Wednesday, January 08, 2025

That's our report, we paid for it, release it

First up,  Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "The Ugly Rudy G


doggy


Now the news.  REUTERS notes:



A U.S. judge temporarily blocked Special Counsel Jack Smith from releasing a report on his investigations into President-elect Donald Trump, a court order showed on Tuesday.

U.S. District Aileen Cannon, who presided over the now-dismissed case accusing Trump of illegally holding onto classified documents, directed the Justice Department not to release the report until a federal appeals court rules on a request from Trump's two former co-defendants in the case.


We noted that last time.  She is not a judge, Cannon, she's a partisan activist.  Carl Gibson reports:


Portland, Oregon-based attorney Patrick De Klotz observed that Cannon's decision was handed down right around the same time the president-elect praised the judge as "brilliant" during a Tuesday press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate. And civil rights lawyer Subodh Chandra condemned Cannon for "aiding and abetting suppression of the truth," adding: "Shame. Shame. Shame."

Other legal experts speculated that Cannon's move was less about the report itself and more about her jockeying for a position on the Supreme Court. Attorney Jeffrey Evan Gold, who is a legal analyst for CNN, NBC, ABC and others, responded to the news of Cannon blocking the report's release by referring to her as "Justice Cannon." Northeastern Illinois University political science professor William Adler wrote that Americans should "get used to" saying "Supreme Court nominee Aileen Cannon." And Politico magazine contributor Joshua Zeitz opined that it was "pretty easy to see how this goes."

"Alito will retire, Trump will name her to the court, and she’ll easily be confirmed with unanimous GOP support and a handful of older Democratic Senators who think it’s still 1978," Zeitz wrote.



We paid for that report, we own that report.  It needs to be released immediately.  




Special Counsel Jack Smith has turned over to Attorney General Merrick Garland the completed final report on his two investigations that resulted in felony criminal charges against President-elect Donald Trump, part of which Garland intends to make public, the Justice Department said in a filing Wednesday.

[. . .]

But the Justice Department said Wednesday there was "neither any need nor legal basis for an injunction" on the release of the report because Garland intends only to release volume one of the report — which focuses on Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election — to Congress "in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter." Garland will not, however, publicly release volume two of the report as long as the cases against Trump's codefendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira remain pending.


I don't trust Merrick Garland.  He's the reason Chump's not in prison.  He was a piece of garbage when Barack nominated him for the Supreme Court and he remains a piece of garbage.  He betrayed our country as AG and there's no getting around that.  In addition, he betrayed as a Supreme Court nominee.  He was a weak ass centrist, neoliberal.  He wasn't worthy.  And he had to have known that.  Had Barack nominated a real Democrat, we would have all rallied.  Instead, it was weak tea Merrick.

He's just awful.

So is Jon Favreau who came became infamous during Barack Obama's 2008 campaign for mocking Hillary Clinton and laughing as he groped a cut-out of her.  He's still just as stupid:


Jon Favreau, a host of “Pod Save America,” highlighted in a recent podcast episode that President Biden “did not return the favor” after being awarded the Presidential Medal by former President Obama. 

Favreau, alongside co-hosts and fellow former Obama aides Jon Lovett and Tommy Vietor, discussed the recipients of the nation’s highest civilian honor. While talking about the topic, with some laughter, Favreau pointed out Obama presented Biden with a Medal of Freedom in 2017, but the outgoing president did not “return the favor” during his term.

“Obama gave one to Biden, and Biden did not return the favor,” Favreau said during the podcast episode released Tuesday

“That’s interesting,” Lovett said.

“Yeah, well,” Favreau responded, while laughing.

“I guess they’re not really on speaking terms, I suppose, after all that’s happened!” Lovett added with a laugh. 


What a bunch of little bitches.

Joe should have run in 2016 and I said that here in real time.  Hillary was not going to win.  She did end up with the popular vote -- good for her -- but Joe could have won with a bigger portion.

Why?

Because Jon Favreau and others on Barack's campaign lied repeatedly and painted as a racist. They even tried to argue that she was hoping someone would kill Barack and that was the only reason she was staying in the race.  You could not, eight years later, bounce back from that.  She ended up winning the popular vote, good for her, however, Joe would have delivered even more in November 16, 2016 and so he would have also won the electoral college.  But Barack told Joe not to run, that it wasn't his time.

I'm not slamming Hillary, I'm just noting that MSNBC and other outlets painted her as a racist (and Bill too).  Eight years later was not enough time for the scabs to heal.

So there's that.

Equally true, that's not how presidential medals work.  You gave me one, okay, I'm going to five you one also!

And there's also the matter that Barack had done nothing in the four years to earn a medal.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Wednesday, January 8, 2025. Mark Suckerberg bows to Convicted Felon Donald Chump, Senator Elizabeth Warren has questions for the Secretary of Defense nominee, a supposed leftist and "supporter of LGBTQ+" people has a lengthy and idiotic BLUESKY thread praising trransphoe, homophobe and cult member Tulsi Gabbard, Loose Lips Chaffetz and much more.



Let's start with Ari on MSNBC yesterday talking about the sad, sad, sad Mark Zuckerberg. 


First, who told Robert Reed above that Mr. Brady could get a home perm?  Is it season four?

Second, what a weak ass toady Mark Zuckerberg is for Donald Chump.  Matthew Chapman (RAW STORY) notes:

Meta tech tycoon Mark Zuckerberg was raked over the coals as a "surrender monkey" by The Bulwark's Jonathan Last on Tuesday over his new spate of changes at his company that appear directly calculated to ingratiate himself to President-elect Donald Trump.

This comes after Zuckerberg paid a visit to Trump's estate at Mar-a-Lago, and as a number of tech billionaires are under fire — even from some Trump supporters — as their companies give millions to fund Trump's inauguration festivities.

"Yesterday Zuckerberg appointed Dana White to Meta’s board of directors. What are White’s relative qualifications for such a role? He, uh, manages Ultimate Fighting Championship? LOL no, obviously White’s qualification is that he is one of Donald Trump’s closest friends and top endorsers. He was literally all over the campaign stumping for Trump," wrote Last. Then, Zuckerberg's newly-appointed public policy strategist, former George W. Bush administration official Joel Kaplan, "went onto Donald Trump’s favorite morning show, Fox & Friends, and announced that Facebook is killing its fact-checking program and making its content moderation strategy more like Elon Musk’s Twitter/X regime. Because that has been such a success I’m Ron Burgundy?"


Some reactions on BLUESKY.







Donald Trump couldn’t help but gloat Tuesday that he’d successfully bullied Mark Zuckerberg into making a spate of policy changes at Meta that will allow for the rampant spread of misinformation.

During a press conference, one reporter asked the president-elect whether he thought he had anything to do with Zuckerberg’s decision to supposedly recommit his social media platforms to free speech by demolishing its fact-checking system, as well as certain content filters and restrictions. 

“Do you think he’s directly responding to the threats that you have made to him in the past?” the  reporter asked. 

“Probably,” Trump replied.



Mark Suckerberg running scared like the little wimp he is, was and forever will be.  Kayla Gogarty (MEDIA MATTERS) adds:

On January 7 — less than two weeks before Trump takes office for the second time — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a video, reportedly first shared with Fox News, announcing the changes and claiming that “the recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.” He said the company would be replacing fact-checkers with community notes, removing most content moderation, eliminating most proactive policy enforcement to rely on user reporting, and moving the company’s content moderation teams from California to Texas, “where there’s less concern about the bias of our teams."

Meanwhile, Meta’s new chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, gave an exclusive interview on Fox & Friends, claiming that there is a “new administration and a new president coming in who are big defenders of free expression."

Zuckerberg and Kaplan’s commentary echoes years of false claims about social media and censorship from Trump and MAGA media.

[. . .]


For years, conservatives — including right-wing media and politicians — have falsely claimed that they’re being censored on Facebook and other social media platforms, even as an internal audit in 2019 by former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) found no evidence of such bias, and Media Matters and other researchers and journalists have repeatedly found no evidence of such bias.

In response, Meta has repeatedly capitulated to right-wing pressure, rolling back policies, favoring right-wing figures and content, and bending rules in ways that favor conservatives, and this week’s moderation changes are no different.

The announcement — which CNN’s Brian Stelter noted “almost seemed to be addressed directly to Trump” — comes as Meta is reportedly facing an antitrust trial in April and amid other changes that seem to reflect a rightward shift in the company’s approach. Meta recently replaced Nick Clegg as head of global policy in favor of Kaplan, who has Republican ties, added Trump ally Dana White to its board of directors, and donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund.


In other news of the disgusting Mark Suckerberg, Mira Lazine (LGBTQ NATION) notes:

Meta has been censoring content labeled with LGBTQ+ hashtags on Instagram, according to journalist Taylor Lorenz.

The hashtags, which include #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, #queer, #nonbinary, #pansexual, #transwomen, #Tgirl, #Tboy, #Tgirlsarebeautiful, #bisexualpride, and #lesbianpride, were hidden under the company’s “sensitive content” policy targeting “sexually suggestive content.”

[. . .]


Lorenz reached out to Meta for comment regarding these restrictions, which prompted the company to reverse them shortly thereafter. “These search terms and hashtags were mistakenly restricted,” said a representative from Meta to Lorenz. “It’s important to us that all communities feel safe and welcome on Meta apps, and we do not consider LGBTQ+ terms to be sensitive under our policies.”


Moving on, Rebecca noted Nicholas Liu's SALON article last night ("i stand with the people who stand for democracy") and she thought I might want to see some of it, specifically this:


Fox News joined in the broadside Thursday night. Frequent network contributor and former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told guests on a segment of Hannity he was hosting that he was "offended" by Cheney's receipt of the award.


"I don’t know how you feel, but I was offended that President Biden gave the second-highest medal of honor— it’s not called the Medal of Honor, but a medal honoring these two congressmen... Liz Cheney and Bennie Thompson. What’s your reaction to that?” he asked one of his guests, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Florida.



I didn't see the article last week but, sure, I'll jump in. Jason Chaffetz said he was offended?  

Should he really be talking?


9/11/2012.  Does that date mean anything to him?  It's the Benghazi attack.

And he's offended by Liz getting a medal of honor?


We knew the Benghazi attack was an attack on a CIA outpost early on   And that's how we covered it here.  

We knew that how?

Because we were at the hearing Jason chaired.  We were there when he wasn't smart enough to silence his microphone -- go find it on CSPAN, I'm sure it's still there.  And he's the one who was blabbing about that in a public hearing and on mike.  He was raving like a mad man.  And he outed that secret in his mad ravings.  

So maybe the person who was so stupid that they unintentionally blew the top secret fact that a CIA outpost was attacked -- which was not what the media was telling the American people -- maybe someone that clueless and that stupid should shut his damn mouth when it comes to whether or not other people should be honored.

Now I don't work for the US government and it really doesn't matter to me whether or not the CIA outpost gets exposed.  But it did matter to Jason -- and that's why he was so mad and so loud -- and in an open public hearing, he outed the outpost.  Because he's just that careless and that stupid.

So, yeah, Liz got a medal and, yeah, Jason, you're really not in any position to pass judgment on anyone who was a member of Congress when your big flapping trap couldn't stay shut.

Loose Lips Chaffetz -- that's what his name should be.  

(We were at the hearing and we witnessed his meltdown as he exposed that fact.  Again, I have no problem with him exposing it.  But he didn't mean to and he was just too stupid to realize what he was doing.  And that's why we didn't fall into the lies of THE NEW YORK TIMES which included the lie that the attack was motivated by a video -- one that hadn't even been seen until after the attack.  Some of you bought into that lie and you did so because NYT acted as a cut out for the CIA by printing lies that didn't even fit the timeline.  Some of you bitched and moaned in e-mails to the public account about my refusal to go along with the nonsense.  I don't whore, people.  If you need that look to the Chris Hedges of the world.) 



Speaking of security risks, let's move over to cult member Tulsi Gabbard who, trust me, does not want to be asked about those parties with coke fiend, conspiracy theorist and (forcibly) retired feature film director  Oliver Stone.  Al Weaver (THE HILL) reports:


Outgoing Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that his meeting with former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) has left him with more questions as she looks to win confirmation in the coming weeks to lead the U.S. intelligence community. 

Warner sat down with Gabbard, Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, on Wednesday, a meeting that had been highly anticipated as part of her push to win Democratic support. 

But Warner, who is expected to remain the top Democrat on the Intelligence panel, indicated that he remains concerned about her nomination, putting a dent in those hopes.

“I had questions going in. I have questions coming out,” Warner told reporters at the Capitol. 

“This is an extraordinarily important job,” he continued. “A lot of this [is] also about protecting the independence of the intelligence community and making sure we continue to have the ability to share classified information with our allies.”






On BLUESKY and Tulsi, supposed lefty Pat Haruki is blocked by me.  She's done a very long thread supporting Tulsi.  It's a 'factual' thread from a supposed LGBTQ+ "supporter."  


A thread that leaves out Tulsi's transphobia.  The fact that as late as October you can find her attacking the woman whose boxing at the Olympics was targeted by right-wing idiots.  The woman is a woman, was born a woman, but as late as October -- long after the lie had been shown to be a lie -- was still attacking the woman online and calling the woman a man.  Equally true, when she wanted to be president, Tulsi finally felt the need to disown her decades of homophobia -- and this isn't a fifty year old, this is someone who started early to have decades -- decades -- of homophobia and made statments that it was Daddy and not her.  And the military opened her eyes, she insisted, to LGBTQ+ issues and equality.  She's a liar and the proof there is in the fact that she immediately started attacking trans people as part of her shift to the right and she attacked gay people non-stop when she supported all of Ron DeSantis' Don't Say Gay nonsense.  


Pat Haruki might be the nice person she thinks she is in her BLUESKY profile but that would just make her a deeply stupid person for doing a lengthy thread pointing out all the 'goodness' of Tulsi.  Again, Pat's the one who says she herself is a supporter of the LGBTQ+ community but apparently not enough of a supporter to actually do any work to find out about Tulsi's well known history there.


I'm sorry, I actually do support LGBTQ+ rights


A number of e-mails arrived in the public account that seemed to be echoing one another -- synchronicity or astro-turf?

Gaza.

No, I'm not writing about it.  I may later, I may not.  The Palestinians suffer.  I don't deny that.  I did care what happened last year and that's why I voted for Kamala.

Gaza Freaks worked to destroy her.


If Norman Solomon gave a damn about Gaza he wouldn't have started Uncommitted and gotten Palestinian-Americans to front it for him.  Oh, I'm sorry.  Am I blowing the whistle on bulls**t yet again?  Norman, like Medea, is a sign that you run for your life and do not look back.

I am not part of their movement and I will not use my brain and my abilities to make a strong argument to help out fake asses.


Norman fooled a lot of people over the years.  But he showed who he really was when Lt Ehren Watada was fighting for the powerful stand he took -- he refused to deploy to Iraq, it was an illegal war and he would be giving orders to people serving under him in an illegal war.  So Ehren is facing a court martial presided over by Judge Toilet (we dubbed him that because his name was John Head).  In the midst of this, Norman has one of those unhealthy relationships/attractions to a female reporter.  She is told she will have to testify at the trial.

OH THE HORROR!

She's now at IN THESE TIMES but I'll be kind and not name her -- search Ehren and Norman Solomon at DEMOCRACY NOW! if you need to know who she is and see what a big cry baby she is and a backstabber Norman is.

She doesn't want to testify.

So f**king what?

Seriously.

She doesn't want to testify and she and Norman then spend two weeks whining to every left outlet they can -- including TRUTH OUT -- about how Ehren can save her!  He can save her from having to testify!  He can save her by admitting to this or that in military trial!!!!

That is how disgusting Norman is.

Lt Ehren Watada stood up to the illegal war and Norman and his side piece didn't give a damn about Ehren all the sudden because it was more important to them that a reporter not be forced to take the stand.

Seriously, they should both have been pelted with rotten fruit -- Norman and his side piece.

Now Norman's an idiot which is why he didn't realize what happened but that didn't stop him from going all over and pretending he knew something.  I still don't know how Marjorie Cohen missed it.

But it was obvious to me and I noted it in that day's snapshot.

Ehren was winning.  He chose a jury of his peers.  And they were agreeing with him.  If you were present, that was obvious.  And then the prosecutors made mistakes.  And Judge Toilet tried to 'help' them.  They weren't taking the clue and made things worse for the prosecution.  This led Judge Toilet to have a hissy and insist on a do over.

And there was Norman and Marjorie telling the gathered media how awful this was and how Ehren would have to go through it again (and so would Norman's side piece).

WTF?

No. 

That was the best thing in the world.

There are no do overs.

Double jeopardy attached.  

Judge Toilet stopped the trial, the defense didn't ask for it to be stopped.

Again, I was dictating the snapshot that day noting this -- double jeopardy, it was a win for Ehren.  It would be days before Marjorie noted it.  They miss the obvious every time.


So that should tell you that Norman is a raving idiots --  he's also a liar.  Norman was willing to tank Ehren's tiny shot at freedom by insisting that Ehren do this or that to stop whiny bitch from being called to the witness stand.  She could have taken the stand and refused to testify.  She could have gone for contempt.  But she didn't have any courage or journalistic pride -- which is how she ended up with Norman to begin with and how she ended up at IN THESE TIMES.  

They were willing -- both of them -- to bury Ehren.


That's the crap ass type of people that they truly are.

And if Norman wants to dispute just how much of a lair he is, let's turn to 2008 and how he went on radio program after radio program during the Democratic Party primaries pimping Barack Obama without ever revealing that he was a pledged delegate for Barack.  Amy Goodman and other media whores knew this but they didn't disclose it either when they brought him on their programs.  Now Norman had a shoddy column that appears in freebie weeklies that waste paper but every now and then he gets a column in a real newspaper and gets money for it.  But he wasn't going to be syndicated if he lied in those columns.  That's why the bottom of those columns carried a statement (eventually) that he was a pledged delegate for Barack. 

Some are joining a long running conversation already in progress.  So let me correct something.  I do not hate Socialists.  I do not even dislike most of them.  The SEP has long been noted here.  


Most people did not study poli sci.  They don't know what a Socialist is or isn't.  More to the point, most people don't understand political stances in terms of the way people evolve politically.  In past decades, it was a given that women were more likely to become more liberal as they aged while men were more likely to become more conservative as they aged.  (I believe that is most likely still accurate but not as accurate for Gen X -- that's a belief -- and I think Millennials will completely upset that trend.  Believe, I do not know that.)  But we all evolve and no one wants to stay the same.

But a Socialist attacking Democrats and constantly angry?  They are going to move to the right as they age.  That's what's going on with Socialist Cenk and Ana.  It's not just a grift.  They honestly have moved over there.  I would argue many Socialist do not move over because they're not consumed by anger.  Bill Ayers has been a Socialist all his life.  He was able to advocate for Kamala because of that.  He's not blinded by anger and he remembered the reality of 1968 (Nixon got elected).  

Cenk and Ana are hot heads -- watch the last part of the video below.




Cenk and Ana are angry and hateful.  They tried to bully and take over the Democratic Party for years with tricks and lies and now the two Socialists have moved to the right.  It's disgusting but it's understandable if you understand ideology and how  and why it can shift over time.

 

Democrats and Socialists do not agree on much and that's a reason enough that you should know the political identity of the person offering the critique.  But you also need to know it because an angry Democrat can move to Republican or Libertarian or Socialist.  An angry Socialist tends to move to the right.  This is a much bigger conversation than we have time or room for but that's why it matters.

To answer another question in e-mails -- THE VANGUARD.  I think Zac and Gavin are zygotes.  Maybe they just look very young?  I don't think they're at a fixed point in their political growth.  Based on their comments and positions, I would say they are Socialists.  Again, nothing wrong with that.  I would not accuse them of being closet Socialists because they may not know that's what they are and they're fluid at that age.  None of that's meant as an insult -- I think we all know I can deliver an insult when I feel like it.  But when we're dealing with people that young, I'm less concerned.  When we're dealing with people in their thirties and above and they are in a political closet, that's a problem.  They're in that closet because they know they won't be able to trick and mislead you if they say "I'm a Socialist" or "I'm a Communist" or whatever.  Especially if they are commenting on campaigns and trying to influence your vote, you deserve to know what they are and not be tricked into thinking that they're Democrats because they're commenting on Democratic campaigns.  


And let's wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office:

Warren’s 33 Page Letter Contains 72 Questions; Senator Will Seek Answers at January 14 Hearing

“Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of servicemembers who are willing to sacrifice for our country.”

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent Defense Secretary-Nominee Pete Hegseth a 33-page letter detailing her concerns with his nomination. She asked Hegseth 72 questions ahead of his Armed Services Committee nomination hearing, requesting a response by no later than January 10, 2025, and asked that he come prepared to answer her questions at his January 14 hearing before the Committee.

“I have serious concerns about your qualifications to serve in this role given your past history, including mismanagement of two non-profit organizations you ran, accusations of sexual assault and drinking problems, your blatant disregard for the contributions of female servicemembers, support for war crimes and torture, threats to politicize the military, advocating for ‘war’ against political enemies, threats to undermine DoD readiness and diversity, and contempt for veterans receiving benefits they earned,” wrote Senator Warren.

Senator Warren’s concerns include:

  1. Hegseth’s record of organizational mismanagement, including exhibits of wasteful spending and inappropriate behavior as head of the nonprofits, Vets for Freedom (VFF) and Concerned Veterans for America (CVA). 

    “Your record of gross mismanagement of organizations you previously led raises alarm about your ability to manage a department with a budget of almost $850 billion, which accounts for over half of discretionary federal spending,” wrote Senator Warren.

  2. Reports of Hegseth’s excessive drinking, including at least 11 separate incidents in which Hegseth has been described as drinking excessively or inappropriately, including at work.

    “At any moment the Secretary of Defense can be called upon to provide critical national security advice to the president. But you have been repeatedly accused of exhibiting a pattern of alcohol abuse,” wrote the senator. “While I believe we should support individuals with substance use disorders, we cannot have a Secretary of Defense, charged with making essential and critical national security decisions involving life and death, who is also struggling with alcohol abuse.”

  3. Allegations of sexual assault and harassment by Hegseth. This follows allegations described in a memo the Trump transition team received that Hegseth “raped a then-30-year-old conservative group staffer in his room after drinking at a hotel bar” on October 8, 2017, as well as reports that while Hegseth was president of CVA, he and other members of his management team “sexually pursued the organization’s female staffers.”

  4. Hegseth’s stated opposition to women serving in combat roles in the military, despite the fact that women are critical to our national security and comprise nearly 18 percent of active-duty servicemembers. 

    “Your rhetoric and behavior toward women would set a tone from the top of DoD that women are not welcome in the military, that their valuable contributions will not be recognized, and that sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other mistreatment of women is acceptable,” wrote Senator Warren.

  5. Hegseth’s vocal threats to politicize and undermine the military, including purging senior military leaders for civilian leaders’ policy positions.

  6. Hegseth’s support for war crimes and the use of torture, including recently saying that he “told his platoon they could ignore directives limiting when they can shoot” and arguing against the rules of war. Hegseth even went as far as to defend troops accused of war crimes for executing captives after the shooting had stopped. Additionally, Hegseth has supported the use of torture, including the use of waterboarding, despite evidence proving that torture is not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation.

  7. Hegseth’s threat to diversity in the military. In a book Hegseth published last year, he wrote that, when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, he was initially “mostly ambivalent” but that he “now regrets that passive perspective.” Additionally, he has mocked and misgendered transgender servicemembers, and said that “the dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is ‘our diversity is our strength.’”

  8. Hegseth’s advocacy for ‘war’ against political enemies. In Hegseth’s latest book, he called “the American Left…an existential threat to freedom” and later wrote, “Our American Crusade is not about literal swords, and our fight is not with guns. Yet.” He later called upon his readers to buy a gun and train to use it.

    “Your deliberate choice to frame your differences with a political party as a war calls into question whether you would be able to lead this Department in an apolitical manner,” wrote Senator Warren.

  9. Hegseth’s opposition to working with allies, including calling for NATO to be “scrapped” and expressing “skepticism about the idea that supporting Kyiv is needed to keep Russia from moving into NATO territory.” Hegseth went as far as to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine Putin’s “‘give me my s*** back’ war.” It is unclear how Hegseth will be able to work with Muslim leaders and Muslim-majority countries given that he was described as “drunkenly chanting ‘Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!’” while he was on an official tour for Concerned Veterans for America.

  10. Hegseth’s criticism of veterans benefits, including raising complaints that veterans groups “encourage veterans to apply for every government benefit they can ever get after they leave the service,” referring to benefits that veterans have earned.

  11. Hegseth’s threats to the quality of the Defense of Defense Education Activity agency (DoDEA), given his previous comments that “almost no school — public or private — seems safe” and he has urged Americans to “Get your kids out of government school systems right now if you can.” He has also called for an educational insurgency, insisting that “classical Christian education” is the solution to “the Left having a stranglehold over American education.”

“I am deeply concerned by the many ways in which your past behavior and rhetoric indicates that you are unfit to lead the Department of Defense,” concluded the senator. “Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of servicemembers who are willing to sacrifice for our country.”

On December 17, 2024, Senator Warren led her colleagues from the Senate Armed Services Committee, including Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), in writing to Susan Wiles, President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming Chief of Staff, about whether Pete Hegseth’s attitudes toward women, including his opposition to women in combat, and allegations of sexual assault and harassment, disqualify him to be the next Secretary of Defense.

###






The following sites updated:

Tuesday, January 07, 2025

I'd say I'm bitter too

First up, this video.



The report needs to be released.  No surprise, 'judge' joke --  Aileen Mercedes Cannon has already swooped in to try to protect her owner Donald Chump.  When he picked that mongrel, Chump knew what he was doing.



Former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is still angry over the lack of accountability Donald Trump will experience for attempting to overthrow the 2020 election and allegedly inciting a violent mob to attack the U.S. Capitol.

Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Monday, the fourth anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, McCaskill confessed, "I'm bitter."

"Today was certainly a bittersweet day, and candidly, I'm bitter," McCaskill told Wallace. "I mean, I'm bitter thata higher political price wasn't paid for what Donald Trump did on January 6th. Something is broken, and we need to acknowledge that. And the other thing we have to keep front of mind, Nicole, is that Donald Trump didn't win 50% of the votes."

Trump received 49.9% of the vote, while Kamala Harris received 48.4%. Jill Stein and Robert Kennedy each received 0.5%.

McCaskill said this indicates an evenly divided public.




John Stoehr has an interesting column about how much is Joe Biden normalizing Chump and Jan. 6th?  It's a good question.  I like Joe and I applaud him for stepping aside in July.  Earlier would have been better but we get what we get.  Kamala gave us a fighting chance and saved us from sure disaster.  

On Joe?  I guess if I had to deal with the topic Stoehr is writing about, I would emphasize Joe not pushing on resolution.  Did Merrick Garland not have to answer to anyone?

He should have had these cases starting no later than November 2021.  And he didn't.  He didn't seem at all concerned.  I blame Merrick more than anyone.  I'm also unclear on how much Joe could have been involved in the insurrection issue?  I can understand some barriers possibly being in place -- some maybe -- but not complete.  President Biden was responsible for defending the country and democracy.  I think within his presidential powers was asking Merrick Garland, "Are we anywhere near resolutions on this?  How do we speed up the process?"


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Tuesday, January 7, 2025.  Senator Patty Murray notes the cap on prescription drugs, Donald Chump whines and whines, one of his lackeys lies for him (how is that different from any other day), BLUESKY and much more.


Let's start off with BLUESKY.  Ryan Cooper (TAP) reports:

One bright spot in the bleak year of 2024 was the rise of Bluesky. As someone who relied greatly on Twitter for news and my career—OK, I may have been somewhat addicted—before Elon Musk bought it and turned it into a snake pit of neo-Nazi filth, it was nice to see a Twitter-like replacement rise to relative prominence.

I joined in April 2023 as about the 47,000th user. Today, Bluesky has about 26 million users, and seems to be growing healthily. It actually has some notable improvements on Twitter, like the “starter pack” function where users can put together a group of accounts that one can follow at once (here’s the starter pack for Prospect writers, incidentally), or the “nuclear block” where if one participant in a conversation blocks the other, the entire conversation is zapped. This greatly cuts down on Twitter’s culture of aggressive pile-ons and abuse.

Unlike any other big platform, Bluesky does not censor posts with outgoing links. Indeed, it does not have any proprietary “for you” algorithm, instead defaulting to a traditional reverse-chronological feed, and allowing users to pick from algorithms that can be developed by others. This has major implications for publishers: Despite its modest size, The Guardian reports that Bluesky traffic has already outstripped that from Twitter, and here at the Prospect Bluesky traffic now regularly matches Twitter and is many times that of Facebook.

This ability to share outside the platform is proving so popular that Facebook’s Twitter clone, Threads, has belatedly altered its algorithm to include more posts from accounts you follow in an attempt to compete. And this disruption is being done on a shoestring budget—Bluesky has just 20 employees and about $23 million in funding, as compared to Meta’s 70,000+ workers and $156 billion in annual revenue.

It’s strong evidence that there is a large unmet demand for internet systems outside of the control of Big Tech monopolists. I don’t know if there can be a similar option for every walled garden on the internet—it’s hard to dislodge a giant—but there’s no question that there’s a lot of pent-up demand.


You can find out a lot on BLUESKY.







David Sirota's always a dirty fool.  Whether attacking the mother of an Iraq War veterans for speaking out against the Iraq War (and against the senator David worked for) or threatening us here because we pointed out what David left out when he attacked Tina in the column -- that the senator she was confronting was David's mentor and former boss.  Sort of a basic disclosure required in journalism but David thinks he makes up his own rules.

He has a filthy mouth and a lazy brain and that's why, when he was wrongly nominated for an Academy Award (for co-writing a piece of crap), I attended every event ahead of voting to make sure he didn't get the award -- I attended and took along printed copies of the nasty, threatening, bullying e-mail he sent me.  

It really exposed the true side of him to people who, like most of the world, would otherwise not even know his name.

POST-LEFT WATCH is on BLUESKY.  We've noted them for a couple of months now.  They're someone to watch and follow.  They call out the crazy.  






Isn't it great when a White man -- especially a liar like Christian -- wants to tell us about the targeting of a Black man and to explain it wasn't like what we thought it was.

He's such a damn liar and such a damn disgrace to his father.  He's also a closeted Socialist but, remember, we're never supposed to talk about that.

So there he was on Jimmy Dore rewriting history like only a Democrat hating Socialist can.  

It's hard for me to think of his nonsense without thinking of THE NEW YORK TIMES which launched a huge attack against Dr King and did so long before The Poor People's Campaign of 1968.  THE NEW YORK TIMES not only attacked him repeatedly -- and is corporate media, therefore a corporation -- but continued to attack and to denigrate him long after he was dead.

And they carried the attacks over onto Coretta. When she died, please remember, NYT had 'playwright' (she was not that good and she certainly wasn't worthy of more attention than Coretta Scott King) on the front page, ran three or so columns on her passing, did an editorial on her, blah blah blah, it never ended.  

"Why are you attacking me?"

That's what the paper's sole Black columnist at the time asked me.

Well, golly gee, you're Black and you have space on the op-ed pages and you're ignoring the fact that the paper is refusing to run columns -- because there were submissions by big name Black academics -- about Coretta's passing.  You're on the op-ed pages and you're writing garbage columns when you could be highlighting a pioneering Black woman who fought for a better America for all and continued her husband's legacy after he was assassianted.

The guilt trip got Coretta into a column by Bob.  Got her into it.  It wasn't about her.  But he worked in for two or three paragraphs.

And of course, Christian brings up the truth and the lies of NYT.

Put him on a minor media program with a small audience and he's telling the audience about how Dexter Filkins and John F Burns (NYT 'reporters') really were in the Green Zone.  Dexter especially did whatever the US military told him.  That included, Christian said on air, cancelling interviews when the US military conveyed that they'd prefer he not speak to this or that person.  

Now if he was going on something mainstream, he'd say exactly the opposite.  And of course when he was on an in-between program, he'd justify Dexy with comments like, 'The Dexter Filkins on the pages of THE NEW YORK TIMES is not the Dexter Filkins in Baghdad' -- meaning that it was the paper's problem and not Dexter bad journalism.

For those who don't know, our first weekend online back in 2004 called out Dexter for lies in print.  He won awards for those lies.  Is my face red?  No.  Because he covered up War Crimes with that article.  He covered them up.  They're known now but everyone looks the other way.  In 40 years, people will be calling for the dead reporter to be stripped of the prizes for his lying.

In forty years when it no longer matters.

But don't expect Christian to tell you any of that.  

On Iraq, this may be our last Iraq snapshot and the title may change to snapshot tomorrow.  I need to check.  Don't have time this second because we have other things still to cover.

BLUESKY is where it's happening.  

TWITTER is for elderly hate mongers -- like Katrina vanden Heuvel of THE NATION who led the attacks on Kamala.  But TWITTER's not the only cesspool.  Travis Gettys (RAW STORY) explains:

Facebook's parent company will make changes to its fact-checking to more closely resemble the site formerly known as Twitter.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday morning that content moderation and other restrictions on speech would be lifted across Facebook, Instagram and other platforms as Donald Trump returns to the White House, reported Fox News.

"We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms," Zuckerberg said in a video posted Tuesday morning. "More specifically, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to X, starting in the U.S."

The company's third-party fact-checking program was put into place following Trump's first election win to "manage content" and misinformation on its platforms, which executives conceded was the result of "political pressure," but they now say that system has "gone too far."


In other news, Convicted Felon Donald Chump is still being a big titty baby because he's the continual disappointment that his father loathed and he's the man that could never satisfy Ivana.  He's just an immature jerk who never grew up and never stopped to grasp that there were other people on the earth and that they had feelings and the right to expect to be recognized.  Chump doesn't want to appear in person or via the internet on January 10th when he is to be sentenced.  His howler monkey Steven Cheung (who at 42 looks 97) declared, "The American People elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate that demands an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and all of the remaining Witch Hunts."  Chump lied on official documents.  There's no excuse for that and he can't pardon himself because it's not federal.  Chump is a sleazy, two-bit crook and that's what the record is going to reflect this week and forever more.

As for a mandate?


No, Steven, the American people didn't give him a mandate.

As Elaine noted Friday, there is no mandate.  1.8% isn't a mandate.  That's all Chump won by.  Ronald Reagan in 1984?  He got a mandate.  LBJ in 1964?  He got a mandate.

Convicted Felon?  He squeaked by with 1.8% more votes.  That's not a mandate.  See Elaine's "Can they stop lying about the 2024 election?"

Steven's clearly confused.  Must be overwork, right?  Can't be personal since he has no personal life.




 
 
 So it's work that consumes him.  And let us be the first to reveal his heretofore never discussed acting career.  For several years, Steven has appeared on the series AMERICAN DAD.



Don't know about you, but I think the jewels really make his eyes pop.


Speaking of idiots, Evan Williams (TAG24 NEWS) reports on one, "Republican Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman had to be shamed into agreeing to lower US flags to half-mast in honor of the late ex-president Jimmy Carter."  And now note this from the article:


Blakeman's original decision was seen as a response to rants made by Trump on Truth Social last week.

In response to the US flag potentially being left at half-mast during his inauguration, Trump said that Democrats "don't love our country" and are "giddy."

"In any event, because of the death of President Jimmy Carter, the Flag may, for the first time ever during an Inauguration of a future President, be at half-mast," Trump said.



Democrats don't love our country?  


He was never fit to be president.  He's a mad sociopath who is not fit to represent the American people and who only knows how to sew division.

Which makes him the ultimate LOVE CONNECTION for Elon Musk, right?


Yesterday was many things including the fourth year anniversary of the treasonous attack on our country.  Rachel Maddow addressed that last night on MSNBC.




Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

70,000+ seniors in Washington state, 4.5 million seniors nationwide will save hundreds or thousands of dollars each year thanks to the new annual cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for folks on Medicare Part D

***PHOTOS AND B-ROLL OF THURSDAY’S PRESS CONFERENCE AVAILABLE HERE***

In case you missed it: on January 1, a new provision that Democrats in Congress got signed into law went into effect, capping out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for seniors with a Medicare prescription drug plan at $2,000 a year. On Thursday, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, joined U.S. Representative Kim Schrier, M.D. (D-WA-08) at Northaven Senior Living in Seattle to highlight the new costs savings for millions of seniors.

The new cap is thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act Democrats passed through Congress in 2022—that every single Republican voted against—and it means millions of seniors will pay significantly less for their prescription drugs this year, lowering costs for families and giving them more breathing room.

“Starting January 1st, anyone with a Medicare prescription drug plan—also known as Medicare Part D—now has their out-of-pocket drug costs capped at two thousand dollars each year. That’s because of a law Democrats passed—the Inflation Reduction Act—that did all sorts of things to lower health care costs and make it cheaper and easier for folks to get the medications they need,” said Senator Murray. “As everyone knows, high drug prices come with other painful costs—like stress over how to make ends meet, or what bills to skip, in order to fill a prescription, or whether to take the risk of rationing medication. These are impossible choices that no one should ever have to make. But they’re the reality for so many people, and so many seniors especially. And make no mistake, when prescription drugs are too expensive for people to afford—that’s dangerous. Because even the best, most effective medication can’t do someone any good if they can’t afford to get it.”

Medicare Part D—a voluntary program that helps pay for prescription drugs for people with Medicare—provides prescription drug coverage for nearly 56 million Americans. More than 4.5 million older Americans enrolled in Part D are estimated to benefit from the new out-of-pocket spending cap that took effect January 1, 2025. Approximately 1.4 million Part D enrollees who reach the new out-of-pocket cap between 2025 and 2029 will see annual savings of $1,000 or more, and just over 420,000 will see savings of more than $3,000. In Washington state, at least 70,000 seniors are expected to see these new savings—nearly $1,900 in 2025—and that number will steadily increase over time.

The $2,000 annual cap is just one of the many actions Democrats took to lower prescription drug costs in the Inflation Reduction Act. Most notably, the law capped the cost of insulin for patients on Medicare at $35/month—which went into effect January 1, 2023—and it empowered Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for the first time ever.

  • In August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced negotiated drug prices for ten commonly-used drugs in the first cycle of negotiations. The new, lower negotiated prices will go into effect on January 1, 2026, and will lower the prices people pay for some of the most common and expensive prescription drugs that treat heart disease, cancer, diabetes, blood clots, and more.
  • Allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug costs is expected to save American taxpayers $6 billion, with people enrolled in Medicare expected to save $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs in 2026 alone. 15 to 20 more drugs will be added to the negotiating table every year moving forward – all thanks to Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act.

See coverage of the landmark new prescription drug cap below:

Fox 13: Medicare prescription drug costs capped at $2,000 annually

Seniors on Medicare Part D will never pay more than $2,000 out-of-pocket for prescription drugs annually, thanks to a provision in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act which takes effect this year. The new benefit for seniors on Medicare Part D will cap out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 per year. Once they reach this dollar amount, they will automatically receive “catastrophic coverage,” which means all out-of-pocket costs for Part D drugs will be covered through the rest of the year. […]

In Washington state alone, 70,000 enrollees will save nearly $1,900 in 2025, with the number of beneficiaries growing over time.

“[It’s] a change that will save millions of people, hundreds or thousands of dollars on their prescription medications, every year from now on,” said U.S. Senator Patty Murray, who is a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “There is more to this story than just numbers—because as everyone knows, high drug prices come with other painful costs. Like stress over how to make ends meet, or what bills to skip, in order to fill a prescription, or whether to take the risk of rationing medication.” […]

“This cap means I can afford my medications without having to cut back on essentials like food or utilities,” said Katherine O’Hara, a local senior who is on Medicare.

Stephan Gerhardt, who lives with dystonia and degenerative disc disease, also praised the change.

“One of my anti-inflammatory medications isn’t covered by my insurance, but luckily, it only costs $45 a bottle and lasts six months,” Gerhardt said. “I’m fortunate compared to others.”

Gerhardt, who has been on Medicare for over a decade due to his disabilities, said the new law will help many seniors in his community avoid tough choices between essential needs.

“People I know often have to decide: ‘Do I eat, pay rent, or take my meds?’” said Gerhardt. “Almost everybody will choose to pay rent because they can’t survive being homeless; and then it’s, ‘How do I figure out food?’”

“This is life-changing for folks who can’t afford their medications,” said Gerhardt. “It reduces the strain on individuals and the healthcare system. If people can afford their medications, they’re less likely to end up in emergency rooms, which costs everyone more in the long run.”

Despite the bipartisan benefits, every Republican in Congress voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, a point highlighted by Murray. She warned of potential future efforts to repeal the law.

“This is about making life more affordable and ensuring no one has to risk their health because they can’t afford medication,” Murray said. “The President-Elect has talked about cutting everything, so he’s got everything in front of him, and we’re going to make sure this is not one he goes after.”

KING 5: Prescription drug costs now capped at $2,000 a year for some Washington seniors on Medicare

Sen. Patty Murray held a press conference Thursday in light of a cap on prescription drug costs for some on Medicare going into effect.

Out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications will be capped at $2,000 a year for seniors on Medicare Part D. Part D is a voluntary program that pays for prescription drug medication that covers nearly 56 million Americans.

The change was included in the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed in Congress in August of 2022. […]

“As everyone knows, high drug prices cause other painful costs, like stress over how to make ends meet, or what bills they needed to skip in order to take a prescription, or whether to take the risk of rationing medication,” Murray said. “Those are impossible choices that no one should ever have to make, but they’re the reality for many people and many seniors.”

Other provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act also take aim at drug costs for people with Medicare. The cost of insulin is capped at $35 a month and recommended vaccines like the flu, shingles, COVID-19 and RSV are free to everyone with Medicare Part D, according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

###




The following sites updated:

Grab bag

Let me start off with this from RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE:


The nation’s largest freethought organization has dissolved its honorary board after three of its prominent members resigned in an ideological battle over transgender issues.

The resignations from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group that fights for church and state separation, included well-known evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker.

The three resigned after the foundation published, and then removed, an article by Coyne in which he argued that sex is mostly binary (either male or female) and that transgender women are more likely to be sexual predators.

The post, which drew intense backlash, was taken down on Dec. 28, one day after it was published, prompting Coyne, Dawkins and Pinker to resign from the foundation. That led the foundation to dissolve the honorary board.

The flap offers a peek at a roiling controversy among a select group of New Atheists who have expressed views that are anti-transgender and more generally “anti-woke.” It is a position taken by another atheist group, the Center for Inquiry. But it is also hotly contested by most in the nonbeliever community. In 2021, the American Humanist Association withdrew its “Humanist of the Year” award from Dawkins over his anti-trans comments.

In an interview with RNS, Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, took responsibility for publishing and then removing Coyne’s article.


Richard Dawkins I know of.  Years ago, idiots who worshiped racist Bill Maher used to glorify Dawkins and Elon Musk.  They were too stupid to grasp how the three were nothing but hate merchants. Looked up Coyne.  75.  Really, just die.  If I make it to that age and I'm not doing anything to make the world better, I need to die.  "Coyne states that LGBTQ people have rights, but some of the desired rights are in conflict with rights of other groups in society."


Stan's "10 actors who should be retired and go off into obscurity" is a must read for movie goers -- especially those of us who are movie goers that have wasted our money on films starring those 10 awful performers.  Also be sure to check out Betty's "The next James Bond?"  They need to cast the role real damn quick.  They used to do a Bond film every two years back before I was born.  Then, after Timothy Dalton's Bond really didn't take off with ticket buyers, they waited six years.  SIX YEARS!  Then, between the last two Daniel Craig films, we got six years again.  It's 2025.  Which means that if they started filming right now, it would be ready for a 2026 release if everything went well.  That would be five years after the last Bond film.  They need to stop the nonsense, cast the role and reboot the franchise immediately. 


I liked this from C.I.'s Sunday post:



In condensed news, we have two items.  THE HILL's Tara Suter's "Trump blasts the ‘corrupt’ and ‘broken’ legal system ahead of his sentencing" -- yes, it is corrupt and broken as demonstrated by the fact that on January 10th, he will face no jail time for his convictions. THE NEW REPUBLIC's Malcom Ferguson's "Johnson Denies Scratching Backs To Flip GOP Holdouts" -- yes, Mike is telling the truth.  He doesn't scratch backs, he nuzzles crotches. 


And let me wind down with this discussion of creepy weirdo Elon Musk from CNN.




Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Monday, January 6, 2025.   We're not tolerating political closets and let's outline exactly how much damage those closeted, non-Democrats did to the 2024 election while pretending that they were Democrats.


Friday, we were talking about the way forward (you can also refer to Wednesday's "2024: The Year of Betrayal From Inside The Left") and how we use this platform this year.  We're going to expand on that but two videos that went up here yesterday we are going to note at the top. 


First, THE MAJORITY REPORT.



Where are we going to take the show?  Sam asks that and it's something anyone with a platform should be asking.  Here?  We're not plaforming liars.  Last night, in "A crazy mistakes herself for Paul Revere," we noted crazy Jessica Denson.  We noted her before when she was with another outlet -- they have parted ways as she constantly insists, and we noted her a week or so after the election and noted that I was not interested in election lies.  She was going to get the results overturned because she knew this or she knew that.  And I noted that I would love for the results to be different but that they weren't.  And I noted that different results would mean we lived in a far less racist country than we do.


Last night, I get on, at a party, to do an entry and the public e-mail account is swamped with over 70 e-mails insisting that Jessica's latest video has to be covered.  It was garbage and I outlined why.  We are done with her.  

That's not the first person time we've had to wash out hands of people who are self-defeating.  Another group like that was noted by Rebecca in "the oklahoma trash behind 'i've had it' podcast" on Friday. 


We're also not noting you if you're in a political closet.  Meaning?  If I know you're not a Democrat but you're lying online that you are, I'm not interested in you.  DEMOCRACY NOW! brought on one Socialist after another to slam Kamala during the general election and they presented as Democrat.  That's how they lie. 


There's nothing wrong being a Socialist.  But a Socialist doesn't like Democrats.  That's why you see so much praise for Bernie Sanders.  The decades of racism, for example, slid right by.  It takes a Black YOUTUBER -- such as Roland Martin -- to tell the truth about Bernie that not White YOUTUBER wants to.  The left outlets attacked Kamala.  But they found time -- COMMON DREAMS, THE NATION, DEMOCRACY NOW!, THE PROGRESSIVE, etc  -- to praise Tim Walz?  Why?  They never told you and they want us to not know what happened or to not talk about it.  Now.  But in August Democratic Socialists of America bragged to the press -- and at their Twitter feed -- that they got Tim Walz on the ticket!!!! He was their guy!!!!  (Sabby Sabs might get noted again because, if you look, she called them out in a response on that official Tweet.) 


He was a lousy candidate.  The debate between vice presidential nominees is always about drawing blood.  Tim did not just fail to draw blood, he was an embarrassment.  Sweating on camera, looking like a stooge, not knowing what word he was about to say next as he struggle to speak.  An embarrassment.


Now ask yourself why these same outlets didn't tell you that?  Because he was their guy.  They, DSA insisted, got him on the ticket.


And they shielded him from any press critiques.  Rebecca was right, the governor o Kentucky was the way to go.  Not some looney tune who made Elmer Fudd look like a genius.  And that's before we get into all the lies -- or, if you prefer, "whoppers" -- he kept telling during the campaign.  We'll go into this more, I'm sure as the year goes along.


And we'll probably touch again on the SEP.  I've noted them, we've noted their publication, WSWS.  They are Socialists.  I have no problem with Socialists.  I do have a problem with Socialists who want to pretend that they're Democrats.  Say what you are.  The reason that they won't is because they know that'll cut their audience down and also make their arguments/lies be taken less seriously.


Some people get this, some people don't.  Kamala lost because of voter suppression.  Outlets on the left elected to attack her daily for three months solid.  They repeated lies about her -- Amy Goodman made a point to air the attack on Kamala's race from Donald Trump repeatedly and only one time did she bring on a guest to refute it.  They knew what they were doing and you need to know what they did and what they'll do again.  


Because of their actions, the electoral college with give the presidency to Chump later today.


We can't afford them.


And if you're feeling sorry for the fake asses -- include Jill Stein in that --we can go over the debate that the fake ass Uncommitted 'movement' carried out.  We can go over how they had Jill and Cornel there for a debate.  And we can go over how they refused to allow the SEP's presidential candidate to be on that stage.  How they lied to the SEP and claimed there would be another event but there wasn't.  The closet cases just didn't want an out Socialist on the stage.


We may also go into how certain Palestinian-Americas did the front work for Uncommitted while the true organizers like Norman Solomon hid in the background.


Does it matter?

Second, I said two videos, Hal Sparks.



Cenk and Ana.  


Ana says she didn't even vote for president.


Hmm.


Well the thing here is the grift.  And the thing here is that the grift is not new.  


I had a good friend decades ago who I haven't spoken to since because he was a Socialist who moved over to the right wing.  He was hurt and didn't do it for money -- move over to the right -- but he stayed there because of the money.  And I've seen that over and over.


Ana and Cenk are Socialists.  That's why Bernie was all over Cenk's campaign until one too many disgusting details emerged about Cenk.  That's why "Justice Democrats" came about -- Kyle and Cenk's Socialist election campaigns.  See Mike's "Yea for Sarah McBride, remember when Socialist Kyle Kulinski was for Jill Stein, and Idiot of the Week."


They lied to you.


And then, in 2024, they lied some more.


But they lied all along because they weren't Democrats, they were Socialists.


Ana got a JACOBIN podcast which people want to forget but it happened and it is why JACOBIN doesn't want to call her out on her right wing drift because she knows a little too much about Socialists in closets.  

They let Ana attack Katie Halper (also a Socialist) on their own podcast.  They didn't drop her then.  Even though she attacked Katie in a podcast where Ana's guest was Katie's co-host.


And that's another reason to dislike Katie.  She was attacked and she didn't say a word.  Acted like it didn't happen, acted like Nacho Noodlers or whatever the idiot's name was, hadn't joined Ana in attacking her.


She's pathetic.


But the point here is, right now everyone's noting how badly Cenk and Ana are betraying the Democratic Party and how they are stabbing it.


But people are still pretending that those two were Democrats.  They were not.  They're angry Socialists that are pimping the right wing.  The Max Blumenthal 'left.'


They are not helping the Democratic Party.


We'll note criticism in 2025 of the Democrats.  I'm sure I'll have plenty myself, but we'll note WSWS and others as well.  They can be of the left and we'll note them.  What we won't note is political closet cases because while we're trying to have an honest conversation, they're trying to trick and lie -- that's why they hide in their political closets.


If those who invested so much into Cenk and Ana over the years had know that the two were not Democrats, that they were Socialists, Cenk and Ana wouldn't have gotten away with as much.


Which brings us to the fake assery of BREAKING POINTS.  Apparently, even they realize that they went too far too early.  Which is why they're now burying a video they posted over the weekend.  You can't find it at their YOUTUBE site.  But it existed and Socialist -- not Democrat -- Briahna Joy Gray was the guest and she Tweeted about it:


Will the Democrats learn anything from their 2024 defeat?


@briebriejoy

 says don’t count on it.


“They will do this quick mea culpa and then it’s going to be back to business as usual”


WATCH: http://youtu.be/cMeCKzOAmKM


Imagine that, before Chump's even declared the victor in the election, BREAKING POINTS is already telling you that Dems will sell out.


Why is that?


Because they're not Democrats.


People wrongly thing because of creepy guy being a Republican, that the show is about a Republican and a Democrat having conversations.  It's a bigger fake assery than CROSSFIRE on CNN ever was.


We stopped noting them because Saagar was scapegoating gay men (glass houses?) over Monkeypox and then Krystal did her order that all must support Marianne Williamson -- you know, Krystal and Kyle's wedding guest that neither wanted you to know that fact?


I'm tired of liars.  Bri is not a Democrats. She's a Socialist.  So she was brought on to attack the Dems and by not explaining who she really is, it comes off much differently to the viewers.  Titsy another Socialist.  I'm glad she finally learned to wear a bra.  I know Rania's streaming numbers dropped when she did but no one needed her delivering 'news' in tight shirts, no bra while she jumped around.  Yes, she really was that pathetic.  And who is she with now?


Oh, that's right: BREAKING POINTS.


Rania is not a Democrat.  And let's go to one of her Tweets at random. 

This is what Trump surrogates told Arabs in Dearborn, while Harris refused to even meet with them and kept insulting them. 


It’s likely untrue, but his campaign repeatedly told Arab Americans they would stop the wars. 


So if you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the Democratic Party for appealing to racists and republicans instead of their actual base and those hurting from a Democrat sponsored genocide.

Quote

Rania Khalek

@RaniaKhalek

·

Nov 1, 2024

At a Trump event in Dearborn, Michigan former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell told me Trump will not appount Mike Pompeo or John Bolton or Jared Kushner to any role and said Amos Hochstein & Brett McGurk would get the boot.

10:56 AM · Nov 6, 2024

·

48.3K

 Views


Rania lies about who she is politically and lies about everything.  Kamala Harris did meet with Palestinian-Americans -- including Rashida Tlaib's sister.  But there's Rania lying because a Socialist will tear apart a Democrat with lies.  And many people know that which is why so many Socialists on the left lie about who and what they really are.


But look at that Tweet within a Tweet.  Rania Tweeted it.  As truth.  She Tweeted Trump's lie as truth.  That he would be better for Palestine.


Starting get why she had to use her (average size) breasts for attention for most of her career?


They're liars and we can't afford them.  So they're not going to be noted.  BREAKING POINTS is a Socialist platform that hides who they really are.  They have right-wing Republican hosts who attack the Democratic Party and then they bring on the 'left' to attack the Democratic Party and never once let you know that these people are not Democrats.


It's a grift and it's a con.  


And you're seeing the end results right now with Cenk and Ana.  This is how it ends.  We don't need to repeat this in 2028 or, for that matter, 2026.  It's time to send a message that we will not let them stay in the closet and misrepresent who they actually are as they try to destroy the Democratic Party.


No.  


Not going to happen.

 

And by eliminating the liars, we might be able to have an honest conversation.  


Elaine served up some honesty on Friday:


Can they stop lying about the 2024 election?

That idiot James Carville is yammering away with more lies.  I just wonder when can we get honest about this past election?  C.I.'s "2024: The Year of Betrayal From Inside The Left" delivered a ton of honesty.  At one point, before she edited it down (to a little over 11,000 words), she talked about the percentage and how  people were being ahistorical about it to argue for their nonsense -- 'Dems should turn their back on trans rights!' and other nonsense.  


So let's talk about that.

Let's start by noting the AP count for 2024's presidential election popular vote and we're looking at the percentage:

1.5%.  That was the percentage that Chump won by.  

Let's drop back to 2004:

Popular vote 62,040,610 59,028,444
Percentage 50.7% 48.3% 


50.7% to 48.3%


Do you remember that?  Bully Boy Bush won.  John Kerry lost to him by 2.4%


Let's to back another 20 years.


Popular vote 54,455,472 37,577,352
Percentage 58.8% 40.6% 

Ronald Reagan won.  He got 58.8% of the vote to Mondale's 40.6%. Reagan won by 18.2%


Popular vote 43,129,040 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5% 


LBJ won with 61% of the vote.  That's 22.6% that he beat Barry Goldwater by.


Are you getting the point yet?  We're focusing on percentages because they don't change.  The number of those voting. 


Chump won.  That's the story at the end of the day and I'm not trying to pretend it's not.

But the hand wringing that's taking place and the nonsense of Seth Moulton, James Carville and others is not about the results.  If we're talking about results, the totals don't call for massive changes.  


Chump is not going to make our lives better.  Four years from now, the country will want a new direction.  That includes those who voted for Trump.


Kamala got 1.5% less votes.  The most likely reason for that is because of the non-stop attacks that THE NATION, COMMON DREAMS, THE PROGRESSIVE, DEMOCRACY NOW! and others carried out on Kamala from August through the end of October.  It's past time for that to be addressed. 


Kamala performed amazingly well considering that elements of the left media -- non-Democrats -- worked to dampen enthusiasm for her campaign every single day.  That's reality.  And that can never happen again.  


The following sites updated: