Yes, Dotard tRump And Vladimir Putin Colluded !

The iconic New York Times writer William Safire referred to [Bill Barr] not as "Attorney General" but, instead, as "Coverup-General", noting that in another scandal—having to do with Bush selling weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein—Barr was already trying to cover up for both Bush, himself, and his friends ~ Quote excerpted from Thom Hartmann's 1/17/2019 article "William Barr's shady track record of covering up the crimes of a Republican president".

The following is an excerpt from the Monday (3/25/2019) airing of The Stephanie Miller Show in which host Stephanie Miller and Malcolm Nance (via phone) discuss the summary of Special Council Robert Mueller's report on the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections provided by AG William Barr.

Stephanie Miller: ...so you tweeted this morning, "maybe I was wrong when I said "There is no way Barr will commit he greatest scandal in history to cover-up the greatest scandal in history". It looks like it just happened". Ah, nothing to see here, just a regular day in Washington. It is hard to get your head around him injecting himself like this. With his ridiculous 4 page book report.

Malcolm Nance: Now that I realize that he was the Attorney General during the Iran-Contra scandal, and he apparently did the exact same thing for Ronald Reagan... Now it doesn't surprise me anymore. But the thing that surprised me the most... is the question of conspiracy or collusion. I've said this about 20 times since yesterday -- I've seen this with my own eyes.

d0nald tRump stood on a stage and said "Russia, if you're listening, please release Hillary Clinton's emails". He called on a foreign power to work with [his campaign]. His son had a meeting where he agreed saying "I love it", and sat down with agents of the Russian government. That happened. Then the White House, one year later, formulated a cover-up letter, saying that this did not happen [the meeting was about Russian adoptions, not collusion]. There were over 100 contacts with 19 of his staff with Russian agents.

Someone who was on a radio program that I appeared on earlier this morning said, "...I think that the Mueller report will show that they didn't meet the complete perfect legal definition of conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not even a reasonable doubt. But I believe they were collusion-curious". Well, they were more than collusion-curious.

The only thing that was missing was where this investigation stopped. ...Roger Stone's [indictment] was the last one and the next one would logically be WikiLeaks and Julian Assange -- the bridge to the Trump team. This investigation abruptly ended. So, I'm starting to believe that Bill Barr was brought in to put the knife into the investigation.

Stephanie Miller: Thank you! How do we know Bill Barr didn't stop this?

Malcolm Nance: [the end of the investigation could have come about if] ...Robert Mueller said, "we won't be able to get these guys beyond a reasonable doubt". In the US intelligence community, you are taken away, polygraphed, and you are brought up to consider if you should have criminal charges filed against you by the FBI -- if you even cross one of the lines that these people crossed by the hundreds. So, explain to me, what was the legal standard for conspiracy. Because all the conspiracy I've seen with my own eyes - anybody else in the US government would be considered an agent of a foreign power at that point.

Stephanie Miller: Well, you tweeted, "this is absolutely impossible. Technically they ignored every contact between the campaign [and Russia] and couched conspiracy as only tacit or expressed agreement. In other words, no oral or signed FSB contract, no crime". That's a ridiculous standard.

Malcolm Nance: It's an impossible standard. Look, and I tweeted a little later, "here's trump's signed contract" -- and I put up the BuzzFeed photograph of the signed letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow. That is your contract. Trump, from 2012 on, talked about Trump Tower Moscow with his Russian contact. Especially at Miss Universe. From 1987 on he has been trying to build Trump Tower [Moscow]. This is the only thing that explains his slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin.

...I've seen all the evidence over the last two years. Both from the Russia side -- and I'm glad this report validates everything I've ever said about the Russian intelligence operation. That the United States was not openingly attacked. But you cannot tell me, that if this was the government of Iran and the Obama administration, and there were 100 secret meetings with them -- trying to get them nuclear power plants [as Trump did re Saudi Arabia], that we would not be having treason trials right now. So, I'm sorry, that standard is going to have to apply to each side.

Stephanie Miller: Um, Malcolm, ...Joy Reid said to you yesterday, "sounds like the seeds of a cover-up" and you said, "Bill Barr is one guy. There are secretaries that have to handle these documents, the secretaries and FBI agents who did the work themselves". I sure hope there is some patriot out there [will leak the report if Barr suppresses it].

Malcolm Nance: This morning Donald Trump made it clear that he is now going to use the Justice Department and the Senate to start investigating everyone. ...they're talking about going after Hillary Clinton. Everyone who was in the FBI - Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, all the judges on the FISA court, and President Barack Obama. John Brennan. They're talking about literally attacking anyone who looked into Trump. This is the mafia tactic that they're going to use. They have now weaponized this. He is planning not to just get away with it, but to go to war with everyone who is opposed to him. The Democrats.

*skip*

Stephanie Miller: OK... I want to get your take on something [from last week] [reading] ...Adam Schiff maintained that the counterintelligence investigation was far more urgent to national security concerns than the investigation into Trump's potential criminality. What Americans should be concerned about is whether the president's Russia policy is not dictated by our national interests, but is dictated by his desire to make 100s of millions of dollars in Moscow. He also noted the limits of indictments in revealing whether someone is compromised by a foreign power. In fact, most counterintelligence probes don't end with indictments because criminality is difficult to prove, and the information involved is often too sensitive to make public".

..."Schiff is concerned that the question of foreign influence on Trump through his finances may not have been fully explored by Mueller, if at all. From what we can see, publically or otherwise, it is very much an open question. ...he added, "the red line Trump drew at Mueller investigating his personal finances is not a line that can be observed and still protect the country".

Malcolm Nance: They've got to go through his finances. You don't know whether there actually has been a payoff. We don't know whether the Trump Tower meeting involved some exchange of cash. We do know that he did offer a bribe to Vladimir Putin of a 50 million dollar penthouse. ...Sara Sanders right now is saying that Robert Mueller has fully exonerated him. No he hasn't at all.

Stephanie Miller: ...[reading a tweet] because so many Americans have so many questions and we are entitled to answers - why did Paul manafort share highly confidential polling data with Russian intelligence? ...which states and Americans were targeted with that data...?

Malcolm Nance: What I want to know is why all these people in jail or will be going to jail - like Mike Flynn, lying about his Russian contacts? Papadopoulos, lying about his Russian contacts. Maria Butina is going to prison if she isn't exchanged in a spy swap. ...this is impossible [that there was not collusion]. I want to see all the FBI 302s, I want to see the intercepts. You're telling me that the Trump campaign contacts were all just coincidence? ...you know what I say about coincidence -- it takes a lot of planning.

Watergate Figure John Dean Suspects Barr May Be Hiding Something "Fairly Ugly" https://t.co/hyxaj0dFIH

— The_News_DIVA🎀 (@The_News_DIVA) March 25, 2019

 swtd-413 

Al Franken Latest Man Held Accountable In "This Year's Pervert Purge"

If baking a cake for a homosexual is an endorsement of homosexuality, then voting for a pedophile is an endorsement of pedophilia ~ Chris LaVoie (formerly of The Stephanie Miller Show) via Twitter, 12/5/2017.

The "pervert purge" is a line from an article by Tina Dupuy, "I Believe Franken's Accusers Because He Groped Me, Too".

It happened at a Media Matters party during the first Obama inauguration. ... Then I saw Al Franken... I asked to get a picture with him. We posed for the shot. He immediately put his hand on my waist, grabbing a handful of flesh. I froze. Then he squeezed. At least twice. I'd been married for two years at the time; I don't let my husband touch me like that in public because I believe it diminishes me as a professional woman. Al Franken's familiarity was inappropriate and unwanted... he knew exactly what he was doing. (Excerpt from a 12/6/2017 Atlantic article).

As per the article subtitle "the Democratic Party needs to stand with women who have been harassed - and not defend the politicians who abused them". The "pervert purge" re politicians is DEMOCRATS ONLY. As Franken, who resigned today said, "I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving, while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party".

Franken refers to the sexual predators Donald Trump and Roy Moore. Their Party warmly embraces them. Or initially decries their perverts, then walk back that sentiment and say it's "for the voters to decide". The trumpanzee Roy-Moore-defending blogger FreeThinke sez "I believe we are entering an age of neo-puritanism".

Now, for as long as I can remember, we've been in the midst of something called the "culture war". This is an argument put forward by Conservatives that says the sexual permissiveness and acceptance of sexual deviance by the Left has caused a decades long moral decay that will eventually destroy the family and thus civilization as we know it. "Secular-Progressives" are the enemy, as per the disgraced and fired sexual predator Bill O'Reilly 2006 treatise culture warrior.

So Democrats are, apparently (according to FreeThinke) both the Party of Secular Progressivism, as well as the Party of "puritanism", which is an "extreme strictness in moral or religious matters, often to excess". Secular Progressives being hostile to Christianity and traditional American values. I don't know about you, but these two ideologies seem to be diametrically opposed. How can one be a "neo-puritan" and a "secular progressive"?

Mr Thinke, I'd like to note, is a big believer in a paranoid and racist conspiracy theory known as Cultural Marxism that says the "decay" of Western Civilization (rock'n'roll, the Sixties counterculture, the civil rights movement, Affirmative Action, the anti-war movement, homosexuality and modern feminists aka feminazis) can be blamed on Jews, Communists and their useful idiots.

This Thinke guy is clearly a moron. At least his argument (that "far Left" is responsible for a Neo-Puritanical movement, while, at the same time, their Cultural Marxist agenda demands they destroy all that traditionalists like FT hold dear) is moronic. What FT holds dear being (apparently) that older men dating young teens be perfectly acceptable. That he acknowledges happened (I think). That Roy Moore groped any of these girls is an outright lie. "You can repeat allegations over and over again, but it doesn't make them true" Roy Moore spokeswoman Janet Porter told Anderson Cooper on 12/6/2017.

"How these gals came up with this, I don't know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line" sez Roy Moore supporter Pastor Earl Wise. Trump's accusers are also all liars, which is how the Right is justifying standing by these scumbags. Trump and Moore claim their accusers are liars, while Al Franken has "admitted" what he's done. Because there was photographic proof. Although it was clearly intended as a "joke". Though an unfunny one (and he only mimed groping Tweeden).

I do, however, believe Tina Dupuy's account of what happened to her. The other women; I don't know them. Dupuy, I am familiar with from her appearances on The Stephanie Miller Show (SMS). So Franken apparently occasionally gropes women's asses. And, if you hug him and his hand is near your breast, he'll cup it. Or he did so at least once. Although I'm not convinced he tried to kiss a woman and, when she resisted, insisted it was his "right as an entertainer". Mostly because that is such an ridiculously absurd thing to say (if he said it).

But Franken had to go because enough of his fellow Congressional Dems decided he should resign. "Enough is enough" NY Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand declared. That is what happened with Anthony Weiner (his House colleagues teamed up and forced him out). But, as it turned out, what Weiner did was a lot worse (got him a prison sentence). Franken's "crimes" obviously do not rise to the level of a Wiener. Weiner resigned and he absolutely should have. Even though I admit that I did not want to believe that he'd be stupid enough to be tweeting pics of his junk to women he'd never met.

I still think Franken is a good, though flawed, man. While I concede now that Weiner is a scumbag (that tipping point came for me after it was revealed that he was engaged in inappropriate tweeting after leaving the House). But they are both OUT. While Roy Moore will likely be sent to the Senate by the voters of Alabama. And the orange-anus-lipped admitted sexual assaulter in the White House supports Moore. And the RNC restored financial support for his campaign. "All you have to do is deny it and be a Republican and you get off scot free" a caller to the SMS pointed out.

So the Democrats are unilaterally disarming; purging our Party of "pervs", while the Republicans are embracing their pervs. The head Republican perv currently occupying the White House (though hopefully not for much longer).

Stephanie Miller & Caller discuss Al Franken resignation on the SMS Show, 12/7/2017. Sue in Rockville: Sexual misconduct is bad, but the false equivalency of equating Tina Dupy (who I admire and respect) getting grabbed by her waist, versus pedophilia and sexual assault of children is a vast difference. Stephanie Miller: I agree. And I love Tina. I said the same thing. As she described it [was a lesser "crime" than sexual assault].

The Fox Nooz sexual assaulting hypocrite Bill O'Reilly specifically calls out Al Franken in his "Culture Warrior" book. As a member of the "secular-progressive movement". These horrible people who are out to destroy our country are (as per Bill-o) "a minority left wing group of Americans" who have non-traditional ideals. They aren't "good Christians" (who elected an admitted sexual assaulter and who will likely send a sexual assaulter of teens to the Senate).

The "neo-puritanism" tactic, btw, has been a total flop. Or so I'd say if it was real. As opposed to the delusion of trumpy fools and tools like FreeThinke and Newt Gingrich. What with Democrats only succeeding in "eating their own". A phrase I've seen a number of gleeful trumpanzees use in regards to who has been taken out by the #meetoo movement thus far. Not that I believe that THE MAJORITY of those who've lost their jobs didn't deserve to lose them. John Conyers is retiring and that is a good thing, imo (he announced he would not seek re-election). Franken resigning is not so good, imo.

As per Mckay Coppins on the 12/7/2017 airing of MTP Daily, "I've talked to Democrats who... will say, I think he [Franken] had to be sacrificed; both for the sake this argument, which is important in this cultural tipping point we've reached, but also, frankly, there is a political calculus there. As much as Democrats don't want to talk about it now. They're looking at Roy Moore. They're looking at 2018...".

Image: panel from uber Trump supporting hypocrite cartoonist Ben Garrison. So this Garrison scumbag thinks Franken committed a "crime" for a pic in which his hands hover over Leeann Tweeden's boobs (a mimed groping), but Trump, who has been accused of rape and attempted rape 3 times, shouldn't have the cuffs slapped on him? This hypocrisy reminds me of when the trumpy Roy-Moore-supporting blogger Rusty Shackelford went after me for (initially) defending Anthony Weiner. The a-hole wrote "WD, you yourself seem a tad creepy... are you perhaps on some sort of list yourself?".

See Also: Roger and #MeeToo. 12/10/2017 Swash Zone post by Octopus.

SWTD #396

Party Over Country

The Trump camp, they were actively rooting them on. All they cared about was winning. As long as we win, we don't care. That's not America ~ Progressive Talker Stephanie Miller on the 11/23/2016 airing of her show, re Russia hacking the DNC.

With Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead now exceeding 2 million, the evidence continues to pile up that the election was stolen. As I pointed out previously, Donald Trump told us that the election was going to be rigged, and, as investigative journalist Greg Palast has reported, it was. The rigging taking the form of bumping people off the voter rolls via Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck. A voter disenfranchisement scheme that "purged 1.1 million Americans of color from the voter rolls of GOP–controlled states".

Now there are reports that the vote may have been hacked. The following is an excerpt from the article "Experts calling for recount of presidential ballots in WI, MI & PA due to possible election machine hacking" from New York Magazine.

Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in 3 swing states won by Donald Trump... The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they've found persuasive evidence that results in WI, MI, and PA may have been manipulated or hacked. ... [On 11/17/2016] the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case... The academics presented findings showing that in WI, Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30k votes; she lost WI by 27k. While it's important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing... that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama WH has accused the Russian government of hacking the DNC. The Clinton camp is running out of time to challenge the election. According to one of the activists, the deadline in WI to file for a recount is [11/25]; in PA, it's [11/28]; and MI is [11/30]. Whether Clinton will call for a recount remains unclear. The academics so far have only a circumstantial case that would require not just a recount but a forensic audit of voting machines. Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the WH, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result. (11/22/2016 by Gabriel Sherman).

Also, according to political journalist Bill Palmer the vote totals ending up the way they did are statistically suspicious.

The following is an excerpt from Palmer's DATE You're Not Just Imagining It, The Hillary Clinton Vs Donald Trump Vote Totals Do Look Rigged".

In order to believe that the official vote tallies are legitimate, you have to accept that all of the [following] legitimately happened: African-Americans in the South went from turning out in droves for HRC in the primary to not caring if she won the general election. DJT got 60-something percent of the same-day voting in FL. The polling averages were wrong for the first time in modern history. Trump beat his poll numbers despite having spent the primary season tending to fall below them. Clinton fell below her poll numbers despite having spent the primary season tending to beat them. In every state where Trump pulled off a shocking upset victory, he just happened to do it with 1% of the vote. And in an election that everyone cared particularly deeply about [turnout was down]. I can accept any one of the above things happening as an isolated fluke. I cannot accept all the above happening. And so for once in my evidence-driven career, I'm left to believe that the conspiracy theorists are right: the vote tallies are rigged.

I urge you to read the rest of the Palmer article. What I quote above is (a portion of) what Stephanie Miller read on the 11/23/2016 airing of her program (the conclusion). "I'm not a conspiratorial minded person at all" Miller said re the possible hacking of the vote. But the article from Palmer (a "top political journalist") has her convinced the election was rigged.

As am I. And, don't forget that Republicans don't believe in fair elections. They don't believe in making their case to the American people and letting the voters decide. The proof is their efforts to manipulate the vote by disenfranchising as many voters as possible (specifically those who might vote Democratic). As the (now deceased) religious Conservative Paul Weyrich ("notable as a figurehead of the New Right") said "I don't want people to vote... In fact, our leverage goes up as the voting populace goes down".

Further evidence Republicans place Party over Country is their theft of the SCOTUS appointment from Barack Obama. Obama, as the serving president at the time the vacancy occurred (when Justice Scalia died), had the right to select a replacement of his choice. Instead Congressional Republicans stonewalled in the hope that Trump would be elected.

This, even though their internal polling said Trump would likely lose. Prior to election day John McCain announced "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up". He was talking about obstructing an HRC SCOTUS nomination for 4 years! A clear example of how Republicans put Party before Country.

BTW, as for convincing the Electors to vote for HRC instead of Trump, I read on another blog this would involve "throwing out the rules of the Constitution". An absurd assertion, given the fact that (as per FairVote) "Electors are also generally free agents, as only 29 states require electors to vote as they have pledged, and many constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge".

Article 2 does not contain within it a mandate that an Elector MUST vote for the candidate they have pledged they will support. In some states the elector is (by law) required to vote for their pledged candidate, but "the constitutionality of such mandates is uncertain" (as per Wikipedia). In other words, it would be fully Constitutional for an Elector to change his or her vote (although some states fine faithless electors).

As President Obama said, Donald Trump is "uniquely unqualified" to be POTUS. And I, as Obama does, am convinced "the Republic is at risk" if Trump becomes president.

Which is why I strongly believe that every possible legal avenue that exists to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency should be attempted. I pray that Hillary Clinton listens to those who are telling her the election wasn't "free and fair" and that she should call for an audit of the votes in WI, MI & PA. Or that (enough) Electors change their votes so that Trump is denied the presidency.

Denying Trump the presidency is a longshot, but we won't know if it work or not if it isn't tried. I am SICK of stolen elections, and you know Republicans will continue to cheat in future elections. Should the response of the Democrats continue to be only to pump up turnout (in order to overcome the cheating)? Why not attack on ALL fronts? The fear (I'm positive) is that HRC will be painted as a "sore loser" if she contests the results. Which is why she probably won't. And Barack Obama (per the NY Magazine excerpt) doesn't want her to.

So the Dems are just going to roll over and accept the results, even though they almost certainly aren't kosher. But the stakes are just too high. A President Trump will seek to destroy Obama's legacy and roll back rights gained under our first African American president. I say that, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR COUNTRY, we MUST fight to prevent Trump from becoming our 45th president. Because, if Trump becomes president, we will SERIOUSLY be fucked (including the rubes who voted for him).

Also, you KNOW Trump and his supporters would be raising a stink if the election had gone the other way. So why the hell should Hillary supporters stay quiet and accept the results? Because they're afraid of being labeled "sore losers"?! I will never accept that Trump was legitimately elected (SWTD #358). Even if he occupies the White House as the Orange-Buffoon-In-Chief (which he very likely will), that doesn't mean I have to accept it or shut up about the election being rigged.

Petitions You Can Sign
->Call for an audit and recount of the vote. Target: Hillary Clinton (78,160 signatures the last time I checked).
->Demand an Audit of the 2016 Presidential Election. by Verified Voting (66,038 signatures).
->Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19. Change.org petition. (4,621,738 supporters with a goal of 6,000,000).

See Also
->The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate. [Excerpt] ...the director of the NSA, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect". ... Russian hackers reportedly targeted state election systems in AZ and IL. ...the Russian deputy foreign minister said after the election that Russian government officials had conferred with members of Trump's campaign squad. (A former senior counterintelligence officer for a Western service sent memos to the FBI claiming that he had found evidence of a Russian intelligence operation to co opt and cultivate Trump).
->Still time for an election audit by Ron Rivest and Philip Stark. USA Today 11/18/2016. [Excerpt] ...if we just want to check whether Donald Trump won the election, an audit might examine even fewer ballots, because it could proceed in stages. First it would check the results in the states Trump won. If auditing confirms those results, there's no need to audit in the states Clinton carried: Trump really won. That means auditing about 700,000 ballots in the 29 states Trump won, about 0.5% of the ballots cast in this election.

SWTD #361

Donald Trump Probably Paid Zero Taxes For 18 Years Because He Lost $916 Million In 1995 (As A Business Genius Does)

He did have to pay taxes in New Jersey. ...New Jersey, at the time... did not allow passive losses to be deducted from ordinary income ~ NYT columnist James B. Stewart in a CNBC interview (see video below).

As we all now know, or are pretty damn sure concerning, Donald Trump's tax returns would show he has not federal income taxes in many years past. This came up during the first POTUS debate, and Trump said, in response to a remark by Hillary Clinton, that he didn't pay because he's smart.

Servile Trump toady #2 Rudy Giuliani agrees, saying that Trump (because he pays no taxes) is a "business genius".

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns [and] Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump's [leaked] 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period. (Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found by David Barstow, Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner and Megan Twoheyoct. NYT 10/1/2016).

Really? Losing $916 million due to mismanagement and bad business decisions means you're GOOD at business? Or did he only lose money on paper? By which I mean were these fake "loses" cooked up by a crooked accountant so Trump could avoid paying what he owed? Maybe technically legal, maybe not. But certainly morally dubious.

BTW, according to the NYT "the tax documents arrived in a manila envelope... at the Times with a return address of the Trump Organization". I've heard that the person responsible for leaking the documents is Marla Maples, Trump's 2nd wife (and the one who was married to him at the time).

Ha ha.

BTW, as for Trump's servile toadies (of which he has two three*) the other one would be the governor who lied and said he didn't know some lanes on the George Washington Bridge were closed as an act of political payback against "Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (a Democrat) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election" (Wikipedia excerpt).

Lefty Talker Stephanie Miller refers to the toadies as "leather slaves", and, when servile toady #2 made the absurd comment re Trump being a "genius" for losing a boatload of money running casinos, it was after the ball gag was removed from his mouth and he was let out of the basement.

Video1: Rudy Giuliani calls Trump an "absolute genius" for losing a LOT of money and taking advantage of the tax code to not pay federal taxes, 10/2/2016 (0:04).

Video2: NYT columnist James B Stewart on CNBC says that Trump must explain his nearly billion-dollar loss and what breaks in the tax code contributed to it (4:13).

Something else that caught my eye (this was in the James B. Stewart article to which the CNBC video was attached), was the following.

"If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The tax code is tilted toward the rich in its statutory framework, its exceptions, and in how it is enforced and administered", said Steven M. Rosenthal, a real estate tax specialist and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Yet more proof that, when the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart said that the "economy is rigged and that only certain people can benefit from it [is a] myth", he was wrong. Dead wrong. But that a wealth-worshipping stooge such as Hart thinks the economy ISN'T rigged is really NOT a surprise. Yet he frequently rails against crony capitalism (as does Lying Gary Johnson). And, yes, the Hartster thinks he can have it both ways.

* I don't know how I could have forgotten Newt Gingrich. Although he hasn't been out there a lot. And he doesn't come across (to me) quite as servile and desperate as Christie and Giuliani.

Democracy Now: Trump May Have Paid No Taxes for 18 Years, 1995 Tax Returns Show, 10/3/2016. Progressive Eruptions: Trump 10/3/2016 Headlines.

SWTD #353

Donald Trump, Founder Of American ISIS (Theory)

The 2016 candidate has more in common with the terrorist group than he does with America ~ Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in his 12/9/2015 TIME article "What Donald Trump and ISIS Have in Common".

"Here's the reason you should shoot her, she started ISIS. He was literally saying that". "Her" being Hillary Clinton and "he" being Donald Trump. This observation from Suzanne Westenhoefer, guest on the 8/12/2016 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show.

Now Trump claims he didn't mean it. Again. Tweeting "Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) 'the founder' of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?".

Sarcasm? But when Trump was given an out by Conservative Talker Hugh Hewitt, he clarified that YES, he meant that BHO and HRC founded ISIS. Literally.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night [8/10/2016] in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace". Trump objected. "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS", Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton". Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is "not sympathetic" to ISIS and "hates" and is "trying to kill them". "I don't care", Trump said, according to a show transcript. "He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?" Hewitt and Trump went back and forth after that, with Hewitt warning Trump that his critics would seize on his use of "founder" as more example of Trump being loose with words. (Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally by Tal Kopan. 8/12/2016 CNN).

"Lose with his words"? I don't think so. Trump knows what he's saying. Previously I said that Trump speaks without thinking. I retract that. When he suggested that "2nd amendment people" should assassinate Hillary Clinton he meant it and he meant to say it (DSB #52).

That was a shout-out to the misogynist HRC haters on the Right. I don't believe that Trump actually wants anyone to shoot HRC. But that is what he said and what he meant. No doubt (despite some not being able to accept that he was talking about assassination).

This is the Trump MO. He'll say something "beyond overboard". And he absolutely means it when he says it. It's his way of speaking to the base. "I'm with you, *wink, wink*" he says. Then he walks it back. But the base gets the message.

"He was NOT suggesting assassination" the Conservative blogger Rational Nation insists, but he WAS. Saying outrageous things (that the crazy bigoted rubes want to hear) is an essential component of Trump's con.

"He's a truth teller! He's speaking to us" the rubes say. This explains why Trump jumped on the Birther bandwagon (Obama a Kenyan-born Muslim) and why he's demonizing HRC as "crooked" and suggesting she should be assassinated (she'll appoint SCOTUS judges who will get rid of the 2nd amendment, she co-founded ISIS). BHO (Black man) and HRC (Clinton, woman) being the focus of intense hate from the insane hate-fueled Right.

The trouble is that almost everyone outside the Trump base finds such statements crazy and objectionable. So he says these crazy and objectionable things (speaking to the base) but then walks them back (no, I don't mean exactly what you heard me say).

Donald Trump is a dangerous con man. I'd say he hijacked the Republican Party, but the truth is "you built that" Republicans. With your stoking of resentment for our first Black president ("racism" of Obama, Holder, et al, have hurt race relations, not racist bigots who are angry that a Black is in the White House).

It's one of the reasons people joined the Tea Party and why anti-government militias have surged since Obama was elected. A 2/4/2016 NewsWeek article says that "Right-wing extremists are a bigger threat to America than ISIS", and I agree.

And right now Trump is speaking for them. The scary thing is that if Trump wins or if Trump loses, he has riled them up... and they're going to be MAD (anger intensifying due to Trump losing, or anger intensifying when Trump wins and they figure out he was bullshitting them).

I honestly believe that it might only a matter of time before (in addition to Muslim extremist terrorist attack) we start seeing more Right-wing terrorism. Which is why I predict that the candidacy of Donald Trump might end up founding an American version of ISIS.

Yes, I seriously think this could happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president (something that seems more likely than not). One of the first orders of business being the carrying out of the assassination as ordered by their candidate (from whom the election was "stolen").

For the record... I agree with Hewitt in regards to that vacuum that lead to the creation of ISIS. Although the vacuum was created by gwb's illegal invasion of Iraq. gwb created ISIS and is their (former) MVP. Although I guarantee you they never "honored" him. (gwb did not "found" ISIS, however. That would be Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).

Video: President Obama and "crooked Hillary" co-founded ISIS, according to Donald Trump (0:28).

8/15/2016 Update: I was alerted to PROOF my theory regarding Trump may be correct my way of the Thom Hartmann program today. That proof? An 8/14/2016 "Blue Nation Review" titled Trump Is Seeking a White Nationalist Awakening NOT the White House. According to the author of the article, Peter Daou, Trump "realized he couldn't defeat Hillary so he simply aimed HIGHER than the presidency". The goal? Trump is "seeking to lead an uprising — and perhaps a violent one".

SWTD #345

Donald Trump On Corporate Inversions & Titties

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest - and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault ~ Donald Trump tweet, 5/8/2013.

I'd say that I agree with Donald Trump about Corporate Inversions, but I don't trust the guy. He says he's against them, and so am I, but would he follow through and try to do something to stop them if "elected" president? I'm thinking he wouldn't.

Obviously he also likes titties, and (as a guy) I have to admit I like them too. Although I think a man can appreciate this aspect of the female form and not be a misogynist like Trump. btw, unlike with all his political positions, I absolutely trust him on this.

Trump: We'll also end job killing corporate inversions and cause trillions of dollars in new dollars to come pouring into our country. And, by the way, into titties like right here in Detroit. (remarks from a 8/8/2016 address to the Detroit Economic Club).

"There was someone in the front who was very endowed and he had his eyes on her boobs", a commenter on the YouTube page I got the video from (see below). And I had to look at a few different ones, as most cut off the part about corporate inversions. Because (I'm guessing), nobody knows what they are. Or cares.

I was watching Stephanie Miller today, and when she played the clip, "voice deity" Jim Ward said "Huh, corporate inversions"? The implication being that Trump was speaking gobbledygook (BTW, it isn't Jim Ward's job to know these things, but Miller should have known. Or looked it up. Or at least chose a clip that started playing after that part. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Stephanie Miller fan, but she's nowhere near as knowledgeable as Thom Hartmann).

In any case, Wikipedia says a corporate inversion "is the practice of relocating a corporation's legal domicile to a lower-tax nation, or tax haven, usually while retaining its material operations in its higher-tax country of origin... [the practice] involves creating a new parent company that sits on top of the corporate structure and is incorporated in the desired foreign jurisdiction".

Me, I say that, if a business operates in the US, they should pay US taxes. ESPECIALLY if the majority of their business is done in the United States.

But back to Trump on corporate inversions... Looking at what he's said (on his on the issues page), I'm not sure Trump knows what they are.

Trump: What's happening right now is something that not been a subject of conversation by politicians. They haven't talked about a corporate inversion. Companies are leaving the United States to go to other countries. They have trillions of dollars in those other countries. They can't get their money back in. It's probably two and a half trillion. All of that money could be used to rebuild our country. (Get U.S. money back into U.S.: address corporate inversion).

"They can't get their money back in"? He doesn't mention the fact that corporate inversions are done to dodge taxes. Instead, it sounds to me like he's talking about giving corporations tax breaks if they bring their money back to the United States.

That issue HAS been discussed by politicians. Republican politicians who want to offer corporations with money overseas a repatriation tax holiday. This is what he's talking about when he says "they can't get their money back in"... repatriation.

...income is subject to the (typically higher) U.S. tax rate minus the Foreign Tax Credits... There are currently hundreds of billions of dollars of Foreign direct investment in CFC's (controlled foreign corporations) because of the disincentive to repatriate those earnings.

So, maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like Trump doesn't know what the hell he's talking about re corporate inversions. And nobody on his team caught this?

BTW, being a guy and liking titties doesn't mean I don't think him commenting on his daughters' assets isn't scuzzy. Because it REALLY is.

In 1994 episode of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous", the bombastic billionaire — already known for making creepy comments about his older daughter — and his then-wife Marla Maples opened up about their infant daughter, Tiffany... Robin Leach: Donald, what does Tiffany have of yours, and what does Tiffany have of Marla's? Donald Trump: Well, I think that she's got a lot of Marla. She's a really beautiful baby, and she's got Marla's legs. We don't know whether she's got this part yet (gestures toward his chest), but time will tell. (Donald Trump comments on 1-year-old daughter's breasts in disturbing 1994 interview).

What a creep. As well as a boob. As for how high DJT's IQ is... clearly his is higher than that of many of his followers, but "one of the highest"? I think the evidence says no.

Video1: Trump wants to end corporate inversions (AKA give huge tax breaks to corporations) which (he says) will help titties. I had to look at a few versions of this video to find one that included the part about corporate inversions. Which is why I selected one where the person captured it by videoing their TV (which I'd normally avoid). Looks to me like everyone focused on him saying "titties" and totally missed that he apparently doesn't know what a corporate inversion is (0:26).

Video2: Donald Trump interview from 1994 in which he speculates about the future size of his then 1-year-old daughter Tiffany's breasts (0:18).

SWTD #344

On Larry Wilmore "Offending" Rush Limbaugh With His #WHCD2016 Speech

...the formerly drug-addled host was just rambling, which is his job. It's nice work if you can get it! ~ Gawker author describing how Rush Limbaugh entertains the "bitter white dudes" who listen to his program. Excerpted from a 8/21/2008 article "Should We Bother Getting Offended by Rush Limbaugh?".

World Net Daily (AKA Black Mob Central) reports that "Limbaugh peeved by use of N-word for Obama" (re Larry Wilmore's speech at the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner). To which I say BULLSHIT! Limbaugh is is feigning outrage because it presents him an opportunity to attack the Obama administration.

The White House is apparently not offended by the use of the N-word for President Obama, at least not when it comes from a black comedian, but radio titan Rush Limbaugh is. Comic Larry Wilmore uncorked a slang version of the racial slur at the White House Correspondents’ dinner Saturday night, when he told Obama: "Yo Barry, you did it my n**ga. You did it". White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he had talked to Obama about Wilmore's use of the word and said the president told him "he appreciated the spirit of Mr. Wilmore's expression Saturday night", the Washington Examiner reported. (Limbaugh Peeved by Use of N-word For Obama by Joe Kovacs. WND 5/2/2016).

Who Limbaugh is actually "peeved" at is revealed with the article's first sentence. I mean, has Limbaugh EVER expressed any offense before when the N-word was used to refer to Obama (the actual N-word and not the version of it ending with an "a")? According to Limbaugh a Black comedian (Larry Wilmore at the date correspondent's dinner) referring to Obama using the term "ni**a" is "indicative that there isn't much respect for the office of the presidency" - but apparently when Limbaugh referred to Obama as "Barack the magic negro" that was... respectful?

In March 2007, American critic David Ehrenstein used the title "Obama the Magic Negro" for an editorial he wrote for the Los Angeles Times, in which he described Barack Obama's image in white American culture: "He's there to assuage white "guilt"... Rush Limbaugh began discussing Ehrenstein's op ed on the day it was published. He cast Ehrenstein's column as criticizing Obama himself for not being authentic or black enough: "The problem, Ehrenstein says, is he's not real. Al Sharpton's real, Snoop Dogg is real, but Barack Obama is not real. He's just there to assuage white guilt. In other words, the only reason Obama is anywhere is because whites are willing to support him because they feel so guilty over slavery". He described the column as an example of the "racism of the left". He said "The term Magic Negro has been thrown into the political presidential race in the mix for 2008" and said he would "own" the term by the end of the week. He [Limbaugh] briefly sang the words "Barack the magic negro" to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon". (Wikipedia/Magical Negro/Barack Obama).

Regardless of the fact that it was David Ehrenstein (exhibiting "racism of the left") Limbaugh took the "magic negro" application to Obama and ran with it.

Limbaugh later [in the broadcast] asserted: "I'm going to keep referring to him as that because I want to make a bet that by the end of this week I will own that term", adding, "If I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the Magic Negro, there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the L.A. Times did it, simply because they can't be critical of the L.A. Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio". (Latching onto L.A. Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro" by Adam Serwer. Media Matters 3/20/2007).

Why use it at all (and in song form)? Because Rush is cloaking his racism with faux outrage. Because someone on "the left" used the term, Limbaugh saw that as license for him to use it (27 times during the same broadcast, according to Media Matters). And blame "racism of the left". But it's Rush's own racism that explains his actions.

He jumps at these opportunities. Previously it was David Ehrenstein who provided Rush the opportunity to express his true racist feelings (and have someone "on the left" to blame). This time it was Larry Wilmore (and there are likely many examples between these two that I'm not aware of).

And further proof that this is indeed is what is occurring is that this story was written up for the notoriously racist World Net Daily (their "religion is apeshit racist ring-wingnut douchery with a side of tabloid pablum" says a 2/18/2014 Gawker article).

WND author writes "racism is an illusion, and Black Lives Matter lies". And yes, Jesse Lee Peterson is an African American. But that's how WND "proves" it isn't racist - it has African American best friends (authors). But for even more proof check out the (more overtly racist) comments. These are the kinds of racist Whites that WND panders to (Trump voters).

As for Wilmore's use of the word being offensive? I'll leave that to the Black community to hash out. Although I will say that I agree that it's not the same when a Black person uses the term compared to a White person using it. Regarding the "controversy" within the Black community, I've heard comments both ways. From "get over it" to "yes, it was offensive".

Me, I'm more offended by Limbaugh. Not regarding what he says. The Gawker blogger I quoted at the top of this article has a point... THIS is what Limbaugh does. And he's been doing it for a long time. But that his last contract awarded him with $38 million a year for 8 years plus a $100 million signing bonus. That Conservative commentators like Limbaugh get Brinks trucks backing up to their homes with hourly deliveries of cash while Liberal commentators make significantly less? It makes me want to puke!

I'm talking about true Progressives commentators, btw (people like Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann). I think the talking heads at msnbc probably do OK. Those who weren't fired by Andy Lack who decided that, to fix the problem of msnbc's ratings being bad, decided the solution would be to go more Insider (Washington More About Insiders V Outsiders Than Democrats V Republicans).

SWTD #334

John Fugelsang On The GOP Ronald Reagan Myths (Via The Stephanie Miller Show's Fridays with Fugelsang)

Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings ~ Howard Dean (dob 11/17/1948) The 79th Governor of Vermont (1991-2003) and Chairman of DNC (2005-2009).

The following (selected) quotes from the Friday 1/8/2016 airing of The Stephanie Miller Show by John Fugelsang concerning Ronald Reagan (plus one concerning the NRA and one last one concerning Donald Trump).

->[Republicans] are for the things Reagan said he was for. Reagan said he was for smaller government, but grew by 60 odd thousand jobs. Reagan said he was not for negotiating with terrorists, but armed the same Iranians who helped kill our marines in Beirut. They like Reagan the myth, they don't like Reagan the fact.

->Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to every undocumented immigrant in the country, which makes him to the Left [on this issue] of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Sylvester Stallone.

->They [The NRA] don't care. They want more gun violence. More violence means more profit. How many guns have Obama confiscated? That's right, none. Every time there's a massacre the NRA sends out this mailing list. I encourage all your listeners to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists online and they'll see [what a] racket [this is]. They'll tell you Obama is coming for your guns, and then people go out and buy more guns because the Skeeters believe this. The gun manufacturers make more money the more massacres.

->Between Kim Jong Un, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and Jaden Smith, [it's] not a good year for nepotism so far.

->[Sarcastically] Can you believe that Barack Obama has done nothing about this [North Korea testing an H-Bomb]? You know what a man would do? A man would pour billions and billions of dollars into a missile defense system that doesn't work. Obama has even spent 2 billion on a non functional missile defense system [whereas Reagan spend more than 209 billion].

->Whatever they [Republicans] want to throw at you, you just have to throw back Reagan. I'm sure you've seen it - they're trying to smear Hillary Clinton with Bill Cosby. And with Bill Clinton. [The] Juanita Broaddrick [allegation] has been exhumed, and now, of course, Hillary Clinton is a rape apologist. They can't beat her on the issues, so they're going to try to smear a woman... [Sarcastically] By the way, if you're a political party looking to get more female voters, blame women for their husband's cheating [not that rape is cheating... Bill Clinton has been accused of both].

->They're going to come out and say Juanita Broaddrick was raped by Bill Clinton. There's no way to prove it one way or the other. It's he said, she said. But, by this logic, Selene Walters, the woman who claimed that Ronald Reagan raped her when he was president of the Screen Actor's Guild. Kitty Kelly documented it thoroughly in her book, and, at the time, she told several people that Reagan... forced himself on her. So, anyone who says you have to believe Juanita Broaddrick has to believe Selene Walters.

->There is one group that Trump hasn't attacked - that's ignorant White guys with small penises. If he began doing that... [then he'd drop in the polls, given the fact that angry White guys constitute his base].

[End John Fugelsang Quotes Via Stephanie Miller 1/8/2016]

Speaking of Donald Trump, he has also been accused of rape... by his ex-wife ex-wife Ivana Trump, who "once used [the word] rape to describe an incident between them in 1989. She later said she felt violated by the experience" (Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel Violated During Sex.

So, as a Democrat, do I believe that Juanita Broaddrick is a liar, while Selene Walters and Ivana Trump told the truth? I don't know. The point (that John Fugelsang was making) is that Trump (and the other Reagan idolizing GOP potus hopefuls) attacking HRC over what her husband may or may not have done smacks of hypocrisy. (May or may not = rape. WJC definitely cheated with a number of consensual affairs).

And the Reagan idolizers and mythologizers are hypocrites when they attack Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton for doing/being guilty of of things Ronald Reagan did/is guilty of (10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan).

Also, let us not forget that when Repubs attack Bill Clinton, they're attack a very popular ex-president (Bill Clinton is incredibly popular. How much will that help Hillary's 2016 campaign?) and (more importantly) Bill Clinton isn't running for anything - it's his wife who is seeking the presidency. Which isn't to say that I believe Bill Clinton's sex life (or, rather his sex life back in the 80s and 90s) should be "off limits". Just keep the hypocrisy in mind. And the fact that Bill isn't running.

And there is also the fact (as evidenced by WJC's popularity) that people don't care too much about rehashing a decades old debate. So I doubt these attacks will have much of an effect on HRC's campaign or the enthusiaism of her voters. (And, for th record here, I don't include myself in this group, as I will be voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. Provided his name is on the ballot and he hasn't "suspended" his campaign prior to the primary in my state. If he has? Then I will be voting for HRC. And my "enthusiasm" - such as it is - won't be impacted. Not by any attacks on HRC by way of attacking her husband).

Image: Hal Sparks, Stephanie Miller and John Fugelsang arrive at the 10/21/2011 Sexy Liberal Tour.

SWTD #318

Is A "Real Black" A "Thug" In Conservative Repub-World? Also, Is Ben Carson A Pathological Liar?

Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else ~ Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) tweet from 10/8/2015.

So what would make Ben Carson a "real Black president", while Barack Obama is not "real"? Does Obama not being "real" based entirely on him living outside of the United States for a number of years during his childhood, or is it something more than that?

The following excerpt from the 11/5/2015 airing of The Stephanie Miller Show might shed some light on why, and in what ways, Ben Carson would be "real", whereas Obama isn't. (Note: what follows was minorly edited by me for clarity).

SM: Carl in Texas. You're on with the crew. Hello Carl.

Carl: Someone was talking about Ben Carson possibly being a sociopath. But if we all recall, when the Oregon shooting happened, he spoke with bravado about attacking the gunman. [Ben Carson on Fox & Friends said "Not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say: 'Hey, guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me but he can't get us all'"].

Then, when people said "you don't know what you'd do if someone pointed a gun at you", he came up with this story about what happened in the "Popeye's organization". [Ben Carson, appearing on Karen Hunter's Sirius XM Radio program said "I have had a gun held on me when I was in a Popeye's organization. Guy comes in, put the gun in my ribs. I just said, 'I believe that you want the guy behind the counter'"].

When people said he was a coward he came up with the story about the rocks and the bricks and the baseball bats... ["As a teenager, I would go after people with rocks, and bricks, and baseball bats, and hammers. And, of course, many people know the story when I was 14 and I tried to stab someone", Carson said... on the 10/25/2015 airing of Meet the Press].

SM: Yes. He was stabby.

Carl: CNN went to his hometown and organized some of his neighbors and school friends. Not one of them knew anything about any of this. They said that when he was in school he was a nerdy bookworm.

SM: Oh... so he was inventing some street cred for himself. A thug story.

[End 11/5/2015 Stephanie Miller Show Excerpt]

If this story of Ben Carson's troubled youth makes him a reformed thug, is that what is makes his "Blackness" "real"? Also, is this how White Conservatives view Black people; by which I mean the "real" ones are all thugs and some of them (the GOOD ones) are "reformed"?

Is Obama, on the other hand, not a "real Black" but "mixed race"... because his mother was White and because his White grandparents raised him (and in Hawaii, of all places)? Yeah, I think that while the primary factor regarding why Obama isn't "real" is due to his time living outside the US, these other things are also a factor.

Including the lack of a "thug story", which Ben Carson seems to be trying to create/relate. Because being a reformed thug is a positive in the eyes of White Conservatives. Because it shows that embracing "personal responsibility" can transform a typical Black person... someone who, as Conservatives put it, reside mainly on the Democrat plantation where they lazily rely on "free stuff" instead of developing a work ethic.

Obama, on the other hand, became a community organizer, which, in conservative minds, meant he organized lazy Blacks to beg for "free stuff". (However, even though Obama, as someone organizing lazy Blacks to beg for free stuff places him in with the majority of African Americans who reside on the "Democrat plantation", this ABSOLUTELY does not cause his Blackness to be real).

Anyway, as for Carson's "thug story" and it making him a "real Black", there are questions as to whether EITHER of these incidents (the one where he stabbed someone or the one where he encountered a gunman in a Popeye's) actually happened.

Ben Carson's Stabbing Story Is Full of Holes (excerpt from the 10/27/2015 Daily Beast article by Gideon Resnick) In one version of the story, Carson attempts to stab a bully with a large camping knife he had been holding. In another, he pulls a pocketknife on his friend while listening to classical music at the friend's house. So which is it?

In the many different version of the stabbing story, the basic facts are the same, but the particulars are quite different. That Carson is relating differing versions of this story says to me that he might be making it up.

As for the incident that Carson claims took place in the Popeye's fast food restaurant, or the "Popeye's Organization" as Ben calls the chain... it might not have happened either.

Was Ben Carson Really Held at Gunpoint? (excerpt from the 10/8/2015 Daily Beast article by Olivia Nuzzi & Gideon Resnick) The candidate's not-so-harrowing tale about his encounter with a gunman at a Baltimore Popeyes is tough to verify. Almost too tough. ... throughout his several published books and three autobiographies, Carson doesn't appear to mention the story once. When The Daily Beast reached out to Carson's... central advisor, Armstrong Williams, he said... [the story] appeared in Carson's 2006 book, Take the Risk, [but] there is no story about a stickup at Popeyes in Take the Risk.

Also, as pointed out on the Daily Kos "Baltimore police say they can't confirm or debunk Dr. Ben Carson's Popeye's robbery story". But that's because they might not have filed a police report. Or so Carson advisor Armstrong Williams claims. Despite Carson's story including the line "he left the store running before the police got there".

So, is Carson lying? Some say yes, he's a liar. I say I don't know for sure... but I certainly think there is enough evidence to conclude that he MIGHT be a bald-faced liar.

Lying so he'll come off (in the eyes of White Conservatives) as "authentically Black"... unlike the current president. According to Carson "growing up in inner-city Detroit gave him the sophistication to know that the [Popeye's] gunman wasn't going to murder him but was just looking to rob the place".

"Sophistication" being code for "street smarts", I'm guessing. As a "real" Black man he'd have to have street smarts, no? Yeah, I don't know. To me, this strategy (if this IS Carson's strategy) doesn't sound like it would work. Or I would conclude that, if not for Rupert Murdoch's tweet.

Although, even if this (likely) faux "genuine" narrative convinces Conservative voters that Ben Carson would be "a real black President who can properly address the racial divide", I seriously doubt that this will translate to votes. (Although it IS translating to book sales, as evidenced by the fact that Carson "suspended" his campaign to go on a book tour).

Video1: Straight outta Carson: Republican candidate releases campaign rap. An actual Ben Carson campaign ad that will air for two weeks in Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit, Birmingham, Jackson, Memphis and Little Rock.

Video2: Remix of Ben Carson campaign rap. NOT an actual campaign ad, but a "remix" by Slate that includes many absurd comments from Carson.

SWTD #317

Romney's Tax Plan Would Complete Reagan's Dream of an American Oligarchy

Where some people are very wealthy and others have nothing, the result will be either extreme democracy or absolute oligarchy, or despotism will come from either of those excesses ~ Aristotle (384 BC to 322 BC) a Greek philosopher who was a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy.

The Walton family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. The top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 60 percent own less than 2 percent. Between 2009 and 2010 93 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, the other 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent. The United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any industrialized nation on earth and it is worse now than since the 1920s. The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. [source: Bernie Sanders on the 8/3/2012 Stephanie Miller Show].

In response John Fugelsang asked: "if 60 percent of the population controls only 2 percent of the wealth, does that mean that the top 40 percent needs to pay 98 percent of the taxes?" [John Fugelsang is a friday regular on the Stephanie Miller Show].

The rigged tax system of the United States has been moving up toward oligarchy for the past 30 years - ever since Ronald Reagan set us on that path. According to a non-partisan analysis conducted by the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center, "...a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible".

Mitt Romney says he will reduce taxes across the board, but in reality his elimination of deductions would RAISE taxes on middle and lower income taxpayers. The Brookings/Tax Policy analysis says, "[Romney's] tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers. Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000)... while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130)".

In other words: Romney wants YOU to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy! Unless you're rich and greedy, why would you cast your ballot for Mitt Romney? Barack Obama should win re-election in a landslide, but we all know he won't. It's going to be close. Why? I've been declared "arrogant" for saying so, but I'm convinced that a lot of voters are allowing themselves to be tricked into voting for oligarchy.

SWTD #118