If Trump Is Willing To Stiff Texas On Disaster Relief, Imagine How Blue States Would Fare!

Dayna Steele virtually put her campaign for Congress on hold for nearly a month in the aftermath of the devastation Hurricane Harvey brought to the Houston area so she and her campaign volunteers could work with their neighbors on the immediate effects of the storm. Now Texans-- not to mention folks in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands-- are waiting for help from the Trump Regime. It's not coming. We mentioned the other day that Ryan's tax scam bill cuts out earthquake repairs deductions for Californians. Hurricane deductions-- primarily in red and purple states-- was left intact... but the White House doesn't want to come up with the money Texas needs to get the Houston and Gulf Coast fully back on its feet.

Dayna explained that "The goal of Trump and his fellow swamp dwellers is to eventually cut off as much government funding as possible. The less money the government needs to operate, the better off the wealthy and corporations are in this country. That means less help during and after disasters, the eventual elimination of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and the elimination of programs that help kids, the elderly, education healthcare, job training and more." Ironically, there are some very conservative Texas Republicans who are seeing it a lot like Dayna is. There's nothing to the right of Texas Governor Greg Abbott. On Friday he called Trump's $44 billion request to Congress for disaster relief for the effects of Harvey, Irma and Maria "completely inadequate... and does not live up to what the president wants to achieve. The president has told me privately what he’s said publicly, and that is he wants to be the builder president. The president has said that he wants this to be the best recovery from a disaster ever."

The White House told him to pay for his own disaster relief. Damage in Texas alone is estimated to exceed $180 billion. Huckabee's contemptible daughter: "We feel strongly that they should step up and play a role and work with the federal government in this process. We did a thorough assessment and that was completed and this was the number that we put forward to Congress today."

Trump doesn't want to spent more than $100 billion in federal funds. Nita Lowey (D-NY) is the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. She's siding with Abbott. "This request does not come close to what local officials say is needed." And it isn't just Lowey. Texas Senator John Cornyn, the #2 Republican in the Senate, is fuming. He told Texans this week that "It’s really time for the federal government to live up to its responsibilities" and he's making common cause with Puerto Rico as well. "We are asking to be treated fairly. And we intend to fight for that."

There is no doubt the people of Texas and the entire Gulf Coast, + Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, need this money to rebuild their lives and our state's infrastructure, but it strikes me as a tad "interesting", that when it was Superstorm Sandy and the East Coast, some of the Texas GOP officials didn't seem to think that the money was really needed for them. Now that it is us, of course the Government should give us everything we need. There's an old saying, "You never need government until you NEED government," and I think these officials are getting a whiff of that. With President Obama, he was right there, ready to give aid, Gov. Christie even praised him for the work he did. It was Congress dragging their heals on Sandy. With these storms, we have a totally incompetent President who has no clue as to what is needed or why, so why should anyone be surprised that the offer is far lower than it will take to restore all? What was done quickly and well was done mostly because of the prep that President Obama had built into the emergency responses, and Trump hadn't had time to screw up yet.

This President is focused on tax cuts that will give his family a big "win" in the tax department. Time and again, he's showed his almost complete lack of compassion for others, so no one should be surprised at this. Angry, yes! But surprised, no. Also, a memo for Texas legislators and governor-- "you reap what you sow."

Earlier today, we met progressive Democratic congressional candidate Kathi Thomas. She suggested that "Perhaps in times of great need like this, we should forego tax cuts for the wealthiest and use some of that money to pay to get those areas sacked by this storm back to operation sooner rather than later. Might we have a time of shared sacrifice? Those on the coast have been forced to 'sacrifice' their homes and belongings, and some of their lives, too. Might we show compassion and work together to make our country stronger, instead of giving so much to the richest of the rich?"

Hector Morales, running for the open blue seat in the Houston-Pasadena (TX-29) area agrees with Kathi's perspective. "This," he told us, "is just another example of systemic failure by our government to put the well being of our citizens at the center of policy. Political agendas and special interests hinder the ability of ordinary people to get the help they need and is just yet another reason why we must elect people to government who have the people at heart and not corporate greed."

Tom Wakely is Abbott's opponent for the governor's mansion in Austin this cycle. He's not putting all the blame on Trump though. He told us that "The irony of Abbott's claim of inadequate funding for Hurricane disaster relief is that he is sitting on $10.3 billion dollars in state funds that he could use to help his fellow Texans. Texas has the nation’s largest economic stabilization fund (ESF), commonly called a 'rainy day fund.' I guess the question is, how much more does it have to rain before we tap these readily available state funds. Right now there is a high school in southeast Texas, in Beaumont, that was completely destroyed by Hurricane Harvey. Central High School, which was over 100 years old, is located in an historically black neighborhood. They have been begging Abbott for funds to rebuild. Michael Cooper, who is running for Lt. Governor, told me, 'that kids are displaced and separated from their community and are now attending classes at two separate schools. Even if Abbott decided to allocated funds to rebuild this 39 acre campus, it would take 3-5 years. A lifetime for a 13 or 14 year old. But given that Abbott could care less about the Black and Brown students who attend Central High, we all know those funds will never come.' An additionally irony is that since 2009, the state of Texas has sued the federal government at least 48 times, the same federal government that Abbott is now asking help from."

As for Trump's $100 billion disaster relief ceiling... Puerto Rico has asked for $94 billion, Florida for $27 billion and Texas countered the Department of Housing and Urban Development's $5 billion allocation with a request for 10 times that-- and that's just for housing, not for infrastructure and, for example, for the projects meant to combat future floods.

For Dayna Steele's Campaign, As For All Houston Hurricane Harvey Was A Serious Interruption

Most people in the Houston area know Dayna Steele, former KLOL radio host, as "the First Lady of Rock'n'Roll." The first time they heard every great song and every great band-- from U2 , Nirvana, Joan Jett and The Police to Van Halen, Heart and Bon Jovi-- that jolted their lives-- in a way few politicians ever can-- it was intimately, just them, their radio... and Dayna. Otherwise her latest endeavor-- taking on right-wing kook Brian Babin in a beet-red district-- would seem... quixotic. TX-36 went for Trump over Hillary 72% to 25%. The PVI is R+26. No Democrat has ever won an R+26 district before. With not even a nod in her direction from the DCCC, Dayna is starting the process of making history. Or, rather, she was starting that process when Harvey intruded on her life and on the lives of the people in her district. TX-36 was one of the hardest hit districts from this hurricane, ironic when you consider that Babin is a lunatic fringe and very aggressive Climate Science denier. When Hurricane Harvey hit Houston, Dayna turned her congressional campaign into a relief and resources team. She's been working to help her neighbors ever since. Now it is our turn to lend a hand to Dayna. You can donate to her campaign to unseat Republican Brian Babin here.

We asked Dayna to write another guest post-- her first for us was here-- about the impact of the hurricane on her, her campaign and the folks in Houston-- and what can be learned from that.

A Plan
-by Dayna Steele,
candidate for Congress (TX-36)

A reporter for International Business Times asked me the other day what I thought of the federal government response to Hurricane Harvey. I really had to stop and think a minute. My answer? I don’t really recall seeing anyone from the federal government except for the one time I had to drive my campaign truck to a local grocery store and rescue two dogs, one very unhappy crated cat, and a lovely woman who had just escaped three feet of water in her house. Come to think of it, it was not the federal government that was there helping. It was the Texas-based grocery chain H.E.B. and the National Guard called up by Texas-- that the federal government took credit for when saying they sent “over 6,000 troops.” No, they did not. They sent about 1000 and we supplied the national guard.

What I did see were hundreds and hundreds of volunteers and neighbors in their own boats, using jet skis and kayaks, pool floats, and large coolers saving friends, family, strangers, and animals. What I did see was the immediate use of social media, including Team Dayna, working to identify people who needed to be saved-- immediately. While the federal government and FEMA were coming up with a plan, we were already working around the clock all over the area saving thousands and setting up make-shift shelters.

So, the question I’m getting now from reporters and followers? What would you have done differently? What will you do differently when you are elected to Congress?

I would act to insure there is a plan.

After we evacuated for Hurricane Rita in 2005, though it turned out to be a false alarm for our area, it was a wakeup call for what we needed as a family for a hurricane plan. During the ten hours it took us to drive to San Antonio, Texas (normally a three-hour drive), I took notes-- everything I wish we had, the things family members wished they had brought with them and not left behind for destruction: a favorite stuffed animal, the family recipe book, and more. I also made notes of the things we should have done before we left: turn off the breakers, bring the outdoor furniture inside, check the generator weeks before, fill the gas cans, and more there as well.

Overtime, I added to this list. When Mom went into assisted living for Alzheimer’s, she was added to the list as another responsibility: who would pick her up, when, what did she need.

As we fostered and adopted two dogs (foster fails) and a cat and eventually Mom’s rescue Chihuahua, they had to be added to the plan too-- crates, leashes, food, and food bowls.

The family hurricane plan became this: check and evaluate everything when hurricane season begins on June 1. If anything changes in our lives, add that to the plan-- a son moves to college, we gain another animal (I promised no, but you know things happen...), we add something outside, we add something valuable inside, etc. Mom has since passed away but I keep her on the list-- I just can’t hit that delete button. That, and I share the list with so many who are taking care of aging relatives.

When we got the call to evacuate for Hurricane Ike in 2008, our plan kicked into action and, for the most part, worked. That’s the thing about a plan, you should constantly evaluate and update a plan for it to work.

You get the point. We have a plan.

What I saw with Harvey were no plans. Attending a meeting at the local city hall as nearby homes were flooding, I saw eight people sitting around a table arguing their plan. Why wasn’t there one in place to begin with? We are surrounded by lakes and Galveston Bay. Odds are, we were going to have bad flood at some point. We saw it during Ike.

We live on the Texas Gulf Coast. Climate change-- global warming to call it what it really is and leave the Republican framing behind-- is real, it is happening, scientists have been warning us for years this could happen and would. It did. And there was no plan.

The Arkema plant in Crosby, Texas had emergency generators in case of a plant failure to keep the plant, and surrounding neighborhoods (i.e. neighbors/people) from exploding. The generators were on the ground and not twelve feet up because, well you know, that would cost money and would have cut into profits so the Republican Congress removed regulations otherwise known as protections for people. Now instead we have first responders with health issues because of the chemicals released from that plant. There was not a plan.

A picture of residents of a local nursing home started to circulate almost immediately on Facebook during Hurricane Harvey and the rains in the Houston area. These elderly people were shown sitting on couches and in their wheelchairs as the water rose around them. There was no plan in case of a catastrophic emergency. Volunteers took matters into their own hands, shared the horrifying image on Facebook, and strangers went into action, saving all the residents.

Then the water receded and we were faced with thousands of homes that needed to be mucked out. While officials including the incumbent I am running against had meetings to come up with a plan, volunteers sprang into action sharing information online, created Google docs, posting where help was needed and organizing work crews and supplies. The Texas Muck Map is a work of genius-- put together entirely by volunteers while the government was still organizing a plan.

The list of government agencies and businesses without a plan goes on and on and will be the stories/arguments you hear for years. Instead of arguing and pointing fingers, just take this as a lesson and come up with a plan moving forward. For your family, your business, your neighborhood, your community, your district, your state, your county. You know what you are in charge of, so be in charge.

Plans take time and cost money to implement. However, plans save time and money later as well as save lives.

We should not have to pass laws to get people to do the right thing but if that is what it takes, that is what I will do. I will demand a plan. A plan that puts priorities where they should be-- with and for we the people.

Midnight Meme Of The Day

-by Noah

By now, we've all seen multiple clips of reporters and late night TV hosts going out and interviewing Trump supporters in the streets. It's easy. You just go up to some clown that's wearing a Trump hat, turn on the camera, ask your questions, and watch the crazy come pouring out. To be fair, though, (and I'm always fair), it doesn't seem to be just the most fervent Trump supporters. It's Republican voters in general. It has become impossible to tell the difference. If you vote like a Trump supporter, you are one; no hat required. No stupid slogan on your shirt, no confederate flag or white hood either.

As Hurricane Harvey flooded Texas and Señor Trumpanzee toured a couple of firehouses with The Whore Of Slovenia to sell some hats, a common statement by Republicans ran along the lines of "See. Trump is taking real action. Where was Obama during Katrina?" In the alternative fact based Republican World, Obama had been shirking his duties as president and was out playing golf somewhere, never mind that, in the real world of 2005, Obama was not the president and wouldn't be for another 3 years. Not only that, but then Senator Obama actually did go to New Orleans and lend a hand.

All of this leads me to these questions when I see someone wearing a Trump hat, shirt, sheet, hood, or whatever: Should such people, for their own good and ours, be allowed to operate machinery? Should we step up the growth of public transportation for them in order to keep our highways safer? Do they get their own busses? Could it be that there is a beyond intolerable amount of lead in red state drinking water? Or is it all just due to bad schooling and FOX "News"? Well, of course, it could be all of those things, or, it could be just that the Walter White, of Breaking Bad fame, is a real person, that things have been reversed and the Republican Big World of Alternative Facts is actually the real world, and the "real" world that I have been living in is a fictional TV world. If that's the case, then obviously Walter was every bit as wildly successful in selling meth to the real world masses as the show depicted, and Breaking Bad is really all a documentary. Silly me, I thought that was just well-done fiction.

Midnight Meme Of The Day

-by Noah

Republicans are a strange bunch of people, freakishly so. In the bizarro fantasy world of fear and hate that they choose to live in, they pep eachother up with mantras such as Ronald Reagan's "Government is the problem" and their chants about "getting the government off our backs." They moan and bitch on and on about lower taxes yet they want "The Wall," paved roads and a "military second to none," doubly second to none, in fact. Senator Rafael "Ted" Cruz of Texas, aka, our biggest nut state, got heaps of Republican praise and trust and built a primary campaign around statements like:

Government is not the answer. You are not doing anyone a favor by creating dependency, destroying individual responsibility.

Cruz is a nexus of the hypocrisy of Republican thought, but every Republican is. Cruz has called for the abolishing of the IRS, the entity that gathers money for federal government spending. Yet, among so many other things that our federal government pays for, he wants $150 Billion of our taxpayer money sent to his state for recovery from Hurricane Harvey. Both things sound great to Texans right now, at least the Republican ones. Some might call this a sign of acute schizophrenia.

As I write this, an even bigger storm than Harvey is bearing down on American citizens, so let me be facetious and ask what should we do? Should we tell the Coast Guard to stay in and not rescue anyone? Should we even decide not to spend our money on warning systems? Hell, who needs weather satellites? Things were so much better back when no one even knew the storm was coming! Who needs a power grid anyway? Why have it? Why repair it if Irma destroys it. Turn off the cameras! Nothing to see here!

Another Republican mantra is the one about being self-reliant. Should we watch Irma and just tell the victims they're on the own, no FEMA, no National Guard for you! I'm sure the catastrophic damage Irma will cause is nothing a good church fair flea market and bake sale can't handle, right Republicans? Pull up your boot straps! Better pull 'em up real high! Hey, you can even melt down some Robert E. Lee statues and sell the metal for scrap.

Trump Cut Ryan's Pecker Off This Morning-- In Public

Ryan's a jellyfish and maybe he never had a pecker anyway, but if he did, Trump put it in a pecker guillotine earlier today-- while Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin looked on in stunned silence and Miss McConnell excused himself and went to the little boys' room for a few moments and some smelling salts. Ryan had just accused Schumer and Pelosi of "playing politics" with Harvey emergency relief when Trump insisted he take out his thing and put it in the smallish guillotine Bannon had made him for just these kinds of ocasions. Peter Baker didn't mention anything about what happened to Ryan's severed pecker in his NY Times report today. He wrote that Señor Trumpanzee "struck a deal with Democratic congressional leaders on Wednesday to increase the debt limit and finance the government until mid-December, undercutting his own Republican allies as he reached across the aisle to resolve a major dispute for the first time since taking office. The agreement would avert a fiscal showdown later this month without the bloody, partisan battle that many had anticipated by combining a debt ceiling increase and stopgap spending measure with relief aid to Texas and other areas devastated by Hurricane Harvey. But without addressing the fundamental underlying issues, it set up the prospect for an even bigger clash at the end of the year. In embracing the three-month deal, Mr. Trump accepted a Democratic proposal that had been rejected just hours earlier by Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin. Mr. Trump’s snap decision at a White House meeting caught Republican leaders off guard and reflected friction between the president and his party. After weeks of criticizing Republican leaders for failing to pass legislation, Mr. Trump signaled that he was willing to cross party lines to score some much-desired legislative victories." When reading this, it's important to keep in mind that Trump is certifiably insane and completely unstable. So... everything with two grains of salt.

As if to reinforce that point, Mr. Trump aligned himself with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leaders, in embracing legislation to authorize younger illegal immigrants to stay in the country. A day earlier, Mr. Trump had rescinded a program enacted by President Barack Obama protecting such immigrants on the grounds that it went beyond a president’s authority, but called on Congress to legalize the program.

“We had a very good meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer,” Mr. Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to a speech on taxes in North Dakota, without mentioning that Mr. Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, had also attended. Regarding the immigration program, Mr. Trump said, “Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I.”

Republican leaders looked grim but resigned afterward and attributed Mr. Trump’s deal to a need for unity after Harvey struck Texas and as Hurricane Irma barrels toward Florida. “Look, the president can speak for himself, but his feeling was that we needed to come together to not create a picture of divisiveness at a time of genuine national crisis, and that was the rationale,” Mr. McConnell said.

But conservatives were clearly miffed. In a terse statement, Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, declared, “The Pelosi-Schumer-Trump deal is bad.”

Congressional aides said privately that Republicans went into the meeting at the White House proposing an 18-month deal on government spending and the debt limit, only to run into resistance from the Democrats. They then proposed a six-month deal as a compromise, but Democrats insisted on a three-month agreement. Mr. Trump then surprised the Republicans by agreeing to the Democratic formulation.

The agreement came after the House overwhelmingly approved nearly $8 billion in disaster aid in response to Harvey, taking quick action to help victims of the devastating flooding in Texas. The aid measure passed 419 to 3. The “no” votes were Republican.

McConnell will have to deal with that bill in the Senate, where he will be under pressure to tack on an increase to the debt ceiling before sending it back to the House where the dickless Ryan will sob to his aides about how cruel life is to him and then pass it and send it along to Señor Trumpanzee to sign.

So what was behind Schumer's and Pelosi's deal with Trump? Baker wrote that "pressed for a three-month increase along with the hurricane aid to give Democrats leverage later this year when other matters, including a longer-term government funding deal, could be negotiated between the two parties. By ensuring that all the pending issues converge at the end of the year, Democrats hope a longer-term agreement on fiscal matters could include immigration, health care and any number of other issues." Ryan freaked out and called their plan unworkable but Trump-- cavalierly-- ignored his concerns. As Baker said, poor Ryan has to deal with the Freedom Caucus loons. "Aside from the particulars of a debt-limit increase, just the idea of raising the government’s borrowing capacity in tandem with providing Harvey aid has drawn opposition from conservatives, who have pushed for any debt limit measure to be coupled with fiscal changes intended to rein in spending. 'Attaching the debt ceiling to it is using a catastrophe in Texas as leverage to pass something that certainly there should have been an alternative plan to pass,' said Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Representative Mark Walker of North Carolina, the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, expressed frustration at what he views as a missed opportunity to address the nation’s debt. 'We’re grateful that in Texas the floodwaters continue to recede,' he said on Fox News. 'But here in the swamp, it looks like they continue to rise.' Dan Holler, a spokesman for Heritage Action for America, a conservative group, said the White House and congressional leaders were putting conservative lawmakers-- including those from Texas-- 'in a pretty difficult political situation' by essentially daring them to vote against a measure containing both Harvey aid and an increase to the debt limit."

“Linking those two things together is not something that any conservative wants,” Mr. Holler said. But, he added, “there doesn’t seem to be a will in Congress or in the administration at this point to tackle some of those major drivers of our debt and deficit problem.”

Conservatives must also grapple with whether to support the Harvey aid even though the House bill does not include spending cuts to pay for it. The Club for Growth, a conservative group, had urged House members to vote against the Harvey bill if it was not fully offset by spending cuts, and the group also objected to the prospect of linking the debt limit to the hurricane aid.

“A debt ceiling increase is nothing more than Congress bailing itself out-- at taxpayer expense-- because Congress routinely fails to balance the budget,” the group wrote. “So adding the debt ceiling increase to the disaster relief bill is just throwing bad policy on top of bad policy.”

Jonathan Swan reported for Axios that a "Republican close to leadership" told them that 'Dems bluffed their way into total victory. They win the politics of DACA and leverage on debt in the winter. The fate is sealed-- DACA will be reauthorized without strings, Schumer has inserted himself into all negotiations in the winter, including tax, spending and immigration.'" Pelosi and Schumer issued a joint statement to the media: "In the meeting, the President and Congressional leadership agreed to pass aid for Harvey, an extension of the debt limit, and a continuing resolution both to December 15, all together. Both sides have every intention of avoiding default in December and look forward to working together on the many issues before us. As Democratic leaders, we also made it clear that we strongly believe the DREAM Act must come to the floor and pass as soon as possible and we will not rest until we get this done."

Señor Trumpanzee's own statement reinforced their perspective: "We had a very good meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer [Trump notably did not mention Ryan or McConnnell]. We agreed to a three-month extension on debt ceiling, which they consider to be sacred, very important, always we'll agree on debt ceiling automatically because of the importance of it. Also on the CRs and also on Harvey, which now we're going to be adding something because of what's going on in Florida, but we had a very good meeting. We essentially came to a deal, and I think the deal will be very good."

Climate Change: The Litmus Test

Imaginary candidate: he is gung-ho on Medicare-for-All and is eager to sign onto John Conyers' HR 676 as soon as he's elected. In fact, his campaign is based not just on Medicare-For-All, but on free state colleges, a higher minimum wage, getting corrupting cachet of elections. He's adamantly pro-choice and adamantly in favor of equality based on gender, race, religion, etc. He even wants to crack down on banksters and put them in prison. So why isn't he on the Blue America endorsement list? He's not quite sure about Climate Change. He has some good feelings about it but... do we really know? Don't we need more proof before we disrupt the whole economy? he asked me. Alarm bells start ringing loudly. He's too stupid-- dangerously stupid-- to be endorsed.

The conservative politicians-- particularly the conservative politicians in Texas-- whose decisions transformed Hurricane Harvey from bad weather to a national catastrophe that's going to cost taxpayers from every part of America over $100 billion, don't need more reinforcement in Congress. Climate Change is a litmus test.

Texans have decided they don't need a state income tax. Texans have decided they don't need environmental protection laws. Texans have decided not to use their $12 billion "rainy day" fund to help Harvey victims. Texas GOP congressmembers, who opposed helping victims of Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey, seem to be already grossly padding the budget for Harvey cleanup. The state's crackpot, extreme right-wing governor, who called a special session of the legislature to deal with which transgender children should use in schools, has already announced he won't call a special session of the legislature to deal with the immediate consequences of Hurricane Harvey. Sunday, Nick Kristof tweeted this meme, alerting me to this column: "We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?"

"Imagine," wrote Kristof, "that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady-- without addressing the risks of future terrorism. That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also discussing climate change." But with Trump leading any national discussion on anything, is "an intelligent conversation" even remotely possible?

That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change skepticism more than 100 times, even suggesting that climate change is a Chinese hoax, and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s “misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change.

Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is making hurricanes worse.

First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of Mexico has warmed by two to four degrees Fahrenheit over the long-term average. The result is more intense storms.

“There is a general consensus that the frequency of high-category (3, 4 and 5) hurricanes should increase as the climate warms,” Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at M.I.T., tells me. Likewise, three experts examined the data over 30 years and concluded that Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger.

Second, as the air warms, it holds more water vapor, so the storms dump more rain. That’s why there’s a big increase in heavy downpours (“extreme precipitation events”). Nine of the top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred since 1990.

“Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can meander and create blockages-- like those that locked Harvey in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey to be so destructive.

Frankly, it’s staggering that there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change.

Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest global average surface temperature, according to NASA. The 10 years of greatest loss of sea ice are all in the last decade. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year floods” in the last three years.

Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones. We lose homes to climate change, but in much of the world families lose something far more precious: their babies. Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe, and I was seared while reporting in Madagascar about children starving apparently as a consequence of climate change.

An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord. A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.

We also must adapt to a new normal-- and that’s something Democratic and Republican politicians alike are afraid to do. We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us.

We even subsidize such dares through the dysfunctional National Flood Insurance Program. This offers underpriced insurance, encouraging people to live in low-lying areas-- compounded by flood maps that are old and unreliable. One Mississippi home flooded 34 times in 32 years, resulting in payouts worth almost 10 times what the home was worth.

The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only predictable, it was actually predicted. Last year, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune published a devastating article about Houston as a “sitting duck for the next big hurricane” and warned that Texas was unprepared.

In other domains, we constantly manage risks that are uncertain. We address a threat from the Islamic State or North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess. So why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in the long run may be far more destructive?

A brainwashed citizenry, where self-interested industries pay off media giants like Fox and buy off callow politicians to propagandize for them? I'm just asking for a friend. But these are the currently-serving members of the House who have accepted the most in bribes from the financiers of Climate Change denial-- the dirty dozen consigning our grandchildren and their grandchildren to a brutish life of misery:

• Joe Barton (R-TX)- $4,560,727
• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $2,837,431
• Steve Pierce (R-NM)- $2,807,154
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $2,538,190
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $2,454,153
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $2,168,460
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $2,021,985
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $2,011,001
• Greg Walden (R-OR)- $1,680,787
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $1,612,788
• Tim Murphy (R-PA)- $1,606,382
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $1,597,597

No progressives on that list of death's disciples! Although there are a couple of Democrats, beyond just sleaze bag Steny Hoyer, who take massive bribes from the Climate Change deniers and help the Republicans pass their agenda. Gene Green (D-TX- $1,388,688) and Jim Clyburn (D-SC- $1,067,993) are the only other House Dems who have taken over a million dollars from the culprits. Should that be reason enough toward for their retirements? Damn straight! Hector Morales is a Houston public school teacher running for seat occupied by corrupt conservative Democrat Gene Green, the congressman who keeps telling his constituents he'll do something about all the pollution in the district but just keeps taking bigger and bigger bribes from there polluters. You can help Hector repeal and replace Green here. Today he told us this:

The Arkema Plant explosion in Crosby, TX was an accident waiting to happen, just like the refineries in Pasadena, TX and the Superfund site near it. Members of Congress are known for accepting large sums of special interest money-- so far that is the only way they have been able to maintain their seats while continuously voting against the health and well being of their constituents. To see the the influence of special interests, look no further than incumbent congressional member and Blue Dog-type Democrat from TX-29, Gene Green. Green has taken in millions of dollars from the energy industry in his twenty four year tenure as a member of Congress and ranking member on the Energy and Power and Environment and Economy subcommittees. There, Green has wielded his influence to continue development of harmful refineries and one of the few lowly Democrats to vote with the GOP and President Trump for the Keystone Pipeline not just once, but every time it has come up- something he ought to bring up more during his townhalls ripping Republicans and Trump about harming the environment. Green religiously campaigns on needing the refineries, much like the Arkema Plant, to keep what he calls "good jobs" for the district. The jobs he refers to have harmed and killed countless people due to plant explosions and exposure to hazardous chemicals linked to cancer.

I grew up with those Pasadena refineries and the seemingly endless shelter in places, boil water warnings, and poor air quality. That was, and still is, the way of life in Pasadena and the 29th District. Why not advocate for renewable energy? It is here that Green's hypocrisy is blatant and on full display- adopt and campaign on the Democratic Platform of "renewable energy" while voting against incentives for the development of renewable energy. And Green gets away with it because he seems untouchable with his million dollar war chest and lack of Democratic and Republican opponents in almost every election cycle.

In twenty four years, Green is proud of having high school graduation rates that are twice as low as the State and three times as low as the nation, an average household income of under $40,000 a year for a family of five, schools that have repeatedly been rated as the top 1% of most polluted in the US-- including 26,000 students going to school within one mile of a refinery, and constituents being fifty times more likely to develop leukemia here than anywhere else in the US. "Good jobs," right?

My plan calls for addressing the issues at their core- by shifting the refineries to produce 100% clean and renewable energy and manufacturing the equipment to build the nation's renewable energy infrastructure. The future of our nation depends on renewable energy and the jobs it will create. This can be our future only if our members of Congress would be beholden to their constituents and not the corrupt money of special interests or the energy sector. And on March 6, 2017, Congressman Gene Green will see what happens when the people make their voices heard and drown out the special interests- he loses and the people win.

Señor Trumpanzee Goes To Houston Selling New Hats

-by Noah

When Señor Trumpanzee dropped in on Texas earlier this week, it was nothing more than a contrived photo-op, cooked up by his handlers back in his Washington KKK headquarters. OK. I just lied. It wasn't "nothing more." I admit it. Unlike the president, I will freely admit when I lie! I should also have said that it was about Trump selling his new line of hats. There they were, the president and the first "lady," wearing, respectively a USA-45 hat (First a white one, and then, after a quick costume change, a red one. Gotta show both of them, eh?), and then, Queen Melanoma wearing one that said FLOTUS, when it should have said WHORE.

Suffice to say, the trip wasn't about the victims of the horrendous storm catastrophe, it was all about Trump, but, with Señor Trumpanzee, it's always about Señor Trumpanzee. Our fraud of a president didn't even bother to meet or talk with any of the victims. Gee, it might have had to hug one... awkward! Even when Trump leaves his tower, his demented mind never leaves his tower. There he was, doing his best to keep his tiny feet dry. All he could muster was "What a turnout. What a crowd!" Yep. They all came to see him. He didn't come to see them.

The hats are, of course, available at his Trump website for $40, plus shipping. Gotta make more money for the campaign fund/family treasury you know. If, for some insane reason, you actually do want one of the hats, Walmart and other retailers are offering knockoffs of the same things for a much, much lower $9.99. I guess, if you're a farmer, the hats will dress up your scarecrow nicely, or, if you have kids who want to be really obnoxious this halloween, a Trumpanzee hat is just the thing! Watch it though, if your kid wears that hat, they'll start getting thoughts about stealing all the candy from the other neighborhood children and blowing up pumpkins with nukes.

If he is going to use a hurricane as an opportunity to sell hats, could it at least be a rain hat?
- Richard W. Painter, Vice Chairman of Citizens For Corporate Responsibility And Ethics (And Republican on the outs)

At the same time Trump was feigning concern about Houston's flood victims, thousands of celebrity and sports world elites were swinging into action. Miley Cyrus instantly donated $500,000. NFL football player J.J. Watt who has, as of this writing, raised over $10 Million including some of his own money, through Walmart. Major league players are individually donating small fortunes. They make a lot of money but none of them have anything remotely near the 10 billion dollars in the bank that Trump claims he has. The Tampa Bay Rays donated the proceeds of a game with the Houston Astros. The Kardashian family is contributing $500,000. Leonardo DiCaprio is down for $1 Million. Lots of those dreaded Hollywood, bleeding heart liberals have opened their hearts and wallets. The New York Giants have donated $1 Million. Even Trump pal Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots came up with a million bucks. It almost seems that just about any entity outside of ISIS began raising and/or donating funds well before the last raindrops fell. But what about the Trumps? Is it just a case of "They'll sell you a hat" and that's it? Well, for a while that appeared to be the case, but on Thursday afternoon, the White House announced that the president would be contributing $1 Million of his own money towards the recovery. Will that come to pass? Let's take a look.

Given Trump's past actions regarding donations, we shouldn't be in a rush to applaud the move. Remember that he recently donated part of his salary, perhaps $100,000, to the Department of Education shortly after he removed a billion or so from the department's budget. He's done similar things with the National Park Service and let's not forget his colluding with his son to syphon off funds from a kids cancer charity or the vast number of stories of him reneging on his contracts with vendors. Is the con on again?

Most pertinent to this story is that while Trump claims to have donated millions of dollars to various causes before, so much of that money has come from his Donald J. Trump Foundation, a foundation built on the financial contributions of others. So, how is such a practice "giving personal money?" Then, there is the amount. Yes, $1 million is a lot of money, and every bit helps, but, just to offer a serious nitpick here, if you have a personal fortune of $10,000,000,000, $1 million is, by my math, an amount equal to one one-hundredth of one percent of ten billion. To put it another way, it's like someone who has $1Million writing a check for $100. Kudos to you Donald J. Trump, it was the least you could do. OK. I'll be fair. Nothing at all was the least he could do.

Then there's the issue of where Trump's $1 Million will actually go. Will it pass through a foundation or charity that he controls before it goes elsewhere? It's not like that isn't how it's been done previously. Even if the donation is legit, don't be surprised if it ends up going as an investment in a new Gulf Coast Trump hotel, casino, or something similar, with his name in large block gold letters. Like I said, history shows, when it comes to the Trumpanzee, it's always about the Trumpanzee. Maybe, the money will end up going for a portrait of The Donald, paid for with the money of donors to his foundation. I can see the portrait hanging in a future Houston Flood Museum, named after Donald J. Trump, of course.

Helping Texas Dig Out From Harvey-- Do They Deserve The Help?

The bright shiny object is a fake president/TV reality personality acting like a rabid baboon in the middle ring. Off on the sides, though, the Republican Party is systematically destroying the regulations and safeguards Congress and other presidents have put in place to protect America and Americas-- usually to protect them from conservative campaign donors. This week, David Sirota, exposed another classic example, focussing on the bought-off Texas Republicans who helped the French chemical plant that exploded near Houston to attack safety rules. Thanks in part to their efforts, Arkema, the company whose chemical plant is belching poisonous smoke into the already polluted East Texas air, "successfully pressed federal regulators to delay new regulations designed to improve safety procedures at chemical plants... The rules, which were set to go into effect this year, were halted by the Trump administration after a furious lobbying campaign by plant owner Arkema and its affiliated trade association, the American Chemistry Council, which represents a chemical industry that has poured tens of millions of dollars into federal elections." Sirota offered some background on why the rules were instituted in the first place.

In 2013, a West, Texas, chemical plant explosion killed 15 people, prompting the Obama administration to try to raise chemical plant safety standards (investigators later found the explosion was caused deliberately). In an executive order that year, President Obama proposed an overhaul of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program with the goal of increasing safety and transparency at chemical plants by strengthening existing regulations. The EPA said the enhanced rules would “seek to improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated source.”

Arkema has six production plants in Texas and has received more than $8.7 million worth of taxpayer subsidies from the state. Arkema’s Crosby plant-- which OSHA fined more than $90,000 for ten “serious” violations earlier this year and has spewed smoke in Crosby-- appears to be covered under the existing EPA rules because of the kinds of chemicals it uses. While Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has given chemical companies legal cover to hide the locations of their EPA-regulated chemicals, the Associated Press reports that the imperiled Arkema facility houses large amounts of toxic sulfur dioxide and flammable methylpropen, which required Arkema to submit a risk management plan to the agency-- and which would have subjected the company to the strengthened safety rules.

However, those rules-- which would have taken effect on March 14-- were blocked by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who as Oklahoma Attorney General demanded  the rule be withdrawn. The move was a big win for the chemical industry that has spent more than $100 million supporting federal lawmakers since 2008. Among those who have received more than $100,000 from the industry are powerful Texas lawmakers including Sen. John Cornyn (R), Rep. Joe Barton (R), Rep. Pete Olson (R), Rep. Gene Green (D), Rep. Pete Sessions (R) and Rep. Kevin Brady (R).

Now Texas members of Congress expect the rest of the country to pick up the tab for their own malfeasance and corruption. Rest assured that the costs of the disaster will be in the Hurricane Harvey relief bill that Democrats have already signaled they will support for humanitarian reasons. And the humanitarian reasons are solid, but with sleazy characters like Trump, Pruitt and Abbott having their fingers in the big pot of money, it is as likely to serve anti-humanitarian needs than go towards the kind of help Democrats are eager to get to Texans devastated by the hurricane.

Of Arkema’s six production plants in Texas, five, including the Crosby plant, are near the coast and in the Houston area, raising the prospect of additional explosions due to flooding. The town of Beaumont, where there is a taxpayer-subsidized Arkema plant, has experienced severe flooding. Another plant is located in Houston, and two more, in nearby Pasadena, sit right on the Trinity Bay; one of these plants took in nearly $5 million in subsidies.

In its letter to the EPA, Arkema noted that it is a member of the American Chemistry Council-- a powerful lobbying group that has delivered $1.6 million of campaign donations to federal lawmakers since 2010. That Arkema-backed group helped spearhead the effort to block the EPA’s chemical plant safety rule. In January, the council was one of 21 groups that sent a letter to congressional leaders asserting that the new rule’s costs were not worth the alleged safety benefits.

...The American Chemistry Council also lauded Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton for co-authoring a letter slamming the chemical plant safety rule. The letter chastised the EPA for proposing to require chemical plants to more expansively disclose castatrophic releases of hazardous chemicals and berated regulators for requiring independent audits of facilities' safety procedures.

...Paxton received $106,000 from chemical industry donors during his 2014 run for attorney general. His letter was backed by then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and then-Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (now a senator),  who  argued that disclosing details of chemical accidents would imperil national security. Pruitt's campaigns were supported by the Republican Attorneys General Association-- which he chaired and which received $50,000 from the American Chemistry Council during his tenure as a state official, according to data compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine.com.

The push to persuade the Trump administration to block the chemical plant safety rules was also bolstered by an American Chemistry Council-backed resolution introduced on February 1 by Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

Among the 65 co-sponsors of the measure to block the rules were 10 members of the Texas Congressional delegation, including five who represent Houston area districts: Brian Babin (TX-36), whose district encompasses Crosby, where the Arkema plant lies; Michael McCaul (R-10), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, whose district sits northwest of Houston; John Culberson (R-7), whose district covers part of Houston; Randy Weber (R-14), who represents a coastal district just outside of Houston; Blake Farenthold (R-27), a representative whose coastal district lies southwest of Houston. Other co-sponsors include Louie Gohmert (R-1), vice chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, and Lamar Smith (R-21), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology who has challenged climate science. Weber and Babin are also members of that committee.

The Texas lawmakers who sponsored Mullin’s bill to block the chemical plant safety regulations have received more than $652,000 from the chemical industry, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Federal contribution data show the American Chemistry Council specifically has delivered more than $160,000 to the entire Texas congressional delegation since 2008, with top recipients including Gene Green ($20,288), Olson ($18,999), McCaul, who co-sponsored the Mullin bill ($13,500), and Barton ($16,500). Babin and Weber, who also co-sponsored the bill, each received $3,000 from Arkema.

Also this year, Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn were two of 16 co-sponsors of a companion resolution in the Senate. Cornyn has taken more than $408,000 from the chemical industry over the course of his career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Cruz has recieved $234,000 from the industry. The National Institute on Money In State Politics reports that the American Chemistry Council has given more to federal lawmakers in Texas than legislators in any other state.

ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Koch Industries and Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), a Saudi government-owned firm with multiple locations in the Houston area, including its North American headquarters, all lobbied on the legislation, which set the stage for Trump's administration to block the rules.

In the last cycle, the American Chemical Council spent $2,382,566 on ads backing 7 Republicans. They also contributed $393,000 directly to scores of congressmembers-- 73% Republicans and 27% Democrats. These were their half dozen biggest "investments" in the House for the 2016 cycle:

• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $10,000
• Mike Pompeo (R-KS)- $10,000
• Bill Shuster (R-PA)- $7,500
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $7,500
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- $7,500
• Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA)- $7,500

But right underneath these 6 crooks came the large contingent of members who accepted $5,000 bribes, including many of the Texans who districts' residents are most threatened.

• Brian Babin (R-TX)
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Ryan Costello (R-PA)
• Garret Graves (R-LA)
• Gene Green (D-TX)
• Bill Johnson (R-OH)
• Jim Jordan (R-OH)
• Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
• Mike McCaul (R-TX)
• David McKinley (R-WV)
• Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Pete Olson (R-TX)
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
• Hal Rogers (R-KY)
• Fred Upton (R-MI)

The two biggest recipients of American Chemical Council bribes in the Senate were two notorious whores, Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Last year, the American Chemical Council also purchased the friendship of 6 powerful and corrupt Beltway groups with 6 checks for $10,000 each: the Blue Dog PAC, the New Dem Coalition, the Republican Main Street Partnership, the DSCC, the NRCC, the NRSC.

Let's remember some facts about the politics of aiding Harvey victims. Though Texas went for Trumpanzee over Clinton 52.23% to 43.24%, there were still 3,877,868, Texans who voted against Trump. And in the hardest hit county, Harris, Clinton got 706,471 votes (54.2%) to Trump's 544,960 (41.8%). In neighboring Fort Bend County, it was a similar story-- Hillary 134,475 votes (51.6%) to Trump's 117,212 (45.0%). Even in Jefferson County (Beaumont is the county seat), Trump's margin of victory was insignificant-- 42,828 (49.0%) to 42,404 (48.5%). So... this simplistic Charlie Hebdo cover misses an important point. Many of the victims of Harvey are not Trumpists at all-- and don't deserve a double-helping of disaster because of Trumpists in other parts of the state, or even in the same part of the state. On the other hand, Texas is one of just 7 states that doesn't have a state income taxes at all. So high tax states like California, New Jersey, Minnesota, Hawaii, Oregon, Maine and New York, for example, might be wondering about the fairness of their citizens underwriting Texas' rebuilding when the state's need for so much federal aid is predicated on letting multimillionaires and billionaires get away without paying state income taxes.

Charlatan Pastor Joel Osteen Fails To Ask What Would Jesus Do

-by Noah

I'm not a religious guy; far from it. I was raised as a Christian (Episcopalian) but I got over it at an early age. It was more than the fact that my parents would jar me out of my blissful Sunday morning sleep without fail and drag me to church every damn Sunday. I've always been a late to bed and late to rise person. Hell, I even had to dress up in scratchy wool trousers, wrap a tie tightly around my neck, the whole bit, no beloved sneakers either. That sartorial style wasn't me then and it isn't me now.

Going to church in my privileged Republican town also gave me a first hand view of hypocrisy. It was a town of three card monty bankers, major corporate heads, alcoholism on a galactic scale, and wife-swapping, plenty of wife-swapping. Oh, and I should add the the very first true asshole that I met as a child was my grandfather, an ordained Anglican priest.

Soooo, it was with great interest that I read, on Monday night, that the mega-millionaire televangelist pastor of a Houston Christian mega church had apparently not offered his church as a refuge site for the victims of Houston's flood of biblical proportions. The pastor's name is Joel Osteen. Not throwing his doors open was worse than anything I saw as a child. It was also right in line with the Age of Trump that we are living in.

Osteen did make an effort, a really big and magnanimous effort. He grabbed one of his phones and tweeted out that he would pray for the flood victims from home (See below). Not only that but the victims wouldn't have to contribute the usual money for his prayers, this time. Think about what kind of person thinks so highly of himself that his praying for you is worth your money. It's very Trumpian of him. More importantly, how stupid or deranged do you have to be to want to send money to people like this? No doubt a lot, if not all, of Osteen's suckers thought Trump would cure their ills and problems, too. One thing I can tell you is that, if the classic Christian God exists, I sure wouldn't want the likes of Joel Osteen making my case.

An example of Osteen's Christian vow of poverty

Osteen now says that the doors of his church were always open. His church also claims that the immediate area around his church was flooded. No doubt there was water, water everywhere. Every building had more than pumps could handle. However, photos of the area show no floods. When confronted photographic proof of that fact, a spokesperson for the church said, well, it was flooded but the flood waters had receded. I see, receded during the time that up to 50 inches of rain was still falling. Tellingly, photos show no debris around the church. The grass is not even matted. God works in mysterious ways indeed.

Anyway, a massive social media shaming of Osteen has now led to a rectifying of the situation. Osteen has announced that the church is now open even though it always was. Buses of Houstonians are arriving. They can stay at the church. Air mattresses are at the ready. Supplies are now getting in place. People staying at the church, which is, by the way, a 16,000 seat converted basketball arena, will be staying on the mezzanine and upper tiers, just in case flooding arrives, again, I assume.

And another thing; all this time, the 21 Houston area Islamic centers and mosques were open to any and all people who had been flooded out of their homes. I bet that has a lot of people mightily confused. Numerous are stores did too, including Houston's Mattress Mack which opened the doors of both of his furniture stores.

But wait, there's more! On Wednesday morning, Osteen went on NBC's Today Show and changed his story yet again. It seems the reason he didn't open his church to homeless flood victims is that the city didn't ask him to! Not that that stopped Houston's real humanitarians.

"We were just being precautious, but the main thing is the city didn't ask us to become a shelter then."

Osteen also made excuses about "safety issues" and not having enough staff or volunteers. "Safety issues"? You bet. There are always "safety issues" when a hurricane hits. Hurricanes are all about "safety issues," but all those other churches, mosques, temples, and community centers that took in storm victims felt that, "safety issues" aside, the victims would have much bigger "safety issues" if they stayed on the roofs of what was left of their homes or waded around in cold, contaminated water for the next several days. It's also pretty strange that, with 30,000 members of his monument to fake christianity, Osteen just didn't have any staff or volunteers when everyone else did. Shame on NBC for even putting this slithering charlatan on the air.

Stay tuned. In a matter of hours, Osteen will probably be blaming Obama... not to mention "gay marriage."

Osteen's vow of poverty #2-- his home in Florida

Midnight Meme Of The Day

-by Noah

Since Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, we're all thinking of the horror the victims are going through, but my mind has turned to other things as well. For instance, I can remember that Texas Senators Cruz and Cornyn were against approving funding for the victims of Super Storm Sandy that hit the Northeast just a few years ago, yet, there they were, the day after Harvey came onshore, hypocritically begging their hated, evil, no-good federal government for free, taxpayer funded disaster relief money for their state.

Those who opposed the money for the victims of Sandy back in 2012 spewed out a whole list of excuses as to why. Most of their childish excuses centered around the theme of corruption. Take a pause and consider the hypocrisy of that aspect; very selective, aren't they?

Then, I think about all of those Texans who wanted to secede when President Obama won the presidency. They wanted to secede even more when he got re-elected. They even concocted conspiracies about Jade Helm being an Obama plot to take over Texas. Do they still want to secede, or, do they now want to wait until American taxpayers from all over the nation help them out with a nice socialistic handout? I'm guessing they want that handout, just as they wanted rescue and didn't give a damn who was paying for it. There's so much irony in politicians and voters who seem to decry the idea of socialism right up until the moment they want it and its benefits for themselves. They wail on and on about free market forces and how welfare and handouts lead to communism... you've heard it all so many times. Obamacare, Head Start programs, Meals On Wheels, veterans benefits, Medicaid, Social Security...

Guess what. They'll get their money to clean up and repair as they should. That's what we do in America despite malformed, festering, steaming pussbags like Cruz and Cornyn. You can lump in Governor Abbott and all those wackjob congresscretins like Stockman and Gohmert, too. Texas will rebuild but you can bet corporations will make out better than what politicians like to call "ordinary Americans". The Houston oil companies will get more free socialistic subsidies from our money, too. That kind of thing is the real corruption; moral corruption. Politicians like Cruz and Cornyn are never, for even one second, concerned about moral corruption. Lives will never be the same. People will be in a worse position than before. Recovery is never complete, no matter what any politician or media hack spews out at you on your television.

They'll all get their money, our money. They'll even slyly hire undocumented workers to do the rebuilding. As soon as the power comes back on, they'll go back to tuning in FOX and Alex Jones. They'll immediately go back to whining about "socialism", "illegals", wanting to secede, and big bad government conspiracies as they drive down their newly re-paved streets.

You can even bet that American Terrorist Paul Ryan is already sickly smiling about using the human misery caused by the storm as an excuse to take away even more from "ordinary Americans" while Donald Trumpanzee thinks about having his name on some nice new hotels along the Texas gulf coast. Thinking like that takes a special kind of vermin, and that's what way too many Americans voted for.