecting the prison-industrial complex.

Does Mike Pence actually give a dam about the People of Indiana?

As reported by Mother Jones

He has made life harder for low-income families: Between 2006 and 2009, Pence voted against raising the minimum wage, expanding health coverage for low-income kids, and providing additional funding for Section 8 vouchers, which help low-income families pay rent.

He refused to comply with Obama administration rules aimed at reducing prison rape: In 2014, Gov. Pence wrote to the Department of Justice to argue that the new rules “work only to bind the states, and hinder the evolution of even better and safer practices.” He said Indiana would not follow them.

He has supported deporting undocumented children and sick people and favors building a fence on the border (sound familiar?): In 2009, Rep. Pence co-sponsored a bill that would have eliminated automatic citizenship for children born on US soil to undocumented parents. A few years earlier, he voted in favor of bills that would have allowed for the detention of undocumented immigrants seeking hospital treatment. He also voted yes on a bill—foreshadowing Trump’s current platform—to build a fence on the Mexico border.

Mike Pence is Honestly Stupid:

Privatizing Social Security: It is not simply that Mike Pence supports privatizing Social Security  – I explain why this is a deadly stupid idea here –but it is his explanation as to why people would be financially safer with his reform that is just totally moronic –so moronic that it actually makes standard conservative orthodoxy on the subject seem quite brilliant by comparison.

At the time, one of the big liberal objections to privatization was that private accounts were far riskier than conventional Social Security — and retirees could be left in the lurch if their investments went south.

In his talk, Pence had a strange answer to this: He argued that the average rate of return on investments in the stock market would be so much larger than the average Social Security benefit that it would be simple for the government to guarantee nobody would end up with less money in the new private system than they would have been entitled to under the old system. After all, most people would do so much better under the new system that the government would only need to pay up to make the guarantee work for a small number of people.

I raised what I thought was an obvious objection to this: moral hazard. If you promise people they’ll get a bailout if their private investments go south, you encourage excessive risk taking and bigger losses in the future.

My expectation was that Pence would have some kind of answer to this: a technical solution or a plan for a regulatory fix or a promise to think about it harder or something. But he had nothing. He seemed to just not understand at all what the problem was. The idea that a government guarantee could change behavior appeared to be totally unfamiliar to him, even though in most cases it’s a bedrock of conservative economic policy thinking.

Party Conventions: the Great Debate—Masturbaters v Orators

The conventions—the best and the brightest speak. But something is amiss, as one party has nothing of substance to actually say. I watch a GOP spokesman struggle to explain the dynamic. Trump surrogate Jeff Lord on CNN is a classic case in point. He will try diversion—why don’t Democrats apologize for slavery—being apparently oblivious of the two great absurdities of this transparently desperate tactic:

1) the parties have switched roles over the last 100 years or so, and that not a single living Democrat has any connection to any pro-slavery stance of 1760 and

2) Democrats join the party of today, speak for the party of today—what it stood for prior to 1900, is totally irrelevant. We have Lord’s other slightly less dishonest but more perverted deflection, arguing that GOP speakers are “speaking to the fears of the American people.” NO shit Sherlock—we all know many people and all tyrants fear Gays, Artists, Intellectuals, the Press, Muslims, Blacks, Browns, Mexicans, Public Servants, Foreigners, any one outside one’s ever shrinking tribe—but that simply makes it more inexcusable to pander to these fears, to inflame these fears—to call Mexicans rapists, Muslims Terrorists, Gays sick, to call a lie the truth—to rationalize fear, hate, myth  and now treason. Jeff Lord has become the Lord Haw-Haw of 2016.

Trump defends record of sexist comments

Jeff Lord Haw Haw tries to accuse Hillary of plagiarism akin to Mrs Trump because Hillary said “America does not need to be great—it needs to be good” a pretty relevant and obvious platitude that evidently at least one other person may have said. Do we need to attribute “God Bless You” every time some sneezes or every time Trump says so narcissistically and vacuously that “I will be Great.” Ironically Trump will succeed in turning his favorite unattributed catch phrase into a euphemism for “I am clueless moron.” Jeff Lord Haw-Haw then refers to an unscientific poll suggesting the military prefers Trump—wow, I could find a poll in Utah suggesting the most people believe that a Jewish tribe created a massive civilization in the USA circa 600 A.D.  How does this advance an argument, how does this address Trumps infantile foreign policy statements, his ties to Putin? While every normal person was trying to analyse Hillary’s historic acceptance speech, her vitally profound criticisms of Trump—Jeff Lord Haw-Haw is trying to repeat (whilst all his fellow panelists role their eyes) some titillating yet patently absurd gossip that someone somewhere suggested that Hillary somehow enabled rape two decades ago? I am really not interested in the details and nor was any one else. Yes that is what working women/mothers do, I guess, if you look at the problem through the eyes of a misogynist. He is trying to re-litigate Hillary’s tortuous personal crisis in managing her husband’s wandering eye—a problem that climaxed as Bill politically suffered disproportionately since (just like House of Cards) his judge was the GOP congress and his jury a bunch of now proven adulterers—thus their verdict is moot. It was politics, nothing but politics. We all know now who Jeff Lord would be rooting for in Germany 1928.

Jeff Lord will then say that pro-life,  pro gun (gundermentalist) people should be respected—because they respect life, they respect people—when the opposite is in fact the truth. They do not respect people, more guns equals more death, endless mass shootings—they would put a supposed life form the size of a grain of sand over the life and well being of an actual person, these delusional people actually create far more abortions, poverty, disease and death, death, death. But day in day out Jeff Lord and his cohorts are left to spew their subliminal hateful ignorant nonsense unchallenged. Yet all the other panelists refuse to destroy these arguments in a manner that would actually enlighten the listener—I guess because they fear hurting the feelings of the bigot mob, and having Jeff Lord Haw-Haw walk off the stage in tears—an ever shallower human being.
All Trump is doing is selling

If History is any guideline (deh) progressive minds are more likely to create great Orators. The one exception being the professional actor, and paid public spokesman Ronald Reagan, but even his abilities pale compared to JFK, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and of course President Obama. The Great Debate—who will win the battle of the mental midgets v the giants of the international stage. The Orators or the masturbaters? When they wake up in the morning will the love struck gullible feeble-minded GOP base realize that they have had unprotected viewing. Will they realize what their one night stand looks like in the morning?

Will they realize what their one night stand looks like in the morning

Was it worth coming to the convention over this mirage? Was it worth gushing over vacuous speeches, devoid of substance, humanity and truth? Once the ecstasy of  the Cleveland convention group orgy, leaving nothing but a pile of human debris, has wilted away—can reality set in? Yes it can—all you need to do is play a mind game—imagine both parties have agreed to a series of debates that will follow each of the Presidential debates. Put aside that many Trumpeteer masturbaters should really be finalists for the Darwin awards. The rules are simple: each speaker at the conventions must debate a speaker from the opposing convention. The premise being that there is no I in team, (just Trumps) and the team with the deepest bench will have the greatest chance of steering America in the long term. May the battles begin:

Team Trump v Team Clinton: 

Dana White head of Ultimate Fighting Championship v President Obama

Natalie Gulbis female golfer Natalie Gulbis, currently ranked 484th in the world v President Clinton

These are some of our Trumpeteers. So credible in this light...

 Thiel the token openly gay speaker v President Carter

 Antonio Sabato Jr. of “General Hospital” fame, Underwear model v Michael Bloomberg

Former underwear models are JUST what we're looking for to represent wholesome values...

 Kimberlin Brown of “The Young and the Restless”  v  Vice President Joe Biden

 

 Andy Wist, the president of a waterproofing company in the Bronx v Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

 Stacey Dash, e.g., “Dee” from Clueless. v  Gabby Giffords & Mark Kelly

 Willie Robertson, e.g., one of the Duck Dynasty guys.  v  General John Allen (ret. USMC), former Commander, International Security Assistance Forces, and Commander, United States Forces – Afghanistan

Willie Robertson, e.g., one of the Duck Dynasty guys...oh StupidParty.

 Kerry Woolard, general manager of Trump’s Virginia winery; First Lady Michelle Obama,

 Lynne Patton, vice president of the Eric Trump Foundation v  Senator Bernie Sanders,

Michelle Van Etten, organized business leaders for Trump in Florida v Senator Elizabeth Warren

Lisa Shin the head of Korean Americans for Trump  v Dr. Jill Biden

Scott Baio, is known? for portraying memorable characters on several hit television shows,.  v  Leon Panetta former Secretary of Defense

Scott Baio, is known? for portraying memorable characters on several hit television shows. Are you serious?

 Harold Hamm, “CEO and founder of Continental Resources, He once tried to get University of Oklahoma scientists fired because he didn’t like their research into, as Bloomberg News put it, “links between oil and gas activity and the state’s nearly 400-fold increase in earthquakes.” v Cecile Richards President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Michelle Van Etten, senior vice chairman marketing director at Youngevity, member of “Women in Business for Trump” group, multilevel marketer. Her official RNC bio originally said that she “employs over 100,000 people and is a strong supporter of Donald Trump,” but that was changed when it was revealed that her actual number of employees is zero. v  Chad Griffin President of the Human Rights Campaign.

The Trumps:

There are as many Trumps speaking (Donald, wife Melania, and kids Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka and Tiffany) as sitting senators (Iowa’s Joni Ernst, Texas’s Ted Cruz, Alabama’s Jeff Sessions, Arkansas’ Tom Cotton, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito). There will be seven sitting House members.

Perhaps the above debates might have been a little less one sided if some of the people who refused to come near to Trump—had somehow been persuaded to sacrifice their souls  in exchange for one night of masturbatory glory: but no, these people were more inclined to avoid adultery and now treason—as we now know that they would have been speaking on behalf of the Trump/Putin ticket.

There must be 101 ways To leave your lover Invitation to Crazy Town - DENIED
You Just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don’t need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don’t need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free

  1. Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.) “Given my military experience, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal”
  2. H.W. Bush Sr. Too old to come
  3. G.W.Bush Jr    Too busy scrubbing bush in his non-ranch suburban home
  4. Jeb Bush, 2016 Republican presidential candidate  “Trump is not the future of the Republican Party”
  5. Mitt Romney, If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.
  6. Sarah Palin sulking over not being VP – Alaska is a long way from ClevelandSorry I can't today Don
  7. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) “Shelby lying low as GOP convention draws near”
  8.  Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)  will be traveling her state by bush plane.
  9. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) he is planning to trek the Grand Canyon
  10. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) he has to mow his lawn
  11. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) he will be in Florida campaigning and meeting with voters
  12. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)  will be conducting town hall-style meetings in Idaho
  13. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) will be on a “listening tour” in his state.
  14. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) will be campaigning,
  15. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) will use the time to hone his “fly fishing.”
  16. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) will be campaigning
  17. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) Under the circumstances we have, I’m going to be campaigning in the state
  18. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) says he has attended four conventions
  19. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)  will not be going for personal and family reasons.
  20. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)  just want to reconnect with constituents
  21. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former presidential candidate just want to reconnect with constituents
  22. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) essentially called Trump a racist and said he’s open to embracing the Libertarian Party
  23. Sen:Still Deciding: Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), “other things going on and I’ve got to weigh where I can do the most good.”  Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)* Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)   Sen. John Thune (R-SD)*
  24. Ohio Governor John Kasich If I’m going to show up at the convention, and I’m not going to be saying all these great things about the host…
  25. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R-Md.)  I hate the whole thing.
  26. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker (R-Mass.)  Anybody who is using the Orlando shooting as a tool in a political fight isn’t “thinking straight,
  27. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley Trump supporters aren’t all racists.
  28. Former NJ Governor Tom Kean Sr. Trump was a loose cannon who should “listen to people and stop tweeting at 11 o’clock at night.”
  29. New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, Like my Democratic opponent, I will support my party’s nominee in the fall,”
  30. Utah Rep. Mia Love, I have not been supportive of Mr. Trump, and I’m not really excited to go back to a convention that’s centered around him
  31. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) told reporters he had “a longstanding appointment downtown.”
  32. Mark Salter, the former aide and speechwriter for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “The GOP is going to nominate for President a guy who reads the National Enquirer and thinks it’s on the level. I’m with her.”
  33. David Ross Meyers, former White House staffer under George W. Bush’s former communications adviser for the Senate Republican Leadership
  34. Eliot Cohen, counselor of the Department of State during President George W. Bush’s administration
  35. Max Boot, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio, Council on Foreign Relations fellow “I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump,” Boot told the New York Times on March 2. “There is no way in hell I would vote for him. I would far more readily support Hillary Clinton, or Bloomberg if he ran.”
  36. Ben Howe, contributing editor to the conservative website RedState—She’s not flipping crazy like Trump is
  37. Jamie Weinstein, senior editor, Daily Caller: there is little threat another Clinton presidency would end the American system as we know it. You can’t be so sure with Trump.
  38. Robert Kagan, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution The neoconservative foreign policy commentator called Trump the GOP’s “Frankenstein monster” who is “strong enough to destroy its maker” “The Republicans’ creation will be.”
  39. Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush he doesn’t appear to want to learn about issues.
  40. Rep.Scott Rigell R-Va I reject Trump as our nominee based on his judgment, temperament and character, all of which point to a reckless, embarrassing and ultimately dangerous presidency.   Just this past Sunday, Trump’s poor judgment was on display.  He failed not once, not twice, but three times to denounce the KKK and its onetime leader, the infamous racist, David Duke.  Looking a bit confused when asked about the KKK and Duke, Trump pleaded ignorance.  What void must exist in the heart of a person who when asked about the KKK has to struggle for even a moment as to what his position is?
  41. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) “I will not support Mr. Trump. That is not a political decision, that is a moral decision”
  42. Patrick Ruffini, Republican strategist and early #NeverTrump adopter
  43. Richard Hanna (R-NY)
  44. Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R-NJ)
  45. Tim Miller, former spokesman for Jeb Bush, adviser to Our Principles, an anti-Trump super PAC
  46. Peter Wehner, GOP strategist
  47. Liz Mair, GOP strategist
  48. Rick Wilson, Republican operative “I will never vote for Donald Trump, not even if it means he forms a third party and runs as the narcissist sociopath he truly is.”
  49. Former Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.)
  50. Former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-M.N.), Congressional Leadership Fund chairman
  51. Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) “He loves torture!” Paul said.These Senators would've come, but the pool was so nice...
  52. Stuart Stevens, top strategist, Romney 2012
  53. Kevin Madden, former Mitt Romney communications director
  54. Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee chairman
  55. Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard
  56. Erick Erickson, conservative commentator, former editor of RedState, founder of The Resurgent
  57. Steve Deace, conservative commentator and radio talk show host
  58. Mark Levin, conservative radio host
  59. Brian Bartlett, GOP communications strategist
  60. Jay Caruso, contributing editor at RedState
  61. Linda Chavez, conservative columnist
  62. Mindy Finn, GOP media strategist and president of Empowered Women “For me, it’s secondary to his menacing character. So I wouldn’t support Trump if you paid me his net worth. I refuse to carry his flag. I challenge you to do the same.”
  63. Jon Gabriel, editor-in-chief of Ricochet “If the keys are handed to a would-be strongman, I have no choice but to step out of the car and walk my own way,” he wrote. “If that makes me a bad Republican, so be it. I seek to be a good American.”
  64. Stephen Hayes, senior writer at The Weekly Standard “Casual dishonesty is a feature of his campaign.”
  65. Glenn Beck, host of The Glenn Beck Program and founder of TheBlaze
  66. Dave Yost, Ohio auditor of state
  67. Ruth Guerra the RNC’s national director of Hispanic media, serving as a top surrogate for the party as it looked to make inroads with Latino voters and making frequent TV appearances in English and Spanish to try to lead outreach.
  68. Katrina Jorgensen the communications chair for the Young Republican National Federation. “I want no part of a racist, fascist, hateful presidency.”
  69. Nathan Wurtzel, Make America Awesome Again super PAC
  70. George Will, Washington Post columnist and Fox News commentator
  71. Bruce Carroll, creator of GayPatriot.org Carroll said on Twitter, “I will oppose ALL candidates of any political affiliation who align.”
  72. Mona Charen, senior fellow at Ethics and Public Policy Center
  73. Dean Clancy, former FreedomWorks vice president
  74. Rory Cooper, GOP strategist, managing director of Purple Strategies, Senior Advisor to the Never Trump PAC
    Daniel Vajdich,  senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, national security policy adviser to the Ted Cruz campaign
  75. Bob Dold (R-Illinois) “Donald Trump’s hateful words towards wide swaths of our country, from women to Latinos to veterans and Muslims, disqualify him from ever serving as president of the United States
  76. Michael Graham, conservative radio host
  77. Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.)
  78. Connor Walsh, former digital director for Eric Cantor, founder of Build Digital
  79. Jonah Goldberg, senior editor at National Review
  80. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
  81. Alan Goldsmith, former staffer, House Foreign Affairs Committee   There is speculation that the key note speakers may not make it to the right Cleveland
  82. Stephen Gutowski, Free Beacon staff writer 
  83. Ross Douthat, New York Times columnist
  84. Doug Heye, former communications director for the Republican National Committee*
  85. Brad Thor, conservative author
  86. Charlie Sykes, radio show host
  87. Erik Soderstrom,conservative blogger
  88. David French, National Review writer
  89. Jennifer Rubin, conservative opinion columnist for the Washington Post
  90. Quin Hillyer, conservative columnist
  91. Former Gov. Tom Ridge (R-PA)
  92. Iowa state Sen. David Johnson “I will not stand silent if the party of Lincoln and the end of slavery buckles under the racial bias of a bigot.”
  93.  Chase, Ford, JPMorgan Chase, Motorola, Walgreens and Wells Fargo For the first time in years,such  corporate sponsors have declined to participate
  94. Justin Amash (R-Mich.)
  95. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.)
  96. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.)
  97. Nine of Arizona’s 58 Republican delegates originally slated to go to the GOP convention in Cleveland next month are skipping the event
  98. Ivanka Trump’s Rabbi will be a no show after all …
  99. Tim Tebow also nixed Trump’s invitation yesterday…
  100. Tom Brady- that Quarterback Guy who loves Stupidparty
  101. I will not be attending.

Debate 3: The Last Straw: Trump and his Enablers are now trying to Destroy Democracy itself—with their Election Rigging Nonsense

Trump says the election is rigged—but if he wins, what does that say?

Voter fraud is mathematically irrelevant. The only reason why this issue has ever had any traction was because GOP strategists (cheats) realize that distorting facts will allow them to engage in voter suppression—targeting minority communities.

Therefore supporting voter suppression would be based on ignorance, dishonesty or bigotry. Do not worry—1,600,000 zombies will not rise from the dead in order to cast their votes. But there are many millions of not quite yet dead zombies who call themselves Trumpeteers, aka the deplorables. This, for now, unreachable gullible greedy fact-devoid rabble gobble up whatever fresh red meat Trump throws at them. But the emperor was born to be the ultimate loser, his pyramid  house of cards scheme, built on sand, is about to be blown away with a roar from the American people—the majority that can still think. Now we will see this ultimate loser, the greatest loser in American history, huff, and puff, and blow his last vestiges of credibility apart—his supporters lost in the desert, thirsting for (and soon to be drinking up) the facts that can finally set them free.

This is the end game. Enjoy!

First I must prove that voter fraud by the voter in mathematically irrelevant

Fox engaging in clear-cut & egregious deception—

Voter fraud is a minuscule and mathematically irrelevant problem.
To substantiate this statement, I must first explain that, while certain paid political operatives may try to commit fraud in counting votes, it is rare/almost nonexistent that actual voters attempt fraud. In numerous investigations, nothing material ever shows up. The full wealth and might of the asset strippers (the oligarchs in waiting) is behind efforts to find voter fraud because to prove a pattern of fraud woFox News is fake journalism on steroidsuld massively help their goal of suppressing the vote. The fact this even has to be discussed is evidence of the haplessness of the media in general and the institutionalized and intentional dishonesty inherent within Fox News and other billionaire-run media outlets. Let me allow the Brennan Center for Justice to explain why voter fraud is insignificant.

Voter Fraud Myth—the next unfound WMD in America

“Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.”

So a minuscule amount—but it is actually far less than minuscule because what the Brennan Center fails to point out is that there is no suggestion (evidence) that one group of voters is more inclined to commit fraud. Therefore, even if it does occur, the probability is that one would cancel out the other. So it is not simply minuscule; the impact is more likely zero.

The Washington Post reports “A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion votes cast.” Now let me try and put this number into context. Using 126 million people voted in the 2012 Presidential Elections, calculating the average of 31 people divide by 8 (general elections) = almost 4 people per election.

But just like that Brennan study this massive number of 4 is undoubtedly a massive overstatement of the problem. To understand this better we need to go a back to that 31 number (where the massive law of massive numbers will provide a more accurate picture). It would be reasonable to assume that approximately 15 of that number would be Democrats 15 would be Stupidparty and 1 would be a different party. Thus zero impact over the last eight Presidential elections. That one person trying to tip the balance to an irrelevant third party might be even sillier than the average Stupidparty Disciple.

Some have argued that voter suppression laws make people more trusting of the system, but here again, the math proves that having more suppression does not create that impact. Of course, lawyers might find a real live living example of voter fraud—like the following case:

“It then cited an example of recent fraud… that ID laws aren’t designed to stop. Specifically, it mentioned a case in which a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including “registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn’t live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials,” according to an account by Talking Points Memo. Wisconsin’s ID law would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.

But the King of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, suggests to his Stupidparty audience that “voter fraud may be the only reason Dems stay in power.”  And these guys (his audience) just lap it up. So the disconnect is now 100% proven and math has once again eviscerated myth. But we live in a parallel universe where false equivalence has become so absurd that myth is actually beating the math in plain sight.


U.S. adults without photo ID, categorized by demographics

U.S. polling place waiting times

So voter fraud by the voter is clearly mathematically irrelevant.

Personally, I believe that Stupidparty zealots like the Scott Walker fan mentioned above are far more likely to try and commit fraud than an illegal alien. Now if we could just suppress the Stupidparty disciple from voting… and this is how I would vet people, to see if they are sane (enough to vote) or insane:

1. Was the earth created less than 100,000 years ago?
2. Was Obama born In Kenya?
3. Is voter fraud a significant issue?
4. Is Obamacare a government takeover?
5. Is Global Warming a hoax?
6. Should business owners be allowed to discriminate?
7. Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president?
8. Is Fox News fair and balanced?
9. Should there be more guns in schools?
10. Does immigration hurt the economy?

To make this slightly trickier the successful applicants must answer all the above by using no more than two characters. A bit like a Tweet on Steroids.

Now we can better understand the people who promote voter suppression.

“I feel it in my fingers
I feel it in my toes
Bigotry is all around me
And so the feeling grows”

According to Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, between 1982 and 2006 the Department of Justice “blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory.”

The Koch Brothers via ALEC (The American Exchange Legislative Council) are working tirelessly to get their Stupidparty puppets in Congress to pass as many voter suppression laws as time will permit. “Over the last four years, laws making it harder to vote have been spreading across the country, including in Texas. And ALEC has been in the thick of it. A voter ID bill passed in 2011 in Texas closely resembles ALEC’s “Voter ID Act.” The Texas bill was sponsored by several ALEC-member legislators and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry, an ALEC alum and award winner. The U.S. Justice Department  blocked the law in 2012, but when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act in June 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced the voter ID bill would take effect “immediately.””

NBC reported a growing number of conservative Republican state legislators worked fervently during the past two years to enact laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Lawmakers proposed 62 photo ID bills in 37 states in the 2011 and 2012 sessions, with multiple bills introduced in some states. Ten states have passed strict photo ID laws since 2008, though several may not be in effect in November because of legal challenges.

A News21 analysis found that more than half of the 62 bills were sponsored by members or conference attendees of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington, D.C., tax-exempt organization.

Now to really piss of Stupidparty disciples, I will let Al Jahzeera news (yes, it is a reputable news station) lecture the American people in the art of the obvious.

“Elections are supposed to be decided by the people, at the polls. Orchestrated rigging by legislatures and courts to determine outcomes before the people even vote is a detriment to American democracy.”

The irony of the Arab world attempting to spread Democracy to the America’s.

Good luck with that.


Stupidparty Voter Turnout Logic

People who use imaginary voter fraud by the voter to promote nefarious voter suppression are generally lying—but sometimes they get caught admitting the obvious truths.Governor Chris Christie: Same-day voter registration is a “trick” and GOP needs to win gubernatorial races so they control “voting mechanisms”.

Mike Turzai:  PA House SP leader—said in June of 2012, as he listed the Republican state legislature’s accomplishments: “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Phyllis Schlafly: Stupidparty Icon—said that early voting results in “illegal votes” that “cancel out the votes of honest Americans.” In her mind, “Democratic” automatically equals “illegal.”

Alan Clemmons: SC SP State Rep—“Stop Obama’s nutty agenda and support voter ID,” read a card attached to a pack of peanuts passed out by Alan Clemmons (R-Myrtle Beach) admitted, then later refused to admit in court.

Fran Millar: Georgia Senator—complained about polling place being too convenient for Black voters.

Doug Preis: Ohio GOP Chair—says we shouldn’t accommodate the “Urban (read African-American) voter-turnout machine.”

Jim Greer: Fla former GOP Chairman. Republican—We wanted to suppress black votes. Florida’s disgraced former GOP chairman says the party had meetings about “keeping blacks from voting.”

Don Yelton: North Carolina GOP Precinct Chair—Voter ID law will “Kick Democrats in the butt” and hurt “lazy Blacks”

Greg Abbott: Texas AG—says partisan districting decisions are legal, even if there are “incidental effects” on Minority voters

So who “re-legalized” ignorant and bigoted voter suppression?  Look no further than the Supremely Stupidparty Court—Chief Justice John Roberts

One must truly wonder if, in Roberts, we are seeing a textbook example of the instances of myopia, lack of self-awareness, and narrow-mindedness that can result from attending the non-racially-diverse Roman Catholic grade and boarding schools in the 1960s and 1970s small-town, rural, overwhelmingly white Indiana when we see what he will write here… 

Learn more about the leader of the Supremely Stupidparty Court, the guy who is happy to have American Democracy for sale  to the highest bidder, happy to prevent minorities from voting, and now he wants to talk about Race, and in doing so, we can begin to see right through him.


Stupidparty Justices supporting all the asset-stripping oligarchs

Obama marching in Selma for iconic civil rights anniversaryStupidparty Nightmare.

I will let the Feminist Majority Blog put Justice Ginsburg’s dissension in its context. Just like racial discrimination, voter suppression isn’t all in the past. Hours after the Supreme Court released its decision, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that the state’s voter identification law, perhaps the most stringent in the country, would go into effect immediately. Last year under the Section 5 pre-clearance provision a group of federal judges struck down the law, claiming that it imposed “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” and in particular on racial minority groups. Texas lawmakers wasted no time.It’s easy to remove ourselves from the past, to underscore how we’ve changed rather than acknowledge historical continuities. But the overwhelming evidence of suppression aimed at minority groups whose votes could affect the status quo shows, if nothing else, that the systems of racism that disenfranchised citizens in 1965 still exist—that we’ve inherited and in many ways actively perpetuated them. Underlying the majority opinion is a frustratingly elementary notion of racism: so long as we don’t physically obstruct individuals from voting, minority disenfranchisement is a vaporous claim.

In her statement of dissent Justice Ginsburg refers to contemporary acts of voter suppression as “second-generation barriers.” Her language is apt: the racial discrimination we see now may not look exactly like the “flagrant” racism of the 1960s, but it is no doubt a close relative. Our voter identification and proof of citizenship laws are not far removed from literacy tests and “grandfather clauses.” These 16 examples and more affirm that the Voting Rights Act is still relevant, and still necessary—in full.


Stupidparty Tent, using all the intelligence they could muster, which probably exhausted them.

Stupidparty Tent

As Stupidparty gets further from the facts and deeper into the pockets of the oligarchs in waiting, they get further removed from the people. Their tent shrinks as their base grows more ignorant and more bigoted. Now they have to rely ever more on cheating. This cheating takes the form of Fox news and all the other right-wing media were no effort is made to be fact based. Their mission is simple—to make people less informed. Studies show that they are successful. Stupidparty realizes that the demographic tide is running against them, so they have to find ever more creative ways rigging elections. Gerrymandering is one very successful technique–voter suppression even better. There are numerous ways of suppressing the vote. But do not let anyone ever tell you that voter suppression is anything than more than simply what it is—cheating.

If the oligarchs had their way, you would only get an hour to vote, during your lunch break and if you did not vote as instructed by your employer you would lose your job.This is a fact, anyone who supports these voter suppression efforts is either ignorant, devious or a bigot. If you believe voter suppression is necessary, you are being manipulated, you are a puppet. If you actually believe in Democracy you would want as many people to vote as possible.

But pumping oxygen into a dying Democracy would suffocate Stupidparty.

Hillary Clinton Pre-Election Email Primer—What You Need to Know

It turns out Hillary and her people were pretty careful.

You need to careful in every walk of your life. There will be many potholes that will dump you beneath the lines. One such is financial management, the more careless you are, the more worst your life will be!! The official statement from media companies about crypto trading is here, make no excuse in managing your finances better and earn better.

The focus has been on Clinton simply because she is a controversial figure running to be president, a focus which has distracted from the real issues of over-classification and how classified material is shared within the government. The media generally has not presented proper context, and has gone for more salacious ostensible low-hanging-fruit that confuses and misleads, but even the FBI seemed to miss the bigger picture. Here is my effort to rectify these deficiencies and present the bigger picture of what may be the least understood and most confusing “scandal�? in modern American politics.

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn

Hillary Clinton Pre-Election Email Primer-What You Need to Know

Richard Drew/AP

AMMAN Well, a lot has happened since my last update on this story in January.

Or has it?

More Much Ado About Nothing: Summer of Sadness

The conventional wisdom is that yes, it has. But as is so often with this story, what often seems to be a big deal or raises questions actually is more of the same or has answers that are more boring and mundane than anything else (Occam’s razor, anyone?).

After an FBI investigation, the Republican and well-regarded FBI Director, James Comey—known for his “independence�? and “aggressive�? upholding of the law—recommended to the Justice Department in early July that Hillary Clinton not face any prosecution for both her use of a private e-mail server and the fact that some classified material passed through this server, and publicly explained his decision to not recommend prosecution. The recommendation was followed on by the Justice Department and no prosecution of Clinton has been pursued.

Republicans (outraged that they did not get the result that they wanted) had Comey testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform soon after his announcement. Repeatedly throughout the hearing, Republican lawmakers seemed far more concerned about their feeling that Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted than with any proper understanding of the evidence or how that evidence would or would not merit prosecution under a proper understanding of the relevant statutes and broader history of their application.

Espionage Act: 18 USC 793(f) and Its History

FBI Director Comey testifies to Congress about Clinton Email analysis

AP

A brief explanation should make Director Comey’s decision and why it was the right one clear for our readers…

The law under which Clinton could have been prosecuted was a statute dating back to WWI, the (problematic) Espionage Act of 1917, an anti-espionage law enacted during the height of war with Imperial Germany, and in nearly 100 years of its existence, no one has ever been convicted in civilian court of violating the statute without demonstrating clear intent to do material harm to the United States. Intent has been one of the major required components in determining in civilian court culpability within a formal understanding of the law that has existed ever since a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in a case dating back to 1941. This can be confusing based on the wording of the 18 USC’s relevant section 793(f) alone, but a key element of the overall law of which that section is a part is that the whole law was supposed to be based on prosecuting those intending harm to the United States in the form of espionage, sedition, or worse.

In fact, only once has anyone ever been charged by the Justice Department purely on gross negligence without intent—an FBI agent who was arrested in 2003 for having an affair with a Chinese mistress and who unknowingly gave her access to classified information by not locking or paying attention to his briefcase when spending time with her—and, in the end, this charge was dropped in 2004 when he settled and was thus not convicted of that charge but another, lesser crime. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that officials, aware of the law and its application history, may have regarded conviction of that charge as unlikely or even impossible, but may have included it in an array of charges thrown at the defendant in order to help intimidate him into accepting a plea bargain, which he did.

Military court-martials did twice charge and obtain two convictions without using the intent standard under section (f) of the statute—one stemming from an incident in 1979 and one from another incident in 1989, the only two court convictions unearthed thus far under this statute without the intent factor over a nearly 100-year history of this law’s existence (neither person found guilty served more even a full year of time)—but it is important to note a few things: 1.) military personnel are generally held to, and military courts generally use,

1.) Military personnel are generally held to, and military courts generally use, a stricter interpretation of the law and enforce stricter penalties than their civilian counterparts

2.) The cases were dramatically different than Clinton’s and each included clear, indisputable obstruction, which tends to make prosecutors go for harsher penalties3.) at least one of the cases

3.) At least one of the cases including overruling earlier precedent, an overruling on which the conviction likely depended, and

4.) The cases were not subject to civilian court appeal rulings, and, given the Supreme Court’s ruling and precedent established in 1941 and other civilian court rulings, it is quite possible these convictions under 18 USC 793 (f) could have been overturned should civilian courts have dealt with them.

The point is that as a civilian official operating in the civilian legal system, Director Comey was completely right when he stated that “No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years based on gross negligence�? because the case history is clear and the only cases where charges were brought under such pretenses, including military cases, bear no resemblance to the circumstances of Clinton’s case; when myopically accused of by Republican congressmen of a double standard in not prosecuting Clinton, he noted that the “double standard�? would be “If she were prosecuted for gross negligence,�? and that such an act would amount to “celebrity hunting.�?

Of course, none of this matters to the bulk of Republicans, who have been predetermined to find criminal wrongdoing with the Clintons for decades (again, only perjury relating to Monica Lewinsky has ever been proved). With Hillary, when the GOP was unable to prove any specific wrongdoing after nine Benghazi investigation, they were only too happy to discover this e-mail server and the classified contents that passed through it in the course of their ninth Benghazi investigation, which was such a sham that, by the end, it tended to focus more on Clinton’s e-mails than anything else, since everything else they threw at her on Benghazi either stood on incredibly flimsy ground or was demonstrably false, as I noted before. Basically, the whole e-mail situation looked bad and raised some questions, but now those questions have been vigorously pursued by professional investigators, and what may have looked bad turned out, upon closer inspection, to not contain anything criminally prosecutable, and no matter how much Republicans want it, the aura of something bad or questionable is not enough to warrant prosecution, certainly not in our American justice system.

About Those Classified E-mails…

How Many?

The FBI’s “July�? report (released in early September by a clearly-exasperated-with-the-brouhaha-and-political-criticism-Comey) and information provided by the State Department on July 6th detail how many e-mails had contained classified information at the time they were sent to or received by Clinton’s server: we know that there was information that was classified at the time of sending or receiving in just about 200 e-mails in 82 e-mail chains* that passed through Clinton’s server. All but 13 of these chains were turned over by Clinton as part of the roughly 30,000 emails Clinton’s team had determined were work-related (most can be read here), and none of those other 13 e-mail chains—which were found among some additional 17,000 unique work and personal e-mails recovered by the FBI—were the highest level of the three levels of classification, TOP SECRET. Overall, of the 82 e-mail chains: 69 are still classified (16 of which has been downgraded in their classification level), and 13 have been declassified (suggesting that at least those 16 and 13 are not involving anything particularly serious or particularly sensitive, even at the time); 8 chains were classified as TOP SECRET (7 of those, consisting of 22 e-mails total, were regarding Special Access Programs [SAP, more on this below]), 37 were classified as SECRET (the middle level of classification), and 37 were classified as CONFIDENTIAL (the lowest classification level). The report only mentions others sending Clinton material that was classified to begin these exchanges, not the other way around, suggesting that she may not have started any of the e-mail chains with classified material, essentially meaning that people were sending this information to her, and none of the e-mails contained classified material warnings in the headers, as is standard practice (more on that in a bit), so it would have been reasonable for Clinton to assume that the people sending her this material knew what they were doing; in fact, it would be a terrible use of a Secretary of State’s time to parse through every e-mail and ask if material that was not labeled as classified was actually classified: that would be a recipe for endless inquiries and not getting anything else done. Out of the 82 chains, Clinton herself weighed in and responded in 4 chains that were CONFIDENTIAL, 3 that were SECRET, and 4 that were TOP SECRET (all 4 of these were SAP related, see below), and 67 times she passed on information from chains classified CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET (frustrating that the report inexplicably did not detail how many of each!).

So, out of over 47,000 e-mails under consideration, let’s remember that about 200, or about 0.425%, were deemed to have contained classified information at the time of sending and receiving and at least half or more were either the lowest level of classification or concerned publicly available information, and some of them were not considered not to be classified by Clinton’s own State Department.

*(Side note on above numbers: for the above numbers, I presumed the “July�? report—almost inexplicably no specific date is given as to the completion of the report, just the month of July—was more recent/complete than Comey’s press conference on July 5th and testimony on July 7th, in which that information given at those times, combined with the information from State, provided a lower figure of 113 or 114 emails in about 53 or 54 e-mail chains that had classified information in them at the time they were sent/received; the FBI report also states that the number of e-mails and chains is subject to change as the FBI was still waiting on responses regarding some of the content in question from several relevant agencies; the lack of clarity,lack of a clear specific presentation, the inability of the whole of the government to just be able to produce a single, clear figure on this is somewhat remarkable; since the report had larger figures than the one Comey gave in the first week of July, it is reasonable assume to the number was higher because other agencies had provided subsequent updates, thus the assumption that the “July�? report came some time after the 7th, when Comey gave lower numbers during his testimony to the House committee; if, somehow, the updates would have involved the less likely scenario of reductions in the number of e-mails and chains identified as classified, Comey’s lower numbers would be more current)

How Serious?

To delve into the topic of classification itself, contrary to almost all the reporting I’ve seen, there are the only three actual levels of classification; I myself erroneously reported that SAP (Special Access Program) was a separate level of classification, and many other major mainstream sources have reported that and that SAP is a level of classification above TOP SECRET, when actually it is just a special type of TOP SECRET or SECRET information, designed to give people who “need to know�? that information access to it but not indicating a higher level of sensitivity than the classification level; these days SAP often has to do with the U.S. drone program, and the available reporting on the subject suggests that nearly all of the most sensitive TOP SECRET information (7 of 8 TOP SECRET chains) in the classified content that passed through Clinton’s server had to do with SAP-related, publicly available information on the drone program or other publicly available information about North Korea; in both cases, anything from an eyewitness account published by an NGO to a newspaper report about drones would be considered classified, pushing us to the issue of rampant & unnecessary overclassification in the government, often more about interagency turf wars than national security, to the extent that prolific national security officials of both major political parties have publicly testified that “between 50% and 90% of all classified material could even be disclosed without any detrimental effect on national security,�? as I have discussed before; objectively, then, much and perhaps all of the information with the highest classification labels in Clinton’s e-mails were objectively not really sensitive or secret in nature. And it should also be noted that CONFIDENTIAL generally describes information that is so mundane and harmless that America’s intelligence chief, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, is considering a move to do away with the CONFIDENTIAL classification level entirely, noting that this is something the UK did recently in 2014 “without [adverse] impact.�?

How Would Clinton Know They Were Classified? (It’s All About the Labels!)

Another important thing to note is that something would still be considered classified even if the State Department did not feel it needed to be but another agency did, as happened with information in some of Clinton’s e-mails; to expect the head of one agency to be aware of other agencies’ classifications of information that that head’s agency did not feel the need to classify is, indeed, quite unreasonable.

But this next point is a crucial one: zero of these e-mails were properly marked as classified. See, all e-mails that are supposed to be classified are supposed to have clear, obvious headings and subject lines indicating that they contain classified information, but not one of the roughly 200 e-mails had anything indicating it contained classified information in any header or subject line. In fact, only one classified e-mail chain contained any classified markings whatsoever; this involved one or a few simple “portion mark�? “(C)�?s that preceded material that was specifically classified and appeared in the body of the emails within the chain (two other e-mail chains had the same markings but the information in question in those chains was improperly classified and should not have been marked in the body with “(C)�?s at all). Some important things to note here:

1.) As Director Comey said as much during his testimony, the absence of the classification markings in all e-mail headers meant that it would be “a reasonable inference�? to “immediately [conclude] that those three documents were not classified�? even for an “expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified.�? In fact, it seems it would be reasonable to assume, as Clinton did, that, in the absence of any other markings, such “(C)�?s could at a glance seem to be a selection from an alphabetical list.

2.) Nobody ever reads every part of every work e-mail. Many people probably don’t fully read even a majority of their work e-mails, as so much content is sent and received and often people have to ignore much of the content and many e-mails entirely for the sake of time; still others will be ignored out of simple prioritizing or would even been seen as a nuisance. The idea that Clinton was careless and irresponsible because she 1.) did not know that about 200 e-mails out of tens of thousands were classified but had no classified markings, 2.) that she did not know that classified material was in 1 e-mail chain (2 including the mislabeled ones) that had 1 or more little “(C)�?s buried in e-mail bodies that any person skimming could easily miss is preposterous; in fact, it is possible she did not even read some of these e-mails or only read them in part, so considering this, holding her responsible for being aware of every detail of every e-mail sent to her has an added layer of ridiculousness.

3.) Taking into account that neither Clinton nor her people sent anything properly marked as classified on this e-mail system, this would actually mean that they were quite careful not to send anything that was and that they knew was classified, contrary to the popular narrative and the conclusion of Director Comey. After all, he told Congress that there was no evidence to suggest that Clinton or her people were aware that any of the material passed through that server was classified.

About That Server…

Clinton Did Not Make the Decision to Have Private Server

The FBI report also helps shed light on some other details: while Clinton directed her people to set up a specialized personal e-mail account, the decision to set up a private server in her Chappaqua, NY, basement was not something she directed her staff to do, though she later did become aware that there was such a server after it was established; rather, it was a decision staff made agreed to with technical experts. One thing that is clear is that Clinton and her staff were scarred by such a tumultuous political past of being subjected to so many politically-motivated witch hunts, acting in a very secretive way that actually helped to foster some of the issues about which we have now heard altogether too much. One of the most crucial examples of this is that Brian Pagliano, the IT expert from the Clinton 2008 campaign tasked with setting up the personal server, at first was not apparently not aware that then-soon-to-be-Secretary of State Clinton would even be using this server to host her e-mails, though the FBI was unable to specifically verify exactly what he knew at this time; still, this is an indication he very well may have had no idea Clinton would be conducting any official business using this server, let alone using it, at the time. It is ironic that Team Clinton’s penchant for privacy in this case may have possibly prevented Pagliano from having knowledge that may have made him set up the e-mail server differently for a sitting Secretary of State than for a retired president’s staff in ways might have shielded Clinton from some of the criticism levied against her since the e-mail server’s discovery and may have even led to some coordination with the State Department.

The Server Was Not Insecure When Clinton Used It (9/24 UPDATE)

One thing the report makes clear is that the email server was not up and running, or even physically installed, until March 2009, when Pagliano also set up the SSL security encryption. This invalidates a major line of criticism thrown at Clinton, that from when she took office in January and until March, when the SSL encryption was installed on the server, her e-mails were somehow totally unprotected, but we know that the server was not installed or in use before then, and that Clinton’s e-mail domain was being used on the previous Apple Server, installed by Apple; though very little is known know about that server, it is inconceivable that Apple would not have included security protocols, such as SSL, in the process of installing a server for such high-profile clients (Occam’s razor, again, for all you conspiracy theorists that believe Apple would install a server without no security features to prevent hacking; and, frankly, Pagliano would not have gotten as far in his field of IT administration if he is someone who would have had set up a server with no safeguards). This means, contrary to previous suspicions, her server was not insecure for months as headline after headline has trumpeted and countless other articles assumed.

The FBI report notes that the Server was “operational�? starting March 19th and that SSL security was installed by Pagliano on either the 29th or 30th, and Pagliano stated that he was not the one who set up an e-mail account on the new server for Clinton; it seems that another IT specialist working for the Clintons, Justin Cooper, did that, though Cooper could not recall the details but assumed he was the one who performed that task. An e-mail from Cooper to Clinton indicated that in April he was readying to move her Blackberry (and thus, her e-mail communication) over to the new system, meaning Clinton was not conducting work through the new server before April and before the SSL was set up and that the server was not insecure at all when she used it as Secretary of State.

Conversely, the State Department’s state.gov system has been hacked on a regular basis. Perhaps her private system was relatively more secure since nefarious actors would have been extremely unlikely to have known of its existence and, therefore, would have been unlikely to deliberately hack it knowing what and who they were hacking.

No Evidence She Deliberately Hid Anything Work-Related

Another point which has been shamefully and myopically not had appropriate emphasis given on the part of the media is that nearly all of the e-mails would have been backed up by State Department servers: only thirteen people were regularly in touch with Clinton through her private e-mail, and most of those were people using state.gov e-mails, thus, anything sent to her e-mail from a state.gov e-mail or from Clinton to a state.gov e-mail would have been automatically captured and preserved by State’s record-keeping system. So the idea that Clinton was trying to hide her work-related e-mails is ludicrous because it would be incredibly easy to expose her for doing that using State Department records, and, in any case, there is no evidence-based reason to think that she did, considering that the work-related e-mails that have been recovered after being deleted from her server contained absolutely nothing worth hiding or incriminating and many were already captured and publicly released by State.

Which brings us to this Judicial Watch nonsense, what would mercifully seem to be the near-final chapter, at least for some time, in this faux saga. Judicial Watch has long been a right-wing advocacy “investigative�? group looking to smear Democrats with a long, partisan history of targeting anything and everything Clinton. The group’s efforts have led to court-ordered releases of more Clinton e-mails, and, so far, they have shown pretty normal operations in terms of deals and influence and arranging meetings despite attempts to scandalize their content. More e-mails will be coming out between now and the election, but, like the other tens of thousands which had no incriminating content, these will almost certainly be more of the same.

There was 1 new e-mail about Benghazi, thougha congratulations from the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil on Clinton’s solid congressional testimony on Benghazi, while 29 other Benghazi e-mails that were part of the recent release were already part of State’s records. The right’s desperation to open any Clinton closet it can find in the desperate hope that something will reflect badly on the Clintons or that the very process of opening the closets will cast doubt on Bill or Hillary and damage their reputations, regardless of reality, is all too apparent (as usual).

Why, oh WHY?

It is also important to remember why there is so much scrutiny about these e-mails to begin with: when eight previous investigations had failed to unearth any wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton or her close personal aides in regards to the Benghazi tragedy, the crusading, witch-hunting Republicans who drove the formation and/or ran the ninth Benghazi investigation and came across the existence of this server were ostensibly convinced that the e-mails contained on the server would confirm their wild conspiracy theories that they had had all along, that Clinton deliberately lied and covered up information about Benghazi and that she ordered rescuers who were ready to save the four fatal victims of the Benghazi attacks to stand down (the e-mails held no such information, in part because none of this ever happened, as I and many others have demonstrated in detail before). I have no doubt that many fanatics within the GOP were convinced at the time they would find such non-existent evidence, but the then-#2 Republican in the House, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, foolishly publicly confirmed what everyone already knew: that this ninth Benghazi investigation’s main raison d’être was to damage Clinton politically to lower her chances of becoming president (this screw-up was largely thought to have cost McCarthy his chance at succeeding Boehner for the #1 GOP House spot as Speaker of the House); in this, it was undoubtedly a success, even as it failed to unearth any new dirt on her conduct regarding Benghazi. The Committee’s quest to find quest to find wrongdoing by Clintonvis–à–vis Benghazi had about the same odds of success as Frodo and Sam running around alone in Mordor without Aragorn marching on the Black Gate, and it is telling that the Republicans who ran the hearings were at least subconsciously (and at least some must have been consciously) aware that the the “Benghazi�? hearings ended up spending just as much—maybe even more—time on Clinton’s e-mails, her use of a private e-mail and private server, that classified information had passed through the server, and that the server was a possible security risk as they did on anything related to their committee namesake of Benghazi. So much for justice for the victims of Benghazi…

Conclusion: This Is Ridiculous: 15 Takeaways

So, below, we can outline my findings/conclusions which, at the risk of sounding egotistical, are far fairer and sounder that what we’re getting from large swaths of the media and certainly many politicians.

1.)   As Comey made clear, neither Clinton nor her staff or associates gave any indication they knew any material was classified when they were passing it around through the private server or ever had any intention of using this much maligned private e-mail system to disseminate classified information, and the FBI has no evidence to point towards a coverup or Clinton or her people lying to FBI investigators.

2.)   Only 3 e-mail chains had any indications whatsoever that they contained classified material (only one actually did), and the markings were themselves not clear, were not accompanied by required classified markings in headers and subject lines, and only referred to the lowest level of classification.

3.)   None of the people involved were expert specialists on classification, and they and secretary Clinton relied, as most non-classification-specialists would rely, on proper and clear headings to warn that classified information was at hand and that people sending them knew they were following proper procedure.

4.)   The only indications we have in terms of the content of the most sensitive material of higher classification levels is that it was publicly available information.

5.)   Over 99.5% of all e-mails in question had no issues as far as classification was concerned; no official in the history of the modern United States has ever has so much of her communications material examined (or released so much to the public) so thoroughly and so soon after her time in office, and she used e-mail more than any of her predecessors because of the increasingly technological times we live in; if most other senior government officials had an audit like Clinton’s it is safe to say that she would hardly stand alone in having less than 0.5% of her content containing some sort of classified information; some would very likely have more, given the problems with overclassification.

6.)   No evidence exists that any sensitive information was given to the wrong people or enemies of America or that America’s national security was compromised in any way by Clinton’s use of a private server or the fact that some classified material passed through it (remember, the server was not insecure early in her tenure at State while she was using it as had been previously speculated/assumed in many a report).

7.)   Even if Clinton had used state.gov servers for her e-mail and never set up a private server, the information would still have been sent improperly through non-classified channels (her successor, John Kerry, was the first Secretary of State to ever use a state.gov account; why so little interest in Rice or Powell? Oh, yeah, they’re both Republicans and they aren’t running for president).

8.)   Yes, there were issues with having a private server (not initially her decision, which was just to have a private e-mail address) and it was not the best judgment call, but was hardly among the worst decisions made by a cabinet-level-or-higher official in modern history or even recent memory (the Benghazi investigation lasted longer than the Watergate investigation), yet Clinton has been investigated more thoroughly than any other official in the modern era for something that is at best a moderate mistake, not one that caused grave damage to anything other than her reputation and her poll numbers and not one that seemed to put any serious state secrets at risk, because, for all the talk of her “lack of judgement�? in this case, we have no information yet that any of the information in question was of major consequence, the release of which could have had serious ramifications for the U.S. In other words, her staff and she were careful not to use the system for anything clearly sensitive, overclassification notwithstanding, at least based on what we know up to this point.

9.)   Basically, Clinton dove into a gray area with the personal e-mail/server that walked a line when it came following the exact letter and spirit of preferred policy, but from my earlier research, it was clear there was no outright prohibition on what she did. In an era of extreme partisanship, she should have known, just like Bill Clinton when he engaged in sexual relations with an intern, that such behavior would open her to serious attacks from her political enemies. It was an error in judgement, but hardly one that would be a tipping point in evaluating her performance as Secretary of State or her record as a public servant overall.

10.) We can easily see that Clinton’s understandable main motivations were in seeking a convenient way to communicate both professionally and personally using the same device and to shield her private affairs from the public and her political enemies after years of witch hunts conducted by her rivals and the media. Nothing in the Constitution or the law states that senior government officials have no right to private communication for personal business.

11.) So Clinton is not perfect, but if this is the worst thing or one of the worst things we can come up with about her and her judgement and career, well, that’s a historically strong candidate, folks, no matter how you slice or dice it, at least if you slice or dice it in a reasonable way. Which Republicans and the media are not. But more on the media another time…

12.) In fact, I expected the investigation by the FBI would explain in considerable detail whose job it was to have labeled the material as classified and at what stage and when this should have occurred, because by the time any of that info reaches senior official that process should already have been completed; this to me seems a bigger issue than Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server, because if people had properly labeled this information it would not have passed through Clinton’s server to begin with. There is no attempt to blame any specific officials for not labeling classified information as classified, and the illogical burden of blame has been put on Clinton and her people for receiving information they accepted in good faith mostly from within their own State Department (certainly the blame cannot be on them for that!). Strange that the focus for blame has been on the use of a server and not that the e-mails were improperly marked, which, again, is the only reason they ended up on said server. Also frustrating, if understandable, that major parts of the FBI report dealing with these issues were redacted. Still, contrary to what many have said, including Comey, it does not appear that Clinton herself or her senior staff were careless in the handling of classified information, as, again, they were careful not to use the private server for anything properly labeled as classified. Such conduct does not seem to fit Comey’s words of “extreme carelessness.�?

13.) The information we do have from the investigation shows that much of the material that was classified and passed on through unclassified e-mail channels was information that senior leaders needed to have to address pressing, time-sensitive issues, where using standard secure terminals was impractical, impossible, or both and that this was common practice.

14.) The last point, in particular, makes it clear that official procedures for the dissemination of classified information to senior officials when that information is needed in a timely manner are grossly inadequate and impractical to the extent that they are not followed so that important business may be done when it needs to be done. Comey would have to basically call the entire State Department extremely careless, for the classified content being improperly sent and improperly labeled was the product of unofficial but standard practice, and though he did note that the State Department was “generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government;�? that seems to be decidedly less harsh language than Comey used to describe Clinton’s similar (the same?) behavior, even though State overall was just as big a factor in creating the situation as Clinton, if not more so.

15.) The above may be the most important controversy of all, but the fact that this all arose from investigations born out of efforts to politically damage Hillary Clinton always meant that she, not these other important issues, would be the focus. It would have been useful to task the FBI investigators with recommendations for reform, but this was not done. If anything, Clinton herself has been a distraction from the real problem at hand: reform of a system that few seem to have confidence in or respect for under certain important conditions, a system that is outdated and not taking into account more rapid forms of information dissemination that are common in the twenty-first century. But that has been lost in the conversation. And that itself is a true scandal.

Voter Fraud is Mathematically Irrelevant, and here is the Proof

First I must prove that voter fraud by the voter in mathematically irrelevant

Fox News is fake journalism on steroidsFox engaging in clear-cut & egregious deception

Voter fraud is a minuscule and mathematically irrelevant problem.
To substantiate this statement, I must first explain that while certain paid political operatives may try to commit fraud in counting votes, it is rare/almost nonexistent that actual voters attempt fraud.

There are many ways fraud occurs. But, sometimes people term things as a fraud without gaining proper experience. Just like the crypto trading platforms, that is mostly termed and shunned down as fraud platforms, scams and so on. In reality, you are actually losing an opportunity to earn better; see post here about the real revelation of the user of the trading platforms.

In numerous investigations, nothing material ever shows up. The full wealth and might of the asset strippers—the oligarchs in waiting—is behind efforts to find voter fraud because to prove a pattern of fraud would massively help their goal of suppressing the vote. The fact this even has to be discussed is evidence of the haplessness of the media in general and the institutionalized and intentional dishonesty inherent within Fox News and other billionaire-run media outlets. Let me allow the Brennan Center for Justice to explain why voter fraud is insignificant.


Voter Fraud Myth—the next unfound WMD in America

“Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.”

So a minuscule amount—but it is actually far less than minuscule because what the Brennan Center fails to point out is that there is no suggestion (evidence) that one group of voters is more inclined to commit fraud. Therefore, even if it does occur, the probability is that one would cancel out the other. So it is not simply minuscule; the impact is more likely zero.

The Washington Post reports “A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion votes cast.” Now let me try and put this number into context. 126 million people voted in the 2012 Presidential Elections. i.e 31 people divide by 8 (general elections) = almost 4 people per election. But just like that Brennan study this massive number of 4 – is undoubtedly a massive overstatement of the problem. To understand this better we need to go a back to that 31 number (where the massive law of massive numbers will provide a more accurate picture). It would be reasonable to assume that approximately 15 of that number would be Democrats 15 would be Stupidparty and 1 would be a different party. Thus Zero impact over the last eight Presidential elections. That one person trying to tip the balance to an irrelevant third party might be even sillier than the average Stupidparty Disciple.

Some have argued that voter suppression laws make people more trusting of the system – but here again, the math proves that having more suppression does not create that impact. Of course, lawyers might find a real live living example of voter fraud—like the following case:

“It then cited an example of recent fraud … that ID laws aren’t designed to stop. Specifically, it mentioned a case in which a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including “registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn’t live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials,” according to an account by Talking Points Memo. Wisconsin’s ID law would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.

But the King of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, suggests to his Stupidparty audience that “voter fraud may be the only reason Dems stay in power.”  And these guys (his audience), they just lap it up. So the disconnect is now 100% proven and math has once again eviscerated Myth. But we live in a parallel universe where false equivalence has become so absurd that Myth is actually beating the math in plain sight.


U.S. adults without photo ID, categorized by demographics

U.S. polling place waiting times

So voter fraud by the voter is clearly mathematically irrelevant.
Personally, I believe that Stupidparty zealots like the Scott Walker fan mentioned above are far more likely to try and commit fraud than an illegal alien. Now if we could just suppress the Stupidparty disciple from voting… and this is how I would vet people, to see if they are sane (enough to vote) or insane.1. Was the earth created less than 100,000 years ago?
2. Was Obama born In Kenya?
3. Is voter fraud a significant issue?
4. Is Obamacare a government takeover?
5. Is Global Warming a hoax?
6. Should business owners be allowed to discriminate?
7. Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president?
8. Is Fox News fair and balanced?
9. Should there be more guns in schools?
10. Does immigration hurt the economy?To make this slightly trickier the successful applicants must answer all the above by using no more than two characters. A bit like a Tweet on Steroids.

Now we can better understand the people who promote voter suppression.

“I feel it in my fingers
I feel it in my toes
Bigotry is all around me
And so the feeling grows”

According to Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, between 1982 and 2006 the Department of Justice “blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory.”

The Koch Brothers via ALEC (The American Exchange Legislative Council) are working tirelessly to get their Stupidparty puppets in Congress to pass as many voter suppression laws as time will permit. “Over the last four years, laws making it harder to vote have been spreading across the country, including in Texas. And ALEC has been in the thick of it.  A voter ID bill passed in 2011 in Texas closely resembles ALEC’s “Voter ID Act.” The Texas bill was sponsored by several ALEC-member legislators and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry, an ALEC alum and award winner. The U.S. Justice Department  blocked the law in 2012, but when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act in June 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced the voter ID bill would take effect “immediately.””

NBC reported a growing number of conservative Republican state legislators worked fervently during the past two years to enact laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Lawmakers proposed 62 photo ID bills in 37 states in the 2011 and 2012 sessions, with multiple bills introduced in some states. Ten states have passed strict photo ID laws since 2008, though several may not be in effect in November because of legal challenges.

A News21 analysis found that more than half of the 62 bills were sponsored by members or conference attendees of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington, D.C., tax-exempt organization.

Now to really piss of Stupidparty disciples, I will let Al Jahzeera news (yes, it is a reputable news station) lecture the American people in the art of the obvious.

“Elections are supposed to be decided by the people, at the polls. Orchestrated rigging by legislatures and courts to determine outcomes before the people even vote is a detriment to American democracy.”

The irony of the Arab world attempting to spread Democracy to the America’s. Good luck with that.


Stupidparty Voter Turnout Logic

People who use imaginary voter fraud by the voter to promote nefarious voter suppression are generally lying—but sometimes they get caught admitting the obvious truths.Governor Chris Christie: Same-day voter registration is a “trick” and GOP needs to win gubernatorial races so they control “voting mechanisms”.

Mike Turzai:  PA House SP leader  said in June of 2012, as he listed the Republican state legislature’s accomplishments: “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Phyllis Schlafly: Stupidparty Icon—said that early voting results in “illegal votes” that “cancel out the votes of honest Americans.” In her mind, “Democratic” automatically equals “illegal.”

Alan Clemmons: SC SP State Rep. “Stop Obama’s nutty agenda and support voter ID,” read a card attached to a pack of peanuts passed out by Alan Clemmons (R-Myrtle Beach) admitted, then later refused to admit in court.

Fran Millar: Georgia Senator complained about polling place being too convenient for Black voters.

Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair says we shouldn’t accommodate the “Urban (read African-American) voter-turnout machine.”

Jim Greer: Fla former GOP Chairman. Republican: We wanted to suppress black votes. Florida’s disgraced former GOP chairman says the party had meetings about “keeping blacks from voting.”

Don Yelton: North Carolina GOP Precinct Chair: Voter ID law will “Kick Democrats in the butt” and hurt “lazy Blacks”

Greg Abbott: Texas AG says partisan districting decisions are legal, even if there are “incidental effects” on Minority voters

So who “re-legalized” ignorant and bigoted voter suppression?  Look no further than the Supremely Stupidparty Court—Chief Justice John Roberts

One must truly wonder if, in Roberts, we are seeing a textbook example of the instances of myopia, lack of self-awareness, and narrow-mindedness that can result from attending the non-racially-diverse Roman Catholic grade and boarding schools in the 1960s and 1970s small-town, rural, overwhelmingly white Indiana when we see what he will write here… Learn more about the leader of the Supremely Stupidparty Court, the guy who is happy to have American Democracy for sale  to the highest bidder, happy to prevent minorities from voting, and now he wants to talk about Race, and in doing so, we can begin to see right through him.


Stupidparty Justices supporting all the asset-stripping oligarchs

Obama marching in Selma for iconic civil rights anniversaryStupidparty Nightmare.

I will let the Feminist Majority Blog put Justice Ginsburg’s dissension in its context. Just like racial discrimination, voter suppression isn’t all in the past. Hours after the Supreme Court released its decision, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that the state’s voter identification law, perhaps the most stringent in the country, would go into effect immediately. Last year under the Section 5 pre-clearance provision a group of federal judges struck down the law, claiming that it imposed “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” and in particular on racial minority groups. Texas lawmakers wasted no time.It’s easy to remove ourselves from the past, to underscore how we’ve changed rather than acknowledge historical continuities. But the overwhelming evidence of suppression aimed at minority groups whose votes could affect the status quo shows, if nothing else, that the systems of racism that disenfranchised citizens in 1965 still exist—that we’ve inherited and in many ways actively perpetuated them. Underlying the majority opinion is a frustratingly elementary notion of racism: so long as we don’t physically obstruct individuals from voting, minority disenfranchisement is a vaporous claim.

In her statement of dissent Justice Ginsburg refers to contemporary acts of voter suppression as “second-generation barriers.” Her language is apt: the racial discrimination we see now may not look exactly like the “flagrant” racism of the 1960s, but it is no doubt a close relative. Our voter identification and proof of citizenship laws are not far removed from literacy tests and “grandfather clauses.” These 16 examples and more affirm that the Voting Rights Act is still relevant, and still necessary—in full.


Stupidparty Tent

Stupidparty Tent

As Stupidparty gets further from the facts and deeper into the pockets of the Oligarchs in waiting, they get further removed from the people. Their tent shrinks as their base grows more ignorant and more bigoted. Now they have to rely ever more on cheating. This cheating takes the form of Fox news and all the other right-wing media were no effort is made to be fact based. Their mission is simple— to make people less informed. Studies show that they are successful. Stupidparty realizes that the demographic tide is running against them, so they have to find ever more creative ways rigging elections. Gerrymandering is one very successful technique–voter suppression even better. There are numerous ways of suppressing the vote.
But do not let anyone ever tell you that voter suppression is anything than more than simply what it is—cheating.

If the Oligarchs had their way you would only get an hour to vote, during your lunch break and if you did not vote as instructed by your employer you would lose your job.This is a fact–anyone who supports these voter suppression efforts is either ignorant, devious or a bigot. If you believe voter suppression is necessary, you are being manipulated, you are a puppet. If you actually believe in Democracy you would want as many people to vote as possible.