TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[JackRiddler]

This is easy to beat, we shall see if Clinton and Crew have a clue. She can invite students from Trump University. Workers he's stiffed. People he's evicted or otherwise screwed. Etc.

For any patsies left among you, it's superfluous to say: notice it's Gennifer Flowers and not, say, a child who suffered burns from drone bombings in the 2009-2012 period.

[seemslikeadream]

GRAYZONE PROJECT
Far-Right Trump Consultant to Be Honored Speaker at Illinois Police SWAT Training
Role of anti-Muslim pundit Sebastian Gorka in police conference is raising eyebrows.
By Sarah Lazare / AlterNet September 23, 2016

An upcoming Chicagoland SWAT training and arms expo for police officers from across Illinois will feature a talk by far-right national security “expert” Sebastian Gorka—an anti-Muslim extremist who argues that the United States is a "Christian nation" and boosted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump while having taken payments from the GOP candidate.

Gorka’s invitation to speak at the Illinois Tactical Officers Association (ITOA) conference, slated to take place in mid October, is raising concern among human rights campaigners, who say the engagement underscores the “toxic racism and Islamophobia” on display at the event.

“Sebastian [Gorka's] entire career is largely built from, and continues to flame the fire of, Islamophobic fear-mongering tactics post-9/11,” said Hoda Katebi, an organizer and artist with For The People Artists Collective and communications coordinator for the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “This toxic climate of militarization and fear of an ‘ever-looming threat of radical Islam’ is rampant across local and federal institutions and manifests in ever-more violent policing, military-grade equipment for local police, heightened surveillance and entrapment and increased spending on policing rather than community services, to name a few examples.”

'Making a Living off of Islamophobia'

Gorka, who did not reply to a request for an interview, is a regular pundit on Fox News and a national security editor for the publication Breitbart. He was hired by Stephen Bannon, who now serves as the chief of Trump's presidential campaign. In October 2015, Gorka received $8000 from Trump while working at Breitbart. Articles about Gorka's cable news punditry are often framed to highlight his endorsement of Trump's off-the-cuff remarks on national security.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, over the past year Breitbart “has undergone a noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant ideas—all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the ‘Alt-Right.’”

Gorka’s writings and numerous press appearances appear to be in line with this trajectory.

In a July 15 appearance on Fox News, Gorka appealed to the United States’ supposed heritage as a Christian nation to argue for the monitoring and tracking of Syrian refugees living in the United States. “We don't know where the refugees from war zones are living in America?” he said. “We're a Christian nation, we should be charitable to those in need. But charity is not an excuse for suicide.”

Pressed on his remark about a Christian nation, Gorka replied: “The capital C creator in our founding document, who do you think the founding fathers were referring to—Allah?”

In his book Defeating Jihad, published in April of 2016, Gorka argued that the U.S. should wage a Cold-War style ideological battle against “jihad”—which he claims is rooted in Islam itself.

He reiterated this point in an article from June, in which he argued, “Ultimately we will win when the ideology of global jihadism is no longer attractive to young men and women from Orlando to Brussels, from Paris to San Bernardino. That can only be done through a strategic-level counter-propaganda campaign driven by the White House, in exactly the same way that we did during the Cold War.”

Going further, Gorka has repeatedly called for the expansion of police powers to conduct suspicionless spying on Muslim communities. In a 2014 defense of NYPD mapping and surveillance of Muslim neighborhoods, he proclaimed: “What was Osama bin Laden? Muslim… Do we think these individuals hang out in Hindu ashrams or Catholic community centers? No. they hang out in mosques… Are we really saying the NYPD should be going into Jewish temples to find Muslim terrorists?”

Furthermore, Gorka’s own bio advertises his ties to mercenary companies and military institutions, stating that he “serves as the Vice President and Professor of Strategy and Irregular Warfare at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, DC. Previously, he was the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University where he provided courses and lectures on Irregular Warfare. Before that, he was Associate Dean of Congressional Affairs and Relations to the Special Operations Community at National Defense University.”

The ITOA, for its part, describes Gorka as an “Internationally Recognized Terrorist Expert, Author and Trainer” in its advertisement for his talk, which is titled, “Terrorist Threat—Trends and Predictions."

Melisa Stephen, a member of the For the People Artists Collective, told AlterNet that it makes a lot of sense” that someone like Gorka would be featured at the ITOA Conference, stating: “We're talking about a man who worked as a policy consultant for Donald Trump's campaign, who frequents Fox News and makes a living off Islamophobia.”

“It's important to note that Islamophobia is employed to justify police militarization, including increased partnerships between weapons manufacturers and law enforcement agencies,” Stephen continued. “This is how we get organizations like ITOA that teach local law enforcement how to use military equipment and tactics that they then use to continue killing black, brown and indigenous people at alarming rates.”

Fueling Police Militarization

Gorka is not the only source of controversy over the ITOA’s 29th annual conference, which is slated to last five days and will take place in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, which is an hour from Chicago.

Registered as a not-for-profit corporation, The IOTA’s stated purpose is to “advance the education and professionalism of law enforcement officers involved in Emergency Response functions through the exchange of ideas and information relating to tactics, techniques and to further the networking and interrelation of departments and personnel.”

However, human rights campaigners say that the organization is fueling a war-like mentality within police departments. The Stop ITOA Coalition, which includes the organizations Assata’s Daughters, American Friends Service Committee and War Resisters League, said in a statement:

While Chicago is still reeling from budget cuts that have resulted in the closure of over 50 public schools, mental health clinics, and severe cuts to social services, the city spends over $4 million a day on the Chicago police alone. ITOA is directly involved in training and arming those police, even using empty school buildings as training grounds for Cook County officers. Weapons manufacturers from around the world also use ITOA to sell military grade equipment to local police forces—equipment that shocked the country when it was deployed against civilians in places like Ferguson, Minneapolis and Baton Rouge (and is used regularly by repressive governments such as Israel).

Notably, the weapons company Safariland is providing classes on classes on "less lethal technologies," "hostage rescue" and "high-risk warrant service." In addition, retired military officials are slated to teach workshops titled, “Video Diagnostics Tac Rifle & Pistol” and “designated marksman.”

The ITOA, meanwhile, is just one of numerous Tactical Officers Associations around the country. The annual New York Tactical Officers Association conference attracted outcry this summer when it extended a speaking invitation to Ryan Mauro, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist who is designated an extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Meanwhile, organizers in Illinois say they have faced a campaign of harassment after launching the Stop ITOA campaign. Debbie Southorn, a staff member of the American Friends Service Committee in Chicago and core organizer with Stop ITOA, wrote in a statement released this week: “On Monday, September 12th, a small group of organizers, myself included, launched a public campaign to #StopITOA. Less than a week later, my office was burglarized overnight and only my locked up laptop was stolen, although there were computers and other valuables out and left untouched.”

The ITOA did not respond to a request for an interview submitted over email. Reached by phone, Eric Perkins from the Elk Grove police department who serves on the board of the ITOA, told AlterNet, "I am not at liberty to make any statements."
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-projec ... t-training

[seemslikeadream]

Analysis: How Donald Trump's Internet policy would benefit Russia
Brian Fung Washington Post 18 hrs ago
Thorough reporting by many journalists, at The Washington Post and elsewhere, have uncovered extensive ties between Donald Trump on the one hand and Russia on the other. Trump's own statements make little secret of his personal admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he has praised for having "great control over his country." And Trump seemed to have openly solicited Russian hacking of the U.S. election, to the point that critics have accused him of treason.

So it may seem surprising to hear Trump suddenly change his tone on Russia this week over an obscure battle on Internet policy. Taking a swipe at Russia's support for Internet censorship, a Trump policy adviser warned Wednesday of giving the Kremlin too much say in how the Internet should be governed. The statement reads like a snub to Putin - that is, until you realize that Trump's own policy would wind up giving the Russian leader precisely what he wants.

Let's start with the policy itself. What Trump opposes is the decision by the U.S. government to officially let an international non-profit manage the Internet's domain name system, or the DNS. The DNS is what helps computers understand what you mean when you type in an address like google.com. And this non-profit organization, known as ICANN, has already been managing the DNS for decades. This organization is made up of businesses, public interest groups, and yes, governments like the United States's, China's and Russia's.

On paper, the United States is technically still in control; it's simply been contracting out the job to ICANN for the past 20-odd years. But by ceding that symbolic authority to ICANN for the first time, the United States will be handing over its responsibility. To that extent, it's true that foreign regimes will technically see an increase in influence over the Internet.

Exactly how much is where people disagree. Opponents of the transition, like Trump, essentially argue that it amounts to a historic crisis. In the words of Trump adviser Stephen Miller on Wednesday:

"Internet freedom is now at risk with the President's intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost."

Another leader in making these remarks has been Republican Senator Ted Cruz, Texas, who's been beating this drum for months.

This argument is basically wrong, according to some of the Internet's most respected experts. Take Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web in 1989. He calls the argument put forward by Trump and Cruz "misguided." He also adds that the United States can no more "control" ICANN to prevent Russia from meddling with the Internet than Russia can bend ICANN to serve its own ends.

"Sen. Cruz's plan to ride to the defense of the Internet on a white horse is based on a fundamental misconception," Berners-Lee wrote in a recent op-ed for The Post.

Although Russia could seek loopholes in the new system, many experts - even some Republican-leaning ones - say the danger is indirect at best. That's because ICANN is explicitly set up to prevent any one stakeholder from having too much say.



For example, governments can only give advice to ICANN's decision-making board, and then only as a committee. Assuming the governments all agreed on a course of action - which would be unlikely if, say, Russia and the United States were at odds over some policy - the decision-making board can still vote to reject their recommendation. And if there isn't a consensus? The board doesn't have to take the governmental committee's advice into account at all.

Couldn't Russia or China try an end-run and stack the board with its people? It's a possibility, but one that's likely remote, according to the Internet pioneer Vint Cerf.

"A great many conditions must be satisfied" before anything like that could occur, Cerf wrote in May.

Moreover, even if Russia somehow managed to assert control over ICANN, the non-profit would have little way of directly censoring the Internet, according to Berners-Lee. The DNS is responsible for little more than cataloging the Internet's names and addresses - it doesn't control what you see when you arrive at a website. And governments like Russia's already censor the Internet with few checks on their power, said Berners-Lee; they don't need ICANN's rubber stamp to do so.

In short, policy experts are coming out of the woodwork to say that Cruz and Trump are wrong. Their argument earned them three Pinocchios from my colleague Glenn Kessler, who writes The Washington Post's Fact Checker column (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ?tid=a_inl).

Beyond its incorrectness, Trump's preferred policy - stopping the transition - would ironically wind up helping Putin rather than undermining him, critics say.

"If the U.S. is forced to abort the transition now it would play right into the hands of authoritarian states," according to Milton Mueller, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "'Look,' they will say, 'the U.S. wants to control the Internet, why can't we?'"

If this is how Trump's policy plays in Russia, it could ultimately backfire against U.S. interests in a free and open Internet. (A Trump spokesperson didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.)

As long as the United States retains its "authority" over the Internet DNS - which is mostly symbolic anyway - it risks giving other countries ammunition to claim that they, too, should be allowed to "control" the Internet in ways that suit themselves. Moving forward with the transition, experts say, largely takes that argument off the table.
http://napavalleyregister.com/news/nati ... e81c9.html

[seemslikeadream]

Trump Rape Accuser to Refile Suit in New York
By JOSH RUSSELL

MANHATTAN (CN) - A lawsuit filed by an anonymous plaintiff accusing Donald Trump of raping a teenager in the 1990's and threatening to kill her family, will be re-filed with an additional witness on board, the woman's attorney revealed Thursday.
Thomas Meagher, attorney for the Jane Doe plaintiff said they plan to re-file the complaint, accompanied by a new witness afidavit, as soon as the end of next week.
The original lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on September 16th.
The June 20, 2016, complaint accused the Republican presidential nominee and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein of rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and defamation.
It also included two declarations of support of the Jane Doe plaintiff's request for protective order.
The first declaration, signed by Jane Doe herself, detailed Trump's alleged "savage sexual attack" on the then-13-year-old plaintiff.
The plaintiff claims she was raped by Trump during a 1994 summer party thrown by billionaire Jeffrey Epstein at an Upper East Side mansion on East 71st St.
The Jane Doe plaintiff claims Trump ignored her loud pleas to stop, struck her with an open hand and threatened to harm, if not kill her and her entire family if she ever revealed details of the assault.
The second declaration was signed by pseudonymous Tiffany Doe, who said she was hired by Jeffrey Epstein throughout the 1990s to recruit adolescent women to attend the billionaire's parties.
Tiffany Doe claims she convinced the then-13-year-old plaintiff to attend the parties as a means to break in to New York's professional modeling world.
In her declaration, Tiffany Doe says she witnessed four sexual encounters in which Jane Doe was forced to have sex with Trump, and two encounters involving the plaintiff and Jeffrey Epstein.
The Tiffany Doe declaration included Epstein's threats against her and her family for disclosing the details of any sexual abuse of minors by Epstein and his party guests, swearing under penalty of perjury that she understands that her and her family's lives are "now in grave danger."
The complaint asserts that because the litigation involves highly sensitive matters of very personal nature, identification of the anonymous plaintiff "would pose a risk of retaliatory physical harm to her and to others."
The plaintiff says after initially filing her complaint in California last spring, she received threatening phone calls. That lawsuit was later dismissed.
Meagher's law office is located in Princeton, New Jersey.
Alan Garten, executive vice president and general counsel for the Trump Organization, told Courthouse News via email that Meagher's allegations "are completely frivolous and appear to be politically motivated."
"Accordingly, we have warned Mr. Meagher that in the event he decides to refile his complaint we will seek to have him sanctioned," Garten said.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/2 ... w-york.htm

[seemslikeadream]

Impeach Trump? Immediately? No.

The last thing reasonable people should want is Trump winning, I suppose I have to agree. But the second-to-last would surely be seeing such an outcome morph into President Pence by February. If Trump wins, it's a fight, and quite possibly the good guys win. I'd prefer a late impeachment, lest we get the setup for a Pence reelection. But as I've made clear: I'd Rather Fight Her! (Which sentiment shouldn't be confused with my voting for anyone other than Jill Stein.)

University of Utah finds legal case to impeach Trump should he be elected
by Sara WeberThursday, September 22nd 2016


(KUTV) Researchers at the University of Utah say there's a strong case to impeach Donald Trump, should he be elected as president.
Law professor Christopher Peterson said he found ample evidence to charge the Republican candidate with fraud and racketeering, both of which are considered felonies within state and federal law.
In his analysis “Trump University and Presidential Impeachment,” Peterson looked at Trump University, where students spent close to $30,000 to learn about practicing real estate. The for-profit college advertised curriculum and instructors chosen by Trump that promised students a high-caliber and selective experience.

But Trump University, according to Peterson, was unaccredited and taught students get-rich-quick schemes. The school closed in 2010 but still faces numerous lawsuits that could cast a shadow over his presidency, Peterson said.
“In the United States, it is illegal for businesses to use false statements to convince consumers to purchase their services,” explained Peterson. “The evidence indicates that Trump University used a systemic pattern of fraudulent representations to trick thousands of families into investing in a program that can be argued was a sham. Fraud and racketeering are serious crimes that legally rise to the level of impeachable acts.”

Peterson also said Congress can push for an impeachment in civil cases — the president doesn't need to be criminally convicted — and that it can consider crimes committed before the candidate was elected to office.
The Trump University legal battle could become a talking point during the highly-anticipated debate between Hilllary Clinton and Trump on Monday.
http://kutv.com/news/local/university-o ... each-trump

[seemslikeadream]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQueaSlvjCw

"That list was actually only half its original length and it still took nearly 17 minutes to read aloud, and since then, to my amazement, I have discovered at least two other lists that included dozens of other events that had flown by in such volume and so quickly that I had never even noticed them," Olbermann admits.

Olbermann has since prepared a new list and most items on it have taken place just since September 9, although a few were ones he previously missed.

According to Olbermann, "Trump has:

1) attacked Hillary Clinton for contracting pneumonia

2) attacked her and implied she was concealing still other illnesses

3) attacked her again with a false claim that she wants to eliminate the Second Amendment and then...

4) suggested her bodyguards be disarmed and quote 'let's see what happens to her'

5) attacked her a third time on Twitter, just in case anybody miss that dog whistle for somebody to try to shoot her

6) attacked her during a supposedly nonpartisan speech to the poisoned water victims of Flint, Michigan

7) attacked the pastor in Flint, Michigan, who interrupted him and asked him to stop attacking Clinton

attacked the residents of Flint, Michigan, for their crime rate

9) attacked the United States [by labeling it a] 'third world country'

10) attacked America's inner cities as more dangerous than parts of Afghanistan

11) attacked a former CIA director as 'dopey' after the man wrote an article critical of him

12) attacked Maureen Dowd of The New York Times after she was critical of him ... and called her a 'dope, wacky, neurotic, crazy'

13) attacked The New York Times as quote 'laughingstock, failing, nuts, a rag'

14) claimed he talked his lawyers out of suing [The NY Times] for irresponsible intent when there is no such law, legal term or provision applicable to a newspaper

15) attacked CNN and the network's president personally after suggesting its documentary about him was inaccurate even though he repeatedly said he no longer ever watched CNN

16) attacked a Fox News commentator confined to a wheelchair as quote 'a guy that can't buy a pair of pants'

17) attacked Asian businessmen in a stereotype accent claiming they only say quote 'we want deal'

18) attacked Jewish businessmen claiming, 'I'm a negotiator like you folks, we're negotiators, and you're not going to support me because I don't want your money'

19) lied about Hillary Clinton planning to literally abolish American borders

20) lied about whether or not Hillary Clinton had begun birtherism."

Olbermann has 54 more; That's just the top 20.

Watch:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/k ... 0-terrible

[seemslikeadream]

Shamed and Angry: The Beauty Contestant Donald Trump Mocked for Her Weight
By MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEYSEPT. 27, 2016


Alicia Machado, who won the Miss Universe pageant in 1996, was photographed in May of this year in Los Angeles. Credit Emily Berl for The New York Times
For 20 years, Alicia Machado has lived with the agony of what Donald J. Trump did to her after she won the Miss Universe title: shame her, over and over, for gaining weight.

Private scolding was apparently insufficient. Mr. Trump, at the time an executive producer of the pageant, insisted on accompanying Ms. Machado, then a teenager, to a gym, where dozens of reporters and cameramen watched as she exercised.

Mr. Trump, in his trademark suit and tie, posed for photographs beside her as she burned calories in front of the news media. “This is somebody who likes to eat,” Mr. Trump said from inside the gym.

On Monday night, Hillary Clinton turned Ms. Machado’s pain into a potent political weapon on the biggest possible stage.

In the process, the first female nominee of a major party elevated a largely forgotten tale of Mr. Trump, when his oversight of beauty pageants collided with his unforgiving fixation with female beauty.

And Mrs. Clinton put a spotlight on Ms. Machado, who says she never fully recovered from the experience. Miss Universe 1996, who grew up in Venezuela, said she had suffered eating disorders and psychological trauma as a result of the episode.

“I was sick — anorexia and bulimia for five years,” she said in an interview with The New York Times in May. “I was 18. My personality wasn’t created yet. I was just a girl.”

Mr. Trump has acknowledged pressuring her to lose weight, saying it was her job as Miss Universe to remain in peak physical shape. On Tuesday morning, he made no apologies for that.

Photo

Donald J. Trump and Ms. Machado, 20 years ago. Credit Steve Eichner/WireImage, via Getty Images
“She gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem,” Mr. Trump told Fox News.

On the debate stage, Mrs. Clinton seized on his conduct. At the end of Monday night’s 90-minute confrontation, she reminded viewers of Mr. Trump’s frequently crude remarks about women and their bodies.

“One of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them,” Mrs. Clinton said, as she slowly unfurled the story.

“And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she was Latina.”

Mrs. Clinton paused.

“Donald, she has a name: Her name is Alicia Machado.”

Mr. Trump, clearly furious, interrupted.

“Where did you find this? Where did you find this?”

Mrs. Clinton concluded with a kicker looking forward to Election Day.

“She has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet she’s going to vote this November.”

Ms. Machado, in a series of interviews this year with The Times, recalled the experience and its long-term impact on her life for an article about how Mr. Trump treats women.

By her account, she gained about 12 pounds after becoming Miss Universe. Mr. Trump was not pleased. He said she had gained even more.

Ms. Machado recalled the specific taunts from Mr. Trump that Mrs. Clinton invoked on Monday night during the debate, as well as another sobriquet: “Miss Eating Machine.”

Now, Ms. Machado is an avid supporter of Mrs. Clinton. She has appeared in an ad criticizing him.

The scar, she says, still remains.

“Over the past 20 years,” she said, “I’ve gone to a lot of psychologists to combat this.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/po ... .html?_r=0

[backtoiam]

seemslikeadream this question has been circling my mind for a long time.

Hillary defended a rapist. Not only did she defend one she was responsible for having his victims bullied and terrified into silence. She is also a career criminal who along with her husband looted the Haiti relief fund and left those people (black people) in squallor and disease to rot in misery. She bombed and incinerated brown children.

Why is she not as bad as Trump or worse? I don't get it.

[seemslikeadream]

who is this rapist?

what POTUS is not a criminal?

[backtoiam]

who is this rapist?

what POTUS is not a criminal?

What do you mean who? Her husband.

[seemslikeadream]

when was he convicted of rape?

who did he rape?

What POTUS is not a criminal?

[backtoiam]

when was he convicted of rape?

who did he rape?

What POTUS is not a criminal?

I didn't think you would acknowledge it. Nevermind.

[seemslikeadream]

tell me who you are talking about?

and when was he convicted?


who did Hillary rape?

Why isn't Bill Clinton in jail?

and if you can't answer my questions don't ask me to answer yours because I don't know what the fuck you are talking about

Trump is a pig..not qualified to eat slop

[Luther Blissett]

It's strange not to follow up with the piece of history often used in feminist critiques. In 1975 Clinton defended the 42-year old rapist of a 12-year old girl, used expert testimony that claimed she was asking for it, and later on in interviews about the case laughed about certain aspects. I mean, this was 10 years after she had campaigned for the segregationist Goldwater so we might have to give her some benefit of the doubt that she's not a total Randian.

[The Consul]

I can understand attacking either of these candidates. Defending either of them requires a kind of concerted self deception that can attract a waste of sarcastic abuse. Which I guess is par for the course around here.