Kolchak: The Night Stalker - AND CENSORSHIP.

Kolchak: The Night Stalker

AND 

CENSORSHIP.

Admittedly, the story you are about to read is bizarre, incredible. Those of you who wish

to avoid being unsettled, who wish to avoid thinking, will label it insane. And though

you, the reader, would find these facts almost impossible to substantiate, that does not

change their nature. Facts they are, I know. I saw them happen. (Rice, Chase, &

Playdon, 1974, 0:03)

Kolchak fights the Vampire of
media Censorship .

(1)>>Carl Kolchak, played by Darren McGavin. Was a character that every week he battled monsters , its pervasive humor, its consistently downbeat endings (Carl often discovered the truth, but was never allowed to share it), its insistence on monsters being monsters. For a reporter like Carl censorship was his biggest monster .Importantly, Kolchak was not the night stalker. Kolchak stalked the things that stalked the night.

The night stalker in The Night Stalker was a vampire. Kolchak, however, fights on two fronts.  (1.2)>>He battles uncanny entities as well as skeptical colleagues and incredulous superiors. The crusading reporter bumping heads with a hard-headed editor is a narrative staple—for example,Likewise, (1.3)>>Kolchak deals with the antagonism of the police and public officials attempting to stop him from finding or reporting the truth.  The monster stories always end with the evidence being destroyed or the police blackmailing him into silence.  Sometimes the monsters are at work, in city hall and, by extension, in the conspiracy-riddled 1970s White House. While everything about Kolchak is fictional . In

No It's not FAKE NEWS!

REALITY the monsters of censorship are real , but not only do we Americans get brain freeze we are being feed propaganda via Television . Our society is fallen prey to these monsters crafted by the left as well as right for the polarization that wracks this country, and for the erosion of  free speech. Liberals have engaged in a politics of grievance and contempt: anyone who disagreed with them was racist, sexist, classist, or homophobic—and stupid. On college campuses, they passed ‘hate speech’ codes, banning speech that they deemed offensives. They would brook no dissent. The Fairness Doctrine was first introduced by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949. It required broadcasters “to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.” In other words, if a radio

"what I am about to tell you , YOU'LL NEVER
Believe ..............."

station aired a conservative view, it would have to provide equal time for an opposing liberal view. This regulation started as an attempt to make sure both sides of a debate were heard on government-controlled airwaves. But soon after its passage, it became a tool to silence critics and political opponents. Conservatives have long complained about unfair treatment on  (2)>>social media platforms, which they see as bastions of Silicon Valley liberal views.  While Kolchak was far from just a fictional TV show.  If anything beyond that formula holds the 20 episodes of The Night Stalker together, it’s McGavin as Kolchak. In a way, the character is very much of his time, a hero for the post-’60s era of conspiracy movies like The Parallax View and Three Days Of The Condor. It was also produced during a period characterized by Watergate and the real-life heroics of the reporter team that brought down a crooked president. “A reporter is paid to find out things, whether he wants to know them or not.” That’s how Kolchak defines his job, and it’s a line that would sound very strange coming from a reporter some years later—say, during the buildup to the second Iraq War , the LIES of Weapons of Mass Destruction that was sold to the American public .  NOW Carl seems to spend most of his time either being scared out of his tennis shoes by exceedingly lethal monsters, or (because the proof of his wild stories always seems to get lost, destroyed or covered up) as being regarded as certifiably nuts by his long-suffering (2.2)>>editor Tony Vincenzo. Still, in the tradition of the best pulp heroes, Carl Kolchak never lets his outward cynicism stop him from battling near-hopeless odds in his quest for truth -- nor would he ever let the forces of supernatural evil prey on the innocent (even if in destroying said evils, the luckless Kolchak also often ends up destroying the only proof he has of their existence.) All in all, this is pretty heroic behaviour for a guy who looks as if he hasn't bought any new clothing in at least 30 years. On the surface, Kolchak fits the conservative equilibrium  model.  Example Kolchak vanquished the monster of the week each week. Yes, the public is kept in the dark and everything seems to return to normal. However, there is a structural narrative alteration to Kolchak that destabilizes his return to normality. The key to this destabilization is Kolchak’s narrations. In his introductions, he presents the facts of the case, as outlandish as they might seem. Kolchak can take on supernatural monsters, but he cannot vanquish censorship (both governmental and editorial) (3)>>or the suppression of the facts. The all-too-real notion of cover-ups is as much a monster as the creatures. At the end of The Night Stalker, city officials closed ranks. Vampires are not good for Las Vegas tourism. They paid off or ran off everyone involved in the case, including Kolchak’s girlfriend.    Kolchak is presented with a warrant for murder—a warrant that will be executed if he tells the truth. With no real evidence to back his story, Kolchak is run out of town.

 Kolchak epilogue.

As far as the authorities are concerned, the events of April 20 and 21 will never have occurred.They’re gonna tell me that if I ever breathe a word of this they’re gonna break me like a strawman . . . if you’re ever in a subway or pedestrian tunnel underneath a ballpark and you think youhear something moving in the walls, it may not be your imagination. Take my advice, don’t walk—run—to the nearest exit. (Rice, Neale, & Huff, 1975, 49:14)

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>Carl Kolchak .   I remember as a kid staying up late on Friday nights to watch the repeats of this show @midnight on CBS in the late 70’s. I love this show. The two made for tv movies and the series have obivously inspired almost all the supernatural/scfi tv shows that have followed. Some of the episodes are cheesy and hard to watch but taken as a whole it is a really good show.Also, you can even argue that without Kolchack that the modern Urban Fantasy genre wouldn’t be a prevalent as it is today.   For those who are not familiar with Kolchak, a quick recap. The original made-for-TV movie The Night Stalker (1972) was intended to be a one-off based on the unpublished The Kolchak Papers by Jeff Rice, adapted for television by Richard Matheson (Thompson, 2009). Carl Kolchak is unique. First, he is a throwback to the cynical, hard-boiled noir detective. Going back to Stranger on the Third Floor (1940), newspaper reporters as neophyte gumshoes are archetypal noir characters, and speaking truth to power is another noir fundamental . Like noir detectives, Kolchak narrates his own stories and holds his own ethical standards close and uncompromisingly. When witches and Satan worshippers tempt him with power and treasure, Kolchak refuses to compromise. His dedication to the truth is more important than either. The final noir influence is the idea of corruption in high places—big business, government, and rich families .  (1.2)>>He battles uncanny entities as well as skeptical colleagues and incredulous superiors. It’s almost funny how those busiest burning the reputations of others are themselves transgressors of the ever-evolving neo-Puritan morality. After all this time, and after we’ve seen the litany of revelations that confirm what we’ve known for over a year now, there is still hope that someday while we yet draw breath the FAKE NEWS crowd will finally have to admit their folly. But we’re not holding our breath   (1.3)>>Kolchak deals with the antagonism of the police and public officials attempting to stop him from finding or reporting the truth.  Kolchak obviously fights the brainless Bureaucracy which tries hard to suppress sensational news which is too un-believable to the public to fathom . While the later X-FILES morphed the government  Bureaucracy into the image of the vile cigarette smoking man  , still LATER we have the MATRIX with the men in black with sunglasses posing as ' government officials' that offer NEO a job just to stay brainwashed into a illusion , keeping him asleep to what is really going on .  With the term "waking up to reality" . Similar  & While our present media is far from fiction , its basically implanting in our minds [ subliminally] misinformation on current world situations examples are Syria, Venezuela  which our American gov propaganda machine has been trying to sell the notion that we have to have military intervention in places like Syria , this has been sold to the American public for nearly 2 decades .  Up until recently there has been an out cry to end the  endless wars that nearly bankrupted our nation.   NEXT and  CURRENTLY this is going on today , right now with the endless confusing twists in President Trump's ever morphing collusion story which too soon will be made public, or out of fear sealed away and another story will be out so that wide spread panic will not spread could be possible . While Trump has no clean laundry to hide  , trying to pin a crime on Trump , trying to remove him from  office , or impeachment is even right mow becoming worrisome to the Democrats  .(2)>>social media platforms . "Social Media" are private corporations - certainly "small government" conservatives will allow the free market to work its magic and regulate without big government interference. In late January, Facebook changed its algorithms. This resulted in greatly decreased traffic for many Facebook pages on the right, as well as those 

" Carl , YOU want me to print this stuff"
" YEAS  Vincenzo ! "

websites which relied upon Facebook traffic.  Facebook claimed the algorithm change emphasized posts from “friends, family and groups” and reduced those from “businesses, brands and media.” But an analysis from The Outline observed that right-leaning sites were the hardest hit. The site found “engagement totals for February dropping as much as 55 percent for some, while the engagement numbers of most predominantly liberal publishers remained unaffected.” It’s not just Facebook that’s apparently been censoring conservatives. YouTube has taken down a rash of gun videos and videos addressing conspiracies in the past couple of weeks. Some right-leaning users found themselves locked out of their accounts. It’s being referred to as the “The Great YouTube Purge.” It comes after the first wave of censorship, demonetizing right-leaning YouTube channels, which takes away their ability to run ads.  (2.2)>>editor Tony Vincenzo. The role of Tony Vincenzo remains one of Simon Oakland’s most endearing and memorable roles.  On the surface, Tony seemed to be a rather easy man to read; all he wanted were facts---facts that could be verified.  Much to his chagrin, of course, it was all but impossible for Carl Kolchak to prove his unbelievable stories, leading to clashes between the editor and the reporter more than once.        (3)>>or the suppression of the facts.  If you are weeding out Fake News, there is nothing so Fake as CNN & MSNBC, & yet I do not ask that their sick behavior be removed. I get used to it and watch with a grain of salt, or don’t watch at all.” Or dont take their questions or remove them from press gatherings. AS WE certainly know about censorship but in this case he's taking about right wing domestic terrorists who should not be allowed to espouse violence and fascism on social media. It's bad enough that right wing media are allowed to serve up fake history. HOWEVER we Americans are being fed crap through our technology , while facts can be SUPPRESSED by a "government" . The worst part is when the government uses the media to instill FALSE information to its citizens. Like the PRO- War propaganda . The American mainstream “news” media scorns President Trump for daring to contradict the suddenly infallible intelligence community. DNI official Dan Coats made a point of saying that Iran has no immediate interest in the production of nuclear weapons, contrary to the President’s publicly declared concerns and Iran’s incessant boasts. Coats’ congressional testimony came only one day before it was widely reported that Iran had shipped 30 tons of yellow-cake uranium to its Itstahan enrichment facility. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer advised intelligence officials to conduct an “intervention” on President Trump and the television panels went wild over the supposed outrage of a U. S. president disagreeing with “his own” intelligence officials. Earth to mainstream, this is hardly the first time it has ever happened. Remember? The Iraq war was blamed by media and numerous politicians on faulty intelligence over weapons of mass destruction. In that case the intelligence may have been right.

Can These Women BEAT Donald Trump?

“Women wield an incredible amount of voting power, but it still comes down to turnout,” Axios concluded. “The two groups who the poll shows would overwhelmingly opt for anyone but Trump — African-American women and millennials — are also two groups that tend to be less reliable in going to the polls.”

The Women in White . 

With that said we have a newly charged Congress with the last midterms brought a blue wave [of sorts] that swept many Women to the political round table .The congressional freshman class of 2019 is perhaps best described in superlatives. It is the most racially diverse and most female group of representatives ever elected to the House, whose history spans more than 200 years. And it boasts an avalanche of firsts, from the first Native American congresswomen to the first Muslim congresswomen.The move is just another reminder that the new House class is of a different political breed. The  incoming Congress is set to be the most female, most diverse ever, (1)>>both racially and ideologically. Of course, not everyone has been excited about the new congresswomen. On Tuesday, Fox News host Laura Ingraham dedicated a 10-minute segment to criticize the four Democrats. Ingraham, whose racist dog whistles are infamous, called them "the four horsewomen of the apocalypse" and accused them of having "the most radical views in Congress" — such as calling for Medicare for All and tuition-free colleges.With Democrats in control of the House and Republicans in control of the Senate and White House, there are questions of what policies will be able to get through the 116th Congress. Nevertheless, many of the representatives-elect have made it clear they're ready to fulfill their promise to serve the people, regardless of the internal squabble that has characterized Congress for a long time. In just a few short days after taking back control of the House, some Democrats have already called for the impeachment of President Trump, the abolition of the Electoral College, restraints on presidential pardon power, and proposed a tax rate as high as 70 percent for the wealthiest taxpayers. Did someone forget to mention at freshman orientation that Congress is also home to a legislative body called the Senate? In order to be effective

...... Take the best selfies.

and actually send legislation to the president, the House must work with the Senate. Otherwise, members are just breathing each other’s hot air.Is this heading for trouble ? If the Democrats just want to pick fights with Trump , its likely that the whole government will hit a brick wall . FORGET THE SHUTDOWNS . Where its heading , The Democrats will start by showering the White House with dozens of frivolous subpoenas as they pursue baseless investigations that are only designed to undermine the nationwide support of President Trump. Top Democrats in the House have already vowed to investigate “all the things” he has done that they believe goes against the Constitution. They also plan to dig even further into aspects of his personal and business life. In fact, the Democrats had already drafted at more than 60 subpoenas targeting the Trump administration before the midterm elections last year, just as Nancy Pelosi pledged to pursue bipartisanship in Congress. She knows that the American people are more interested in progress than politics, but she will be hard pressed in keeping her unruly caucus from shooting itself in the foot by wasting time on partisan investigations. 
BUT CAN THESE WOMEN BEAT TRUMP IN 2020?

DEMOCRATS ARE OBVIOUSLY 

HOPING TO DEFEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2020. 

Sen . Warren .

 Who that candidate will be is anyone's guess at this point. And voters had varying views about how to beat Trump, whether it be through character and policy contrasts, inspiration and passion, or adopting the incumbent's own tactics. But the sentiment is driving interest and attendance at political events at this early stage in the cycle. And the prospect of taking Mr. Trump on is attracting what is expected to be the largest Democratic field in two decades.  Still, an undeniable cultural shift has taken hold since 2016. The cynicism brought by the Trump era, from his administration’s policies that hurt women and threaten reproductive rights, has helped galvanize a movement of politically active women. Women have fought back at every level of government since Trump took office, inspired to take a more active role in the policies that affect them directly.    (2)>>Voters who want to see a woman in the White House will have many more candidates to choose from in 2020 compared with past elections. According to the Center for American Women and Politics, or CAWP, at Rutgers University, there has never been more than two women competing at the same time in the Democratic or Republican primaries.  Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) — would all beat Trump, too. But name recognition is a factor. A near-majority of registered voters said they didn't know enough about Harris, Klobuchar or Gillibrand to be able to rate them as favorable or unfavorable.Still, of these three women, Harris could [ wishful thinking]  beat Trump most handily — by a 10-point

Sen. Harris 

margin — if the election were held today. She polls well with African American and white suburban women, but not with #NeverHillary independent registered voters. Klobuchar polls best with white suburban women, and would beat Trump by 9 points.  Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has the perfect response to anyone wondering if a woman can really beat President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. The Democratic presidential candidate fielded the question at a town hall event in Iowa on Monday night. During her conversation with CNN’s Jake Tapper, a man in the audience asked what she thinks of the notion that Democrats would have a better chance of winning the 2020 election with a male candidate.Yet at a time of ascendancy for women in the party, there’s a lingering doubt in some quarters about whether there is a risk involved in nominating a woman to take on Donald Trump, who Democrats fervently want to unseat. Playwright and composer Robert John Ford noted that many Democrats “agree that the primary objective for 2020 is to nominate the candidate that has the best shot at defeating Donald Trump.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar had an answer ready for local journalists who asked

Sen. Klobuchar

her this week about the fiasco in a human trafficking bill that held up the confirmation of attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch because of an abortion provision. Amy Klobuchar has laid the grounds for a presidential run on an image of “Minnesota nice.”But behind the doors of her Washington, DC, office, the Minnesota Democrat ran a workplace controlled by fear, anger, and shame, according to interviews with eight former staffers, one that many employees found intolerably cruel. She demeaned and berated her staff almost daily, subjecting them to bouts of explosive rage and regular humiliation within the office, according to interviews and dozens of emails reviewed by BuzzFeed News. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) announced on January 15 during an appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert that she would be filing an exploratory committee for president of the United States. “I’m going to run for president of the United States because as a young mom, I’m going to fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own—which is why I believe that health care should be a right and not a privilege,” she said on the show.For all of the hand-wringing that was done in the wake of 2016 about the unique challenges that face

Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) 

female candidates, Gillibrand — whose PAC, Off the Sidelines, supports women running for office — made it clear that she would not shy away from her femininity, and in fact, would use it to contrast herself with President Trump. After calling attention to the fact that she was a mother, Gillibrand painted Trump as a whiney toddler. Yet Gillibrand, who has served in the Senate since 2009, also has shifted some of her positions since her days in the House, when she took more moderate and conservative positions on issues such as illegal immigration and guns. Next we have Best-selling author, motivational speaker and spiritual adviser Marianne Williamson announced plans to run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.  And once called the "high priestess of pop religion" is throwing her hat into the 2020 presidential ring.     Williamson – whose first book A Return to Love shot her to prominence in 1992 – may not share Oprah’s celebrity, yet her deeply entrenched spiritual value system and maxim to ‘choose love over fear’ is one that will likely 

Marianne Williamson

appeal to many Oprah loyalists.This is not Williamson’s first foray into politics. In 2014, she raised $2 million as an Independent candidate in a bid to fill a seat in California’s 33rd congressional district. Despite support from prominent Democrats and celebrities she finished fourth in a field of sixteen.  She later shared in an interview with Oprah that the experience taught her to trust her own judgment more and rely less on that of others.  Williamson is a prominent New Age author who has written New York Times best sellers, most recently Tears to Triumph about “the spiritual journey from suffering to enlightenment”.Should she win the presidency, Williamson, 66, not only would be the first woman president but the first Jewish one, though few seem to be aware of her Jewishness. Williamson quotes an array of religious thinkers in her popular spiritual — but post-religion — lectures. 
& NOW THERE'S THE  RADICAL WOMEN.

Ocasio-Cortez 

At 29, Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. Her social media skills are fierce, helping make the self-described democratic socialist a darling among the progressive crowd and a target for conservatives. .When Anderson Cooper sat down with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 60 Minutes in early January, he asked if she considered herself a “radical.” She replied, “It has only ever been radicals that have changed this country. If that’s what radical means, call me a radical,” before venturing further and adding: “What’s unrealistic is what we’re living in right now.” And she’s right. After hearing that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez supports ideas such “paid family and sick leave” and “clean campaign finance,” The View’s Meghan McCain said it was “petrifying” that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s ideas could become “normalized” in the United States.There is no question that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez may be “too radical” for those who either operate within the domain of establishment politics or those who have been convinced that those who have been slapped with particular labels can be dismissed out of hand. But perhaps the only “danger” posed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was that she proved an under-financed candidate with a populist message can defeat an establishment opponent backed by corporate money and wealthy benefactors.  Ocasio-Cortez has put forward a (3)>>“Green New Deal” that includes generating all of the nation’s power from renewable sources, building a national smart grid and entirely eliminating industrial greenhouse gas emissions. A proposal from the democratic socialist lawmaker calls for achieving those goals within 10 years. Ocasio-Cortez has been pilloried for her plan to “get rid of farting cows and airplanes,” upgrade or replace “every building in America,” replace “every combustible-engine vehicle” and provide “economic security” for people “unwilling to work” — and rightly so. The old five-year plans of the former Soviet Union are modest, by comparison, in their pursuit of full socialism. Yet the big untold story is her admission that all of this cannot be paid for simply by taxing the rich. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is campaigning for president on a wealth tax, while Ocasio-Cortez has proposed 70 percent marginal tax rates on wealthy Americans. The message is clear: We’ll soak the millionaires and billionaires and mega-rich corporations so we can give you free stuff. The Crazies in the Democratic party are even driving Speaker Nancy Pelosi bonkers

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar 

. (4)>>Perhaps Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of their Muslim identity and personal history. Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel. Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters — especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel. After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.  Rashida Harbi Tlaib otherwise crazy sister of Ilan Omar  She lost no time in promising her supporters that she was going after Trump: “…we’re going to impeach that motherfucker!” . 
The Last word .

From this standpoint  these women are fueled with hate of Trump , hate of everything else that the Republican agenda is  .  #MeToo world that brought  women in power are still caricatured as inauthentic.  Trump's inept treatment of women has set the stage for sweeping ascendancy of radical feminists to power . AS the women present themselves as opponents to the Trump machine . Does this make things better ?  I don't think they are going to accomplish anything but ANY  UNITY or bipartisanship . Such kind of  progressives will be eager to push back against an administration they believe has abused its authority in the nearly two years since Trump's inauguration. It's going to be a tug - a-war , do nothing Congress that will be fighting Trump , while the Republicans will be fighting the Democrats back . The Strong likely outcome will be that the Mueller probe if it EVER becomes public is going to be a disappointment driving the Democrats crazy for anything to get Trump .Democrats who support impeachment have argued that Trump obstructed justice by firing former FBI director James Comey, and that hush payments to at least two women made by his personal attorney during the presidential race violated campaign finance laws. So if finding dirt on Trump is what these women are going for in Washington D.C. They are going to bring down the House and the Senate .

BY THE WAY MY FAVORITE WOMAN 

RUNNING for PRESIDENT is 

TULSI  GABBARD .

This requires another Blog 

post .

Till NEXT TIME !

NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>both racially and ideologically.Labeling the Democrats as “radical Democrats” in what may be his new marketing phrase for the opposition.  Almost daily, the Democrats trip over their own extremism – and they’re the only ones who haven’t figured it out yet. Day after day, they choose to lean into their radical agenda, embrace it, and follow it blindly, no matter how miscalculated, misguided or out of touch it is. Democrats get it. Being called a “radical” is not something to run away from. At times in our history, the American people and their political parties have done radical things that were the right thing to do. For the first time in more than 40 years, the left is shaping the Democratic Party’s identity. At a time when the terms liberal, progressive, and leftist are often used interchangeably, it’s worth clarifying what these terms mean. In America, what distinguishes leftists from liberals and progressives—as well as conservatives—is their commitment to radical equality. Leftists are more likely than liberals to argue that economic inequality renders America’s constitutional liberties hollow. (2)>>Voters who want to see a woman in the White House.   Much of the debate is grounded in the question of whether Ms Clinton’s loss represented a rejection of women as president, or of one specific woman. How significant a role sexism played in Ms Clinton’s defeat is difficult to separate from the other liabilities that hindered her campaign.Ms Clinton struggled to deal with decades of political baggage and a Republican attack machine that cast her as aloof, elitist and disconnected. Her reliance on a tight-knit inner circle isolated her from tough political challenges, and she struggled to win over working class white women and men. Clinton lost Wisconsin by just 22,748 votes, and it has been well documented that she didn’t visit the state once during the general election. (She ended up with 38,000 fewer votes in Milwaukee than Obama received in 2012.) Clinton held an election eve rally in front of Philadelphia City Hall, but after August, she never set foot in the parts of the city where she had to boost turnout—North Philly and West Philly—to signal to voters of color that she needed their votes.  Perhaps what gets overlooked the most when accounting for Clinton’s loss in these states is the importance of union voters. According to the exit polls across the Heartland Wall states, Clinton’s performance among union-household voters was the lowest recorded by a Democratic presidential candidate in decades. In those states, labor unions represent between 18 percent and 25 percent of the electorate, and there are hundreds of thousands more working-class voters who are former union members or from union families and who still relate to unions. Turning out the union vote and making the issues that impact workers central to the campaign has to be part of the equation if you want to win these states. (3)>>“Green New Deal”.  Taxing the rich won’t come close to covering the costs of the Green New Deal, which includes a bunch of socialist policies that have nothing to do with climate change. Manhattan Institute budget expert Brian Riedl has calculated the 10-year costs using liberal and nonpartisan sources. The results are stunning: $32 trillion for a single-payer health care plan; $6.8 trillion for a government jobs guarantee; $2 trillion for education, medical leave, job training and retirement security; and between $5 trillion and $40 trillion to fund universal basic income to support those who are “unwilling” to work. (The final price depends on how “universal” it is.) Grand total? Between $46 and $81 trillion.The only way to raise the revenue for even the low end of that estimate, he calculates, would require establishing a European-style value-added tax of 87 percent on everything we buy, or a new 37 percent payroll tax for every American (on top of the current 15.3 percent payroll tax and all existing federal, state and local taxes.)And that covers the price tag only before we even get to the energy and environmental policies in the Green New Deal. It is virtually impossible to accurately calculate the cost of replacing every vehicle that uses a combustion engine; bringing high-speed rail to every corner of America; upgrading or replacing every building in America; and replacing all fossil fuel energy with alternative energy sources. We’re talking hundreds of trillions of dollars. It would be virtually impossible to pay for it. And Americans don’t want to anyway. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 56 percent say they support Medicare-for-all, but when they learn it requires more taxes, 60 percent oppose it. (4)>>Perhaps Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.Besides the so called anti- Semitic comments . There is a bit of a strange twist to Sen. Omar that was somehow sweept under the rug  [ https://alphanewsmn.com/investigation-suggests-omar-married-brother/ ]  As Alpha News reported last week, Powerline Blog raised some interesting questions about the current state of the DFL candidate’s marriages and the possibility of her committing immigration fraud. Research by Alpha News suggests that Omar was involved with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (her legal husband) and Ahmed Hirsi (her cultural husband and father of her children) at the same time.

Cohen's Trump "Kompromat"

He's still lying ......

Last Year President Donald Trump visited Helsinki , met with Russia's President Putin.  In the audience a reporter asked Does Russia have compromising information -- (##)>>"Kompromat" -- on President Donald Trump?The issue came up point-blank when both Putin and Trump sidestepped their way around it.Also, the awkwardness of Putin, who bragged of being a former spy, being asked if Russians have compromising information on Trump while standing next to Trump cannot be understated.What neither man said was "no." This has been a long-term tease of the larger Russia 2016 story. While the reporter asked a embarrassing question as I remember it a year later . THE BIGGEST KOMPROMAT to Donald Trump is not the Russians . It's more like Trump's own past associates . Names of all the Presidents Men : Manafort , Stone , Flynn , Schiff , Comey and Cohen.  WaY BACK IN  September 2017,  (1)>>Cohen said he would "take a bullet" for the president. This past  Wednesday, he said his "blind loyalty" to Trump took him down a "path of darkness instead of light." So who paid off Cohen to flip flop besides going to prison for 3 years ?  (1.2)>> In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to tax fraud, bank fraud, and campaign-finance violations in the Southern District of New York. The violations were related to payments to buy the silence of two women, Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, who say they had affairs with Trump. On November 30, Cohen struck a deal to plead guilty to one count of lying to Congress in exchange for cooperating with Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 US presidential election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow.   Regarding the "compromising information" it's vary much seems that what ever it is [was] its in the hands of  Micheal Cohen ,  his testimony today . Cohen seems to be repeating what he said a year ago . Yes , he was accused of lying to Congress , but he seems to be saying the same thing with a few variations. [   see Bloomberg article shorturl.at/ltPYZ   ]   Cohen testified that Trump “in his way” communicated that he wanted his former lawyer to lie to Congress about a (1.3)>>Trump Tower Moscow deal he was negotiating during the 2016 presidential campaign But Cohen said the president was careful not to directly tell him to do so Even though Trump knew he was negotiating the Russian business deal during the campaign, Cohen said the then-Republican candidate would look him in the eye and tell him “there’s no business in Russia.” Later, Cohen said he lied to be consistent with Trump’s public story.  Mr. Cohen had copies of checks that he had received to reimburse him for his payments to Stormy Daniels, buying her silence about her affairs with Mr. Trump. Sex, money and secrecy are titillating, but are the prosecutors of the Southern District of New York really going to be able to find a campaign-finance crime here? Maybe they will make a case. Mr. Cohen’s testimony certainly did not.  But Cohen did not appear to disclose a “smoking gun” that could sink his former boss.Cohen said he had no direct evidence that (1.4)>>Trump or his campaign colluded with Moscow during the election campaign.   The hearing was sleaze for the sake of pure partisan pleasure, not a serious attempt at uncovering lawbreaking.  Like I said in my last post regarding Mueller and his soon to closing investigation , that EVERYTHING was leaked out before it never supposed to be made public , thank the news media for two years that has already  filled the American mind with pretty much is not exactly an investigation but more of some sort of propaganda . Even with Cohen's testimony that Donald Trump was corrupt [ which he is ] the information about that was already public regardless of what Cohen says to this committee live on television.Furthermore (2)>>Cohen "lied" to Congress before , like Mueller who compromised his investigation ,  what was supposed top be secret but was invalidated while exposing his finding to Russian lawyers last year . (3)>>The Democrats are working some kind of revenge plot. Its mostly obviuous to me its their way for payback on how Barack Obama was treated by the Republican party for  8 years of political finger pointing and obstruction Many Democrats care about one thing and one thing only: impeaching President Trump. And pressure from rich liberals could swell the impeachment ranks as 2020 approaches. Billionaire donor Tom Steyer used impeachment as a litmus test for congressional candidates last year and is already applying it to 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Don’t take our word for it. Look at thenearly five dozen Democrats who have already voted to move forward with impeachment, including six on the Oversight Committee. And remember, some of our newest freshmen Democrats have already vocally supported impeaching President Trump.Throughout Michael Cohen’s testimony, the House Oversight Committee, Republicans repeated what would seem to be a simple rule of human nature: Never trust a person who has been proven to be a liar.  Whatever you think about Donald Trump, Michael Cohen simply is not an honest person.    Democrats, however, should keep in mind that the guiding strategy with Cohen is “caveat emptor,” or “buyer beware.” Cohen is facing scrutiny over his surprising claim that he had no interest in a White House job and turned one down because he wanted to remain private counsel, which is directly contradicted by reports and alleged to be a new act of perjury.Perhaps trying the KOMPROMAT on Donald Trump ?




NOTES AND COMMENTS: (##)>>"Kompromat".  Because the word kompromat is new to most Americans, and has been introduced in the context of a President whose behavior confuses many of us, it is natural to assume that it must be a big, rare, scary thing, used in extraordinary circumstances to force compliance and achieve grand aims. But, Darden explained to me, kompromat is routinely used throughout the former Soviet Union to curry favor, improve negotiated outcomes, and sway opinion. Intelligence services, businesspeople, and political figures everywhere exploit gossip and damaging information.If there truly is damaging kompromat on Trump, it could well be in the hands of Trump’s business partners, or even in those of their rivals. Case in point : Michael Cohen.(1)>>Cohen said he would "take a bullet" for the president.   Cohen is going to jail in two months for several crimes, including lying to Congress.Giving Cohen a congressional platform is a disservice to the public, an affront to our democratic values and flat-out offensive to anyone who seeks the truth.Democratic colleagues on the Oversight Committee do not appear to care about the truth.They don’t care that Cohen has lied to Congress before.They don’t care that Cohen made millions of dollars by providing fraudulent services to numerous private businesses and foreign entities.They don’t care that Cohen leveraged his association with President Trump to attract book deals and television appearances.(1.2)>> In August, Cohen pleaded guilty . Like FLYNN , Cohen hoped Hillary would go to prison , but somehow he fandangled himself in apolitical mess at his bosses doing. While Clinton roams free, Cohen is paying the price for his involvement in the hush-money payments made on behalf of Donald Trump during his presidential campaign, as well as lying to Congress over a proposed Trump Tower project.    Cohen apologized for his crimes in his December 2018 sentencing hearing, stating he'd felt he had a "duty" to "cover up" Trump's "dirty deeds."   (2)>>Cohen "lied" to Congress before .  A November 2016 video of Michael Cohen indicates he lied under oath when he told lawmakers Wednesday that he didn't want a job in the Trump administration.  But he made clear in 2016 he wanted a Trump administration job. When told by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo that Trump would undoubtedly ask him to go Washington, D.C. with him, he responded: "I certainly hope so." When asked if he go, he responded: "One hundred percent."Cohen has already been convicted and disbarred for lying to Congress once before, and members of Trump's family said Cohen's comments about not wanting to work with Trump in the White House was another lie.Eric Trump tweeted on Wednesday: "Michael was lobbying EVERYONE to be 'Chief of Staff.' It was the biggest joke in the campaign and around the office. Did he just perjure himself again?" Donald Trump Jr. responded to his brother Eric Trump, by tweeting: "Nailed it. It really was the biggest joke of the entire transition. The beginning of his bitterness was when he realized that was never going to happen. #Delusional."   But Cohen also offered an array of possible new criminal allegations against Trump. His testimony will not only afford a basis for issuing new subpoenas but also for expanding oversight investigations into Trump’s business practices.    (1.3)>>Trump Tower Moscow deal.   A previous Michael Cohen plea deal court document filed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators states that Cohen lied to Congress at least three separate times about plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow with Trump’s name prominently featured on top. Here’s what we know: Cohen testified to Congress that negotiations to build Europe’s tallest building stopped in January 2016. But emails and other communications obtained by multiple news outlets, and now basically confirmed by Cohen, show those negotiations actually continued much longer: into at least June 2016, after Trump had already become the Republican Party’s nominee. And BuzzFeed News reported in November that Trump’s company planned to give the $50 million penthouse in the building to Russian President Vladimir Putin.That matters because it puts Trump’s praise of Russia and Putin in a whole new light — what most animated his warmth may have been personal profit. What’s more, it’s entirely possible that Trump knew a close confidant willingly lied to Congress earlier in the investigation.Before we get to Cohen’s lies about the so-called “Trump Tower Moscow” project, it’s important to know this: The president’s claim that he never cared about building something in Russia doesn’t track with his many failed attempts to do so over 30 years.“Russia is one of the hottest places in the world for investment,” Trump said in a 2007 deposition. “We will be in Moscow at some point.” (1.4)>>Trump or his campaign colluded with Moscow during the election campaign.  President Donald Trump said he was a "little impressed" that his former personal attorney told Congress there was "no collusion" between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia."He lied a lot, but it was very interesting because he didn't lie about one thing," Trump claimed during a press briefing in Hanoi, Vietnam. "He said, 'no collusion' with the Russian hoax. And I said, 'I wonder why he didn't just lie about that too, like he did about everything else.' He lied about so many different things and I was actually impressed that he didn't say, 'Well, I think there was collusion for this reason or that.' He didn't say that. He said, no collusion."Trump added, "The fact is, there is no collusion and I call it the witch hunt. This should never happen to another president. I call it the Russian witch hunt, I now add the word 'hoax.' It's a very, very bad thing for our country."Michael Cohen told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday that he had no "direct evidence" that Trump or his aides had colluded with Russia to get him elected.   (3)>>The Democrats are working some kind of revenge plot.   Its about getting rid of Trump. But in blaming “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” . Who may be responsible for the vary start of Mueller's investigation into "Russian Meddling" , but  tracing the evidence points to some kind of inside "collusion" within the Democratic party to find dirt on Trump way before 2016 . Much of the attacks on Donald Trump has come from the Media today . The assiult against Trump resembles what the Republican -Tea party base was doing against Barrack Obama .[ see this :https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/harvard-trump-clinton-campaigns-fight-232109 ]