The NYT has published a letter by an anonymous individual in Trump´s White House who claims that he and others in the Government are protecting us from Trump. This is what I think of the letter and Its author.

The author is a hypocrite who is trying to benefit politically  from this sad situation.

To oppose Trump is not enough to talk behind his back calling him a child or by stealing papers from his desk. It has to be done frontally, face to face and in public in order to have  credibility.

And then Trump should be opposed not by not doing what the author wants him to do, but for having done what the author claims credit for having enabled him to do.

Trump should be opposed for being a racist who insults and attacks all minorities day in and day out, for having given the ultra rich a tax cut that only future generation will pay, for daily trying to destroy the safety net, for dividing our society between us and them, for separating children from their parents, for eliminating all protections to the environment, for being dishonest in each and everyone of his actions. I could go on and on but there is no more space here.

So the author is trying to position himself in the high ground of the Republican Party, as if such high ground existed. He is not protecting us from Trump. On the contrary he has enabled him to do all the terrible things he´s done.

La historia, madre de la verdad.

La historia, dijo Cervantes, es la madre de la verdad.

… la verdad, cuya es la historia, émula del tiempo depósito de las acciones, testigo de lo pasado, ejemplo y aviso de lo presente, advertencia de lo por venir.

Y es que todo lo que vemos acontecer a nuestro alrededor, los actos y los personajes ya la historia los ha visto antes. Algunas veces en épocas recientes, otras en lugares distantes y en tiempos remotos.

Siempre han habido patriotas y hombres y mujeres dedicados a luchar por el bien común,  y siempre han habido crápulas, agachados, traidores e indiferentes.

Una de las páginas más loadas de la historia reciente de la humanidad es la defensa denodada que hicieron los ingleses de su isla ante la amenaza de Hitler en los días y noches que siguieron a la claudicación de  Bélgica y de Francia  cuando se consideraba inminente el desembarco de las panzer diviziones en las playas inglesas y se alaba a Churchill y su decisión de "pelear en las playas, pelear en las calles, en las colinas, en el aire, en el mar, en el último rincón del Imperio y jamás rendirse". Pero se tiende a olvidar que en esa Inglaterra decidida habían quienes querían rendirse, quienes querían sobrevivir a toda costa aúnque fuera como esclavos y quienes no solamente pretendían rendirse sino que activamente trabajaban por  el triunfo de Hitler y la imposición del fascismo en Inglaterra.

El grupo de los miedosos, que quería negociar la rendición lo encabezaban el ex Primer Ministro Neville Chamberlain y Lord Halifax. El sector pro Hitler era liderado por Lord Oswald Mosley, admirador de toda su vida del Fascismo y cabecilla del Partido Fascista Unido Británico, BUF. Su plan era instalar en Inglaterra y de la mano de Hitler un gobierno calcado del de Mussolini, proteccionista, ultra nacionalista  y autoritario en el que no habría cabida para minorías étnicas, ni libertades de ninguna clase, ni de religión ni de expresión o pensamiento. 

Y como la historia es ejemplo y aviso de lo presente esas acciones y a esos personajes los hemos visto aparecer de nuevo con otros nombres, y a un tal General Flint lo hemos visto hacer su mejor caricatura de Chamberlain y a un Donald Trump querer revivir el fascismo para imponerlo en los US como quiso hacer Mosley en Inglaterra, pero ahora de la mano de Putin.

La historia nos enseña que Mosley terminó primero en la cárcel y luego en el exilio, ya que en Inglaterra no existió jamás ese 38 % nefasto admirador de aspirantes a tiranuelos que tenemos por estos lados  y fué ampliamente repudiado. 

Pero no vamos tan mal pues ya nuestro émulo de Chamberlain, el General Flint está engrilletado esperando juicio y ya le va a tocar su turno en el banquillo a nuestro Oswald Mosley.

El Papa le pide ayuda a alos laicos

Lo que está ocurriendo con la Iglesia Católica es una tragedia cuyas enormes dimensiones todavía no han calado bien entre todos sus miembros. 

Son centenares los sacerdotes violadores, millares las víctimas, miles de millones los  dólares pagados en compensaciones más miles los  millones que habrá que pagar. Para poder hacerlo se cierran  conventos, escuelas y hospitales porque hay que vender los edificios y la Iglesia pierde presencia. 

Pero el problema principal no es ese sino la pérdida de confianza en una institución en la que se ha abusado a los más débiles, a los inocentes, a los que supuestamente la Iglesia debía educar y proteger.
Lamentablemente no se trata de casos aislados, sino de una corrupción profunda que llega desde las parroquias hasta el Colegio Cardenalicio, pues hay Cardenales involucrados directamente en los crímenes, pero lo  peor no es eso, sino que la Iglesia ha mantenido una política de encubrimiento y protección para el sacerdote criminal y de desprecio para las víctimas, lo que ha permitido la proliferación del problema, la ha desacreditado  y amenaza con destruírla. El Papa ya no confía en sus Obispos.


El Papa, desesperado por la ola de denuncias que se extiende por todos los continentes y países pide la ayuda de los laicos para que sean estos los que vigilen el comportamiento de los curas y así tratar de paliar la plaga del abuso sexual. Pero esta medida jamás dará los resultados que el Papa desea mientras la causa, que no es otra que el celibato cural no se elimine de raíz permitiendo que los sacerdotes tengan esposa o compañera.


En ninguna parte de las Escrituras se ha afirmado que Jesucristo y sus Apóstoles hayan sido célibes y el celibato, que  es una medida contra natura basada en la satanización del sexo normal lo que ha logrado es abrirle las puertas de par en par al sexo anormal, obedece estrictamente a razones económicas y legales, nunca teológicas. (Se han descubierto y publicado  papiros comprobados como legítimos que hablan de la esposa de Jesús).


Mientras no se resuelva el problema de fondo ninguna medida dará resultado y las buenas intenciones deJuan Pablo II, un hombre bueno pero tímido que parece no tener la fuerza necesaria para enderezar el rumbo de la Iglesia quedarán en nada. 

Lo que es peor, la Iglesia que ha sido una organización de claro oscuros en la que hay mucha gente noble dedicada a hacer buenas obras y que sacrifican su vida en ello pero también seres perversos que la socavan por dentro seguirá cayendo en el descrédito y conservará fuerza únicamente  en los países del Tercer Mundo Profundo, (Centro América, regiones del Africa), si acaso,lo que sería una gran pérdida..

¿Se va el Caimán?

En la campaña mundial de Rupert Murdoch por dividir a la sociedad y embrutecer a la gente

- tiene medios impresos y de TV en los US, en Inglaterra, en Australia, etc. incluyendo en los US los varios canales Fox, el Wall Street Journal, el New York Post, etc.. y en Inglaterra media docena de tabloides, el London Times, el Sky Network, etc... - 

ha alcanzado éxitos enormes como el Brexit, el avance del Partido Republicano en el centro del país y la elección de Trump,  pero mayormente  el retroceso cultural y social enorme que se vive en los US y en Inglaterra.

Para hacerlo cuenta con una docena de figuras habilidosas en el arte de la mentira abierta, la desinformación, la calumnia, y la falsificación de la información. En todas estas  Bill O´Reilly ha sido uno de sus grandes baluartes, el más talentoso de sus lugartenientes, pues son millones los que le creen ciegamente, comparten su odio y se embelesan con su arrogante vacuidad. El los confundió, los engaño, los envenenó, los moldeó a su gusto y al final se ríe de ellos. 

En el Fox le han surgido imitadores, pero ninguno se le acerca.

Van a llorar su ausencia. 

Bill O'Reilly announces he is going on "vacation"

Embattled Fox News host Bill O’Reilly announced tonight that he is taking a vacation. O’Reilly’s decision to go off the air in the midst of a sexual harassment scandal and advertiser boycott arguably has the appearance of a suspension, but O’Reilly worked to dispel that notion. He announced that he’d scheduled his trip “last fall” — well before the New York Times reported he paid $13 million to settle harassment claims. A Fox News spokesperson confirmed O’Reilly will return on April 24.

But according to four network sources, there’s talk inside Fox News that tonight’s show could be his last. Lawyers for the law firm Paul, Weiss, hired last summer by 21st Century Fox to investigate Roger Ailes, are currently doing a “deep dive” investigation into O’Reilly’s behavior. They’re focused now on sexual harassment claims by O’Reilly guest Wendy Walsh after she reported her claims via the company’s anonymous hotline.

Fox News co-president Bill Shine has been working hard to keep O’Reilly, sources said. But O’Reilly’s future is in the hands of the Murdochs.  “It’s up to the family,” the senior Fox News staffer said. The Murdochs are presently divided over how to handle it. Two highly-placed Fox News sources say 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch would like O’Reilly to be permanently taken off the air, while his father Rupert and older brother Lachlan are more inclined to keep him. (A spokesperson for the Murdochs declined to comment.)

By MTmofo

Tuesday Apr 11, 2017 · 10:54 PM EDT

109 Comments (109 New)

 120

¿Protestará la gente decente esta vez?

Cuando Barack Obama y su familia se mudaron a la Casa Blanca las protestas de los racistas fueron estridentes. Un negro en la Casa Blanca, gritaban, no puede ser, se llama Casa Blanca porque es para blancos no para negros. 

La presunción era que tratándose de una familia de la raza negra eran vulgares, sin educación y carentes de modales.

Han pasado ocho años e independientemente de si uno simpatiza o no con las políticas de Obama y del Partido Demócrata ha quedado demostrado que el Sr. Obama es un hombre educado, de trato cortés, limpio en lo personal y competente como estadista. De su familia tampoco puede haber quejas, Michelle Obama, que antes de ser Primera Dama era una abogada de éxito demostró ser una excelente madre que manejó su cargo con dignidad y decoro. Sus dos hijas, dos adolescentes normales. 

Si en algo se caracterizó la administración de Obama es por la ausencia de los escándalos que han acompañado a casi todos los Presidentes anteriores. Al no dar de que hablar le apodaron "no Drama Obama".

Ahora que Donald Trump y su familia están por mudarse no hay protestas, a pesar de que el Sr. Trump ha tenido una vida de escándalos y de juicios, pues ha estado ante un juez tanto como demandante como demandado más de 1500 veces. La última vez ya como Presidente Electo tuvo que pagar 25 millones de dólares para solventar acusaciones de fraude y gangsterismo (fraud and racketeering) por una universidad ficticia que no era más que una estafa masiva.

Simpatice uno con sus políticas o no y con el Partido Republicano el hecho es que Donald Trump como persona está a años luz de Barack Obama, pues se trata de un individuo vulgar y jayán como pocos que ha insultado, difamado y calumniado a todo el mundo, tanto a sus rivales en el Partido Republicano como a los del Partido Demócrata, que se vanagloria de manosear mujeres abusando de su posición y  que no tiene la menor educación pues aparte del libro de Hitler no se sabe que en su vida haya leído otro. Es el caso de un tramposo en todos los órdenes de la vida, hasta cuando juega al golf como han declarado los que han jugado con el como el boxeador Oscar de la Hoya.

Su familia tampoco es comparable a la de Obama pues Trump lleva a la Casa Blanca a su hija Ivanka y su marido que llegan abiertamente a buscar que negocios hacer por medio del puesto del papá, lo que este ya ha hecho como Presidente Electo usando sus hoteles y clubes para reuniones políticas que cobra tanto a su Partido como al Estado. Su esposa Melania tampoco trae el CV de ser una profesional de éxito, sino de ser una ex modelo de "soft porno"  que se casó con un hombre que es 25 años más viejo.

De remate llega a la Casa Blanca en gran parte debido a la intervención a su favor en el proceso electoral del dictador de Rusia Vladimir Putín, con el que posiblemente lo unan asuntos de negocios.

Tal vez tenga mucho que ver la educación recibida en el hogar por cada uno pues los dos padres de Barack Obama eran personas educadas, ambos con grado de PhD y su abüela una funcionaria bancaria. En el caso de Donald Trump su padre era un albañil que hizo dinero y su mamá una inmigrante de una isla de Escocia que llegó descalza a New York a trabajar como doméstica y su abüelito alemán un proxeneta que manejaba una cantina con prostitutas en las zonas mineras.

¿Habrán protestas por la llegada de esa familia a la Casa Blanca?

A peek into the near future

 Jobs and businesses that will disappear or be significantly 

reduced in the near future due to automation.

Assembly plant work. Robots already do all the lifting, moving and tightening up that

is needed in a factory so no assembly workers will be needed, but computer and robot

technicians in a proportion of 1 to 20 or less.

In car plants even fewer workers will be needed as electric cars have close to 2000 fewer parts

than internal combustion cars. 

Repair Shops, Car Mechanics, Parts Dealerships and Sales Personel will not be needed either 

for the same reasons.

Gas stations and Attendants.

Car and Truck Drivers. With autonomous driving cars there is no need for Taxi or Uber car drivers,

but the first to go will be truck drivers. With automated driving trucks will stay on the road 24 hours

a day as computers do not need to sleep or take bathroom breaks. That also means that fewer trucks

will be needed.

Traffic Cops, Ambulance Chasing Lawyers and Insurance Sales Persons will not be needed either

as all cars and trucks will drive within the road regulations and more safely.

Emergency Clinic and Trauma Center Doctors and Nurses as well as Ambulance Operators 

and First Aid Rescuers will not be needed either as there will be no traffic accidents.

Bank Managers of all kinds will go the way that bank tellers did with the arrival of the ATMs in the 

80s and 90s as all management decisions like account opening authorizations and credit approvals

will be taken by the computers that already have all the information that is required. 

Agricultural workers. Specialized robots can work the fields cheaper and more efficiently than

even undocumented workers. Robots, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week can pick tomatoes,

onions, garlic and fruits and do the cleaning and packing without asking for a salary or living quarters.

Electrical Lines and Maintenance Workers. With almost all electricity generated at home or close

to home there is no need for high power or distribution lines or maintenance personnel.

Tanker Trains and Gas Trucks. For the same reasons mentioned above, there will be no need to 

transport oil from one part of the country to another nor the refined product.

Baseball Home Plate Umpires. They call ball and strikes and miss the call 12 % of the time. Laser 

framing can do the job without making mistakes.

Soldiers. Wars will continue but nobody needs to die if the combatants are robots.

All of this jobs and businesses will go the way that ironing ladies, secretaries, telephone operators,

accountants, oxen and mules went before them. By 2070 only 20 % of the potential work force will 

have jobs. 80% of the world´s food will be produced in Siberia.

So if you want to witness all or part of this, stay healthy my friend.

The real welfare

A few people claim that they are Republicans and will vote for Trump  because they hate to see Federal money going to the poor, to people who need assistance, in the form of Food Stamps, MedicAid and other subsidies to poor children.

They claim that the so called Welfare programs are a waste of Federal money and that because of those programs, they, who are hard working law abiding citizens have to pay more in taxes .Welfare to the poor amount to nearly 150 Billion per year.

However those who think like that are either badly informed or do not understand how the Federal Budget is structured. They fail to realize that the Federal Government taxes all sorts of income, but makes a few exceptions here and there allowing some forms of income to be taxed at a lower level than other income, or totally exempt from taxes income that would normally be taxed.  The Federal Budget also includes some provision to give some people large amounts of money free of any obligations. 

Almost always the beneficiaries of this larguesse 

 from our Federal Government are the rich, specifically the ultra rich, people that are worth over a billion dollars and who earn several hundred millions per year. This is called Corporate Welfare and amount to close to 1500 Billions per year. Ten times more than the money given to the poor.

Tom Cahill |  October 28, 2015

---

The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

er

The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

A small number of incredibly wealthy Americans are ridiculing Bernie Sanders’ base for wanting “free stuff” when the costliest programs are, by far, corporate welfare and entitlements for the top 1 percent. Fox News has been working hard to tear down Sanders’ proposals to provide Medicare for all, institute tuition-free public college, boost infrastructure spending, and expand Social Security.

“That’s not fiscally possible unless the federal government starts seizing private assets,” said Bill O’Reilly.

But O’Reilly is wrong. The money for Sanders’ platform can easily come from eliminating the costliest entitlement programs for the top 1 percent and multinational corporations. Here’s a breakdown of the most superfluous giveaways to the rich and how much they cost the rest of us:

1. TAX BREAKS FOR OBSCENE CEO BONUSES ($7 BILLION/YEAR)

Currently, the biggest corporations are exploiting a 20-year-old loophole that allows them to write off inflated compensation packages for CEOs, billing stock options, and performance-based bonuses to taxpayers. In 2010, the Economic Policy Institute found out that the biggest corporations cost Americans $7 billion by writing off inflated executive pay. Between 2007 and 2010, this loophole accounted for more than $30 billion in corporate welfare. According to The Guardian, fast food industry CEOs cost taxpayers $64 million through this loophole.

That $7 billion could singlehandedly fund the annual budget for the National Science Foundation — which, as I recently reported for US Uncut, funds 11,000 scientific research projects each year and has funded 26 Nobel laureates in the last 5 years.

2. TAX CUTS FOR LUXURY CORPORATE JETS ($300 MILLION/YEAR)

Currently, corporations can claim a huge tax deduction every year by writing off purchases of corporate jets, lavish cars, and chauffeurs as “security” for their top executives. A Bloomberg analysis from 2011 showed that these tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans cost the rest of us $300 million each year. While that may not sound like much, that’s approximately 50 percent of the annual budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren that protects Americans from the financial sector’s most predatory schemes.

3. BIG OIL SUBSIDIES ($37.5 BILLION/YEAR)

According to Oil Change International (OCI), the U.S. government spends anywhere between $10 billion and $52 billion per year on corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry — one of the wealthiest industries in the world. OCI estimated that total combined subsidies to big oil approached $37.5 billion in 2014, which includes $21 billionon production and exploration subsidies.

These subsidies alone cost more than what we currently spend on providing rental assistance for low-income families. In 2013, the department of Housing and Urban Development allocated a total of $34.3 billion toward tenant-based rental assistance ($19 billion), project-based rental assistance ($8.7 billion), and general public housing programs ($6.6 billion). These programs helped 4.5 million families — half of whom are elderly — keep a roof over their head.

4. PHARMACEUTICAL SUBSIDIES ($270 BILLION/YEAR)

As US Uncut has previously reported, the pharmaceutical industry costs taxpayers roughly $270 billion a year when accounting for the cost we pay for life-saving drugs whose patents have been bought up by Big Pharma. This is over $1,914 per household in corporate welfare. This is partly due to the Medicare Part D bill that George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. But the biggest drug companies also make a pretty penny (a combined $711 billion in profits between 2003 and 2012) by buying patents for drugs that were largely developed with taxpayer-funded research, then jacking up the price by absurd amounts after cornering the market.

Combined profits of top pharma companies. Data courtesy of healthcareforamericanow.org.

This $270 billion annual subsidy could be virtually eliminated by passing Bernie Sanders’ bill to establish a government fund that buys up drug patents as soon as they become available for purchase. Then, the government would sell drugs at-cost to save money for those who need them. The money saved could pay for the annual $270 billion in insurance costs from Obamacare that would help more Americans get access to healthcare.

5. CAPITAL GAINS TAX BREAKS ($51 BILLION/YEAR)

When anyone makes money from selling off investments, the IRS classifies that as capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate (20 percent as of 2012) than real, actual work (35 percent). Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don’t affect the incomes of most retirees. The Century Foundation found that the total amount of lost revenue by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages cost $256 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, or $51 billion a year over the last 5 years. According to the Tax Policy Center, if investment income was taxed at the same rate as wages, 75 percent of that new revenue would come from the richest 0.3 percent of Americans; 92 percent of that revenue would come from those making $200,000 or more per year. The chart below shows what percentage of income each tax bracket makes from capital gains — not surprisingly, the wealthiest Americans get most of the benefit from capital gains.

Chart courtesy of The Century Foundation.

If we taxed wealth like work, the extra $51 billion per year in savings could fund two-thirds of the annual budget for food stamps.

6. CORPORATE TAX SUBSIDIES FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ($80.4 BILLION/YEAR)

In 2012, the New York Times did an analysis of every existing tax break in each of the 50 states and learned that 1,874 programs cost taxpayers $80.4 billion every year for corporate welfare in their state. Compare that cost with the cost of providing tuition-free public college to every student, which The Atlantic estimated would be a mere$62.6 billion. As the chart below shows, this is actually way cheaper than what we currently spend on federal student aid.

Current cost of existing federal college aid. (courtesy of The Atlantic)

7. HANDOUTS TO BIG AG ($18 BILLION/YEAR)

Crop insurance — a program originally intended to help farmers recover from the dust bowls of the 1930s — has become a slush fund for wealthy corporate farmers who have become experts at manipulating the system for their own means. As Bloomberg reported, the median income of commercial farm households (in which farming makes up more than 50 percent of a household’s income) was $84,649 in 2011 — 70 percent more than the average American household. Farmers have learned to exploit the program by growing crops on land they know will be unproductive, then making money from insurance claims rather than crops. In 2011, 26 farmers each got an annual subsidy of $1 million, including one tomato farmer in Florida who got a $1.9 million subsidy.

This $18 billion in corporate welfare is more than NASA’s annual budget, which has hovered around the $17 billion mark since 2009.

8. WELFARE FOR WALL STREET ($83 BILLION/YEAR)

The biggest banks have grown even bigger than they were just before the 2008 financial meltdown. And due to their size, these banks are perceived as “too big to fail,” as their demise would spell doom for the US financial sector as a whole. So as these big banks grow bigger, the Federal Reserve allows them to borrow at lower interest rates than other big banks — essentially subsidizing the continued growth of the big banks. In 2013, Bloomberg estimated the ten biggest TBTF banks suck up $83 billion per year in corporate welfare.

If we were to force the big banks to borrow at the same interest rates as every other bank at a rate of $83 billion per year, that would be enough to double the current federal budgets for highway spending ($48.6 billion), Head Start ($10.1 billion), the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.89 billion), nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children ($6.2 billion), the National Parks Service ($3 billion), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ($2.39 billion), with $5 billion left over.

9. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK SUBSIDIES ($112 BILLION)

This week, the House of Representatives voted to revive the Export-Import (Ex-Im) bank, which has been maligned as a slush fund for large, multinational corporations. In its most recent year, the Ex-Im bank had a $112 billion portfolio, of which $90 billion went to multinationals. If that wasn’t bad enough, a huge portion of that money went to just 10 wealthy corporations.

According to the New York Times, the federal government spends roughly $105 billion on public K-12 schools. If we allow the Ex-Im bank to fade away, the money formerly set aside for corporate subsidies could instead double that investment in public education.

10. FEDERAL CONTRACTS FOR THE TOP 200 BIGGEST COMPANIES ($880 BILLION/YEAR)

The biggest 200 corporations have an excessively unfair advantage over their competitors due to their influence in Washington. According to the Sunlight Foundation, the top 200 companies spent a combined $5.8 billion on lobbying Congress between 2007 and 2012. And in those same years, those companies received $4.4 trillion in federal contracts. That $4.4 trillion is $100 billion more than what the U.S. government spent on providing a basic income to the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients. This chart shows how much the top ten corporations spent on lobbying and how much they got in return:

The combined cost of these 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539 trillion per year. The three main programs needy families depend upon — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.3 billion), food stamps ($74 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($67.2 billion) — cost just $158.5 billion in total. This means we spend ten times as much on corporate welfare and handouts to the top 1 percent than we do on welfare for working families struggling to make ends meet.

 

 

 

Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact Tom via email at tom.v.cahill@gmail.com.