Yesterday, in a delusion of grandeur overwhelming by his own outlandish standard, Trump not only retweeted a truly-demented and deeply anti-Semitic note sent to him by some random, albeit unhinged member of the populace that, among other things, called Trump the "King of Israel" and being loved like the "second coming of God." -- after which Trump himself, talking to the press outside the White House, referred to himself as "the Chosen One."

No, really.  This is all true.  No doubt you saw it on the news -- not in The Onion or Psychology Today -- since it was pretty hard to ignore.

The thing is, if Trump was actually The Chosen One, you'd think that God would at least have let him get more popular votes that Hillary Clinton.

In case anyone was wondering, no, this is not normal.

How "not normal"?  Forget for the moment that Trump has his finger on nukes...as well as your life -- if he was merely your next-door neighbor and thought he was The Chosen One and said people considered him the King of Israel and Second Coming of God, would you let your children simply talk to him??

(Fun Fact: much as Trump and his correspondent want to believe otherwise, and want you to believe it, as well, Jews, perhaps most-especially those in Israel, don't actually believe in the "Second Coming of God."  They're just fine with His first appearance, thank you very much.).

And this on the day when it made the news that the U.S. budget deficit hit one trillion dollars.  NBC News sent out a tweet that referenced the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office explaining this deficit was substantially "more than previously expected due to legislative packages passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump,"  In truth, it was only not "previously expected" by the blind and feverish acolytes who think Trump is The Chosen One.  Most others sentient Americans not only expected it, but were certain and said so at the time.  But hey, perhaps he can turn a deficit into a surplus.  Unfortunately, the rest of the country is unable to walk on water and is slowly sinking in it.

And further, it was the day after Trump said that the 79% of Jews who voted Democratic were "disloyal."  Because, hey, when you're a virulent anti-Semite, why wouldn't you say that?  And this.

By the way, the two retweets that Trump sent were far-more insane that the very little I quoted above.  I just don't have it in me to re-post them both in full.  Nor do I have it in me to debate those who have been trying to point out that re-tweeting someone calling you "The King of Israel" and the "second coming of God" and thanking the person isn't the same as claiming it yourself -- especially when "you" did call yourself later "The Chosen One."  I'm perfectly fine with Trump's supplicants twisting themselves into a knot in order to prove he's not totally insane, merely a pscyhoneurotic who wants everyone else to believe that what was said in his retweets were true.  Although explaining away that "The Chosen One" is a little more difficult.  I have no doubt that they'll bring out the Golden Oldie, "He was just joking.".

Remember: "maga" in Nigerian means "victim of fraud."

Hey, the good news in all this is that by Trump's new standards, he wouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.  So, he's just limited to nuclear weapons.

And not a word of horror from Republicans.  Meaning we must repeat -- this is not about Trump, we know who he is.  (And no, I don't mean "King of Israel," "The second coming of God" and "The Chosen One.")  This is about the elected officials of the Republican Party who enable him and are complicit.

And in honor of it all, we present a musical interlude.  "King Herod's Song" from Jesus Chris Superstar.  Follow the bouncing loon.
​

"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries -damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!”
-- Ronald Reagan to President Richard Nixon who laughs, 1971

Yes, I know that this story is from three weeks ago.  But there was SO much Trump Hell (tm) that I kept putting it off.  And it's not like it's newsworthy now but two reasons why I decided to post it -- 1) I just didn't want to write anything about Trump today.  And there was plenty: his anti-Semitic comment about 79% of Jews being "disloyal;" him canceling a meeting with the Prime Minister of Denmark because they wouldn't sell him Greenland (really, it was in a tweet); caving in to the NRA on his earlier false-call for universal background checks for buy guns;  news that the Trump administration is being sued to provide basic health care because, despite three immigrant children dying in their prison cages of the flu, the government would not be providing flu shots to those incarcerated which risks a tragedy; and a report that Trump appears to have lied on his tax forms to both the IRS and Scottish tax office for $165 million which could be two federal crimes punishable by up to six years in prison.  And that's just for starts and just yesterday  But I don't want to write about that.  Just listing them is wearying enough.  And 2) this conversation is SO racist and shameful by two former Republican presidents that it just shouldn't be ignored, no matter how belated.

Here's the Atlantic magazine article written by former director of the Nixon Presidential Library Tim Naftali, and the accompanying audio, if you care to hear the evidence. 

​So, clearly this sort of attitude isn't all new in GOP leadership.  Or the GOP.  It's who they are for the past 50 years.  I know that Republicans hate it when others call them "racists" all the time, but seriously if you don't want to be called a racist, stop acting like one.  For the past half century.

And at the very least, stop electing them to be your party's leader to set the standard for members to follow..  Time after time after (once again...) time.

The Party of Lincoln, indeed...

Hillary Clinton has kept a pretty low profile since the 2016 election, most especially in almost never responding to Trump at all, but especially directly.  However, when he attacked the credibility of her 3 million-popular vote win due to a deeply-criticized study three years ago, that crossed the line for her...

For the record, and to be completely accurate, the study had 95 participants.  (Or as it's also known in academic circles, "a whopping 95 participants.")  However, Secretary Clinton is correct that it did use 21 undecided voters.  And is correct that the study -- which was not published in a peer-reviewed publication -- has been debunked.

It should also be noted that yesterday Politifact asked Dr. Epstein if he took issue with Trump's assertion about his study. He answered -- "I sure do. I have never said that Google deliberately manipulated the 2016 election."

Last week, there was a lot of news from a "Fox News" poll that showed all of the leading Democratic contenders ahead of Trump.  That and some other results were part of Trump's Twitter spewing of how something is wrong with Fox these days.
 
But there was another number in that same poll that didn't get nearly as much attention, yet I found it even more fascinating.  The pollsters questioned people who didn’t like either Trump or Joe Biden and asked which one of these two candidates they didn't like would they vote for in a race between each other.  Biden won 43-10.
 
As remarkable a result as that was, it wasn't what I found the most fascinating.  It was wondering how other Democratic candidates who are currently less-favored in the polls than Biden would stake up with the same question.  And what I found so fascinating about that was the realization that I think it’s an academic question. 

There are two reasons I find it academic.  The first is that it's moot that they're less-favored than Biden right now, because whoever gets nominated (if not Biden) will be, without question, significantly better-known as the election nears. Indeed, almost as well-known as Biden is now.

But it's the second point which which I most leaps out and fascinates me. – and it's that this 43-10 number isn’t about Joe Biden.  It's entirely about Trump.  After all, the question was asked to people who didn’t like Joe Biden – and didn’t like Trump.  So, then when asked who they’d vote for between two people they didn’t like, they didn't say, "Well, okay, I like Biden enough to vote for him" -- because they already said they didn't like Biden.  So, that means they went for “not Trump.”  So, I suspect that whoever the Democratic candidate is, by the time of the election when that person is better known and shown to be 1) sane, 2) not a racist, and 3) not Trump, my guess is that the numbers would be somewhat close to the same 43-10 we see with Biden.  Again, that 43-10 number is based on people who DON’T LIKE Biden.  But they don’t like Trump more, in fact with a result that significant they seem to hate him.  So, it’s almost (almost) academic who the Democratic candidate will be to this “I don’t like either” group.

And in the end, it's those people in the middle who pretty much decide every election.  Yes, the poll results that show each of the leading Democratic candidates favored over the Trump is interesting.  But that the people in the middle -- and smack in the middle since they're not just undecided, but don't like either -- so heavily favor "not Trump" is, to me, the most fascinating result of all.

You've possibly seen this by now.  It's a picture of Saturday's town hall held by Rep. Steve King (R-IA). And importantly, no, It is not photoshopped. What you see is what you get -- there is only ONE attendee, Jessica Birch on the left. 

Yes, it looks like two people attended, but the other person there on the right is a paid King intern.

One person. And she isn't even a Republican. Ms. Birch is a Democrat, a college student studying public administration who admitted to being hungover but felt it was her civic duty to attend. 

There's a wonderful article about it all in the local Iowa paper, the Iowa Starting Line, which you can read here.  In it, Ms. Birch says that she apologized later to the six policemen there for security, telling them that she felt bad making them stay there for work because of "someone as rowdy as me." She also comments that she turned down an offer to have a picture taken shaking hands with Rep. King, explaining she plans to run for office some day and didn't want the photo to haunt her.

Does this all mean that Rep. King will lose his race in 2020?  After all, he on re-election in the 2018 mid-terms even though his district knew about his latest racist comments that got his committee appointments stripped from him.

There's no easy answer. After all, it's certainly possible he could get re-elected. It's also reasonable to think that NO REPUBLICAN showing up at a town hall is a very bad sign and that something did shift in the zeitgeist this time.

A couple of things suggest such a shift. Having one huge problem that gets you to lose your committee positions can be dismissed by voters as a "one-off." Having a second one is less easy to dismiss. But also, this recent "gaffe" last week could, in part, be seen as a slam at not just the world, but at the people in his own district. "Everybody rapes and has incest" is not a good look from the person you've chosen to select you.

What's worth noting, as well  -- Steve King won his race in 2016 by 23 points. But he won in 2018 by only 3 points. Not only is that a very bad direction... but most candidates would try to be on their best behavior under those conditions and not have a new huge scandalous problem to deal with.

But could he get re-elected? Absolutely. Though it would appear less-certain than in the past. Especially considering his 20-point drop in 2018.

And by the way, there's actually even a post-script to this all.  You probably thought that Steve King couldn't make the situation worse for himself.  But the, You Don't Know Steve King!  King is now demanding an apology from the liberal media and from Republican leadership! That's quite a combo.  He says that he was (of course...) misquoted about his comments on rape and incest being so commonplace that it wasn't for them, the history of mankind might cease to exist. Mind you, the problem with getting such an "apology" (no seriously, he's demanded one -- from both the liberal press and Republican leadership) is that it was the unedited, in-context VIDEO of his comments that got the most attention.

But clearly, Steve King has never let reality get in the way of pretty much anything he says.
​


​

If you’re feeling sluggish today and want to get the juices running, here’s an article which will do the trick.  The headline alone should be enough, but the full article will give you a complete fill-up.  It centers on a memo uncovered from House leadership to members.  It's pretty ghastly, and Republicans are lucky it surface over the weekend and hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.  Hopefully it will this. week.  As I said, just the headline is plenty to sicken most thinking-people --
 
“GOP leadership tells House Republicans to lie about white supremacist gun massacres – call it ‘violence from the Left’”

You can read the full article here -- if you can stomach it.  For instance, among the things the memo says to lie about (though they don't call it that, but it is) is to tell members to say -- "We also can’t excuse violence from the left such as the El Paso shooter..."

In case you can't remember back two weeks, the El Paso shooter specifically left a document that specifically tied his beliefs to those specifically of Trump.  It isn't that there wasn't anything "left" about the shooter, but that it was specifically tied specifically to Trump, specifically.

There are a three very important things of note that must be mentioned to put this in proper perspective -- separate of how if anything demonstrates how empty of values the Republican Party has become, harmful to America and reiterates that this is not about Trump but the elected members of the Republican Party who enable him and are complicit in it all.  

First is the most obvious: this is blatant lying.  Even if some of the shootings they mention in their memo are not tied to the Republican Party and today's conservative values, pretty much none of the mass shooting massacres have been related to liberal values of "the left" and, in fact, many of the mass shooting massacres have been.specifically and tied to Trump's words, the far right and white supremacy.  Moreover, the memo conveniently leaves out almost all of them.
 
Second, even putting politics aside -- including ignoring all the specific ties specifically to Trump -- there is one thing all of these shootings and mass shooting massacres have in common.  They all involved the usage of guns.  Every one of them.  Guns.  And that is an issue that entirely turns itself to the Republican Party that has not only fought to block any and all gun control laws to help make American society safer, but even passed a law that specifically allowed for severely mentally ill people to own guns.  A full 90% of the country supports background checks for all firearms -- yet the Republican Party continues to block all efforts to bring that to reality.  Because it's not what the NRA wants.  And ultimately, the money donations between the NRA and Republican Party are ties that bind all of these shootings together.

And third, the only impact this memo will have is on the Republican base, because they have shown they will believe almost-literally anything their GOP conservative overlords tell them.  Hey,as a starting point, the Republican base believes Trump is a deeply moral and religious man who was elected because of God's will.  After you begin with that, you know they'll believe most anything.  But however stupid some people may cynically believes most of the rest of Americans are, I think think that that veil of stupidity believes that the mass shooting massacres of blacks, Hispanics, Jews and other minorities is because of liberal violence from "the left."  So, this Republican House memo will not only have no impact convincing Americans of its lying point -- but the only serious impact it will have is to further convince those in the undecided Independent middle how craven, dangerous and devoid of trust the Republican Party today has become.  The GOP will certainly reinforce their base, which is SO "reinforced" at this point it is immobile, but the Party will continue to put a deep wedge between itself and the rest of America.

This is not about Trump.  This -- and in this case, it is specifically "this" -- is about the elected officials of the Republican Party, who enable Trump and are complicit in his divisiveness that is dangerous to America.  They actually, specifically do put us all at risk.

So, if at this late date you needed a reason to distrust pretty much anything these days from the Republican, I have a memo for you.
 

This is from a couple days ago, but other news got in the way.  It sill fits just fine --
​

We'll keep this simple.

I've written a lot online yesterday about Trump's actions in regard to recommending that two members of the United States Congress not be permitted in Israel -- and Israel acting accordingly.  And further, the outraged talk all day has been pervasive about how contrary it is to American values, not just as a matter of the First Amendment, where the government acted to silence U.S. citizens, but that members of Congress have the sworn duty to go to foreign countries where we give aid to in order to understand conditions there.  There has been a great deal of anger deservedly directed at Israel, our ally, but that is the wrong main focus.  The issue is what Trump did, not Benjamin Netanyahu.  He acted cravenly and foolishly, following directions of his country's main benefactor. But it was Trump who set the agenda, and was against American citizens and members of Congress.

But two simple observations leap out to me.  The first is --

This is not normal. 

Not much elaboration is needed on that.  Simply that it must not be seen as normal.  It must not be accepted as normal.  Because this is not normal.

And the second is just as simple and clear, and something said on these pages often but demands being repeated once again --

As reprehensible and un-American as Trumps actions have been in regards to Israel and the two members of the United States Congress, it must be noted that this is not about Trump. We know who he is.  This is about the elected Republicans in Congress who enable him and are complicit.  And have been silent.

One last tangential observation.

Trump is going to unravel over the next 15 months.  That is a very easy comment to make, since he has been unraveling significantly for the past four months or so.  And he has no one around him willing to stand up to him and stop him, and no one of significant talent in his administration to help in the job.  And so he will continue to unravel.  And it will be very bad for him and the Republican Party.  The U.S. as a whole will take some hits from it, but they will be painful flesh wounds.  Unraveling is far, far worse.  For all those complicit.

The Washington Post had a major story yesterday which Rachel Maddow devoted most of her show to last night, about Russian influence in the United States, mostly focusing on a $200 million deal in Kentucky to build an aluminum factory the day after which Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked sanctions against the Russian oligarch -- and Putin's close ally -- who owns the company.

At the heart of one issue is that if the factory wasn't built, then a great many people in Kentucky who are desperate for jobs would lose theirs at the new, upcoming plant.  It's a deeply understandable concern.  On the one hand, jobs for those in need.  On the other hand, Russian influence over the Senate Majority Leader to direct policy of the entire United States.  Including, for instance, McConnell blocking any efforts to protect the country against Russian cyber-attacks in the 2020 election.

Much as its a deeply understandable concern and there are two sides to the issue, that doesn't mean the two sides are equal.  Losing the jobs would be devastating to those workers.  But then, the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place if it meant giving Russian control in U.S. policy.  The "greater good" is seems to me far, far greater.  And that means the deal should be stopped, in order to protect the United States.

It should be noted, to keep full perspective, that this same Russian oligarch, Sergei Deripaskov -- who worked with convicted felon Paul Manafort and, again, was on the sanction list for serious reasons -- has already contacted governors in eight other states about building factories in their states, as well.  No doubt to have further Russian influence there.

To be very clear, having said that I don't think the aluminum factory deal should go forward, I feel terrible about the people in Kentucky who don’t have jobs.  But we shouldn’t have this factory there in the first place for those jobs to be able to “taken away.”  And maybe if so many people are out of work in Kentucky, maybe Republicans shouldn’t have tricked people into thinking coal was coming back, but instead train people for new green environmental industries.  Or…or maybe we should increase unemployment insurance rather than lower taxes and then cut back the unemployment benefits program.  Or maybe we should create a federal jobs program like FDR did in the New Deal.  Yes, yes, I know that conservatives hate liberalism and hate FDR and hate social welfare programs.  But when you don’t have those programs, one of the results is destitute people who are willing to sell their country out to the devil who offers them a way to do so.
 
Just because I don’t think they should have jobs from a Russian company trying to subvert the United States doesn’t mean I think we should ignore their plight.  After all, I’m not a conservative -- I don't believe in only “What’s in it for me?” and "I got mine, you're on your own."  I believe in helping those in need.  Just not by selling out the rest of the United States.  So I think there are things we as a country could do for them.  And if those people out of work find “liberal” solutions distasteful, they don’t have to take advantage of them.  They can stay out of work without some form of government assistance or government jobs programs trying to help them if they want, it's a free country.  They can rely on churches and private business to set up shelters and food programs -- though clearly that hasn't been working which is why they're out of work and desperate.  But if they really do want to pass up on liberal assistance, it would their choice.  Personally, I don't they would pass up on the opportunities to help their lives if offered them.  Just like people didn't during the Depression, and just like they don't pass up on Social Security and Medicare when then become available to them, no matter how "liberal" the programs are.  Personally, I think liberal solutions to give you help for a better life are much better than selling out your country – or starving.  But that's me.

Apparently Republicans, and Mitch McConnell as their Senate leader, feel differently.  

And Mitch McConnell is SO upset that he has been given the nickname of "Moscow Mitch."  The heart just bleeds for him.  But then, apparently that's what we bleeding-heart liberals do...

The other day, as I mentioned, I was with my cousin, and during our conversation I mentioned to him that I thought the week from hell with three massacres was a turning point in the public reaction towards Trump and the Republican Party.  To be clear, I said it was not THE turning point -- there are far too many curves in the road for that yet -- but another of those markers along the way, like Charlottesville, that have changed perceptions.  It was different than other shootings and other horrific Trump events which have occurred because there were factors leading up to it, and there being three events was different, and there is also an aftermath.  So, unlike other single events, this has a beginning, middle and end.  It’s a story, a narrative that the public can follow and take meaning from it.
 
I said that before the three shootings we had weeks of Trump slamming the four minority Congresswoman and then himself being attacked (and still attacked) for his racist language to go back where you’re from.  And then pushing his crowd on this, to the point of the chanting “Send them home.”  And his rally in Florida where he wondered what can be done about those four Congresswomen, and the shout came “Shoot them!” and he laughed it off and made a joke of it.
 
And after that was established and confirmed in our public conscience, with the discussion about Trump's words being primordially racist, then came the foundation of it all:  we didn’t have a shooting, or a massacre as has happened far too often in the past – but three of them.  Gilroy, El Paso, Dayton.  Massacre, massacre, massacre.  There wasn’t time to let it pass, fall through the cracks, it’s too soon to talk politics about this, it was overwhelming and pounding.  Further, unlike in the past, one of the shooters wrote a screed that placed his inspiration directly on Trump.
 
And on top of all this, we’re in the middle of a presidential campaign, with 24 Democrats on the campaign trail, none of whom are going to have any intention of letting this fall through the cracks.  They have picked it up and are going to continue pounding it.  In the last debate, there was a criticism that the candidates were going after themselves, rather than the true opponent, Trump.  I don't believe that there will be an issue anymore.  Yes, they were still try to differentiate themselves from another and particularly whoever is leading, but it will always be with Trump there now in full focus.
 
Which brings us to the third act.  In the past, the aftermath could always be obfuscated by the NRA, passing blame, attacking others.  But at this point in time the NRA is on its heels.  It’s finances are in shambles.  It fired its PR firm and spokesperson.  It shut down NRA TV.  It is being investigated for moneylaundering from Russia – and there are reports its tax exempt status is being investigated for buying a $4 million house for its head, Wayne LaPierre.  They don’t have as much money to donate to GOP candidates.  They won’t be able to get money from Russia.  And I sense in most districts that aren’t pure Red that GOP candidates won’t be able to proudly campaign with an endorsement from the NRA.  The point being that there is a long-term effect from all these that we haven’t even seen or touched on yet, but will come into play next year.
 
So, yes, I very much feel this is “a” turning point, that’s it’s different from other events in the past.  And all those other events also now culminate together with this one.  Gilroy, El Paso, Dayton, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Charleston, Sutherland Springs, Las Vegas, Orlando…on and on and more.

And the thing is, this is not going to get better from Trump and the Republican Party.  He's not going to apologize.  They're not going to pass a meaningful gun control measure.  (And if for some unlikely reason they do, it will infuriate their base.)  Trump is going to be just as racist and hate-filled -- like, oh, having just proposed limitations on even now legal immigrants -- and as divisive and cruel at this rallies, feeding off the hate and white supremacy there.  And...and it's gruesome to think it, let alone say it, but God help us there will be another mass shooting.  And most likely several others, just as there have been almost regularly.  The past week alone there already have been two major arrests involving huge arsenals held by those who have ranted on behalf of Trump talking points.  And these will all feed in the public mind on what has just happened and come in the 2-1/2 years before, and all the more so because Trump and the Republicans. despite their deeply-empty words, will have done nothing to change it and have even continued the racist hatred and divisiveness, in the end giving white supremacy and its attendant violence and domestic terrorism a sense of understood acceptance.  And those hate-driven words will continue because at its head Trump won't be changing, it's who he is and has been all his life since even before he was sued by the government in 1973 for racist business practices, since 1989 when he took out of a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for the death penalty of five black youths for a crime it turned out they didn't commit, since 1992 when Trump's hotel and casino in New Jersey was fine $200,000 for racial prejudice and on on and on.  And the GOP elected officials won't change, they've gone all-in with Trump, and they are forced to keep enraging their racist base.  That's how they've governed, that's all they have now.  It's two of the core steps of fascism -- xenophobia and violence.  Those are the few remaining cards Trump and they are holding.  It's all they can play with.

(Sorry, I just said that there "already have been two major arrests of huge arsenals..." but 30-seconds after writing this late last night I read a story of a young man from Texas who was just arrested for threatening to blow up a plane.  So, make it three.)
 
It’s not THE turning point.  But, yes, I think it’s significant.  For those reasons.  The atmosphere across the country feels different.  The tone, the words, the reactions seem different.  The public debate seems different.  The public anger towards it all feels different.

And how bad is this issue for the Republican Party?

When MSNBC did their 2-hour special a week ago about the three gun massacres they invited 30 Republican senators on to talk about it…and ALL 30 refused.  Because they are paralyzed, they have nothing to say, they can’t defend guns or  anything about the situation because the three shootings are so ghastly, they know that saying “video games” and “mental illness” to anyone other than their own crowd will be met with angry derision, and they can’t criticize guns because it will infuriate the NRA and their base.  So, they have nothing to say.  And Democrats will rightly be pounding them on it.  So, they are lost, floundering.  And that is part of the turning point.

No, it is not THE turning point.  But you can see it from here...