Networks Ignore Timely Margaret Sanger Protest at National Portrait GalleryNot even in the wake of the sickening Planned Parenthood videos will the broadcast networks dare to criticize Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. During their news shows, ABC, NBC and CBS ignored a press conference against Margaret Sanger held in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. During the event, black pastors and other pro-life leaders demanded the removal of a Margaret Sanger bust – a bust they called “revisionist propaganda” – from a Struggle for Justice exhibit inside the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. Likewise, the networks censored tens of thousands of Americans protesting Planned Parenthood last weekend. Organized by STAND and ForAmerica, the press conference concluded when speakers met with the art gallery’s head of communications, Bethany Bentley, and handed her their petition with more than 14,000 signatures against the bust.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/katie-yoder/2015/08/28/networks-ignore-timely-margaret-sanger-protest-national-portrait
|
|
|
|
Inside the Trump-Bush melodrama: Decades of tension and discomfort[...] At the core, there are clashes of style, manner and class between the Bushes — a patrician clan of presidents, governors and financiers who have pulled the levers of power for generations — and Trump, a hustling New York City deal-maker who turned his father’s outer-borough real estate portfolio into a gold-plated empire. “The Bushes were never Trump’s cup of tea,” said Roger Stone, a longtime confidant and former adviser to Trump. Asked why the Bushes often have kept Trump at arm’s length, he said: “He’s not from old, WASP money. The Trumps didn’t come on the Mayflower.”…But Trump reserves particular, personal ire for Jeb Bush, whose first name he commonly mocks by drawing it out in a slight drawl. One Trump associate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly, said of Trump: “He’s very smart, he’s driven and he has two goals: one, to be elected president, and two, to have Jeb not be president.”… And back to Jeb: “He’s not up to snuff. . . . Jeb is never going to bring us to the promised land. He can’t.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-trump-bush-melodrama-decades-of-tension-and-discomfort/2015/08/27/419b0686-4be6-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html
|
|
|
|
He's a funny guy. Does he use security guards with guns or is he not famous enough to have them?  |
|
|
|
EPA says new clean water rules are in effect even though judge suspended themThe very same crew which recently dumped three million gallons of toxic sludge out of an abandoned mine and turned the Animas River in Colorado the color of a yellow banded poison dart frog for roughly a week has just issued a whole new set of rules to “protect” small pools of water. They would also like you to know that these rules are going into effect even though a federal judge put them on hold in 13 states, too. This new batch of regulations is going to “protect” bodies of water which may include the ditch in front of your driveway or that persistent soggy patch in your back yard. (Fox News) The Environmental Protection Agency says it is going forward with a new federal rule to protect small streams, tributaries and wetlands, despite a court ruling that blocked the measure in 13 central and Western states.
The EPA says the rule, which took effect Friday in more than three dozen states, will safeguard drinking water for millions of Americans.
Opponents pledged to continue to fight the rule, emboldened by a federal court decision Thursday that blocked it from Alaska to Arkansas.These rules were not suddenly rushed out in response to the agency’s own recent hijinks in an effort to make sure nobody else pulls such a boneheaded maneuver. They’ve been in the works for quite a while and a coalition of people ranging from farmers to landowners to states’ rights advocates have been howling about them. Though they are supposedly in place to prevent pollution in smaller tributary streams which feed into larger waterways, the rules are so broadly written that they could apply to virtually anyplace where water pools on the surface of the earth, leading to a permitting nightmare for the landowner if they want to do so much as landscape the area for drainage. The rules have been viewed as being so odius that the Farm Bureau started a massive push to trim them back down in scope. And finally a federal judge hearing the case for plaintiffs in 13 states agreed to put them on hold. (Greeley Tribune) The federal ruling Thursday was in North Dakota, where officials from that state and 12 others argued the new guidelines are overly broad and infringe on their sovereignty. U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson in Fargo agreed that they might have a case, issuing a temporary injunction.
The EPA said after the ruling that it would not implement the new rules in those 13 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Several other lawsuits remain, from other states and also from farm and business groups.You might think that having a judge shut the process down in more than one quarter of the country might give the agency pause. But apparently not… it’s full steam ahead in all of the states where they weren’t expressly forbidden to move forward. But how does that work in legal terms? Aren’t they a federal agency which is supposed to be making rules for the entire nation? If their regulations are shut down in part of the country, how can they be enforced in the rest? Don’t worry yourselves. I’m sure the Justice Department will weigh in on this any minute now and reassure us that the EPA can do whatever it wants. Now if you’ll excuse them, they have a few more miles of river to dredge up and a bunch of mercury to hide back in a mine shaft. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/29/epa-says-new-clean-water-rules-are-in-effect-even-though-judge-suspended-them/
|
|
|
|
Traitor to His Class
Nothing is more terrifying to the elite than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalismDonald Trump is not a serious candidate. Donald Trump is not a serious man. The truth of these statements is supposed to be self-evident. But one begins to wonder, are they true? Trump’s popularity, while beyond doubt, is treated not as a legitimate expression of popular will but as a mass psychosis to be diagnosed. It would seem to be the duty of every American pundit today to explain the inexplicable and problematic rise of Donald Trump. The critical question, however, is not the source of Trump’s popularity but rather the reason his popularity is so shocking to our political culture. Perhaps Trump’s candidacy threatens a larger consensus that governs our political and social life, and perhaps his popularity signifies a profound challenge to elite opinion. Why is Donald Trump so popular? Explanations range from mere celebrity, to his adoption of extreme positions to capture the most ideologically intense voters, to his explosive rhetoric. These explanations are not entirely wrong, but neither are they entirely right. To begin with, his positions, as Josh Barro has written in the New York Times, are rather moderate. As Barro points out, Trump is willing to contemplate tax increases to achieve spending cuts. He supports some exceptions to abortion bans and has gone so far as to defend funding Planned Parenthood. He has called for protective tariffs, a position heretical for Republicans, who are typically free traders. Although opposed to Obamacare, he has asserted that single-payer health care works in other countries. Even on the issue of immigration, despite his frequently strident rhetoric, his positions are neither unique—securing the border with some kind of wall is a fairly standard Republican plank by now—nor especially rigid. With respect to his rhetoric, whether one characterizes his delivery as candid or rude, it is hard to ascribe his popularity to colorful invective alone. Chris Christie, who never misses an opportunity to harangue an opponent, languishes near the bottom of the polls. Or ask Rick Santorum, as well as Mitt “47 percent” Romney, whether outrageous comments offer an infallible way to win friends and influence voters. Trump’s outré style, like his celebrity, helps him gain attention but just as certainly fails to explain his frontrunner status. Most candidates seek to define themselves by their policies and platforms. What differentiates Trump is not what he says, or how he says it, but why he says it. The unifying thread running through his seemingly incoherent policies, what defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests. What Trump offers is permission to conceive of an American interest as a national interest separate from the “international community” and permission to wish to see that interest triumph. What makes him popular on immigration is not how extreme his policies are, but the emphasis he puts on the interests of Americans rather than everyone else. His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense. His least practical suggestion—making Mexico pay for the border wall—is precisely the most significant: It shows that a President Trump would be willing to take something from someone else in order to give it to the American people. Whether he could achieve this is of secondary importance; the fact that he is willing to say it is everything. Nothing is more terrifying to the business and donor class—as well as the media and the entire elite—than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism. The fact that Trump should by all rights be a member of this class and is in fact a traitor to it makes him all the more attractive to his supporters and all the more baffling to pundits. Trump’s campaign is predicated on restoring American greatness here and now, and he is seen to select policies in support of that overarching purpose. Others, in contrast, appear to pursue public office mostly for the sake of implementing favored policies so that they can read about the results of their grand experiments in future economics textbooks. They are like doctors who use patients to advance medical research for its own sake, rather than physicians who use medicine to cure the patients before them. Conservative pundits have complained for years about the base and its desire for “ideological purity.” Trump shows that what is most in demand, however, is not ideological purity but patriotic zeal. Only a fool would believe that the fate of the Export-Import Bank could motivate millions of voters. It is not a minor and complicated organ of trade promotion that motivates but whether the ruling elite is seen to care more about actual national interests or campaign dollars and textbook abstractions like free trade. Trump’s critics misunderstand his political appeal just as they fail to comprehend his business appeal. Indeed, Trump is almost certainly not as rich as he claims he is, nor is his record as glittering as others’, nor is his a rags-to-riches story. What he offers instead is a portrait of business as a fully human struggle filled with almost romantic jousting competitions. For Mitt Romney, corporations may be people and capital the invisible hand, but for Donald Trump business success is about human battles and visible victories. When asked if he feared a backlash against rich candidates like the one that damaged Romney, Trump responded, “Romney isn’t that rich.” If listening to Bizet made Nietzsche want to be a composer, listening to Trump makes one want to buy real estate. He imbues business with glory. For Trump, business is about winning and losing, and for real human beings, that’s what gives it life.http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/traitor-his-class_1020527.html?page=2
|
|
|
|
Trump: I’m winning because Americans are 'tired of being the patsies'Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he is leading the GOP race because he represents Americans who have had it with their nation coming up short. “People in this country are smart,” he told listeners at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies’ 2015 conference in Nashville on Saturday. “We’re tired of being the patsies for everyone,” Trump said. “There is a big, big, growing-by-leaps-and-bounds silent majority out there. [The 2016 race] is going to be an election based on competence.” Trump argued he is surging in national polls because he represents the Tea Party supporters ignored by Democrats and betrayed by Republicans. “I love the Tea Party,” Trump said. “You people have not been treated fairly. These are people who work hard and love their country, and then get beat up by the media. It’s disgusting.” “At least I have a microphone and can fight back,” the outspoken billionaire added. Trump indicated he envisions a much wider base for his campaign than traditional Republican voters next election cycle. “You don’t know how big you are,” he told listeners. “The Tea Party has tremendous power. It’s Democrats, it is evangelicals, it is everybody.” The New York business mogul also vowed he would not succumb to the prestige and power of Washington’s political establishment if he wins in 2016. “They go to Washington and they get weak,” Trump said of Democrats and Republicans alike. “They get there and they see these beautiful, vaulted ceilings and they say, ‘Honey, I’ve made it.’ That won’t happen to me, I promise.” Trump also said he intends on saving taxpayer dollars by focusing his energy on the nation’s capital if elected next year. “I think I’d maybe never leave,” Trump quipped of the Oval Office. “I’d do the fundraisers in the White House. Whoever the [interview] host is would like it better – ‘Hey, we’re live from the White House.’” “Do you know how much it costs to fuel those things?” he joked of jets like Air Force One. “We have so many things to do to straighten out our country,” Trump added. “We can’t waste time.” Trump’s address at the NFRA’s 2015 conference Saturday was attended by many notable figures from the original Tea Party movement. The organization’s president is Sharron Angle, who unsuccessfully challenged Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2010. The NFRA’s executive vice president is Ken Blackwell, a challenger for Ohio’s gubernatorial office who came up short against former Gov. Ted Strickland (D) in 2006. The group is — despite its name — a grassroots network unaffiliated with the Republican Party that counts on Tea Party voters for its membership. Trump is currently leading the race for the GOP presidential nomination across national polls. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/252250-trump-im-winning-because-americans-are-tired-of-being-the
|
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders is the one.
He's talking about the banks.
No one else will do that. I hope they don't kill him or set him up. This is going to be a deal where child porn is found on his computer, or someone makes an accusation, etc. Or they will make it grisly, so no other future politician dreams bring them up again. Burn him alive or some other crazy and horrific shit. Or maybe just the old "heart attack". No question they will make an example of him. You don't get to say the things he is saying without them doing something about it.
I hope I'm wrong, and we will see soon enough.
So that leaves Trump.
What completely blows my mind is the power displayed when you watch the two party system at work.
So many people, and I mean the fucking majority, fall for this shit. Liberal and conservative.
People:
It's a horse race, but both of you are still betting on a horse.
You're picking a red car or a blue car, but you are both still picking a car.
Do you need more examples?
It's a goddamn scam people. You are picking which companies you are going to side with, but you are still picking the corporate vote. This is how it is people!!!!! Wtf smh
Trump doesn't have to pay people back. It's not a prerequisite to having the resources necessary to run a campaign, like it is for the rest of the candidates.
At least Trump is different. Do you really want more of the same??
Trump makes sense. He is making his policies known and isn't even worried about if they sound politically correct. He believes in his ideas and is promoting them.
Granted Trumps empire is smaller than the federal government, but he has run a successful empire and seems like the kind of guy the US needs in its corner right about now.
Try to read my post #202 or better yet read the article http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/13/why-i-support-donald-trumps-campaign-and-its-probably-not-what-you-think/It is a long read, and it is not about bernie. Let us know what you think. |
|
|
|
Clinton resets campaign strategy Hillary Clinton is resetting her campaign strategy with aggressive attacks against Republicans to move the conversation away from questions about the email controversy that has dogged her for months. By comparing Republicans to terrorists and calling the GOP "the party of Trump," Clinton grabbed headlines and sought to assuage doubts about her campaign, even while it has lost ground in recent polls. Democratic strategists say while her talking points are the same as they have been, her delivery, emphasis and posture has changed. “The more the discussion is about the differences between her and the Republican field on women’s health or immigration, that’s far better turf for her to be fighting on than another news cycle on the emails or the server,” said longtime Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “This new, aggressive tack, I think, is smart because for two days, we’ve been talking about Hillary and the Republican field fighting on differences on women’s health, and not talking about [issues] that the Republicans would rather be fighting on.” The former secretary of State put that shift on full display Thursday when she blasted the GOP presidential field’s stance on women’s issues, comparing them to “terrorist groups.” “Extreme views about women, we expect them from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world,” she said during a campaign rally in Cleveland, glancing down at notes on the lectern. “It’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States, but they espouse out-of-date and out-of-touch policies. They are dead wrong for twenty-first century America.” That immediately elicited criticism from her Republican rivals and the national party, characterizing the comments as an offensive dismissal of those who disagreed with her and calling for an apology. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) panned Clinton’s comments as “over the top rhetoric,” Friday on CNBC and said the campaign’s attempts to change the conversation won’t work. “She has zero credibility and it's eroding by the day. She’s a desperate candidate who obviously has badly hurt by the revelations of deceitfulness that occurred with e-mails and server that she had,” he said. “I think people see exactly what’s happening here. That is a desperate campaign who now potentially sees a challenge from Joe Biden. And they’re trying to change the subject, but the subject won’t change.” But her comment also changed the conversation to an issue that Clinton hopes can help fire up her base and thinks could be an asset come the general election. Clinton supporters may have become “complacent” because of her large lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trippi added. With that gap tightening and Biden looming somewhere on the horizon, Trippi believes help motivate her supporters. The perceived inevitability of Clinton as the Democratic front-runner has taken recent hits. More polls this week show her lead over Democratic challengers narrowing and a new Quinnipiac University poll found that when people were asked to describe Clinton with one word, 57 percent of those words are negative—“liar” and “dishonest” being the most chosen—or reference her email controversy. And now, she faces the increasing prospect of a Biden bid. “She knows what everyone else knows—that there is a perception that somehow she has lost inevitability and this will not be as easy as people thought. So her job is to make it appear that that is untrue,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist who previously worked with Clinton but is not involved in the campaign. “The fact that Biden is mentioned is an indication that there is some question about the inevitability factor, the nature of her campaign and whether she can successfully overcome the obstacles that Republicans will put in front of her during the upcoming hearings.” How she addresses the email server controversy also has changed, appearing more conciliatory while answering questions about the issue this week. Last week, she responded to reporters by shrugging, joking and saying average Americans don’t support the issue. But this week, she softened her approach. “I know people have raised questions about my email use as secretary of State. I understand why, I get it. So here’s what I want the American people to know,” she said Wednesday in Iowa. “My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department. It clearly wasn’t the best choice, I should have used two emails: one personal, one for work, and I take responsibility for that decision.” She took a similar tone during the DNC Summer Meetings Friday in Minneapolis. “I’m not frustrated,” she told reporters in a news conference after her speech, when asked about her reaction to continuing email questions. “I’m trying to do a better job of explaining to people what is going on so there is not so much concern.” Shortly after that, she was faced with a series of questions by Fox News’ Ed Henry, who has doggedly pressed her on the email issue before.“Let me answer one of your questions, because I think that’s what you are entitled to,” Clinton said with a smile. A former Clinton campaign aide told The Hill that the “combativeness” by the campaign on the email questions “drowned out the campaign’s larger message of her candidacy. He added that the campaign needs to be less defensive and more responsive on the email controversy, while also pushing through it and keeping the focus on her message to voters. “You are starting to see a shift in tone,” he said. “If they are less combative, I think that the other issues can break through. It’s breaking through on the ground, but in the national ecosystem, it wasn’t breaking through.” http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/252230-clinton-resets-her-campaign-strategy
|
|
|
|
Do you have any source for this? I’m very interested if you do since I didn’t know this. Check this: http://www.profi-forex.us/news/entry4000001012.htmlAn experienced doctor of emergency care and cardiac surgeon of N. Amosov Institute in Kiev get USD 250-340 per month  As far as I know in ancient societies (capitalist societies) resources were expensive and labor was cheap (since you could always buy or enslave more people and there was no machinery) but in modern societies were modern machinery exist, resources were abundant and what was difficult to find was qualified people, so resources are cheap and labor is expensive. The USSR was always at a labor shortage. That is why they encouraged the couples to have more and more children. "Non-productive" groups, such as drug addicts, disabled and homosexuals were treated harshly. Until the end of 1970s, the Soviets used to shoot homosexuals on the back of their head. Does that mean the best hospitals in the world are in Georgia? |
|
|
|
I guess their affinity is not to bitcoins but to the stuffs that Bitcoins bring . That said, I am yet to see any evidence to prove that the ISIS proper is interested in Bitcoins.
Yet i am also looking for the evidences , but this the fact bitcoin attracts evil.What attracts you in bitcoin, personally? |
|
|
|
I would say no except for the text he embedded in the genesis block about bank bailouts second round. Seems there may have been a political agenda from the beginning, given this technology is such a powerful tool for seizing power from government/banks/other tyrannical entities that enforce monopolies with threat of violence.
Sorry if I missed it earlier. It was too painful to read the entire thread. But how do you intend to impose your social "justice" (really social equality - there's nothing just about it) if you plan to taking power away from government? As far as I can see, the weapons of social justice warriors are the court system, the education system, and an assortment of tribunals, commissions and agencies. ... And self doxxing, and trying to send people to prison for exercising their freedom of speech, etc, etc... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzc8glS2r_ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVuTmuFeWIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oSxdZcCNlMEtc... Etc... |
|
|
|
IRS must say if White House sought taxpayers’ information: JudgeA federal judge Friday ordered the IRS to turn over the records of any requests from the White House seeking taxpayers’ private information from the tax agency, delivering a victory to a group that for two years has been trying to pry the data loose. It’s not clear that there were any such requests — but Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the IRS cannot just refuse to say so by citing taxpayer confidentiality laws, known as section 6103 of the tax code. “This court questions whether section 6103 should or would shield records that indicate confidential taxpayer information was misused, or that government officials made an improper attempt to access that information,” the judge wrote in denying the IRS’s request to close out the case. The ruling marks yet another federal judge who has ordered the Obama administration to be more transparent when responding to open-records records. The State Department is facing a barrage of orders from federal judges demanding more cooperation in releasing former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails. White House officials and federal agencies are allowed, under very select circumstances, to ask the IRS for protected information. But the requests must be carefully cleared. Questions about potential White House meddling in taxpayers’ private information stretch back to the beginning of the Obama administration, when the then-White House chief economist seemed to describe the tax structure of Koch Industries during a briefing with reporters. His description was apparently incorrect, but it left some watchdog groups wondering if the White House had quietly sought information on conservatives, such as the billionaire Koch brothers. Cause of Action sued in 2013 to get a look at whatever requests the White House, or other federal agencies, had made. The IRS refused, saying even the existence of those requests would be protected by confidentiality laws and couldn’t be released, so there was no reason to make the search. The judge said Friday, however, that the agency couldn’t use the privacy protection “to shield the very misconduct it was enacted to prohibit.” “As we have said all along, this administration cannot misinterpret the law in order to potentially hide evidence of wrongdoing,” said Dan Epstein, executive director at Cause of Action. “No administration is above the law, and we are pleased that the court has sided with us on this important point.” The IRS declined to comment since the matter is still pending in court. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/28/irs-must-say-if-wh-sought-taxpayers-info-judge/
|
|
|
|
SJW is usually used for people who have a very extreme view on ideology.Many of them are authoritarian in in their mindset. They believe that there is only one right way, and it's theirs
It's true and there is nothing to doYou can stop being silent about them or it is the death of freedom of speech. |
|
|
|
Why I Support Donald Trump’s Campaign – And It’s Probably Not What You Think…Begin with the end in mind – I’m not trying to convince anyone that Donald Trump is running a campaign to actually win the GOP nomination. Factually, I’m as uncertain and perhaps more skeptical as the next person. However, given that Trump has actually done things he normally wouldn’t do if this was a mere publicity stunt (ie. stock divestitures, removal of conflicts etc.), for the sake of intellectual argument, I’m going to assume, cautiously yet optimistically, he’s in it to win it. So why support him? Argument #1 – After all, he’s been a democrat, an independent, a Republican, and well, I have consistently despised Charlie Crist. Counter Argument – Then again, what about Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and Orin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, and John Cornyn, and Thad Cochran and, well, you get the point…. What’s the difference between supporting those consistently Republican “Republicans” only to have them advocate for liberal/progressive policies. Are the aforementioned better because they didn’t change party registration, yet act like Democrats? Let me first explain something few fully comprehend – and fewer still, are willing accept. People like us rail against the “establishment” because, despite the GOP claims to the contrary, they never actually do anything to stop the liberal policy agenda. One only has to look at President Obama’s veto record (four in 6.5 years) to accept that only legislation Obama agrees with is reaching his desk. We gave the GOP the House (2010, 2012, 2014) and the Senate (2014) and yet we never have received a single benefit to the election victories We The People provided. Why is that? Here’s where a paradigm shift is needed for many of the political followers who don’t have a deep and specialized knowledge of the Republican agenda. Citizens United was touted by conservatives as a victory. Why? Was it because Citizens United was genuinely a win for freedom of speech, or was it actually and substantively because Obama declared it a loss? Again, paradigm shift time – Citizens United was as much a defeat for “our side” as it was for “their side”. We didn’t need Citizens United to win a massive electoral victory in 2010, Obama’s “Shellacking”; we just showed up to the polls and voted against his policies. However, the Republican professional political class did need Citizens United to try and stop our efforts in 2012 and again in 2014. I’ll explain. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, led by President Tom Donohue, is the power brokerage for the GOP “establishment”. In short, whatever the CoC wants, their lobbyists on K-Street will insure the CoC gets through campaign contributions to influence the GOP as a Party. The U.S. CoC is the operational arm of Wall Street, not, I repeat, NOT, Main Street. The Citizens United decision is what allowed Wall Street to fund the U.S. CoC, which in turn funded the GOP establishment machine. If politics is a blood sport, Citizens United just authorized the unlimited use of STERIODS for the paid gladiators. How does Wall Street differ from Main Street? The answer to that question can most easily be reflected by explaining why the Republican Establishment, the professional political class, supports ObamaCare, Common Core and Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty. Wall Street and ObamaCare: Wall Street, through the CoC, advocate for policies that benefit their interests; their financial interests. The cost of worker healthcare is a liability embedded in the cost of the products sold. If the United Auto Workers healthcare plan costs $10,000 per person, that cost is embedded in the price to manufacture a car. Unlike their global competitors U.S. businesses (manufacturers) have these costs as part of their product cost, the cost of goods sold. Globally, other nations have various forms of “government provided” healthcare, and so their products don’t carry the cost directly. In an effort to level the manufacturing playing field, the U.S. CoC, Wall Street, are firm advocates of removing the cost of healthcare from U.S. goods. Wall Street, supports ObamaCare for an expanded profit margin on financially capitalized businesses – ie. higher profits = higher stock valuations. Simultaneously, unions support ObamaCare (see SEIU, AFL-CIO et al, visits to White House during ObamaCare construct) because ObamaCare removes the healthcare liability from the union retirees benefits. ie. increased solvency. The globalists, and progressive Democrats support ObamaCare because it aids their constituency, unions; and also expands the influence of government control which is based on a collective outlook and elimination of the individual freedom. Wall Street therefore supports both Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the retention of ObamaCare. That’s why you don’t see Republican Majorities trying to remove it – it’s all hat and no cattle; a ruse, a fraud. Only the promises of actual removal being used to get Pavlov’s sheeple masses to pull levers with hopes/promises of getting repeal pellets. The GOP has NO INTENTION of removing ObamaCare. Wall Street and Immigration: Like ObamaCare, Wall Street wants comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty. Again, focused almost entirely on the reduction of the labor costs for goods and services. These are financial balance sheet determinations, not considerations of what’s best for the middle class U.S. worker. Democrats and Republicans both want immigration reform to include amnesty. Democrats for a voting block and more collectivist ideological approaches, Republicans to do the bidding of their financial interests – The CoC, Tom Donohue, etc. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration. Wall Street and Common Core Education: Like ObamaCare and Immigration, Wall Street wants the federalization of education. In part because it generates a consistently similar pool of eligible, who are increasingly Latino, workers; and in part because education is BIG BUSINESS. Just look at your property taxes to see how much of your local property tax dollars are apportioned to public School and Education funding. Democrats and Republicans both support Common Core. Democrats because it expands the financial base of local schools to allow greater room for increased labor union (teacher, NEA) wages; and because Common Core affords, yet again, an ideological watering down of individualism in favor of collectivism. Republicans support Common Core because it’s big business, and the CoC funds their advocacy. Both Democrats and Republicans support Common Core. In 2013 CoC President Tom Donohue went on record saying his 2014/2015 legislative priorities were: 1 – Full implementation of ObamaCare without repeal. 2 – Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty. 3 – Full implementation of Common Core educational standards. Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund these legislative priorities. The Citizens United decision allowed Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC to fund established legislative representatives to continue these legislative priorities. Conversely, Citizens United, through Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund attacks against any political opponent who would unseat their selected and established candidate. You only need to look at 2014’s Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli), or Mississippi (Chris McDaniels), or Kentucky (Matt Bevin) to see how strongly they will work to insure victory. So now that you know why both Republicans and Democrats support ObamaCare, Amnesty and Common Core; what exactly is the difference between a Jeb Bush and a Hillary Clinton?
Some social issues, maybe – gay marriage, legalized pot? A SCOTUS appointment? Do you really think that Bush or Clinton would select a totally divergent SCOTUS, when their intents and purposes are essentially the same?
Wall Street needs Bush V Clinton in 2016 because they are two different sides of the same professional political coin. Wall Street doesn’t care which one, because Wall Street wins with either candidate.
How does Wall Street insure their desired candidate outcome? Quite simple. WE’VE REPEATEDLY OUTLINED IT HERE – It’s a simple five state strategy, almost identical to their previously selected candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012. What makes Donald Trump different? This is where you accept the value of Donald Trump; because despite opinion to the contrary, Donald Trump is Main Street – not Wall Street. Trump’s wealth is tied directly to the success of Main Street. Trump builds things, actual things – which he then owns. Trump does not make money from capitalization of financials – Trump makes money from traditional business models, owning and operating stuff.
Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are Wall Street candidates.IDEOLOGICAL EXAMPLE: The IRS weaponization of government against people, as within the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, is an issue which Trump can breech. Both Democrats and Republicans benefit from the destruction of the Tea Party; neither Bush not Clinton bear any interest in exposing the IRS scandal itself. When you accept that without Donald Trump you get Bush V Clinton, you begin to understand why it’s beneficial to support Donald Trump. Quite simply, there’s nothing to lose. [...] http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/13/why-i-support-donald-trumps-campaign-and-its-probably-not-what-you-think/ That's a pretty impressive analysis of the problem. To be fair, none of us really knew that the Republican reformers of 2010, 2012 and 2014 would accomplish nothing. Nobody knew the extent that Boerner would bend over at Obama's command. That was all a surprise, but that's what happened. Yes, Trump represents business. How about who he'd put on SCOTUS. Think that one over and it's implications. Yes, Very impressive. Hope you read the full article. This is what he is saying: with how conservatives were brutally treated in the last 3 times, there is not much to lose by massively supporting Trump next time... |
|
|
|
University of Tennessee to students: Diversity means using new made-up pronouns for trans studentsVia the Examiner, I’d do what they say. In our alarming new culture of rage against microaggressions, doing otherwise might get you shot. Rather than make brutish assumptions that someone who looks like a boy is a boy and someone who looks like a girl is a girl, the campus diversity office recommends starting the semester by asking everyone to provide their names “and pronouns.” Or better yet, why not just use new pronouns that are gender-neutral? It’ll spare you an ephemeral awkward moment when you happen to encounter someone from the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the population that not only identifies as trans but doesn’t want to be referred to by the pronoun of the gender they physically appear to be. Not to play this stupid game, but I’m curious: Why does “they/them/their” turn into “xe/xem/xyr” instead of the more logical “zey/zem/zeir”? Also, why isn’t “they/them/their” proper usage for someone who’s trans, whether singular or plural? I mean, purely in terms of how it scans, “xyr” is an abomination. Also, I’m not sure I grasp the difference between “hir/hirs” and “zir/zirs.” Which one should you use for Caitlyn Jenner? One, I think, is for a man who identifies as a woman and the other for a woman who identifies as a man, but I’ll be damned if I know which terms applies to which. The whole point of this exercise, I thought, was not to make any judgments about gender based on appearance. Doesn’t the need to choose between “hir” and “zir” force you to do that? Either way, with respect to Caitlyn, looks increasingly like ze’s going to prison. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/28/university-of-tennessee-to-students-diversity-means-using-new-made-up-pronouns-for-trans-students/
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
