Is Pokemon Go SPYING on US for the US Gov’t?

Lots of apps have sketchy privacy policies, that’s nothing new. But the first set of alarms go off as soon as you realize that Pokémon Go’s policy does seem a bit more liberal than most, because not only are you giving Pokémon Go access to your location and camera, you’re also giving it full access to your Google account (assuming you use that to sign in). There’s one section of the privacy policy in particular that seems to be getting the conspiracy theorists of the world up in arms and which Reddit user Homer_Simpson_Doh calls “very Orwellian”: Could Pokémon Go be turning us all into an army of narcs in service of the coming New World Order?

Is Pokemon Go data mining for the US govt?

Is Pokemon Go data mining for the US govt?

Most Orwellian of all is this line: We may disclose any information about you (or your authorized child) that is in our possession or control to government or law enforcement officials or private parties. WHAT? Somehow this doesn’t seem right. That I should be giving up my right to my information, or that my information may be distributed t the government or law enforcement without my prior approval? Or wait, I guess I am giving my approval ahead of time for the price of this free game, which if purchased would cost me $1.00 Somehow it seems like I am selling my freedoms and privacy short. See what I mean?

As TechCrunch explained, Pokémon-loving millennials are far less likely to object to a few extra permissions for a chance to play this fun game staring them in the face and are more likely to abandon their god-given freedoms. Basically you are giving the government permission to spy on you if they want to use Google to read their emails or turn your cameras on.

Pokémon Go comes directly from the intelligence community

And it’s not like Pokémon Go itself doesn’t already have a direct line to the CIA. After all, Pokémon Go was created by Niantic, which was formed by John Hanke. Now, Hanke also just so happened to help found Keyhole. What does Keyhole do, you ask? I’d tell you to go to Keyhole’s website—but you can’t. It just takes you straight to Google Earth. That’s because Keyhole was acquired by Google back in 2004. Before that, though, Keyhole received funding from a firm called In-Q-Tel, a government-controlled venture capital firm that invests in companies that will help beef up the governments tool belt. The funds In-Q-Tel came from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), whose primary mission is “collecting, analyzing, and distributing geospatial intelligence.”

Still unsure if Pokémon Go’s creator is a government spook? Check out this excerpt from the NGA’s in-house publication, Pathfinder MagazineCompanies obtain customer information through avenues such as social media, mobile apps, and customer relationship-management software. They might as well be talking about Pokémon Go itself.

Americans Data is New Currency

We’re all government pawns

So what exactly is the New World Order planning to do with our precious and meticulously collected data? They could take a few different paths, though they all boil down to the fact that we’re all vulnerable when our information is collected by the big government machine. Considering that one of Big Brother’s favorite pastimes is watching its citizens at all times always and forever, Pokémon Go is an ideal vessel for its many, many eyes. It’s addicting (kids, adults, and conspiracy-loving bloggers for can’t seem to put the thing for more than ten minutes at a time). And it has access to pretty much our entire phone, meaning tons of personal data and monster tracking capabilities: People our freedoms are quickly disappearing and with our permissions. Some would say -Pokémon Go has a perfectly legitimate reason to want access to things like your location and camera. It needs the former to put you on the right map and the latter to make use of its augmented reality feature. But with those allowances, Pokémon Go (or rather, its parent company Niantic) not only knows where millions of people are at any given point, they could also very well figure out who they’re with, what’s going on around them, and where they’re likely headed next.

Remember, it doesn’t take that much to hunt someone down. All it took was one absentminded tweet for Vice to accidentally reveal the location of former fugitive John McAfee as Reddit user fight_for_anything explains:  Intelligence agencies have gained a lot of info from google maps and its street view, but this data was collected easily with driving cars. intel agencies may see google maps and street view as just an outline or a skeleton of the whole picture. getting more data, particularly that off the street and inside buildings, requires tons of man hours and foot work. a logistical nightmare; here enters Pokemon GO, where if you are an intelligence agency and you want photos of the inside of a home or business, you just spawn desirable Pokemon or any similar app for that matter, and totally unaware and distracted citizens take the photos for you, with devices they paid for, and those citizens pay for the experience. Imagine all these photos going back to some database (with the augmented Pokemon removed obviously. all these photos are probably GPS tagged, as well as having the phones internal gyro embed x/y/z orientation of the camera angle in the phone. these photos could be put together, much like google street view.  You very well may be creating a cache of high-res, data-rich images to get siphoned directly into the CIA’s intelligence data.

Just picture it, 20 years from now when the CIA Director is trying to figure out who helped The Washington Post reporters escape from prison, all he has to do is call over to Deputy Director. “Check the Pokédex,” he’ll say, and up springs a Google Street View-esque simulation of every building, nook, and closet within a five-mile radius—all updated in real time.

As user fight_for_anything explains, “What if that local church is a mosque they suspect of terrorist activity? And they want photos of it, or photos of the cars around it and their plates, or photos of the people coming in and out…” Meaning that, should  the Director need eyes somewhere, all he as to do is tell the game to stick a Pikachu in the room and some unassuming gamer will send him a photo in no time.

Just know its a brave new world and it’s not likely you are ever really alone.

The High Price Paid By Signers of the Declaration of Independance

In a commentary written on July 4, 1974 by radio personality Paul Harvey: The high price paid by the men who signed the Declaration of Independence; even death for some – was explained as a lesson in the cost of liberty.

“They had learned that liberty is so much more important than security, that they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,” Harvey wrote.
“Of the 56 signers of the Declaration, few were long to survive, 5 were captured by the British and tortured before they died, 12 had their homes – from Rhode Island to Charleston – sacked and looted, occupied by the enemy or burned,” Harvey wrote.
“Two of them lost their sons in the Army; one had two sons captured,” Harvey wrote. “Nine of the 56 died in the War from its hardships or from its more merciful bullets.
“I don’t know what impression you’d had of these men who met that hot summer in Philadelphia, but I think it’s important this July 4, that we remember this about them: they were not poor men, they were not wild-eyed pirates; these were men of means, these were rich men, most of them, who enjoyed much ease and luxury in personal living,” Harvey wrote. “Not hungry men, prosperous men, wealthy land owners, substantially secure in their prosperity.
“But they considered liberty – this is as much I shall say of it – they had learned that liberty is so much more important than security, that they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,” Harvey wrote. “And they fulfilled their pledge – they paid the price, and freedom was born.”

Harvey detailed the sacrifices of  some of those men, who signed the document on July 4, 1776, declaring their independence from the British and establishing the foundation for a nation where each citizen is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Signer Carter Braxton of Virginia lost his property and fortune and “died in rags,” Harvey wrote. Thomas McKean of Delaware was “so harassed by the enemy that he was forced to move his family five times in five months,” Paul Harvey wrote. “He served in Congress without pay, his family in poverty and in hiding.” Before the American Revolution, Carter Braxton had a huge fortune through inheritance and favorable marriages. While still in his teens he inherited the family estate, which included a flourishing Virginia tobacco plantation, upon the death of his father. He married a wealthy heiress who died when he was just 21, and within a few years he had remarried, this time to the daughter of the Receiver of Customs in Virginia for the King. As a delegate representing Virginia in the Continental Congress in 1776, Braxton invested his wealth in commercial enterprises, particularly shipping, and he endured severe financial reversals during the Revolutionary War when many of the ships in which he held interest were either appropriated by the British government (because they were British-flagged) or were sunk or captured by the British. He was personally targeted for ruin because he had signed the Declaration of Independence, however; he suffered grievous financial losses because most of his wealth was tied up in shipping, “that trade which is so essential to the prosecution of the War” and which was therefore a prime military target for the British.

Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his rewardAmong his many offices, McKean was a delegate to the Continental Congress (of which he later served as president), President of Delaware, Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, and Governor of Pennsylvania. The above-quoted statement regarding his being “hounded” by the British during the Revolutionary War is probably based upon a letter he wrote to his friend John Adams in 1777, in which he described how he had been “hunted like a fox by the enemy, compelled to remove my family five times in three months, and at last fixed them in a little log-house on the banks of the Susquehanna, but they were soon obliged to move again on account of the incursions of the Indians.” He was later targeted by the British, it was quite possibly because he also served in a military capacity as a volunteer leader of militia. In any case, the McKean  estate he left behind when he died in 1817 was described as consisting of “stocks, bonds, and land tracts in Pennsylvania.” Which means his heirs were left with some inheritance although not to the level with which it would have been had he just stayed out of politics and not chosen sides.

John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside while she was dying; their thirteen children fled in all directions for their lives,” Harvey wrote. “His fields and gristmill were laid waste.
For more than a year he lived in forests and caves and returned home after the war to find his wife dead, his children gone, his properties gone,”  He died a few weeks later of exhaustion and a broken heart.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few monthsFrancis Lewis represented New York in the Continental Congress, and shortly after he signed the Declaration of Independence his Long Island estate was raided by the British, possibly as retaliation for his having been a signer to the Declaration of Independence document. While Lewis was in Philadelphia attending to congressional matters, his wife was taken prisoner by the British after disregarding an order for citizens to evacuate Long Island. Mrs. Lewis was held for several months before being exchanged for the wives of British officials captured by the Americans. Her captivity was undoubtedly a hardship when she died.

Founding Fathers Sign the Declaration of Independence 1776

Founding Fathers Sign the Declaration of Independence 1776

George Walton was captured after being wounded while commanding militia at the Battle of Savannah in December 1778, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge (three of the four Declaration of Independence signers from South Carolina) were taken prisoner at the Siege of Charleston in May in 1780. Although they endured the ill treatment typically afforded to prisoners of war during their captivity it is not known if they were tortured or not. We do know prison conditions of that day were deplorable.

Richard Stockton of New Jersey was one signer taken prisoner specifically because of his status as a signer of the Declaration, he was dragged from his bed by night by local Tories after he had evacuated his family from New Jersey, and imprisoned in New York City’s infamous Provost Jail like a common criminal. 

Abraham Clark of New Jersey saw two of his sons captured by the British and incarcerated on the prison ship Jersey. John Witherspoon, also of New Jersey, saw his eldest son, James, killed in the Battle of Germantown in October 1777.

Lewis Morris (not Norris) saw his Westchester County, New York, home taken over in 1776 and used as a barracks for soldiers, and the horses and livestock from his farm commandeered by military personnel. Shortly afterwards his property was appropriated, looted, and burned by the British when they occupied New York. (Morris and his wife were eventually able to reclaim their property and restore their home after the war.)

Philip Livingston lost several properties to the British occupation of New York and sold off others to support the war effort, and he did not recover them because he died suddenly in 1778, before the end of the war.

 “And for the Support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor,” this line written just above the 56 signatures. These men pledged their lives, Their fortunes and their Sacred Honor.Many of them paid that price.

United States Flag on July 4, 17776

United States Flag on July 4, 17776

In 1776 George Washington said “Few people know the predicament we are in” I dare say that is the truth today July 4,2016. I only hope and pray there are enough people who see the predicament we are in who want to do something about it, and continue to hold politicians and the media accountable.

Today as you gather with friends and family to remember this great day of Independence remember to say a prayer for our nation, and Thank God for his mercy and the freedom we have today.

In 1978 Hillary Clinton Turned $1,000 Into $99,540

On March 29,1994 The Washington Post wrote — “The White House said today that in 1978 Hillary Rodham Clinton invested $1,000 in commodities futures and that the investment grew in 10 months of trading in the notoriously volatile market into a gain of nearly $100,000.

Seeking to dispel suggestions that the trades were risk-free and improperly arranged by an Arkansas lawyer who represents one of the state’s most powerful companies, the White House issued a statement this afternoon that said the First Lady had put up her own money and that she bore all of the financial risks in a marketplace where three out of four investors lose money.” The officials also released a year’s worth of brokerage statements from one of Mrs. Clinton’s two accounts. They show winnings outrunning losses about three-to-one. ‘Too Nerve-Racking’ Senior advisers to President Clinton and his wife said in a briefing thzt afternoon at the White House While President Clinton was in office that Mrs. Clinton based her trades on information in The Wall Street Journal, and that she stopped trading by 1980, despite her success, because, as one senior aide put it, “she did not have the stomach for it any more and found it to be too nerve-racking.” These odds were one in 250 million.

The string of winning trades began in October 1978, as Mr. Clinton, who was then the state’s Attorney General, was leading in polls in the race for Governor. The White House insisted that Mrs. Clinton received no improper financial assistance on the trades from the lawyer, James B. Blair, a close friend who at the time was the top lawyer for Tyson Foods of Springdale, Ark., (Don’t forget that association with Tyson Foods.It will become impostant in another of Hillary Clinton’s scandals) Tyson Foods was the nation’s biggest poultry company, as well as one of the nations biggest polluter of water at that time, but that is a story for another day. Mr. Blair has said that he had suggested that she get into the commodities market, and that he used his knowledge of trading to guide her along the way. During Mr. Clinton’s tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards which helped them get around many of the states EPA laws of that time. ( I know this is a story for another time but I can hardly contain myself) Mr. Blair and the Clintons denied any favoritism or conflict of interest when the trades were first reported.

The commodities trades were the most successful investment the Clintons ever made. The nearly $100,000 profit enabled them to buy a house, invest in securities and real estate and provide a nest egg for their daughter, Chelsea. In its statement, the White House said Mrs. Clinton accumulated trading profits of $49,069 in 1978 and losses of $22,548, for a net gain of $26,541. In 1979, the White House said, she had trading profits of $109,600 and losses of $36,600, for a net gain of about $73,000. Hillary Clinton did a small amount of commodities trading in a second account through her stockbroker at Stephens Inc. in Little Rock, Ark. In that account, according to officials, she had a net trading loss of about $1,000; she closed the account in March 1980, shortly after Chelsea was born. The release of the trading documents and tax returns made public on Friday show that in 1978 and 1979 the Clintons took on two high-risk investments with little money down but with Arkansas business figures as advisers or partners. One was the commodities trades.

The other was the Whitewater development. The tax returns released in 1994 show the Clintons making a $500 investment as their total capital contribution to the Whitewater Development Company, a real estate venture in the Ozarks. Their partner in the venture was a close friend, James B. McDougal, who later became a banker whose savings and loan was subject to broad state regulation. Critics of the Clintons have asserted that Mr. McDougal, who guaranteed a $200,000 loan taken out by the partnership, carried the brunt of the risk on the Whitewater venture. The Clintons said that they ultimately lost about $42,000, mostly from interest payments, in Whitewater. But their relationship with Mr. McDougal was investigated by the independent counsel, Robert B. Fiske Jr., who examined whether Mr. McDougal’s savings and loan improperly diverted money into Whitewater or into Bill Clinton’s 1984 campaign for government.

Mr. Fiske said that he could not comment on whether he would look into the commodities trades. But his charter is written broadly enough to enable him to examine the trades if he decided they were relevant. ‘Bull Market’ in Cattle Brokers and commodities officials differed in their assessment of the account given by the White House. Jack F. Sandner, chairman of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a hub of commodities trading, said that such profits were not unusual during the cattle futures market of the late 1970’s, which he described as one of the most booming ever. “At the time the First Lady was trading, it happened to coincide with the biggest bull market in the history of cattle,” he said. “When you are lucky enough to catch a dramatic market, you can take $1,000 and scale up and you can make a million. If somebody said they made a million dollars, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.” But Bill Biederman, vice president of research at Allendale Inc., a research and brokerage firm in suburban Chicago, said such huge winnings are very unusual in the risky commodities market.” he said. “This has happened just a few times in my career, where I’ve made millions on a small amount of money.” He said it was also unusual for a customer to abandon the markets after such a profitable run. In commodities trading, a speculator essentially bets on whether the future price of a commodity will rise or decline, and the White House said that Mrs. Clinton’s investments were in cattle, soybeans, sugar, hogs, copper and lumber. Brokers in the Refco office have said that most of her profits were in cattle futures. Many of her trades were done on margin, a common practice of investing by using borrowed funds. But regulators and traders said that most brokers required customers trading on margin to put up additional collateral in case there are sudden losses. “They would want some kind of a minimum until such time as a customer establishes a track record,” said David Gary, a spokesman for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Joseph Collins, a lawyer for Refco, said that with the passage of time it is difficult to determine whether the Springdale office had such a rule. But he said that generally the decision whether or not to take on a customer with limited resources would be up to the individual broker. Consulting Blair.

Once you give up your inegrity the rest is easy.

Once you give up your inegrity the rest is easy.

White House officials acknowledged at the time that Mr. Blair was consulted on many of the commodities trades and was viewed as an important financial adviser, but they said other people, who they could not identify, were also consulted. A senior aide to Hillary Clinton also said that she occasionally spoke to her broker about the trades. But brokers in the Springdale office of Refco where Mrs. Clinton executed the trades, including the one she describes as her personal broker, said in interviews in recent weeks that they have no recollection of ever talking with her about the trades. Hillary Clinton and Mr. Blair have said that they used Robert L. (Red) Bone, the broker who founded the Springdale office of Refco, a Chicago commodities firm, to execute the trades. But Mr. Bone, who worked at Tyson for 13 years until 1973, insisted in several interviews this that he has no recollection of ever trading for Mrs. Clinton or talking to her about commodities trades. (More lies by Hillary) “I can’t recall ever dealing with the Clintons,” Mr. Bone said in an interview on March 9. After Mr. Blair suggested that Mr. Bone was trying to protect the Clintons’ privacy and recommended that a reporter try to talk to the broker again, Mr. Bone again insisted that he had no recollection of ever trading for the Clintons. Mr. Bone could not be reached for comment. During the 1970’s, Mr. Bone had been disciplined by regulators and settled charges that he tried to corner the egg market and that he had failed to keep proper records. Those accusations supposedly did not involve Mrs. Clinton’s account. Mr. Bone’s lawyer in both the regulatory proceedings and other legal disputes over the last 15 years has been Mr. Blair.

According to the White House, Mrs. Clinton’s commodity account was a type in which the client must personally approve each trade.

Tax returns disclosed in 1994by Hillary show that the Clintons claimed about $100,000 in capital gains from the trades. The returns, which the Clintons had declined to disclose during the campaign, were made public only after a New York Times article on March 18 revealed that the Clintons had made the commodities profits. But in the tax returns the Clintons ignored Internal Revenue Service instructions to detail how much money was invested, how much was earned and on what dates the trades occurred. When the Clintons were in the White House they released brokerage statements that show many of the trades. The statements appear on an account that spells Mrs. Clinton’s first name wrong and begin with an entry for cash for $1,000 on Oct. 11, 1978.

The White House said that it released the information on Hillary’s stake in response to a Newsweek article published that quoted a Columbia University law professor as saying that Mrs. Clinton’s investments were financially supported by Mr. Blair and could be considered to be a gift. The professor, Marvin A. Chirelstein, denied making such a statement.

I am rewriting this article just because many of you might not remember hearing about this particular scandal on Hillary Clinton’s in March of 1994 which reportedly has Hillary earning $100,000 in profit in 1979 on a $1,000 investment over the course of only 9 months in the volatile cattle futures, about which she knew nothing, thanks to help from a highly placed Tyson Foods connection. These odds were one in 250 million. Scandals always follow Hillary and this one was no different.

The Transgender Agenda & Progressivism

What if I told you the people pushing equality for transgenders serves another agenda?  Would you believe me if I told you their entire purpose is to detach our culture from a moral anchor? You may ask yourself, “why would they do that?” Let’s explore that a bit but before we do let’s look at some facts. When Hillary Clinton wrote the book “It Takes A Village to Raise A Child” the village she was referring to was the government. The only way the government can replace the family as the foundational block of society is for the government to redefine the family.
Progressives have a vision for a new society and that means replacing the old society. Progressives seek a brave new world, but the truth of the matter is; that brave new world is nothing more than the same old failed policies of the Marxist communist governments which only served to enslave over a third of the world’s population. It has never worked anywhere . What am I saying? Am I calling progressives evil people who want to enslave you? No. What I’m saying is most progressives on the left in the democrat party are “the useful idiots” that Lenin spoke of who are being used to promote a socialist agenda which is the first and necessary step towards communism.
Statism is when there is no law higher than the state. When there’s no law higher than the state there’s no appeal against it. An example of that happening today is this: The federal government gives Title I funds to more than 50,000 schools across the nation, which in turn provide things like after-school and summer programs and remedial education, not to mention free and reduced-cost meals to more than 21 million low-income students per year. The administration’s mandate (issued on Friday) for all public schools to allow children into opposite-sex bathrooms carries with it the threat to withhold those funds. This is Statism because it the Federal government under President Obama won’t allow the states to make this choice with out the threat of loss educational funds. It becomes a dictatorship when you feel you have no choice but to do as the President wants.  This is how progressives use the  homosexual agenda to push their own agenda.

We have come from a Norman Rockwell’s America to Hugh Hefner’s America.

Isn’t it true that only women get pregnant? Or only women get abortions? Planned Parenthood and NARAL—ironically both pro-abortion organizations that self-identify as champions of women’s rights—may soon be trying to change your mind about that. One signal comes from a little petition drive that goes by #protransprochoice. It urges both Planned Parenthood and NARAL to adopt language more “inclusive” of transgender persons and to acknowledge “gender-non-conforming” people. Both pro-abortion organizations, which have been longtime supporters of the LGBT lobby, tweeted back supportive replies.

So what does this mean and why should we care?


Well, maybe Exhibit A should be Oprah Winfrey introducing us to “the first pregnant man” in 2008. This would be a woman named Tracey who “transitioned” to being Thomas by having a double mastectomy with a dose of hormones to produce facial hair and such. Thomas thought it would be nice to have a baby someday, and so decided to keep “his” vagina, uterus, and ovaries intact. But for some reason, even though Thomas was legally documented as a male, she/he needed a sperm donation. (Life isn’t fair.) In any event, when pregnant, Thomas was happy to pose nude (mostly, anyway) for the camera.

Thomas has since had two more children and in 2012 decided to undergo surgery for a more complete transition to a male bodily appearance. She now lectures on “trans fertility and reproductive rights.” Most do not understand what a seismic shift in language is being pushed here. In this scheme of things, using the pronoun “she” to refer to a person who goes through pregnancy and gives birth to a child is grounds for punishment.

Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere ‘social constructs. So what does it all mean? At root, this isn’t really about people like Thomas. It’s mostly about everybody else. It’s all about changing you and your self-concept. As fringe as this may sound, injecting such lies into our language “the pregnant man” and the push to separate the word “pregnancy” from the word “woman” are clear signals that we are moving steadily towards erasing all gender distinctions in the law, and this leads to a decline in the family which leads to a decline in civilization , And why should we care? We should care because erasing gender distinctions, especially as they apply to childbearing and rearing, would serve to legally un-define what it means to be human. Crazy talk? A new legal definition of human as neither male nor female would apply to you whether you like it or not. Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere “social constructs.” notice how people’s feelings have become the framework by which people are judged as male or female and not biology?  They say they “feel” like a women trapped in a man’s body. This sounds like a psychological problem to me. But to the people pushing the homosexual agenda it’s just what the doctor ordered to blur the ones needed to destroy the definition of families.

I’ve heard people say “who cares?” Or “if it doesn’t affect me why should I care?” We should also especially care because we are well on the way to enacting laws which do affect everyone.

In November, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The law is based on the assumption that one’s perceived “gender identity” does not always “match” your sex “assigned” or “designated” at birth. So, the thinking goes, the law should allow a more ambiguous array of gender identities: male, female, both, neither, or something else entirely. It’s not an overstatement to say that ENDA is a huge step, mostly under the radar, to codify a new definition of humanity.

It’s all about changing you and your self-concept. In the Senate, every Democrat and ten Republicans voted for ENDA: Senators Ayotte, Collins, Flake, Hatch, Heller, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Portman, and Toomey. So all that remains is for the House of Representatives to take up ENDA (which hasn’t happened just yet) and follow suit.

(I have a modest proposal. If and when ENDA is taken up by the House of Representatives, members might consider proposing an amendment that allows equal treatment for a neglected category of oppressed: those who suffer from discrimination based upon age identity. It would simply extend the logic of gender identity laws. You can read more here at The Federalist: “If We Can Pick Our Gender, Can We Pick Our Age?”)

It’s About Control, Not Rights:

The transgender movement has strong totalitarian overtones that Americans (especially certain senators) don’t fully understand. How else to describe a crusade with such far-reaching consequences for First Amendment rights? The legal destruction of gender distinctions will inevitably dissolve family autonomy, thereby uprooting freedom of association. Free expression becomes “hate speech” if one doesn’t fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol. Freedom of religion takes a direct hit any way you look at it.

Under the guise of “rights,” the transgender movement can serve as convenient cover for consolidating and centralizing power under an ever-expanding State. Once we allow the State to refuse to recognize that children result from the male-female union, we grant the State more power to separate us from our children. As power becomes more centralized in the State, the individuals and institutions of the State, inevitably flawed, end up owning our personal relationships. With weakened mediating institutions—family, churches, private associations—we lose the buffer zones that stand between individuals and an encroaching state.

Free expression becomes ‘hate speech’ if one doesn’t fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol.

Contrary to popular belief, this push to eliminate distinctions of sex from law and replace them with variable and sundry perceptions of gender does not do what it promises. It doesn’t simply provide us with a panoply of gender identities from which we can choose, like the 50-something identities available on Facebook  Rather, it’s the setup for a gender vacuum. As you enter this vacuum of gender-neutrality, less and less separates and protects you from the State.

Let’s think this through a bit more. If gender distinctions are erased in law, all marriage will become legally obsolete. The elites pushing same-sex “marriage” have known this all along. If you thought it was really marriage equality they were after, see point three in this Federalist article, “Bait and Switch.”

If we agree to change language to suit the transgender lobby, we ultimately agree to destroy in law the entire basis (sex distinctions) for the only union that can result in autonomously formed families. The implications for privacy and personal relationships are vast, and we need to understand that.

Under the guise of ‘rights,’ the transgender movement can serve as convenient cover for consolidating and centralizing power under an ever-expanding State.

If you think you’ll be able to cultivate and preserve strong personal relationships in this new matrix, you are mistaken. That can’t easily happen in a system in which your familial relationships are not acknowledged or respected by the State. This gender-neutral scheme obliterates the template for the family as a unit. And if the family is no longer accepted as a union that originates through the union of male and female, there is no real basis for the State to recognize any family as an autonomous unit. Without any such obligation, children become more easily classified as state property and our personal relationships are more easily controlled by the state. If that sounds totalitarian, that’s because it is.

The legal erasure of gender distinctions, especially as they relate to the conception, gestation, and birth of children, would effectively cut us off from our spouses and children in the eyes of the law. How can it be otherwise? Yeah, maybe in the bargain we’ll retain the right to “freely” call ourselves male, female, or other. But once we’ve in essence sold our birthright, this is nothing more than a bowl of pottage.

Where Are We Now?

While Americans have been distracted by same-sex “marriage,” transgender activists have been quietly changing laws all across the nation to redefine humanity on their terms. In fact, the enactment of gender identity laws has in many cases outpaced same-sex marriage legislation. So far they’ve passed in 18 states, the District of Columbia, and about 150 municipalities

But now the “transgender revolution” is going on offense. In the past few weeks, a virtual blitzkrieg of drag has rained down upon us from the media. Here are just a few items in the lineup:

There was big ink with a cover-girlish Laverne Cox transgender star of the Netflix series “Orange is the New Black” on the cover of Time Magazine’s June 9 issue, which announces we are at the “tipping point” of the mainstreaming of transgenderism.

A couple of weeks ago, Disney executives invited a drag queen “Maleficent” to greet Angelina Jolie, star of the long-awaited movie ‘Maleficent,” on the red carpet at its premier. (Et tu, Disney?)

Oxford University Press just the other day published Trans Bodies, Trans Selves, a resource book that is supposed to grow the transgender movement today in the same way Our Bodies, Ourselves grew feminism in the 1970’s.

On June 22 the National Cathedral (Episcopal, natch) in Washington is scheduled to host the first sermon delivered by an openly transgender priest.

A barrage of meme-driven articles are appearing, with titles like “I am the best Feminist because I’m dating a trans Woman,” or “My Trans Story is not your Growth Experience.” It’s ironic that those leading the charge for the transgender revolution would claim there is only one right side to history. Nevertheless, none of this should surprise anyone who has been paying attention. The whole movement has been prepped by the push for genderless marriage. The Supreme Court’s Winsdor decision last year, and its consolidation by activist judges striking down state laws on marriage, has been the cue the transgender movement has been waiting for.

After all, the “T for Transgender” in LGBT has been around for decades, custom-built into the LGBT agenda. If you think this is the end of the line, you’re kidding yourself. There is much, much more to come.

How Deep Are We Into This Transgender Thing?


There’s no end in sight. On the surface, the transgender package, with its assortment of gender identities, to many still resembles a fringe movement, or a passing fad. So lots of folks have been duped into thinking that the purpose of it all is to grant equal rights to a minority demographic. But it’s really about changing the language, and thereby redefining us all.

If gender distinctions are erased in law, all marriage will become legally obsolete.

Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda.

So how might an elite impose “collective belief formation” upon an unwitting public? It’s about marketing, of course, injecting memes (an older term is “hype”) into public discourse in order to build opinion cascades. An interesting academic look at this is in a Stanford Law Review article by Cass Sunstein and Timur Kuran on “availability cascades.” It explains how you can take an implausible idea and make it seem plausible by raising its availability in public discourse. Once you’ve shaped public opinion through all the usual channels—Hollywood, academic, the media, and so on—then the road to public policy has been nicely paved.

Of course, we see these things applied by mass marketers like Oprah Winfrey and talk shows like “The View” that serve to shape and mold and cajole “new ways of thinking” into the mindset of millions of listeners.

The Role of Linguistic Fascism in the Cult of Transgenderism:

We can’t underestimate the role of the language police in forcing compliance with any agenda that hides under the “civil liberties” claim.

Transgender advocacy groups seem to hold very high and specific requirements and expectations from the public and media in terms of how they expect to be understood and talked to. GLAAD’s Media Advisory Guide contains a long checklist of “do’s and don’ts” when one is talking to or referring to a transgender person. Pronouns, of course, are a very touchy subject. Other lists are put out by various advocacy groups, including Transgender Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Gender Spectrum, and a Cal Berkeley group, to name but a very few.

Forcing changes in our language forces changes in our thoughts. These convoluted lexicons foisted upon a docile public are daunting. And they’re no doubt meant to be. Interestingly, use of such linguistic gymnastics happens to be an essential device in teasing out a cult mindset.

Margaret Thaler Singer, an expert on cults, has written about the role of rhetoric in stifling independent thinking among cult members: “As members continue to formulate their ideas in the group’s jargon, this language serves the purpose of constricting members’ thinking and shutting down critical thinking abilities. One large international group, for example, has dictionaries for members to use. One can search from term to term trying to learn this new language.”According to Singer: “Orwell reasoned that if a government could control all media and interpersonal communication while simultaneously forcing citizens to speak in politically controlled jargon, it could blunt independent thinking.” This is why conservatives and many people in America right now reject politically correct thinking and speech.  If you’ve read Orwell’s 1984 you know that for the “State” to control your mind, it must first control how you think, and to do that, it must control language. The LBGT radicals are very aware of this and are making a push to redefine the very meaning of being “human”

As we navigate through identity politics, we must never forget that forcing changes in our language forces changes in our thoughts. And in the case of gender identity, this means accepting language that universally redefines or perhaps more accurately, un-defines us all. I suggest to you this is the beginning of the end of the family and all social norms as we know them. History has shown the decline of the family is always first before the fall of a society.

Trump Tax Plan for Dummies

An independent analysis done by The Tax Foundation finds that Donald Trump’s tax plan would reduce federal revenues by $11.98 trillion over the next ten years. What this means is the size of government would become smaller which is in fact a conservative principal. It   would also improve incentives to work and invest, which traditionally has increased the gross domestic product (GDP) of our government in the past. Trumps plan increases the Gross Domestic Product of the U.S by 11 percent over the long term.

This increase in GDP would translate into 6.5 percent higher wages and 5.3 million new full-time equivalent jobs. Which I believe will end up being good for the economy and for Americans. After accounting for increased incomes due to this plan, the plan would only reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion.[2]

Details of the Trump Tax Plan:

  1. Individual Income Tax Changes will Consolidate the current seven tax brackets into four, with a top marginal income tax rate of 25 percent (Table 1)
  2. Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at a top marginal rate of 20 percent.
  3. Creates a substantial zero bracket for lower income individuals.
  4. Steepens the curve of the Personal Exemption Phase-out (PEP) and the Pease Limitation on itemized deductions.
  5. Eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  6. Eliminates the Net Investment Income Tax of 3.8 percent, which was passed as part of the Affordable Care Act.
  7. Taxes carried interest at ordinary income tax rates instead of capital gains and dividends tax rates.
  8. Phases out the tax exemption on life insurance interest.
Trump Tax Plan and its Effect on Americans

Trump Tax Plan and its Effect on Americans

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That was also an election year, and Congress and the president did what was thought to be impossible. They worked in a bipartisan manner to defy the armies of special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington and enacted sweeping tax reforms.
2016 is also obviously an election year and tax policy is, again, a big issue. But unlike 1986, tax reform is getting mentioned more on the campaign trail than on Capitol Hill. Almost every single candidate in both parties has introduced policies that would alter our tax code. However, the approach that candidates have taken is very different.

For a side-by-side summary of the details and economic effects of each candidate’s tax plan who is still running, see below:

Comparing Candidates Tax Plans and it's Effects on US Economy

Comparing Candidates Tax Plans and it’s Effects on US Economy


Business Tax Changes of the Trump Tax Plan:

  1. Cuts the corporate income tax rate from the current 35 percent to 15 percent.
  2. Ends the deferral of income from controlled foreign subsidiaries, but preserves the foreign tax credit.
  3. It would also enact, as a transitional revenue raiser, a one-time deemed repatriation tax of 10 percent on all foreign profits currently deferred.
  4. Taxes pass-through businesses at the rate of 15 percent commensurate with the traditional corporations.
  5. Caps the deductibility of interest expenses.
  6. Other Changes of the Trump Tax Plan:
  7. Eliminates the Estate Tax.

Economic Impact of the Trump Tax Plan:

  1. According to our Taxes and Growth Model, the increased incentives to work and invest from this tax plan would increase the size of the economy by 11 percent over the long run.
  2. The plan would lead to 6.5 percent higher wages.
  3. And a 29 percent larger capital stock
  4. A larger economy which is mainly the result of the significant reduction in the service price of capital due to the rate reductions for corporations and pass through businesses.
  5. In addition, the reduction of marginal tax rates on individual income would increase incentives to work and result in 5.3 million full-time equivalent jobs.

The bottom-line? No one can conclude that Trumps Tax plan isn’t conservative and no one can say it will be bad for the economy. I mean, I guess they can say it, but it wont be routed in reality. The tax information found in this article comes from the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation is the nation’s leading independent tax policy research organization. Since 1937, they have provided principled research, insightful analysis, and engaged experts. They have informed our leaders with smarter tax policy at the federal, state, and local levels. The Tax Foundation is devoted to educating taxpayers, the media, and policymakers. Their federal research and outreach highlight the American tax code’s strengths and weaknesses and show how tax policy impacts taxpayers, the government, and the economy at large. At the state level, they use research to foster competition between the states and advise policymakers on how to improve their tax systems.

Who Is Hillary Clinton?

Once again the Clinton spin is out of control, and Hillary is cashing in. For over twenty years Hillary has cast herself as a supposed defender of women, all the while, waging her unrelenting war on women. When the Roman Polanski rape case resurfaced, Whoopi Goldberg coined the term “rape-rape” to describe the difference between the kind of rape she opposed and the kind she was okay with because it had been perpetrated by someone she liked. In the political world the cases of Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton showed how liberals delineated between the sexual harassment of men they approved of and men they disapproved of. Now the “Rape Rape” distinction is back with Bill’s wife.
1. As an attorney, Hillary defended sex offenders – even laughing about getting a kiddie rapist off!

Hillary is now the face of the Democratic Party’s bid to make feminist history.  However when Hillary was caught on tape cheerfully recollecting how she accused a 12-year-old girl, in formal legal language, of being a mentally ill slut. Or as the Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger put it, “The ‘little bit nutty, little bit slutty’ defense has a long, ugly history. It’s jarring to see it trotted out against a kid by a future feminist icon.”Suddenly the social justice warriors who were denouncing due process, such as access to legal counsel, for campus rapists being tried by student committees, became big fans of due process for rapists. As with Whoopi Goldberg, it was all about who was doing the raping and who the rapist’s lawyer was.

Amanda Marcotte, of Slate and The Daily Beast, as well a blogger for John Edwards, another noted defender of women, called critics of the Duke Lacrosse case “rape-loving scum” and suggested that George Will was a “rape apologist” for questioning some questionable rape cases. But when Hillary Clinton was outed as a “rape apologist” and “rape-loving scum”, Amanda became a “rape apologist” explaining why being “rape-loving scum” was actually a good thing.

“Hillary Clinton Knows Rape Is No Laughing Matter”, she wrote, describing a tape in which Hillary Clinton is laughing while talking about rape. With a desperation no one in their right mind could excuse, Amanda explained that Hillary Clinton might have called a 12-year-old victim of child rape a mentally ill slut, but it wasn’t her fault.

It was society’s fault. “While it’s always unpleasant to hear defense attorneys try to sow doubt about an accuser’s trustworthiness, the blame for this should not lay on the shoulders of those who have an obligation to defend their clients. The blame should lay on society for perpetuating the myth that false accusations are common” she wrote. Don’t blame Hillary Clinton for her horrible evil lie about a raped little girl. Blame a society that gave Hillary the idea that she could get away with it. This is a good defense because it can be used for any of the many lies told by Hillary Clinton.

2. As the first lady, Hillary slandered and intimidated the victims of her husband’s serial abuses.

3. As an employer, Hillary paid women 72 cents for every dollar she paid men – and still does at her personal Foundation.

Part of the winning strategy for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is to focus on disgruntled women who think they should be paid more. (OK, they probably should.  And so should men.)  Hammering on the myth that women are paid 72 cents (or 77 cents) for every dollar men earn and hyping multi millionaire Patricia Arquette’s Oscar winning plea for more money for women with support from other multi millionaire Hollywood women–and men–is probably being worked on as you read.   Hints of this emerged at a Silicon Valley tech conference where Clinton stated, earning her $300,000 fee, “I think we all cheered Patricia Arquette’s speech at the Oscars, because she’s right — it’s time to have wage equality,”

But for Hillary, the “time to have wage equality” has not arrived for her staffers; the 72 cents per 100 cents female/male pay ratio is no myth according to this widely discussed report in the Washington Free Beacon.

During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man, according to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate expenditure reports.

The analysis compiled the annual salaries paid to staffers for an entire fiscal year of work from the years 2002 to 2008. Salaries of employees who were not part of Clinton’s office for a full fiscal year were not included. Because the Senate fiscal year extends from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, Clinton’s first year in the Senate, which began on Jan. 3, 2001, was also not included in the analysis.

Signs indicate there will also be large gender pay gap on Clinton’s 2016 campaign staff.  The Washington Post reported last week that Clinton will rely on “President Obama’s heavily male campaign apparatus” to run her upcoming presidential campaign.A request for comment made to the Clinton Foundation was not returned.

Whoops! Not only was Obama’s 2012 campaign staff  “heavily male” it was heavily white as the famous photos  “An Obama Campaign Photo That Looks Like a Young Republican Rally”:

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

4. As Secretary of State,Hillary accepted millions in private donations from Arab countries with atrocious records on women’s rights, giving global cover to brutal tyrants for a quick buck.

However her husband quickly came to her defense. Bill Clinton Defends Foreign Donations to Family Foundation Former President Bill Clinton spoke out in defense of his family foundation’s acceptance of donations from foreign governments on Saturday, after a series of news reports that raised questions about the practice, which quietly resumed after Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

Mr. Clinton said simply that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation’s global work required financial support, and acknowledged that money has come from donors with whom he sometimes differs on policy.

“We do get money from other countries, and some of them are in the Middle East,” he said, saying at one point that the endowment the foundation has raised in the last few years was “so all these projects will run forever.”

“And I think it is a good thing. For example, the U.A.E. gave us money,” Mr. Clinton said. “Do we agree with everything they do? No. But they are helping us fight ISIS and they built a great university with N.Y.U., open to people around the world. And they have helped us support the work that this foundation does.”

He added: “Do I agree with all the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia? No.”

Mr. Clinton’s remarks came at an event at the University of Miami, sponsored by the Clinton Global Initiative University, in which he was interviewed onstage by the comedian Larry Wilmore, host of Comedy Central’s “The Nightly Show.”

“My theory about all this is, disclose everything,” Mr. Clinton said. “And then let people make their judgments,” Mr. Clinton said. “But I think there are more than 300,000 people who in some form or fashion have contributed money.”

“I believe we have done a lot more good than harm,” he added. “And I believe this is a good thing.”

Mr. Clinton’s aides have frequently pointed out that the donations came to light only after foundation officials put them on its website. But the Clintons have been criticized for accepting donations from foreign nations in the period between Mrs. Clinton’s four-year State Department tenure and her 2016 presidential candidacy, which she is expected to launch next month.

Earlier, Mrs. Clinton and the couple’s daughter, Chelsea, appeared together onstage at the event. Mrs. Clinton did not discuss the foundation’s funding or the controversy over her use of a private email account for official business while she secretary of state. She and her daughter instead previewed the “No Ceilings” project, a global data-gathering endeavor about women and girls that will be made public in New York City on Monday. They also announced an initiative called “not there,” in which they said they planned to remove their photographs from their social-media accounts to make a point about “unseen,” marginalized or disadvantaged women around the world. Yeah, whatever.

Don’t blame Hillary for being a liar. She’s lied about so many things; it ‘s hard to remember them all but lets try to remember a few:  Hillary lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, then when the video surfaced of her actual landing on that day and the video was of a little girl handing her flowers it was obvious her lie was exposed. Maybe we should blame a patriarchal society which values military heroics over defending child rapists. Don’t blame her for lying about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Blame a society which prioritizes climbing large mountains. What about when the Clintons stole White House furniture or when she covered up for your husband’s history of sexual abuses. It is common knowledge that Hillary is a liar and a liar is a thief. It’s the same base character flaw. Is that who you want in the white house? Not me.

Why Millennials Can’t Handle Donald Trump

Patriot News reported that earlier this week, it was reported that more than 60,000 Democrats in Pennsylvania had switched to the Republican Party ahead of the primaries. This pattern has been found in many states across the country, proving that Donald Trump may be the first Republican in many years with the ability to reshape the electoral map.
Alas, you have to take the bad news with the good. For Trump, the bad news comes in the form of a new Harvard Institute of Politics poll that shows that millennials are not on board the Trump Train. According to the poll, released Monday, millennials prefer Hillary Clinton to Trump 61% to 25%. Among this group of 18-29 year-olds, 60% want to see a Democrat take over for Barack Obama in January. Only 33% said they preferred a Republican.

With a gap that big, it’s hard to make any grand pronouncements about millennials and Trump specifically. It appears that young people are too hopelessly liberal to vote for a Republican, regardless of who it is. On the other hand, you can’t ignore the facts, and the facts are that Trump is the most likely man to get the nomination. These millennials may have been answering a Hillary/Trump question even when it wasn’t specifically asked.
Also…it’s hard to take this poll seriously.

When you compare polling results like this to the reality on the ground, it simply doesn’t add up. According to the Harvard poll, 60% of young Clinton supporters are “enthusiastic” about their candidate. Really? What are the hard numbers here? If they found ten Clinton supporters and six of them were “enthusiastic,” it doesn’t really say much. This feels like one of those polls that’s meant to move public opinion, not measure it. If there is one thing Clinton does not have on her side, it’s enthusiasm.
The other thing she doesn’t have? Young people! Poll or no poll, it’s blatantly obvious that young Democrats are being drawn to Bernie Sanders like flies to honey. It’s the biggest reason he’s not winning: all of his support comes from people who – historically speaking – do not vote. They can make him the most popular man on Instagram, but they can’t make him the Democratic nominee.

As for Trump, he’s the picture of political incorrectness in an era that has no tolerance for conservative thought. He stands for everything these kids have been raised to hate: individuality, wealth, and patriotism. It’s no wonder they disapprove.

Hillary Clinton’s Accomplishments 

 When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of  “the eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

  1. She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
  2. She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
  3. Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
  4. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
  5. After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

If you’re under 40 you really need to read this. If you’re over 40, you lived through it, so share it with those under 40.  Amazing to me how much has been forgotten!
But to her loyal fans (supporters) – I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?” You decide if it makes a difference.

Clinton Foundations Casts Shadow on Hillary Clinton

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.
But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.
Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations. “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.

Is Anti Trump Movement Gaining Momentum

As Donald Trump bears down on the number of state delegates needed to amass a majority and win the GOP presidential nomination, a motley and desperate  group of politicians, pundits, media personalities and religious leaders have come out publicly denouncing the frontrunner, some in very embarrassing ways (and others in a more polished manner) but it all amounts to the same thing  the Republican Party is splintered.

Let’s take a step back and review the combined forces aligning themselves against Mr. Trump; the Republican front runner.

  1. Within the political realm, you have early allies of former candidates Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, such as former Presidents George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush and former Governor of Louisiana and GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal.
  2. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly said to GOP senators increasingly worried about Trump’s candidacy, “We’ll drop him like a hot rock.”
  3. Another former GOP presidential candidate, Rand Paul, has blasted Trump as narcissistic and delusional, labeling him “an orange-faced windbag” and that’s just some of the nicer things said about Trump.
  4. Famously, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham stated that having to decide between supporting Trump or GOP presidential challenger Ted Cruz was akin to having to choose between “being shot or poisoned.”   In the GOP, there’s no shortage of politicians ready to offer a derogatory remark about The Donald.

There’s no doubt, Trump has been able to upset the status quo. If these Republican politicians had listened to the American people for the last 8 years, then they wouldn’t have to worry about a Trump presidency.

On the Democrat side of the aisle, opposition to Trump is nearly universal, although some democrat leaders, like Vice President Joe Biden and Democrat National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Schultz, claim they are actually hoping that Trump secures the Republican nomination because they believe that he’s the ‘most beatable’ opposition candidate, I seriously doubt it. Think about it. I don’t believe Hillary Clinton wants to go head to head with Donald Trump. After all he knows where all the bodies are buried. He is unpredictable. Not looking by ago I heard Van Jones on CNN say something to the effect of “if Hillary Clinton thinks Trump will be a walk in the park, be very careful what you wish for, his own party opponents haven’t been able to take him down, I doubt the Clintons will know how to handle him either” my thoughts exactly Van, and I never agree with him.

Among some of the more outspoken Democrat voices against Trump are President Barack Obama, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

When it comes to business leaders, Facebook golden boy Mark Zuckerberg has been strongly critical of Trump, calling his ideas about limiting visas for foreign tech workers “absurd” via his advocacy group. Trump criticized the social media mogul in a policy paper proving Trump is no respecter of persons. If he disagrees with you; you will know it regardless of who you are.

Advertising giant WPP CEO Martin Sorrell has said “who knows” what Trump will mean for business. Billionaire financier George Soros has laid into Trump, referring to him as a “demagogue” and supporting protesters that have infamously committed violence at Trump’s rallies through his funding of the progressive organization.  Why would Soros try to take Trump down if not that he’s a threat?

Numerous other businessmen, especially free-trade advocates, have taken potshots at the candidate and his protectionist stances. Trump simply says “I’m not a protectionist, I am an America First guy that’s my stance” can’t argue with that.  It’s what’s made him popular with his voters and supporters.

In the media, Trump has been feted by and given positive news coverage by myriad outlets. At the same time, he’s drawn fire from just as many, if not more.

Dead set against him are — predictably — the New York Times (owned by Mexican billionaire and sometime-richest-man-in-the-world Carlos Slim), The Washington Post (owned by’s Jeff Bezos), the New York Daily News (owned by billionaire Democratic donor Mortimer Zuckerman, whose anti-Trump zeal goes back decades) and The Boston Globe, among other news outlets.

Certainly, Trump’s anti-Mexican statements have won him no support at Latin broadcaster Univision, especially after Trump’s security ejected veteran Univision news anchor Jorge Ramos from one of his rallies.

Financial papers especially don’t like Trump. The Wall Street Journal has said that Trump’s “foreign policy brain trust consists of one brain.” Rothschild family-owned The Economist magazine stated that a Trump presidency was high on a list of their “global risk factors.” Martin Wolf, the associate editor of the UK’s Financial Times has called Trump’s constituents “economic losers.”

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News seems to have a love/hate relationship with The Donald, alternatively bashing him in press releases and via newscasters like Megyn Kelly (who notoriously seems to have gotten under Trump’s skin) and at the same time giving him air time and broadcasting his press conferences. (For the record, owner Murdoch has admonished the candidate to “calm down” in the wake of a number of some of his more incendiary comments.)

Among media pundits, Trump is a lightning rod that has divided conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. The former made peace with the candidate after arriving at the belief that the Republican Party aristocracy was out of touch with its base.

Limbaugh now claims to identify with Trump’s anti-establishment views; both Trump and Limbaugh feel to some degree that the elite of the GOP has used them.

Meanwhile, Beck, an evangelical beacon, has framed the real estate magnate in some of the most unflattering terms possible, claiming that Trump’s supporters are “not listening to their God” and that “no real Christian says I want that guy.”

Liberal observers such as Rachel Maddow and The Young Turks have had a field day with Trump, with Maddow’s team pulling stunts like visiting Donald Trump State Park in upstate New York (an abandoned parcel of land donated by Trump to the state after he was unable to obtain the right to build a golf course there) and making a new lime-flavored cocktail on The Tonight Show she said was based on Trump’s candidacy.

The Young Turks have called Trump “a clown” and had in the past taken to blurring his face in video clips. That ended in August of last year as it became clear Trump’s candidacy was the real deal. Nowadays, the frontrunner is subjected to near-daily abuse by the outspoken liberal hosts.

Even theological leaders have jumped aboard the anti-Trump train, although it should be noted that Trump currently polls higher with evangelicals as a group than conservative born-again Christian Ted Cruz.

But whereas Cruz was able to parlay an initial evangelical base of support into victory in Iowa, he’s been hard-pressed to capitalize on it again outside of Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and possibly Idaho.

In fact, some polls have suggested that much of his foundation within this group has faded as tales of dirty tricks and conjectural womanizing have surfaced. Just as harmful is the sentiment that Cruz may not look like he can pull off a win and, therefore, would be a repeat of past evangelical crushed-hopes such as Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee.

When the Pope called out Trump as anti-Christian for wanting to build a wall to keep immigrants from coming across the southern border of the U.S., Trump blasted the Vatican for having its own walls (Trump even included photos of them in his Tweets), effectively accusing the pontiff of hypocrisy.

The Vatican later backed down from its attack on Trump, saying it wasn’t trying to influence the U.S. election.

Other Trump enemies include banks, neocons, Middle Eastern leaders (particularly Saudis), Hollywood actors and Mexican drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman, who purportedly put a bounty on the candidate’s head of $100 million prior to being jailed for the third time.

We’ve seen in the last several months very organized and serious opposition to Trump crystallize in the form of a super PAC called Our Principles, fronted by veteran GOP strategist Katie Packer and leading with mouthpiece (and theoretically possible 2016 third-party candidate) Mitt Romney castigating Trump as “a phony,” “a fraud” and “dishonest.”

Romney spoke at a press conference that was widely covered and re-broadcast in the media to vocalize his resistance to Trump, despite thanking the mogul profusely for his support in Romney’s 2012 run against Barack Obama, with Trump claiming that the former GOP nominee had “begged” him for his endorsement then.

Since this war of words occurred (which many believe backfired badly and actually mobilized support for Trump), more politicians and donors have joined the super PAC, which has openly admitted to exploring possibilities for a third-party run against the populist candidate if he succeeds in amassing the 1,237 delegates necessary to win the GOP nomination outright.

Time for such an effort is quickly running out, and despite a healthy presence of anti-Trump forces in the Republican political and fundraising landscape, it seems that many in this group cannot agree on a dedicated strategy to confront the vainglorious candidate head-on.

Super PAC Club for Growth has been equally critical in the anti-Trump fight, and it’s paid for anti-Trump ads, particularly in Florida prior to Trump’s massive victory in the primary there.

Some in these groups believe that backing Ted Cruz is a winning strategy, and figures such as Neil and Jeb Bush as well as South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Utah Governor Gary Herbert have jumped on that bandwagon.

Others, such as billionaire Paul Singer, initially wanted to support Marco Rubio before he collapsed in the disastrous Florida primary and finally withdrew from the race.

And still others think that John Kasich or possibly even an as-yet-to-be-determined contender (former Texas governor Rick Perry and Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan have been mentioned) could be a newly anointed pick of the upcoming Republican convention if Trump turns out not to be the majority nominee.

The primary goal of the both super PACs is to make sure the majority-loss scenario comes to fruition at all costs. Thus, these groups have a vested interest in seeing John Kasich remain in the race, despite his having no chance whatsoever to win mathematically; he could still siphon votes and, in theory, delegates, away from Trump, although to date, his sole state victory of Ohio doesn’t offer voters much to be hopeful about.

One statistic that the anti-Trump forces have in their favor is that in the 30-odd states that have had either conventions, caucuses or primaries, anti-Trump voters have overwhelmingly been in the majority, making up more than 60 percent of GOP numbers. Those numbers however don’t take into account that when it comes to Trump the changing face of the electorate is hard to determine. Lifelong Democrats voting for Trump, and other changes in the electorate. It’s quite possible the numbers are not telling the whole story. Is it in part because the numbers are fixed to tell a different story? I don’t know.

Certainly, being framed as a ‘left-field’ and ‘non-serious’ candidate initially can now be seen as a masterfully-executed fake out by Trump that his military-school background likely prepared him for.

Skillful tactics such as these are sure to be expected in even greater quantity should he be confirmed as the candidate to face Hillary Clinton in the Fall. Indeed, to underestimate Trump’s strength in this department would be perilous and conceivably catastrophic for the former Secretary of State.

While there are many against Trump, I believe it would be a disaster for the Republican power brokers to subvert the choice of the voters.

Trump 2016

Trump 2016