Friday, May 26, 2017

Vicente Fox, former Mexican President, makes a 4 min message to President Trump.

The video, which can be viewed in its entirety below, mocks many of Trump’s insecurities while poking fun at the president in a variety of clever ways.
When discussing the whole inauguration crowd size fiasco, Fox pulls out an inauguration picture of Trump and explains, “This is you in the most solemn moment of your life, thinking about how big your crowd was, worrying that the last guy had a bigger one than you. Donald, his is much bigger!”
Fox then pulls out a piece of chocolate cake in an effort to “make it easier for the bees living in [Trump’s] brain.”
While the video is mostly humorous in nature, there was a main theme throughout it and that was to convince Trump to include all Americans in his decision making and forget about helping the millionaires an billionaires in favor of the poor, less well off individuals.
Fox concludes his video by stating, “And if at the end of the four years you walk into Mar-a-Lago and the entire place erupts into boos, there is a chance that you have been a good president; maybe even a great one. But if you walk in and the millionaires and the billionaires greet you with cheers, then you have failed your country, your name is mud and history will grind you beneath her heels.

TRUMP RAISES HEALTH INSURANCE COST BY 22% because he refuses to fund CSRs. Cost would be 8% raise if CSRs funded.

“The failure of the administration and the House to bring certainty and clarity by funding CSRs has caused our company to file a 22.9 percent premium increase, rather than one that is materially lower,” Wilson told me. “That will impact hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.” The company says it has approximately half a million customers getting individual insurance via Obamacare.
“We filed a 22.9 rate increase for 2018 based on the assumption that the CSRs will not be in place,” Wilson also said. “The rate increase would be 8.8 percent if the CSRs were guaranteed for 2018. Because they are not, the rate is 22.9 percent.”
Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut off the CSRs. Doing so could cause many insurers to exit the market, potentially costing millions their insurance, while causing others to dramatically hike premiums. The administration paid them for May, but officials continue to refuse to say whether the payments will continue after that. The CSRs are tied up in court: House Republicans sued to stop them under Barack Obama, whose administration appealed the decision, and the payments continued pending the appeal, but the Trump administration has not said whether it will continue the appeal (dropping it would cause the payments to halt), and recently asked for a 90-day delay from the court while it mulls their fate. But this has only injected further uncertainty, and while some Congressional Republicans have said they think the funds must be appropriated to stabilize the situation, there’s no sign whether they actually will.
But it must be stressed that Trump’s own stated rationale for threatening to cut off the payments is just nonsense. The threat appears rooted in pique over the failure to secure the “win” of repeal. Trump has repeatedly said the threat will force Democrats to the table to make a deal on Obamacare’s future. But Republicans are currently pursuing a repeal-and-replace plan that would do a lot more damage to the law than ending the payments would, so it’s unclear why any Democrats would join them in that effort, in response to a threat to do relatively less (though still severe) damage. The only conceivable way Dems could make a deal with Trump is if he were open to fixing, rather than repealing, the law, which he isn’t.
Thus, the only thing Trump’s threat is really accomplishing is to drive up premiums for people. Even worse, the news out of North Carolina previews what could happen with other insurers in other states if Trump actually goes through with the threat to cut off the CSRs, and congressional Republicans don’t appropriate the money. The key point is that Blue Cross Blue Shield North Carolina is acting on the assumption that the CSRs will not be there. And in that scenario, the company has decided, massive premium hikes are necessary. So, if it comes to pass that the CSRs actually aren’t there, you will see similar premium hikes across the country.
“The effect will be the same across the country,” Wilson predicted. “Rates will be materially higher if CSRs aren’t funded.” Indeed, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study found that insurers would likely boost premiums on average nationally by 19 percent on some plans to compensate for it if the CSRs are halted.
One last point: This whole dynamic shows that one of the leading GOP health care talking points is also complete nonsense. Paul Ryan loves to say that Republicans are performing a “rescue mission” by stepping in to save people from the allegedly collapsing ACA by replacing it, and that they don’t want any people to be hurt in the transition. As it is, their “rescue mission” would result in 23 million people losing insurance over 10 years, and in soaring premiums for sick people, with many priced out of the market. But that aside, if their own stated goal is to avoid hurting people during the transition, it’s unclear why they would not fund the CSRs, since the failure to do so is going to hurt untold numbers of them.
* THE CSR DEBATE, IN ONE CHART: Here is a chart supplied by Blue Cross Blue shield North Carolina that explains their decision:

MONTANA REPUBLICAN WINS AFTER ATTACKING REPORTER: This is actually good news for Democrats: 5 reason Dems should be happy

Rob Quist didn’t win, but here are 5 big reasons for Democrats to be happy after the Montana special House election.
1). A 6 Point Republican Win In a State Trump Won By 21
Gianforte was able to squeak out a win, but barely. Democrats don’t need to win these special elections to prove their momentum. As in the Kansas House special election, the Republican candidate underperformed Trump’s 2016 victory by a large margin. It is important to keep in mind that these special elections are in places that were handpicked by the Trump administration. Democrats aren’t supposed to win these races, much less be competitive in them. Keep in mind that Democrats scored no upsets wins in the period before their last congressional takeover, and Republicans scored one victory before their 2010 congressional takeover. These sort of victories are rare. The fact that Democrats were so competitive in Montana is proof of real energy on the Democratic side heading into 2018.
2). Republicans Are Spending An Unsustainable Amount Of Money In These Special Elections
Republicans and affiliated outside groups spent at least $17 million to defend a seat in a state that Trump won by 21 points. Republicans dumped big sums of cash, relatively speaking, into a House special election in Kansas. The Georgia special election is already the most expensive in history, with Republicans spending tens of millions of dollars on a seat that they have held since 1979. The extreme level of spending shows weakness and difficulty motivating their supporters. When Republicans have to defend their full House and try to defend and pick up Senate seats next year, there won’t be enough money to paper over their problems.
3). Republicans Have A Trumpcare Problem
Rob Quist ran on health care in a place known for its conservatism. Rob Quist almost won. Some pundits will try to sweep the health care issue under the rug in order to whistle through the graveyard by talking about Trump’s coattails, Pelosi, or some other DC-based narrative, but the truth of the matter is that the Democrat ran on healthcare and shaved 15 points off of Trump’s victory margin in 2016. If this pattern repeats itself in swing districts, Republicans will lose a lot of seats.
4). The Same Montana Seat Will Be Up Again In 2018
Democrats see weakness in the small margin of Gianforte’s win and are promising to challenge him again in 2018. DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Luj├ín said in a statement, “Unfortunately, the alleged violent assault of an innocent reporter and subsequent criminal charges have tainted this election at the very end and further clarified that Greg Gianforte is unfit to represent Montana. There’s no question in my mind that Gianforte should not be sworn into office. Regardless of what happens next, we will be competing hard for this seat in 2018.”
5). The Wins Will Come For Democrats
Trump has unified the left. A year ago at this time, Democrats were still divided and discussing issues like the best plan to pay for free college for all. Today, the left is on the same page and working together to defeat Trump. The Montana special election is a reminder that there is no magic message or level of spending that converts Republicans in deep red states to Democrats. Change happens through years of hard work and party building. Democrats are progressing by leaps and bounds in places like Kansas and Montana. The process in Georgia is more advanced, and that is where Democrats have their best chance of getting a special election win.

POLL: 67% of Americans OPPOSE the Repeal of Obamacare!! (2018 - Vote OUT those who vote to repeal Obamacare!(

Republicans Stunned As 67% Of Americans Oppose Obamacare Repeal In New Poll

A new McClatchy-Marist Poll has found that 67% of Americans are opposed to a full repeal of Obamacare as is being pushed by Republicans in Congress and President Trump.

Even the Montana Republican who just won after attacking a reporter is up for re-election in 2018.  VOTE out all who vote to repeal Obamacare in 2018.
A new McClatchy-Marist Poll has found that 67% of Americans are opposed to a full repeal of Obamacare as is being pushed by Republicans in Congress and President Trump.
According to the McClatchy-Marist Poll, “67% of Americans do not think Congress should completely repeal the Affordable Care Act….While 21% of U.S. residents want Congress to let Obamacare stand in its current form, 39% think the law should be changed so that it can do more. Only 7% want the law changed so that it does less. 29% believe Obamacare should be repealed completely. Four percent are unsure….76% of Americans want the component which allows children to remain on their parents’ health insurance policy until the age of 26 to remain a law. 72% would like the government to keep in place the provision which provides federal subsidies to lower income people to pay for health insurance, 69% also support prohibiting insurance companies from denying health coverage because of pre-existing conditions. However, half of Americans, 50%, do not think residents should be legally required to buy health insurance and say that this component should be repealed.”
The American people are making it clear what they want. They don’t want Obamacare fully repealed. They don’t want a Republican replacement. The American people want the ACA to do more, not less. People want the exact opposite of what Republicans are offering.
The Republican plans all get rid of subsidies, remove patient protections, allow the insurance companies to charge older and sicker people more, and still require people to buy health insurance.
At a time when Republicans are offering health care alternatives that will provide less while costing more, the American people want the Affordable Care Act expanded and subsidies to remain in place.
President Trump and the Republican Party have set themselves up for disaster. If they cut Obamacare in any way, they are going to face a popular rebellion at the ballot box in 2018 and 2020.
Republicans have been telling themselves for years that Obamacare was unpopular. On Monday, President Trump claimed that Obamacare was only getting popular because people know that it is going away soon, “People hate it, but now they see that the end is coming, and they’re saying, ‘Oh, maybe we love it,’ There’s nothing to love. It’s a disaster, folks.”
That is not what is happening. People are realizing that Republicans are going to take their health care away, and they like having health care. The American people don’t want Donald Trump messing with their health care, and they are standing up and saying no to a plan that will harm millions of people.

Kushner Crime Family: The Story behind Jerod Kushner getting into Harvard: (Think Money)

The Story Behind Jared Kushner’s Curious Acceptance into Harvard

ProPublica editor Daniel Golden wrote a book a decade ago about how the rich buy their children access to elite colleges. One student he covered is now poised to become one of the most powerful figures in the country.

This story was co-published with The Guardian.
I would like to express my gratitude to Jared Kushner for reviving interest in my 2006 book, “The Price of Admission.” I have never met or spoken with him, and it’s rare in this life to find such a selfless benefactor. Of course, I doubt he became Donald Trump’s son-in-law and consigliere merely to boost my lagging sales, but still, I’m thankful.
My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their under-achieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University in 1998, not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school. At the time, Harvard accepted about one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of twenty.)
I also quoted administrators at Jared’s high school, who described him as a less than stellar student and expressed dismay at Harvard’s decision.
“There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard,” a former official at The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, told me. “His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought for sure, there was no way this was going to happen. Then, lo and behold, Jared was accepted. It was a little bit disappointing because there were at the time other kids we thought should really get in on the merits, and they did not.”
Risa Heller, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, said in an email Thursday that “the allegation” that Charles Kushner’s gift to Harvard was related to Jared’s admission “is and always has been false.” His parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner, “are enormously generous and have donated over 100 million dollars to universities, hospitals and other charitable causes. Jared Kushner was an excellent student in high school and graduated from Harvard with honors.” (About 90 percent of Jared’s 2003 class at Harvard also graduated with honors.)
My Kushner discoveries were an offshoot of my research for a chapter on Harvard donors. Somebody had slipped me a document I had long coveted: the membership list of Harvard’s Committee on University Resources. The university wooed more than 400 of its biggest givers and most promising prospects by putting them on this committee and inviting them to campus periodically to be wined, dined, and subjected to lectures by eminent professors.
My idea was to figure out how many children of these corporate titans, oil barons, money managers, lawyers, high-tech consultants and old-money heirs had gone to Harvard. A disproportionate tally might suggest that the university eased its standards for the offspring of wealthy backers.
I began working through the list, poring over “Who’s Who in America” and Harvard class reunion reports for family information. Charles and Seryl Kushner were both on the committee. I had never heard of them, but their joint presence struck me as a sign that Harvard’s fundraising machine held the couple in especially fond regard.
The clips showed that Charles Kushner’s empire encompassed 25,000 New Jersey apartments, along with extensive office, industrial and retail space and undeveloped land. Unlike most of his fellow committee members, though, Kushner was not a Harvard man. He had graduated from New York University. This eliminated the sentimental tug of the alma mater as a reason for him to give to Harvard, leaving another likely explanation: his children.
Sure enough, his sons Jared and Joshua had both enrolled there.
Charles Kushner differed from his peers on the committee in another way; he had a criminal record. Five years after Jared entered Harvard, the elder Kushner pleaded guilty in 2004 to tax violations, illegal campaign donations, and retaliating against a witness. (As it happens, the prosecutor in the case was Chris Christie, recently ousted as the head of Trump’s transition team.) Charles Kushner had hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, who was cooperating with federal authorities. Kushner then had a videotape of the tryst sent to his sister. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison.
I completed my analysis, which justified my hunch. Of the 400-plus tycoons on Harvard’s list — which included people who were childless or too young to have college-age offspring — more than half had sent at least one child to the university.
I also decided that the Kushner-Harvard relationship deserved special attention. Although the university often heralded big gifts in press releases or a bulletin called — in a classic example of fundraising wit, “Re:sources” — a search of these outlets came up empty. Harvard didn’t seem eager to be publicly associated with Charles Kushner.
While looking into Kushner’s taxes, though, federal authorities had subpoenaed records of his charitable giving. I learned that in 1998, when Jared was attending The Frisch School and starting to look at colleges, his father had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard, to be paid in annual installments of $250,000. Charles Kushner also visited Neil Rudenstine, then Harvard president, and discussed funding a scholarship program for low- and middle-income students.
I phoned a Harvard official, with whom I was on friendly terms. First I asked whether the gift played any role in Jared’s admission. “You know we don’t comment on individual applicants,” he said. When I pressed further, he hung up. We haven’t spoken since.
At Harvard, Jared Kushner majored in government. Now the 35-year-old is poised to become the power behind the presidency. What he plans to do, and in what direction he and his father-in-law will lead the country, are far more important than his high school grades.

Republicans are going straight to hell - They are telling lies daily; Morning Joe

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough blasted his fellow Republicans who’ve “sold their soul” and trashed American civic values in the service of President Donald Trump.
He watched a clip Friday on “Morning Joe” that showed White House budget director Mick Mulvaney state flatly that the Republican health care bill would not cut Medicaid — which Scarborough described as “certifiable lie.”
“Do not go to Capitol Hill and lie through your teeth every day,” Scarborough said. “That’s all I’ve got to say. It’s so maddening. This is my party. My party is going straight to hell politically, they really are. They’re going straight to hell.”
Scarborough was appalled by the president’s behavior toward NATO allies during a visit to Brussels, in contrast to his jovial interactions with senior Russian officials and joyous visit to Saudi Arabia.
“They have embraced the coarsening of culture where the truth means absolutely nothing, conservative values mean absolutely nothing,” Scarborough said. “Our traditional allies that have stood by us shoulder to shoulder bleeding and dying, scaling the cliffs of Normandy to free a continent, that means nothing to these people. They will embrace Vladimir Putin and Russia if Donald Trump does.”
Scarborough, who has known Trump for years, frequently points out that the president had been a Democrat until becoming suspicious of President Barack Obama’s birthplace.
“I know Democrats don’t like me saying this, but this guy was a Democrat his entire life until we discovered birtherism in 2011,” Scarborough said. “He gave money to Chuck Schumer in 2010. Why do you sell your soul, and not just your political soul, you are selling your soul if you just keep lying about things that you know are not true?”

Cartoons about Current Political Situation

Click the link and check them out.  All about Trump as President.

Paul Simon and Colbert sing an updated 59th St Song updated for Trump.

Click the link and watch it.

Paul Simon & Stephen Colbert Give Classic Song A Hilarious Trump-Era Update

The perfect tune for when you’re no longer feelin’ so groovy.

When Paul Simon stopped by the CBS “Late Show” on Wednesday night, he and host Stephen Colbert gave one of his classic tunes a makeover to make it more fitting for an era when Donald Trump is president.
In a segment taped backstage, Colbert told Simon that “The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin’ Groovy)” was one of his favorites. 
“I loathe that song,” Simon replied. “It just feels naive. It doesn’t feel like 2017.”
As he tried to demonstrate what was wrong with the song, Colbert joined in, and soon, the two were giving the old tune some groovy new lyrics.  

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Trump gets laughed at with NATO speech: He tells countries to pay for NATO WHEN HE DOES NOT PAY HIS BILLS OR PAY HIS TAXES! Hypocrite.

With the world still mourning the lives lost as part of the brutal Manchester terrorist attack, one would think and reasonably hope that every appearance Donald Trump has would be one whereby he’d honor the dead, as well as those who worked to rescue and save the lives of the survivors. Unfortunately, true to his usual fashion, Donald Trump isn’t doing what many reasonably hope.
Instead, Trump is using every speaking appearance to alienate the United States and cause America’s allies to question their willingness to partner and support the country. It’s Trump’s ongoing schoolyard bully tactics that led to protesters coming out in droves to march against his presence in Brussels, where he spoke on Thursday:
Despite obviously not being welcome by many, Trump again failed to err on the side of caution, common sense, or diplomacy when standing before world leaders to speak. Instead of using the podium to stand in solidarity with NATO allies and those looking for peace and comfort during this time of worldwide mourning, Trump decided to provide a lecture to governments he feels aren’t carrying their weight.
Trump proclaimed:
‘NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations. Many nations owe massive amounts of money from past years. Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined.’
Despite the solemn responses from his colleagues, which included whispers, snide remarks, and eye rolls, Trump didn’t use his audience’s reactions to inform the direction of his speech. He continued:
‘We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even two percent of GDP is insufficient.’
Livid at the thought of Trump calling out anyone about their actions being “insufficient,” people sounded off in response to his speech, via Twitter:

@OccupyDemocrats Says a man who doesn't pay taxes, is currently fleecing America, and is a mobster who lauders money.  
Donald Trump seems to be forgetting that it was just a few weeks ago that he had America on the brink of war with several major world powers, and all at the same time. For him to so boldly insult the very people who will decide whether or not to support the U.S. should war happen, is him playing a deadly game with the lives of those sworn to protect the country. In fact, Trump doesn’t seem to be burning bridges he may have to cross again, he seems to be blowing the bridges to pieces.
To see Trump insult world leaders, and those leaders give Trump the angry glares in return, watch the video below: