Month: July 2017

The Burnin’ Bannon Question…

by MyBaconPress

Well?  IS Trump going to dump Steve Bannon?  My conservative friends all “know” about the “editorial choices” made by the so-called “Mainstream Media.”  None of them seem to realize the editors inside the conservative bubble are ALSO making choices.  Mostly, those choices manifest in what they DON’T print but there’s also a steady diet of propaganda, these days referred to as “fake news.”

At some point, Bannon thought he’d found his ideological equal in Sarah Palin but, for some reason, decided she was not, after all, the individual he sought.  (It was probably just…oh, gosh, everything, really…)  His next “find” turned out to be Donald Trump.  By that time, he had taken control over the conservative website known as Breitbart.  Apparently, he benefited wildly from Andrew Breitbart’s unexpected and untimely death at age 43.  Did Bannon kill Breitbart in order to gain control of the site and convert it from an entertainment oriented site into the far right propaganda tool it is today?  (No, I don’t think so, either, but if conservatives get to claim every person who has ever met a Clinton and then died was murdered by them, why can’t I imply similar innuendo?)

Anyway, once Bannon had set his sights on Trump, Breitbart.com became an enthusiastic supporter.  This meant publishing (and, you know, inventing) stories that highlighted how awesome Trump is and “making editorial decisions” about things that might not show Trump in the same glowing light.  Since so many conservatives self-isolate in the bubble, they had no idea about some of the warning signs of Trump.  I could hardly call it THE transformative event but it was certainly effective in bringing conservatives to heel in supporting The Donald.

Now, as a result of infighting, Bannon may be under fire again.  This is his second time under the gun.  The first time he got a little big for his britches – at least as far as his ego-driven boss is concerned.  Now he’s targeted because new White House Communications Director and wiseguy wannabe Anthony Scaramucci wants him out.

So what do you suppose Breitbart.com is going to do should Bannon be pushed out in the current White House purge?  My guess is, over at the site headquarters, there’s going to be a sudden realization that, hey, maybe these stories should be run after all!  Right?  I mean, Bannon OWNS the mechanism that created Trump’s image.  Couldn’t Bannon destroy Trump in conservative circles as easily as he built him up?  (The correct answer is ‘yes’…)

So get ready, fight lovers, for the upcoming battle for (temporary) dominance in the White House with Bannon vs the Mooch…

I’ll tell you this: if we’re doomed to hell anyway, we might as well enjoy the floor show…

UPDATE:  I wrote this piece this morning, posted it around 8:00am Pacific time.  NOW Scaramoochi is out.  Damn, it’s hard to keep up with this circus of a “Presidency…”

Pardon My Impeachment…

by MyBaconPress

Bearing in mind that my “law degree” comes from Tijuana Tech using a mail-in coupon on a cereal box-top, I’d like to take a swing at this “unlimited power to pardon” claim our so-called “President” is making.  As I read it (“it” being the Constitution of the United States), the President has the power to pardon, except in Cases of Impeachment.  I think so because that’s exactly what it says in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1.

Now, according to my scorecard, a case could be made that our so-called “President” could stand accused of Obstruction of Justice and violation of the Emoluments Clause.  (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 8 where it says “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”)

See how I didn’t mention collusion there?  I’m not sure anybody will ever be able to prove collusion.  It’s not like anybody associated with Trump is going to simply release proof of collusion for all to see, right?  Personally, the reason I think Trump is so obsequious to Putin is because Trump has business holdings in Russia Putin can threaten.  But short of someone voluntarily releasing 3 of the 4 incriminating pages of documents demonstrating at least conspiracy to collude…well, it’s always true that what we “know” and what we can “prove” are not necessarily the same thing…

I’m pretty sure violation of the Emoluments Clause is an impeachable offense.  I’m certain Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense.  Historically, that’s been the “kicker” in both of the impeachment cases Congress has tried.  I’ve read that Nixon considered pardoning himself based on that “unlimited power” but, in the end, chose to trade the Oval Office to Gerald Ford in exchange for a Pardon…

One of the things I know is that our Founders were pretty concerned about Monarchs and Monarchy.  They were SO concerned that their first attempt at “government” – the one that failed, the weak central government, power to the states model – didn’t even include an administrative head.  “Let us just let Congress do it”, they thought to  themselves, though they spelled it funny…

But, after the Articles of Confederation crashed and burned and they had to start again from scratch, they acknowledged there should be a central administrative authority to handle certain things and as a check to Congress.  But they were STILL afraid of Monarchs and Monarchy, having just fought a war to fend off such a government.  So, they set up the Presidency, gave him a few “powers” – including Reprieves and Pardons – and tried to leave it at that.  It’s only been through decades of maneuvers, manipulations, and interpretations that the President has become as powerful as he has.

But if he enjoys the unlimited power to Pardon himself in any circumstance, he becomes the Monarch the founders feared.  He could shoot Jeff Sessions in the face at point-blank range on TV and simply look into the camera and declare “I Pardon myself” and there’s nothing anybody could do about it?  (True, if it was Sessions, it’s possible nobody would much care but I STILL don’t want him to have that authority…)  It seems to me that if the President CAN Pardon himself, we’ve NEVER lived in a Constitutional Republic.  We’ve been living in a Monarchy this whole time.  It’s just that nobody ever realized it before…

I’ll tell you this: I don’t want to live in a Monarchy…

Quick Hits…

by MyBaconPress

I find it ironic that the Republitarians had to put off taking health care away from millions of people until John McCain recovers from a health emergency…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At this point, the list of high-ranking administration officials that have NOT met with Russians is much shorter than the list of those who have.  The list of those who HAVE met with Russians AND reported it properly on their security checks seems even shorter…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conservatives think the Russian investigation should just go away since it’s clearly a scam.  Not so fast, there, Bucko.  Fair is fair: Democracts should get the same amount of time and money Republitarians used “investigating” Hillary…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apparently, since they don’t have the needed support for their “plan”, the Senate is going to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement.  According to the CBO, that would be the LEAST damaging proposal they’ve made so far…

On Freedom…

by MyBaconPress

PseudoFreedom

Recently, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this “freedom” my conservative brethren are always on about.  I’m not sure I know – hell, I’m not sure THEY know – exactly what it is they’re referring to.  Then I see the above meme.  It’s AWESOME as a piece of political propaganda but has little or nothing to do with reality.

I’m a progressive.  I think this means I’m at liberty to speak for all progressives everywhere on every topic that might come up.  So, speaking for every progressive in the history of progressives, I can say with 100% certainty that nobody is asking anybody to give up their “religious liberty, guns, and free speech” and I feel certain that, on the subject of taxes, progressives would simply prefer that the very super-duper, hyper-wealthy participate in our society at the same rate as they extract from our society.

Look, I don’t care which invisible super-friend you choose to “worship”.  I just don’t want you making actual rules in real-life based on your delus…er…”beliefs.”  I don’t care if YOU have a gun.  I would just like to find a way to keep them out of the hands of crazy, stupid, and/or irresponsible people.  “Free speech”?  Wait a minute…wasn’t it conservative George W. Bush who introduced the concept of “Free Speech Zones”, thereby implying that there are places in America that may not be eligible for free speech?

Does this not mean, then, that the “freedom” conservatives are “defending” is a fantasy position?  Sure, that has the advantage (to the thought shapers) of being an area of discord they can mine endlessly.  That is, since the “freedom” conservatives seek seems to be fantasy-based, it can never become reality and conservatives can be stirred up about it always and forever.

I’d like some help from my conservative friends out there.  What IS the “freedom” you seek?  Are you looking for the “Jeremiah Johnson, mountain man” freedom where you do exactly what you want, when you want?  That doesn’t exist.  It didn’t even exist for him.  Even mountain men had rules of acceptable behavior.  The issue becomes much more clear when one considers this question: What about when the OTHER “mountain man” exercises HIS “freedom” to do what HE wants all over YOUR “freedom” to do what YOU want?

There’s an old adage out there that says that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  It’s a metaphor, although I submit that it’s quite literally true, as well.  Basically, it means you really can do pretty much what you want – until it interferes with someone else’s ability to do what they want.  (And vice-versa, of course.  It’s not “aimed” at conservatives…)  Don’t we, the people need an arbiter?  I know conservatives support the court system but are you REALLY saying that the same (or similar) conflicts should be litigated over and over and over again?  Jeez, talk about frivolous lawsuits…

Setting aside the fairly recent trend of special interests buying protective legislation, most rules and – dare I say – regulations are about balancing the “freedoms” of one individual or group against the “freedoms” of another.  There are so freaking many of us, it can sometimes be a tricky situation.  Of course “the arbiter” doesn’t always get it right or sometimes conditions change.

I’ll tell you this: If the “freedom” you demand is the “freedom” to prey on society, I’m not on board and I never will be on board.  So, please…tell me.  I’m asking because I want to know.  What, exactly, does this “freedom” you seek look like?

Define “Successful”…

by MyBaconPress

I saw an opinion piece in the Guardian called ‘Your Worst Nightmare: a Successful Donald Trump Presidency’.  My first reaction to such a headline is that it’s true; a successful Trump presidency might well be my worst nightmare.  But then the obvious question occurs: what might a “successful” Trump presidency look like?

The piece in question starts off appearing to give Trump credit for something he didn’t do, a staple (so far) of his presentation. A sergeant loses an arm and a leg in Afghanistan in 2010.  He has to wait 57 days for a repair to his prosthetic leg and three and a half years for adaptations to his home.  Let’s see…2010 plus 3.5 years…why, that means the sergeant’s problems were handled by 2014, at the latest.  Pop quiz: who was President in 2014?  Still, the sergeant is thrilled Trump is going to solve Veterans Administration problems…

Then, the piece basically, lists things 45’s maladministration is calling “wins” right now.  A Republican beats a Democrat in a closely watched “election.”  David Brooks, a NY Times columnist, suggests the Russia investigation might be overblown.  A revelation that Obama might well have dropped the ball with his choice to remain mum on Russian interference.  Three CNN staffers at the website had to step down due to poor journalism.  The Republitarians in Congress almost repealed the Affordable Care Act.  The “Supreme Court” reinstated the travel ban.  But then, the same column includes a paragraph about why those things might not be wins as well.

Trump’s proposed budget is supposedly going to screw veterans right along with every other not rich person.  The Republican beat the Democrat in a traditionally Republican district.  The investigation might be overblown but Obama didn’t do enough?  Which is it?  “Almost” repealed Obamacare?  So…not yet.  Oh yeah, the travel ban was only partially reinstated.

Essentially, the piece doesn’t say anything more than “politician takes credit for things politician didn’t do” but, really, isn’t that the politician way?  It did get me thinking, though: what might a successful Trump presidency look like?  I’m not sure anybody knows, mostly because I’m not sure Trump, himself, knows.

Yeah, sure, he’s going to build his stupid wall (a win) but Mexico is clearly not paying for it (a loss) AND…his “wall” will be porous as hell (a loss).  If conservatives DO manage to repeal the conservative health care plan known as “Obamacare” (a win?) the resulting devastation to millions might well bring a backlash that harms the Republitarian brand (a loss) AND ushers in single payer (a win for Americans, a loss for greed).

If we end up with oil derricks in Yosemite, HE might consider it a “success” but most people will mourn the loss.  Deregulation?  I don’t care HOW you package it, deregulation is about freeing criminals to commit their crimes again.

I’ll tell you this: the more I think about it the more I realize that a “successful” Trump presidency destroys America and harms humanity.  Maybe that IS my worst nightmare…