Tag: Bernie Sanders

Trump Takes “Super Tuesday”: The Rebellion Continues

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Trump-Pheno-600-nrdBoys and Girls, the Results of the “Super Tuesday” Political Primaries have shown us that Americans have opened their proverbial windows and are screaming at the top of their lungs,

I’m mad as hell, and I won’t take it anymore.

According to The Washington Times,

Republicans continued to shatter turnout records in their presidential primaries and caucuses Tuesday, while Democrats lagged behind in what analysts said was a clear indication of an enthusiasm gap heading into the general election.

Virginia’s GOP primary tallied more than 1 million votes, shattering the record set in 2000 by more than 50 percent. Democrats, meanwhile, were 200,000 votes shy of their own record, set in the contested 2008 primary.

In Tennessee, GOP turnout crossed the 800,000-vote mark, leapfrogging the previous record by nearly 50 percent.

Records were also likely to be set in Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Massachusetts.

Democrats, though, were struggling, seeing turnout drop by massive levels in all of their races Tuesday night. That included Vermont and Arkansas, where their two candidates had home-state advantages of sorts, yet still couldn’t match the enthusiasm of the 2008 contest.

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump said he’s the chief reason for the shifts in both parties, saying he’s drawn Democrats and independents into the Republican process this year, boosting his party at the expense of Democrats.

So, is this true? Or, simply some of Donald J. Trump’s World-Renown Braggadocio?

As the late Professional Baseball Player and member of their Hall of Fame, Jay Hanna “Dizzy” Dean, used to say,

It ain’t braggin’, if you can do it.

The Professional Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, and the Liberal Lapdogs, known as the Main Stream Media, have become victims of their own sensationalism…used against them.

Why do I believe that Donald J. Trump is still the frontrunner among all the Republican Presidential Candidates?

This brash, unabashedly American, business entrepreneur and quintessential showman has dominated the media for the past several years.

The popularity of his reality program on NBC and the catch phrase that came leaping out from it, “You’re fired!”, spread across America like wildfire.

Now, his Presidential Campaign continues to do the same.

It is not just his flamboyance that has caught the eye of Americans.

The fact is, after almost two terms of an Administration taking the greatest country in the world on a scenic tour of the Highway to Hell, Donald Trump is the only Republican Candidate shouting, “Hit the brakes, you idiots!”

Trump’s straightforwardness has struck a chord in the hearts of average Americans, tired of the wussification of America, being so relentlessly pushed by both modern political parties.

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican Establishment:

They run around telling everybody how Conservative they are, when in reality, they actually hold the same beliefs as Liberal Democrats.

Ronald Reagan gave a famous stump speech about the fact that the Republican Party at one time, needed “bold colors, not pale pastels”, which I posted an excerpt from, last week.

Back in the day, that political strategy propelled Ronald Reagan to the Presidency of the United States.

Per learnourhistory.com:

Through the 1970s, the United States struggled through a terrible recession and government became much more involved in Americans’ lives. Additionally, America showed significant weakness globally, as the Soviet Union flexed its muscles and smaller nations began to lose both fear and respect for the United States. It was clear the country needed a change.

Ronald Reagan was the right man for the job and was elected in a landslide. He swiftly changed the course of the nation, lowering taxes and reducing regulations to stimulate the economy and standing up for America’s principles and beliefs around the world. In addition to his changes to foreign and domestic policy, Reagan was an “American Exceptionalist”, meaning that he understood that there was something special and different about America that set it apart from all other nations. During his time in office, Reagan reduced the intrusive role of the government and helped the nation re-discover its greatness, power and economic growth.

The Political Strategy of “Bold Colors” is the reason that Trump is still leading all of the Professional Politicians, who are currently seeking the Nomination for the Republican Presidential Candidacy.

From what I’m seeing, from both sides of the Political Aisle, Professional Politicians are not even presenting Americans with pale pastels.

…Donald Trump is.

The Vichy Republicans have shown their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

It is almost as if they believe that the Political Tsunami, which resulted in Republicans holding both Houses of Congress, came about because they made themselves look like Democrats.

They need to come down off of Capitol Hill every now and then.

And, visit Realityville.

Liberals, from both sides of the Political Aisle, are beside themselves trying to figure out why Donald Trump is leading all of the other Republican candidates, several of whom more closely mirror their own political ideology, as I mentioned earlier.

Daonald J. Trump has struck a resonding note with the majority of American people, simply because he is saying the things which we would like to say to these professional politicians, who have forgotten who gave them their phony baloney jobs.

Liberals, during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, have had their way in the course of a great many things.

Plain talk and forthrighteousness have been replaced by weasel words and political correctness.

The fulfilling of promises made to constituencies by Republican politicians, has been replaced by “Vichy Republicans” “going along to get along” with their drinking buddies from across the Political Aisle.

Just as the colonists revolted against taxation without representation, I believe that we are seeing a rebellion by average Americans, like you and me, living here in the Heartland of America, who have had enough of lies and broken promises, given to them by politicians who are supposed to be serving them and not the other way around.

Average Americans, like you and me, living from paycheck to paycheck in America’s Heartland, are fed up with the Washingtonian Status Quo.

If we wanted to continue to put up with their Liberal Stupidity, we would have left all of them in office.

Instead, in the Mid-term Election of 2014, we showed them the door.

In summation, the American people are tired of Political Correctness and anti-American political expediencies being forced down our throats by both political parties and trumpeted by their lackeys in the Main Stream Media.

Donald Trump, for all of his brashness and braggadocio, is a breath of free air and, quite frankly an anomaly. He’s not a professional politician. He is a businessman who wants to become a public servant.

Now, where did I hear that before?

Oh, yeah.

That’s the way the Founding Fathers envisioned our system of government, led by citizens, who served their terms as public servants…AND THEN WENT HOME.

But, I digress…

You know what tickles me the most about “The Donald”?

He reminds me of one of my favorite movie characters.

He actually has a backbone.

Just remember what ol’ Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol’ storm right square in the eye and he says, “Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.” – Jack Burton, Truck Driver (Kurt Russell) “Big Trouble in Little China”

…and that, boys and girls, regardless of how you feel about “The Donald”, is a refreshing change.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Hillary Buries Bernie in South Carolina Primary. Poised to “Run the South”. Why?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Socialist-Ring-600-LILast night, Democrat Presidential Primary Candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, annihilated Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders in the South Carolina Presidential Primary,  by receiving 73.5 percent over the vote to  “Doc Emmett Brown’s” (Christopher Lloyd, Back to the Future) Doppelganger’s 26 percent. This was more than Barack Hussein Obama’s 29-point victory in 2008.

Like Obama, Clinton received overwhelming support from black voters, who went for Hillary by a surprising gap of 87% to 13%, according to updated exit polls.

This was a larger victory among black voters than the “History-making First Black President” had.

Last night, in South Carolina, black voters represented 62 percent of the electorate, per the exit polls, a higher number than in 2008. ***information courtesy of the New York Times.

Why was there such a huge margin of victory for “The Queen of Mean”?

  1. Both Black and White Southerners have absolutely nothing in common with New England’s Socialist Curmudgeon, Bernie Sanders.
  2. Hillary is well-known throughout the South, due to her husband’s time as the Governor of Arkansas and all of the campaign stops and visits he made, both before and during his Presidency.
  3. The DNC , through the use of “Super Delegates” and other bits of “Political Chicanery” will insure that their favorite candidate wins the nomination.
  4. Black voters believe that Hillary will continue Obama’s policies, as relates to “Government Assistance” and “Inequality”.

They most assuredly did not vote on her record.

One week after Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States, on November 4, 2008, he called Hillary and offered her the job of Secretary of State, despite the fact that she had no Foreign Policy experience. It was a suspicious choice at best, considering that fact that when they were running against each other in the Democratic Primaries,Obama had specifically criticized Clinton’s Foreign Policy credentials and the initial idea of him appointing her had been so unexpected that she had told one of her own aides, “Not in a million years.”

The fact that she had campaigned unreservedly for Obama after he defeated her for the Democratic Nomination, led to speculation that the Secretary of State job was a “reward for her loyalty”.

Hillary accepted the position, and now, as her Campaign to lock up the Democrat Presidential Candidacy is in high gear, even the Main Stream Media is still hard-pressed to come up with anything she accomplished as Obama’s First Secretary of State.

Here are seven Foreign Policy Disasters, which happened under Hillary’s watch as the Architect of “Smart Power!”, in no particular order:

The decision to overthrow President Gaddafi in Libya – The short-sighted, ill-conceived action not only undermined an ally in the (now defunct) “global war on terror,” it also served to throw gasoline on the bonfire known as “Arab Spring.

The Afghanistan “Surge”- A military campaign that fails to result in a desired political outcome is con only be considered a failure. What exactly was Obama and Hillary’s desired outcome when they called for this?  It is a fait d’accompli that the Karzai Government will be able to survive long once the U.S. completes its withdrawal of its combat forces from the country in 2014. This is can only be considered a failure, A failure which cost too many of our Brightest and Best.

Granting Afghanistan major non-NATO U.S. ally status – Why did Barry and Hill decide to grant Afghanistan the status of a major non-NATO ally? When we pull out, our enemied will pour in. And, with “friends” like these, you don’t need enemies.

Maintaining the status quo with Pakistan – Pakistan has a long history of sponsoring Sunni jihadists of various stripes. Following the 2001 attacks on the United States, they did an about-face, becoming a chief partner in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan as well as its “global war on terror.”
10 years later, following the successful May 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan that resulted in the death of Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, Pakistan promptly denounced the U.S. and closed its vital supply routes to NATO-bound shipments to Afghanistan.
Hil and Barry got “played”.

The East Asia “pivot” – Strictly an exercise in containment, attempts at containing China will only fuel Chinese fears of foreign encirclement, that will encourage Chinese assertiveness, that will further encourage containment.  This pivot is only a bluff on behalf of the feckless purveyors of “Smart Power to begin with. As shown by the continued drawing of “Red Lines”, they will not stand up to our enemies.

Arab Spring – The Arab Spring was a series of protests and uprisings in the Middle East that began with unrest in Tunisia in late 2010. The Arab Spring has brought down regimes in some Arab countries, sparked mass violence in others, while some governments managed to delay the trouble with a mix of repression, promise of reform and state largesse.
Through this all Hillary and Obama have back the Muslim Brotherhood, the Godfather of Muslim Terrorist Organizations, in deposing Moderate Muslim Leaders.
Doesn’t make a while lot of sense, does it?

BenghaziGate – On September 11, 2012, Muslim Terrorists stormed the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, slaughtered 4 brave Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stephens, whose lifeless, sexually assaulted body they drug through the streets, while taking cell phone pictures of his corpse.
I have written several blogs about the Administration’s Cover-up of this atrocity, but the seminal moment, regarding Hillary Clinton came in January of 2013, during an exchange between her and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing.  Johnson asked her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. Hillary, as we say down here in Dixie, “got on her high keys” and said,

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

A short while back, I was struck by how similar the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton was to the classic movie “A Face in the Crowd”:

Andy Griffith makes a spectacular film debut in this searing drama as Lonesome Rhodes, a philosophical country-western singer discovered in a tanktown jail by radio talent scout Patricia Neal and her assistant Walter Matthau. They decide that Rhodes is worthy of a radio spot, but the unforeseen result is that the gangly, aw-shucks entertainer becomes an overnight sensation not simply on radio but, thereafter, on television. As he ascends to stardom, Rhodes attracts fans, sponsors and endorsements by the carload, and soon he is the most powerful and influential entertainer on the airwaves. Beloved by his audience, Rhodes reveals himself to his intimates as a scheming, power-hungry manipulator, with Machiavellian political aspirations. He uses everyone around him, coldly discarding anyone who might impede his climb to the top.

Just like Lonesome Rhodes, Hillary’s is a completely manufactured persona. Also like Rhodes, she was meant to represent something unique.

While Rhodes represented the common man, down on his luck, who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to achieve success, Clinton, in turn, is supposed to represent the return of the affable Bill “Bubba” Clinton’s reign as President…a fictional Kennedy-style “Camelot”, where Fairy Tales came true, and the Progressive Clintons ruled with impunity.

And, just as Rhodes was exposed for the vacuous, megalomaniac that he was, so has Hillary been revealed for who she is, through Benghazi and the popular movie about that horrible night, her corrupt influence-peddling involving the Clinton Foundation, and, the FBI Investigation into her use of private servers to handle Top Secret E-mails, while she was Secretary of State.

Last night’s results were to be expected, though.

If Southern Democrats are stuck with the choice of voting for “two pigs in a poke”, as the old Southern saying goes, they may as well vote for the one they know.

Until He Comes,

KJ

***The information contained in this blog may be found at discoverthenetworks.org, realclearpolitics.com, policy mic.com, mideast.about.com, and wsj.com.***

An American Insurgency: The People Vs. Big Money Donors: Welcome to the Rebirth of Populism

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Racist-stash-600-CIThe Main Stream Media and the Know-It-All Political Pundits, Amateur and Professional are all aghast at the results of the Presidential Primaries, which have been held so far, and the repudiation of the Washingtonian Status Quo.

The New York Times reports that

A seven-month, $220 million surge of spending on behalf of mainstream Republican candidates has yielded a primary battle dominated by Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, two candidates reviled by most of the party’s leading donors.

Now, as they approach a pivotal and expensive stage of the campaign, the two insurgent candidates — who have won the first three contests — appear to be in the best position financially to compete in the 11 states that will vote on Super Tuesday, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Saturday.

Mr. Cruz is the best financed candidate in the Republican race, beginning February with $13.6 million in cash on hand. Mr. Trump, a billionaire, has raised millions of dollars from small donors and lent himself millions more, including nearly $5 million in January. He paid out more than $11.5 million that month, the most sustained spending of his presidential bid so far.

The outcome is a rebuke to the party’s traditional donor class, which poured record-breaking amounts of money into the race last spring and summer in the hope of grooming a nominee with broad national appeal and a chance at winning over more Hispanic and other nonwhite voters. Instead, the candidates backed most lavishly by wealthy establishment-leaning Republican donors burned through much of the cash they accumulated last year, beginning the month deeply depleted. Those remaining in the race on Sunday, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, had less than $7 million in cash between them.

Jeb Bush, who entered the race last summer with more money behind him than every other Republican candidate combined, ended his campaign on Saturday with just $2.9 million in the bank and a fourth-place finish in South Carolina, a state the Bush family once considered a political stronghold.

Much of the donor class’s money was spent on a shootout among its favored candidates. Groups backing Mr. Bush, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Kasich and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey devoted almost three-quarters of the money they spent on negative advertising to attacking those other candidates rather than Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz, according to the commission’s data. The outside group aligned with Mr. Bush, Right to Rise, spent an astonishing $34 million in January alone, with little impact on Mr. Bush’s own fortunes.

“The establishment G.O.P. is lying to itself. This election at its core is a rejection of their globalist economic agenda and failed immigration policies — and of rule by the donor class,” said Laura Ingraham, the conservative talk-radio host and political activist. “Millions want the party to go in a more populist direction.”

That proposition will be tested in the coming weeks, as Republican donors begin to organize more strategically against Mr. Trump. Our Principles PAC, a group devoted to highlighting his past support for Democratic positions like universal health care, higher taxes and abortion rights, is now spending significantly to persuade Republicans that Mr. Trump is not a reliable conservative.

On Saturday, filings revealed that Marlene Ricketts, a prominent Republican donor who previously supported the campaign of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, provided the group with $3 million in January. Richard Uihlein, a wealthy Chicago-area businessman and conservative patron, also contributed to the group.

Katie Packer, a Republican strategist overseeing Our Principles, said the group’s ads had helped reduce Mr. Trump’s margin of victory in South Carolina. “Our hope is that the field will winnow and conservatives will coalesce behind a candidate that believes in conservative principles and can unite the party,” Ms. Packer said. “We intend to keep the heat on in Nevada and the March 1 states and as long as it takes for that to occur.”

Mr. Kasich had just $1.4 million on hand at the end of January — virtually dry against the scale of modern presidential campaigns — while Mr. Rubio had $5 million, though both campaigns were expected to capitalize on strong showings in the first two contests. After spending tens of millions of dollars between them, the “super PAC” backing Mr. Kasich reported only $2.4 million in cash on hand, while the group backing Mr. Rubio had $5.6 million.

The disparity between traditional and insurgent candidates was echoed to some extent on the Democratic side, where Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont raised almost $6.5 million more than Hillary Clinton in January — the first reporting period in which his campaign has taken in more money. Virtually all of that money came from donors giving small checks.

But Mr. Sanders also spent heavily to win in New Hampshire and fight Mrs. Clinton to a virtual tie in Iowa, dropping $35 million in January, reports filed late on Saturday showed. He ended the month with less than half as much cash on hand as Mrs. Clinton.

A super PAC backing Mrs. Clinton, Priorities USA Action, also continues to stockpile cash, reporting $45 million in cash on hand at the end of last month. The group took in almost $10 million in January, including $3.5 million from James H. Simons, a retired hedge fund founder from New York.

Mr. Kasich and Mr. Rubio are now hoping to take advantage of Mr. Bush’s decision to quit the race, leaving them to divvy up his remaining large donors. Both have been heavily dependent on donors making large contributions: Mr. Kasich raised just 17 percent of his contributions from donors giving $200 or less in January, and Mr. Rubio 19 percent.

“South Carolina is the political equivalent of the parting of the Red Sea,” said Theresa Kostrzewa, a Bush fund-raiser in North Carolina, who predicted most of Mr. Bush’s supporters would flow to Mr. Rubio. “Republicans: This is your sign from God.”

Jeff Sadowsky, a spokesman for the pro-Rubio group, Conservative Solutions PAC, said on Saturday that he expected the race to “go on for quite some time.” The group is planning to begin what Mr. Sadowsky described as a “multistate, multimillion-dollar advertising effort” on Tuesday.

Mr. Kasich’s chief strategist, John Weaver, told reporters on Saturday that Mr. Kasich’s fund-raising had increased “dramatically” since his second-place finish in the New Hampshire primary, but did not specify by how much. And Mr. Kasich faces perhaps the biggest challenge. He is bypassing this week’s Republican caucuses in Nevada, and he is counting on strong performances in Michigan, whose primary is March 8, and his home state of Ohio, which votes on March 15. He is not likely to have another attention-grabbing finish before those contests.

“We’re confident we’re going to get enough to run the kind of campaign we need,” Mr. Weaver said after results came in on Saturday. “The days of us being outspent 10 to 1 are over because of what happened tonight.”

Dictionary.com defines “populism” as

1. the political philosophy of the People’s party.
2. (lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3. (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:populism in the arts.

That word first reappeared in the American Lexicon, when Sarah Palin almost dragged John McCain’s RINO Rear across the Finish Line, in the Presidential Election of 2008.

The Grassroots Movement, which began back then has led us to a seminal moment in American Politics.

The American People are speaking, loud and clear.

Yesterday, I wrote a factual article about why Donald J. Trump was winning in the Republican Primaries, so far.

And, I caught Hell about it.

I was called everything, but the Child of God that I am.

If y’all have any doubts about my Christian American Conservative Bonafides, there are almost 2,200 blogs which prove them, going back to April of 2010, when I started.

A Candidate Has to build a coalition, in order to win the Presidency.

Ronald Reagan, and, again, I am not comparing Trump to Reagan, figured out in 1980, that, in order to win the presidency, you had to bypass the Republican Establishment and go directly to the American People.

That is exactly what Donald J. Trump has done.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, broke it down for us, during his program on February 10, 2016…

This is what the Republican Party’s been telling us they need to win.  I’ve had ’em come to my office.  I’ve told you.  I’ve had Rand Paul here, Mitt Romney’s here.  One thing they’ve all said in common is that Republican Party can’t win with Republican votes alone anymore.  We have to branch out, we have to reach out.  This is what they were telling me to prepare me for some of the campaign tactics that I was gonna see. That they were gonna have to reach out and immigration was one of the ways of reaching out, supporting amnesty. Well, all along Trump has built that coalition the Republican Party claims to want and they’re out there badgering it and bashing it.  It’s exactly what they claim to want.  They could have had it.  The Republican Party could have had the Trump coalition.  They could have had it at health care.  A majority of Americans opposed Obamacare from the get-go.  The Republican Party could have seriously attempted to form an alliance with the Tea Party and the anti-Obamacare people and been a dominant majority party on that issue alone.  And then on subsequent issues to come down the pike the Republican Party could have formed an alliance with majorities in other areas of opposition, and they didn’t. 

Donald Trump has the exact coalition the Republican Party, to a man, has told me they need to win, that they need to thrive.  And now they’re reduced to bashing it by virtue of bashing Trump.  And now they’re reduced to bashing it by virtue of bashing Cruz.  The two people who are showing the Republican Party all they had to do all these past seven years, but they didn’t.  They purposely, strategically, tactically refused to push back, refused to make a spectacle of stopping Obama, and they have themselves to blame for this predicament. 

People are not gonna donate and donate and vote and vote and hear the right things during campaigns, the promises to stop Obama, to oppose Obamacare, to seriously make an effort to repeal it.  Even if they don’t have the votes to override a veto, the effort, all it would have taken was the effort, all it would have taken was put the onus on Obama, make Obama illustrate that all this is his fingerprints.  No such strategy was ever seen. 

As I wrote yesterday, Trump is riding the crest of an ever-growing anger over the inaction of Professional Politicians, whom, after being voted into National Office by their constituents back home, have literally bitten the hand that feeds them, tossing Ma and Pa Kettle aside for Big Money Donors and the Political Prestige of “reaching across the aisle”, i.e.. “selling out”.

I understand the frustration that Cruz Supporters feel right now.

I like him, too. In fact, during his ongoing quest against the Establishment (Vichy) Republicans, I’ve stood by him 100%.

The problem is, Moderates and Democrats, for whatever reason, do not trust Cruz. I wish that they did.

Holding one’s breath until they turn blue, or telling a Christian American Conservative that they are somehow condemned to Hell and are Unpatriotic, for pointing out the reality that Trump is the Undisputed Leader in the Republican Primary Race, is not going to change the reality of the situation.

Neither will staying at home and not voting this November, if Trump receives the Republican Nomination.

That’s been tried before.

That is how we got stuck with Petulant President Pantywaist.

Actions (and Inactions) have consequences.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama Attacks Trump During Presidential Press Conference. Throws Stone From Glass House.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Obama-Shrinks-2Yesterday, President Barack Hussein Obama held a Press Conference….and further demeaned the Office, which he presently holds.

CNN.com posted the following article…

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama has a message for Donald Trump — being president is tougher than being on a reality show and the American people are too “sensible” to elect him.

“I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president,” Obama said at a news conference in California after a meeting with southeast Asian leaders. “And the reason is that I have a lot of faith in the American people. Being president is a serious job. It’s not hosting a talk show, or a reality show.”

He went on: “It’s not promotion, it’s not marketing. It’s hard. And a lot of people count on us getting it right.”

Obama offered surprisingly frank assessments of the campaign to replace him, taking shots at Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. He also hinted hint that he was sympathetic to Hillary Clinton’s position on the difficulty of enacting political change, as she faces a tough challenge from a candidate in Bernie Sanders, who has fired up Democratic primary voters who are demanding sweeping reform.

But it was the potential of a Trump administration that Obama seemed most eager to critique. 

The presidency isn’t “a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day. And sometimes, it requires you making hard decisions even when people don’t like it,” Obama said, adding that whoever succeeds him needs to be able to reflect the importance of their office and give foreign leaders confidence he or she knows their names and something about their nations’ histories. Obama also appeared to raise the question of whether Trump was prepared to be commander-in-chief.

“Whoever’s standing where I’m standing right now has the nuclear codes with them, and can order 21-year-olds into a firefight, and (has) to make sure that the banking system doesn’t collapse, and is often responsible for not just the United States of America, but 20 other countries that are having big problems, or are falling apart and are gonna be looking for us to something.”

He added: “The American people are pretty sensible, and I think they’ll make a sensible choice in the end.”

Trump responded to Obama during an event in Beaufort, South Carolina.

“He has done such a lousy job as president,” Trump said, before adding that he didn’t mind being targeted by Obama, saying he took it as a “great compliment.”

Trump wasn’t the only Republican who took a shot from the President.

When he bemoaned Republican warnings that his nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court would not even get a hearing, Obama rebuked people who claim to be “strict interpreters” of the Constitution — except regarding his right to propose a nominee.

That seemed to be a clear jab at Cruz, who has helped lead calls to prevent the president installing a nominee who could tilt the ideological balance of the court to the left.

Rubio also came under fire when the president mocked “a candidate who sponsored a bill, that I supported, to finally solve the immigration problem, and he’s running away from it as fast as he can.”

The President stepped more carefully when he was asked about the Democratic race. He opened by making it look like he was delivering a veiled endorsement of Clinton, who is facing a stronger than expected challenge from Sanders.

“You know, I know Hillary better than I know Bernie, because she’s served in my administration, and she was an outstanding secretary of state. And I suspect that, on certain issues, she agrees with me more than Bernie does,” Obama said.

But then added: “On the other hand, there may be a couple issues where Bernie agrees with me more. I don’t know, I haven’t studied their positions that closely.”

Obama who, like Sanders, once wowed young Democrats with soaring calls for change in the 2008 election, also appeared to give credence to Clinton’s election argument that pushing through fundamental reforms is harder than it looks.

“Ultimately, I will probably have an opinion on it, based on both — (having) been a candidate of hope and change and a President who’s got some nicks and cuts and bruises from — you know, getting stuff done over the last seven years.”

Obama was clear on one thing — he’s happy not to be in the race himself.

“The thing I can say unequivocally,” he said, “I am not unhappy that I am not on the ballot.”

Considering that you are about a popular with Americans as Michael Moore is with All-you-can-eat Buffets, I’ll bet you’re not, Mr. President.

That’s a nice Glass House you’ve got there, Skippy.

Let’s take a moment and look at your less-than-stellar track record before your “Sponsors” cleaned you up and foisted you upon the American People. shall we?

The following FACTS are contained in my post, “The Great Disconnect: The Whole, Ugly Truth About Barack Hussein Obama”…

From 1985 – 1988, Obama was a Community Organizer in Chicago.  What does a Community Organizer do?  I’m glad you asked.

Per Byron York in an article found at nationalreview.com:

Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising.

If you ask Obama’s fellow Community Organizers what his significant accomplishments were, they’ll say two things: the expansion of a city summer-job program for South Side teenagers and the removal of asbestos from one of the area’s oldest housing projects.  Those  were his biggest victories.

So, after 3 years of Community Organizing, Obama enrolled in Harvard Law School at the age of 27.  The question is:  How did he get the money for this?  In my article Why Haven’t I Heard of Khalid Al-Monsour? ,  I attempted to answer that question:

President Obama attended Harvard Law School from 1988 – 1991.  The average tuition during that time was $25,000 per year.  It would have cost $75,000 to attend there for 3 years.  As president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, according to Harvard spokesman Mike Armini in a interview with Newsmax.

If numbers cited by the Obama Presidential Campaign for Scooter”s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.  Hmmmmm.

Along with the funding issue, very little is known about Obama’s time at Harvard Law School,and his sycophants in the Liberal hierarchy, Main Stream Media,  and even Harvard Law School Administrators have done a remarkable job in running interference against anyone trying to find out about it.

From Jodi Kantor’s article at nytimes.com:

He arrived there as an unknown, Afro-wearing community organizer who had spent years searching for his identity; by the time he left, he had his first national news media exposure, a book contract and a shot of confidence from running the most powerful legal journal in the country.

In 1995  “Bomber” Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn hosted a fund-raiser for Obama prior to Obama’s run for Alice Palmer’s seat in the state Senate  and Ayers donated $200 to Obama’s upcoming state Senate campaign.

In 1996 at age 34, he ran for the state Senate in dubious campaign that is barely known of, outside of Chicago.   Alice Palmer, the incumbent, had decided to run for Congress and supported Obama as her successor.   But after Palmer’s congressional campaign ran into trouble, she changed her mind and decided to run for re-election to the Illinois Senate after all. Obama refused to step aside and the melee ensued.  One of Scooter’s volunteers challenged whether Palmer’s nominating petitions were even legal.  Obama’s campaign pulled the same chicanery concerning the petitions of other candidates.  Palmer dropped out, and the other candidates were disqualified.   So,  Obama won unopposed in the Democratic primary—guaranteeing his victory in the general election.  This was truly an example of Chicago-style politics at it’s finest…or dirtiest.

He “served” as a United States Senator from Illinois from 2005 – 2008.

Obama sponsored 121 bills as a senator, of which 115 never made it out of committee and 3 were successfully enacted.   He co-sponsored 506 bills during the same time period.

Barack Obama missed 314 (24%) of 1,300 roll call votes.  He did not have the option of voting “Present” as he did 130 times in the Illinois State Senate.

One and one half years after taking his seat in the U.S. Senate, Obama declared himself a candidate for the Democratic nomination as their representative in the 2008 Presidential Election.

And now, after 7 years of a failed presidency, Obama has the temerity to attacked a self-made billionaire, further degrading the Office of the President in the process.

Trump responded to Obama’s comments Tuesday from Beaufort, SC, saying,

This man has done such a bad job. He has set us back so far, and for him to say that is a great compliment, if you want to know the truth. A network called and wanted a response. I said, ‘You’re lucky I didn’t run last time when Romney ran, because you would have been a one-term president.’

The man may have a point.

According to the latest Reuters Poll, he still has a commanding lead over the other Republican Candidates, including Senator Ted Cruz…

  • Donald Trump 40.8%
  • Ted Cruz 16.9%
  • Ben Carson 11.5%
  • Marco Rubio 9.8%
  • Jeb Bush 8.0%
  • John Kasich 7.1%
  • Wouldn’t vote 5.4%
  • Jim Gilmore 0.6%
  • Carly Fiorina –%
  • Chris Christie –%

With November rapidly approaching, the Democrat Party, including the President himself, are beginning to show signs of desperation and panic.

Look at their two top candidates, can you blame them?

You have a crazy old Socialist, who looks like Doc Emmett Brown from “Back to the Future”, who hasn’t held a real job in over 40 years and a Former First Lady/Carpetbagger New York Senator/Failed Secretary of State, with obvious Health Issues and no personality whatsoever, who is so dadburn mean that grass never grows again where she spits.

It’s really no surprise that the President of the United States attacked the Leading Presidential Candidate of the Opposition Party, yesterday.

Liberals will tell you whom they fear.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Republican Establishment Stacks SC Debate Audience in an Effort to Derail Trump and Cruz

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

gop-debate-north-charleston-680x365A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. – Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975

Yesterday, on Facebook Political Pages and Political Websites, a lot of Americans were talking about Republican Presidential Hopeful Donald J. Trump and the less-than-supportive reaction that he received during the Republican Primary Candidate on Saturday Night, which was held in South Carolina, the state which will hold the next Primary Elections.

It turns out that there was a logical reason for that, and it wasn’t just his mercurial personality.

Breitbart.com reports that

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — The chairman of the local Republican Party here confirmed to local television that 2016 frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump’s concerns—and those of his closest competitor Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) —with the Republican National Committee (RNC) allocation of debate audience tickets are well-placed.

Chad Groover, the chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party here, told WYFF—the local NBC News station—that party donors get tickets to the debate.

“You’ll have a good mix of people who are donors, people who are donors and workers, and people who are just workers,” Groover said, noting that he got “a couple of dozen” of tickets to hand out to the party’s faithful donors.

“I didn’t have hundreds of tickets. I had a couple of dozen tickets,” Groover said.

That means a significant proportion of his stack of approximately 24 tickets went to monied interests backing the GOP—not to actual voters in the upcoming election.

Sources close to the process who work for the RNC, but are not authorized to speak on the record, confirmed to Breitbart News throughout the evening on Saturday that that is standard operating procedure for the RNC and the party as a whole for all debates: Donors get tickets while voters have to watch on TV at home.

As such, the same appears to have been true party-wide. One well-placed source who works for one of the GOP presidential campaigns and was in attendance at the debate on Saturday evening here—but was not authorized to speak on record about the matter—told Breitbart News that Sen. Lindseey Graham (R-SC) and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley were personally given scores of tickets to distribute. Both despise Trump and have said so publicly–Haley even using the platform of the official GOP response to the State of the Union to do so–and it would be no surprise if they did aim to stack the audience with anti-Trump sentiment.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said another source in the audience, someone who has attended several of the GOP debates. That source said the anti-Trump and anti-Cruz audience members—who were thoroughly cheering for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and his mentor former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush when they made passionate cases for amnesty for illegal aliens, something entirely non-representative of South Carolina’s electorate—were behaving unlike any audience he’d ever seen in his lifetime of attending GOP presidential debates.

The Republican National Committee’s Sean Spicer confirmed to Breitbart News pre-debate that the RNC proper distributed 367 tickets while the state party and locally elected officials received 550 tickets. Meanwhile the debate partners—CBS News, the Peace Center, and Google—received another 100 tickets. That means more than 1000 tickets—1,017 by Spicer’s admission—went not to voters in the upcoming election and not to campaigns for equal distribution to their supporters but to special interest distribution of those connected to the party, mostly high dollar donors. Only 600 tickets were distributed equally among the six remaining GOP campaigns, which to be fair to the RNC is the highest number of tickets distributed as such so far this election cycle.

But Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, is calling for the RNC to drop all donor tickets and stop handing them out to special and monied interests entirely. Lewandowski says at all the rest of the debates from here on out, Spicer and the RNC must equally allocate all tickets among the various campaigns so they can distribute them equally and fairly to their supporters—and cut out all the donors and special interests who get tickets.

“I think the RNC does a terrible job in allocating the tickets, to be honest with you, There’s an opportunity—there’s 2,000 seats out there, there’s six candidates on stage, they should just divide them evenly so everyone has them, but instead they just give them to the donor class, they give them to the lobbyists and to all the special interests,” Lewandowski said in the spin room. “It’s not fair, it’s not equitable. So I think what they should do moving forward is take the total number of seats available, allocate them across the board and let the candidates bring their people in, because that’s who should be here, not the donors.”

Spicer has refused repeatedly over the course of several emails on Saturday and Sunday morning to answer whether the RNC will comply with Lewandowski’s request to drop all RNC and state and local party ticket allocation and just allow the campaigns to equally distribute all debate tickets fairly to their supporters in the future.

Trump’s and Cruz’s concerns are even being confirmed by many across the political spectrum. In fact, even the left-of-center Huffington Post confirms that the RNC’s ticket allocation system seems to have been “behind” the excessive and unwarranted booing of Trump and Cruz—and cheering of the donor class supported Rubio and Bush.

“The audience at Saturday’s CBS News Republican presidential debate was more boisterous than unusual — booing, clapping and generally making its feelings known during several exchanges between candidates on stage in Greenville, South Carolina,” the Huffington Post’s Igor Bobic wrote. “At various points, attendees seemed to favor former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and to be very much against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and real estate mogul Donald Trump — the two candidates currently leading the race. The way the Republican National Committee distributed the tickets may have been behind the heightened reactions.”

Vox, another left-of-center outlet, ran a headline that made it even clearer: “The Republican establishment packed the debate audience with Donald Trump haters.” In the piece, author German Lopez noted that the audience’s pro-Rubio and pro-Bush cheering was “very peculiar” as was the booing of Trump and Cruz.

“Something very peculiar happened at the Republican debate on Saturday night: When Donald Trump talked, the audience booed. Yet when Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and even John Kasich talked, they got loud cheers and applause,” Lopez wrote. “This happened again and again. It even led a spike in Google searches for ‘Why are people booing?’”

Vox even admits that Trump’s claim on stage that the odd—and unrepresentative of the party’s voting base—audience was made up of “Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists” was really not “that far-fetched.”

“Prior to the debate, the Republican Party decided not to use a lottery system to decide who should be in the audience,” Lopez wrote. “Instead, most tickets went to elected Republican officials, donors, and other workers for the party picked by local, state, and national party officials. The result, it seems, is the room was packed with Republican voters who overwhelmingly dislike Trump.”

That seems to be why Lewandowski is calling for a new system for fairness, one that cuts the RNC completely out of the process. It remains to be seen if other campaigns will get on board with this, but earlier in the cycle–due to the RNC’s ineffectiveness in dealing with biased moderators–the entire field of campaign managers met privately to cut the RNC out of the process of negotiating with the networks. It is only logical that the next step is that the campaigns work to ensure fairness in debate audience selection, something the RNC clearly failed at providing.

Well, gosh. Why would the Establishment Republicans want to stack the audience like that?

Could they be desperate?

Did the ignorant, disrespectful CBS Television Series “Angel From Hell” featuring Jane Lynch, a Conservative-hating Atheist, get cancelled…quickly?

You betcha.

Speaking of CBS…

According to CBS News…

The CBS News Battleground Tracker poll shows that Donald Trump keeps a large lead in South Carolina, bolstered by support from conservatives and also from evangelical voters, who make up a large share of the electorate here.

Ted Cruz is in second place, but well behind Trump. Cruz has the support of those who consider themselves very conservative, but trails Trump among all conservatives as well as moderates.

John Kasich has gotten a little bounce out of his surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire, but he may be limited here by the fact that evangelical voters are not as strongly in support of him as non-evangelicals.

For Trump voters, who have been relatively steadfast in their support over the last few months, the percentage who say they’ve firmly decided on Trump has increased. Trump’s lead among evangelicals is up from January, and he has widened his lead among conservatives, too.

In a contest marked by divisions among so-called “insiders” and “outsiders,” South Carolina Republicans show a strong preference for campaigns running as the latter, and this poll helps illustrate why. By four to one, South Carolina Republicans describe the “establishment” as a bad thing, and few describe it as a group that knows how to get things done.

On the metric of being “prepared” to be president, Trump and Cruz do well, and Jeb Bush and John Kasich do relatively well, but Marco Rubio trails in this regard, suggesting that last week’s debate in New Hampshire may have had an impact.

Hillary Clinton keeps her large lead in South Carolina, which has narrowed only slightly from last month, and she is bolstered by strong support from the African American voters who comprise most of the Democratic electorate here.

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican Establishment.

They run around telling everybody how Conservative they are, when in reality,they actually hold the same beliefs as Liberal Democrats.

The public wants new ideas. We are tired of dancing to the Washington Two-Step.

That is the reason for the popularity of Trump and Cruz. They have been saying the things that Americans have been wanting to hear for some time now.

That is the reason that they are the Leaders in the Republican Primary.

Contrast them to the candidates whom the Democrats are offering: old white folks from the Northeast Corridor, one who is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg and the other, a demented old socialist, who resembles Doc Emmett Brown from “Back to the Future”.

The “Vichy Republicans” as I refer to them, are looking a Gift Horse in the mouth.

They are positioned to sweep the nation, on the way to placing their candidate in the Oval Office, buoyed by a Grassroots Movement, the likes of has not been seen since the 1980 Presidential Election, which put into office the greatest president in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

All the Republicans have to do to be successful is something that they seem to have forgotten how to do, since they themselves were swept into Congressional Power in the 2010 and 2012 Mid-Term Elections.

They need to pay attention and actually listen to the voters who gave them their cushy jobs.

The need to stop backing the wrong “horse”.

They are showing their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

It is almost as if they believe that the Political Tsunami, which resulted in Republicans holding both Houses of Congress, came about because they made themselves look like Democrats.

They need to come down off of Capitol Hill every now and then.

And, visit Realityville.

Average Americans, like you and me, living from paycheck to paycheck in America’s Heartland, do not need another Democratic Party.

If we wanted to continue to put up with their Liberal Stupidity, we would have left all of them in office.

Instead, in November of 2014, we showed them the door.

The overwhelming majority of average Americans are tired of the empty promises and spineless behavior of Professional Politicians, including Squishy Moderates, who have more in common with the Democrats in the Northeast Corridor, than they do with average Americans in the Heartland.

If the Republican Establishment continues this war against Trump and Cruz, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

They will never achieve victory by trying to push the jello of “Liberal Moderation” up a hill.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The Clinton/Sanders “Love-In” Debate: “All We Are Saying Is Give Socialism a Chance”

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Berni-Treasure-600-nrdLast night, two living fossils from a bygone era, representing a failed Political Ideology, staged a Love-in with each other…championing the Political Ideology which destroyed the Soviet Union, and which has brought the teen-weeny country of Denmark to the verge of Economic Ruin.

Foxnews.com reports that

While Hillary Clinton launched her harshest debate attacks yet on Bernie Sanders Thursday in a clear attempt to distinguish their differences to voters, the Democratic candidates spent almost as much time uniting in their criticism of America’s criminal justice system, the financial sector and more.

The debate fell at a time when Sanders is trying to build his momentum after his big New Hampshire win, while Clinton is trying to regain hers.

As Sanders pointedly reminded her, “You’re not in the White House yet.”

But the candidates at times offered a similar message. This was evident as they vociferously called for an overhaul of local police departments that they suggested are unfair to black people.

“We need fundamental police reform,” Sanders said, adding he’s “sick and tired” of seeing unarmed black people shot by police. He likened heavily equipped police departments to “occupying armies.”

Clinton, meanwhile, echoed those themes, joining Sanders in calling for sentencing reform while saying the country’s “systemic racism” goes deeper and must be addressed – in education, housing and the job market.

“We are seeing the dark side of the remaining systemic racism that we need to root out,” she said.

The comments were part of each candidate’s revived appeal to minority voters, a key voting bloc as the Democratic presidential primary heads to South Carolina.

But even as they stressed those issues, differences were laid bare at the PBS-hosted debate in Milwaukee. And Sanders came prepared to counter Clinton’s attacks, showing a feistier side than he did at their last showdown.

When Clinton used her closing remarks to suggest Sanders was taking shots at President Obama, Sanders called it a “low blow” and countered: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

He even underscored his critique of Clinton’s foreign policy by pointing to a book where Clinton said she was mentored by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

“I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend,” Sanders said, calling him “one of the most destructive” American diplomats.

Clinton fired back that “we have yet to know” who Sanders listens to on foreign policy.

“Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger,” Sanders said.

The two also clashed sharply over Sanders’ high-cost, big-government plans.

“We are not England. We are not France,” Clinton said.

Clinton accused Sanders of pushing programs that would grow the federal government by 40 percent. She suggested his health care promises “cannot be kept “and will be far more costly than he admits.

“We should level with the American people,” she said.

She also said Sanders’ plans would upend ObamaCare – though Sanders said he would not “dismantle” it.

“That is absolutely inaccurate,” he said, when she claimed his plans would leave many people worse off. 

“In my view, health care is a right of all people … and I will fight for that,” Sanders said, adding it would take “courage.”

Clinton also criticized Sanders for voting against a 2007 immigration reform bill backed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Sanders explained that the bill had a guest-worker program that progressive groups opposed.

“I think Ted Kennedy had a very clear idea of what needed to be done,” Clinton said.

Yet the candidates agreed in their joint criticism of the Obama administration’s recent deportation raids.

Sanders, meanwhile, once again hammered Clinton for her Wall Street ties, suggesting the financial sector’s big donations are meant to buy influence.

“Let’s not insult the intelligence of the American people. People aren’t dumb,” Sanders said. “Why in God’s name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it.”

They sparred on the issue as Sanders touted the fact he’s “the only candidate up here” who has no super PAC supporting him. A super PAC backing Clinton, he said, recently raised $15 million from Wall Street.

Clinton countered by noting that Obama took Wall Street donations too, but “when it mattered, he stood up and took on Wall Street.”

“Let’s not in any way imply here that either President Obama or myself would in any way not take on any vested interest,” she said, calling for more regulation of the financial sector.

The showdown comes as Clinton tries to reset the race, which heads next to Nevada and South Carolina. Her narrow victory in Iowa and resounding defeat in New Hampshire have raised fresh questions about her candidacy, which at one point was seen as a sure thing for the Democratic nomination.

Publicly, the Clinton campaign is voicing confidence. The campaign has been refocusing on the battle to lock down minority voter support, asserting that with their help, the former secretary of state can easily make gains against Sanders. But Sanders is at the same time making a bid to expand his own support beyond rural, white voters — who largely decide Iowa and New Hampshire.

While the Clinton campaign is banking on minority voters as it heads into South Carolina and other delegate-rich states down the primary calendar, Tuesday’s contest exposed serious problems for her. She lost in New Hampshire across almost every demographic, including women.

Overall, she lost to Sanders by more than 20 points.

During the past several years, there has been an undeniable escalation of the Rhetoric of Racial Animus and Class Warfare, the origin of which can be traced, with very little effort, to the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, the “one”, who was supposed to unite us as a nation and make the oceans “rise and fall” and the Democrat Party, which has been taken over by a bunch of Godless Far Left Extremists.

Did you know that 76% percent of Americans were living from paycheck to paycheck?

When I first read that, I thought to myself, how can that be possible? We live in the richest country on God’s green Earth. We have been the leader of the free world and the country most admired by the world’s population for quite some time now.

How did all this come about?

I believe it is a mixture of events, both internally and externally, that has caused the economic plight that we now find ourselves in.

Starting all the way back with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and all of the government programs which he began with the express purpose of bringing us out of the Great Depression, Americans have grown more and more dependent on a nanny state government.

This blind trust was cemented by JFK’s hopeful optimism and national push for Americans to commit to serving their country.

By the time President Johnson came into office, after the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the majority of Americans totally believed that our government always had our best interest at heart.

President Johnson came into office and immediately started his push for the Great Society. These programs were designed to make Americans even more dependent on the Federal Government for their very survival.

As the Vietnam War grew more and more and unpopular, Americans’ trust in the government became more and more compromised.  Protests against the Federal Government became more and more common and it became cool to be a rebel or “hippie”.

Time passed, and while rebellious Americans calmed down, Americans’ dependence upon government programs became generational, as multiple family members from one generation to the next, relied on Uncle Sugar for their daily existence.

Meanwhile, the rebels of the 1960’s got older and began to work within the system, taking jobs within the private and public sectors.

Eventually, they moved into positions of power, becoming heads of corporations and local and national politicians.

It is not really necessary to tell you what the political ideology of these rebels was, is it?

As the last century ended and the new one began, these hippies and their offspring, solidly in place in the halls of power, began to pass more more legislation designed to keep generations of Americans enslaved to Uncle Sugar.

Ironic, huh?

And, then it happened.

From the state of Illinois, came the messiah that both the hippies in power and the dependent class they made careers out of enslaving had been waiting for, Barack Hussein Obama.

With both a liberal controlled Congress and a Far Left president, a pathway was cleared for an all-out assault against capitalism.

Immediately upon his ascension to power,  Obama set out, with the help of his minions, to pass an massive Stimulus Bill , which was designed to reward their supporters, while buying and paying for some new ones.

Meanwhile, corporations continued their trend of leaving the country, begun with the rise of the Liberal Congress, due to high taxes and the anti-capitalist policies of the ruling class.

Even after a strong showing by Conservatives in 2010, the ruling class made sure that their new messiah would remain on the throne for a second term, by manipulating the shallow minded Republican Establishment into nominating an ambivalent legacy as their Presidential Candidate.

Preying on the government dependency of 47 percent of Americans, the Liberal Democrats secured a second term For Barack Hussein Obama.

And, that brings us to our current situation.

We are a nation badly in need of another Gipper to help us reach the goal line.

On January 20, 1981, newly-elected President Ronald Wilson Reagan said these words to a weary nation…

These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions.

We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.

But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we’re not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick — professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, “We the people,” this breed called Americans.

Well, this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this “new beginning,” and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world.

So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

President Reagan understood that

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.

And, for Americans to prosper, capitalism must not be stifled by over-taxation and an unfriendly Federal Government.

When the private section prospers, the power of the Government to control our daily lives diminishes.

So…why are 76 percent of American living paycheck to paycheck?

Because our national politicians have to protect their phony-boloney jobs…and, it is easier to control us this way.

In this present situation, what we are seeing is the result of anti-establishment rhetoric, spewed forth by those who are now actually “the Establishment”, taking hold, and spreading Class Envy and Racial Animus in such a way as to inspire violent retaliation for perceived “grievances”, by a fictional “White Establishment”, which is actually no longer in power, and the Police, who are seen as the emissaries of “The Man”.

It’s reminiscent of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Look it up, y’all.

In conclusion, I believe that the popularity of entrepreneur and showman Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz are a result of an American Citizenry who are fed up with watching our “House” being divided against itself by adherents to the failed Political Ideology of Marxism, for the sake of Political Expediency.

In Marxist Theory, Socialism is the step before Communism.

President Reagan once asked

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

The majority of Americans, living out here in the Heartland…understand.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Clinton/Sanders Debate: Two Old Northeast Progressives “Swapping Stories”

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Hil-Bern-600nrdIn case you didn’t know, didn’t care, or you just didn’t want to watch a couple of old white “Progressives” from the Northeast lie like rugs on National Television, there was an actual Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate held in Prime Time on Thursday, and not in the dead of night on the Weekend.

Politico.com reports that

The niceties are finished.

After a string of debates where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders discussed (and occasionally disagreed about) the fine points of progressive policy, the two finally had a full-fledged throwdown Thursday night.

Clinton accused Sanders of going negative on the campaign trail, telling the Vermont Senator at the Democratic debate that his campaign was smearing her name.

“I think it’s time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent week,” Clinton said after Sanders talked about getting money out of politics.

Sanders has boasted about not receiving money from Wall street, and has pointed out in recent weeks that Clinton has received large sums in exchange for speaking.

“Sen. Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I’ve tried to keep my disagreements over issues, but time and time again, by innuendo and by insinuation there is this attack that he is putting forth,” Clinton said.

“Which really comes down to anyone who ever took donations or speaking fees from interest groups has to be bought, and I absolutely reject that Senator. I really don’t think those attacks by insinuation are worthy of you,” Clinton continued

Then she leveled the challenge: “If you have something to say, say it. But I have never changed a view or a vote because of a donation I’ve received.”

Hold on a second. We’ll get back to this “Challenge”

Now about the lies…

Foxnews.com reports that

WASHINGTON –  Hillary Clinton cast the financial industry as an adversary in her presidential campaign — despite the money that industry has poured into her White House effort. Bernie Sanders once again mischaracterized the share of the wealth taken by the very richest Americans.

A look at some of the claims in their latest Democratic presidential debate:

CLINTON on Wall Street: “They are trying to beat me in this primary.”

THE FACTS: Wall Street is not the anti-Clinton monolith she implied. People in the securities and investment industry gave more than $17 million last year to super political action committees supporting her presidential run and nearly $3 million directly to her campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org, a campaign-finance watchdog. Wall Street is the top industry donating to her effort, ahead of the legal profession, non-profit institutions and others.

Clinton is taking heat from Sanders over her Wall Street ties, which go back decades.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Clinton has brought in more money from the financial sector during her four federal campaigns — for Senate and president — than her husband, Bill Clinton, did in his quarter-century political career. In all, more than $44 million was raised for her campaigns. This includes more than $1 out of every $10 of the money contributed for her 2016 campaign.

Clinton has often talked about how much she has raised from teachers, as opposed to big corporate interests. But the $2.93 million given directly to her campaign last year by people in the securities and investment industry surpassed the $2.88 million given by people in education, OpenSecrets found.

SANDERS: “Almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.”

THE FACTS: This has been a common mantra by Sanders but it relies on outdated numbers. In the first five years of the economic recovery, 2009-2014, the richest 1 percent captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses.

That’s a hefty share, but far short of “almost all.” In the first three years of the recovery, 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that gain reflected an accounting maneuver as the wealthiest pulled income forward to 2012 in advance of tax increases that took effect in 2013 on the biggest earners.

Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years. Average wages also showed signs of picking up last year as the unemployment rate fell, suggesting the bottom 99 percent may have also seen gains in 2015.

CLINTON: “I am against American combat troops being in Syria and Iraq. I support special forces. I support trainers. I support the air campaign.”

THE FACTS: Clinton makes a dubious distinction. Although it can be debated whether certain types of military personnel fit the definition of “combat” troops, there is little doubt that special operations forces like those now operating both in Syria and Iraq do.

In the fall, a special operations soldier was killed in a firefight in Iraq during a joint U.S.-Kurdish commando raid on an Islamic State prison.

The Pentagon recently sent up to 200 special operations troops to Iraq to carry out a range of risky missions, including raids against Islamic State targets.

Pilots of fighter aircraft, bombers and other warplanes that have flown over Iraq and Syria, dropping bombs and missiles on Islamic State targets on a daily basis, certainly are engaged in combat.
Clinton said she supports Obama’s reluctance to take the lead in ground combat in Iraq and Syria. But many military members are now engaged in combat.

SANDERS: “You have three out of the four largest banks in America today, bigger than they were, significantly bigger than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail.”

THE FACTS: Sanders is right that JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are larger than they were in mid-2008, before they received bailout money. But those gains largely reflect mergers and acquisitions that occurred, frequently at the government’s behest, during the financial crisis. JPMorgan bulked up by purchasing Bear Stearns, in a deal facilitated by the Federal Reserve. Bank of America ballooned when it acquired Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo roughly doubled in size when it bought a floundering Wachovia Bank.

But the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul bill, passed in 2010, has forced banks to hold more capital as a cushion against risk and to make future bailouts less likely. That requirement and others has caused several banks, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Citi, to shed assets to avoid growing larger and triggering further oversight.

CLINTON on Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal: “I said that I was holding out that hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it.”

THE FACTS: As Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton was far more enthusiastic about the Pacific trade deal taking shape than she became once she was running for president and trying to appeal to the liberal wing of her party. As secretary she had given speeches around the world in support of the deal under negotiation, saying in Australia in 2012 that it “sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” a cheerleading sentiment she echoed elsewhere.

She’s stated since that the final agreement didn’t address her concerns. But the final version actually had been modified to drop certain provisions that liberal activist groups had opposed.

CLINTON: “I am not going to make promises I can’t keep. I am not going to talk about big ideas like single-payer and then not level with people about how much it will cost.”

THE FACTS: Clinton was taking aim at Sanders’ universal health care coverage plan that he calls “Medicare for all,” and a new independent analysis suggests that she was correct about his understating the cost.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the tax increases in Sanders’ plan would only cover about 75 percent of the estimated spending under the plan, creating at least a $3 trillion hole over 10 years.

The analysis was based on Sanders’ estimate of how much his plan would spend. If that turns out to be low, then the financing gap would grow.

The group represents deficit foes from both political parties. Leon Panetta, a CIA director and a defense secretary under President Barack Obama, is a co-chairman of its board.

Remember Former Secretary of State Clinton’s challenge from last night, regarding donations that she has received?

“If you have something to say, say it. But I have never changed a view or a vote because of a donation I’ve received.”

Challenge accepted.

Back in April of 2015, NYMag.com reported that

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.

And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem. Nicholas Confessore described their operation as “a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” Indeed, as Ryan Lizzareported in 2012, Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative:

Regardless of Bill Clinton’s personal feelings about Obama, it didn’t take him long to see the advantages of an Obama Presidency. More than anyone, he pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.” For one thing, having his spouse in that position didn’t hurt his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. He invites foreign leaders to the initiative’s annual meeting, and her prominence in the Administration can be an asset in attracting foreign donors. “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,” the Clinton associate continued. “It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.”

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration alsodemanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.

With the revelation of “the gift” of massive quantities of Uranium to the Russians and an Iranian Connection regarding some of the money given to the Clinton Foundation, this is not just a scandal involving money and unscrupulous political ladder-climbing through the peddling of “favors”, the actions of the Clintons crossed the line into the abhorrent abyss of treason.

Clinton does not belong in the White House. She belongs in jail.

And, Sanders need to move to the tiny country of Denmark and like the rest of his life in that failed “Socialist Paradise”

Or, he needs to be fitted with a short white jacket with long sleeves that tie behind the back.

Just sayin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“In Hillary, We Don’t Trust”

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

untitled (25)Of course you’ve heard about the fact that Hillary won six coin flips in a row?  You know what the odds of that are? It’s 1.7%.  It doesn’t happen.  Anyway, I watched television coverage of Mrs. Clinton’s acceptance last night and there’s this guy that ends up being over her right shoulder as you’re looking at the picture, and he’s got two stickers on each cheek right below each eye, and he’s making weird, odd faces.  It turns out this guy has become a hero of the Internet today because people are replaying this and sending it, tweeting it, Facebooking it all over the place. It’s a comedy piece.  Some guy stands there with Hillary stem-winder serious and telling everybody what she’s gonna do. She’s doing the Hillary screech, the voice that reminds you of your first two ex-wives.  This guy’s back there with these stickers on his face laughing and making faces, totally distracting everybody, and then if you notice Bill Clinton behind her.  And that was… What’s the word?  I was gonna say “scary,” but, no, it was shocking the way Bill Clinton looked last night.  It’s clearly not the 1990s, and there aren’t a bunch of bikini-clad babes running…

Well, there might still be that.  With Bill Clinton, you never know. – Rush Limbaugh, 2/2/2016

The Des Moines Register reported that

It’s Iowa’s nightmare scenario revisited: An extraordinarily close count in the Iowa caucuses — and reports of chaos in precincts, website glitches and coin flips to decide county delegates — are raising questions about accuracy of the count and winner.

This time it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Even as Hillary Clinton trumpeted her Iowa win in New Hampshire on Tuesday, aides for Bernie Sanders said the eyelash-thin margin raised questions and called for a review. The chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party rejected that notion, saying the results are final.

The situation echoes the events on the Republican side in the 2012 caucuses, when one winner (Mitt Romney, by eight votes) was named on caucus night, but a closer examination of the paperwork that reflected the head counts showed someone else pulled in more votes (Rick Santorum, by 34 votes). But some precincts were still missing entirely.

Like Republican Party officials in 2012, Democratic Party officials worked into the early morning on caucus night trying to account for results from a handful of tardy precincts.

At 2:30 a.m. Tuesday, Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire announced that Clinton had eked out a slim victory, based on results from 1,682 of 1,683 precincts.

Voters from the final missing Democratic precinct tracked down party officials Tuesday morning to report their results. Sanders won that precinct, Des Moines precinct No. 42, by two delegate equivalents over Clinton.

The Iowa Democratic Party said the updated final tally of delegate equivalents for all the precincts statewide was:

Clinton: 700.59

Sanders: 696.82.

That’s a 3.77-count margin between Clinton, the powerful establishment favorite who early on in the Democratic race was expected to win in a virtual coronation, and Sanders, a democratic socialist who few in Iowa knew much about a year ago.

Sanders campaign aides told the Register they’ve found some discrepancies between tallies at the precinct level and numbers that were reported to the state party. The Iowa Democratic Party determines its winner based not on a head count, like in the Republican caucuses, but on state delegate equivalents, tied to a math formula. And there was enough confusion, and untrained volunteers on Monday night, that errors may have been made.

Team Sanders had its own app that allowed supporters and volunteers to send precinct-level results directly to the campaign. At the same time, caucus chairs sent their official results to the state party, either over a specially built Microsoft app or via phone. Sanders aides asked to sit down with the state party to review the paperwork from the precinct chairs, Batrice said.

“We just want to work with the party and get the questions that are unanswered answered,” she said.

McGuire, in an interview with the Register, said no.

“The answer is that we had all three camps in the tabulation room last night to address any grievances brought forward, and we went over any discrepancies. These are the final results,” she said.

Clinton deemed victor at 2:30 a.m. Tuesday

McGuire in her 2:30 a.m. statement said: “Hillary Clinton has been awarded 699.57 state delegate equivalents, Bernie Sanders has been awarded 695.49 state delegate equivalents, Martin O’Malley has been awarded 7.68 state delegate equivalents and uncommitted has been awarded .46 state delegate equivalents. We still have outstanding results in one precinct — Des Moines 42 — which is worth 2.28 state delegate equivalents. We will report that final precinct when we have confirmed those results with the chair.”

Team Clinton quickly embraced that news, and flatly stated that nothing could change it.

Clinton’s Iowa campaign director, Matt Paul, said in a statement at 2:35 a.m.: “Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa caucus. After thorough reporting — and analysis — of results, there is no uncertainty and Secretary Clinton has clearly won the most national and state delegates. Statistically, there is no outstanding information that could change the results and no way that Senator Sanders can overcome Secretary Clinton’s advantage.”

McGuire repeated that Tuesday afternoon, saying the reporting app had a built-in fail-safe to prevent volunteers from reporting more delegates than were assigned to each precinct.

Clinton, who saw her expected Iowa win slip away in 2008, grasped the prize Tuesday.

“I can tell you, I’ve won and I’ve lost there, and it’s a lot better to win,” she said at a rally in New Hampshire, the state that votes next on the presidential nominating calendar.

But that didn’t quell doubts back in Iowa.

“Politics is a contact sport with few referees, so torturing your opponents with questions about the transparency of an election can be very harmful and damaging,” said Steffen Schmidt, a longtime political observer and professor at Iowa State University in Ames.

Discrepancies can occur in official elections, and caucuses are not even official election events run by the secretary of state’s office, noted Dennis Goldford, a Drake University professor who closely studies the Iowa caucuses.

“The caucus system isn’t built to bear the weight placed on it,” he said. “There aren’t even paper ballots (in the Democratic caucuses) to use for a recount in case something doesn’t add up.”

Democrats have never released actual head counts, and McGuire said they would not be released this time, either. Determining a winner based on state delegate equivalents rather than head count is a key distinction between how the Democrats conduct their caucuses versus conducting a primary, she said. New Hampshire and Iowa are generally careful to maintain such distinctions as part of their effort to preserve their status as the first caucus state and first primary state.

Results for final precinct reported on Tuesday

Reports of disorganization and lack of volunteers also emerged Monday evening. Party officials reported a turnout of 171,109, far less than the record of 240,000 seen in 2008.

Democratic voters reported long lines, too few volunteers, a lack of leadership and confusing signage. In some cases, people waited for an hour in one line, only to learn their precinct was in a different area of the same building. The proceedings were to begin at 7 p.m. but started late in many cases.

The scene at precinct No. 42, the one with the final missing votes, was “chaos” Monday night, said Jill Joseph, a rank-and-file Democratic voter who backed Sanders in the caucuses.

None of the 400-plus Democrats wanted to be in charge of the caucus, so a man who had shown up just to vote reluctantly stepped forward. As Joseph was leaving with the untrained caucus chairman, who is one of her neighbors, “I looked at him and said, ‘Who called in the results of our caucus?’ And we didn’t know.”

The impromptu chairman hand-delivered the results to Polk County Democratic Party Chairman Tom Henderson Tuesday. Sanders won seven county delegates, Clinton won five.

Long lines, confusion reported at many sites
Ames precinct 1-3 started caucusing two hours late, at 9 p.m., because the crowd was so big and the check-in line so slow, said Peter D. Myers, a finance major and member of the student government at Iowa State University, who caucused for the first time.

“There wasn’t a clear person in charge,” Myers said.

Capacity at the caucus site, Heartland Senior Center, was 115, but 300 people turned out, Myers said. At one point, caucusgoers considered moving to the parking lot of the Hy-Vee grocery store.

Myers said he registered to vote in August but “was alarmed to find out I wasn’t on the list, so I had to go to the back of the line. The gentleman in front of me had caucused the past three cycles and he wasn’t on the list, either.”

No one was there to lead the caucus, so “a pregnant lady took charge and counted the Bernie supporters, and a Hillary captain took the small group to a corner and counted the supporters,” he said.

Sanders ended up with four delegates and Clinton one, he said.

A C-SPAN video was circulated widely on Facebook and Twitter with claims it was evidence of fraud. In truth, it was an example of the mayhem at some of the most crowded caucus sites, when nose counts differed between rounds of voting because some people left or the initial count was wrong. In this case, precinct No. 43 in Des Moines, a majority of voters, including Sanders backers, voted against a recount.

An Indianola precinct that gathered in Hubbell Hall at Simpson College had a discrepancy between the number who checked in, and people counted in the first vote.

“The chair and secretary knew the count was off but proceeded anyway,” said Paige Godden, a reporter for the Indianola Record-Herald. “We did the final count at least three times. People were very frustrated by the end.”

New voters made up nearly 40 percent of the caucusgoers — 207 of 521 — at Democratic precinct No. 59 at Des Moines Central Campus, organizers said. The precinct ran out of voter registration forms and had to print more.

When the caucus began, the one-by-one head count discovered 58 more people voting than had checked in. Organizers asked anyone who had not signed in to do so, and then recounted. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, a Clinton supporter who lives in the precinct, stepped in to help with the recount.

The precinct’s caucus chair, Mark Challis, wasn’t sure if the counts were accurate, but changes wouldn’t have affected the final vote tally, which had Sanders substantially ahead.

Democrat Mary Ann Dorsett of Des Moines told the Register 492 voters turned out in her precinct, but there were only a handful of people assigned to check people in.

“It was a very large room so clearly they expected a large turnout,” Dorsett said. “The lines snaked through the corridor and out the door. It took over an hour to check in. Republicans in the same precinct were seated long before this, and already listening to speeches.”

Dorsett thinks the one-by-one head-counting system is “a real head-scratcher in terms of the possibility of inaccuracy as well as time wasted.”

“If all the smart phones were eliminated, it could have been 1820, and we were re-enacting the roles of a bunch of farmers sitting in a church hall, counting heads. Is this the 21st century?” she said. “This may well be my last caucus unless the Democratic Party cleans up its act.”

GOP is checking results on app vs. paper forms

Meanwhile, Republican Party of Iowa officials are doing a review, comparing the app results for each candidate with what the precinct chairs jotted down on their “e-forms” on caucus night.

“When you’re counting thousands of votes, you’ve always got to be careful,” Iowa GOP spokesman Charlie Szold said.

Microsoft, one of the premiere tech companies in the world, had developed websites to deliver results in real time. But both the Democratic website, idpcaucuses.com, and GOP website, iagopcaucuses.com, struggled intermittently throughout the night, crashing for periods of time and locking out the public from access to the results.

McGuire said the app system the volunteers in the precincts used to file their numbers was never down. “They (Microsoft) had plenty of capacity for our results,” she said.

Microsoft spokeswoman Angela Swanson-Henry said: “National interest in the Iowa caucuses was high, and some who attempted to access websites may have experienced delays which were quickly addressed.”

To quote Elmer Fudd,

Sumpin’ awfuwwy scwewy is goin’ on awound heah.

Was the Political Game of Voter Fraud being perpetrated in Iowa on Tuesday Night, by the Hillary Camp?

Is Michael Moore banned from buffets from coast-to-coast?

Remember the allegations of Democrat Voter Fraud, after the 2012 Presidential Election?

No? Please allow me to remind you, courtesy of, believe it or not, ABC News.

  1. The chairman of the Republican Party for the state of Maine suspected voter fraud in his state after he heard reports that African Americans were turning out at the polls in rural counties.”In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day. Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in town knows anyone who’s black,” Webster said. “How did that happen? I don’t know. We’re going to find out.” Census data shows Americans who identify as black or African American made up 1.6 percent of the population in Maine in 2010. It’s tied with North Dakota and Utah for fifth smallest percentage of blacks in the U.S.
  2. …in 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.In the entire county, Romney scored less than 100,000 votes, putting him at a measly 14 percent. Republicans in the state tried to use this as evidence of a need for the voter ID laws hotly debated in the state this election season, the Inquirer reported. But ID or no, anyone with unfettered access to a ballot could choose to vote Republican. More than 500 Pennsylvania voters registered complaints about election procedure to the state this election, according to Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele.
  3. In St. Lucie County, Fla., about 175,500 residents were registered to vote on Election Day. But when results came in that night, officials counted more than 247,383 votes. Voter turnout was a whopping 140.92 percent.Where did all the extra votes come from? It turned out some voters had submitted their long ballots on two separate voting cards. Each card had been counted once, meaning many of the votes were double counted. The Examiner reported the real turnout total was closer to 70 percent, a number that conservative outlet suggested was still worthy of investigation for potential voter fraud.
  4. The week of the election, Fox News reported that 200 fake voter application cards had been sent to Hamilton County in Ohio, including one with the name “Adolf Hitler.”  Fox reported the D.C.-based company, Fieldworks, was at fault for submitting the fraudulent registration cards. 

Given the documented track record of the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton’s own personal record of being dishonest and untrustworthy, I would say that you can bet the house on it.

That is, if under 7 years of Barack Hussein Obama’s failed Economic Policies, you still have one.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Iowa Caucus Analysis: Winners, Losers, and Unbelievable Spin

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

ss-120102-iowa-01.660;660;7;70;0Alright. As Maureen McGovern sang, “There’s Got to Be a Morning After”.

Now that the dust has settled, what can we learn from the results of the First Event of the Primary Season, the Iowa Caucus, or, as it is called, the “Hawkeye Caucai”?

Edward J. Rollins is a former assistant to President Ronald Reagan, who managed Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign. He is presently a senior presidential fellow at Hofstra University and a member of the Political Consultants Hall of Fame. He is Senior Advisor for Teneo Strategy.

Rollins, a Fox News Contributor, has submitted the following op ed, analyzing the results of yesterday’s Iowa Caucus on the Republican Side of the Aisle…

It is always interesting to watch democracy in action and Iowa is ground zero.

Many political pundits and media analysts complain about the attention Iowa receives from candidates and the media because it goes first. But it also is a state filled with people who are willing to pay attention, to go to small events and forums (more than 1,500 have been held) and to show up at a caucus on a cold, often snowy night to participate in a ritual few states duplicate.

Millions of dollars are spent on TV commercials (over 60,000) and organization that Monday night produced a record turnout.

Iowa doesn’t always produce the eventual winners but it does eliminate the losers. With 17 Republican candidates starting this process, there are really only three or four real candidates now with voter support and sufficient monies to go on to the remaining contests.

With a record voter turnout in Iowa, the winner, Ted Cruz goes on with his extraordinary organization and conservative supporters with a big upset.

Marco Rubio, the best debater, came on strong and gained real momentum. He came very close to coming in second. Certainly he has to be viewed as a very serious candidate and the best bet to become the establishment candidate.

Trump is Trump and his special appeal to new voters and the angry anti-Washington element will go on, too, but with unpredictable results. He also paid a price for missing the last debate and fighting Fox News.

Ben Carson held his 10 percent base, but his candidacy is short lived and beyond Iowa has minimal support.

The biggest losers are Bush, Christie and Huckabee. Bush spent the most money and dropped like a rock.

Christie’s bluster, unlike Trump’s, didn’t sell. He has no money and no future in this race.

And Huckabee, who won this race eight years, and thought he could be a serious challenger against Romney in 2012, was a bottom dweller getting less than 2 percent of the vote. He raised no money and has no appeal and barely has enough money left to buy a bus ticket back to Arkansas. He quickly waved the flag of surrender and wisely quit the race.

One more may make the cut after Iowa, but this is the field now and it will be fascinating to watch.

Monday night’s win is a giant victory for Cruz and his team. He won in spite of a greater turnout than in years past and benefited from the dramatic increase in new voters. And now on to New Hampshire!

So, the Grand Old Party’s cup runneth over, They are seemingly blessed with 3 strong contenders for this Presidential Candidate Nomination.

The problem, as history has shown, is the fact that the Iowa Caucus is not exactly a bellweather by which to determine what will happen in November.

The other problem for the Republican Establishment, is the fact that they absolutely cannot stand the candidates that came in first and second.

Rubio, in the past, has proven to be a useful ally.

Things promise to be interesting in the months leading up to the convention.

Meanwhile, over at Propaganda Central for the Democrat Party and the Clinton Machine, otherwise known as the New York Times, Nate Cohn tried to declare the Queen of Mean, the winner of a VIRTUAL TIE.

Bernie Sanders is right: The Iowa Democratic caucuses were a “virtual tie,” especially after you consider that the results aren’t even actual vote tallies, but state delegate equivalents subject to all kinds of messy rounding rules and potential geographic biases.

The official tally, for now, is Hillary Clinton at 49.9 percent, and Mr. Sanders at 49.6 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday morning.

But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths.

He fares best among white voters. The electorate was 91 percent white, per the entrance polls. He does well with less affluent voters. The caucus electorate was far less affluent than the national primary electorate in 2008. He’s heavily dependent on turnout from young voters, and he had months to build a robust field operation. As the primaries quickly unfold, he won’t have that luxury.

Iowa is not just a white state, but also a relatively liberal one — one of only a few of states where Barack Obama won white voters in the 2008 primary and in both general elections. It is also a caucus state, which tends to attract committed activists.

In the end, Mr. Sanders made good on all of those strengths. He excelled in college towns. He won an astonishing 84 percent of those aged 17 to 29 — even better than Mr. Obama in the 2008 caucus. He won voters making less than $50,000 a year, again outperforming Mr. Obama by a wide margin. He won “very liberal” voters comfortably, 58 to 39 percent.

But these strengths were neatly canceled by Mrs. Clinton’s strengths. She won older voters, more affluent voters, along with “somewhat liberal” and “moderate” Democrats.

This raises a straightforward challenge for Mr. Sanders. He has nearly no chance to do as well among nonwhite voters as Mr. Obama did in 2008. To win, Mr. Sanders will need to secure white voters by at least a modest margin and probably a large one. In the end, Mr. Sanders failed to score a clear win in a state where Mr. Obama easily defeated Mrs. Clinton among white voters.

Mr. Sanders’s strength wasn’t so great as to suggest that he’s positioned to improve upon national polls once the campaign heats up. National polls show him roughly tied with Mrs. Clinton among white voters, and it was the case here as well. It suggests that additional gains for Mr. Sanders in national polls will require him to do better than he did in Iowa, not that the close race in Iowa augurs a close one nationally.

Mr. Sanders will have another opportunity to gain momentum after the New Hampshire primary. He might not get as much credit for a victory there as he would have in Iowa, since New Hampshire borders his home state of Vermont. But it could nonetheless give him another opportunity to overcome his weaknesses among nonwhite voters.

As a general rule, though, momentum is overrated in primary politics. In 2008, for instance, momentum never really changed the contours of the race. Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa allowed him to make huge gains among black voters, but not much more — the sort of exception that would seem to prove the rule. Mr. Obama couldn’t even put Mrs. Clinton away after winning a string of states in early February.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment There’s an even longer list of candidates with fairly limited appeal, particularly Republicans like Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee, who failed to turn early-state victories into broader coalitions.

The polls this year offer additional reasons to doubt it. Mrs. Clinton holds more than 50 percent of the vote in national surveys; her share of the vote never declined in 2008. The polls say that her supporters are more likely to be firmly decided than Mr. Sanders’s voters.

Back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire by Mr. Sanders might have been enough to overcome that history. The no-decision in Iowa ensures we won’t find out.

Wow.

I haven’t seen a job of spinning like that since Rumpelstiltskin spun straw into gold. (look him up, kids.)

Mr. Cohn, as we say down here in Dixie,

That dog don’t hunt.

  1. While Sanders’ strength does rely with white voters ( which is funny, because you Democrats are supposed to cherish DIVERSITY, but, I digress…), his base of power lies in the New England States, home of his Millennial Minions and a bunch of those college towns, which you referred to.  And the last time I checked, New Hampshire is located in New England.
  2. Mrs. Clinton’s Voter Base have begun to distance themselves, en masse, from her. She carries more baggage than the image of the late Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) and his buddy (Willem Dafoe), rolling through the airport, in the Biographical movie, “Auto Focus” …And, she’s just as sleazy.
  3. Momentum “never really changed the contours of the race in 2008”, because it was all on Obama’s side, from the get-go. When you have the ground troops of SEIU and their partner-in-crime, ACORN, going door-to-door for you around the nation, it provides you with an insurmountable lead in “the community”. Hillary does not have access to those ground troops.
  4. BIG QUESTION: What happens if Obama and the Democrat Elites decide that they don’t like what they are seeing, so Obama orders the DOJ to indict Hillary and Crazy Uncle Joe enters the Primaries to “save the day”?

Clinton, no matter what those “smarter than the rest of the country” in the Northeast Corridor may choose to believe, is neither trustworthy nor likable as the polls have shown, time and again. Her Political Accomplishments are all negative, bordering on the nonexistent.

Bill’s coattails can cover up only so much political stain (Ask Monica).

Somebody had better hide all of the sharp instruments at the New York Times. This could get ugly.

Get your popcorn ready.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

The Iowa Caucus: Bernie Sanders, Millennials, and the Empty Promise of “FREE STUFF!”

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

untitled (24)Today, the focus of America will be on the state of Iowa, as Presidential Candidate Hopefuls from both parties, vie to win their respective races.

On the Left Side of the Political Aisle, a 74-year old curmudgeon, from a tiny New England State, promising a whole lot of FREE STUFF, is in a virtual tie with the Queen of Mean, the “Inevitable Democrat Party Candidate” Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Washington Post reports that

DES MOINES — In his final campaign rally before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on Sunday decried the nation’s “rigged economy” and pressed other now-familiar themes before an enthusiastic crowd estimated at 1,700 people.

“You want a radical idea? All right, here’s a radical idea,” the senator from Vermont told an audience packed into a gym at Grand View University. “Together, we’re going to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.”

Sanders’s appearance capped a full day of campaigning on the eve of the nation’s first presidential nominating contest, which could go a long way toward shaping the direction of the Democratic race against Hillary Clinton. Polls have shown the caucuses to be a dead heat.

Sanders made only passing references to Clinton during his 48-minute remarks, instead emphasizing the same issues that propelled him from being a fringe candidate when he launched his bid nine months ago to a surprisingly strong contender.

He called for a $15 minimum wage, pay equity for women, paid family leave for workers, a $1 trillion federal jobs program and an overhaul of the tax system to make large corporations to pay substantially more.

Sanders singled out Wal-Mart, saying it pays its workers so little that taxpayers subsidize the company’s owners by paying for Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance for its employees.

“I say to the Walton family: Get off of welfare, pay your workers a living wage,” Sanders said, referring to the family that owns the company.

In an interview taped in Ames before the rally, Sanders told Matt Lauer of NBC’s “Today” show that his campaign is “in this until the end,” regardless of the outcome in Iowa.

“What we are doing is running a national campaign,” Sanders said. “We’re going to run until the convention.”

“I hope we win, but if we lose by two points, so what — we’re going to go to New Hampshire, then we’re going to go to South Carolina, then we’re going to go to Nevada,” he told Lauer. “We are in this to the end.”

Why is this self-proclaimed SOCIALIST still in the Race?

Sanders is riding the crest of a wave of popularity among the generation whom we call “Millennials”…those, whom  my late Daddy, who landed on the beaches of Normandy, France on D-Day, all those decades ago, in the biggest Fight Against Fascism that the world has ever known, and the rest of “The Greatest Generation”, would have called “useful idiots”, “dupes”, or “slackers” for their inability to recognize the con job and failed theory that is Marxism, when they see it.

The following is a post found on fee.org, the website of the Foundation for Economic Education. It explains this part of Marxist Theory and “Why Socialism Failed”.

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?

The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.

The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

For the past 7 years, Barack Hussein Obama has been promising “Hope and change”, through his unceasing rhetoric of Class Warfare, Racial Animus, and “Sharing the Wealth”.

His promises have proven to be as empty as our pocketbooks.

Almost 94,000,000 Americans are now out of our workforce, having given up ever being able to find a job.

The Socialist Paradise, which Bernie Sanders is offering Millennials, is nothing new.

Ask the countries of Venezuela and Greece, as they burn to the ground, their hopes and dreams piled on top of a “Democratic Socialist” Pyre of their own making.

As we enter the first event of the Presidential Primary Season, the Iowa Caucus, tonight, it would be wise for those voters who want to “#FeelTheBern” to remember the words of a great World Leader, Sir Winston Churchill, who, as Prime Minister, lead Great Britain though the Fight Against Fascism, which I referenced before, World War II, when he said,

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.  – Winston Churchill

Someone has to pay for all of the FREE STUFF that ol’ Bernie is promising, kids.

And, if he gets in office, that will be YOU.

Until He Comes.

KJ