Mocking Right Wing Evangelicals and Trump, the Chaos-for-Chist candidate

I have a funny to share with you, dear readers.

I was reading about how Trump is the radical right wing evangelicals'  and God's chosen "Chaos candidate".

I was reading about this on a crazy Christian web site, Charisma. They kept referring to Trump as God's "anointed wrecking ball" with other references to "Cyrus".

Not Miley Cyrus, just 'Cyrus'.

So as a good, well-brought up Lutheran woman, my mind went Biblical in reference. I thought maybe, just maybe, in some incomprehensible way these wacko-bird evangelicals were referring to Cyrus the Great of Persia, in the context of a powerful leader.

Cyrus the Great, who ended the Babylonian captivity of the Jews and ordered the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. A prominent non-Judeo-Christian leader anointed by God. Cyrus the Great of Persia who was called the Messiah in the prophetic book, Isaiah :

45:1 Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

^45:2I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
^45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

THAT Cyrus. Evangelicals......so logically Biblical Cyrus. Old Testament Cyrus.

Noooooooo.  The crazy evangelicals were referring to the sexy music video by Miley Cyrus from back in 2013, that they probably have never seen or heard, and would not approve of if they had.  No one would accuse these numbnuts of being conversant with popular culture.

Because......wrecking ball.

After reading and re-reading, they clearly meant Trump was God's anointed MILEY Cyrus wrecking ball intended to demolish non-evangelical Christian opposition to things like creationism and tolerance for the LGBT. They believe Trump is supposed to restore Christian theocracy to the government of the United States.

Like a wrecking ball.

And now I'm left with the unavoidable mental image of Trump, in skimpy underwear, licking a sledgehammer for God. Orange spray-tanned fat, old Trump, who thinks he is God's gift to women, in skimpy underwear, brown socks and brown shoes, twerking his way to a Christian theocracy for the United States, in the name of Jesus.  And now you have that image too.

Yup - now just try to get that image and the MILEY Cyrus music out of your head. 

Scary Halloween, the more things change the more they stay the same

The following is a reprint from seven years (and one day) ago.

It is worth a repeat here in part because it is fun to laugh at the overly but sincerely superstitious but also because it underlines why we must not allow the crazy right wing evangelicals who support Trump to create an insane theocracy in place of our democracy.

If you think this is a little bit of scare-mongering on my part, I would encourage you to follow sites like Right Wing Watch which documents the crazy belief systems of what used to be the fringe right but is now all too often mainstream right, as the right moved to the political extreme.

There is plenty of this same kind of promotion of belief in demons, and a promotion of the end days with Trump as God's chosen chaos candidate. These are people who are enthusiastically looking for the end of the world, including in any kind of fiery conflagration such as nuclear war. What these people believe should concern us all, because they wield very real political influence and power.

It was the prominent Christian media source Charisma that seven years ago carried the article on demonic Halloween candy is now carrying this article promoting Trump for chaos.  So there is a serious connection here apart from the entertainment value. If you can't stomach watching the video below, this description of the book by the main speaker below should tell you what you need to know. And yes the 'Cyrus' reference is not biblical, it pertains to Miley Cyrus and her popular music Wrecking Ball. The unintended mental image of Trump "twerking" was so far the most entertaining moment of my day.

Known for his prophetic words about how presidential candidate Donald Trump is a “wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness” or how Trump has a “Cyrus” anointing to be a strategic voice in this urgent hour, Dr. Lance Wallnau candidly presents the supernatural story and strategy of Donald Trump being God’s Chaos Candidate.

From the Christian media Charisma.
Donald Trump Is God's Chaos Candidate

Friday, October 30, 2009

A Creepy Trick, No Treats, for Halloween

"For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."
MacBeth, act IV scene 1, 1623William Shakespeare
Kimberly Daniels wrote about Halloween Candy for Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network web site where it drew the attention and ridicule from sources across the Internet, including the Huffington Post and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Daniels personifies that brand of religion that amounts to Christian superstition. It links to the crazy that is epitomized by extreme fundamentalists. It holds little similarity to what most people think of as conventional religious faith or spirituality, and holds more in common with Grimm's Fairy Tales, seances by adolescents at slumber parties, and ghost stories told at camp in the dark in the woods around a camp fire before going to sleep in a tent, (shining a flashlight up your nose, optional).

Daniels' version of Halloween is as different from real Wicca and modern Paganism as the fictional highly commercialized figure of a red-suited, white bearded fat old man with flying reindeer we think of as Santa Clause differs from the Biblical account of the birth of Christ at Christmas.

Happy Halloween from all of us at Penigma

No Schadenfreude for you, GOP!

That Hillary scandal is another non-scandal.

From Think Progress:

So what we now know is that Comey delivered this letter, not because the FBI uncovered some new bombshell, but because he was under a legal obligation to do so. We also know that the emails were not from Clinton. Additionally, the AP reports that the emails “did not come from her private server.”

Despite the explosiveness of the initial headlines regarding this letter, the actual substance of the story appears to be shrinking with each new revelation.

Long on promises Always always short on actual plans, real details

A little pre-Holiday Friday Fun Day Video

Trump claims he will be the US "Brexit"; too bad he has no idea what that means

Earlier this week, Trump brought up Brexit while campaigning in Florida.

The Republican nominee finds himself behind in both national and Florida statewide polls, down six and two respectively, according to the Real Clear Politics average.

“I think we’re going to have a little Brexit coming up in November,” he said.

Brexit has not been good for the UK now, and it is looking as if the predictions of a large consensus of economists is coming true, that it will hurt the economy in the UK in the future. In particular there is an expected loss of jobs as foreign investment, notably Japanese capital, moves to the mainland of Europe.

As the following news article from Reuters notes, there are 2 MILLION jobs involved in the projected move, and a potential loss affecting up to 12% of the UK economy. That kind of move hurts, it can lead to a significant recession or even depression, and it will continue to have ripples for global economies, including our own.

An example of how Brexit has affected a company with operations in the UK but based here in the US, from the Irish Times:

Brexit turmoil sees Whirlpool cut annual profit forecast

Appliance giant hurt by sluggish US sales and Brexit-inspired uncertainty in UK

Whirlpool cut its annual profit forecast after results fell well short of estimates in the third quarter, hurt by sluggish sales in the US and Brexit-inspired turmoil in the UK.
...The UK’s vote to leave the European Union – and subsequent impact on the pound – also took a toll on results, the Benton Harbor, Michigan-based company said.

Here's what the British Chamber of Commerce had to say last month about how Brexit affected the UK, from the Guardian:

UK economy to hit near standstill as Brexit vote hurts investment – BCC

British Chambers of Commerce more than halves GDP growth prediction for next year to 1%, citing post-referendum uncertainty
Britain’s economy will grind to a near standstill over the coming months as post-referendum uncertainty triggers a slump in business investment, a leading business group has warned as it slashed its growth forecasts.
In its first set of forecasts since the vote to leave the EU, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) on Monday more than halved its GDP growth prediction for next year from 2.3% to 1.0%. That would mark the worst economic performance since 2009, when the UK was emerging from a deep recession sparked by the global financial crisis.

Much as the low-education pro-Trump dummies who hate globalism would love to see less of it, here's a story from Reuters back in May before the actual Brexit vote.

If Britain votes to leave the European Union in June, some U.S. banks could give up parts of their business in the bloc altogether.The scenarios being studied by taskforces at U.S. banks underscore the extent to which the London operations of non-European banks are linked to business on the continent.
In particular focus are the banks' market operations, as trading of most European securities is regulated at the EU level but conducted by many investment banks mainly out of London.
The five largest U.S. banks employ 40,000 people in London, more than in the rest of Europe combined, taking advantage of the EU "passporting" regime that allows them to offer services across the bloc out of their British hubs.

Those businesses in the UK shut down, it means not ONLY the loss of 40,000 jobs in London, it will mean the loss of jobs here too.

Trump was notorious in his very public ignorance of Brexit when he was visiting Scotland. He appears to have continued his ignorance late into the campaign.

From Reuters:

Banks preparing to leave UK over Brexit, says banking body chief executive
Big international banks are preparing to move some of their operations out of Britain in early 2017 due to the uncertainty over the country's future relationship with the European Union, a top banking official said.
Writing in the Observer newspaper, Anthony Browne, the chief executive of lobby group the British Bankers' Association, said the public and political debate was "taking us in the wrong direction" and businesses could not wait until the last minute.
"Most international banks now have project teams working out which operations they need to move to ensure they can continue serving customers, the date by which this must happen, and how best to do it," said Browne. "Their hands are quivering over the relocate button. Many smaller banks plan to start relocations before Christmas; bigger banks are expected to start in the first quarter of next year."
Many of the world's major banks have their European headquarters in Britain, where the financial sector employs more than two million people and makes up almost 12 percent of the economy.

Bill Clinton "worst ever"? Not even close : the lessons of unsanitized presidential history

We've heard Donald Trump claim that Hillary shouldn't be president because Bill Clinton had infidelities.  To be specific, Trump claims Bill Clinton was a sexual predator, the worst in the history of the presidency.  Specifically per the AP, Trump said this

 "But Bill Clinton has sexually assaulted innocent women and Hillary Clinton was attacking those women viciously." "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women to ever sit in the Oval Office. He was a predator,"

There is no credible evidence that Hillary ever attacked these women, much less viciously.  She did stand by Bill through rough going, but that is arguably evidence commitment to traditional marriage, not of abuse of anyone else.

But as to the claims against Bill Clinton, I would argue that as sexual escapades in the White House go, he's been among the less egregious, not the worst.  More on that below, but first an examination of the allegations against "President Bubba".

To get specific, Bill Clinton had five formal allegations of sexual misconduct; the claims of Juanita Broadderick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones, have not been established.  They exist as accusations of dubious authenticity, given Broadderick and Willey both testified under oath that Clinton never made unwanted advances.  Further Willey had a history of false accusations, which included telling a boyfriend she was pregnant, when she was not, and then claiming a miscarriage that she didn't have.  Linda Tripp of Monica Lewinsky scandal fame claimed it was Willey who was obsessed from day 1 with seducing the President.

Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky both appeared to have had some kind of sexual relationships but not apparently coitus with Lewinsky.  Bill Clinton admitted to a one time sexual relationship with Flowers. 

Gennifer Flowers used her notoriety for profit, to the tune of $500,000.  All of the women who have appeared with Donald Trump prior to his second debate, both alleged victims of Bill Clinton, and a very questionable rape victim, were paid to do so, to the tune of $2,5000 each, and their stories conflict with prior accounts of events, including Grand Jury testimony under oath.

Hillary has also been accused of laughing at the alleged victim of a rape case, presumably thereby abusing HER,  where she had no option out of defending the accused rapist, whom she got a plea deal.  She did laugh at the botched case of the prosecution, and she was recorded laughing at the unreliability of polygraph testing, which showed the accused rapist to be innocent.  But she did NOT laugh at the victim.  Further complicating the rape case, the 12 year old victim had consensual sex with a 15 year old boy prior to the accused rape, and had previously made false accusations of bodily attacks.

Hillary Clinton tried to get out of defending her client, but she got a good outcome for her client (a plea deal, not an acquittal)  because he passed a polygraph test, and because of lack of evidence and mishandling of evidence by the prosecution.  It was her duty as a defense attorney to do so; she did her job. The victim previously supported the defense role of Hillary before it became profitable to object to her.

In contrast so far as can be established, there are more women who have credibly come forward to make accusations against Trump, and NONE of them have been paid to do so, and none of them have been credibly contradicted by others in defense of Trump, except by Trump himself who makes a highly suspect denial, much less contradicted themselves.

In contrast Bill Clinton, who turned 70 this past August,  has had no sex scandals since Monica Lewinsky back in the 1990s.  Trump, who also turned 70 this past June, has had sex scandals pretty much right up until he decided to run for President, which he announced in 2015.  These include a law suit for multiple violent rapes of a 13 year old, to other accusations of sexual assault and sexual harassment.  Trump's accusations are distinctive in how consistently they are not consensual - although he has had consensual affairs as well.  He admits to having cheated on Ivana, his first wife, with Marla Maples, his second wife, and to having cheated on Maples with multiple women, including his third wife.  He has been recorded multiple times admitting to have at least attempted to cheat on Melania Trump his third wife.

Putting Bill Clinton's conduct in context, and at the same time putting the claims that Hillary Clinton jeopardized the security of the country with her email problems, I offer you a few examples of bad presidential conduct. Richard Nixon - yes, Tricky Dicky - had an ongoing affair with a Communist Chinese woman with close ties to Chinese Generals.  MI-6 recorded his sex-capades and head of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover got his own dirt on Dick, and used it to blackmail him.  Trump campaign staffer and key adviser to Donald Trump was in the Nixon White House and is one of those who confirm the story.  Both JFK and Gerald Ford had affairs with an East German Communist spy, by the name of Ellen Rometsch, with both being allegedly blackmailed, again by J. Edgar Hoover. Ford was not president at the time, but allegedly was blackmailed for information from the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination.  JFK was far more of a sexual predator and serial philanderer than Bill Clinton, including alleged sexual impropriety with interns. Ronald Reagan had a credible accusation of rape while president as well - but that was while he was Screen Actors Guild president, not US president.

Arguably black mail of the president is a far greater danger to the security of the United States than a private email server with very low level information on it.  And if one takes a look at the totality of presidential history when it comes to inappropriate sexual conduct, there are few who pass scrutiny.  George Washington has been credibly accused of having a long term sexual relationship with a slave named Venus and a speculative one with a certain Mrs. Fairfax.  Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings has been established by DNA evidence, and possibly began when she was as young as 16.  This is not unique to recent presidents.  The founding fathers had more than their fair share of bastards. 

Looking at presidents from WW II forward, the only apparent cases where there were no credible accusations of infidelity or sexual misconduct, before, during or after their presidency were Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman.  Both Bushes appear to have had affairs - more than one, and Dubya was accused of rape. Looking back before WW II across the 19th century, there not only heterosexual affairs, some with presidential bastard offspring, there were rumors of homosexual relationships attributed (at different times in history) to both presidents Abraham Lincoln and James Buchanan.

So, no, Bill Clinton is FAR from the worst president in terms of keeping himself safely in his pants, and he seems considerably less bad in that regard than the conduct of Donald Trump, past and recent past if not present.  That is IF you look at factual histories of our presidents and their most private conduct.  Just a word to the wise, before you take a look at our unsanitized history - you will NOT be able to look at Mount Rushmore, or stamps with presidents on them, or money, quite the same way again afterwards.

Intolerable Foreign Interference and Duty to Country

The Trump campaign, and to a lesser extent, Republicans, has and have been willing to use the information provided by WikiLeaks.  To be clear, when WikiLeaks first started it was embarrassing to the Republicans and I didn't speak out against it.  That was in part because it looked like it was some disaffected member of the US military spilling certain embarrassing details, but details which weren't really state secrets.

However, it has now become clear that WikiLeaks is being fed by a foreign government and by a government which is not friendly to the US, our strategic interests or even to democratic rule (namely, Russia and it's dictator Vladimr Putin). 

This isn't a party issue, this isn't a Dem/Republican issue, this is a national security issue.  What if the Russians find a way to tap into polling machines? (something which is actively being investigated and hopefully defended against)   What if the Russians find out actual secrets, plans of the US?  Would that be sufficiently a problem?  For Republicans not to repudiate Russia and to as a result, not walk away from the intelligence being provided by Russian intelligence services, is appalling.  Just like a charitable contribution from a pedophile, you dismiss the gift when given under unethical circumstances.  I would feel this way if this were stuff about Trump (or Cruz or Bush) if I was told it came from some foreign entity (like say, Israel).  I would, like a good juror, ignore the information.

I think the press really OUGHT to walk away from it but they may not and as the fifth estate, I believe they ultimately have a duty to report the news of the leak if not the details, but members of government?? Whether it's current or prospective, they have a duty to disavow the act and the benefits of the act.  Not doing so puts party before country, it abrogates the DUTY they swore to uphold, namely defending our constitution against foreign enemies and allowing a foreign government to intrude on our political process is failing to defend our democratic process.  The government of Russia broke our laws, broke international laws, and engaged in espionage against our very likely future President, if not now, then when do you object?

As far as Russia goes, this country MUST push back on Russia.  It needs to assault their operational systems and put some scare into Putin.  If that constitutes clandestinely aiding the Ukrainians through direct transfers of money and/or military hardware, so be it.  If that means disrupting their pipelines, so be it. If that means providing Europe with natural gas supplies and building pipelines to do so, so be it.  You cannot let a foreign actor attack your IT infrastructure without consequence and I find it APPALLING that Republicans, not all, but many, not only don't agree, but are agreeing to be the willing fool for Putin.

Donald Trump, flip flopper

It would seem to me, and I would argue to most reasonable people, that what someone says when they have nothing to gain - or lose - is the more sincere. Which puts the lie to Trump's current campaign positions, or at the very least would argue he has no sincerely or deeply held beliefs other than wanting to advance himself.

Back in a prior campaign, Howard Dean was called a flip flopper for changing his positions, to damaging effect.  He had fewer of those positions than Trump has.

I have long harbored the secret suspicion that Trump is simply appealing to those who like the vulgarity of reality television, the same crowd the ancient Romans appealed to with bread and circuses displaying horrific violence in the name of entertainment.  On some level, the modern voters must know that Trump is not real, at the same time they praise him for speaking 'truth'. 

I actually had a debate on line where some moronic Trump supporter tried to argue that reality tv was powerful real-world stuff, and that Trump was demonstrating some sort of alpha prowess and potency that people would understand made Trump powerful.  His argument was based on the notion that "tapping ass" (pardon the crudity) created some sort of jock-status back in high school. This moron had a difficult time grasping the notion that high school locker rooms were not the real world either.

However that might offer a glimpse into the emotional thinking that has made Trump popular primarily among lower educated and less evolved white males to the exclusion of other demographics.  Trump voters are not only as a group less educated, but have never really gotten beyond that level of thinking and wishing.

In that context it will be interesting to see how well a belief in Trump's misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic positions will survive seeing Trump's real world words from his past.  What this should challenge is if wishful thinking will win or lose against a dose of reality.  The other side is running similar campaigns against Hillary, but they are using more deceptive editing methods to misrepresent her past words.

Martha and Sara

Best of the postings for Friday Fun Day

And one of my other FB fav graphics from the week - Enjoy!

I particularly love to laugh at the end times crazies and the evangelicals who claim Trump is "God's chaos candidate". I have yet to see any credible evidence other than evil wishful thinking that any divine entity is seeking Chaos.

It's Friday Fun Day - let's start with a funny, but all too true

Grasp and greed

Just a guess, but I doubt 'reimbursing ourselves' is a line of reasoning that justifies theft of anything, least of all a natural resource.

Apparently along with all the other things he doesn't understand, like personal boundaries, national boundaries are an ethical and intellectual challenge for Trump too.

This is the personification of the term "Chickenhawk"

This is the man who insists, without any evidence for it, that he is smarter than all the generals and admirals who are professional military experts. You have to be pretty foolish and gullible to believe anything relating to foreign policy, war, our military, or to patriotism that this man says.

Hillary and the 2A came up in the 3rd presidential debate

I have long contended that unless and until we have consensus by proof of what is and is not factual, we won't have any functional unity.  I don't want to see us continue to become increasingly dysfunctional as a nation.

Lies fuel extremism.  Lies fuel fears.  Both quotes in the graphic below are FALSE.

I fact checked the graphic below after finding it on the FB page of someone who expressed an alarming degree of hatred for Hillary.  I am confident that the reasons this person has for his emotions are ALL as false as the image below, which I took from his FB page.

Images like this keep popping up on right wing posts on social media. It is false. But it goes a long way towards explaining the poorly informed right wing response of boos when Hillary CORRECTLY stated her FACTUAL position on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- a document she knows well and understands thoroughly.

We have a serious problem with gun violence; our rates are 25 times higher, especially gun violence involving either child victims and/or child shooters.  So long as one side of the issue refuses to be factually accurate, we can't do anything to successfully resolve this public health issue.



Here is what is wrong with the above image; it is entirely FAKE. Because conservatives LIE when the facts are not on their side; and this is one more example of it.

From Politifact Iowa:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton explicitly stated her plans to "shut down" the National Rifle Association and expressed hope at banning handguns in an interview with The Des Moines Register last summer. At least, that’s according to a viral image that first cropped up on an anti-Clinton Tumblr blog and has been shared widely on Facebook. "I will get the NRA shut down for good if I become president. If we can ban handguns, we will do it," the post quotes Clinton as telling the Register on Aug. 8, 2015.
But here’s the thing: The quote is wholly fabricated. Clinton was never quoted in the Register making that statement, and it appears she has not made such a statement anywhere else.
Clinton campaigned heavily in Iowa throughout the summer and fall of 2015, and Register reporters and the paper’s editorial board interviewed her several times. But she was not in Iowa on Aug. 8, when she allegedly made the statement. Clinton’s first visit to Iowa in the month of August occurred on Aug. 14, followed by public events on Aug. 15 and Aug. 26.
A review of the Register’s archives show Clinton was neither interviewed nor quoted directly on Aug. 8 or in the days immediately following.
Clinton did make several statements regarding gun control on the Iowa campaign trail that were covered by the Register. In all of them, she laid out an agenda that calls for broader background-check requirements, including sales at gun shows, as well as stronger measures to prevent gun purchases by domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems.
"I'm going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better than that," Clinton said in Iowa in July. "A majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners agree with universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who are mentally unstable and even terrorists."
On Aug. 26 in Ankeny, she responded to the on-air murders of a news crew in Virginia:
"We've got to do something. It's a very difficult political issue. But we are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths," she said.
She went on,  "If guns weren't so readily available, if we had universal background checks, if we could put some time out between the person who got fired, or domestic abuse, or whatever other motivation ... maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage."
On Oct. 6, she described her views again, in response to a mass shooting in Oregon: "I feel like this is unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second Amendment rights are protected — but they are not absolute, the way the NRA wants them to be," Clinton said at an event in Davenport. "There are common-sense ways to make sure people are not using guns to commit mass murders."
Gun control came up again at an event in Sioux City on Dec. 4, after the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. At that time, she expressed support for banning gun sales to people on federal "no-fly" lists.
"I think we've got to be more willing to start imposing these kinds of gun-safety measures," Clinton said. "I'm certainly going to continue advocating for them."
Internet searches for the quote found on the image refer only to the image itself — not to any original reporting from the Des Moines Register, another news outlet or to raw audio or video. Evidence of the quote does not appear to exist beyond what was originally posted on Tumblr.

And from separate fact checking at Politifact.com (which I also verified by the defacto George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon):

[Face Book Meme, Feb. 16, 2015] Say George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern." — Facebook posts on Monday, February 16th, 2015 in a meme on social media Did George Washington offer support for individual gun rights, as meme says? False Facebook posts Say George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern." — Facebook posts on Monday, February 16th, 2015 in a meme on social media Did George Washington offer support for individual gun rights, as meme says? By Audrey Bowler on Friday, February 20th, 2015 at 8:56 a.m.
A reader sent us this meme about George Washington and gun rights. Did the first president really say that? Would George Washington have been an ally to modern-day gun-rights groups? A social-media meme suggests that he would have. Around the time of Washington’s 282nd birthday, a reader sent us the meme, which includes a painting of Washington and a quote purportedly written or uttered by the nation’s first president: "When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern."
But are those really Washington’s words? We contacted Edward Lengel, editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington project at the University of Virginia. He said "there is no evidence that Washington ever wrote or said these words, or any like them."
Lengel cautioned that it’s impossible to prove a negative, but he added that he’s "as certain as he can be" that the quote did not originate from George Washington. This is not the first time a similar claim has popped onto our radar screen. In December 2012, PolitiFact Texas rated False a claim made two days after the Newtown elementary school shooting.
When U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, appeared on Fox News Sunday, he was asked why he believed ordinary Americans should be able to buy semi-automatic weapons designed for military use. Gohmert answered in part, "For the reason George Washington said a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government." PolitiFact Texas contacted Gohmert’s office to seek details on the Washington quotation but didn’t hear back. The closest statement they could find was one Washington made in his first State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." The academic consensus is that Washington was referring to a trained militia to defend the new nation, rather than anticipating citizens seeking to head off perceived governmental tyranny. Ron Chernow, whose Washington: A Life won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for biography, told PolitiFact Texas that Washington was "talking about national defense policy, not individuals arming themselves, and the need for national self-sufficiency in creating military supplies." Some post-Revolutionary lawmakers did expect citizens to own firearms, but Washington does not appear to have been among them, experts said. "The idea of resistance to tyranny being dependent on a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest or even on local initiative would have been anathema to Washington," Lengel told PolitiFact Texas. "Indeed, during the (Revolutionary) war he very frequently lamented the crimes carried out by armed civilians or undisciplined militia against their unarmed neighbors. The solution to these crimes, as he understood it, was to increase the power of the government and the army to prevent and punish them -- not to put more guns in the hands of civilians." Indeed, during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, "citizens of Western Pennsylvania rose up to fight a new tax on the whiskey they produced," said Mary Thompson, research historian at Washington’s Virginia home, Mount Vernon. Washington was "concerned that success by the rebels would lead to a diminishment of the central/federal government," and directed state militias to counter the insurrection -- "citizen-soldiers," she said, "acting on behalf of the government against their fellow citizens."

Pop some popcorn and welcome to the debate; let's hope for more movie, less cartoon circus

Disney's Dumbo the Flying Elephant
with cartoon crows and mouse

Tonight's debate has something in common with not one, but two, very dissimilar movies, and with a circus.  Pop yourself some popcorn, and settle in.

The fantasy animation feature about a circus, "Dumbo the Elephant", was released by Disney Studios in 1941, and included a character with the unfortunate name of Jim Crow (voiced by Cliff Edwards, who earlier did the voice of Jiminy Cricket in the animated classic Pinnochio).

In 2015, the Academy Award winning movie Spotlight, about the Boston Globe's efforts to expose serial sexual predator pedophile priest  was released.

Tonight we can expect some of the circus style entertainment from substance challenged candidate Donald  Trump, who has prepared for this evening's debate, much as he prepared for the second debate, by attempting to distract with ugly spectacle, or what one might term a circus. 

Tonight's Trump circus will feature a mother who lost her son in the Benghazi attack, who wrongly blames Hillary Clinton.  While I feel great sympathy for this woman's loss, I feel far less sympathy that she is attempting to victimize someone else with a false attribution of blame.

The other feature of tonight's Trump Circus will be the half-brother of President Obama, a pathetic individual reminiscent of Billy Carter, President Carter's feckless brother, in his lack of intellect or success. For some inexplicable reason, Malik Obama holds dual Kenyan and US citizenship, and has been voting since 1980.  His reasoning for supporting Trump are pretty thin:

“This Trump guy is a really cool guy and I like him because he speaks from his heart and he is so down to earth,” said the older Obama then. The wire service reported he held dual citizenship in both the U.S. and Kenya and that he has voted in American elections since the 1980s.

Trump may soon have something in common with Malik Obama: HuffPost Pollster shows it’s likely the magnate will lose by significant margins come Election Day, much like when Malik Obama lost a bid for a Kenyan governorship in 2013, also by big margins.

From other reporting, in the UK, quoting Malik, who admits to 3 current wives.  One of the few things Malik has in common with Trump is a lack of monogamy, and alleged domestic violence.:

“There have been 12 wives since my first marriage in 1981, when Barack was my best man. I have done my best with all of them, along with the children.”

And: “I don’t beat my wives, as has been alleged. It’s all b******t. I categorically deny the allegations said to have come from my wife.”

Movie Promo photo
winner 2015 best movie Oscar

And while we are on the subject of bad causes supported by Malik Obama, he apparently knew and liked horrific dictator Moamar Kaddaffi, and lobbied Barack Obama to keep him in power.  What Trump has proposed while campaigning and his notion of how government works generally is fascist and authoritarian, which would appeal to someone who likes dictators.

Malik Obama is notoriously pro-Islamic terrorists; sadly part of the incompetence of Trump is his failure to vet his supporters.  This certainly argues he is incapable of effective so-called extreme vetting.  From Winning Democrats:

Now, there’s a reason President Obama doesn’t associate with his Kenyan half-brother, and Trump may not be aware of it — Malik Obama supports Hamas, and was photographed in 2012 wearing one of the terror group’s scarves with the slogans “Jerusalem is ours – we are coming” and “From the river to the sea,” a statement that asserts Israel doesn’t exist at all.

As a shorthand for this particular circus exhibit that is Malik Obama, I think of him as "Dumb-bro", dumb for supporting Trump, 'bro' for brother, and like a cartoon elephant for supporting this particular worthless Republican candidate.

The movie Spotlight pertains tonight because more people have come forward to support the stories of the victims of sexual assault by Donald Trump.  As with Malik Obama, who erroneously believes Donald Trump is innocent "because the women didn't come forward before", in point of fact as we see in the movie Spotlight, women DID come forward before the election, in some cases long before, as in the case of the law suit filed by Jill Harth, LONG before Trump considered running for office.

Six people have come forward to corroborate the assault reported by People magazine staff writer, Natashay Stoynoff.  The quote below is an excerpt from the New York Times regarding the accusation by Stoynoff.  It is worth noting that while superficial and shallow, less fact conversant people like Malik Obama focus inaccurately on the timing of events, the New York Times has followed a very similar pattern of seeking corroboration to that followed by the Boston Globe in pursuing their stories, as depicted in the movie "Spotlight".  Multi-sourcing, seeking multiple sources for a quote or an event, are standard practice for responsible, ethical, serious journalists.

People published her claims on the same day that The New York Times published an article in which two women described what they said were their own encounters with a sexually aggressive Mr. Trump.

The six people quoted in the latest article include two editors from People, Mary Green and Liz McNeil; a professor of journalism, Paul McLaughlin; a co-worker; and two personal friends of Ms. Stoynoff. All of them said Ms. Stoynoff told them about the episode around the time it occurred.

“She wasn’t sure what she should do,” Mr. McLaughlin told the magazine. “I advised her not to say anything, because I believed Trump would deny it and try to destroy her.”

The investigation by the Spotlight feature writers at the Boston Globe led to many  more accusations, and to many successful law suits against the insurance companies and the Boston diocese for their part in the cover up.  Many of those who came forward did so after a long period of being intimidated into silence, as appears to be the case with the Trump accusers.  The significance of the New York Times, much like the Boston Globe, in seeking corroboration from people who knew of the assaults and other abuse AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED, could have significant legal ramifications for the notoriously litigious Donald Trump in the same way the Boston Globe investigation resulted in successful law suits.  Trump has already been embarrassingly unsuccessful in attempting to suppress the New York Times, much as the Catholic archdiocese was unsuccessful in stopping the Boston Globe a decade and more earlier.  That reporting is potent stuff.

From Wikipedia, citing the Boston Globe as their source:

Settlements in the Boston, Massachusetts suits were estimated to be up to $100 million. In some cases insurance companies have balked at meeting the cost of large settlements, claiming the actions were deliberate and not covered by insurance. This was additional financial damage to the Archdiocese, which already faced the need to consolidate and close parishes due to changing attendance and giving patterns. In June 2004, much of the land around the Archdiocese of Boston headquarters was sold to Boston College, in part to raise money for legal costs associated with scandal in Boston. 

Given the success of such corroborated law suits in Boston, it would perhaps be wiser for Donald Trump to start banking his money instead of looking for what he will do next, after losing his bid for the presidency to Hillary Clinton. The information being accumulated was helpful to law suits in Boston and could very well be very helpful in law suits against Trump. I would argue he might not be able to afford his own cable network, given his real estate businesses are doing poorly, particularly his latest venture down the street from the White House, which has an exceptionally high vacancy rate.  It's not like he can return to the Apprentice after being replaced by a very successful and far less abusive host, Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Trump is pretty much failing on all fronts other than the racist revolutionary bigot militia crowd.  As Sarah Palin found to her loss, popularity among the right wing extremists does not translate well into cable tv success.

It would not surprise me to see Trump sued, by multiple accusers, for damages from his misconduct.  If that were to be the case, we could expect to see some of that unreleased MGM owned Apprentice footage where crew and guest stars report Trump speaking at length in exactly the same manner he spoke on the Billy Bush bus.  At least one of his accusers is from the Apprentice, and others have come forward from that show to corroborate Trump's offensive language and behavior.

It would also not surprise me this evening to see Hillary Clinton speak to the new accusers and the substance of their accusations, as well as the credible reporting done by the Times, People Magazine, and by attorneys like Gloria Allred.  Back in 2012, this happened, relating to Allred, who was acting on behalf of a transgender woman competing in one of Trump's terrible pageants. 

From the Daily Beast:

Trump, forever incapable of turning away from obvious bait, hit back in a nasty call with TMZ.

Before even being asked a question, Trump said: “I think Gloria would be very very impressed with me, I really do,” referring to his penis with the subtlety of a train crashing through a building.

“I think she’d have a whole brand new image of Donald Trump,” he continued through the laughter of the TMZ staff. He went on to say that Talackova could compete if she chose to do so but joked that he might have changed his mind if he knew that Allred was involved.

Hillary Clinton will be her usual substantive, dignified, poised presidential self tonight.  We can comfortably expect that no one invited by Donald Trump will throw her off stride.  And we can expect a circus pandering to the gullible, tasteless and stupid to be the response from Donald Trump, as he has already indicated by his guest list.  For anyone in doubt, Trump is what conservative losing looks like, and it is ugly, not entertaining.

Please feel free to boo Trump from the comfort of where you choose to watch the debates, but you might want to resist throwing you popcorn at the television or computer screen.

In anticipation of tthe Wednesday night 3rd debate

I predict Trump will lose, lose the debate, lose the election.
I predict Trump will continue to embarrass himself.
I predict Trump will continue his failed attempt to focus NOT on his opponent Hillary but on still-popular former President Bill Clinton and President Obama.
I predict Trump will be consistently, persistently factually inaccurate to an extreme degree.
I predict Trump will continue to claim the election is rigged and to promote conspiracy theories, and to whine whine whine whine whine about how he is a victim.  Trump is a victim of no one but himself.

I predict Trump will NOT be focusing on his 'proof' that his accuser of sexual assault in the first class of an airline, reported by the New York Times, was false.  His proof turned out to be a proven serial liar and self-professed pedophile pimp from the UK, who does not appear to have been in the US at the time, who has never had the funds to fly first class, and who would have been only 17 or 18 when the attack occurred and who had no legitimate business or other purpose to be in the US at that time.

It is worth noting that President Obama may be the most popular president in history, as he concludes his second term.  As of multiple polling from October 6 through October 17th , Real Clear Politics shows him with a polling average of 52.7 approval.

Breaking it down by individual polls listed over at RCP, the approval numbers are:
Gallup               54
Rasmussen        51
NBC/ WSJ        53
Fox News          57
GWU/ Battleground    53
Economist/Yougov    49
Reuters/Ipsos      52

During the previous election, it was harder to get a ticket to an event where Bill Clinton was appearing than it was to get in to see the President.  There aren't a lot of current stats for Bill Clinton, but his second term average, per this Gallup poll, was 61% for his second term, with a high point of 73% approval.   Polling Report.com had President Bubba's approval rating for early to mid-August of this year at 53%, with his prior recent approvals running 57% to 60%.

So, as a strategy, attacking EITHER Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is not a particularly clever idea, and the notion of attacking Bill's infidelities, from 20 years ago, when there haven't been any new scandals, and when he was hitting some of his highest approval ratings back during the Monica Lewinsky days..........again, not likely to result in helping Trump's declining numbers.

What it is likely to show is that Trump lacks substantive critical thinking and that he is weak on policy positions.  He fails fact checks before he gets out of bed every morning, with his twitter wars.
His supporters are leaving him like rats leaving a slowly rather than rapidly sinking ship -- in stead numbers, if not in a rush to depart.  His surrogates are meeting hostility because of the rubbish they are presenting.  Now the surrogates are trying to criticize the first lady, who is arguably more popular than either president has been.  Social media and prominent comedians are mocking Trump more than ever.

New sources continue to emerge - one of the latest being Penn Jillette, who asserts that the way Trump spoke on the Billy Bush bus was the same way he spoke on the set of the apprentice when he knew cameras were rolling, AND that the offensive language was NOT ONLY demeaning to women, but also demeaning to people of color, particularly blacks and Hispanics.  The man who was the executive producer of the Apprentice has come out with a scathing repudiation of Trump as a potential president.  Trump's replacement on the Apprentice, former Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has similarly repudiated Trump, and announced he will vote for Hillary.

The Mark Burnett statement:

“Given all of the false media reports, I feel compelled to clarify a few points. I am not now and have never been a supporter of Donald Trump’s candidacy. I am NOT ‘Pro-Trump.’ Further, my wife and I reject the hatred, division and misogyny that has been a very unfortunate part of his campaign.”

The Schwarzenegger statement:

For the first time since I became a citizen in 1983, I will not vote for the Republican candidate for President.
Like many Americans, I have been conflicted by this election – I still haven’t made up my mind about how exactly I will vote next month. I have been a proud Republican since I moved to the United States in 1968 and I heard Nixon’s words about getting government off our backs, free trade, and defending our liberty with a strong military.  That day I joined the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
But as proud as I am to label myself a Republican, there is one label that I hold above all else – American.  So I want to take a moment today to remind my fellow Republicans that it is not only acceptable to choose your country over your party – it is your duty.

And finally 700 Evangelical women have signed an open letter denouncing Trump, and taken a goodly swipe at the male Evangelicals who continue to support Trump also, per The Christian Post:

"As Christian women we are appalled by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's recorded remarks that disparage women and condone sexual assault," the statement, which was issued last week, states. "Such language cannot be dismissed as 'locker room talk.' Mr. Trump must offer public contrition that fully acknowledges the seriousness and depravity of his actions."

Another 2,500 students at Liberty University signed an anti-Trump letter, and 75 prominent Evangelical leaders signed a rejection of Trump letter from Change.org:

"Donald Trump's campaign is the most recent and extreme version of a history of racialized politics that has been pursued and about which white evangelicals, in particular, have been silent," the Change.org declaration says. "The silence in previous times has set the environment for what we now see." "For this reason, we cannot ignore this bigotry, set it aside, just focus on other issues, or forget the things Mr. Trump has consistently said and done," the declaration continues. "No matter what other issues we also care about, we have to make it publicly clear that Mr. Trump's racial and religious bigotry and treatment of women is morally unacceptable to us as evangelical Christians, as we attempt to model Jesus' command to 'love your neighbors as yourself.'"

It is also worth noting that while no major newspaper in the country has endorsed Trump, a number of prominent newspapers are coming out either in support of Hillary, or at the very least against Trump, including the two most prominent Christian newspapers.

THAT will be the context in which Trump does his pathetic little counter-punching shtick on Wednesday night. The one thing you can reliably expect he will NOT do is be either dignified or substantive, or that he will focus on either his real accomplishments which are few, or what he has to offer the nation.

I don't expect we will see anything more of Melania, since her efforts to defend Trump involved claiming he was like a little boy, but it is entirely possible if not before the debate, before too much longer that we will see more Trump scandal emerge, particularly something from the Apprentice of his appearances on Stern's radio show, and with new accusations from women coming forward.

Because the one sure bet is that there is much more scandal to come out from Trump's past and present, not less.  And the other sure bet is that he will behave badly, sooner or later, if not during the debate.

Voter Fraud Nonsense

Republicans like to claim, and have claimed for years, that fraud is the reason they lose or have lost, some close elections.

When challenged for proof, they have none.  When their allegations are investigated, such as in the Coleman - Franken race, they evaporate like smoke.

Even the supposedly most credible case about which they bally-hoo and about which you hear, time and time again is the 1960 Presidential election, specifically supposed over-votes in the Chicago area.  Please refer to the attached story from Slate.com:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.html

This story debunks that incredible (totally non-credible) claim.  The Illinois election was deeply/broadly investigated and while a tiny number of votes (953) were reversed.  That's ENTIRELY within the realm of any re-count.  There were NO incidents of fraud which were proved.  The allegations were vapor, and were litigated and dismissed through.

On a personal level, my father, a man of extra-ordinary integrity, was involved in Chicago politics in the 1960's.  He has said the reason for the large majorities of Kennedy (and others) in the 60's was the effectiveness of the Daley "machine."  If you had a problem, you called your precinct captain and it got fixed.  Consequently people were very loyal to Dems.  My father would never, nor would I, nor anyone I know of, EVER have abetted fraud or put up with it, or left it unreported.  That's a profoundly offensive allegation.  The evidence doesn't support it, and there's no proof you have that it has occurred since (or then).  It's the realm of asking someone to prove something didn't happen when it should be you have to prove something DID happen.  When asked to prove THAT, the GOP failed utterly.  They litigated and they had no proof.