Monday, February 29, 2016

Media Ignore Farrakhan's Endorsement of Obama ^ | October 11, 2008 | Ronald Kessler 

Imagine the media frenzy that would ensue if David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan endorsed John McCain for president. Yet Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Barack Obama has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media.
Speaking to a convention of the Nation of Islam, Farrakhan not only declared his support for Obama, but also told his followers that Obama was the "Messiah."
"You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth," Farrakhan said. "And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
Farrakhan compared Obama to Nation of Islam founder Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, whom Farrakhan says also had a white mother and black father.
"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," Farrakhan said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."
Incredibly, only Fox News and a few other news outlets have run Farrakhan's endorsement. Farrakhan made the statement last February, but it only recently appeared on YouTube.
While Obama has no control over who endorses him, the nature of those who express affinity with him provides insight into who he is and what his agenda could be. Obama's endorsers and supporters range from admitted terrorist William Ayers and Weatherman Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn to Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, the New Black Panthers, the New SDS, and a host of other radical organizations and individuals.
Among other things, the New Black Panthers favors releasing all blacks from jails throughout the world and giving blacks reparations for slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump Grows Stronger Ahead of Super Tuesday, Poll Shows

Morning Consult ^ | 2/29/2016 | Morning Consult 

Real estate mogul and Republican front-runner for president Donald Trump increased his lead over Florida Sen. Marco Rubio ahead of Super Tuesday, according to a new Morning Consult national survey.
If Rubio hoped that going negative on Trump in the most recent GOP debate and on the campaign stump would reap benefits with voters, it hasn’t resonated with our national respondents. Forty-four percent of voters polled are backing the New York businessman, an increase of two percentage points from a few days ago. Meanwhile, Rubio dropped from 19 percent to 14 percent, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz moving into second with 15 percent of voters’ support.

Trump 44
Cruz 15
Rubio 14
Carson 9
Kasich 5
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Jihadis in Syria resorting to selling US supplied surplus weapons on Facebook.

Sott ^ | 2/28/2016 

The US has been dumping so many weapons into the Syrian conflict that there is now an apparent surplus. ISIS has since taken to selling them online.
Last year, the Free Thought Project reported on a video, apparently recorded just outside of Aleppo, Syria. The video illustrated just how insane the US "War on Terror" has become.
In the video, the U.S. backed, armed, and financed Free Syrian Army, (aka moderate rebels, aka ISIS-linked terrorists) are firing a U.S. supplied anti-tank TOW guided missile.
Of course, the 'moderate rebels' firing a US missile is nothing out of the ordinary. However, what makes this U.S. paid for missile so special is that it was fired at what is clearly a U.S. paid for Humvee.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Central Banks Have Signed Their Death Warrants

Daily Reckoning ^ | February 22, 2016 | David Stockman 

Central Banks Have Signed Their Death Warrants

During the past year U.S. consumption spending for health care rose by 5%. Spending at restaurants and bars were up by 9%, while spending for gasoline and other energy products was down by 22%.
This was Mr. Market at work--millions of households reallocating their spending in response to relative price changes. It had nothing to do with a macroeconomic abstraction called "weak demand".
Actually, the medical care component of the CPI rose 3.3% last year. Housing and shelter were up by 3.2%, while gasoline prices were down by 7.3%. It all added up to a 1.34% annual change in the overall CPI index by the sheer coincidence of BLS's arbitrary weightings of the index components.
Again, it had nothing to do with the pace of total consumption expenditures or any other measurement of "aggregate demand."
Ultimately, the central bankers will go for the real thing--NIRP for real people who are trying to save a nest egg. To be sure, a pipe-smoking economist will say there's no appreciable difference between positive 30 basis points and negative 30 basis points on a CD.
But there is. And the great political inflection point will come when policy elites try to pull that stunt on real people. NIRP will be the flashing neon lights announcing that the government is confiscating the people's savings and wealth.
When they actually try to impose NIRP on their own people and not just the commercial banks, the central banks will be signing their political death warrants. That day can come none too soon.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

If Donald Trump gets Republican nomination, he'll win presidency!

Newsday ^ | February 27, 2016 | Edward B. Colby 

If Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential primary, he is almost a shoo-in to win the presidency this November, a Stony Brook University professor predicts.
Professor Helmut Norpoth's statistical model, which looks at a candidate's performance in their party's presidential primary and factors in the broader electoral cycle, shows that Trump has a 97 percent chance of beating Hillary Clinton in the general election, reported Stony Brook's newspaper The Statesman. His odds rise to 99 percent against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The professor of political science presented his 2016 forecast at the SUNY Global Center in Manhattan on Monday.
"Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent. This is almost too much to believe," Norpoth said as he showed his forecast for that potential matchup, using data from the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. "The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It's almost 'Take it to the bank.'"
The model's high confidence in a Trump win is due to his relatively high success so far, Norporth said. The model also factors in the electoral cycle, which makes it difficult for a party to hold the White House three terms in a row, as the Democrats are trying to do in 2016....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Sen. Jeff Sessions Changes the Trajectory of American Politics — and Perhaps American History

Breitbart ^ | February 28, 2016 | Virgil 

To the catchy riff from Sweet Home Alabama, Sen. Jeff Sessions took the podium in Madison, Alabama, on Sunday afternoon and changed the trajectory of the 2016 Republican nomination fight—and perhaps also of U.S. history.
In becoming the first U.S. Senator to endorse Trump, Sessions, regarded as the gold-standard of immigration hawkery, declared, “Politicians have promised for 30 years to fix illegal immigration. Have they done it?” As the crowd shouted, No!, Sessions answered: “Donald Trump will do it.”
Then Sessions added, “I’ve told Donald Trump this isn’t a campaign, this is a movement...”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why Trump and Sanders Were Inevitable

The Politico Magazine ^ | February 28, 2016 | Michael Hirsh 

It was only a matter of time before we had a populist backlash to 30 years of flawed globalization policies that both parties embraced.

There were, in retrospect, clear signs of what was to come--signs that if Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders did not appear on the scene, someone else like them would have. We've had decades of forewarnings as the top income earners --the "one percent"--began taking bigger shares of our economy starting in the 1980s: The anti-globalization protests of the late 1990s. The rise of Ross "NAFTA-will-suck-our-jobs-away" Perot and Pat "Pitchforks" Buchanan against the GOP establishment. The brief but intense Occupy Wall Street movement. The adoration of Elizabeth Warren. The warnings from superstar economist Thomas Piketty in recent years that the United States was suffering the worst income inequality in the developed world, worse than anything since the 1920s--and that it was not sustainable.
Above all, there was the drip-drip-drip social acid of stagnating middle-class income--interrupted by the false dawn of the mid-2000s mortgage mania, when the poor felt rich but in truth were only more indebted--and the simultaneous self-isolation of our increasingly uber-wealthy class over three long decades. All without any effective policy response from Washington to redress the widening income gap....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Computer Programmer testifies "US ELECTIONS RIGGED".

Youtube ^ | 09/07/11 

Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida, testified before a congressional panel that there are computer programs that can be used to secretly fix elections. He explains how he created a prototype for Florida Congressman Tom Feeny that would flip the vote 51%-49% in favor of a specified candidate.

This happened all the way back in 2001 but you might not have heard anything about this claim unless you searched for it. I've seen a Wired News report on this topic and a few local Florida newspaper stories but otherwise, no real media coverage has been provided. You'd think claims of election rigging software would be splattered all over the News yet as it turns out, our news media prefers to point out voting fraud in other nations but not here in THE UNITED STATES.

Mr Curtis a Software programmer who worked for NASA, Exxon Mobil & the US Department of Transportation in a sworn-oath deposition testifies that US elections are rigged by inserting software into the voting system. The timing of this deposition was just after George W Bush being re-elected president of the United States. We are not surprised that this never made it into the main stream media.

Mr Curtis goes on to name US Representatives who attempted to pay him to rig their election vote counts.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The OATH KEEPERS and their declaration of the orders they will NOT obey

Coach Is Right ^ | 2/29/2016 | Doug Book 

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” – Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

We have become witnesses to the wholesale intimidation by design of the American people; an abuse of authority which features the use of sheer, overwhelming force to amend any dangerous “anti-government” sentiments of a proud and recalcitrant people who still believe the rights of the individual take precedence over the dictates of the state.
Too many police departments have become militarized arms of city and state government. A study “…funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) …declared that citizens who are concerned about individual liberty and are suspicious of centralized government authority are “extreme right wing terrorists.”
Upon signing into law the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “…a US citizen on US soil can lawfully be killed by the US military if the military believes that citizen to be a terrorist affiliated with Al Qaeda or its allies.” Today the absolute right of the federal government to kill American citizens depends upon nothing more than President Obama’s unsubstantiated claim of their involvement in potentially dangerous, anti-government activities.
Not on Our Watch. This is the motto of the Oath Keepers.
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”
Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.

The Orders We Will NOT Obey

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
It is particularly significant that Oath Keepers begins its litany of orders which members will not obey with “attempts to disarm the American people.”
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.
Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.
In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny.
Thousands of police officers, National Guardsmen, Firefighters and active and retired members of the United States Military have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In joining Oath Keepers these men and women have reaffirmed their vow to defend the natural and constitutionally guaranteed rights of the American people.
We owe them our respect and our support.

How the Clintons “Disappeared” a Film that Exposed their Role in US Terror Attacks

Free Thought Project ^ | 2/28/2016 | Claire Bernish 

On the anniversary of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, it’s necessary to revisit Hillary Clinton’s role in banning a film which cast her and former President, Bill Clinton, in an accurately unfavorable light.
Multiple award-winning filmmaker Cyrus Nowrasteh directed the 2006 miniseries, The Path to 9/11, which covered the period of time from the first bombing of the Trade Center on February 26, 1993, to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nowrasteh included a critical examination of the former President’s inexplicable failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden on multiple occasions. Despite the series’ popularity and critical acclaim, the Clintons managed to ‘disappear’ the film — essentially banning it in the United States.
“The amazing thing was, the Clintons were able to put pressure on Disney/ABC basically to bury their own movie that they spent $40 million on, The Path to 9/11, which did air once, by the way, over two nights, and was number one in the ratings with 20 million viewers,” Nowrasteh told Brian Sussman on the KSFO Morning Show. “But Disney said it was, quote, ‘a business decision’ — essentially they caved to the Clintons, who, as far as censorship in my experience, are in many ways more effective than the ayatollahs in Iran.”
In fact, pulling the film as a business decision is as effective a guise as a sieve is at holding water. So popular was its first and only broadcast, distribution on other networks and the right to re-air the film would have garnered hefty returns.
“The Clintons made sure that no one can see The Path to 9/11,” Nowrasteh continued, “which is, by the way, the most detailed and informative account” of the time period from 1993 until 2001. Covering that time “in factual detail, which was really the problem for the Clintons because we portray the opportunities that Bill Clinton had to kill bin Laden, and passed on it.”
In 2006, Accuracy in Media reported the censorship effort by Sen. Harry Reid and other Democrats in Congress had such heft, they “went over the line in threatening to revoke ABC’s broadcast license unless changes were made to benefit former President Clinton and officials of his Administration.”
Now, as Hillary’s campaign is dealing with backlash over her statement that she doesn’t believe she’s ever lied to the American public, the censoring of The Path to 9/11 again becomes a pertinent bit of historical context. Rather than taking responsibility for errors and pitfalls of the past, the Clintons choose instead to impose crushing censorship — as if covering the truth will somehow make it disappear.
Nowrasteh noted the Clintons “made sure the DVD was never released of The Path to 9/11, so Americans could not see it; and made sure that it was never rebroadcast — it is basically the only banned film in America.”
When asked by Sussman, based on his experience, how Hillary Clinton would “operate as President of the United States,” Nowrasteh replied, “She’s out … they’re out to silence their critics, as aggressively as they can possibly get away with … and what we know about the Clintons is they get away with a lot.”
Of course, this suppression of the series occurred as a “direct result of [Hillary’s] run for the Presidency — her initial run” in the 2008 election cycle.
Nowrasteh, who is Iranian-American, experienced outright censorship of at least one of his other works, The Stoning of Soraya M., in Iran. Despite that unabashed suppression, smuggled copies of the film still managed to reach an Iranian audience — an option that was physically impossible for The Path to 9/11 in the U.S., thanks to the Clintons and their political supporters.
Sussman zeroed in on this fact to ask the filmmaker, “Which is worse … the blatant censorship in Iran? … Or the sophisticated, backroom censorship here in the United States, conducted by the Clintons?”
“I think the latter is worse, because we know better,” Nowrasteh explained. “This country is founded on freedom of expression, and freedom of artistic expression, and the mainstream media fell in line behind the Clintons.”
And, in the midst of Hillary’s second attempt to win the Presidency, the mainstream media arguably still capitulate and cater to the Clintons.

TV Pundits Praise Hillary Clinton On Air, Fail to Disclose Financial Ties to Her Campaign

The Intercept ^ | Feb. 25 2016 | Lee Fang 

Tune into television coverage of the presidential campaign and undoubtedly you will hear from various pundits described as "former campaign strategists" and "political contributors" explaining the latest developments of the race. But in many cases, these pundits - though introduced as neutral experts on campaigns or party politics - in fact have financial ties to the candidates they praise on the air.
Several consultants who work at firms retained by Hillary Clinton's campaign and her affiliated Super PACs appear regularly on the major television networks, frequently touting Clinton. ...
"Journalism 101 teaches that reporters and TV news hosts must properly identify their sources and analysts," says Jeff Cohen, an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College. We reached out to NBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC News, but did not hear back.
Stephanie Cutter, for example, has appeared on multiple networks to discuss Clinton, and is typically introduced as a former campaign official for President Barack Obama. What hasn't been disclosed in any of her appearances reviewed by The Intercept, however, is that the boutique consulting firm she co-founded, Precision Strategies, has been retained by the Clinton campaign for "digital consulting," according to Federal Election Commission records. Precision Strategies has been paid at least $120,049 from the Clinton campaign since June of last year.
"I think that Hillary Clinton has done everything right. She has run a good campaign. She has outperformed in debates. She's raised money. She's got a great ground game," said Cutter, speaking about the upcoming New Hampshire and Iowa primaries on NBC's Meet the Press on January 17. She was introduced as "President Obama's 2012 deputy campaign manager." Her company's affiliation with the Clinton campaign was not disclosed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Peace Plan


Empty Chair


Our Flag


All This




Is he QUEER?


Retarded Cousin


Smarter Phone




Sunday, February 28, 2016

Obama's legacy: complete world disorder

Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | February 27, 2016 | by Charles Krauthammer 

State of the world, Year Eight of Barack Obama:

(1) In the South China Sea, on a speck of land of disputed sovereignty far from its borders, China has just installed anti-aircraft batteries and stationed fighter jets.
(2) Syria. Russian intervention has turned the tide of war. The U.S. response? Repeated pathetic attempts by Secretary of State John Kerry to propitiate Russia (and its ally, Iran) in one collapsed peace conference after another.
(3) Ukraine. Having swallowed Crimea so thoroughly that no one even talks about it anymore, Russia continues to trample with impunity on the Minsk cease-fire agreements.
(4) Iran. Earlier this month, Iran received its first shipment of S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia. The U.S. response? Words.
To say nothing of the Islamic State, now extending its reach from Afghanistan to West Africa. The international order built over decades by the United States is crumbling.
In the face of which, what does Obama do? Go to Cuba.
Yes, Cuba. A supreme strategic irrelevance so dear to Obama's anti-anti-communist heart.
Of course, it mattered greatly to the quarter-million slaughtered in Syria and the millions more exiled. It feels all quite real to a dissolving Europe, an expanding China, a rising Iran, a metastasizing jihadism.
Not to the visionary Obama, however. He sees far beyond such ephemera. He knows what really matters: climate change, Gitmo and Cuba.
With time running out, he wants these to be his legacy. Indeed, they will be.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

For GOP elite, the stink of panic! ^ | 2/27/16 | Jay Bookman 

The Times piece also describes the intense pressure on Gov. John Kasich of Ohio to leave the race, and Kasich’s equally intense refusal to do so. But perhaps the best gauge of the panic setting in comes from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:
“While still hopeful that Mr. Rubio might prevail, Mr. McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination, assuring them that, if it threatened to harm them in the general election, they could run negative ads about Mr. Trump to create space between him and Republican senators seeking re-election. Mr. McConnell has raised the possibility of treating Mr. Trump’s loss as a given and describing a Republican Senate to voters as a necessary check on a President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the lunches.”
That is a drowning man grasping at straws. There is almost zero chance that the Republicans would be able to hold the Senate if Trump is the electoral disaster that McConnell apparently fears. And Republican senators running anti-Trump ads? Any senator who took that course would alienate a good chunk of their own base, ensuring their defeat.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Saturday, February 27, 2016

How Cruz Could Win

The Weekly Standard ^ | February 24, 2016 | Jeffrey H. Anderson 

GOP voters are in a fighting mood. They aren't much interested in business-as-usual, political niceties, or even conservative purity. They want someone who will take it to Washington--someone who will go there and fight for change.
Unfortunately for the rest of the Republican field, the candidate who voters overwhelmingly think will bring change to Washington is Donald Trump. South Carolina exit polling found that, among the large subsection of GOP voters who most want a candidate who "can bring change," a whopping 45 percent supported Trump, compared with only 19 percent for Ted Cruz and 16 percent for Marco Rubio.
This isn't perhaps too much of a concern for Rubio, who is the electability/establishment candidate. It's a huge concern, however, for Cruz, who has to be the "change" candidate, leaving Trump to be the mad-as-hell/outsider candidate. If Trump is both the outsider candidate and the change candidate, then Cruz is sunk....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

State Department Turns Over 1,600 Newly-Discovered Clinton Documents to Benghazi Committee

Daily Caller ^ | 2/26/16 | Alana Goodman 

The State Department turned over 1,600 pages of previously undisclosed documents related to Hillary Clinton and Libya to the House Benghazi committee on Friday, a month after it revealed the existence of the documents in an unrelated court case.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi announced it received the records on Friday, adding that the State Department has yet to fully comply with document requests the committee made nearly a year ago.
“Today the State Department turned over more than 1,600 pages of new documents related to former Secretary Clinton and Libya,” the committee said. “The State [Department] claimed in a January 8th court filing that it only recently discovered these new documents from the Office of the Secretary.”
In January, the State Department disclosed in a court filing that it had recently discovered “thousands” of new documents related to Clinton’s tenure and the Benghazi attack. The filing was in response to a lawsuit by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which has been seeking records from Clinton’s time at the State Department.
The documents may be released in response to public records requests, but the copies received by the Benghazi committee are not redacted in regard to Libya and Benghazi issues.
The records come from the Office of the Secretary, which would likely include Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, top aide Huma Abedin, and Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and scheduler.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Stamp prices set to go down two cents in April

CNN Money ^ 

For the first time in nearly 97 years, the price of a stamp is set to go down.
On April 10, a first-class stamp will cost 47 cents, down from its current 49-cent price.
The reduction is part of a pre-arranged agreement with Congress. The Post Office got to increase the price of stamps by 3 cents in 2014 to help it raise $4.6 billion in revenue. But the price hike was only set to last two years. (It gets to keep one cent of the increase to keep up with inflation).
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How to Write a Winning Resume for the Job of President of the United States

 by poconopundit

Dear Prospective Presidential Candidate:

The information in this letter was prepared to help you develop a winning resume for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS).

A resume is now required for every candidate running for the POTUS position.

Reason Why this Resume is Required

Regretfully this new law requiring a formal resume was made necessary due to problems in past elections.

For instance, in recent years the voters of these United States have found that candidates for this highly important office have lacked the background and experience to do the job effectively.

Candidates have made various claims in speeches and to the media, but once elected, they arrived in Washington andcould not actually accomplish the job they were hired to do.

In other cases, the candidates for POTUS have actually tried to subvert the wishes of We the People and follow "their own agenda".

So to save time and prevent future fraud and voter mistakes, We the People have decided that candidates must now submit a formal resume for the position of POTUS.

This standard format is one that every POTUS candidate shall use, no matter what party they belong to.

We hope these resumes will save voters time figuring out exactly who is best qualified for the position of POTUS, and it will allow us to more easily compare one candidate to another.

Policy Statements

Candidates may list any policy or position statements they want on their resumes.  However, once they submit the resume, they cannot edit out their previous position statements.

Candidates may change their position any number of times, but previous positions will remain in the document so We the People have a record of changes and any flip flops that may have occurred.

However, we fully recognize that policy positions are a merely a statement of general policy direction because things often change in office.

For instance, we have found that positions will typically change depending on how much of a "puppet" a POTUS candidate is due to financial support from a Wall Street firm, foreign government, or Washington lobbyist.

Personal Dreams and Reasons for Seeking Office

Be careful in your resume to not include anything about your personal "dreams". In the past, candidates have told us they were running for POTUS "to dominate the world" or "to see foreign dignitaries bowing before them" or "to stay out of jail" or "to pardon fellow criminal accomplices".

If your resume contains such reasons, we shall immediately reject it.

In addition, We the People shall also reject all resumes where the reason for running for POTUS is to be the first person elected of a particular gender, physical/mental handicap, sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnic group, bowling club, or Hollywood celebrity fan club.

Executive Accomplishments

It is very important to include executive accomplishments on this resume because leading the largest economy and military in the Free World is a management position requiring extensive experience running a large organization.

Follow these steps in developing your executive accomplishment statements:

  • Start with an action world, i.e. Managed, Completed, Improved, etc.
  • Tell us what you actually did yourself -- being brief and to the point.
  • Explain the scale of your authority so we don't confuse being captain of a high school debating team with running a $10 billion business or being Governor of a State with 20 million people.
  • In the close of each statement show the result of the action(s) you took. The result is a measurable outcome that shows how you made a difference.

Use this accomplishment statement as an example:

Action: Built a 51 floor skyscraper luxury apartment building in New York City by negotiating and financing the deal and being responsible for the work and salaries of the 2,000 people and numerous contractors over a one year building period.

Result: The skyscraper is a commercial success earning $500 million in profits each year.

Not a Judicial, Legal or Legislative Position

Please note: the job of POTUS is a senior management and executive position.  Having experience as an individual contributor such as lawyer, senator, judge, or similar position is not directly relevant because the job of POTUS requires senior management experience and responsibility at a very high level.

However, you may list your judicial, legal or legislative posts under a separate resume section entitled: Other Job Experience.


Thank you for following these resume instructions.  We hope that following our rules will not be too onerous a burden.

Remember, that We the People have our own responsibilities and jobs to do and we want you, as Candidate, to respect us by laying out the facts so we can more easily find out who is truly qualified and vote for the best person.

Please leave out any extra curricula activities and sports such as duck hunting, beauty pageants, golf, partying, and the like.

Good luck.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Judge Has Harsh Words For DOJ in Key Voter Integrity Case

PJ Media ^ | February 22, 2016 | Andrew Kloster 

"This is the first time in 14 years I've seen this."
Those were some of federal district Judge Leon's comments regarding what the Department of Justice asked for in court today, as part of an important case that could impact the integrity of the 2016 election.
The DOJ sought to not fight a lawsuit against the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), conceding to a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by the League of Women voters and other activist groups. The EAC had decided to allow Kansas, Arizona, Georgia, and other states "to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens" would be able to register to vote when they use the federally designed voter registration form.
"Inconceivably," the DOJ did not want to fight against the activists' suit trying to stop the implementation of these voter integrity laws.
As Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach argued today, not allowing states to do this would run afoul of Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which reserves voting qualifications for the states. Kansas has already documented 17 cases of non-citizens seeking to register to vote, putting a practical reason behind that state's decision to require that voters provide some sort of evidence of citizenship (passport, birth certificate, naturalization documents, some other enumerated documentation, or any other adequate proof).
And yet DOJ had sought to roll over. Judge Leon would not allow it.
The first action he took from the bench today was to read into the record a letter he had received from a sitting EAC commissioner, noting the possible conflicts that DOJ had in representing the EAC. He then allowed the Kansas Secretary of State time to argue, along with J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Group (Adams is PJ Media's Legal Editor.)
Judge Leon had other harsh words for the plaintiffs and the DOJ. He said that, ordinarily, DOJ briefs "cover the waterfront," making numerous legal arguments defending their position. Yet in this case, DOJ was refusing to defend an independent agency's right to follow its statutory duty. Judge Leon asked if this represented a possible conflict. The DOJ attorney answered that there was no conceivable set of circumstances in which DOJ might have a conflict of interest vis-à-vis its representation of an independent agency in federal court, something that the judge clearly questioned.
Judge Leon noted that the filings reflected upon the quality of "your section [the Federal Programs branch of DOJ] and you specifically [the DOJ attorney]." He said the DOJ position was "very unusual," and "is inconsistent with what I've seen before."
He also appeared perturbed that, after he had granted extra time to the DOJ to get its facts straight, the attorney was still unable to answer questions about the case:
I gave you the weekend ... what the heck have you been doing?
Plaintiff's counsel in the case didn't fare any better, referring repeatedly to other attorneys in the front row for elementary facts of the case:
No, they can't answer -- you can go talk with them.
At the outset, the Judge noted the large crowd appearing for the plaintiff. Over 20 lawyers representing an alphabet soup of activist groups had sought to sit in the front of the courtroom at the counsels' table, but a number were moved back to the gallery. Said Leon:
This is a traveling roadshow, and those must be all your fans.
I overheard a lawyer for the plaintiff say upon reseating:
I guess if you get to be a dictator in your own little fiefdom, that's pretty good.
Why such emotion in a federal court on a motion for a temporary restraining order? Simply put, the case could impact the ability of states to require citizenship proofs to register to vote. While the EAC has no statutory or constitutional authorization to tell states who qualifies as a voter, it does have authority over the federal form that states must use when registering individuals for federal elections. So while the agency has authority over the form, it is required by statute -- and the Constitution, as Secretary Kobach noted in a discussion of federalism and election law -- to allow states a way to place their qualifications on the form.
Judge Leon expressed interest in the communications between the DOJ and the EAC. When pressed, Secretary Kobach named Civil Rights Division attorney Bradley Heard as the attorney he thought was responsible for "commandeering" EAC internal processes, and encouraging it to prohibit proof of citizenship requirements on the federal form prior to this year's decision that is the subject of the current litigation. Judge Leon was interested in hearing about DOJ involvement in developing the EAC form, because this bears on the legality of EAC action and on the propriety of continued DOJ representation of the EAC.
Ultimately, this case appears to be on the fast-track in federal district court. A decision in this case, and a subsequent appeal to the D.C. Circuit, will bear on the ability of states to protect the integrity of their ballots in the 2016 election and in years to come.

Why Donald Trump Can’t Win The White House

The Federalist ^ | 22 Feb 16 | Varad Mehta 

Donald Trump is the candidate of the white working class. His popularity with this cohort was recognized early in his candidacy. The preponderance of commentary on the Trump phenomenon since then, whether favorable to the tumescent real-estate mogul and reality television star or not, has proceeded from this assumption.

These analyses affirm Trump's allure to white, working-class voters as central to his candidacy. It is the pillar on which his dominant standing in the polls rests. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, it will be through their support.

Yet these analyses, revealing as they are, overlook a salient fact. The verdict of working-class voters will not be the only one rendered on Trump, or the most important one. However popular Trump may be with the working class, he is as unpopular with voters who have graduated from college, a group without whose backing the GOP has no shot at regaining the White House.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Really Dumb!






Lying Dogs!


The Truth!




Four Years


Feel the Bern!


Schumer's Idea


What a fool!










The Great Republican Revolt

The Atlantic ^ | jan/Feb 2016 | David Frum 

White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for—the Republican Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts... And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters, “That’s my guy.”
They aren’t necessarily superconservative. They often don’t think in ideological terms at all. But they do strongly feel that life in this country used to be better for people like them—and they want that older country back.
...People like them in many other democratic countries too. Across Europe, populist parties are delivering a message that combines defense of the welfare state with skepticism about immigration; that denounces the corruption of parliamentary democracy and also the risks of global capitalism. Some of these parties have a leftish flavor, like Italy’s Five Star Movement. Some are rooted to the right of center, like the U.K. Independence Party. Some descend from neofascists, like France’s National Front. Others trace their DNA to Communist parties, like Slovakia’s governing Direction–Social Democracy.
These populists seek to defend what the French call “acquired rights”—health care, pensions, and other programs that benefit older people—against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand austerity; against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized market that depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican because they fear the Democrats want to take from them and redistribute to Americans who are newer, poorer, and in their view less deserving—to “spread the wealth around,” in candidate Barack Obama’s words to “Joe the Plumber” back in 2008. Yet they have come to fear more and more strongly that their party does not have their best interests at heart.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Monday, February 22, 2016

Obamacare is looting the Treasury to pay off insurers!

The New York Post ^ | February 21, 2016 | Betsy McCaughey 

The Obama administration will tell any lie and break any law to prevent the president’s signature health-care program from collapsing.
Insurance companies such as UnitedHealthcare and Aetna are losing billions trying to sell ObamaCare plans, and the risk is they’ll drop out at the end of 2016. No insurance companies means no ObamaCare.
In 2014, the White House tried to avert that disaster by promising insurers a taxpayer-funded bailout, but public outrage and quick action by Sen. Marco Rubio put a stop to it. Now the administration is at it again.
Desperate to keep insurers on board, the administration scrambled to find another pot of money. Unfortunately, once again, a big part of that money pot belongs to the public.
President Obama doesn’t seem to care. On Feb. 12, the administration announced that the money will be handed out to insurers — a whopping $7.7 billion this year alone. But it’s not just expensive: That huge handout to the insurance industry is also illegal.
This is money you and everyone else who already has insurance are forced to pay, called a reinsurance fee. You pay the fee whether you buy your own plan or get covered at work, even if your employer self-insures. You may be clueless about it, but the fee is buried in your premium or taken out of your compensation.
The text of the Affordable Care Act is clear as a bell on what this money can be used for.
Some of these annual fees — adding up to billions a year — belong to the public, not the insurance companies. The law states a fixed share “shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury of the United States and may not be used” to offset insurance companies’ losses.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Socialism and the delusion of rich people as your enemy! ^ | 2/22/2016 | Herman Cain 

You might have seen Dan's piece on Friday about the food crisis in Venezuela, or earlier in the week about the fact that young Bernie Sanders supporters demonstrate in polls that they have no idea what socialism actually is.
We've talked a lot about this both on The Herman Cain Show and here on the web site, and obviously a large part of the problem is that young voters enthusiastic for socialism don't remember real-life consequences of socialism like, say, the poverty and hopelessness that endured behind the Iron Curtain for 44 years.
Or they're convinced for some reason that this time it really would be different. Given the horrendous history of socialism I have no idea why anyone would believe that, but it's not uncommon for a young generation to think they can be the first ones to do successfully what all their predecessors failed at.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Turning Against Trump

American Thinker ^ 

People who pride themselves on rational thinking know there are few feelings worse than being wrong about something, especially something that they made a big noise about at the time. What helps lessen this intellectual humiliation is understanding that, given the information available at the time, the decision was a rational one at the time. The remedy for the initial error is to use the newly available information to reach a more reasoned decision.
As the campaign season goes forward, we're learning more about Donald Trump's politics and seeing his initial ebullient puckishness too often give way to self-referential arrogance and venomous hubris. Now is a good time for Trump supporters to use this new information to revisit their original conclusion about him and to realize, with no shame attached, that he's not the candidate they thought he was...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Myth of Trump’s Inevitability

The National Review ^ | February 21, 2016 | John Fund 

So if we are headed for a contested convention, what will happen? I don't know, but I do know that Republican delegates will be leery of nominating a candidate viewed unfavorably by 60 percent of general-election voters - as is the case with Donald Trump. In the RealClearPolitics average of all polls, Trump is the only major candidate who loses to Hillary Clinton (45.3 percent to 42.5 percent).

In his victory speech in South Carolina, Donald Trump vowed to sweep the twelve primaries held on Super Tuesday, March 1, and implied the race would then be over: "Let's put this thing away!"
He also belittled rivals who claimed that as the field shrinks, they will be able to close on Trump and deny him the nomination. "They're geniuses!" he mocked. "They don't understand that as people drop out, I'm going to get a lot of those votes also."
Not so fast, Donald. We have had three contests so far, and the field has narrowed from twelve candidates before Iowa to five now. But Trump's numbers have bounced around from 24 percent in Iowa to 35 percent in New Hampshire to 32 percent in South Carolina. His average is a tad under 31 percent.
Trump is the front-runner, but he has to find a way to win a majority of the delegates, and the kind of campaign he's running is making it harder for him to crack a ceiling of about a third of the vote. In the run-up to South Carolina, Trump came out in favor of the health-care mandate, defended Planned Parenthood, accused George W. Bush of lying about the Iraq War, and stood by his call to impeach Bush. (He later retreated on the mandate and on Bush's supposedly lying.) His consistent inconsistency helps explain why only four in ten GOP voters in a new Associated Press poll view Trump in a positive light. He will have trouble growing his coalition to win a majority of delegates, even as more candidates drop out.
Trump also will have a bit of bad luck over the next three weeks, because so many of the contests during that time will be in southern states where Ted Cruz has appeal. Marco Rubio also stands to inherit many of Jeb Bush's financial backers and the lion's share of his voters, giving him staying power by consolidating "establishment" voters.
Sources close to Trump say that as the front-runner, he stands to clean up in states with winner-take-all rules. That will propel him to the nomination, they believe. But not a single state is winner-take-all until Florida (99 delegates) and Ohio (66 delegates) vote on March 15. With Jeb Bush's dropping out, Marco Rubio probably has an advantage over Trump in his home state, as does John Kasich in Ohio. Kasich is likely to stay in the race in hopes he can use his delegates to become a power broker at the GOP convention in Cleveland in July. After Florida and Ohio, there are only seven other states that are winner-take-all, making it all the harder for an early nominee to emerge before the convention.
The race goes on from Florida and Ohio. New York will allocate 95 delegates by congressional district on April 19, at which point 68 percent of the delegates will have been awarded. That's the traditional point at which the GOP nomination race has concluded in the past, but this year it is very likely to go on. The primaries end on June 7, when California will use a congressional-district allocation method to divvy up 172 delegates.
The calendar and the way the state contests are organized basically mean that in order to win a majority of delegates by the beginning of June, a single candidate would have to have won more than 45 percent of the popular vote. GOP lawyer Ben Ginsburg, who has worked in every presidential campaign cycle since 1988, recently observed that the 2016 calendar "quite deliberately avoids having a mid-March nominee." As he outlined this week in Politico:
The 2016 rules are much the same as the ones that dragged out Romney's victory, but the circumstances of the race all point to a longer, harder fight. Traditionally, the Republican nominee is known when more than 68 percent of the delegates have been chosen, which won't happen until April 19 this year.
Ginsburg noted that it will be very hard for any one candidate to "run the table" during the primaries in the first half of March. The difficulty of any candidate's doing so well after that is also slim. This means we might be looking at a contested convention in which delegates are bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to - but only on the first ballot.
Even diehard believers in the Power of Trump have to use strained reasoning to give Trump a majority of delegates at the end of the primaries.
So if we are headed for a contested convention, what will happen? I don't know, but I do know that Republican delegates will be leery of nominating a candidate viewed unfavorably by 60 percent of general-election voters - as is the case with Donald Trump. In the RealClearPolitics average of all polls, Trump is the only major candidate who loses to Hillary Clinton (45.3 percent to 42.5 percent). It's certainly possible that Trump will try to "cut a deal" with Ted Cruz or John Kasich so he can secure a delegate majority, but there are a lot of obstacles to that.
No one is saying Trump won't be the nominee. But reports of his inevitability are greatly exaggerated.



The worst years!






Not a racist!


I feel your pain!


Fidel Sanders


Sunday, February 21, 2016

Ted Cruz: The Champion You May Need

The Federalist ^ | January 14, 2016 | Hunter Baker

Matthew Anderson explains "why I cannot support Ted Cruz." There have been other critiques, some aggressive, some concealed (but clever like a shiv), that aim to paint Cruz as an evangelical, but not the right kind of evangelical. These efforts may become more urgent as people I admire and have as friends seek to undercut Cruz for the sake of Marco Rubio.

I get it. The Trump train is freaking people out. They need to see him derailed, but too many people are dividing the vote, denying Bush or Rubio (depending on your preference) from rightly vanquishing the Donald. Cruz could vanquish Trump, but that, too, seems to be unacceptable. Why is it unacceptable?

What's Wrong with Ted Cruz

First of all, Cruz is unacceptable to many of my friends because he is too ambitious, too much of a grandstander, not a team player, etc. He got to the Senate and pushed to the edge of a government shutdown (notably reading "Green Eggs and Ham"). The reading may be that he thinks he's Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Second, Cruz comes off much less as a Christian who brings a holistic view of the faith to politics and much more as a pure Reaganite conservative. He isn't going to use government to bring about the eschaton at all (unless the eschaton means the American constitutional design). He'll preserve traditions, and many of those traditions are built on Christianity.

That's the link. It's not the one many evangelicals want. Only some will understand this, but Cruz is not a conservative version of Mark Hatfield. Rubio may be that. Cruz is really just a conservative who is also a Bible-believing Christian....

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library

Bill and Hillary ClintonWe'd like to welcome you to the Clinton Library -- dedicated to preserving the true legacy of the 42nd President of the United States.

Bill Clinton promised as President that his would be the "most ethical administration in the history of the country.” As you explore the pages of this website, you can decide for yourself whether he lived up to that promise

Memo on Bill Clinton's Character and how is being President
a reflection on the American people.

Also posted in the TOWNHALL
DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1996
"Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground to tell the truth." So said an Arkansas official familiar with Clinton on CNN during the 1992 presidential campaign. Democrat Senator Bob Kerry has said, "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?" Senator Kerry did not make this observation during the heat of a primary battle but this past January in Esquire Magazine. Kerry is not only a Democrat Senator but is a leader of his party and Chairman of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee. Senator Kerry knows whereof he speaks.
Forget what this says about Clinton - what does it say about us. We are told that Clinton is leading by a significant margin in his campaign to be our next president. (51% to Dole's 38% according to last week's Wall Street Journal/ABC poll.) We are told that "character" does not count. We are told that a candidate's "personal life" has no relevance to the office of President and has no "traction" as a political issue. Indeed, we are even made to feel ashamed for raising the issue. (On July 15th Clinton said, "I think character is a legitimate issue and I look forward to having that discussion." But, whenever the issue of character is mentioned Clinton dodges the discussion by claiming any question about his character is a viscous, Republican- motivated "personal attack.")
Consider the current bestseller list. A list which includes an astounding number of books about the corruption which is the Clinton administration. Boy Clinton, Unlimited Access and Blood Sport are only a few. But let's concede Clinton the benefit of his denials and explanations. Even by this analysis, in the light most favorable to Clinton and taking only those facts Clinton has acknowledged and granting him his spin on these facts, Clinton is far and away the most dishonest president or presidential candidate in the history of our nation.
Assume that only 10% of what these noted authors and a career FBI agent relate about Bill Clinton is valid. Assume that only 10% of the drug use, rampant promiscuity, financial fraud and blatant violation of state and federal law are accurate. Assume only 10% of the Wall Street Journal's four-year, two-volume documentation of Whitewater, Travelgate and FBI Filegate is not innuendo and conjecture. Assume that Clinton's unlikely explanation of Whitewater is correct. (It wasn't a crooked deal to funnel taxpayer guaranteed funds from a Savings and Loan into his political campaign. Rather, we are told, Bill and Hillary, naive in matters of money -- notwithstanding Hillary's wildly successful commodities speculation -- were duped by the crafty McDougalls into a foolish real estate investment scheme funded by kited checks and illegal loans. Frankly, even if valid, I fail to find any comfort in this explanation. Do we want a sharp crook or a financially unsophisticated waif in charge of our national economy?) Granted even these assumptions, impeachment should be likely, reelection unthinkable. Consider the following:
> Richard Nixon's administration collapsed, Nixon resigned the presidency and Chuck Colson was jailed over misuse of one FBI file and the related cover-up. By contrast, Clinton and Craig Livingstone spirited away FBI files on their political opponents by the hundreds and the cover-up and stone-walling continues.
> Spiro Agnew resigned the vice-presidency over charges of tax evasion stemming from $16,000 he accepted from contractors when he was Governor of Maryland. By contrast, Clinton has conceded that he filed misleading tax returns that did not properly disclose illegal loans made by a now-defunct S&L the proceeds of which were used in his campaign for Governor. The reason he is not charged with tax evasion is that he released the tax returns after the statute of limitations had expired. Equally well established is the fact that Hillary enjoyed more than $100,000 in "profits" steered to her from commodities trading orchestrated by Tyson Foods in exchange for favorable treatment accorded Tyson Foods by her husband the Governor.
> Gary Hart bowed out of the 1988 presidential race because of one wild weekend in the Bahamas and a sleep-over in Washington D.C.. By contrast, Clinton is being sued in federal court for enticing a young woman - against her wishes -- into his hotel room, dropping his trousers and suggesting she engage in a lurid sex act. Clinton's known sex-partners could form a single-file line longer than the inaugural parade route. (At least JFK was honest about his philandering. During a 1961 meeting in Bermuda with British Prime Minister Harold McMillian Kennedy said, "I wonder how it is with you, Harold? If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches.")
> Ginsburg is not a member of the U.S. Supreme Court because he used marijuana during college. By contrast, during Clinton's term national drug use has doubled due to Clinton eviscerating drug enforcement. Remember also Josalyn Elders, Clinton's selection for Surgeon General. In addition to her crusade to distribute condoms (for which she earned the moniker "the Rubber Maid") and to have masturbation taught in public schools, she campaigned for the legalization of drugs. During her term as Clinton's Surgeon General, Elders son was convicted of felony cocaine and crack distribution. (If she couldn't keep her own son from pushing crack, how could she be expected to reduce national drug use?) It is simply beyond belief that, with someone of Elder's views as his pick for the nation's chief medical officer, Clinton expects us to believe he truly wants to battle illegal drugs.
On a personal level Clinton acknowledges that he used marijuana but claims he "didn't inhale". Yet in an MTV interview with high school students Clinton states that if he had it do over again he, "probably should have inhaled." Roger Clinton described his brother's appetite for cocaine by stating, "He (Bill Clinton) has a nose like a Hoover." (Referring to the vacuum cleaner not the president. who preceded Roosevelt.) But, we can discount this allegation because Roger Clinton, along with Friend Of Bill Dan Lasater, have been convicted of felony drug charges for the distribution of cocaine.
(As an entry for the "How'd They Do That" file consider this: Roger Clinton served only two years for his cocaine distribution charges and Dan Lasater only six months. Roger cut a deal with the prosecutor to testify against Lasater. Lasater was convicted but pardoned by Governor Clinton. (Clinton says the pardon was so Lassater could qualify for a hunting license.) However, even as Lasater was being investigated for drug dealing Clinton's Arkansas Finance Authority awarded Lasater authority to underwrite a $30 million bond issue. An undertaking for which Lasater pocketed $750,000. The purpose of this bond issue for which the state of Arkansas awarded $750,000 to a drug dealer? An Arkansas state police communication facility. Clinton's pardon of Lasater raises an interesting point. Why won't Clinton promise to not pardon Susan McDougal (who is currently in jail because she refuses to testify about Clnton's role in the Whitewater scandal) and other Whitewater defendants? Clinton has already indicated a willingness to put the power of a presidential pardon to a personal purpose. Clinton has pardoned Jack Pakis a Hot Springs, Arkansas bookie and close friend of the Clinton family.
Given this, why is Clinton the favored candidate for president? Have our standards for the office of president fallen this far this fast? What does it say about us and our esteem for our nation that we would trust Bill Clinton with the United State of America.
A question should be asked of each vice-presidential candidate in the upcoming debate. "Would you want your daughter to marry a man with the personal character of your running mate?" Recall the question to Mike Dukasis about how he would view the death penalty if his wife Kitty was raped. Well, why not a similar question to Hillary. How would she feel if Chelsea brought home a boyfriend with the same character and integrity as Bill Clinton? (Some may be upset with me for bringing Hillary into the discussion. After all, they may retort, she is not running for office. Would it have been fair they ask to deny Lincoln the presidency because Mary Todd was a lunatic? To which I reply, Yes, if Lincoln had threatened to put Mary Todd in charge of the Union Army as Clinton tried to do with Hillary and health care.)
Two responses, and only two responses, are possible. One, all the charges against Clinton are false and Clinton is, in truth, a noble and honest - though much maligned - man. (This is the official White House position.) Two, the charges are, in whole or part, true but it just doesn't matter. Clinton's character is irrelevant to his fitness to serve as president.
If you opt for option number one, "Clinton is a wrongly-maligned honest man", than you probably also thought O.J. Simpson was framed. Halley Barber's line, "Clinton may not believe anything but his friends have convictions - for bank fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy..." resonates because it is true.
Two-thirds of the Rose law firm, the source of Clinton's closest colleagues including his wife, are either dead under suspicious circumstances (Vince Foster), in jail after serving in the Clinton administration (Webster Hubble) or under indictment or investigation by a special prosecutor (William Kennedy). A similar fate has befallen many of Clinton's other top advisors. Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros and Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy subject to independent counsel investigation; former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown subject to an independent counsel investigation prior to his death; Clinton understudy and friend Arkansas Governor Guy Tucker and Clinton business partners Jim and Susan McDougal jailed for 24 count conviction for bank fraud and conspiracy. Clinton testified on behalf of the McDougals and Governor Tucker. After the trial, jurors told reporters that they did not believe Clinton's testimony and several jurors stated that, based upon the evidence they considered, Clinton was definitely involved in the wrongdoing.
It is simply not possible to consider the incredible number of Friends Of Bill who are under indictment, under investigation by independent counsel, in jail or awaiting sentencing and conclude that all the charges against Clinton are false.
Clinton apologists reply that it is unfair to paint Clinton with the same brush as his jailed colleagues. Democrat Senator Chris Dodd claims that to view Clinton in light of his friends is to engage in "guilt by association". These defenders argue that Clinton has just suffered the misfortune of being surrounded by dishonest people and is not, himself, dishonest. This explanation, even if credible, is of little comfort. Do we want as president a man so lacking in judgment that he has a profoundly uncanny ability to choose as his closest advisors a collection of crooks and felons.
Bluntly put, Bill Clinton is an unmitigated, dissembling liar. What Clinton says is meant to deceive not to inform. During an interview on September 23rd with PBS's Jim Lehrer Clinton said, "There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of anything dishonest that I have done in my public life." Most of us hearing this proclamation would understand it to be a blanket denial of any wrongdoing. Clinton clearly intended to communicate this understanding. However, reread Clinton's statement. "There is not a single solitary shred of evidence...." Clinton does not deny dishonesty, rather he denies that there is any evidence of his dishonesty. Quite a different proposition. Continuing with a further qualification Clinton said, "...that I have done in my public life." The injection of "public life" presumes a distinction with Clinton's private life. Given the mountainous evidence of Clinton's dishonesty, we can only conclude that Clinton believes using drugs, funding his Arkansas gubernatorial campaigns, funding his presidential campaign, managing the WhiteHouse travel office and FBI files and formulating national policy are all part of his private life.
Option Two, "Clinton is dishonest but character doesn't count when choosing the President", is equally untenable. Consider the purpose of the election. For starters, this November we will decide who will take the constitutionally prescribed oath next January. A candidate for president does not become president by winning the election. The candidate must also take the oath of office and does not become president until he does so. (Recall the photograph of Lyndon Johnson taking the oath of office in Air Force One on the tarmac in Dallas standing next to a blood- splattered Jackie Kennedy.)
We do not make much of oaths now days. Yet, the men who crafted our form of government, founded our nation and authored the Constitution placed great significance on oaths and, correspondingly, the integrity of the individual taking the oath. A man's honesty and integrity were vitally important to our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrat party, wrote, "We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Of what value is Bill Clinton's "sacred honor" and to what cause would he pledge it? (Obviously not his wife, nor his country when called to military service.) More importantly, would you believe him if he did?
This is a more troubling question for my principled liberal friends. (Especially for those who make so much of Republican scandals whether it be Watergate, Iran- Contra or the Teapot Dome.) The most outrageous Republican is a piker compared to the mythomaniacs, miscreants and poltroons which populate the Clinton administration. (Will someone please tell me George Stephanopoulos's job description and how whatever it is he does furthers the legitimate business of the presidency.)
Those Democrats who support Clinton (and their allies in the media who overlook the Clinton scandals) have lost the right to ever again mention Watergate, Iran-Contra or any other allegation of Republican corruption.
Most liberals acknowledge Clinton's fundamental dishonesty. However, they appear willing to tolerate or overlook his moral failings because they believe Clinton will advance a liberal ideology and Bob Dole will oppose the liberal's agenda. But, in choosing Clinton as their standard bearer, what are liberals saying about their own integrity and the validity of their ideology?
How can the noble ideals proffered by the liberal be reconciled with the tawdry and untrustworthy reputation of their candidate? What does is say about the validity of liberalism that the adherents chosen advocate is a consummate fraud? In choosing Clinton as their candidate (a candidate who liberals support because they believe he will govern with a liberal bent even though he publicly campaigns as a conservative) aren't liberals saying that their agenda is best advanced by disguising and concealing their ideology and, by implication, recognizing that if American voters truly appreciated the liberal agenda they will reject the ideology?
If I believed I had a worthy policy to advance I would not choose an unworthy spokesman to advance the policy lest the message be sullied by the messenger. If I was trying to sell a drug to cure cancer I wouldn't choose Jack Kavorkian to be my spokesman.
Indeed, Clinton's failure to keep the faith even with political bed-mates is why two high-ranking administration officials resigned when Clinton signed the Republican welfare reform bill. A bill that Clinton had previously promised to veto. Abandoning Clinton is the only rational response available to honest liberals who truly believe in the merits of their ideology.
Others don't defend Clinton but disparage us. They argue: "So what if Clinton lies, uses drugs and cheats on his spouse, most American's behave this way and it is hypocritical to hold a leader to a standard higher than the standard by which we measure our own behavior."
While I don't agree that Clinton's behavior is characteristic of the typical American, I will grant this point for the sake of argument. Granted even that assertion, I dispute the central premise. Americans aspire to greatness and have always been an optimistic people. Our leaders should be the best from among us not the worst.
A far sadder event than a second Clinton term will be a second Clinton term because a majority of Americans believe a man of Clinton's integrity is representative of the character of our nation.
It has been said that hypocrisy is vice's tribute to virtue. Well, if so, Clinton should be Master of Ceremonies hosting a Telethon for Virtue. Within hours of being elected president Clinton proclaimed that his administration would be the most ethical ever. This promise was made in the context of Clinton's campaign attacks upon the Bush administration for, what Clinton claimed was, unethical behavior such as the State Department official who allegedly tried to pull Clinton's visa file and document Clinton's trip to the Soviet Union during the time Clinton was leading anti-American rallies overseas. Clinton was "shocked" at the Bush campaign's "outrageous" use of official personnel and records to gain an advantage on a political adversary. Clinton can not understand, however, why everyone seems so exercised about the hundreds of FBI files on Republican opponents he and Craig Livingston have squirreled away in the White House.
What does it mean when the victor of this fall's campaign will take the oath of office to lead our nation into the next millennium? For me I want to believe the man who places his hand on the Bible and says, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
November 5th is national examination day. The question is one of character. Not Clinton's character but our character; our character as a nation and as individual voters. And, if the answer is Bill Clinton, we all fail.
Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II
October 11, 1996
Permission is granted to freely copy and distribute this memorandum. 

(ABC) ANALYSIS: Donald Trump Takes Ownership of Republican Party

ABC ^ | Feb 20 2016 | Rick Klein 

Donald Trump now owns the Republican party. The only question left is whether what's left of the GOP establishment can winnow the field fast enough to take it back.

South Carolina reveals a three-way Republican race -- with six candidates in it. Pressure will be enormous for all but Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz to exit before it's too late for the party to block Trump.

What Trump has established himself, though, cannot and should not be ignored. He has mocked, taunted and threatened the party establishment on his way to his undisputed front-runner status.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Black Panthers are back -- and never really went away!

CNN ^ | February 17, 2016 | John Blake 

Beyonce didn't bring back the Black Panthers when she and an Afro-frizzed dance team donned black leather jackets and berets during Super Bowl 50's halftime show.

That's because the Black Panthers never actually left.

The Panthers were more than militants; they were pioneers in American pop and political culture. The Black Lives Matter movement, the rise of social media, music and sports, even Donald Trump -- all were shaped by the Panthers in some way, historians and ex-Panthers say.
On the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Black Panther Party, people are taking a second look at the group. A mesmerizing new film, "Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution," airs on PBS throughout this month and appears online. And Beyonce's tribute caused people to post vintage photos of the Panthers on social media sites and debate the group's purpose.
"They're always going to be a potent symbol because we live in a visual age," says Komozi Woodard, a history and Africana studies professor at Sarah Lawrence College in New York....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Saturday, February 20, 2016

GH Gas Claimers Virtually Admit They Know They Are Lying

London Telegraph ^ | February 19th, 2016 | reasonmclucus 

If those who claim that carbon dioxide has some special insulating properties really believe their claims, why aren’t they encouraging the use of carbon dioxide to insulate buildings in winter. If concentrations of CO2 of only a few hundred parts per million can cause earth to become warmer then pure carbon dioxide used as an insulation for buildings should be even more effective at holding in heat. If CO2 could be used as insulation, CO2 emissions would be collected so the gas could be used to insulate buildings
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The First Year of President Bernie Sanders

The Sultan Knish blog ^ | Thursday, February 18, 2016 | Daniel Greenfield 

Skyrocketing crime rate in California called 'good progress' after jails emptied

American Thinker ^   | 06/16/2018 | Ed Straker  Here's a thought experiment: what happens if you release criminals, a lot of them, f...