January 24, 2017


News and Views


ARTICLES FROM THE MAINLY RELIABLE LEFT OF THE LAST WEEK


https://www.laprogressive.com/trumps-first-war/?utm_source=LA+Progressive+Newsletter&utm_campaign=096a2db4d7-LAP+News+-+11+August+16+PC&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9f184a8aad-096a2db4d7-286822829

Where Will Kaiser Trump’s Armies Strike First?
BY TOM HALL/Berry Craig
POSTED ON JANUARY 21, 2017
(FORMERLY) POSTED ON APRIL 10, 2016

Where will we strike first? The Donald has virtually promised that we’ll be at war within his first year in the presidency. But what does that mean? At war with whom?

Not Russia. Although saner heads express concern about Czar Vlad’s invasions of Crimea and Georgia, and about his alliance with the mullahs of Iran, the Donald has made clear that he has had his “Pootie Poot” moment with the Czar, and they will get along nicely.

George Bush was the first president to have a Pootie Poot relationship with Czar Vlad, an d though it pains me to think it, it may turn out that even George W. Bush was more of an international diplomat and negotiator than the Donald. But NO! I am not one of those “do you miss me yet” Cheney/ Bush revisionists.

During the pre-inauguration weeks, we have seen confusion emerge, as Rex Tillerson pretends that he’s going to be stern with Russia, and the intelligence community seems unified around concerns that its reports are not being taken seriously. This contrasts with ex-general Michael Flynn’s new role as errand boy, conveying Czar Vlad’s instructions to the Donald, as delivered to Flynn by Russia’s ambassador.

But there seems the prospect of a clarifying gesture on the horizon. The Donald says that it isn’t really going to be a “summit”. But he has agreed to be summoned to Reykjavik, Iceland, by Czar Vlad, shortly after the inauguration. This meeting can cut out the ambassador and the general, and let Czar Vlad deliver his instructions to the Donald directly, in person.

With this new détente, peace with Russia seems assured, to the disappointment of the Corporate Republican Party warhawks sitting on Capitol Hill. So then where can we have a fight? To figure that out, we need to look at the interests of the Parties involved. As for the U.S., we used to support the Syrian rebels and civilians. We used to support the democracy movements of the Arab Spring.

But the Donald has made clear that he supports the Russia-Iranian effort to crush rebellion in Syria and prop up the Assad dictatorship. And he has condemned freedom-seeking Arabs around the Middle East. He will support Pharaoh Cisi in Egypt and Wahabi rule on the Saudi peninsula. The Corporate Republican Party in Congress will support whatever policy promises the greatest profits for the war profiteers.

Russia isn’t in the same position. As a monarch, Czar Vlad doesn’t have to bow and scrape to every corporate lobbyist who holds a checkbook. As an educated man, who worked in both the Soviet era and the modern era of a smaller, economically weaker Russia, Czar Vlad can want to restore the luster of earlier days, while also trying to plan for, and defend against, traditional problems.

In the recent past, Russia was surrounded by a protective barrier of client states. Outside that barrier, the European community, with the U.S., established a buffer ring of Western-affiliated states. The C.I.A. takeover of Iran in 1953 was as much about establishing an “anti-communist” client on the Soviet southern border as it was about the stated purpose of gaining control of Iranian oil. The partitions of Vietnam and Korea were for the same purpose.

Russia was hemmed in, but also protected. Until Mao’s China grew up and no longer needed its Soviet sponsor-protector, Russia had the relatively weak China buffering it from any threat from the U.S.-dominated Pacific rim. As China began to emerge, Russia backed North Vietnam and other countries surrounding China, trying to build a necklace like the U.S./European necklace around Russia. Part of this was the Soviet Afghanistan misadventure.

Times change. China is now a major power, more influential in much of the world than the increasingly isolationist, bloated, bankrupt, corporate U.S. The Donald’s whining about jobs moving away reflects the reality that corporations are abandoning the increasingly uneducated, unskilled U.S. for more promising markets. Having squeezed what they can from the U.S. population, they are looking to Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East for new profits. As it was once a buffer for Russia, China is now a potential threat.

And now neither a unified Vietnam nor an Islamic Afghanistan wants to be a colony of either Russia or China. China has its own problem client state, right on Russia’s border, North Korea. This provides Czar Vlad a clear path to weaken both China and the U.S., while strengthening his own hand.

A natural course for Czar Vlad is to tell the Donald to undertake a Cheney-esque “preemptive reaction” strike at North Korea.

A natural course for Czar Vlad is to tell the Donald to undertake a Cheney-esque “preemptive reaction” strike at North Korea. North Korea’s childish dictator seems about on par with the Donald for emotional maturity, and the love of bluster, although he also seems to have a greater degree of both international and scientific knowledge.

Economic sanctions are crippling North Korea, and China has been acting ambivalent towards its client. But the U.S. corporate press eagerly embraces every blustering statement by North Korea about its growing military capability. Almost as if they were already in the loop on a plan to strike this “enemy”.

By sending the Donald on an errand to ‘conquer’ this tiny “rogue” nation, Czar Vlad gets multiple advantages. He forces China to deflect its vision from the long Sino-Russia border and confront a question about who will control the Korean peninsula. And he heightens tension between China and the U.S., already stirred up by the Donald’s comments about Formosa.

The U.S.’s noted exceptionalism at nation building, exhibited so clearly in Afghanistan and Iraq, ensures a quagmire, which could reasonably turn even South Korea against the U.S. It would certainly provide the Donald’s administration an excuse for ignoring any Russian adventurism in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. To try to distract the public from the increasing chaos in a post-strike Korea, Czar Vlad could encourage the Donald to escalate conflict in the South China Sea, on the pretext of concern over the new Chinese island installations. This would provide a second front for Chinese concern, further reducing areas of tension along the Sino-Russia frontier.

There are certainly some people in the Donald’s administration, particularly the Sheldon Adelson wing, who would like the Donald’s first war to be against Iran. But neither Czar Vlad nor Rex Tillerson is likely to get on board with that. Tillerson’s focus will remain as the U.S. stated intent was in 1953, on Iran’s oil. And our biggest export corporation, Boeing, isn’t going to support a war that would disrupt its newest, huge contract.

By giving a greenlight to Israel to take over the rest of the Palestinian territory, and populate it with “settler” colonists, while erasing any pretense of opposition to formalized Apartheid rule of a one-state “greater Israel,” the Donald can probably deflate Likud’s expansionist fever dream of a war to conquer Iran.

Eventually, Czar Vlad and the Donald may come into conflict over Iran. But for now, Russia has its own oil resources, and Iran is going to be bogged down trying to administer Iraq, and trying to assert some control over a ‘triumphant’ Bashar Assad. By getting the Donald to look to the Pacific rim, and particularly at some need to ‘punish’ Kim Jong Un for being more narcissistic than the Donald, Czar Vlad gains position over both the U.S. and China.

A war against North Korea would also mirror the corporate Republican’s demigod, Ronald Reagan’s conquest of Granada. There is no real risk to U.S. military personnel, and almost no limit to the expenditures that could be justified for the profiteers and “nation builders”.

Such a war might also give the Donald space for a new gesture of friendship with his Russian ally. The Grenada war generated the Yugest per-man / per-officer outlay of military medals in U.S. military history. Granting himself a few for his heroic leadership against North Korea, the Donald could adopt the old Soviet model of a leader wearing medals on his suit coat. So long as Czar Vlad gives permission.



https://www.laprogressive.com/trump-means-fart/

Guess What ‘trump’ Means in British Slang
BY BERRY CRAIG


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eight-in-10-americans-think-u-s-will-pay-for-u-s-mexican-border-wall/

Eight in 10 Americans think U.S. will pay for the wall on southern border
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus, Kabir Khanna and Anthony Salvanto
CBS NEWS
January 18, 2017, 6:30 PM

Trump on Issues, Campaign Promises
Donald Trump campaigned on keeping jobs in the U.S. and six in ten Americans expect he will keep a significant number of U.S. jobs from moving overseas. Just under half think he will be able to get big money out of politics. About a third think he will build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border (something six in ten Americans oppose), or defeat ISIS.

Overall, just 39 percent expect Mr. Trump will keep most of the promises he made during the presidential campaign, while over half the public thinks he will not keep those promises.

Expectations are that Mr. Trump’s policies will be most advantageous for large corporations, the rich and white Americans, and will be more detrimental to racial minorities and women.

The U.S.-Mexico Border Wall
Fifty-nine percent of Americans oppose building a wall along the Mexico border; 37 percent favor that. Views divide along party lines: 65 percent of Republicans favor building a wall, while 79 percent of Democrats oppose it.

Seventy-nine percent of Americans expect that if a wall is built along the border, the U.S. will ultimately pay for it. Just 14 percent expect Mexico will pay, as Mr. Trump has claimed. Sixty percent of Republicans, and 91 percent of Democrats, think the U.S. will pay for the wall if it is built.

Trump says taxpayers will be reimbursed for Mexican border wall
Play VIDEO
Trump says taxpayers will be reimbursed for Mexican border wall
Conflicts of Interest

Mr. Trump intends to step down from the positions he holds at the Trump Organization and turn over operations to a trust controlled by his adult sons, but does not plan to give up ownership of the organization. Forty-six percent of Americans think these steps are adequate to prevent any conflicts of interest he may have during his presidency, while 50 percent think they are not adequate. There are large differences between Republicans and Democrats.

More generally, Americans are divided as to whether Donald Trump will serve the interests of his family and businesses, or those of the American people, when he becomes president. Partisan differences also run large on this question. Among Republicans, 81 percent say that Mr. Trump will make decisions to further the interests of the American people, compared to only 19 percent of Democrats who believe the same thing.

Mr. Trump has named his son-in-law Jared Kushner as senior adviser to the president. In general, 70 percent of Americans think it is not appropriate for presidents to appoint family members to senior White House positions, while just 26 percent think that is appropriate.

Tax Returns

Mr. Trump has yet to release his income tax returns, something that candidates for president generally do. Most Americans (57 percent) think it is necessary that he do so, but on this question as well, the public is divided along party lines. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans say it’s necessary for him to release his returns, while 80 percent of Democrats say it’s necessary.

The Affordable Care Act

Americans are now split in their views of the Affordable Care Act: 48 percent approve of the law, while about as many, 47 percent, disapprove, including 32 percent who disapprove strongly. Nevertheless, the percentage that approves of the law is the highest it has been since the CBS News Poll began asking about it nearly seven years ago.

Tom Price grilled over Obamacare reform
Play VIDEO
Tom Price grilled over Obamacare reform

Sixty-one percent of Republicans strongly disapprove of the ACA; 44 percent of Democrats strongly approve.

Just 22 percent of the public now think the health care law should be repealed entirely, the lowest that has been since the question was first asked in CBS News Polls in 2013.

Among the 22 percent of Americans who want to see the law repealed, 47 percent want the law to be repealed immediately, while half – 50 percent- think it should be repealed only after Congress has agreed on a new health care law to replace it.

Six in ten Americans are very concerned that if the law is repealed before a replacement is enacted, individuals currently covered by the law would not have health insurance. Another 24 percent are somewhat concerned about that.

Comparing Trump to past presidents

After a contentious election, 56 percent of Americans are optimistic about the next four years with Mr. Trump in the White House, but that’s the lowest level of optimism for any president-elect in CBS News polling going back to Jimmy Carter in 1977, when CBS began asking the question. Thirty-nine percent are pessimistic – a record high.

feelings-about-next-4-years.png

What’s behind these numbers is a starker partisan divide compared to views of previous presidents-elect. Past presidents have received much more optimism across party lines. Republicans are especially optimistic about Mr. Trump in the White House (87 percent), while Democrats are pessimistic (62 percent), but eight years ago majorities across partisan lines were optimistic about President-elect Obama. After George W. Bush’s 2000 election, nearly half of Democrats – 47 percent - were optimistic about George W. Bush taking office, compared to just 32 percent who say that about Trump today.

optimistic-about.png

Americans’ expectations about what kind of president Donald Trump will be are also more negative than expectations for his immediate predecessors. Thirty-six percent of Americans think Donald Trump will be a poor president - far higher than either Barack Obama (4 percent) or George W. Bush (12 percent) just before each became president. Thirty-five percent think Mr. Trump will be a very good or good president, and another 23 percent say he will be average.

Prospects for the kind of president Donald Trump will be also exhibit a partisan divide. Most Republicans expect Trump to be a very good or good president (71 percent), compared to just 9 percent of Democrats (67 percent think he will do a poor job). Looking back, Republicans about Barack Obama eight years ago.

Qualities and Characteristics

Bringing change to Washington was central to Mr. Trump’s candidacy, and a majority of Americans (59 percent) think he will do that. Most also view him as a strong leader (55 percent), but there are areas of concern. More than six in ten Americans are uneasy about how Mr. Trump would handle an international crisis (64 percent) and most think he will divide the country (61 percent) rather than bring people together.

The Vice President-Elect and the Incoming First Lady

As Mike Pence prepares to become Vice President, more Americans view him favorably (29 percent) than unfavorably (21 percent), but like many incoming VPs before him, many are undecided or don’t know enough about him to have an opinion.

Incoming First Lady Melania Trump plans to spend part of Donald Trump’s first year in office in New York while their son finishes school. Americans are split in their overall views of Mrs. Trump; more than half are undecided or don’t know enough about her to have an opinion. Previous incoming First Ladies were viewed more positively.

Congress and the President-Elect

After Donald Trump is sworn in as president, the Republican Party will control both the White House and Congress, leaving the Democratic Party in the minority. Eight in 10 Americans want Democrats in Congress to try and work with Mr. Trump and Congressional Republicans to get things done.

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans didn’t always see eye-to-eye. Looking ahead, Americans think Republicans in Congress will have more influence than Donald Trump over what gets done in Washington.

who-will-have-more-influence.png

Overall, the public continues to give Congress overwhelmingly negative ratings, but 24 percent now approve of the job Congress is doing, up from 15 percent before the election and the highest it has been since September 2013.

This poll was conducted by telephone January 13-17, 2017 among a random sample of 1,257 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones.

The poll employed a random digit dial methodology. For the landline sample, a respondent was randomly selected from all adults in the household. For the cell sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone.

Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish using live interviewers. The data have been weighted to reflect U.S. Census figures on demographic variables.

The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups may be higher and is available by request. The margin of error includes the effects of standard weighting procedures which enlarge sampling error slightly.

This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

CBS News poll toplines - Donald Trump by cbsnews on Scribd



http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311405-poll-majority-of-dems-and-independents-want-someone-entirely-new-to-be-2020

Poll: Majority of Dems want 'someone entirely new' to run in 2020
BY PAULINA FIROZI - 12/21/16 03:45 PM EST


A majority of Democratic and independent voters want an entirely new name to compete for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nominee, according to a new poll.

A USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday found 66 percent of Democrats and independents chose “someone entirely new” from a list of possible contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2020. Of those surveyed, just 9 percent said that an unknown individual should not run.

Vice President Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) were the next-most popular choices. Forty-four percent of Democrats and independents said they would want Biden to run. Thirty-one percent said they would not want him to run.

The poll found 44 percent also said they would be excited to have Sanders take another shot at the Democratic nomination, while 38 percent would not want him to run.

The poll found 34 percent of voters want Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run for the nomination, with 27 percent saying she shouldn’t run.

If they ran for president, Biden would be 78 years old when sworn into office, Sanders would be 79 and Warren would be 71.

Trump, who will be the oldest president when he takes office, is 70.

The poll also included Hillary Clinton on the list of possible choices for 2020. The poll found 22 percent would be excited to have Clinton return to challenge Donald Trump, but nearly 62 said she shouldn’t bother running.

The national poll by USA Today and Suffolk University surveyed 626 registered voters who identify as Democrats or independents from Dec. 14 to 18. The margin of error is 3.9 percentage points.





http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/314842-sanders-slams-pruitts-call-for-more-debate-on-climate-science

Sanders slams Pruitt’s call for ‘more debate’ on climate science
BY TIMOTHY CAMA - 01/18/17 12:59 PM EST


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) castigated President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for calling for “more debate” about human influence on climate change.

Sanders, who ran unsuccessfully for president last year in part on an aggressive climate platform, repeatedly pushed Scott Pruitt to acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases.

“Ninety-seven percent of the scientists who wrote articles in peer-reviewed journals believe that human activity is the fundamental reason we are seeing climate change. Do you disagree with that?” Sanders asked Wednesday at Pruitt’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Pruitt consistently responded by saying he believes the climate is changing and humans are contributing.

But as to the degree to which they’ve contributed, Pruitt said it’s up for debate.

Sanders kept pushing, saying there is no scientific debate and eventually asking Pruitt for his personal opinion on the matter.

“My personal opinion is immaterial to the job I’m carrying out,” said Pruitt, the current attorney general of Oklahoma.

Pruitt went on to say that the EPA administrator “has a very important role regulating the emissions of CO2,” but added that laws put constraints on that authority.

Sanders was displeased.

“You are going to be the head of the agency to protect the environment, and your personal feelings about whether climate change is caused by human activity and carbon emissions is immaterial?” he asked.

Trump has pledged to roll back all of President Obama’s climate change agenda, including the Clean Power Plan and limits on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling, all of which Pruitt opposes as well.

Sanders also briefly pressed Pruitt on why he didn’t do more, or at least say more, regarding the sharp increase in earthquakes in Oklahoma caused by the oil and natural gas drilling industry.

Pruitt said only that he was “concerned” about the quakes, and Oklahoma’s Corporation Commission is the primary body regulating that, not his office.

“If that’s the kind of EPA administrator you will be,” Sanders said, “you’re not going to get my vote.”




THE ONLY MSN STORY ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT THAT I FOUND IS BY CNN, BUT 8 OR 10 “CONSERVATIVE” SITES JUMPED ON IT!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/bernie-sanders-no-not-compassionate-country

Bernie Sanders Lectures HHS Nominee on USA: ‘No, We're Not a Compassionate Society!’
By Susan Jones | January 18, 2017 | 12:28 PM EST


(CNSNews.com) - “Congressman Price, the United States of America is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday.

Price, the orthopedic surgeon nominated to serve as Health and Human Services secretary, was granted a "courtesy hearing" by the panel to discuss the health aspects of the position to which he's been named. The Senate Finance Committee will hold Price's official confirmation hearing next week.

“Do you believe health care is a right of all Americans, whether they’re rich or they’re poor?” Sanders asked him. “Should people, because they are Americans, be able to go to the doctor when they need to, be able to go into a hospital -- because they are Americans?”


“Yes, we’re a compassionate society--” Price started to say.

“No, we’re not a compassionate society!” Sanders snapped. “In terms of our relationship to poor and working people, our record is worse than virtually any other country on earth. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any other major country on earth. And half of our senior, older workers have nothing set aside for retirement.

“So I don’t think, compared to other countries, we are particularly compassionate.”

Sanders then repeated his question about whether the U.S. should “move in the direction” of making health care a right for all Americans.

Price noted there are consequences to the health care decisions that other countries make, just as there are consequences to the decisions that the U.S. makes. “I look forward to working with you to make sure that every single American has access to the highest quality care and coverage that is possible,” Price added.

“’Access’ doesn’t guarantee health care,” Sanders said.

Price said he believes it’s “appropriate to put in place a system that gives every person the financial feasibility to be able to purchase the coverage that they want for themselves and for their family – again, not what the government forces them to buy.”

Later in the hearing, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a fellow physician, took issue with Sanders’ comments, without mentioning the senator by name.

“It’s also been insinuated that America is this horrible, rotten place, you know, that we don’t have compassion, and I guess by extension, the physicians don’t.

“But as you worked as an emergency room physician or as you worked as a physician, did you always agree -- as part of your engagement with the hospital --to treat all comers, regardless of whether they had an ability to pay?” Paul asked Price.

“That’s one of the things we pride ourselves upon,” Price responded, “and that is that anybody that showed up in need of care was provided that care, and that was true not only in our residency but in our private orthopedic practice as well.”

Paul said it's “interesting that those who say we have no compassion extol the virtues of socialism. And you look at country like Venezuela, with great resources, and it’s an utter disaster where people can’t eat, devolving into violence. “And you know, I think it is important that we have a debate in our country between socialism and communism and America and capitalism."

Paul also noted that in 2014, “We (Americans) gave away $400 billion privately -- not the government -- individually, through churches and to charities. We’re an incredibly compassionate society.”

Paul also said that compassion extends to other countries, as many physicians go on international trips to do charity work.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/if-trump-isnt-putins-puppet-why-does-he-act-he?cid=eml_mra_20170116

The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog
01/16/17 11:20 AM—UPDATED 01/16/17 01:54 PM
By Steve Benen


Writing in Slate the other day, William Saletan expressed skepticism about some of the more provocative questions about Donald Trump and his relationship with Moscow. Saletan doesn’t believe the Republican “colluded” with Russia, for example, and is unmoved by the unverified dossier released last week.
.
But this incredulity left Saletan with a dilemma: if we reject the worst of the possible explanations for Trump’s behavior, what are we left with?

How do we explain the overtly pro-Russian behavior of Trump and his surrogates? If they’re not Russian puppets, why do they work so hard to defend Putin and Russia against American investigators and reporters? Why do they divert blame to other countries and victims of the hack? Why, instead of targeting the Russian intelligence agencies that infiltrated us, do they attack the American intelligence agencies that exposed the Russians?

Slate published this on Friday, and the questions have only grown more serious since.

Yesterday, for example, Trump sat down with two European newspapers for an interview in which he dismissed NATO as “obsolete”; criticized German Chancellor Angela Merkel for assisting Syrian refugees (whom Trump referred to as “illegals”); said the United States “should be ready to trust” Russian President Vladimir Putin; and endorsed the further unraveling of the European Union.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but if the Kremlin had literally written a script and handed it to Trump to read during the interview, it would’ve sounded exactly like this.

For eight years, Republicans have accused President Obama of encouraging U.S. enemies and discouraging U.S. allies. America’s longtime friends, GOP politicians have said, are no longer sure they can count on support from the United States as a result of Obama’s foreign policy. The bizarre argument has always been wrong, but ironically, it’s poised to become true in the Republican administration that takes power on Friday.

For Team Trump, any suggestion that the president-elect is being blackmailed by Russia, that Putin has damaging dirt on Trump, or that Trump feels the need to pay Russia back for helping him win the presidency is outlandish and offensive. But what Trump’s aides and allies haven’t been able to explain is why in the world the incoming U.S. president keeps going out of his way to do precisely what Putin wants him to do.

No puppet, no puppet.



https://www.laprogressive.com/trump-tantrum/?utm_source=LA+Progressive+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fcd9615204-LAP+News+-+11+August+16+PC&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9f184a8aad-fcd9615204-286822829

4 Takeaways from Trump’s Latest Tweet Tantrum
BY ROBERT REICH
POSTED ON JANUARY 18, 2017

This morning Donald Trump bashed NBC, tweeting: “Totally biased NBCNews went out of its way to say that the big announcement from Ford, G.M., Lockheed & others that jobs are coming back to the U.S., but had nothing to do with TRUMP, is more FAKE NEWS. Ask top CEO’s of those companies for real facts. Came back because of me!”

Here are four takeaways from Trump’s latest tantrum:

1. As usual, Trump has his facts wrong. Analysts say Ford’s decision to expand in Michigan rather than in Mexico had mostly to do with the company’s long-term plans to invest in electric vehicles. It’s easier for companies to find highly skilled workers to build new products, such as electric cars, in the United States than in Mexico.

All Trump can think of about is “TRUMP,” which he capitalizes, then insists that the jobs “Came back because of me!” This is the rant of a child wanting attention and praise, not someone who will shortly be President of the United States.

GM said its plan was approved before the election, but it was “accelerated” under pressure from Trump. Relatedly, Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat Chrysler chief executive, said Chrysler’s plan to build some cars in the U.S. had been in the works for more than a year and had nothing to do with Trump. Marchionne credited the decision to talks with the United Auto Workers.

[DUPLICATION] 2. Once again, the tweet reveals Trump’s pathological narcissism. All Trump can think of about is “TRUMP,” which he capitalizes, then insists that the jobs “Came back because of me!” This is the rant of a child wanting attention and praise, not someone who will shortly be President of the United States.

3. It’s also dangerous. Although Trump’s outrage at NBC – like his condemnation of other specific media outlets that don’t report what he wants – is harmless now, it could threaten press freedom when Trump has power over regulators at the FCC and antitrust division who could make life difficult for targeted media outlets.

4. It’s intended to divert attention from the big stuff. Trump’s specific deals with particular companies diverts attention from his larger initiatives that will hurt working Americans.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act, for example, will leave at least 18 million Americans without health insurance next year.

Trump’s cabinet picks are overwhelmingly anti-worker. Andrew Puzder, Trump’s nominee for the Labor Department, wants to get rid of Obama’s overtime rule, which, if implemented, is expected to add $12 billion to workers’ wallets over the next decade. And Puzder is against the minimum wage.

And the huge corporate tax cuts and military buildup Trump is pushing will give congressional Republicans a rationale to cut Medicare and Social Security, in order to avoid bigger budget deficits.

A few jobs “saved” is nothing compared to these and other hardships Trump will be imposing on working Americans.

All told, Trump’s tweet tantrum reveals a great deal about the man who’s soon to be president of the United States. None of it inspires confidence.

Photograph -- Robert Reich
Republished from Robert Reich’s Blog with permission.
POSTED ON JANUARY 18, 2017



https://www.laprogressive.com/obama-farewell/?utm_source=LA+Progressive+Newsletter&utm_campaign=504a8dc8c8-LAP+News+-+11+August+16+PC&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9f184a8aad-504a8dc8c8-286822829

Is Obama’s Confidence in America Misplaced?
BY RANDY SHAW, BeyondChron
POSTED ON JANUARY 12, 2017

Was Obama Soothing His Base Rather Than Firing it Up?

Listening to President Obama’s Farewell Address, I wished I could forget that his long list of accomplishments had been routinely denounced by his successor, Donald Trump. America had a chance to bring about what many saw as a projected Obama third term in the form of Hillary Clinton, and rejected it.

Barack Obama is as savvy as they come. He knows that voter suppression, racial discrimination, and anti-immigrant attitudes are central to United States history. He also knows that the backlash to his election as the first African-American president built a powerful white nationalist electoral force willing to sacrifice its own government benefits to stop the nation’s trend toward greater racial, religious and sexual tolerance.

Americans failure to vote in 2010 and 2014. built Republican power. So why does Obama think that these Americans will go to the polls to vote out Republicans in 2018?

Americans failure to vote in 2010 and 2014. built Republican power. So why does Obama think that these Americans will go to the polls to vote out Republicans in 2018?

I wish Obama had been more direct. I understand that he did not want to leave the popular vote majority who voted for Hillary Clinton in despair. Obama always seeks to inspire hope, not fear.

Yet his references to the need to protect democracy and promote racial and religious tolerance were too oblique for the current moment. Obama was soothing his base, rather than firing it up.

Discounting Trump

Barack Obama fervently believes in the American system. He loves referencing the Founding Fathers and would never claim the system is “rigged.”

But I felt during his Farewell Address as I did during various stages of his presidency, that his lack of partisan combativeness helped Republicans out to destroy him. His confidence in the fundamental goodness of the American political process was misplaced.

November 2016 was not just another election. The winning candidate pledged to remove twenty million Americans from health coverage, deport ten million immigrants, “lock up” his presidential rival (a pledge since withdrawn), and got technical campaign support from Russia. That it is not a normal election.

Yet Barack Obama was saying, as Al Gore did when the presidency was stolen from him in 2000, that while we may not like the 2016 election result the system works. Instead of firing up his base to support the agenda of the candidate who won the popular vote, he suggested small steps to supporters. If they get engaged in the process, all will be well. If they talk to those with different views rather than stay in their own social media box, constructive dialogue will ensue. He urged people to run for office and become organizers, two paths which worked well for him. Obama also reminded us what he has been saying since his 2008 campaign: that change is not made by politicians, but by people themselves.

This is who Barack Obama is, and has always been. He is the greatest President of my lifetime and a remarkable human being.

But when we look back at the high hopes of 2008, many of us will not share the President’s speech ending affirmation that “Yes We Can” became “Yes We Did.”

Obama used “Yes We Did” to refer to his outstanding record of accomplishments. But the combination of his 2008 campaign for change and Democrats winning House and Senate control in the 2008 election left many seeking more than specific accomplishments from a two-term president.

Many saw Obama’s victory as broadly transformative. As the modern version of the New Deal coalition that transformed America from 1933-1952.

But that did not happen. The 2010 midterm elections proved calamitous for Democrats in both federal and state races. Those blaming Hillary Clinton personally for Trump’s victory should recall that Democrats did poorly in every national election of the Obama presidency—-Obama’s own 2012 re-election was the exception.

Many of us thought the 2008 wave was about ideas and shifting demographics, not simply Obama’s extraordinary personal magnetism.

Obama’s base is fired up and ready to resist Trump’s agenda. And while Obama was not firing up the troops this week, I expect citizen Barack Obama to be part of that resistance in the years ahead.

Randy Shaw



https://www.laprogressive.com/killing-social-security/

Social Security, Gaslighting, and Idiocracy
BY JOSEPH PALERMO
POSTED ON JANUARY 4, 2017

The billionaires and millionaires who white “working-class” people (we’re told) voted overwhelmingly to put in charge of Washington have already signaled they intend to use the power of the federal government to wage class warfare against their constituents. The Republican assault on the social safety net will go far beyond repealing the Affordable Care Act and is already taking aim at Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Representative Tom Price, the Georgia Republican who Trump nominated to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, has a long history in Congress trying to roll back these vital social insurance programs. In a recent speech, Price voiced his displeasure with the “small number of automatic spending programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are not subject to annual appropriations.” He wants to turn these insurance programs that are funded by payroll taxes with workers and employers both contributing, into “welfare” programs that his department and the Republican Congress can systematically dismantle.

On the campaign trail, Trump assured voters he would defend Social Security knowing that calls for gutting it are extremely unpopular even in Trumpland. Millions of struggling working-class Americans depend on Social Security for a lifeline. And since more children are living with their grandparents privatizing it will be like stealing from the elderly, disabled, orphans and children all at the same time.

Trump’s promises contradict the draconian budgets that Price, who chaired the Budget Committee, and House Speaker Paul Ryan have put forward in recent years. There might be an area of disagreement between Trump, Price, and Ryan on Social Security. But as with everything else, we can’t trust a word that comes out of any of their mouths

The harmony among Trump and the 115th Congress comes in their quest to de-regulate every corporate special interest they can get away with including banks and credit card companies, food and drug companies, oil and gas companies, Internet Service Providers, and so on and on, leaving workers and consumers to fend for themselves.

In an era when we’ve seen predatory behavior from corporations like Mylan (with its Epipen price gouging) and Wells Fargo (with its fraudulent accounts ripping off unwitting customers), and numerous other examples (including the massive Wall Street fraud that produced the meltdown of 2008), the Republicans’ ideological commitment to vague notions of “deregulation” as a panacea for our economic woes is as stubborn as ever.

When the economy is in a downturn the Republicans say “times are bad we must cut taxes and deregulate”; when the economy is growing and unemployment is relatively low, they say “times are good we must cut taxes and deregulate.” It’s pure ideology.

The last time around when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency (2003-2007) they cut taxes while launching wars that cost a trillion dollars, doubled the national debt, gave away $400 billion to their big donors among pharmaceutical companies, and presided over the worst financial crisis and recession since the Great Depression. The longest serving Republican House Speaker in U.S. history (Dennis Hastert) was later convicted for illegal pay-outs to hide his pedophilia, and Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his friend Jack Abramoff redefined the meaning of “influence peddling” on K Street.

Today, the 115th Congress is gearing up to enact the same misguided policies that failed the country so miserably under George W. Bush — but this time on steroids. Overreach is baked into their ideology. They simply cannot contain their greed.

And the Republicans’ blind hatred of everything Obama and their zeal to undo everything he accomplished over the past eight years might lead them to discover at some point that the first black president they loathed so much put in place some smart policies that lowered the costs of health care, stabilized the federal budget, and kept us out wars.

In 2016, the Republicans brought us a new reality. “Gaslighting” became institutionalized. Instead of having a public debate about the ideas of the candidates and realistically parsing their policy proposals we got bizarre denials of fact and Big Lies that boomeranged back into the discourse in ways that challenged reality itself. One thing we’ve learned from the Trump juggernaut is that lying works, and lying bigly works even better.

As with the run-up to the Iraq War in 2002 the corporate news media in 2016, cable news shows, the networks, and even major news outlets, proved totally unequipped to deal with the new order of things or defend the norms of democratic governance. The editor of the Wall Street Journal has even given up trying to fact check Trump’s liars and gaslighters giving them an open platform for their propaganda; no Edward R. Murrows there.

When Beltway reporters allow powerful people to come on their shows and lie to them with impunity, and then leave it to their viewers to sort out fact from fiction, we see how low American political “journalism” has sunk. Those in power labor tirelessly to deconstruct our political reality and corporate news media have been their greatest enablers. The same business model that motivated those Macedonian teens who flooded pro-Trump sites with false stories for click bait and eyeballs also animates Jeff Zucker at CNN, Leslie Moonves at CBS, and Rupert Murdoch at Fox.

There is one area that might allow for a little pushback against the lies and gaslighting and that’s the courts, law schools, and the legal system generally. Despite the inherent injustices between rich and poor in the justice system it still largely exists in the fact-based world. Lawyers can twist and misinterpret the law and the meaning of words but it’s much harder to gaslight or to outright lie. In fact, there’s even a crime called perjury to dissuade people from lying in court.

A court even forced Trump to pay out $25 million to settle the fraud case involving his bogus for-profit eponymous “University.” Trump’s lawyers didn’t try to gaslight their way out of his fraud case – they chose to settle. And Trump’s usual tactic of smearing people who challenge him as he did with Judge Gonzalo Curiel failed to make the case disappear.

For now, the legal system still functions in the world of facts largely because a lot of rich and powerful people and corporations need it to function that way. How else could Disney or ExxonMobil or Apple or JPMorgan Chase protect their bottom lines, their property and patent rights, their contracts and business dealings if the courts partook in the same kind of crazy-making and gaslighting PR departments and Trump surrogates engage in every day?

With the potential conflicts of interest that are already piling up on the Trump White House there might be opportunities for the courts and the legal system generally to re-infuse facts and “reality” back into the wider political discourse. The challenge of the coming period will be to try to hold Trump and his minions accountable to the same fact-based legal standards that forced him to settle the Trump University fraud case. A key battle shaping up will be over the federal courts and whether they too can be dragged into the new Idiocracy.



USE:

RT VS FACEBOOK

https://ozeetv.net/rt-vs-facebook-rt-banned-posting-media-facebook/

RT VS Facebook: RT banned from posting media on Facebook
World News 22 Views
Coincidence? RT banned from posting media on Facebook – just day before Trump inauguration

RT has been blocked from posting content to its Facebook page. The ban, according to the Facebook bot, will last until Saturday 10:55pm Moscow time (2:55pm EST) and will extend across US president-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.


http://gizmodo.com/rt-gets-banned-from-facebook-until-after-trumps-inaugur-1791369379

RT Gets Banned From Facebook Until After Trump's Inauguration [Update: Facebook Lifted The Ban]
Matt Novak
Today 8:10am

Photograph -- Image: Getty / Kevin Dietsch-Pool


In a surprise move, RT (formerly known as Russia Today) has been banned from posting articles, photos, and videos to Facebook. The ban was instituted yesterday after RT allegedly ran a pirated stream of Obama’s last press conference. The ban is scheduled to be lifted at 2:35pm ET on Saturday, the day after Trump’s inauguration.

[Update, 2:38 pm: Facebook just lifted the ban, which lasted about 20 hours, but the company still hasn’t gotten back to us about why RT was specifically banned in the first place. The State Department has also not responded to a request for comment.]

[Update, 2:52pm: Facebook just sent us this statement confirming that the ban had been lifted: “All the features for this page owner have now been restored. We are looking into the reasons behind the temporary block.”]

While RT has been banned from posting articles, the news outlet is still able to post text directly to Facebook. The Kremlin-funded media outlet was an early and vocal supporter of president-elect Donald Trump, leading some people to find the timing of the ban suspicious.

“I’m not surprised. If the Department of State could block oxygen to us, they would do it”, RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan was quoted saying overnight.

“We were blocked while livestreaming Obama’s final press-conference. Such things happen because (for ex.) some other news media livestreams carry the same shots and feed, and Facebook considers this a copyright violation,” RT said in a statement on Facebook.

RT seems to believe that there was direct US government involvement in the ban and plans to fight it. The Russian news outlet claims that they were running an Associated Press stream of the press conference. The organization that supposedly sent the copyright notice, Current Time TV, reportedly told RT that they did no such thing.

Current Time TV sent RT a statement stating that, “the channel has not sent any complaints regarding RT or any other organizations in connection with the live feed.”

This is the first time that Facebook has blocked RT’s content from appearing on the service, and no other news outlet in recent memory has been punished on the platform in a manner like this.

RT’s connection to the Russian government (the network was formerly known as Russia Today and is still financed by the Kremlin) has made it a lightning rod in the debate over disinformation campaigns and Donald Trump’s election. The American and British intelligence communities have repeatedly alleged that news outlets like RT helped get Trump elected by spreading biased information.

Skeptics have noted that RT has an incredibly small audience in the United States, and even if it was blatantly cheerleading for Trump (which it was) any impact on the final election results would have been minimal. But that hasn’t stopped the intelligence community from more or less declaring war on news outlets like RT as Trump continues to dispute the allegations.

A few hours after the Facebook ban, RT claimed that some users had complained about not being able to see news from the organization on other social media platforms. RT has accounts on Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter. All appear to be currently up and running.

“There are some reports of people having trouble reaching RT on social platforms. We would like to hear, whether any of you experience such (except for lack of news on Facebook),” RT said, without getting specific. The comments on the Facebook post suggest that RT is still available across all other platforms everywhere from Thailand to Australia to California.

Notably, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has advocated for the creation of a new US propaganda agency modeled after the USIA, America’s propaganda arm during the first Cold War. But it seems unlikely that a Trump administration would use such a news outlet to fight against Russia. Quite to the contrary, a new law that was initiated before the election will give the new president unprecedented power over the Broadcasting Board of Governors, America’s current USIA-lite version of RT.

We’ve reached out to the State Department, RT, and Facebook for comment and will update this post when we hear back.



https://www.bbg.gov/

Broadcasting
Board of Governors

WHO WE ARE
Mission

Share
The mission of the Broadcasting Board of Governors is to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.

The Agency’s mission is reinforced by those of the individual broadcasters that are overseen by the BBG.

Voice of America Charter

President Gerald Ford signed the VOA Charter (Public Law 94-350) into law in 1976. It protects the independence and integrity of VOA programming.

The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts:

VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.

VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.

VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

RFE/RL’s mission is to promote democratic values and institutions by reporting the news in countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established. Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate.

Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Martí)
The Office of Cuba Broadcasting’s mission is to promote freedom and democracy by providing the people of Cuba with objective news and information programming.

Radio Free Asia

Radio Free Asia’s mission is to provide accurate and timely news and information to Asian countries whose governments prohibit access to a free press.

Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa)

The mission of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks is to provide objective, accurate, and relevant news and information to the people of the Middle East about the region, the world, and the United States. MBN supports democratic values by expanding the spectrum of ideas, opinions, and perspectives available in the region’s media.