Thursday, September 1, 2016

Hobby Lobby CEO Endorses Trump: America is Only One Liberal Judge Away From Losing Religious Liberty

the gateway pundt ^ | 9/01/16 | Jim Hoft 

In June 2014 the US Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
It was the first time the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

U.S. gave Iran secret exemptions to get the infamous nuclear deal done!

Canada Free Press ^ | 09/01/16 | Dan Calabrese 

And remember: Donald Trump vows to toss out this agreement. Hillary vows to keep it. Vote wisely, America
No wonder Iran feels free to threaten to break our legs. They never face any consequences for anything they do, including exceeding limits supposedly negotiated in the now-infamous nuclear deal that Obama and Kerry claim keeps them from becoming a nuclear power, but which actually does the opposite.
Reuters reports today that the infamous deal was even more favorable to Iran than we previously knew, as Obama and Kerry secretly added all kinds of exemptions - which they claim they told Congress about, but which at least one Democrat senator says are total news to him:

Clinton’s Colin Powell Excuse

Wall Street Journal ^ | Sept. 1, 2016 | WSJ Opinion 

As new emails emerge, Hillary’s defense is that the general made her do it.
When Bill and Hillary Clinton get caught for bad behavior, they follow a familiar pattern. First deny, then call it old news, then roll out the attack machine of media and political allies to trash whoever needs to be collateral damage to save them. The private email-Clinton Foundation saga is now in phase three, and no less than Colin Powell has been drafted as roadkill.
The Powell-made-Hillary-do-it defense emerged late last week in two parts. The New York Times reported that FBI interview notes turned over to Congress last week show that Mrs. Clinton told the G-men that Mr. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account. The Times didn’t name its source, but in these cases always ask who benefits from the leak? Answer: Mrs. Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Exclusive: Trump Camp Mulls Using Seized Cartel Assets to Pay for Wall ^ | 01 Sep 2016 | Jon Conradi 

To fund construction of a new U.S. border wall, Donald Trump and senior advisers are considering various ideas, including the use of assets seized from drug cartels and others in the illicit drug trade.
As the debate over who will pay for the wall dominates the discussion on cable news, sources involved in the pre-planning of the GOP nominee’s Mexico trip told LifeZette the Trump camp is looking for innovative ways to pay for the construction of the border wall that both countries can support. Sensitivities in Mexico regarding Trump’s visit, and specifically paying for the border wall, are running high.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obamacare is Rapidly Becoming the Poster Child for American Inequality

Liberty Blitzkrieg ^ | 22 August 2016 | Michael Krieger 

The best thing about Obama (from an oligarch’s perspective), is his uncanny ability to push through upward redistributive wealth policies while still maintaining a phony aura of caring about the little guy amongst so many of his apparently lobotomized supporters.
Countless examples of his shameless plutocrat-pandering have been covered ad nauseam here on these pages, but what’s most embarrassing for the President’s legacy, is the fact that Obamacare itself is rapidly becoming the poster child for the dramatic wealth and income inequality that has so characterized his entire administration.
To see what I’m talking about, let’s take a look at a few excerpts from an article published today at The Hill titled, How ObamaCare is Splitting in Two:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

We’re Not Quite ‘Born This Way’

New York Magazine ^ | 9/1 

Back in 2014, a bigoted African leader put J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern, in a strange position. Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, had been issuing a series of anti-gay tirades, and — partially fueled by anti-gay religious figures from the U.S. — was considering toughening Uganda’s anti-gay laws. The rhetoric was getting out of control: “The commercialisation of homosexuality is unacceptable,” said Simon Lokodo, Uganda’s ethics minister. “If they were doing it in their own rooms we wouldn’t mind, but when they go for children, that’s not fair. They are beasts of the forest.” Eventually, Museveni said he would table the idea of new legislation until he better understood the science of homosexuality, and agreed to lay off Uganda’s LGBT population if someone could prove to him homosexuality was innate.
That’s where Bailey comes in: He’s a leading sex researcher who has published at length on the question of where sexual orientation comes from. LGBT advocates began reaching out to him to explain the science of homosexuality and, presumably, denounce Museveni for his hateful rhetoric. But “I had issues with rushing out a scientific statement that homosexuality is innate,” he said in an email, because he’s not sure that’s quite accurate. While he did write articles, such as an editorial in New Scientist, explaining why he thought Museveni’s position didn’t make sense, he stopped short of calling homosexuality innate. He also realized that in light of some recent advances in the science of sexual orientation, it was time to publish an article summing up the current state of the field — gathering together all that was broadly agreed-upon about the nature and potential origins of sexual orientation. (In the meantime, Museveni did end up signing the anti-gay legislation, justifying his decision by reasoning that homosexuality “was learned and could be unlearned.”)
To help write his paper, Bailey assembled an impressive multidisciplinary team: It consisted of the psychologists Paul Vasey and Lisa Diamond, the neuroscientist S. Marc Breedlove, the geneticist Eric Vilain, and Marc Epprecht, a historian with a focus on gender and sexuality in Africa.
Their article, which was recently published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, is something of an all-you-can-eat buffet for anyone interested in the current state of scientific research into sexuality. While it’s loosely organized around the “moral” concerns raised by Museveni, it covers a wide range of subjects. It’s worth a full read, but three main points leaped out at me:
1. There’s a connection between gender expression and sexual orientation that seems to show up just about everywhere. It’s important to note that just about everything in Bailey and his colleagues’ paper has to do with average differences between members of different groups. Nothing in the paper (or this article) should be taken as implying that “all straight people X” or “all straight people Y.” The average man is significantly bigger than the average woman, but plenty of women are bigger than plenty of men; the same logic holds here.
That caveat aside, there seems to be a consistent, robust way in which sexual orientation and gender roles play off of each other and that starts early in childhood for many people. Bailey and his colleagues point out that “Childhood gender nonconformity … is a strong correlate of adult sexual orientation that has been consistently and repeatedly replicated.” For boys, this means that if a child enjoys cross-dressing, playing with dolls, growing their hair long, preferring girls as playmates, and so on, then — true to stereotype — there’s a significantly increased chance that he will grow up to be gay (in cases where all this is accompanied by gender dysphoria, or discomfort with their natal sex, there’s a chance he could also end up identifying as transgender).
Broadly speaking, these sorts of differences between (pre-)gay and (pre-)straight people persist into adulthood. Among adults, “Research indicates that heterosexual men have greater interest in occupations and hobbies focusing on things and less interest in those focusing on people, compared with heterosexual women.” For gay men and women, the pattern flips: Gay men are more into people-things than their straight brothers and dad, while gay women are more into object-things than their straight sisters and moms. This blending of stereotypically gendered behavior seems to extend to “gestures and walking,” “speech,” “physical presentation,” and “even facial appearance.” What If Gay-Rights Advocates’ ‘Born This Way’ Argument Is Wrong?
Fascinatingly, “the link between gender nonconformity and nonheterosexual orientation has been found in a wide variety of cultures,” the authors write, and seems to manifest itself in similar ways just about everywhere. To take one example, the researchers quote from a book chapter called “Os Entendidos: Gay life in São Paulo in the late 1970s”:
In the Guatemalan Indian town of Chimaltenango, two men lived together as lovers, wearing typical Indian clothing in an outwardly traditional Indian adobe house. The house, however, was decorated in a manner strikingly different from the other Indians. It was meticulously and elaborately decorated, a characteristic frequently found in homosexual subcultures … The occupation of the lovers was that of stringing pine needles in decorative strands, traditionally used in Guatemala for holidays and other festive occasions, and supplying flowers for weddings. In essence these two men were florists, involved in the arts of embellishment, which in larger societies are universally linked with homosexual subcultures. Because of this striking consistency in the (again, average) differences between how straight and gay people present themselves around the world, the researchers suspect that whatever’s going on here can’t be explained solely by suggesting gay people are simply fulfilling — or being socially coerced into — culturally expected roles:
Before leaving the topic of gender nonconformity, we address a commonly raised question: Might the gender-atypicality of adult homosexual men and women simply reflect a culturally influenced self-fulfilling prophecy? In other words, given that society expects homosexual individuals to be gender atypical, and given that LGB communities often support and facetiously celebrate such gender atypicality, perhaps some homosexual people adopt gender-atypical characteristics to conform to their own stereotypes. Because of the evidence we have reviewed — indicating that gender nonconformity often begins before a prehomosexual child even has a sexual orientation or is aware of cultural stereotypes, and that the link between gender nonconformity and nonheterosexual orientation has been found in a wide variety of cultures — we think it is highly unlikely that gender nonconformity in LGB populations represents a self-fulfilling prophecy due to cultural beliefs. It is possible, however, that cultural stereotypes sometimes amplify gender nonconformity among LGB people. Many LGB individuals report that they have always been fairly gender-typical in dress, appearance, and interests. It is possible that as these individuals come to identify as LGB and participate in the LGB community, they adopt aspects of gender-atypicality. So if they’re right, what does explain these average differences? No one’s quite sure. But it seems like for the average human, sexuality and gender presentation are intertwined in important ways.
2. The best evidence for a nature-over-nurture explanation of sexuality comes from an accidental quasi-experiment involving surgically removed penises. Bailey and his colleagues ran through a bunch of the different ways researchers have tried to puzzle out what makes some people gay, others straight, and others bisexual: brain and hormone and genetics studies, among other areas of research. All these fields have added interesting nuggets, but it’s clear from the study that the researchers are most excited by a coincidental small pile of research they call “the near-perfect quasi-experiment.”
The participants in this quasi-experiment might not share the researchers’ enthusiasm. All of them were natal males who were either “born with malformed penises or lost their penises in surgical accidents.” Between 1960 and 2000, Bailey and his colleagues write, “many doctors in the United States believed that such males would be happier being socially and surgically reassigned female,” and that’s what happened to these kids: They were raised as girls, wearing “girl” clothes, doing “girl” things, and so on. (Alice Dreger does a wonderful job explaining this practice and how it came to change, in part due to activism she herself helped to spearhead, in her book Galileo’s Middle Finger.)
Bailey and his colleagues examined the seven such cases that have been written up in the literature. Of the seven, they found, six of the unfortunate subjects came to eventually identify as heterosexual males at the time they were followed up with; the seventh still identified as female and said she was “predominately” into women.
If socialization were a significant part of the sexuality equation, the odds that not one of these natal males would grow up to be attracted primarily to men are just about nil, statistically speaking. “These results comprise the most valuable currently available data concerning the broad nature-versus-nurture questions for sexual orientation,” write the researchers. “They show how difficult it is to derail the development of male sexual orientation by psychosocial means. If one cannot reliably make a male human become attracted to other males by cutting off his penis in infancy and rearing him as a girl, then what other psychosocial intervention could plausibly have that effect?”
So does that clinch it? Sexuality is, in fact, innate? Not quite …
3. “Born this way” is probably wrong, but it doesn’t matter. Think back to the reason Bailey decided to co-author this paper: Uganda’s homophobic president was asking for “proof” that homosexuality is inborn. Bailey and his colleagues don’t think it would be accurate to claim to be able to deliver him that proof. At the moment, they write, when you look at the (somewhat limited) twin research that has been conducted — studies on twins being the best large-scale way to tease out nature-nurture questions — it looks like about a third of the variation in sexual orientation in human beings comes from genes; 43 percent comes from environmental influences a given set of twins don’t share (random factors that cause their brains and bodies to develop differently, such as different experiences); and 25 percent from environmental influences they do share (their general upbringing, developing in the same uterine environment, and so on).
Putting things a bit more straightforwardly: Identical twins share the same genes and the same womb, and yet when one is gay, the other is usually straight. That means things likely aren’t set at birth. Those environmental factors — mostly nonsocial ones, the researchers think — do matter.
So it’s complicated, and there’s also a sex divide: Bailey’s current view is that male sexual orientation is probably more or less set by birth, but for females, who in general exhibit a bit more fluidity with regard to sexual orientation, postnatal factors could be important. For humanity as a whole, “born this way” is probably a bit too pithy a summary of what’s going on, at least in light of the current evidence — which could change as we come to better understand the brain, genetics, and hormones. (Note: I updated this paragraph post-publication to mention the sex difference, which is important and comes up throughout Bailey and his colleagues’ paper.)
But as the authors hint, people often misinterpret this as meaning sexual orientation is a choice, or is something one person (presumably a creepy older adult) can teach another one (presumably an innocent, otherwise-straight child). That’s not the case. It’s important, they argue, to keep in mind a simple distinction: The sentence “I choose to have sex with partners of my own sex” makes sense, while the sentence “I choose to desire to have sex with partners of my own sex” doesn’t. No one chooses what they desire. The authors make this point nicely with a quote in which Einstein sums up one of Schopenhauer’s views: “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.” The opposite of inborn isn’t chosen.
It’s perhaps no surprise that in the last part of their paper, Bailey and his colleagues come out strongly against the harsh anti-gay laws Museveni passed. There’s scant evidence, contra Museveni’s claims, that homosexual people “recruit” otherwise-straight children into their subculture, or that sexuality is otherwise socially learned. Museveni’s resistance to evidence might be a useful lesson: People seeking to demonize and stigmatize other people’s identities and behaviors probably aren’t particularly interested in the science underlying those identities and behaviors, anyway. They tend to be far more animated by political opportunism or fear or disgust than a desire to truly understand the full, fascinating range of the human experience.
For the rest of us, born this way might be useful shorthand, but it doesn’t capture the full picture — and we can handle the nuance.

How Clinton’s Free College Tuition Plan Will Hurt Millennials ^ | September 1, 2016 | Justin Haskins 

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is doubling-down on her plan to socialize higher education as a way to help lower- and middle-income Americans, and she says her proposals will help Millennials improve their economic outlook.
These promises couldn’t be further from the truth, which is her plan would actually leave many young people worse off than ever and would greatly hinder their ability to compete with others in the job marketplace over the next decade.
Clinton, citing the growing student lending debt crisis, has promised to institute several reforms to the current student loan market, if elected. Perhaps the most significant is her proposal to create a debt-free public education system. According to Clinton’s campaign website, “By 2021, families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family making $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition.”
Clinton also promises to give $25 billion to “support historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions,” and she wants to make all community colleges across the country tuition-free.
Many have argued these policies, which amount to nothing less than a near-total takeover of U.S. higher education, will provide significant aid to Millennials, who have been burdened with skyrocketing tuition costs and college debt for more than a decade. Currently, 43 million Americans owe about $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, and the average graduate today owes $37,172, which does not include the debt held by parents.
On the surface, these proposals seem to be a massive giveaway to young Americans, but before Millennial voters buy into Clinton’s free-college bonanza, they should remember Clinton’s plan is focused on helping those just entering college, not those who are already in college and especially not those who have just graduated. Instead of being aided by these policies, Millennials already carrying debt will be at a massive disadvantage compared to current high school students.
If millions of current high school students are able to attend public colleges for absolutely nothing, they’ll have virtually no debt by the time they leave college and enter the workforce, which means they’ll be able to work for a much lower wage than those who already have debt now. Why would an employer rather hire a young person with mountains of debt when it could hire someone dealing with far less financial pressure, and thus less of a need to demand a greater salary?
Further, Clinton’s plan will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, at the very least, and those Millennials already in the workforce will almost certainly have to carry a portion of the tax burden—all to help pay the college expenses of students who they will soon have to compete against in the labor marketplace.
Clinton does also promise some reforms that are aimed at helping people who are already carrying student loan debt. For instance, borrowers would be allowed to refinance their loans at current rates—which only helps if rates remain at historically low levels; delinquent borrowers and those who have defaulted on their loans “will get help”—whatever that means; and “entrepreneurs will be able to defer their loans with no payments or interest for up to three years.”
While these proposals, as well as several other similar policies Clinton is offering, could arguably provide some benefits, they ultimately amount to a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the advantages being given to those who haven’t entered college yet, and they do nothing to help offset the disadvantages so many Millennials will face when competing for jobs against students graduating with no debt.
Clinton spends a great deal of time talking about the need to impose what she perceives to be equality and fairness on the U.S. economy, but what is “fair” or “equal” about giving some students a gigantic economic advantage over those who have already paid tens of thousands of dollars—or will soon—toward their college education?

New Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donors Lobbied Huma For Diplomatic Passports!

Daily caller ^ | 9-1-16 

New emails released by Judicial Watch in connection with its probe of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation indicate Clinton Foundation donors lobbied senior Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin for diplomatic passports.
Abedin responded positively to the donor inquiries, according to the email.
The donors in question include Doug Band and Justin Cooper. The email indicates that Band reached out to Abedin in 2009, when she served as deputy chief of staff at the U.S. Department of State, and asked for her help in obtaining diplomatic passports for him, Cooper, and a third individual identified only by their initials.
“We had them years ago but they lapsed and we didn’t bother getting them,” Band wrote.
“Ok will figure it out,” Abedin replied.
Band was an aide to former President Bill Clinton before founding Teneo Holdings, a global advisory firm with extensive ties to the Clinton orbit.
Former President Clinton was both a client of the firm and a paid consultant. Abedin served simultaneously at posts in the State Department and Teneo. Cooper was also an aide to former President Clinton. (RELATED: Exclusive: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails For 27 Months)
Band previously lobbied Department of State officials on behalf of Gilbert Chagoury, another Clinton Foundation donor who was eventually denied entry to the U.S. due to possible connections to Hamas, the Palestinian terror group.
Diplomatic passports are a prized asset, as significant benefits accrue to their holders. They are almost exclusively issued to government employees representing the United States in an official capacity. The Department of State requires applicants to present their official orders when procuring such documents.
Individuals with diplomatic passports enjoy easy passage at international borders, access to special lines at airports, no tax liability on certain sources of income, and relaxed visa restrictions.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Clinton's "Don't Pin It On Me" National Security

Canada Free Press ^ | 09/01/16 | Chuck Floyd and Bruce J. Moran 

Hillary and Bill Clinton have been around the national security block for at least twenty-one years
Hillary Rodman Clinton (“HRC”)‘s campaign for President has been wrought with controversy. But the most telling issue is Hillary’s direct run-in with national security. This article shines a bright light on why Colin Powell said: “Don’t Pin It On Me!”
Safeguard Failures Handling Classified Information
Agency Heads by law have the critical responsibility to safeguard classified information. President Obama made this crystal clear in his Executive Order 13526 (12/29/09).
It is quite apparent that HRC did not have adequate safeguards in place for classified email transmissions. Even the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”)‘s investigatory findings revealed “Confidential,” “Secret,” “Top Secret” and “Special Access Program” (“SAP”) information appeared in email transmissions on her private server.

Clinton E-mails: U.S. Policy for Sale!

The New American ^ | 30 August 2016 | C. Mitchell Shaw 

When former secretary of state and current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton finally capitulated and turned over her now infamous e-mail server to investigators last year, she had all of its data deleted first. She claimed — time and again — that she had already turned over all work-related e-mails on a USB drive and that she and her staff had only deleted those e-mails that were entirely personal. Given her long chain of lies and half-truths on this and other topics, it will come as no surprise that she lied. Again.
Clinton initially refused to turn over the server, saying, “The server contains personal communications from my husband and me and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private." Setting aside for the moment what would likely happen if a mere mortal refused to cooperate with federal agents conducting an investigation, her refusal echoed with recollections of "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." Once she decided to “cooperate” and turn over the server, it was found to have been formatted. Again, for mere mortals, that would — in all probability — be called tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Love or loathe it, Donald Trump is setting the agenda again!

The UK Telegraph ^ | September 1,2016 | TIM STANLEY 

Wednesday was a good day for Donald Trump, a reminder of why we shouldn’t underestimate him. It’s not that he did or said anything particularly different – he just did his old thing in a more effective way.
By hammering home a tough message on immigration, he gets back to the basics and reminds us why he won the primaries.
First, Trump flew down Mexico way to discuss his plans for a wall with President Enrique Pena Nieto. The statement he gave afterwards was measured and well delivered, full of praise for the “amazing” and “spectacular” people of Mexico (Trump’s efforts at diplomacy read like a TripAdviser review) and he avoided the subject of who would pay for the gargantuan structure.
But they’re missing the point. Trump’s poll slide is less to do with his issues than the perception that he’s unfit for the presidency. Show him doing the job and not doing it too badly and, like Reagan in 1980, he hopes to allay fears and convince people it’s worth taking a gamble on him.
Whether or not this can make any difference is a tough call for a columnist to make. But the Clinton campaign should be wary of allowing Trump to set the agenda again. Hillary, it seems to many people, has gone into hiding and is relying upon negative campaigning.
Trump, by contrast, is flying down to Mexico and laying out a concrete vision for the country. That vision is a fantasy: the wall would be so absurdly costly and politically difficult that its construction would class it as one of the wonders of the postmodern world.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Democrats are using illegals as they used blacks 60 years ago!

Flopping Aces ^ | 08-31-16 | DrJohn 

booker t
It has become de rigueur in democrat circles to paint the Republican Presidential candidate as a racist every four years, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Let’s get this straight. Calling Hillary Clinton a “bigot” has reporters asking every Republican in sight if Donald Trump has gone too far. But the Clinton campaign releases a video saying Mr. Trump is the candidate of the Ku Klux Klan and it’s all okey-dokey?Then again, Mr. Trump has already been likened to Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Small wonder there’s a collective ho-hum when Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine says Mr. Trump is peddling “KKK values.”
This is what Democrats do.
Indeed. Mr. McGurn offers us examples of classic democrat tactics:
• In 2000, for example, an NAACP ad recreated the gruesome murder of James Byrd to imply that then-Gov. Bush was sympathetic to lynching black men. Over footage of a chain being dragged by a pickup truck, Mr. Byrd’s daughter says, “So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.”• When John McCain ran in 2008, Barack Obama warned that Republicans would scare people by saying, “You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.” The McCain campaign fired back, accusing Mr. Obama of playing the race card from the “bottom of the deck.” Funny thing: All those reporters always hearing “dog whistles” from Republicans somehow didn’t hear this one.
• In 2012, when Mitt Romney went to the NAACP and told them face-to-face about his opposition to ObamaCare, the stories were all about how he was really just trolling for the racist vote. Vice President Joe Biden put it more explicitly, telling a largely African-American audience that if Mr. Romney were to win, he’d “put ya’ll back in chains.”
There is great irony in this. Historically, democrats have kept blacks in chains- not Republicans. Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan. They resisted the 13th Amendment:
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
democrats continued to resist equal rights for blacks through the 50's:
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Hillary's self-described mentor Robert Byrd was a Grand Kleagle in the KKK.  In 1945 Byrd is quoted as saying
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
But the handwriting was on the wall. Blacks were going to see equality. They were going to become a force in voting. It was only then that democrats, led by Lyndon Johnson, decided they'd cash in.
Lyndon Johnson was a racist. In his first twenty years as a lawmaker Johnson opposed every single civil rights issue. He made frequent use of colorful racist language:
There's no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the "n*gger bill" in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, "Son, when I appoint a n*gger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n*gger."
Doris Kearns Goodwin quoted Johnson:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
Adam Serwer:
Lyndon Johnson said the word “n*gger” a lot.In Senate cloakrooms and staff meetings, Johnson was practically a connoisseur of the word.According to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, Johnson would calibrate his pronunciations by region, using “nigra” with some southern legislators and “negra” with others. Discussing civil rights legislation with men like Mississippi Democrat James Eastland, who committed most of his life to defending white supremacy, he’d simply call it “the n*gger bill.”
Then in 1957, Johnson would help get the “n*gger bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”
It is also claimed that Johnson bragged:
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for 200 years."
Snopes asserts that this is unproven, but given the balance of his words is quite believable. Even Snopes admits:
"it wouldn't have been entirely out of character"
No it would not. Without any doubt Johnson knew of the burgeoning power of the black vote and wanted to own it. They secured it, but what have democratsdone for blacks?
The Democratic Party's line is that black Americans need their "help" to get by in a racist world. Here's an alternate theory: Buying into the Democratic Party's philosophy and accepting "help" has been one of the biggest reasons that black Americans lag behind white Americans. Black males are 6 times as likely to be in prison as white males and black Americans make up 49% of the homicide victims in America71.6% of all black Americans are born out of wedlock and black Americans are almost twice as likely to drop out of high school as white Americans, both of which help explain why the black poverty rate is almost 2 1/2 times the white poverty rate.
democrats have been willing assistants in the destruction of the black family:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Clinton health scare goes mainstream, with her defenders fighting rearguard action!

OregonLive ^ | August 31, 2016 | Douglas Perry 

Hillary Clinton "lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on" the war against terrorists, Donald Trump said earlier this month.
Isn't that an unusual way for the Republican presidential candidate to attack his opponent's plans for combating the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda? That's the wrong question, because it's not what Trump's comment is about.
In his usual roundabout way, he's really attacking Clinton's health, highlighting a conspiracy theory that has roiled the right-wing corner of the internet ever since Clinton suffered a severe concussion in 2012.
Slowly but surely, insinuations about dementia and other supposed Clinton illnesses have gone mainstream during this election season. Reality-TV doctor Drew Pinsky, talking about Clinton's health in a radio discussion earlier this month, mentioned the possibility of "brain damage" and added: "What is going on with her health care?" And Dr. David Scheiner, President Barack Obama's physician during Obama's years in Chicago, said on CNN this week that the Democratic nominee should undergo a "thorough" neurological examination before Election Day. "We know what happens to football players who have had concussions, how they begin to lose some of their cognitive ability," he said.
(To be fair, Dr. Scheiner also criticized the odd, hyperbolic health report put out last year by Trump's doctor and said Trump is too fat.)
The legitimizing of conspiracy theories has been a hallmark of the Trump candidacy, but the claims about Clinton's health have been particularly pernicious, fueled by fake medical records that have circulated in the blogosphere and a video of Clinton wagging her head in an unusual way while she talks to reporters. ("Wow! Did Hillary Clinton Just Suffer a Seizure on Camera?" a conservative blogger exclaimed, despite the fact that the reporters surrounding Clinton in the video show no concern that anything might be physically amiss with the woman they are all watching closely.)
Trump and his surrogates have been aggressive on this issue. "Go online and put down 'Hillary Clinton illness' and take a look at the videos for yourself," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has said. OK, let's do that. Here's one:
So there you go. You can decide for yourself the legitimacy of what you saw.
As doctors who have never treated Clinton increasingly go on TV and the radio to express worries about her health, various journalistic efforts have been made in recent weeks to debunk the Hillary health scare. "Basic stories about a candidate's health are almost always political smears, making them a subgenre of the general practice of politics, which abounds with smears," longtime political reporter Jack Shafer wrote in Politico. And CNN put out a long report detailing Clinton's health issues and her opponents' response to them. "There is absolutely no credible evidence to backstop any of these claims, including on the 'videos' Giuliani cited," CNN reported.
Clinton haters and the mainstream media's detractors, of course, dismiss such declarations. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ended up in the hospital over the weekend after a fall, and in a Facebook post about her own health she launched into a mocking rebuke of Clinton defenders: "Leave Hillary Alone, Bullies," she wrote, adding that anyone questioning Clinton's health is obviously a misogynist. She then returned to her own accident: "Rock-running recently, I tripped over my own two feet and crashed & burned face-first. I recovered with the doc's SuperGlue, and now any man who asks 'what happened?' I'll refer to as just a mean ol' SEXIST bully."
For the record, Clinton's physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack, declared last year that Clinton is "in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as President of the United States."

Don’t underestimate the power of Hillary hate

The London Spectator ^ | September 1, 2016 | Freddy Gray 

Clinton’s ability to make people dislike her is remarkable. She could still lose this race!

′Love Trumps Hate’ has become one of Hillary Clinton’s official campaign slogans. It’s a clunky pun but you get the point. Hillary stands for love — i.e progressive global values, equality, that sort of thing. Donald Trump represents white nationalism, bigotry, all the nasty stuff. Love is good; hate is bad. Trump must be trumped, so that history can keep marching in the right direction.
The trouble is, Americans don’t love Clinton. The feeling they have for her tends more towards hate, actually. Clinton’s ‘favourability ratings’ are famously bad. Between 30 and 40 per cent of Americans say they have a ‘highly unfavourable’ opinion of her. To give you a sense of how woeful that is for an aspiring leader of the free world, Barry Goldwater (the Republican candidate in 1968) and George McGovern (the Democrat in 1972), who are usually cited as the most disastrous presidential nominees of all time, scored 20 and 26 per cent respectively. If she wins on 8 November, Clinton will be the most disliked president-elect ever. And that is a small ‘if’, thanks to the epic anti-popularity of Trump (he scores a whopping 44 per cent on the unfavourableometer) and the self-destructing beast that is the Republican party in 2016.
Some people might take perverse comfort in the fact that, whether it is Trump or Clinton, a widely reviled figure is about to become the most powerful human on the planet. It suggests that elections are not always mere popularity contests; almost the opposite, in this case. But most of the world is a little disturbed....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump kicked the pantywaist Establishment right in the teeth last night!

 by cotton1706

FINALLY we have a candidate who's going for broke!

For twenty-five years we've had candidates who's attitude has been "if we muddy the waters on policy enough, maybe some people will vote for us" - with the expected result - electoral losses or bare wins.

Instead we have the spirit of Barry Goldwater: "Those who join us in all sincerity we welcome. Those who do not favor our cause, we don't expect to enter our ranks in any case."

I'm sure there was a collective clutching of pearls in the swanky "beltway."

To end senseless homicides, give suspected Chicago killers the Capone treatment

Chicago Tribune ^ | 1 sept 2016 | Sean Kennedy 

Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson wants Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to reveal his "magic bullet" for combating the spate of murders here. Johnson has a point — what exactly is Trump's secret plan to end the gun violence?
The GOP candidate should answer this challenge.
Here's a simple plan: Chicago should "Al Capone" its killers.
When the notorious Chicago gangster finally went down in 1931, it wasn't because of his complicity in scores of murders or bootlegging that brought him outlandish wealth. The mob boss was taken down because he did not pay his taxes — and that brought in the federal government.
Those suspected in homicides are mostly hiding in plain sight, but police and prosecutors have to follow the law and can bring charges against them only when the authorities have solid evidence, not just hunches and hearsay. And they have to find witnesses who will not be intimidated — or killed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Magic Wand


The Club


WTF, over?


For Sale


NFL Rules










Mrs. Obama