Skip to content

Month: January 2016

Prophet of doom #whichGOPmaniacdoyoumwean?

Prophet of doom

by digby

Amanda Marcotte has a good take on  David Brooks column this morning in which he claims that Ted Cruz is “brutal” and doesn’t really represent the Christian Right. He wrong. He does represent it.
And Cruz is not taking that social conservative support for granted one little bit:

Fresh from holding a rally at South Carolina’s Bob Jones University, a school that infamously tried to use “religious liberty” arguments to defend its racist policies, Ted Cruz is now slated to address a “National Security Forum” at self-proclaimed prophet Rick Joyner’s MorningStar Church in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

The Oak Initiative, a conservative group led by Joyner, circulated an email inviting members to the forum over the weekend, which is officially hosted by the South Carolina chapter of Americans for Peace Prosperity and Security and moderated by former Rep. Mike Rogers.

You might think it odd that right wing Christians would hold a “National Security Forum” but it really isn’t. They do, after all, have a very pressing concern with the apocalypse:

Joyner doesn’t think America has much time left, telling viewers of his television show “Prophetic Perspective on Current Events” that President Obama’s re-election “could be the end of our republic as we know it” and that a time will come when “our only hope is a military takeover; martial law.”

Joyner cited a prophetic vision he received to predict that the devastating 2011 earthquake in Japan would push America into Nazism, and he has warned that gay marriage will usher in national destruction, a second civil war, divine judgment, a ban on men and women marrying each other and the Mark of the Beast.

He has also boasted of advising several politicians, including one unnamed U.S. senator whom he told that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for homosexuality…[H]e warned that the military’s Jade Helm 15 exercise would usher in martial law and cited the White Horse Prophecy as a reason to believe that God would put Mitt Romney in the White House (although he wonders if Obama, whom he believes is “a wicked man,” stole the 2012 election).

Joyner can also share with Cruz his dreams about the dystopian future of America. It’s short. Watch it:

Think about that when you hear Cruz talking about “carpet bombing the Middle East into oblivion” and seeing if we can “make sand glow in the dark.”

Nuts like Joyner are Ted Cruz’s base, the people with whom he is most aligned. And at this point I think he may have the best shot at winning the GOP nomination. He’s no “I was born again one night back in the 80s and don’t need to go to church to worship my personal savior” like George W. Bush. Cruz is a committed participant in the life of the extreme religious right.

.

Sanders: “Clinton is right, electability is important, and we are the campaign that’s going to win” by @Gaius_Publius

Sanders: “Clinton is right, electability is important, and we are the campaign that’s going to win”

by Gaius Publius

A nice reminder: Bernie Sanders’ classic 2003 take-down of Alan Greenspan. The phrase to watch from Greenspan is “wealth-creation.” He means billionaire wealth, of course.

Last summer I wrote a piece entitled “The Clinton Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign.” I could have titled this one, “The Sanders Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign,” meaning, publicly points out their own real strength. The news: Bernie Sanders has added something startling to his stump speech — a direct and repeated counter to Clinton’s claim of greater “electability.”

As we’ve been pointing out for months — for example, here and here — Sanders is clearly the most electable on all available evidence. One could say that early polls mean nothing, and that may (or may not) be true. But if they mean anything at all, that thing does not favor the Clinton campaign.

John Wagner and David Weigel, writing in the Washington Post:

As Clinton says only she can win, Sanders points to the polls

DES MOINES — The new ad from Hillary Clinton warns Iowa’s Democrats that only she can win a general election. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) begs to differ — and so does his math.

“My opponent says this is an important issue; she is the person who can win the general election,” Sanders said at an American Legion hall here, at an event that largely focused on the city’s fast-growing Latino population. “I respectfully disagree. Look at which candidate is doing better against Donald Trump. Look at the last national poll and you find that Bernie Sanders is beating Donald Trump by 13 points, Hillary Clinton by seven points.”

Sanders has been making that argument at almost every Iowa stop this weekend, a head-turning addition to his extremely consistent stump speech. Frustrated by media coverage that has covered Donald Trump’s insurgent campaign far more closely than Sanders’s — by one calculation, 23 times more closely — the candidate and his supporters are starting to ask why his strong poll numbers aren’t news.

A “head-turning addition” to his stump speech is a good thing. Some heads need a turning, especially those in the media who the authors say are ignoring the Sanders surge in their coverage of the Trump. More:

At a Friday rally in Toledo, a small city in the state’s northeast, Sanders introduced an audience of several hundred voters to the “very respected” Quinnipiac poll, based at the eponymous university in Connecticut. While taking care not to criticize Clinton, he noted that he was leading each Republican by more than she was.

Later that night, in Cedar Rapids, the Vermont senator set up the polling riff with a question.

“We have got to beat right-wing Republican extremism,” said Sanders. “So the question is, who is the stronger candidate to do that?”

Members of the 1,600-person crowd yelled out his name before Sanders had a chance to answer. He then shared that a recent national poll had him leading Trump by twice as much as Clinton and that a just-released poll from New Hampshire that had him up by higher margins than Clinton — several more points, in most cases — against virtually all of the GOP candidates in hypothetical general-election match-ups. Sanders ticked off his margins and Clinton’s against Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, “our good friend” Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

“And I must confess to you here is my favorite one,” Sanders said before relaying how much he is up over Trump in New Hampshire.

My headline comes from the close: “[Sanders] said, anyone who looks ‘objectively’ at his campaign and Clinton’s will come to the same conclusion: ‘Our campaign is the campaign that has the energy, has the enthusiasm. So Hillary Clinton is right, electability is enormously important, and we are the campaign that’s going to win this election’.”

From his lips. And as we speak, this…

Bernie Sanders makes strong showing in new polls

Just out, from Maggie Haberman and the New York Times, more new polls favorable to Sanders:

Hillary Clinton holds a three-point edge over Senator Bernie Sanders in Iowa, a tightening of the race with roughly three weeks until voting begins, according to a new set of surveys of likely voters from NBC/The Wall Street Journal/Marist. …

In Iowa, Mrs. Clinton has 48 percent of support and Mr. Sanders has 45 percent as the competition between the two has become more contentious. Martin O’Malley, the third Democratic presidential candidate, has 5 percent in Iowa, meaning he will most likely qualify for the next presidential debate.

But in New Hampshire, the survey also found Mr. Sanders at 50 percent, to 46 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

That margin is smaller than a recent Fox News survey, in which Mr. Sanders led Mrs. Clinton by 13 points. An NBC survey last month showed Mr. Sanders ahead by nine points in New Hampshire.

This especially should not be ignored (my emphasis): “The surveys also found Mr. Sanders, buoyed by the support of independent voters, outperforms Mrs. Clinton in hypothetical general-election matchups in both states among registered voters.”

That, I would think, might make an interesting head-turning addition to the “head-turning addition” to the campaign speech. Significantly greater support from independents sounds like victory to me. And lack of support from independents sounds, well, risky. If I were a Democratic insider who actually wanted to win, I’d give that some thought.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you’d like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you’d like to “phone-bank for Bernie,” go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

One more time, with feeling by @BloggersRUs

One more time, with feeling
by Tom Sullivan

President Obama makes his final State of the Union address tonight. Word is his speech will be aspirational, not the usual laundry list of policies that make up such speeches. Whether the aspirational speech will be inspirational is another matter. The Washington Post writes that the speech will attempt to address the “fear and anger” driving both candidates and the 2016 electorate:

To that end, the White House has promised a “non-traditional” speech that, in the president’s words, will cut through the “day-to-day noise of Washington” and celebrate the country’s capacity “to come together as one American family.” Instead of a to-do list of policy proposals that have little chance of passing Congress, he has said he plans to deliver a speech that will describe “who we are” as a nation — or perhaps more accurately, whom Obama, in the last year of his presidency, would like us to be.

Coming together as one American family? That is aspirational. Politico had more background:

The president initiated the State of the Union draft-writing process two months ago with instructions to his staff that he wanted this speech to be different from all the rest: no legislative agenda to set himself up for failure in front of a GOP Congress, no reflective legacy-thumping that would make him start to seem like the lame duck he’s desperate not to be.

Democrats no doubt would rather have a cheerleader-in-chief in an election year and hold the reflection. The country is not in the mood.

A South Carolina Democratic state representative, John King, was expected to introduce a resolution in Columbia after a Muslim woman protesting silently was ejected from a Donald Trump rally in Rock Hill on Friday:

On Saturday, King said that he was “sick to his stomach” at Trump’s treatment of the woman. According to The Herald, King planned to file the resolution against Trump on Monday to take a stand on behalf of the residents of York County and all of South Carolina.

“Donald Trump is a race-baiting, xenophobic bigot and is not welcome in the state of South Carolina,” the proposed resolution read, echoing the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Kumbaya, y’all.

All the angry white women

All the angry white women

by digby

No, they’re not all lining up behind the unpalatable harpy. (Well, not the one you think anyway.) Juan Williams looks at the numbers:

[A]ngry white Republican women seem indifferent to the political storms stirred by Trump’s comments about women, ranging from his “blood coming out of her wherever” comment about my Fox News colleague Megyn Kelly to insulting Carly Fiorina, the only women running for the GOP nomination, by telling a reporter: “Look at that face – would anyone vote for that?”

Of course, Trump has also skewered the white woman fighting for the Democratic nomination. He belittled former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a woman who got “schlonged” in the 2008 primaries and described her bathroom break during a recent debate as “disgusting.”

None of that has hurt Trump with white Republican women.

Polls consistently show that Trump’s support is strongest among older people. A third of his backers in most polls are over age 65 and about another half are aged between 45 and 64. Among women in those age-groups, it seems plausible that anger about larger political issues, from high rates of immigration to concern about their retirement income, outweighs any concern about Trump’s slights aimed at other white women.

Overall, whites feel a far deeper concern about those issues.

Why any of them feel Trump is going to help with their retirement income is beyond me. Yes, I know he’s now channeling Bernie Sanders on the stump but anyone who’s looked at this “economic plan” will see that his prescription is actually for everyone to work harder for less money so we can “compete” with garment workers in Bangladesh on an even playing field. Oh, and we must reward the hard working heirs to fortunes and “branding” experts like him with billions. Because: winning!

The fuel feeding the fire of rage among whites, according to the poll, has three sources: concern that the U.S. is no longer the world’s most powerful nation; the belief that the American dream is dying for their children; and the realization that it is harder for their middle-class families to keep up than they expected it to be.

The first is not true.  But they insist all of that is allegedly happening because blacks and Mexicans are stealing the country blind and giving nothing back when hard working white people are sacrificing everything. Pay no attention to how the rapacious billionaire buffoon with the pompadour got his fortune.

But it’s not economics at all, is it? It’s spoiled petulance:

Even as the nation remains mostly white, with most of its wealth and political power securely in white hands, the pollsters concluded whites today are feeling “the anger of perceived disenfranchisement — a sense that the majority has become a persecuted minority, the bitterness of promise that didn’t pan out — rather than actual hardship.”

Oh, boo hoo hoo. I’m so tired of this nonsense. This isn’t a zero sum game. Racial and ethnic minorities (and yes, women) getting more opportunities and being allowed to exercise their rights does not automatically translate into a loss for white people. Sure, white working class men have gotten a very raw deal over the past few decades but it’s not the fault of minorities and women — it’s the fault of avaricious greedheads like Trump.

But they can’t blame him, can they? He’s the BMOC, the Captain of the football team, the man. It must be somebody else’s fault that they feel so insecure.

Esquire’s report on the polling noted that while non-white Americans report they have a tougher time paying bills, blacks are “more likely than whites to believe that the American dream is still alive; that America is still the most powerful country in the world; that race relations have improved over the past eight years; and most important in the context of expectations, that their financial situation is better than they thought it would be when they were younger.”

Sadly, the fact that non-whites feel optimistic about America and believe that old fashioned can-do spirit is making their lives better just reinforces the sour, withered white worldview.

So where is the white Republican anger, especially the growing female white anger, heading? It is fracturing the GOP, leaving the party at war with itself.

I hate to inform all my old, white female sisters but if you think they believe you’re an equal, think again. When push comes shove, and all the “others” are put in their place, you’ll be ground under the white guy’s boot too. They’ll just have you make them a sandwich (just the way they like it) before they do it.

.

.

Our longest war

Our longest war

by digby

Sure am glad we decided to meddle:

I can’t watch that without recollecting that Junior was captured on an internal White House monitor pumping his fist and saying “feels good!” before he made that announcement.

The good news is that we can probably look forward to more such speeches but they’ll probably go more like this one:

Or this one:

Feels good …

.

David Jones is on his way by Dennis Hartley

David Jones is on his way


By Dennis Hartley


Live to your rebirth and do what you will
(Oh by jingo)
Forget all I’ve said, please bear me no ill
(Oh by jingo)
After all, after all
(Pushing through the market square, so many mothers sighing…) I woke up this morning to get ready for work, turned on the Today show (…news had just come over, we had five years left to cry in) and saw the lead story (…news guy wept and told us, earth was really dying…cried so much his face was wet, and I knew he was not lying). No, not him! Fuck!


When one is at a loss for words after a great artist dies, it’s not uncommon to default to the old standby that “(he or she) meant so much, to so many people.” Of David Bowie, it may be more accurate for one to say that “he was so many people, who meant so much.”


Bowie invented the idea of “re-invention”. It’s also possible that he invented a working time machine, because he was always ahead of the curve (or leading the herd). He was the poster boy for “postmodern”.  Space rock? Meet Major Tom. Glam rock? Meet Ziggy Stardust. Doom rock? Meet the Diamond Dog. Neo soul? Meet the Thin White Duke. Electronica? Ich bin ein Berliner. New Romantic? We all know Major Tom’s a junkie


This one is hitting me hard. I’m 59 years old, so I’m getting a little used to watching the musical icons I grew up with dropping like flies…but this is one is hitting me hard. We’re talking Bob Marley and John Lennon; this is a significant loss to the music world.



Favorite Bowie album? For me that’s like choosing a favorite child. If pressed, I’d have to say my favorite Bowie period would be the Mick Ronson years (Space Oddity, Hunky Dory, The Man Who Sold the World, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, Alladin Sane, and Pinups). There was something magical about the Bowie and Ronno dynamic; right up there with Daltrey and Townshend, Plant and Page, Ozzy and Tony, and Jagger and Richards. Luckily, this era was captured for posterity in D.A. Pennebaker’s 1973 concert film, Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars: the Motion Picture. Visually, the film is less than spectacular, but the performances are mesmerizing.


I’m sure his family had understandable reasons for keeping mum on his illness, and I respect that; but I can’t help but speculate on whether or not Bowie’s highly-developed sense of theatre prompted him to choreograph his demise into a sort of farewell installation piece. Consider: his final album (which he had to know was going to be his swan song) was released on his 69th birthday January 8…2 days prior to his death. It’s as if he anticipated the great sense of loss amongst his fans; it’s a reassurance, a form of grief counselling: “It’s alright. I got my affairs in order; came up with a few odds and ends here to leave you with…it’s OK. Enjoy! It’s only rock’n’roll. After all, after all…”



More at Den of Cinema

Dennis Hartley

Wingnut populism for profit

Wingnut populism for profit

by digby

This is how the right wing keeps the small donor money flowing. From Richard Viguerie:

In response to my recent column, “It’s the Primaries, Stupid: Have You Filed For Office Yet?” some CHQ readers have (quite fairly) asked the question, “How do I know if my elected official is a RINO who deserves a Primary challenge?”
My answer is one shared by the First Lady of the Conservative Movement Phyllis Schlafly: Today, all incumbent Republican Members of Congress are ‘guilty until proven innocent,’ by their actions and votes.
What this means is that even though your Congressman, your State Representative, your County Clerk, your local School Board Member, Fire Control District Commissioner or City Councilman talks like a conservative you must honestly and diligently investigate whether they actually spent their past term governing like a conservative.
If they haven’t, they deserve a Primary challenge.
Doing your due diligence is especially important with regard to Congress, the Republican establishment has mastered the art of campaigning like conservatives and governing like John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell – they are more like con men than the principled defenders of constitutional liberty that the Founders envisioned their successors would be.
Fortunately, we conservatives have many resources to help us identify who on Capitol Hill is a real conservative and who is a con man.
Heritage Action for AmericaThe American Conservative UnionGun Owners of AmericaConservative Review,The Club for GrowthThe National Rifle AssociationThe Family Research CouncilAmericans for Prosperity andNational Right to Life to name but a few all publish ratings of Congress and track votes on the conservative agenda and are worth using as a starting point for your research.
None of these are individually by themselves dispositive of which Member of Congress is a conservative and which one is a con man, and some of them may even be in conflict, but taken as a whole they offer a good starting point in your research as to whether or not your Representative in Congress is innocent of being a RINO.
I say they are a good starting point because none of them really measures the key element that separates the conservatives from the RINO con men – the willingness to rock the boat and stand on principle and vote against the establishment Republican leadership.
And determining whether or not your Congressman is a boat-rocker is absolutely vital, because a big part of the incumbent Republican congressional con is the use of “show votes” to cover the con.
“Show votes” are votes that are meaningless because the establishment leadership does not intend for them to go anywhere once taken, sometimes they are set-up so incumbents being challenged on the Right can vote against leadership, knowing that Democrats will provide the votes to pass the bills the leadership wants – the recent Omnibus was a classic example of a “show vote.”
The Omnibus gave Democrats everything they wanted, so of course they were going to vote for it, giving establishment Republicans who are facing challenges from the Right the opportunity to vote “NO” without actually producing a result that was contrary to what the RINO leadership really wanted.
The key vote, the vote that actually separated the “boat rockers” from the go-along-get-along crowd was the vote on the Rule to bring the Omnibus to the Floor, and only a handful of principled conservative Republicans actually opposed the Rule, whereas 95 House Republicans including several like incumbent Rep. Martha Roby (AL-2), who are facing stiff conservative primary challenges ended up voting against the bill.
But what do you do about your local offices that aren’t covered by the national conservative organization scorecards?
Some scorecards do cover state legislators and can be helpful, but for your local offices, like County Clerk and Commissioner, City Council and the various Boards, like School Board, Fire Control or Soil and Water Conservation Districts you are pretty much on your own, so here are a few foolproof tests.
Did your local elected official campaign on being a fiscal conservative and holding down taxes and spending and then take a taxpayer-funded trip to a resort destination, like Las Vegas?
If they did, they deserve a primary challenge.
Does your local elected official claim to be a conservative and then act like national issues, such as same-sex marriage, funding of Planned Parenthood, the Muslim invasion and the like have nothing to do with them?
If they do, and they are unwilling to use the power of their office to stand for constitutional liberty, then they deserve a primary challenge.
Of course, there are some incumbents and many good candidates already running who are limited government constitutional conservatives and share our values. Some like principled limited government constitutional conservative All-Star Representatives Dave Brat and Louie Gohmert, may be facing a Primary challenge from establishment Republicans, and so they need your help.
However, if you apply the “guilty until proven innocent” test to your elected officials you will discover that the vast majority of positions on the ballot this year do not have limited government constitutional conservatives running, and many will have incumbents who have not faced a contest in years.
And because they have become professional politicians, rather than public servants, they are going to have all of the establishment money and resources behind them – don’t let that intimidate you!
As I documented in my book TAKEOVER, ever since 2010 and the Tea Party Wave incumbent RINOs have been on the bubble.
In 2012 Tea Party-backed candidate Ted Cruz announced his campaign for Senate against the incumbent Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst. Cruz started the campaign at 2% as measured by a poll with a 3% margin of error, against a candidate whose support read like a Who’s Who of DC and Austin lobbyists and influence peddlers – and who was prepared to spend over $20 million of his own money to fund his campaign. 
As I explained in TAKEOVER, Ted Cruz won that election by assembling a vast grassroots army of limited government constitutional conservatives and campaigning relentlessly on the conservative agenda.
Dave Brat’s stunning upset of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia was likewise accomplished through a grassroots “zen campaign” that turned Cantor’s overwhelming fundraising advantage among lobbyists and influence groups into an anchor around his neck that drowned him in a sea of voter outrage over his double-talk and betrayals of the conservative principles voters expected their Congressman to stand for.

Trump’s dream #itsallabouthim

Trump’s dream

by digby

I compiled some of Trump’s recent promises on the campaign trail for Salon today. It paints a rather disturbing picture:

First, on the deportation issue, when asked how he would go about it he has said that he would have a “deportation force” to find, detain and repatriate suspected undocumented immigrants and their children, some of whom are Americans (but he’d fix that too.) When quizzed in the debates he had this to say to John Kasich’s assertion that deporting all these millions of people is not a serious proposal:

All I can say is, you’re lucky in Ohio that you struck oil. That’s for one thing. Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president. People liked him. I like Ike, right, the expression, “I like Ike.” Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country. Moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border. They came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back. Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president. People liked him. I like Ike, right, the expression, “I like Ike.” Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country. Moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border. They came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back.

He, of course, plans to eventually build a wall so high that nobody can climb over it, apparently enlisting Jack and his magic beanstalk for engineering advice. But that comment was no joke. He’s talking about the infamous Operation Wetback. And people never came back because they’d been left in the middle of the desert without water and died.

After Paris and San Bernardino his authoritarianism took another dark turn. His famous statement that the US should ban all Muslims from entering the country “until we find out what the hell is going on” was actually the culmination of a number of comments indicating that there could be a registry of Muslims and surveillance of mosques and other places where one might find American Muslims. (In other words, everywhere.)He reiterated the standard fatuous right wing bromide about arming everyone so that they could shoot down terrorists before they have a chance to explode their suicide vests. And he enthusiastically endorsed torture. and not just for interrogation purposes but as a punitive measure:

“Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would — in a heartbeat,” Trump said to loud cheers during a rally at a convention center here Monday night that attracted thousands. “And I would approve more than that. Don’t kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn’t work.”

Trump said such techniques are needed to confront terrorists who “chop off our young people’s heads” and “build these iron cages, and they’ll put 20 people in them and they drop them in the ocean for 15 minutes and pull them up 15 minutes later.”

“It works,” Trump said over and over again. “Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing. It works.”

When discussing what he would do with the families of suspected terrorists he was a bit more vague, but when you consider his other commentary the implication is clear:

I would certainly go after the wives who absolutely knew it was happening, and I guess your definition of what I’d do, I’m going to leave that to your imagination.

He has a fantasy about the wives of the 9/11 hijackers have knowledge of the attacks and that they and their children pulled up chairs in front to the TV to watch daddy fly into the World Trade Center. Except for the fact that the hijackers weren’t married and had no kids it would be an interesting tale.

He has also blamed San Bernardino terrorist Sayed Farook’s mother and sister suggesting the government need to “get tough” to deal with them:

I think his mother knew what was going on. She went into the apartment. Anybody that went into that house or that apartment knew what was going on. They didn’t tell the authorities. They knew what was going on. The mother knew. 

We better get a little tough, and a little smart, or we’re in trouble.”

And he’s openly said he would commit war crimes and explicitly target the families of suspected ISIS terrorists:

“We’re fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing with the terrorists — you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families! They care about their lives, don’t kid yourselves. They say they don’t care about their lives. But you have to take out their families.”

On the domestic front Trump has made it very, very clear that in addition to his “deportation force” he believes the country needs to allow the police agencies much more latitude:

“We’re going to get, you know, the gang members in Baltimore and in Chicago and these are some tough dudes. They’re going to be out so fast.

One of the first thing I’m going to do is get rid of those gang members. We’re going to be – you know, you look at what’s going on with Baltimore, you look at what’s going on in Chicago and Ferguson and St. Louis the other night. We are going to get rid of those gang members so fast your head will spin.

You know, we can be very tough. I just met your cops outside. Those police are tough cookies. Those guys – we need law and order. We need law and order.

I mean, they allowed – in one night, that first night in Baltimore – they allowed that city to be destroyed. And they set it back 35 years. One night. Because the police were not allowed to protect people. They weren’t allowed to protect people.

We have incredible law enforcement in this country and we have to be – the head of the police in Chicago is a person I know. Originally from New York. He’s a phenomenal guy. He can stop things if they’re allowed to stop them. He can stop it. Believe me.

He has never explained exactly what he means when he says he plans to “get rid of those gang members so fast your head will spin” but evoking his relationship close to Chicago’s police chief might be a clue.

He exhorts citizens
 to spy on each other and report activities to the authorities. And he made a solemn pledge to police everywhere:

“One of the first things I’d do in terms of executive order, if I win, will be to sign a strong, strong statement that would go out to the country, out to the world, anybody killing a police man, a police woman, a police officer, anybody killing a police officer, the death penalty is going to happen.”

Considering the summary execution pantomime he does on the trail every day when he talks about Bowe Bergdahl it’s fair to assume he has some ideas about how that might be handled.

Finally, Trump has welcomed the approbation of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s authoritarian strongman leader, even going so far as to defend him against charges that he has killed journalists who challenged him. He has joked that he wouldn’t kill any journalists himself — well, probably:

I hate some of these people, I hate ’em,” Trump told the crowd. “I would never kill them. I would never do that.”

Then he decided to reconsider.

“Uh, let’s see, uh?” he said aloud, his voice rising. “No, I would never do that.”

Trump’s comments on journalists came after he spoke about Russian President Vladimir Putin, who lavished Trump with praise last week.

Claims that Putin ordered the killings of Russian journalists are well-documented, but Trump has argued that those deaths are disputed and without evidence.

Trump did charge once again that some of the reporters in the back of the room are “such lying disgusting people,” but as the crowd turned to angrily face those reporters, Trump pulled them back.

This past week Trump spoke admiringly of another despot — North Korea’s Kim Jong Un:

“You’ve got to give him credit: How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals and all of a sudden, you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?”

“Even though it is a culture, and it’s a culture thing, he goes in, he takes over, he’s the boss. It’s incredible.”

“I mean, it’s amazing that a young guy would go over and take over. You know, you would have thought that these tough generals would have said no way this is gonna happen when the father died.

“So he’s gotta have something going for him, because he kept control, which is amazing for a young person to do.”

He did say Kim was a “total nut job” but it’s fairly obvious Trump doesn’t see that as much of a problem. “He’s the boss” and “he kept control” and that is what Trump sees as true leadership. He figures that just as he would get along well with Putin, he and Kim Jong Un could forge and understanding.  They all have a lot in common.

And millions of Republicans seem to really love it.

.

Melting the Arctic in the middle of winter, by @Gaius_Publius

Melting the Arctic in the middle of winter

by Gaius Publius

A mid-winter warm front over the North Pole, with temperatures above freezing (click to enlarge; GFS model courtesy of Levi Cowan; source)

Is it an emergency yet? Slate:

Over the past several days, an alarming string of tornadoes has left dozens dead across the South. At least 68 tornadoes were reported in 15 states from California to the Carolinas from Dec. 21 to Monday, the longest streak on record of December days with a tornado. December tornadoes are twice as common during El Niño years, but this weekend’s atmosphere over the South was something different entirely: By some measures, it was the most moisture-laden ever seen during the winter months. …

The Texas tornadoes were part of a much larger storm system that at one point encompassed about half the country. The same storm system also brought heavy rains to the Midwest that threaten one of the biggest floods in history on the Mississippi River south of St. Louis, surpassing even the legendary 1993 flood. Road closures due to high water blanketed Missouri, and water levels will continue to rise for several days as record floodwaters from Oklahoma make their way toward the Gulf of Mexico.

On its western and northern fringes, the storm brought snow, the worst of which struck New Mexico. There, Gov. Susana Martinez activated the state’s National Guard and said the historic snowstorm had created a “dire situation.” In fact, at the exact same time that tornadoes were bearing down on Dallas, a record-setting blizzard was burying cars under snowdrifts 10 feet deep on the western side of Texas. Snow fell as far south as northern Mexico. The system also helped bring record-breaking freezing weather to southern California, a fierce ice storm to Chicago and Michigan, and the first significant New England snowfall of the season—just two days after temperatures climbed into the 70s as far north as Vermont. The Wall Street Journal called the juxtaposition of weather extremes “freakish.”

I’m ignoring all the “it’s just El Niño” pablum. By now you know better, right? So does the author, by the way, as you’ll read shortly.

Melting the Arctic in the middle of winter

That storm? It’s moving north … all the way north. Slate again (my emphasis):

As it departs North America this week, the storm will rapidly intensify over the northern reaches of the Gulf Stream and draw tremendous amounts of warm air northward from Spain and the Mediterranean Sea toward the Arctic. As the storm approaches Iceland, it will have strengthened to the equivalent of some of the strongest hurricanes ever recorded in terms of atmospheric pressure. Intensely high pressure over western Russia, perhaps boosted by melting sea ice, will aid in setting up the tropics-to-pole atmospheric superhighway.

Unlike other recent episodes of extreme weather around the planet, this storm is probably not related to El Niño, which has limited influence in Europe. The storm will be strengthening over the exact spot that North Atlantic temperatures have been cooling over recent years, an effect that scientists have linked to a slowdown of the basin’s circulation triggered in part by melting sea ice …

The remarkable storm will briefly boost temperatures in the Arctic basin to nearly 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal—and the North Pole itself will be pushed above the freezing point, with temperatures perhaps as warm as 40 degrees. That’s absolutely terrifying and incredibly rare. Keep in mind: It’s late December and dark 24 hours a day at the North Pole right now. The typical average high temperature this time of year at the North Pole is about minus 15 to minus 20 degrees. To create temperatures warm enough to melt ice to exist in the dead of winter—some 50 or 60 degrees warmer than normal—is unthinkable….

Your bottom line: “On Wednesday, the North Pole will be warmer than Western Texas, Southern California, and parts of the Sahara.”

It’s not too late unless we wait

Is it an emergency yet? Because if it is, there’s an obvious thing to do. In an emergency, we mobilize — one example here. You can also support the only presidential candidate who gets it and has a chance to win. Adjust the split in any way you like at the link.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.