Sunday, August 7, 2016

They Shot Their Trump Card

Shut up Kyle!
Shut your Goddamn’ Jew mouth.
You’re the reason that there's war
in the Middle East
--South Park

 That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
--The Way It Is, Bruce Hornsby 

And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway go to?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right? Am I wrong?
--Once in a Lifetime, Talking Heads

It was recently revealed that the Democratic Party (i.e., the Clinton campaign) attempted to discredit Mrs. Clinton's sole opponent, Mr. Sanders, by disseminating the word that he was an atheist, instead of Jewish (which he in fact, is.)

Are we to believe that dismissed Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was to blame for the dirty doings in order that Mrs. Clinton may not have still more smut attached to her already tetchy image?

As the first Jewish congresswoman elected from Florida and a hard-working graduate of a Florida state school, it strains credulity to believe that Mrs. Wasserman Schultz would sink so low against one of her fellows.

Unless she is a pathologically self-loathing Jew, she alone did not hatch this plan but was directed to do so by higher ups. Remember, Mrs. Wasserman Schultz was Mrs. Clinton's campaign co-chair in Clinton's unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid. Old loyalties die hard.

I did not know Mr. Sanders was Jewish, but it is now obvious: his campaign was doomed to failure out of the gate. Anyone in his right mind knows that a Jewish quasi-Socialist will not win election to the presidency of the United States. Whether atheist or Jew, does it really matter as far as unelectability for the Presidency in the U.S.?

Vermont is another country; a Jewish -Socialist can be Senator there but in few other places. What were they thinking? Fronting Sanders seems a put up, to make it APPEAR that we have a viable democracy in the United States. After all, it would be unseemly for Mrs. Clinton to run opposed. Too Banana Republic; too Soviet.

But Mr. Sanders was never a viable candidate, and that he won as many votes as he did is a measure of the dissatisfaction of the electorate. A vote for Sanders was a no-confidence vote against Mrs. Clinton (who was the presumptive nominee from the start.) Sanders was the Democrat's Trump, and now they have none.

Who would be Mr. Sanders' constituents, he, an older white, Jewish man? He does not command the black vote nor the meso-feminist vote, which goes to the establishment Mrs. Clinton. He would not even corner the small Jewish vote.

Bernie got as far as he did on the disaffected lower-middle class white male and female vote -- precisely those who chose the non-establishment Trump on the Republican side.

You who voted for Sanders may think that spending their time also disdaining Trump was time well spent, but you have no candidate now. You drank the cherry Kool Ade Mrs. Clinton mixed for you, and now you have nothing. For the liberal True Believers, the best they can say now is, weakly, "We must not have a Republican".

It is a measure of the yearning of the Democratic base for something other than the Clinton dynasty that Mr. Sanders was able to garner such a following, and a damning reveal of the desperation of the Clinton group to even attempt the smear of Mr. Sanders.

 Jews in the U.S. may hold positions of authority which exploit their humor, intelligence, wit and capabilities. You may have your Rahm Emanuels, Judah Benjamins and Admiral Hyman Rickovers. Jews have won many Nobel and Pultizer Prizes, served as Supreme Court justices and served admirably in the armed forces (though after World War II they often could not be hired in the peacetime industries in which they had distinguished themselves during war because of anti-Semitism.) Hillary Clinton's daughter is married to a Jew. They may be doctors and lawyers, but not Indian chiefs.

Anti-semitism is the last great unbreeched bigotry in this nation, but we do not recognize it because Jews' successes are so outsized to their small numbers.

The boundaries to holding the office of Presidency will be breached in the order in which they were laid: First, a black man (15th Amendment), then a woman (19th Amendment). But before a Jew will be every other minority. Today, an Arab-descended Muslim man would be a good choice, a sort of holding out of the olive branch ("Sorry about that whole war thing.") Following Barack Hussein Obama, it is not far-fetched.

However, he will have to be Muslim in the way that Louisiana Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal is Indian: fully Anglicized, Hart Schaffner Marx, hair waxed and parted on the side. This will demonstrate the movement toward homogenization which is a necessary good today.

So it will be a woman after the first black President (who was quick to assure voters that he was Christian, and not Muslim, like his father and stepfather.) But should it be this woman, so freighted with problems of her own making, done in the name of clawing her way to the top?

In light of the recent revelations, Mrs. Clinton shows herself to be despotic and tyrannical, moreso than her Republican opponent has ever had the opportunity to be. She should be held to account, versus making her lady in waiting take the fall.

But this, the press will not allow. They have made our choice for us.

[cross-posted @ Rangeragainstwar.]


  1. The press may have made the choice for you personally. But for me the choice was made by Bernie supporters at my local caucus who spent the whole time throwing slime at Hillary and then threw slime at my wife and I because we did not cross over to the Bernie side.

    They (Bernie's supporters) should be ashamed. They did more damage to their candidate than Debbie ever did. And what was it that made them accept and embrace the Limbaugh/FOXnews version of Hillary???? Probably because the press that you claim supported Hillary is the same press that repeated every piece of garbage broadcast about her by Rush or by Lars Larson or by Hannity or by Beck or by Dr Laura or by the hundreds if not thousands of other wingnuts. The press repeated those statements they said: "just to show what was being said" and not to influence the election (SNARK alert).

  2. I have NO idea where the hell you're going with this, jim. And when you say stuff like "Following Barack Hussein Obama, it is not far-fetched." (to talk about a Muslim president) you make me wonder who is drinking what Kool-ade. C'mon, man. This is going into tin-foil hat places.

    The people who supported Sanders - like me - supported him because he was one of the few pols willing to come flat-out and rage at the Fucking New Gilded Age that the Trumpenproletariat are "protesting" by voting for a crony-capitalist con artist whose very "success" is practically a Thomas Nast cartoon. I finally tired of Feeling the Bern when the man couldn't (or wouldn't) come up with realistic plans to make his ideas happen in the opposition of a lunatic Republican House.

    But the Sanders thing wasn't a ridiculous fantasy nor should it be. The United States has always been capable of functioning as more-or-less an open plutocracy. It did in the last half of the 19th Century (before which it was effectively an aristocracy run by landed white dudes...) and it is rapidly returning to that condition with the addition of large corporations (which ARE people, my friend; as Mister Trump's GOP predecessor might remind you...) to the plutocratic mixer. I'm honestly insulted by your framing of the Sanders campaign as some sort of trumped-up Democratic fakery highlighted by Jew-baiting. Please point out for me an example of this anti-Semitism, if you please. Not a fantasy cooked up in the Breitbart Labs, please, but an actual example of Clinton campaign anti-Semitic rhetoric. You can't, can you?

    Because HRC ran not as a Christian fighting the Eternal Jew, but as the Sensible Center against Bernie the Left-wing Loon. She's a corporatist drone, but she's got the connections, she worked the non-white groups that Sanders ignored, she presented herself as someone who could get things done compared to Sanders the Ranty Grampy still fulminating about his days in the fucking Abraham Lincoln Battalion...

    (And while I'm at it, let me admit that I had the same problem with a lot of my fellow Sanders supporters mike did. It's all well and good to talk about "political revolution". But this ain't 1789, and you better be damn sure when you talk about storming the Bastille you don't forget that gate led to the damn guillotine. The Sanders people didn't, some of them, and in the process forgot who their REAL enemies are; the GOP enablers of the Gilded Age plutocrats (and the Bronze Age theocrats, the plutocrats' ridiculous allies).


  3. (con't from above)

    And this thing with the press. WTF, jim? Like mike points out, the fucking press has jumped on every piece of nonsensical bullshit vomited up from the sewer that is Glenn Beck's...well, not brain, but the notochord that he uses to control his voluntary nervous system. The press has kept alive the ridiculous lunacy. The press keeps hammering on this theme of "crooked Hillary". The press does NOT, mind you, discuss the real issue that I would say makes HRC such a poor candidate; her coziness with the Davos crowd, her willingness to suck up to people like the wizened Machiavelli, Hank Kissinger, the poisoner of Third World democracies. But they have been merciless to her in ways they have given your man Trump a complete an utter pass.

    Does the "media" here in the U.S. suck total ass? You get no argument out of me. But I'd argue that it'd not because they've gone all in for HRC. It's because they report HRC's political pablum with snark and Trump's blatant insanity with reserve. Because they report people like Paul Fucking Ryan worrying about whether wimmens will abort snowflake Zika babies while his Congressional buddies sit on their hands rather than respond to desperate Obama Administration pleas for action and financing on Zika and then report it as "Both sides unable to find way to take action on Zika threat!"...

    Damn, man.

    1. I stand corrected; this is Lisa's piece, not jim's, and that just makes me sad and sick. This IS tinfoil hat stuff, Lisa (and you doubled down on it below with your "killed innocent people" comment, as if ANY politician in any great power state doesn't have blood on their hands by the simple nature of Great Power politics...) and I didn't think this was yours simply because I know jim and he's as fire-breathing as I am and tends to fly off the handle just like I do.

      But I always thought of you as the voice of reason, the sensible, thoughtful one of us. And this...this is neither sensible nor thoughtful, but something that would fit right in over at Breitbart's place.

      Ugh. Now I'm really depressed.

  4. In re: Mister Trump's "Second Amendment Solutions" statement today, in 1972 Hunter Thompson wrote this:

    "This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it—that we are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable. The tragedy of all this is that George McGovern, for all his mistakes... understands what a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Richard Nixon. McGovern made some stupid mistakes, but in context they seem almost frivolous compared to the things Richard Nixon does every day of his life, on purpose as a matter of policy and a perfect expression of everything he stands for. Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President?"

    And now we know.

    Now we know.

  5. And here's a perfect example of the sort of "news" media mike and I are talking about:

    Not mentioned in this little "story"? The name of the attorney who is bringing these poor bastards' lawsuit. And why, you ask..?

    Because his name is Larry Klayman, and his previous shenanigans include bringing a class action suit against the President, among other people, because "...As a high profile Caucasian of Jewish origin, Plaintiff Larry Klayman imminently fears, including in this District where is organization does business and solicits support, great bodily and death and thus harm as a result of Defendants’ promotion and incitement of riots and violent acts, including death and great bodily harm, against law enforcement and police officers of all races and ethnicities, Jews, and Caucasians."

    No shit. Seriously. The goofy fucker also sued the present Administration over the Ebola virus thing, because the failure to completely ban all travel from Ebola regions was "...a reckless plan to open the door not just to Defendant Obama’s infected fellow Africans, but also American Muslim ISIS suicide terrorists who would intentionally infect themselves with the deadly disease and thus spread it widely in the United States..."

    No shit. Seriously.

    So this goofy bastard and his Benghazi lawsuit are just another piece of tinfoil-hat business from the same looney fruit stand.

    But would you know that from the Times' article, from "America's Newspaper of Record"?

    Good luck with this stuff, jim, but this dog just won't hunt

  6. Chief,

    A psychiatrist friend in Bethesda just sent mt the "latest", that Trump is inciting his followers to kill Hill. Dear God; he did not. He is playing the game well, and that is what a successful person does.

    Woe to Hill if she can't do it. She's like Sisyphus pushing her rock. The albatrosses around her neck are multitudinous, not an easy thing to shake off.

    Ironically: this same psychiatrist has me on the list serve for his medical newsletter. Today's had a pronouncement from a D.C. attorney: lay off on the Trump mental illness trope, 'cos he's not.

    Even its presentation is timid and fearful (lest SHE be seen as mad). This pussyfooting around stating facts is what's so pathetic, to me. The eternal P.C.-ness of it all.

    Why is this spreading of fear of this candidate Trump so attractive?

    There is nothing remotely equal to in the coverage of Mrs. Clinton (or President Obama, for all that), and yet those two have KILLED people ... lots of innocent people. They are directly responsible for their proxies carrying out the job. Don't we even care about that fact?

    Why news media speculation over Trump’s mental health needs to stop

    Anyway, that's what I'm talking about.

    1. erratum:

      The source was a D.C. psychiatrist, NOT an attorney.

    2. "...Mrs. Clinton (or President Obama, for all that), and yet those two have KILLED people ... lots of innocent people. They are directly responsible for their proxies carrying out the job. Don't we even care about that fact?"

      WHAAAAAATTTT???? is tinfoil hat stuff, Lisa. "killed people...lots of innocent people..."? Seriously? You really want to go there?

      Because if you do I'll see your Clinton and Obama and raise you Kennedy and Nixon and LBJ and Truman and Roosevelt and Wilson and Lincoln and Polk and U.S. Grant and Bill Sherman.


      C'mon, Lisa. I respect you more than this. But this is just nutty.

  7. Lisa -

    The main spreading of fear on Trump's mental stability comes from his Republican frenemies. Can you blame Hillary for echoing it? I certainly don't. And BTW haven't you seen that Trump has tried the same attack on her, or do you never call foul against your home team?

    No way that Hill can be likened to Sisyphus. His (Sisyphus') description as "self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness" sounds Trumpish to me:
    Self-aggrandizing - for sure, Trump wrote the 21st century book on boastfulness and egoism.
    Craftiness - he uses illegal labor in his empire and imports foreign made products yet says it is the fault of Hillary - another example is that after the evangelicals were turned off by his treatment of Ted Cruz, he picked Pence another of their darlings for his VP.
    Deceitfulness - The man's entire life is one big lie but here are two recent ones:
    1] "Saddam Hussein, who’s a bad guy and all of that, but he made a living off killing terrorists." Trump 5 July. That is just the opposite of the truth. Sadaam sponsored terrorists. The people Sadaam liked to kill were political dissidents. And Kurdish civilians whom he used poison gas on. Meanwhile he sponsored 'Ansar al-Islam' an international terrorist group because they were Sunni Arabs. He later killed more than a hundred thousand Kurd civilians with disease and malnutrition in his concentration camps.
    2] "Hillary Clinton says she wants to raise taxes on the middle class." Trump email and video 4 August. NO way! She said exactly the opposite as proven by tape recordings and video transcripts of her speech as well as by reporters who were there and heard the speech.

    Sorry you do not like my candidate. But I'll stick with her as the so-called albatrosses she wears around he neck are all bogus BS from the political enemies of her husband, still enraged that he out-Tefloned and even managed to outspeak Ronald Reagan.
    In my military mind, Hillary is more like Atlas or Ajax than your Sisyphus. She certainly has Atlas' endurance despite all the chains the false gods have tied her down with. The latest and greatest are that she has a syphilitic hole in her tongue, and that she has seizures and has to be followed around by a medical minder with a Diazepam injector!!!! Where does all that hate come from? Will they eventually burn her at the stake like another woman who wore pants back in the 15th Century?

    I know I will never convince you and millions of others. I think all are set and there are no undecided voters left. Sad for our country that we are so divided.

    1. I don't have a home team, mike. We at Ranger are fiercely independent, and skew left of center.

      For me, personally, this election, I find no quarter in my party (Democrat). I don't know who these inflamed people are, but they are not me. I have a final piece in mind to explain my deracination.

    2. mike: Study after study have shown that there really are no such things as "undecided voters" who aren't room-temperature-stupid people who literally don't have a clue. Most people who call themselves "independents" or "moderates" are people who actually have some pretty hard-right and hard-left beliefs. Perfect example; southern Oregon, where you have dope-smoking rednecks who will shoot you for suggesting that eight AR-15s are a skosh too many but who hate the timber barons. They think that Jesus would have gone full-auto but are all for taxing the shit out of the rich and like the idea of legal weed.

      And re: jim's comment below...there WAS a time when most of us were kids when there was a sort-of center. It was made up largely of Democrats who hated the nigras and Republicans who had bought off on the New Deal. But that was, honestly, a transitional period and more unlike most of American history than the current hard polarization between Center and Right.

      And Left? Don't make me laugh. There is no "Left" in American politics. Look at Sanders, who had to run to his right to even make the Democratic primary. I hope and am working like hell to try and raise a Left here in Oregon; there's WAY too many parts of this state that still think that Ann Coulter is Cleo, Muse of Truth. But nationally? I'd guess that a true social democratic party candidate'd get no more than about 10% of the national vote.

  8. FD Chief,
    A responsibility of the FDC is to confirm targets and to respond as appropriate.
    Since we've been writing as Ranger , and participating at Milpub we attribute our writings in the posted section of the blog.
    Lisa posts as Lisa, and i post as jim, ranger or simply no attribution. CO-writes are Lisa and jim. She goes first as i'm a recent convert to feminism.
    When it says posted by Lisa, this means that Lisa wrote the piece.
    Pretty simple.

    This election cycle should make all of us ashamed to be citizens.
    How did it come to this?
    We get the leaders that we deserve.
    No nation can endure internal hatred and conflicting values.
    How can we be the sole super power when we can't even quantify who or what we are?We can't resolve our conflicts, so how do we expect to solve international problems.?
    How could we really take Bernie seriously when Socialism as a word is more reviled than LIBERAL? Even the dems won't self describe themselves as such.If they can't calll themselves liberals , then how could a socialist suceed?
    Only a fool would think that BS had a match chance in a windstorm. He was a red herring.
    Why was the field so restricted as to allow a joker being wild in the deck? Your answer is in Lisa's article.
    Where are the leaders? Where are the statesmen? Hint- a flag lapel pin is not a qualifier,nor is a vagina.
    Now the same comment applies to the Republican hopefuls. Where did this bunch of whining losers come from? Their campaigns reminded me of college fraternity elections.
    The entire scenario is sound and fury signifying naught.
    It's all soma.
    jim hruska

    1. Sorry, jim; because this looked like a RAW post I carelessly assumed that you were the author. My bad; round unobserved.

      Anyway, Lisa: Sanders came in for the same reason Trump did; because the American public is getting hammered by the fucking New Gilded Age. Suddenly his "socialism" seemed preferable to the cozy corporatism of Clinton and the outright crony capitalism of the usual GOP buffoons.