The FBI investigates Kavanaugh Tuesday, Oct 2 2018 

Image result for christopher wray and trump

Christopher Wray: Yes sir, Mr. President. The FBI will conduct a fair and thorough investigation (wink, wink). We will not accept, let alone look for, damning testimony from any witnesses, even those who try to reach us. This all will be over in a week, just as you ask.

Donald Trump: Good boy. You may keep your job.

Wray: In fact, we have been hiding from those witnesses.
Trump: I love you almost as much as I love Putin, Duterte, and Kim

Wray: MAGA! MAGA

 

 

No kidding: Trump says the world will end by 2100, so no use trying to save it. Saturday, Sep 29 2018 

I’m sure you remember when Trump made one of his way too many, ridiculous declarations, this one saying that despite the opinions of the vast majority of climatologists, global warming (aka “climate change”) is a Chinese hoax, “in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” (his words).

And because global warming doesn’t really exist, why waste precious dollars on research to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses? Also, the coal and oil industries pay big money to compliant politicians.

Well, now that hurricane stormwater is overtaking the eastern seaboard, the Trump administration has a completely different story: Global warming does exist, but why fight it?

Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
(Stuart W. Palley/For The Washington Post), By Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis and
Chris Mooney; September 28 at 3:55 PM

Image result for manhattan flooded

Parts of Manhattan could be underwater

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists.

Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses.

Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.Image result for desertification

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change.

Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

The draft statement was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. 

And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.

It’s like saying there is no need to do medical research because we all will die of one disease or another. So just save the money.

Live fast; die young. Who cares about your grandchildren? You’ll be dead by the time global warming becomes a real problem.

This is the astounding message the President of the United States wants you to accept.

The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming, the analysis states.

And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

So don’t do the research to find technology innovation. Instead, just burn that coal, use high emission cars, because . . . well, because Trump needs votes from coal miners and money from oil companies.

Scientists predict a four degree Celsius rise by the century’s end if countries take no meaningful actions to curb their carbon output.

In the past two months, the White House has pushed to dismantle nearly half a dozen major rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, deregulatory moves intended to save companies hundreds of millions of dollars.

If enacted, the administration’s proposals would give new life to aging coal plants; allow oil and gas operations to release more methane into the atmosphere; and prevent new curbs on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air-conditioning units.

The vehicle rule alone would put 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxidein the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions, according to the government’s own analysis. 

The right-wing argument is that humans don’t really release CO2 into the air, and anyway, CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, and anyway, a warmer world is a good thing, and anyway, plants use CO2 to grow, and anyway cutting CO2 is expensive, and anyway, the coal miners . . . .

Trump’s philosophy: The world will come to an end by 2100. There is no way to prevent it, so don’t even try.

David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified against Trump’s freeze of car mileage standards Monday in Fresno, Calif., said his organization is prepared to use the administration’s own numbers to challenge its regulatory rollbacks.

He noted that NHTSA document projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million to 789 ppm by 2100.

“I was shocked when I saw it,” Pettit said in a phone interview. “These are their numbers. They aren’t our numbers.”

The right-wing philosophy is: Even though air pollution harms your children’s lungs and shortens their lives, they are going to die someday anyway, so we might as well save profits and keep on polluting.

Using the no-action scenario “is a textbook example of how to lie with statistics,” said MIT Sloan School of Management professor John Sterman.

“First, the administration proposes vehicle efficiency policies that would do almost nothing [to fight climate change].

Then [the administration] makes their impact seem even smaller by comparing their proposals to what would happen if the entire world does nothing.”

This week, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned leaders gathered in New York, “If we do not change course in the next two years, we risk runaway climate change . . . Our future is at stake.”

In the Trump administration, today’s corporate profits take precedence over the future of the world.

Federal and independent research cites “evidence of climate-induced changes,” such as more frequent droughts, floods, severe storms and heat waves, and estimates that seas could rise nearly three feet globally by 2100 if the world does not decrease its carbon output.

Two articles published in the journal Science since late July — both co-authored by federal scientists — predicted that the global landscape could be transformed “without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” and declared that soaring temperatures worldwide bore humans’ “fingerprint.”

“With this administration, it’s almost as if this science is happening in another galaxy,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate and energy program. “That feedback isn’t informing the policy.”

The only thing that can turn the tide is voter outrage, and the only question is, how much evidence is required to cause your outrage?

The debate comes after a troubling summer of devastating wildfires, record-breaking heat and a catastrophic hurricane — each of which, federal scientists say, signals a warming world.

Ash from wildfires that covered Washington residents’ car hoods this summer, and the acrid smoke that filled their air, has made more voters of both parties grasp the real-world implications of climate change.

And then there’s this article from Inside Climate News:

Trump Targets Obama’s Methane Rules in Latest Climate Policy Rollbacks
BY MARIANNE LAVELLE
Interior lifts limits on methane leaks from oil and gas drilling on federal land

In its latest retreat from federal action on climate change, the Trump administration moved to lift two more rules on the leaking and uncontrolled release of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and natural gas operations.

California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols said, “It’s an attack on public health and continues the administration’s dereliction of duty to protect air quality, taxpayer dollars and the environment.”

Trump’s policies will kill more of your children, and their children, than have any mass-murderer in history.

Not only will millions die unnecessarily early, but the entire world will suffer — all because of the buffoonery of one foolish man.

The revelations go on and on:

Climate change could render many of Earth’s ecosystems unrecognizable
By Sarah Kaplan The Washington Post Aug 30, 2018

“Even as someone who has spent more than 40 years thinking about vegetation change looking into the past … it is really hard for me to wrap my mind around the magnitude of change we’re talking about,” said ecologist Stephen Jackson, director of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Southwest Climate Science Adaptation Center.

Some of the predicted ecological shifts are already happening, Jackson said. Where he lives in the Southwest, severe wildfires are destroying ponderosa pine forests that have existed for generations; constant high temperatures and prolonged drought prevent the pines from regenerating in the aftermath.

Jackson noted that the shade provided by ponderosa pines helps preserve snowpack well into the start of summer. The later meltwater is necessary to sustain the streams and rivers on which plants, animals, farms and cities all depend.

The loss of these pines will trigger domino effects all across the watershed, altering landscapes from the mountains to the sea.

Let us conclude with another Trump idiocy:

Trump’s ‘ridiculous’ tweet about California wildfires

President Trump’s concern? Water.

Image result for forest fire burns homes

Plenty of water but too much heat and dry foliage.

“California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amounts of readily available water to be properly utilized,” the US President wrote on Twitter. “It is being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Think of California with plenty of Water,” he added. “Nice!”

The problem with his tweets, according to environmental scientists and California water experts, is that there’s way more than enough water available to fight the wildfires in California.

Plus, they say, Trump is ignoring the critical issue of climate change, which has raised global temperatures and intensified droughts, making wildfires in the West bigger and more likely.

“This seems to be a confused attempt to conflate the terrible California wildfires with our always contentious debates over water,” said Peter Gleick, an environmental scientist and former MacArthur Fellow who is president emeritus of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California.

“(Trump) implied there wasn’t enough water to fight the fires in California because of our water policies — which is complete nonsense.

There’s plenty of water to fight the fires. We don’t even use that much water to fight the fires, but there’s plenty.

Three of the state’s largest bodies of water are very close to these fires. It’s just ridiculous.”

I’ll tell you what’s ridiculous. Trump and the Republicans intentionally damaging the earth and the futures of all its inhabitants, for the sake of immediate, corporate profits. That’s what’s ridiculous.

And you know what else is ridiculous. People standing by, and letting these boobs destroy our world. That’s really ridiculous.

What is the solution?

There is an election coming up this November. You know the solution.

Don’t sit on your butt, allowing it all to happen to you.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

That ol’ debt crisis, it just keeps loomin’, it keeps on loomin’ along. Saturday, Sep 29 2018 

On February 10, 2016, we published, “From ‘ticking time bomb’ to ‘looming collapse.‘”

The post described the fact that in 1940 the following article was published:

Sept 26, 1940, New York Times: Deficit Financing is Hit by Hanes: ” . . . unless an end is put to deficit financing, to profligate spending and to indifference as to the nature and extent of governmental borrowing, the nation will surely take the road to dictatorship, Robert M. Hanes, president of the American Bankers Association asserted today.

He said, “insolvency is the time-bomb which can eventually destroy the American system . . . the Federal debt . . . threatens the solvency of the entire economy.”

At the time, the federal debt was a paltry $40 billion.

In the 78 years that followed, week after week, month after month, many thousands of similar articles have been published by “experts,” each warning about the imminent crisis we faced because of the increasing federal debt.

Today, the misnamed “debt” has reached $16 Trillion, a gigantic 40,000% increase from the 1940 level, and the economy is humming.

You might wish that after 78 years of being wrong, wrong, wrong, the “experts” might have learned something, if not facts, then at least, humility. Sadly, your wish has not been granted.

According to the latest “expert” to pontificate, John Steele Gordon, the debt crisis still “looms.”

Image result for john steele gordon

John Steele Gordon

The Looming Debt Crisis
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 BY JOHN STEELE GORDON
Everyone has a credit limit.

The New York Times has a frontpage story this morning on how the rising federal debt will soon begin to crowd out other federal spending.

His impressive bio reads, “He specializes in business and financial history. He has had articles published in Forbes, Forbes ASAP, Worth, the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed pages, the Washington Post’s Book World and Outlook. He is a contributing editor at American Heritage, where he has written the “Business of America” column since 1989.

“Everyone” may have a credit limit, but the U.S. federal government is not like “everyone.” It does not have a credit limit. What it does have is the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency.

Do you have a sovereign currency? No? Neither do I. But the federal government has one, and it’s called, “the U.S. dollar.” The sovereign federal government can create endless sovereign dollars, with which to pay its bills.

How does federal “debt,” which actually is the total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts, at the Federal Reserve, “crowd out” other spending?

How can interest-paying bank deposits “crowd out” federal spending?

Does “crowd out” mean that paying interest on the “debt” (deposits) will leave less for other spending? No.

Perhaps the clue to Mr. Gordon’s “thinking” can be found in his article:

In the not too distant future, interest payments on the debt could pass military spending.

The Times is right, although it ascribes the impending crisis to both the Trump tax cuts and the rise in interest rates, which the Fed has slowly increased to normal levels after years of near-zero rates following the onset of the recession in 2008.

Crowding out? Check the following graph:

Federal spending: Blue line. Federal interest payments: Green line. No sign of federal spending being “crowded out.”

The “crowd out” claim is utter nonsense.

In essence, Mr. Gordon tells you the federal government is running short of dollars. Yikes!

He seems to believe that because the Treasury will take in fewer dollars (because of tax cuts), and will spend more dollars (because of interest rate increases), the U.S. Treasury will experience a dollar shortage. That’s the “impending crisis.”

Despite Mr. Gordon’s “expert” credentials, and his gloomy predictions, the federal government cannot run short of dollars to pay for goods, for services, for interest, for benefits, and for anything else it wants to pay for.

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills.

So what is the crisis? Again, no one knows. It’s a fake crisis. It’s been a fake crisis since 1940.

Gordon’s article continues:

But federal receipts are up in 2018 by $24 billion, not down, arguably because of the tax cuts.

A booming economy automatically increases tax receipts as companies have higher profits, employees have bigger incomes, and Wall Street has greater capital gains.

The problem lies not with the tax cuts but, as always, with spending. We spent in deficit during the recession, as we always have.

The deficit in 2009 was $1.412 trillion, higher than the entire national debt as recently as 1983. But in times of prosperity, the government should spend in surplus, or at least hold spending steady.

Oh, geez, this really is getting bad. Gordon says, “The problem lies not with the tax cuts but, as always, with spending.”

I hate to break it him, but from the standpoint of the so-called deficit “problem,” tax cuts and spending are identical. One reduces Treasury income; the other increases Treasury outgo. Same result.

But so what? The Treasury cannot run short of dollars. Even if all tax collections were $0, and federal spending tripled, the government could continue paying its bills, forever.

Image result for ben bernanke

Ben Bernanke

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Gordon does not understand that the federal government not only has no need for income, but it actually destroys the dollars it receives.

That’s right. The U.S. Treasury destroys every one of those precious tax dollars you work so hard to earn. The instant those dollars are received, they cease to be a part of any money supply — not M1, not M2, nor M3, not L, not any. Gone.

If you were to ask how much money the federal government has, the question would be nonsensical, for the answer would either be “infinite” or “none.” The U.S. federal government creates brand new dollars, every time it spends dollars.

Side note: State and local governments, being monetarily non-sovereign, don’t have this ability. Your tax payments to your state and local governments are needed and used, not destroyed.

That is a fundamental difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty.

Gordon’s article continues:

In 1946, the debt was $269 billion, equal to almost 130 percent of GDP. But in the next 14 years, we added only $17 billion to the debt and the booming American economy of those years reduced the debt/GDP ratio to 58 percent.

By 1970, it had fallen to 39 percent of GDP. The roaring inflation of the 1970s reduced the percentage to 34 percent, despite a tripling of the debt in dollar terms.

In the 1980s, inflation waned but spending did not and the debt-to-GDP ratio climbed sharply.

After the Republicans swept the election of 1994, Congress kept spending in check. Outlays between 1994 and 2000 rose by 22 percent, while receipts rose by fully 61 percent. Again, the debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 69 percent to 57 percent.

This past May, we published, “Enough already, with the Debt/GDP ratio.” The post included this line:

The Federal Debt/GDP ratio is absolutely meaningless, a useless, designed-to-be-misleading number that has been foisted on an innocent public.

The misnamed federal “debt” actually is the total of deposits into T-security accounts,  which are similar to bank savings accounts.

GDP is total spending in the U.S. Why on earth would anyone worry about the ratio of deposits in the Federal Reserve Bank vs. spending? The federal government does not use GDP to pay its debts.

Gordon’s misleading article drones on:

If the federal government was able to restrain spending to match receipts in the postwar years in the 1990s, it can obviously do so now.

At some point, even the United States can max out its credit card.

Gordon, the professional economics writer, doesn’t understand the fundamental differences between federal (i.e. Monetarily Sovereign) financing and personal (i.e. monetarily non-sovereign) financing.

The federal government doesn’t have or need anything remotely resembling a “credit card.” It creates unlimited dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.

Image result for alan greenspan

Alan Greenspan

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

But since Congress seized control of the budget process in 1974 with the wildly misnamed Budget Control Act, fiscal discipline has been in short supply.

A Congress elected on a fiscal discipline platform can do it, as it did in the 1990s.

But unless the government starts keeping honest books and the president is given the power to control total spending, we are going to stumble into disaster sooner rather than later.

If you owned a money machine, and like the U.S. government, you had the unlimited ability to create dollars, what would be the meaning of “fiscal discipline”?

If you owed a million, a billion, or a trillion dollars, but you could create unlimited dollars, would you be “stumbling into disaster”?

The worst financial disaster currently facing America is the ongoing, incessant series of articles like Gordon’s, warning America that the federal deficit and debt are too large.

The effect of these articles, if not the purpose, is to make you believe the federal government cannot afford your social benefits, or your taxes must be raised. Both are lies.

The federal government easily could afford the “Ten Steps to Prosperity” (below), while cutting taxes. And because the government is sovereign over the dollar, it has the unlimited power to control the value of the U.S. dollar, i.e to control inflation.

How? Interest rate control is the method the Fed uses. (Raising interest rates increases the demand for dollars, making dollars stronger, i.e. more valuable.)

In more extreme cases, a Monetarily Sovereign government simply can set the value of a dollar by fiat. When the Monetarily Sovereign UK devalued the pound in 1967, and the Monetarily Sovereign Mexico devalued the peso in 1994, they did so by fiat. They had absolute control over their sovereign currencies.

Even the U.S. often has revalued its dollar by fiat, when it has changed the relationship to silver and gold.

In summary:

  1. The U.S. cannot run short of dollars to pay its bills. Even if federal tax collects fell to  $0 and spending tripled, the federal government could continue to spend and pay creditors, forever.
  2. Social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other poverty aids cannot run short of funding unless Congress wills it.
  3. The federal government could afford to eliminate the FICA payroll tax and income taxes, while providing such benefits as Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America, monthly bonuses for all, free education for all, even a salary for attending school.
  4. Being sovereign over the dollar, the U.S. government has the unlimited ability to set the value of the dollar by fiat, i.e. to control inflation.

Pay no attention to scare stories about how the federal deficit and debt are too high, when they, in fact,  are too low. Deficit and debt reductions lead to recessions and depressions. 

Economic growth requires money growth; the federal government is the one agency that has the unlimited ability to grow the economy.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Ford-Kavanaugh. Who’s lying? Two easy ways to tell. Friday, Sep 28 2018 

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh — they tell markedly different stories. One is telling the truth, or what they believe to be the truth; the other is lying.Image result for christine blasey ford

You probably have formed an opinion about them, an opinion that may be based on their appearance and general demeanor, or your political leanings, or your gender.

(Or perhaps you are one of the three people in America who doesn’t know and doesn’t care.)

For the majority, you not only have an opinion, but you probably have a strong opinion, despite the relative dearth of evidence.  That is a symptom.

Generally, the fewer facts available to support a conclusion, the stronger the emotions that support the opinion. Consider, for instance, religion, where facts being almost completely absent leads to passionate belief.Image result for brett kavanaugh

Though in the Ford/Kavanaugh debate facts are scarce, there are two ways in which you reliably can determine who is lying and who is telling the truth.

You just need to answer two questions:

Question 1. Motive: Who has the most to gain from lying?

Dr. Ford has nothing to gain. She does not have a book deal pending, nor is she being paid for her testimony. She is not a fame-seeker.

On the contrary, her life has been ripped asunder by hateful criticisms, even death threats, from the right-wing crazies.

She knew this would happen — all women know and fear this — which is why so many women do not report sexual abuse.

Yet she went ahead, out of a feeling of moral obligation and/or patriotism. In her opinion, having a drunk and a rapist on the highest court of the land would be intolerable.

By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh has much to gain. He is grasping for one of the best jobs in the world, a lifetime sinecure and no bosses:

CNBC: If confirmed, Kavanaugh, only 53, will become one of the most powerful and influential people in government for what could be decades, and he’ll lock in a healthy six-figure salary, too.

Associate justices on the Supreme Court make $255,300. These salaries usually increase by $2,000-$3,000 each year.

A seat on the court comes with some desirable benefits. Federal judges have the option to enroll in insurance plans through the Federal Employee Health Benefits system, whose website claims it offers “the widest selection of health plans in the country.

And justices can look forward to a generous retirement package. If they retire at 70 after serving 10 years, or at 65 after serving 15 years, they qualify for an annual pension equal to their highest full salary.

There is also a summer break between July and October. It’s when justices do most of their traveling, much of which is subsidized, and when they lecture and teach for extra pay.

Former justice Antonin Scalia reported going on 28 separate trips to lecture and teach in 2013, and Clarence Thomas earned more than $27,000 in 2015 for lectures at Brigham Young University, Creighton University and George Washington University.

Stephen Breyer reported $45,000 in royalties in 2016 from his book, “The Court and the World,” while Sonia Sotomayor has earned millions for her 2013 memoir, “My Beloved World.”

By contrast, Kavanaugh claimed to have only $65,000 in assets, which doesn’t necessarily include items such as cars or mortgages.

Plenty of motive for lying.

Question 2. Desire: Who has demonstrated the eagerness to seek the truth?

Ford took, and passed, a  polygraph test. Though these tests do not provide reliable measures, her mere volunteering for the test indicates her desire for the truth.

More important is her stated wish to have her claims investigated by the FBI. A liar would not ask for an FBI investigation.

Ford also wants her witnesses to be questioned, under oath, and their claims investigated by the FBI. That too, says much about her veracity. Amazingly, the committee has refused to investigate the testimony of the one witness to the claimed rape attempt.

Contrast Ford’s actions with Kavanaugh’s, he who has refused to answer a simple “yes/no” question: “Will you ask the committee to have the FBI conduct an independent investigation of Dr. Ford’s claims?”

He was asked this question repeatedly, and repeatedly evaded, avoided and refused to answer. Clearly, he does not want the FBI verifying the claims against him.

His defenders responded to the question with spitting anger, that such a question even should be asked, and they have blocked every request for an inquiry.

Liars often act insulted by being questioned.

No truthful person would find that question offensive. If Ford were lying, one would expect it to be her defenders who would object to the question.

Kavanaugh even claimed that the concern about his fitness, and Dr. Ford’s testimony, was motivated by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” Paranoia or desperation?

Bottom line, two simple determinants, involving motive to lie and desire for the truth, lead one to the easy conclusion about who is lying and who is telling the truth.

So, for those who feel that youthful drunkness, plus attempted rape, plus the desire to hide the truth, plus repeated lying and evasiveness before a Senate committee, should not disqualify one for the best job in the world, they are about to be pleased.

The party in power, and the President, presumably agree with them.

But if you disagree, show your displeasure in November. Or stay home and just let the liars own you.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

« Previous PageNext Page »

%d bloggers like this: