Unhinged

 

It might have been a heat-of-the-moment comment or it might have been calculated. One never knows with politicians. But Pelosi was right to say that Trump is “…deranged, unhinged, dangerous…”

 

That's been clear for a while now.

 

That doesn't mean he isn't also a sociopath, a narcissist, a would-be Hitler, a con man, or the world's champion pathological liar. He can be all those things, and is. But Trump having parted ways with reality is the best argument for asking Pence to gather half the cabinet and invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment:

 

"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

 

An unhinged president is "..unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

 

Any of Trump's public actions attempting to overthrow the election could be seen as evidence that he's a sociopath, narcissist, would-be Hitler, etc. But one phone call, with Georgia Secretary of State Raffensberger, that wasn't meant to be public, shows he is also detached from reality.  

 

Like the emperor of the fairy tale, parading around in his majestic new clothes, Trump paraded his imaginary missing votes before Georgia’s election officials:

 

- 200,000 or more  forged signatures;

- at least 50,000 Trump voters who showed up at polls, only to be told, they had already voted (presumably because evildoers had forged their signatures and voted in their names);

- 18,000 voters who gave vacant houses as addresses;

 

- another 18,000 fraudulent ballots for Biden in suitcases that mysteriously appeared after election workers and poll watchers were evacuated due to a water main break.

 

And there was more, he claimed.

 

The conspiracy against him included countless co-conspirators, he insisted, including, he hinted, election officials like Georgia Secretary of State Raffensberger.

 

Raffensberger tried to play the role of the brave little boy, telling Emperor Trump that all the above had been investigated. And all was fairy tale. But Trump's delusion, being more persistent than the naked emperor's, could not be shaken.   

 

If this were your Fox and Newsmax-obsessed elderly relative shouting at the holiday dinner table about suitcases full of fraudulent ballots, you'd exchange a look with the person next to you and change the subject to little Johnny's report card. You wouldn't  let your elderly relative drive Johnny to school on Monday, knowing there was a danger he'd get lost along the way.

 

And this is why Section 4 of the 25th Amendment exists: to remove someone  who has lost the ability to perform the duties of the president, but is incapable of recognizing his/her own loss of ability.

 

If Trump said what he believed in his call to Raffensberger, as a reading of the full transcript suggests he did, in a functioning government, Section 4 would have been invoked already.

 

​We haven't had a functioning government for a while now. The party that Trump leads is willing to keep a demented sociopath in power if it means that members of that party keep their power, too.

 

Think about that.​

 

 

Election Madness and the Erosion of Our System: From Maddow to Hannity

 

No one wants to hear this but... the "stolen election" conspiracy theories Newsmax and OAN are spewing, that Trump supporters gobble up, are different only in degree, not kind, from the Russian collusion theories Hillary Clinton voters adored hearing from Rachel Maddow and her ilk re Hillary's defeat.

Yes, we can stipulate that there was indeed attempted Russian interference. But it was minuscule—enough to affect an election for dogcatcher in Podunk, maybe, but not enough to swing the presidential race. Hillary lost. Period.

Meanwhile, there's zero, none, no evidence for the Trump "stolen election" theories. Those are made up entirely of bad faith and vapor. The Trump lawyers argue a completely different set of facts and claims in court than the crazed fraud allegations they and Trump present to voters.

But Democratic and GOP conspiracy-believing voters have a few more things in common than any are likely to admit:

1) They each place a religion-like trust both their preferred "news" sources and their politicians. If voters in either group did some independent investigation (examine the evidence presented to respective courts and investigators instead of simply listening to their side's explanation of it) they'd discover that both "news" sources and pols were conning them; 

2) Neither group appears to want the evidence that they are (and were) being conned. How else to explain why they are so carefully selective with their "news" sources, and why many of them lash out when those sources are contradicted;

3) Each group believes the other group is crazy, deceitful, and/or clueless because members of each group are well aware of the shenanigans perpetrated by the rival group's "news" sources and pols (their "news" sources and pols have given them all the details) but blissfully unaware of those perpetrated by their side.

So, this is what we get in 2020 according to reporting today in the Washington Post. And it's not going to get better going forward unless/until citizens of the USA decide that they can handle--and will pay attention to--the truth. Read and weep. Better yet, watch the accompanying video:

>>It wasn’t just White men carrying the Trump flags and banners. Korean and Vietnamese immigrants, young gay couples and Black, White and Latina women, many with children, marched alongside conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and members of the Proud Boys hate group. They wound slowly from Freedom Plaza to the Capitol to the Supreme Court, demanding, among other things, that Biden be sent to prison and the election be handed to Trump. 

 

For hours, we talked to protesters who weren’t merely skeptical of the election outcome; they believed it to be a total fraud. They distrusted the count, the voting machines, the media that reported the results, even the state officials, many of them Republican, charged with certifying the outcome.<<

Bernie Sanders Threatens Government Of, By, and For the Moneyed Class— Hence the Establishment Freak-Out.

If you read the latest Must-Stop-Sanders article in The New York Times, you’d be tempted to believe that all those donors and establishment politicians quoted are most concerned that Bernie Sanders might not just lose the presidency, but also threaten Democratic party gains in other offices.    

Others in the party view Mr. Sanders as such an existential threat that they see stopping him from winning the nomination as less risky than a public convention fight.  

But what if we’re reading this wrong? What if he’s an “existential threat” to the people in power, not because he might lose, but, because he might win? Why is the party establishment willing to risk alienating Bernie’s voters—again—knowing that that might guarantee another four years of Trump?  

Simple. Bernie wants to end government-by-bribe.

That’s the secret behind the freak-out. Not the potential loss of healthcare for those who need it if the Democratic nominee fails to get elected. Not the continued poisoning of air we breathe and the water we drink, not the destruction of public lands for profit, or the separating of immigrant families into cages, or that the laws will continue to be flouted. Money trickles down from billionaires and corporations into SuperPACs and party accounts, enriches party leaders, and gives them personal power that rivals White House power. And Sanders wants that to end.

Money determines whether a congressional rep gets desirable committee assignments that garner more power…and more money. Money awaits the losers, too, if only they play the game.

When it appears that someone whose values aren’t immediately translatable into cash equivalents might take control, threatening the whole corrupt engine, it inspires panic.  

So, sure, it’s more important to those Democrats who thrive in the current system to beat Sanders than to beat Trump.

Congresswoman Veronica Escobar of Texas was singled out in the above-mentioned New York Times article, saying that even if Bernie came to the convention with 40 percent of delegates, while the other six candidates split the balance among them it “…wouldn’t be enough to convince her to vote for him on the second ballot.”

The article neglected to note that Rep. Escobar was sent on an all-expenses paid trip to Paris, Rome, and Brussels last November by Third Way Foundation. PR Watch has this to say about the rabidly anti-Bernie corporatist group:

Several corporate donors to Third Way are or have been members of the GOP-aligned American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate bill mill that links lobbyists with state lawmakers. Amgen, Baxter Healthcare, CVS Caremark, DuPont, and trade groups the Consumer Technology Association and NCTA - The Internet and Television Association are members.

Most imagine the mantra “Vote Blue, No Natter Who,” will keep voters in line.

But if the superdelegates deny the nomination to the people’s choice, how many individual voters will feel cheated? Their vote didn’t count in the primary; why bother in the general?   

Meanwhile, among the richest and most powerful, there appears to be a hankering for a brokered convention to end in Bloomberg’s nomination. In fact, Bloomberg appears to be counting on that. He has already spent more than Clinton and Trump combined did in 2016. For that, he’s managed, as of today, about 16 percent support. And roughly the same number of voters said they would not vote for Bloomberg if he were the nominee as have said they would not vote for Sanders.

So, Bloomberg’s “Vote Blue No Matter Who” support is the weakest when you consider the limited 1^st choice support his money has bought to date. But establishment politicians who make up the bulk of super-delegates know he’ll share the wealth. As he reminded us all in the last debate, he bought, er, got about 21 House seats with his money in 2018.

Granted, he’d lose to Trump. But…money! Everyone wins!

Except those of us who want a fairer system, clean air and water, and justice and compassion for the most vulnerable. 

- Anita Bartholomew

Isn't it odd

...that white nationalists and conspiracy theorists who appear to have no problem with shredding the constitution are aghast that Pelosi would have the audacity to tear up their would-be dictator’s speech?

"A republic, if you can keep it"

The story goes that, as Benjamin Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Convention, a crowd awaited him. Elizabeth Willing Powel, a prominent figure from the era, approached and asked the question everyone wanted answered. Would the new United States be a monarchy or a republic?

At the time, Franklin’s answer probably sounded like nothing more than a witty quip: "A republic, if you can keep it."

But, today, it sounds like a warning we didn’t heed.

Trump has said, "I can do whatever I want as president," claiming it says so in the constitution. It doesn’t, of course.

But if congress and the judiciary go along, the constitution might as well have been written with disappearing ink.

Today, he’s withholding more evidence—claiming national security, perhaps to break up the claims of executive privilege that he’s used, to date, to keep incriminating documents and witnesses away from his impeachment hearing and senate trial.

"I've read that testimony," Democratic House manager Zoe Lofgren said Wednesday on the Senate floor. "I'll just say that a cover-up is not a proper reason to classify a document."

If those to whom the constitution gives the power to constrain him won’t do so, Trump’s right: he can do anything. And Ben Franklin wasn’t kidding. 

- Anita Bartholomew

That anti-Trump article you shared? It might also be pro-war.

How can it be that, although Donald Trump has told about 16,000 lies since taking office, in a 2018 poll, his supporters said they’d trust him to tell them the truth, more than they would mainstream media?

Is this madness? Maybe. But maybe it’s also a recognition that corporate news media, wherever it sits on the partisan divide, has reached a kind of “Gentlemen’s Agreement” not to convey the reality of certain situations. Meanwhile Trump, blunt as a sledgehammer, occasionally breaks through the BS to expose inconvenient truths that nobody wants spoken out loud. One such truth: how the military has been historically used to pillage and plunder the resources of other countries. If such a truth is blasted from the office of the president, will propaganda work any more when it claims serial Middle East invasions and occupations are all about spreading freedom?

In a recent issue of Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson brilliantly dissected the propaganda methods used to get the populace to support war. One of his tips for resisting propaganda’s pull:

“Remember what people were saying five minutes ago.” Or, in this case, four years ago.

On only two issues, if you squinted hard, did 2016’s candidate Trump appear more liberal than candidate Clinton: Middle East wars and the TPP free trade deal.

And that's what authors Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker want us to agree we should most fear about Trump’s presidency in a rah-rah Middle East war and occupation message, excerpted from their book, A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America, published in the January 17, 2020 Washington Post.

As the text focuses on Trump’s oafish behavior toward his generals and political advisers, the authors’ underlying message is that six months after Trump entered office, his then-reluctance (since abandoned) to prolong Middle East wars was some of the best evidence of his incompetence:

Trump questioned why the United States couldn’t get some oil as payment for the troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. “We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off,” Trump boomed. “Where is the f---ing oil?”

Trump seemed to be speaking up for the voters who elected him, and several attendees thought they heard Bannon in Trump’s words. Bannon had been trying to persuade Trump to withdraw forces by telling him, “The American people are saying we can’t spend a trillion dollars a year on this. We just can’t. It’s going to bankrupt us.”

“And not just that, the deplorables don’t want their kids in the South China Sea at the 38th parallel or in Syria, in Afghanistan, in perpetuity,” Bannon would add, invoking Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” reference to Trump supporters.

The scene’s framing signals to readers that they should reject, not just Trump’s belligerence, but these arguments.

But what’s wrong with not wanting to spend $trillions on war and occupation? What’s wrong with not wanting to send more kids, barely out of high school, to bomb, shoot, displace, and intimidate the people living in these other countries?

And despite the crass transactional nature of Trump’s demand for oil, how is that different from the way the US has been operating in the Middle East all along?

In 1953, the CIA helped topple Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh to protect British interests in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.

Bush I launched “Operation Desert Storm” against Saddam Hussein in 1990 because the Iraqi leader had gone after Kuwaiti oil fields.

Bush II and Cheney ginned up a case against Hussein in 2002 to 2003, not because he had anything to do with 9/11—he didn’t—and not for the ludicrous reason embedded in the name they gave the invasion, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” but because of oil.

Yet the authors ignore all that as they recount a tale of noble war-promoters vs a crude commander-in-chief. They label a conference room where military chiefs make their war plans a “sacred space.” They demand we be appalled by any attempt to reject this facade:

… So many people in that room had gone to war and risked their lives for their country, and now they were being dressed down by a president who had not. They felt sick to their stomachs. Tillerson told others he thought he saw a woman in the room silently crying. He was furious and decided he couldn’t stand it another minute. His voice broke into Trump’s tirade, this one about trying to make money off U.S. troops.

“No, that’s just wrong,” the secretary of state said. “Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.”

Tillerson’s father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.

“The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune,” Tillerson said. “That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom.”

Of course, most soldiers and Marines recruited into the military believe that they are “protect[ing] our freedom,” despite having that belief betrayed, as, time and again, the military gets deployed to secure “the f---ing oil.”

Rex Tillerson, presented as the hero of this tale, could not be ignorant of the above. He spent his entire career, 1975 to 2017, prior to becoming Trump's first secretary of state, at Exxon, rising to CEO. The oil company, of course, has been one of the greatest beneficiaries of Middle East military adventuring.

“Remember what people were saying five minutes ago.”

Remember what you knew five minutes before reading this book excerpt.

And remember, though Trump might lie so blatantly, he can make you gasp, he also sometimes spills truths that those who George Carlin accurately called “the owners” of the country, don’t want you to hear.

-  Anita Bartholomew