subscribe: Posts | Comments      Facebook      Email Steve

On those statues, and a comment on Antifa



Yesterday it was reported that the City of San Jose is being urged via a public petition to remove a statue of Christopher Columbus from City Hall. At the same time, we heard of a new statue of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. erected in Atlanta.

Suddenly in the U.S. we seem to have a serious case of Statue-Mania!

It’s no laughing matter. There are serious issues, on all sides. Those who would remove the statues—whether they’re of Confederate heroes or Founding Fathers or colonizing Europeans—have a case. Why should we celebrate people who, in the final analysis, and by our best moral understanding, did horrible things? Why not build statues, by contrast, to the hero SWAT team cop who rescued a mom and her baby in the Houston flood?

And certainly Dr. King, as great a hero as any our nation has ever produced. I do think that the case of the Founding Fathers is more complicated, though. We ought to leave that to local populations, who are in the best position to decide what they want in their city or town.

Yet the statue supporters have a claim. They argue, rightfully, that these statues—Robert E. Lee, George Washington, Columbus—are part of our history (which is indisputably true). And some of them feel a direct connection to that history: their great-great-great grandfathers might have fought and died for the South, and in their families a great deal of pride and tradition has been kept alive, across the generations, that is incredibly meaningful to them.

Of course, Trump has made his views known, in his usual ham-handed, race-baiting way. When he accuses “the media” of “trying to take away our history and our heritage,” he’s simply pandering to the most cruel and ignorant of his base. I do not believe, for a moment, that Trump knows anything about our “history” or “heritage,” except that he self-identifies as a Western Europe-descended white male, and if we’ve learned anything about him over his decades of celebrity, it’s that he’s an arrogant bastard who believes his cohort is the best, smartest and most entitled of all the world’s people. So it would be nice to find some pro-keeping-the-statues types denounce Trump’s opportunism (and perhaps we’re starting to hear from them: Robert E. Lee’s nephew many times removed recently called for his great-great-great, etc. Uncle’s statue in Charlottesville to come down).

I myself believe that those who feel strongly that the statues should be accorded some respect are right and their views should be accommodated for the sake of unity. Fortunately, we seem to be reaching a consensus view in this country: remove the statues from public places, like City Halls, Town Squares, parks and municipal buildings, and put them in museums, where they can be understood in the proper historical context.

It’s been breathtaking how quickly this conversation is shifting the viewpoint of so many Americans. As long as I can recall there’s been controversy about Confederate statues, but it’s been on the fringes of the left wing, and among certain Black activists. They had a hard time making themselves heard, in the cacophony of news with which we’re deluged all the time. But Charlottesville changed that. Suddenly, mayors, governors, editors, even presidents are weighing in. We’re having that rarest of all things, a National Conversation, not a national shouting match, and the more logical, reasonable side is winning.

So let’s take down the statues. They won’t all come down at once. Let’s start in the places where the community is most upset. If there’s a statue of some minor Confederate general in some backwater Southern town, and nobody cares, then let it be for the time being. As for Christopher Columbus: I, like all members of my Baby Boomer generation, were reared to revere him as “the discoverer of America.” I used to read children’s books about him, with their tales of Ferdinand and Isabella, and the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria. Who knew, back then, that Columbus was a rather homicidal, religious fanatic who committed atrocities against the indigenous peoples of the new world? Our teachers didn’t tell us that. Maybe they themselves didn’t even know.

Education is a wonderful thing. We celebrate and encourage it for our children: we send them to school, to grow out of their childish ways and learn the wise, productive ways of a world that we adults have spent millennia in shaping. Why should educating nations not take the same lines as educating children? America is being educated right now, post-Charlottesville, in what really happened in our past: Not what we think happened, not what we might like to believe happened, not the story-book versions of what happened, but what actually, really, truly happened. And it wasn’t so pretty.

The irony is that it took the white supremacists, KKK and Nazis of Charlottesville, and the man they look towards for succor and support, the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, to inadvertently raise this issue to national importance. It’s not what they wanted. They don’t like it. But History has won out, as it tends to, and those who would stifle history have lost bigtime.


I said it in 2011, when they were called the Black Bloc, and I’ll say it again today, when they’re known as Antifa: While I’m glad they come out to resist the KKK thugs, I hate it when they mask their faces. That is cowardly, and it is divisive for those of us—millions and millions—who are resisting an evil regime, but have no wish to condone violence. Antifa: Take off those stupid masks! Until you do, you will remain a lunatic fringe group, and give aid and comfort to our enemies–which actually may be your motive. I will end by quoting Jesse Arreguin, the mayor of Berkeley, hardly a conservative: “I think we should classify [Antifa] as a gang…We need to think about that in terms of our law enforcement approach.” Mayor Arreguin, Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, Mayor Ed Lee of San Francisco, do your job! Put enough cops on the streets during demonstrations to arrest the Black Bloc. Book them, throw them in jail, follow up with court dates, and don’t let their noisy fanatical followers intimidate you! Let these people know their bullshit will not be tolerated.

Trump: Check-mated in his alt.right corner



It is lovely to see this rogue administration and its enablers devouring themselves in a circular firing squad. As Tillerson, Cohn and Ryan publicly criticize Trump, Trump’s fired and disgraced former advisor, Steven Bannon, instructs his minions at Breitbart to wage war on the apostates: Breitbart writer Matthew Boyle charges Trump with “letting these people get away with [their] public humiliation of him,” and charges this “shows weakness on [Trump’s] behalf.”

Meanwhile, in another part of Breitbart, another Bannon minion, Charlie Spiering, trashes Ivanka and Jared for supposedly being “West Wing Democrats.” “It’s unclear how long the pair will remain in Washington D.C.,” he writes, rumor-mongering of the highest sort.

No doubt Breitbart/Bannon and their minions devoutly hope that all sources of “moderation” will depart Washington and go back to New York, to do whatever elite things they like to do, thereby letting Trump be Trump—by which they mean, nationalistic, racist, homophobic, insulting good people left and right, belligerent overseas, cutting taxes on the rich and slashing government funding at home, except for the military. I myself don’t care much for anyone in this administration or in Trump’s family, but how ironic it is that we have to hope the “moderates” stick around long enough to rein in Trump’s more sinister impulses.

Jared is coming under particular attack at Breitbart. The website’s Editor-at-Large, Peter Schweizer, yesterday launched a fierce attack on Trump’s son-in-law, accusing him of “hubris” and suggesting he is not “following ethical rules.” He called for “higher scrutiny” of Kushner, in things like “disclosing his financial assets.”

Schweizer is surely correct to state the obvious, but it took Bannon’s getting fired for Breitbart to start coming down on the “West Wing Democrats,” which is proof that Bannon now is an angry, resentful alter cocker, determined—as he vowed—to even scores with those he believes undid him.

This development, of the alt.right wing of the Republican Party going after Trump and his “moderate” advisors, is very clever, in the sense that it appears to position Trump further to the center, i.e. more in alignment with his traditional politics of being a Democrat. It could thus help to boost his poll ratings with independents and moderate-right voters, who distrust the Democratic Party and yet want nothing to do with the alt.right crazies.

On the other hand, it could profoundly alienate the alt.right, which has been Trump’s base. Every once in a while, it’s considered smart for a President to disassociate himself from the more radical elements of his base, as Bill Clinton famously did with his Sistah Soljah remark.

But letting Gen. Kelly fire the Bannon-Gorka-Priebus crowd and let the Tillerson-Cohn-Jared-Ivanka crowd remain untouched is hardly a Sistah Soljah moment for Trump. He hasn’t yet had one, despite many opportunities, because he’s not brave enough to declare one. The closest he came, or tried to come, was in his speech condemning white supremacists, the KKK and Nazis, but that speech was thoroughly repudiated by his previous and subsequent remarks exonerating them.

And, in fact, there is nothing Trump can do to unpaint himself out of his extremist corner. He placed himself there, deliberately, to appeal to the alt.right, in order to get elected president. Strategically, it worked. But he now owns the alt.right, and the irony is that he’s pissing them off. He’s alienated his base, he’s alienated moderates, and liberals detest him anyway. About all he has left, frankly, is the Joe Arpaio crowd. That doesn’t sound like a master of 14-dimensional chess, it sounds like a novice who overplayed his hand, and is now about to find himself check-mated.

The investigations: A thought experiment



Today, I’m talking about the RussiaGate investigations, but first, let’s give Trump some rare credit. He’s handled the Texas flooding well, so far. No “Heckuva job, Brownie!” moments. He’ll be down there tomorrow, and no doubt will look “presidential” (one of his favorite words). His poll numbers might even get a bounce; almost anything could increase them, since they can’t get much lower. So “Heckuva job, Trumpie.”

Now, onto RussiaGate.

Let’s do a little thought experiment and assume that Trump escapes all criminal and legal liability in the Mueller and Congressional investigations.

Maybe Manafort and Flynn are found guilty of something or other. Maybe Mueller gives a slap to Jared and Donald Jr. but otherwise lets them off. Maybe the House and Senate committees issue harsh language about “bad judgment” and “crossing lines,” but neither actually charges Trump with anything prosecutable. He dodges a bullet. What then?

Well, it’s obvious. “They threw everything they had at me and came up with nothing!” Trump tweets. “Just like I said all along. They spent, what? Fifty million of YOUR hard-earned tax dollars on a WITCH HUNT! #Sad.” Fox “News,” Limbaugh, Breitbart, Info Wars, the Wall Street Journal’s rightwing columnists and the rest of the Republican attack machine will howl with glee about libtards and traitorous snowflakes who offer nothing to real Americans, who have no ideas except to go after Donald Trump. Trump’s echo-chamber base will nod like bobbleheads in agreement, and rededicate themselves to this president. And what of the rest of America, the Democrats and independents who do not constitute Trump’s base, the 60% of voters who don’t like Trump, don’t trust him, and think he’s not a very good president?

That’s where my crystal ball gets cloudy. It depends on so many things. How’s the economy? Is there war? Does Trump continue to do incredibly bone-headed things, like pardoning Arpaio? More outrageous Twitter storms and incendiary speeches? Are the dossier’s most salacious allegations proven true? What about Trump’s relationships with Congressional Republicans?

This latter question is of particular interest because the following question has yet to be answered: Does Trump need Congressional Republicans more than they need him, or the other way around? It’s an open secret that most senior Republicans on Capitol Hill think Trump’s a fool, or worse. They have no respect for him as a man, they don’t believe most of what he says about anything, and they wouldn’t leave their young daughters or granddaughters alone with him for five seconds. They understand the damage he’s causing to America’s reputation around the world, they differ with him profoundly on trade and the Wall, and most of them, the Freedom Caucus excepted, think his strongest supporters—the ones who read Breitbart–are gonzo extremists.

Still, these Republican politicians have their agendas—smaller government, less taxes, fewer regulations—and a President Trump is their ticket to get their wish list enacted. So they probably need him more than he needs them. (San Francisco’s former mayor, Willie Brown, yesterday had a column in the S.F. Chronicle in which he stipulated that America now has three major political parties: Republicans, Democrats and Trump.)

This empowers and emboldens Trump. He’s sitting there playing poker with Ryan and McConnell. They’re betting like crazy, but Trump is staring at four Kings and he knows there are few hands that can beat him. Wouldn’t you feel confident under those circumstances?

But there’s one thing wrong with this scenario: Only a third of the country remains in Trump’s corner. As I wrote above, “What of the rest of America, the Democrats and independents who do not constitute Trump’s base?” Trump’s biggest problem is that their perception of him is pretty much baked in. First impressions are hard to change, and our first perception of Trump, negative as it was, was quickly replaced by a second, and a third, and a—well, you get the idea. Each successive impression is more negative than the previous one.

As a result, it’s not likely that Trump’s approval rating will ever rise above 40%. He could limp along for the rest of his term like that, with everyone tsk-tsking how horrible it is, and yet, he could win a second term under the right circumstances. If the Democratic Party wants to take back one or both houses of Congress next year, and then win the presidency in 2020, they’re going to have to figure out how to unite the Hillary and Bernie wings of the party. Then they’re going to find a fantastic candidate: another Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. What did those two men have in common? Three things. (1) They spoke more or less in liberal, traditional Democratic terms. (2) They were easy on the eyes, no small necessity in our television age. And (3) They both were working class Americans who convinced voters they shared our hopes and pains. Is there anyone in the Democratic Party, man or woman, like that today? No one comes to mind, but both Obama and Clinton arose very fast, seemingly out of nowhere. I would expect the 2020 race to be similar. Someone’s going to erupt and be the Democratic nominee. But we first have to get through the off-year elections. Meanwhile, please think about our brothers and sisters in Texas, and, if you can, donate a few bucks to their relief.

On the complicity of the Republican Party in the Donald J. Trump affair



Complicit, adjective. Involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.

Although the charge of “complicity” was never part of any formal indictments at the Nuremberg Trials, the notion lurked over every moment of the proceedings.

Who was involved with the Nazi leadership to plan and conduct an illegal war? Who conspired in war crimes? Who helped to plan the Holocaust? These were among the looming questions the four victorious Allies (America, Britain, Russia and France) had to determine in the trials of 24 German political and military leaders, which lasted for a year in 1945-1946.

The root of the word “complicit” is from the Old French complice: an accomplice. Those roots, in turn, are from Latin: “com” meaning “with” or “together,” and “plicare,” to “fold” or “weave.” Other words stemming from the same roots are “complicate” and “compliant.”

The official charges against the Nazi defendants fell into three categories:

  1. Crimes Against Peace
  2. War Crimes
  3. Crimes Against Humanity

As I wrote, there was no specific charge of “complicity,” but the Charter of the International Military Tribunal explained that Charge #3, “Crimes Against Humanity,” would be leveled against Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy.” In the event, 12 of the 24 defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. Three others got life sentences. Four got sentences ranging between ten and twenty years, while three were acquitted. Such was the way the winning side dealt with those it considered, and found guilty of, being complicit in crime.

Lately, and every more strongly with each passing incident, the Republican Party is being accused of being complicit in Donald Trump’s regime. “The entire Republican Party is complicit,” declared Democratic strategist Stuart Rosenberg. “It’s Called Complicity,” Daily Kos wrote. Peter Wehner, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, said Republicans “need to ask themselves whether they want to continue to be complicit in [Trump’s] institutional assault.”

But it’s not just Democrats leveling the charge. Floyd Flake, the Arizona Republican Senator, told “Face the Nation” that “I do think so,” when he was asked if Republican leaders “who do not call out President Trump are complicit.” And no less than Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s campaign manager in 2008, said Paul Ryan “has been complicit in his silence” in not condemning Trump’s outrageous conduct and words.

If Republicans are complicit, in what? The Nuremberg charge of “Crimes Against Humanity” that contains the word “accomplices” defined those Crimes in a convoluted way. Such Crimes are “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.”

No one is accusing Trump of “murder, extermination, enslavement or other inhumane acts against a civilian population.” “Deportation” might apply, in the case particularly of Mexicans, but Trump arguably has the law on his side on that one, if not humane considerations of compassion. On the other hand, there would seem to be serious evidence for charging Trump with “persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds,” particularly in his Muslim ban. But the charge of “complicity” in the case of Trump and the GOP extends far beyond the specific Nuremberg indictments. The Republican Party’s complicity is about standing by, silently, while Trump consolidates his hold on the government, thereby enabling him to run rampant over American institutions of civility, bipartisanship, truth, conduct becoming the resident of the Oval Office, and—lest we forget—while committing the various, and ongoing, crimes, including obstruction, collusion and financial improprieties, that Robert Mueller is currently investigating.

I personally expect this Trump scandal to end disastrously for him and for the Republican Party. I am not at all opposed to some kind of Nuremberg-style trial when the whole regime comes crashing down. There are many Republicans who ought to be accused of complicity: Ryan, McConnell, the entire Cabinet, the senior White House staff, and a good part of both Houses of Congress, as well as the Republican National Committee. As for the military–the Joint Chefs of Staff and the highest-ranking officers serving under Trump–their status as of right now is unclear; should Trump breach international peace in order to save himself, then the service chiefs likewise should be tried.

If such a trial does occur, Nuremberg’s results suggest that some of the accused will be found guilty while others will be declared not guilty. I would not expect the death penalty to be imposed on the guilty, but prison sentences should be, and given the gravity of the situation, they ought to be severe.


Why the Wall Street Journal had nothing to say about Phoenix

1 comment


It’s been five days since Trump’s Monday night rant in Phoenix, which, you’ll recall, was so partisan and shrill, so loaded with resentment and bile, that it blew everybody’s mind. And yet, the Wall Street Journal—the leading Republican newspaper in America—has barely mentioned it on the editorial page.


Background: The Journal has struggled with covering Trump all along. The paper, owned by Rupert Murdoch, is fiercely conservative, and its op-ed columnists are often reactionary to the point of fascist. But they’re also intelligent, well-bred New York elites, and Trump’s barbaric manners and fragile relationship with the truth have been personally offensive to many of them. The result has been schizoid coverage of this regime: some solid front-page reporting, babbled defensiveness by the columnists, and incoherence in the editorials.

As much as I expected a lead editorial on Tuesday, the day after, about Phoenix, there was nothing at all. It was as if Phoenix had never happened, which is astonishing, given that it was a major speech by a president who seldom gives policy speeches, and was the number one story of the day, not just in America but across the world. This lacuna might be explained simply by supposing that the paper was still trying to figure out what to say on Monday night, before the Tuesday print edition was “put to bed”, and they didn’t have enough time to get an editorial together. Problem is, it’s not a given that writing late at night is beyond the capacity of a major newspaper. In fact, the history of newspapers is replete with late-nighters in order to report breaking news in the morning.

So I checked the paper again on Wednesday, but again, nothing. Nada. Just some stuff about China, Macron and unions. Not a word about Phoenix, even though the nation was still abuzz.

And again yesterday (Thursday). Nothing on a story that won’t quit, that’s dominating coverage even on Murdoch-owned Fox. Sharp-eyed readers might have caught a mention of the word “Phoenix” in a little editorial, well below the lead editorial bashing Gov. Cuomo, but all this amounted to was a gentle admonition to Trump to be careful about demanding a Mexican wall that no one in Congress wants to pay for. Other than that, the Journal has been silent about Phoenix. It’s like a dinner where some flatulent person emits a malodorous gas. Everybody’s too polite to acknowledge it, but there’s a huge, unmentioned elephant in the room.

Conspicuous silence in the face of errant Trump behavior has been the WSJ’s mode for a long time. And the fish rots from the head: If the editorial writers are forbidden to write about Trump’s embarrassing tantrums, then how are employee-reporters supposed to do it? This is very sad for a newspaper with a proud history, whose talented reporters wish to practice their investigatory craft. The question has been, and remains: Will the Murdochs allow them to do authentic journalism, or insist they be water carriers for Trump?

We got a hint of the answer yesterday, thanks to the New York Times, which reported that the Journal’s editor-in-chief, Gerard Baker, criticized his staff for their news coverage of Phoenix, scant as it’s been. He told them, in a late-night email, it was “commentary dressed up as news reporting.” Then he added, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegis and selective criticism?”

Put yourself in the journalists’ shoes. Your boss has just asked a pointed question that isn’t really a question but an edict. Baker has ordered them, in effect, to soft-pedal Trump’s egregious, inflammatory remarks, and instead to become the equivalent of his P.R. image-makers, layering fuzzy gauze over the tantrums, in accordance with the Murdoch family’s wishes. So, if you’re a WSJ reporter, what do you do? You have a moral choice: Quit under protest, or swallow your professional pride and do as the boss says so you can collect your paycheck.

As anti-Trump sentiment mounts in this country, including in the Republican Party, and as Trump’s wantonly destructive behavior continues to engulf his administration and divide the nation, the Wall Street Journal is going to have to make an existential choice. The Murdochs already are looking at serious threats to Fox,  which is under attack for sex scandals and faces possible competition on the right from a new, Bannon-led television network. If the Murdochs hope to retain any credibility at all for the crown jewel of their American media brand, they’re going to have to decide whether to let their reporters do their jobs, or whether to threaten them into craven submission.

Who are Trump’s supporters? Here’s one, and he’s a doozy



If you watched Trump’s Phoenix speech on Monday, you probably noticed a guy standing almost directly behind him, holding up a sign that read “BLACKS FOR TRUMP.”

He wore a t-shirt referencing a website,, that brings us directly into the belly of the beast.

No White House press office would ever allow anyone wearing a T-shirt with a slogan and a URL to stand behind a President of the United States, giving a major speech, without explicit permission. So we have to assume that the guy, as well as his signs, had been vetted and approved by someone who reports to Gen. Kelly. Therefore, it’s acceptable to think that the Trump administration directly or indirectly endorses the website.

Well, what’s on it? Welcome to Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be  bumpy ride.

Look, I don’t mean to make fun of anybody’s beliefs. But really, this is a romp through something that is deeply disturbing. In case you didn’t know, “The Real KKK Slave Masters” are “CHEROKEE Indians (Hidden Babylonians)…GOD YAHWEH chose TRUMP to be President…to be the White & Black DELIVERER from the Babylon, like the Gentile King CYRUS.”

But wait, there’s more. “ISIS & HILLARY RACE WAR PLOT TO KILL ALL BLACK & WHITE WOMEN OF AMERICA WITH MS-13.” !!! And here, in case you’re wondering, is the “Cherokee Democrat Flag”:

Did you know there are “infiltraters [sic] in the Rep. Senate like McCain” who are “coming down with Great Wrath because their wicked time to block good policy is short”? Did you know that “Slavs are Canaanites…like our wonderful 1st lady Malania [sic] Trump”? Did you know that “Republican Senators who’re against Trump’s HealthCare Policy…are Mormon Cherokee’s [sic]”? Did you know that “Hillary is the true Racist”? Did you know that “YAHWEH BEN YAHWEH Taught Us to Vote Republican”? Did you know that “ROCKERFELLER [sic] IS NIMROD KING OF THE CANAANITES & SAUD THE KING OF THE ISHAMELITES MASONIC ILLUMINATI TRILATERALIST BIG BANKS KKK”?

Can you imagine Fox News’ reaction if President Obama had given a speech with a guy behind him wearing a t-shirt that led to an insane website? Hannity’s head would have exploded. Well, the website lurches on and on, ever deeper into paranoid, delusional weeds, so, as delightful as it is to write about this stuff, it’s time to return to sanity. I just thought it worthwhile to reveal the mindset of at least one very visible Donald J. Trump supporter. When those of us who believe that many, if not most, of Trump’s fans are deranged, it’s people like him we have in mind. But it could just as easily be a KKK admirer, or a camo-clad survivalist, or a homophobe seeking a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, or Jerry Falwell Jr., or a birther, or any of the others whose impaired mental state puts them in Trump Land. When The Resistance proclaims its intent to prevent America from falling into the hands of wackos, led by the lunatic-in-chief, it’s people like the guy we envision. It’s good that Gen. Kelly allowed him to have his 15 minutes of full-frontal fame, to let the world know just what is festering at the core of the Trump movement.

Hey kids! Want to troll Breitbart? It’s fun and easy!



I go to Breitbart most days. I don’t spend a lot of time reading it—it’s pretty much the same garbage as in National Enquirer. But I do like to post the occasional comment, especially lately, given Breitbart’s and Bannon’s “importance” (if that’s the right word) in the national political conversation.

I post 2 or 3 times a day. I happily confess to being what you’d call a “troll.” I pretend to be a fan—right wing fanatic, anti-Democratic in the extreme, pro-Trump, angry and violent. I spell incorrectly, use horrible grammar, and say the most outrageous things: “I hayte Killary,” “Presadent Truimp shud send Obummer to Gittmo,” “Lock up the libtard snowflak medea.” If you examine my comments from real Breitbarters, it’s nearly impossible to tell which are theirs and which are mine. But I’m doing satire, and they’re not. So who’s crazy?

This is my way of pointing out how pathetically stupid Breitbart addicts are. Sometimes they see through my ploy and tell me in no uncertain terms to go fuck myself, literally. They call me “liberal troll” and urge each other not to respond to me. But sometimes they do respond, which is really cool. I love when they tell me to go back to school and learn how to spell. Then I can respond, “Itts verry unfare of you to critzcize a felo consurvativ just becuz I don’t no how to spill.” My ultimate goal is to be a “Turing machine” on Breitbart, where nobody knows if my comments are satiric or real. No better demonstration of absurdity can be imagined.

Look, it’s important to gum up the right wing attack machine as frequently and powerfully as we can. They invented fake news, so when I throw it back at them, I’m only using their own methods. Fire with fire, baby. Besides, you’d be surprised how much creativity it takes to write a truly stupid comment. It appeals to the auteur in me.

And now, onto the news of the day: Phoenix, and Trump’s rant.

A Nuremberg-style rally. Angry and defiant. Platitudes wrapped in the flag, from a thin-skinned, paranoid, defensive, hateful narcissist. Lies about “We’re all together,” completely ignoring his continuing insults of half of America, from his birtherism to his slandering of immigrants, transgendered people, Muslims, Hillary, the Obamas, scientists, environmentalists, Democrats–who got more votes than he did. More slurs against “the dishonest media” that reports on his, and his family’s, profit from power, on his collusion with Russia, on his sexual predation, on his lies and bullying. No criticism of the “fake media” of his friend, the National Enquirer. More phony calls for “love,” “where my heart is,” from a man who has never shown love for anything, except money, sex, power and his family, whoever his current wife happens to be. Blithering nonsense about the right of children to play in safety. More bull about “God” from the most secular, immoral president in U.S. history. More cries from his frenzied, murderous crowd to destroy CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, even his own Senate Republican Party. More slanders about Democrats being communists, allowing rapists unlimited entry across the borders.All that was missing were the spotlights and “Heils.” Leni Reifenstahl would have enjoyed filming the hatefest.

History will record this disgusting Phoenix rally as, first and foremost, Trump’s continuing violent attack on the legitimate media, which means: attacking Truth. He could have tried to heal divisions. Instead, he threw raw, bloody meat to his racist, tea party fans, and, along the way, advertised fox “news” and the repellent Hannity. This was Adolf Trump, addressing his troops, indoctrinating them with propaganda, preparing them for battle.

Trump asks for unity? It’s not going to happen. #Impeach

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Recent Comments

Recent Posts