RedSpawn

The problem is not the ad. The problem is the United Citizens court decision that allowed "legal fictions" (corporations) to contribute unlimited sums of money to political action committees and assert unalienable rights they don't have. Corporations are neither man nor woman nor human being and do not have the same Constitutional rights we do. Corporations do not have a 1st Amendment right to broadcast political ads of any persuasion and influence the body politic when they can't run for office and don't even possess the right to vote! A corporation is not a person; it is a human instrumentality. Without humans, a corporation is a piece of paper, neither more nor less. Legally, a corporation's rights are never superior to a man's right unless he relinquishes them.

I think we are talking past each other instead of to each other. I am not saying that Former President Bill Clinton is a bad President. I asked if he was a piece of slime and/or a liar? His lying on camera about an alleged peccadillo with a young, impressionable, manipulative White House intern is not a competency issue; however, it is a character and fidelity issue. If he lies about peccadilloes, will he lie about high crimes and abuses of power? Will he lie because it is politically expedient to do so? If he can't remain faithful to his wife, will he remain faithful to his constituents and to this nation? These questions are fair game and are completely within his span of control. At the press conference, he could have said he would not have dignified that question with a comment, or no further comment or that matter was none of our business, or even yes I did have an inappropriate relationship. However, he decided to double down on his false narrative because it was a pivotal moment and it was politically expedient to do so. He gave an Academy Award winning delivery and hoped that would end the matter, but it cast a dark shadow at the tail end of his Presidency. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for his impeachment hearing. He was acquitted because an acquittal was a politically expedient alternative to the messy chaotic process of unseating the President at the near end of his term. The impeachment hearing was a reality check by the D.C. establishment to remind Clinton that his duty to Office comes 1st and should never conflict with his dalliances. These affairs can become national security concerns. Plus, it is alleged Former President Bill Clinton became a target for blackmail because of this tryst and his deep-seated need to conceal it from the world. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/admiral_russia_blackmailed_bill_clinton_over_lewinsky.html https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/05/18/the-iowa-national-security-action-summit/ Please cue the video for Admiral James "Ace" Lyons to 18:55 http://samvak.tripod.com/pp157.html

There are so many questions about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack. Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to review the compromised server after the breach? Why did the FBI rely on the results of an investigation conducted by a 3rd party contractor for such a significant national security matter (with espionage overtones)? Why did the DNC and FBI both agree to accept the results of the 3rd party service provider without question? See http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because_it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html Interesting questions with no convenient answers. . . as usual.

Sorry, I was focused on the grease fire in the U.S. federal debt kitchen. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-makes-middle-eastern-crisis-worse-strange-tweets We have a Middle East crisis based on the planting of fake news in Qatar and bizarre tweets from Trump. These two events have made Middle East countries gang up on Qatar and demand that it stop supporting extremists groups in the region. I have to admit, I am getting a bit tired of the (insert enemy of choice) hack allegations. Let's take a historical look at how ALL of our enemies are so savvy at hacking (and how we are so vulnerable). The Office of Personnel Management breach--21.5 million government personnel records stolen, including Social Security #'s -- FBI believes it was China. https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-incidents/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-government-has-arrested-hackers-suspected-of-breaching-opm-database/2015/12/02/0295b918-990c-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?utm_term=.59fe18b83a5a The Democratic National Committee breach --20,000 emails were stolen from the DNC and ultimately leaked-- FBI believed it was Russia. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/us/politics/democratic-party-russia-hack-cyberattack.html?_r=0 Wanna Cry Ransomware breach -- Began on Friday, 05/12/2017. Hit more than 300,000 computers in Mainland China and 150 other countries -- believed it was North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack The Hack of Sony Pictures -- On November 24, 2014, a hacker group which identified itself by the name "Guardians of Peace" (GOP) leaked a release of confidential data from the film studio Sony Pictures. The data included personal information about Sony Pictures employees and their families, e-mails between employees, information about executive salaries at the company, copies of then-unreleased Sony films, and other information. Believe it was North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_hack#U.S._accusations_against_North_Korea Planting of fake news in Qatari News Agency -- FBI believes it was Russian hackers. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/qatar-fbi-says-russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-story-that-led-to-crisis-report . Anthem hacking (February 2015)-Number of people affected: 88 million. Information stolen: Social Security numbers, employment details, and other personal information maintained by the nation’s second largest health insurer — but no medical data.--Believed to be Chinese government-sponsored hackers Very interesting. . .

The problem is the tax code itself. It's a used tire with over 6,000 patches on it and quite frankly it's time for a new tire. The tax code is 74,608 pages long! The tax code uses obfuscation and "legalese" to conceal the fact that "legal fictions" AKA corporations ask for excessive tax breaks at the expense of John Q Public. The current tax code is an elaborate wealth distribution program that benefits the well-to-do at the expense of the working poor. Even Warren Buffet has admitted this. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html So basically the working poor, who don't incorporate their talent and labor, pay disproportionately more in taxes as a % of income than the "legal fictions" they work for! If corporations want to proclaim that they are people and have rights similar to people then they better be prepared to pay some real taxes instead of funnelling their net corporate income into the deferred tax shelters provided in the tax code. In tax law, those who don't speak legalese or have lobbyists who do, bear the tax burden! Uber wealthy families and large multinational corporations are scheming the tax authorities of various countries by claiming their constructive sales and net income are earned in the country with the lowest tax rate despite reality. How convenient. While the coffers at our Treasury Department are bone dry, our government has to track down these "legal fictions" and sue them in court to make them pay their fair share in taxes. All the while Congress incurs annual federal budget deficits, curtails entitlement programs, and provides even more unnecessary tax breaks to the wealthy. Insane!

http://www.illusionspoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Young-Girl-or-Old-Woman-ml237.jpg So if we debate over whether the woman in the picture is a young woman or old lady, we will reach an impasse. We will both feel that our viewpoint is valid. Depending on how we are looking at the picture, each of us would have a valid viewpoint. Even if the news were to release facts about the picture, it doesn't change the picture at all. It may influence how we feel about our perspectives about the picture though. But the picture is what it is. I think we have to remember to scrutinize our beliefs and see if our perceptions about people, places, and things are colored by biases.

It's interesting how "5 U.S.C. § 3110 - Employment of relatives; restrictions" has this strong anti-nepotism language. And 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) has a relaxed viewpoint about appointments and pay in the White House Office. Well played!

??? Our GDP is $18,569,000,000,000. Our annual military/defense is about $850,000,000,000. We more than satisfy the 2% of GDP requirement for Defense spending as outlined by NATO.

OK. So we were comparing Trump to Clinton. Clinton removed all 93 of his US Attorneys at the beginning of his term in 1993. Trump is removing 46 of his attorneys at the beginning of his term in 2017. The article states that the removal of US attorneys at the beginning of Presidential terms is quite standard and customary so this is not exceptional or newsworthy unless the media wants to paint Trump in a negative light for no solid reason. What did Trump/Sessions do that is different than Clinton/Reno? And is this another example of confirmation bias?

The article states that Former Attorney General Janet Reno asked for the prompt resignation of all U.S. attorneys thus disrupting the graduated replacements one would have expected. She wanted ALL Republican US attorneys gone promptly as in resignation effective in a matter of days; there was no graduated replacement schedule. Plus, she asked for all 93 resignations while Sessions wanted 46 to resign. Curiouser and curiouser.... Please double check the NY Times article and my assertion and tell me where you see a "graduated firing". Thanks.

Agreed. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/24/us/attorney-general-seeks-resignations-from-prosecutors.html Can someone fact check the media response when Former President Bill Clinton and Former Attorney General Janet Reno did the same thing in 1993. Or is that a different kind of firing?

With respect to the Tea Party movement: This is what I picked up from https://www.teapartypatriots.org/ I am not seeing the religious zealotry in their vision statement here. or from http://www.teaparty-platform.com/ I just don't see the religious zealotry here. Now if zealots co-opt their rallies, that is a whole different can of worms!

I am suggesting that Trump is neither virtuous nor malevolent, but somewhere in between. I am not exactly sure where on that spectrum he is. But as this political melodrama plays out, I might have a better assessment. Trump may be a piece of slime and a liar. He may not be. Question: Is Former President Bill Clinton a piece of slime and/or liar? When a sitting President can point a sanctimonious finger at the nation and say to the camera, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” That's bold. His wife and sitting Vice President was in that press conference, and maybe, just maybe he forgot the truth in that moment, but he sold us a false bill of goods. He sold that lie with such swagger and unabashed confidence that most initially believed his narrative. But that is what successful politicians do! They double down on lies when they think they can get away with it. My contention is all politicians lie when it matters (and some do it when it doesn't even matter). They're human beings, of flesh and blood, and will fall short of the glory. I think we have to be careful when we take our Puritan history and sensibilities and apply them to the dirty politics of the D.C. establishment. Let he that is without sin, cast the 1st stone. Almost all of our politicians are sinful in one way or another; it's a matter of choosing among the lesser evils.

What I saw is larger than that.... 1) Hey Democrats we know the Democratic National Committee (DNC) loaded the political dice in Hillary's favor and to the detriment of Bernie Sanders. We know the DNC rigged the nomination process to the Presidency. 2) Hey Republicans we know your platform is falling apart since the white working poor, the white middle, and white lower-middle class now realize their interests (job creation in the local economy and protection of local jobs by tough enforcement on illegal immigration) are usually sold out to lobbyists and special interests. Also, keep in mind that the brand of Republican fiscal conservatism is dead on arrival courtesy of George W. Bush who ballooned the federal debt by over 100% from $5.5 trillion to $11.0 trillion and left a f%&(ed up economy in the wake of his departure courtesy of the 2008 housing bubble crash. So enter the Tea Party movement which wants smaller government and a reduction in the federal debt levels. The main problem is the political elite on both sides think their electorate is a bunch of know-nothings and the electorate KNOWS that the political elite are a bunch of do-nothings! So enter Trump the mercurial, anti-establishment candidate whose frankness though crass, intolerant and politically incorrect is a breath of fresh air in a field of dog whistlers, liars and do-nothings. You never have to wonder what Trump is thinking. He shares infamous tweets that no other career politician dare make. Trump doesn't stick to script and creates his own reality which angers those who feel it is their job to control the narrative. Trump doesn't play nice and turned the political game of Presidential politics on its head. He proved all of his naysayers wrong about how retail politics work at the national level. He graduated from carnival barker and snake oil salesman Trump to President Trump. Now the political elite want the fruits of his labor (position and power) without doing all of the leg work (campaigning and winning the election). So enter the road to impeachment story line..... Trump is a wild card. Game masters who are used to controlling the political game do not like surprises. And they definitely don't like wild cards disturbing the balance of power in politics.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/03/gop-memo-suggests-trump-reality-check-for-establishment.html Trump may behave like an impetuous adolescent bully, but he is also a long overdue reality check for a deeply entrenched, stubborn political establishment. Click link for additional information.

That is what is killing me softly. Our confirmation bias is so strong toward Trump that we expect to see miraculous changes in government policy and programs in a mere 5 months. Keep in mind that we all know he is a rookie at this public official role, so we need to give him some breathing space to get his bearings right. He doesn't need a Hall pass for his mistakes; those can and should be highlighted immediately. However, we should be cautious of issuing him a full condemnation at this early stage of his Presidency.

--Frank Levy, Co-Founder and Executive Director at One River Foundation & Reader @ Salon.com What say you?

Agreed. This war theatre is never easy. And quite frankly, I find Trump's impulsiveness a liability when dealing with enemies of the state. I know this undermines credibility greatly, but read this and tell me if it sounds anything like the Trump we have all grown to know and love. :D I know the "honest character" part is suspect, but I think the remainder is a spot-on description of President Trump. This would explain the crazy ass tweets in the morning and evening. . .he feels a need to communicate to his audience no matter how crass, ridiculous, or ignorant the message. He values the action of connecting to his audience more than the accuracy or thoughtfulness of the message sent. Hmmmmm. This promises to be a very interesting roller coaster ride.

In all fairness, there is a bit of right wing bias in the original post, but we have to be intellectually honest about where President Obama fell short diplomatically. Obama's shifting "red line" ultimatum to Syria was a foreign policy debacle and made the U.S. look like an international weakling and waffler. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/obama-syria-foreign-policy-red-line-revisited-214059 The "red-line" ultimatum to Syria was directly within Obama's span of control and was a diplomatic disaster from an optics standpoint. A world leader should not be in the business of threatening military intervention when he lacks the political currency at home or abroad to deliver on said threat. Those chickens may come home to roost. And they did. The way President Obama handled the Assad regime and the subsequent shifting of the red line for convenience undermined our international relations credibility. Failure to enforce the red line emboldened Russia to feel that there weren't any substantial consequences if it were to annex Crimea later. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2014/03/17/with-the-annexation-of-crimea-putin-is-testing-us-again-will-the-us-rise-to-the-challenge/#462506222ae .

Agreed. http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/elements-journalism/ Review this link and tell me if you honestly think today's journalism in the U.S. contains the enumerated essentials.

I wonder if the oligarch subscribes to the ideas contained in this opinion piece by Roger Scruton, The Wall Street Journal, 06/03-06/04/2017? If so, it would explain the ambiguous immigration enforcement in the U.S. and the lack of urgency in shoring up the financial solvency of the nation-state. These concerns would be secondary to embracing the demands of a global economy.

Please review the Tea Party platform at the following link and please tell me which part of their platform is bat-sh!t crazy. Thanks. http://www.teaparty-platform.com Note: There may be shady characters at the Tea Party rallies but the platform seems quite reasonable and sound.

I had to put this back into the discussion. All of this is good stuff; however, we have to be realistic about what Trump can/can't accomplish in just 52 calendar days from his inauguration. He doesn't have a fire-engine red "S" emblazoned on his chest with matching cape and boots. This is a government bureaucracy so the notion of a complete overhaul can't take place in that short period of time. However, your discussion about the "billionaires" and "Goldman Sachs" is spot-on and ties into my post about the Financial CHOICE Act which the Senate will vote on this upcoming week===>same week as the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing with Comey. http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/332768/financial-choice-dodd-frank-repeal-gop-house/. It is mainly designed to benefit Wall Street and was crafted by the investment bank management-types who are primarily responsible for the 2008 housing bubble collapse. I still cringe on how the GOP has marketed this Act because it clearly caters to Wall Street interests to the detriment of Main Street consumers. https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/financial_choice_act-_executive_summary.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/FinancialChoiceActSummary06-15-2016.pdf

The Supreme Court failed us with the Citizens United decision. Or maybe the lawyers failed us. A corporation is a legal fiction. It only exists through the instrumentality of human beings. Without human beings, a corporation is simply a piece of paper, neither more nor less. Furthermore, a human being can exist without corporations but a corporation can not exist without human beings. This self-evident truth establishes whose rights are superior and whose "rights" are inferior, especially in a court of law. A corporation is neither created by God nor is it male nor female nor man nor woman. A corporation is not of the human race because it has no DNA, fingerprints, flesh, blood, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, orifices, skull, limbs, bones, spine, brain, mind capable of reasoning and thought, organs, muscles, respiratory system to breathe and expel air, and no genitalia capable of reproduction. None of our founding documents mention corporations, but man is mentioned in The Declaration of Independence. So how does an artificially created not-for-profit corporation or for-profit corporation have the same Constitutional rights and legal standing as men (human beings) endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights? Simply put, they don't. A corporation does not have a First Amendment right because it is neither a man nor woman nor human being; therefore, it has no unalienable rights and can not receive these rights through agency as they are by definition nonnegotiable and nontransferable. Furthermore, a corporation is not a citizen of the body politic of The United States of America. That's why it can't assume public office and govern over men nor can it cast a ballot to vote. And finally, no police officer can apprehend, arrest, or jail a corporation. It is impossible to incarcerate a figment of our thoughts. These super PACs never had legally enforceable Constitutional rights and their case should have been summarily dismissed until they can prove that they are not legal fictions.

Also, consider the letter Coretta Scott King wrote to the Senate opposing Jeff Session's nomination to become a federal judge. Hopefully, AG Sessions has evolved since the 1980's. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-coretta-scott-king-jeff-sessions.html