Wednesday 22nd of January 2020



The circus for the next Democrat president hopeful is on. 

24, no less, candidates have put their hat in the ring. The TV ringmasters have thus decided that only 20 of them will be allowed to throw mud at one another in various streamlined debates. In the case of Presidential hopefuls, having a large number does not mean quality. All it means is having more sausages to prick. This of course is going to be entertaining as batshit. 
And Trump, the clever clumsy heavyweight on the other side — the champion of the unwahsables, the deplorables and of the warmongeringables — will shoot them with sharp funny tweets as they fall off from their own perch for having smoked weed or not.

I took a Gusmocratic short cut and weeded out all the hookies, ninnies, and other geniuses from the past — and obviously taken out the old guys who have passed their used-by-date and could show signs of debility any minute before the final contest. You remember Reagan in his last Presidential days… This would be a bad start.

One character shows more promises than all the other combined. He has the Jack (John) Kennedy looks, the pleasant youth and is more honest, including in his relationship.

Pete is a Christian (as all the US Presidents have to be)

Pete is gay (and not afraid of being overt) and married to his husband.

Pete used to be a soldier (knows courage)

Pete used to be in army “intelligence” (knows the CIA tricks)

Pete is a Rhodes scholar (he is a great orator)

Pete support universal healthcare (who would not except scrooge privateers)

Pete wants to genuinely reduce income inequality 

Pete is really pro-environmental policies (who would not, except Ghengis Khan)

Pete wants cooperation between the Democratic Party and organized labour

Pete wants universal background checks for firearms purchases

Pete is a great negotiator

Pete supports the Equality Act (it does not mean everyone has to be gay)

Pete wants to preserve the DACA program for children of immigrants

Pete supports reforms that would end gerrymandering (one person, one vote)

Pete would overturn the Citizens United v. FEC decision (corruption of electoral process with cash)

And Pete would abolish the Electoral College (Hillary would be pleased).

Pete did a popular sterling job as the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana

This is a handful of policies that could upset a “popularly led” Trump re-election. 

All the other Democrat candidates are too close to the swamp — are shy Democrats or conservatives in disguise.

At this stage I can't see how the Democrats can win unless they support Pete…

Pete Buttigieg that is. He should change his name to Smith or Jones… Easier to say. 

Or Boot, as in boot Trump… Okay Buttigieg will do…

There you have it. Of course Trump can still push his daughter to take the job...
In this case, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (already mentioned on this site) of Hawai might do. Woman vs woman...

the list...

The debate will be broadcast in prime time on NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo and be streamed online for free on a variety of digital and social platforms. 

Here are the participants: 

Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado 

Former Vice President Joe Biden 

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey 

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg

Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro 

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio 

Former Representative John Delaney of Maryland 

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York 

Senator Kamala Harris of California

Former Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado 

Governor Jay Inslee of Washington 

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota 

Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas 

Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio 

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont 

Representative Eric Swalwell of California 

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts 

Author Marianne Williamson 

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang


See more:

justice to operate independently in 2020...?

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said that if elected, he would leave the Justice Department to operate independently of the White House during any potential criminal investigations into President Donald Trump.

"Nobody is above the law and prosecution decisions should have nothing to do with politics and should come from the DOJ itself, not from the Oval Office," Buttigieg told CNN's Jake Tapper in a preview of an interview to be aired Sunday.

Buttigieg's remark comes in contrast with his Democratic rival Sen. Kamala Harris of California, who said if she was elected the Justice Department would have "no choice" but to charge Trump with obstruction of justice if he were to finish his term without being impeached. Harris, a former California attorney general, told NPR that former special counsel Robert Mueller had essentially set the stage for criminal charges against Trump, and only a Justice Department policy barring prosecuting sitting presidents got in the way.

Harris, along with a chorus of other candidates from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, has called for Trump's impeachment. Buttigieg has also advocated for impeachment inquiries, but focuses more on beating Trump in 2020.

Buttigieg has also called for criminal inquiries into Trump if he finishes his term in 2021 without impeachment, but the South Bend, Ind., mayor did not go so far as to dictate what the conclusion of those inquiries would be. He also told The Atlantic that he would be hesitant to order his attorney general to directly pursue charges against Trump.

"I would want any credible allegation of criminal behavior to be investigated to the fullest,” Buttigieg told The Atlantic on Wednesday.

Trump has also recently come under fire for telling ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that if a foreign agent were to offer him dirt on an opponent, he would hear it out. Buttigieg told CBS' Margaret Brennan in an interview segment published Saturday that any American who receives foreign election help should "just call the FBI".

"And by the way, this isn't hypothetical. This isn't theoretical," Buttigieg said, referring to Russian offers of opposition information to members of Trump's inner circle in 2016.

Speaking with Tapper, Buttigieg specified that that criminal investigation would be conducted by an independent Justice Department without micromanaging presidential oversight.



Read more:



Read from top.


a democrat herring, now named warren...


Old Toon from The New Yorker circa 1950?

At this stage, we cannot establish a connection between Elizabeth Warren's (née Herring) first husband and Earl Warren (the subject of the cartoon) — the American politician and jurist who served as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (1953–1969) and earlier as the 30th Governor of California (1943–1953). Earl Warren was the last Chief Justice to be elected rather than be chosen, thus "could be impeached".

We know that Elizabeth Warren wants to impeach Donald Trump...


Pundits rolled their eyes on New Year's Eve when Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic US senator from Massachusetts, announced she had taken the first steps to run for president.

She was too schoolmarmish, too serious in her focus on policy over personality, especially in the face of bombast from President Donald Trump.

Her decision to take a DNA test to find out whether she had Native American ancestry became a blunder when tribe leaders denounced her.

Conventional wisdom declared that Ms Warren was destined to be a back-of-the-pack candidate, overshadowed by alpha males such as Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, and far less interesting than people of colour such as Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Julian Castro.

And, if you wanted a wonk, there was Pete Buttigieg, the multilingual Harvard and Oxford-educated mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who had the added credentials of being gay and a military veteran.

Nevertheless, to quote the expression used about her tactics on the Senate floor, she persisted.

And now, Senator Warren is rising to the top of the presidential pack, seemingly by being herself.

In recent weeks, she's scored the kind of achievements that scorekeepers track in successful candidates.

There have been profiles in Time Magazine and The New Yorker.

The latter declared:

"On many economic issues, Warren has been remarkably prescient. She has spent decades warning Americans about the pernicious effects of income inequality, predatory corporations, and consumer debt, and about the failures of our financial system — issues that are at the heart of the 2020 Presidential campaign".

The profile went on:

"Now, as one of 23 candidates seeking to become the Democratic nominee for President, Warren is betting that the energy behind her ideas can appeal to enough swing-state voters to get her into office".


Read more:


Sen. Elizabeth Warren's ex-husband co-founded a DNA testing company and wrote one of the first computer codes for making genetic comparisons. 

Jim Warren's career involved him in the kinds of genetic testing that Elizabeth Warren controversially invoked this month to prove that she had Native American ancestry. 

One of the two other co-founders of his testing company, FamilyTreeDNA, has worked with Carlos Bustamante, the Stanford University geneticist who administered a DNA test at Elizabeth Warren's request. 

Bustamante, a Stanford University geneticist, conducted the test, which Elizabeth Warren used to respond to President Trump's "Pocahontas" taunt and his mockery of her previous claim to be a Native American while a professor at Harvard Law School in the 1990s. Warren's roll-out of the test results was widely seen as a sign that she is running for president in 2020. 

Rather than using a commercial service to conduct her DNA test, Warren hired Bustamante, 43, who appears in the video explaining the test and in a scene in which the Massachusetts senator telephones his office and asks to speak with him. Warren received considerable criticism for the test, which found that her Native American heritage stretch back six to 10 generations, making her between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American.


Read more:

giving most people what they need...

There has never been a Donald Trump honeymoon. Nor any meaningful period of national unity under the 45th President's leadership. 

He is the most unpopular president in modern American history, with poll approval ratings consistently in the low-to-mid-40s. 

He has driven wedges between the United States and its two great neighbours, Canada and Mexico, and between the United States and its historic allies in Europe.

And yet, Mr Trump must be considered favoured to win re-election in 2020.


Read more:


Gus: the only candidate that can topple Trump from his perch is not any of his "twins" on the Democrats side. Most of the Democratic candidates are on the same page as Trump in regard to war, social issues and the "economy", except Pete and Bernie.

We know that Bernie is "too socialistic", thus the only alternative would have to be Pete Buttilieg. Just give him the stick so he can a) ignore Trump and b) replace the Trumpo bombast with more humanitarian policies and c) do a far more unifying job that the rabid Donald. Pete is young and willing to give most people what they need. 

Trump would make mince meat of most of the other candidates, while he would have to be less clowny and more cautious when having to deal with opposing Pete in debates...

Hopefully Pete would also do what has to be done to protect the planet from global warming.

why we need a "lightweight" president...



In the end Mayor Pete will fall victim to what so far has delivered him to the presidential jamboree—the paper chase of credentialism.

Without Harvard, Oxford, McKinsey, and Afghanistan on his resumé, Mayor Pete would look more like an overly bright Jeopardy! contestant than a presidential candidate. (Alex Trebek: “He’s the mayor of a midwestern city and in his spare time he wants to be president. Let’s give a big welcome for Pete Buttigieg….”)

But with so many golden tickets in his background, after a while, when voters ask about what it will take to cut the $1 trillion blown on Homeland security or the best way to lower carbon emissions, they will want to hear more than Pete’s self-directed love songs. Whitman said, “I and this mystery, here we stand,” but he wasn’t running for president.


Read more:






The Trump presidency thus has benefitted from the intellectual work of political scientists who yearned for strong party government, conservative constitutional scholars who elevated a dubious theory of a unitary executive to a fashionable legal theory, and a philosophical-journalist line of scholarship that disassembled a belief in objective truth. These were intellectual trends emerging well before Donald Trump became president. In fact, these trends constructed Donald Trump and made is presidency possible.

Trump is simply the latest in a lineage of politainers advantaged by the new rules of journalism. His mastery of the new celebrity, entertainment, for-profit news industry gave him the ability to overcome the strong party government that had been constructed by the political science community. He and interested groups also exploited the weaknesses in party governance by capturing the GOP. Once elected, Trump continues to benefit from the journalism and partisan trends, but also from the powerful intellectual forces creating the modern presidency. These trends are not going away when Trump is no longer president. They are forces that have produced Trumpism, nourished Trumpistas, and which make challenging the power of the current president so difficult. Trumpism is a feature of contemporary America politics, with or without Donald Trump as president.

All the other Democrat candidates are part of the "trumpism" syndrome...

but not so much that you will notice a thing...


From Naomi Klein


It is true that Biden has had a bad week. But if Biden implodes, there’s a phalanx of other candidates, recently seen hopping from one $2,800-a-head Wall Street fundraiser to the next, all with variations on the same reassuring message: I’ll change things just enough to fend off the pitchforks and to save you from the social embarrassment of Trump, but not so much that you will notice a thing.

“It is important to rotate the crops,” David Adelman, a financial industry lawyer, told the New York Times. He was ostensibly explaining why he had co-hosted a fundraiser for Beto O’Rourke, but in doing so, he also summed up precisely how Wall Street sees Washington: as its plantation. It engineers the seeds, plants them, then reaps what it sowed.

These forces, and the think tanks they finance, want the Warren and Sanders camps at each other’s throats, demoralizing and weakening each other. Because that’s exactly how the progressive bloc stalls or shrinks enough for Biden (or some newer political GMO crop) to walk away with it.

The current political map is confusing, there is no doubt. Progressive vote-splitting is a real possibility down the road — but so is vote-combining, and the more progressive voters there are, the more viable that prospect will become. There are multiple routes by which a progressive majority spread over several candidates can be translated into a Democratic ticket that is more progressive than any we’ve seen in nearly a century, maybe even ever.

There are also multiple ways that the historic opportunity of this progressive surge can be lost. And that loss begins with scarcity thinking, trying to tear each other down, and fooling ourselves into believing that it’s 2016 all over again. When in fact, we are somewhere we have never been before.

Read more:



The best candidate could be Pete because, read from top...

trending: up...

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg:

Trending: Up

The small-city mayor passed a major test. He scored big with his answer on Republican hypocrisy on faith and immigration; and he showed uncommon vulnerability with his contrition on the recent South Bend police shooting.


Read more:

the new york post is showing its hand...

yesterday's cover


today s cover


The New York Post, a Murdoch paper, is full-on for Trump... One could not expect any less sarcasm from NYP front pages so soon. Note the low derogatory "Immigs"...


Buttilieg is still the best bet to beat Trump. So the Trump supporters will do anything to darken his character. Pete will have to be resilient but he has the ingenuity to be...

pessimism of the intellect...



You know, Joe Biden is clearly, I believe, the worst candidate among anybody with a ghost of a chance of winning the Democratic nomination next year. And you know, Kamala Harris is also a corporate creature. So if we don’t want those lobbyists—And by the way, most of the superdelegates are simply elected Democrats, so they’re establishment people on the whole. If we don’t want them to have power over the nomination, we should also move forward now to make sure that the billionaire class doesn’t have power over who is the frontrunner. And while Joe Biden is sinking from where he was, he still has a lot of money, a lot of clout, a lot of friendly corporate media behind him. And that’s, I think, where activism kicks in. You know, if people organize effectively, we can change the news, we can change history, not just learn about it later on.

I should add one other thing. That the odds structurally are against progressive, genuinely left progressive candidates from being nominated for the presidency. The odds were also against this young activist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And the structure of the rules in New York preregistration requirements and so forth, made the conventional wisdom that this powerful guy named Joe Crowley was simply going to walk back into Congress, and we know the history. That was changed because people had— not to coin a phrase, it’s an old phrase— they had “pessimism of the intellect.” That they brought to bear not only their optimism of the will, but their organizing to change what had been forecast, and bring about a much better result.


Read more:



Read from top.

no climate debate at the DNC...

DHARNA NOOR It’s The Real News. I’m Dharna Noor in Baltimore, the Democratic National Committee rejected a proposal to hold a candidate debate focused entirely on the climate crisis. At a meeting in San Francisco on Thursday, DNC officials voted 17 to 8 on the proposal and when they did, protesters with the youth live climate organization, the Sunrise Movement interrupted the meeting to ask the question… (singing). 

Climate organizers did score a smaller victory. Previously the DNC prohibited all the candidates from participating in climate forums that they hadn’t sanctioned. But at this meeting, the resolutions committee voted to reverse that ban, and to sanction a less formal climate forum. 

Still every major democratic contender has publicly supported the proposal for a climate debate and polls show that climate policy was actually the number one issue that voters wanted to hear about in the first debate. So what happened? Joining me to talk about this now is sunrise movement trainer Carmen Bouquin, who is joining me from San Francisco. Thank you so much. 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yes, thank you so much for having me. 

DHARNA NOOR So I should say, obviously before we get started, the stakes here could not be higher. The Amazon is burning at a record rate. The Amazon’s a big carbon sink, so it helps the earth fight climate change. Ice sheets are melting in Greenland of the Arctic, Arctic wildfires are raging and breaking records. So with all that as a backdrop, you were there in the room for this meeting along with some 350 other members of the public. What was it like to be there when the resolution got rejected and why you think it did? 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yeah, it was actually a really painful meeting because it was like two hours of them debating specific clauses within the specific resolution and I think it was really discouraging because this is a campaign that not just Sunrise, but all of these environmental organizations had been working on for the past couple of months and pushing candidates to hold the climate debate. And we have so many candidates and supported it. And so to hear like DNC representatives vote no and so many of them that did was really discouraging. And I think a lot of youth felt unheard and not listened to. 

DHARNA NOOR For sure. And of course, you know the DNC did project this resolution, but they did also reverse the ban on candidates participating in non-sanctioned climate forums. DNC chairman Tom Perez instated that ban after he got an open letter from Washington governor Jay Inslee calling for a climate debate instantly just announced that he’s dropping out of the democratic primary on Wednesday. But anyway, what exactly will that DNC resolution that past due and is that a victory for y’all in any sense? 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yeah, so that resolution basically allows the CNN town hall and MSNBC town hall that’s happening on climate change to exist and for candidates not to be punished for it. It was like kind of a ridiculous rule in the first place that candidates would be punished if there was a climate debate. And so that was a small victory and we’re really excited to see how candidates react at those town halls and what their plans are. But we still believe that I’m a climate debate is going to show the full enormity of the plans and we still believe that a climate debate should happen, but we were excited about the small victory for sure. 

DHARNA NOOR You said that there were a bunch of other resolutions that were on the table today too. Were there any others that you were looking for? Were there any other major ones that passed or didn’t? 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yeah, there was another resolution that we were really excited for. It was like a resolution 30 and it was about the platform of the DNC and making it so that the DNC could mandate single issue debates based on the platform of the DNC and that was something that Christina Pelosi had reformed during the meeting to kind of adhere to some feedback from the climate debate resolution that said that if we debate climate change, then we should be able to have a debate about healthcare and immigration. 

And Christina Pelosi was like, “Absolutely, we should have those and we should have them based on the DNC platform.” Unfortunately, that resolution was also the… the aspect of the resolution about making parts of the platform of the DNC into a debate, that was voted down. And so that was discouraging as well. Because we want to see the candidates debate as many things as possible and as many issues as possible. And so that was also discouraging. 

DHARNA NOOR Yeah, it’s interesting. So speaking of that, that talking point that if you sanctioned this debate, will we need to sanction other single issue debates. That was something that Simone Sanders took up. So I was watching the live stream of this DNC conference today and Simone Sanders talking, which is kind of a really wild moment for me. She’s a top advisor to Joe Biden’s campaign who today came out staunchly. She came out staunchly against the climate debate resolution. 

SIMONE SANDERS To call for a public in and of itself may sound good, but at the end of the day, we actually cannot exert the power over the network to do what we would like to do. 

DHARNA NOOR So a couple of things going on here. She said that networks might not comply with the DNCs call for a climate debate if they did support it. She said a town hall’s a better format. As you just said, both MSNBC and CNN have already planned climate town halls, but way fewer people watch those than debates, obviously. Simone Sanders works for Joe Biden who publicly endorsed the call for a climate debate. What did you make of her comments today? 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yeah, I think that was pretty confusing because Biden has come out in favor of a climate debate and it seems like a lot of folks at the table today got caught up in process and precedent. And didn’t really focus on the emergency at hand of the climate crisis and the fact that the climate crisis impacts every aspect of our society and every issue. 

And so that was kind of confusing to hear that coming from her because Biden had had endorsed the climate debate. And it also is just not true. Climate change is an intersectional issue that impacts all of our lives and it needs to be discussed in full and we need to know what the presidential candidates think and what their plans are. 

DHARNA NOOR Could you talk a little bit more about what you mean by saying that the climate crisis is so intersectional? Talk a little bit more about how this crisis impacts every facet of human life. 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yeah, and we’re seeing this right now with like the refugee crisis. We’re seeing mass immigration because of climate refugees. We’re seeing wild weather patterns and natural disasters, fires, hurricanes. And they’re mostly impacting vulnerable communities in the global South and communities of color in the North. And so this is impacting so many people and we’re seeing this also in the Midwest with extreme flooding. It’s impacting our agricultural systems industry, our transportation. 

Every realm of society is going to be impacted by climate change. And the people that are being most impacted are the most vulnerable. And it seems like it’s being ignored and it has been ignored for so long that we thought that the climate debate could be something that they actually draw attention to that. But obviously they aren’t recognizing that. 

DHARNA NOOR Yeah, it’s interesting in sort of a poetic, sort of display of difference here, Simone Sanders used to work for Bernie Sanders, who today put out this really huge ambitious green new deal proposal. And it calls to decarbonize the U.S. Completely by 2050, which that’s a deadline that a lot of other candidates have said they’d stick to. 

But it also calls to decarbonize transportation and energy sectors by 2030. It calls to ban nuclear energy. Those proposals aren’t so common in other candidates plans. So it seems like there are still some pretty big differences that need to be hashed out between these candidates, especially on climate policy. So is a town hall forum enough to do that? Is that sort of informal forum like the one that the DNC voted for today, sufficient to take on all of those huge questions? 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yeah, no. And that’s why we wanted a climate debate is because we want candidates to be able to debate in full all of those plans and be able to push each other and develop plans like Bernie Sanders. We even saw that today, DNC representatives were saying that, that just having a discussion on climate change is not enough. We need a debate and we need to see how candidates stack up and what their plans are. 

There was a lot of discussion on how we can change how debates are run and not have them run by large new sectors like CNN, but having them more controlled by the people. And that was like also a focus of the climate debate is we wanted that to happen. 

DHARNA NOOR Sure. I should disclose here for viewers of The Real News Network, I did donate 27 dollars to Bernie Sanders campaign, so if that makes you take nothing that I’m saying here seriously, that’s your prerogative. 

But anyway, so what is the next move for Sunrise Movement now that a DNC sanction climate debate seems to kind of be off the table. What do you all plan to do now to encourage real debate amongst candidates on how they’ll address the climate crisis and could these town halls or these multi issue forums play into that at all? 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yeah, we’re definitely going to encourage candidates to debate in full at those forums and all candidates to go. Kamala Harris had originally said that she wasn’t going to go and some of our people and environmental activist pushed her to go. And so we’re making sure that all of these candidates are being pushed in the biggest way possible. But the Sunrise Movement is going to keep going. We have three huge summits planned around the country, including one this weekend in the Bay area for all of the West. 

We’re going to be training up young people to strike on September 20th and 27th as part of the global strike. And we’re going to be continuing to push these candidates up until 2020 and then when a candidate gets elected in 2021, we’re going to not stop pushing the candidates and also pushing for the green new deal. 

DHARNA NOOR Got it. And I guess I’ll just close by asking you, today was just an initial meeting for the DNC. This coming weekend, they’re going to be taking on final votes on all these resolutions. What do you expect to see from that meeting this weekend and what do you hope that the DNC votes up votes down? 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yeah, so we’re hoping that the climate debate also gets proposed again and it can be voted in front of the general body and we’ll also be continuing pushing candidates and DNC reps throughout the weekend to vote yes on that and that should happen on Saturday or Friday. And so those are some… We’re still hoping that there is a vote on the climate debate and then we’re also just hoping that the DNC keeps voting on resolutions that really show the climate crisis and kind of crisis resolutions. 

DHARNA NOOR All right. Well as we see what comes out of this weekend and continue to follow the candidates proposals and plans to take on the climate crisis, we’d love to talk to you again. Carmen Bouquin, you’re a trainer and an organizer with the Sunrise Movement based in California. Thank you so much for being on today. 

CARMEN BOUQUIN Yes, thank you so much. 

DHARNA NOOR And thank you for joining us on the real news network. 

BABATUNDE OGUNFOLAJU Thanks a lot for watching. Appreciate it. But do us one more solid favor, hit the subscribe button below. You know you want to. Stay up on new videos.



Read more/see more:



Read from top.

religious fruitcakes...

From the American Conservative:

I did read, with no little interest, an op-ed published in The New YorkTimes late last month by Bianca Vivion Brooks called “To Take On the Religious Right, We Need a Religious Left.” Ms. Brooks asks her readers:

What do we relinquish as a society when a cooperative faith dissipates? Beyond spiritual guidance, the church was my earliest exposure to effective social organization, people rallying around collective belief to create lasting material change in the lives of those who needed it most. Collective belief demands social cooperation and interdependence bound to a principled obligation with expectations of self-sacrifice.


The flaw in this thinking is obvious right from the title. Progressives will never be able to engineer an effective rival to the Religious Right, if only because spirituality itself can’t be engineered.


So, what is the religious right? Would Jesus be on the left or the right? Is this a question of forgiveness, sin definition, uptightness — or cash? Have the religious thoughts evolved away from the original teachings of Christ? Why did Noah get pissed after the biblical floods ordeal?

What and how did engineer the religious right? The popes? Luther? Lucifer? The Mormons? Let’s be frank here. The religious right was NOT engineered by Christ. Its "spirituality" was engineered by various invented traditions created to satisfy a hierarchical social system in which kings would rule with the "gift of god"… So what are the major subterranean different tenets (please let’s not mention “spirituality”) of the religious right and the religious left?
The right:
We don’t like gays.
We hate abortion.
We’re in it for the money (traditional hierarchy).

And this is about it. 

The left:
Progressives accept gays as Christians.
They are not sternly opposed to abortion.
Christ leads the way to a social conscience (equality).

Note Gus is a fierce atheist and only present the loony views of religious bigotry in all its formats, including Islam. Both right and left Christian views are a restriction on understanding of reality as both lead to delusion and systematic deception in their dependance to deeper organisms such as the "deep state" and “political machineries” that are only there for the psychopathic kill: elect a loony deceptive president.

But you can see that the religious right is worried about Pete, the Christian gay, thus a sinner. Hence the title of this article mentioned at top, by a Catholic, Michael Warren Davis:

Pete Buttigieg And The Mercenary Religious Left.

"If progressives think they can enlist Christianity just to win politically, they’re in for a rude awakening."

In the USA, evangelicalism is a distortion of belief into a narrowing of the social and racial arteries. Evangelicalism has taken many formats, as to whom has the best telephone line to god through the best interpretation of a few lines in the bible, while ignoring reality. And we are also told by Rod Dreher: Black Evangelical: ‘White People, Chill Out’. Letter from a conservative black Christian reader on the rise of a minority within a minority

Yes "we" (religions) are in trouble, when the religious beliefs break up in a multitude of expressions, to be seen a bit like in an elastic museum exhibiting Botticelli to Picasso — plus present personal artistic navel-gazing, as a development of individualism, from the birth of Venus to tattoo parlours. 

And yes we can enjoy our varied stylistic expressions as an extension of our ability to create a new “reality” delusion — as long as our scientific understanding develops and maintains our deeper relationship with the evolution of nature, and its complexity. Sciences are the future.

But fighting between religious right and left? It’s like arguing the spirituality between an apple tart and an apricot tart. They’re still tarts… 
Pete is more like a mixed fruit tart... This worries the appletarters...

Gus Leonisky 
Atheist about spiritual tarts...

Read from top.

See also: why do I feel warren is deluded in her russophobia, as if the USA have been honest in dealing with Russia?...

the love guru gets out of the race...


Marianne Williamson wanted to beat Donald Trump with love, but her 2020 presidential run is over.


Who is Marianne Williamson?

The 67-year-old had run for office once before, also unsuccessfully. In 2014, she finished fourth in a highly competitive race for a congressional seat in California.

But it's hardly what she's known for.

In her 38-year career before politics, she served as an adviser to Oprah Winfrey and officiated the last of Elizabeth Taylor's eight weddings.

Seven of her 12 self-help books were New York Times best sellers, and even if you think you'd never be associated with a spiritual guru, you'd no doubt recognise a few quotes from them. Quotes like:

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure."

But if you do know about Ms Williamson from her politics, it's probably because of quotes like:

"If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivised hatred that this President is bringing up in this country, then I'm afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days."

On a campaign stage crowded with career politicians and prepared remarks, she spoke to voters who felt that the country was experiencing a crisis of conscience of such seismic proportions that politics was beside the point.


Read more:


Read from top.

liar, liar...

In politics, there's nothing quite like a hot mic.

Whether it's Donald Trump boasting about grabbing women by the crotch, Peter Dutton chuckling at Pacific islands being swamped by rising seas or former British PM Gordon Brown calling a voter he'd just met "bigoted", a forgotten microphone peels back the highly orchestrated public veneer of politics and, for a few seconds, reveals something real and (often) ugly.

This week it was the turn of Presidential contenders Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to be very publicly overheard.


Read more:



See also:


why do I feel warren is deluded in her russophobia, as if the USA have been honest in dealing with Russia?...