Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Legendary U.S. attorney 'confident' Hillary grand jury convened!

World Net Daily ^ | 1 Mar, 2016 | Jerome Corsi 

Lynch was interviewed Monday on Fox News' "Special Report with Brett Baier."
DiGenova, who was U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., for four years, during which time he handled cases involving international drug smuggling, espionage, insider trading, public corruption, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and more, also told WND he was confident the FBI is in the process of developing a solid criminal case against Hillary Clinton.
If there's no prosecution, said diGenova, who served as chief counsel for the Senate Rules Committee as well as counsel to the Senate Judiciary, Government Affairs and Select Intelligence committees, there will be "an eruption you cannot believe" within the intelligence community.
"Yesterday, when Brett Baier asked Attorney General Lynch whether there was a grand jury in Hillary Clinton's email case, she did not deny a grand jury had been convened," diGenova pointed out. "If no grand jury had been convened, Attorney General Lynch could easily have denied a grand jury had been convened without violating grand jury secrecy."......
The second investigation involves what Justice Department prosecutors call an "official acts" investigation, regarding a possible correlation between "official acts" performed by Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, her office and the State Department, and large donations made to the Clinton Foundation by countries, corporations and individuals.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

It's a Donald world!

Tom Shattuck Wednesday, March 02, 2016

The GOP ruling class is thunderstruck. Dumbstruck. And flailing. The one thing they should get down on their knees and be grateful for, they resent. Petulantly.
The Reagan Democrats are back and they love Trump. Trump’s popularity in blue states is giving him added horsepower, and is making him unstoppable.
The Republican intelligentsia hates this.
Conservative ideologues cringe at the thought of Trump — uncouth, unprincipled, unrefined. He won’t be wearing a bowtie to their CPAC post-parties.
In cahoots with their fellow Georgetown cigar bar dwellers in the media, they did their best to stop him.
They called him a rapist, a racist, a sexist. They made connections to Nazis, Mussolini and “Fat Tony” Salerno.
In recent days, they transformed their establishment candidate of choice — safe, wet-behind-the-ears Marco Rubio — into a third-rate Andrew Dice Clay who tossed his usual stump speech and took to dissing Trump about his “small hands” and spray tan, as he tried, pathetically, to trump Trump with his own lame version of Trumpisms. Rubio’s “Shecky” act included everything short of “Yo Mama” jokes.
In the wake of Super Tuesday, it’s going to be curtains for Rubio and the establishment, and encore time for Donald Trump.
Expect Hillary Clinton to pick up the GOP establishment’s banner and position herself as mankind’s only chance to stop the hated Donald.
The current phenomenon does not bode well for her, though. The more Trump is attacked and piled on by conventional pols — the ones on both sides of the aisle who have let down the voters again and again — the more popular he gets.
It may look like the world against Trump. But we’ll see that in fact the world — the real world — is with him.

The GOPe Has No Credibility...GO TRUMP

Vanity | March 3, 2016 | Behind the Blue Wall 

I know that it's no surprise, but the logic behind the GOPe strategy to take the nomination fight to the convention floor in order to avoid a Trump nomination is just so hard to imagine. These are people whose anointed candidates have lost the popular vote in five of the last six Presidential elections, with the sixth (W's reelection) being not only a squeaker, but also resulting four years later (2008) in the most devastating losses for Republicans maybe ever, losses from which the Party is still trying to record.
Furthermore, it's just a fact that Trump is massively expanding the Party to an extent that hasn't happened, maybe ever. The Republican turnout this primary season has shattered previous records, and nobody questions that those are all Trump voters. He's also putting the Democratic strongholds like the industrial Midwest and Northeast into play, and growing the Party's strength among the working-class voters who have traditionally formed the foundation of electoral success nationally.
The GOPe is basically saying to us the rank and file of the Republican Party that "no, at all costs we must not succumb to a candidate that has shown an ability to connect directly to the American people, to fight and win against the media's bias against Republicans, to reach constituencies that are critical to our long-term success as a national Party, no, instead we must nominate another Bush, McCain, Romney-type, who will then go on to 'lose with dignity' to the Democrats in November."
It's also astounding that to the extent that there's a trade-off between appealing to Americans who are negatively impacted by illegal immigration, and appealing to whatever percent of Hispanics there are who support and profit from it, the GOPe prioritizes appealing to the less than 13% (Hispanics) versus the 87% (other Americans). Put another way, the GOPe would prefer to appeal to the illegal immigrant (in theory 0% of the electorate) versus American citizens (in theory 100% of the electorate). In what universe can that be considered a smart electoral strategy?
Luckily, it appears that we finally have a candidate who understands all of this, and enough voters who are willing to see through the smokescreens being thrown up in front of them by the GOPe/media complex. Go Trump!!!

Republican Establishment Plans to Support Hillary

Tea Party ^ | 2016-03-02 | Tea Party 

Vote fraud may be the final solution (Infowars) – According to Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, the Republican establishment may give tacit support to Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump wins the nomination. King said Clinton is somebody “they can do business with” if Cruz or Trump come out on top.
As a wrecking ball Trump will likely swing the election in Clinton’s corner, although many observers are convinced he will beat her and become the next president.
This underestimates the control the establishment has over the “democratic” election process. On Tuesday in Texas voters complainedvotes for Trump were flipped to Rubio.
Election “irregularities” are now common. In 2015 a mathematician at Wichita State University said “some voting systems were being sabotaged” while Princeton researchers conducted a demonstration showing how it’s possible to steal an election with a Diebold voting machine in under a minute.
“In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true,” writes Jon Green.
Judy Frankel believes we cannot trust Diebold voting machines or the establishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Murdoch: GOP 'would be mad' not to unify around Trump if he's nominee

The Hill ^ | March 2, 2016 | Jesse Byrnes 

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch argued Wednesday that Republicans would be "mad" not to rally around Donald Trump should the businessman become the GOP presidential nominee.
Murdoch, who suggested earlier this week that Republicans should "close ranks to fight real enemy," shared a tweet Wednesday saying Trump is "reaching out to make peace" with members of the party.
"If he becomes inevitable party would be mad not to unify," Murdoch wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump dominates with huge turnouts, wide base of support!

Washington Post ^ | March 2, 2016 | Bill Barrow and Emily Swanson, AP 

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump continues to demonstrate a wide base of support, riding record turnouts to seven victories out of the 11 states where Republicans cast Super Tuesday ballots.
Exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and other media across nine of the states showed Trump drawing significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications. Perhaps most important for Trump: Even among voting groups where he was weakest, he maintained enough strength to deny Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio any chance of catching him.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Opens the Border to More STDs ^ | February 2016 | Jon Feere 

In his first year in office, President Obama lifted an entry ban on foreigners with HIV. In his final year in office he will lift the entry ban on three more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The president's own Health and Human Services department says this guarantees more infections in the United States, proving once again that immigration is the defining issue for politicians like Obama. Increased immigration trumps all other concerns.
First, some background. In 1993, a clause specifically designed to reduce the spread HIV/AIDS into the United States was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act. It passed the Senate with a vote of 76 to 23. It reads:
""Any alien who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance, which shall include infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS] ... is inadmissible.1 ""
Though the law is clear that AIDS is to be considered "a communicable disease of public health significance", today it is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to determine whether a disease meets that threshold. This is due to a law signed by immigration advocate President George W. Bush in 2008.2 The Obama administration picked up the ball and ran with Bush's open-border vision and decided in 2009 that HIV is not a "communicable disease of public health significance".3
Despite the declaration that HIV was no longer a communicable disease of public health significance, the CDC estimates that approximately 50,000 people in the United States are newly infected with HIV each year and that over 1.2 million persons in the country are HIV positive. The United States has the highest prevalence of HIV infection of any developed country.4
HHS provided some estimates of the effect of this rule change and found that every year anywhere from 1,073 to 6,409 HIV-infected immigrants would be granted legal permanent residency.5 The analysis ignored the additional unknown number of people infected with HIV who would enter on a temporary basis; in other words, the number of people with HIV granted admission would be much larger. And this doesn't include people who sneak across the border, of course.
The National Institutes of Health (which falls under HHS) noted that if HIV screening is not part of the immigration examination, the new immigrants "will add to the numbers of those who are HIV-positive yet are unaware of their infection", potentially leading to "a larger population of persons with undiagnosed HIV ... who are more likely to transmit the infection to others, likely within their own immigrant communities." 6 HHS put it quite bluntly: "The main cost of this rule is the potential for onward transmission to U.S. residents who are not infected with HIV."
HHS also estimated that after five years approximately 170 to 1,014 people in the United States would become infected as a result of the policy change, costing anywhere from $4 million to $22 million in health care expenditures for this "onward transmission". This estimate assumed a low-end new infection rate of 1.51 percent — meaning that every 100 HIV-infected persons will infect 1.51 persons. But HHS noted that it could be higher, explaining that the "most recent estimate of average onward transmission, when limited to sexual transmission, in the United States is 3.02 per 100 HIV positive immigrants."
HHS estimated that after the first five years of this rule change, there may have been 3,956 to 23,622 HIV-infected new immigrants in the United States. Again, this focused only on lawful permanent resident immigrants. Any HIV-infected border-jumpers or tourists who overstay their visas were not included in this estimate.
Overall, the estimated healthcare cost of removing HIV from the travel ban may have ranged from $19 million to $173 million in the first year alone. HHS explained that this would obviously double the second year as a new wave of immigrants arrives, triple the third year, and so on. HHS estimated that after five years the healthcare cost would be $86 million to $513 million. But not to worry, HHS noted that the cost to taxpayers is "likely to be small given the restrictions on federal benefits to new immigrants." Of course, these estimates were made in 2009, before Obamacare.
Recently, President Obama made some more changes, opening our borders to more STDs. Yet only a single special-interest news outlet has even noticed.7
Prior to 2009, HHS listed eight diseases as "communicable diseases of public health significance": tuberculosis, leprosy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), syphilis, chancroid, gonorrhea, granuloma inguinale, and lymphogranuloma venereum. After the first two on the list, the remainder are all sexually transmitted diseases. After the administration dropped HIV from the list, only five STDs remained: syphilis, chancroid, gonorrhea, granuloma inguinale, and lymphogranuloma venereum.
At the time I wondered whether some of the other STDs also would be removed from the list since they are not nearly as deadly as HIV. It took him seven years, but recently Obama decided to remove chancroid, granuloma inguinale, and lymphogranuloma venereum as inadmissible health-related conditions for aliens seeking admission to the United States.8
The only remaining communicable diseases considered to be of any "public health significance" are tuberculosis, leprosy, syphilis, and gonorrhea. At least until the leprosy lobby speaks up.
There was one additional change made by the administration pertaining to tuberculosis, however, that is worth noting. Prior to the rule change, federal regulations required that all applicants subject to a chest x-ray, "and for whom the radiograph shows an abnormality suggestive of tuberculosis disease, shall be required to undergo additional testing for tuberculosis." The rule change drops the "shall" requirement. It now reads: "All applicants may be required to undergo additional testing for tuberculosis based on the results of the medical evaluation." It's a subtle change that may have no significant effect; on the other hand, it may mean less stringent protections from tuberculosis.
So what about the costs associated with the new rule change on the three remaining STDs? Don't worry, Obama's HHS secretary ran the numbers and explained in the Federal Register that "The results are not economically significant, i.e. more than $100 million of costs and benefits in a single year."9 In other words, the cost of welcoming in aliens with these STDs will be below $100 million every year.
The secretary argues that there's a "potential" for "a negligible increase in the numbers of disease cases entering the United States", but that "the potential introduction of a very small number of cases will not change the current cost structure associated with the current disease burden." However, the secretary also reports that of these diseases, chancroid is the only one reported to the CDC, meaning that it is difficult to estimate the impact of this rule for the other diseases. In fact, HHS notes that "[d]ata on chancroid, granuloma inguinale, and lymphogranuloma venereum are not systematically collected by any country outside of the United States either by specific countries or regions listed by DHS for aliens, or from the World Health Organization." We don't really know what we're bringing in.
And not to worry, HHS also explains that these "primarily tropical infections can be prevented through improved personal hygiene and protected sex" and that if you do get them, the STDs can be cured "with a short, uncomplicated course of antibiotic therapy." Hopefully they're telling the immigrants that.
The administration argues that this change is beneficial because physicians who would otherwise be administering the exams "will be able to devote more time and training to other, more common and/or more serious health issues." Sound familiar? This is the same argument the Obama administration makes for directing ICE to only focus on deporting "the worst of the worst" criminal aliens. By ignoring the run-of-the-mill illegal aliens, law enforcement can better focus on the most egregious offenders, they claim.10 But it means that plenty of dangerous aliens get a pass and it means that violence has largely become a prerequisite for immigration enforcement. Similarly, the change in STD policies means that many infections are potentially being ignored.
The United States has the highest prevalence of HIV infection of any developed country. The Obama administration's policy change may ensure that the United States keeps that title. In the least, the 2009 and 2016 changes will reduce the ability of our immigration system to protect Americans from communicable diseases.
End Notes
1 (8 USC § 1182).
2 Jon Feere, "Congress Mulls Lifting HIV Ban", Center for Immigration Studies blog, July 25, 2008.
3 Jon Feere, "Obama Lifts HIV Immigration Ban", Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, November 2009.
4 "HIV and AIDS in the Americas: An epidemic with many faces", Pan American Health Organization, 2001.
5 "Medical Examination of Aliens—Removal of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection From Definition of Communicable Disease of Public Health Significance", Centers for Disease Control, Federal Register notice, November 2, 2009.
6 Susanna E. Winston and Curt G. Beckwith, "The Impact of Removing the Immigration Ban on HIV-Infected Persons", AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 25(12), pp. 709–711, 2011.
7 Matthew Bultman, "HHS Removes 3 STIs From List Barring Immigrant Entry",, January 26, 2016.
8 "Medical Examination of Aliens-Revisions to Medical Screening Process: A Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 01/26/2016", Federal Register, January 26, 2016.
9 Ibid.
10 Brian Bennett, "High deportation figures are misleading", Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2014.

Poll: Carson tops list of potential Trump running-mates

The Hill ^ | 3/1/2016 | Jesse Byrnes 

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson tops the list of potential running-mates for Donald Trump if the businessman wins the GOP nomination, according to a new poll.
Carson is the choice of 11 percent of Republican and GOP-leaning independent voters, a Morning Consult poll released Monday found.
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the candidates right behind Trump in the GOP race, are tied for second with 9 percent each.
John Kasich, also a Republican presidential candidate, follows with 8 percent, tied with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who endorsed Trump last week after dropping out of the GOP race in February.
Carson's business manager Armstrong Williams told The Hill on Tuesday that Carson wouldn't be dropping out of the GOP race, despite not having any potential state wins in sight.
The soft-spoken retired neurosurgeon himself indicated Tuesday morning that he's been asked by Republican Party officials to suspend his campaign.
Cruz, Rubio and a slew of pundits have called on Carson to drop out of the race amid an effort to coalesce around a single alternative to Trump.
Thirty-eight percent of those surveyed over the weekend didn't list a hypothetical VP for Trump. The survey of 2,002 registered voters was conducted Feb. 26-27 with a margin of error of 2 points.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Be glad...


Weekend at Bernies


Arab Spring


Gallup Poll










The real motives


Why should I?


Trump drives Republican turnout to record, Democrats lack enthusiasm

The Washington Times ^ | March 1st, 2016 | By Stephen Dinan 

Republicans continued to shatter turnout records in their presidential primaries and caucuses Tuesday, while Democrats lagged behind in what analysts said was a clear indication of an enthusiasm gap heading into the general election.

Virginia easily broke its GOP record of 664,000 votes from 2000, and was nearing the 1 million mark. That would be four times the turnout in 2012’s Republican primary.

But Democrats in the state were unlikely to touch their record set in 2008’s contentious primary.

In Georgia, results were trickling in more slowly, but projections put the GOP there on pace to top the 900,000-vote record set in the 2012 Republican primary, when favorite son Newt Gingrich was in the race.

All told, about a dozen states held caucuses or primaries on Tuesday, but returns in the rest of them were too preliminary to make projections as of press time — though Tennessee and Texas were also on record paces in early returns.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Newt Gingrich: Wake Up, Republicans – It’s Either Trump or Clinton

Fiscal Times via Yahoo FinanceYahoo ^ | March 1, 2016 | Rob Graves 

With a #NeverTrump hashtag and a growing list of high-profile people and groups declaring that they will never support Donald Trump as the nominee of the Republican Party, the effort to block Trump from winning the nomination is gaining force.
But former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday previewed what he said will be the single most effective argument for strong-arming anti-Trump Republicans back into the fold if he is the nominee.
"You are either going to elect Hillary Clinton who will, I think, be the most corrupt president in American history, or you're going to help elect Donald Trump," Gingrich told Fox News Tuesday morning. "There's no middle ground. You can't say virtuously, 'Oh, I'm going to be neutral.' If you're neutral, you're helping elect Hillary Clinton."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump’s America [OF COURSE WE'RE ANGRY!]

American Enterprise Institute ^ | February 12, 2016 | Charles Murray 

If you are dismayed by Trumpism, don’t kid yourself that it will fade away if Donald Trump fails to win the Republican nomination. Trumpism is an expression of the legitimate anger that many Americans feel about the course that the country has taken, and its appearance was predictable. It is the endgame of a process that has been going on for a half-century: America’s divestment of its historic national identity. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump signs the arm of 19-month-old Curtis Ray Jeffery II after a rally in Baton Rouge, Louisiana February 11, 2016. Reuters
For the eminent political scientist Samuel Huntington, writing in his last book, “Who Are We?” (2004), two components of that national identity stand out. One is our Anglo-Protestant heritage, which has inevitably faded in an America that is now home to many cultural and religious traditions. The other is the very idea of America, something unique to us. As the historian Richard Hofstadter once said, “It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one.”
What does this ideology—Huntington called it the “American creed”—consist of? Its three core values may be summarized as egalitarianism, liberty and individualism. From these flow other familiar aspects of the national creed that observers have long identified: equality before the law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and association, self-reliance, limited government, free-market economics, decentralized and devolved political authority.
As recently as 1960, the creed was our national consensus. Running that year for the Democratic nomination, candidates like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert Humphrey genuinely embraced the creed, differing from Republicans only in how its elements should be realized.
Today, the creed has lost its authority and its substance. What happened? Many of the dynamics of the reversal can be found in developments across the whole of American society: in the emergence of a new upper class and a new lower class, and in the plight of the working class caught in between.
In my 2012 book “Coming Apart,” I discussed these new classes at length. The new upper class consists of the people who shape the country’s economy, politics and culture. The new lower class consists of people who have dropped out of some of the most basic institutions of American civic culture, especially work and marriage. Both of these new classes have repudiated the American creed in practice, whatever lip service they may still pay to it. Trumpism is the voice of a beleaguered working class telling us that it too is falling away.
Historically, one of the most widely acknowledged aspects of American exceptionalism was our lack of class consciousness. Even Marx and Engels recognized it. This was egalitarianism American style. Yes, America had rich people and poor people, but that didn’t mean that the rich were better than anyone else.
Successful Americans stubbornly refused to accept the mantle of an upper class, typically presenting themselves to their fellow countrymen as regular guys. And they usually were, in the sense that most of them had grown up in modest circumstances, or even in poverty, and carried the habits and standards of their youths into their successful later lives.
America also retained a high degree of social and cultural heterogeneity in its communities. Tocqueville wrote of America in the 1830s as a place where “the more opulent citizens take great care not to stand aloof from the people.” That continued well into the 20th century, even in America’s elite neighborhoods. In the 1960 census, the median income along Philadelphia’s Main Line was just $90,000 in today’s dollars. In Boston’s Brookline, it was $75,000; on New York’s Upper East Side, just $60,000. At a typical dinner party in those neighborhoods, many guests would have had no more than a high-school diploma.
In the years since, the new upper class has evolved a distinctive culture. For a half-century, America’s elite universities have drawn the most talented people from all over the country, socialized them and often married them off to each other. Brains have become radically more valuable in the marketplace. In 2016, a dinner party in those same elite neighborhoods consists almost wholly of people with college degrees, even advanced degrees. They are much more uniformly affluent. The current median family incomes for the Main Line, Brookline and the Upper East Side are about $150,000, $151,000 and $203,000, respectively.
And the conversation at that dinner party is likely to be completely unlike the conversations at get-togethers in mainstream America. The members of the new upper class are seldom attracted to the films, TV shows and music that are most popular in mainstream America. They have a distinctive culture in the food they eat, the way they take care of their health, their child-rearing practices, the vacations they take, the books they read, the websites they visit and their taste in beer. You name it, the new upper class has its own way of doing it.
Another characteristic of the new upper class—and something new under the American sun—is their easy acceptance of being members of an upper class and their condescension toward ordinary Americans. Try using “redneck” in a conversation with your highly educated friends and see if it triggers any of the nervousness that accompanies other ethnic slurs. Refer to “flyover country” and consider the implications when no one asks, “What does that mean?” Or I can send you to chat with a friend in Washington, D.C., who bought a weekend place in West Virginia. He will tell you about the contempt for his new neighbors that he has encountered in the elite precincts of the nation’s capital.
For its part, mainstream America is fully aware of this condescension and contempt and is understandably irritated by it. American egalitarianism is on its last legs.
While the new upper class was seceding from the mainstream, a new lower class was emerging from within the white working class, and it has played a key role in creating the environment in which Trumpism has flourished.
Work and marriage have been central to American civic culture since the founding, and this held true for the white working class into the 1960s. Almost all of the adult men were working or looking for work, and almost all of them were married. “In today’s average white working-class neighborhood, about one out of five men in the prime of life isn’t even looking for work; they are living off girlfriends, siblings or parents, on disability, or else subsisting on off-the-books or criminal income.”– Charles Murray
Then things started to change. For white working-class men in their 30s and 40s—what should be the prime decades for working and raising a family—participation in the labor force dropped from 96% in 1968 to 79% in 2015. Over that same period, the portion of these men who were married dropped from 86% to 52%. (The numbers for nonwhite working-class males show declines as well, though not as steep and not as continuous.)
These are stunning changes, and they are visible across the country. In today’s average white working-class neighborhood, about one out of five men in the prime of life isn’t even looking for work; they are living off girlfriends, siblings or parents, on disability, or else subsisting on off-the-books or criminal income. Almost half aren’t married, with all the collateral social problems that go with large numbers of unattached males.
In these communities, about half the children are born to unmarried women, with all the problems that go with growing up without fathers, especially for boys. Drugs also have become a major problem, in small towns as well as in urban areas.
Consider how these trends have affected life in working-class communities for everyone, including those who are still playing by the old rules. They find themselves working and raising their families in neighborhoods where the old civic culture is gone—neighborhoods that are no longer friendly or pleasant or even safe.
These major changes in American class structure were taking place alongside another sea change: large-scale ideological defection from the principles of liberty and individualism, two of the pillars of the American creed. This came about in large measure because of the civil rights and feminist movements, both of which began as classic invocations of the creed, rightly demanding that America make good on its ideals for blacks and women.
But the success of both movements soon produced policies that directly contradicted the creed. Affirmative action demanded that people be treated as groups. Equality of outcome trumped equality before the law. Group-based policies continued to multiply, with ever more policies embracing ever more groups.
By the beginning of the 1980s, Democratic elites overwhelmingly subscribed to an ideology in open conflict with liberty and individualism as traditionally understood. This consolidated the Democratic Party’s longtime popularity with ethnic minorities, single women and low-income women, but it alienated another key Democratic constituency: the white working class.
White working-class males were the archetypal “Reagan Democrats” in the early 1980s and are often described as the core of support for Mr. Trump. But the grievances of this group are often misunderstood. It is a mistake to suggest that they are lashing out irrationally against people who don’t look like themselves. There are certainly elements of racism and xenophobia in Trumpism, as I myself have discovered on Twitter and Facebook after writing critically about Mr. Trump.
But the central truth of Trumpism as a phenomenon is that the entire American working class has legitimate reasons to be angry at the ruling class. During the past half-century of economic growth, virtually none of the rewards have gone to the working class. The economists can supply caveats and refinements to that statement, but the bottom line is stark: The real family income of people in the bottom half of the income distribution hasn’t increased since the late 1960s.
During the same half-century, American corporations exported millions of manufacturing jobs, which were among the best-paying working-class jobs. They were and are predominantly men’s jobs. In both 1968 and 2015, 70% of manufacturing jobs were held by males. “The central truth of Trumpism as a phenomenon is that the entire American working class has legitimate reasons to be angry at the ruling class.”– Charles Murray
During the same half-century, the federal government allowed the immigration, legal and illegal, of tens of millions of competitors for the remaining working-class jobs. Apart from agriculture, many of those jobs involve the construction trades or crafts. They too were and are predominantly men’s jobs: 77% in 1968 and 84% in 2015.
Economists still argue about the net effect of these events on the American job market. But for someone living in a town where the big company has shut the factory and moved the jobs to China, or for a roofer who has watched a contractor hire illegal immigrants because they are cheaper, anger and frustration are rational.
Add to this the fact that white working-class men are looked down upon by the elites and get little validation in their own communities for being good providers, fathers and spouses—and that life in their communities is falling apart. To top it off, the party they have voted for in recent decades, the Republicans, hasn’t done a damn thing to help them. Who wouldn’t be angry?
There is nothing conservative about how they want to fix things. They want a now indifferent government to act on their behalf, big time. If Bernie Sanders were passionate about immigration, the rest of his ideology would have a lot more in common with Trumpism than conservatism does.
As a political matter, it is not a problem that Mr. Sanders doesn’t share the traditional American meanings of liberty and individualism. Neither does Mr. Trump. Neither, any longer, do many in the white working class. They have joined the other defectors from the American creed.
Who continues to embrace this creed in its entirety? Large portions of the middle class and upper middle class (especially those who run small businesses), many people in the corporate and financial worlds and much of the senior leadership of the Republican Party. They remain principled upholders of the ideals of egalitarianism, liberty and individualism.
And let’s not forget moderate Democrats, the spiritual legatees of the New Deal. They may advocate social democracy, but they are also unhappy about policies that treat Americans as members of groups and staunch in their support of freedom of speech, individual moral responsibility and the kind of egalitarianism that Tocqueville was talking about. They still exist in large numbers, though mostly in the political closet.
But these are fragments of the population, not the national consensus that bound the U.S. together for the first 175 years of the nation’s existence. And just as support for the American creed has shrunk, so has its correspondence to daily life. Our vaunted liberty is now constrained by thousands of petty restrictions that touch almost anything we want to do, individualism is routinely ignored in favor of group rights, and we have acquired an arrogant upper class. Operationally as well as ideologically, the American creed is shattered.
Our national identity is not altogether lost. Americans still have a vivid, distinctive national character in the eyes of the world. Historically, America has done a far better job than any other country of socializing people of many different ethnicities into displaying our national character. We will still be identifiably American for some time to come.
There’s irony in that. Much of the passion of Trumpism is directed against the threat to America’s national identity from an influx of immigrants. But the immigrants I actually encounter, of all ethnicities, typically come across as classically American—cheerful, hardworking, optimistic, ambitious. Keeping our national character seems to be the least of our problems.
Still, even that character is ultimately rooted in the American creed. When faith in that secular religion is held only by fragments of the American people, we will soon be just another nation—a very powerful one, a very rich one, still called the United States of America. But we will have detached ourselves from the bedrock that has made us unique in the history of the world.

Curt Schilling Says Hillary Clinton 'Should Be Buried Under A Jail' ^ | March 1 

That brings us to Tuesday's interview in which Schilling devoted about eight minutes (starting near the 28-minute mark) to talking about Clinton, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and the various things that scare him for the future of America. The interview, though, was at its most provocative when Schilling railed on Clinton.
"If she’s allowed to get to the general election before she’s in prison I’ll be stunned and upset,” Schilling said. “Because I think she’s shown her true colors all along the way and I’ll ask you this: Do you see her being anything even remotely different than what we’ve had?”
“I don’t care what her titles are,” Schilling continued after host Danny Parkins listed some of Clinton's credentials. “She’s done nothing. She’s done absolutely nothing to further the success of the middle class. She jumps on the backs of people who she wants to be dependent on government. She needs these people to be dependent on her.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...