Life during (endless) wartime

CNBC Host Calls Out DNC Chair Over Primary Corruption

Is Bernie Sanders A Russian Puppet? Unhinged Hilary Supporters Think So

Is Trump planning to kill North Korea’s Kim Jong Un?

April 9, 2017

By Suman Varandani
Displayed with permission from International Business Times 

 

President Donald Trump may be considering to kill North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as nuclear threats from the reclusive country continues to be on the rise. According to recent reports, U.S. National Security Council suggested Trump that either assassinating Kim or deploying nuclear weapons in South Korea could help end the potential war in the Korean Peninsula.

One option “is to target and kill North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and other senior leaders in charge of the country’s missiles and nuclear weapons and decision-making,” NBC news reported, quoting multiple top-ranking intelligence and military officials.

Read: North Korea's Kim Jong Un Will Destroy US With A Nuclear Bomb If He Feels Threatened

The report was followed by news that a U.S. aircraft carrier, which was scheduled for a port call in Australia, has moved towards the Korean Peninsula amid growing concerns of a nuclear threat from North Korea.

A U.S. defense official said Saturday that the strike group will provide a show of presence in the region.

Moving the carrier strike group was a "prudent measure to maintain readiness and presence in the Western Pacific," Dave Benham, a spokesman for U.S. Pacific Command, reportedly said. "The number one threat in the region continues to be North Korea, due to its reckless, irresponsible, and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability."

North Korea has continued its threat against the U.S. and South Korea despite several warnings from the international community. In March, North Korea carried out two ballistic missile tests. The reclusive country has so far conducted five suspected nuclear tests, including two last year. Analysts believe that a possible sixth nuclear test is being planned by Pyongyang for April 15, which is the 105th birthday of North Korea’s founding president.

On Saturday, Trump and South Korea's acting President Hwang Kyo-Ahn spoke by phone, agreeing in close contact about North Korea and other issues.

• Click here for reuse options!
  2017 IBT
• 
• 

A collection of regretful Trump voters

http://www.areyousorryyet.com/

220 Cities Losing All Passenger Train Service Per Trump Elimination Of All Federal Funding For Amtrak’s National Network Trains

Source: National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) Apr 4, 2017 

The National Association of Rail Passengers denounced the budget outline released by the Trump Administration, which slashes investment in transportation infrastructure. These cuts to Amtrak, transit, and commuter rail programs, and even air service to rural towns, would not only cost construction and manufacturing jobs, but place a disproportionate amount of pain on rural and working class communities.

“It’s ironic that President Trump’s first budget proposal undermines the very communities whose economic hardship and sense of isolation from the rest of the country helped propel him into office,” said NARP President Jim Mathews. “These working class communities — many of them located in the Midwest and the South — were tired of being treated like ‘flyover country.’ But by proposing the elimination of Amtrak’s long distance trains, the Trump Administration does them one worse, cutting a vital service that connects these small town economies to the rest of the U.S. These hard working, small town Americans don’t have airports or Uber to turn to; they depend on these trains.”

"What’s more, these proposed cuts come as President Trump continues to promise that our tax dollars will be invested in rebuilding America's infrastructure,” continued Mathews. “Instead, we have seen an all-out assault on any project — public and private — that would advance passenger rail. These cuts and delays are costing the U.S. thousands of good-paying construction and manufacturing jobs in America's heartland at this very moment."

Mathews was referring to the decision by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to indefinitely suspend a grant that would allow California to proceed with a commuter rail electrification project.

Caltrain, the agency overseeing the project, estimates the project would create 9,600 total direct and indirect jobs. The delay also threatens the construction of a new railcar assembly plant planned for Salt Lake City, which would generate sustainable, family-wage jobs for 550 employees.

The White House budget would lead to a nightmare scenario for people who depend on passenger rail, transit, commuter rail, and even regional air service in the United States, from Wall Street to Main Street. The proposal cuts $2.4 billion from transportation, a 13 percent reduction of last year’s funding, and includes:

Elimination of all federal funding for Amtrak’s national network trains, which provides the only national network service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans;

$499 million from the TIGER grant program, a highly successful program that invests in passenger rail and transit projects of national significance;

Elimination of $2.3 billion for the Federal Transit Administration’s “New Starts” Capital Investment Program, which is crucial to launching new transit, commuter rail, and light-rail projects.

Long distance rail routes open up enormous economic development opportunities, which the Administration’s proposal ignores or casts aside. The plan threatens the following long distance routes:

Gulf Coast Restoration — In development
Silver Star — Daily service
Cardinal — 3 trains/week
Silver Meteor — Daily service
Empire Builder — Daily service
Capitol Limited — Daily service
California Zephyr — Daily service
Southwest Chief — Daily service
City of New Orleans — Daily service
Texas Eagle — Daily service
Sunset Limited — 3 trains/week
Coast Starlight — Daily service
Lake Shore Limited — Daily service
Palmetto — Daily service
Crescent — Daily service
Auto Train — Daily service

And, at a minimum, the proposed White House elimination of long distance routes would result in the following 220 towns and cities losing all Amtrak service:

Albuquerque, NM
Alderson, WV
Alliance, OH
Alpine, TX
Anniston, AL
Arcadia, MO
Arkadelphia, AR
Ashland, KY
Atlanta, GA
Austin, TX
Barstow, CA
Beaumont, TX
Benson, AZ
Bingen, WA
Birmingham, AL
Brookhaven, MS
Bryan, OH
Burlington, IA
Charleston, SC
Charleston, WV
Chemult, OR
Chico, CA
Cincinnati, OH
Cleburne, TX
Clemson, SC
Cleveland, OH
Clifton Forge, VA
Colfax, CA
Columbia, SC
Columbus, WI
Connellsville, PA
Creston, IA
Cumberland, MD
Cut Bank, MT
Dallas, TX
Danville, VA
Deerfield Beach, FL
Del Rio, TX
Deland, FL
Delray Beach, FL
Deming, NM
Denver, CO
Detroit Lakes, MN
Devils Lake, ND
Dillon, SC
Dodge City, KS
Dunsmuir, CA
East Glacier Park, MT
El Paso, TX
Elkhart, IN
Elko, NV
Elyria, OH
Ephrata, WA
Erie, PA
Essex, MT
Fargo, ND
Fayetteville, NC
Flagstaff, AZ
Florence, SC
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Fort Madison, IA
Fort Morgan, CO
Framingham, MA
Fulton, KY
Gainesville, GA
Gallup, NM
Garden City, KS
Gastonia, NC
Glasgow, MT
Glenwood Springs, CO
Granby, CO
Grand Forks, ND
Grand Junction, CO
Green River, UT
Greenville, SC
Greenwood, MS
Hamlet, NC
Hammond, LA
Harpers Ferry, WV
Hastings, NE
Hattiesburg, MS
Havre, MT
Hazlehurst, MS
Helper, UT
Hinton, WV
Holdrege, NE
Hollywood, FL
Hope, AR
Houston, TX
Huntington, WV
Hutchinson, KS
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Jesup, GA
Kingman, AZ
Kingstree, SC
Kissimmee, FL
Klamath Falls, OR
La Crosse, WI
La Junta, CO
La Plata, MO
Lafayette, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Lakeland, FL
Lamar, CO
Lamy, NM
Las Vegas, NM
Laurel, MS
Lawrence, KS
Libby, MT
Lincoln, NE
Little Rock, AR
Longview, TX
Lordsburg, NM
Lorton, VA
Malta, MT
Malvern, AR
Maricopa, AZ
Marshall, TX
Martinsburg, WV
Maysville, KY
McComb, MS
McCook, NE
McGregor, TX
Memphis, TN
Meridian, MS
Miami, FL
Mineola, TX
Minot, ND
Montgomery, WV
Mount Pleasant, IA
Needles, CA
New Iberia, LA
New Orleans, LA
Newbern-Dyersburg, TN
Newton, KS
Okeechobee, FL
Omaha, NE
Ontario, CA
Orlando, FL
Osceola, IA
Ottumwa, IA
Palatka, FL
Palm Springs, CA
Pasco, WA
Paso Robles, CA
Picayune, MS
Pittsfield, MA
Pomona, CA
Poplar Bluff, MO
Portage, WI
Prince, WV
Provo, UT
Raton, NM
Red Wing, MN
Redding, CA
Reno, NV
Riverside, CA
Rockville, MD
Rugby, ND
Salinas, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Bernardino, CA
San Marcos, TX
Sanderson, TX
Sandpoint, ID
Sandusky, OH
Sanford, FL
Savannah, GA
Schriever, LA
Sebring, FL
Shelby, MT
Slidell, LA
South Bend, IN
South Portsmouth, KY
Southern Pines, NC
Spartanburg, SC
Spokane, WA
St. Cloud, MN
St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN
Stanley, ND
Staples, MN
Staunton, VA
Tampa, FL
Taylor, TX
Temple, TX
Texarkana, AR
Thurmond, WV
Toccoa, GA
Toledo, OH
Tomah, WI
Topeka, KS
Trinidad, CO
Truckee, CA
Tucson, AZ
Tuscaloosa, AL
Victorville, CA
Walnut Ridge, AR
Waterloo, IN
Wenatchee, WA
West Glacier, MT
West Palm Beach, FL
White Sulphur Springs, WV
Whitefish, MT
Williams Jct., AZ
Williston, ND
Winnemucca, NV
Winona, MN
Winslow, AZ
Winter Haven, FL
Winter Park, FL
Winter Park-Fraser, CO
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Wishram, WA
Wolf Point, MT
Worcester, MA
Yazoo City, MS
Yemassee, SC
Yuma, AZ

“When the President proposed a $1 trillion infrastructure proposal, voters expected that would mean more funding for projects like long-distance rail and new subway and light rail construction. These are the kinds of public works that spur private investment, create good jobs, and lead to economic revitalization,” said Mathews. “This budget does exactly the opposite.”​

Trump Makes Money By Attacking Syria

By Hrafnkell Haraldsson

Trump owns stock in Raytheon, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile. When he fired them at Syria, Raytheon's stock rose.

Ever since Donald Trump the businessman engineered a hostile takeover of the United States government, he has been modeling the for-profit presidency of the future.

For example, by making the Tomahawk cruise missile his weapon of choice when he attacked Syria, whether intentionally or inadvertently, he made money off it.

How? A 2015 Business Insider report shows that in Donald Trump’s portfolio are shares in Raytheon (RTN), the defense contractor which makes all sorts of goodies for the military, including the Tomahawk missile.

According to Reuters Business:


We already know the missile strike, like Trump’s very presidency, was a publicity stunt. It’s unlikely Trump didn’t hear a “Ca-Ching!” when he issued the order to use Tomahawks for the job.

As Bill Palmer writes in The Palmer Report, “we’ve now reached the phase where Trump has ordered military action which has given direct financial benefit to a company that he owns stock in.”

And as Palmer explains, those missiles he fired were worth about $100 million and will now have to be replaced.

Moreover, they were a poor choice of weapon against an enemy airfield (the airfield was very quickly back in operation), leaving Palmer to argue therefore that Trump chose them only because he owns stock in the company. This adds a profit motive to the distraction from the Russia scandal the attack afforded.

Obviously, the United States cannot afford a president who makes war because he will profit from it personally.

We are used to the military-industrial complex profiting off wars and having a dangerous presence in the halls of power, but here is a president who can and will make foreign policy decisions based on the simple equation of “what’s in it for him.”

There is a reason why Donald Trump was called upon to divest. He has already shown that there is a conflict between what’s good for the U.S. and what’s good for Trump, he will choose Trump very time.

His whole family has shown that they see his election as an opportunity to “cash-in.” Trump himself is no different.

We have a draft dodger as president, who refused to put himself in the line of fire, who will put other young men and women in the line of fire all so he can make a few bucks. And that’s as scary as it is wrong.

Trump's Jobs Fraud Exposed As The Economy Creates Only 98,000 New Jobs In March

By Jason Easley

No longer able to ride on President Obama's coattails, Donald Trump was given a dose of economic reality as only half as many jobs were created in March as economists anticipated. 

The Hill reported, “Jobs were revised down by 38,000 for January and February based on what was previously reported, but each month remained above 200,000. But the last three months have averaged a solid 178,000 jobs each. Economists had predicted that March jobs might slip after January and February posted robust gains.”

To get a sense of who is getting hurt in the Trump economy, here is a year to year contrast from the Center For American Progress as provided to PoliticusUSA:

Job creation in February and March declined by 56.4% compared to the same period in 2016.
For women, job creation in February and March declined by 92.9% compared to the same period in 2016.

Black Americans saw absolutely no statistical decline in unemployment in March.

Employment in retail trade declined by 30,000 in March compared to an increase of more than 31,000 last March.

Employment on Wall Street trended up, with the financial industry adding 9,000 jobs in March.

Job growth is slowing because President Trump’s immigration policies are hurting tourism and despite his rhetoric that cutting regulations would create jobs, the reality is a policy of shifting wealth to the top has resulted in fewer jobs being created.

The notion that Donald Trump was a jobs president is an example where the White House’s rhetoric has never matched the policy.

Trump promised to save manufacturing jobs, but companies like Boeing and Carrier continue to lay off workers.

The economy belongs to Donald Trump now, and these jobs numbers are the first taste of what the Republican job killing ideology is going to do to the US economy.

10 Republicans who have done a complete 180 on Syria now that Obama’s not president

By Brad Reed
 

In 2013, President Barack Obama went to Congress to ask for an authorization of force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — and he was turned down, in large part thanks to opposition from Republicans in Congress.

Here are the biggest Republican flip-flops in Syria that have happened over the last four years.

1.) Donald Trump. Trump is, of course, the most notable person to change his mind on the merits of attacking Syria. In 2012 and 2013, he regularly attacked Obama for his desire to get involved with the Syrian conflict, and even suggested at one point that Obama would go to war with Syria to boost his flagging poll numbers.

Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2012

If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2013

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2013

What I am saying is stay out of Syria.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2013

2. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Although Ryan gave Trump his approval for Thursday night’s airstrikes, in 2013 he said that Obama’s proposed military strike “cannot achieve its stated objectives” and could make things worse.

3. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). On Thursday evening, Chaffetz sent out a tweet that read, “God bless the USA!” But in 2013, he said he would oppose the use of force in Syria on the grounds that he saw “no clear and present danger” to the United States that would justify using force.

4. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Blackburn announced in 2013 that she would oppose Obama’s Syrian airstrike after being briefed. On Thursday evening, she approvingly re-tweeted President Trump’s quote that “no child of God should ever suffer such horror.”

5. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Although Rubio has been blanketing the airwaves praising Trump’s airstrikes, in 2013 he said that “I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict.”

6. Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT). Hatch gave Trump’s actions an “amen” on Twitter Thursday evening, but in 2013 he said that he had “strong reservations about authorizing the use of force against Syria.”

7. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX). Olson cited his experience as a Navy veteran as a reason for opposing the use of force against Syria in 2013. Now, however, he is cheering on Trump by praising the president for doing what Obama would not.

8. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL). The congressman on Thursday night gushed about Trump’s airstrike, but in 2013 he worried that Obama had not done enough to seek a “diplomatic” solution to the crisis.

9. Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN). In 2013, the congressman opposed intervention in Syria on the grounds that he hadn’t met a single person in his district “who believes we should fire missiles into Syria.”

10. Sen. Corey Gardener (R-CO). In 2013, Gardener expressed “skepticism” of striking Syria and argued that he didn’t see “a compelling and vital” national interest in such an attack. On Thursday evening, he called Trump’s strike against Syria a “long-overdue action.”

What A Fucking Day

By TheFerret

Oh wow.

Shit be cray, people. Shit be cray.

Today's news was like if a Tom Clancy novel fucked the notebook where Hunter S. Thompson kept the ideas he thought were "too weird" on top of a big stack of Frank Miller comics. Not the good ones, the recent, shitty, super-racist ones.

We started with news of Devin "Pigfucker" Nunes recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Word is, he was forced out by Paul Ryan and the Shart House, not for being a stooge, but for being an exceptionally shitty stooge. Like so many of the shitbags caught up in this mess, he got caught in a number of easily disproven lies, apparently used by a handful of morons in the executive branch to "leak" information...back to the executive branch. Don't look at me brother, figuring out why these people do the things we do is like hosting trivia night in Arkham Asylum.

Anyhow, Nunes released a feeble little statement blaming "left wing activists" or some such nonsense, which fell apart about thirteen seconds later when it was revealed he was under investigation by the ethics office (the same one the House GOP tried to drown quietly in the outhouse out back while nobody was looking, remember that?) for revealing classified information, for the TOTAL BULLSHIT REASON that...he appears to have revealed classified information. Devin Nunes was not built for high-stakes politics, friends. He was built solely for the fucking of pigs.

And we celebrated Nunes' downfall for a hot ten minutes before we realized he was just going to be replaced with stooges who wouldn't be so obvious/stupid about being stooges, i.e. are less likely to call dumb fuck press conferences where they entrap themselves for no discernible reason beyond incurable idiocy. The new chair of the investigating committee is some doorknob who said some shit about how watching a Mexican Soap Opera is basically the same thing as collaborating with a hostile foreign power to influence the American Presidential election, I don't remember his name, look it up your own damn self. (He will be assisted in his abuse of power by Trey Gowdy Doody, he of the Hundred Years War, excuse me, the Benghazi investigation. I would love to rewarded similarly for a history of failure. In that scenario, my 0-for-the-entire-fucking-season in little league would land me a multi-million dollar contract with the Yankees.)

Meanwhile the Senate went Nuclear, which, calm down, doesn't mean what you were hoping it did. There was much hemming and hawing about the ugliness of partisan politics by men and women who spent the day facilitating the ugliness of partisan politics. In the left-wing media, there was a masochistic joy in trudging up past quotes from Death Lord Of All Tortoises Mitch McConnell as proof of his hypocrisy. As if hypocrisy bothers Mitch McConnell one bit.

Let me tell y'all something very important about Mitch McConnell: he doesn't give a shit about anything but winning. He will gleefully tell you on Monday that eating sandwiches is sinful, and then when you catch him eating a big fat fucking reuben on Tuesday, he will laugh in your face as you triumphantly point out his hypocrisy.

Laugh in your face, kick you in the junk, steal your wallet, use your money to take your mom out to dinner* and fuck her in your childhood bed, and it won't bother him one tiny little bit because his job isn't "being consistent," his job is "winning" and he won this one and yeah, fuck him, but it sucks and now we just have to send his terrapin ass back to the minority for the rest of his life so he can flail helplessly on his back while we replace Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy with Rachel Maddow maybe Sarah Silverman.

*Where he orders another sandwich because fuck you that's why.

In the background there's another wave of stories about Shart House infighting. People are screaming "CUCK" at each other, Bannon's down, demoted from the National Security Council, and Kushner's up, apparently single-handedly responsible for 87% of the executive branch's duties. Why does a kid whose resume reads "got daddy's money when daddy went to jail, bought a newspaper and wrecked it" get so much responsibility? Well, because our idiot president has mad respect for the dude who gets to do the one thing he's ever wanted that he can't do, (NUDGE NUDGE FUCK HIS DAUGHTER) and therefore he's in charge of China and peace in the Middle East and reforming the government and Veterans affairs and The Vending Machines in the West Wing Don't Have Zagnuts Can We Get Some Fucking Zagnuts in There Jared and god knows what else.

And we maybe breathe a sigh of relief that Bannon's role in the administration is diminishing because this is a man who boos the ending of Schindler's List, but then you realize that the GODDAMN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED GODDAMN STATES is only swinging from white supremacy to nepotism, and you wonder why he doesn't think, "Hey, maybe try somebody with some relevant experience?" And you know that once Kushner makes a mess of everything, Il Douche is just gonna turn to Gordon Ramsey or that One Girl Who Yells at Baristas in Chicago to run the government for him.

And at this point in the day, you're getting a bit overwhelmed, so maybe you don't notice that the Yokel, I mean "Attorney" General, our President's Loyal Huntin' Dawg Beauregard, has decided to take himself a long leisurely look at all them police abuse settlements arrived at under those colored folks who previously held his office. To Ol' Beauregard, decades of rampant police abuse? Why, that ain't nuthin' atawl, an' if an unarmed black fellah gets shot every couple weeks or so in Baltimore, well, that's jus' the price of law and orduh, don' ya see, and honestly, what's one more or less black fellah, am I right?

By now, the madness has started to settle in. You're seriously thinking rubbing cake frosting all over your otherwise naked body and running around downtown throwing poop and screaming. Maybe you catch a few human interest stories. About Rachel Dolezal going to South Africa to talk about "racial transitioning." About a shocking number of iPhone users desiring a sexual relationship with Siri. About somebody making beer that tastes like Cap'n Crunch. (All of this really happened, I swear to you.)

And in the background you start to see more and more stories about Dorito Mussolini thinking about maybe starting a War of His Very Own in Syria.

And we learn that the Shart Administration is trying to force twitter to reveal (ahem, UNMASK HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OH GOD THE IRONY) of an anonymous user who has been criticizing them, which is a not-at-all-terrifying police state move, oh wait. And we find our the CIA was sounding alarm bells on the Russian interference/possible collaboration LAST SUMMER but somehow James Comey only thought the American people needed to know that Anthony Weiner's personal laptop may've contained the name, location, favorite color and Most Embarrassing High School Moment of every undercover agent in the world. And we even had a quick laugh at Spraytan Zartan bragging about having had the best first thirteen weeks in human history...eleven weeks into his term.

And then things were quiet for a couple hours.

And then the missiles started flying.

Without seeking authorization from congress, without consulting allies, without a strong/competent state department to give advice, without civilian leadership in the defense department, without a single voice in the executive branch any rational human being would consider qualified to weigh in on a decision so large, a military strike on a foreign government backed by Iran and Russia was ordered and executed.

And nobody seems to know what, precisely, is going on, what the long-term plan might be (SPOILERZ, there totally isn't one.). McCain and Graham are jubilant of course, nothing delights that duo quite so much as other people's children dying. Some folks are talking about regime change, but it doesn't seem like anybody thought making those kind of decisions was important before pushing the button.

There's a lot we don't know right now. If there were significant civilian casualties (a distressingly irrelevant factor to the military under the Shart Administration), if more strikes are coming, if there were Russian nationals on the base we hit. What happens next. And yes, in the background you wonder how much of the decision was made to distract the American populace from domestic scandals...nearly every president of my lifetime has played that card.

I confess I'm worried. Our President, as we've learned, doesn't know Shit about Shit, doesn't know what he doesn't know, doesn't care that he doesn't know, and, importantly, is infinitely persuadable. He blindly followed Bannon into the travel ban debacle, and Ryan into the health care clusterfuck. Why? Because he doesn't know Shit about Shit, and anybody who kisses his ass and tells him what a Big Boy With Big Strong Hands he is can, we have seen time and again, manipulate him into doing whatever they want him to do.

And when it comes to war? Wow. Bannon's an apocalyptic lunatic. Tillerson is hopelessly out of his depth. Mattis seems well-intentioned enough, but don't forget that there is a reason why we don't put generals in charge of the defense department, and Mattis needed a waiver to be confirmed in the first place. Priebus is sniveling toady with no stature on this turf. Kushner also doesn't know shit about shit, and early indications are that the brass is manipulating him, and like his father-in-law I don't credit him with the brains to understand he's being manipulated. The institutional GOP defers to McCain and Graham on matters of war, and again those two sprinkle the blood of young men on their breakfast cereal whenever the opportunity presents itself. And Pence of course is a hairshirt-wearing religious fanatic who'll play the role of Crusader with a crazed grin on his face.

Basically we have a bunch of malicious fools making these decisions. I wish I could find a way to laugh at all this, but I can't. Heaven help us all. 

Dishonored 2 Free Trial Now Available On Steam

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/04/06/dishonored_2_free_trial_now_available_on_steam/

He’s just a gross, crook, dirty, rotten lying sack of shit

Louis CK regrets comparing Donald Trump to Hitler. But he's not going to take it back.

Our Dishonest President

• Part I Our Dishonest President
• Part II Why Trump Lies
• Part III Trump's Authoritarian Vision
• Part IV Wednesday

By The Times Editorial Board

April 2, 2017 
 

It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”

Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office.

Instead, seventy-some days in — and with about 1,400 to go before his term is completed — it is increasingly clear that those hopes were misplaced.

In a matter of weeks, President Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all.

His attempt to de-insure millions of people who had finally received healthcare coverage and, along the way, enact a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has been put on hold for the moment. But he is proceeding with his efforts to defang the government’s regulatory agencies and bloat the Pentagon’s budget even as he supposedly retreats from the global stage.

It is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. 

 

These are immensely dangerous developments which threaten to weaken this country’s moral standing in the world, imperil the planet and reverse years of slow but steady gains by marginalized or impoverished Americans. But, chilling as they are, these radically wrongheaded policy choices are not, in fact, the most frightening aspect of the Trump presidency.

What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.

Although his policies are, for the most part, variations on classic Republican positions (many of which would have been undertaken by a President Ted Cruz or a President Marco Rubio), they become far more dangerous in the hands of this imprudent and erratic man. Many Republicans, for instance, support tighter border security and a tougher response to illegal immigration, but Trump’s cockamamie border wall, his impracticable campaign promise to deport all 11 million people living in the country illegally and his blithe disregard for the effect of such proposals on the U.S. relationship with Mexico turn a very bad policy into an appalling one.

---

In the days ahead, The Times editorial board will look more closely at the new president, with a special attention to three troubling traits:

1 Trump’s shocking lack of respect for those fundamental rules and institutions on which our government is based. Since Jan. 20, he has repeatedly disparaged and challenged those entities that have threatened his agenda, stoking public distrust of essential institutions in a way that undermines faith in American democracy. He has questioned the qualifications of judges and the integrity of their decisions, rather than acknowledging that even the president must submit to the rule of law. He has clashed with his own intelligence agencies, demeaned government workers and questioned the credibility of the electoral system and the Federal Reserve. He has lashed out at journalists, declaring them “enemies of the people,” rather than defending the importance of a critical, independent free press. His contempt for the rule of law and the norms of government are palpable.

2 His utter lack of regard for truth. Whether it is the easily disprovable boasts about the size of his inauguration crowd or his unsubstantiated assertion that Barack Obama bugged Trump Tower, the new president regularly muddies the waters of fact and fiction. It’s difficult to know whether he actually can’t distinguish the real from the unreal — or whether he intentionally conflates the two to befuddle voters, deflect criticism and undermine the very idea of objective truth. Whatever the explanation, he is encouraging Americans to reject facts, to disrespect science, documents, nonpartisanship and the mainstream media — and instead to simply take positions on the basis of ideology and preconceived notions. This is a recipe for a divided country in which differences grow deeper and rational compromise becomes impossible.

3 His scary willingness to repeat alt-right conspiracy theories, racist memes and crackpot, out-of-the-mainstream ideas. Again, it is not clear whether he believes them or merely uses them. But to cling to disproven “alternative” facts; to retweet racists; to make unverifiable or false statements about rigged elections and fraudulent voters; to buy into discredited conspiracy theories first floated on fringe websites and in supermarket tabloids — these are all of a piece with the Barack Obama birther claptrap that Trump was peddling years ago and which brought him to political prominence. It is deeply alarming that a president would lend the credibility of his office to ideas that have been rightly rejected by politicians from both major political parties.

---

Where will this end? Will Trump moderate his crazier campaign positions as time passes? Or will he provoke confrontation with Iran, North Korea or China, or disobey a judge’s order or order a soldier to violate the Constitution? Or, alternately, will the system itself — the Constitution, the courts, the permanent bureaucracy, the Congress, the Democrats, the marchers in the streets — protect us from him as he alienates more and more allies at home and abroad, steps on his own message and creates chaos at the expense of his ability to accomplish his goals? Already, Trump’s job approval rating has been hovering in the mid-30s, according to Gallup, a shockingly low level of support for a new president. And that was before his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, offered to cooperate last week with congressional investigators looking into the connection between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

  Those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard. 

 

On Inauguration Day, we wrote on this page that it was not yet time to declare a state of “wholesale panic” or to call for blanket “non-cooperation” with the Trump administration. Despite plenty of dispiriting signals, that is still our view. The role of the rational opposition is to stand up for the rule of law, the electoral process, the peaceful transfer of power and the role of institutions; we should not underestimate the resiliency of a system in which laws are greater than individuals and voters are as powerful as presidents. This nation survived Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. It survived slavery. It survived devastating wars. Most likely, it will survive again.

But if it is to do so, those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard. Protesters must raise their banners. Voters must turn out for elections. Members of Congress — including and especially Republicans — must find the political courage to stand up to Trump. Courts must safeguard the Constitution. State legislators must pass laws to protect their citizens and their policies from federal meddling. All of us who are in the business of holding leaders accountable must redouble our efforts to defend the truth from his cynical assaults.

The United States is not a perfect country, and it has a great distance to go before it fully achieves its goals of liberty and equality. But preserving what works and defending the rules and values on which democracy depends are a shared responsibility. Everybody has a role to play in this drama.

This is the first in a series.

The Problem with Trump

A series of Times editorials

1. Our Dishonest President
2. Why Trump Lies
3. Trump’s Authoritarian Vision
4. Trump's War On Journalism

• Reader reactions: praise and scorn

Yes, Paul Ryan Actually Did Bend The Knee.

By Cyra Master

 

The Washington Post detailed the House GOP’s fight over the ObamaCare repeal and replacement plan this week, rounding up the dramatic details of leadership’s fight to win support for the measure.

At one point, the paper said, House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) got down on one knee to plead with Rep. Don Young of Alaska – the longest-serving Republican in Congress -- to support the bill.  (He was unsuccessful.)

The moments highlighted by the Post during the Republican conference negotiations show what a tough battle Ryan and his deputies faced in whipping the vote.

But they also show the fierce support some offered to leadership - like freshman Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who lost both legs in 2010 in Afghanistan and called on colleagues to unite behind the bill as he and his Army colleagues had done on the battlefield.

At another point, a Republican shouted, “Burn the ships” to Majority Whip Steve Scalise, invoking the command a 16th century Spanish conquistador gave his crew when they landed in Mexico.

The message was clear, the Post said –- the Republicans felt there was no turning back.

The GOP was ultimately unable to coalesce around the party’s plan and Ryan pulled the bill from the floor Friday, when it was clear it did not have the votes to pass.

Mitch McConnell Goes Down In Flames Defending His Merrick Garland Hypocrisy

How the fuck does Kentucky keep re-electing this guy?  dlevere.

By David



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Sunday blamed the American people for the decision of Senate Republicans not to grant President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, Judge Merrick Garland, a hearing.

"The tradition had been not to confirm vacancies in the middle of a presidential [election] year," McConnell told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd. "You'd have to go back 80 years to find the last time it happened... Everyone knew, including President Obama's former White House counsel, that if the shoe had been on the other foot, [Democrats] wouldn't have filled a Republican president's vacancy in the middle of a presidential election."

"That's a rationale to vote against his confirmation," Todd argued. "Why not put him up for a vote? Any senator can have a rationale to not to vote for a confirmation. Why not put Merrick Garland on the floor and if the rationale is, 'You know what? Too close to an election,' then vote no?"

McConnell laughed defensively.

"Look, we litigated that last year," the Majority Leader stuttered. "The American people decided that they wanted Donald Trump to make the nomination, not Hillary Clinton."

McConnell argued that Democrats should focus on the issue at hand, the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, Trump's Supreme Court pick.

"There's no rational reason, no basis for voting against Neil Gorsuch," McConnell opined.

"You say it's been litigated, the Garland situation," Todd replied. "For a lot of Senate Democrats, they're not done litigating this... What was wrong with allowing Merrick Garland to have an up or down vote?"

"I already told you!" McConnell exclaimed. "You don't fill Supreme Court vacancies in the middle of a presidential election."

"Should that be the policy going forward?" Todd interrupted. "Are you prepared to pass a resolution that says in election years any Supreme Court vacancy [will not be filled] and let it be a sense of the Senate resolution, that says no Supreme Court nominations will be considered in any even numbered year? Is that where we're headed?"

"That's an absurd question," McConnell complained. "We were right in the middle of a presidential election year. Every body knew that either side -- had the shoe been on the other foot -- wouldn't have filled it. But that has nothing to do with what we're voting on this year."

White House Staff Turns On ‘Out Of His Depth’ Jared Kushner Amid Chaos And Turmoil

Kushner is arguably the president’s closest adviser.

By David Ferguson / Raw Story

April 2, 2017

Photo Credit: Ovidiu Hrubaru / Shutterstock.com

Thus far, in the scandal-plagued, chaotic presidency of Donald Trump, the chief executive’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has enjoyed a kind of unsinkable “privileged status.”

According to Politico, however, resentment is growing against Kushner in an already factionalized and strife-torn White House. Hardline conservatives see the moderate-minded, 36 year old Kushner as an obstacle to their agenda and worry that Kushner ally Gary Cohn — a Democrat — will pressure Kushner to steer the administration toward the middle.

Thus far, Pres. Trump has tasked his daughter’s husband — a government neophyte with no previous policy or legislative experience — with solving the crisis in the Middle East and overseeing the U.S. relationships with China, Canada and Mexico. On top of that ambitious portfolio, Kushner and Cohn this week established the White House Office of American Innovation, an initiative to modernize and streamline the operations of the federal government.

“But Kushner’s status as the big-issue guru has stoked resentment among his colleagues, who question whether Kushner is capable of following through on his various commitments,” wrote Politico’s Josh Dawsey, Kenneth P. Vogel and Alex Isenstadt. “And some colleagues complain that his dabbling in myriad issues and his tendency to walk in and out of meetings have complicated efforts to instill more order and organization into the chaotic administration. These people also say Kushner can be a shrewd self promoter, knowing how to take credit — and shirk blame — whenever it suits him.”

“He’s saving the government and the Middle East at the same time,” one administration official quipped to Politico.

Kushner is arguably the president’s closest adviser — the last person to speak to him each day and also the administration’s hatchet man. During the 2016 campaign, it fell to Kushner to fire campaign managers Corey Lewandowski and Paul Manafort. It was also Kushner who axed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) from the Trump transition team.

Lewandowski in particular is rumored to be pursuing a vendetta against Kushner, planting anonymous stories about the president’s son-in-law with conservative media outlets. Other campaign officials who didn’t get hired by the administration are reportedly aligned with Lewandowski and believe that Kushner is insufficiently conservative.

Far-right radio host Mark Levin has attacked Kushner before, calling him “some 32-year-old, liberal Democrat kid out of New York.” Other neoconservatives and Zionist Israel supporters said they had high hopes for Kushner because he is an Orthodox Jew and the grandson of Holocaust survivors, but thus far they say he has disappointed them.

A source told Politico that “those hopes mostly have been supplanted by ‘deep concern that Jared is not the person we thought he was — that this guy who is supposed to be good at everything is totally out of his depth.’”

Kushner himself remains breezily confident, telling associates not to fret over the Russia investigation because it “isn’t going anywhere” and assuring others that his father-in-law’s administration will get past its early stumbles.

“But if it doesn’t,” Politico said, “allies and aides say, one thing is clear: the president will surely find someone else to take the blame. And Kushner will likely be delivering the bad news.”

Kushner was the subject of Republican ire in the wake of the president’s failed healthcare bill after he and the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump left Washington for a ski-trip to Aspen, CO. This week it came out that the presidential son-in-law is wanted for testimony in connection to an FBI investigation of a bank implicated in Russian money laundering.

The Republican Identity Crisis

A conservative by any other name would still be confused about where they fall on the ideological spectrum in the Trump era.

About the Author

• 
  McKay Coppins is a staff writer at The Atlantic, and author of The Wilderness, a book about the battle over the future of the Republican Party.
  • Twitter
  
  These are confusing times to be a Republican.
  
  For the past several decades, members of the GOP have mapped the ideological range found within their party onto a fairly straightforward spectrum—one that runs from “moderate” to “conservative.” The formulation was simplistic, of course, but it provided a useful shorthand in assessing politicians, and in explaining one’s own political orientation.
  
  A small-government culture warrior in Arizona would be situated on the far-right end of the spectrum; a pro-choice Chamber of Commerce type in Massachusetts might place himself on the other end. And across the country, there were millions of people—from officeholders to ordinary Republican voters—who identified somewhere between those two poles.
  
  But with the rise of Donald Trump—and his spectrum-bending brand of populist nationalism—many longtime Republicans are now struggling to figure out where they fit in this fast-shifting philosophical landscape. In recent weeks, two prominent Republicans have told me they are sincerely struggling to explain where they fall on the ideological spectrum these days. It’s not that they’ve changed their beliefs; it’s that the old taxonomy has become incoherent.
  
  For example, does being an outspoken Trump critic make you a “moderate” RINO? Does it matter whether you’re criticizing him for an overly austere healthcare bill, or for reckless infrastructure spending plan? And who owns the “far right” now—is it “constitutional conservatives” like Ted Cruz, or “alt-right” white supremacists like Richard Spencer?
  
  When I raised these questions on a Twitter earlier this week, I was swamped with hundreds of responses and dozens of emails from longtime Republicans who described feeling like they are lost inside their own homes.
  
  Some, like Jordan Team from Washington, D.C., related how their attempts at explaining their personal politics have devolved into a kind of absurdist comedy:
  

  I've always identified as a more moderate R - even "establishment Republican", if you will. I usually always use "moderate" or "Establishment" when saying I'm a Republican to separate myself from more hard-line Tea Party Freedom Caucus conservatives.

  These days, however, I feel like it requires even further explanation to separate myself from the nationalism/populism that Trump & team espouse, since they're all now technically Republicans. Usually it's something super catchy & brief along the lines of: "I'm a moderate Republican - or at least, have been one, not really sure that that means anymore - but I don't support Trump or populism - I'm traditionally conservative"  And even that doesn't always get the point across. I think the easiest when trying to have a conversation with someone is a two step process. Step 1: "I'm a Republican but don't like Trump," and then if the convo keeps going/they know politics/they're interested, there's step 2: "I'm more moderate/establishment than Tea Party/Freedom Caucus".
  

  Other people, meanwhile, shared more tragic testimonials. “I feel honestly like a part of my identity was stolen,” wrote Alycia Kuehne, a conservative Christian from Dallas, Texas.
  But virtually everyone who wrote to me shared a common complaint: The traditional “Left ↔ Right” spectrum used to describe and categorize Republicans has become obsolete in the age of Trump. The question now is what to replace it with.
  
  To provoke interesting answers, I asked people who wrote to me to imagine the Republican voter who is furthest from themselves—be it ideologically, philosophically, or attitudinally—and then to answer the question: What is the most meaningful difference between you and that person?
  
  The proposed spectrums that emerged from their responses—some of which I’ve included below—are not meant to be peer-reviewed by political scientists. But they offer new, and potentially more useful, ways to map the emerging fault lines that now divide the American right.
  
  LIBERTARIAN ↔ AUTHORITARIAN: One of the most common responses I received from Republicans argued that the party could be divided between authoritarians (who tend to gravitate toward Trump) and libertarians (who are generally repelled by his strong-man instincts). In an email that was typical of several I received, Aaron L. M. Goodwin, from California, wrote:
  

  I grew up in a pretty conservative household. We were home-schooled Mormons. We listened to conservative talk radio. I was the only 10 year old I knew of who loved to watch C-Span. These days I feel completely alienated from the GOP. But, I don't feel like I'm the one who sold out. So where does that leave me?
  
  I believe the conservative/liberal spectrum has been overtaken by one for democratic/authoritarian ... Most of the Republicans I still feel some kinship with are from a multitude of ideologies, but they share an ideology based on classical liberal democracy. We all share a deep-seeded suspicion of rule by power, and I believe, are closer to the original intent of our founding documents.
  

  GRIEVANCE-MOTIVATED ↔ PHILOSOPHICALLY MOTIVATED:  Liz Mair, a libertarian-leaning GOP strategist, wrote that she’s been convinced after “300 gazillion conversations with all sorts of conservatives”—including a range of lawmakers, writers, pundits, candidates, and grassroots-level activists—that the biggest division within the party is one that separates Fox News-a-holics driven by tribal grievance from people who have some kind of philosophically rooted belief system: 
  

  I honestly think the split in conservatism comes more down to philosophy versus identity politics than anything. Are you opposed to things on philosophical or tribal grounds? Are you a believer of a member of our clan? (Said in the Scottish sense) ...

  I bet if you polled Trump primary voters and asked them what was the bigger problem—insufficiently limited government or transgender Muslim feminists being celebrated at the Oscars, a big majority would say the latter.

  ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT ↔ ESTABLISHMENT: The outsider/insider trope is well-worn in contemporary conservative politics—so much so that you could argue the terms have lost their meaning. But based on the emails I received, many Republicans (on both ends of the spectrum) still view the party through that lens. On one end are people who respect existing political institutions, and believe in conforming to their norms and using the system to advance their agenda. On other end of this spectrum are people who believe the establishment is hopelessly corrupt and ineffectual, and that it should be circumvented whenever possible.
  
  The flaw in this formulation, it seems to me, is that virtually every Republican who has entered Congress over the past eight years started out on the anti-establishment end of the spectrum, and then slid—involuntarily, perhaps, but inevitably—toward the establishment end. That’s because, as Stephen Spiker from Virginia emailed, once you run for office and win, you necessarily become a part of the system, an insider:
  

  I see many colleagues in the party taken in by the "establishment vs anti-establishment" spectrum. Essentially populism, as the anti-establishment folks are "burn it down" because they don't feel represented and want a fighter. That lead to Dave Brat winning in 2014, and Trump winning in 2016.

  Now that its Trump vs Brat, you're going to see the inherent decay in this school of thought: the anti-establishment crowd turning on their former heroes like Dave Brat (as they turned on Cantor previously). He's in Congress, he's an insider, he's standing in the way, etc.

  It will eventually turn on Trump as well, as he falls short on goal after goal. When it happens (as in, before or after Trump is out of office) is always dependent on having the right person run at the right time on the right message, but it will happen.

  Most notable about the anti-establishment position is that there's no consistent end game or policy goal. It exists for the sake of itself. That's what frustrates folks who actually have firm ideological stances.
  

  ABSOLUTISTS  ↔ DEALMAKERS:  Many of the most high-profile intra-party battles in recent years have been fought not over ideas, but tactics and a willingness to compromise. While Republicans in Washington were essentially unanimous in their opposition to President Obama’s agenda, they differed—at least at first—over whether they should cut deals at the legislative bargaining table, or, say, shut the government down until they got exactly what they wanted. The absolutists largely won out during the Obama presidency—but what about now?
  
  On one end of this spectrum are people like the Freedom Caucus purists from whom it is all but impossible to extract concessions; on the other are the dealmakers who will compromise virtually anything to get some kind of legislation passed.
  
  Several Republicans who wrote to me were, I think, circling this idea, which my colleague Conor Friedersdorf recently articulated:
  

  Do populist Republicans want a federal government where politicians stand on principle and refuse to compromise? Or do they want a pragmatist to make fabulous deals?
  … Is a GOP House member more likely to be punished in a primary for thwarting a Donald Trump deal … or compromising to make a deal happen? Were I the political consultant for an ambitious primary candidate in a safe Republican district, I can imagine a successful challenge regardless of what course the incumbent chose, voters having been primed to respond to either critique.
  

  OPEN/TOLERANT ↔ NATIVIST/RACIST: This is the probably the most provocative construct that was proposed, but it was also a popular one. For many Trump-averse Republicans, one of the biggest perceived differences between themselves and hardcore Trump fans is attitudes toward racial minorities and foreign immigrants. The alt-right dominates one end of the spectrum—and they place themselves on the polar opposite end.
  
  Granted, this spectrum was not proposed to me by any Trump supporters, and no doubt many of them would strongly disagree with this categorization. But there’s no question it’s one of the defining debates inside the party right now. Evan McMullin, a conservative who ran for president last year under the #NeverTrump banner, was quoted saying that racism is the single biggest problem with the party today.
  

  * * *

  This is, of course, by no means a comprehensive list of the divisions within the GOP. For example, one of the most talked-about conflicts to emerge in the past year has been between “nationalism” and “globalism.” But despite efforts by Steve Bannon and other Trump advisers to frame the ideological debate that way, very few GOP voters—at least none who wrote to me—identify as “globalists.” Instead, these new spectrums represent a few of the ways in which Republicans—eager to escape the disorder and confusion of the Trump era—are categorizing themselves and each other.

Majority Want Trump To Resign If His Campaign Colluded With Russia

If the Trump campaign worked with Russia to sway the 2016 election, the American people want the president to start packing his bags.

By Sean Colarossi

If it turns out that Donald Trump’s campaign did, indeed, work with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton in last fall’s presidential election, a majority of the country – 53 percent – thinks the president should resign.

According to the explosive new poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP), which debuted Wednesday night on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, the American people said – by a 14-point margin – that Trump should step down if there was collusion.



Another result revealed on Maddow’s program found that a plurality of the country believes Trump’s campaign did, in fact, work with Russia to swing the 2016 election in his favor.

If you’re keeping score at home: The American people think both that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia and that the president should resign as a result.

While there is endless political polling released on a weekly basis asking about hypothetical scenarios, what should be terrifying to the White House is that the explosive Russia scandal is just one more investigation or one more small piece of evidence away from making the questions posed in the PPP survey a reality.

At that point, the president will have to face a country that doesn’t just believe he isn’t doing a good job, as polls repeatedly suggest, but also that he should no longer have the job at all.

The Trump Diaries

DNC just asked all its staffers to resign

By Tyler Durden

Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who took over as the chair of the Democratic National Committee in late February following Hillary's stunning November defeat, has asked for his entire staff to submit their resignation letters by no later than April 15th.

Of course, the move comes after a series of scandals plagued the DNC throughout the 2016 election cycle, including rather undeniable evidence that former Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz intentionally undermined the campaign of Bernie Sanders while her replacement, Donna Brazile, seemingly did the same by passing Hillary's team debate questions in advance of Town Hall discussions with Bernie.
 
According to NBC, Tom Perez decided to clean house at the DNC shortly after taking over the leadership role from Donna Brazile and will use the mass firing as an opportunity to restructure how the party will be run going forward. 

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez has launched a major reshuffling of the party's organization that has been stung by recent crisis — and the DNC has requested the resignation letters of all current staffers be submitted by next month.

Party staff routinely see major turnover with a new boss and staffers were alerted earlier to expect such a move. However, the mass resignation letters will give Perez a chance to completely remake the DNC's headquarters from scratch. Staffing had already reached unusual lows following a round of layoffs in December.

Immediately after Perez' election in late February, an adviser to outgoing DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile, Leah Daughtry, asked every employee to submit a letter of resignation dated April 15, according to multiple sources familiar with the party's internal working.

A committee advising Perez on his transition is now interviewing staff and others as part of a top-to-bottom review process to help decide not only who will stay and who will go, but how the party should be structured in the future.

Back in late February, Perez appeared on Meet the Press to tell Chuck Todd that he would look to implement a "culture change" at the DNC before comparing his own party to a busted plane traveling at 20,000 feet.

Perez has spent his first weeks on the job in "active listening mode," hearing from Democrats in Washington and in small group meetings across the country before making any big moves.

"What we're trying to do is culture change," he told NBC News between stops of a listening tour in Michigan Friday. "We're repairing a plane at 20,000 feet. You can't land the plane, shut it down, and close it until further notice."

"If your goal is you have to please everyone then you end up pleasing no one," he added.

 We're still awaiting confirmation from Rachel Maddow that this mass firing came after the discovery that the DNC was infiltrated by Russian spies coordinating with the Trump campaign.