21 October 2016

An establishment in panic

An establishment in panic:

Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace as to whether he would accept defeat should Hillary Clinton win the election, Donald Trump replied, “I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.”
“That’s horrifying,” said Clinton, setting off a chain reaction on the post-debate panels with talking heads falling all over one another in purple-faced anger, outrage and disbelief.

“Trump Won’t Say If He Will Accept Election Results,” wailed the New York Times. “Trump Won’t Vow to Honor Results,” ran the banner in the Washington Post.“Disqualifying!” was the cry on Clinton cable.
But what do these chattering classes and establishment bulletin boards think the Donald is going to do if he falls short of 270 electoral votes?
Lead a Coxey’s Army on Washington and burn it down as British Gen. Robert Ross did in August 1814, while “Little Jemmy” Madison fled on horseback out the Brookville Road?
What explains the hysteria of the establishment?
In a word, fear.
The establishment is horrified at the Donald’s defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority.
It may rule and run the country, and may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.
Having fixed the future, the establishment finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.
Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: Its ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.
Trump is “talking down our democracy,” said a shocked Clinton.
After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed “democracy” as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach.
Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England and France to bring Christianity to the New World.
Today, Clintons, Obamas and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to “establish democracy” among the “lesser breeds without the Law.”
Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to re-establish their true God.nd Allah is no democrat.
By suggesting he might not accept the results of a “rigged election” Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.
For none of the three – diversity, equality, democracy – is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.
When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of government they had created, he answered, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it.
Consider: Six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.
If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it.
And if felons decide the electoral votes of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that election?
In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority, the matter went to the House.
There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency to Adams – and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams himself.
Were Jackson’s people wrong to regard as a “corrupt bargain” the deal that robbed the general of the presidency?
The establishment also recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke’s declaration that it is now “torches and pitchforks time.”
Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in “Points of Rebellion”:
“We must realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution.”
Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.
But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America they love, elitist enthusiasm for “revolution” seems more constrained.
What goes around comes around.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/an-establishment-in-panic-2/#LJldgfUpSdj3he7Q.99

20 October 2016

Madonna pledges oral sex for Clinton voters

Madonna pledges oral sex for Clinton voters | TheHill:

Madonna is pledging to perform oral sex on voters who cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.

The pop queen, known for her shocking antics, made the remark Tuesday while opening for comedian Amy Schumer in New York.“If you vote for Hillary Clinton,” Madonna told the crowd at Madison Square Garden, “I will give you a blow job.”

“And I’m good,” the 58-year-old “Like a Virgin” singer, an outspoken supporter of the Democratic presidential nominee, said to cheers from the audience.

“I’m not a tool. I take my time,” Madonna boasted.

Madonna has made a point of rooting on the former secretary of State’s White House bid,posting several pro-Clinton messages on Twitter.

19 October 2016

If You Tell Me You Are Supporting Hillary, I Already Know Seven Things About You | The State

If You Tell Me You Are Supporting Hillary, I Already Know Seven Things About You:

1. You don’t understand basic economics.
This one is perhaps the biggest giveaway, and I would venture to say a vast majority of Hillary’s supporters don’t have even a rudimentary knowledge of economics. For example, a higher minimum wage hurts the poor and raises unemployment, and higher taxes on corporations and on the rich hurts the economy and hurts the poor the most. Additionally, regulations stifle economic growth, and our debt is reaching unsustainable levels. We are also already in a depression which is being masked by low interest rates. We are one bad bank decision away from a global Great Depression that everyone will suffer from. Your excuse is to simply say “trickle-down economics doesn’t work,” but the sad truth is, you have no idea what you’re talking about. If Hillary’s supporters knew anything about basic economics, they wouldn’t be Hillary supporters – period.
2. You are an insider, a statist, a corporatist, a fascist, a socialist, or a communist.
At least to some degree, you have to be one of the above to support Hillary Clinton. It’s highly unlikely you could be anything else. Considering Hillary herself fits the bill on most of these titles, I would say it’s hard to imagine someone supporting her who doesn’t as well. Even her rival in the primary was a self-proclaimed, devout socialist.
3. You have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.
You see the words “higher minimum wage,” and you get excited without doing the research into the ramifications. Same goes for “free universal healthcare,” “free tuition,” and “higher taxes on the rich and big business.” You are unable to objectively analyze consequences of actions, and instead prefer to support what “looks good,” or “feels right” with no real thought process behind it. This makes you an ignorant do-gooder who contributes to the decline of our society.
4. You are a bigot, you just don’t know it yet.
You’ve slandered people on the right, and you’ve oppressed people who did not agree with you. You’ve dehumanized friends, family members and even colleagues by calling them racists, misogynists, idiots, nazis and xenophobes. You did this, you know you did this, and you know it’s bigotry, you just won’t admit it yet.
5. You think blacks and Hispanics are inferior, and you support mass genocide.
Essentially, you’re the real racists, and you’re only one small step away from overtly supporting mass oppression and mass genocide. You dehumanize blacks and Hispanics, and pretend they would be helpless without you. You call them things like “super-predators” behind closed doors, but pretend to champion their causes at all other times. Meanwhile, you only care about your own image, and care little if anything for the minorities you indirectly denigrate. Democrats of old passed laws to designate blacks as “not-human,” while democrats of today passed laws to designate the unborn as “not-human.” You already support mass genocide and mass oppression, you just don’t know it yet.
6. You are woefully ignorant of how business and taxes work.
It’s easy to get you riled up about Trump’s taxes, because you don’t know anything about taxes. You think when the government sends you a refund check it’s a gift from the Feds. You’re also completely ignorant about business, how it works, why it exists, and what it has done for our society. You are business illiterate, and you probably have a degree in communications, anthropology, sociology, or some other obscure liberal art.
7. You think the media is unbiased (except Fox News), and you think academics know everything.
Your ignorance of the bias which exists in the media and within academia is stunning. You think journalists and academics are inviolable, and you practically salivate when you read/watch a piece or read a study which you already agree with. You are very susceptible to the halo effect, and you value credentials over results. You have very little ability to think critically or rationally, and your success in life and in your career have suffered as a result of your poor judgement. You are brilliantly ignorant, and supremely egotistical with nothing to show for it. You are what I like to call, an intellectual with no judgement, or a thinker with no mind. You are sad and angry about this, because your lack of understanding of the world and how it works leaves you frustrated and feeling depressed. As a result, you attack and demoralize others who do not agree with your simplistic, naive ideals.
If you tell me you support Hillary Clinton, I probably already know everything about you.

AIMING IS USELESS! 3 Secrets To Great Shooting | Rob Leatham 6x IPSC Wor...

17 October 2016

Is the system rigged? You Betcha

WASHINGTON – “Remember, it’s a rigged system. It’s a rigged election,” said Donald Trump in New Hampshire on Saturday.
The stunned recoil in this city suggests this bunker buster went right down the chimney. As the French put it, “Il n’y a que la verite qui blesse.” It is only the truth that hurts.
In what sense is the system rigged?
Consider Big Media – the elite columnists and commentators, the dominant national press, and the national and cable networks, save Fox. Not in this writer’s lifetime has there been such blanket hatred and hostility of a presidential candidate of a major party.
“So what?” They reply. “We have a free press!”
But in this election, Big Media have burst out of the closet as an adjunct of the regime and the attack arm of the Clinton campaign, aiming to bring Trump down.
Half a century ago, Theodore White wrote of the power and bias of the “adversary press” that sought to bring down Richard Nixon.
“The power of the press in America,” wrote Teddy, “is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk about and think about – an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins.”
On ABC’s “This Week,” Newt Gingrich volunteered on Sunday that, “without the unending one-sided assault of the news media, Trump would be beating Hillary by 15 points.”
On this one, Newt is right.
With all due respect, as adversaries, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not terribly formidable. Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism against those of Americanism.
Is the system rigged? Ask yourself.
For half a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has systematically de-Christianized and paganized American society and declared abortion and homosexual marriage constitutional rights.
Where did these unelected jurists get the right to impose their views and values upon us, and remake America in their own secularist image? Was that really the court’s role in the Constitution?
How did we wind up with an all-powerful judicial tyranny in a nation the Founding Fathers created as a democratic republic?
There are more than 11 million illegal immigrants here, with millions more coming. Yet the government consistently refuses to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.
Why should those Americans whose ancestors created, fought, bled and died to preserve America not believe they and their children are being dispossessed of a country that was their patrimony – and without their consent?
When did the country vote to convert the America we grew up in into the Third World country our descendants will inherit in 2042?
In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a congressional majority voted to end discrimination against black folks.
When did we vote to institute pervasive discrimination against white folks, especially white males, with affirmative action, quotas and racial set-asides? Even in blue states like California, affirmative action is routinely rejected in statewide ballots.
Yet it remains regime policy, embedded in the bureaucracy.
In 2015, in the Democratic primaries, the big enthusiastic crowds were all for 75-year-old socialist senator Bernie Sanders.
We now know, thanks to leaked emails, that not only the superdelegates and the Obama White House but a collaborationist press and the DNC were colluding to deny Sanders any chance at the nomination.
The fix was in. Ask Sanders if he thinks the system is rigged.
If there is an issue upon which Americans agree, it is that they want secure borders and an end to trade policies that have shipped abroad the jobs, and arrested the wages, of working Americans.
Yet in a private speech that netted her $225,000 from Brazilian bankers, Hillary Clinton confided that she dreams of a “common market, with open trade and open borders” from Nome, Alaska, to Patagonia.
That would mean the end of the USA as a unique, sovereign and independent nation. But the American press, whose survival depends upon the big ad dollars of transnational corporations, is more interested in old tapes of the Donald on “The Howard Stern Show.”
As present, it appears that in 2017, we may get a government headed by Hillary Clinton, and an opposition headed by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
Is that what the people were hoping for, working for, voting for in the primaries of 2016? Or is this what they were voting against?
Big money and the media power of the establishment elites and the transnationals may well prevail.
And if they do, Middle America – those who cling to their Bibles, bigotries and guns in Barack Obama’s depiction, those “deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic,” who are “not America” and are “irredeemable” in Hillary Clinton’s depiction – will have to accept the new regime.
But that does not mean they must love it, like it or respect it.
Because, in the last analysis, yes, Virginia, the system is rigged.

14 October 2016

Obama Executive Privilege and HRC Emails

WikiLeaks: Podesta Asks Clinton's Lawyer, 'Think We Should Hold Emails To and From (Obama)?'

By Susan Jones | October 14, 2016 | 12:02 PM EDT

President Barack Obama hugs Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton after addressing the delegates during the third day session of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Wednesday, July 27, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

(CNSNews.com) - In a March 4, 2015 email to Hillary Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills, Clinton's eventual campaign chairman John Podesta asks if they should withhold email exchanges between Clinton and President Obama that were sent over Clinton's private server.

The day before Podesta sent his email to Mills, the House Benghazi Committee privately told Clinton to preserve and hand over all her emails. (The FBI report on Clinton's emails notes on Page 18 that on March 3, 2015, the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi provided a letter to the law firm Williams & Connolly requesting the preservation and production of all documents and media related to the email addresses hdr22@clintonemail.com and hrcl7@clintonemail.com.)

The email from Podesta to Mills, titled "Special Category," reads: "Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I(t) seems like they will."

Mills did not respond by email. The Clinton-Obama emails were turned over to the State Department, which later announced it would not release them.

At the Jan. 29, 2016 State Department briefing, spokesman John Kirby told reporters:

"As the White House has previously stated, Secretary Clinton and the President did on occasion exchange emails. As they have also said previously, such presidential records shall remain confidential to protect the President’s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel but will ultimately be released in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

"I can confirm that 18 emails comprised of eight distinct email chains between former Secretary Clinton and President Obama are being withheld in full from the State Department’s FOIA production today of...former Secretary Clinton’s emails.

"The decision to withhold presidential correspondence from State’s Freedom of Information Act production of former Secretary Clinton’s emails was widely covered months ago. In response to a FOIA request, again, it is not unusual to deny or withhold a document in full. To be clear, the emails between then Secretary Clinton and President Obama have not been determined to be classified. They are entirely separate and distinct from the emails in today’s release that were upgraded to top secret, secret, or confidential, and I’m not going to speak again to the content of that email traffic."

The FBI report released this past July revealed that President Obama used a pseudonym in his email correspondence with Clinton. (In her April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Clinton aide Huma Abedin was shown the pseudonym used by the president, and she exclaimed at the time, "How is this not classified?")

President Obama told CBS News on March 7, 2015 that he learned about Clinton's use of a private email server “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports."

It was five days previously, on March 2, 2015, that The New York Times reported for the first time that Clinton had used a private email account and server to conduct official government business while serving as secretary of state.

On March 9, Obama's spokesman clarified that the president knew Hillary Clinton conducted business on a nongovernment email account while serving as secretary of state, but he had only recently learned the details of the privately run system, including her exclusive use of a private server.


Citi MUST be Shut Down!

The Most Important WikiLeaks Revelation Isn’t About Hillary Clinton
What John Podesta’s emails from 2008 reveal about the way power works in the Democratic Party.

October 14, 2016

The most important revelation in the WikiLeaks dump of John Podesta’s emails has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. The messages go all the way back to 2008, when Podesta served as co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. And a month before the election, the key staffing for that future administration was almost entirely in place, revealing that some of the most crucial decisions an administration can make occur well before a vote has been cast.

Michael Froman, who is now U.S. trade representative but at the time was an executive at Citigroup, wrote an email to Podesta on October 6, 2008, with the subject “Lists.” Froman used a Citigroup email address. He attached three documents: a list of women for top administration jobs, a list of non-white candidates, and a sample outline of 31 cabinet-level positions and who would fill them. “The lists will continue to grow,” Froman wrote to Podesta, “but these are the names to date that seem to be coming up as recommended by various sources for senior level jobs.”

The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.

This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that.

Many already suspected that Froman, a longtime Obama consigliere, did the key economic policy hiring while part of the transition team. We didn’t know he had so much influence that he could lock in key staff that early, without fanfare, while everyone was busy trying to get Obama elected. The WikiLeaks emails show even earlier planning; by September the transition was getting pre-clearance to assist nominees with financial disclosure forms.

We certainly want an incoming administration to be well-prepared and ready to go when power is transferred. For Obama, coming into office while the economy was melting down, this was particularly true. But the revelations also reinforce the need for critical scrutiny of Hillary Clinton, and for advocacy to ensure the next transition doesn’t go like the last, at least with respect to the same old Democrats scooping up all the positions of power well in advance.

Many liberal pundits have talked about the need to focus exclusively on Donald Trump, and the existential threat he presents, in the critical period before Election Day. And there is a logic to that idea: Trump would legitimately be a terrifying leader of the free world. But there are consequences to the kind of home-team political atmosphere that rejects any critical thought about your own side. If the 2008 Podesta emails are any indication, the next four years of public policy are being hashed out right now, behind closed doors. And if liberals want to have an impact on that process, waiting until after the election will be too late.

Who gets these cabinet-level and West Wing advisory jobs matters as much as policy papers or legislative initiatives. It will inform executive branch priorities and responses to crises. It will dictate the level of enforcement of existing laws. It will establish the point of view of an administration and the advice Hillary Clinton will receive. Its importance cannot be stressed enough, and the process has already begun.

The wing of the Democratic Party concerned about personnel decisions made its opinion known almost two years ago. Dan Geldon, now chief of staff to Senator Elizabeth Warren, met with Dan Schwerin, a top adviser to Clinton’s campaign, in January 2015. According to an email follow-up with Podesta and others, Geldon “was intently focused on personnel issues, laid out a detailed case against the Bob Rubin school of Democratic policy makers.” He was also “very critical of the Obama administration’s choices.”

The “Bob Rubin school” is named for the former top executive at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and first Clinton administration Treasury secretary. It is composed precisely of the kinds of Democrats that the Warren wing opposes on domestic policy, particularly on financial matters. In the Obama administration, that school won out. Froman, chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, gave options for Treasury secretary that ranged from Rubin himself to Summers and Geithner, two of his key protégés. In another 2008 email Rubin imagined for himself a “Harry Hopkins” position in the Obama administration, referring to Franklin Roosevelt’s top adviser.

The Rubin school dictated the Obama administration’s light-touch policy on bank misconduct (which resulted in no serious legal or fiduciary consequences for the major players) and its first-term approach to the financial crisis (which was defined by a stimulus package that even at the time was criticized for being woefully inadequate, as well as a premature turn to budget-cutting). These are exactly the flaws that Geldon, Warren’s emissary, stressed. According to Schwerin, he “spoke repeatedly about the need to have in place people with ambition and urgency who recognize how much the middle class is hurting and are willing to challenge the financial industry.”

Around the same time as that meeting with Geldon, the Clinton campaign was setting up a dinner meeting with its economic policy team, Geithner, Summers, and members of the investment firm Blackstone (along with Teresa Ghilarducci, a retirement security researcher).

This is a fight over who dominates the Democratic Party’s policy thinking in the short and long term. In 2008 the fight was invisible and one-sided, and the fix was in. In 2016 both sides are angling to get Clinton to adopt their framework. Those predisposed to consider Clinton some neoliberal sap might not agree, but this is actually a live ball. Presidents lead coalitions, and they have to understand where their coalition is and how things change over time. Peter Orszag this week suggested a trade-off: Give the Warren wing its choices on personnel, in exchange for more leeway to negotiate an infrastructure package with Republicans that gives big tax breaks to corporations with money stashed overseas. While that deal needs more detail, it reveals the power the Warren wing has, relative to the Obama era, to make significant strides on appointments.

Which side will win? The rank and file can actually have a voice in this, to make it known what personnel decisions would be acceptable or unacceptable. They can’t do it by ignoring evidence or sitting on their hands. The demand to only hold one thing in your head at a time—that Trump must be stopped—would squander this opportunity.