Black Lives Matter Seattle Protestor Is A Former Tea Party Palin Supporter
Marissa Johnson has been exposed as a Tea Partier and Sarah Palin supporter. Many questions surrounding her authenticity have arisen.
By Paul Loebe

There are just too many questions that have gone unanswered. 

8 years is a long time, and political views can change dramatically in that time period. I know I am a very different person than I was 8 years ago. Eleven years ago I voted for GW Bush. So I can understand how ones views can change dramatically in a relatively short period of time, especially if you are young. 

But something smells fishy here. 

But why did the Facebook page and social media presence of Johnson’s faction BLM Seattle did not exist until the day of the rally?

Why is it that they said Martin O’Malley’s name several times through out their protest speech?

Questions that will likely never be answered.  

I appreciate that when Bernie Sanders is interrupted by protesters, he lets them speak. He could have security escort them out the building, like many other politicians have done over the years. 

But he realizes that this rally is not really his, it is the peoples. 

The Revolt Against the Ruling Class

“He can’t possibly win the nomination,” is the phrase heard most often when Washington insiders mention either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.  

Yet as enthusiasm for the bombastic billionaire and the socialist senior continues to build within each party, the political establishment is mystified.

Political insiders don’t see that the biggest political phenomenon in America today is a revolt against the “ruling class” of insiders that have dominated Washington for more than three decades.

In two very different ways, Trump and Sanders are agents of this revolt. I’ll explain the two ways in a moment.  

Don’t confuse this for the public’s typical attraction to candidates posing as political outsiders who’ll clean up the mess, even when they’re really insiders who contributed to the mess.

What’s new is the degree of anger now focused on those who have had power over our economic and political system since the start of the 1980s.

Included are presidents and congressional leaders from both parties, along with their retinues of policy advisors, political strategists, and spin-doctors.

Most have remained in Washington even when not in power, as lobbyists, campaign consultants, go-to lawyers, financial bundlers, and power brokers.

The other half of the ruling class comprises the corporate executives, Wall Street chiefs, and multi-millionaires who have assisted and enabled these political leaders – and for whom the politicians have provided political favors in return.

America has long had a ruling class but the public was willing to tolerate it during the three decades after World War II, when prosperity was widely shared and when the Soviet Union posed a palpable threat. Then, the ruling class seemed benevolent and wise.  

Yet in the last three decades – when almost all the nation’s economic gains have gone to the top while the wages of most people have gone nowhere – the ruling class has seemed to pad its own pockets at the expense of the rest of America.

We’ve witnessed self-dealing on a monumental scale – starting with the junk-bond takeovers of the 1980s, followed by the Savings and Loan crisis, the corporate scandals of the early 2000s (Enron, Adelphia, Global Crossing, Tyco, Worldcom), and culminating in the near meltdown of Wall Street in 2008 and the taxpayer-financed bailout. 

Along the way, millions of Americans lost their jobs their savings, and their homes.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates to big money in politics wider than ever.  Taxes have been cut on top incomes, tax loopholes widened, government debt has grown, public services have been cut. And not a single Wall Street executive has gone to jail.

The game seems rigged – riddled with abuses of power, crony capitalism, and corporate welfare. 

In 1964, Americans agreed by 64% to 29% that government was run for the benefit of all the people. By 2012, the response had reversed, with voters saying by 79% to 19% that government was “run by a few big interests looking after themselves.”

Which has made it harder for ordinary people to get ahead. In 2001 a Gallup poll found 77 percent of Americans satisfied with opportunities to get ahead by working hard and 22 percent dissatisfied. By 2014, only 54 percent were satisfied and 45 percent dissatisfied.

The resulting fury at ruling class has taken two quite different forms.

On the right are the wreckers. The Tea Party, which emerged soon after the Wall Street bailout, has been intent on stopping government in its tracks and overthrowing a ruling class it sees as rotten to the core.

Its Republican protégés in Congress and state legislatures have attacked the Republican establishment. And they’ve wielded the wrecking balls of government shutdowns, threats to default on public debt, gerrymandering, voter suppression through strict ID laws, and outright appeals to racism.

Donald Trump is their human wrecking ball. The more outrageous his rants and putdowns of other politicians, the more popular he becomes among this segment of the public that’s thrilled by a bombastic, racist, billionaire who sticks it to the ruling class.

On the left are the rebuilders. The Occupy movement, which also emerged from the Wall Street bailout, was intent on displacing the ruling class and rebuilding our political-economic system from the ground up.

Occupy didn’t last but it put inequality on map. And the sentiments that fueled Occupy are still boiling.  

Bernie Sanders personifies them. The more he advocates a fundamental retooling of our economy and democracy in favor of average working people, the more popular he becomes among those who no longer trust the ruling class to bring about necessary change.  

Yet despite the growing revolt against the ruling class, it seems likely that the nominees in 2016 will be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. After all, the ruling class still controls America.

But the revolt against the ruling class won’t end with the 2016 election, regardless. 

Which means the ruling class will have to change the way it rules America. Or it won’t rule too much longer.

Donald J. Trump’s suggestion that a Fox News journalist had questioned him forcefully at the Republican presidential debate because she was menstruating cost him a speaking slot Saturday night at an influential gathering of conservatives in Atlanta. It also raised new questions about how much longer Republican Party leaders would have to contend with Mr. Trump’s disruptive presence in the primary field.

Continuing his complaints about Megyn Kelly, one of the moderators of the debate, in an interview on CNN Friday night, Mr. Trump said, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” The remark prompted Erick Erickson, the leader of RedState, the conservative group, to disinvite him.

“If your standard-bearer has to resort to that,” Mr. Erickson told hundreds of conservative activists in a packed Atlanta hotel ballroom on Saturday, “we need a new standard-bearer.”

With Mr. Trump at center stage Thursday in Cleveland, Fox News shattered television viewership records for a primary debate: Nearly 24 million people watched. But any hopes that Mr. Trump, the real estate developer and television celebrity, would try to reinvent himself as a sober-minded statesman, or that he would collapse under scrutiny and tough questions, vaporized in the opening minutes when he refused to rule out running as an independent candidate for president. His remarks Friday only furthered the impression that he also had no intention of speaking more carefully. Mr. Trump denied on Saturday that he had been implying that Ms. Kelly was menstruating. “I think only a degenerate would think that I would have meant that,” he said in an interview, insisting that he had been referring to Ms. Kelly’s nose and ears.

But as his latest eruption rippled through Republican circles, the conversation turned to whether the party, and his rival presidential contenders, should continue to accommodate his candidacy, quietly hoping that this would be the moment he burned out — or whether they should try to run him out on a rail.

If party leaders saw danger in provoking a breakup — and no small advantage to be seized from the ratings bonanza Mr. Trump showed himself capable of delivering — there were signs that other influential Republicans would tolerate only so much of Mr. Trump’s behavior.

“Come on,” Jeb Bush, who has campaigned as the adult among the party’s 17 presidential candidates, said in his remarks at the RedState gathering. “Give me a break. Do we want to win? Do we want to insult 53 percent of all voters? What Donald Trump said is wrong.”

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, who delivered perhaps the most assertive turn in Thursday’s debate among the candidates trailing in the polls, posted on Twitter: “Mr. Trump: There. Is. No. Excuse.” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina went further, saying, “Enough already with Mr. Trump.”

Yet in a sign of the lingering reluctance among some in the field to anger Mr. Trump’s supporters, other candidates, including former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, would not condemn Mr. Trump’s comments.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday, praised Ms. Kelly but stopped short of calling on Mr. Trump to apologize. “I’ve made a decision here with Donald Trump, you know, if I comment on everything he says, my whole campaign will be consumed by it,” he said. “That’s all I’ll do all day.”


The New York Times“Hand-Wringing In GOP After Trump’s Remarks on Megyn Kelly.”

Hey, remember when the Republican Party tried to deny that the Tea Party movement existed, until they realized, too late, that it was actually the Republican Party what created the Tea Party?

Meet your newest, misogynist monster, dickholes.