The 25th Amendment Was Written In Case Someone Like Trump Ever Got Into The White House-- But It Didn't Count On Such A Pusillanimous Political Establishment

According to the Trump Labor Depratment, here was bad economic news on Friday. 150,000 new jobs were expected. Instead "private payrolls rose just 96,000, a three-month low, after a downwardly revised 131,000 advance the prior month." Most economists blame Trump's senseless and disastrous trade wars and his tax cuts to the top 1%. But Trump blamed... the news media. (Really.)

Trump also decided to distract his base (xenophobes and racist like himself) by promising a drastic cut in the number of legal refugees welcomed into the country. White House Neo-Nazi Stephen Miller has been dancing the same jig that Hitler did at the Eiffel Tower when his troops overran Paris. "In meetings over the past several weeks, one top administration official has proposed zeroing out the program altogether, while leaving the president with the ability to admit refugees in an emergency. Another option that top officials are weighing would cut refugee admissions by half or more, to 10,000 to 15,000 people, but reserve most of those spots for refugees from a few handpicked countries or groups with special status, such as Iraqis and Afghans who work alongside American troops, diplomats and intelligence operatives abroad. Both options would all but end the United States’ status as one of the leading places accepting refugees from around the worl." Normal Americans oppose these ideas, but the racists who still back Trump love them and can't understand how immigrants create jobs and wealth. The vast majority of Trump supporters have 2 digit IQs making is very hard for most of them to think abstractly. At least they understand these:

James Poniewozik, the chief television critic for the NY Times and the author of Audience of One: Donald Trump, Television and the Fracturing of America wrote an OpEd for the Times yesterday, The Real Donald Trump Is a Character on TV. "Understand that," he wrote, "and you'll understand what he's doing in the White House."

On Sept. 1, with a Category 5 hurricane off the Atlantic coast, an angry wind was issuing from the direction of President Trump’s Twitter account. The apparent emergency: Debra Messing, the co-star of Will & Grace, had tweeted that “the public has a right to know” who is attending a Beverly Hills fund-raiser for Mr. Trump’s re-election.

“I have not forgotten that when it was announced that I was going to do The Apprentice, and when it then became a big hit, Helping NBC’s failed lineup greatly, @DebraMessing came up to me at an Upfront & profusely thanked me, even calling me ‘Sir,’ ” wrote the 45th president of the United States.

It was a classic Trumpian ragetweet: aggrieved over a minor slight, possibly prompted by a Fox News segment, unverifiable-- he has a long history of questionable tales involving someone calling him “Sir"-- and nostalgic for his primetime-TV heyday. (By Thursday he was lashing Ms. Messing again, as Hurricane Dorian was lashing the Carolinas.)

...Try to understand Donald Trump as a person with psychology and strategy and motivation and you will inevitably spiral into confusion and covfefe. The key is to remember that Donald Trump is not a person. He’s a TV character.

I mean, O.K., there is an actual person named Donald John Trump, with a human body and a childhood and formative experiences that theoretically a biographer or therapist might usefully delve into someday.

But that Donald Trump is of limited significance to America and the world. The 'Donald Trump' who got elected president, who has strutted and fretted across the small screen since the 1980s, is a decades-long media performance. To understand him, you need to approach him less like a psychologist and more like a TV critic.

I think we all know how this ends: in a mental institution. And by "we," that includes his whole White House staff. Everyone knows he's lost his marbles. It would be really tragic for our country if the 2020 election winds up swinging on just twofer-arching questions:

• Who lies more, Trump or Biden?
• Who is more senile, Trump or Biden?

The president also latched onto another tweet Messing posted in which she praised a sign in front of an Alabama church implying that black voters who support Trump are mentally ill. Messing later apologized for "recklessly" sharing the sign and added that its use of the term "mentally ill" was "wrong & hurtful."

Add Latinos, gays, women, immigrants, union workers, Jews...

Trump called Messing a "racist because of the terrible things she said about blacks and mental illness" and added that if the actress Roseanne Barr-- an avid Trump supporter-- had said the same thing, she would have been fired.

Barr was fired from her sitcom last year after making racist comments about an aide to former President Barack Obama. "Will Fake News NBC allow a McCarthy style Racist to continue?" Trump wrote, referring to Messing.

The actress responded by linking to a New Yorker piece this week that detailed Trump's wild behavior over the past month.

She added that she hoped "his family gets him the help he needs. Sad."

When It Comes To Disastrous Trade Policies, Biden, Beto, Delaney, McTurtle Are On One Side, While Bernie Has Been Fighting On The Other Side-- Our Side-- For His Whole Life

Last Friday, former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau interviewed Marianne Williamson on his podcast, Pod Save America. Among other things, Marianne told him that "there are two kinds of Democrats, aren’t there? And that’s being played out in this campaign. There are two categories here. The two categories is the incrementalist who say we can have it both ways. We can take [corporate] money. We can take tens of thousands from some security investment firms. We can take tens of thousand from Big Pharma. We can take tens or even more thousands from oil companies, but we’re going to go and be an instrument of change. Yeah, right. There’s that, and they’re saying well, we’ll make these incremental changes and then there are those of us who say this has got to stop. We need a fundamental pattern disruption of the American political and economic status quo."

A fundamental pattern disruption isn't something you could have a serious talk with candidates like Delaney, Biden or Frackenlooper about. That's not what they're aiming for. Each would like to hold onto a status quo that has worked well for them-- but get it a little better... a very little better. That's why the 3 of them oppose Medicare-For-All and the Green New Deal, for example. It's why the three of them would have opposed the American Revolution and might have suggested that the tax on tea be reduced and that the colonies have a voting member or two sitting in Parliament. And Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Beto, Kirsten Gillibrand, McKinsey Pete, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan... you don't think any of them are agents of change, do you? Fundamental pattern disruptors? No.

Last week, Common Dreams published a piece by Thom Hartmann, If Democrats Want to Beat Trump, They Better Not Nominate a ‘Free Trade’ Candidate, warning that nominating a candidate like Biden-- let alone dreck like Delaney or Hickenlooper-- would lead to catastrophe. He reminded his readers that when establishment Democrat, Walter Mondale "was nominated by the Democratic Party to take on Ronald Reagan in 1984, he uttered, in his acceptance speech, a single line that did more than anything else that year to lose him the election. He said, 'Mr. Reagan will raise taxes and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.'"

The Republicans turned it into a campaign ad, and it played over and again, dragging Mondale so far down that he lost every state in the country except his home state of Minnesota.

What Mondale said was true, and Reagan did raise taxes on working people-- eleven times-- but that was still the moment when Mondale signed his own political death warrant. Americans had been bitten badly in the previous decade by inflation and the Reagan Recession, and were in no mood to give more of their hard-earned money to the government or anybody else.

In 2020, trade will be as potent an issue as taxes were in 1984.

This election cycle, it’s starting to look like Democrats are about to make the same mistake of not defending the paychecks of working people. Only this time, the Democratic quote will be, “Trump won’t succeed in bringing home your jobs, but neither will I because I support all of the trade agreements that took your jobs in the first place.”

Again, Status Quo Joe Biden, Frackenlooper, Delaney are all for the kinds of horrendous free trade deals that have been so destructive. And they're not the only ones. In 2015, the Senate passed the Trade Act of 2015, which included Trade Promotion Authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 48 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Among the current candidates for president, Michael Bennet voted yes and Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand voted no. It passed the House very narrowly-- 219-211-- with 191 Republicans and 28 Democrats voting for it. Delaney and Beto voted yes. Swalwell, Ryan, Tulsi and Moulton voted against it. There was another vote-- which failed-- on TAA, for which just 40 corporate Dems, lead by Hoyer, voted. The culprits included the two ardent "free" traders running for president today who were in the House then, Delaney and Bonnie Beto. biden, of course, has been for almost every bad trade bill ever written, especially favored nation status for China, NAFTA and TPP.

Hartmann concluded by writing that "Progressive Democrats have been pushing for a return to Jefferson-until-Carter protectionist policies ever since Bill Clinton split apart the party over the issue with his advocacy of NAFTA in the 1992 election. If the Democrats want to beat Trump, they need to get with the progressives’ trade program in a big, strong, and fast way. Democrats must point out that Trump is doing protectionism wrong because he’s doing his tariffs by executive order, which only last as long as his administration does; no company is going to build a factory based on that thin assurance. (And the anti-tariff Republican Party will never pass such a policy; Trump is screwed in that regard.) Congress should be negotiating our trade agreements in the open and passing them as solid, long-lasting legislation, so companies have multi-decade horizons of tariff protections; Democrats need to return the party to its past mission of putting American workers and the environment first. But if the Democrats promote 'free trade' in 2020, get ready for four more years of Donald Trump gloating at us all from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 'I’m for free trade,' if it becomes the party’s mantra, will be the 2020 version of Mondale’s 'I’m going to raise your taxes.'"

Meanwhile, there's another piece to fundamental pattern disruption that we need to keep foremost in our minds this cycle-- Congress. Electing more New Dems and more Blue Dogs, like electing more Republicans, makes things worse, not better. We've talked endlessly about how Cheri Bustos, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are fighting like mad dogs to protect Dan Lipinski who is anti-immigrant, anti-Choice, anti-LGBTQ, anti-worker and pro-NRA. That's your Democratic Establishment. Don't trust them, don't believe them, don't support them and don't give them any money. A contribution to someone like Dan Lipinski is going to do you as much good as a contribution to McTurtle would. Which reminds me... On Sunday, Will Bunch penned an important McTurtle piece for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mitch McConnell’s Democracy-Crushing Smirk Is Why Just Getting Rid Of Trump Isn’t Enough. Biden never talks about why getting rid of Trump isn't enough-- because it might make someone wonder what he stands for-- but both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are basing their campaigns on it.

What Bunch was writing about is completely in line with hat Blue America is all about. "It’s pointless to ask 'why' about Mitch McConnell," he wrote. "The only question that matters going into 2020 is 'how'-- How can McConnell be stopped? In the long term, his rise and his unholy reign pose hard questions about the very nature of American democracy and its foundation-- whether the constitutional checks and balances of a Senate that gives citizens in Wyoming so much more power than their fellow Americans in California makes sense in today’s world. But McConnell’s assault on democracy can also be stopped in the short run. For starters, the Senate majority leader is up for reelection in 2020, and even if you don’t live or vote in Kentucky, any American can donate or volunteer to help his election opponents. But even if that falls short, Democrats can end McConnell’s reign as leader-- and make sure he’s not thwarting the replacements for aging Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer-- with a net gain of three or four Senate seats."

For anyone who cares about keeping liberty alive, beating McConnell next year is every bit as important as beating Trump. That’s why it’s so frustrating that the elites of the Democratic Party don’t seem to get it. Rather than making a reclamation of the Senate the national moral crusade that it needs to be, the allure of the Trumpian reality show has sucked the top tier of potential candidates-- Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro of Texas, Steve Bullock of Montana and Stacey Abrams of Georgia-- into the presidential race or related pursuits. Vanity and shortsightedness could leave a President Warren or Harris or Biden one vote short in 2021 of the progress that their voters demanded.

The only good news is that the 2020 general election is still 16 months away-- plenty of time for the Democrats and concerned voters to shift gears, make the Senate a priority, keep liberty alive... and wipe the smirk off Mitch McConnell’s face.

When It Comes To Political Melodrama, Virginia Doesn’t Disappoint

Five States have Legislative elections in 2019: Virginia, New Jersey, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana. All are important; however, only Virginia stands a reasonable shot to flip their Legislature’s majority from R to D, giving the Dems the right to the  redraw the state's congressional and state legislative boundaries and prevent another GOP gerrymander. Just remember the attendant, associated institutional power, for possibly the next 20 years.

Big Deal-- Big Drama.

Republicans have an acute recognition of this fact. They very nearly shattered the Democratic base coalition with their dirty tricks op-- on the first day of Black History Month-- the "February Flim-Flam," which included: accusations of a "racist past," against Governor Ralph Northam, evidenced by racially inflammatory Medical School yearbook photos; followed by: allegations of sexual assault and rape against Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax around 36 hours later; followed by: Attorney General Mark Herring’s necessary disclosure of college-age racial insensitivity, again after an additional approximately 36 hours.

The first week of February was filled with a toxic stew of racial angst and sexual strife. Start the op on Feb. 1st, deny the Virginia Black population even one day of celebrating their heroic Virginia history and heritage; peel off women of all races with hideous accusations of sexual impropriety-- by the only Black Statewide Elected Official-- deny the Dems their 3 top statewide fundraisers; start an internecine squabble amongst a historically loosely bonded cohort of Dem base voters... BINGO!!!

If you’re the GOP, sit back and get some popcorn. Nice job; well done.

BUT, nobody resigned, despite heavy pressure. The coalition is still squabbling, but it’s holding together. Apparently, the law firm tasked with investigating the Northam Medical School "photo," has identified the two subjects, and determined that neither is Ralph Northam... a fly in the ointment, oh my!

Where does that leave all of the breathless "concern trollers" and "virtue signalers" who have been baying for "accountability and resignation?" Don’t know, don’t care.

In the face of this sturm und drang, some Virginia. Dems have remained focused and on task, and need only recruit 14 more House candidates and 4 more state Senate candidates in order to go, "Full Boat"-- 140 for 140-- contesting every race, (100 House and 40 in the Senate ), leaving the Virginia Republican Party zero (0) "freebies" for 2019-- no "walkovers," no "nolo contenderes." If Virginia Dems accomplish this "full ballot mission" by the candidate filing deadline, June 11th, the band should start warming up, Turn Off the Lights.



Democrats only need to flip one state Senate seat, and two seats in the House of Delegates to effectively take over the majority; any more than that is pure gravy. That is if they can hold onto all their gains from 2017.

Democrats don’t have a monopoly on drama in Virginia. In fact, the Virginia Republicans are the reigning rulers of reprobates; it’s not even close. The most recent drama involves Jerry Falwell, Jr. and his wife, and their... very interesting exploits, "ministering" to the needs of young folk... in the, um... hospitality industry-- which subsequently required some "legal consultation" from then-Trump lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen-- very alarming, very salacious and sordid stuff. There may be a lot of campaign contributions being returned or contributed to charity.



Falwell, Jr. has supported politicians throughout Virginia over the years; some are even graduates or patrons of his college, Liberty University. One such candidate is D.J. Jordan, running in Prince William County’s HD 31. Jordan is the GOP’s choice to unseat freshman Delegate Elizabeth Guzmán, who defeated a long-term Republican incumbent in 2017 to become the first Latina to serve in the history of the Virginia Legislature-- and we’re talking about 1600s "House of Burgesses" history. That’s historic. So far, Blue America has endorsed four Virginia legislative candidates, one being Elizabeth Guzmán. That thermometer on the right is for candidates running for state legislatures and we'd appreciate it if you tapped on it and considered contributing to Elizabeth and any of the other candidates on the list.

That win by a Latina over one of their own stalwarts would seem to be too much for the Virginia GOP to abide; so they recruited a Black male, Liberty University grad; dressed him in Blue, placed him against a Blue background, built him a nice website that conveniently neglects to identify his political party, filled his campaign account with large dollar offerings, and sent him out to preach about "infanticide and family values."

Good stuff! Except for Jerry Falwell’s "Pool Boy" buffoonery. D.J. Jordan is going to have some explaining to do; not only a stealth Republican, but, a Liberty University grad to boot; INCONVENIENT!!! We’ll see how it shakes out for him.

Washington Post reported that Falwell Jr. was blaming a "conspiracy" of Republican Party establishment leaders for the leak of Trump's now infamous 2005 "grab-'em-by-the-pussy" video. "We're all sinners," he said in defense of Trump, who had helped him get rid of the pictures that supposedly show him with a male penis-- presumably the pool boy's-- in his mouth. There is also a felching shot that Michael Cohen hasn't discarded and has hidden away. Falwell's fellow charlatan-cum-grifter, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and now host of the show Family Talk also stood by his Trumpanzee endorsement.

Don't forget, back in 2016, a few weeks before election day, the

Falwell, who is president of the nation's largest Christian university, provided one of Trump's first key endorsements from an evangelical leader. Trump's candidacy, however, has divided evangelicals, who have no formal leadership. Some evangelical leaders continued to back Trump after the video leak, while a prominent theologian pulled back his support Sunday and other leaders continued to condemn the nominee.

...In comments made to WABC Radio in New York City, Falwell said he thinks the leak was part of a conspiracy by GOP establishment leaders.

"I think this whole videotape thing was planned, I think it was timed, I think it might have even been a conspiracy among the establishment Republicans who've known about it for weeks and who tried to time it to do the maximum damage to Donald Trump," Falwell told reporter Rita Cosby on her podcast after Sunday night's debate.

Prince William County is rapidly becoming a Democratic stronghold, much like it’s neighbor to the North; Fairfax County. In 2014, the district went for Gillespie (R) over Warner (D), narrowly, in the U.S. Senate race. But it's been all blue since then. In 2016, Hillary beat Trump in the district, 51-44%. The following year Democrats swept-- Herring (D) beat Adams for AG, 56-44%; Fairfax beat Vogel for Lt. Governor, 56-44% and Northam beat Gillespie 56-43% for Governor. Last year, voters in HD-31 gave Kaine (D) a fat 59-39% win over Trumpist reactionary Corey Stewart. And of course-- sweetest of all-- was that Elizabeth Guzmán ousted GOP incumbent Scott Lingamfelter 15,466 (54.1%) to 12,658 (44.2%).

And, by the way, other sleazy, corrupted politicians will have to answer for their Falwell associations as this story evolves... and they won’t all be Virginians, will they?

Pericles, from Act I, Scene I-- Pericles, Prince of Tyre by William Shakespeare:

Great king,
Few love to hear the sins they love to act;
'Twould braid yourself too near for me to tell it.
Who has a book of all that monarchs do,
He's more secure to keep it shut than shown:
For vice repeated is like the wandering wind.
Blows dust in other's eyes, to spread itself;
And yet the end of all is bought thus dear,
The breath is gone, and the sore eyes see clear:
To stop the air would hurt them. The blind mole casts
Copp'd hills towards heaven, to tell the earth is throng'd
By man's oppression; and the poor worm doth die for't.
Kings are earth's gods; in vice their law's
their will;
And if Jove stray, who dares say Jove doth ill?
It is enough you know; and it is fit,
What being more known grows worse, to smother it.
All love the womb that their first being bred,
Then give my tongue like leave to love my head.

One more little tiny thing. Is the biggest political scandal of the year being hushed up because the media doesn't like asserting that a white conservative man of stature-- Falwell, Jr.-- is a sex maniac who bought the services for a 21 year old pool boy? Almost $5 million dollars of Church money-- spent on buying a gay "hotel" (whore house). This is an amazing story! You've got to watch this whole video:

Bernie And The Pope

A few hours ago-- and in the face of rapidly rising nationalism in Europe and America-- Pope Francis described differences of faith, race and ideas as a richness, not a danger, and called for political solutions to end wars in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere. He said that without fraternity, "even our best plans and projects risk being soulless and empty."

Last night, in his Christmas Eve homily at St Peter's, he had called on people in developed countries to live a simpler and less materialistic life and condemned the huge divide between the world's rich and poor, saying Jesus's birth in poverty in a stable should make everyone reflect on the meaning of life. Remember what Jesus said about how it would be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle that for a rich man to get into Heaven? Pope Francis attacked the "insatiable greed" of today’s consumerism, urging people to make "sharing and giving" more a part of their lives. "Mankind became greedy and voracious... In our day, for many people, life’s meaning is found in possessing, in having an excess of material objects. An insatiable greed marks all human history, even today, when, paradoxically, a few dine luxuriantly while all too many go without the daily bread needed to survive." He reminded Catholics that the birth of Christ pointed to a new way to live "not by devouring and hoarding, but by sharing and giving." He told Jesus' followers we "must not lose our footing or slide into worldliness and consumerism" and that we should ask ourselves "Do I really need all these material objects and complicated recipes for living? Can I manage without all these unnecessary extras and live a life of greater simplicity?"

The Guardian isn't a religious newspaper but I want to bring up a piece by Michael Savage from last spring, Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030. It wasn't just the Pope calling for a halt to extreme materialism. In April world leaders were being "warned that the continued accumulation of wealth at the top will fuel growing distrust and anger over the coming decade unless action is taken to restore the balance." Please say a prayer for Bernie's success here and for Corbyn's success the U.K.

An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world’s wealth by 2030. Even taking the financial crash into account, and measuring their assets over a longer period, they would still hold more than half of all wealth.

Since 2008, the wealth of the richest 1% has been growing at an average of 6% a year-- much faster than the 3% growth in wealth of the remaining 99% of the world’s population. Should that continue, the top 1% would hold wealth equating to $305tn (£216.5tn)-- up from $140tn today.

Analysts suggest wealth has become concentrated at the top because of recent income inequality, higher rates of saving among the wealthy, and the accumulation of assets. The wealthy also invested a large amount of equity in businesses, stocks and other financial assets, which have handed them disproportionate benefits.

New polling by Opinium suggests that voters perceive a major problem with the influence exerted by the very wealthy. Asked to select a group that would have the most power in 2030, most (34%) said the super-rich, while 28% opted for national governments. In a sign of falling levels of trust, those surveyed said they feared the consequences of wealth inequality would be rising levels of corruption (41%) or the “super-rich enjoying unfair influence on government policy” (43%).

...In a sign of the concern about the accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few, the move has gained support from across the political divide [at least in the U.K.].

George Freeman, the Tory MP and former head of the prime minister’s policy board, said: “While mankind has never seen such income inequality, it is also true that mankind has never experienced such rapid increases in living standards. Around the world billions of people are being lifted out of poverty at a pace never seen before. But the extraordinary concentration of global wealth today-- fuelled by the pace of technological innovation and globalisation-- poses serious challenges.

“If the system of capitalist liberal democracy which has triumphed in the west is to pass the big test of globalisation-- and the assault from radical Islam as well as its own internal pressures from post-crash austerity-- we need some new thinking on ways to widen opportunity, share ownership and philanthropy. Fast.”

The Deadbeat Theory, an Occam's Razor Explanation of Donald Trump's Subservience to Putin

"Trump and Russia: Which conspiracy is it?" is the title of this cartoon. What if it's both?

by Gaius Publius

It's very hard to write about "Trump! Russia!" in today's environment, though I've tried. On the one hand, so many things may be true but can't really be proved, and on the other, so many things that may not be true at all are presumed true, that it's hard to find — and even harder to present — the actual evidenciary basis for the many allegations.

Is Trump's behavior "treacherous," as John Brennan, Obama's CIA director, recently wrote? That's quite a serious charge. Treachery means treason, the kind they hang you for.

Is Trump being blackmailed by Putin, as Nancy Pelosi has implied several times? That's quite a serious charge as well, though she won't commit to holding House hearings on the matter if she's elected speaker, which may suggest she doesn't believe the charge herself. But after all, if a president really were being blackmailed — by anyone — isn't it the constitutional duty of Congress to investigate and, if true, stop it? If she believed her words, why would she shirk her duty on such an important matter?

Is Trump an "agent of Russia" or a "Russian asset,"as any number of writers have asserted? This too is a serious charge, and puts us into a John LeCarré world of spies and double dealing.

Finally, as I've asked many times, is it possible there's more to this story than almost anyone is reporting? Could some (but not all) of what Democrats and the anti-Trump media are asserting be correct, while at the same time, some (but not all) of what pro-Trump partisans are saying is also true?

The obvious answer is, yes, of course it's possible. Far stranger things have happened in the world of spooks and government officials. After all, the CIA also had "high confidence" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Either they blatantly lied — a possibility with any intelligence service — and served up "information" that Establishment consensus wanted served up, or "high confidence" doesn't mean what most people think it means. (Most people think it means "proof.")

George W. Bush, new-minted Hero of the Resistance, looking for Saddam's WMD, the ones our intelligence community had "high confidence" he possessed

And let's not forget, Resistance hero Robert Mueller is also the Bush FBI director who subverted (kinder souls say "bungled") the 2001 Anthrax Attack investigation when it looked like it was pointing in the wrong direction. "Wrong direction" means pointing to a domestic conspiracy that may have involved right-to-life religionists, an angle Mueller's FBI refused for eight years to pursue.

As a result he proved almost nothing. Mueller didn't even prove that the purported "lone gunman" in that attack, Bruce Ivins, who committed suicide after he was finally accused, was even involved, just that his lab was.

Is it possible Mueller is handling the Trump-Russia investigation in the same way he handled that one — and, as before, working for Establishment players whose motives he's not disclosing? Or has he really transformed himself into the paragon of integrity, the shining knight in armor, that we now wish him to be?

What can we truly believe, independent of what we may want to believe, and what the voices all around us are shouting?

The Deadbeat Theory

Let's start here in our search for more solid ground, with a piece by Thom Hartmann. He writes that there are three prominent and plausible (if only remotely) theories that explain Trump's recent apparent subservience to Vladimir Putin. These are:

• The Manchurian Candidate theory
• The Wannabe Dictator theory
• The Deadbeat theory

Each theory has its adherents and logic, but for Hartmann's money, the third makes the most sense. I'll leave you to read the whole of his piece to see his presentation of the first two explanations (his titles are descriptive; the theories assert what you think they assert).

About the Deadbeat theory, Hartmann writes this:

We all know that Trump is both a terrible negotiator and a terrible businessman. Dozens of his companies have gone down in flames, thousands of small businesses and workers have been screwed out of money he owed them, and his bankruptcies are legendary.

If the American people didn’t seem to think this was a big deal, the American banks sure did. After Trump’s last bankruptcy, so far as press reports indicate, he could no longer borrow money at reasonable rates here in the U.S., and a real estate developer who can’t borrow money is rapidly out of business.

So Trump, as his son Eric tells it, turned away from U.S. banks and went to a number of Russian billionaires for his money. In 2014, when asked directly how he could have acquired $100 million in cash for new golf course acquisitions, Eric Trump famously said, “Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”

So, if President Putin were to order his own billionaires to get their money back out of Trump’s properties and refuse to give him any more, Trump could well end up broke.

Really broke.

As in, losing all his properties, from Mar-a-Lago to Trump Tower.

Imagine Trump in a world in which no human structure says "Trump" but his own mailbox. It's safe to say that aside from his family, or some of its members at least, what Trump prizes most in the world is money and the Trump Organization, a fact that makes Trump uniquely vulnerable to blackmail (including by Robert Mueller, who's investigating its finances).

After describing why "losing all his properties" may terrify Trump, Hartmann continues:

Trump isn’t afraid of being exposed as a lout or a racist; he’s afraid of being financially wiped out if Russian oligarchs pull out of Trump properties.

It’s why he’s even willing to take the risks and political hit by defying the Constitution and hanging onto the Trump Hotel in D.C.—he needs the money to keep his businesses afloat.

In 2016, Fortune magazine analyzed his federal public filings, and concluded that he’s both less wealthy than he says and appears, and that he regularly lies about it.

Occam’s razor dictates that, like with everything else in Trump’s entire life, this is all about money and its relationship to his own fragile self-image. If a few Russian oligarchs said, “Nyet,” he would suffer severe damage, both reputational and business-wise, and it may well be damage from which he couldn’t recover....

A man who depends on you for his financial lifeblood is a man more willing to give in around governmental and policy areas.

Now that Robert Mueller has, according to some reports, acquired access to Trump’s business records, all this may be coming out, which may explain why Trump seems so obsessed with, and frightened by, Mueller’s and the FBI’s “witch hunt.”

He concludes: "This is one of the few scenarios that explain pretty much everybody’s behavior within the Trump Crime Family, as well as the people in their immediate orbit."

It's true we're still hip deep in speculation, and speculation has been getting a very bad name lately, with statements like these — "We just watched a U.S. president acting on behalf of a hostile power" — being bandied about.

Still, Occam's Razor might allow us to restrict our thoughts to motives that, absent other evidence, make the most sense.

GP
 

Ted Lieu's Progressive Infrastructure Plan-- The One Without The Trumpist Toll Roads

As if he was't busy enough holding the Trump Regime accountable for Putin-Gate, Ted Lieu was tasked by the Congressional Progressive Caucus to come up with an modern day infrastructure plan that could garner widespread support across the political spectrum. Maybe he's living in an alternative universe with more hours in the day than the rest of us, but he's plan is being widely heralded as brilliant and ready-made for Trump if he really does want to put America first.

The 21st Century New Deal For Jobs and the accompanying House Concurrent Resolution already has 33 co-sponsors, not just progressives like Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Jerry Nadler (NY) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) but also some conservatives like Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH), Colleen Hanabusa (New Dem-HI) and Val Demings (New Dem-FL).

Ted explained why Trump should ditch his own inadequate plan and adopt the 21st Century New Deal For Jobs. "America’s infrastructure is desperately in need of repair," he said. "This year, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated $4.6 trillion in infrastructure needs, of which more than $2 trillion did not have estimated funding. The American people deserve to have a serious conversation about how to address these needs. To fund infrastructure projects, President Trump's relatively small and incoherent plan would use irresponsible tax gimmicks that benefit Wall Street at the expense of taxpayers. My colleagues and I know that Americans cannot afford to settle for this scam. Instead, we have introduced the 21st Century New Deal for Jobs to ensure that Congress boldly addresses our infrastructure needs and supports a plan that creates millions of jobs without sacrificing protections for workers and the environment."

Pocan added, "Democrats are leading the way for millions of jobs. Donald Trump wants to sell off our roads to foreign governments and give taxpayer dollars to Wall Street billionaires, and he calls that job creation? Maybe that will create jobs in countries like Russia, but not for hard-working Americans. Democrats are determined to take this fight to the people. Our country is in dire need of a bold vision to repair our crumbling roads and bridges, clean our air and water, restore our children's unsafe school buildings, and connect our communities to each other with high-speed rail and internet. While President Trump and the Republicans are busy concocting a trillion-dollar Wall Street giveaway under the guise of infrastructure, Democrats believe big corporations should pay their fair share to support dignified employment and build a more sustainable and vibrant economy for everyone."

That's generally the kind of response Ted's plan has been getting. Grijalva noted that "It provides significant investments to address the current needs of our country, such as modernizing our outdated schools and replacing our lead-ridden pipelines that have destroyed the public health of children in Flint. The plan creates millions of forward-thinking jobs and ensures nobody is forced to compromise their living standards or working conditions. It sets fundamental principles of social, racial, and environmental justice so our infrastructure planning workforce reflects the needs of our diverse communities. More importantly, it commits public money for the public good. I am proud to support the 21st Century New Deal for Jobs plan to meet the real economic and infrastructure needs of our country." And Pramila Jayapal let her Seattle constituents know that "Trump’s cruel budget eliminates billions in funds that invest in our transportation, air quality and safety. In stark contrast to Trump’s misguided values, we at the Congressional Progressive Caucus have prioritized infrastructure to ensure success for our communities. The 21st Century New Deal for Jobs plan will modernize and prepare workers for our changing economy. Day in and day out, our children, families and communities rely on safe school buildings, up-to-date transportation, secure roads and bridges and a steady paycheck. By upgrading our infrastructure, creating jobs and training workers for careers in clean energy, water and transportation, this New Deal will help our nation thrive."

Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley pointed out that "Expanding vital internet service supports the progressive vision of 21st Century America. The CPC’s plan will expand economic opportunity by bringing high-speed Internet access to all Americans-- including new access for rural communities and incentives to increase adoption in low-income communities. By doing so, we will help create millions of new jobs and start-ups in rural America, in tribal areas, and in urban centers that have yet to see the gains of the technology revolution."

Blue America asked the candidates we've endorsed this cycle, and the ones we're in the process of getting to know, if they would be inclined to co-sponsor Ted's resolution. Everyone was very enthusiastic and said they are indeed inclined to sign on as co-sponsors. The first candidate to get back to me isn't technically a candidate yet. As the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, Wisconsin iron worker Randy Bryce is about to launch a campaign against Paul Ryan. He told me he'd like to co-sponsor Ted Lieu's bill. "America's infrastructure made America great. It turned us into a superpower. Not only does the entirety of commerce depend upon a solid infrastructure, but, I can talk firsthand about how many hours of work I have done on it which provided a means to keep a roof over my head and food on the table. Currently our infrastructure is in a shambles. We can't afford one more bridge to collapse due to neglect. Workers need good paying family supporting jobs. What better way to put us back to work than by rebuilding America? It's time to reinvest in America. Further neglect is not an option."

Tom Guild, a dedicated Berniecrat running for a red Oklahoma seat against Trumpist Steve Russell told me he's "happy to co-sponsor the 21st Century New Deal for Jobs via the House Concurrent Resolution." His assessment is that Ted's plan "would take care of the vast majority of needed infrastructure upgrades and repairs necessary to bring America into the 21st century. It is no secret that our infrastructure has been crumbling for decades. We need a plan that creates millions of good paying jobs for workers who will be protected, as we also protect our environment. America desperately needs to repair its crumbling roads and bridges, clean its air and water, rebuild its unsafe school buildings, and connect its communities to each other with high-speed rail and internet. President Trump and the congressional Republicans propose a trillion dollar Wall Street giveaway under the guise of infrastructure repair. Big business would receive a huge windfall and big corporate fat cats would laugh all the way to the bank, some of the same big banks that they own. Working Americans would get the short end of the stick and our infrastructure needs would still be unmet. The 21st Century New Deal for Jobs will prepare workers for our changing economy. Safe schools, modern transportation systems, functional, usable, and safe roads and bridges are a must for a thriving economy and a badly needed comeback of the vanishing middle class. The New Deal for Jobs will create good paying jobs for working Americans, protect the environment, and meet the needs for decades to come of upgrading our infrastructure. Let’s get this legislation passed quickly, because as my high school football coach always said, "Time’s a wastin'."

This morning I woke up to a full e-mail box. All the Blue America candidates want to be sponsors of Ted Lieu's resolution. Here are a few more comments. Jason Westin is running for the Harris County, Texas seat held by knee-jerk Republican John Culberson. "Rebuilding our infrastructure is a key issue in Houston," he wrote. "In 2012, career politician John Culberson over-ruled the voters and Houston Metro's plan to expand mass transit. I'm a fierce advocate of investment in infrastructure to create millions of good jobs, to modernize our transportation networks, reinvest in schools to ensure our children have opportunities to succeed, and to ensure high speed internet access so all can benefit from our increasingly connected society. These long overdue improvements will make our communities better places to live in the 21st century."

Katie Hill in running for a southern California seat also represented by a knee jerk Republican, Steve Knight. She wrote that she "would absolutely support Congressman Ted Lieu's 21st Century New Deal For Jobs. Investment in infrastructure is not only desperately needed from an engineering standpoint, but from an economic standpoint. This plan is truly a grassroots approach to putting Americans to work on local projects for the benefit of themselves and of their communities. We have the opportunity to rebuild and invest in cleaner, safer transportation, energy and water systems, while elevating the economic status of some of our nations most struggling communities. I hope President Trump was serious when he said he was looking to put Americans back to work and to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. The 21st century new deal is a plan of, by and for the people, as it should be!"

And Kia Hamadamchy is one of several excellent Democrats running for the Orange County seat that Mimi Walters refuses to move into but claims to represent. He also wrote that he "would absolutely cosponsor Congressman Lieu's proposed legislation. There was a time when the United States led the world when it came to our infrastructure. We were the country that everyone used to look to and now we've fallen far behind. Its long past time we started investing in our future again and the 21st Century New Deal For Jobs represents precisely the kind of investment we need."

David Gill is running for the downstate Illinois seat occupied by GOP do-nothing backbencher Rod Davis We kind of knew he'd be a fan of Ted's resolution. ""Yes, I would be an enthusiastic co-sponsor of Ted Lieu's progressive infrastructure plan! This is exactly the type of legislation we need today here in America-- it provides good jobs for people AND modernizes our infrastructure, all in one fell swoop. I see this as another plank in a platform designed to bring FDR's Second Bill of Rights to fruition at last, along with single-payer health care and free tuition at public universities. Out on the campaign trail, I see and hear tremendous anger and resentment at our current state of political affairs, and I have no doubt that the backlash is coming next November, and that we truly can achieve the vision laid out by FDR so many decades ago."

Paul Clements, who is making up his mind now whether or not to run against Fred Upton again-- Blue America is encouraging him to-- put it far more succinctly: "Michigan needs the roads, water and energy infrastructure built by Michiganders. I would co-sponsor."

Why Do More People Go To The Polls In Iran Than In The U.S. Nowadays?

In 2008, when Obama faced off against John McCain, turnout for an American presidential election was relatively high-- 63.7%. This past year it fell to 55%. France's voter turnout ion their presidential election earlier this month was also down-- to around 65%. Yesterday Iran voted. The voter turnout was around 70%, higher than turnout in any US election since 1900. Why is that? Well there could be a number of reasons-- some existential, but in Iran Election Day is a national holiday; people get off work to vote. (In 1860, the election that marked the end of the South's political dominance over the nation and gave us Abraham Lincoln, turnout was 81.2%)

Turnout has generally been falling in the western democracies since the 1980s, usually attributable to a widespread sense of disillusionment and futility that voting will make any difference. In the U.S. systemic efforts by the Republican Party to decrease election participation has also resulted in lower turnouts, particularly in states where the GOP has been able to enact its voter suppression agenda. Voter participation in Republican-controlled states like Wisconsin are considered responsible, at least in part, for Trump's presidency. In states that have the least voter suppression-- like North Dakota where registration is not required or in Minnesota, Idaho, Maine, and Oregon, where election day registration is permitted, voter participation is relatively high. Minnesota usually has the highest turnout and Maine, North Dakota and Oregon also usually hover around 70%. In the Scandinavian countries, France, and Germany all citizens are automatically registered to vote. Some countries even have compulsory voter participation, including Belgium, Australia, Brazil and Greece.

A report from PBS last November pointed out that "according to interviews with research institutions, advocacy groups and legislators involved in those efforts, restrictive voting laws in some states discourage the electorate from registering to vote. Additionally, they said gerrymandered districts cut across party lines reducing the number of competitive races and interest, and disgruntled citizens, fed up with the often contentious nature of politics, can choose not participate."

According to the United States Election Project, which tracks voting trends, only 36 percent of registered voters cast ballots during the 2014 election cycle, the lowest turnout in a general election since 1942, when many of the nation’s young people were out of the country fighting in World War II. Becker said only three of 10 voters participated in presidential primaries this year.

“A smaller and smaller slice of the electorate are making decisions that are important,” he said.

Voter participation also depends on the state where you vote. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis on state participation, fewer Americans vote when their states are less competitive in races between Democrats and Republicans.

Many of the states with the lowest turnout are dominated by the Republican Party in the South, where restrictive laws can hamper participation. But two states known to be solid Democratic Party supporters-- Hawaii and New York-- also fall in the bottom 20 percent of turnout.

In 2016 alone, at least 14 states installed restrictive voting laws around the country, including limitations on voter registration, photo ID mandates and narrower time periods for early voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

...Since 2012, New York State Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh has pushed for legislation that could address some of those issues, such as early voting, extended registration deadlines and updated technology at polling places, but so far few of them have received broad support, he said.

“Lines are often too long, poll workers are often confused, administration of polling sites are often challenging,” Kavanagh said. “I would say there’s no magic bullet. But New York has systematically failed to have an election system to keep up with election practices.”

We asked some of the candidates running for Congress in the 2018 cycle. Tim Canova, running for the South Florida seat occupied by a poster child for sleaze, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, told us that "There's no doubt that making Election Day a national holiday would result in much higher levels of voting. Too many people simply have little time to vote in between the demands of working, commuting, and taking care of family. A national Election Day holiday would also reinforce the civic ethic of voting not just as a right, but as a solemn duty of all citizens in a democracy."

Katie Hill, who's running against a knee-jerk Republican right-winger in Southern California, knows the difference in her district is going to rest with voter participation. When there's higher participation, Democrats tend to win. When more people abstain, Republicans win. "We need to do absolutely everything we can to ensure the highest possible voter participation if we want a government that truly represents the people it's supposed to serve," she told us. "Automatic voter registration and making Election Day a national holiday would be important first steps, but we should do more. Everyone should be able to vote by mail, and I would even like to see us move towards voting online. If we can verify someone's identity enough and with enough security to complete our taxes or mortgage applications entirely online, then surely we can figure out how to make it possible for people to easily exercise their most fundamental right as an American citizen."

We reached David Gill in Springfield, Illinois yesterday while he was participating in PrideFest. He's running for the swing district seat occupied by GOP backbencher Rodney Davis and he told us that "Being a democratic republic, it would be very appropriate for election day to be a national holiday here in America. We should take any and all steps possible to increase citizen participation in the selection of their elected officials, including designating election day as a national holiday. Any other approach is a slap in the face to the founders of this country, who believed so ardently that men should be permitted to rule themselves. And particularly with an economy that has been rigged against the vast majority of working people, an economy in which many people are forced to work more than one job to simply keep their heads above water, designating election day as a national holiday would allow for greater voter participation and would serve as a meaningful step toward improving the health of our democracy."

Geoff Petzel is running in the suburbs west of Chicago, a blue district held by Ryan ally Pete Roskam, Geoff understands how important it is to encourage voters. "Election Day should be a national holiday," he agreed. "I have been lucky enough to implement that concept at my company. All of my employees work only a half day on Election day.They are encouraged to use their time off to vote. One of the greatest freedoms we enjoy as Americans is the ability to elect our leaders in a democratic fashion. We should celebrate that right we have and encourage participation in the voting process by making it a national holiday."

Berniecrat Tom Wakely is running for the Austin-San Antonio corridor seat currently held by Trump extremist Lamar Smith. This voter participation problem is something he has been talking about for a very long time and he sent us this statement this morning:

Voter turnout is a huge problem. When people look at Texas they see a red state but we are not. We are a no-vote state. Let me give you an example of what I am talking. Two weeks ago we had an election here in San Antonio for city council seats and for mayor. Of the one million plus registered voters in the city barely one hundred thousand voted and that vote was split between fourteen candidates for mayor. The top two vote getters are now headed to a runoff. Their combined vote total was less than 8% of my city's registered voters and that ain't good. The same miserable voter turnout goes for both state and federal elections here in Texas.

I was at the VA hospital last week for a dermatology clinic checkup. I spoke to a bunch of vets in the waiting room and then to the two doctors I saw and guess what, none of them had voted in the election. Not one of them. I asked the doctors why and they gave me the same answers the vets in the waiting room gave me. They were too busy, they had to work, something came up; it was one excuse after another. So it didn't matter if it was a professional, a doctor who didn't vote or a retired auto mechanic who didn't vote, their reasons for not-voting were the same. So what can we do?

I believe the solution to the problem of voter turn-out is not one solution but multiple solutions, the first being national elections should be a national holiday, either a Friday or Monday, giving people a much needed three-day holiday weekend. I also think we should look at paying people to vote in national elections. Give everyone a hundred dollar tax credit might work but waiting until the following year, filing your taxes, then waiting for a refund-- but not be as good as just handing everyone who votes a pre-paid Visa debit card. As far as state and municipal elections go, same thing could apply, holiday and pre-paid Visa card.

But as good as an election day holiday and paying someone to vote may be, it doesn't really address voter apathy or voter suppression both of which are part and parcel of why people don't vote. I believe we should have same day voter registration and do every thing possible to make it easier to vote, not harder. We should move away from the old method of standing in line for hours to vote to a vote by mail system. Everyone, should be able to vote by mail. It leaves a paper trail and it is certainly more secure than electronic voting could ever be.

These aren't the kind of ideas you're going to be hearing from the establishment, let alone from dull and unimaginative careerists like Wasserman Schultz, Steve Knight, Rodney Davis, Pete Roskam and Lamar Smith. If you'd like to help progressive Democrats willing to go out on a limb for new, progressive ideas, please consider helping Tim Canova, Katie Hill, David Gill, Geoff Petzel and Tom Wakely win in 2018. If you'd like to contribute to their campaigns directly, you can so do by tapping on the Blue America ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right. Remember, there is no contribution that's too small, not in the kinds of grassroots campaigns these candidates are running to take back Congress and put a stop to the destructive and toxic Trump/Ryan-Republican Party agenda.


UPDATE: 2 More Progressive Candidates Weigh In

Tom Guild is running in the Oklahoma congressional district with the best chance-- by far-- of flipping from red to blue. The DCCC has no intention of helping him displace right-wing nut Steve Russell but his grassroots campaign is chugging along nicely. The aforementioned Brennan Center for Justice has endorsed him, as has Blue America. He just called in with his take:

Low and in many cases declining voter turnout and increased partisan efforts to suppress voter turnout by placing legal obstacles in the way by discouraging or in some cases prohibiting participation are particularly alarming. It tends to impact Americans of modest economic means, who may not be able or may not feel that they are able to take time off from work (although employers are often legally required to give them time off). Dependence on public transportation, which is important but often more time consuming, disproportionately negatively impacts the working poor and Americans of modest incomes. Access to reliable transportation may also be difficult for senior citizens and those outside metropolitan areas who lack public transportation systems. Essentially there are millions of Americans who are effectively denied the fundamental right to participate in our elections, thus skewing or even changing the results in many important elections.

Making Election Day a national holiday would make it possible for millions of disenfranchised Americans to vote on a regular basis. This and other measures could make our representative democracy more representative and more democratic. Access to health care doesn’t mean you can afford to purchase insurance. The right to vote doesn’t necessarily mean that right can be easily or practically exercised by many Americans. We should remove obstacles to participation in our elections. The problem isn’t that too many Americans are voting, but that many feel and are practically or legally excluded from exercising the voting franchise. Thus, regrettably millions of citizens don’t have their voices heard or their votes counted in the results on election day. Making Election Day a national holiday is a good step towards restoring health to our ailing representative democracy.

And the final word on this goes to Jenny Marshall, the intrepid North Carolina Berniecrat running for the Piedmont seat held by fringy Republican Virginia Foxx: "The vote is the most powerful tool we have in our Republic because it levels the playing field between moneyed interests and the citizens. The Republicans are using calculated precision to disenfranchise and discourage people from voting in an attempt to control the outcomes of elections. If you can't win on your message then you just change the rules. I, on the other hand, would like to see expanded voting locations and times to meet the needs of the voters, expanded same day registering and voting opportunities, open primaries and making election day a national holiday. There are many professions that do not have flexible hours to allow voting on election day. Even with the option of letting employees take time off to vote, many work positions that are just not feasible to do so. Making election day a national holiday would be a step in the right direction making it easier for voters to access the ballot box."

Did Republicans Just Sell Our Internet Privacy Off To Their Big Corporate Campaign Donors? Yep!

Yesterday, Republicans in the House voted-- pretty narrowly-- to approve Jeff Flake's Joint Resolution, overturning the protection of privacy rights on the Internet. Flake, an unpopular Arizona Republican, is up for reelection in 2018, as is unpopular Nevada Republican, Dean Heller, who co-sponsored the bill in the Senate. The House passed it 215-205, with 15 Republicans crossing the aisle and voting NO with every single Democrat. Earlier in the day, one reactionary Blue Dog, Jim Costa (CA), voted with the Republicans on a piece of enabling legislation for the bill, but by the time of the final vote on the bill itself, Costa backed down and voted against it.

Among the Republicans voting against this nightmare proposal were Walter Jones (R-NC), Justin Amash (R-MI), Johnny Duncan (R-TN) and Mark Sanford (R-SC), among the only Republicans ever willing to buck the corporately paid-off party leadership.

The specific FCC rule the Republicans overturned required Internet Service Providers to ask customers' permission to collect, use and sell personal information. Pelosi's floor speech urging her colleagues to vote NO was pretty compelling, but not for corporate Republicans looking for big bucks from internet service providers. Among the corporations handing out the big corporate bribes in this area are AT&T, Century Link, Charter (Spectrum), Comcast, Cox, Frontier, Optimum, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and Windstream. In the last cycle alone, the sector handed out $97,910,784 in political bribes. Ryan, of course, was the biggest recipient of the bribery among current members ($559,221). The half dozen other biggest bribe takers from this sector were:

• Greg Walden (R-OR)-$544,429
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $400,300
• Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)- $344,950
• Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)- $332,033
• Anna Eshoo (D-CA)- $318,437
• Darrell Issa (R-CA)- $317,200

Walden, McCarthy, Goodlatte and Issa earned their bribes yesterday by voting for the resolution. Pelosi's floor speech made the point that "Americans turn to the internet for so many things these days-- buying books, filing taxes, learning about why they are feeling sick. The Republicans want this information to be sold without your permission. The websites you visit, the apps you use, your search history, the content of your emails, your health and financial data. Overwhelmingly, the American people do not agree with the Republicans that this information should be sold, and it certainly should not be sold without your permission. Our broadband providers know deeply personal information about us and our families-- where we are, what we want, what we’re looking for, what information we want to know, every site we visit and more. They can even track us-- our broadband providers can even track us when we are surfing in a private browsing mode. Americans’ private browser history should not be up for sale, yet Republicans are bringing S.J. Resolution 34 to the floor to allow internet service providers-- excuse me, Mr. Speaker-- to profit, to profit. This is about profit from America’s most intimate, personal information without our knowledge or our consent. Republicans’ use of the Congressional Review Act will do permanent damage to the FCC to keep America’s personal information safe... With this measure, Republicans would destroy Americans’ right to privacy on the internet. We made that clear, and forbid any effort to keep your personal information safe... So while they’re hiding President Trump’s tax returns, some discreet piece of information that the public has a right to know-- they’re selling your most personal, selling your most personal and sensitive information-- again, your browsing history, your children’s location, everything, to anyone with the money to buy it... Most Americans have no or limited choices for broadband providers and no recourse against these invasions of their privacy, because with this measure, Republicans turn their back on the overwhelming number of Americans who want more control over their internet privacy. Americans can choose who represent them in Congress. Americans are paying close attention.  They want to know who is taking a stand with them in opposing efforts to sell the private-- their private information to the American people. This is staggering. This is almost a surrender. If the Republicans are allowed to do this, we have surrendered all thoughts of privacy for the American people. Privacy is a value that the American people treasure. It’s about their dignity. It’s about their dignity. We cannot allow the Republicans to sell the dignity of the American people. I hope that everyone will vote ‘no’ on this most unfortunate assault on the dignity of the American people."

Ted Cruz is all for ending Internet privacy rights. Beto is running against him next year

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), who wrote the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2014 to ensure consumers are notified quickly if their private information has been compromised and who co-introduced legislation that would prohibit employers from requiring current and prospective employees from disclosing their personal passwords as a condition of either keeping or getting a job, is strongly opposed to this bill and told her constituents why she voted against it. "Allowing Internet companies to sell personal information flies in the face of the New Hampshire 'live free or die' values we cherish. Congress should be doing more to safeguard our Internet privacy, not making it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect their own data."

Geoff Petzel is running for Congress in a Chicagoland district represented by Ryan crony Pete Roskam. And, of course, yesterday Roskam voted to sell our internet privacy rights to his campaign donors. I contacted Geoff-- whose campaign you can contribute to here-- and he told me that "seeing what Republicans and the right wing are doing to dismantle our society has me incredibly angry. I have been attending meeting after meeting where people tell me they are 'pissed' at Congress and Trump. I have no other words-- I am pissed too. The destruction of our freedoms from internet privacy to a woman's right to choose to suppressing the vote and lying about the facts has us on a trajectory that will destroy our democracy. I believe that the United States is the greatest country on earth, but it can only remain that way if we fight for our freedom everyday.  William Douglas said 'The privacy and dignity of our citizens are being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen-- a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a person's life.' I am committed to my campaign because we can't we must stop the destruction of our democracy. Our freedom is at stake and we must fight back. After all, Privacy is Freedom."




UPDATE: Revenge

Erin Corbett:

Repealing the FCC guidelines is a huge blow to online privacy. So Adam McElhaney, an activist based in Chattanooga, Tennessee who cares about privacy and net neutrality set up a GoFundMe page to collect donations to buy the internet histories of everyone who voted to repeal the FCC’s privacy protections.

The page is called Purchase Private Internet Histories.

“I think that your private Internet history should be yours,” McElhaney wrote on the page. “I also believe your Internet should be neutral. I am raising money to help secure those freedoms.”

McElhaney explained that because the Senate is gutting online privacy and allowing anyone’s internet histories to be purchased, “I plan on purchasing the Internet histories of all legislators, congressmen, executives, and their families and make them easily searchable at searchinternethistory.com.”

“I don’t think that what I lookup on the Internet, what sites I visit, my browsing habits, should be bought and sold to whoever. Without my consent,” McElhany noted, with a call to action. “Let’s turn the tables. Let’s buy THEIR history and make it availble [sic].”“Everything from their medical, pornographic, to their financial and infidelity,” McElhaney wrote. “Help me raise money to buy the histories of those who took away your right to privacy for just thousands of dollars from telephone and ISPs.  Your private data will be bought and sold to marketing companies, law enforcement.”

“Join me in the fight to turn the tables and do whatever it takes to take back your privacy.”

The page has so far raised $54,446, after intending only to raise $10,000.