Sunday, January 3, 2016
The End of the Beginning - The Road to the White House
US Defense Watch ^ | January 2, 2016 | Ray Starmann
After the British victory at the Battle of the Second El Alamein in November of 1942, Winston Churchill spoke to the British people. Churchill eloquently stated, “Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.â€
Perhaps, the same can be said of the opening salvos of the 2016 Presidential Election. We have watched numerous debates on both sides, filled with candidates grandiose and not very grandiose. Gradually, the field is being thinned and on February 1, 2016, the games truly begin at the Iowa Caucuses.
Let’s take a look at the field:
The Democrats:
James Webb – As USDW has mentioned before, Webb’s continual membership in the Democrat Party is something of a mystery, on par with who built the pyramids and how many classified emails did Hillary send through the server in the Rocky Mountain commode? Webb is genuine hero with real world national security experience. He’s also a proud gun owner, which really puts him out to pasture in a field of candidates more anti Second Amendment than Stalin. Simply, Webb needs to pop smoke and make a massive retreat from the Democrat Party as soon as possible.
Martin O’Malley – JAYDEM, Just Another Yankee Democrat, O’Malley encompasses every trait of an Eastern Seaboard liberal. He’s big government, the former mayor of Baltimore, and profusely anti-gun. He has no chance, except to perhaps convince Madam Secretary that he would add sugar and spice to her eventual ticket. But, if she wants sugar, I guess she can always call Huma.
Bernie Sanders – The Man from Leningrad, Sanders has drawn a left-wing version of a Ron Paul-esque type following. The only difference is that Ron Paul’s supporters were and are for freedom and limited government, Sanders merry minions call for more Big Brother intrusion, endless free government handouts and the end of capitalism itself. Oh, and why not confiscate some guns in the process. Sanders is actually quite proficient at declaring what the country’s many problems are, the problem is that his solutions are from a page out of the communist manifesto. No, Bernie the government is not going to put a million dollar cap on peoples’ salaries. Dasvidaniya, tovarich.
And, then there’s Hillary…
Hillary is sort of a modern day Maude character, except she’s substituted the free flowing colored outfits of the 70’s, for the Angela Merkel executive pants suit line. Unlike Maude, who actually knew what the heck she was talking about, Hillary doesn’t really know anything. She is a walking Potemkin Village façade of competence and knowledge, when in fact her “expertise†in everything from national security to the economy is nothing more than a front for incompetence, narcissism and criminal actions. The Democrat Party and her loyal following of single women have bought into the idea that somehow she deserves the nomination. Why?
The Republican candidates:
Jeb – Jeb has a lot of money behind him and not much else. His moderate, take no chances, wallflower campaign is not energizing voters. The American public is not looking to elect Grandma Walton, they want Churchill. They want Reagan. They want a Terminator who will kick butt and take names. Jeb looks and acts like the guy who ran the stamp club in high school. Jeb can’t match his intelligence and competence with any amount of bravado. He’ll keep going through primary after primary like a guy on a golf course playing endless holes in the rain, until the club pro tells him to clear off.
Carly – She’s one tough lady. I’d love to see her debate Hillary. It would be a virtual verbal destruction derby with Hillary’s pear-shaped body pushed off the stage like a smoldering wreck. Carly hasn’t really done anything wrong. Unfortunately, she’s in a lineup with too many other talented people. At best, she could surface as a Vice Presidential candidate. We haven’t seen the last of her.
Rand – Rand is sort of like Ron Paul Light. Rand is certainly a conservative, but he doesn’t have that fire and brimstone, Sam Adams liberty fire like his dad. Nor, does he have the Benjamin Franklin wisdom of Ron Paul. Rand is a little bit of libertarianism, with a lot of Bluegrass everyday conservative values. In an era of ISIS marauding across the planet, Paul’s isolationist ideas have caught fire like a pack of wet matches.
Christie – Every time I look at Christie I think a Sopranos movie with Christie as a recently ousted governor who’s now boosting library books with Paulie Walnuts and reselling them on Amazon. I like Christie, but I think he has a hard time stepping out of the Jersey persona. Like Jeb, Christie is smart and competent. But, his candidacy hasn’t caught on. Like Carly, he’s swimming against the Trump rip current and being carried further and further out to sea until he takes his last breath of parmesan and drowns.
Rubio – Rubio is a man before his time. I don’t believe that 2016 is the Year of Marco Rubio. But, 2020 might be. Rubio is smart and certainly has in depth knowledge of every political concept and theory thrown his way. Rubio may be looked at as too young. He conveys youth, perhaps too much youth. He and Cruz are nearly the same age, but Cruz comes off as more mature.
Cruz – Ted Cruz is waiting for just one thing, the self-destruction or the RNC destruction of Donald Trump’s candidacy. Can this happen? Maybe, but only at the end, when the body politic realizes that Trump may not be able to beat Hillary and therefore, quickly switches allegiance to Cruz at the very end, perhaps at the convention. The GOP Convention in August could very well be Count Chocula Cruz’s finest moment. Standby…
Trump – Can the Donald do anything to sabotage himself? I’m starting to doubt it. Trump could run naked through Times Square speaking in tongues and his poll numbers would probably hit the roof. Trump is doing just about everything right and what he says and does wrong doesn’t seem to matter. Whether the public will continue to view him as the man they want in the White House is to be seen. But, all signs point to a nomination.
Carson – Dr. Cool has perhaps peaked. Carson is a brilliant man who would make a great cabinet member. Look for his numbers to continue sliding into oblivion.
Pataki, Santorum, Gilmore, Huckabee – Time to take the consolation prize and go home boys. Lindsey Graham’s driving the bus.
All aboard!
USDW predicts that Hillary will get the Democrat nomination. The only thing that could stop this would be an indictment for committing about 100 national security felonies and misdemeanors. But, it will all be shoved under a very large rug in the Oval Office. As mentioned, most likely Trump will get the nomination, but it’s not set in stone. A Trump/Hillary contest would be highly entertaining to say the least.
There is the wild card scenario, which would be fascinating to see played out.
What if you went to the polls in November and had these choices?
Democrat – Hillary Socialist – Bernie Sanders Independent Freedom Party – Jimmy Webb Republican – Cruz Independent Liberty Party – Trump
Of course the chances of something like this are remote at best, but it would be interesting to run the numbers.
Now that we’re past the New Year, cry havoc and let slip, the political dogs of war!
After the British victory at the Battle of the Second El Alamein in November of 1942, Winston Churchill spoke to the British people. Churchill eloquently stated, “Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.â€
Perhaps, the same can be said of the opening salvos of the 2016 Presidential Election. We have watched numerous debates on both sides, filled with candidates grandiose and not very grandiose. Gradually, the field is being thinned and on February 1, 2016, the games truly begin at the Iowa Caucuses.
Let’s take a look at the field:
The Democrats:
James Webb – As USDW has mentioned before, Webb’s continual membership in the Democrat Party is something of a mystery, on par with who built the pyramids and how many classified emails did Hillary send through the server in the Rocky Mountain commode? Webb is genuine hero with real world national security experience. He’s also a proud gun owner, which really puts him out to pasture in a field of candidates more anti Second Amendment than Stalin. Simply, Webb needs to pop smoke and make a massive retreat from the Democrat Party as soon as possible.
Martin O’Malley – JAYDEM, Just Another Yankee Democrat, O’Malley encompasses every trait of an Eastern Seaboard liberal. He’s big government, the former mayor of Baltimore, and profusely anti-gun. He has no chance, except to perhaps convince Madam Secretary that he would add sugar and spice to her eventual ticket. But, if she wants sugar, I guess she can always call Huma.
Bernie Sanders – The Man from Leningrad, Sanders has drawn a left-wing version of a Ron Paul-esque type following. The only difference is that Ron Paul’s supporters were and are for freedom and limited government, Sanders merry minions call for more Big Brother intrusion, endless free government handouts and the end of capitalism itself. Oh, and why not confiscate some guns in the process. Sanders is actually quite proficient at declaring what the country’s many problems are, the problem is that his solutions are from a page out of the communist manifesto. No, Bernie the government is not going to put a million dollar cap on peoples’ salaries. Dasvidaniya, tovarich.
And, then there’s Hillary…
Hillary is sort of a modern day Maude character, except she’s substituted the free flowing colored outfits of the 70’s, for the Angela Merkel executive pants suit line. Unlike Maude, who actually knew what the heck she was talking about, Hillary doesn’t really know anything. She is a walking Potemkin Village façade of competence and knowledge, when in fact her “expertise†in everything from national security to the economy is nothing more than a front for incompetence, narcissism and criminal actions. The Democrat Party and her loyal following of single women have bought into the idea that somehow she deserves the nomination. Why?
The Republican candidates:
Jeb – Jeb has a lot of money behind him and not much else. His moderate, take no chances, wallflower campaign is not energizing voters. The American public is not looking to elect Grandma Walton, they want Churchill. They want Reagan. They want a Terminator who will kick butt and take names. Jeb looks and acts like the guy who ran the stamp club in high school. Jeb can’t match his intelligence and competence with any amount of bravado. He’ll keep going through primary after primary like a guy on a golf course playing endless holes in the rain, until the club pro tells him to clear off.
Carly – She’s one tough lady. I’d love to see her debate Hillary. It would be a virtual verbal destruction derby with Hillary’s pear-shaped body pushed off the stage like a smoldering wreck. Carly hasn’t really done anything wrong. Unfortunately, she’s in a lineup with too many other talented people. At best, she could surface as a Vice Presidential candidate. We haven’t seen the last of her.
Rand – Rand is sort of like Ron Paul Light. Rand is certainly a conservative, but he doesn’t have that fire and brimstone, Sam Adams liberty fire like his dad. Nor, does he have the Benjamin Franklin wisdom of Ron Paul. Rand is a little bit of libertarianism, with a lot of Bluegrass everyday conservative values. In an era of ISIS marauding across the planet, Paul’s isolationist ideas have caught fire like a pack of wet matches.
Christie – Every time I look at Christie I think a Sopranos movie with Christie as a recently ousted governor who’s now boosting library books with Paulie Walnuts and reselling them on Amazon. I like Christie, but I think he has a hard time stepping out of the Jersey persona. Like Jeb, Christie is smart and competent. But, his candidacy hasn’t caught on. Like Carly, he’s swimming against the Trump rip current and being carried further and further out to sea until he takes his last breath of parmesan and drowns.
Rubio – Rubio is a man before his time. I don’t believe that 2016 is the Year of Marco Rubio. But, 2020 might be. Rubio is smart and certainly has in depth knowledge of every political concept and theory thrown his way. Rubio may be looked at as too young. He conveys youth, perhaps too much youth. He and Cruz are nearly the same age, but Cruz comes off as more mature.
Cruz – Ted Cruz is waiting for just one thing, the self-destruction or the RNC destruction of Donald Trump’s candidacy. Can this happen? Maybe, but only at the end, when the body politic realizes that Trump may not be able to beat Hillary and therefore, quickly switches allegiance to Cruz at the very end, perhaps at the convention. The GOP Convention in August could very well be Count Chocula Cruz’s finest moment. Standby…
Trump – Can the Donald do anything to sabotage himself? I’m starting to doubt it. Trump could run naked through Times Square speaking in tongues and his poll numbers would probably hit the roof. Trump is doing just about everything right and what he says and does wrong doesn’t seem to matter. Whether the public will continue to view him as the man they want in the White House is to be seen. But, all signs point to a nomination.
Carson – Dr. Cool has perhaps peaked. Carson is a brilliant man who would make a great cabinet member. Look for his numbers to continue sliding into oblivion.
Pataki, Santorum, Gilmore, Huckabee – Time to take the consolation prize and go home boys. Lindsey Graham’s driving the bus.
All aboard!
USDW predicts that Hillary will get the Democrat nomination. The only thing that could stop this would be an indictment for committing about 100 national security felonies and misdemeanors. But, it will all be shoved under a very large rug in the Oval Office. As mentioned, most likely Trump will get the nomination, but it’s not set in stone. A Trump/Hillary contest would be highly entertaining to say the least.
There is the wild card scenario, which would be fascinating to see played out.
What if you went to the polls in November and had these choices?
Democrat – Hillary Socialist – Bernie Sanders Independent Freedom Party – Jimmy Webb Republican – Cruz Independent Liberty Party – Trump
Of course the chances of something like this are remote at best, but it would be interesting to run the numbers.
Now that we’re past the New Year, cry havoc and let slip, the political dogs of war!
America’s Political Parties Are Just Tribes Now!
The Daily Beast ^ | January 2, 2016 | Matt Lewis
In 2015, once high-minded disagreements over policy and ideology descended into something much more primitive.
When it comes to politics, in 2015 we witnessed nothing less than a paradigm shift. The old rules are out the window. Technology and changing mores have conspired to lower barriers of entry--and acceptability. Gatekeepers no longer exist. What we have right now is closer to direct democracy than we've ever seen, and our civilization is regressing as a result.
One party (the Democrats) already represents the liberal half of the nation. The other half seems to consist of modern, Buckleyite conservatives, but also an increasingly large horde populist, nationalist, individualistic Americans--who now have a megaphone and a vessel in the form of Donald Trump.
Times change, and political parties adapt or are replaced. And make no mistake; if the Party of Lincoln becomes the Party of Trump, it would essentially redefine what it means to be a Republican. Conservatism, a coherent political philosophy, looks as if it's being replaced by messy right-wing populism....
In 2015, once high-minded disagreements over policy and ideology descended into something much more primitive.
When it comes to politics, in 2015 we witnessed nothing less than a paradigm shift. The old rules are out the window. Technology and changing mores have conspired to lower barriers of entry--and acceptability. Gatekeepers no longer exist. What we have right now is closer to direct democracy than we've ever seen, and our civilization is regressing as a result.
One party (the Democrats) already represents the liberal half of the nation. The other half seems to consist of modern, Buckleyite conservatives, but also an increasingly large horde populist, nationalist, individualistic Americans--who now have a megaphone and a vessel in the form of Donald Trump.
Times change, and political parties adapt or are replaced. And make no mistake; if the Party of Lincoln becomes the Party of Trump, it would essentially redefine what it means to be a Republican. Conservatism, a coherent political philosophy, looks as if it's being replaced by messy right-wing populism....
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
DC Black Lives Matter Activists Demand ‘Defunding, Disorganizing, Dismantling the Police’!
Brietbart's Big Government ^ | January 1, 2016 | John Sexton
Black Lives Matter protesters held a rally Thursday night to protest the lack of indictment in the Tamir Rice and Sandra Bland cases. The rally of about 100 people blocked streets in DC's Chinatown area, which is only a few blocks east of the White House.
One protester told local CBS affiliate WUSA9, "I hope to interrupt enough people's New Years so they understand that this is serious. That Tamir Rice should have gotten justice. That Sandra Bland should have gotten justice."
Video of the rally uploaded to YouTube shows one protest organizer, identified as Marybeth Onyeukwu, saying the lack of an indictment in the death of Sandra Bland was proof there is no hope for justice under the current system:
We're talking about a system. The whole damn system is guilty as hell. There is no justice for us in this current system. So we're not just protesting we are demanding a new world. And a new world means, I want you all to hear me, a new world means defunding, disorganizing and dismantling the police. It means defunding, disorganizing and dismantling the police....
Black Lives Matter protesters held a rally Thursday night to protest the lack of indictment in the Tamir Rice and Sandra Bland cases. The rally of about 100 people blocked streets in DC's Chinatown area, which is only a few blocks east of the White House.
One protester told local CBS affiliate WUSA9, "I hope to interrupt enough people's New Years so they understand that this is serious. That Tamir Rice should have gotten justice. That Sandra Bland should have gotten justice."
Video of the rally uploaded to YouTube shows one protest organizer, identified as Marybeth Onyeukwu, saying the lack of an indictment in the death of Sandra Bland was proof there is no hope for justice under the current system:
We're talking about a system. The whole damn system is guilty as hell. There is no justice for us in this current system. So we're not just protesting we are demanding a new world. And a new world means, I want you all to hear me, a new world means defunding, disorganizing and dismantling the police. It means defunding, disorganizing and dismantling the police....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Texas governor challenges Obama to 'come and take' the Lone Star state's guns!
UK Daily Mail ^ | 3 January 2016 | Kelly McLaughlin
Texas Gov Greg Abbott criticized President Barack Obama's plan to move ahead with possible executive actions on guns in a tweet in which he told the Commander-in-Chief to 'come & take' the state's guns.
Obama said in his weekly radio address that he is looking for ways to keep guns out of the hands of 'a dangerous few' without depending on Congress to pass a law on the fraught subject of gun control.
He plans to meet his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on Monday to see what executive actions might be possible. Steps to strengthen background checks could come this week.
At a rally in Biloxi, Mississippi, tonight Donald Trump also pledged to undo any action Obama takes on gun control if he wins the next election.
Texas Gov Greg Abbott criticized President Barack Obama's plan to move ahead with possible executive actions on guns in a tweet in which he told the Commander-in-Chief to 'come & take' the state's guns.
Obama said in his weekly radio address that he is looking for ways to keep guns out of the hands of 'a dangerous few' without depending on Congress to pass a law on the fraught subject of gun control.
He plans to meet his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on Monday to see what executive actions might be possible. Steps to strengthen background checks could come this week.
At a rally in Biloxi, Mississippi, tonight Donald Trump also pledged to undo any action Obama takes on gun control if he wins the next election.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Vote For the Candidate Both Sides Fear
Godfather Poitics ^ | 1/1/2016 | Common Constitutionalist
Yes, Cruz is the real deal. No need to take my word for it. Just look and listen. It's as Limbaugh says: the left and the establishment right will always tell you who they fear the most.
Sure, they hate both Trump and Cruz. The hatred for Trump is understandable, from their standpoint. He makes Republicans look bad. He's intolerant and generally causes them embarrassment.
But the antipathy for Cruz is born of fear. They fear the end of the government gravy train if he gets elected. They fear that with Cruz at the helm, Americans may just discover they don’t actually need Washington involved in every facet of their lives. They fear an uncompromising constitutional standard bearer as head of the party.
So their strategy is to send out trusted surrogates to trash the candidate and place the seed of doubt in voters' minds (and big-money backers) that a Cruz nomination will surely equal a Hillary win.
Case in point: Moderate Republican shill and former George W. Bush communications director Nicolle Wallace said in an interview regarding Ted Cruz: "He is truly despised [by Republicans] - he is not a team player" and is apparently the king of "hubris and egomania." She, like almost all other establishment hacks, pundits, and politicians are just plain befuddled, as Wallace, with an uncomfortable laugh, tells the interviewer that Cruz is "at the top of the polls in Iowa, so I think voters are saying they just don't care."
The key here is not so much that Cruz is despised or is tops in hubris and egomania. No, it's that "he is not a team player." I'm reminded of the film Johnny Dangerously. A gangster boss known as Johnny Dangerously is actually Johnny Kelly. His younger brother Tommy Kelly has no idea he is the notorious mob boss Dangerously. Tommy is appointed assistant District Attorney and vows to bring down the infamous gangster. The D.A., who's on the mob's take, invites Tommy to his palatial estate, which is all courtesy of gangster payoffs. He tells Tommy, he too could have what the D.A. has, as he proclaims, "It's all yours Tommy, if you play ball! What do you say?" To which Tommy replies, "I'll see you in prison!"
With this unfortunate confirmation of the assistant D.A.'s lack of cooperation, the mob, unknown to Dangerously, attempts to "take out" his younger brother Tommy.
Ted Cruz is Tommy Kelly. He must be taken out.
Wallace explains that, "these are good Republicans who worked in the Bush administration and who clerked in the Supreme Court who say they would have a really hard time voting for Ted Cruz if he were the Republican standard bearer."
What can you say to an exclamation such as that, but WOW! I've been holding my nose and pulling the lever for progressive establishment Republicans since 1988, and these people have the nerve to cry over one conservative candidate? Look at who we’ve been conned and bullied into supporting - all for the good of the precious party - George H.W. Bush, the kinder/gentler progressive. Bob Dole's nomination was equivalent to a lifetime achievement award. And of course the other two loser establishment picks: McCain and Romney.
And we're not allowed one candidate? This inner circle of power and control is very exclusive and conservatives are not allowed a seat at the table, but they want our votes to pay for the table and chairs and fund their party and hire us as the wait staff.
What have we conservatives been saying all along? If someone like Cruz or Trump gets the nomination, the establishment would much prefer a Hillary presidency and this is the exact veiled threat the establishment kingmakers sent Wallace out to disseminate.
They are scared to death of Ted Cruz. It is a delight to see and I personally count it as a gift to finally be able to back someone I believe in - not someone we have to settle on, or like Romney, try to convince ourselves that he will be okay. We finally have someone for whom we don't have to constantly wonder, "Is he for real this time?"
Yes, Cruz is the real deal. No need to take my word for it. Just look and listen. It's as Limbaugh says: the left and the establishment right will always tell you who they fear the most.
Sure, they hate both Trump and Cruz. The hatred for Trump is understandable, from their standpoint. He makes Republicans look bad. He's intolerant and generally causes them embarrassment.
But the antipathy for Cruz is born of fear. They fear the end of the government gravy train if he gets elected. They fear that with Cruz at the helm, Americans may just discover they don’t actually need Washington involved in every facet of their lives. They fear an uncompromising constitutional standard bearer as head of the party.
So their strategy is to send out trusted surrogates to trash the candidate and place the seed of doubt in voters' minds (and big-money backers) that a Cruz nomination will surely equal a Hillary win.
Case in point: Moderate Republican shill and former George W. Bush communications director Nicolle Wallace said in an interview regarding Ted Cruz: "He is truly despised [by Republicans] - he is not a team player" and is apparently the king of "hubris and egomania." She, like almost all other establishment hacks, pundits, and politicians are just plain befuddled, as Wallace, with an uncomfortable laugh, tells the interviewer that Cruz is "at the top of the polls in Iowa, so I think voters are saying they just don't care."
The key here is not so much that Cruz is despised or is tops in hubris and egomania. No, it's that "he is not a team player." I'm reminded of the film Johnny Dangerously. A gangster boss known as Johnny Dangerously is actually Johnny Kelly. His younger brother Tommy Kelly has no idea he is the notorious mob boss Dangerously. Tommy is appointed assistant District Attorney and vows to bring down the infamous gangster. The D.A., who's on the mob's take, invites Tommy to his palatial estate, which is all courtesy of gangster payoffs. He tells Tommy, he too could have what the D.A. has, as he proclaims, "It's all yours Tommy, if you play ball! What do you say?" To which Tommy replies, "I'll see you in prison!"
With this unfortunate confirmation of the assistant D.A.'s lack of cooperation, the mob, unknown to Dangerously, attempts to "take out" his younger brother Tommy.
Ted Cruz is Tommy Kelly. He must be taken out.
Wallace explains that, "these are good Republicans who worked in the Bush administration and who clerked in the Supreme Court who say they would have a really hard time voting for Ted Cruz if he were the Republican standard bearer."
What can you say to an exclamation such as that, but WOW! I've been holding my nose and pulling the lever for progressive establishment Republicans since 1988, and these people have the nerve to cry over one conservative candidate? Look at who we’ve been conned and bullied into supporting - all for the good of the precious party - George H.W. Bush, the kinder/gentler progressive. Bob Dole's nomination was equivalent to a lifetime achievement award. And of course the other two loser establishment picks: McCain and Romney.
And we're not allowed one candidate? This inner circle of power and control is very exclusive and conservatives are not allowed a seat at the table, but they want our votes to pay for the table and chairs and fund their party and hire us as the wait staff.
What have we conservatives been saying all along? If someone like Cruz or Trump gets the nomination, the establishment would much prefer a Hillary presidency and this is the exact veiled threat the establishment kingmakers sent Wallace out to disseminate.
They are scared to death of Ted Cruz. It is a delight to see and I personally count it as a gift to finally be able to back someone I believe in - not someone we have to settle on, or like Romney, try to convince ourselves that he will be okay. We finally have someone for whom we don't have to constantly wonder, "Is he for real this time?"
Is the Alzheimer’s Pandemic Caused by Society’s Lack of Respect for the Elderly?
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/13379.2.0.0/society/is-the-alzheimers-pandemic-caused-by-societys-lack-of-respect-for-the-elderly ^ | Jan 1, 2016
The Alzheimer’s pandemic has long been a dark riddle. What are its causes? Why has it apparently become much more widespread just in the last few generations? Why does it afflict some nations more aggressively than others? Why do twice as many women suffer from it than men? And what can we do to fight back against this terrible, incurable disease?
These crucial questions have long remained unanswered.
But a new study by Yale School of Public Health offers some possible answers—answers with implications for both the young and the old.
According to the study, the main cause of Alzheimer’s may be societies’ absence of respect for elderly people.
It basically says that individuals who are conditioned by society to believe that they will lose their mental acuity and health when they grow old most likely will. It says that people who succumb to worrying, negative thinking and feeling obsolete are under a great deal of stress, and this stress can actually change their brains in a way that leads to Alzheimer’s and other kinds of dementia.
The logic of the conclusion is easy to understand: When someone who is negative about aging begins growing old, they will put forth less effort. They will use fewer adaptive strategies, and will try to avoid challenging situations. And since the brain is a “use it or lose it†organ, avoiding challenges and reducing effort leads to physical deterioration.
The study, called “A Culture–Brain Link: Negative Age Stereotypes Predict Alzheimer’s Disease Biomarkers,†was published on December 7 in the journal Psychology and Aging. (You can read more about the methodology here.)
This study’s findings are important because they help explain why rates of dementia are so much higher in Western nations like the United States and Britain than in such countries as India, Cambodia and Greece—where aging is celebrated and elderly people are respected.
America’s ‘Forever 21′ Culture
The societies of America, the United Kingdom and most other Western nations today are not only obsessed with youth, but also openly hostile toward aging.
“Institutionalized prejudice against aging is condoned by our society,†wrote Todd D. Nelson, an associate professor of social psychology at California State University–Stanislaus. “Americans shun older people because they are obsessed with youth and beauty,†he said.
American sociologist Jean Potuchek said, “Our society seems to assume that youth is a time when we are developing and when our bodies and minds are sharp and capable. Age, by contrast, is seen as a time when we are declining and our bodies and minds are dull and losing their capabilities.â€
Experts say the media plays a major role in these perceptions. The elderly are usually painted as irrelevant, slow-thinking, chronically ill, unable to work, and burdensome. Their wisdom—if they are shown to have any at all—is depicted as outdated and useless.
In Social Issues in America, author James Ciment said: “The media, in particular, emphasize the positive attributes of the young.†By contrast, “the elderly are generally excluded from the media, except as figures of amusement or ridicule.â€
In Learning to Love Growing Old, Jere Daniel explains: “Influenced by the fairy tales we hear as children, and what we see on television and hear in everyday life, we develop negative stereotypes about aging by the time we are 6 years old .… These stereotypes persist as we grow up, completely unaware that we even acquired them or granted them our unconditional acceptance. With our understanding of the subject forever frozen, we grow into old age assuming the stereotypes to be true. And we live down to them.â€
Far too many people in America, Britain and most other modern societies buy into the negativity about aging—with devastating results. But some cultures hold a far more positive view of aging and of elderly people.
Societies Esteeming the Elderly
In parts of India the elderly usually live with their children and grandchildren for life. And all members of the family hold them in high regard.
Achyut Bihani of the Institute of Management Calcutta explained: “In a typical Indian joint family … the eldest members head the household. Advice is always sought from them on a range of issues, from investment of family money to nitty-gritties of traditional wedding rituals and intra-family conflicts. And this is not just passive advice; their word is final in settling disputes.â€
Bihani said that disrespecting the elders of the family or sending them to live in a nursing home has a strong social stigma.
The situation is similar in Cambodia, where elders live with their extended family for life and the younger members demonstrate great respect toward them. CambodianWelfare.org says, “Elders are respected by all age groups; they stay with the family for comfort and support. In many families, elders are expected to prepare meals and take care of grandchildren while wife and husband work.â€
In India and Cambodia, the reported rate of Alzheimer’s deaths is 0.46 people per 100,000.
Compare that to a rate of 24.4 in the United Kingdom, 35.5 in Canada, and 45.6 in the United States.
This means a British person is 53 times more likely to die of Alzheimer’s or dementia than an Indian or Cambodian. A Canadian is 77 times more likely, and the life of an American is 100 times more likely to end in that tragic way.
What About Differences in Life Expectancy?
Some may say the only reason the U.S. and UK have higher Alzheimer’s rates than places like India and Cambodia is simply because people live longer in the Western nations. Since more Americans and Brits live to reach old age, more develop age-related diseases.
It’s true that life expectancy often plays a role in the differing rates of Alzheimer’s between nations. But the example of Greece shows that is not always the reason for the vast disparity.
The average Greek person lives to be 81 years old. That’s two years longer than the average American, and about the same as the average British person. Yet, the rate of Alzheimer’s/dementia in Greece is only 2.74 per 100,000 people. That is 8 times lower than in the UK and 17 times lower than in the United States!
The massive difference may well be because of the positive view Greeks have of aging and the aged. The 2006 book On Becoming Fearless says: “[I]n all of Greece … the idea of honoring old age, indeed identifying it with wisdom and closeness to God, is in startling contrast to the way we treat aging in America.â€
Even still, the findings of this new study are not the last word on Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. From nation to nation, there are stark differences in diet, lifestyle and medical reporting methods. These and numerous other factors could contribute to the differing rates from nation to nation.
Nevertheless, the evidence saying that the main factor is societies’ attitude toward aging is strong.
And a look at the Bible makes clear that viewing aging and the aged negatively is contrary to God’s law.
The Young Should Honor the Aged
God says younger people should “rise up before the hoary head†and “honor the face of the old man†(Leviticus 19:32).
God sees gray hair on a person as a “crown of glory†(Proverbs 16:31). And He wants people of all ages to view elderly people as He does.
When young people fail to respect the aged members of society, they miss out on some invaluable resources: “With the very aged is wisdom, and with length of days understanding,†says Job 12:12 (Young’s Literal).
Numerous other Bible passages reiterate this same truth.
God’s plan allots most individuals about 70 years or so to live, to make decisions, and to learn about life. That doesn’t mean age always leads to wisdom (see Ecclesiastes 4:13 and Job 32:6-9). But in general, people who have lived longer will have acquired more wisdom. And younger people would benefit immensely from integrating that wisdom into their lives.
If younger people learn to respect old age, they will also benefit later in their lives when they themselves grow old. Rather than succumbing to feelings of negativity about aging, they’ll be grateful to live through the latter chapters of their lives. With a positive view of aging, they will be likely to retain their mental health and acuity for their entire lives.
If young people want to obey God and reap the benefits of living life the way He designed it, we will go out of our way to reverence our senior citizens. And we will rid our thinking of the toxic negativity about aging that society instills in us.
Wear Your ‘Crown of Glory’ Proudly!
The findings of the new Yale study also carry a clear message for older people: No good comes from believing the negativity about aging—no matter how deeply that negativity is entrenched into society.
Buying into such beliefs becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. View old age as a problem, and it will be a problem. Expect your memory to fade, and it will fade. See aging as an incurable disease, and it may well lead to incurable disease.
If a person puts forth less effort, uses fewer adaptive strategies, and avoids challenging situations, his brain will suffer. The quality of his thoughts will decline, his memory will dull, and his mental ability will wane. In some cases, Alzheimer’s will even set in.
The solution is to reject society’s negativity about aging and to wear the “crown of glory†proudly!
Do you want to believe the writers of The Simpsons or the Writer who inspired the book of Psalms?
Psalm 92:14 says that “even in old age,†people can “produce fruit†and “remain vital and green†(New Living).
An Inspiring Example
The Bible also shows us dozens of amazing examples of specific men and women who accomplished this. And it shows how they did it.
When Caleb, son of Jephunneh, was 85 years old, he was every bit as strong and sharp as he had been at age 40!
“I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me … to explore the land. … Here I am today, eighty-five years old! I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I’m just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then†(Joshua 14:7-11; New International).
That is an amazing statement. At age 85, Caleb felt no decline at all from how he had felt during his prime. In light of that, you could say, his prime was actually still happening at age 85!
Because of his confidence and strength, 85-year-old Caleb asked to be given a swath of land adjacent to a nation of powerful people who were hostile to the Israelites. He was not afraid to confront them to defend his inheritance. In fact, he was eager to do so! (verse 12).
How could an 85-year-old man be just as strong and sharp as he had been at age 40?
It was for three main reasons. First, it was because Caleb was highly active from age 40 to 85, wandering in the wilderness, fighting vigorous battles, walking many miles on most days, and pressing toward the goal of the Promise Land. He was pushing himself physically and mentally.
The second reason Caleb remained mentally and physically strong ties in in to the new Yale study: He lived in a society that respected its elders. The above-mentioned passage from Leviticus 19, in which God commanded younger people to “rise up†before their elders was a command given to the society Caleb lived in. And it was enforced in that society. The elders were respected.
In this one way—respecting elders—Ancient Israel was more like modern day India, Cambodia and Greece than it was like modern day American and Britain. Caleb was respected. His wisdom was valued. That contributed to the fact that he did not deteriorate from age 40 to age 85.
Both of these factors greatly contributed to Caleb’s vigor. But Caleb pointed to a third factor which he said was the major reason why he retained his vitality: I am still as strong today because “I wholly followed the eternal my God†(Joshua 14:8).
If we are following God with our whole hearts, we’ll never retire from spiritual labor. If we are following God with our whole hearts, we won’t buy the lies that media and society tell us about age. Instead we will continually push ourselves to be growing. Instead of trying to avoid challenges and stressful situations, we will seek them out! If we are following God with our whole hearts, we will wear our gray hair proudly, as a “crown of gloryâ€!
The Alzheimer’s pandemic has long been a dark riddle. What are its causes? Why has it apparently become much more widespread just in the last few generations? Why does it afflict some nations more aggressively than others? Why do twice as many women suffer from it than men? And what can we do to fight back against this terrible, incurable disease?
These crucial questions have long remained unanswered.
But a new study by Yale School of Public Health offers some possible answers—answers with implications for both the young and the old.
According to the study, the main cause of Alzheimer’s may be societies’ absence of respect for elderly people.
It basically says that individuals who are conditioned by society to believe that they will lose their mental acuity and health when they grow old most likely will. It says that people who succumb to worrying, negative thinking and feeling obsolete are under a great deal of stress, and this stress can actually change their brains in a way that leads to Alzheimer’s and other kinds of dementia.
The logic of the conclusion is easy to understand: When someone who is negative about aging begins growing old, they will put forth less effort. They will use fewer adaptive strategies, and will try to avoid challenging situations. And since the brain is a “use it or lose it†organ, avoiding challenges and reducing effort leads to physical deterioration.
The study, called “A Culture–Brain Link: Negative Age Stereotypes Predict Alzheimer’s Disease Biomarkers,†was published on December 7 in the journal Psychology and Aging. (You can read more about the methodology here.)
This study’s findings are important because they help explain why rates of dementia are so much higher in Western nations like the United States and Britain than in such countries as India, Cambodia and Greece—where aging is celebrated and elderly people are respected.
America’s ‘Forever 21′ Culture
The societies of America, the United Kingdom and most other Western nations today are not only obsessed with youth, but also openly hostile toward aging.
“Institutionalized prejudice against aging is condoned by our society,†wrote Todd D. Nelson, an associate professor of social psychology at California State University–Stanislaus. “Americans shun older people because they are obsessed with youth and beauty,†he said.
American sociologist Jean Potuchek said, “Our society seems to assume that youth is a time when we are developing and when our bodies and minds are sharp and capable. Age, by contrast, is seen as a time when we are declining and our bodies and minds are dull and losing their capabilities.â€
Experts say the media plays a major role in these perceptions. The elderly are usually painted as irrelevant, slow-thinking, chronically ill, unable to work, and burdensome. Their wisdom—if they are shown to have any at all—is depicted as outdated and useless.
In Social Issues in America, author James Ciment said: “The media, in particular, emphasize the positive attributes of the young.†By contrast, “the elderly are generally excluded from the media, except as figures of amusement or ridicule.â€
In Learning to Love Growing Old, Jere Daniel explains: “Influenced by the fairy tales we hear as children, and what we see on television and hear in everyday life, we develop negative stereotypes about aging by the time we are 6 years old .… These stereotypes persist as we grow up, completely unaware that we even acquired them or granted them our unconditional acceptance. With our understanding of the subject forever frozen, we grow into old age assuming the stereotypes to be true. And we live down to them.â€
Far too many people in America, Britain and most other modern societies buy into the negativity about aging—with devastating results. But some cultures hold a far more positive view of aging and of elderly people.
Societies Esteeming the Elderly
In parts of India the elderly usually live with their children and grandchildren for life. And all members of the family hold them in high regard.
Achyut Bihani of the Institute of Management Calcutta explained: “In a typical Indian joint family … the eldest members head the household. Advice is always sought from them on a range of issues, from investment of family money to nitty-gritties of traditional wedding rituals and intra-family conflicts. And this is not just passive advice; their word is final in settling disputes.â€
Bihani said that disrespecting the elders of the family or sending them to live in a nursing home has a strong social stigma.
The situation is similar in Cambodia, where elders live with their extended family for life and the younger members demonstrate great respect toward them. CambodianWelfare.org says, “Elders are respected by all age groups; they stay with the family for comfort and support. In many families, elders are expected to prepare meals and take care of grandchildren while wife and husband work.â€
In India and Cambodia, the reported rate of Alzheimer’s deaths is 0.46 people per 100,000.
Compare that to a rate of 24.4 in the United Kingdom, 35.5 in Canada, and 45.6 in the United States.
This means a British person is 53 times more likely to die of Alzheimer’s or dementia than an Indian or Cambodian. A Canadian is 77 times more likely, and the life of an American is 100 times more likely to end in that tragic way.
What About Differences in Life Expectancy?
Some may say the only reason the U.S. and UK have higher Alzheimer’s rates than places like India and Cambodia is simply because people live longer in the Western nations. Since more Americans and Brits live to reach old age, more develop age-related diseases.
It’s true that life expectancy often plays a role in the differing rates of Alzheimer’s between nations. But the example of Greece shows that is not always the reason for the vast disparity.
The average Greek person lives to be 81 years old. That’s two years longer than the average American, and about the same as the average British person. Yet, the rate of Alzheimer’s/dementia in Greece is only 2.74 per 100,000 people. That is 8 times lower than in the UK and 17 times lower than in the United States!
The massive difference may well be because of the positive view Greeks have of aging and the aged. The 2006 book On Becoming Fearless says: “[I]n all of Greece … the idea of honoring old age, indeed identifying it with wisdom and closeness to God, is in startling contrast to the way we treat aging in America.â€
Even still, the findings of this new study are not the last word on Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. From nation to nation, there are stark differences in diet, lifestyle and medical reporting methods. These and numerous other factors could contribute to the differing rates from nation to nation.
Nevertheless, the evidence saying that the main factor is societies’ attitude toward aging is strong.
And a look at the Bible makes clear that viewing aging and the aged negatively is contrary to God’s law.
The Young Should Honor the Aged
God says younger people should “rise up before the hoary head†and “honor the face of the old man†(Leviticus 19:32).
God sees gray hair on a person as a “crown of glory†(Proverbs 16:31). And He wants people of all ages to view elderly people as He does.
When young people fail to respect the aged members of society, they miss out on some invaluable resources: “With the very aged is wisdom, and with length of days understanding,†says Job 12:12 (Young’s Literal).
Numerous other Bible passages reiterate this same truth.
God’s plan allots most individuals about 70 years or so to live, to make decisions, and to learn about life. That doesn’t mean age always leads to wisdom (see Ecclesiastes 4:13 and Job 32:6-9). But in general, people who have lived longer will have acquired more wisdom. And younger people would benefit immensely from integrating that wisdom into their lives.
If younger people learn to respect old age, they will also benefit later in their lives when they themselves grow old. Rather than succumbing to feelings of negativity about aging, they’ll be grateful to live through the latter chapters of their lives. With a positive view of aging, they will be likely to retain their mental health and acuity for their entire lives.
If young people want to obey God and reap the benefits of living life the way He designed it, we will go out of our way to reverence our senior citizens. And we will rid our thinking of the toxic negativity about aging that society instills in us.
Wear Your ‘Crown of Glory’ Proudly!
The findings of the new Yale study also carry a clear message for older people: No good comes from believing the negativity about aging—no matter how deeply that negativity is entrenched into society.
Buying into such beliefs becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. View old age as a problem, and it will be a problem. Expect your memory to fade, and it will fade. See aging as an incurable disease, and it may well lead to incurable disease.
If a person puts forth less effort, uses fewer adaptive strategies, and avoids challenging situations, his brain will suffer. The quality of his thoughts will decline, his memory will dull, and his mental ability will wane. In some cases, Alzheimer’s will even set in.
The solution is to reject society’s negativity about aging and to wear the “crown of glory†proudly!
Do you want to believe the writers of The Simpsons or the Writer who inspired the book of Psalms?
Psalm 92:14 says that “even in old age,†people can “produce fruit†and “remain vital and green†(New Living).
An Inspiring Example
The Bible also shows us dozens of amazing examples of specific men and women who accomplished this. And it shows how they did it.
When Caleb, son of Jephunneh, was 85 years old, he was every bit as strong and sharp as he had been at age 40!
“I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me … to explore the land. … Here I am today, eighty-five years old! I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I’m just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then†(Joshua 14:7-11; New International).
That is an amazing statement. At age 85, Caleb felt no decline at all from how he had felt during his prime. In light of that, you could say, his prime was actually still happening at age 85!
Because of his confidence and strength, 85-year-old Caleb asked to be given a swath of land adjacent to a nation of powerful people who were hostile to the Israelites. He was not afraid to confront them to defend his inheritance. In fact, he was eager to do so! (verse 12).
How could an 85-year-old man be just as strong and sharp as he had been at age 40?
It was for three main reasons. First, it was because Caleb was highly active from age 40 to 85, wandering in the wilderness, fighting vigorous battles, walking many miles on most days, and pressing toward the goal of the Promise Land. He was pushing himself physically and mentally.
The second reason Caleb remained mentally and physically strong ties in in to the new Yale study: He lived in a society that respected its elders. The above-mentioned passage from Leviticus 19, in which God commanded younger people to “rise up†before their elders was a command given to the society Caleb lived in. And it was enforced in that society. The elders were respected.
In this one way—respecting elders—Ancient Israel was more like modern day India, Cambodia and Greece than it was like modern day American and Britain. Caleb was respected. His wisdom was valued. That contributed to the fact that he did not deteriorate from age 40 to age 85.
Both of these factors greatly contributed to Caleb’s vigor. But Caleb pointed to a third factor which he said was the major reason why he retained his vitality: I am still as strong today because “I wholly followed the eternal my God†(Joshua 14:8).
If we are following God with our whole hearts, we’ll never retire from spiritual labor. If we are following God with our whole hearts, we won’t buy the lies that media and society tell us about age. Instead we will continually push ourselves to be growing. Instead of trying to avoid challenges and stressful situations, we will seek them out! If we are following God with our whole hearts, we will wear our gray hair proudly, as a “crown of gloryâ€!
Hillary Wants You to Know She Binge-Drinks on the Job
PJ Media ^ | January 1, 2016 | Scott Ott
Hillary Clinton wants you to know that she’s just regular folk. That's right, she's like any other adult who, while representing her state and her country on government business, during a taxpayer-funded trip, engages in an alcoholic binge-drinking competition. Who hasn't?
I'm not unearthing dirt to smear the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who hopes to command the world's most powerful military, tickle the nuclear trigger, and become the global face of these United States of America.
I'm merely passing along Hillary Clinton's latest campaign video [see below], in which an off-camera woman asks if Madame Secretary has "ever won a drinking competition."
She laughs, with that endearing husky tone so familiar to hard-drinking chain-smokers, as she brags of her vodka-shots showdown with fellow Sen. John McCain. Furthermore, Mrs. Clinton assures an American public concerned about a stagnant economy and the threat of terrorism, that the McCain-Rodham throwdown was not the only time she chugged copious quantities of non-prescription ethanol depressants to see who could knock back the most before blacking out or puking.
It is, however, in her words, the "most famous" episode.
Ah, let the renown of such fame ring from every ivied hall of academe, as an example for the women who should "deserve to be believed" when they allege sexual assault. Let it resonate from the blacktop of every urban elementary schoolyard for the children looking to escape the generational curse of poverty.
Before you judge, ask yourself: Who among us has not made a sport of alcohol poisoning while on "a Congressional delegation" in response to a colleague's dare? Look in the mirror, my friend. You've almost certainly engaged in amateur competitive intoxication with a work colleague, and then bragged about it during a job interview in hopes of becoming CEO of that same organization.
Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton's campaign WANTS you to know this. Therefore, it's a positive feature of her candidacy, not a liability.
Perhaps it's a bold attempt to identify Hillary with the middle-aged, binge-drinking base, most of whom are in residential treatment facilities, divorce court, or otherwise working toward becoming the subject of awkward eulogies by long-suffering family and friends. Or maybe she's angling to ingratiate herself with America's youth, who, she believes, are eager to elect the first woman president who can reenact the famous scene from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Marion successfully goes jigger-to-jigger with a Nepalese bullmoose -- a woman chief executive who can finally break the glass ceiling and join the Wolf Pack for "The Hangover Part IV."
However, her specific identification of “vodka" as the lubricant, tips the hand of the woman who loves to bend the elbow. Doubtless she just wants us to know that she can go kneecap-to-kneecap with Russian President Vladimir Putin -- on his turf with his sauce -- and leave him worshiping at the altar of the porcelain goddess, as she rises with dignity from her seat in the Oval Office, behind the Dissolute Desk.
"You wanna piece of this, Donald Trump?" she fairly bellows. "Line 'em up!"
Hillary Clinton wants you to know that she’s just regular folk. That's right, she's like any other adult who, while representing her state and her country on government business, during a taxpayer-funded trip, engages in an alcoholic binge-drinking competition. Who hasn't?
I'm not unearthing dirt to smear the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who hopes to command the world's most powerful military, tickle the nuclear trigger, and become the global face of these United States of America.
I'm merely passing along Hillary Clinton's latest campaign video [see below], in which an off-camera woman asks if Madame Secretary has "ever won a drinking competition."
She laughs, with that endearing husky tone so familiar to hard-drinking chain-smokers, as she brags of her vodka-shots showdown with fellow Sen. John McCain. Furthermore, Mrs. Clinton assures an American public concerned about a stagnant economy and the threat of terrorism, that the McCain-Rodham throwdown was not the only time she chugged copious quantities of non-prescription ethanol depressants to see who could knock back the most before blacking out or puking.
It is, however, in her words, the "most famous" episode.
Ah, let the renown of such fame ring from every ivied hall of academe, as an example for the women who should "deserve to be believed" when they allege sexual assault. Let it resonate from the blacktop of every urban elementary schoolyard for the children looking to escape the generational curse of poverty.
Before you judge, ask yourself: Who among us has not made a sport of alcohol poisoning while on "a Congressional delegation" in response to a colleague's dare? Look in the mirror, my friend. You've almost certainly engaged in amateur competitive intoxication with a work colleague, and then bragged about it during a job interview in hopes of becoming CEO of that same organization.
Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton's campaign WANTS you to know this. Therefore, it's a positive feature of her candidacy, not a liability.
Perhaps it's a bold attempt to identify Hillary with the middle-aged, binge-drinking base, most of whom are in residential treatment facilities, divorce court, or otherwise working toward becoming the subject of awkward eulogies by long-suffering family and friends. Or maybe she's angling to ingratiate herself with America's youth, who, she believes, are eager to elect the first woman president who can reenact the famous scene from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Marion successfully goes jigger-to-jigger with a Nepalese bullmoose -- a woman chief executive who can finally break the glass ceiling and join the Wolf Pack for "The Hangover Part IV."
However, her specific identification of “vodka" as the lubricant, tips the hand of the woman who loves to bend the elbow. Doubtless she just wants us to know that she can go kneecap-to-kneecap with Russian President Vladimir Putin -- on his turf with his sauce -- and leave him worshiping at the altar of the porcelain goddess, as she rises with dignity from her seat in the Oval Office, behind the Dissolute Desk.
"You wanna piece of this, Donald Trump?" she fairly bellows. "Line 'em up!"
Obama Administration Spies on Congress, Democrats Shrug
PJ Media ^ | January 1, 2016 | Michael Walsh
The Obama administration's loathing of Benjamin Netanyahu knows no bounds; nor, apparently, does its contempt for Congress:
Engel, a staunch supporter of Israel, said he met twice behind closed doors with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer during the heated debate over the nuclear agreement with Iran. He said Dermer presented the Israeli government's case against the deal.
The New York congressman indicated he decided to oppose the deal based on details he learned in briefings from U.S. officials, rather than arguments made by the Israelis. He said he wouldn't be concerned if his conversations with Dermer happened to be caught by American intelligence.
"I assume that everything I say someone is listening. I am careful that what I say in public is what I say in private," Engel said. "You just have to assume that when you're a public person, what you say [could be monitored] … I don't know what this really tells us."
What that really tells us is that Engel supports a near-lawless administration that will keep pushing the bounds of tradition, propriety and moral decency until it has smashed them completely.
Not just of Israel, Republicans: of Congress as well. But nobody in Congress seems to care.
The Obama administration's loathing of Benjamin Netanyahu knows no bounds; nor, apparently, does its contempt for Congress:
Top Democrats in Congress are brushing off a report that U.S. intelligence intercepted communications between Israeli government officials and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it is no secret that the U.S. and Israel spy on each other, even though they are allies."I'm not surprised," he told The Hill. "I kind of think the report is much to do about nothing."
Engel, a staunch supporter of Israel, said he met twice behind closed doors with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer during the heated debate over the nuclear agreement with Iran. He said Dermer presented the Israeli government's case against the deal.
The New York congressman indicated he decided to oppose the deal based on details he learned in briefings from U.S. officials, rather than arguments made by the Israelis. He said he wouldn't be concerned if his conversations with Dermer happened to be caught by American intelligence.
"I assume that everything I say someone is listening. I am careful that what I say in public is what I say in private," Engel said. "You just have to assume that when you're a public person, what you say [could be monitored] … I don't know what this really tells us."
What that really tells us is that Engel supports a near-lawless administration that will keep pushing the bounds of tradition, propriety and moral decency until it has smashed them completely.
Engel's comments come one day after The Wall Street Journal published a report saying the National Security Agency (NSA) spied on communications between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli officials during the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran. Private conversations with congressmen and American Jewish groups were reportedly swept up by the agency as Israeli officials lobbied against the Iran deal, according to the Journal.The report raised eyebrows because it revealed how the U.S. continues to spy on some allies despite Obama's pledge to reduce the scope of NSA snooping on friendly governments following disclosures made by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Republicans pointed to the surveillance as another example of Obama's poor treatment of Israel.
Not just of Israel, Republicans: of Congress as well. But nobody in Congress seems to care.
Donald Trump Winning Michigan Electorate – and With It, The Presidency
the conservative treehouse ^ | January 1, 2016 | sundance
A Trump Conservative/Populist "Reagan Democrat" Candidacy Could Win In The Electoral College
Here is an analysis of the Electoral College victory possibilities for Donald Trump as the Republican nominee.
With a truly conservative/populist candidate such as Trump, there appears the ability to add to core base of Electoral College support which the Romney election of 2012 represents (Map 2).
Should the current economic, military (possible terrorist) and political situation continue as it is now President Obama, as did President Carter in 1980, will own the prevailing climate in November 2016 as will "Obama's third term" Clinton.The Republican base will be determined to vote in strength, whilst all those areas of support that Obama put together in 2008 with such enthusiasm-youth, anti-war proponents, Blacks, may not be so enthused next time.
Thus, as map 3 shows, if Michigan which has traditionally been Democratic is added to the 2012 base, plus marginal Florida and Ohio, then Trump has every chance to win. The GOP establishment has no credible argument for a middle of the road candidate as there are clear indications that the base would sit on their hands come November 2016, and in that case, there is a very strong possibility of significant down ticket losses.
Thus the GOP has everything to gain with a Trump candidacy, especially with a Republican congress, as he would ensure that genuinely conservative "Reagan Democrat†policies would be implemented without a veto and the country would be back on its traditional center-right path.
A Trump Conservative/Populist "Reagan Democrat" Candidacy Could Win In The Electoral College
Here is an analysis of the Electoral College victory possibilities for Donald Trump as the Republican nominee.
With a truly conservative/populist candidate such as Trump, there appears the ability to add to core base of Electoral College support which the Romney election of 2012 represents (Map 2).
Should the current economic, military (possible terrorist) and political situation continue as it is now President Obama, as did President Carter in 1980, will own the prevailing climate in November 2016 as will "Obama's third term" Clinton.The Republican base will be determined to vote in strength, whilst all those areas of support that Obama put together in 2008 with such enthusiasm-youth, anti-war proponents, Blacks, may not be so enthused next time.
Thus, as map 3 shows, if Michigan which has traditionally been Democratic is added to the 2012 base, plus marginal Florida and Ohio, then Trump has every chance to win. The GOP establishment has no credible argument for a middle of the road candidate as there are clear indications that the base would sit on their hands come November 2016, and in that case, there is a very strong possibility of significant down ticket losses.
Thus the GOP has everything to gain with a Trump candidacy, especially with a Republican congress, as he would ensure that genuinely conservative "Reagan Democrat†policies would be implemented without a veto and the country would be back on its traditional center-right path.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Bill Clinton May Backfire As Hillary’s ‘Secret Weapon’
marketwatch.com ^ | January 1
The presidential campaign has taken an ugly turn, with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton exchanging pointed barbs about whether the Republican hopeful or her husband, the former president, is the bigger sexist.
And this may be only the beginning, as Bill Clinton's mixed record now becomes part of the campaign.
One of the keys to Trump's success in attracting support is that he refuses to follow the rules of political decorum, such as they are.
So when Hillary Clinton accused him of being sexist, he didn't blink an eye in citing Bill's reputation as a sexual predator as a reason for the Democratic frontrunner to avoid playing the sexist card. He ended one tweet with a warning to "BE CAREFUL."
It was naked intimidation typical of a bully, but it can be highly effective. It immediately reminded voters of all the baggage the Clintons carry, dating back to Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, through the lying and cheating that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment.
The presidential campaign has taken an ugly turn, with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton exchanging pointed barbs about whether the Republican hopeful or her husband, the former president, is the bigger sexist.
And this may be only the beginning, as Bill Clinton's mixed record now becomes part of the campaign.
One of the keys to Trump's success in attracting support is that he refuses to follow the rules of political decorum, such as they are.
So when Hillary Clinton accused him of being sexist, he didn't blink an eye in citing Bill's reputation as a sexual predator as a reason for the Democratic frontrunner to avoid playing the sexist card. He ended one tweet with a warning to "BE CAREFUL."
It was naked intimidation typical of a bully, but it can be highly effective. It immediately reminded voters of all the baggage the Clintons carry, dating back to Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, through the lying and cheating that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Friday, January 1, 2016
Cruz Rakes in the Cash as He Closes In on Trump
Yahoo Finance/The Fiscal Times ^ | 12/31/2015 | Martin Matishak
Ted Cruz seems poised to take his momentum well into the New Year, having raised $20 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Texas senator’s largest haul since becoming a White House hopeful.
An official campaign memo obtained by The Wall Street Journal shows Cruz’s fundraising nearly doubled the roughly $12 million he raked in during the previous quarter. Cruz took in $4.3 million in the first quarter, then $10 million in the second, though his camp touted the fact that he had more cash on hand than any other candidate in the crowded GOP field.
Cruz’s fundraising total for the year stands around $45 million, campaign manager Jeff Roe said in the memo to staffers.
The dollar figure reflects Cruz’s new status as a top-tier candidate. Recent polls show him beating billionaire Donald Trump in Iowa and coming in second to the former reality TV star nationally.
Official fundraising reports aren’t due out until January 31, the day before the Iowa caucuses. But by leaking his fundraising numbers now, Cruz cements his newfound status in the Republican primary and shows just how well he’s translating his support among evangelicals and dissatisfied GOP voters into a well-financed operation.
Ted Cruz seems poised to take his momentum well into the New Year, having raised $20 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Texas senator’s largest haul since becoming a White House hopeful.
An official campaign memo obtained by The Wall Street Journal shows Cruz’s fundraising nearly doubled the roughly $12 million he raked in during the previous quarter. Cruz took in $4.3 million in the first quarter, then $10 million in the second, though his camp touted the fact that he had more cash on hand than any other candidate in the crowded GOP field.
Cruz’s fundraising total for the year stands around $45 million, campaign manager Jeff Roe said in the memo to staffers.
The dollar figure reflects Cruz’s new status as a top-tier candidate. Recent polls show him beating billionaire Donald Trump in Iowa and coming in second to the former reality TV star nationally.
Official fundraising reports aren’t due out until January 31, the day before the Iowa caucuses. But by leaking his fundraising numbers now, Cruz cements his newfound status in the Republican primary and shows just how well he’s translating his support among evangelicals and dissatisfied GOP voters into a well-financed operation.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
U.S. Army wants you to eat MREs for 21 days straight
CNN ^ | 12/31/2015 | Emanuella Grinberg,
The U.S. Army Institute of Environmental Medicine is looking for volunteers (PDF) to eat military food rations for 21 consecutive days for a study of the impact of Meals, Ready-to-Eat, or MREs, on gut health. Researchers want to learn how MREs influence the millions of bacteria in troops' digestive systems.
"Interactions between the millions of bacteria living in our gut and what we eat is a very important factor in gut health, but we don't know how MRE foods interact with those bacteria to impact gut health," Holly McClung, a research dietitian working on the project, said on the Army's website. "Ultimately, discovering how eating MREs influences gut bacteria and gut health will help our efforts to continually improve the MRE."
Much like on the battlefield, one of the main obstacles in the study is finding people to commit to a steady diet of ready-to-eat meals. MREs are generally regarded as tasteless, if not bad, which is perhaps understandable considering the wide battery of requirements they must meet to guarantee shelf life and meet strict nutritional benchmarks.
MREs must be capable of withstanding parachute drops from 1,250 feet, and the packaging is required to maintain a minimum shelf life of 3.5 years at 80 degrees Fahrenheit or nine months at 100 degrees.
The U.S. Army Institute of Environmental Medicine is looking for volunteers (PDF) to eat military food rations for 21 consecutive days for a study of the impact of Meals, Ready-to-Eat, or MREs, on gut health. Researchers want to learn how MREs influence the millions of bacteria in troops' digestive systems.
"Interactions between the millions of bacteria living in our gut and what we eat is a very important factor in gut health, but we don't know how MRE foods interact with those bacteria to impact gut health," Holly McClung, a research dietitian working on the project, said on the Army's website. "Ultimately, discovering how eating MREs influences gut bacteria and gut health will help our efforts to continually improve the MRE."
Much like on the battlefield, one of the main obstacles in the study is finding people to commit to a steady diet of ready-to-eat meals. MREs are generally regarded as tasteless, if not bad, which is perhaps understandable considering the wide battery of requirements they must meet to guarantee shelf life and meet strict nutritional benchmarks.
MREs must be capable of withstanding parachute drops from 1,250 feet, and the packaging is required to maintain a minimum shelf life of 3.5 years at 80 degrees Fahrenheit or nine months at 100 degrees.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Bill Clinton’s Sexual Assault Victims List Just Grew A Lot Longer
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/bill-clintons-sexual-assault-victims-list-just-grew-a-lot-longer ^
When people think about former President Bill Clinton's despicable behavior, they think mainly of Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey and perhaps even Paula Jones. In doing so, they forget about Clinton's many other victims.
Even CNN admits that a whole lot more women have been abused than most people realize.
"There are about 14 women who could be said to have made claims at one time or another (about Bill Clinton," CNN contributor Errol Louis accidentally revealed on air this Thursday morning.
Once he realized that he had just let the cat out of the bag, he quickly tried to backtrack:
If you go to sort of the right wing websites and the talk radio crowd, there are about 14 names out there, [but] the ones we all remember are not in that list of 14. We remember Gennifer Flowers, we remember Monica Lewinsky, we remember Paula Jones. Paula Jones was an accusation, the other two were consensual relationships.
Sorry, but no, none of them were "consensual relationships." They were all clear-cut cases of sexual abuse, harassment and/or impropriety committed by the husband of 2016 Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Here is a list of these victims, courtesy Breitbart:
Kathleen Willey
Kathleen Willey - made a splash in 1998 by claiming in a '60 Minutes' interview that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her during a Oval Office meeting in 1993.
Now she says Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, has a history of trying to silence the multiple women her husband has slept with, sexually assaulted or sexually harassed since his 1980s Arkansas days.
Connie Hamzy
Self-proclaimed rock-and-roll groupie, who said Mr. Clinton propositioned her in 1984 while she was sunbathing by a Little Rock hotel pool.
Juanita Broaddrick
Gubernatorial campaign volunteer who said Mr. Clinton raped her during a nursing-home-operators convention in Little Rock in April 1978.
Eilsteen Wellstone
English woman who said Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Mr. Clinton was a student in 1969.
Sandra Allen James
Former Washington, D.C., political fund-raiser who said Mr. Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a 1991 campaign trip, pinned her against the wall and put his hand under her dress.
Christie Zercher
Airline flight attendant on Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign plane, who said Mr. Clinton exposed himself and grabbed her breasts.
22-Year-Old Yale Student
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college.
University Of Arkansas Student
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student "came on" to him.
Paula Jones
She had asked to meet him because it would be 'exciting' to meet the governor, and she hoped it might lead to promotion. Instead, she said in court, she found herself telling him she was 'not that kind of girl'.
It was a brief encounter and she alleged that Mr. Clinton took her hand, pulled her towards him, then said: 'I love your curves.'
She tried to walk away, she said in a deposition, but 'Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to "kiss it."
Jones delivers her own verdict on Hillary's bid to become president, saying that her husband's attitude towards women disqualifies Bill from re-entering the White House – while what she calls Hillary's 'lies' disqualify her from the Oval Office.
'There is no way that [Hillary] did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband,' she says. 'They have both lied.'
Monica Lewinsky
After lying to the American people to keep the Oval Office affair secret, Team Clinton and the DC Media ganged up on this 21 year-old intern to smear her as a crazy stalker.
A blue dress stained with the President's DNA immediately shut down that media-enabled horror show.
Clinton was eventually impeached and disbarred for lying under oath about the affair. Under oath, when asked on three different occasions if he had an affair with Lewinsky, Clinton replied:
1. "No."
2. "It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth."
3. "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her."
Remember this list, folks, because both the liberal mainstream media establishment and the crony Clinton's are DESPERATE to make sure most Americans never read it!
When people think about former President Bill Clinton's despicable behavior, they think mainly of Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey and perhaps even Paula Jones. In doing so, they forget about Clinton's many other victims.
Even CNN admits that a whole lot more women have been abused than most people realize.
"There are about 14 women who could be said to have made claims at one time or another (about Bill Clinton," CNN contributor Errol Louis accidentally revealed on air this Thursday morning.
Once he realized that he had just let the cat out of the bag, he quickly tried to backtrack:
If you go to sort of the right wing websites and the talk radio crowd, there are about 14 names out there, [but] the ones we all remember are not in that list of 14. We remember Gennifer Flowers, we remember Monica Lewinsky, we remember Paula Jones. Paula Jones was an accusation, the other two were consensual relationships.
Sorry, but no, none of them were "consensual relationships." They were all clear-cut cases of sexual abuse, harassment and/or impropriety committed by the husband of 2016 Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Here is a list of these victims, courtesy Breitbart:
Kathleen Willey
Kathleen Willey - made a splash in 1998 by claiming in a '60 Minutes' interview that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her during a Oval Office meeting in 1993.
Now she says Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, has a history of trying to silence the multiple women her husband has slept with, sexually assaulted or sexually harassed since his 1980s Arkansas days.
Connie Hamzy
Self-proclaimed rock-and-roll groupie, who said Mr. Clinton propositioned her in 1984 while she was sunbathing by a Little Rock hotel pool.
Juanita Broaddrick
Gubernatorial campaign volunteer who said Mr. Clinton raped her during a nursing-home-operators convention in Little Rock in April 1978.
Eilsteen Wellstone
English woman who said Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Mr. Clinton was a student in 1969.
Sandra Allen James
Former Washington, D.C., political fund-raiser who said Mr. Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a 1991 campaign trip, pinned her against the wall and put his hand under her dress.
Christie Zercher
Airline flight attendant on Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign plane, who said Mr. Clinton exposed himself and grabbed her breasts.
22-Year-Old Yale Student
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college.
University Of Arkansas Student
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student "came on" to him.
Paula Jones
She had asked to meet him because it would be 'exciting' to meet the governor, and she hoped it might lead to promotion. Instead, she said in court, she found herself telling him she was 'not that kind of girl'.
It was a brief encounter and she alleged that Mr. Clinton took her hand, pulled her towards him, then said: 'I love your curves.'
She tried to walk away, she said in a deposition, but 'Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to "kiss it."
Jones delivers her own verdict on Hillary's bid to become president, saying that her husband's attitude towards women disqualifies Bill from re-entering the White House – while what she calls Hillary's 'lies' disqualify her from the Oval Office.
'There is no way that [Hillary] did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband,' she says. 'They have both lied.'
Monica Lewinsky
After lying to the American people to keep the Oval Office affair secret, Team Clinton and the DC Media ganged up on this 21 year-old intern to smear her as a crazy stalker.
A blue dress stained with the President's DNA immediately shut down that media-enabled horror show.
Clinton was eventually impeached and disbarred for lying under oath about the affair. Under oath, when asked on three different occasions if he had an affair with Lewinsky, Clinton replied:
1. "No."
2. "It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth."
3. "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her."
Remember this list, folks, because both the liberal mainstream media establishment and the crony Clinton's are DESPERATE to make sure most Americans never read it!
Trump's strongest Republican supporters: Registered Democrats!
Hot Air.com ^ | December 31, 2015 | ALLAHPUNDIT
That’s odd. What could Democrats possibly see in a lifelong true conservative like Donald Trump?
There’s something for everyone in Nate Cohn’s new post. If you’re a Trump fan, here’s the smoking gun that he really is a new Reagan, the guy who’s going to broaden the tent and sweep to victory in November by bringing centrist Democrats into the GOP. If you’re a Trump critic, here’s further proof that he’s the RINO of RINOs, a man who’s blended nationalism, center-left economics, and Jacksonian foreign policy into something that tastes better to members of the other party than it does to conservatives. That sounds a lot like Perotism, frankly — except, according to the (Democratic) pollster who provided Cohn with data, Trump’s geographic support is the opposite of Perot’s. Perot did best in the west and in New England. Trump cleans up in the south, up through Appalachia, and into the industrial northeastern states like New York. How do you explain that?
Cohn’s theory, comparing Trump’s map of support to a map of “racially charged Internet searches,” is that prejudice is driving some of his votes. There was nothing comparable in Perot’s campaign to Trump inveighing against rapists from Mexico and calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. (There’s no disputing that Trump is the favored candidate of the white nationalists of the “alt-right.”) On the other hand, how many Trump voters in economically distressed industrial areas in the eastern U.S. like Trump’s immigration rhetoric because they “hate” Mexicans and how many simply want less competition from foreign labor in the name of bringing back jobs to America? According to Cohn, Trump’s best state is West Virginia; West Virginia also happens to be the only state in the U.S. where (as of March of this year) less than half of the adult civilian population is employed. Being a protectionist doesn’t make you a racist. Either way, though, this part is certainly true — and important to the future of the GOP:
Right. The GOP is gradually becoming older and whiter due to white Democrats crossing the aisle for various reasons — contempt for some Democratic welfare programs, disagreement with progressives on cultural flashpoints like gay marriage, righteous disgust for the left’s insistence on open borders, racial anxiety, and so forth. On “values” issues, that influx of culturally conservative Dems will help entrench the GOP (for a while, at least) as a socially right-wing party despite more centrist tendencies among younger Republicans. Economically, though, it seems likely to do the opposite: Trump’s gone a long, long way this year preaching protectionism and zealous defense of entitlements, and as the Democratic constituency within the GOP grows, other Republican pols will feel pressure to follow suit. The Reagan revolution was about convincing centrist Dems to try smaller government and deregulation; the Trump revolution is about convincing them that big government will work for them with Donald Trump in charge. A populist would say that that’s really no different than what we have now, with GOP candidates preaching Reaganism to get elected and then practicing Trumpism once in office — except it’s Trumpism for the donor class, not for blue-collar voters. Reaganism remains the party’s ideological guiding star, though, at least for the moment. If Trump has a long run this year thanks to centrist Democrats coming out to vote for him in Republican primaries, does that change? How do you build a conservative party if a significant chunk of it is Democratic? Or do we no longer care about conservatism so long as we’ve got nationalism?
That’s the long-term problem. The short-term problem is one for Trump: How do you get these Democratic voters re-registered as Republicans and out to the polls in February? And if you’re Ted Cruz, how do you maintain your position as their second choice when you’re running as the staunchest conservative in the field? Maybe continuing to attack the “Washington cartel” without emphasizing too heavily how right-wing you are is enough. I’d be curious to see how Trump fans shake out, though, in a hypothetical match-up between Cruz and, say, Chris Christie after a month or two of Christie selling his own brand of alpha-male centrism on the trail beyond New Hampshire. If you want a guy who knows how to pander to Democratic voters and ostentatiously doesn’t care how boorish people find him, there’s an obvious choice. And it ain’t Ted Cruz.
Exit question: Is Trump’s Democratic support being oversold by Cohn? Look back at the numbers at the top. Even among registered Republicans, he’s just a hair shy of 30 percent support, enough to lead the field. Is that because a bunch of former Democrats have already re-registered as Republicans over the last 10 years and are responding to Trump? Or is Trump appealing in some ways even to longtime righties?
That’s odd. What could Democrats possibly see in a lifelong true conservative like Donald Trump?
There’s something for everyone in Nate Cohn’s new post. If you’re a Trump fan, here’s the smoking gun that he really is a new Reagan, the guy who’s going to broaden the tent and sweep to victory in November by bringing centrist Democrats into the GOP. If you’re a Trump critic, here’s further proof that he’s the RINO of RINOs, a man who’s blended nationalism, center-left economics, and Jacksonian foreign policy into something that tastes better to members of the other party than it does to conservatives. That sounds a lot like Perotism, frankly — except, according to the (Democratic) pollster who provided Cohn with data, Trump’s geographic support is the opposite of Perot’s. Perot did best in the west and in New England. Trump cleans up in the south, up through Appalachia, and into the industrial northeastern states like New York. How do you explain that?
Cohn’s theory, comparing Trump’s map of support to a map of “racially charged Internet searches,” is that prejudice is driving some of his votes. There was nothing comparable in Perot’s campaign to Trump inveighing against rapists from Mexico and calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. (There’s no disputing that Trump is the favored candidate of the white nationalists of the “alt-right.”) On the other hand, how many Trump voters in economically distressed industrial areas in the eastern U.S. like Trump’s immigration rhetoric because they “hate” Mexicans and how many simply want less competition from foreign labor in the name of bringing back jobs to America? According to Cohn, Trump’s best state is West Virginia; West Virginia also happens to be the only state in the U.S. where (as of March of this year) less than half of the adult civilian population is employed. Being a protectionist doesn’t make you a racist. Either way, though, this part is certainly true — and important to the future of the GOP:
In many of these areas, a large number of traditionally Democratic voters have long supported Republicans in presidential elections. Even now, Democrats have more registered voters than Republicans do in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which have been easily carried by Republicans in every presidential contest of this century. As recently as a few years ago, Democrats still had a big advantage in partisan self-identification in the same states.Conn Carroll put it this way:
But during the Obama era, many of these voters have abandoned the Democrats. Many Democrats may now even identify as Republicans, or as independents who lean Republican, when asked by pollsters a choice that means they're included in a national Republican primary survey, whether they remain registered as Democrats or not.
I think a big part of what explains Trump is the natural growing pains of the GOP assimilating big govt whites leaving the Dem Party.— Conn Carroll (@conncarroll) December 31, 2015
Right. The GOP is gradually becoming older and whiter due to white Democrats crossing the aisle for various reasons — contempt for some Democratic welfare programs, disagreement with progressives on cultural flashpoints like gay marriage, righteous disgust for the left’s insistence on open borders, racial anxiety, and so forth. On “values” issues, that influx of culturally conservative Dems will help entrench the GOP (for a while, at least) as a socially right-wing party despite more centrist tendencies among younger Republicans. Economically, though, it seems likely to do the opposite: Trump’s gone a long, long way this year preaching protectionism and zealous defense of entitlements, and as the Democratic constituency within the GOP grows, other Republican pols will feel pressure to follow suit. The Reagan revolution was about convincing centrist Dems to try smaller government and deregulation; the Trump revolution is about convincing them that big government will work for them with Donald Trump in charge. A populist would say that that’s really no different than what we have now, with GOP candidates preaching Reaganism to get elected and then practicing Trumpism once in office — except it’s Trumpism for the donor class, not for blue-collar voters. Reaganism remains the party’s ideological guiding star, though, at least for the moment. If Trump has a long run this year thanks to centrist Democrats coming out to vote for him in Republican primaries, does that change? How do you build a conservative party if a significant chunk of it is Democratic? Or do we no longer care about conservatism so long as we’ve got nationalism?
That’s the long-term problem. The short-term problem is one for Trump: How do you get these Democratic voters re-registered as Republicans and out to the polls in February? And if you’re Ted Cruz, how do you maintain your position as their second choice when you’re running as the staunchest conservative in the field? Maybe continuing to attack the “Washington cartel” without emphasizing too heavily how right-wing you are is enough. I’d be curious to see how Trump fans shake out, though, in a hypothetical match-up between Cruz and, say, Chris Christie after a month or two of Christie selling his own brand of alpha-male centrism on the trail beyond New Hampshire. If you want a guy who knows how to pander to Democratic voters and ostentatiously doesn’t care how boorish people find him, there’s an obvious choice. And it ain’t Ted Cruz.
Exit question: Is Trump’s Democratic support being oversold by Cohn? Look back at the numbers at the top. Even among registered Republicans, he’s just a hair shy of 30 percent support, enough to lead the field. Is that because a bunch of former Democrats have already re-registered as Republicans over the last 10 years and are responding to Trump? Or is Trump appealing in some ways even to longtime righties?
A higher minimum wage doesn't reduce poverty, says… the federal government (Duh)
Hot Air.com ^ | December 31, 2015 | JAZZ SHAW
We reach the end of the year with yet another tale of crazy, one percenter wingnuts trying to claim that jacking up the minimum wage won’t do much to alleviate the issues facing the poorest Americans who the Democrats are seeking to help. This time the hateful claims are coming from… a study published by the federal government.
As the study shows, 57% of families currently below the poverty line have no members in the workforce, receiving all of their income from social welfare or entitlement programs combined with charity. A higher minimum wage has no effect on these families. Of the roughly 3 million workers who do receive the minimum wage, more than half are between the ages of 16 and 24 and are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. Further, they found that among the families below the poverty line, nearly half (46%) are making more than the proposed $10.10 per hour already and more than one third (36%) are making 12 dollars per hour or more.
With those figures in mind, only a relatively small fraction of Americans living below the poverty line would see one extra red cent in their pockets with a higher federal minimum wage. And what can not yet be predicted is how many of those who did would be offset by the number of employers who would simply terminate unskilled labor positions to avoid the increased labor costs, moving to either more streamlined services or automation. And this is coming straight from the feds. How will the Fight for Fifteen folks and their pet Democrat candidates respond to this new information aside from abject denial? Oh, wait… the denial started already.
We reach the end of the year with yet another tale of crazy, one percenter wingnuts trying to claim that jacking up the minimum wage won’t do much to alleviate the issues facing the poorest Americans who the Democrats are seeking to help. This time the hateful claims are coming from… a study published by the federal government.
Increasing the minimum wage is an inefficient way to reduce poverty, according to a Fed research paper that comes amid a national clamor to hike pay for workers at the low end of the salary scale.I’m sure that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will find a way to spin this story, as well as Ben Carson for that matter. (Rick Santorum too, now that we mention it.) But the numbers here really don’t come as any surprise when you stop to think about it. This report doesn’t deal so much with the employment impacts of a higher federal minimum wage, but more with who is getting those wages.
David Neumark, visiting scholar at the San Francisco Fed, contends in the paper that raising the minimum wage has only limited benefits in the war against poverty, due in part because relatively few of those falling below the poverty line actually receive the wage.
Many of the benefits from raising the wage, a move already undertaken by multiple governments around the country as well as some big-name companies, tend to go to higher-income families, said Neumark, who also pointed to research that shows raising wages kills jobs through higher costs to employers. Neumark is a professor of economics and director of the Center for Economics and Public Policy at the University of California, Irvine.
As the study shows, 57% of families currently below the poverty line have no members in the workforce, receiving all of their income from social welfare or entitlement programs combined with charity. A higher minimum wage has no effect on these families. Of the roughly 3 million workers who do receive the minimum wage, more than half are between the ages of 16 and 24 and are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. Further, they found that among the families below the poverty line, nearly half (46%) are making more than the proposed $10.10 per hour already and more than one third (36%) are making 12 dollars per hour or more.
With those figures in mind, only a relatively small fraction of Americans living below the poverty line would see one extra red cent in their pockets with a higher federal minimum wage. And what can not yet be predicted is how many of those who did would be offset by the number of employers who would simply terminate unskilled labor positions to avoid the increased labor costs, moving to either more streamlined services or automation. And this is coming straight from the feds. How will the Fight for Fifteen folks and their pet Democrat candidates respond to this new information aside from abject denial? Oh, wait… the denial started already.
“The mainstream view, as illustrated by meta-surveys of the whole minimum wage research field, is that the job loss effects of raising the minimum wage are very, very small,” Paul Sohn, general counsel for the National Employment Law Project, said in an email to CNBC.com.I’m sure the phrase “very small” will come as great comfort to the guy who loses his job operating the fry machine around the holiday season. But don’t let that bother you, guys. We’re from the government and we’re here to help.
NOW more than 1,000 of Hillary Clinton's emails have been deemed classified - with two 'secret'
Daily Mail ^ | 12/31/15 | David Martosko, Nikki Schwab
The State Department released another 5,500 pages of Hillary Clinton's emails just hours before the New Year's Eve ball is set to drop.
The dump was originally supposed to be much bigger, instead of the just 3,100 messages the public can now browse.
The total number of Clinton's emails now deemed classified has climbed to 1,274, according to Politico, with 275 messages in this most recent cache being retroactively given the classified distinction.
Two emails released in the latest batch have been designated as 'secret,' the second-highest level of classification.
While the information wasn't classified at the time, it could fuel more questions about whether sensitive information was at risk on her server.
The State Department released another 5,500 pages of Hillary Clinton's emails just hours before the New Year's Eve ball is set to drop.
The dump was originally supposed to be much bigger, instead of the just 3,100 messages the public can now browse.
The total number of Clinton's emails now deemed classified has climbed to 1,274, according to Politico, with 275 messages in this most recent cache being retroactively given the classified distinction.
Two emails released in the latest batch have been designated as 'secret,' the second-highest level of classification.
While the information wasn't classified at the time, it could fuel more questions about whether sensitive information was at risk on her server.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
-
Today Dispatch ^ Oops! Apparently, the state of Rhode Island had 150,000 people incorrectly placed on their voter rolls and nobody not...
