The New Fascism: Tlaib Says Thinking About the Holocaust Gives Her “Kind of a Calming Feeling”

IIHCFVIZMBGIFBMMELLNRGSNIQ

The Holocaust is generally regarded as the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and slaughter of approximately 6 million Jews — two thirds of the total European Jewish population, and two-fifths of the Jews in the entire world — but also millions of other victims, by the Nazi regime and its collaborators under Adolf Hitler. (courtesy of u-s-history.com)

FoxNews.com reports that

House Republican leaders called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to “take action” against Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Sunday after Tlaib said that thinking about the Holocaust gave her “kind of a calming feeling.”

Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman to be elected to Congress, made the comments while discussing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians during an appearance on the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”

“There’s always kind of a calming feeling, I tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports,” Tlaib said on the podcast’s most recent episode, published Friday. “And, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And, I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways, but they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them.”

“There is no justification for the twisted and disgusting comments made by Rashida Tlaib just days after the annual Day of Holocaust Remembrance,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement. “More than six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust; there is nothing ‘calming’ about that fact.

“Unfortunately, this is far from the first display of heinous anti-Semitic comments coming from Democrat House members this year, and it’s clear this is now the norm for their caucus,” Scalise added. “It’s long past time for Speaker Pelosi to take swift action and make it clear that these vile comments have no place in Congress.”

House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said Tlaib’s comments were “sickening” and called on Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., “to finally take action against Representative Tlaib and other members of the Democratic caucus who are spreading vile anti-Semitism.”

A spokesman for Tlaib did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“All of us, regardless of party, must stand as Americans against the evil of anti-Semitism,” added Cheney, the third-ranking Republican member of the House. “If the Democratic leadership continues to stand by in silence, they are enabling the spread of evil. History teaches us that anti-Semitism begins with words and becomes something far worse. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer must act now.”

Tlaib, along with Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., has become a lightning rod for critics who have accused her of promoting anti-Semitic activists and rhetoric. Last month, the Zionist Organization of America called for the Democrats to expel Tlaib and pull her committee assignments over her “anti-Israel record” and her alleged association with “terrorists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.”

Ever since my collegiate days, from 1976-1980, when I was a Radio News Director, I have watched with stunned incredulity, as the American Liberal Political Ideology and its adherents, have vocally castigated the country of Israel for defending themselves against the violent factions of nomadic tribes , who wish for nothing else than their annihilation of both the country of Israel and their citizenry.

The irony of their naiveté, is the fact that, in the 1960’s, American Liberals were among some of Israel’s strongest supporters. However, as of this writing, they continue to blatantly back the Palestinians and the Terrorist Organization known as Hamas.

Opposing God’s Chosen People and supporting the historically nomadic people that call themselves “Palestinians” fits with Modern Liberals’ Political Ideology, which views modern political struggles as “Class Warfare”, being waged between race and ethnic groups. Liberals believe that the predominantly white West is somehow subjugating the non-white rest of the world. This viewpoint is an extension of the class-based, rich versus poor, categories, which they intentionally classify people in, following the example of their fallen messiah, Former President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

However, not only is Representative Rashida Tlaib, like her “fellow traveler”, Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Radical Islamist, she is also a Far Left Radical, period.

In case you do not remember, the night that Rep. Tlaib was sworn in as a member of the 116th Congress, she was videotaped vowing to impeach the president. This was shortly after she penned an op-ed for The Detroit Free Press outlining the case for impeachment.

The video showed Tlaib telling supporters.

“People love you and you win. And when your son looks at you and says: ‘Momma, look you won. Bullies don’t win.’ And I said, ‘Baby, they don’t, because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf***er.’”

Classy, huh?

Tlaib is a Black Muslim, born in America to parents of Palestinian descent.

As I have been writing over the last several years, Liberals are nothing if not predictable.

They view everything in terms of politics and race, not necessarily in that order.

For years now, I have referred to the intolerant political ideology of Modern American Liberals as “The New Fascism” because of their intolerance toward traditional Americans Faith and Values, including our relationship with our closest ally, Israel, since their birth as a country in 1948.

What we are seeing now, as regards the rampant anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party, which began under Former President Barack Hussein Obama, is a result of an amalgamation of the political philosophies of the special interest groups who have replaced average Americans as the Democrats’ Voting Base.

Anti-Semitism is the norm in Marxism in all of its forms, including “Democratic Socialism”.

Anti-Semitic groups tend to gravitate toward each other finding solace and kindred spirits in their shared hatred of the Jewish people.

For those of you who are old enough to have actually studied history before the Liberals started revising it, the world has bore witness to this phenomena before.

A socialist poltical party in a developed nation joined forces with Islamists before, based on their mutual hatred of Jews.

You may remember this. They were the National Socialist Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazis.

They caused the mass extermination of millions of European Jews, the Holocaust which gives Congresswoman Tlaib “a calming feeling”.

The political philosophies which the Modern Democrats are now embracing are the anti-thesis of whom they claim to be.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought with guns and bullets, But instead, it is being fought with superfluous Congressional Hearings attacking President Trump, anonymous sources, unproven baseless accusations, and the Vanguard of the Modern Democratic Party, the Main Stream Media.

It’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms and our form of government, including our System of Checks and Balances, which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

By now, there’s some out there in the audience saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

Liberals can not legitimately defend their positions, such as the suppression of the Second Amendment Rights of average Americans, the Silent Coup began by those members of the DOJ and FBI during the Obama Administration against now-President Trump, the “Caining” of Judge Kavanaugh, and now, the existence of anti-Semitism within the Democratic Party.

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible.

All of this political unethical behavior by the Far Left Democrats is reminiscent of both the Russian Revolution and Hitler and his Brown Shirts’ “Beer Hall Putsch” which probably should have been expected, given the “New Bolsheviks” track record of Liberal Intolerance and aversion to opposing viewpoints.

Ronald Reagan, during an interview with Mike Wallace on 12/14/75, quipped…

“You know, someone very profoundly once said many years ago that if fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.”

The man was a prophet.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Judge Roy Moore and the Democrat-Manufactured “Bimbo Eruption” – A KJ Analysis

untitled (193)

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. – Abraham Lincoln 

According to The Washington Post

Leigh Corfman says she was 14 years old when an older man approached her outside a courtroom in Etowah County, Ala. She was sitting on a wooden bench with her mother, they both recall, when the man introduced himself as Roy Moore.

It was early 1979 and Moore — now the Republican nominee in Alabama for a U.S. Senate seat — was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. He struck up a conversation, Corfman and her mother say, and offered to watch the girl while her mother went inside for a child custody hearing.

“He said, ‘Oh, you don’t want her to go in there and hear all that. I’ll stay out here with her,’ ” says Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71. “I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl.”

Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

“I wanted it over with — I wanted out,” she remembers thinking. “Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.” Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did.

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.

Now, where have I heard this kind of garbage before?

Oh, yeah. From my article posted 10/14/2016 titled “Trump, the Main Stream Media, and the Manufactured Bimbo Eruption”

Yahoo.com reports that

A barrage of accusations that Donald Trump groped or inappropriately kissed women have rocked the race for the White House, with the Republican nominee angrily denying the reports and his campaign branding them “character assassination.”

Claims by at least five women in accounts reported by The New York Times, NBC, People Magazine and other outlets came to light after Trump said in Sunday’s presidential debate with his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton that he had never sexually assaulted women.

…The Trump campaign fired back, calling The New York Times article a political attack and demanding a retraction.

“This entire article is fiction, and for the New York Times to launch a completely false, coordinated character assassination against Mr Trump on a topic like this is dangerous,” senior communicators advisor Jason Miller said in a statement.

ABC News reported three senior-level sources as saying Trump is drafting a lawsuit against the newspaper for defamation.

“Your article is reckless, defamatory and constitutes libel per se,” Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz wrote in a letter to the daily.

“It is apparent from, among other things, the timing of the article, that it is nothing more than a politically-motivated effort to defeat Mr. Trump’s candidacy.”

And just as is happening in the unproven accusations leveled at Judge Roy Moore, the Establishment (Vichy) Republicans are once again showing the country their spines of Jell-O.

Their actions remind me of the Three Stooges Short where the boys are in the Army and their sergeant asks for volunteers for a dangerous mission to take one step forward. Naturally, the whole platoon takes one step back, except for Larry, Moe, and Curly.

But, I digress…

These women, like those participants in the Democrat-manufactured “Bimbo Eruption” against Trump, have had plenty of opportunity to come public with their charges against Judge Moore.

According to the wild-eyed Liberals at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Judge Moore performed the following “egregious” acts (Hold your applause until the end).

1992 – Alabama Gov. Guy Hunt appoints Roy Moore as circuit judge in Etowah County. He hangs a wooden Ten Commandments plaque, which he had carved years earlier, behind the bench in his courtroom.

1993 – Moore generates controversy by opening court sessions with a prayer seeking divine guidance for jurors.

March 1995 – The ACLU sues Moore, claiming his Ten Commandments plaque and courtroom prayers are unconstitutional. The suit is dismissed because the plaintiffs lack standing.

April 1995 – The state of Alabama files suit in state court to seek a declaratory judgment that Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments is constitutional. The suit is later dismissed by the Alabama Supreme Court on technical grounds.

1999 – Moore announces campaign for Alabama chief justice, vowing to return “God to our public life and restore the moral foundation of our law.”

And if those weren’t enough opportunities for the “victims” to come forward, as my friend and fellow Sparta Report Contributor, Doomberg, noted yesterday, in the 2000’s, per the SPLV, Judge Moore was elected twice as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

So, why now?

Can you say “another Democrat-manufactured Bimbo Eruption”, boys and girls?

I knew that you could.

The influence over the thought processes of Americans that the Propaganda Arm of the Democratic Party, the Main Stream Media, once held has been greatly diminished by the advent of the Social Media and the “Citizen Reporter”. Americans are documenting the 24 Hour News Cycle for themselves with their cellphones and posting it on Facebook.

Why should Americans believe the spin-laden fiction produced by the MSM, when they watched the Fakes News and biased reporting of the MSM all the way through the President Campaign and Trump’s First Year in office?

Why should Americans believe any of these accusations against Judge Moore and the stories to “back them up” which are all of a sudden popping up in the Liberal-controlled MSM?

Why should we believe that on the cusp of an important election to fill a vacant seat in the Senate which the Dems desperately need to win, these women have all of a sudden “found the courage” to come forward and “tell their lurid tales” about Judge Moore which happened 38 years ago?

I question the timing.

Don’t you?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

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

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

 

“In Hillary, We Don’t Trust”

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

 

Political Pundits Panicking…Republican Elites Equivocating: Trump is Still in the Lead

Trump-n-CruzThe smoke-filled backrooms adjoining the Halls of Political Power in our nation’s capital have become scenes resembling the Psych Ward in the Jack Nicholson Class, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”.

Howard Kurtz, Media Analyst for the Fox News Channel, recently posted the following observations.

The Republican establishment, which has always distrusted and discounted Donald Trump, is getting increasingly nervous.

So nervous, in fact, that some of its media voices are starting to denounce their party’s front-runner in the strongest possible terms.

As in, refusing to vote for the man if he’s the nominee. As in, loudly proclaiming that he will destroy the GOP.

Viewed from one perspective, this has the smell of panic. Viewed from another, it’s a case of party stalwarts speaking out based on principle.

For decades now, there has been primary-season sniping between the establishment wing and the insurgent/hard-line/Tea Party wing. Commentators rough up their least favorite candidate, even declare them unqualified for the White House.

But if that person prevails—think Mitt Romney in 2012—the sharpest Republican critics find a way to walk it back. Well, he wasn’t my first choice, but he would be better than Barack Obama. He’s evolved on immigration/tax cuts/ObamaCare. He would pull this country out of its left-wing tailspin.

These days, the rhetoric is getting so hot that there will be no scrambling back on board. Bill Kristol has been openly musing about a third party if Trump wins the nomination.

Does the conservative media elite hope to throw some tacks under the Trump steamroller with such sharp rhetoric? Or are its members just speaking out to clear their consciences?

If it’s the former, I think it might actually help Trump to have the Beltway types arrayed against him. These are the folks he is running against, and he’s never positioned himself as a doctrinaire conservative.

Michael Gerson, a Bush White House official who writes for the Washington Post, uses sweeping language:

“Trump’s nomination would not be the temporary victory of one of the GOP’s ideological factions. It would involve the replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the party and its history. If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be.”

Cease to be. That’s pretty historic stuff.

Gerson calls Trump a “demagogue” who “has followed some of America’s worst instincts wherever they have led, and fed ethnic and religious prejudice in the process. All presidential nominees, to some extent, shape their parties into their own image. Trump would deface the GOP beyond recognition.”

In case you missed the point, Gerson says: “Trump is disqualified for the presidency by his erratic temperament, his ignorance about public affairs and his scary sympathy for authoritarianism. But for me, and I suspect for many, the largest problem is that Trump would make the GOP the party of racial and religious exclusion.”

Doug Heye has been communications chief of the RNC, a top deputy to Eric Cantor and a Bush administration official. He makes a personal declaration in the Independent Journal:

“Because of Trump’s perversion of conservatism, along with the devastating impact he would have if nominated, I cannot support Donald Trump were he to win the Republican nomination.”

Heye says Trump would be “dangerous to the United States and the world at a time when the world is at risk.” His nomination, says Heye, “would be catastrophic for Republican hopes to win the White House and maintain control of the Senate and would damage the party and the conservative cause for years to come. His having the legitimacy that comes with the nomination of a major political party would cause greater instability throughout the world at a time when the world looks to America for leadership that is serious and sober.”

This is the New York Times’ latest version of the same story, calling it a “people’s coup”:

At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in conference calls and at privatelunches, longtime Republicans are expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable.

But a very different tack from Peggy Noonan, who worked for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who turns the question back on the establishment:

“I do not understand the inability or refusal of Republican leaders to take Mr. Trump seriously. They take his numbers seriously—they can read a poll—but they think, as Mr. Bush said, that his support is all about anger, angst and theatrics. That’s part of the story, but the other, more consequential part has to do with real policy issues. The establishment refuses to see that, because to admit it is to implicate themselves and their leadership. Political consultants can’t see it because they don’t think issues matter—not to them and certainly not to the dumb voters.

“But issues do matter, and Mr. Trump has functioned this year not as a great communicator or great compromiser but as the great disruptor. He brags that he has brought up great questions and forced other candidates to face them and sometimes change their stands—and he has.”

There really isn’t much of an establishment left. It consists of some megabuck donors, elected officials, seasoned operatives and media pundits. They don’t have the power to stop Trump, and they know it.

The best they can hope for is to influence the debate. Their problem is that most of them don’t like Ted Cruz, either.

Indeed.

Just as the backlash against President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democr5at Party has reached deafening levels here in America’s Heartland, snobbishly referred to by the Political Elite as “Flyover Country”, so has the refusal of the leaders of both Political Parties to admit their culpability in creating the problems our nation is facing, which can be traced back to their failed domestic and foreign policies and failed leadership.

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 great 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”.

From what I’m seeing out of a lot of the Republicans right now, they’re not even presenting Americans with pale pastels.

…Except for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

The “Republican Elite”, as Kurtz refers to them, 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.

If Jeb Bush and the rest of the Vichy Republicans actually believe that they will win over the Mexican vote, or the rest of the Hispanic Vote, if by then those who are now illegal are allowed to vote, in 2016, then I have two bridges over the Mississippi River at Memphis to sell them.

The overwhelming majority of average Americans want Conservatives whose blood runs red, not Liberal squishes, 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 does not come to that realization very soon, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

They will never achieve victory by trying to push a candidate, who represents the Jello of “Liberal Moderation”, up a hill.

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, is a refreshing change.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Bernie Sanders Campaign Caught Accessing Clinton Campaign Data. The Politboro Would Be Proud.

Bernie-NRD-600Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.- President Ronald Reagan 

The old white folks from the Northeast Corridor, whom the Democrat Party euphemistically refer to as “Potential Presidential Candidates” are not playing well with one another.

Foxnews.com reports that

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign reportedly has been punished by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for improperly accessing voter data compiled by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The Washington Post reported late Thursday that Sanders’ campaign manager had acknowledged that a low-level staffer had viewed the information and was fired as a result. The Post reported that the DNC has told the Sanders campaign that it will not have access to the party’s master list of likely Democratic voters until it provides an explanation and destroys any copies of Clinton campaign data that it posesses.

The DNC rents out the master list to national and state campaigns, which add their own information compiled by volunteers and field workers.

Being shut out of seeing the list for any length of time would be a major blow to Sanders, who is attempting to cut into Clinton’s sizable lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

A Fox News poll released Sunday shows Clinton with a 14-point lead over Sanders among likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa, while a poll of New Hampshire primary voters released Thursday shows the two in a statistical tie.

The software vendor that handles the DNC master list told the Post that the breach occurred Wednesday while a patch was being applied to the software. The process briefly disabled the firewall surrounding the Clinton campaign’s data.

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told the Post that the Clinton data was never downloaded or printed, and placed blame for the incident with the vendor, NGP VAN.

“Sadly, the DNC is relying on an incompetent vendor who on more than one occasion has dropped the firewall between the various Democratic candidates’ data,” Weaver said.

NGP VAN describes itself on its website as “the leading technology provider to Democratic and progressive campaigns.” Stu Trevelyan, the company’s CEO, told the Post the breach was an “isolated incident that was fairly short in duration … By lunchtime, it was resolved.”

The Post reported the DNC was likely to initiate an outside audit to determine what exactly happened and whether any additional information was improperly accessed. Criminal charges were unlikely to be filed.

Ol’ Bernie’s Campaign has not been going well, as of late.

According to variety.com,

The campaign of Bernie Sanders says that there’s been a “Bernie blackout” on broadcast network newscasts, claiming that they’ve ignored him compared to major presidential candidates.

The campaign issued a press release on Friday — “Why the Bernie Blackout on Corporate Network News?” — and cited figures from the Tyndall Report showing that he has gotten just a fraction of the attention Donald Trump has. Sanders has drawn 10 minutes of coverage to Trump’s 234 minutes.

The measurement was of time devoted to stories about the Sanders campaign specifically, so coverage of his performance in a debate is not included. So by that measure, Sanders has probably gotten more center-stage exposure on the broadcast networks’ late-night talk shows than on their evening newscasts. He has appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”

Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said that the “corporately owned media may not like Bernie’s anti-establishment views but for the sake of American democracy they must allow for a fair debate in this presidential campaign.”

Well, there are a couple of good reasons that the Main Stream Media is “ignoring” ol’ Bernie.

First, he doesn’t have a snowball-in-you-know-where’s chance of beating the Clinton Political Machine and winning the nomination.

Second, as we say down here in Dixie,

He’s crazier than a pet ‘coon.

As discoverthenetworks.org reports,

In May 2015, Sanders told CNBC interviewer John Harwood that he was in favor of dramatically raising the marginal tax rate on America’s highest earners. “[When] radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president,” Sanders said sarcastically, “I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.” When Harwood asked whether Sanders thought that was too high, the senator replied: “No. What I think is obscene, and what frightens me is, again, when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 [percent]. Does anybody think that is the kind of economy this country should have?”

In his first public speech as a presidential candidate in Burlington, Vermont, Sanders in May 2015 broadly laid out the major planks of his campaign’s agenda:

  • He declared that financial inequality “is immoral, it is bad economics, it is unsustainable.”
  • Vowing to send “a message to the billionaire class,” he said: “[Y]ou can’t have huge tax breaks [for the rich] while children in this country go hungry … while there are massive unmet needs on every corner…. Your greed has got to end…. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America if you refuse to accept your responsibilities.”
  • He pledged to enact “a tax system that is fair and progressive, which tells the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations that they are going to begin to pay their fair share.”
  • Claiming that “the current federal [hourly] minimum wage of $7.25 is a starvation wage and must be raised … to $15.00 an hour.”
  • He described the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as a “modest” step in the direction of rightfully forcing the U.S. to “join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right.”  “And we must do it through a Medicare-for-all, single payer health plan,” he explained.
  • He called for “pay equity for women workers,” and “paid sick leave and guaranteed vacation time for every worker in this country.”
  • Describing the rising costs of a college education as “insane,” he vowed to “fight to make tuition in public colleges and universities free, as well as substantially lower interest rates on student loans.”
  • He pledged to “expand Social Security benefits” and mandate “a universal pre-K system for all the children of this country.”
  • Asserting that “there is nothing more important” than fighting global warming, he said: “The debate is over. The scientific community has spoken in a virtually unanimous voice. Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating problems in our country and throughout the world.” He elaborated that in the absence of government intervention, America would inevitably see “more drought, more famine, more rising sea level, more floods, more ocean acidification, [and] more extreme weather disturbances,” he elaborated, in the absence of government intervention.
  • He called for the government to use taxpayer dollars to rebuild America’s “crumbling infrastructure” by repairing “our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our rail and airports.” Sanders added he would begin this process by working to advance, in the Senate, a five-year, $1 trillion bill that he himself had proposed, claiming that it “would create and maintain 13 million good paying jobs.”

In September 2015, Sanders’s presidential campaign received the support of the former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who wrote: “I believe that among the Sanders supporters there are thousands who are dissatisfied, who are disgruntled, but who do not have a coherent left analysis, who therefore are open to our ideas as they weren’t before they got involved in the Sanders surge…. So, why don’t we joi[n] a Sanders local campaign or go to a mass rally?… We could have lists of places and projects where anarchists and others are working with people in projects that are using anarchist and community participatory ideas and vision. Places where Bernie supporters might get involved once they knew about them.”

Y’all remember Bomber Bill Ayers, don’t you?

He launched Barack Hussein Obama’s Illinos State Senate Campaign from his living room.

Of course, years later, aspiring Presidential Candidate Obama would refer to the Murderous Anarchist as,

Just another guy in the neighborhood.

But, I digress…

Bernie Sanders, “evangelist” of the failed political ideology of Marxism, member of the rapidly-tanking American Political Party known as “Democrats”, seems to basically appeal to the collegiate and “slacker” vote, the MTV Generation, still living in Mom’s Basement, who cling to the vision of “money for nothing and their chicks for free”.

What his collective hive-mind of group-thinking followers do not seem to grasp is the reality that Marxism has NEVER worked, anywhere that it has been tried.

Man’s own greed and corruption, as in the case of the old Russian Politboro, always gets in the way of their dream for a Socialist Utopia.

That is the reason that Marxism remains a THEORY…and a failed one, at that.

The news potentially isn’t all bad for ol’ Bernie, though.

Perhaps, they will make a remake of “Back to the Future”.

He’s a dead ringer for Doc Emmett Brown.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Rolling Stone Lied About UV “Rape” Story

 

 

Media Bias MeterHonesty…is such a lonely word. – Billy Joel

The New York Times reports that

Rolling Stone magazine retracted its article about a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity after the release of a report on Sunday that concluded the widely discredited piece was the result of failures at every stage of the process.

The report, published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and commissioned by Rolling Stone, said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the ordeal that the magazine’s source, identified only as Jackie, described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the article was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”

In an interview discussing Columbia’s findings, Jann S. Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone, acknowledged the piece’s flaws but said that it represented an isolated and unusual episode and that Ms. Erdely would continue to write for the magazine. The problems with the article started with its source, Mr. Wenner said. He described her as “a really expert fabulist storyteller” who managed to manipulate the magazine’s journalism process. When asked to clarify, he said that he was not trying to blame Jackie, “but obviously there is something here that is untruthful, and something sits at her doorstep.”

The Columbia report cataloged a series of errors at Rolling Stone, finding that the magazine could have avoided trouble with the article if certain basic “reporting pathways” had been followed. Written by Steve Coll, the Columbia journalism school’s dean; Sheila Coronel, the dean of academic affairs; and Derek Kravitz, a postgraduate research scholar at the university, the report, at nearly 13,000 words, is longer than the 9,000-word article, “A Rape on Campus.”

After its publication last November, the article stoked a national conversation about sexual assault on college campuses and roiled the university.

The police in Charlottesville, Va., said last month they had “exhausted all investigative leads” and found “no substantive basis” to support the article’s depiction of the assault. Jackie did not cooperate with the police and declined to be interviewed for the Columbia report. She also declined, through her lawyer, to be interviewed for this article. She is no longer in touch with some of the advocates who first brought her to the attention of Rolling Stone, said Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault issues at the University of Virginia.

Mr. Wenner said Will Dana, the magazine’s managing editor, and the editor of the article, Sean Woods, would keep their jobs.

Since the 1960s, America’s newsrooms have been overwhelmingly staffed by Liberals.

However, nowadays, a Conservative watchdog organization keeps an intense watch on the antics of the Main Stream Media:

The Media Research Center, headquartered in Alexandria, VA, began modestly with a handful of employees, a black and white TV, and a rented computer. The first order of business was to organize a research operation second to none. For years, conservatives could only present the anecdotal evidence of liberal journalists’ bias — a question in this interview, a statement in that report. However, anecdotal examples of bias do not prove a liberal agenda. Only through thorough, comprehensive, and ongoing analysis based on quantitative and qualitative research can one document liberal bias in the media.

From a $339,000 initial annual budget, the MRC has grown to be the nation’s largest and most sophisticated television and monitoring operation, now employing 60 professional staff with a $10 million annual budget.

The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the undeniable bias. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.

For example, the MRC reports that:

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to ones conducted by the same group (previously known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995 and 1999. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates.

KEY FINDINGS:

Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.

The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.

Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.

Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are “not critical enough” of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been “too critical.” In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given “too much” coverage to then-President Clinton’s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of “too little” coverage of Clinton’s achievements.

Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, “The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.” Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.

Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).

The way the Main Stream Media views themselves is quite different from the way Americans view them.

On July 25th of 2011, thehill.com published a poll focusing on voters’ perceptions of Media Bias:

A full 68 percent of voters consider the news media biased, the poll found. Most, 46 percent, believe the media generally favor Democrats, while 22 percent said they believe Republicans are favored, with 28 percent saying the media is reasonably balanced.

The share of voters who believe the media are too friendly with politicians is almost twice as large as those who find their coverage of politicians appropriate. Forty-four percent of voters assert the former; only 24 percent believe the latter.

The picture is not much brighter on the general question of ethics. Fifty-seven percent of voters think of the news media as either somewhat or very unethical, while only 39 percent see them as somewhat or very ethical.

With more and more news stories, such as this one, turning out to be outright lies, it has become very apparent that, the Main Stream Media’s “broadcast journalists” don’t feel that they have to feign objectivity anymore.

The majority of the “News Operations” in our country long ago sold out to the Democrat Party and their own Liberal Ideology. Sensationalism, propaganda, and toeing the Party Line, have replaced Journalistic Ethics and objectivity.

And, all too often, as in the case of the Duke Lacrosse Players and, almost, these young me from the University of Virginia, the Main Stream Media can irreparably damage people’s lives.

…And, shape the destiny of a country through lies, innuendo, and cover-up.

“And, that’s the way it is, April 6th, 2015.”

Until He Comes,

KJ

Al Jazeera America Downsizing. Let Freedom Ring!

aljazeeraAmericaWhat happens when a Cable “News Network” is launched by our country’s enemies, for the purpose of propaganda, and nobody watches it?

The Hollywood Reporter has the story…

Al Jazeera America, which launched last August with nearly 850 employees and 12 news bureaus in the United States, has laid off dozens of employees as part of restructuring. The channel is disbanding its sports unit and scaling back its social-media-driven show The Stream from a daily show to a once-a-week program.

“The majority of people affected were freelancers and many of the staff either came from the sports group or from The Stream,” Dawn Bridges, executive vp corporate communications, tells The Hollywood Reporter. 

In a note to employees on Friday, the cable news channel’s president, Kate O’Brian, stated that staff reductions were part of a process of restructuring after initial hires were made for the launch. 

“In the seven months since launch we have built a channel that it took other networks years to do,” O’Brian wrote. “As you all know, that required extensive effort, planning and resources. We always understood that we would need considerable resources to meet our goals.”

“This will have an immediate impact on some staff, freelancers, independent contractors, and other project-oriented individuals who have been with us for several months,” O’Brian noted. 

…While there was no dedicated sports program, sports content was circulated through daily news shows. A sports show was in development at one point, but plans for a dedicated show have been scrapped. 

The cable news channel, backed by the royal family of Qatar, replaced Current TV on the channel guide when it launched on Aug. 20 of last year. A significant investment, up to $600 million, was made in Al Jazeera America, sources told THR at the time.

In the months leading up to the channel’s launch, AJA boasted numerous high-profile journalist hires — including Soledad O’Brien, Ali Velshi, John Seigenthaler, Joie Chen and Antonio Mora — and pledged to deliver substantive news to differentiate itself from cable news competitors. The channel recently won two Peabody Awards, for documentaries on Haiti and Bangladesh. 

As of December 2013, when the channel struck a carriage agreement with Time Warner Cable, Al Jazeera America was available in almost 55 million homes in the United States. 

“We have more than 800 staff around the country and I hope you are seeing that we’re continuing to build a strong distribution network. Our relationships with distributors, advertisers, and the media industry as a whole are strong,” O’Brian wrote in the Friday memo.

I remember when I first heard the name “Al Jazeera. It was following the worst ever Muslim Terrorist Attack on American Soil on September 11, 2001. Right after the carnage, the “news service” began repeatedly broadcasting a videotape that showed 9/11 terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden praising and taking credit for those attacks by members of his al Qaeda organization. Al Jazeera (AJ) would not reveal where or how it had obtained this videotape, or to provide any information that might have helped to track down the Muslim Mass Murderer Osama bin Laden. These Muslim Terrorist Sympathizers also refused to stop airing the Anti-American video, despite our government’s concerns that the footage might contain coded messages to other al Qaeda agents around the world. Over the next 10 years, AJ would become known as bin Laden’s media outlet of choice for airing his various messages to the world.. These al Qaeda operatives aired at least 10 separate, “exclusive” bin Laden videos.

The New York Times Magazine published a cover story after the horrific mass murder of 9/11 titled “What the Muslim World Is Watching,” In the article, Fouad Ajami noted:

Jazeera’s reporters see themselves as ‘anti-imperialists.’ Convinced that the rulers of the Arab world have given in to American might, these are broadcasters who play to an Arab gallery whose political bitterness they share—and feed.

In April 2003, our nation’s military leaders noticed that one particular AJ reporter who was stationed in Baghdad consistently arrived, with his camera in hand, at the site of Iraqi-perpetrated terror attacks right after they had taken place. Suspecting that Al Jazeera and al Qaeda were working together, the U.S. bombed AJ’s offices in Bagdad, just like we had previously bombed the station’s headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan in late 2001.

By the time the 2004 presidential campaign season had started, the Democratic Party was well aware of the fact that AJ’s denigration of the Bush administration’s war efforts in Aghanistan and Iraq were helping to detroy support for the Bush Administration at home and abroad. In March 2004, AJ lavished praises on the Democratic presidential nominee-apparent, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Later in 2004, AJ was invited to cover the Democratic National Convention, and it did so with unexpectedly positive reporting.

AJ America was born on January 2, 2013, when Al Jazeera spent an estimated $500 million to purchase Al Gore’s left-wing Current TV. (Gore owned a 20% share of Current TV, leading to a payout from the deal of approximately $100 million.) The transaction increased AJ’s potential reach in the U.S. to approximately 40 million homes, a nearly ninefold increase. In a statement concerning the sale, Gore proudly said that Al Jazeera shared Current TV’s commitment “to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling.” News reports at the time of the sale claimed that AJ was planning to gradually transform Current TV into a network called Al Jazeera America (AJA), which would be editorially separate from the Qatar-based broadcast center that also houses Al Jazeera English.

Uh huh.

At the time of the launch, the New York Times reported that the station would “start in about 48 million of the country’s roughly 100 million homes that subscribe to television.”

Okay. If this blatant proprietor of propaganda, these “nattering nabobs of negativity”, if you will, are so enlightened and successful, why are they downsizing?

Simple. Americans aren’t buying the b.s.

Back on November 18, 2013, theblaze.com reported

Al Jazeera America has been on the air for just about two months and despite being carried in roughly 44 million homes, Americans are apparently not interested in what the Qatar-owned network is offering.

At only about 13,000 viewers a day since its Aug. 20 launch, Al Jazeera America’s daily viewership is reportedly less than half what it was under Al Gore’s unsuccessful Current TV. The news network was only able to draw in about 5,000 viewers in the coveted 25-to-54-year-old demographic.

To put the awful ratings into perspective, consider that 13,000 daily viewers is about .00029 percent of the total number of households who have access to Al Jazeera America.

Just as the propaganda attempts of previous enemies of American Freedom, Nazi Germany and Japan, in World War II, failed miserably, so will this attempt by the true believers of Radical Islam to convince America that they are just a bunch of cuddly teddy bears, fail miserably, as well.

One of America’s greatest allies of all time, the legendary British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, (whose bust  in our White House, President Obama sent back to England) once wrote about Islam that,

Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.

“Intolerance.” No wonder these enemies of America have forged an alliance with America’s Liberal Democrats, headed by the Obama Administration.

They have a lot in common. They don’t care much for American Freedom, either.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Vichy Republicans Vote to Raise Debt Ceiling… and Shaft Conservative Base

Cartoon-Cruz-Vs-Establishment-600In the Mid-Term Elections of 2010, Conservative American Voters put our trust in the Republican Party, who like the snake who appeared to Eve, promised TEA Party members nationwide, that if Conservatives sent them to Washington, they would represent us, and vote to limit Obama and the Democrats’ dreams of Unlimited Governmental Control of our everyday lives and uphold the Constitutional, Conservative vision of limited Government championed by the Grassroots Movement.

They lied.

The first thing that Republicans did, was to elect sniveling, spineless Vichy Republican John Boehner, the Speaker of the House.

From that moment on, the Grand Old Party en masse, except for a few notable exceptions, have continued their slide toward becoming a perfect replica of the political party whom they are supposed to be opposing.

The insistence by the Northeast Republicans Club, or Vichy Republicans, toward Moderate Mediocrity, has cost them the last two Presidential Elections, and could cause them the upcoming 2014 Mid -Term Elections, as well.

On Tuesday, this hardly august group continued their alienation of their Conservative Base.

Fox News relates the whole, sorry story…

The House voted Tuesday to raise the government’s borrowing limit, as GOP leaders backed down from a potential confrontation with Democrats by declining to seek any concessions in exchange for the increase.

The debt-ceiling bill passed on a 221-201 vote, and now goes to the Senate for final approval.

The vote comes after Republican leaders backed off their strategy of trying to use the debt limit to force spending cuts or other concessions. In 2011, President Obama yielded to similar demands but has since said he would not negotiate with Republicans over the matter.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, swiftly teed up the vote Tuesday after failing to get enough conservative support for a plan that would have tied the debt ceiling measure to one reversing cuts to military pensions. Another failed proposal had tied the debt cap hike to the Keystone pipeline.

The House, as part of a separate bill, nevertheless voted Tuesday to restore full cost of living increases to pension benefits for younger military retirees. The final vote was 326-90.

But Boehner’s decision to move ahead on the debt-ceiling legislation without any concessions signals a potentially new approach on these so-called must-pass bills. His party was bruised last year after Republicans tried to extract changes to ObamaCare as part of a budget bill, resulting in a partial government shutdown that lasted until Boehner finally called a relatively clean budget bill to the floor — which passed on mostly Democratic votes.

The vote Tuesday followed the same pattern. Boehner relied on mostly Democrats to bring the bill over the finish line 193 Democrats voted for the bill, while just 28 Republicans did the same. Boehner and other GOP leaders were among those who voted yes.

Boehner announced before the vote that that was the strategy. “We’ll let the Democrats put the votes up. We’ll put a minimum number of (GOP) votes up to get it passed,” Boehner said. “We’ll let his party give him the debt ceiling increase that he wants.”

But the vote caused consternation among conservative groups that have pushed Congress — and particularly Tea Party-aligned lawmakers they helped elect — to rein in deficit spending, in part by extracting spending cuts wherever possible.

“A clean debt ceiling is a complete capitulation on the Speaker’s part and demonstrates that he has lost the ability to lead the House of Representatives, let alone his own party,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, said in a statement.

The measure approved by the House does not raise the debt limit by a set amount but does suspend it through March 15, 2015.

One of those notable exceptions whom I alluded to earlier, is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Reagan Conservative and an American Patriot. After the traitorous vote on Tuesday, Cruz issued the following statement:

Today’s vote is yet another example that establishment politicians from both parties are simply not listening to the American people. Outside the beltway, Americans of all political stripes understand that we cannot keep spending money we don’t have.

Some members of Congress care so much about being praised by the Washington media that they’re willing to mortgage our children’s future. They pretend we don’t have a problem and can just kick the can down the road.

Let’s be clear about the motive behind this vote — there are too many members of Congress who think they can fool people and they will forget about it the next week. But sometimes, come November, the people remember.

Being an American by Birth, and Southern by the Grace of God, my favorite play of all time is “Lil’ Abner”. One of my favorite scenes in the movie they made of it, which starred Petter Palmer as Abner, Stubby Kaye as Marryin’ Sam, and the great Billie Hayes as Mammy Yoakum, was when Senator Fogbound (what a great name) holds a meeting with the townsfolk of Dogpatch, to tell them that they had to evacuate, due to an upcoming “A-tomic” Bomb Test.

Sen. Fogbound: I know y’all have been wondering what I have been doing up there in Washington on your behalf.

Mammy Yoakum: We didn’t care…as long as you wuz up there…and we wuz down here!

That was 1959…before the Cuban Missile Crisis, before Vietnam…before Ithe Munich Olympics…before the Iranian Hostage Crisis…AND, before President Barack Hussein Obama.

It was a more innocent time, when, even as horribly self-serving as the worst of our Senators and Congressmen were, we knew that they still were answerable to their respective constituencies. Unfortunately, in 2014, we cannot afford that naivete anymore. Our “so-called” Congressional  Representatives, the before-mentioned Vichy Republicans, do not care what we think, because they, like their fellow Progressives on the other side of the aisle, believe that they know what is best for us…and what will save their phony baloney jobs.

However, they are wrong…and Senator Cruz is right: 

COME NOVEMBER…AMERICANS WILL REMEMBER.

Until He Comes,

KJ

This Ain’t Yo’ Folks’ Democratic Party

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m 53 years old.  My Mother and Daddy were 40 years older than me. I think that they were going to name me “Oops”. But, I digress…

My folks were Southern Democrats…Conservative Southern Democrats. They passed away in ’95 and ’97, respectively.

Back in the day, the Democrat Party was a far different political party than they are today.

On July 11, 1960, the Democratic Party Platform began with the following:

In 1796, in America’s first contested national election, our Party, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, campaigned on the principles of “The Rights of Man.”

Ever since, these four words have underscored our identity with the plain people of America and the world.

In periods of national crisis, we Democrats have returned to these words for renewed strength. We return to them today.

In 1960, “The Rights of Man” are still the issue. It is our continuing responsibility to provide an effective instrument of political action for every American who seeks to strengthen these rights-everywhere here in America, and everywhere in our 20th Century world.

The common danger of mankind is war and the threat of war. Today, three billion human beings live in fear that some rash act or blunder may plunge us all into a nuclear holocaust which will leave only ruined cities, blasted homes, and a poisoned earth and sky.

Our objective, however, is not the right to coexist in armed camps on the same planet with totalitarian ideologies; it is the creation of an enduring peace in which the universal values of human dignity, truth, and justice under law are finally secured for all men everywhere on earth.

If America is to work effectively for such a peace, we must first restore our national strength-military, political, economic, and moral.

That’s a far cry from “You didn’t build that”, huh?

In fact, it sounds like the Modern Republican Party.

Well, hold on to something. You ain’t seen nothin’, yet…as The New York Times reports:

Democrats appear ready to embrace same-sex marriage as part of their party platform, a policy shift that reflects an expanded acceptance of gay rights in mainstream politics.

The move would place the party in line with the beliefs of President Obama, who in May became the first sitting president to declare that gay men and lesbians should be able to marry.

Democratic Party officials had squabbled over the issue in the past. But at a platform-drafting meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis, they approved the first step to amend their platform, placing the amendment on track for adoption. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would go before convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final passage in early September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on could still be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

The platform language approved over the weekend also reiterated the party’s disapproval of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages. The 2008 platform had a similar section.

The Democratic Party’s move comes more than two months after President Obama personally backed the rights of same-sex couples to wed. The president’s reversal — he had said previously that while he could not support same-sex marriage, his views on the issue were “evolving” — was a significant move, though it carried no legal weight.

The Democrats would become the first major party to embrace same-sex marriage. But as historic as the platform would be, the president’s position makes it decidedly less controversial.

News of the platform amendment was first reported by The Washington Blade.

Gay rights supporters praised the Democratic Party’s vote. “Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language on this issue.”

The Democratic Party platform that was drafted four years ago, when Mr. Obama was first running for president, called for “full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits and protections.”

But the platform stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriages, in part because Mr. Obama had said he remained opposed.

Well, all bets are off now, because as we have all found out, all of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates.

Oh…and that whirring sound you hear? It’s the sound of Democrats like Scoop Jackson, Tip O’Neill, Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy…and my parents…spinning in their graves.