Jeb Bush Veto Corleone, Two of a kind? Dumb and Dumber and Dumber, the Bush Dynasty carries on


Jeb Bush Veto Corleone: From the days of good ol’ Al Capony-O to era of Veto Corleone-nay and beyond, the Bush Dynasty carries on. From back in the day when US Senator Prescott Bush was charged under the Trading with the Enemy Act during World War II, and earned the name Hitler’s Banker. . .


. . . To the day George H.W. Bush arrived in Texas as a young man, driving a red Studebaker (yeah, right) and got his start in the oil business as a landman, i.e., someone who travels the countryside to swindle the rubes of their mineral and drilling rights on what his company has determined is oil-rich land.


Looking to carry on in the same vein as his older brother who made billions of dollars disappear into who knows whose pockets in Iraq, L’il Jebbie fancies himself a gangsta. That’s why they call him, as he says, Vito (veto) Corleone-nay

Anti Rubio Robot Gets Jostled by Marco Mob


Rubio robot boldly goes where no man has gone before, and pays the price. Fear not: Team Trump to the rescue — Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump!


Rubio earns his robot moniker, almost too painful to watch. Christie goes Captain Kirk on Marco Rubio — you can almost see the smoke coming out of Marco’s ears.


Hmm, I think I’ve seen this scenario play out in another star system. It never ends well for the robot.

Trump Uses F Word? Not Really. But He Certainly Did Set a Trap and Caught Fox in a Lie


Trump uses F word, or did he? Trump silently mouths the F word, or, perhaps, it was some other word that only those with dirty minds might interpret as foul language? Either way its classic Trump where he sets a trap and the politically correct MSM takes the bait, giving him another week’s worth of talking points and a huge amount of free airtime.

Trump uses F word, not! Fox bleeps out a word that was never spoken to make it look like it was, catching Fox in a lie and giving Trump a free shut the f*ck up pass to be used as often as necessary if they try to use any “gotcha” questions on him in the next Fox hosted Republican debate.

Trump Calls Cruz a Pussy


PC gone wild — Trump calls Cruz a pussy, a term so vulgar and offensive that CNN has to bleep it out when showing us the video. C’mon, really? Trump calls Cruz a (blank)? WTF!

TPP signed; What Comes Next?


TPP signed, so what comes next?

TPP signed, so what comes next? Image Credits: By Neil Ballantyne from Wellington, New Zealand (Stop the TPPA.), Wikimedia Commons

TPP signed, so what comes next? It has to be ratified, which means it still can be stopped. The TPP is more than just bad for America: it would bring an end to American Sovereignty. Anyone who supports it is either a useful idiot, aka a fool, or a special interest that would benefit from it. Anyone who votes for it is either compromised in some way or bought and paid for, but, to make a long story short, simply a traitor.

The TPP is the invasion and conquering of America without firing a single shot. So, with the 2016 election fast approaching, who is for it and who is against it? Previous posts on the TPP, TPA, and TTIP can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If there is anything left of what used to be known as American exceptionalism, surely this would kill it for once and for all.

Trump is against the TPP, but Jeb supports it. Rubio and Cruz voted for the TPA, a fast-track for the TPP to pass on an up or down vote with no discussion on the floor. Seeing which way the wind is blowing, both Rubio and Cruz now say they are now against it, but you can be almost certain that if either were to be elected president, they would pass the TPP. Hillary was for it before she was against it, and Sanders is against it.

Trump on the TPP: In a statement to Breitbart on October 5, 2015, Donald Trump questioned congressional support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He asked, “Why are we striking trade agreements with countries we already have agreements with? Why is there no effort to make sure we have fair trade instead of ‘free’ trade that isn’t free to Americans? Why do we not have accompanying legislation that will punish countries that manipulate their currencies to seek unfair advantage in trade arrangements? Why has the Congress not addressed prohibitive corporate tax rates and trade agreements that continue to drain dollars and jobs from America’s shores?”

Jeb on the TPP: Bush expressed his support for the TPP. He wrote, “I know there is political risk in supporting free trade. TPP is President Obama’s biggest trade initiative. I know some political constituencies in my own political party don’t favor it. But I agree with what Hillary Clinton said about TPP in 2012: This is a great deal for America.

Cruz on the TPP: On May 22, 2015, the Senate passed HR 1314, which was used as a legislative vehicle for trade legislation with the titles “Trade Act of 2015” and the “Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015,” by a vote of 62-37. The bill proposed giving the president trade promotion authority (TPA). The bill also included a statement of trade priorities and provisions for trade adjustment assistance. Cruz voted with 47 other Republican senators to approve the bill

Rubio on the TPP: On May 22, 2015, the Senate passed HR 1314, which was used as a legislative vehicle for trade legislation with the titles “Trade Act of 2015” and the “Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015,” by a vote of 62-37. The bill proposed giving the president trade promotion authority (TPA). The bill also included a statement of trade priorities and provisions for trade adjustment assistance. Rubio voted with 47 other Republican senators to approve the bill.

Sanders on the TPP: In a series of tweets on October 5, 2015, Bernie Sanders criticized the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He tweeted: “We need trade policies that promote the interests of American workers not just the CEOs of corporations #StopTPP. …I am disappointed but not surprised by the decision to move forward on the disastrous TPP that will hurt consumers and cost American jobs. …#TPP follows failed trade deals with Mexico & China that have cost millions of jobs & closed tens of thousands of factories across the US.”

Clinton on the TPP: During the first Democratic debate, on October 13, 2015, Hillary Clinton defended her position to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal after supporting the pact while she was secretary of state. Clinton said, “You know, take the trade deal.


Don’t Give a Damn About the TPP? You’re Going to Wish It Gave a Damn About You.

From Washington’s Blog by David Swanson, American Herald Tribune

Try this at home. Dress up corporate. Stand on a corner with a clipboard. Hover a drone with a video camera nearby. Ask passersby:

1. Who’s in the Super Bowl?

2. Who should be president next year?

3. What was just signed in New Zealand that, if ratified, will let corporations overturn U.S. laws, speed up the destruction of the environment, outsource jobs, encourage slavery, eliminate food safety standards, make medicine cost even more, censor and restrict the internet, impede reform of Wall Street, and make those 20 people who own as much as half the country even richer at your expense?

This is a clear-cut case where Meatloaf is just wrong. Two out of three really is bad.

Former U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and others who had seen all or part of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, used to say that just making it public would stop it dead. But that depends on a number of factors, I think. The TPP has now been made public. Twelve nations have just gone ahead and signed it. And their hope is to see their governments ratify it during the next two years.

The destruction wreaked by NAFTA can be seen in thousands of hollowed out towns across the United States, if you trust the bridges to get you there and are willing to risk drinking the water. But public discussion of NAFTA’s impact is not a popular topic in the corporate media, consolidated post-NAFTA and worsened ever since.

The 1993 corporate media debate over whether or not to create NAFTA looks bizarre to us today. You can go back and watch Vice President Al Gore (pro-NAFTA) debate wealthy crank Ross Perot (anti-NAFTA) on television. That such a thing existed is crazy enough to contemplate in this anti-democratic day and age. But then watch Perot make the debate about the damage NAFTA was going to do to the people of Mexico. You know as well as I do what the universal response to that line of reasoning would be today across the political spectrum of media-approved voices. Say it aloud with me: Who the hell cares what happens to Mexicans!

In fact, the TPP is almost entirely ignored and avoided. When it’s mentioned it’s as something our authoritarian government knows better how to handle than we do. Its defenders, including President Barack Obama, present it as a way to jab a finger in China’s eye. Its opponents argue that it attacks U.S. sovereignty and benefits foreign nations. What, if anything, it does to Vietnamese workers, for example, is just not registering, and the idea of a U.S. billionaire in 2016 bringing that to public attention as a moral concern would get you mocked as a dreamer faster than Hillary Clinton changes positions when a check book is opened.

The Free Trade Area of the Americas and other post-NAFTA corporate deals have been stopped by public pressure, and the TPP can be as well. What is it up against? . . . (more)

Was Milton Friedman Libertarian? Not So Fast


Milton Friedman Libertarian? Maybe not.

Milton Friedman Libertarian? Maybe not.

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
Milton Friedman

“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
Milton Friedman


Was Milton Friedman Libertarian?

Milton Friedman was not just one of the world’s most distinguished economists — he may have also been America’s most famous and influential libertarian.

Writing in Liberty magazine (February 2007), Bruce Ramsey made the argument, “Milton Friedman was not just a figure in the libertarian movement. He was, to Americans generally, a figure emblematic of freedom.”

Brian Doherty, in his book Radicals for Capitalism (2007), wrote that Friedman “has done more to make more people understand and respect the general tenets and thrusts of libertarian ideas than any other libertarian advocate.” . . .


But was Milton Friedman libertarian? Was he even a free-marketer? Murray Rothbard on Milton Friedman:

The Total Demolition of Milton Friedman —

Milton Friedman Unraveled By

Was Milton Friedman Libertarian

Was Milton Friedman Libertarian or even a free-marketer? Murray Rothbard. Image Credits: by LvMI, Wikimedia Commons.

Mention “free-market economics” to a member of the lay public and chances are that if he has heard the term at all, he identifies it completely with the name Milton Friedman. For several years, Professor Friedman has won continuing honors from the press and the profession alike, and a school of Friedmanites and “monetarists” has arisen in seeming challenge to the Keynesian orthodoxy.

However, instead of the common response of reverence and awe for “one of our own who has made it,” libertarians should greet the whole affair with deep suspicion: “If he’s so devoted a libertarian, how come he’s a favorite of the Establishment?” An advisor of Richard Nixon and a friend and associate of most Administration economists, Friedman has, in fact, made his mark in current policy, and indeed reciprocates as a sort of leading unofficial apologist for Nixonite policy.

In fact, in this as in other such cases, suspicion is precisely the right response for the libertarian, for Professor Friedman’s particular brand of “free-market economics” is hardly calculated to ruffle the feathers of the powers-that-be. Milton Friedman is the Establishment’s Court Libertarian, and it is high time that libertarians awaken to this fact of life.

THE CHICAGO SCHOOL

Friedmanism can be fully understood only in the context of its historical roots, and these roots are the so-called “Chicago School” of economics of the 1920s and 1930s. Friedman, a professor at the University of Chicago, is now the undisputed head of the modern, or second-generation, Chicago School, which has adherents throughout the profession, with major centers at Chicago, UCLA, and the University of Virginia.

The members of the original, or first-generation, Chicago School were considered “leftish” in their day, as indeed they were by any sort of genuine free-market criterion. And while Friedman has modified some of their approaches, he remains a Chicago man of the thirties.

The political program of the original Chicagoans is best revealed in the egregious work of a founder and major political mentor: Henry C. Simons’s A Positive Program for Laissez Faire. Simons’s political program was laisse-faire is only in an unconsciously satiric sense. It consisted of three key ideas:

(1) a drastic policy of trust-busting of all business firms and unions down to small blacksmith shop size, in order to arrive at “perfect” competition and what Simons conceived to be the “free market”;

(2) a vast scheme of compulsory egalitarianism, equalizing incomes through the income-tax structure; and

(3) a proto-Keynesian policy of stabilizing the price level through expansionary fiscal and monetary programs during a recession.

Extreme trust-busting, egalitarianism, and Keynesianism: the Chicago School contained within itself much of the New Deal program, and, hence, its status within the economics profession of the early 1930s as a leftish fringe. And while Friedman has modified and softened Simons’s hard-nosed stance, he is still, in essence, Simons redivivus; he only appears to be a free-marketeer because the remainder of the profession has shifted radically leftward and stateward in the meanwhile. And, in some ways, Friedman has added unfortunate statists elements that were not even present in the older Chicago School. . . . (more)

Donald Trump Populist — Lew Rockwell Speaks


Donald Trump populist

Donald Trump populist. Image Credits: By Michael Vadon, Wikimedia Commons

Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com: Donald Trump Populist, what would Murray Rothbard think? Was 9-11 a military coup? Bernie Sanders. Crony Capitalism. The Cashless Society.

I’m looking forward to Trump winning the Republican nomination and, hopefully, picking Rand Paul as his vice president.

A Trump vs. Sanders would probably be the most meaningful election in my lifetime

Please Clap Implores Jeb


please clap

Please Clap? C’mon Jeb, seriously? Image Credits: by Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons

Please clap begs Jeb Bush, the man who would be king, as he turns a weak moment into a pathetic one. And that’s after being caught paying people to fill seats at his rallies.

Now, the Bush people say this paying people thing is all a hoax, something they say the Rubio people came up with to embarrass him. But really, if the Rubio people are going to spend any time trying to discredit anyone, it’s going to be Cruz or Trump they’ll be going after, not the number one loser in the race; besides, he’s already doing a pretty good job of destroying his chances all by himself. He doesn’t need any help.

Please clap

Please clap! What will Jeb do to embarrass himself next?

But don’t Count Jeb out — please clap — just yet. Because if it comes down to a brokered convention, and there’s a very good chance it could because of the way the primaries are structured, then there’s a very good chance that the establishment who runs the convention may very well pick Bush — conventions are know for their chicanery. Please clap!

What could be more embarrassing than having to ask your audience to please clap? Hasn’t Jeb ever heard of chefs de claques and claqueurs? What will the Bush people come up with next to garner applause? And at what price? Will they try the I get along with animals trick like the reporter in the clip below? Or maybe he should just try wearing a clown suit — oh, wait, that’s his every day routine.

Obama Signs TPP, A Treaty That Would Effectively End American Sovereignty


Obama signs TPP

Obama signs TPP, the mark of the beast is upon us.

Image Credits: by Jennifer Parr, Wikimedia Commons

Obama signs TPP, so bye, bye, Miss American Pie. Image Credits: by Jennifer Parr, Wikimedia Commons

Obama signs TPP, giving power over our country to offshore multi-national corporations.

I’ve posted about the TPP before (see here and here), the TPA (see here, here, here, and here), and the TTIP (see here, here, and here).

If it’s ratified, this truly is the end of America.


BREAKING: Obama Just Quietly Signed the TPP

|

Obama just quietly signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the biggest multinational trade deals in history that aims to break down trade barriers between countries comprising 40 percent of the global economy, in New Zealand.

Yep. It’s done.

“We should get TPP done this year and give more American workers the shot at success they deserve and help more American businesses compete and win around the world,” Obama said.

Obama didn’t even sign it in person. He sent sent U.S. trade representative Michael Froman on his behalf.

Senator Jeff Sessions said the White House downplayed the news because the administration realizes how unhappy the public will be when the realization hits.

Via Washington Examiner:

“A trade deal is a contract, and it must be one that puts American workers’ interests first, not the interests of global elites,” Sessions said in a statement. “It is little surprise the administration is not showcasing today’s signing given its unpopularity with the American people.”

Only four others voted against fast tracking the deal with Sessions.

In addition:

A Tufts University study found the TPP will cost nearly 450,000 American jobs in the next nine years.

Obama will urge Congress to ratify it as soon as possible.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said:

“The American people have been left out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership from the very beginning and it shows in the resulting agreement. If this deal is enacted, the American people will be left behind as corporations benefit.”

Crazy Racist White Woman in NYC Subway Attacks Black Men


Wacko — Crazy racist white woman in NYC subway goes cruisin’ for a brusin’.

Racist white woman in NYC subway loses her mind.

Image Credits: By Film Preservation Associates, Inc., Wikimedia Commons. Cuckoo — Racist white woman in NYC subway loses her mind.

Racist white woman in NYC subway goes completely bonkers, gets in random black men’s faces and starts hurling racial insults, grabbing at cell phones, and throws in a few kicks for good measure.


 

Racist woman unleashes vile attack on black subway passengers in shocking video

From Mirror by Ross Logan

… A furious white woman unleashes a stream of vile racist abuse at passengers on board an underground train in this shocking clip.

Phone footage taken on board a New York subway shows the woman, wearing a white coat and woolly hat, angrily confront several black and Asian men, trying to hit them and calling them disgusting derogatory names.

The clip starts with the blonde woman storming around the train car, as two black people move away from her.

She then shouts: “I’m gonna f***ing kill your ass you n*****! You’re a f***ing n*****!”

She then runs towards a black man sat down on the other side of the car, before kicking him in the shins.

For the most part the men merely laugh at her pathetic diatribe, jeering and mocking her as she grows increasingly aggressive and irrational.

Several times she tries to grab the phones from the people filming her, before shouting nonsensically: “I’m gonna put your a** in jail!” . . . (more)