Leaked Trump Speech - Lies and False Statistics

A look a like with our dog give Trump his due

The Fuhrer Donald Trump is about to speak at the GOP convention and a leaked copy of his speech suggests that true to form we will hear lies and false statistics.  Its a trait the is now the norm in the Republican Party and, in my view, traces back to when the Christofascists hijacked the party base. No one lies more than the "godly folk" other than perhaps Trump himself and his children - I am feeling in need of a vomit bag as I listen to Ivanka (seemingly an Eva Peron want to be) blather claims about her father that do not tract with reality.  The Daily Beast looks at what we can expect.  Here are highlights:

A draft of Donald Trump’s Republican National Convention speech was leaked on Thursday, hours before he was set to deliver what is the most important speech of his life and accept his party’s presidential nomination.

Like many of the speeches at this year’s GOP convention, Trump’s will feature themes of law and order as the party’s nominee attempts to capitalize on recent tragedies and terror attacks around the world.
 According to the prepared remarks—which matched up with excerpts released earlier by the campaign—Trump addresses crime and safety issues early on in the speech, accusing President Obama and Hillary Clinton of leaving the country and the world less safe.
 But the bleak picture he paints often does not line up with the facts, using over-inflated statistics and questionable generalizations when discussing matters of crime, justice, immigration, and national security.
 Trump will say that homicides increased by 17 percent from last year in the country’s 50 largest cities. He will not say, however, that the national homicide rate hit a four-decade low last year, according to the FBI. 
 Trump’s dubious contentions are not limited to law and order issues. The billionaire businessman claims 14 million people “left the workplace entirely.” For context, the current workforce has 4.6 million more people than in 2009. He will criticize Obama on the national debt, claiming it doubled. It has actually increased from $11.1 trillion to $19.2 trillion.
 Trump also suggests that Clinton is responsible for the creation of ISIS in the Middle East—even though the group did not formally split from al Qaeda until after she left office. He suggests that sanctions on Iran decreased during her tenure in government; in fact, they increased.
 Additionally, he incorrectly states that Egypt was “turned over” to the Muslim Brotherhood, “forcing the military to retake control.” In 2012, Mohammed Morsi, the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, was democratically elected and subsequently ousted from power by the military one year later.

The speech was leaked on Thursday to a super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton. The PAC, Correct the Record, says it received a copy of the speech from a “Republican source who had access to it.” David Brock, the group’s founder, said the leak is evidence that the Trump campaign is “loose and disorganized.”

The Shamelessness of Christofascist Professor Mark Regnerus

Today Mark Regnerus took the stand as an "expert" witness for the state of Michigan as it tries to defend its anti-gay animus inspired ban on same sex marriage.  As noted in an early post, in advance of Regnerus' testimony, the University of Texas sought to distance itself from Regnerus and the Department of Sociology basically called Regnerus' Christofascist financed "research" bogus.  As noted previously, Regnerus' work was financed by far right organizations who predetermined the conclusions that Regnerus was tasked to reach.  A piece in Salon looks at just how shameless - and I would argue, dishonest - Mr. Regnerus is in fact.  Here are article highlights: 

The state of Michigan this week called Mark Regnerus to testify in defense of its ban on same-sex marriage. A sociologist at University of Texas at Austin, Regnerus gained notoriety after publishing a 2012 journal article arguing that children of same-sex parents faced substantial disadvantages compared to those of different-sex parents. The study catapulted him into conservative stardom, making him a credentialed mouthpiece for the claim that LGBTQ equality harms kids and can be blocked not because of anti-gay bias but out of noble concern for children and families.

Regnerus’ article made waves because it appeared to buck the trend of three decades of research showing kids with gay parents fare just as well as others. In his study and accompanying articles—including one Regnerus wrote for Slate—he touted his large, nationally representative sample size, which he said trumped the quality of research of the numerous prior studies finding that the kids are all right.

There’s one problem: Regnerus’ research doesn’t show what he says it does. Not remotely. No research ever has. Yet Regnerus, unchastened by a chorus of professional criticism correctly pointing out the obvious flaws in his work—including a formal reprimand in an audit assigned by the journal that published his piece—continues to make these groundless claims, knowing full well they are baseless. What’s worse, his role in the Michigan case is not just to oppose same-sex marriage but to argue against two-parent adoption, a position that works to keep children from having the stable, two-parent families conservatives have championed for decades. Blocking gay equality has totally trounced any alleged concern for children’s wellbeing.

The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.

The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. . . . But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest.

 Regnerus’ research made waves for another reason. It had the massive weight of a religious conservative money and marketing machine behind it, and it quickly became clear that the study was only incidentally an academic product.

Referring to the Regnerus study and a companion piece, the audit concluded that “neither paper should have been published.” In a separate interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Darren E. Sherkat, the designated reviewer, dismissed the entire study as “bullshit.”

 Scholarship has to be funded by someone. But disclosures and transparency are supposed to let readers know this. Instead, Regnerus was caught lying about the role of conservative funding in his work.

It’s clear that Regnerus, a conservative Catholic who has acknowledged that his research is informed by his faith, conducts his studies in an effort to block gay marriage. It’s equally clear that anti-gay bias shapes his beliefs more than concern for kids and families.

The research that does exist is, contrary to claims by Regnerus and others, substantial and decisive. More than 100 studies of kids with gay parents failed to find any substantial disadvantages. Many of these had small sample sizes. But many were larger than Regnerus’ samples, and some indeed draw on large, nationally representative samples.

There is more to the article, but you get the premise.  As I have stated often, the nastiest tawdry whore has more integrity and is a thousand fold more honest than the "godly Christian"crowd - and Mark Regnerus in particular - who do nothing but lie, denigrate others and make a mockery of Christianity in general.  As I said before, when is the University of Texas going to fire him?  He is trying to perpetrate a fraud on the federal court - something that ought to win him a contempt of court conviction and imprisonment - and doing untold harm to the University's reputation. 

The Bain of Romney's Campaign

At first blush, it would seem that either Mitt Romney lied in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or he's lying to the public as to when he left Bain Capital.  What has ignited the issue is the Boston Globe story today that carries a sub-headline of  "Firm’s 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999."  In addition to the SEC filings, Massachusetts disclosure filings reflect that Romney remained CEO through 2002.  Romney has gone to great lengths to stress that he was no longer with Bain when it bankrupted a number of companies and threw workers to the wolves.  Yes, you read that right, the filings with the SEC seem to indicate that rather than leaving Bain in 1999 as claimed, Romney may have stuck around for several more years.  Here are highlights from the Globe story:

Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time. 

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

A former SEC commissioner told the Globe that the SEC documents listing Romney as Bain’s chief executive between 1999 and 2002 cannot be dismissed so easily.  “You can’t say statements filed with the SEC are meaningless. This is a fact in an SEC filing,” said Roberta S. Karmel, now a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

The Globe found nine SEC filings submitted by four different business entities after February 1999 that describe Romney as Bain Capital’s boss; some show him with managerial control over five Bain Capital entities that were formed in January 2002, according to records in Delaware, where they were incorporated.

With all due respect and with due recognition of the consequences of filing untrue documents with the SEC (i.e., it's a felony), it would appear that Romney and his campaign are lying.  Andrew Sullivan neatly summarizes the issue this way:

The relevant question is why Romney was listed as CEO and sole owner and chairman for three years after he says he stopped having anything to do with Bain. I don't believe he was SuperMan, running the Olympics and a political campaign while involved in Bain's day-to-day operations. But either you own the company or you don't. And saying one thing to the SEC and another thing to us needs to be reconciled. Even if the shift was abrupt with Romney's departure for the Olympics, it's stunning to see it took Bain three years to correct the record. Legally, Romney is responsible for everything that happened while he was sole owner of the company. Which is what he told the SEC.

A piece in Politico looks at the political turmoil that the Bain issue may be starting to ignite.  Here are some excerpts:

The problem for the Romney campaign, when it comes to the Bain issue, is that things are reaching the point where the facts don’t really matter. The bigger problem is that the Bain cloud now hanging over the former Massachusetts governor is growing daily, and the Romney campaign still hasn’t found a compelling way to respond to what’s becoming the driving narrative, fairly or unfairly, of the 2012 campaign.

After the Globe reported that Romney formally led Bain longer than he’d previously acknowledged — an allegation that Team Romney adamantly contests — Republicans worried that their soon-to-be nominee hasn’t sufficiently answered numerous questions swirling around his Bain tenure.

But Republicans warned that none of that would make Bain go away as a political issue.  “Mitt Romney had an opportunity to answer these questions during the primary,” said Rick Tyler, who ran the pro-Gingrich super PAC that spent millions attacking Romney on the Bain issue. “ He did not answer these questions and now they’re coming up again.”  Tyler warned that the newest Bain twist has the potential to inflict real harm if Romney doesn’t start providing answers.

 Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who worked for Jon Huntsman during the primary, said the controversy could be solved if Romney were to release his tax returns, acknowledging that no one wants to put their financials out there but that it has become necessary.  .   .   .   “He should just release the stupid taxes and eliminate the Obama campaign tactic of insinuating he’s got something to hide. The Obama people are going to keep the issue alive and it has the potential of mushrooming into a bigger issue,” she said. “It’s time to just pull off the band-aid.”

“It could be a real problem,” said GOP strategist Mark McKinnon. “The accumulation of stories about taxes and Bain and offshore and Swiss accounts and secrecy begin to put glue into the narrative Team Obama is pushing that could make it really start to stick.”

Not answering has the potential to eat away at Romney’s support in swing states.  “We’re starting to see evidence in some of the battleground states that this is working in the favor of the president,” O’Connell said. “There are only so many more of these chinks in the armor Romney can take.”

As I have noted before, the more I see about Romney, the less I like the man whatsoever and I trust him less and less by the day.

Study: False Statements Preceded Iraq War

This new study does not tell us anything that most of us have not already figured out by long before now. However, it is interesting to seem the number of times that lies were told by the Chimperator and his minions documented and also to see who is the biggest liar of them all - the Chimperator, of course. Personally, I am not sure how he reconciles 259 deliberate lies with his alleged Christian faith, although Christianists seem to be particularly challenged when it comes to matters of truth and veracity. Here are some highlights (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23097132-1702,00.html):

US President George W Bush and other top officials issued almost one thousand false statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the September 11 attacks, according to a study by two not-for-profit organisations.

The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”. According to the study, 935 false statements were issued by the White House in the two years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In speeches, briefings and interviews, President Bush and other officials stated “unequivocally” on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had links to al-Qaeda, or had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to get them. “It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaeda,” wrote the study’s authors Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. The other officials named in the study are vice president Dick Cheney, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, then-defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House spokesmen Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.