Trump Wins MI, MS, and Hawaii. Why? “I’m a Unifier.” No Brag. Just Fact?

On March 9, 2016March 9, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Last night, American Entrepreneur and Businessman, Donald J. Trump, won 3 out of the 4 Republican Primaries by securing victories in Michigan, Mississippi, and Hawaii. Senator Ted Cruz won in Idaho, with John Kasich and Marco Rubio being shut out.

Per usual, Trump was exuberant following his victories.

Realclearpolitics.com reports that

At a press conference held after his victories in the Michigan and Mississippi Republican presidential primaries, Donald Trump called on the Republican party to come together and unify behind him.

“Given your statement to Major [Garrett] about how easy it would be to beat Hillary Clinton do you agree you’re going to need to get mainstream Republican politicians, the establishment as it has been labeled behind you? And if so, what do you say to them tonight, given so many are pouring their money in to trying to beat you?” FOX News’ Campaign Carl Cameron asked Trump.

“I say let’s come together folks,” Trump said Tuesday night. “We’re going to win. I say let’s come together. Carl, the answer is not 100 percent but largely I would say yes. Some people you are just not going to get along with. It’s okay.”

“I am a unifier,” Trump said in Jupiter, Florida tonight. “I unify. You look at all of the things I built all over the world. I’m a unifier. I get along with people. I have great relationships. I even start getting along with you, right? Campaign Carl. But, no, I get along with people. And I really say this, Carl, I think it’s time to unify.”

CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS: Given your statement to Major [Garrett] about how easy it would be to beat Hillary Clinton do you agree you’re going to need to get mainstream Republican politicians, the establishment as it has been labeled behind you? And if so, what do you say to them tonight, given so many are pouring their money in to trying to beat you?

DONALD TRUMP: I say let’s come together folks. We’re going to win. I say let’s come together. Carl, the answer is not 100 percent but largely I would say yes. Some people you are just not going to get along with. It’s okay.

But largely I would like to do that and believe it or not, I am a unifier. I unify. You look at all of the things I built all over the world. I’m a unifier. I get along with people. I have great relations. I even start getting along with you, right? Campaign Carl. But, no, I get along with people. And I really say this, Carl, I think it’s time to unify.

We have something special going on in the Republican party. And, unfortunately, the people in the party, they call them the elites or they call them whatever they call them. But those are the people that don’t respect it yet. We have millions and millions of people, I’ve discussed it before. We have millions and millions of people coming up and voting, largely for me.

It’s a record. It has never happened before. In 100 years what is happening now to the Republican party has never happened before.

Now, before you dismiss Trump’s claim to be a unifier, look at what he is accomplishing and how it is happening.

In order to be an effective President, you have to build a Coalition. The most effective President in my lifetime did.

On July 27. 2012. John Heubush, Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, wrote the following op ed for The Daily Caller about the succerss of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency:

…How in the world did Reagan do it? Experience.

Matching wits with Jack Warner (of Warner Brothers) as head of the actors’ union and Jesse Unruh (speaker of the California State Assembly) as governor taught Reagan to come to the bargaining table prepared. “I’d learned while negotiating union contracts,” Reagan wrote, “that you seldom get everything you ask for.” (Years later, the press asked him about negotiating with Gorbachev. “It was easier than dealing with Jack Warner,” Reagan shot back.)

Although the Democrats were in a tough position after the Carter years, their big trump card was that nothing would get done unless Reagan won over a substantial number of them in the House. It’s no wonder that O’Neill was so full of braggadocio.

Somehow Reagan had to build a coalition.

The strategy to get the Economic Recovery Act passed by a conflicted Congress had two major parts.

First, Reagan would use his tremendous skills as a communicator by making repeated televised appeals to Congress and the American people. “Every time he spoke,” Reagan Chief of Staff Jim Baker recalled, “the needle moved.”

Second, the Legislative Strategy Group led by Baker and Ed Meese “did the grunt work” of inviting Democrats to the White House, while the president worked the phones. “I spent a lot of time in the spring and early summer of 1981 on the telephone and in meetings trying to build a coalition to get the nation’s recovery under way,” Reagan wrote. At the time, he even noted in his diary, “These Dems are with us on the budget and it’s interesting to hear some who’ve been here ten years or more say that it is their first time to ever be in the Oval Office. We really seem to be putting a coalition together.

2. In order to become President of the United States, you must garner more votes than the other party’s candidate. This cannot be done simply by relying on the votes of your own poltical party.You must have ‘crossover votes”.

Back on August 15, 1984, Mark Green, in an article written for the New York Times, titled, “Reagan, The Liberal Democrat”, wrote the following…

…If Ronald Reagan holds to this path, he may soon end up back among the Americans for Democratic Action, which he fled and renounced in the 1950’s.

Not surprisingly, ideological fellow-travelers such as the commentators William F. Buckley Jr. and Pat Buchanan have expressed dismay over their champion’s apostasy. Mr. Buchanan worries that by flirting with the idea of a summit meeting, the President ”is playing with the national security of the U.S.”

Mr. Reagan’s election-year liberalism appears designed to win over those political independents and weak Democrats who might otherwise recall him as the man who has opposed all but one of the major civil rights laws and nuclear arms control pacts of the past two decades.

Will it work? Only if these constituencies believe his reversals to be principled and permanent – and that seems unlikely. To conclude now that Ronald Reagan has suddenly become pro-environment, pro-arms control, pro-food stamps and pro-regulation is to believe that a sow’s ear can become a silk purse merely by declaring itself so.

Besides, swing voters faced this fall with the equivalent of two Democratic tickets may just as well decide to vote for the real McCoy rather than the imitation brand.

Sound familiar?

Every day, on Political Websites and Facebook Political Pages, Conservatives and Liberals, alike, are arguing from dust to dawn, whether Trump can actually win the presidency.

One of the oft-repeated arguments that they present is a modern version of the final argument that Mark Green made in his article:

Why should Liberals vote for Trump, when they can vote for Clinton or Sanders?

The answer to that is as obvious as Kim Kardashian’s brunette roots (if you actually noticed them in the two “nekkid [that is when you are sans clothes and you’re up to something] selfies” that she just released).

The Democrat Candidates STINK ON ICE.

Would you vote for them?

The indisputable fact of the matter is that, in “Open” Primaries, Trump is doing even better than he is in those primaries in which only Republicans can vote.

Trump is building a Coalition.

Americans are fed up with the Washingtonian Status Quo.

We are tired of professional politicians empty promises and their failure to properly address the issues facing America, in any way, except a self-serving one.

While I would never equate Trump with Ronaldus Magnus, they do have this much in common: Like Reagan, Trump is unabashedly America and an advocate for American Exceptionalism.

Trump speaks of “possibilities” and is offering a view from outside of the Washington Beltway.

The reason Trump is winning so many votes, including those of Democrats?

He is offering the possibility of a brand new “Morning in America”.

And. voters are desperate to wake up from this Long National Nightmare.

Until He Comes,

Sunday Morning Thoughts: The Democrat Primaries…Hillary and Bernie…a Socialist Love Story

On March 6, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

The results of yesterday’s “Super Saturday” showed Democrats Bernie Sanders winning in Kansas and Nebraska and Hillary Clinton taking the big prize of Louisiana.

Tonight’s Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, live from Flint, Michigan at 8:00 p.m. EST, will feature all of the journalistic integrity of a Vladimir Putin Press Conference.

Both Hillary Clinton (The Queen of Mean) and Bernie Sanders (Doc Emmett Brown from “Back to the Future”) will continue to espouse the benefits of a Nanny-State Government, whose political philosophy is based upon Marxist Theory, through the answering of softball questions from their willing accomplices at CNN, the News Outlet that we used to refer to as the “Clinton News Network”.

Why are Far Left Democrats (which nowadays describes the overwhelming majority of the Party) so enamored of Socialist Politicians?

Merriam-webster.com defines socialism as:

…any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

…a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

…a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The desensitization and placating of the Middle Class, as it was in classic Marxist Theory, is a key element of the Present and Future Platform of the Democrat Party, as it has been during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

By taking the ambition of the Middle Class away, by offering a “safe and comfortable” cradle-to-grave Nanny-State, “Uncle Sugar” Federal Government, the Democrat Party, ever since the launch of LBJ’s “Great Society”, have bought the loyalty of American voters by giving them bribes of “free” money and “benefits”.

Unfortunately, as Mitt Romney alluded to during his failed bid for the Presidency, there is a great percentage of American voters who will buy and be content with this “Mother’s milk”, instead of yearning for the thrill and the challenge of the hunt for American Individual Success and Freedom.

The Marxist Ideal of

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

has become the mantra of the Modern Democratic Party, which has become extremely adept at promising the Moon and handing out free stuff to its voting base, in order to maintain their Seats of Power and to continue to grow the Politboro, or Central Government.

Norman Matoon Thomas (1884-1968) was a six-time Presidential Candidate, representing the Socialist Party of America. In a campaign interview in 1948, he said the following:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Thanks to a highly politicized, propaganda-filled Department of Education, which has “dumbed down” a generation of voters, the “easy money” solution to poverty, promised by Socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, “tickles the ears” of low information voters, the same voting bloc who continue to support Barack Hussein Obama and his failed Presidency.

Back in 2011, I got into a discussion on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website with some cheeto-munching, Mom’s basement-dwelling Lib with no home training, who proceeded to tell me that he would be proud to defecate on the American Flag.

If I could have reached through my computer monitor and throttled that useless, ungrateful, spoiled brat, I would have.

That “dude” was yet another example of the useful idiots of this present generation, who seem to be garnering a lot of national attention for their outrageous, disrespectful…and, yes, intolerant, behavior.

Just as we have been bearing witness for during the last few years of Obama’s Presidency, through the glorification of thugs and the vilifying of our local police departments by the Obama Administration and the local “communities” which they lay their lives on the line for, every day they put on their uniforms, the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society” on American Culture and the Black Family Unit, so are we witnessing, through the egocentric behavior of this present generation, what happens when children are left to “their own devices”, instead of being raised “in the way in which they should go”.

This explains the “Feel the Bern” Movement. (Which is a creepy-sounding slogan. But, perhaps, it’s just me...)

We are already suffering under one Far Left Socialist Whackjob, we sure as heck don’t need to follow up this present Presidential Nightmare with another.

Just as Marxism has failed wherever it has been tried before, so would it fail here.

French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) traveled to the America in 1831 to study our prisons and returned to France with a wealth of broader observations that he compiled together in “Democracy in America” (1835), one of the most influential books of the 19th century. With its spot-on observations on equality and individualism, Tocqueville’s work remains a valuable explanation of America to Europeans and of Americans to ourselves.

He once observed that

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

In other words, the failed political ideology of socialism takes away the exhilaration and fulfillment of individual achievement and replaces it with self-sacrifice in servitude to the State, for the good of the Central Nanny-State Government, which, in turn, promises to “share the wealth”, but, as was the case in the old Soviet Union, and more recently, Venezuela, never does.

The great Sir Winston Churchill once said that

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

I would rather be blessed than miserable.

How about you?

Mitt Romney said during his failed 2012 Presidential Campaign, that

…the American people are the greatest people in the world. What makes America the greatest nation in the world is the heart of the American people: hardworking, innovative, risk-taking, God- loving, family-oriented American people.

And. that is the main reason that Bernie Sanders, when it is all said and done, will do not any better in the Democrat Primaries than Ron Paul fared in the Republican Primaries.

Well…that and the whole “Superdelegate” thingy…

For, while there remains an element in American Society who wants their “money for nothing and their chicks for free”, there is a bigger element of our population who realize that hard work and self-sacrifice are noble things.

As the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says, socialism is “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

That being said, you know why I am optimistic that the push toward socialism and ultimately, communism , will not succeed here in America?

The greatest President of the United States in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, once quipped,

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 Political Ideology of the majority of the population in America is still Conservatism.

…And, we understand Marx and Lenin.

Until He Comes,

Trump Takes “Super Tuesday”: The Rebellion Continues

On March 2, 2016March 2, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Boys 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,

Super Tuesday: As Clinton Prepares for War with Trump, Huma Abedin Remains in Hillary’s Glass House

On March 1, 2016March 1, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Welcome to Super Tuesday.

The Washington Post reports this morning that as Americans in several states go to the polls to select their political party’s Presidential Nominee, the Presumptive Democrat Nominee for the Office of the President of the United States of America is already looking past tonight’s election returns.

Hillary Clinton and her allies are shifting their attention to a likely general-election contest against Donald Trump that they expect to be strongly negative — and for which they are planning an intensive effort to draw out minority voters who feel demonized by the billionaire real estate mogul.

Clinton is still waging a hard-fought nomination battle against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — including 11 contests on Tuesday — and some Democrats supporting her are wary of looking too far over the horizon. But increasingly sure that Trump will win the Republican nomination, Clinton appears this week to be running a two-pronged campaign against both Sanders and an eventual Republican opponent who sounds a lot like Trump.

On Monday, for instance, Clinton lingered on what she called “scapegoating” and “finger-pointing” in the Republican race — clearly signaling her willingness to criticize Trump.

“The mean-spiritedness, the hateful rhetoric, the insults — that’s not who we are,” Clinton said in Springfield, Mass., a day ahead of the Super Tuesday voting that is expected to place her firmly in the lead for the Democratic nomination. “It really undermines our fabric as a nation.”

Hillary’s problem is the fact, that, sitting in the middle of her divan, is a 600 lb, hairy beast (and, I’m not talking about “Bubba”.)

According to Bloomberg.com,

The U.S. State Department released the final batch of e-mails Hillary Clinton kept on a private server while secretary of state, ending months of piecemeal disclosure that has frustrated the Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign and subjected it to criticism from both sides of the aisle.

The department published about 3,800 pages of messages from the @clintonemail.com server on Monday. The release is the 14th and last, bringing the total number of pages published to more than 52,000, fewer than the 55,000 originally estimated, department spokesman John Kirby said.

One message in the new tranche, dated July 3, 2009, is the second part of a two-part e-mail that — while not marked as classified when sent — was retroactively designated as top secret and has since been downgraded to merely “secret,” Kirby said. It involves North Korea, he said, without going into details.

The State Department turned over two messages concerning North Korea, both originating on that date. The first is a communique from Clinton aide Huma Abedin to her boss, relaying a report that North Korea had launched a pair of short-range missiles.

The second, and more heavily redacted message, appears to summarize a conference call about the event and also includes an English translation of a formal protest issued by Japan. Relayed through several hands, that e-mail strand also was eventually sent to Clinton by Abedin.

It is no secret that Huma Abedin is Hillary’s closet confidant. Mrs. Anthony Weiner has been with the Former Secretary of State. as her Aide-De-Camp, for a quite a while.

For those of you who are not aware of Ms. Abedin’s troubling past and familial connections, here are some bullet points, courtesy of discoverthenetworks.org…

Huma Abedin was born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
[She is the] Daughter of Saleha Mahmood Abedin, a pro-Sharia sociologist with ties to numerous Islamist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood
Longtime assistant to Hillary Clinton
Longtime former employee of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which shares the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of establishing Islamic supremacy and Sharia Law worldwide.
…From 1997 until sometime before early 1999, Abedin, while still interning at the White House, was an executive board member of George Washington University’s (GWU) Muslim Students Association (MSA), heading the organization’s “Social Committee.”
It is noteworthy that in 2001-02, soon after Abedin left that executive board, the chaplain and “spritual guide” of GWU’s MSA was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda operative who ministered to some of the men who were among the 9/11 hijackers. Another chaplain at GWU’s MSA (from at least October 1999 through April 2002) was Mohamed Omeish, who headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda.
From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence at IMMA. Abedin’s last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board.
Abedin went on maternity leave after giving birth to a baby boy in early December 2011. When she returned to work in June 2012, the State Department granted her an arrangement that allowed her to do outside consulting work as a “special government employee,” even as she remained a top advisor in the Department. Abedin did not disclose on her financial report either the arrangement or the$135,000 she earned from it, in violation of a law mandating that public officials disclose significant sources of income. Abedin’s outside clients included the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton, the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and Teneo (a firm co-founded by Doug Band, a former counselor for Bill Clinton). Good-government groups warned of the potential conflict-of-interest inherent in an arangement where a government employee maintains private clients.
On February 1, 2013—Hillary Clinton’s final day as Secretary of State—Abedin resigned her post as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Yet she would continue to serve as a close aide to Clinton.
On March 1, 2013, Abedin was tapped to run Clinton’s post-State Department transition team, comprised of a six-person “transition office” located in Washington.
Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center’s board included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.
Huma’s sister, Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA, where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter’s departure.

Speaking straight from the heart, as an American Citizen, I find it beyond the pale that, during the time of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, someone with direct ties to our sworn enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood, had access to the highest level of Top Secret Information contained in our State Department, being sent to her over Secretary Clinton’s own unsecured e-mail Server.

And, the thing is, she not only had access through her job as Assistant to Secretary of State Clinton, she also had access to government information through pillow talk with her husband, then-Congressman and “Professional Sexter” Anthony Weiner.

Being the “proud Muslim” that she has proclaimed herself to be, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this information found its way to her “troubling Familial Affiliations”?

Which brings up a troubling question:

Considering her familial ties, how deeply was Ms. Abedin involved in “BenghaziGate”?

Whin I first considered the reality of Hillary Clinton running for President, a great many thoughts entered my head…some of them even repeatable.

In fact, there are a lot of images that race through my mind, right now, on the morning of “Super Tuesday”, as I sit here at my computer.

I remember the image of a lone terrorist, brandishing a machine gun, standing in front of the burning Benghazi Consulate.

I also remember the image of Benghazi Barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones.

My mind envisions the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well.

I can imagine Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remember the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration, including then-Secretary of State Clinton, solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

Former Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…even after all this time, to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

And, you should be ashamed to be running for the office of President of the United States.

…But, you’re not.

As you prepare to attack American Businessman and Entrepreneur, Donald J. Trump, you need to remember that

People who live in Glass Houses should not throw stones.

Especially, when your Glass House resembles the Ice Palace in the Disney Animated Movie, “Frozen”.

You may want to consider following the advice of the popular song in that movie and “Let It Go”.

Until He Comes,

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

On February 28, 2016February 28, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Last 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”?

Both Black and White Southerners have absolutely nothing in common with New England’s Socialist Curmudgeon, Bernie Sanders.
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.
The DNC , through the use of “Super Delegates” and other bits of “Political Chicanery” will insure that their favorite candidate wins the nomination.
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,

***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 February 22, 2016February 22, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

The 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,

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

On February 17, 2016February 17, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Yesterday, 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,

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

On February 15, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

A 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,

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

On February 5, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

In 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,

“In Hillary, We Don’t Trust”

On February 3, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

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.

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.

…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.

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.

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,

Kingsjester's Blog

Tag: HIllary Clinton

Trump Wins MI, MS, and Hawaii. Why? “I’m a Unifier.” No Brag. Just Fact?

Sunday Morning Thoughts: The Democrat Primaries…Hillary and Bernie…a Socialist Love Story

Trump Takes “Super Tuesday”: The Rebellion Continues

Super Tuesday: As Clinton Prepares for War with Trump, Huma Abedin Remains in Hillary’s Glass House

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

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

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

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

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

“In Hillary, We Don’t Trust”