**********************************************
Is Trump the biggest Chump?
**********************************************

**********************************************
Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine
Comes to America.
**********************************************

John Boehner, Tabloid Cover Boy

By: Kevin Osborne

Less than a month after he was sworn into office as House Speaker, the long-rumored extramarital affairs of John Boehner have landed him on the cover of the National Enquirer.

Boehner is featured on the bottom-right corner of the cover of the issue that's on sale nationwide Thursday. A photo of Boehner's face is featured next to the headline, “Speaker of the House John Boehner Accused in Sex Probe! (Details inside).”

The article itself is a two-page spread that features several photographs including one of Lisbeth Lyons, a lobbyist for the Printing Industries of America. Lyons is one of two women the article names as Boehner's sexual partners, the other being congressional press secretary Leigh LaMora in 1997.

(Apparently, just like Superman, Boehner will only date women with the double-L initials. Lucy Liu and Loni Love, you'd better watch out.)

Inside the newspaper, the article appears under the headline, “Enquirer exclusive: House speaker sex scandal.” For good measure, the sub-headline states, “Married John Boehner accused of cheating with at least 2 women.”

The article quotes Mike Stark of StarkReports.com, an online blog, about Boehner's alleged tryst with Lyons. An Enquirer reporter confronted Lyons, who replied, “I do not want to have a discussion about John Boehner. I have no comment."

This type of attention didn't bode well for another politician named John -- Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina. In 2007, while Edwards was seeking his party's presidential nomination, the Enquirer published a series of articles about his extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter. Edwards later admitted the reports were true and dropped out of the race.

The blogosphere first reported on the affair rumors in September, allegedly because The New York Times was preparing an expose as an “October surprise” before the election that could damage his reputation. Such an article never appeared but the backlash helped energize conservative pundits.

Stark confronted Boehner about the allegations last year, as Boehner was leaving a press conference about the GOP's “Pledge to America.” Boehner declined to comment at the time.

Boehner, 61, was born in Reading and lives in West Chester Township, with his wife, Deborah. He has two daughters.

A Roman Catholic, Boehner graduated from Moeller High School in 1968, and from Xavier University in 1977, both of which are Catholic institutions.

Boehner was given a 91 percent rating by the Christian Coalition in late 2003 for his voting record on so-called “family values” issues.

It should be noted that Boehner opposes same-sex marriage and has supported efforts at defining marriage as between one man and one woman in the Constitution.

According to supporters of that effort, it's important because “Every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.”

Hmmm. Can you say hypocrite? I think you can. At least we finally know why he’s always weepy: HE GOT CAUGHT! Back to calling him BONER.

How To Take Back A Stolen Election

By Thom Hartmann

Published Monday, November 29, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

"Never again!" says the slogan in an email I received from an activist friend. "Never again will we allow a stolen election in the USA!"

But how are we going to stop it?

The major American political parties have an answer -- it's already working for them in the Ukraine -- but it's very much a sword that can cut two ways.

Interestingly, it was first used in the US.

On December 4, 2000, in time to change the outcome of the Electoral College vote, Greg Palast published an article in Salon.com, made into a BBC television documentary shortly thereafter, that laid out solid evidence of massive electoral fraud in Florida, perpetrated against the majority-Democratic-voting African American community by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush. Without this fraud, Gore would have easily carried the state.

Even more glaring, a consortium of news organizations found and reported on the front page of The New York Times (and other papers) on 12 September 2001, that in Florida "...a statewide recount -- could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his [Gore's] way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent." (The Times apparently chose to bury this fact -- that Gore actually won the 2000 election -- in the 15th paragraph and behind a misleading headline because the nation had been attacked on 9/11 the day before.)

Not only was the election of 2000 stolen by the Bush brothers, but it was proven by the later statewide recount that -- even after Jeb's knocking thousands of African Americans off the rolls -- Gore still would have won Florida had all the votes been counted.

This was outrageous news, enough to bring people into the streets. And there were demonstrations -- loud and angry ones. But they were round-the-clock in front of Al Gore's VP residence in Washington DC (shouting with bullhorns "Get out of Dick Cheney's house!"), outside (and often within) vote-counting headquarters' in Florida, and entirely composed of Republicans.

Where were the protesting Democrats? Other than those in a few of Florida's African American communities and the Congressional Black Caucus, they were largely invisible. If Democrats and progressives had taken to the streets in mass numbers nationwide that November and December, it's entirely probable that the Supreme Court would have backed off and allowed a statewide recount to continue, and Al Gore would have been president for the past four years, instead of George W. Bush.

Ironically, the Democratic Party knows how to highlight election fraud and start national movements to bring down administrations that try to steal elections. A Party-affiliated group has helped do it four times in the past four years.

But not in Ohio, Florida, or anywhere else in the USA.

Instead, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (Madeleine K. Albright, Chairman) has joined up with a similar organization affiliated with the Republican Party (the International Republican Institute -- John McCain, Chairman), other NGOs, and US government agencies to support the use of exit polls and statistical analyses to challenge national elections in Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus, and the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

In three of those four nations they succeeded in not only mounting a national challenge, but in reversing the outcomes of elections.

The election reversals were accomplished by funding local groups -- most made up of a core of activists and college students -- who worked to topple regimes that had rigged their own re-elections.

As Ian Traynor -- one of the finest investigative reporters working in the world today -- notes in a 26 November 2004 article in The Guardian titled "US Campaign Behind the Turmoil in Kiev," "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavory regimes."

The campaign to unseat corrupt regimes is funded by groups affiliated with both the Democratic and Republican parties, Traynor notes, as well as the US State Department, the US Agency for International Development, and non-governmental organizations including George Soros's Open Society Institute and the late Eleanor Roosevelt's organization Freedom House (a group whose board of directors is now chaired by the notorious former CIA director R. James Woolsey).

Woolsey's participation aside, Traynor's report implies that this coalition of political, governmental, and philanthropic groups is more interested in promoting the will of the local people than in propping up regimes friendly to the US. One of the four candidates they've supported in the past four years was even openly anti-US (Kostunica in Serbia). The common denominator among the nations targeted is that in all four there was widespread evidence the regimes in power were planning to steal the elections.

One of the keys to making the program work is tight organization and planning before the election begins. The resistance movement is carefully branded with a single-phrase slogan such as "He's Finished" or "High Time," and an uncomplicated logo is designed -- like the fist used in Serbia or the ticking clock used in Ukraine -- that's easily reproduced on posters and stencil-spray-painted in public places.

On Election Day, Traynor reports, the apparatus springs into action. Their main tool is a nationwide set of exit polls along with election observers supplied by credible organizations like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE -- which monitored the 2004 US elections and raised questions about non-transparent electronic voting machines). The exit poll results are released to the public before the official results, putting the regime in power in the difficult position of being reactive rather than proactive in declaring victory.

Because in each of these nations the media -- radio, TV, and newspapers -- are either controlled by, beholden to, or owned by supporters of the regime in power, the disparity between the exit polls and the official election result is trumpeted through non-traditional media like the internet, local activist groups, and mass rallies, until a critical mass is achieved, forcing the mainstream (regime-friendly) media to cover the story.

At the same time, nations who claim the ideal of free, fair, and transparent elections are encouraged to speak out, further inflaming the issue. This is no accident, of course - Traynor reports that the US government itself invested over $44 million in challenging the results of the Serbian election, and is estimated to have put $14 million into supporting groups challenging the recent Ukrainian election.

Thus, we have the irony of US Secretary of State Colin Powell saying of the Ukrainian election: "We have been following developments very closely and are deeply disturbed by the extensive and credible reports of fraud in the election. ... We call for a full review of the conduct of the election and the tallying of election results."

In many ways, such campaigns are exactly what Republicans did in 2000, when they organized an airlift of aides from Tom DeLay's office in Washington DC to riot in the Florida offices where votes were being recounted. That Ukraine-like guerilla theater led to national media coverage and the intervention of the US Supreme Court.

The theater of protest -- most Americans thought the angry people banging on the vote-counting windows were Floridians and didn't realize most had been flown in from Washington DC -- became its own story and helped forge public pressure to shut down the Gore campaign's attempt to determine the real Florida count. It was also so effective at grabbing the headlines that it eclipsed the Greg Palast's scoop showing criminal and widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in Florida.

Here we are again, in 2004, with another dubious election.

And, although evidence of fraud and vote rigging in the 2004 US election is mounting today, there was no widespread mobilization like the ones we encouraged in other nations or saw in Florida in 2000. Thus, it's extremely unlikely national institutions like the mainstream media, Congress, or the Supreme Court will seriously challenge or even expose to the general public the many deficiencies of this election.

Because the Democratic party and progressive activists failed to plan a PR response to election-rigging in Florida and Ohio (among other states), such efforts (and some damning and shocking new revelations) are now being carried in "new media" like the internet by folks like Bev Harris, Greg Palast, and Bob Fitrakis, and in foreign media like New Zealand's "The Scoop", and the BBC.

Many Democrats and progressives believe now is the time for national advocacy groups to organize an effort similar to the one our nation has been promulgating in the former Soviet states and the Republicans used in Florida in 2000. The blueprint is laid out in Ian Traynor's article in The Guardian at

www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1360236,00.html,

and the template is both simple, straightforward, and already demonstrated to work.

The next national elections will be held in the United States in 2006, and there's a lesson for us in the 1972 midterm elections.

Although Richard Nixon won a landslide re-election that year, carrying every state except Massachusetts, he was out of office within 18 months because the House and Senate were in Democratic hands and Senator Sam Irvin was able to proceed with an investigation of Nixon's crimes while in office. Opposition control of Congress is about the only way to hold a president accountable: Republican control of Congress led to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. (And when a President appoints his own attorney as the nation's head prosecutor -- Attorney General -- it becomes virtually impossible to prosecute the President outside of the House or Senate.)

Thus, the first key to returning America to multiparty rule and re-opening the political process will be in electing progressive Democrats (and Independents like Vermont's Bernie Sanders) to the US House and Senate in 2006.

But first we must prepare to take on a Republican machine that has already corrupted the electoral process in the past three elections, and knows how to "pull a Ukraine" in any state at any time with a single  phone call to Jim Baker or Tom DeLay. In a pre-emptery move, Republicans are now calling for an end to exit polls in the USA because, as RNC Chairman and former Enron lobbyist Ed Gillespie noted on November 4th, "In 2000 the exit data was wrong on Election Day, in 2002 the exit returns were wrong on Election Day, and in 2004, the exit data were wrong on Election Day - all three times, by the way, in a way that skewed against Republicans and had a dispiriting effect on Republican voters across the country."

Each of those three "skewed" elections was an opportunity for national mobilization.

In 2000 it could have been to highlight the removal from voting rolls in Florida of tens of thousands of African American Democrats. The 2002 election could have revealed the "trade secret" software running non-paper-trail voting machines in Georgia that defied the polls and threw out Max Cleland (helping establish Republican control of the Senate in 2002). And the 2004 election could have again raised questions about voting machines, Florida purge rolls moving to other states, dirty tricks (phone calls to registered Democrats telling them their polling places had changed, etc.), and, as Fitrakis has documented, disclosed patterns of precinct and machine placements in Ohio (and other states) that caused thousands -- perhaps hundreds of thousands -- of Ohio Kerry voters to give up and leave 10+ hour lines because they had to go to work or pick kids up from school.

Some will suggest this is a dangerous strategy because Republicans will simply organize their own exit polls, PR machine, and national mobilization. To them, I'd point out that this is already happening.

Republicans are getting ready, and have known since 2000 how well this can work in America. Without a countervailing grass-roots but national response, we'll continue to move toward a Stalinist type of state, with single-party rule, "purges" of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, increasing limits on civil liberties, and widespread cynicism about politics leading to increasing nonparticipation in the process. .

As generations of activists have taught us, we can't wait around for politicians to fix a corrupted political system. It's going to take -- as the Ukrainians are now showing us -- involved and active citizens to make this happen, and that requires an organizational framework to cut through the political and media fog.

And now is the time to begin.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy."

******
And this, my fellow Americans, was the beginning of the end of America as we knew it. We didn’t see it coming. We didn’t see the blatant theft of anything and everything that wasn’t nailed down.

We couldn’t imagine attacking a sovereign country simply to get at their oil. But we did. Social Security is still on the “to do” list. Social Security...a program that continually operates in the black. But Social Security is in jeopardy. The Pubs are eager to get their sweaty paws on that last trove of money sitting in the U.S. Treasury.

Remember the imposter president, soon after the theft of the election, proclaim: See? Nothing here, (as he reached into a safe and pulled out a handful of IOUs to the Social Security Trust Fund). Of course this was a feeble attempt to create a mental image of a bankrupt system for the American people.

Do you remember Al Gore’s promise to put Social Security in a “lock box”? Couldn’t have that happen when both parties have  used it to finance their wars.

It appears the American people have finally awakened from their long nightmare. Hopefully, it isn’t too late.