The Republican Case Against Republicans

Something happened in the past few days which is a perfect example why any sensible person interested in making informed decisions about politics and public policy should ignore both the current president and all news outlets which are obviously cheerleaders for this president.  My goal here is not only to prove my case, but to do so citing only Republican sources of information, because as everyone knows, Democrats can't be trusted.  If they had their way, NO ONE would harass women, Muslims or Jews, and everyone would have access to affordable health care which meets their needs.  And how can you trust people like that?

WARNING: You must possess at least two brain cells to ride on this blog post.  If you do not currently possess two brain cells, please exit through the doors on your right.  If you DO possess two brain cells, make sure to get them warmed up!  In a little while, we're going to play 'Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?'

It all began when the current president accused the former president of doing something inappropriate:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

Uncharacteristically, the president then refused to talk any more about the alleged "wire tapping".  But since the president is a Republican, and we know Republicans always tell the truth, we know that these tweets reveal four facts:

1. Obama ordered surveillance for political purposes --- hence the reference to 'Nixon/Watergate'.  Such surveillance is clearly illegal.
2. This surveillance targeted Trump or the Trump campaign.
3. The surveillance occurred 'in October, just prior to Election', or possibly in the first week of November 'just before the victory'.
4. The specific location of the surveillance was in 'Trump Tower'.

So, take that information and put it in your first brain cell.  Got it?  Good.

After that, of course, the president and the White House made no further statements to back up their claim.  They didn't cite any evidence, for example, but rather asked Congress and the intelligence agencies to investigate, taking a 'wait and see' attitude toward the story.  And in the first couple of weeks, reports from other 100%-honest and truthful Republicans were not promising.

On March 15, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes announced (along with weasley Democrat Adam Schiff) that he had seen no evidence of surveillance of Trump Tower, stating that if the president's claims were to be taken literally, then "clearly the president was wrong".  The next day, the right honorable Sen. Richard Burr, Republican Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued the following statement (along with Democratic loser and hater Mark Warner):

Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016.

Finally, on March 20, Republican hero and FBI Director James Comey also announced that there was no evidence to support the president's claim.  Needless to say, things were looking pretty bleak for our president at this point!

But finally, the president got some good news confirmation of his claims on March 22, when Devin Nunes dropped a bombshell.  He said he had recently become aware of some surveillance:

1. Which was "legally collected, foreign intelligence under FISA".  Nunes emphasized three separate times that the surveillance was conducted legally, and thus not remotely similar to Nixon/Watergate.
2. Which "incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition."  That is, some government agency was involved in surveillance that was NOT targeting Trump or his campaign.
3. Which occurred "during the transition," which is to say AFTER the election.
4. He also reiterated: "I said from day one there wasn't a physical wiretap of Trump Tower.  I still don't have evidence that shows that at all".

Take those four facts, and stick them in your other brain cell.  Because now, it's time to rub those brain cells together!

Trump said	Nunes said
Obama ordered the surveillance ILLEGALLY, like Watergate.	The surveillance was LEGALLY ordered by the FISA court.
Trump and his campaign WERE the targets of the surveillance.	Trump and his campaign were NOT the targets of the surveillance.
The surveillance occurred BEFORE the election.	The surveillance occurred AFTER the election.
The surveillance occurred AT Trump Tower.	The surveillance did NOT occur at Trump Tower.

So, when you get done rubbing your brain cells together, what do you conclude?  A fairly bright 5th-grader would conclude that Nunes' allegations provide close to 0% confirmation of Trump's tweets.  The only thing Trump and Nunes seem to agree on is that sometimes the federal government conducts surveillance.

Most conservative media outlets, however, are no match for bright 5th-graders.

The Daily Wire blared: "Trump is 100% Vindicated on Wiretapping".

The Gateway Pundit insisted: "TRUMP WAS RIGHT!"

And so on.

This would seem to conclusively demonstrate that conservative news outlets are either staffed by total morons, or that they are effectively part of the Republican party, and thus will say anything, no matter how logic-free, if they think it makes them look good.  Which is why I said at the very top that a sensible person interested in making informed decisions should ignore them.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  One would hope, after all, that a sitting president wouldn't make such an incendiary claim about his predecessor unless --- well, ever, actually, even if it were true.  But if a president DOES make such a claim, he'd better damn well have access to hard evidence to back it up.

If Trump has such hard evidence, then the correct response to Nunes' announcement would either be (a) Silence, or (b) A statement along the lines of: "That's not the surveillance I was referring to."  But instead, Trump decided right along with the morons of the conservative media that Nunes' non-bombshell vindicated him, preening "So that means I'm right" in an interview with Time magazine.  Which is a fairly tacit admission that Trump's original allegation was made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

So please.  If you want to be a partisan hack and marinate in media which lie to you in order to make yourself feel good about being a Republican, well, go ahead.  But then don't wrap yourself in the flag, or seriously insist that you know what's best for the country.  If you listen to Fox and Gateway Pundit and InfoWars, at least acknowledge that you're doing it out of selfish reasons, and not because you give a damn about staying informed or what's best for the country.  And whatever you do DON'T VOTE AGAIN.  Voting is for adults who take their civic duties seriously.

If you're ready to change your ways, start looking to respectable mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post or The Atlantic.  And if you're feeling adventurous, consider even Mother Jones or Talking Points Memo.  They may not say the things you like to hear, and they may even make mistakes from time to time, but they'll never lie to you just to advance a political agenda.

And finally, in case you were thinking that at least Devin Nunes is the one honest Republican in this story, think again.  After going off half-cocked on the 22nd to give Trump & Co. an excuse to feel vindicated (and possibly engaging in criminal obstruction of justice in the process), he has now backed down from his claims, saying that he can't be sure whether Trump and/or his aides were captured by surveillance even incidentally.

As a rule, it's best just to ignore Republicans completely.

#NoMuslimBan

Earlier today, I saw some random comment from someone which effectively boils down to 'It's better to let thousands of strangers be inconvenienced, suffer, or possibly even die than to risk letting one terrorist into the country.'  While this sort of attitude is born of both fear and selfishness, it is on some level understandable.  No one wants terrorists (of any race or religion) to come to our country and do us harm, and since the people affected by the #MuslimBan are 'others' who we will never know personally, well then, tough on them.

It is also, however, profoundly un-American, at least by the definition I have learned of what it means to be American.

"Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  These words are famously inscribed on the Statue of Liberty near Ellis Island, and for over a century have been a point of American pride, standing for America's promise of freedom and a better life for those who come here from other countries.  When we turn people away out of selfishness and fear, we renege on that promise.

Ironically, many of the same people who support the #MuslimBan also cite their incorrect belief that America was founded as a 'Christian nation' as a reason to discriminate against Muslims.  Even if that were true, there is nothing remotely Christian about denying critically ill children access to medical care which could save their lives.  The Pope agrees, having announced that "It’s hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help."

But don't take the Pope's word for it.  I'm no Christian theologian, but even I have studied the Bible well enough to know Jesus' admonition to love God and love thy neighbor.  And I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't just talking about your next door neighbor, or your neighbors who look like you do and believe what you do.  He meant that Christians love everyone, without exception.  And while America was not founded as a Christian nation, the vast majority of religious Americans are Christians.  So turning back refugees is also un-American in this respect.

Of course, many Americans aren't Christian, or even people of faith, including your humble host here at Things Everyone Knows.  But I am an American, and I speak from my cultural identity as an American when I say this: hate breeds hate, and love breeds love.  The people who support the #MuslimBan do so because some people have done harm to us out of what they say is a defense of Islam.  The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001 did so out of hate.  And that hate has taken root, and incubated, and grown for 15 years, and is manifesting itself now in hate speech, hate crimes, and the #MuslimBan.

Hate cannot conquer hate --- it can only breed more.  The way to defeat terror is to reject hate, and focus on what is best in us.  America, the land of opportunity.  America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.  A place where all men (and women, and trans folk) are created equal, and receive equal treatment under the law.  We've all heard these phrases so many times they're trite, because until recently, we took them for granted.  But they actually do mean something.

Or at least they can, if we choose to live up to them.  These are the principles which make America great, not some clueless blowhard in a red hat playing to our basest instincts.

Working-Class Whites watch: Day 51

It seems there are really only two people who enthusiastically support the Republican alternative to Obamacare: The Stain and Paul Ryan:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he was "proud to endorse" a plan to replace Obamacare backed by Republican leaders in Congress, and called for its quick passage even as opposition to the bill hardened among conservatives.

Obviously Democrats oppose this plan, but what do Democrats know, amirite?  What's important here is how the bill affects the rust belt, working-class white voters who are The Stain's most important constituency; the REAL Americans who fear God, country, and don't mind a lot of Russian meddling in our elections or our White House.  How do they make out under this wonderful new plan?

Um, not so well.  This should not come as a shock to anyone who's been paying attention for the past 9 years.

And let's not forget that the 'real' Americans, supposedly, are the ones who live in rural areas of the country, not the snobby elite cities and coastal areas.  How will those down-to-earth rural folks make out under this new plan?

The result of all these provisions would almost certainly be a system that benefits people who already have wealth and health and penalizes others, but there would also be very strong geographic effects. For one, pegging Medicaid spending to a base year would reduce states’ ability to ramp up health-care spending because of disasters or emerging health problems, and these problems already exert the most pressures on states and areas with infrastructure that is ill-equipped to combat them. Rural residents already rely much more heavily on public insurance than do city-dwellers, so any reductions of funding and funding flexibility will have a larger effect on the health issues they face.

Those health issues are serious, and contribute to much of the climbing mortality among middle and lower class white Americans today. The opioid epidemic is ravaging rural America, as are the creeping effects of environmental degradation and climate change. People like coal miners in Trump country in Kentucky and West Virginia are on the frontiers of several developing health crises, and per-capita spending caps on Medicaid would only further limit their states’ ability to respond.

Sounds pretty bad.  But take heart, rural working-class whites!  At least the folks making over $250,000 per year will get themselves a nice tax cut, which they will surely use to create more jobs!  That's what they always do with any extra money they have lying around, right?  So there's a silver lining for you!

Resign, Sessions

I couldn't have said it better myself:

Today the Washington Post revealed that racist Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III perjured himself during his confirmation hearings for Attorney General.  This is a fairly open and shut case.  Session admits that the meetings took place, yet when my favorite candidate for president for 2020, Al Franken, asked him about meetings between Trump campaign surrogates and Russian officials, Sessions replied:

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush administration (not an administration known for its ethics) believes that this perjury should cost Sessions his job, and I agree.  Painter points out that a similar situation occurred in the Nixon administration, when a man named Richard Kleindienst perjured himself during his confirmation testimony, and later had to step down.  Of course, Kleindienst lied about his communications with the White House involving a case against I.T.T.  Sessions lied about his involvement in Russian efforts to subvert the democratic process and effect the outcome of an election, which any sane person would argue is a much bigger deal.

This is where we are.  The Stain is struggling to meet the ethical standards set by Richard Nixon.

But hey, don't take my word for it, or even Richard Painter's.  Sessions himself said that perjury was a sufficient crime to cost a person his office.  He is on record stating that Bill Clinton's lies about his sex life were the reason he voted to have Clinton removed from the presidency.

As of this writing, Sessions has now agreed to recuse himself from any investigation into Russian tampering in the election, but this isn't close to good enough.  He wasn't qualified to be Attorney General in the first place, and he proved it before even taking the oath of office.  The Stain has no moral center, and is unlikely to fire him.  He needs to resign.