Scary, nutcase theories of Nathan Choi

The web page https://www.nathanchoiforjudge.org/ of Nathan Choi, candidate for Washington State Supreme Court, is filled with crazy conspiracy theories and misspellings.

Normally, such an unqualified and extremist candidate would be no concern against a competent sitting Supreme Court judge, Steven Gonzalez. But a poll indicates that Choi was in the lead. (Watch Justice Steve Gonzalez’s challenger run away from KIRO7’s Essex Porter on camera!.)

Here are some of the things Choi says on his webpage. I’m copying them at length here, in case Choi corrects the errors.

From https://www.nathanchoiforjudge.org/religion/

In the Begining [sic] since the time in Genesis, they have attempted to build a one world government. They attempted to reach the heavens by building the Tower of Babel which was gracefully destroyed during the time of Peleg. It was located in Babylon reminding me of Revelations 18 about the new Tower of Babel and the Babylonian System.

The Globalist Elites have built the Tower of Basel right next to the Gotthard Tunnel. Confirm this yourself. It’s located in Basel Switzerland. This tower is the head of their New World Order. It is the top of all the Private Central Banks across the world. Search this matter out. Please see the opening ceremony of that Gotthard Tunnel. For religious people, Revelations is about the current time and it states that this new Tower will Fall and its conspirators will be paid back double.

The final video below is the glue that puts it all together. Before watching, I ask that you say a prayer to block any hexes or vexes that are embedded in commercials of this video so they may return to the sender 7 fold. While viewing this, pause it often and verify facts. A fair Judge will hear both what is presented and other narratives of the same set of facts. A fair judge must consider all the evidence and reach a conclusion based on credible evidence.

From https://www.nathanchoiforjudge.org/union-members-immigration:

First of all, Nathan Choi does NOT support illegal entry into the United States. It makes no sense for a union to ask you to vote for open borders. Don’t Illegals work for less and take jobs away? 1 plus 1 does not equal 3. The population is not dumb to figure that illegals take jobs away? Could it be that immigration is being framed for a more sinister motive? After practicing immigration law for about 20 years, I can safely tell you immigration is not a Republican or Democrat issue. you must look at this from a freedom vs oppression point of view. The People vs the Globalist Elites.

One of the best ways to implement their end goal is through mass immigration, by blending the people of developed countries with famished ones to cause social disorder resulting in their New World Order, a One World Government solution. Cause the Problem to obtain a Reaction and implement a preconceived Solution…..

From https://www.nathanchoiforjudge.org/9-11-truth/:

Did you know there were a group of young adults that flew in from abroad to film the incident, cheered, and popped champagne after the plane hit? The FBI caught them and let them return to Isreal [sic] where they went on air admitting that they knew it was going to fall and flew in to film it.

From https://www.nathanchoiforjudge.org:

A Rothchild once stated that he cares not which puppet is the leader of the country. He who owns the money is the true ruler through donating/bribing its leaders. When you are a multi-Trillionaire who has partial ownership of every central bank on earth (except 3 click here to learn more) you can do anything you want through threat or bribe. This system enriches only their cronies AND is the true source of misery on earth, the lack of funds for important projects, and other social problems we face in our nation/world. If you watched the videos above, you can see how a global cabal of CEOs, Presidents, Congressmen, and unfortunately Judges can do this.

 

Please vote for Steven Gonzalez for Supreme Court.

Trump’s strategy

A friend says: Just in case there’s any doubt at this point about the game Trump plays. From Anthony Scaramucci (who still supports Trump) on Friday:

“What he likes doing, and what I tried to present at CNN yesterday and that ended up with the headline, “Scaramucci calls Trump a liar,” what he likes doing, he likes saying very provocative things, and in the case of lighting up the media, he likes saying very inaccurate things, cause he knows the media will jump on him like a hall monitor in middle school and reprimand him. And he knows that his base loves it when the media reprimands him. It galvanizes them. It gets them angry. It brings them to the fore, and he’s doing that to try to get them to participate in the vote on November 6th. And so, you can hate him for that, you can hate me for explaining it, but in my mind, he’s intentionally lying, as opposed to just lying lying. As it relates to a nationalist, he’s saying the word nationalist, cuz he’s hoping that somebody that really understands that word that hates him will get up on the television and say this SOB is a militant nationalist. And his base, they enjoy it. They don’t mind it. And now you guys can be upset about that, but that’s what it is.”

Steve and Connie Ballmer’s political contributions

I downloaded from the state Public Disclosure Commission a database listing contributions to political campaigns and initiatives. The database is for direct contributions to candidates and initiative campaigns. It excludes independent expenditures. So the data shown below are incomplete, but still, I hope, enlightening.

You can see in the table below that the Ballmers donated a lot of money to support gun control and to support charter schools. Stand for Children is a charter school promoter. (Part of the aim of the charter school movement is to destroy public education by “monetizing” it, in order to enrich entrepreneurs.)

Integrity WA appears to be the same things as Rodney Tom’s Judicial Integrity WA PAC, whose 2016 donations are listed here on the PDC website. That PAC and a similar one, Judicial Integrity Washington, are funded by rich Washingtonians including Kemper Freeman. See this article, which also discusses Citizens for Working Courts, which was funded by the Ballemers, Paul Allen and Bill Gates.

You can below that most of the Ballmers’ contributions to individual candidates were to Democrats: the middle-of-the-road (“Road Kill”) Democrats who supported charter schools. Perhaps the Ballmers knew that the Republicans were already on their side, so there was no need to give money to them.

Interesting that the only Republican supported was Steve Litzow, whose charter school bill passed in 2016 with help from the Road Kill Democrats.

FILER_NAME FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME AMOUNT CONTRIBUTOR_NAME OFFICE LEGISLATIVE_DISTRICT PARTY BALLOT_NUMBER FOR_OR_AGAINST
ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY ERP COMM ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY ERP COMM 500,000.0 BALLMER STEVEN 1491 For
STAND FOR CHILDREN WA PAC STAND FOR CHILDREN WA PAC 500,000.0 BALLMER CONNIE
INTEGRITY WA INTEGRITY WA 250,000.0 BALLMER CONNIE 1464 For
INTEGRITY WA INTEGRITY WA 250,000.0 BALLMER CONNIE 1464 For
WA CHARTERS ACTION PAC WA CHARTERS ACTION PAC 125,000.0 BALLMER CONNIE
WA CHARTERS ACTION PAC WA CHARTERS ACTION PAC 125,000.0 BALLMER STEVE
CHILDRENS CAMPAIGN FUND CHILDRENS CAMPAIGN FUND 85,000.0 BALLMER CONNIE E
CHILDRENS CAMPAIGN FUND CHILDRENS CAMPAIGN FUND 85,000.0 BALLMER STEVEN A
CIT FOR WORKING COURTS ENTERPRISE WA CIT FOR WORKING COURTS ENTERPRISE WA 12,500.0 BALLMER CONNIE
CIT FOR WORKING COURTS ENTERPRISE WA CIT FOR WORKING COURTS ENTERPRISE WA 12,500.0 BALLMER STEVEN
WA ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY VICTORY FUND WA ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY VICTORY FUND 12,500.0 BALLMER STEVEN
WA ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY VICTORY FUND WA ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY VICTORY FUND 12,500.0 BALLMER CONNIE
CIT FOR PROGRESS ENTERPRISE WA CIT FOR PROGRESS ENTERPRISE WA 12,500.0 BALLMER CONNIE
YES FOR VETS AND HUMAN SERVICES YES FOR VETS AND HUMAN SERVICES 12,500.0 BALLMER CONNIE 1 For
YES FOR VETS AND HUMAN SERVICES YES FOR VETS AND HUMAN SERVICES 12,500.0 BALLMER STEVEN 1 For
CIT FOR PROGRESS ENTERPRISE WA CIT FOR PROGRESS ENTERPRISE WA 12,500.0 BALLMER STEVEN
INSLEE JAY R JAY INSLEE 2000.0 BALLMER CONNIE E GOVERNOR DEMOCRAT
CHILDRENS CAMPAIGN FUND CHILDRENS CAMPAIGN FUND 1250.0 BALLMER STEVEN A
CHILDRENS CAMPAIGN FUND CHILDRENS CAMPAIGN FUND 1250.0 BALLMER CONNIE
SULLIVAN PATRICK J PATRICK SULLIVAN 1000.0 BALLMER STEVE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 47 DEMOCRAT
MORRIS JEFFREY R JEFFREY MORRIS 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 40 DEMOCRAT
MORRIS JEFFREY R JEFFREY MORRIS 1000.0 BALLMER STEVEN A STATE REPRESENTATIVE 40 DEMOCRAT
SPRINGER LAWRENCE S LAWRENCE SPRINGER 1000.0 BALLMER STEVE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 45 DEMOCRAT
MULLET MARK D MARK MULLET 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE STATE SENATOR 05 DEMOCRAT
SAWYER DAVID J DAVID SAWYER 1000.0 BALLMER STEVE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 29 DEMOCRAT
SAWYER DAVID J DAVID SAWYER 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 29 DEMOCRAT
TOM RODNEY RODNEY TOM 1000.0 BALLMER STEVEN STATE SENATOR 48 DEMOCRAT
TOM RODNEY RODNEY TOM 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE STATE SENATOR 48 DEMOCRAT
SULLIVAN PATRICK J PATRICK SULLIVAN 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE E STATE REPRESENTATIVE 47 DEMOCRAT
LITZOW STEPHEN R STEPHEN LITZOW 1000.0 BALLMER STEVEN A STATE SENATOR 41 REPUBLICAN
HOBBS STEVEN R STEVEN HOBBS 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEMOCRAT
KAGI RUTH LECOCQ RUTH LECOCQ KAGI 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 32 DEMOCRAT
LYTTON KRISTINE C KRISTINE LYTTON 1000.0 BALLMER STEVEN A STATE REPRESENTATIVE 40 DEMOCRAT
LYTTON KRISTINE C KRISTINE LYTTON 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE E STATE REPRESENTATIVE 40 DEMOCRAT
SENN TANA D TANA SENN 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 41 DEMOCRAT
KAGI RUTH LECOCQ RUTH LECOCQ KAGI 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 32 DEMOCRAT
MULLET MARK D MARK MULLET 1000.0 BALLMER STEVEN STATE SENATOR 05 DEMOCRAT
LITZOW STEPHEN R STEPHEN LITZOW 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE E STATE SENATOR 41 REPUBLICAN
CLIBBORN JUDITH R JUDITH CLIBBORN 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE E STATE REPRESENTATIVE 41 DEMOCRAT
CLIBBORN JUDITH R JUDITH CLIBBORN 1000.0 BALLMER STEVEN A STATE REPRESENTATIVE 41 DEMOCRAT
HOBBS STEVEN R STEVEN HOBBS 1000.0 BALLMER STEVEN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEMOCRAT
SPRINGER LAWRENCE S LAWRENCE SPRINGER 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE E STATE REPRESENTATIVE 45 DEMOCRAT
PETTIGREW ERIC ERIC PETTIGREW 1000.0 BALLMER STEVEN A STATE REPRESENTATIVE 37 DEMOCRAT
PETTIGREW ERIC ERIC PETTIGREW 1000.0 BALLMER CONNIE STATE REPRESENTATIVE 37 DEMOCRAT
HABIB CYRUS CYRUS HABIB 950.0 BALLMER CONNIE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEMOCRAT
HABIB CYRUS CYRUS HABIB 950.0 BALLMER STEVEN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEMOCRAT
PODLODOWSKI TINA M TINA PODLODOWSKI 500.0 BALLMER STEVEN SECRETARY OF STATE DEMOCRAT
PODLODOWSKI TINA M TINA PODLODOWSKI 500.0 BALLMER CONNIE SECRETARY OF STATE DEMOCRAT
CORNELL ADAM W ADAM CORNELL 500.0 BALLMER CONNIE COUNTY PROSECUTOR DEMOCRAT

On political struggle and spiritual acceptance

Ady Barkin wrote an essay in The Nation, I’m Dying. Here Is What I Refuse to Accept With Serenity, about politics, spirituality, and dying. At age 32 he was diagnosed with ALS, and within a few years he was unable to feed himself. He dictated the essay to a friend because he was unable to write or type. He wrote:

Like many people suddenly confronted with agonizing loss, I looked for answers in Buddhism. Pema Chödrön teaches us that when the ground disappears beneath your feet, the solution is not to flail around in a desperate attempt to find a handhold; it is to accept the law of gravity and find peace despite your velocity. Leave the mode of doing and enter the mode of being. Accept things as they are, rather than yearning for them to be otherwise.

Such radical acceptance is in tension with my identity as a movement builder. Activism is precisely about not accepting the tragedies of this world, but rather on insisting that we can reduce pain and prolong life. Social justice means creating a stable floor beneath our feet and then putting a safety net under that, to catch us if it suddenly vanishes: universal health insurance, affordable housing, unemployment benefits. Being part of a progressive political movement is about fighting back and building toward a better future. “Acceptance” is not part of our vocabulary.

The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr—whose most famous disciple, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., would become the patron saint of American organizers—sought to resolve this tension in his Serenity Prayer: asking for the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what can be, and the wisdom to know the difference.

This is something I have wondered about for a long time: how to harmonize letting go and selflessness, on the one hand, with the obligation to work — indeed fight — for what is right and just.

For the things that we can  change (for the better) we are obligated to fix them; since we know that we can change them, it’s presumably not that difficult.  The challenging issues are the ones on the borderline between what we can change and what we can’t.    It’s not just a matter of wisdom. It’s also a matter of action: we don’t know if we can change them if we try, but try we must.  And we may stumble or go in the wrong direction, since our information is imperfect.

Barkin concludes his article like this:

Sometimes, though, our struggle is not enough. ALS destroys my body, no matter how many medicines I take or exercises I do. Sometimes, oftentimes, white supremacy, violent misogyny, and rapacious capitalism rip apart our families and destroy lives, regardless of how well we organize. And sometimes, oftentimes, our stories are not powerful enough. Despite our best efforts, Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, and will do lasting damage to America and its people.

Yet it is in these moments of defeat that hopeful, collective struggle retains its greatest power. I can transcend my dying body by hitching my future to yours. We can transcend the darkness of this moment by joining the struggles of past and future freedom fighters. That is how, when we reach the end of our lives and look back on these heady moments, we will find peace in the knowledge that we did our best.

There is a seeming paradox embedded in the third part of Niebuhr’s prayer, because the wisdom to know the difference between what we can and cannot change can only be earned through struggle. Neuroscientists seek a cure for ALS because they do not accept its inevitability. Organizers rage against the machines of capitalism with that same determination. It is only by refusing to accept the complacency of previous generations that the impossible becomes reality. For me, Niebuhr’s prayer is most true if rearranged: Collective courage must come first, wisdom second, and serenity at the very end.

Buddhist teacher and author Jack Kornfield wrote an essay  Dharma & Politics on the same topic.   He calls on people to act from a place of love and peace. Find peace within and then go out into the world.

The Buddha’s teachings of compassion and wisdom are empowering; they encourage us to act. Do not doubt that your good actions will bear fruit, and that change for the better can be born from your life. Gandhi reminds us: “I claim to be no more than an average person with less than average ability. I have not the shadow of a doubt that any man or woman can achieve what I have if he or she would simply make the same effort and cultivate the same hope and faith.”

The long arc of justice is slow.  Despair is not an option. Selfless sacrifice is needed.  We must fight without becoming monsters ourselves.  But how to retain inner serenity in the midst of our sacrifices and struggles — both personal and societal — requires wisdom and maturity indeed.

I’m glad, by the way, that Kornfield descends from his spiritual heights — concern for one’s spiritual growth can be selfish, though they say that meditating for hours a day for years is for the benefit of others too — and addresses social justice: “America has sometimes confused power with greatness.”  “[I]f we envision the fulfillment of wisdom and compassion in the United States, it becomes clear that the richest nation on the earth must provide healthcare for its children; that the most productive nation on earth must find ways to combine trade with justice; that a creative society must find ways to grow and to protect the environment and sustainable development for generations ahead.”

Political activism may be a form of Karma Yoga (service). But because of the overall ugliness, anger, and impurity of politics — no politician is perfect — political activism doesn’t feel spiritual.

In short, what I liked about his article was (1) His eloquence and grace in the face of death, (2) his comments about the tension between spirituality (letting go) and political struggle, which is all about GETTING and DEFEATING, and (3) how it addresses a spiritual dilemma: the inability to surrender or let go or accept. Life can be a constant ego struggle to succeed. What can one surrender to if one is an atheist?

The Logic of Lesser-of-two-evilism

Suppose you are being held hostage by deranged criminals who give you an ultimatum: tell them your bank pin number, social security number and other identifying information, or they’ll rape your wife and daughters and mutilate you.

As a matter of principle, you oppose giving away your money to criminals — a clear evil. But you realize that the alternative is worse. So you settle for the lesser-of-two-evils.

Here’s another example. Suppose you’re terminally ill and in constant pain. You can’t walk, enjoy food, or enjoy sex. Your doctors tell you that your condition will worsen. In such a case, ending your own life might be the lesser-of-two-evils.

Here’s a more whimsical example: you’re a young man “in love” with a woman who insists that you marry. You kinda think marriage is evil, but the alternative — being alone — is worse. You settle for the lesser-of-two-evils, marriage.

Now for a serious, political example. Suppose that you lived in Louisiana in 1991 and had to choose between virulent racist David Duke and flawed, corrupt corporate Democrat Edwin Edwards in the race for the governor. Not a pleasant choice. But, as did a broad coalition of Louisianans, you could, with a clear conscience, vote for the lesser-of-two-evils, Edwards. That example is from Alfred Reed, Jr’s convincing article Vote for the Lyinc Neloiberal War Monger: It’s Important.

Quoting from that Reeds article again:

I assume readers get the allegorical point of that story [about Louisiana]. Just to drive it home, here’s another, more dramatic one that Harold Meyerson adduced last month in The American Prospect: in the early 1930s, as the National Socialists gained strength, Ernst Thälmann, the Chairman of the German Communist Party held to the line that the Social Democrats were a greater threat to the working class and to the possibility of revolution than were the Nazis. The Communists’ conflict with the Social Democrats was both not without justification and mutual. Some Communists believed that the elements of the working class who were drawn to the Nazis, e.g., those in Ernst Röhm’s Brown Shirts, could be won from them. In 1931 some sought to collaborate with the Nazis to bring down the weak Social Democrat government. In expressing the conviction that the Social Democrats were the main danger in German politics, Thälmann uttered the quip that has long outlived him as a cautionary device: “After Hitler, our turn.” His point was that a Nazi victory would expose them as fraudulent with no program for the working class. What Thälmann didn’t count on was their success at criminalizing and liquidating all opposition. He died in a concentration camp.

Indeed, many leftists who hate the Democrats often say similar things about the Democratic Party: they’re as corrupt as the Republicans.  Or they even claim that the Democrats are more dangerous, because they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I hear such claims all the time online, particularly on OpEdNews. (I expect comments to that effect on this article.) Proponents of such claims say that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans because  — take your pick — Bill Clinton approved NAFTA, Bill Clinton overturned Glass-Steagall, Barack Obama prosecuted whistle blowers, Barack Obama supported drone wars, Barack Obama continued the Bush bailouts of Wall Street, Hillary Clinton was hawkish, etc., etc.

I am convinced those people are wrong.  Yes, those Democrats pursued some evil policies. But the Democrats are much better than the Republicans: on women’s rights, on the environment, on taxation, on gay rights, on unionism, on education, on the Supreme Court, on civil rights, on voting rights, etc., etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a right wing troll or is deluded.

Gore was an environmentalist and a moderate Democrat. Bush and Cheney launched the immoral and disastrous war in Iraq; they transferred trillions to the rich and gutted environmental regulations.

Obama did many bad things, but he’s nowhere near as bad as Bush, Cheney, or Trump. I needn’t tell you how much damage Trump and the GOP Congress are doing now.

So, in response to:

Warning to Democrats for 2020

I suggest:

Welcome to Bust

I could show dozens of other examples of how Trump is far, far worse than Hillary would have been. Only on militarism is it unclear whether Trump is worse. Hillary is a neocon. But Trump may start a war with Iran, North Korea, or China; and he is giving billions more to the military. And he is pulling out of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

But I understand where such Bernie-or-Busters are coming from.

Virtue scale

If we could rate politicians on a scale of virtue, with 0 being pure evil and 100 being pure good, we might rate dictators such as Hitler and Stalin in the low single digits. (They didn’t murder everybody.) Let’s say Dick Cheney is a 10, George W. Bush is 15, Bernie Sanders is 75, Dennis Kucinich is 85. What’s Trump? 20? What’s Hillary? 30? 40? 50? 60? What’s Obama? 40? 50? 60? Your ratings will differ. But given your ratings, suppose you’re voting in an election in which the two leading candidates are on the evil side of the scale: under 50. Suppose that one candidate scores a 10 (very evil) and the other scores a 35 (somewhat evil). Would that difference be enough to warrant voting for the lesser-of-two-evils? How about if their ratings were 10 versus 48? 10 versus 15? 30 versus 40?

Perhaps it would take a 20 point spread for you to vote for the lesser-of-two-evils.

Of course, the logic of lesser-of-two-evilism should take into account not just the two leading candidates but also third-party candidates, their chances of winning, and, most importantly, the effect of our votes on future elections. Such considerations greatly complicate the reasoning and weighing of effects.
|
If the third-party candidate has a decent chance of winning, then it might be a risk worth taking to vote for her.

In 2000 and in 2016, everyone knew there was virtually no chance that Nader or Stein would win.

But someone can argue it’s better to vote for a third-party candidate because that will send a message to the future: we will not vote for an evil candidate — at least not one who scores less than, say, 45.

Such reasoning is like a sacrifice: I’m willing to suffer for the next four years (or next 40 years, realistically, given the judicial picks) so that future politicians will think twice before crossing a line.

Such a strategy might work. It can be quite costly. It’s not clear that future politicians will hear the message. I suppose it’s like the decision a general in a war needs to make: should I sacrifice these troops to set us up for victory in the future.

I suspect, though, that the votes by leftists for Nader in 2000 and for Stein in 2016 sent the following message to Democrats: “We Nader and Stein supporters are fools. Ignore us.”

There’s yet another way to view lesser-of-two-evilism. Instead of looking at the consequences of your vote, look at the virtue of the candidates. In such a case, one could have a principle: I will not vote for candidates who are less than, say, 40 on the evil scale, no matter how evil the more evil candidate is.  Such a view of voting largely ignores consequences.  It’s not a view that I support. How about you?

Repugs, Dumbs, and Dumbers: a rant

Repugs, Dumbs, and Dumbers: American politicians

If you have half a brain and half a conscience you know that most Republican politicians promote repugnant policies that increase inequality, bankrupt the economy, destroy the environment, and promote militarism. They lie, distort and resort to racism, xenophobia, dirty tricks and criminal activity.  They put children in cages. They antagonize our allies and cozy up to Putin. Still, tens of millions of Americans have been brainwashed to vote for them.

The mainstream Dems are far from perfect on policy — they’re often too hawkish and too compromised by corporate money — but they’re far better than the Repugs. Unfortunately, the Dems are usually dumb. Bill Clinton was dumb enough to ruin his presidency by having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, by getting caught, and by lying about it.  He also unnecessarily sold out — on NAFTA and on dismantling Glass-Stegall and welfare programs — thereby causing Nader and progressives to oppose him.

Hillary was so dumb she forgot to campaign in the swing states.

Obama had the chance to prosecute the Bush administration war criminals and the Wall Street crooks. Instead, he wanted to “look forward.” He should have looked forward to Trump. He prosecuted the whistle blowers, not the war criminals. He compromised early and often. He was a great orator and was much beloved by the people, who, in 2008 were disgusted with Republican criminality and stupidity. But Obama didn’t fight and didn’t lead. He allowed the Repugs to set the narrative and to Swift Boat both him and Hillary.

Here’s a particularly outrageous example of Obama’s dumb choices.  As reported in Politico (Biden: McConnell stopped Obama from calling out Russians), three weeks before the 2016 election, Obama and Biden wanted to inform the American people about Russian interference in the election. But they allowed Mitch McConnell to veto the announcement.

Biden said he and former President Barack Obama worried that without a united front of bipartisanship, speaking out before the election would undermine the legitimacy of the election and American institutions in a way that would play into the Russians’ larger ambitions. (source)

This is the same Joe Biden who, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that was holding hearings on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, decided against allowing women other than Anita Hill to offer testimony about Thomas’s sexual harassment.

Why don’t Democrats fight?

Republicans in Congress had opposed virtually every policy position of President Obama. The Senate threatened filibusters on numerous bills. In March of 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court; the Senate, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, refused to hold hearings on the nomination. Yet three weeks before the 2016 election, Obama and Biden still wanted to be bipartisan and still deferred to Mitch McConnell?!

There are dozens of similar inexplicable cowardice or excessive moderation on the part of Obama. See this petition.

If Obama is a closet conservative, then some of his choices make sense. But from a purely political, strategic point of view, many of his choices were just dumb and naive.

As for Nader and Stein, their stubbornness, and that of their supporters, led to the election of Bush and Trump. They did not help the progressive cause at all. They’re now laughingstocks.

I might even include Bernie Sanders among the Dumb group. He unnecessarily calls himself a “Democratic Socialist” when, in fact, he’s really a social democrat.

Let’s hope the Dems stop being dumb. For now, they’re all that’s left to save us from the Repugs.

Freedom Foundation protest coverage by the Bellevue Reporter

On September 28, hundreds of people protested the annual dinner of the Freedom Foundation in Bellevue, where the guest speaker was renowned racist Dinesh D’Souza. The Bellevue Reporter print edition had an excellent piece about the protest, including content critical of D’Souza and Trump.

Freedom Foundation protest coverage by Bellevue Reporter

Oddly, though, the Bellevue Reporter website doesn’t, as of the time of this writing, have a link to the article, and an Internet search doesn’t reveal it.