Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Mike Huckabee: Don't Trust Polls Saying Trump Is Tanking

NewsMax ^ | Monday, 08 Aug 2016 03:24 PM | By Bill Hoffmann 

Mike Huckabee says Americans should take polls that show Donald Trump's presidential campaign is in deep trouble with a big grain of salt.
"Polls taken before Labor Day and the Presidential debates are notoriously subject to change, but that hasn't stopped the pundits from proclaiming that Trump's campaign is tanking," the former governor of Arkansas and two-time presidential candidate writes on his Facebook page.
Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/huckabee-trump-polls-trust/2016/08/08/id/742657/#ixzz4GrVTZWdd
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...

Princeton Professor Shows How Easy it Is to Hack an Election in Just 7 Minutes

Free Thought Project ^ 

A professor from Princeton University and a graduate student just proved electronic voting machines in the U.S. remain astonishingly vulnerable to hackers — and they did it in under eight minutes.
In fact, Professor Andrew Appel and grad student Alex Halderman took just seven minutes to break into the authentic Sequoia AVC Advantage electronic voting machine Appel purchased for $82 online — one of the oldest models, but still in use Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia, Politico reported.
After Halderman picked the hulking, 250-pound machine’s lock in seven seconds flat, Appel wrested its four ROM chips from a circuit board — an easy feat, considering the chips weren’t soldered in place.
Once freed, Appel could facilely replace the ROM chips with his own version “of modified firmware that could throw off the machine’s results, subtly altering the tally of votes, never to betray a hint to the voter,” Politico’s Ben Wofford explained.
Appel and a team of other so-called cyber-academics have hacked into various models of electronic voting machines in order to prove to the public the equipment is ridiculously bereft of security. Together with Ed Felten, Appel and a group of Princeton students “relentlessly hacked one voting machine after another … reprogramming one popular machine to play Pac-Man; infecting popular models with self-duplicating malware; [and] discovering keys to voting machine locks that could be ordered on eBay.”
Their efforts have gone largely ignored for 15 years.
But now, thanks to the explosion of controversy from revealing documents hacked from the DNC — and as-yet unproven accusations of Russian involvement — Appel and his colleagues’ persistence has finally garnered the attention it deserves.
If primaries were successfully rigged through corporate media collusion and behind-the-scenes coordination between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, voters will certainly wonder what’s in store when they cast ballots using deeply-vulnerable electronic voting machines.
Perhaps that lack of security prompted the Department of Homeland Security to declare electronic voting machines part of U.S. “critical infrastructure” this week — a designation generally reserved for 16 sectors, including transportation systems, dams, and utilities, among other things — deemed “so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”
Now that attention has been given to the ease with which a number of popular, still-employed voting machines can be compromised, officials and voters alike have expressed grave concerns about the upcoming election.
“This isn’t a crazy hypothetical anymore,” Dan Wallach, a computer science professor at Rice and veteran of the team of Princeton ‘hackers,’ noted. “Once you bring nation states’ cyber activity into the game?” he hinted of potential Russian connections to the DNC hack and possible implications of foreign meddling in the national election. “These machines, they barely work in a friendly environment.”
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/50013-2/#KBtIj3tpsmJi9esh.99

The Handler

Do you have sleep apnea? Lack of rest could be making you fat

nola.com ^ | 08/09/2016 | Molly Kimball 

There's no question that sleep is intricately tied to weight. How big a factor is it? Perpetual sleep deprivation can undermine weight loss efforts as significantly as adding a Big Mac to our regular daily diet.
Research is so strong for the case for sufficient sleep as a weight loss aid that as a nutritionist I look at sleep as the third element in the trifecta of factors that impact our weight, right alongside diet and exercise.
So it should be no surprise that sleep apnea – a condition where people stop breathing during sleep, as often as 30 times or more per hour – can negatively influence a person's weight.
We eat more when we're sleep deprived – studies show as many as 550 extra calories a day – likely because sleep influences levels of hormones that affect our feelings of hunger and fullness. We crave more carbs when we skimp on sleep, too.
Even when we cut back on calories, sleep deprivation can still make it harder to shed extra pounds. Researchers have found that, among study participants who have the same caloric deficit, those who are sleep deprived lose less body fat, and they actually lose more lean muscle mass.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...

Ignore fake MSM polls, real data shows Trump on way to landslide victory

http://overpassesforamerica.com ^ | August 8, 2016 

Current polls show the race for President is much tighter than it really is. Ann Coulter warned us years ago in her best seller Slander that Democrats and the liberal media always use polls to manipulate and discourage conservatives from voting. Thanks to social media there is more and more evidence that the polls are way off and if things stay as they are, Trump will win in a landslide!
It's evident Hillary has a hard time filling a Union Hall while Trump regularly turns people away from his stadium and arena venues.
Now this - Analysis from social media provides additional support that Trump is likely to win in a landslide.
So how bad is it?
Evidence from 'The Truth Division' shows that if you look at social media, Trump is killing Hillary!
Trump: 10,174,358 Likes Clinton: 5,385,959 Likes
Trump has nearly double the amount of 'Likes' that Clinton has!
When comparing recent 'live streams' on Facebook:
Trump Live Stream Post -- 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views Clinton Live Stream Post --11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views
Trump is crushing Clinton.
Trump: 10.6 million followers Hillary: 8.1 million followers
Trump has 30% more Twitter followers -- and they translate into real votes. A recent study confirmed that 70% of his followers are real supporters, and 90% of those real followers have a voting history.
Who knows if Hillary followers are even real?
(Excerpt) Read more at overpassesforamerica.com ...

Hillary Clinton and the Recoveryless Recovery

Illinois Review ^ | August 8, 2016 AD | John F. Di Leo 

The United States economy had its last severe turn for the worse in November of 2006, when Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats won their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The country immediately dipped into recession, which Barack Obama’s election two years later locked in for good.
Historically, recessions are followed by economic growth, including heavy GDP increases and sufficient job creation to rehire people who lost their jobs in the last recession. The Obama administration expected the same to happen this time, apparently not realizing that their policies made it impossible.
We have therefore seen an eight year presidency that never broke 3% in GDP growth. An eight year presidency that has seen new company startups plummet. An eight year presidency that has seen the lowest workforce participation rate since records have been kept. 95 million people of working age are now outside the workforce.
The Democrats, in an effort to acknowledge some level of unavoidable truth, have called this “a jobless recovery”… a claim that things are getting better, just without the component of new jobs. It’s ludicrous on its face, and cumulative assessments show that middle class wages have taken such a hit during the Obama years, the middle class standard of living is below where it was when Al Qaeda hit New York in 2001.
What do you call a recession that plateaus but never actually turns upward? It’s not a jobless recovery; it’s a recovery-less recovery.
Enter Hillary Clinton
As a Democratic nominee seeking to succeed a term-limited Democrat incumbent, Hillary Clinton has a number of challenges. Do you tie yourself to the incumbent? Do you run from his record as fast as your little cankles can carry you? Do you pretend your campaign is in a vacuum, and never mention the current administration at all? There is no easy answer, especially with as divided a nation as the United States of America is today.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, however you see such things), Hillary Clinton didn’t have to make much of a choice. She is who she is, with a nearly-fifty-year record on the issues, and could hardly run from past positions the way that her much more politically-talented husband ever could.
So the Hillary Clinton campaign has posted their economic positions on their website, in a page entitled “A Fair Tax System”… and despite the attempted spin, there is no dressing up her positions, which read like a litany of every disproven Keynesian and class-warfare idea of the past fifty years.
1: “Hillary will implement a “fair share surcharge” on multi-millionaires and billionaires…”
Oh yes. The millionaire surcharge. What a great way to begin. This is wonderful for winning votes in a hateful, class-envy demographic such as the ones that the Democrats target nowadays… but as economics, it’s sheer suicide.
This shouldn’t require a masters in economics to figure out. When individual states go overboard on tax rates, the people hit hardest move to other states.
Wealthy individuals move away, so they’re not there to pay any state income taxes at all. More importantly, when they move, they no longer pay property taxes on their homes or sales taxes on their purchases. And they no longer do all the local shopping that make wealthy residents a boon to a community; goodbye to their spending at restaurants, malls, and theaters. You’ve driven them to another state.
When such a measure is adopted at the national level, what happens? If leaving your state won’t do the trick, you leave the country.
There are plenty of places where Americans with money are welcomed with open arms… Caribbean islands, the United Kingdom, Belize, the Isle of Man, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand… and that’s just the English-speaking ones!
A national millionaire’s surcharge would backfire horribly. But it sure makes good politics, for the Clinton demographic.
2: "She will charge an “exit tax” for companies leaving the U.S. to settle up on their untaxed foreign earnings."
The “corporate inversion” has been a target of the American Left for several years… it’s a way to hit companies for two different, and only partially related, issues: companies that move their headquarters abroad, and companies that increase or move production abroad. Punishing a company for doing these things is a similarly awful idea, but not nearly as simple to explain.
Let’s begin with the first part: We have high taxes, so companies sometimes move their headquarters to another country, to pay the lower tax rates on their profits. They’re doing this for tax reasons, right? Taxes are too high already, right? Only an unreconstructed Marxist would think that you solve a problem caused by high taxes by adding even higher taxes on top of the ones already there! Rather than making them change their minds, such a step will just confirm their decision all the more!
And what about when companies move production abroad? Surely that’s a terrible thing, isn’t it? Well, no, not necessarily. The Left is conditioned to accuse companies of treason for setting up manufacturing plants abroad, but there are a number of reasons why they might. Sure, one reason is to escape the crippling union wages, crushing state and federal regulations, and high taxes of their current home.
But in addition, companies often set up foreign plants because they’re more convenient to their growing customer base. There was a time when our main manufactured goods’ customer base was here at home, but no longer. Today, we manufacture for export to South America, Australia, Asia, and Europe. If we set up factories of our own on their shores, it can make our goods more competitive.
To use the most obvious examples: General Motors makes cars in the USA for the USA market, and also makes cars in Brazil for the Brazilian market, just as Japanese carmaker Toyota makes cars in Japan for the Japanese market and also makes cars in the USA for the USA market.
There are therefore two sets of reasons for American companies to move offices or manufacturing abroad: one set based around satisfying a client base, and the other set based around fleeing adverse economic conditions at home.
The American Left, especially the Clintonite anti-business crowd, refuses to acknowledge this distinction. There is a difference between expanding or moving to meet a welcoming market and fleeing economic hostility in one’s old home!
There is indeed much that we need to do, to end the adverse conditions that drive companies away. We need to lower our crippling effective corporate tax rate (currently the highest in the developed world); we need to reorder our labor law’s dangerous prejudice in favor of union power; we need to solve the crime problems of our cities, where businesses have to move because they simply don’t dare stay.
But what is the Democrat response to these issues? Punish them more. Punish them for wanting to move; punish them for wanting to expand abroad. Never mind that a more successful business, wherever this new plant may be, still enriches the company’s American stockholders and US head offices; the Democrats’ only concern is that a production line is moving outside the country, or a plant is shutting down and leaving.
The Democrats won’t think to investigate further; they’ll never admit that it might be their own criminal justice failures, their own friends in the regulatory state, their own confiscatory tax rates that have driven the companies away. No, Hillary and her Democrats just attack, and demand one last penalty payment as the poor employer flees.
Yeah. That’ll leave them loving and missing the United States, won’t it? You can bet the business will be just counting the days until they can move back here, can’t you?
The “exit tax”… A final hail of gunfire as the unwanted party flees, just to make absolutely certain he never returns.
3: "She’ll ensure multi-million-dollar estates are paying their fair share of taxes."
Anytime you say “fair share,” you win bonus points on the class warfare scale. There is a whole segment of the voting population that loves the word “fair” without thinking about its meaning. So let’s discuss its meaning in this context.
When you spend your life building a business, such as a farm, a restaurant, a law office, an insurance agency, a retail store... a part of your goal is to be able to leave it to your kids when your time on this earth is done. The early years of founding a business are a struggle, but as it becomes established, with regular clients, the business becomes something to pass down with pride.
The estate tax, commonly known as the death tax, kills that whole concept.
The death tax usually requires that businesses be broken up and sold in order to satisfy the tax obligation in the estate. Ever wonder why there are so many more corporate farms, and so few family farms today? Why there are so many chain restaurants, so few family restaurants?
It’s the estate tax: when the owners die, the kids must sell the business their parents spent a lifetime building, just to pay the taxes.
Democrat politicians whine about the loss of the family farm, and the prevalence of big chain stores and restaurants, all the time. What they will never do is admit that this unfortunate transformation is the Democrats’ own fault.
So, will Hillary Clinton’s commitment to double down on the death tax help the economy? Of course not. It can only harm it. But her interest lies in the election, not in the improvement of regular American lives.
Politics, not Economics
Studying Hillary Clinton’s economic plan is like reading a “What Not To Do” list. There is literally nothing helpful on it.
She promises more unaffordable free college (how ever will those colleges afford the Clintons’ $200,000 speaking fees then?)… more “picking winners and losers” in the business world (remember how well all those loans to Solyndra turned out?)… more government control on scores of job classification, even to the point of federalizing home care for family members!
Every policy prescription in the Hillary Clinton website is one that will make our economy – and the world economy too, for that matter – suffer even more. The tax hikes, spending balloons, mandated complexity and bureaucratic over-regulation of our economy can only serve to drive more companies out of business or out of the country.
In the final analysis, one can come to only one conclusion: that the Hillary Clinton campaign’s economic plan isn’t designed to help the economy at all; it’s just designed to help the candidate win.
They know that various demographics respond well to these arguments, thanks to a century of "dumbed-down" education. They know that buzzwords and buzz phrases, like “green energy” and “fair share” and “Make Wall Street Pay!” will rack up votes at the polling place in November, and that is all they care about.
Those of us who hope for a return to the sanity of past decades, when presidents respected the job creators and worked toward their success, will be sadly disappointed by a Clinton administration.
And even those of us who hope for a return to the economics of her husband’s presidency, when he was willing to compromise with a more responsible Congress, will be doubly dismayed, as Hillary Clinton is no compromiser, and the 2017 Congress, now almost certain to flip to the Democrat column, is not likely to be a responsible conservative one.
Only a modern Democrat could call for jobs, then punish the job creators. Only a modern Democrat could plead the case for manufacturers staying put, while simultaneously doing everything possible to drive them out.
Copyright 2016 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based transportation consultant, Customs broker, writer, and actor. His columns are found in Illinois Review.
Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included.

David Brock group demands IRS hit Trump Foundation

Canada Free Press ^ | 08/09/16 | Matthew Vadum 

It's the wheeling and dealing Clinton Foundation with its involvement in billion-dollar transactions, its ties to shady figures, and the debt it owes to the unsavory governments of countries around the world that needs to be examined
The Brocktopus strikes again.
A high-profile watchdog group controlled by Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is demanding the IRS investigate Donald Trump’s personal foundation for allegedly aiding his presidential campaign.
Before you die laughing, remember that the Brocktopus, that is, the network of groups the disgraced former journalist runs, spends oodles of money defending the anticipatory presidential bribe processing vehicle known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Brock’s empire of sleaze includes “conservative misinformation” watchdog Media Matters for America, pro-Hillary disaster-control spin site Correct the Record, and American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC that promotes Hillary and attacks her critics.

Soros-Fueled PAC Paying Salaries to Employees at Pro-Illegal Immigrant Group

Washington Free Beacon ^ | August 9, 2016 | Joe Schoffstall

SUB-HEADING - Group aims to register 400,000 new Hispanic voters before November election

A political action committee largely funded by liberal billionaire George Soros is paying salaries to employees at a pro-illegal immigrant group.

The Immigrant Voters Win PAC was launched in March with the goal of registering 400,000 new Hispanic voters before the November elections. The PAC is a joint effort between numerous left-wing immigration activist groups as part of the larger “Families Fight Back” campaign organized in opposition to Republican politicians.

The group has raised $4 million since its inception, according to the PAC’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission.

Soros, who provided a $3 million check to the PAC on March 11, was the only donor to the PAC for nearly two months. The Civic Participation Action Fund, which carries the mission of “Advancing racial equity, economic opportunity and civic engagement,” added a $1 million donation on May 31.

The PAC disclosed $135,000 in federal operating expenditures, with much of the money going toward salaries to individuals at America’s Voice, an immigration organization that fights for “A direct, fair, and inclusive road to citizenship for immigrants in the United States without papers.” The PAC also disclosed a six-figure reimbursement to the group.

(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...

Child rape victim comes forward for the first time in 40 years

The Daily Mail ^ | 08/09/16 | Alana Goodman In Springdale, Arkansas For Dailymail.com 

+'Hillary Clinton is not for women and children,' says Kathy Shelton, 54, who was 12 years old when she was raped by Thomas Alfred Taylor in Arkansas
+ Clinton was the rapist's defense lawyer, pleading him down to 'unlawful fondling of a minor'
+ The 41-year-old drifter served less than a year in prison
+ The plea came after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime
+ Shelton says she's furious that Clinton has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail
+ Clinton accused Shelton of 'seeking out older men' in the case and demanded that she undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination
+ The presidential candidate later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audiotaped interview from the 1980s
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...



A devastating medical history regarding Hillary Clinton has been released on the social networking website Twitter and it says Hillary Clinton is suffering from "Dementia, Seizures, Blackouts" and more. She is medically unfit to be President of the United States.  The tweet and its medical report appear below:

See for yourself: (Click image to enlarge)


According to the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, "Subcortical Vascular Dementia" is defined as follows:
Subcortical Vascular DementiaSubcortical vascular dementia, also called Binswanger's disease, is caused by widespread, microscopic areas of damage to the brain resulting from the thickening and narrowing (atherosclerosis) of arteries that supply blood to the subcortical areas of the brain. 

The medical definition above makes clear that Hillary's condition is also known as "Binswanger's disease (BD)."  We checked with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and they offer the following information:


What is Binswanger's Disease?

Binswanger's disease (BD), also called subcortical vascular dementia, is a type of dementia caused by widespread, microscopic areas of damage to the deep layers of white matter in the brain. The damage is the result of the thickening and narrowing (atherosclerosis) of arteries that feed the subcortical areas of the brain. Atherosclerosis (commonly known as "hardening of the arteries") is a systemic process that affects blood vessels throughout the body. It begins late in the fourth decade of life and increases in severity with age. As the arteries become more and more narrowed, the blood supplied by those arteries decreases and brain tissue dies. A characteristic pattern of BD-damaged brain tissue can be seen with modern brain imaging techniques such as CT scans or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The symptoms associated with BD are related to the disruption of subcortical neural circuits that control what neuroscientists call executive cognitive functioning: short-term memory, organization, mood, the regulation of attention, the ability to act or make decisions, and appropriate behavior. The most characteristic feature of BD is psychomotor slowness - an increase in the length of time it takes, for example, for the fingers to turn the thought of a letter into the shape of a letter on a piece of paper. Other symptoms include forgetfulness (but not as severe as the forgetfulness of Alzheimer's disease), changes in speech, an unsteady gait, clumsiness or frequent falls, changes in personality or mood (most likely in the form of apathy, irritability, and depression), and urinary symptoms that aren't caused by urological disease. Brain imaging, which reveals the characteristic brain lesions of BD, is essential for a positive diagnosis.

Is there any treatment?

There is no specific course of treatment for BD. Treatment is symptomatic. People with depression or anxiety may require antidepressant medications such as the serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) sertraline or citalopram. Atypical antipsychotic drugs, such as risperidone and olanzapine, can be useful in individuals with agitation and disruptive behavior. Recent drug trials with the drug memantine have shown improved cognition and stabilization of global functioning and behavior. The successful management of hypertension and diabetes can slow the progression of atherosclerosis, and subsequently slow the progress of BD. Becausethere is no cure, the best treatment is preventive, early in the adult years, by controlling risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and smoking.

What is the prognosis?

BD is a progressive disease; there is no cure. Changes may be sudden or gradual and then progress in a stepwise manner. BD can often coexist with Alzheimer's disease. Behaviors that slow the progression of high blood pressure, diabetes, and atherosclerosis -- such as eating a healthy diet and keeping healthy wake/sleep schedules, exercising, and not smoking or drinking too much alcohol -- can also slow the progression of BD.

What research is being done?

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) conducts research related to BD in its laboratories at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and also supports additional research through grants to major medical institutions across the country. Much of this research focuses on finding better ways to prevent, treat, and ultimately cure neurological disorders, such as BD.

We do NOT like the fact that someone seems to have unlawfully released what appears to be a legitimate medical record.  Such records are protected by federal law, which provides stiff penalties of both civil and criminal nature for what appears to have been done.  That said, this release does constitute "news" and we are a credentialed news media entity with Freedom of the Press as protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States.
Court cases in the past, involving "Classified" or "Top Secret" information, have been published by other news outlets such as The New York Times in "The Pentagon Papers" case, and courts have held that as long as the media outlet itself did not participate in the theft or improper obtaining of the materials, they could not be prosecuted or sued for publishing it as news.  
Our intent is solely to report this as "news" about a candidate for the highest office in the land, who may be medically unqualified to be President of the United States.  We have no intent to harm anyone, and are not earning any money from this disclosure.  We simply believe it is our responsibility to report this news so as to protect the nation!
The First Amendment isn't about protecting speech we all like; it protects speech we do not like.  It's one way the Founding Fathers kept us free, and allowed a free press to keep us informed.  This press freedom is important because only through a vigorous free press, can citizens be kept informed of important issues that affect their lives.

The New Tammany Hall: New York in the Age of Corruption

Judicial Watch ^ | August 9, 2016 | Micah Morrison 

AY1a AY1b
De Blasio, Clinton cronies are carving up the city. Right, developer Bruce Ratner

In New York City, the controversy plagued Atlantic Yards development appears to be heading for trouble again. That could create problems for Mayor Bill de Blasio and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. Allies of both Democrats have profited mightily from the project.
For over a decade, Atlantic Yards has been at the center of heated disputes over power, profit and privilege in New York. Does the site serve the needs of the taxpayers who financed its development? Or is it primarily a giant boondoggle generating torrents of cash for well-connected insiders?
The 22-acre, $5 billion Brooklyn site of planned residential, commercial and park space is home to the Barclays Center sports arena and sixteen high-rise buildings in various stages of development. According to recent news reports from Moscow, Barclays Center owner Mikhail Prokhorov is under Kremlin pressure to sell all his Russian assets. Prokhorov’s U.S. holdings could be next. Prokhorov’s fall would reverberate from Moscow to New York, where U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara is making development deals a centerpiece of a sweeping anti-corruption crusade.
New Yorkers have been here before.
“I seen my opportunities and I took ’em,” the plain-speaking Tammany Hall politician George Washington Plunkitt said in 1905. The corrupt Tammany political machine dominated New York City politics for a century, its chicanery extending into every corner of civic life. Bribes, kickbacks, fraud, extortion and graft were the order of the day. Today, New York is witnessing the birth of a new Tammany Hall. Plunkitt’s heirs are seeing their opportunities and taking them on a colossal scale.
The center of the new Tammany is Mayor de Blasio’s City Hall. But de Blasio is no Boss Tweed, old Tammany’s criminal genius. De Blasio has emerged as more pawn than prince of the city: insecure, in over his head, buffeted by moneyed players he cannot seem to resist and presiding over accelerating pay-to-play scandals that have cast a pall of political death over his administration.
Atlantic Yards offers a case study of how the new Tammany system has evolved. It’s local: extending from dealmakers to a cadre de Blasio calls his “agents of the city” and to Albany’s notorious “three men in a room.” It’s international: the deals stretch from New York and Washington to Russia and China. And it’s sophisticated, powered by the global economy, the influential New York real estate industry, and non-profit entities manipulated for personal and political gain.
But the central scam of the new Tammany system would not be unfamiliar to old Tammany’s Plunkitt: public money for private profit. Plunkitt called it “honest graft”—gaming the system to the benefit of the powerful and well-connected, with crumbs for the common folk.
Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn, NY. Artist’s rendering.
Real estate developer and Democratic Party heavyweight Bruce Ratner is the central figure in the battles over Atlantic Yards. Smart, tough and tireless, Ratner is a master of honest graft. He has been charged with no crimes, but has repeatedly courted controversy with unfulfilled promises of public benefits, multi-million-dollar paydays, and links to crooked politicians and their enablers.
Ratner has close ties to de Blasio and Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign headquarters is in a Ratner building in Brooklyn. Ratner and de Blasio lobbied hard to bring this year’s Democratic National Convention to the Barclays Center. De Blasio was an important early supporter of Ratner’s Atlantic Yards bid. A longtime donor to Democrats, Ratner backed de Blasio’s mayoral campaign. Ratner figured in the 1996 Bill Clinton campaign finance scandal as a guest in the Lincoln Bedroom and at a White House “coffee” event. Harold Ickes—the powerful Clinton adviser and lobbyist identified by federal prosecutors as “the Svengali” behind the campaign-finance scandal—is an influential mentor to de Blasio.
The City of New York is Ratner’s biggest tenant, leasing over one million square feet of office space, according to federal filings. The federal government is his fourth largest tenant.
The go-between for de Blasio and Ratner is Jonathan Rosen, a political consultant and a central figure in the mayor’s “agents of the city” controversy. In May, de Blasio rejected a media request for email correspondence between the mayor and Rosen, as well as four others associated with his political campaigns. Four of the five now work as consultants or lobbyists with business before the city. The fifth, Patrick Gaspard, is the U.S. ambassador to South Africa and a former political operative at the powerful Service Employees International Union Local 1199—the only major union group to back de Blasio’s 2013 mayoral bid.
According to published reports, Rosen is under investigation by Bharara and Manhattan DA Cy Vance in connection with de Blasio fund raising and the mayor’s non-profit organization, Campaign for One New York. Rosen’s firm, BerlinRosen, was paid about $700,000 by de Blasio-related entities. Rosen also has been on Bruce Ratner’s payroll for years as a spokesman and adviser for Atlantic Yards. In 2012, Crain’s New York Business noted that Rosen was a “top strategist” for Ratner.
De Blasio is fighting disclosure of the activities of the five men, advancing the novel claim that they are “agents of the city” whose communications with the mayor should be private. Judicial Watch has filed Freedom of Information Law requests for the Rosen and Gaspard emails, but has been rebuffed in its requests for timely production of the material. “We have appealed the decision of the mayor’s office and will take it to court if necessary,” said Judicial Watch Director of Litigation Paul Orfanedes. “Clearly in this case, the public has a right to know.”
AY3a AY3b
Former NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara


The total bill for new regulations under the Obama administration is staggering

HotAir.com ^ | 08/09/2016 | JAZZ SHAW 

If you’re feeling a bit of a pinch in your wallet these days you may want to examine some of the new government regulations which have come into effect since Barack Obama has been in office. It’s an effect which isn’t always clear to the layman because federal regulations seem to exist in a far off bureaucratic world which isn’t directly tied to people’s day to day lives in the same way that taxes and utility bills are. But the reality is that all of the regulations which flow out of Washington impact the entire economic reality of the country and all the bills are eventually paid by working citizens. So how many regulations are we talking about and what’s the total bill? A new study tallies up the numbers and it’s probably a lot more than you may think. (The Hill)
Since President Obama took office in 2009, the federal government has issued 600 major regulations totaling $743 billion, according to a new study from the conservative American Action Forum.
The Obama administration issues an average of 81 major rules, those with an economic impact of at least $100 million, on a yearly basis, the study found.
That’s about one major rule every four to five days, or, as the American Action Forum puts it, one rule for every three days that the federal government is open.
“It is a $2,294 regulatory imposition on every person in the United States,” wrote Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, who conducted the study.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

Media tries to 'Sarah Palin' Donald Trump

wnd.com ^ | 8/9/2016 | Mychal Massie 

The media, complicit with elitists in both political parties, are trying to “Sarah Palin” Donald Trump. Sarah Palin was a rock star when she gained national attention in 2008 as John McCain’s vice-presidential pick. She articulated the message of We the People clearly and concisely. Her record of accomplishment as governor of Alaska was impeccable, complete with having broken the shackles of Republican cronyism that permeated the Alaskan political landscape like manure on a chicken farm.

Palin refused to allow the same people today attacking Donald Trump to craft a message that wasn’t hers. The pompous so-called network news cognoscenti decided that the woman who had taken Alaska to unparalleled heights wasn’t intelligent enough to be vice president because she (according to them) didn’t read the right newspapers. The relentless attacks on Palin included foolish stories about her refusing to wear outfits selected for her by Republican handlers.
Similar measures are now being employed in hopes of destroying Donald Trump. The reason is because Trump isn’t one of them. He’s a blue-collar billionaire who eats cold Colonel Sanders’ fried chicken on his private luxury jet after a long day on the campaign trail. And just as the media and political hacks made a big deal over Sarah Palin making her own wardrobe choices, so it was that CNN did an entire program segment on Trump eating fried chicken with a knife and fork. Which raises the question; “How long before some black person goes on television claiming Trump is racist because he eats Colonel Sanders’ fried chicken, and most black people eat Popeye’s fried chicken?”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Look Out, Hillary! On The Economy, It's Advantage: Trump!

Investors Business Daily ^ | August 08, 2016 | Editorial 

Politics: Now that Donald Trump has focused on something he at least has some expertise in -- the economy -- he might be able to get his flagging campaign back on track. And give him credit: The ideas he outlined in Monday's economic speech are mostly excellent.

Trump's plan...

Across the board income tax cuts... Tax simplification, with a reduction in the number of tax brackets... Tax cuts for businesses, which today face the highest rates -- nearly 40% -- in the industrial world. Trump would cut business taxes... Deduction of child care spending from taxes... A plan to reform education to help parents exercise their right to choose their child's school. End the death tax. Today, taxes on estates often keep entrepreneurs and small business people from passing their businesses on... A regulatory moratorium and, ultimately, a regulatory rollback... "Unleash the energy revolution" by lifting restrictions on "all sources... Repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a market-friendly alternative that will let Americans choose their coverage...
...there are some aspects of his plan we don't necessarily agree with -- including tariffs... ...and raising tax rates on so-called "carried interest" that some Wall Street hedge firm partners receive...
...an earlier outline of his economic plan, Trump had a top income tax rate of 25%, but now it's at 33%...
...Trump's economic proposals are vastly superior to Hillary Clinton's divide-and-conquer, tax-the-rich policies...
Trump political foes, including even some in the Republican Party, cite many reasons for not liking him or supporting him. Fair enough, no candidate is perfect. But Trump just took one big reason for supporting Clinton off the table. When it comes to the economy, it's now advantage Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

His Legacy!


Bill's Speech


Packing Heat


Get it straight!


Cork It






Be Quiet


Unqualified Experience


Lifting Cow




Hearing Damage


Attack Mode!


JV Stimulus


Dietary Preferences