The nut doesn't fall far from the Hickory Tree.
President Trump says that he is a lot like President Andrew Jackson.
This could well be the first honest statement made by Trump.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday toured The Hermitage, the historic
home of President Andrew Jackson, and placed a wreath on the seventh
president's
tomb. Trump, the first sitting president to visit since Ronald Reagan,
toured the mansion and a somber Trump walked under to Jackson's tomb
saluting and
laying a wreath as Taps played in the background. The visit by the
45th president is historic. Jackson's populist politics have resonated
with Trump.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Re: [blind-democracy] Trump's Wiretapping Charge Could Contain Some Explosive Truth
When the block of cheese began to show white, purple and green mold on
the surface, Mother would carefully slice the offending culture off
and serve up the clean looking cheese. Mother did what she had to do
in order to stretch our skimpy food budget
But of course we learned later that when the mold shows on the
surface, its spores are already spread throughout the entire cheese.
It looks okay, and it tastes fine, but that mold is not healthy mold.
And so it is with our once healthy United States government. Well,
maybe "functional" would be a better choice of words. But anyway,
while we are busy trying to slice off the "really bad stuff", the
entire system is riddled with harmful spores. It's past time to
declare that the Goldman Sachs Government has won the Hill...Capitol
Hill, and we have only one course of action still open to us. That
one course of action is, take back their keys to the private restrooms
and send them back to Wall Street, from where they originally crawled
out. And be quick about it before they take the next step in their
conquest, establishing a Corporate Government. At first, the people
who did not want Clinton, and the people who thought that voting for
Trump would "drain the swamp", at first they would applaud putting
Congress out to pasture. After all, Trump and Clinton told us over
and over that Big Government was the problem. Of course each had
their own idea of what that meant.
But before too long, all working class Americans would come to
understand that they had been fed a fantasy tale. Before 4 years had
slipped by, the change would have been made from a bungling two
headed, one Party government, to a corporate dictatorship. The
"American People" would discover that they were not "the People" being
talked about. The People being taken care of all lived on the top of
the hills, behind guarded gates.
If the Trumpsters are not banned from Washington D.C. soon,
well...remember reading about "The Dark Ages"? They will look like a
sunny spring morning by comparison to what lies ahead of us.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/15/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Truthdig
>
> Trump's Wiretapping Charge Could Contain Some Explosive Truth
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_wiretapping_charge_could_contain_
> some_explosive_truth_20170314/
>
>
>
> Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to More
>
> Posted on Mar 14, 2017
>
>
> By Scott Ritter
>
>
>
>
> Michael Flynn resigned as Donald Trump's national security adviser on
> Feb.
> 13. (Gage Skidmore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/30020745053)
> / CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/) )
>
>
>
> "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community-they have six ways
> from Sunday at getting back at you." -Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
> to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, Jan. 3, 2017
>
> Chuck Schumer's comments should have sent a chill down the spine of all
> law-abiding American citizens concerned about the future of their country,
> and not in the way Rachel Maddow, the Trump-bashing MSNBC host, was aiming
> for when she invited the Democratic senator from New York, who also serves
> as the Senate minority whip, to appear on her show.
>
> The context of Schumer's comments was related to a war of words raging
> between then-President-elect Donald Trump and the United States
> intelligence
> community about allegations that Russia sought to influence the outcome of
> the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump. The Trump campaign
> likened
> the intelligence report about Russian electoral interference to the CIA's
> deeply flawed assessment about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction on the eve
> of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by U.S.-led forces in 2003. Prior to
> Schumer's appearance on "The Rachel Maddow Show," Trump himself tweeted
> disparaging remarks about an "intelligence briefing on so-called Russian
> hacking" being delayed, adding, "perhaps more time needed to build a case."
>
> Schumer's comments appeared to be a not-so-veiled threat to Trump that if
> he
> took on the dark forces of America's intelligence services, he would be
> doing so at his own risk. Ten days later, this threat became reality when
> an
> unnamed "senior U.S. government official" leaked intelligence information
> to
> The Washington Post, alleging that Trump's pick for national security
> adviser, Michael Flynn, spoke with the Russian ambassador to the United
> States, Sergey Kislyak, on Dec. 29, 2016-the same day President Obama
> expelled 35 Russian diplomats in retaliation for alleged Russian
> interference in the 2016 presidential election and announced a new round of
> economic sanctions linked to this interference. The existence of this phone
> call, when combined with other allegations concerning Flynn's close ties to
> Russia and the fact that Flynn was less than forthright when discussing the
> matter with Vice President Mike Pence, doomed Flynn's tenure as Trump's
> national security adviser. [Editor's note: On Monday, the Kremlin alleged
> that Kislyak also met with Hillary Clinton's team
> (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/hillary-clintons-team-met-russia
> n-ambassador-says-kremlin-spokesman/) during the presidential campaign.]
>
> READ: We Should Call Trump's Bluff for a Watergate-Style Inquiry
> (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hacking_the_election_we_should_call_tru
> mps_20170312)
>
> Flynn's conversation with Kislyak took on a life of its own. Flynn's
> initial
> denial about sanctions not having been a subject of discussion, echoed by
> Pence, became a topic of widespread media speculation that Flynn had
> violated the Logan Act
> (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act) , a 1799 law that
> prohibits private citizens from engaging in the foreign affairs of the
> United States without its permission. There was even speculation that
> Flynn-who in 2015 had a paid speaking engagement in Russia, sponsored by RT
> (a state-run Russian television network), and was seen in a photograph
> seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a gala dinner-somehow
> colluded with the Russians in their efforts to tip the 2016 presidential
> election in Trump's favor.
>
> Media speculation and unsubstantiated allegations took a back seat when, on
> Jan. 26, then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates told White House counsel
> Don McGahn that, contrary to Flynn's public claims, the issue of economic
> sanctions had in fact been a subject of discussion between Flynn and the
> Russian ambassador. Yates asserted that Flynn's distortion of the truth
> left
> him vulnerable to blackmail and as such Flynn posed a national security
> threat. President Trump was briefed on the Yates information, and McGahn
> subsequently conducted an internal inquiry that concluded Flynn had broken
> no laws in his contacts with the Russian ambassador.
>
> On Feb. 9, The Washington Post, acting on anonymously sourced intelligence
> leaks, reported that nine former and current U.S. government officials had
> confirmed the existence of a transcript that showed Flynn and Kislyak had
> indeed discussed sanctions during their Dec. 29 phone conversation, but not
> in any worrisome context. According to the transcript, Flynn had not made
> any promises about the lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia by the Obama
> administration, but rather indicated that such sanctions would not
> necessarily be continued under a Trump administration that was seeking to
> improve U.S.-Russian relations. The internal White House investigation had
> been vindicated-Flynn had not committed a crime or behaved in any
> inappropriate manner. What he had done, however, was mislead the vice
> president, and for this action Flynn was forced to resign.
>
> The scandal surrounding Flynn's resignation led House Intelligence
> Committee
> Chairman Devin Nunes, a Republican, to claim that leaks about Flynn's phone
> calls only could have come from the "very highest levels of the previous
> administration." Trump upped the ante by accusing former President Barack
> Obama, via tweet, of personally ordering wiretaps against Trump and his
> campaign. The fallout from Trump's assertion has been explosive, with many
> pointing to the unsubstantiated nature of his accusation as evidence of the
> new president's lack of fitness for office. Lost in the noise and confusion
> of the outrage among Democrats and Obama-era intelligence officials (and
> some Republicans) that followed Trump's incendiary charge, however, is that
> the existence of the Flynn transcript sustains the general premise, if not
> the precise specifics, of the Trump wiretap claim.
>
> The existence of a transcript of a conversation between Flynn and Kislyak,
> in fact, indicates that Flynn was either the subject of a wiretap warrant
> authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
> (https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/) (FISA) of 1978, or a Title III
> action under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
> (https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislative_histories/1615.
> pdf) of 1968 (or a specific action ordered by the president and certified
> by the attorney general, bypassing the need for a FISA warrant, pursuant to
> Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the U.S. Code
> (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36) ), in which case
> Trump's claims of his campaign being "tapped" by the Obama administration
> are not as far-fetched as some think.
>
> Another possibility is that Flynn's conversations were recorded as part of
> legitimate intelligence collection routinely undertaken by U.S.
> intelligence
> agencies of foreign entities (such as the Russian ambassador to the United
> States) who are deemed to be of ongoing intelligence interest. Such
> collection activity has been going on for decades, and the procedures
> involved are well known to all who participate in such, especially with
> regard to protecting the rights of any American citizens who are caught up
> in the collection. Once it becomes known that the conversation of an
> American citizen is being collected by U.S. intelligence agencies, the act
> of recording that conversation must cease immediately. If for any reason
> the
> conversation was recorded (i.e., automated collection), then specific
> measures must be taken after the fact to "minimize" any and all information
> that would identify the American citizen in question.
>
> There is simply no provision under U.S. law, above and beyond a FISA
> warrant, Title III action or direct presidential intervention certified by
> the attorney general that would permit Flynn's conversations with the
> Russian ambassador to be recorded, evaluated and acted on by U.S.
> government
> officials such as Yates. The mere fact that a transcript of Flynn's phone
> conversations exists represents a violation of U.S. law. That U.S.
> government officials accessed these transcripts and acted on them in an
> official capacity expands the scope and scale of this legal transgression
> by
> an order of magnitude. The leaking of the existence and contents of the
> Flynn transcript to the media by U.S. government officials for political
> purposes is as reprehensible as it is illegal, and represents a frontal
> assault on the very foundation of American society, grounded as it is in
> the
> principle of protecting individual civil liberties.
>
> The notion that U.S. government officials would knowingly and willfully
> violate laws designed to protect constitutionally protected rights should
> rightfully outrage everyone. That these violations were committed for
> partisan political purposes designed to undo the lawful results of a
> binding
> election (for instance, by undermining the appointment of a controversial
> and unpopular national security adviser) represents an attack on the very
> democratic processes that define the United States.
>
> READ: The Dance of Death
> (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_dance_of_death_20170312)
>
> The fact that this transcript exists, however, represents a curiosity.
> Intelligence collection against a target like the Russian ambassador is not
> a "one-off" activity subject to errors of this nature and magnitude. The
> Russian ambassador has more than likely been the subject of a standing
> intelligence collection requirement over the course of many years. Given
> the
> fact that the Russian ambassador is in near-constant contact with American
> citizens, including members of Congress and other officials, the U.S.
> intelligence community is not only well versed but also well practiced in
> the legalities and methodologies associated with the "minimization"
> requirements mandated by law when the Russian ambassador speaks with a U.S.
> citizen.
>
> By his own account, Flynn took Kislyak's call from a beach-side resort in
> the Dominican Republic, using a cellphone that apparently made use of
> encryption (the Washington Post story speaks of "digital packets" of
> information from Flynn's phone call with Kislyak being intercepted by the
> FBI). The Post indicates that the FBI conducted the interception, and that
> the agent involved prepared a "brief intelligence report" based upon the
> contents of that call, indicating that the FBI had defeated any encryption
> used by Flynn. While such a report would be the norm, it would, in
> conformity with applicable law, contain no information that could identify
> Flynn as being a party to that call. In short, the FBI intelligence report
> could not have served as the basis for Yates' White House intervention on
> Jan. 26. The FBI would have been prohibited by law from producing such a
> report, and Yates would have been prohibited from taking any official
> action
> based upon the existence of such a report.
>
> The existence of a Flynn-Kislyak transcript that identifies Flynn by name
> represents a deviation from the normal practices of U.S. law enforcement
> and
> intelligence that is not readily explained. If the Flynn conversation was
> collected under FISA authority, then Trump is correct in his charge that
> his
> campaign was the subject of wiretaps authorized by the Obama
> administration.
> To date, the existence of any such FISA authority has been denied by U.S.
> officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James
> Clapper.
>
> Likewise, if the Flynn transcript was the byproduct of foreign intelligence
> collection activities by U.S. intelligence agencies, the fact that it
> exists
> in a form that identifies an American citizen by name would mean that the
> transcript was produced outside channels routinely subjected to the kind of
> legal oversight designed to protect the constitutional rights of American
> citizens. The Washington Post states that the FBI, and not the CIA or the
> National Security Agency, was responsible for intercepting the Flynn
> conversation with Kislyak. It is highly unlikely, however, that the FBI,
> well versed in American law as it is, would be involved in the preparation
> of a transcript of an intercepted conversation that so blatantly violated
> the constitutional rights of an American citizen, let alone allow the
> existence of that conversation to become public.
>
> There are some alternative explanations for the existence of the Flynn
> transcript that do not involve the FBI engaging in massive violations of
> the
> law. The United States routinely coordinates with the intelligence services
> of allied nations regarding the collection of conversations of persons of
> interest, including American citizens. If a conversation was collected by a
> non-U.S. intelligence agency, such as the British or Dutch intelligence
> services (nations that have been mentioned in reports about Trump-related
> intelligence shared with the United States), it would not be subjected to
> minimization at the source of the collection. Once such a transcript came
> into the possession of an American law enforcement or intelligence agency,
> however, minimization standards would have to be applied by the agency
> receiving the intelligence report.
>
> WATCH: Chris Hedges and Poet Linh Dinh on the 'Irrevocable Decline of the
> American Empire'
> (http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/chris_hedges_irrevocable_decline_
> american_empire_poet_linh_dinh_20170313)
>
> It seems likely that the transcript of Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was
> produced from a collection activity operating outside FBI control, and
> probably operating outside U.S. soil-for instance, from the Dominican
> Republic itself. The U.S. intelligence community, in coordination with a
> supporting government's intelligence service, has the capacity to intercept
> Flynn's phone calls in a manner that does not implicate either the FISA
> framework or other intelligence collection activities subjected to legal
> and
> legislative oversight.
>
> The most likely candidate for this sort of role would be Britain's
> Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)-the equivalent of America's
> NSA. Indeed, the surprise resignation of the director of GCHQ, Robert
> Hannigan, on Jan. 23-three days before Yates presented evidence of Flynn's
> intercepted conversation to the White House, has led some circles to
> speculate that GCHQ played a role in the interception of the Flynn-Kislyak
> conversation. GCHQ has long been known to target the communication cables
> used by Cable & Wireless Communications, a Caribbean service provider that
> operates in the Dominican Republic, where Flynn's beach-side cellphone
> conversation took place. Information collected from these cables would be
> stored at GCHQ in the U.K., and as such be accessible by GCHQ analysts. It
> seems increasingly likely that Hannigan played a role in retrieving the
> Flynn-Kislyak intercept and turning it over to the United States.
>
> If Hannigan had turned this transcript over through official channels, it
> would have been subjected to mandatory minimization under U.S. law and, as
> such, could not have been the basis of the Yates intervention on Jan. 26.
> This eliminates the FBI, the Department of Justice and the NSA as viable
> conduits for any Flynn-related intelligence sourced to GCHQ. If, however,
> Hannigan provided the Flynn transcript to the CIA using back channels, then
> John Brennan, CIA director under Obama, emerges as the leading culprit
> behind the leak-breathing life into Nunes' assertion that the Flynn leak
> could only have come from the "highest levels" of the Obama administration.
>
> Hannigan's resignation from GCHQ was of such a sudden nature that the only
> plausible explanation is the kind of scandal that would be generated by the
> revelation of a GCHQ role in facilitating the abuse of intelligence
> information for the purpose of undermining the legitimacy and authority of
> the newly elected president of the United States. Hannigan's resignation
> occurred a mere three days prior to British Prime Minister Theresa May's
> visit to the White House on Jan. 26-the same day Yates briefed White House
> counsel on the Flynn transcript. A simple "connect the dots" exercise would
> have May cleaning house before any meeting with Trump in which the fact of
> such an explosive relationship would have most likely been raised.
>
> Trump's incendiary, and still publicly unsubstantiated, claim that the
> Obama
> administration ordered wiretaps of his campaign has attracted the attention
> of some members in Congress. Nunes himself has stated that his committee
> "will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting
> surveillance
> activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates, and
> we
> will continue to investigate this issue if the evidence warrants it." Sens.
> Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse have requested that the Justice
> Department provide the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime
> and Terrorism with "copies of any warrant applications or court orders .
> related to wiretaps" of the Trump campaign, noting that they "would take
> any
> abuse of wiretapping authorities for political purposes very seriously."
>
> By focusing their collective efforts on warrants and court orders, however,
> the various congressional oversight committees the American people count on
> to conduct effective, bipartisan oversight of U.S. law enforcement and
> intelligence activities may be barking up the wrong tree. What the senators
> and House members should be asking for is an accounting of all interaction
> between the CIA and GCHQ that transpired between Dec. 29, 2016, and Jan.
> 26,
> 2017, with a particular focus on the activities of both Brennan and
> Hannigan
> during this time. Both men should be subpoenaed, as well as Yates and any
> and all officials from the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, NSA and GCHQ who
> were involved in any manner with the production and provision of the Flynn
> transcript to American intelligence, and its subsequent use by U.S.
> government officials.
>
> The transcript of Flynn's telephone call with Kislyak needs to be
> forensically reverse-engineered, so that the entire chain of custody, from
> collector to consumer, and every step in between, is carefully vetted and
> assessed. At a minimum, such an investigation should produce indictments of
> all officials who knowingly violated Flynn's constitutional right to
> privacy
> by possessing and releasing to the media information that was unlawfully
> obtained and retained by U.S. authorities. At most, the investigation will
> uncover an abuse of authority to use illegally acquired intelligence in a
> manner that would make the Watergate scandal pale by comparison. It also
> could uncover wrongdoing by Obama if he had in any way, shape or form been
> briefed on the existence of the Flynn transcript and failed to suppress and
> investigate its existence.
>
> Schumer has indicated that such an investigation would spell bad news for
> Trump. "If it's true," Schumer said, "it's even worse for the president.
> Because that means that a federal judge, independently elected, has found
> probable cause that the president, or people on his staff . have probable
> cause to have broken the law or to have interacted with a foreign agent."
>
> With all due respect to Schumer, he couldn't be more wrong. What a genuine
> investigation will show is that the American people have a means of
> countering anyone who would deign to abuse their powers and that no
> one-president, senator, candidate or "deep state" operative-is above the
> law. Even Schumer, as much as he is opposed to Trump's presidency, should
> support that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris Hedges: The Enemy Is Not Donald Trump or Steve Bannon; It Is
> Corporate
> Power (Video)
>
>
>
>
> What We Can Learn From Donald Trump's Bonkers Budget (Video)
>
>
>
>
> Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia: Oil Boycott or Bromance?
>
>
>
>
> Part of Trump's 2005 Tax Return Makes News, With Fanfare to Spare (Video)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
>
>
>
>
>
> C 2017 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
>
>
> Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
the surface, Mother would carefully slice the offending culture off
and serve up the clean looking cheese. Mother did what she had to do
in order to stretch our skimpy food budget
But of course we learned later that when the mold shows on the
surface, its spores are already spread throughout the entire cheese.
It looks okay, and it tastes fine, but that mold is not healthy mold.
And so it is with our once healthy United States government. Well,
maybe "functional" would be a better choice of words. But anyway,
while we are busy trying to slice off the "really bad stuff", the
entire system is riddled with harmful spores. It's past time to
declare that the Goldman Sachs Government has won the Hill...Capitol
Hill, and we have only one course of action still open to us. That
one course of action is, take back their keys to the private restrooms
and send them back to Wall Street, from where they originally crawled
out. And be quick about it before they take the next step in their
conquest, establishing a Corporate Government. At first, the people
who did not want Clinton, and the people who thought that voting for
Trump would "drain the swamp", at first they would applaud putting
Congress out to pasture. After all, Trump and Clinton told us over
and over that Big Government was the problem. Of course each had
their own idea of what that meant.
But before too long, all working class Americans would come to
understand that they had been fed a fantasy tale. Before 4 years had
slipped by, the change would have been made from a bungling two
headed, one Party government, to a corporate dictatorship. The
"American People" would discover that they were not "the People" being
talked about. The People being taken care of all lived on the top of
the hills, behind guarded gates.
If the Trumpsters are not banned from Washington D.C. soon,
well...remember reading about "The Dark Ages"? They will look like a
sunny spring morning by comparison to what lies ahead of us.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/15/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Truthdig
>
> Trump's Wiretapping Charge Could Contain Some Explosive Truth
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_wiretapping_charge_could_contain_
> some_explosive_truth_20170314/
>
>
>
> Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to More
>
> Posted on Mar 14, 2017
>
>
> By Scott Ritter
>
>
>
>
> Michael Flynn resigned as Donald Trump's national security adviser on
> Feb.
> 13. (Gage Skidmore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/30020745053)
> / CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/) )
>
>
>
> "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community-they have six ways
> from Sunday at getting back at you." -Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
> to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, Jan. 3, 2017
>
> Chuck Schumer's comments should have sent a chill down the spine of all
> law-abiding American citizens concerned about the future of their country,
> and not in the way Rachel Maddow, the Trump-bashing MSNBC host, was aiming
> for when she invited the Democratic senator from New York, who also serves
> as the Senate minority whip, to appear on her show.
>
> The context of Schumer's comments was related to a war of words raging
> between then-President-elect Donald Trump and the United States
> intelligence
> community about allegations that Russia sought to influence the outcome of
> the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump. The Trump campaign
> likened
> the intelligence report about Russian electoral interference to the CIA's
> deeply flawed assessment about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction on the eve
> of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by U.S.-led forces in 2003. Prior to
> Schumer's appearance on "The Rachel Maddow Show," Trump himself tweeted
> disparaging remarks about an "intelligence briefing on so-called Russian
> hacking" being delayed, adding, "perhaps more time needed to build a case."
>
> Schumer's comments appeared to be a not-so-veiled threat to Trump that if
> he
> took on the dark forces of America's intelligence services, he would be
> doing so at his own risk. Ten days later, this threat became reality when
> an
> unnamed "senior U.S. government official" leaked intelligence information
> to
> The Washington Post, alleging that Trump's pick for national security
> adviser, Michael Flynn, spoke with the Russian ambassador to the United
> States, Sergey Kislyak, on Dec. 29, 2016-the same day President Obama
> expelled 35 Russian diplomats in retaliation for alleged Russian
> interference in the 2016 presidential election and announced a new round of
> economic sanctions linked to this interference. The existence of this phone
> call, when combined with other allegations concerning Flynn's close ties to
> Russia and the fact that Flynn was less than forthright when discussing the
> matter with Vice President Mike Pence, doomed Flynn's tenure as Trump's
> national security adviser. [Editor's note: On Monday, the Kremlin alleged
> that Kislyak also met with Hillary Clinton's team
> (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/hillary-clintons-team-met-russia
> n-ambassador-says-kremlin-spokesman/) during the presidential campaign.]
>
> READ: We Should Call Trump's Bluff for a Watergate-Style Inquiry
> (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hacking_the_election_we_should_call_tru
> mps_20170312)
>
> Flynn's conversation with Kislyak took on a life of its own. Flynn's
> initial
> denial about sanctions not having been a subject of discussion, echoed by
> Pence, became a topic of widespread media speculation that Flynn had
> violated the Logan Act
> (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act) , a 1799 law that
> prohibits private citizens from engaging in the foreign affairs of the
> United States without its permission. There was even speculation that
> Flynn-who in 2015 had a paid speaking engagement in Russia, sponsored by RT
> (a state-run Russian television network), and was seen in a photograph
> seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a gala dinner-somehow
> colluded with the Russians in their efforts to tip the 2016 presidential
> election in Trump's favor.
>
> Media speculation and unsubstantiated allegations took a back seat when, on
> Jan. 26, then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates told White House counsel
> Don McGahn that, contrary to Flynn's public claims, the issue of economic
> sanctions had in fact been a subject of discussion between Flynn and the
> Russian ambassador. Yates asserted that Flynn's distortion of the truth
> left
> him vulnerable to blackmail and as such Flynn posed a national security
> threat. President Trump was briefed on the Yates information, and McGahn
> subsequently conducted an internal inquiry that concluded Flynn had broken
> no laws in his contacts with the Russian ambassador.
>
> On Feb. 9, The Washington Post, acting on anonymously sourced intelligence
> leaks, reported that nine former and current U.S. government officials had
> confirmed the existence of a transcript that showed Flynn and Kislyak had
> indeed discussed sanctions during their Dec. 29 phone conversation, but not
> in any worrisome context. According to the transcript, Flynn had not made
> any promises about the lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia by the Obama
> administration, but rather indicated that such sanctions would not
> necessarily be continued under a Trump administration that was seeking to
> improve U.S.-Russian relations. The internal White House investigation had
> been vindicated-Flynn had not committed a crime or behaved in any
> inappropriate manner. What he had done, however, was mislead the vice
> president, and for this action Flynn was forced to resign.
>
> The scandal surrounding Flynn's resignation led House Intelligence
> Committee
> Chairman Devin Nunes, a Republican, to claim that leaks about Flynn's phone
> calls only could have come from the "very highest levels of the previous
> administration." Trump upped the ante by accusing former President Barack
> Obama, via tweet, of personally ordering wiretaps against Trump and his
> campaign. The fallout from Trump's assertion has been explosive, with many
> pointing to the unsubstantiated nature of his accusation as evidence of the
> new president's lack of fitness for office. Lost in the noise and confusion
> of the outrage among Democrats and Obama-era intelligence officials (and
> some Republicans) that followed Trump's incendiary charge, however, is that
> the existence of the Flynn transcript sustains the general premise, if not
> the precise specifics, of the Trump wiretap claim.
>
> The existence of a transcript of a conversation between Flynn and Kislyak,
> in fact, indicates that Flynn was either the subject of a wiretap warrant
> authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
> (https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/) (FISA) of 1978, or a Title III
> action under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
> (https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislative_histories/1615.
> pdf) of 1968 (or a specific action ordered by the president and certified
> by the attorney general, bypassing the need for a FISA warrant, pursuant to
> Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the U.S. Code
> (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36) ), in which case
> Trump's claims of his campaign being "tapped" by the Obama administration
> are not as far-fetched as some think.
>
> Another possibility is that Flynn's conversations were recorded as part of
> legitimate intelligence collection routinely undertaken by U.S.
> intelligence
> agencies of foreign entities (such as the Russian ambassador to the United
> States) who are deemed to be of ongoing intelligence interest. Such
> collection activity has been going on for decades, and the procedures
> involved are well known to all who participate in such, especially with
> regard to protecting the rights of any American citizens who are caught up
> in the collection. Once it becomes known that the conversation of an
> American citizen is being collected by U.S. intelligence agencies, the act
> of recording that conversation must cease immediately. If for any reason
> the
> conversation was recorded (i.e., automated collection), then specific
> measures must be taken after the fact to "minimize" any and all information
> that would identify the American citizen in question.
>
> There is simply no provision under U.S. law, above and beyond a FISA
> warrant, Title III action or direct presidential intervention certified by
> the attorney general that would permit Flynn's conversations with the
> Russian ambassador to be recorded, evaluated and acted on by U.S.
> government
> officials such as Yates. The mere fact that a transcript of Flynn's phone
> conversations exists represents a violation of U.S. law. That U.S.
> government officials accessed these transcripts and acted on them in an
> official capacity expands the scope and scale of this legal transgression
> by
> an order of magnitude. The leaking of the existence and contents of the
> Flynn transcript to the media by U.S. government officials for political
> purposes is as reprehensible as it is illegal, and represents a frontal
> assault on the very foundation of American society, grounded as it is in
> the
> principle of protecting individual civil liberties.
>
> The notion that U.S. government officials would knowingly and willfully
> violate laws designed to protect constitutionally protected rights should
> rightfully outrage everyone. That these violations were committed for
> partisan political purposes designed to undo the lawful results of a
> binding
> election (for instance, by undermining the appointment of a controversial
> and unpopular national security adviser) represents an attack on the very
> democratic processes that define the United States.
>
> READ: The Dance of Death
> (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_dance_of_death_20170312)
>
> The fact that this transcript exists, however, represents a curiosity.
> Intelligence collection against a target like the Russian ambassador is not
> a "one-off" activity subject to errors of this nature and magnitude. The
> Russian ambassador has more than likely been the subject of a standing
> intelligence collection requirement over the course of many years. Given
> the
> fact that the Russian ambassador is in near-constant contact with American
> citizens, including members of Congress and other officials, the U.S.
> intelligence community is not only well versed but also well practiced in
> the legalities and methodologies associated with the "minimization"
> requirements mandated by law when the Russian ambassador speaks with a U.S.
> citizen.
>
> By his own account, Flynn took Kislyak's call from a beach-side resort in
> the Dominican Republic, using a cellphone that apparently made use of
> encryption (the Washington Post story speaks of "digital packets" of
> information from Flynn's phone call with Kislyak being intercepted by the
> FBI). The Post indicates that the FBI conducted the interception, and that
> the agent involved prepared a "brief intelligence report" based upon the
> contents of that call, indicating that the FBI had defeated any encryption
> used by Flynn. While such a report would be the norm, it would, in
> conformity with applicable law, contain no information that could identify
> Flynn as being a party to that call. In short, the FBI intelligence report
> could not have served as the basis for Yates' White House intervention on
> Jan. 26. The FBI would have been prohibited by law from producing such a
> report, and Yates would have been prohibited from taking any official
> action
> based upon the existence of such a report.
>
> The existence of a Flynn-Kislyak transcript that identifies Flynn by name
> represents a deviation from the normal practices of U.S. law enforcement
> and
> intelligence that is not readily explained. If the Flynn conversation was
> collected under FISA authority, then Trump is correct in his charge that
> his
> campaign was the subject of wiretaps authorized by the Obama
> administration.
> To date, the existence of any such FISA authority has been denied by U.S.
> officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James
> Clapper.
>
> Likewise, if the Flynn transcript was the byproduct of foreign intelligence
> collection activities by U.S. intelligence agencies, the fact that it
> exists
> in a form that identifies an American citizen by name would mean that the
> transcript was produced outside channels routinely subjected to the kind of
> legal oversight designed to protect the constitutional rights of American
> citizens. The Washington Post states that the FBI, and not the CIA or the
> National Security Agency, was responsible for intercepting the Flynn
> conversation with Kislyak. It is highly unlikely, however, that the FBI,
> well versed in American law as it is, would be involved in the preparation
> of a transcript of an intercepted conversation that so blatantly violated
> the constitutional rights of an American citizen, let alone allow the
> existence of that conversation to become public.
>
> There are some alternative explanations for the existence of the Flynn
> transcript that do not involve the FBI engaging in massive violations of
> the
> law. The United States routinely coordinates with the intelligence services
> of allied nations regarding the collection of conversations of persons of
> interest, including American citizens. If a conversation was collected by a
> non-U.S. intelligence agency, such as the British or Dutch intelligence
> services (nations that have been mentioned in reports about Trump-related
> intelligence shared with the United States), it would not be subjected to
> minimization at the source of the collection. Once such a transcript came
> into the possession of an American law enforcement or intelligence agency,
> however, minimization standards would have to be applied by the agency
> receiving the intelligence report.
>
> WATCH: Chris Hedges and Poet Linh Dinh on the 'Irrevocable Decline of the
> American Empire'
> (http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/chris_hedges_irrevocable_decline_
> american_empire_poet_linh_dinh_20170313)
>
> It seems likely that the transcript of Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was
> produced from a collection activity operating outside FBI control, and
> probably operating outside U.S. soil-for instance, from the Dominican
> Republic itself. The U.S. intelligence community, in coordination with a
> supporting government's intelligence service, has the capacity to intercept
> Flynn's phone calls in a manner that does not implicate either the FISA
> framework or other intelligence collection activities subjected to legal
> and
> legislative oversight.
>
> The most likely candidate for this sort of role would be Britain's
> Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)-the equivalent of America's
> NSA. Indeed, the surprise resignation of the director of GCHQ, Robert
> Hannigan, on Jan. 23-three days before Yates presented evidence of Flynn's
> intercepted conversation to the White House, has led some circles to
> speculate that GCHQ played a role in the interception of the Flynn-Kislyak
> conversation. GCHQ has long been known to target the communication cables
> used by Cable & Wireless Communications, a Caribbean service provider that
> operates in the Dominican Republic, where Flynn's beach-side cellphone
> conversation took place. Information collected from these cables would be
> stored at GCHQ in the U.K., and as such be accessible by GCHQ analysts. It
> seems increasingly likely that Hannigan played a role in retrieving the
> Flynn-Kislyak intercept and turning it over to the United States.
>
> If Hannigan had turned this transcript over through official channels, it
> would have been subjected to mandatory minimization under U.S. law and, as
> such, could not have been the basis of the Yates intervention on Jan. 26.
> This eliminates the FBI, the Department of Justice and the NSA as viable
> conduits for any Flynn-related intelligence sourced to GCHQ. If, however,
> Hannigan provided the Flynn transcript to the CIA using back channels, then
> John Brennan, CIA director under Obama, emerges as the leading culprit
> behind the leak-breathing life into Nunes' assertion that the Flynn leak
> could only have come from the "highest levels" of the Obama administration.
>
> Hannigan's resignation from GCHQ was of such a sudden nature that the only
> plausible explanation is the kind of scandal that would be generated by the
> revelation of a GCHQ role in facilitating the abuse of intelligence
> information for the purpose of undermining the legitimacy and authority of
> the newly elected president of the United States. Hannigan's resignation
> occurred a mere three days prior to British Prime Minister Theresa May's
> visit to the White House on Jan. 26-the same day Yates briefed White House
> counsel on the Flynn transcript. A simple "connect the dots" exercise would
> have May cleaning house before any meeting with Trump in which the fact of
> such an explosive relationship would have most likely been raised.
>
> Trump's incendiary, and still publicly unsubstantiated, claim that the
> Obama
> administration ordered wiretaps of his campaign has attracted the attention
> of some members in Congress. Nunes himself has stated that his committee
> "will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting
> surveillance
> activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates, and
> we
> will continue to investigate this issue if the evidence warrants it." Sens.
> Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse have requested that the Justice
> Department provide the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime
> and Terrorism with "copies of any warrant applications or court orders .
> related to wiretaps" of the Trump campaign, noting that they "would take
> any
> abuse of wiretapping authorities for political purposes very seriously."
>
> By focusing their collective efforts on warrants and court orders, however,
> the various congressional oversight committees the American people count on
> to conduct effective, bipartisan oversight of U.S. law enforcement and
> intelligence activities may be barking up the wrong tree. What the senators
> and House members should be asking for is an accounting of all interaction
> between the CIA and GCHQ that transpired between Dec. 29, 2016, and Jan.
> 26,
> 2017, with a particular focus on the activities of both Brennan and
> Hannigan
> during this time. Both men should be subpoenaed, as well as Yates and any
> and all officials from the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, NSA and GCHQ who
> were involved in any manner with the production and provision of the Flynn
> transcript to American intelligence, and its subsequent use by U.S.
> government officials.
>
> The transcript of Flynn's telephone call with Kislyak needs to be
> forensically reverse-engineered, so that the entire chain of custody, from
> collector to consumer, and every step in between, is carefully vetted and
> assessed. At a minimum, such an investigation should produce indictments of
> all officials who knowingly violated Flynn's constitutional right to
> privacy
> by possessing and releasing to the media information that was unlawfully
> obtained and retained by U.S. authorities. At most, the investigation will
> uncover an abuse of authority to use illegally acquired intelligence in a
> manner that would make the Watergate scandal pale by comparison. It also
> could uncover wrongdoing by Obama if he had in any way, shape or form been
> briefed on the existence of the Flynn transcript and failed to suppress and
> investigate its existence.
>
> Schumer has indicated that such an investigation would spell bad news for
> Trump. "If it's true," Schumer said, "it's even worse for the president.
> Because that means that a federal judge, independently elected, has found
> probable cause that the president, or people on his staff . have probable
> cause to have broken the law or to have interacted with a foreign agent."
>
> With all due respect to Schumer, he couldn't be more wrong. What a genuine
> investigation will show is that the American people have a means of
> countering anyone who would deign to abuse their powers and that no
> one-president, senator, candidate or "deep state" operative-is above the
> law. Even Schumer, as much as he is opposed to Trump's presidency, should
> support that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris Hedges: The Enemy Is Not Donald Trump or Steve Bannon; It Is
> Corporate
> Power (Video)
>
>
>
>
> What We Can Learn From Donald Trump's Bonkers Budget (Video)
>
>
>
>
> Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia: Oil Boycott or Bromance?
>
>
>
>
> Part of Trump's 2005 Tax Return Makes News, With Fanfare to Spare (Video)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
>
>
>
>
>
> C 2017 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
>
>
> Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Re: [acb-chat] confederate flag
Good Saturday morning, Clifford and All those who consider Saturday
mornings to be good.
First, Clifford, I respect your perceptions. They are as real to you
as mine are to me. Our worlds and our upbringing cause us to see some
things differently. So I thank you for sharing both your perceptions
and your disagreement with mine.
I have lived for the past 22 years in a predominantly White, rural
county. While I am sure there are Black people here in Jefferson
county, I do not personally know them. Nor do I have any idea where
the Chinese or Mexican or Japanese families live. They must live
somewhere close by, since they show up each morning to operate their
various restaurants. I do know several Indian families in the area.
Our rehab program has brought us into contact with a number of Indians
losing their vision. Macular Degeneration is more wide spread among
the Indians, than among the White population.
Anyway, my neighbors all have told me at one time or another that they
have no prejudices. And they tell me that they do not understand why
so much attention is being given to a noisy few ingrates. Are my
neighbors right? Why would I argue with their perceptions?
Prior to living here on the Olympic Peninsula, we lived in Renton,
tucked into the southern end of Seattle(home of the Boeing Airplane
Company).
Renton had been settled early on by Italian coal miners and truck
farmers. Over the years their children left the area and moved North
to the suburbs. Black families began overflowing from Seattle's
Central District into Renton. Interestingly, the last time I was in
Renton, the population had shifted to predominantly Asians.
Anyway, when we lived in Renton, for 13 years, we lived on Renton
hill, overlooking the Cedar River and Lake Washington, as well as
across to much of Seattle. While the lowlands were being populated by
Black families, our hill remained White. No one thought about this,
and all our neighbors shopped in the same shops and grocery stores as
the Black families, and never seemed to consider themselves to be
prejudiced. Until the day a young Black man began jogging up our
steep hill. That hill was seven long blocks almost too steep to drive
on. This fellow, I learned by talking to him, was training for a
marathon, and saw this hill as a great training ground. One morning
my neighbor from across the street, a Boeing engineer, called across
from his front yard, "Better keep your doors locked. We have a N****
casing our neighborhood".
Several days the Black runner pounded up the hill. Then one morning
my neighbor stepped out in front of him and shouted for him to go back
where he came from and stay out of places he was not wanted. Okay, so
I'd suspected that my neighbor was a bit of a Racist, just from
earlier comments he'd made, but what really startled me were the
neighbors up and down that street who agreed with him. "I know he's
not hurting anything by running up and down the hill, but I wish he'd
find some other place to do it." People felt uneasy with a Black man
running past their homes.
In Portland, Oregon at the Commission for the Blind, a young Black man
was hired as an O&M instructor. He would take blind students out into
various neighborhoods and drop them off with instructions as to their
destination. He would then park and shadow them to make certain they
stayed safe without knowing he was there. He dropped a young White
woman off and began walking about 100 feet behind her. Suddenly a
police car pulled to the curb and he was told to come over. Both
officers stepped out of the car and confronted him. They had been
notified that a young woman was being stalked by a suspicious Black
man. He told me later on that what really made him nervous was that
the one cop kept his hand on his gun the entire time they talked.
Prejudice is strange. It can just hang around, unseen, and suddenly
leap up and shout, "gotcha!" From time to time I would take one of my
students to the Welfare Office about a mile up the road from the
Agency. This particular office was in an old building, a very large
central room with long counters behind which were seated the clerks.
This particular day I was accompanying a young Black woman. We took a
number and found seats, knowing it would be a while until they came to
us. But somehow they skipped our number. We waited a couple of
numbers to be certain, and then I went to the counter and to the woman
who should have called our number, and asked if they had forgotten us.
The woman behind the counter blasted me with anger. "You are not
allowed to crowd ahead of others", she snapped.
I began to explain that we'd been passed over. She was having none of
that! As our interaction...if that's what it was, went forward I came
to realize that this woman thought that I was one of the Welfare
recipients. I suspect that my White Cane and casual dress misled her.
Since the majority of those in the waiting room were Black, I was
pretty sure she was not discriminating against my student, but it took
me a long time to realize it was me she was avoiding.
While discrimination is very real, it can also be a matter of
individual perception. As a blind man, I insist upon paying my full
share, and taking my share of responsibility in all things. When we
first moved to Quilcene I had occasion to participate in a meeting in
Port Angeles. My wife dropped me in Sequim where I waited for the bus
to take me the rest of the way. This was the first time I'd ridden
the Clallam county Transit. I clambered aboard and reached out to
drop my money in the fare box. The driver had placed his hand over
the box. I drew back and then tried again. Again his hand blocked
me. "I can afford to pay", I told him. "I'm blind, not poor".
Without moving his hand he said, "Seniors ride free!" My white hair
had given me away. I laughed about that for years...even as I'm
writing it. My perception had told me that this driver thought that
blind people needed to ride free. But it was the county policy at the
time, that Seniors needed the help. You would think that I would have
protested that many Seniors could well afford to pay...but I didn't.
Frankly, I don't need too many such examples to remind me that I am
prejudiced. There are subliminal threads of prejudice woven
throughout my brain. On a lonely street, late at night, back in my
sighted days, I could walk past a White man without a thought, but a
Black man sent a tingle up my spine. In my work, I notice that I
interact differently on the same issue, depending upon whether the
person is male of female. That just scratches the surface, but you
get the idea. A friend told me some years back that she never
complained publicly because she didn't want to be called "an uppity
Black girl".
Since she was a very good friend I would never say, "Uppity? No!
Snippy? Yes!" I guess what I'm trying to say in all of this, is that
I accept peoples perception of themselves. I certainly have enough of
my own issues to deal with.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/9/17, Clifford via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> Dear Carl and List Members:
>
> When I was in boy scouts in the fifties, the confederate
> flag was on parts of the uniform that we wore. It was not done to anger
> black folks at all, but was simply a reflection of the fact that
> historically many folks from the South fought for the confederacy. The
> scout troop was located in Nashville, where the confederacy was clearly in
> the majority. Here in East Tennessee, the majority of the population was
> union, and in fact there was a push at one time to make East Tennessee a
> separate state due to the split in loyalties.
>
> The confederate flag was not displayed in a mean-spirited
> way, and only in the last few years have black folks taken to
>
> voicing their displeasure with that symbol.
>
> I do believe the picture you paint is not at all
> representative of the life in the South in general, and I know it was not
> the way we in East Tennessee got along with our black neighbors. True,
> there were isolated incidents during the fifties and sixties, but the
> number
> of folks who would turn the clock back to the days of segregation are few
> and far between. In fact, I have heard black folks who have traveled to
> both
> the North and South, claim that they are treated as good or better in the
> South than in the North. I truly hope that statement was true, as we still
> pride ourselves on being hospitable.
>
>
>
> Yours Truly,
>
>
>
> Clifford Wilson
>
>
>
mornings to be good.
First, Clifford, I respect your perceptions. They are as real to you
as mine are to me. Our worlds and our upbringing cause us to see some
things differently. So I thank you for sharing both your perceptions
and your disagreement with mine.
I have lived for the past 22 years in a predominantly White, rural
county. While I am sure there are Black people here in Jefferson
county, I do not personally know them. Nor do I have any idea where
the Chinese or Mexican or Japanese families live. They must live
somewhere close by, since they show up each morning to operate their
various restaurants. I do know several Indian families in the area.
Our rehab program has brought us into contact with a number of Indians
losing their vision. Macular Degeneration is more wide spread among
the Indians, than among the White population.
Anyway, my neighbors all have told me at one time or another that they
have no prejudices. And they tell me that they do not understand why
so much attention is being given to a noisy few ingrates. Are my
neighbors right? Why would I argue with their perceptions?
Prior to living here on the Olympic Peninsula, we lived in Renton,
tucked into the southern end of Seattle(home of the Boeing Airplane
Company).
Renton had been settled early on by Italian coal miners and truck
farmers. Over the years their children left the area and moved North
to the suburbs. Black families began overflowing from Seattle's
Central District into Renton. Interestingly, the last time I was in
Renton, the population had shifted to predominantly Asians.
Anyway, when we lived in Renton, for 13 years, we lived on Renton
hill, overlooking the Cedar River and Lake Washington, as well as
across to much of Seattle. While the lowlands were being populated by
Black families, our hill remained White. No one thought about this,
and all our neighbors shopped in the same shops and grocery stores as
the Black families, and never seemed to consider themselves to be
prejudiced. Until the day a young Black man began jogging up our
steep hill. That hill was seven long blocks almost too steep to drive
on. This fellow, I learned by talking to him, was training for a
marathon, and saw this hill as a great training ground. One morning
my neighbor from across the street, a Boeing engineer, called across
from his front yard, "Better keep your doors locked. We have a N****
casing our neighborhood".
Several days the Black runner pounded up the hill. Then one morning
my neighbor stepped out in front of him and shouted for him to go back
where he came from and stay out of places he was not wanted. Okay, so
I'd suspected that my neighbor was a bit of a Racist, just from
earlier comments he'd made, but what really startled me were the
neighbors up and down that street who agreed with him. "I know he's
not hurting anything by running up and down the hill, but I wish he'd
find some other place to do it." People felt uneasy with a Black man
running past their homes.
In Portland, Oregon at the Commission for the Blind, a young Black man
was hired as an O&M instructor. He would take blind students out into
various neighborhoods and drop them off with instructions as to their
destination. He would then park and shadow them to make certain they
stayed safe without knowing he was there. He dropped a young White
woman off and began walking about 100 feet behind her. Suddenly a
police car pulled to the curb and he was told to come over. Both
officers stepped out of the car and confronted him. They had been
notified that a young woman was being stalked by a suspicious Black
man. He told me later on that what really made him nervous was that
the one cop kept his hand on his gun the entire time they talked.
Prejudice is strange. It can just hang around, unseen, and suddenly
leap up and shout, "gotcha!" From time to time I would take one of my
students to the Welfare Office about a mile up the road from the
Agency. This particular office was in an old building, a very large
central room with long counters behind which were seated the clerks.
This particular day I was accompanying a young Black woman. We took a
number and found seats, knowing it would be a while until they came to
us. But somehow they skipped our number. We waited a couple of
numbers to be certain, and then I went to the counter and to the woman
who should have called our number, and asked if they had forgotten us.
The woman behind the counter blasted me with anger. "You are not
allowed to crowd ahead of others", she snapped.
I began to explain that we'd been passed over. She was having none of
that! As our interaction...if that's what it was, went forward I came
to realize that this woman thought that I was one of the Welfare
recipients. I suspect that my White Cane and casual dress misled her.
Since the majority of those in the waiting room were Black, I was
pretty sure she was not discriminating against my student, but it took
me a long time to realize it was me she was avoiding.
While discrimination is very real, it can also be a matter of
individual perception. As a blind man, I insist upon paying my full
share, and taking my share of responsibility in all things. When we
first moved to Quilcene I had occasion to participate in a meeting in
Port Angeles. My wife dropped me in Sequim where I waited for the bus
to take me the rest of the way. This was the first time I'd ridden
the Clallam county Transit. I clambered aboard and reached out to
drop my money in the fare box. The driver had placed his hand over
the box. I drew back and then tried again. Again his hand blocked
me. "I can afford to pay", I told him. "I'm blind, not poor".
Without moving his hand he said, "Seniors ride free!" My white hair
had given me away. I laughed about that for years...even as I'm
writing it. My perception had told me that this driver thought that
blind people needed to ride free. But it was the county policy at the
time, that Seniors needed the help. You would think that I would have
protested that many Seniors could well afford to pay...but I didn't.
Frankly, I don't need too many such examples to remind me that I am
prejudiced. There are subliminal threads of prejudice woven
throughout my brain. On a lonely street, late at night, back in my
sighted days, I could walk past a White man without a thought, but a
Black man sent a tingle up my spine. In my work, I notice that I
interact differently on the same issue, depending upon whether the
person is male of female. That just scratches the surface, but you
get the idea. A friend told me some years back that she never
complained publicly because she didn't want to be called "an uppity
Black girl".
Since she was a very good friend I would never say, "Uppity? No!
Snippy? Yes!" I guess what I'm trying to say in all of this, is that
I accept peoples perception of themselves. I certainly have enough of
my own issues to deal with.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/9/17, Clifford via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> Dear Carl and List Members:
>
> When I was in boy scouts in the fifties, the confederate
> flag was on parts of the uniform that we wore. It was not done to anger
> black folks at all, but was simply a reflection of the fact that
> historically many folks from the South fought for the confederacy. The
> scout troop was located in Nashville, where the confederacy was clearly in
> the majority. Here in East Tennessee, the majority of the population was
> union, and in fact there was a push at one time to make East Tennessee a
> separate state due to the split in loyalties.
>
> The confederate flag was not displayed in a mean-spirited
> way, and only in the last few years have black folks taken to
>
> voicing their displeasure with that symbol.
>
> I do believe the picture you paint is not at all
> representative of the life in the South in general, and I know it was not
> the way we in East Tennessee got along with our black neighbors. True,
> there were isolated incidents during the fifties and sixties, but the
> number
> of folks who would turn the clock back to the days of segregation are few
> and far between. In fact, I have heard black folks who have traveled to
> both
> the North and South, claim that they are treated as good or better in the
> South than in the North. I truly hope that statement was true, as we still
> pride ourselves on being hospitable.
>
>
>
> Yours Truly,
>
>
>
> Clifford Wilson
>
>
>
Friday, March 10, 2017
Re: [acb-chat] No More Affordable Healthcare
I have a rule of thumb which I apply to all but a select few
journalists, commentators and insightful people. That rule of thumb
is one taught to me by my sweet old Gramma Ludwig: "The proof is in
the pudding". So, if it doesn't taste just right, then don't eat it!
I used to take everything with a grain of salt, but nowadays it's
taking more than salt to cover the brown taste.
In about 5 minutes I'll tune on Thom Hartman on RT TV. He's pretty
good, even though he is a Liberal Democrat. He has good instincts
once I set aside that he voted for Clinton in the general election.
He'd backed Bernie Sanders until the DNC got done trashing him.
Anyway, it's off to TV Land.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/9/17, Demaya, Diego via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> GOP campaigning to strip patients of key legal protections
> 3/6/2017
>
> We all know how con artists work the streets. One might bump into you in a
> train or in a crosswalk, while the other grabs your wallet. Or one might
> smile and chat with a mom at a playground, while her partner nabs the
> purse.
>
> Patients and consumers may want to watch carefully for the congressional
> version of the distraction scam, a series of stealth bills that aim to strip
> them of valuable legal rights and protections they'll need if harmed by big
> hospitals, rich doctors, big insurance companies, or giant corporations.
> With so much commotion under way with the new administration, Republicans
> sneakily have launched a furious, multi-pronged so-called "tort
> reform"<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bna.com_push-2Denact-2Dcivil-2Dn57982084551_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=yiT8A_h2F-igL-01ma7YCcJmjDbjKHP-1XW8htFK0ZQ&e=>
> campaign. They've wanted it for a long time. They insist it is needed to
> curb excess and frivolous lawsuits, to save money for Uncle Sam (who often
> is a defendant), to make the economy work better, and to add jobs, and to
> make life in general more wonderful.
>
> Their arguments are counter-factual and lacking in evidence.
>
> Bloomberg news service has reported that the package of bills, a flurry that
> makes it harder for opponents to mobilize against, is "aimed at tilting the
> [civil justice] system more in the favor of companies," and away from
> ordinary individuals who've been hurt.
>
> Consider HR 1215, deceptively titled the Protecting Access to Care Act. (You
> need to always look for George Orwell's hand in the titles of these bills.)
> The GOP-controlled House of Representatives is steamrolling this measure
> through, with the Judiciary Committee surprising Democrats and opponents by
> swiftly introducing, marking up, and advancing it for further
> consideration.
>
> The bill would be a boon to doctors and hospitals at the expense of the
> rights of
> patients<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.statnews.com_2017_02_28_medical-2Dmalpractice-2Dcongress_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=gcZ11mP80KKJMD6Gl78_Q8g6ZNL3cVyVacvRVoBr-lg&e=>
> injured, often grievously, while seeking medical services. As Stat, the
> online health news service, reports about the bill:
>
> [It] would cap damages that can be paid by doctors, hospitals, and nursing
> homes. (Many states already limit awards paid by individual providers.) It
> would cover individuals who are insured under Medicare, Medicaid, veterans
> or military health plans, and the Affordable Care Act, and could also impact
> people covered under COBRA or health savings plans. …In addition to capping
> non-economic damages, the new legislation would give immunity to drug
> companies in cases in which patients were harmed by FDA-approved
> prescriptions. Although the bill would not limit recovery of economic
> damages — such as lost wages, past and future medical expenses, and other
> out-of-pocket costs for victims of medical negligence — it would cap
> payments for a victim's pain and suffering at $250,000. This would most
> affect people not in the workforce, such as the elderly, or children.
>
> Stat says doctors, hospitals, insurers, Big Pharma, and other big corporate
> health care interests are thrilled about this bill. Doctors long have
> claimed, without evidence, that the threat of malpractice suits forces them
> to practice costly defensive medicine, and that frivolous litigation
> increases the cost of modern medicine.
>
> But the Kaiser Health News service, an independent health information
> organization, recently posted a detailed take-down of this
> argument,<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectpatientsblog.com_2017_01_will-2Dcongress-2Drush-2Dunwarranted-2Dattack-2Drights-2Dinjured-2Dpatients-2Dsue-2Dmedical-2Dharm.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=Qi9Ybqryij4tCqQ-i6PX0cX0TmNzfvR5mw53BS5e_Oo&e=>
> based neither in reality nor fact. With KHN's permission, I cross-posted
> the story to this site. It reports that doctors are seeing some of the
> lowest levels of malpractice suits and payouts, as well as insurance costs.
> The system is running smoothly and creating no unusual burdens.
>
> It also is protecting patients harmed while seeking medical services as they
> seek justice, and the often significant economic and other support they will
> need, sometimes for a lifetime. Republicans boast that they modeled the
> House law after a now hoary California measure, which put in a $250,000 cap
> on non-economic damages in 1975, with no adjustment since for inflation.
> They don't mention that Gov. Jerry Brown, under pressure from famed consumer
> advocate Ralph Nader, has admitted the measure is off track and needs
> fixing.<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.latimes.com_business_la-2Dfi-2Dlazarus-2D20150807-2Dcolumn.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=axQ5lRErOUlO0Hz_vVrWJhqThGuVuGrTlasv6ZMU2O4&e=>
> Californians can't unwind the measure because it has such formidable
> backers, including doctors and hospitals.
>
> Bloomberg notes that Big Business is providing big bucks to remake the civil
> justice system in its interest, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
> National Association of Manufacturers playing big roles.
>
> The half-dozen GOP measures, Bloomberg says, "contain provisions to rewrite
> class-action practice, aid defendants striving to keep cases out of
> plaintiff-friendly state courts, and punish attorneys who file dubious
> claims. They also seek to put new limits on settlements entered into by the
> Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency, and require
> more disclosures by asbestos victims who seek compensation from bankruptcy
> trusts." One also targets the settlement process for citizen suits.
>
> House Republicans, including Bob Goodlatte, a Virginian who has been a key
> ally for the asbestos industry and who chairs the Judiciary Committee, have
> been emboldened in pushing their retread proposals because the GOP controls
> all three branches of government now.
>
> But this wrong-headed effort can be traced to the "U.S. Chamber of Commerce
> and a small number of the chamber's gigantic industry members who have
> liability exposure for harming the public," Joanne Doroshow, founder of the
> consumer rights group Center for Justice & Democracy in New York, told
> Bloomberg.
>
> Pamela Gilbert, another consumer advocate, is quoted: "The American public
> supports the civil justice system and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury
> trial by big margins. The proponents of the legislation take big risks if
> the public finds out what they are doing."
>
> In my practice, I see the huge
> harms<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.patrickmalonelaw.com_what-2Dwe-2Ddo_medical-2Dmalpractice_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=uuWA39aqPOzcDCrGAJ-IJVjoxppp9DQtu-1QyVQJNvE&e=>
> that patients can suffer while seeking medical services, and they certainly
> don't need more obstacles or constraints as they seek justice and the often
> major economic support they will need, sometimes for a lifetime. Voters who
> might be interested in exercising their democratic rights to protest with
> their elected officials this attack on patients and consumer rights can
> refer to the pack of bills, including: HR1215 (affecting patient rights) and
> the others HR720, HR725, HR732, HR906, HR985. More information on each can
> be obtained through the Center for Justice & Democracy (click
> here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__centerjd.org_content_letters-2Dopposing-2Dsix-2Dus-2Dhouse-2Danti-2Dcivil-2Djustice-2Dbills&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=IEvR5nCzbs-_8Cw8xjj4tcvC7F6eTvQXHm-tByKY110&e=>),
> on the House Judiciary Committee
> site<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__judiciary.house.gov_legislative-2Daction_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=4sbZP-i6J-5uxoO8xayaG-OjhoU4_H56pZLeqBeK_rQ&e=>,
> though please note that Republicans control material posted there.
>
> From:
>
>
> http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gop-campaigning-to-strip-patients-of-47634/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jdsupra.com_legalnews_gop-2Dcampaigning-2Dto-2Dstrip-2Dpatients-2Dof-2D47634_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=QnvIZhBWBJ8Zx1NQEnASSniZv553hmqXbV1doaZaXYM&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
journalists, commentators and insightful people. That rule of thumb
is one taught to me by my sweet old Gramma Ludwig: "The proof is in
the pudding". So, if it doesn't taste just right, then don't eat it!
I used to take everything with a grain of salt, but nowadays it's
taking more than salt to cover the brown taste.
In about 5 minutes I'll tune on Thom Hartman on RT TV. He's pretty
good, even though he is a Liberal Democrat. He has good instincts
once I set aside that he voted for Clinton in the general election.
He'd backed Bernie Sanders until the DNC got done trashing him.
Anyway, it's off to TV Land.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/9/17, Demaya, Diego via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> GOP campaigning to strip patients of key legal protections
> 3/6/2017
>
> We all know how con artists work the streets. One might bump into you in a
> train or in a crosswalk, while the other grabs your wallet. Or one might
> smile and chat with a mom at a playground, while her partner nabs the
> purse.
>
> Patients and consumers may want to watch carefully for the congressional
> version of the distraction scam, a series of stealth bills that aim to strip
> them of valuable legal rights and protections they'll need if harmed by big
> hospitals, rich doctors, big insurance companies, or giant corporations.
> With so much commotion under way with the new administration, Republicans
> sneakily have launched a furious, multi-pronged so-called "tort
> reform"<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bna.com_push-2Denact-2Dcivil-2Dn57982084551_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=yiT8A_h2F-igL-01ma7YCcJmjDbjKHP-1XW8htFK0ZQ&e=>
> campaign. They've wanted it for a long time. They insist it is needed to
> curb excess and frivolous lawsuits, to save money for Uncle Sam (who often
> is a defendant), to make the economy work better, and to add jobs, and to
> make life in general more wonderful.
>
> Their arguments are counter-factual and lacking in evidence.
>
> Bloomberg news service has reported that the package of bills, a flurry that
> makes it harder for opponents to mobilize against, is "aimed at tilting the
> [civil justice] system more in the favor of companies," and away from
> ordinary individuals who've been hurt.
>
> Consider HR 1215, deceptively titled the Protecting Access to Care Act. (You
> need to always look for George Orwell's hand in the titles of these bills.)
> The GOP-controlled House of Representatives is steamrolling this measure
> through, with the Judiciary Committee surprising Democrats and opponents by
> swiftly introducing, marking up, and advancing it for further
> consideration.
>
> The bill would be a boon to doctors and hospitals at the expense of the
> rights of
> patients<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.statnews.com_2017_02_28_medical-2Dmalpractice-2Dcongress_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=gcZ11mP80KKJMD6Gl78_Q8g6ZNL3cVyVacvRVoBr-lg&e=>
> injured, often grievously, while seeking medical services. As Stat, the
> online health news service, reports about the bill:
>
> [It] would cap damages that can be paid by doctors, hospitals, and nursing
> homes. (Many states already limit awards paid by individual providers.) It
> would cover individuals who are insured under Medicare, Medicaid, veterans
> or military health plans, and the Affordable Care Act, and could also impact
> people covered under COBRA or health savings plans. …In addition to capping
> non-economic damages, the new legislation would give immunity to drug
> companies in cases in which patients were harmed by FDA-approved
> prescriptions. Although the bill would not limit recovery of economic
> damages — such as lost wages, past and future medical expenses, and other
> out-of-pocket costs for victims of medical negligence — it would cap
> payments for a victim's pain and suffering at $250,000. This would most
> affect people not in the workforce, such as the elderly, or children.
>
> Stat says doctors, hospitals, insurers, Big Pharma, and other big corporate
> health care interests are thrilled about this bill. Doctors long have
> claimed, without evidence, that the threat of malpractice suits forces them
> to practice costly defensive medicine, and that frivolous litigation
> increases the cost of modern medicine.
>
> But the Kaiser Health News service, an independent health information
> organization, recently posted a detailed take-down of this
> argument,<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectpatientsblog.com_2017_01_will-2Dcongress-2Drush-2Dunwarranted-2Dattack-2Drights-2Dinjured-2Dpatients-2Dsue-2Dmedical-2Dharm.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=Qi9Ybqryij4tCqQ-i6PX0cX0TmNzfvR5mw53BS5e_Oo&e=>
> based neither in reality nor fact. With KHN's permission, I cross-posted
> the story to this site. It reports that doctors are seeing some of the
> lowest levels of malpractice suits and payouts, as well as insurance costs.
> The system is running smoothly and creating no unusual burdens.
>
> It also is protecting patients harmed while seeking medical services as they
> seek justice, and the often significant economic and other support they will
> need, sometimes for a lifetime. Republicans boast that they modeled the
> House law after a now hoary California measure, which put in a $250,000 cap
> on non-economic damages in 1975, with no adjustment since for inflation.
> They don't mention that Gov. Jerry Brown, under pressure from famed consumer
> advocate Ralph Nader, has admitted the measure is off track and needs
> fixing.<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.latimes.com_business_la-2Dfi-2Dlazarus-2D20150807-2Dcolumn.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=axQ5lRErOUlO0Hz_vVrWJhqThGuVuGrTlasv6ZMU2O4&e=>
> Californians can't unwind the measure because it has such formidable
> backers, including doctors and hospitals.
>
> Bloomberg notes that Big Business is providing big bucks to remake the civil
> justice system in its interest, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
> National Association of Manufacturers playing big roles.
>
> The half-dozen GOP measures, Bloomberg says, "contain provisions to rewrite
> class-action practice, aid defendants striving to keep cases out of
> plaintiff-friendly state courts, and punish attorneys who file dubious
> claims. They also seek to put new limits on settlements entered into by the
> Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency, and require
> more disclosures by asbestos victims who seek compensation from bankruptcy
> trusts." One also targets the settlement process for citizen suits.
>
> House Republicans, including Bob Goodlatte, a Virginian who has been a key
> ally for the asbestos industry and who chairs the Judiciary Committee, have
> been emboldened in pushing their retread proposals because the GOP controls
> all three branches of government now.
>
> But this wrong-headed effort can be traced to the "U.S. Chamber of Commerce
> and a small number of the chamber's gigantic industry members who have
> liability exposure for harming the public," Joanne Doroshow, founder of the
> consumer rights group Center for Justice & Democracy in New York, told
> Bloomberg.
>
> Pamela Gilbert, another consumer advocate, is quoted: "The American public
> supports the civil justice system and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury
> trial by big margins. The proponents of the legislation take big risks if
> the public finds out what they are doing."
>
> In my practice, I see the huge
> harms<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.patrickmalonelaw.com_what-2Dwe-2Ddo_medical-2Dmalpractice_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=uuWA39aqPOzcDCrGAJ-IJVjoxppp9DQtu-1QyVQJNvE&e=>
> that patients can suffer while seeking medical services, and they certainly
> don't need more obstacles or constraints as they seek justice and the often
> major economic support they will need, sometimes for a lifetime. Voters who
> might be interested in exercising their democratic rights to protest with
> their elected officials this attack on patients and consumer rights can
> refer to the pack of bills, including: HR1215 (affecting patient rights) and
> the others HR720, HR725, HR732, HR906, HR985. More information on each can
> be obtained through the Center for Justice & Democracy (click
> here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__centerjd.org_content_letters-2Dopposing-2Dsix-2Dus-2Dhouse-2Danti-2Dcivil-2Djustice-2Dbills&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=IEvR5nCzbs-_8Cw8xjj4tcvC7F6eTvQXHm-tByKY110&e=>),
> on the House Judiciary Committee
> site<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__judiciary.house.gov_legislative-2Daction_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=4sbZP-i6J-5uxoO8xayaG-OjhoU4_H56pZLeqBeK_rQ&e=>,
> though please note that Republicans control material posted there.
>
> From:
>
>
> http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gop-campaigning-to-strip-patients-of-47634/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jdsupra.com_legalnews_gop-2Dcampaigning-2Dto-2Dstrip-2Dpatients-2Dof-2D47634_&d=DwMFaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=mzCJCJGS84942f-VXag0IXzQAJe2Q3eZxaHrONTAfgs&s=QnvIZhBWBJ8Zx1NQEnASSniZv553hmqXbV1doaZaXYM&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Re: [blind-democracy] Is This Really My Generation?
Before you melt down in shame, Bob. ask yourself one question: "What
caused the Boomers to become what they are?"
The author said: "Boomers weren't genetically predestined to be
dysfunctional; they were conditioned to be."
He then took a wrong turn and began heaping the blame onto the
Boomers. But he was right to say that the dis functional condition
was...well, conditioned.
So does he really believe that the Boomers set out to become dis
functional all by themselves? Or could it be that they were "herded"
along the road to dis functionality. The author writes as if all
boomers are affected by this condition. Hold on! What about those
Boomers born within the Ruling Class...the 1%ers?
When we step back and start from a position that we have always had an
Oligarchy, and that most of us are not now, nor were we ever members
of that elite body, then we can speculate as to who is behind this
conditioning. But blaming the victim is not going to gain us
anything. Nor is blaming "government", or even the Republican or
Democratic Parties. Who are we supporting in a life style that we,
ourselves will never enjoy? Who do we defend when we send drones off
around the globe, killing...murdering people who we've never met, and
who have no idea why they are being murdered. Is it "us" we are
making safe? Or is it the interests of the Oligarchy that is the
recipient of our sacrifices...the blood of our sons and daughters and
fathers and mothers who are pressed into "the Service of their
Country"?
No Bob, don't blame your generation for that which has been forced
upon you. The Boomers are the victims. But they do not need to
remain under the conditioning of the Oligarchy. Once they begin to
wake up and realize that they have been led down this road by the Pied
Pipers of the Ruling Class, they will begin to stir and to rise up.
But just a word of warning, drones that can be sent across the oceans
can also be pointed at the Homeland.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/8/17, Bob Hachey <bhachey@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The sad answer to my question in the subject line is a shameful yes. IMHO,
> this article accurately describes how baby boomers, Democrats and
> Republicans alike, have driven America into the ground. When I first began
> reading this thing, I was hoping that I could come up with good arguments
> against this author's well-reasoned points but I cannot. I look forward to
> his book which I intend to read. (see end of article.
>
> Bob Hachey
>
>
>
> How the baby boomers destroyed everything
>
>
>
> By Bruce Cannon GibneyFebruary 26, 2017
>
>
>
> Even before the election, Americans were asking just how we got here - to
> this sullen moment of national reckoning. Since November, the autopsy has
> dragged
>
> on so long it seems there could be nothing left to dissect. But the search
> continues, because no truly satisfying answer has yet been offered.
> Deplorables,
>
> deportables, economic malaise, rural resentment, coastal hauteur whatever -
> these are just symptoms. The root illness remains undiagnosed, but here it
>
> is: the baby boomers, that vast generation of Americans born in the first
> two decades after World War II. The body politic rests on the slab because
> boomers
>
> put it there, because decades of boomerism produced the problems and
> disaffection of which 2016 was merely the latest expression.
>
>
>
> It's a shocking hypothesis, but then again, America has suffered a shocking
> decline. In 1971, Alan Shepard was playing golf on the moon. Today, America
>
> can't put a man into orbit (or, allegedly,
>
> the Oval Office)
>
> without Russian assistance. Something changed, and that something was the
> boomers and the sociopathic agenda they emplaced.
>
>
>
> My indictment of boomers may seem overbroad, but the thesis is quite
> specific: the unusual prevalence of sociopathy in an unusually large
> generation. How
>
> does that disorder manifest? Improvidence is reflected in low levels of
>
> savings
>
> and high levels of
>
> bankruptcy.
>
> Deceit shows up as a distaste for facts, a subject on display in everything
> from Enron's quarterly reports to daily press briefings. Interpersonal
> failures
>
> and unbridled hostility appeared in unusually high levels of divorce and
> crime from the 1970s to early 1990s. These problems expressed themselves at
> generationally
>
> unique levels in boomers, to a greater extent than in boomers' parents or
> children at comparable ages. (My forthcoming book lays out all these data
> in
>
> detail.)
>
>
>
> Boomers weren't genetically predestined to be dysfunctional; they were
> conditioned to be. They were the first generation to be raised
> permissively,
> the
>
> first reared on television and subject to its developmental harms, and the
> only living group raised in an era of seemingly effortless prosperity. Can
> too
>
> much license, TV, and unearned wealth distort personalities? May I suggest
> looking south toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
>
>
>
> The boomers' sociopathic inclinations might be of sociological, but not
> political, interest except for one fact: Boomers have a lot of voting
> power.
> Although
>
> boomers
>
> peaked at just over half the voting age population in the early 1980s,
>
> their influence kept growing as they voted more frequently, unleashed a
> flood of political money, and elected co-generationalists, all in reckless
> pursuit
>
> of the sociopathic agenda. In the 1970s, the older establishment had
> already
> begun bending to boomer power, though not always cravenly enough, a problem
>
> boomers resolved by becoming the establishment itself. Boomers' notable
> early achievement was electing Bill Clinton, who began the long saga that
> meandered
>
> through Bush II and ends - well, who knows how exactly it will end?
>
>
>
> What happened in the White House happened everywhere else. By 1994, boomers
> held a majority of House seats, a proportion that peaked at 79 percent in
> 2008
>
> and remains a still formidable 69 percent. The rest of government went the
> same way: Boomers make up 86 percent of governors, about three-quarters of
> the
>
> proposed Cabinet, and much of the judiciary and bureaucracy. Except for
> youthful Silicon Valley, the private sector also fell into boomer hands
> decades
>
> ago and remains there.
>
>
>
> In Pa., boomers see the American Dream slipping away
>
>
>
> Many from Butler High School's class of 1976 are now weary, worn, or
> furious. For some, those feelings are driving their votes.
>
>
>
> Baby boomers and their parents' friends
>
>
>
> By the late 1990s, as boomerism really expressed itself, disasters arrived:
> financial scandals, economic infirmities, mounting debt, unaddressed
> climate
>
> change, a growing entitlements crisis, and more. Since it was politically
> untenable to locate blame in obvious places, other explanations were
> manufactured
>
> for the nation's woes. (Immigrants!) Especially on the coasts, other
> explanations have been long suspected, such as the predations of a swollen
> GOP. Not
>
> implausible, but then you have to ask where the swelling comes from, and
> that circles back to boomers who, despite their hippie reputation, are net
> Republican.
>
>
>
> Anyway, the boomers' retrograde preferences mattered more than nominal
> political affiliation, pushing even modern Democrats to the
>
> right of Richard Nixon
>
> on many matters. After all, it wasn't Nixon, or even Ronald Reagan, who
> planted so many of the noxious seeds that blossom now; it was Clinton, the
> ur-boomer
>
> progressive. The "end of welfare as we know it"?
>
> Clinton.
>
> Berserk policies on crime, immigration, gays, deregulation, and
> surveillance
> that bloated into today's prison state, travel bans, transgender showdowns,
>
> and financial crises? Clinton again. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
> Penalty Act,
>
> Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act,
>
> Defense of Marriage Act,
>
> repeal of
>
> Glass-Steagall,
>
> etc.? Clinton provided the themes; Bush II and Donald Trump, the
> variations;
> and other boomers, the orchestra and applause.
>
>
>
> Barack Obama has been conspicuously absent, because my argument is as much
> cultural as chronological. While birth makes Obama a late boomer, his
> upbringing
>
> left him distant - geographically and socially - from the boomer
> mainstream.
> Not coincidentally, No Drama Obama was the most sober thing about American
>
> politics in 25 years. But he was limited to moderating inherited
> catastrophes - and prevented from pursuing policies that might benefit
> people of lesser
>
> means, whiteness, and age than the boomers he faced in Congress.
>
>
>
> Surely, by 2016, it was time for a thorough reconsideration of the dogmas
> that caused so much harm, but the last election hardly featured real policy
> discussion.
>
> So what if Social Security faces partial insolvency after
>
> 2034,
>
> or that climate change has scientists and generals fretting for the world
> circa 2040? By then, the median boomer will be dead. The only germane issue
> for
>
> the aging, unempathetic sociopath was blocking reform of senior
> entitlements. Youths like Paul Ryan, with his irksome calculations and
> future focus, couldn't
>
> be trusted on this issue. But boomers Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,
> whatever their other infirmities, pledged
>
> loyalty
>
> on this crucial item.
>
>
>
> I don't imply that Clinton and Trump were otherwise equivalent. They
> weren't. Nor do I assert that all of their co-generationalists are
> sociopaths. They
>
> aren't. But I don't shrink from arguing that an unusually large fraction of
> boomers behaves sociopathically, with the power to realize their agenda.
> The
>
> Koch brothers can't carry all the blame: The 1 percent is, by definition,
> just 1 percent, unable to dictate national policy on its own. A giant
> generation
>
> of boomers can and does, and their overriding imperative is to consume at
> someone else's expense. To say they succeeded is to understate.
>
>
>
> The simplicity of the boomer agenda amplified the considerable power of
> boomer votes, while clarifying otherwise complex issues, especially of
> benefits
>
> and taxes. Benefits, at least for the boomer middle class, were to be
> expanded - period. Taxes, for the same group, would be cut or reallocated.
> This dynamic
>
> illuminates otherwise inexplicable deviations from orthodoxy practiced by a
> machine supposedly seized by ideological gridlock. It explains why Reagan
> lowered
>
> taxes on income while raising them on capital gains (when boomers had
> salaries but not portfolios), why Bill Clinton lowered taxes on houses and
> stocks
>
> (when boomers owned those in quantity), and why Bush II cut taxes with
> unseemly attention lavished on the "death tax" (just as the boomers'
> parents
> neared
>
> expiration) while embracing
>
> the largest expansion in welfare since the 1960s
>
> (Medicare Part D, in time to benefit aging boomers). The machine works, at
> least from the boomer perspective.
>
>
>
> All these giveaways had consequences. The rich got richer, as we know, but
> the rich are old. That is, they're boomers. The patterns of general boomer
> gains
>
> mirrored those of the very wealthy. From 1989 to 2013, wealth gaps between
> older and younger households grew in the same way as those between the top
> 5
>
> percent and the bottom 95 percent. Today's seniors (boomers) are much
> wealthier relative to the present young than the seniors of the 1980s were
> to then-young
>
> boomers. All those tax breaks, bailouts, easy money, deregulation, and the
> bubbles they spawned supported that boomer wealth accumulation while
> shifting
>
> the true costs to the future, to the young.
>
>
>
> Still, no amount of tax reallocation could keep the government together and
> goodies flowing, so boomers tolerated astounding debt expansion while
> chopping
>
> other parts of the budget. Gross national debt,
>
> 35 percent of GDP
>
> when the boomers came of age, is now
>
> 105 percent,
>
> a peacetime record expanding 3 percent annually, forever. But this
> understates the problem, because not only does the family farm have a giant
> mortgage,
>
> it also desperately needs repair and modernization.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, boomers show no appetite for maintaining the assets their
> parents accumulated. Public higher education, nearly free for boomers, has
> become
>
> dauntingly expensive. Infrastructure is neither built nor maintained, and
> not even "responsible" boomers take this seriously. It was then-candidates
> John
>
> McCain and Hillary Clinton, those paragons of boomer probity, who proposed
> a
>
>
> gas-tax holiday
>
> in 2008, the
>
> year the Highway Trust Fund went bust.
>
> Federal
>
> research and development funding
>
> also suffered, with dispiriting consequences for the future. Smartphones
> may
> be fairly recent, but their core technologies were developed with
> government
>
> money long ago. Enjoy your iPhone now, because your iCopter and iKidney
> will
> be indefinitely delayed.
>
>
>
> The consequences of boomer overconsumption, underinvestment, and appetite
> for risk reveal themselves every time a bridge or bank collapses, but can
> be
>
> summarized in America's prolonged economic mediocrity. Finding decent
> growth
> requires stretching all the way back to the 1990s, and even so, the 1990s
>
> barely edged out 1970s' squalor on a per capita GDP basis. Thanks to boomer
> policies, the new normal is 1.6 percent real growth, well below the 2.5 to
>
> 3.5 percent rates prevailing from the 1950s to the 1980s. For the young,
> the
> price will be incomes 30 percent to 50 percent lower than they could have
>
> been.
>
>
>
> When problems grow large, boomers resort to deceit, and the huge
> degradation
> of truth suggests just how bad things have gotten. Whether it be
> misrepresentations
>
> by Worldcom, Lehman Brothers, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, or General
> Michael Flynn, boomer culture has wallowed in duplicity for decades.
> Untruths are
>
> emitted, others bear the consequences, and this has been the case for
> decades. The dubious draft deferments of the 1960s became the
> off-balance-sheet obligations
>
> of the 1990s, ginned-up weapons of mass destruction of the 2000s, and
> today's phantom terrorism in Bowling Green and Sweden. "Alternative facts"
> are just
>
> the most recent consequences of the boomers' declaration of epistemic
> bankruptcy.
>
>
>
> If Trump has given America one gift, it's a free hand to condemn the
> generation of which he is the impeachable id. Henceforth, let us expect no
> more from
>
> people who achieved so little, who have such small interest in the future.
> Let us dispense with ideas that aging flower children have substantial
> claims
>
> on goodness, as boomers liberal and conservative alike engaged in
> warrantless wiretapping, extrajudicial assassinations, gratuitous assaults
> on the dignity
>
> of minorities, mass disenfranchisement, the erection of a vast and useless
> penal state, and policies of cavalier disregard. Let us turn boomers out
> from
>
> offices high, corner, and otherwise, and keenly assess boomers'
> contributions to society against their demands for interminable subsidy,
> finding some reasonable
>
> settlement. And let us do it soon.
>
>
>
> Bruce Cannon Gibney is a venture capitalist and writer and the author of
> the
> forthcoming book "
>
> A Generation of Sociopaths: How The Baby Boomers Betrayed America
>
>
>
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/02/26/how-baby-boomers-destroyed-every
> thing/lVB9eG5mATw3wxo6XmDZFL/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ReadMore_Pos5
>
>
caused the Boomers to become what they are?"
The author said: "Boomers weren't genetically predestined to be
dysfunctional; they were conditioned to be."
He then took a wrong turn and began heaping the blame onto the
Boomers. But he was right to say that the dis functional condition
was...well, conditioned.
So does he really believe that the Boomers set out to become dis
functional all by themselves? Or could it be that they were "herded"
along the road to dis functionality. The author writes as if all
boomers are affected by this condition. Hold on! What about those
Boomers born within the Ruling Class...the 1%ers?
When we step back and start from a position that we have always had an
Oligarchy, and that most of us are not now, nor were we ever members
of that elite body, then we can speculate as to who is behind this
conditioning. But blaming the victim is not going to gain us
anything. Nor is blaming "government", or even the Republican or
Democratic Parties. Who are we supporting in a life style that we,
ourselves will never enjoy? Who do we defend when we send drones off
around the globe, killing...murdering people who we've never met, and
who have no idea why they are being murdered. Is it "us" we are
making safe? Or is it the interests of the Oligarchy that is the
recipient of our sacrifices...the blood of our sons and daughters and
fathers and mothers who are pressed into "the Service of their
Country"?
No Bob, don't blame your generation for that which has been forced
upon you. The Boomers are the victims. But they do not need to
remain under the conditioning of the Oligarchy. Once they begin to
wake up and realize that they have been led down this road by the Pied
Pipers of the Ruling Class, they will begin to stir and to rise up.
But just a word of warning, drones that can be sent across the oceans
can also be pointed at the Homeland.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/8/17, Bob Hachey <bhachey@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The sad answer to my question in the subject line is a shameful yes. IMHO,
> this article accurately describes how baby boomers, Democrats and
> Republicans alike, have driven America into the ground. When I first began
> reading this thing, I was hoping that I could come up with good arguments
> against this author's well-reasoned points but I cannot. I look forward to
> his book which I intend to read. (see end of article.
>
> Bob Hachey
>
>
>
> How the baby boomers destroyed everything
>
>
>
> By Bruce Cannon GibneyFebruary 26, 2017
>
>
>
> Even before the election, Americans were asking just how we got here - to
> this sullen moment of national reckoning. Since November, the autopsy has
> dragged
>
> on so long it seems there could be nothing left to dissect. But the search
> continues, because no truly satisfying answer has yet been offered.
> Deplorables,
>
> deportables, economic malaise, rural resentment, coastal hauteur whatever -
> these are just symptoms. The root illness remains undiagnosed, but here it
>
> is: the baby boomers, that vast generation of Americans born in the first
> two decades after World War II. The body politic rests on the slab because
> boomers
>
> put it there, because decades of boomerism produced the problems and
> disaffection of which 2016 was merely the latest expression.
>
>
>
> It's a shocking hypothesis, but then again, America has suffered a shocking
> decline. In 1971, Alan Shepard was playing golf on the moon. Today, America
>
> can't put a man into orbit (or, allegedly,
>
> the Oval Office)
>
> without Russian assistance. Something changed, and that something was the
> boomers and the sociopathic agenda they emplaced.
>
>
>
> My indictment of boomers may seem overbroad, but the thesis is quite
> specific: the unusual prevalence of sociopathy in an unusually large
> generation. How
>
> does that disorder manifest? Improvidence is reflected in low levels of
>
> savings
>
> and high levels of
>
> bankruptcy.
>
> Deceit shows up as a distaste for facts, a subject on display in everything
> from Enron's quarterly reports to daily press briefings. Interpersonal
> failures
>
> and unbridled hostility appeared in unusually high levels of divorce and
> crime from the 1970s to early 1990s. These problems expressed themselves at
> generationally
>
> unique levels in boomers, to a greater extent than in boomers' parents or
> children at comparable ages. (My forthcoming book lays out all these data
> in
>
> detail.)
>
>
>
> Boomers weren't genetically predestined to be dysfunctional; they were
> conditioned to be. They were the first generation to be raised
> permissively,
> the
>
> first reared on television and subject to its developmental harms, and the
> only living group raised in an era of seemingly effortless prosperity. Can
> too
>
> much license, TV, and unearned wealth distort personalities? May I suggest
> looking south toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
>
>
>
> The boomers' sociopathic inclinations might be of sociological, but not
> political, interest except for one fact: Boomers have a lot of voting
> power.
> Although
>
> boomers
>
> peaked at just over half the voting age population in the early 1980s,
>
> their influence kept growing as they voted more frequently, unleashed a
> flood of political money, and elected co-generationalists, all in reckless
> pursuit
>
> of the sociopathic agenda. In the 1970s, the older establishment had
> already
> begun bending to boomer power, though not always cravenly enough, a problem
>
> boomers resolved by becoming the establishment itself. Boomers' notable
> early achievement was electing Bill Clinton, who began the long saga that
> meandered
>
> through Bush II and ends - well, who knows how exactly it will end?
>
>
>
> What happened in the White House happened everywhere else. By 1994, boomers
> held a majority of House seats, a proportion that peaked at 79 percent in
> 2008
>
> and remains a still formidable 69 percent. The rest of government went the
> same way: Boomers make up 86 percent of governors, about three-quarters of
> the
>
> proposed Cabinet, and much of the judiciary and bureaucracy. Except for
> youthful Silicon Valley, the private sector also fell into boomer hands
> decades
>
> ago and remains there.
>
>
>
> In Pa., boomers see the American Dream slipping away
>
>
>
> Many from Butler High School's class of 1976 are now weary, worn, or
> furious. For some, those feelings are driving their votes.
>
>
>
> Baby boomers and their parents' friends
>
>
>
> By the late 1990s, as boomerism really expressed itself, disasters arrived:
> financial scandals, economic infirmities, mounting debt, unaddressed
> climate
>
> change, a growing entitlements crisis, and more. Since it was politically
> untenable to locate blame in obvious places, other explanations were
> manufactured
>
> for the nation's woes. (Immigrants!) Especially on the coasts, other
> explanations have been long suspected, such as the predations of a swollen
> GOP. Not
>
> implausible, but then you have to ask where the swelling comes from, and
> that circles back to boomers who, despite their hippie reputation, are net
> Republican.
>
>
>
> Anyway, the boomers' retrograde preferences mattered more than nominal
> political affiliation, pushing even modern Democrats to the
>
> right of Richard Nixon
>
> on many matters. After all, it wasn't Nixon, or even Ronald Reagan, who
> planted so many of the noxious seeds that blossom now; it was Clinton, the
> ur-boomer
>
> progressive. The "end of welfare as we know it"?
>
> Clinton.
>
> Berserk policies on crime, immigration, gays, deregulation, and
> surveillance
> that bloated into today's prison state, travel bans, transgender showdowns,
>
> and financial crises? Clinton again. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
> Penalty Act,
>
> Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act,
>
> Defense of Marriage Act,
>
> repeal of
>
> Glass-Steagall,
>
> etc.? Clinton provided the themes; Bush II and Donald Trump, the
> variations;
> and other boomers, the orchestra and applause.
>
>
>
> Barack Obama has been conspicuously absent, because my argument is as much
> cultural as chronological. While birth makes Obama a late boomer, his
> upbringing
>
> left him distant - geographically and socially - from the boomer
> mainstream.
> Not coincidentally, No Drama Obama was the most sober thing about American
>
> politics in 25 years. But he was limited to moderating inherited
> catastrophes - and prevented from pursuing policies that might benefit
> people of lesser
>
> means, whiteness, and age than the boomers he faced in Congress.
>
>
>
> Surely, by 2016, it was time for a thorough reconsideration of the dogmas
> that caused so much harm, but the last election hardly featured real policy
> discussion.
>
> So what if Social Security faces partial insolvency after
>
> 2034,
>
> or that climate change has scientists and generals fretting for the world
> circa 2040? By then, the median boomer will be dead. The only germane issue
> for
>
> the aging, unempathetic sociopath was blocking reform of senior
> entitlements. Youths like Paul Ryan, with his irksome calculations and
> future focus, couldn't
>
> be trusted on this issue. But boomers Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,
> whatever their other infirmities, pledged
>
> loyalty
>
> on this crucial item.
>
>
>
> I don't imply that Clinton and Trump were otherwise equivalent. They
> weren't. Nor do I assert that all of their co-generationalists are
> sociopaths. They
>
> aren't. But I don't shrink from arguing that an unusually large fraction of
> boomers behaves sociopathically, with the power to realize their agenda.
> The
>
> Koch brothers can't carry all the blame: The 1 percent is, by definition,
> just 1 percent, unable to dictate national policy on its own. A giant
> generation
>
> of boomers can and does, and their overriding imperative is to consume at
> someone else's expense. To say they succeeded is to understate.
>
>
>
> The simplicity of the boomer agenda amplified the considerable power of
> boomer votes, while clarifying otherwise complex issues, especially of
> benefits
>
> and taxes. Benefits, at least for the boomer middle class, were to be
> expanded - period. Taxes, for the same group, would be cut or reallocated.
> This dynamic
>
> illuminates otherwise inexplicable deviations from orthodoxy practiced by a
> machine supposedly seized by ideological gridlock. It explains why Reagan
> lowered
>
> taxes on income while raising them on capital gains (when boomers had
> salaries but not portfolios), why Bill Clinton lowered taxes on houses and
> stocks
>
> (when boomers owned those in quantity), and why Bush II cut taxes with
> unseemly attention lavished on the "death tax" (just as the boomers'
> parents
> neared
>
> expiration) while embracing
>
> the largest expansion in welfare since the 1960s
>
> (Medicare Part D, in time to benefit aging boomers). The machine works, at
> least from the boomer perspective.
>
>
>
> All these giveaways had consequences. The rich got richer, as we know, but
> the rich are old. That is, they're boomers. The patterns of general boomer
> gains
>
> mirrored those of the very wealthy. From 1989 to 2013, wealth gaps between
> older and younger households grew in the same way as those between the top
> 5
>
> percent and the bottom 95 percent. Today's seniors (boomers) are much
> wealthier relative to the present young than the seniors of the 1980s were
> to then-young
>
> boomers. All those tax breaks, bailouts, easy money, deregulation, and the
> bubbles they spawned supported that boomer wealth accumulation while
> shifting
>
> the true costs to the future, to the young.
>
>
>
> Still, no amount of tax reallocation could keep the government together and
> goodies flowing, so boomers tolerated astounding debt expansion while
> chopping
>
> other parts of the budget. Gross national debt,
>
> 35 percent of GDP
>
> when the boomers came of age, is now
>
> 105 percent,
>
> a peacetime record expanding 3 percent annually, forever. But this
> understates the problem, because not only does the family farm have a giant
> mortgage,
>
> it also desperately needs repair and modernization.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, boomers show no appetite for maintaining the assets their
> parents accumulated. Public higher education, nearly free for boomers, has
> become
>
> dauntingly expensive. Infrastructure is neither built nor maintained, and
> not even "responsible" boomers take this seriously. It was then-candidates
> John
>
> McCain and Hillary Clinton, those paragons of boomer probity, who proposed
> a
>
>
> gas-tax holiday
>
> in 2008, the
>
> year the Highway Trust Fund went bust.
>
> Federal
>
> research and development funding
>
> also suffered, with dispiriting consequences for the future. Smartphones
> may
> be fairly recent, but their core technologies were developed with
> government
>
> money long ago. Enjoy your iPhone now, because your iCopter and iKidney
> will
> be indefinitely delayed.
>
>
>
> The consequences of boomer overconsumption, underinvestment, and appetite
> for risk reveal themselves every time a bridge or bank collapses, but can
> be
>
> summarized in America's prolonged economic mediocrity. Finding decent
> growth
> requires stretching all the way back to the 1990s, and even so, the 1990s
>
> barely edged out 1970s' squalor on a per capita GDP basis. Thanks to boomer
> policies, the new normal is 1.6 percent real growth, well below the 2.5 to
>
> 3.5 percent rates prevailing from the 1950s to the 1980s. For the young,
> the
> price will be incomes 30 percent to 50 percent lower than they could have
>
> been.
>
>
>
> When problems grow large, boomers resort to deceit, and the huge
> degradation
> of truth suggests just how bad things have gotten. Whether it be
> misrepresentations
>
> by Worldcom, Lehman Brothers, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, or General
> Michael Flynn, boomer culture has wallowed in duplicity for decades.
> Untruths are
>
> emitted, others bear the consequences, and this has been the case for
> decades. The dubious draft deferments of the 1960s became the
> off-balance-sheet obligations
>
> of the 1990s, ginned-up weapons of mass destruction of the 2000s, and
> today's phantom terrorism in Bowling Green and Sweden. "Alternative facts"
> are just
>
> the most recent consequences of the boomers' declaration of epistemic
> bankruptcy.
>
>
>
> If Trump has given America one gift, it's a free hand to condemn the
> generation of which he is the impeachable id. Henceforth, let us expect no
> more from
>
> people who achieved so little, who have such small interest in the future.
> Let us dispense with ideas that aging flower children have substantial
> claims
>
> on goodness, as boomers liberal and conservative alike engaged in
> warrantless wiretapping, extrajudicial assassinations, gratuitous assaults
> on the dignity
>
> of minorities, mass disenfranchisement, the erection of a vast and useless
> penal state, and policies of cavalier disregard. Let us turn boomers out
> from
>
> offices high, corner, and otherwise, and keenly assess boomers'
> contributions to society against their demands for interminable subsidy,
> finding some reasonable
>
> settlement. And let us do it soon.
>
>
>
> Bruce Cannon Gibney is a venture capitalist and writer and the author of
> the
> forthcoming book "
>
> A Generation of Sociopaths: How The Baby Boomers Betrayed America
>
>
>
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/02/26/how-baby-boomers-destroyed-every
> thing/lVB9eG5mATw3wxo6XmDZFL/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ReadMore_Pos5
>
>
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Re: [blind-democracy] Democrats Now Demonize the Same Russia Policies that Obama Long Championed
Since I can't find my original response, here's a shorter version.
Carl
When I was about six years old my Grandma Ludwig took me by the hand
and we walked out to the barn and into the chicken house. It was the
summer of 1941, a clear, hot day in Spokane Valley. Grandma plucked
up a big fat old Hen and we walked outside with that hen kicking and
squawking. She wrestled it down with its neck stretched across a low,
flat chopping block next to the garden, and with a quick, practiced
move, she brought her little hatchet down, separating the hen's head
from the rest of the hen. The body of that big old fat hen jumped up
and began running about in all directions, like a drunk sailor,
flapping its wings and bouncing off the poles that held up the bush
beans. Just as suddenly, it flopped over and lay still.
Today, when I watch the crazy dashing about by the out of control
Democrats, and the equally insane behavior of the Republicans, trying
to contain the wild antics of the Trumpster, I am reminded of that big
fat old hen. If I knew then what I think I know today, I would have
named that big fat old hen, Democrat.
If it weren't such a serious matter, I'd say that the goings on today
would make a really funny Broadway Comedy. Maybe a Musical. Tunes
like, "March of the Trumpsters", or "Where have all the sane folk
gone?" We would all leave the theater, still holding our bellies and
giggling now and again. But unfortunately, what is happening before
our very eyes, is not a theatrical performance. It's the real deal.
And what it is, is the death Toll of democracy. But watch for the
coming Feature. It's entitled, The End of Humanity.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/7/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Glenn Greenwald
> Unofficial Sources
>
>
> © First Look Media. All rights reservedTerms of use
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ⎕
>
>
>
>
> Photo: Andres Leighton/AP
>
>
> Democrats Now Demonize the Same Russia Policies that Obama Long Championed
>
>
>
>
> Glenn Greenwald
>
>
>
>
>
> March 6 2017, 8:37 a.m.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One of the most bizarre aspects of the all-consuming Russia frenzy is the
> Democrats' fixation on changes to the RNC platform concerning U.S. arming of
> Ukraine. The controversy began in July when the Washington Post reported
> that "the Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the
> new Republican platform won't call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight
> Russian and rebel forces."
>
> Ever since then, Democrats have used this language change as evidence that
> Trump and his key advisers have sinister connections to Russians and
> corruptly do their bidding at the expense of American interests. Democratic
> Senator Ben Cardin, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations
> Committee, spoke for many in his party when he lambasted the RNC change in a
> July letter to the New York Times, castigating it as "dangerous thinking"
> that shows Trump is controlled, or at least manipulated, by the Kremlin.
> Democrats resurrected this line of attack this weekend when Trump advisers
> acknowledged that campaign officials were behind the platform change.
>
> This attempt to equate Trump's opposition to arming Ukraine with some sort
> of treasonous allegiance to Putin masks a rather critical fact: namely, that
> the refusal to arm Ukraine with lethal weapons was one of Barack Obama's
> most steadfastly held policies. The original Post article that reported the
> RNC platform change noted this explicitly:
>
>
> Of course, Trump is not the only politician to oppose sending lethal weapons
> to Ukraine. President Obama decided not to authorize it, despite
> recommendations to do so from his top Europe officials in the State
> Department and the military.
>
> Early media reports about this controversy from outlets such as NPR also
> noted the irony at the heart of this debate: namely, that arming Ukraine was
> the long-time desire of hawks in the GOP such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham
> and Marco Rubio, but the Obama White House categorically resisted those
> pressures:
>
>
> Republicans in Congress have approved providing arms to the Ukrainian
> government but the White House has resisted, saying that it would only
> encourage more bloodshed.
>
> It's a rare Obama administration policy that the Trump campaign seems to
> agree with.
>
> Indeed, the GOP ultimately joined with the hawkish wing of the Democratic
> Party to demand that Obama provide Ukraine with lethal weapons to fight
> Russia, but Obama steadfastly refused. As the New York Times reported in
> March, 2015, "President Obama is coming under increasing pressure from both
> parties and more officials inside his own government to send arms to the
> country. But he remains unconvinced that they would help." When Obama kept
> refusing, leaders of the two parties threatened to enact legislation forcing
> Obama to arm Ukraine.
>
>
> The general Russia approach that Democrats now routinely depict as
> treasonous – avoiding confrontation with and even accommodating Russian
> interests, not just in Ukraine but also in Syria – was one of the defining
> traits of Obama's foreign policy. This fact shouldn't be overstated: Obama
> engaged in provocative acts such as moves to further expand NATO, non-lethal
> aid to Ukraine, and deploying "missile defense" weaponry in Romania. But he
> rejected most calls to confront Russia. That is one of the primary reasons
> the "foreign policy elite" – which, recall, Obama came into office
> denouncing and vowing to repudiate – was so dissatisfied with his
> presidency.
>
> A new, long article by Politico foreign affairs correspondent Susan Glasser
> – on the war being waged against Trump by Washington's "foreign policy
> elite" – makes this point very potently. Say what you will about Politico,
> but one thing they are very adept at doing is giving voice to cowardly
> Washington insiders by accommodating their cowardice and thus routinely
> granting them anonymity to express themselves. As journalistically dubious
> as it is to shield the world's most powerful people with anonymity, this
> practice sometimes ends up revealing what careerist denizens of Washington
> power really think but are too scared to say. Glasser's article, which
> largely consists of conveying the views of anonymous high-level Obama
> officials, contains this remarkable passage:
>
>
> In other words, Democrats are now waging war on, and are depicting as
> treasonous, one of Barack Obama's central and most steadfastly held foreign
> policy positions, one that he clung to despite attacks from leading members
> of both parties as well as the DC National Security Community. That's not
> Noam Chomsky drawing that comparison; it's an Obama appointee.
>
> The destructive bipartisan Foreign Policy Community was furious with Obama
> for not confronting Russia more, and is now furious with Trump for the same
> reason (though they certainly loath and fear Trump for other reasons,
> including the threat they believe he poses to U.S. imperial management
> through a combination of ineptitude, instability, toxic PR, naked rather
> than prettified savagery, and ideology; Glasser writes: "'Everything I've
> worked for for two decades is being destroyed,' a senior Republican told
> me").
>
>
>
> All of this demonstrates how fundamental a shift has taken place as a result
> of the Democrats' election-related fixation on The Grave Russian Threat. To
> see how severe the shift is, just look at this new polling data from CNN
> this morning that shows Republicans and Democrats doing a complete reversal
> on Russia in the span of eight months:
>
>
> The Democrats' obsession with Russia has not just led them to want
> investigations into allegations of hacking and (thus far evidence-free)
> suspicions of Trump campaign collusion – investigations which everyone
> should want. It's done far more than that: it's turned them into
> increasingly maniacal and militaristic hawks – dangerous ones – when it
> comes to confronting the only nation with a larger nuclear stockpile than
> the U.S., an arsenal accompanied by a sense of fear, if not outright
> encirclement, from NATO expansion.
>
> Put another way, establishment Democrats – with a largely political impetus
> but now as a matter of conviction – have completely abandoned Obama's
> accommodationist approach to Russia and have fully embraced the belligerent,
> hawkish mentality of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, the CIA and
> Evan McMullin. It should thus come as no surprise that a bill proposed by
> supreme warmonger Lindsey Graham to bar Trump from removing sanctions
> against Russia has more Democratic co-sponsors than Republican ones.
>
> This is why it's so notable that Democrats, in the name of "resistance,"
> have aligned with neocons, CIA operatives and former Bush officials: not
> because coalitions should be avoided with the ideologically impure, but
> because it reveals much about the political and policy mindset they've
> adopted in the name of stopping Trump. They're not "resisting" Trump from
> the left or with populist appeals – by, for instance, devoting themselves to
> protection of Wall Street and environmental regulations under attack, or
> supporting the revocation of jobs-killing free trade agreements, or
> demanding that Yemini civilians not be massacred.
>
> Instead, they're attacking him on the grounds of insufficient nationalism,
> militarism, and aggression: equating a desire to avoid confrontation with
> Moscow as a form of treason (just like they did when they were the leading
> Cold Warriors). This is why they're finding such common cause with the
> nation's most bloodthirsty militarists – not because it's an alliance of
> convenience but rather one of shared convictions (indeed, long before Trump,
> neocons were planning a re-alignment with Democrats under a Clinton
> presidency). And the most ironic – and over-looked – aspect of this whole
> volatile spectacle is how much Democrats have to repudiate and demonize one
> of Obama's core foreign policy legacies while pretending that they're not
> doing that.
>
>
>
>
>
Carl
When I was about six years old my Grandma Ludwig took me by the hand
and we walked out to the barn and into the chicken house. It was the
summer of 1941, a clear, hot day in Spokane Valley. Grandma plucked
up a big fat old Hen and we walked outside with that hen kicking and
squawking. She wrestled it down with its neck stretched across a low,
flat chopping block next to the garden, and with a quick, practiced
move, she brought her little hatchet down, separating the hen's head
from the rest of the hen. The body of that big old fat hen jumped up
and began running about in all directions, like a drunk sailor,
flapping its wings and bouncing off the poles that held up the bush
beans. Just as suddenly, it flopped over and lay still.
Today, when I watch the crazy dashing about by the out of control
Democrats, and the equally insane behavior of the Republicans, trying
to contain the wild antics of the Trumpster, I am reminded of that big
fat old hen. If I knew then what I think I know today, I would have
named that big fat old hen, Democrat.
If it weren't such a serious matter, I'd say that the goings on today
would make a really funny Broadway Comedy. Maybe a Musical. Tunes
like, "March of the Trumpsters", or "Where have all the sane folk
gone?" We would all leave the theater, still holding our bellies and
giggling now and again. But unfortunately, what is happening before
our very eyes, is not a theatrical performance. It's the real deal.
And what it is, is the death Toll of democracy. But watch for the
coming Feature. It's entitled, The End of Humanity.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/7/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Glenn Greenwald
> Unofficial Sources
>
>
> © First Look Media. All rights reservedTerms of use
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ⎕
>
>
>
>
> Photo: Andres Leighton/AP
>
>
> Democrats Now Demonize the Same Russia Policies that Obama Long Championed
>
>
>
>
> Glenn Greenwald
>
>
>
>
>
> March 6 2017, 8:37 a.m.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One of the most bizarre aspects of the all-consuming Russia frenzy is the
> Democrats' fixation on changes to the RNC platform concerning U.S. arming of
> Ukraine. The controversy began in July when the Washington Post reported
> that "the Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the
> new Republican platform won't call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight
> Russian and rebel forces."
>
> Ever since then, Democrats have used this language change as evidence that
> Trump and his key advisers have sinister connections to Russians and
> corruptly do their bidding at the expense of American interests. Democratic
> Senator Ben Cardin, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations
> Committee, spoke for many in his party when he lambasted the RNC change in a
> July letter to the New York Times, castigating it as "dangerous thinking"
> that shows Trump is controlled, or at least manipulated, by the Kremlin.
> Democrats resurrected this line of attack this weekend when Trump advisers
> acknowledged that campaign officials were behind the platform change.
>
> This attempt to equate Trump's opposition to arming Ukraine with some sort
> of treasonous allegiance to Putin masks a rather critical fact: namely, that
> the refusal to arm Ukraine with lethal weapons was one of Barack Obama's
> most steadfastly held policies. The original Post article that reported the
> RNC platform change noted this explicitly:
>
>
> Of course, Trump is not the only politician to oppose sending lethal weapons
> to Ukraine. President Obama decided not to authorize it, despite
> recommendations to do so from his top Europe officials in the State
> Department and the military.
>
> Early media reports about this controversy from outlets such as NPR also
> noted the irony at the heart of this debate: namely, that arming Ukraine was
> the long-time desire of hawks in the GOP such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham
> and Marco Rubio, but the Obama White House categorically resisted those
> pressures:
>
>
> Republicans in Congress have approved providing arms to the Ukrainian
> government but the White House has resisted, saying that it would only
> encourage more bloodshed.
>
> It's a rare Obama administration policy that the Trump campaign seems to
> agree with.
>
> Indeed, the GOP ultimately joined with the hawkish wing of the Democratic
> Party to demand that Obama provide Ukraine with lethal weapons to fight
> Russia, but Obama steadfastly refused. As the New York Times reported in
> March, 2015, "President Obama is coming under increasing pressure from both
> parties and more officials inside his own government to send arms to the
> country. But he remains unconvinced that they would help." When Obama kept
> refusing, leaders of the two parties threatened to enact legislation forcing
> Obama to arm Ukraine.
>
>
> The general Russia approach that Democrats now routinely depict as
> treasonous – avoiding confrontation with and even accommodating Russian
> interests, not just in Ukraine but also in Syria – was one of the defining
> traits of Obama's foreign policy. This fact shouldn't be overstated: Obama
> engaged in provocative acts such as moves to further expand NATO, non-lethal
> aid to Ukraine, and deploying "missile defense" weaponry in Romania. But he
> rejected most calls to confront Russia. That is one of the primary reasons
> the "foreign policy elite" – which, recall, Obama came into office
> denouncing and vowing to repudiate – was so dissatisfied with his
> presidency.
>
> A new, long article by Politico foreign affairs correspondent Susan Glasser
> – on the war being waged against Trump by Washington's "foreign policy
> elite" – makes this point very potently. Say what you will about Politico,
> but one thing they are very adept at doing is giving voice to cowardly
> Washington insiders by accommodating their cowardice and thus routinely
> granting them anonymity to express themselves. As journalistically dubious
> as it is to shield the world's most powerful people with anonymity, this
> practice sometimes ends up revealing what careerist denizens of Washington
> power really think but are too scared to say. Glasser's article, which
> largely consists of conveying the views of anonymous high-level Obama
> officials, contains this remarkable passage:
>
>
> In other words, Democrats are now waging war on, and are depicting as
> treasonous, one of Barack Obama's central and most steadfastly held foreign
> policy positions, one that he clung to despite attacks from leading members
> of both parties as well as the DC National Security Community. That's not
> Noam Chomsky drawing that comparison; it's an Obama appointee.
>
> The destructive bipartisan Foreign Policy Community was furious with Obama
> for not confronting Russia more, and is now furious with Trump for the same
> reason (though they certainly loath and fear Trump for other reasons,
> including the threat they believe he poses to U.S. imperial management
> through a combination of ineptitude, instability, toxic PR, naked rather
> than prettified savagery, and ideology; Glasser writes: "'Everything I've
> worked for for two decades is being destroyed,' a senior Republican told
> me").
>
>
>
> All of this demonstrates how fundamental a shift has taken place as a result
> of the Democrats' election-related fixation on The Grave Russian Threat. To
> see how severe the shift is, just look at this new polling data from CNN
> this morning that shows Republicans and Democrats doing a complete reversal
> on Russia in the span of eight months:
>
>
> The Democrats' obsession with Russia has not just led them to want
> investigations into allegations of hacking and (thus far evidence-free)
> suspicions of Trump campaign collusion – investigations which everyone
> should want. It's done far more than that: it's turned them into
> increasingly maniacal and militaristic hawks – dangerous ones – when it
> comes to confronting the only nation with a larger nuclear stockpile than
> the U.S., an arsenal accompanied by a sense of fear, if not outright
> encirclement, from NATO expansion.
>
> Put another way, establishment Democrats – with a largely political impetus
> but now as a matter of conviction – have completely abandoned Obama's
> accommodationist approach to Russia and have fully embraced the belligerent,
> hawkish mentality of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, the CIA and
> Evan McMullin. It should thus come as no surprise that a bill proposed by
> supreme warmonger Lindsey Graham to bar Trump from removing sanctions
> against Russia has more Democratic co-sponsors than Republican ones.
>
> This is why it's so notable that Democrats, in the name of "resistance,"
> have aligned with neocons, CIA operatives and former Bush officials: not
> because coalitions should be avoided with the ideologically impure, but
> because it reveals much about the political and policy mindset they've
> adopted in the name of stopping Trump. They're not "resisting" Trump from
> the left or with populist appeals – by, for instance, devoting themselves to
> protection of Wall Street and environmental regulations under attack, or
> supporting the revocation of jobs-killing free trade agreements, or
> demanding that Yemini civilians not be massacred.
>
> Instead, they're attacking him on the grounds of insufficient nationalism,
> militarism, and aggression: equating a desire to avoid confrontation with
> Moscow as a form of treason (just like they did when they were the leading
> Cold Warriors). This is why they're finding such common cause with the
> nation's most bloodthirsty militarists – not because it's an alliance of
> convenience but rather one of shared convictions (indeed, long before Trump,
> neocons were planning a re-alignment with Democrats under a Clinton
> presidency). And the most ironic – and over-looked – aspect of this whole
> volatile spectacle is how much Democrats have to repudiate and demonize one
> of Obama's core foreign policy legacies while pretending that they're not
> doing that.
>
>
>
>
>
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Re: [blind-democracy] Meet the Democratic Senators Who Voted to Confirm Rick Perry as Energy Secretary
When all of the hens know that putting a Fox in charge of the Hen
House will destroy them all, and then just enough Hens vote with all
of the Foxes, allowing them to appoint a Fox to be in charge, there
can only be a couple of reasons why this occurred. Either these Hens
have been so propagandized that they believe that the Foxes really do
have the best interests of the Hens at heart, or several Hens have
sold out to the Foxes, in an effort to protect themselves above the
rest of the Hens.
Anyone who fails to understand that the goal of Rick Perry is to
dismantle the EPA, is either so stupid or so corrupted that they do
not deserve to hold Public Office. And shame on the people who put
them into office.
As if any further proof of Perry's intent is needed, remember, this is
the man who could not even remember the name of the agency which he is
now charged with "directing". Shades of 1984!
Carl Jarvis
Sent on 3/4/17,
Rick Perry. (photo: Reuters)
> Rick Perry. (photo: Reuters)
>
>
>
>
> Meet the Democratic Senators Who Voted to Confirm Rick Perry as Energy
> Secretary
>
> By Jordain Carney, The Hill
>
> 04 March 17
>
>
> The corruption is not limited to the Republican side of the isle. These are
> the Democratic Senators who joined all Republicans present to confirm
> former
> governor Rick Perry as Energy Secretary. Some very "liberal" names here.
> Mark Warner (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tom Udall
> (N.M.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Claire
> McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Ben Cardin (Md.) and Joe Donnelly
> (Ind.).
>
>
>
> The Senate voted Thursday to forward with Rick Perry's nomination to be
> Energy secretary.
>
> Senators voted 62-37 to get his nomination over an initial procedural
> hurdle, setting up a final vote for Perry as early as Friday if senators
> fail to reach a deal to speed up his nomination.
>
> Democratic Sens. Mark Warner (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp
> (N.D.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Debbie Stabenow
> (Mich.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Ben Cardin (Md.) and
> Joe Donnelly (Ind.), and Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), voted with
> all
> present Republicans to back Perry.
>
> GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson (Ga.) was not present.
>
> Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted ahead of the vote that
> Perry would get bipartisan support, adding that once the former Texas
> governor is confirmed, he can "begin leading on smarter policies at the
> Energy Department."
>
> Perry wasn't included on a list of top targets from Democrats.
>
> The Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 17-6 to approve
> Perry's nomination in late January, sending it to the full Senate.
>
> Perry pledged to abolish the Energy Department when he was running for
> president in 2011 - notably forgetting the department's name during a
> debate
> while listing the agencies he wanted to cut.
>
> He was forced to walk back that pledge during is confirmation hearing,
> instead saying he would focus on updating the country's nuclear arsenal and
> research activities.
>
> "I am committed to modernizing our nuclear stockpile, promoting and
> developing American energy in all forms, advancing the department's
> critical
> science and technology mission and carefully disposing of nuclear waste,"
> Perry said during his hearing.
>
> Democrats also raised concerns about Perry's position on climate change.
> The
> former governor says he believes in it, but doesn't know how much influence
> humans have had.
>
> Trump praised Perry last year as a potential 2018 challenger to Sen. Ted
> Cruz (R-Texas). Democrats have publicly fretted about whether Perry would
> be
> able to stand up to or influence the president.
>
> Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said during the confirmation hearing that she
> worried about Perry's ability to influence the White House and Trump's
> inner
> circle of advisers.
>
> "The governor's responses for the record left me wondering whether he would
> stand up to fight the White House's approach to these programs," she
>
>
>
House will destroy them all, and then just enough Hens vote with all
of the Foxes, allowing them to appoint a Fox to be in charge, there
can only be a couple of reasons why this occurred. Either these Hens
have been so propagandized that they believe that the Foxes really do
have the best interests of the Hens at heart, or several Hens have
sold out to the Foxes, in an effort to protect themselves above the
rest of the Hens.
Anyone who fails to understand that the goal of Rick Perry is to
dismantle the EPA, is either so stupid or so corrupted that they do
not deserve to hold Public Office. And shame on the people who put
them into office.
As if any further proof of Perry's intent is needed, remember, this is
the man who could not even remember the name of the agency which he is
now charged with "directing". Shades of 1984!
Carl Jarvis
Sent on 3/4/17,
Rick Perry. (photo: Reuters)
> Rick Perry. (photo: Reuters)
>
>
>
>
> Meet the Democratic Senators Who Voted to Confirm Rick Perry as Energy
> Secretary
>
> By Jordain Carney, The Hill
>
> 04 March 17
>
>
> The corruption is not limited to the Republican side of the isle. These are
> the Democratic Senators who joined all Republicans present to confirm
> former
> governor Rick Perry as Energy Secretary. Some very "liberal" names here.
> Mark Warner (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tom Udall
> (N.M.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Claire
> McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Ben Cardin (Md.) and Joe Donnelly
> (Ind.).
>
>
>
> The Senate voted Thursday to forward with Rick Perry's nomination to be
> Energy secretary.
>
> Senators voted 62-37 to get his nomination over an initial procedural
> hurdle, setting up a final vote for Perry as early as Friday if senators
> fail to reach a deal to speed up his nomination.
>
> Democratic Sens. Mark Warner (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp
> (N.D.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Debbie Stabenow
> (Mich.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Ben Cardin (Md.) and
> Joe Donnelly (Ind.), and Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), voted with
> all
> present Republicans to back Perry.
>
> GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson (Ga.) was not present.
>
> Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted ahead of the vote that
> Perry would get bipartisan support, adding that once the former Texas
> governor is confirmed, he can "begin leading on smarter policies at the
> Energy Department."
>
> Perry wasn't included on a list of top targets from Democrats.
>
> The Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 17-6 to approve
> Perry's nomination in late January, sending it to the full Senate.
>
> Perry pledged to abolish the Energy Department when he was running for
> president in 2011 - notably forgetting the department's name during a
> debate
> while listing the agencies he wanted to cut.
>
> He was forced to walk back that pledge during is confirmation hearing,
> instead saying he would focus on updating the country's nuclear arsenal and
> research activities.
>
> "I am committed to modernizing our nuclear stockpile, promoting and
> developing American energy in all forms, advancing the department's
> critical
> science and technology mission and carefully disposing of nuclear waste,"
> Perry said during his hearing.
>
> Democrats also raised concerns about Perry's position on climate change.
> The
> former governor says he believes in it, but doesn't know how much influence
> humans have had.
>
> Trump praised Perry last year as a potential 2018 challenger to Sen. Ted
> Cruz (R-Texas). Democrats have publicly fretted about whether Perry would
> be
> able to stand up to or influence the president.
>
> Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said during the confirmation hearing that she
> worried about Perry's ability to influence the White House and Trump's
> inner
> circle of advisers.
>
> "The governor's responses for the record left me wondering whether he would
> stand up to fight the White House's approach to these programs," she
>
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)