Why The Florida Gun Show Had a Record Attendance

overallview

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” -Isoruku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Imperial Navy during World War II

WTSP.com reports that

Thousands of gun enthusiasts flocked to the Florida State Fairgrounds for the Florida Gun Show event.

Organizers say they had a record number of people attend the event on Saturday, almost 7,000, and expect more Sunday.

Manager for the Florida Gun Show, George Fernandez, says they’ve never seen such a big crowd.

The company canceled the show in Fort Lauderdale next month after the Mayor asked them to show respect to the victims of the Stoneman Douglas shooting earlier this month.

With the heated debate over gun control staying front and center, Fernandez expressed concerns over proposed gun laws possibly restricting gun owners.

“Some of the people attending are afraid that future legislation will impact their gun ownership rights,” he says.

Florida lawmakers like Senator Bill Nelson want stricter laws to fix the so-called “Gun show loophole” which allows people to buy a gun at one of these events without getting a background check.

Not only that, Nelson is also calling for a ban on assault weapons, saying murders were down after they were banned back in 1994.

“Before that law, they were high and after that law, when the NRA killed the law in 2004, the number of deaths as a result of assault weapons has grown up like a rocket taking off,” he says.

Fernandez disagrees with both restrictions.

95% of the vendors at this weekend’s show, he says, are required by law to run background checks since they are licensed dealers.

However, the other 5% of vendors are private citizens, which means they can sell a gun with no background check required.

But Fernandez says tightening the “loophole” still wouldn’t have stopped the massacre at Stoneman Douglas.

19-year-old Nikolas Cruz passed a background check before purchasing a semiautomatic AR 15-style rifle.

“This was a mental health issue. This is someone who should have been identified from the beginning by law enforcement,” says Fernandez.

As any American with any common sense whatsoever will tell you, the purpose of “Gun Control” IS control.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, regarding the right of Americans to bear arms, was more than just a statement written in a document long ago by our Founding Fathers.

It was an admonition.

By now, gentle readers, I hope that you have taken stock of the fact that every single time there is a mass murder in our Sovereign Nation, before the smoke even clears, Democrat Pundits, both professional and amateur, start drooling from their pursed lips in an ecstatic frenzy to be the first to call for “Gun Control”.

It is not, regardless of what they say repeatedly when these tragedies happen, “for the children”.

Oh, no.

If Liberal Democrats were so concerned about America’s children, America would not be witnessing the yanking of children from their mothers’ wombs at the rate of 1,000,000 abortions every year.

Make no mistake. Gun control is no more a Democratic Mantra spoken out of concern for the welfare of Americans than Nancy Pelosi is in full control of her mental faculties.

Vladimir Lenin, the Communist Leader of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks during the Russian Revolution, stated that

“One man with a gun can control 100 men without one.”

Just as during the Russian Revolution, our modern-day Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, whom we call Millenials and Progressives, seem to blindly follow as one the notion that more control somehow means more freedom.

Little do those high schoolers who are being “sponsored” to march for Gun Control realize that they are being led over a cliff like the herd of lemmings which my generation used to watch in school in those Walt Disney True Life Adventure Movies.

Just as Lenin played upon his followers’ emotions, so are the Democrats using these young people for their own political purposes

Which brings me back to the article I posted above.

The fact that Floridians came to the gun show in record numbers does not surprise me at all.

Former President Barack Hussein Obama, when pushing his plans for Gun Control, infamously said that as Americans we were going to have to sacrifice a little freedom for security.

The Russian people under Communist Rule were “secure”. Their leaders in the Politboro were rich.

President Ronald Reagan famously asked

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

The “sponsors” of the marches of Florida Schoolchildren advocating Gun Control have read Marx and Lenin.

Those Americans who attended the Florida Gun Show UNDERSTAND Marx and Lenin.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Filed Under “I Hate It When I’m Right”: New Wikileak Podesta E-mail Reveals Clinton Campaign Behind Democrat-Weighted National Push Polls

1984-2016-600-a-ci

It was reported this weekend by the folks over at the Zero Hedge Blog, that the current batch of Wikileak E-mails by Clinton Campaign Manager and Supreme Lackey John Podesta, contained a very interesting e-mail from the Atlas Project, suggesting how to “maximize” the campaign’s polling.

What is “The Atlas Project”, you ask?

Well…per discoverthenetworks.org,

Founded in 2007 by Steve Rosenthal, Mary Beth Cahill, and Michael Whouley, the Atlas Project (AP) describes itself as a private consulting firm “committed to the success of the progressive movement.” In an effort to help leftist political candidates win their respective elections, AP “conducts in-depth analysis of collected and preserved campaign-related information in key states” to enable its clients – mostly Democrats – to “make better informed data-driven decisions.” AP works in partnership with the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC), which furnishes the Atlas staff with much of the information upon which its analyses and recommendations are based.

To plan a successful campaign for each of its clients, AP considers such variables as:

  • the degree of cable and satellite TV penetration in the area where political advertising will be run

  • what type of direct-mail pieces will most effectively influence voters in the targeted area

  • the findings of public and internal polling on issues important to votersdemographics of the targeted population (race, ethnicity, age, occupation, income, level of education, political affiliations, etc.)

  • how state and local elected officials, labor leaders, and political operatives might be able to help promote AP’s candidate

  • how to register as many voters as possible prior to registration deadlines in the targeted area

  • how to take advantage of absentee- and early-voting options, where applicableAtlas Project clients include not only individual candidates for political office, but also some of the most prominent and powerful leftist organizations in the United States.

Here is the e-mail in question…

From:tom@zzranch.com To: agreenberg@gqrr.com, sgreenberg@gqrr.com, ic2008@gqrr.com  Date: 2008-01-18 19:04 Subject: Atlas polling recommendations

Hey Guys, See attached from Atlas. Useful but we should still do our due diligence on it.

———- Forwarded message ———- From: Crystal King <cking@atlasproject.net> Date: Jan 17, 2008 7:23 PM Subject: FW: Meet and polling design To: tmatzzie@gmail.com Cc: Andy Meyer <ameyer@atlasproject.net>, georgerakis@gmail.com

Attached are the state by state polling and research recommendations from the ATLAS product that have been compiled into one document. Please let Andy or I know if you have any questions or need additional information.

Crystal King cking@atlasproject.net (202) 974-8285 Direct (202) 316-1299 Mobile (202) 974-8361 Fax —– Original Message —– From: tmatzzie@gmail.com <tmatzzie@gmail.com> To: georgerakis@gmail.com <georgerakis@gmail.com>; Andy Meyer Sent: Thu Jan 10 21:21:07 2008 Subject: Meet and polling design

Hey, when can we meet? I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling. -Tom [***courtesy of wikileaks.org] 

If you are like me, you grew up hearing that there are 3 types of lies in this world.

Little White Lies: I have always believed that these are “plain, old” lies, like those told in the heat of the moment to protect yourself when you are caught red-handed or, you can’t think of anything else to buttress your argument. I have been trying to think of some examples of just a plain, old lie.

I suppose that a good example of a lie would be : “Sarah Palin said ‘I can see Russia from my house.”

That was, unfortunately, a pretty effective lie. It was actually, now irrelevant, comedienne Tina Fey, of Saturday Night Live and 30 rock mediocre fame, who uttered those words, during a SNL Skit. I say former, because her attempts at being a movie star have both bombed bigger than Hiroshima. Payback’s a …well…you know.

Ms. Fey’s impersonation was grabbed by the Democratic Party, and all of its minions, and used to further their meme that Gov. Palin was nothing by a stupid Alaskan Snowbilly.

Of course, informed Americans know that the Left’s stereotype of the Arctic Fox is about as far from the truth as Michael Moore is from the Jenny Craig Diet Plan. Unfortunately though, low information voters (You know…pookie and ‘dem) lapped the false meme up like a kitten laps up a bowl of milk, thanks to the 24/7 barrage of propaganda supplied by the Main Stream Media, and Vichy Republicans, who did not like her because she was an outsider from Flyover Country. It never mattered that she ran the largest state in the nation, and actually ran it in the black. Oh, no. That information was never emphasized by Obama’s Propaganda Platoon: the Main Stream Media, Organizing for Obama,and Hollyweird.

This little lie, as they always do, led to bigger lies, once Obama ascended to the Throne of the Regime.

Bald-faced lies: These are lies, which a professional prevaricator, like Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) can speak without blinking an eye, while smiling at the camera with all the warmth and sincerity of Robert Young in Father Knows Best. (Look it up, kids)

Here are some of the lies which The Lightbringer and his Administrative Angels have laid on us:

If the Supreme Court throws out the federal health care law, it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

“For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs.”“Preventive care … saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody.”

“Thirty million Americans, including a lot of people in Florida, are going to be able to get healthcare next year because of that law.”

Obama- “I made a bunch of these promises during the campaign. … We’ve got about 60 percent done in three years.”

Obama Admin.- Under President Barack Obama, the United States has “doubled our exports.”

The president’s proposed budget “will help reduce the deficit by $400 billion over the next decade to the lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was president.”

About the Sequester:

“If the sequester hits, federal prosecutors will have to “let criminals go.”

“Federally assisted programs like Meals on Wheels would be able to serve 4 million fewer meals to seniors.”

“There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips” because of sequestration.

“70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start” –

“Up to 70,000 children would lose access to Head Start and early Head Start services.”

This list only includes the lies that Barack Hussein Obama told up to 2013. If I had listed all of his lies to date , this would not simply be an article anymore, it would rival the Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of depth and volume.

Statistics: Back during the Clinton Administration, Bubba never made a decision without checking the poll numbers on the subject beforehand. During Obama’s First and now, Second Terms, the Pollsters are blatantly weighting their poll samples, both ideologically and geographically, to make sure they reflect the results that this Administration, the Democratic Party, and their puppet masters, like Mr. Soros, want to hear.And, to ensure that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency.

A great example of that strategy is “gay marriage”. If you looked at all the Polls, and listen to all of the Liberal Talking Heads on the cable news channels discussing them, you would think that America is 99.98% behind LeRoy and Festus gettin’ hitched. However, when you take a look at a map showing the results of state referendums on the subject, you see that while 9 Northern States approved it, 30 other states stood firmly against changing the definition of marriage, refusing to treat a sexual preference as a civil right.

Polls are one of the ways in which Liberals and reality travel on two divergent paths. Too much weed during their wonder years is another reason, but, that’s a subject for another blog.

Scheming Progressives figured out a long time ago that because low information voters tend to believe every poll they see, and they do not take the time to look at the sampling, polls are a very effective tool with which to sway the uninformed masses.

Notice that the breakdown of the political parties of those registered voters involved in National Polls conducted by Liberal Organizations and the Main Stream Media (but, I repeat myself) is always left out.

As has been demonstrated in the past with a detailed sampling of other national polls, and now substantiated by the above e-mail, the accepted practice  in modern poll conducting is to oversample national polls with Democrats, in order to discourage average Americans from voting.

That being said, I, among the overwhelming majority of average Americans here in the Heartland believe Trump is actually ahead, despite what Liberals and their minions in the Main Stream Media want us to believe.

However, Trump still needs all Americans with a conscience on board, in order to secure a victory on November 8 and to defeat a candidate who will most surely continue Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency, which has taken this nations straight to the edge of a bottomless abyss.

So, there you have it.

One of America’s two main political parties, powered by, as Gallup Polls continue to show, the minority political ideology known as Progressivism or Liberalism, has been engaged for decades in a political strategy to radically change American values and culture, through a propaganda campaign of lies, one more outrageous than the last, spoken and spread, until citizens believe them to be the truth.

Wow. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? What was that guy’s name? You know…the one with the funny mustache.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

April 1, 2016, “National Atheists Day”: Of Atheists, Restricting Religious Liberty, and “Complaining Christians”

7b2b9eba5179818a8336fbf20269a8d1The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”- Psalm 14:1

Lifeway Research reports that

A growing number of Americans believe religious liberty is on the decline and that the nation’s Christians face growing intolerance. They also say American Christians complain too much.

Those are among the findings of a new study of views about religious liberty from LifeWay Research. Researchers surveyed 1,000 Americans in September 2013 and September 2015 and then compared the results.

Two-thirds (63 percent) say Christians face increasing intolerance, up from half (50 percent) in 2013.

A similar number (60 percent) say religious liberty is on the decline, up from just over half (54 percent) in 2013.

Forty-three percent say American Christians complain too much about how they are treated, up from 34 percent in 2013.

“More Americans worry the U.S. has a hostile environment for religious liberty,” said Ed Stetzer, executive director of LifeWay Research. “As this perception grows, some approve of it while others speak up against it.”

Religious liberty has become an increasingly contentious issue in American culture—with disputes over birth control, same-sex wedding cakes, headscarves at work, and prisoner’s beards.

The more recent LifeWay Research survey found faith plays a key role in how Americans view the state of religious liberty.

Two-thirds of Christians (64 percent) and those of other faiths (65 percent) say religious liberty is on the decline. Self-identified evangelicals (71 percent) and those who attend worship at least once a week (70 percent) are most likely to agree.

Catholics (56 percent) and non-evangelicals (55 percent) are more skeptical. So are Nones (46 percent).

“Christians are particularly sensitive to what they see as intolerance towards their faith,” said Stetzer. “But they share a common concern with people of other faiths—that religious liberty in general is declining. And this perception is growing rapidly.”

Age also played a role in how Americans view the state of religious liberty.

Less than half  (42 percent) of those 18 to 24 say religious liberty is on the decline. By contrast, 6 in 10 (62 percent) of those over 25 see a decline.

LifeWay Research also found non-Christians are less convinced that Christians face intolerance.

Less than half of those from other faiths (43 percent) and Nones (48 percent) agree when asked if intolerance towards Christians has increased.

By contrast, most Christians (70 percent), self-identified evangelicals (82 percent) and Protestants (74 percent) see more intolerance. So do two-thirds (76 percent) of those who attend services once a week or more.

Researchers found some signs that Americans are tired of arguments over religious liberty. A sizable number of Americans believe Christians’ complaints about how they are treated are excessive.

Among them:

38 percent of Christians
39 percent of Americans of other faiths
59 percent of Nones
53 percent of those who rarely or never attend worship
American Christians face a challenge, as the nation becomes more secular, said Stetzer. Calls for religious liberty may fall on increasingly deaf ears in the future.

“Most people now believe Christians are facing intolerance, however, a surprising large minority perceives Christians to be complainers,” said Stetzer. “Both of those facts will matter as Christians profess and contend for their beliefs without sounding false alarms around faux controversies. It won’t be easy to strike that balance.”

Really? Really?

C’mon now.

As John McEnroe says,

You can’t be serious.

(Look him up, boys and girls.)

At first glance, this article should be upsetting to the 74% of Americans, including myself, who, as described by the “cool” word of the Millennials,  self-identify as Christian Americans.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how some seek to restrict the Religious Liberty of Christian Americans, the death of Christianity in America has been greatly exaggerated.

“Organized Religion”, a term usually spoken in derision by those seeking to somehow impugn the generations-old practice of Christian Americans to be a member of and attend the weekly worship service of the denomination and church building of their choice, is being attacked constantly by Atheists, Liberals, and Progressives (but, I repeat myself) to further degrade the spiritual backbone of the “Shining City Upon a Hill”, as President Ronald Reagan referred to our country.

For what now seems like an eternity, those on the left side of Political Aisle, have focused their attention on “radically changing” America.

They soon realized that they simply could not do it through popular culture and educational indoctrination, inundating America’s children with both overt and subliminal imaging designed to countermand the Traditional American Values that they were being raised with, in normal American Households, out here in “Flyover Country”, otherwise known as America’s Heartland…or “the Red States”.

Modern Liberals soon figured out that the way to program Americans into believing that “all paths lead to God” and that cradle-to-grave Nanny-State Government were the new American Standards for living our daily lives, was to turn Christian American Houses of Worship away from being instructors of the Word of God and a sanctuary in which to worship Our Creator, to, instead, being purveyors of the joys of Popular Culture. Wednesday Night Bible Studies were soon replaced by Yoga Classes and Encounter Groups. Religious Leaders were soon quoting philosophy, instead of the Bible in their Sunday Morning Sermons.

And, instead of taking a stand against those things of the world which were directly opposed to what is found in God’s Word, these “new, enlightened” churches started standing up for the “right” of a woman to have her baby prematurely yanked out of her womb with a set of tongs, standing up for the right of Adam to “marry” Steve, when the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman, and standing up for the equality of all faiths, when the Son of God firmly states, in John 14:6, that

I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, is Christianity in America going to “fade away”?

Not any time soon.

Being filled with human beings, churches have made a lot of mistakes, However, they have also done a lot of good in the name of the Lord.

For example, the church I attend, houses a Food Pantry, operated in co-operation with other churches in our area, which feeds 2,000 people per month, counseling them, and getting them the assistance that they need.

Churches today have to walk a fine line.

The spiritual battle the influence of American Popular Culture and those seeking the Will of God in their lives, takes all the strength…and prayer, that Christians can muster.

Articles, such as the one which I quoted earlier, are usually written by Liberals, especially those found in a Liberal Publication like USA Today.

Modern Liberals seem to have great difficulty comprehending the role which Our Creator, the God of Abraham, played and plays in this Grand Experiment, known as the United States of America.

Why have Liberals ratcheted up their anti-Christian Vitriol and Negativity since January 21, 2009?

Why are they so focused on removing America’s Christian Heritage?

Well, as is usually my wont, I have been doing some “reckoning” about this.

It seems to this ol’ Southern Boy, living here in the Heartland, that America’s Christian Heritage and the very real fact of His influence in building and shaping America’s growth into the greatest country on the face of God’s Green Earth, not only stifles and interferes with Modern Liberals’ “anything goes”, “share the wealth”, “hive-mind”, “man is his own god” Political Ideology, but the reality of God’s very existence, somewhere deep in their miserable, bitter psyches, scares the mess out of them.

According to a Pew Forum Survey, more than 13 million Americans are self-described atheists and agnostics, comprising less than 6% of the U.S. public.

I have never understood Atheists, especially the so-called activists among them.

Our Constitution provides for Freedom of Religion.

According to the Supreme Court, in their Ruling abolishing School Prayer, Atheism is a religion, which the Americans who embrace this nihilism are free to practice.

So, why the continuous full-blown attack on the Faith which our Founding Fathers wrote so eloquently about, and which has sustained this “shining city on a hill” through times of internal and external strife?

In other words, why are activist Atheists (and Progressives) so intent to either limit or completely eliminate Christianity’s influence on everyday American Life?

Why don’t they attack the political/religious ideology of Islam with the same fervor?

The answer to this question is simple:  Cowards will always tell you whom they are afraid of. They will avoid them, like one avoids a child with Chicken Pox.

Additionally, they expect Christians to allow them to take control by “turning the other cheek.”

Evidently, they never read the scriptures which describe Jesus running the “money lenders” out of the temple, overturning tables, and expressing his righteous indignation in a way in which no one could mistake it for anything else.

Or, perhaps, it’s the overwhelming overestimation of their own intelligence, which results from ignoring the influence of the God of Abraham in their life.

So, what drives them in this “Unholy Crusade”?

Bitterness, emptiness, and an unfulfilled longing in their soul which they cannot put a finger on, is the only explanation.

Otherwise, why would they fight so hard against the influence of and worship of Someone they don’t personally believe in?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Hillary After New Hampshire: From “The Inevitable Candidate” to Just Another “Face in the Crowd”?

Berni-Treasure-600-nrdLast  night, in the New Hampshire Democrat Primary Election, Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, lost, in epic fashion, to the old Socialist, Bernie Sanders.

In fact, the only age group who voted for her, were well-off folks, who were 65 years old and older.

What happened to “The Inevitable Democrat Presidential Candidate”?

Dick Morris, Former Advisor to President Bill Clinton, wrote the following op ed for thehill.com

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It’s a disaster.

Now she’s called in the B Team — the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock — to bail her out. And here comes the elderly, diminished and livid former President Bill Clinton to lead the duo’s frantic attacks on Sanders.

The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations.

Sanders has a coherent, consistent and concise message: Incomes are stagnant because the economy is rigged by the top one-tenth of 1 percent that controls politics through massive campaign contributions.

Clinton has no competing message, just the charge that Sanders’s supporters are “sexist and vulgar.” Brock adds that one of Sanders’s ads was racist because it had too many white people in it.

Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa — and failing to recover them in New Hampshire — they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and threaten young women.

The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders because that’s where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign to a “special place in hell” women who don’t back female candidates like Clinton.

Those are two great ways to attract young voters.

The aging and raging ex-president, meanwhile, speaking to a half-filled gym in a New Hampshire school, ranted about Sanders’s “hypocrisy” in condemning his wife’s paid speeches. Sanders, too, has given paid speeches, Bill Clinton claimed.

He’s got a point. In 2013, for example, Sanders made all of $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, he raked in $1,850 for paid speeches. By contrast, Clinton made, and kept, over $21 million during the same time period. Sanders was only reimbursed for coach class airfare, while Clinton demanded private jets. Sanders’s hosts were the TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Avalon Publishing and a machinists union. Clinton’s were Goldman Sachs, the big banks and the pharmaceutical and energy industries. What hypocrisy for Sanders to use that as an issue!

Both Brock and Blumenthal share the former first lady’s enthusiasm for discussing the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in America. Now that they’ve been outed as being back on her team, it’s easy to understand why Clinton sees conspiracies everywhere. This paranoia, egged on by the B Twins, explains her failure to grasp the cataclysmic changes her own misconduct has wrought on her image, to say nothing of the societal and economic tectonic shifts at work. No, it’s all the GOP’s fault.

Blumenthal worked to spin Monica Lewinsky as a crazed stalker of an innocent president, and his hundreds of gossipy emails urged Clinton to do all she could to topple Moammar Gadhafi when she was secretary of State without realizing that it would open the door and let the terrorists waltz in. He hides in the shadows, ducking subpoenas and frantically emailing his crazy self-serving ideas while flattering his way into Clinton’s affections.

Brock first came into the Clinton camp as a convert from conservatism. Before he did so, he outed Paula Jones, triggering Bill Clinton to lie to a grand jury, resulting in close to $1 million in payments to Jones and thousands to the court in fines, as well as disbarment and impeachment scandals. Now he serves to destroy Hillary Clinton’s career as well by counseling a scorched-earth policy that savages Sanders and alienates the very young people who must provide Clinton her political base in the general election.

Neither the B Twins nor Bill Clinton’s rage can save the bewildered former secretary of State, who cannot understand why a funny thing is happening on her way to her coronation. Voters looked at her and ran screaming.

My, how the “Inevitable Democrat Presidential Candidate” has fallen.

I was immediately struck by how similar the rapidly-devolving candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton was to the classic movie “A Face in the Crowd”:

afaceinthecrowdAndy 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 (one such victim is sexy baton-twirler Lee Remick, likewise making her film debut). Just when it seems that there’s no stopping Rhodes’ megalomania, his mentor and ex-lover Neal exposes this Idol of Millions as the rat that he is. She arranges to switch on the audio during the closing credits of Rhodes’ TV program, allowing the whole nation to hear the grinning, waving Rhodes characterize them as “suckers” and “stupid idiots.” Instantly, Rhodes’ popularity rating plummets to zero. As he drunkenly wanders around his penthouse apartment, still not fully comprehending what has happened to him, Rhodes is deserted by the very associates who, hours earlier, were willing to ask “how high?” when he yelled “jump”. Written by Budd Schulberg, Face in the Crowd was not a success, possibly because it hit so close to home with idol-worshipping TV fans. Its reputation has grown in the intervening years, not only because of its value as a film but because of the novelty of seeing the traditionally easygoing Andy Griffith as so vicious and manipulative a character as Lonesome Rhodes.

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.

About that influence-peddling…

Hillary continues to refuse to release the contents of her speeches to Goldman Sachs. There’s a reason for that.

In an attempt to appeal to the young and dumb Bernie Voters, Hillary has been trying to portray herself as an anti-capitalist.

However, Rush Limbaugh, during his nationally-syndicated radio program on February 8th, made  the following observation

How did the Clintons end up having a fortune of $150 million when they had Clinton’s salary of 400 grand as president and Hillary, whatever she had as a Rose Law Firm lawyer, they didn’t have any money compared to this.  I’m not saying they were dirt poor, but how they ended up having $150 million, for doing speeches, are you kidding me?  Nobody gets paid that much to do speeches, because nobody has that much to say to make it that worth it.  There’s something else going on here.  That’s why Mrs. Clinton won’t reveal the transcripts of these speeches.  Something in them would give away the game. 

Either these speeches are filled with nothing but slathering, slavish, complimentary garbage about how great the banks are, how great Goldman Sachs is, and if that’s in there, there’s no way Mrs. Clinton wants her average voters to see that.  As far as Democrat voters are concerned, Hillary and Bernie hate the banks, and if there are transcripts of speeches with Hillary out there praising the banks, talking how wonderful the banks are, saving the world, it would be a big problem.  So there’s no way you’re ever gonna see those transcripts.  But, I mean, $120 million doing speeches.  This is so phony you can just see right through it.

In conclusion, there was a reason that the only voter bloc that Hillary carried last night was the old and the wealthy.

They are the only Democrat Voters who can relate to her.

Now, don’t get me wrong…Bernie is nothing but a Professional Politician, peddling empty promises, also.

However, just like the “47%” voted “Baracky Claus” into a second term as President, so are the “Young and Dumb” voting for “Mr. Free Stuff” in the Democrat Primary Elections.

Perhaps Hillary should promise the young Democrat Ladies free dates with Bubba?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

A KJ Op Ed: Vetting The Republican Candidates – Going After the Wrong “Enemy”

ctax=Campaigns^Expose^Viewers^Placement%2035743%20-%20Viewer (2) Sward-StoneFor those of us Conservatives, who are considering which candidate to vote for in the 2016 presidential Election, our cup runneth over.

We literally have a smorgasbord of candidates, who are still campaigning, less than 10 months from the big day.

And, therein lies the problem.

While candidates seem to be more interested in attacking each other, than the Democrats, potential Republican Voters are following suit, and attacking each other, all over the World Wide Web.

To quote the Master of Malapropisms, the late, great Yogi Berra,

It’s deja vu, all over again.

During the Presidential Elections of 2008 and 2012, while we were busy “vetting” the Republican Candidates, in search of their “bonafides”, Liberal Democrats were solidly behind their Great Black Hope”, the “Clean and Articulate” (Biden’s words, not mine) Barack Hussein Obama, which resulted in an unvetted, untested, incompetent, petulant, anti-American metrosexual assuming the role of “Leader of the Free World”.

Why have we and why are we “eating our own”?

  • Unlike the present-day version of the Democrat Party, which has moved to the Far Left of the Political Spectrum, Republicans, both Conservative and “Moderate”, still think for themselves. We all have our own opinion on the criteria necessary for a successful American President. Democrats, like the Proletariat of the old Soviet Union, possess a “Hive-Mind” mentality, voting en masse for whoever is deemed “good for the Party”.
  • There is a Generational Gap, in regards to morality and ethical behavior, which is a determining factor as to each Republican’s own definition of “Conservatism”, which is a determining factor as to whom their candidate of choice will be. For example, in my case, as a 57-year old Reagan Conservative, I judge Presidential Primary Candidates, and those who vote for them, by the following criteria, as defined by Matt Barber

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty. 

  • Another problem, which Republican voters are facing, is the fact that there are no Perfect Candidates. Ronald Reagan is not running for President. Each of the Top Tier Candidates all have their own  good points. Unfortunately, they all have their weak points, as well, just like we voters do. Voters support those candidates whose stance of the important issues most closely resembles their own, a fact which helps to explain why Trump and Cruz are leading the pack.
  • Our defensiveness toward the Republican Candidates comes from the fact that the Republican Establishment has, in several instances, abandoned and betrayed those who placed them in office: average American Voters, living out here in the heartland (or, as those up in the Halls of Power refer to it as, “Flyover Country”). The reaction of Republican Voters in this Primary Season, is, above all else, a repudiation of betrayal of the Republican-held House and Senate. While compromise is, indeed, a part of Washington Politics, capitulation to the opposition party is not. Because of the actions of the Republican Establishment, average Americans have become hyper-vigilant to discrepancies in what a candidate says in the present, and, their actions in the past.

And that, gentle reader, is why we, as Conservatives and potential voters for the Republican Candidate, are allowing the Main Stream Media to lead us around by the nose, “vetting” our candidates, by cause more consternation and infighting, than a bunch of texting teenage girls on Prom Night.

Because of our concerns that whoever winds up as the Republican Candidate for the Office of President of the United States of America represent US, the average American Voter, we are literally, presently, at war with one another, mirroring the infighting going on between the candidates, using the platforms given to us via Political Websites and Facebook Pages.

While vetting the candidates through the use of the New Media is a good thing, it must not be used to tear down each other and destroy our opportunity to undo the damage that years of “Progressive” Political Control in DC has done to our country.

Our mission, now, as Americans, is to decide our own destiny. 

We must not let the Political Elite, on BOTH sides of the aisle, nor the Main Stream Media, pick our candidate for us.

Ronald Reagan once said,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

A charge to keep WE have.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

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

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

Politico.com reports that

The niceties are finished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now about the lies…

Foxnews.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenge accepted.

Back in April of 2015, NYMag.com reported that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just sayin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“In Hillary, We Don’t Trust”

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

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

The Des Moines Register reported that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton: 700.59

Sanders: 696.82.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that didn’t quell doubts back in Iowa.

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

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

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

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

Results for final precinct reported on Tuesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOP is checking results on app vs. paper forms

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

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

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

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

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

To quote Elmer Fudd,

Sumpin’ awfuwwy scwewy is goin’ on awound heah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cease to be. That’s pretty historic stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

Now, his Presidential Campaign continues to do the same.

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

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

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

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

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

Ronald Reagan gave a famous stump speech about the fact that the Republican Party at one time, needed “bold colors, not pale pastels”.

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

…Except for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

The “Republican Elite”, as Kurtz refers to them, are showing their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

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

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

And, visit Realityville.

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

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

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

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

The overwhelming majority of average Americans want Conservatives whose blood runs red, not Liberal squishes, who have more in common with the Democrats in the Northeast Corridor, than they do with average Americans in the Heartland.

If the Republican Establishment does not come to that realization very soon, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

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

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

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

Now, where did I hear that before?

Oh, yeah.

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

But, I digress…

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

He reminds me of one of my favorite movie characters.

He actually has a backbone.

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

…and that, boys and girls, is a refreshing change.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Dr. Ben Carson, the Mississippi State Flag, and Liberal Hypocrisy

Banning-Flags-600-LIYou hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. – Matthew 7:5 (KJV)

When trying to decide what to write about this Sunday Morning, I came across this opinion piece, disguised as an article, on nytimes.com:

 LOUISVILLE, Miss. — In single strokes after the massacre of nine black churchgoers in Charleston in June, Confederate battle flags were taken from statehouse grounds in South Carolina and Alabama, pulled from shelves at major retailers like Walmart and declared unwelcome, if to limited effect, at Nascar races.

What here is not so simple in Mississippi. The Confederate battle flag is not simply flying in one hotly disputed spot at the State Capitol but occupying the upper left corner of the state flag, which has been flying since 1894. And as recently as 2001, Mississippians voted by a nearly two-to-one ratio to keep it. Recent polling suggests the majority have not changed their minds. 

“My flag’s been flying for 33 years, and I’m not about to take it down,” said Nancy Jenkins, 58, a postal worker who is white and who flies the Mississippi flag and the United States flag at her house a block south of Louisville City Hall. “It doesn’t stand for hate. It means a lot of people fought and died.”

Over the past few months, there have been scattered outbreaks of municipal defiance by those who find the Confederate flag offensive, as mayors and city councils from the Delta to the Pine Belt have decided to no longer fly the state flag.

But beyond these sporadic gestures, any organized effort was always going to wait until politicians were on the safe side of this year’s election. With the closing of the polls on Tuesday night, what could turn out to be the last battle over the Confederate flag in Mississippi has begun in earnest.

“It’s all about momentum,” said Dane Waters, the president of the Citizens in Charge Foundation, which organizes ballot initiatives and referendums nationwide. “If you take a pocket here and pocket there of things happening, I don’t think anything is going to change.”

This week, Mr. Waters, a self-described conservative who has been retained by a group of people he declined to name, will arrive in Mississippi to pick up a difficult task: forming an unlikely and perhaps unmanageable alliance of preachers, business executives, state boosters and civil rights advocates to remove forever the Confederate battle flag from the state flag.

He is working with the Flag for All Mississippians Coalition, which was started by Sharon Brown, an activist in Jackson, who is black. The campaign has already been organizing supporters and held a hundreds-strong rally at the State Capitol. But Mr. Waters spoke of other tools that will be brought to bear outside the public eye, such as pressure on political donors and lobbying in the Legislature.

The coalition that he and others are trying to put together would need to unite groups almost never politically aligned, testing the depth of what Mr. Waters called the state’s “tremendous social, economic and racial divide.”

In the immediate aftermath of Charleston, it seemed that such a coalition might be possible here. Several conservative political leaders called for a change, including the state’s two United States senators and the speaker of the Mississippi House (inspiring critics to print “Keep the Flag, Change the Speaker” yard signs). Down came flags at city buildings in Grenada, Magnolia, Starkville, Clarksdale and Yazoo City. In October, even the University of Mississippi lowered the flag at the circle where segregationists once clashed with federal troops over the admission of James Meredith.

But the move to change the flag, which, in the words of the daughter of the state senator who designed it, was intended to “perpetuate in a legal and lasting way that dear battle flag under which so many of our people had so gloriously fought,” is not widely popular. It takes no time at all in any Mississippi downtown to find that out.

Darn skippy, Percy.

My family and friends, down here in Realityville, in NW Mississippi and, my Facebook Friends, who participate alongside me on Political Chat Pages, will testify that nothing gets my 56-year old blood pressure up faster than hypocritical, condescending Liberals.

This story is a prime example of one of those loathsome creature’s thought processes.

While this New York Times reporter has been trying to remove the speck from the eyes of Mississippians, his fellow Liberal “Journalists” at http://www.politico.com manufactured a false “news story” in an effort to get Dr. Ben Carson, World-renowned Neurosurgeon and Christian Conservative American, who just happens to be black, to drop out of the Republican Primary Race for that Party’s Presidential Nomination.

As I reported yesterday, before Politico admitted to lying by changing the “Lead” of their article, Rush Limbaugh, the Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio made the following accurate observation on his program:

I think what we have here is an electronic lynching.  We have an electronic lynching being conducted against a Republican African-American candidate by a majority white, mainstream American liberal media where — if you’re not a good liberal and a good African-American on their plantation — they are gonna take you out.  And we are witnessing it.  It’s the same thing, folks, that happened to Clarence Thomas back in 1990 I believe it was. Again, back in 1990 there wasn’t any Fox News. There wasn’t a blogosphere.There were just the beginnings of the conservative presence on the web — and there was me, talk radio. But there was nothing else.  This is the kind of thing they used to get away with. This used to be the standard way news happened.  This is not character assassination.  This goes way beyond character assassination.  This is an attempt to destroy Carson’s reputation, his political future, his career, his credibility, all of it.  This is intended to destroy him.  Like just told our liberal caller: It’s the only way these people can win.  They think Carson’s a lunatic and they still can’t — or are not comfortable taking him on in the arena of ideas.  They have to character assassinate and destroy. 

This is despicable, despicable stuff.  

American Progressives, both Democrat and Republican, continue to try to take advantage of the horrible church massacre in Charleston, SC, in order to accomplish something that they have been trying to do for years: minimize the South’s political clout and erase our uniqueness as a region, through the taking away of a symbol of our heritage, and, any traces of the historical aspects of the Confederate Side of the Civil War, as exemplified by the current mission of Outgoing Memphis Mayor AC Wharton and his minions on the City Council, to dig up Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife, and move their bodies and a statue of the general, which all currently “reside” in a downtown park in the Medical Center.

The Alinsky-approved Tactics, currently being employed by Barack Obama and his Liberal minions on both sides of the aisle, are giving them, at best, a temporary victory, as shown by the results of a CNN poll, which shows that the opinion of Americans concerning the Confederate Flag remains unchanged in the last 15 years.

The poll shows that 57% of Americans see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism, about the same as in 2000 when 59% said they viewed it as a symbol of pride.

At the same time, how many black children are being born out of wedlock?

Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders.

These Americans, unlike the majority of us, are growing up without appropriate parental guidance, i.e., no one teaching them “the way in which they should go”.

The Great Society created a dependent class, which, instead of diminishing as it’s members joined the workforce, increased from generation to generation, relying on the federal government to provide their every need.

Uncle Sugar became Mother, Father, Preacher, and Doctor to generations of Americans. This “plantation mentality” continues to this day.

Instead of moving forward, by exercising the self-reliance that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached so well, these people I saw, were content on being “taken care of” by Uncle Sugar, as if being held down by their own poor, miserable circumstance, was a good thing.

Since August of 2014, the results of LBJ’s “Great Society” have been the lead story in seemingly, every television newscast, on every newspaper front page, and on every internet news/political website, as the results of a president espousing Racial Division and Class Warfare “reap the whirlwind”.

Meanwhile, these same condescending Liberals, who created the failed “great Society”, insist that everything will be better is we just rewrite history, all of us Southerners “sit down and shut up” and remove the Confederate Battle Flag, including the Mississippi State Flag, from public view.

And, allow them to continue to be condescending hypocrites.

NOT A CHANCE.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Study Shows That American Teens Do Not Believe in Individual Achievement

thJ7KZHEORGrowing up, my generation was taught that, if we worked hard, that we could achieve the American Dream.

The current generation does not believe it.

TheAtlantic.com posted the following story, yesterday…

In 1996, when asked a series of questions about the brightness of her future, one high-school senior in an unnamed Midwestern state said, “There’s been extraordinary examples of people that have been poor and stuff that have risen to the top just from their personal hard work … not everybody can do that, I realize, but I think a lot of people could if they just tried.”

In 2011, a survey with identically worded questions was done in the same state, with the same age group. “You can always work hard, but if you aren’t given the opportunity or you don’t have the funds to be able to continue working hard then you never get the chance to get out of where you are,” said one student.

What a difference 15 years makes. In the 1990s, those loosed upon the world after high-school graduation faced a booming economy and relatively sunny job prospects; more recently, high-school and college graduates have faced less hospitable conditions. A study published recently in the Journal of Poverty juxtaposes adolescents’ perceptions from those two eras, and the results, while qualitative and limited by their small sample size, suggest that young Americans’ outlook on social mobility has gotten bleaker. (The study’s findings align with a more-expansive survey of young people suggesting an erosion of confidence in the American Dream.)

The study’s authors, Carol Hostetter, Sabrina Williamson Sullenberger, and Leila Wood, observe that the palpable faith in meritocracy in the 90s faded, making way in the 2010s for a belief in what they call “The American Dream 2.0.” “In this version of the American Dream, anyone can go to college IF they have the resources, are ok about going into debt, can somehow get the coveted scholarship, are willing to go to community college, or come from a family of means,” they write. The new normal appears to be meritocracy with an asterisk.

Their study takes interviews that Hostetter collected in 1996 for her dissertation and sets them alongside surveys they administered in 2011, with the same prompts and questions. Even though the study’s samples aren’t representative, capturing young people’s attitudes and feelings on paper is useful part of a sociological conversation that is often about looking at the same limited sets of numbers from different angles, under different light.

As views on self-advancement changed over that decade and a half, so did views on the advantages of having lots of money. In 1996, high-schoolers were more likely to feel that wealth wasn’t a ticket to happiness, and a lack of opportunity might even have character-building advantages. “If I was rich, I could see where it could come easy just to take it for granted,” one participant said. By contrast, the 2011 group tended to think that wealth made people happier overall, because it affords them material goods, such as Apple laptops, that would give them the respect and attention of their peers.

Perceptions of higher education’s attainability also appeared to shift over the course of 15 years. Both the 1996 and 2011 cohorts saw college fundamentally as a choice, but in 2011, students were more sensitive to the idea that money is a barrier for some. “When you are lower class I don’t think that you get that downpour of, ‘Here’s how you pay for college,’ ‘You’re going to college,’” one student observed.

Taking all of this together, teens (or at least a few of them in that unnamed Midwestern state) have lost confidence in the power of meritocracy and gained faith in the power of money. Generally, an updated version is supposed to be better than its predecessor, but the American Dream 2.0 doesn’t seem like much of an improvement.

Evidently, the word “meritocracy” is Progressive-speak for “individual achievement”.

The defeatism expressed by these young people, before their professional lives have even started, is depressing, but expected.

The fact of the matter is that these “kids” have been raised to believe that no one can achieve anything on their own.

From the time that these young Americans entered school, certain (not all) educators, buoyed by “laissez faire” parenting at, fed them the cock and bull story that “everybody is the same” and “everyone is deserving of a ribbon” in according with their political ideology.

In the words of this generation’s hero, President Barack Hussein Obama,

If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

This Philosophy of “Reaching for Mediocrity”, which Progressives just love to drum into the minds of the young and gullible, is actually a very-limiting, self-fulfilling prophecy.

This negativity toward individual achievement and sublimation of the individual , is not only a part of Modern American Liberals’ Political Ideology, it is also a part of Marxist Theory, in which the individual is programmed into non-existence by the State, for the “good of the State”.

For these young people to actually believe that they cannot accomplish their life goals on their own, is not only an example of “programming”, it is also terribly sad.

At Nickelodeon’s 2013 Teen Choice Awards, Actor Ashton Kutcher told the audience of young people the “way that the cow ate the cabbage” as regards getting ahead in life…

“I believe that opportunity looks a lot like hard work,” Kutcher began with his first point. “When I was 13, I had my first job with my dad carrying shingles up to the roof, and then I got a job washing dishes at a restaurant, and then I got a job in a grocery store deli, and then I got a job at a factory sweeping Cheerio dust off the ground.”

He went on: “And I’ve never had a job in my life that I was better than. I was always just lucky to have a job. And every job I had was a stepping stone to my next job, and I never quit my job until I had my next job. And so opportunities look a lot like work.”

Ashton Kutcher was exactly right. The problem is, the Progressives in charge of both our Education System and, those presently roaming our Halls of Power with impunity, would rather keep these same young people dependent on “Uncle Sugar” the rest of their lives, than to see them…gasp…achieve success on their own.

Thus, through the use of propaganda, willingly supplied by the Main Stream Media, the false meme was floated and later ingrained into the psyche of these young people that is more difficult…nigh, impossible to accomplish your life’s goals on your own nowadays.

It is time to end this self-fulfilling prophecy.

The American Dream of being successful is still available to everyone.

As the Great Inventor, Thomas Alva Edison, said

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.

You simply have to have the intestinal fortitude to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and work for it.

Until He Comes,

KJ