Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 01, 2016, 12:35:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94251 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19
51  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: November 12, 2015, 11:05:26 AM

Uh - YES - we want to say that - the polls show most Americans will be sympathetic to that position - certainly more so that the Democrat "amnesty for everyone" position.  The reality is that we must at least threaten to do this - as Trump understands and is doing forcefully right now - doubling-down and saying he will have "deportation squads."  This is how you negotiate and get what you want. Simply saying this is going to scare the crap out of many illegals and cause them to self-deport if Trump or Cruz wins.

While ultimately we may well settle for something less than this extreme - it needs to be stated just the way Trump and Cruz are stating it.  These people and their children are here illegally.  PERIOD.  Send them back - and until the question of birthright citizenship is settled (which I believe it will be correctly if Trump or Cruz is elected - such that no such right exists) the children can choose to either stay here or go back with their parents.  This is not an ethical or compassion issue.  It is a legal issue.  Taking the left's bait and accepting their premise that it is "mean" to send these people back is unilaterally surrendering - which Republican have raised to an art until recently when people such as Cruz came along.
52  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tonight's Debate... on: November 10, 2015, 11:02:52 AM

If you have Internet access, you can go to the Fox Business Network site, and watch the debate live online.  Also - many local Fox affiliates are carrying the debate on their channel tonight.
53  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 09, 2015, 06:24:29 PM
No sh*t Sherlock.  That's not what I'm arguing and you know it.  A wise man considers the evidence before believing a claim.  You can't PROVE I didn't fly to Mars yesterday and have sex with an alien, so that claim deserves equal weight to the evidence that Hillary lied under oath, I suppose???  Let's not play childish games here on a serious forum.
54  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 09, 2015, 04:59:31 PM

One cannot compare documented evidence with "what IF the other side does this too?" and then say that there is equivalence.  There is a HUGE difference between documented evidence of lying and criminal activity, and rumor and innuendo without any proof.  The former generally applies to Hillary Clinton and her husband, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett, Lois Lerner, et. al.  Accusations without evidence form the bulk of the "argument" the Democrats present against going to war in Iraq.  Yes - there is corruption in both parties - but it cannot be said that it is unknowable which side is more credible in a particular circumstance.  Horowitz's book presents mountains of documented evidence.  One needn't "take his word" for anything.  Show me the evidence that Bush and Cheney were plotting to go to war with Iraq before 9-11, and I will take that assertion seriously.  Certainly the liberal press would love to prove this.  Yet they haven't been able to.  Yet we have mountains of evidence of Bill and Hillary's wrongdoings.  Show me the equivalence.
55  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Iraq and WMD... on: November 09, 2015, 03:03:40 PM
ppulatie is accepting the Left's false premise that the primary reason the Bush administration decided to go into Iraq was that they were presumed to have had WMD.  By the way - it has now been established that they DID IN FACT have WMD - as demonstrated by the stockpiles of chemical weapons later uncovered.

That aside - the PRIMARY reason we went into Iraq is that Saddam Hussein had defied multiple U.N. resolutions mandating inspections.  The Bush administration decided this could not be tolerated any longer.  I suggest you read David Horowitz's superb book "Party of Defeat," which sets the record straight in excruciating, precise detail.  The Left has re-written history regarding the reasons for going to war in Iraq with the willing participation of the establishment media and the Democrat Party.

There simply is no parallel whatsoever with Hillary Clinton's career-long record of virtually non-stop lies going back at least as far as the Watergate committee, where she was fired by a Democrat, who explicitly stated that she was dishonest and had deliberately tampered with evidence.  This was the reason for her termination.  But once again - the establishment media - a virtually fully-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, has chosen to downplay and/or not report this and any of countless other instances of dishonesty by Mrs. Clinton and her husband.
56  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Judge Andrew Napolitano: Hillary Clinton Unfit for Public Office... on: November 09, 2015, 01:54:07 PM
We cannot allow Hillary Clinton, 'midwife to chaos' and a public liar, to be our next president

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published October 29, 2015

The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd captured the moment last weekend when she referred to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as “the midwife to chaos” in Libya. Dowd apparently came to that conclusion after watching Clinton bobbing and weaving and admitting and denying as she was confronted with the partial record of her failures and obfuscations as secretary of state, particularly with respect to Libya.

The public record is fairly well-known. In March 2011, President Barack Obama declared war on Libya. He did this at the urging of Clinton, who wanted to overthrow Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi so she could boast of having brought “democracy” to the region.

She and Obama conspired to do this even though former President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had publicly praised Gadhafi as an ally in the war against terrorist groups and even though the U.S. was giving the Qaddafi government more than $100 million a year in foreign aid.

Obama did his best to avoid constitutional norms. He deployed American intelligence agents on the ground, not troops, so he could plausibly deny he had put “boots” on the ground. He did not seek an American national consensus for war because Libya presented no threat whatsoever to the U.S. He did not obtain a congressional declaration of war as the Constitution requires because he couldn’t get one. And he did not seek United Nations permission, which is required to attack a fellow U.N. member.

Every four years, we entrust awesome power to a person who swears to protect the Constitution. How could we give that power to a consistent public liar?

He did obtain a U.N. embargo of the shipment of weapons into Libya, and he secured a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over portions of Libya. In order to enforce the no-fly zone, NATO sent jet fighters over the skies of Libya. The jets were guided and directed by American intelligence agents on the ground to bomb Libyan planes on the ground, which had been paid for by American taxpayers.

To pursue her goal of a “democratic” government there, Clinton, along with Obama and a dozen or so members of Congress from both houses and both political parties, decided she should break the law by permitting U.S. arms dealers to violate the U.N. arms embargo and arm Libyan rebels whom she hoped would one day run the new government. So she exercised her authority as secretary of state to authorize the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood and friendly to the Libyan rebels and a country the U.S. had no business arming -- unless the purpose of doing so was for the arms to be transferred to the rebels.

Once this plot was hatched, Clinton and her fellow conspirators realized that some of these rebel groups were manned by al-Qaida operatives; and selling or providing arms to them is a felony -- hence the reason for months' worth of missing and destroyed Clinton emails. How could someone running for president possibly justify providing material assistance to terrorist organizations in the present international climate?

Flash-forward to Clinton’s public testimony before the House Benghazi Committee last week. Clinton had three audiences to address. Her immediate audience was the committee, whose members generally did not know how to ask questions of a witness trying to hide the truth. Her second audience was the American people, who will recall little more than 15-second sound bites and general impressions of her testimony. Her third (unseen) audience consisted of the FBI agents and federal prosecutors who are investigating her.

That audience was looking for perjury, misleading statements and what federal law calls “bad acts.” Perjury is lying under oath. Misleading Congress is criminal and consists of testimony that employs deceptive language so as to create an untruthful impression. Bad acts constitute repeated behavior demonstrating moral turpitude -- usually a pattern of deception.

The FBI agents surely heard Clinton mislead Congress when she answered a hard question about arms going to rebels by saying “I think the answer is no” and again when she answered a question about arming private militias by saying it may have been considered but wasn't “seriously” considered. And they heard her directly commit perjury when she was asked whether she knew about our country's supplying arms to Libyan rebels directly or indirectly and she answered, “No.”

How could she answer "no"? She not only knew about the sending of arms to rebels but also personally authored and authorized it. How could she answer "no"? The FBI and CIA advised her -- in documents that are now public -- that U.S. arms were making their way to known al-Qaida operatives. How could she answer "no"? This reached a crisis point when some of those operatives used their American-made weapons to murder U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Then the cover-up began. At the same time Clinton was telling her daughter and the Egyptian prime minister within hours of Stevens’ death that al-Qaida killed him and after the CIA told her the plot to kill Stevens had been hatched 12 days earlier, she told the public that Stevens was killed by spontaneous demonstrators angered about a cheap anti-Islam video, the producer of which she vowed to “get.” She later angrily dismissed questions over this cover-up by arguing, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The difference it makes goes to the heart of the American electoral process. Every four years, we entrust awesome power to a person who swears to protect the Constitution. How could we give that power to a consistent public liar who, for personal political gain, midwifed terror and chaos in a country that was our ally and whose words and behavior have continually demonstrated that she is utterly unworthy of belief?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
57  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Atlantic: Freedom of Speech Victimizes Muslims... on: November 09, 2015, 01:41:48 PM

November 9, 2015  Daniel Greenfield

There was yet another decision in the Bible Believers case.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday found that Wayne County violated the constitutional rights of a group of religious proselytizers who were kicked out of an Arab-American cultural festival in 2012.

In a rare reversal of a previous decision from three-judge appeals court panel, an en banc review by 15 judges yielded a majority ruling that Wayne County is civilly liable to the group of evangelical Christians who sued after being ordered to leave the festival by sheriff's deputies.

The court found that even though the group attended the festival with the intention of offending Muslims using "loathsome" messages of "gross intolerance," their speech is protected by the First Amendment, and should have protected by the sheriff's office.

This is a thoroughly predictable outcome. It used to be the standard liberal position. "Used to" being the key words. The Atlantic's Garrett Epps claims that the First Amendment victimizes Muslims.

Bible Believers displays vividly the underlying strength of the American commitment to free speech—and the troubling shadow that commitment inevitably casts.

The troubling shadow being... freedom.

But we pay a price for this freedom, and not everyone pays the price equally. The First Amendment imposes on us all the duty to maintain the peace even when our deepest beliefs are denounced. But that duty is doubly onerous for minorities, because they must endure such abuse more often and longer.

In a country that is 70 percent Christian, Muslims account for less than one percent of the population. Since 9/11, powerful religious and political figures have been openly campaigning to strip this tiny population of the protections of the Constitution.

It's a typical leftist tactic to flip a freedom around into a burden. Look who suffers under freedom of speech. Minorities. To protect them, we might maybe sorta have to get rid of it.

Isn't freedom just privilege? What about voting? It rewards the majority. Think of the heavy burden of democracy on the minority? Wouldn't they be better off under an enlightened dictator?

In that context, the Bible Believers’ speech, though protected, was far from harmless... I wish I could talk to Irv Feiner about Bible Believers. He was a better lawyer than many who took the bar, and a better American than those who tried to ruin his life. His imagination, I think, would have room for concern about both the Muslim people of Dearborn and the aggressive bigots who destroyed their peaceful fair.

As opposed to the aggressive Muslim bigots who violently attacked them while shouting Allah Akbar?

Epps assumes that freedom of speech just empowers majorities to attack minorities. But Muslims are a global majority compared to Americans and the internet makes few distinctions between global Muslim hatred and local Muslim hatred. That's what enabled Anwar Al-Awlaki to do what he did. Muslim terrorists in the US are often the products of international Muslim hate speech.

When it comes to inciting hatred that leads to violence, the disproportionate share of it remains on the Muslim side. Despite the constant chatter about Islamophobia and blowback, thousands of Americans have been killed by Muslim hatred. The number of Muslims killed by Americans out of bigotry is so small that it has to be padded out by non-bigoted violence like the Chapel Hill shootings or hoax cases like Shaima Alawadi.

If freedom of speech empowers majorities at the expense of minorities, consider the Islamic alternative found throughout the Muslim world, in which speech critical of Islam is a crime while Islamic attacks on others cannot be challenged by non-Muslims.

Furthermore, the heckler's veto in the West has been exercised far more frequently by Muslims. Just ask a cartoonist.

The attacks on the First Amendment on behalf of Muslims attempt to impose a heckler's veto in the name of political correctness that is often indistinguishable from the one which Muslims impose by violence. If Epps thinks the First Amendment is such a burden, he should living without it in Pakistan or Iran.

What happened in Dearborn showed the danger of that kind of thinking. We've let Nazis march through Skokie and allowed Westboro's protesters to scream hate at the funerals of soldiers. Yet somehow Muslims are special. They deserve an exemption from American freedoms when no one else does. That's not protection. That's privilege.

58  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Collectivism Gains Ground... on: November 07, 2015, 10:24:54 AM
The Tools Collectivists Use To Gain Power

Wednesday, 04 November 2015    Brandon Smith

While many divisions within our society are arbitrary or engineered, there is one division that represents perhaps the most pervasive and important conflict of our time; the division between collectivists and individualists.

Now, people who do not understand the nature of collectivism will often argue that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive because individuals require groups in order to survive and thrive. However, a “group” is not necessarily a collective.

For some reason the core fundamental of collectivism – the use of psychological coercion or physical force to compel participation – goes right over the heads of many skeptics. A group does not have to be collectivist. Any group can and should be voluntary. Collectivism is NOT voluntary. Therefore, collectivism and individualism are indeed mutually exclusive. Collectivists and individualists cannot exist in the same space at the same time without eventually coming into conflict. There is simply no way around it.

From the position of the liberty minded (or the average Libertarian), collectivism is by far the inferior of the two philosophies. Collectivists often boast of the social and economic “harmonization” collectivism creates, as well as the mobilization of labor to “streamline progress.” The reality is that artificially rigged harmony is no harmony at all. If people are forced to homogenize and get along through fear, then peace has not truly been accomplished.

Human beings must come to their own conclusions on cooperation and tolerance in their own time. They cannot be manipulated and shoehorned into a “utopian” framework. Problems will result, like genocide, which tends to erupt during almost every attempt at collectivist utopianism.

Economic harmonization is even less practical, with government force inevitably used to confiscate resources from one group to give to another group, essentially punishing success or frugality. This creates an environment in which achievement becomes less desirable. When people do not have individual incentive to pursue achievement, they see personal effort as wasted. Innovation and entrepreneurship fall by the wayside, and society as a whole begins to diminish in prosperity. Without individual accomplishments and ingenuity, the group is nothing but a hollow mindless ant hill.

Another argument which usually arises is that individualism leads to “selfishness” and the dominance of wealth devouring machines like corporations. I would remind collectivists that corporations exist only through the legal framework and protections of corporate personhood created by governments, and without government protections and favor, corporations could not exist. It is by collectivism, not individualism, that corporatocracy thrives.

At the same time, collectivists consistently blame individualist "free markets" for the numerous ailments of nations.  Yet another misrepresentation considering America has not had true free markets in well over a century, and most other nations have never had true free markets in their history.  Feudalism and its child Socialism have always been present to plague mankind.

There are no merits to collectivism that are not accomplished with greater success by individualism and voluntary community. In fact, collectivism only serves to enrich and empower a select few elites while destroying the future potential of all other individuals.

Given the disturbing nature of collectivism, one would think that attempts at collectivist societies would be a rarity, shunned by most people as akin to inviting cancer into the body. Unfortunately, cultures based on individualism are the minority in history.

The average collectivist is not usually much of a beneficiary of collectivism. We call these people “useful idiots” or “sheeple” who unknowingly serve the darker machinations of elitists while under the delusion that they are changing society for the better. The reason useful idiots participate in collectivism are many, but I have found that across the spectrum these people tend to be weak willed, weak minded, and by extension, possess a rabid desire for control over others.

It is perhaps no coincidence that “intellectuals” (self proclaimed) tend to end up at the forefront of modern efforts for collectivism. While the poor and destitute are often exploited by collectivism as a mob to be wielded like a battering ram, it is the soft noodle-bodied and fearful academia that acts as middle management in the collectivist franchise. It is they that desire the power to impose their “superior” ideologies on others, and since they are too weak to accomplish anything on their own, they require the cover and momentum of collectivist movements to give them the totalitarian fix they so crave. In other words, they believe in humanitarianism by totalitarianism.

Individualism is under constant and imminent threat as the collectivist obsession with control grows. The ultimate end game of collectivists is to derive submission from individuals, to corner people into handing over their individualism willingly.  It is not enough for them to merely apply force, the greatest power is in the power of consent.  Here are the most common tools used by collectivists to obtain power and manufacture consent from the masses.

The Illusion Of Consensus

Collectivists rely greatly on the force of a well-aimed mob to convince the general public they have the consensus position; that they are in the majority. Appearing to be in the majority is the single most important goal of a collectivist movement, even if they are in reality a small minority. The anonymity of web activism gives the force of the mob a new potency. No more than a dozen collectivists working in tandem can wreak havoc in multiple web forums or harass numerous individualist publications while giving casual readers the impression that their ideology is “everywhere.”

The key here is that collectivists understand that the average person does not want to be seen as too contrary to the majority. They understand that the majority view matters to the public, even if the majority view is utterly wrong. If collectivists can convince enough people that their ideology is the majority view, they know that many people will blindly adopt that ideology as their own in order to fit in. The lie of consensus then becomes a self perpetuating prophecy. This problem will remain forever a danger as long as people continue to care at all about the majority view.

The Destruction Of Core Institutions

Those institutions people consider “core institutions” are sometimes vital, and sometimes not. That said, it is the openly admitted objective of collectivists through socialist-style movements to destroy core institutions so that there is no competition to their new system. A collectivist society cannot allow citizens to have any loyalties beyond their loyalty to the group or the state.

So, individual liberties must be degraded or removed, as per the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution as a “living document.”  Religious institutions must be painted as shameful affairs for stupid barbaric cave-people. And, the family unit must be broken apart. This is done through economic depravity so pronounced that families never see each other, through state influence over children through public schooling, and through identity politics and propaganda which create sexual and racial conflicts out of thin air.

Dominating Discussion

This coincides with the idea of artificial consensus, but it goes beyond the use of the mob. In our daily lives we are now bombarded with collectivist messages — in mainstream news, in television shows, in movies, through web media and print media. The money behind these outlets belongs to a very small and select group of people, but through them the collectivist worldview is injected into every corner of our society. I would call this propaganda by attrition; an indirect but steady insertion of collectivism creating an atmosphere in which the ideology becomes commonplace even though it is being promoted by a limited number of people.

Exploiting The Youth

When we are young, most of us spend a great deal of time and energy working to be taken seriously. The question is, should we be taken seriously?

In my view and the view of the liberty minded, it really depends on the person’s actions, experience, efforts and accomplishments. Most younger people have little to no experience in life and haven’t had the time to accomplish much. They are still learning how to function in the world, and what kind of goals they want to pursue (if they ever pursue any goals). Because of this, it is hard for those of us who have gone through considerable struggles in life and reached a certain level of achievement to take them seriously when they decide to stroll into a room and pontificate on their moral and philosophical superiority. It makes me want to ask; what the hell have you ever accomplished?

This is not to say that there are not ingenious young people out there, or ignorant and lazy older folks. There are. But collectivist movements seek to exploit younger generations exactly because of their general lack of experience and naivety, as well as their feelings of entitlement when it comes to respect.

Collectivism almost always utilizes a theory called “futurism” in order to appeal to the young. The theory, which was a leading philosophy behind the rise of fascism, proclaims that all new ideas are superior in their social usefulness and all old ideas and beliefs should be abandoned like so much dead skin. According to futurism, those who cling to old ideas and principles are an obstacle to the progress of society as a whole.

The funny thing is, the ideas usually expounded by collectivists are as old as time — elitism, feudalism, totalitarianism, etc. None of these methodologies are “new” by any stretch of the imagination, but collectivists repackage them as if they are some grand new secret to Shangri-La. Younger adherents of collectivism latch onto futurism almost immediately. For, if all new ideas are superior, and all old ideas are barbaric, and younger people are the purveyors and consumers of everything new, then this means that it is the youngest generations that are the wisest, and the village elders that are naïve. By default, the young become the village elders without them ever having to struggle, make sacrifices, learn hard lessons, suffer loss, rise to challenges, or accomplish anything.

The enticing nature of this sudden groundswell of cultural respect is simply far too much for the average person college age or younger to ignore. Collectivism gives the young what they think they want, then uses them as tools for greater conquests.

Forcing Society To Accept The Lowest Common Denominator

Collectivism requires the homogenization of society, to the point that individualism is frowned upon and success is treated as negligible. Whether it is public schools lowering standards to the point that students with little or no reading comprehension graduate, or businesses being forced to lower standards in the name of “diversity” while rejecting employees with superior skill sets because they do not belong to a designated victim group, or government institutions like the military lowering physical standards to accommodate far weaker candidates in the name of “gender parity” while putting every soldier’s life at risk in the process, we are constantly being asked to accommodate the lowest common denominator instead of reaching for the highest level of excellence.

This makes the concept of success a bit of a joke. For “success” within such a system is easy as long as one follows the rules; excelling as an individual is not a factor. And by success I mean being allowed to survive, because that is the best you are going to get in a collectivist structure. The only way to fail is to not follow the rules, rules which may be arbitrary or idiotic at their core. Individualists are immediately punished for thinking or acting outside the box, when this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be encouraged. A society built on the lowest common denominator is a society destined for collapse. Individuals are systematically weeded out in the name of homogenization and all of their potential achievements and innovations disappear with them.

The nightmare of collectivism is the defining battle of our age. It is in this era that we will decide whether or not individual liberty and freedom of thought are more important than the illusory security and “harmony” of the collective.

I, for one, long to see a future in which individual enterprise is allowed to thrive and voluntary participation is the root principle on which our culture functions; a future in which state power is reduced to zero, or near zero, and government force is no longer an acceptable means by which one group can seek to control another group. I may not see this world in my lifetime, but the liberty-minded can make it possible for newer generations by avidly defending ourselves against collectivism today. As pointed out in the beginning, collectivism and individualism cannot coexist; confrontation is inevitable. Recognizing this, and preparing for it, is our duty as free human beings.
59  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Stratfor analysis of ISIS... on: November 05, 2015, 10:17:25 AM
IMHO this analysis is seriously flawed.  ISIS is not comparable to the Branch Davidians or any other tiny cult.  The Islamic State by its very nature is appealing to Muslims world-wide of which there are billions.  Its beliefs teachings and actions are rooted in orthodox Islamic doctrine.  This is not a movement that is simply going to fade away.  It must be confronted and defeated.  Interestingly, this latest incident which appears to have been planned and executed by ISIS (the downing of the Russian passenger jet) may prove to have dire consequences for the group.  Vladimir Putin is not one to sit idly by like Barack Obama when his country is attacked.  If history is any guide, his reponse will be brutal and crushing.  We can only hope.
60  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ted Cruz Moves to Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization... on: November 04, 2015, 09:21:05 PM

61  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Emails Show Hillary to be a Liar... on: November 04, 2015, 02:42:48 PM

62  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Emails Show Hillary to be a Liar... on: November 04, 2015, 02:42:17 PM

63  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Emails Show Hillary to be a Liar... on: November 04, 2015, 02:41:51 PM

64  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: November 04, 2015, 01:47:41 PM
Hillary has to be one of the most evil, nasty women on the planet.  She's proven this over the course of her career from the time she was fired for dishonesty while working on the Watergate committee.  The way she has left her husband's female victims to twist in the wind, and even actively worked to destroy them is also illustrative.  That she should claim to be an advocate for women is a sick joke.
65  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Has A Market Crash Already Begun? on: November 03, 2015, 09:09:37 PM
Experts Fear A Stealth Crash Has Already Begun: “Risk Is Flashing Red”

Monday, 02 November 2015   Mac Slavo

It is more clear than ever that the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program will eventually bring destruction to the planet.

The world doubled down on risk after the 2008 crisis with nearly unlimited liquidity, and now debt is threatening to drown the global financial market. Cheap credit is about to saddle down those who got themselves overextended. Many private borrowers and states alike face default, bankruptcy and/or a failure to pay their obligations. Mathematically, the problem is just waiting to explode.

It is just a matter of when the music stops. But has it already?

Some are suggesting that things are already so bad that a crash has already set in, but without the headlines and fanfare.

This stealth crash is evidenced by conditions so bad they precipitate a chain reaction of further financial destruction. According to the London Guardian things are simply too far gone: “the debt levels are too high, productivity growth too weak and financial risks too threatening.”

Via the London Guardian:

A predicted global meltdown passed without event. But there are enough warning signs to suggest we are sleepwalking into another disaster
The 1st of October came and went without financial armageddon. Veteran forecaster Martin Armstrong, who accurately predicted the 1987 crash, used the same model to suggest that 1 October would be a major turning point for global markets. Some investors even put bets on it. But the passing of the predicted global crash is only good news to a point. Many indicators in global finance are pointing downwards – and some even think the crash has begun. Let’s assemble the evidence.
First, the unsustainable debt. Since 2007, the pile of debt in the world has grown by $57tn (£37tn). That’s a compound annual growth rate of 5.3%, significantly beating GDP. Debts have doubled in the so-called emerging markets, while rising by just over a third in the developed world.[…] What we’ve done with credit since the global crisis of 2008 is expand it faster than the economy – which can only be done rationally if we think the future is going to be much richer than the present.This summer, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) pointed out that certain major economies were seeing a sharp rise in debt-to-GDP ratios, which were well outside historic norms. In China, the rest of Asia and Brazil, private-sector borrowing has risen so quickly that BIS’s dashboard of risk is flashing red. In two thirds of all cases, red warnings such as this are followed by a major banking crisis within three years.The underlying cause of this debt glut is the $12tn of free or cheap money created by central banks since 2009, combined with near-zero interest rates. When the real price of money is close to zero, people borrow and worry about the consequences later.Oil collapsed first, in mid 2014, falling from $110 a barrel to $49 now, despite a slight rebound in the interim.


In short, as the BIS economists put it, this is “a world in which debt levels are too high, productivity growth too weak and financial risks too threatening”. It’s impossible to extrapolate from all this the date the crash will happen, or the form it will take.

No one knows when an official “crash” is going to take place, or if they would recognize it if it were already here, but wealth is being transferred at an incredible rate that is driving people into poverty, dependence and desperation.

What is clear is that the financial system that has been put in place is apparently not even capable of holding things together for a decade before they fall apart again.

The same Federal Reserve that was supposedly put in place to end volatile booms and busts is today directly creating them. Monetary policy is perhaps the driving force of today’s misfortune. The situation is reaching a dangerous quickening point, if it has not already arrived. As the article noted,

“When the real price of money is close to zero, people borrow and worry about the consequences later.”

But the consequences are piling up. The entire economy rests on the actions of the Fed, which is engaged in massive market manipulation – albeit legal under the powers assumed by this private agency. Admittedly, the Fed is inflating the stock market, all while destroying the jobs, business, savings, investments and opportunities of regular people.

If Yellen raises rates, the debt crunch begins, and there may be nothing that can hold back the bloods-in-the-streets level of crisis that will occur when people across the world can no longer pay, and can’t borrow any more. There may be higher rates within a year.

Meanwhile, the Fed continues to float enormous volumes of money to feed the looming disaster. It is worsening, and many are already over the edge. As financial experts put it months ago, the market today is “uniquely crash prone.”

Things have been set-up to fail, and giving the Federal Reserve more power than ever to control the markets has only assured the next phase of the collapse will be even worse.
66  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 03, 2015, 12:52:44 PM
Also notice how the media today (as Rush Limbaugh illustrated with a media montage of clips) is giddy with excitement that Carson is supposedly overtaking Trump in the polls.  Never mind that they don't take Carson seriously, either.  As Newt has pointed out - these two have been the front-runners from the beginning, and the press is acting as if they aren't serious candidates, and can't wait for them to go away.  These people are in for a very rude awakening.  I think George Will is already constipated just thinking about it...
67  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 02, 2015, 06:43:53 PM
Obama is hell-bent on making sure a Republican can't win this next election.  Make no mistake.
68  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 02, 2015, 12:37:53 PM
And more precisely - Islam's stated goal is world domination and conquest.  Unbelievers are to be converted, enslaved, or executed.  There are no other options.
69  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ben Carson's Campaign Manager Wants to Re-Invent the Debates... on: October 29, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
Sounds like an excellent plan to me.  It's time for Reince Priebus to be fired, btw.  Last night was a travesty.
70  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Obama and Iran... on: October 28, 2015, 08:59:36 PM
Again, GM is precisely correct.  What far too many still fail to understand after 7 years of Barack Obama is that HE IS ACHIEVING HIS GOALS.  He is not incompetent.  He is achieving exactly what he set out to do - knock the United States of America down on the world stage.  The truth is that Barack Obama would love to see Iran wipe Israel off the map.  He would consider this a service to the world, and with the added benefit of not having to use the U.S. military.  This is the ugly truth.  That millions of American Jews don't understand this is a tragedy.
71  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: October 28, 2015, 04:04:06 PM
I wouldn't be at all surprised if REPUBLICAN operatives have given this moderator ammunition to take out Trump.  That's how much he is despised by the Republican establishment.
72  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Limbaugh: "This Budget Paves The Way for President Hillary Clinton"... on: October 28, 2015, 02:43:31 PM
Rush Limbaugh makes an excellent point here.  This is how far the Republican Party leadership has sunk.  I might add that Paul Ryan's supposed "disgust" for the process is an act - the fix was in from the beginning - and he agreed to it with Boehner.

73  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Muslim preschool girl holds knife, says "I want to stab a Jew"... on: October 28, 2015, 08:28:37 AM

74  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: October 26, 2015, 05:27:47 PM
CCP - I know what I saw and heard.

Here is the transcript:

WALLACE:  Are you surprised that not a single Democrat on that committee had a single pointed question for Clinton about the very real issue about what happened in Benghazi? 

WOODWARD:  Well, Watergate was about a series of crimes, well established.  And so, it was the Republicans who eventually turned on Nixon, and it was a bipartisan inquiry.  Here, it’s not.  It clearly is partisan.  And, you know, look—

WALLACE:  But the death of those four Americans isn’t partisan. 

WOODWARD:  No—and there are legitimate questions here. 

WALLACE:  But they didn’t ask them. 

WOODWARD:  Yes.  Well, but here’s the issue.  You have inconsistencies.  But there—this is a tragedy.  And it should be investigated.  You’re right.  And she should answer.  And, you know, she did or attempted to answer all of those questions.  But there’s no crime here on her part.  And to try to criminalize this or suggest, as some people have said, oh, she’ll be in jail.  There’s no evidence of a crime.  There is evidence of inconsistency.  I mean, my God, this is our business, our lives.  People saying one thing privately and saying something different publicly. 

75  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: October 26, 2015, 02:50:41 PM
Yes, precisely - in the same manner that we knew Ted Kennedy committed manslaughter and got away with it, and the press didn't seem to care.  Hillary was fired by a life-long Democrat from the Watergate investigation committee for lying and trying to subvert rules.  He called her "explicitly dishonest."  That was when she was 27.

As Rush Limbaugh likes to say: "Scandals and illicit affairs are 'resume enhancements' for Democrats in the media's eyes."  Republicans are crucified for the same offenses.
No where is this more evident than in  Bob Woodward's disgusting appearance on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, in which he maintained that notwithstanding the fact that Hillary lied, "there is no criminal activity here, and frankly, she got away with all this and Democrats don't care."  He said this with a wry smile, as if to say "So fuck you, Republican Party.  We have our double-standard, and we'll continue to enforce it.  It matters not a whit that Richard Nixon was forced from office for something that pales in comparison to the Clinton's scandals."
76  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: October 26, 2015, 01:51:49 PM
I generally agree with Marc that Savage is not a reliable source, but even a broken clock is right twice a day - and Savage's comments here are valid, I agree.
77  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Michael Savage: "We've Lost The Battle" on: October 26, 2015, 10:59:43 AM
October 24, 2015 - World Net Daily

A major battle in a war over the future of Western civilization has been lost as millions of migrants from the Middle East who largely oppose Judeo-Christian values and have no intention of assimilating flood the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other nations, talk-radio host Michael Savage told his listeners Tuesday.

Savage said he received an email from someone he described as "far smarter than I am" and "farseeing."

"He said to me, 'It's over.'"

Paraphrasing the email, Savage said that what German Chancellor Angela Merkel is "doing to Germany, what the weakling is doing to England, what the socialist is doing to France, what Obama the psychopath is doing to America, will render this country non-existent in less than 50 years."

"And I said to him, 'Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong,'" Savage recalled to his audience.

"But the fact of the matter is, the world is changing in ways you could never have imagined."

Savage later affirmed to a caller that he hasn't given up, noting he presents in his upcoming book, "Government Zero: No Borders, No Language, No Culture," "40 actions to save America," including in the private sector and at the state and local government level.

"We haven't lost the war. The war has just begun," Savage said. "Because 30 million to 40 million Americans are finally awakened to what the psychopath has done to this country, and they want to stop him from doing more. They want to stop him before it's too late."

Savage criticized President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Merkel and other Western leaders with a provocative comparison he recognized could be misunderstood.

They are doing, he said, what Adolf Hitler did in reverse: Instead of invading other countries, they are letting foreigners invade their countries.

"Hitler was a psychopath," Savage said, who "invaded other countries to impose his nation's, let us say, his distorted values and race on other countries."

"What is Obama doing?" Savage asked. "He's invading his own country with people of other races and other cultures and other languages to wipe away the predominant language, the predominant culture of his own nation. He is equally mad.

"Barack Obama is as equally mad as Adolf Hitler in that regard," Savage emphasized.

"Write it down," Savage said, directing his words to establishment media. "Maybe it will make it to CNN: 'Talk-show host says Obama as crazy as Hitler, because he's invading his own country with foreigners.' But they'd better get the whole quote correct. And I don't know if they're capable of it."

Savage said Merkel "is invading Germany with foreigners."

"She's invading her own nation," he said.

Regarding the war for Western Civilization – which was built largely on English common law, Judeo-Christian morality "and the uniquely American principles of individualism and self-reliance" – Savage also referenced the cultural revolution of the 1960s.

Some 50 years later, he asked, "Can anyone say that has worked out well?"

78  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: October 24, 2015, 04:38:30 PM
Exactly.  Democrats simply don't care - which they are proving in the polls.  There really isn't any such thing as a "conservative Democrat" anymore.  There are damn few conservative Republicans, but at least they exist.
79  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hillary's dishonesty... on: October 24, 2015, 10:20:18 AM
The Republican Party leadership is too damn scared of "media backlash" if they attack any Democrat - Hillary and Obama included.  These kind of punch-backs will ONLY occur if a candidate willing to speak plainly gets the Rep. nomination - a.k.a. Trump or Cruz - maybe Carson.  They certainly won't get any backup from the party leadership.  They will have to go it alone and lead by example.  I believe that if the candidate does this - he/she will crush Hillary at the polls.
80  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: October 23, 2015, 08:49:35 PM
Precisely, GM.
81  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bottom Line: Hillary Lied & Allowed 4 Americans to be Murdered... on: October 23, 2015, 12:52:08 PM
Hillary: I Didn't Blame Benghazi On The YouTube Video

Four pinocchios for the pantsuit.

October 23, 2015
Matthew Vadum

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony yesterday before the congressional committee formed to investigate the deadly Benghazi debacle that she allowed to happen and then tried to cover up can be summed up in two words: she lied.

Boiled down: Despite mountains of email evidence to the contrary, Clinton denied that she previously blamed the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack that took four American lives on an at-the-time unwatched anti-Islam YouTube video. She denied that left-wing slime merchant and Clinton groupie Sidney Blumenthal was her advisor. She even denied having a computer on her desk at the State Department. (The Washington Post has what appears to be a largely accurate complete transcript of the hearing.)

Hillary wants Americans to believe that her official government emails, sometimes containing top-secret classified information, that she sent around the globe through the insecure, hacker-friendly private email server created to facilitate anticipatory bribes for the would-be U.S. president funneled through the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, don't say what your lying eyes tell you they say.

Republicans made the case yesterday that foreign policy neophyte Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton crony with business interests in Libya, had easy access to Clinton while her own ambassador struggled heroically to reach her. The many requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens for extra security measures fell upon deaf ears.

Hillary effectively blamed Stevens for getting himself killed, saying he was supposed to take care of his own security. “We were really counting on Chris to guide us and give us information on the ground,” Clinton said when questioned methodically by Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.).

Clinton denied Blumenthal was an advisor of hers even though he regularly barraged her with emails and their relationship goes back decades. "He was not advising me, and I have no reason to have ever mentioned that or know that the president knew that."

It's still a complete and utter mystery to Clinton why American facilities were targeted in Benghazi, Libya. Really. She said that.

"None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA annex," she told the Benghazi Select Committee on Thursday. "There were probably a number of different motivations." So it's a little bit of this, and a little bit of that.

None of this comes as a surprise to Clinton watchers.

New York Times columnist William Safire famously dubbed her "a congenital liar," and that very same left-wing newspaper now admits that “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s explanations about her use of a personal email account as secretary of state have evolved over time.” Evolved? That's one way of putting it.

With the acquiescence -- and at times, complicity -- of a perennially incurious media, Hillary's verbal jousting skills have saved her many times over her decades of political wheeling and dealing. Now that Clinton is campaigning to succeed President Obama, she was much more polished and composed this week than during her previous, now-infamous congressional testimony on the Benghazi saga. That was in 2013 she when she donned Coke bottle eyeglasses chosen perhaps to elicit sympathy related to her reportedly significant health problems.

Her attitude on that day two years ago could be distilled to one word: whatever.

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," she shouted. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

During the televised proceedings yesterday, Clinton, one of America’s most accomplished sociopaths, alternated largely between looking thoughtful or bored. Her pulse probably never got above 85, even at the height of the richly deserved tongue-lashing she received from Republican lawmakers. Like another famous sociopath whose surname she shares, Hillary simply adores arguing and lawyering.

She lives for it and has at least since she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Hillary’s then-supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, said he canned the 27-year-old attorney “because she was a liar … an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

No lie is too big or too small for Hillary, whether it’s a concocted tale of being under enemy fire at an airport in Bosnia, the existence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her husband’s presidency, that she was named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary even though he rocketed to fame by accomplishing the feat when she was a six-year-old, or that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they exited the White House.

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton's apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn't actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters.

Clinton, who seems able to function just fine with what must be chronic cognitive dissonance, said minutes before Jordan's question:

I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

Jordan fired back:

We want to know the truth. The statement you sent out was a statement on Benghazi and you say vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet. If that's not pointing as the motive of being a video, I don't know what is. And that's certainly what -- and that's certainly how the American people saw it.

While she was informing the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack, at the same time she emailed her daughter Chelsea and the governments of Libya and Egypt to pin the blame on Muslim militants, Jordan explained. Around the same time the White House, in the closing weeks of a heated presidential election campaign, was pushing the line that what transpired in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, but terrorism was not a factor.

"We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film," Clinton wrote Egypt's prime minister the night of the attack. "It was a planned attack, not a protest." But in public Clinton continued to blame the "offensive" video. The U.S. government acquired $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan to apologize for the YouTube clip.

Jordan pointed out that there was no video-inspired protest over in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, but there was one in Cairo, Egypt. The same day State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said "Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators."

So, in "Benghazi, you got weapons and explosions," he said. In "Cairo, you got spray paint and rocks." The congressman continued:

One hour before the attack in Benghazi, Chris Stevens walks a diplomat to the front gate. The ambassador didn't report a demonstration. He didn't report it because it never happened. An eyewitness in the command center that night on the ground said no protest, no demonstration; two intelligence reports that day, no protest, no demonstration.

The Benghazi attack, Jordan said, began at 3:42 p.m. Eastern time and ended around 11:40 p.m. that evening. He continued:

At 4:06, an ops alert goes out across the State Department. It says this, "Mission under attack, armed men, shots fired, explosions heard." No mention of video, no mention of a protest, no mention of a demonstration. But the best evidence is Greg Hicks, the number two guy in Libya, the guy who worked side by side with Ambassador Stevens. He was asked, if there had been a protest, would the ambassador have reported it? Mr. Hicks's response, "Absolutely." For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable ... and if it had been reported, he would have been out the back door within minutes and there was a back gate.

"Everything," Jordan said, "points to a terrorist attack ... and yet five days later Susan Rice goes on five TV shows and she says this, 'Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a video,' a statement we all know is false." Rice was "off the reservation," according to State Department experts in the agency's Near Eastern Affairs bureau.

"So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary," he said. At 10:08 p.m. while the attack was still in progress, Clinton released a statement insinuating that a video inspired the assault. "Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," it read.

Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) tried to drive home the point that interest in the Benghazi saga has long been a bipartisan affair in the U.S. Congress. “The House of Representatives, including some Democrats I hasten to add, asked this committee to write the final accounting of what happened in Benghazi.”

But previous congressional investigations, he added, were a joke.

Gowdy stressed that his committee is the “first committee” to go through more than 50,000 pages of documents, “to thoroughly and individually interview scores of other witnesses, many of them for the first time,” “to demand access to relevant documents from the CIA, the FBI, the Department Of Defense and even the White House,” and “to demand access to the emails to and from Ambassador Chris Stevens.”

He added, “How could an investigation possibly be considered serious without reviewing the emails of the person most knowledgeable about Libya?”

The committee was the “first” and “only” panel “to uncover the fact that Secretary Clinton exclusively used personal email on her own personal server for official business and kept the public record, including e-mails about Benghazi and Libya, in her own custody and control for almost two years after she left office.”

Gowdy impugned the motives of the Accountability Review Board that began studying the Benghazi debacle soon after it happened, noting that Clinton name-dropped the panel an astonishing 70 times in previous congressional testimony. That sham investigation was headed by former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, a useful idiot for Islam who is spending his twilight years crusading against the so-called Islamophobia that infects the ignorant bigots and rubes across the fruited plain who irrationally fear the benign Muslim religion.

Noting that the members of the ARB were “hand-picked” by State Department leadership, Gowdy said:

The ARB never interviewed Secretary Clinton. The ARB never reviewed her emails. And Secretary Clinton's top adviser was allowed to review and suggest changes to the ARB before the public ever saw it. There's no transcript of ARB interviews. So, it's impossible to know whether all relevant questions were asked and answered. Because there's no transcript, it is also impossible to cite the ARB interviews with any particularity at all.

The ARB’s work is “not independent” and not an example of accountability, he said. It is “not a serious investigation.” And if “previous congressional investigations were really serious and thorough, how did they miss Ambassador Stevens' emails?” and “why did they fail to interview dozens of key State Department witnesses, including agents on the ground who experienced the attacks firsthand?”

On the eve of the Thursday hearing, Democratic members of the Select Committee released a so-called full transcript from an official interview with Cheryl Mills, who served as counselor and Chief of Staff to Clinton at the Department of State. Democrats claimed they acted at "to correct the public record after numerous out-of-context and misleading Republican leaks.” Democrats must have calculated that the testimony of a longtime Clinton crony would somehow have an exculpatory effect from which her presidential campaign would benefit.

But not all of the Democratic Party's press release writers -- outside the mainstream media, that is -- are gifted, antisocial, Alinskyite liars of Hillary's caliber. Clinton usually can at least keep the lies more or less straight in her head, and like her husband, treats parsing as bloodsport, while engaging in at times brutally effective misdirection and superficially plausible semantic contortions.

The press release accompanying the 307-page document boasts that it is a “full transcript of the Select Committee’s interview with former State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills,” but is it really? It contradicts itself a few sentences later, describing the document as mere “excerpts of Ranking Member Cummings questioning Ms. Mills[.]” This wording suggests that only one lawmaker – a grandstanding, media-savvy, hyper-partisan Democrat on a Republican-controlled panel – questioned Mills at the hearing. It is very hard to believe not even one Republican wanted to take a shot at Mills.

But it is much easier to believe that Democratic congressional staffers aimed to score political points for releasing Mills's entire testimony when it reality they cherry-picked only the parts that put Clinton in the most favorable light.

The press release claims that the transcript provides “significant evidence that Secretary Clinton was deeply engaged during and after the attacks and took action to ensure the safety and security of U.S. personnel, even as intelligence assessments of the attacks changed more than once during this period.”

“Republicans are spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan campaign to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president,” Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) was quoted as saying.

No doubt he was referring to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Ca.) uber-gaffe earlier this month that ended his run to replace outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio). Many drew an inference from McCarthy’s comments that congressional Republicans were trying to torpedo Clinton’s presidential campaign at the expense of the truth. "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable," McCarthy told Sean Hannity. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."

In the end, conservative commentator Erick Erickson shrugged, calling the Benghazi hearing "a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection."

He continued: "Mrs. Clinton is far too bright to be trapped in this or any questions." Although she has gotten flustered under questioning, such incidents will "make her a martyr to her own side ... Democratic voters are not going to reject Mrs. Clinton even if she were to admit that she had flown to Benghazi and joined Al Qaeda in the attack."

Given the Hillary mania that grips so much of the Democratic Party and some leftists' positively morbid craving to put a woman in the Oval Office at all costs, Erickson may have a bit of a point.

And if Republican congressional leadership continues with the same old lackadaisical, self-sabotaging approach in which the white flag is waved before the first shot has been fired, the Benghazi committee won't accomplish much apart from generating revenue for fundraising consultants on both sides of the aisle.

The disturbing likelihood that Hillary Clinton will get away with her crimes remains, regardless of how noble, inspiring, and determined to get at the truth Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy may be.
82  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: October 22, 2015, 01:35:57 PM

What you are missing is that the U.S. dollar only enjoys its present value because other nations are using it as the world's reserve currency.  With our massive debt, and no political solution happening (this is reality) it's only a matter of time - and I believe a short time - before the dollar loses this reserve status.  If we are lucky, at that point it may be worth 50 cents.  It will quickly decline from there.  Financial collapse, civil unrest and starvation will then ensue - and there is NOTHING that any politician is going to be able to do to stop this from happening.  We've backed ourselves into a corner with massive devaluation through money printing to the point that there is no way out other than collapse and rebuilding.  This is why I and many others have been advising that you prepare for the worst, with stocks of food, ammo, and PHYSICAL gold and silver, as well as barterable commodities.  The BEST we can hope for, assuming a Trump or a Cruz gets elected, is that the damage can be somewhat reduced.  The collapse, however - will NOT be avoidable.
83  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Proof the U.S. is Actually Bankrupt... on: October 22, 2015, 10:24:04 AM
I might point out that Brian Wesbury tries to use the objections this author refutes to argue the U.S. government is not bankrupt. 
He is well-aware of these facts, and in my view is a liar working to deceive the public and serve his own interests.

Yes, The U.S. government Really Is Bankrupt - Here’s Proof...

Monday, 19 October 2015 05:54    Simon Black

I’ve long-stated that the government of the United States is completely insolvent.

And that is 100% true statement.

The government’s own numbers show that official liabilities, including debt held by the public and federal retirement benefits, total $20.7 trillion.

Yet the government’s assets, including the value of the entire federal highway system, the national parks, cash balances, etc. totals just over $3 trillion.

In total, their ‘net worth’ is NEGATIVE $17.7 TRILLION… a level that completely dwarfs the housing crisis.

If you include the government’s own estimates of the Social Security shortfall, this number declines to NEGATIVE $60 TRILLION.

And it gets worse every year.

Now, is this balance sheet an accurate reflection of reality? Do we really trust the bean counters to tell us what the United States of America is really worth?

Surely there must be significant intrinsic value to the United States military, for example.

Or the US government’s ability to collect taxes.

Or what about the value of all the natural resources underground?

These must all be HUGELY positive and would swing the government’s net worth back in the right direction.

Guess again.

The US military is certainly one of the best-trained and most effective forces in history.

But it’s difficult to place a substantial value on it when the government can no longer afford to use it.

And even when they do use it, the overall cost of doing so is negative.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the taxpayers $4 trillion. But where’s the financial benefit?

Aside from a few defense contractors profiting handsomely, the Chinese got most of the oil.

ISIS ended up with much of Iraq. And Iran made out like a bandit, with the US government taking out its most threatening neighbors free of charge.

Mission accomplished.

Bottom line, even the best asset in the world can end up being a big liability if it’s used improperly.

So what about the tax authority of the US government? If Uncle Sam can collect $3 trillion in tax revenue each year, surely that must count as a huge asset.

And it absolutely is. If you conduct a Present Value calculation of the future tax revenue of the US government discounted by the official 2% rate of inflation, the US government’s ability to tax its citizens is ‘worth’ $150 TRILLION.

But… if you’re going to count the government’s tax authority as an asset, you have to be intellectually honest and consider the expenses as liabilities.

Think about it: yes, the government brings in tax revenue every single year. But for nearly every year over the last seventy years, they’ve spent far more money to deliver on the promises they’ve made to their citizens.

Those promises are liabilities. And given the government’s spending history since the end of World War II, the liabilities far exceed the tax authority asset.

More importantly, though, isn’t it a little bit scary to consider that the government’s #1 asset is its ability to steal money from you?

Or that the only way the government can make its liabilities go away is by defaulting on the promises it has made to its citizens?

That’s their only way out: steal from you, and default on you.
84  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer Discusses Recent Violence in Jerusalem... on: October 22, 2015, 09:45:44 AM
As usual - Robert cuts through all the B.S. -

85  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump: Revoke Passports of Those Who Leave for ISIS... on: October 21, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
Trump: Revoke Passports of those who leave to fight for ISIS, Look at closing some mosques:

by IAN HANCHETT20 Oct 20154,709
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated he would revoke passports from people who go overseas to fight for ISIS and “You’re going to have to certainly look at” closing mosques “if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear” on Tuesday’s “Varney & Co” on the Fox Business Network.

Trump [relevant remarks in first video] re-iterated his prior claim about George W. Bush and September 11th, he did say that former President Bill Clinton, along with Bush holds responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. He added, “Now, was Clinton possibly, also guilty? Yeah, yeah sure. He should have maybe been more vigilant. And he actually said he knew about Osama bin Laden. I knew about Osama bin Laden, because I wrote about him in my book, I think 19 months before the World Trade Center came down.”

He was also asked [relevant remarks begin in the second video] “Now, in the UK, in Britain, they’ve obviously got a terror problem. They’ve got a lot of youngsters going over to fight for ISIS, about — just under 1,000 are going over there, and they’ve got a whole new series of proposals to deal with this, including withdrawal of passports from some of these people who’ve gone –.”

Trump responded, “Absolutely good, good.”

After host Stuart Varney continued, “And closing some mosques, would you do the same thing in America.” Trump answered, “I would do that. Absolutely. I think it’s great.”

When asked if you could close a mosque, Trump then stated, “Well, I don’t know. I mean, I haven’t heard about the closing of the mosque. It depends, if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don’t know. You’re going to have to certainly look at it. But I can tell you one thing ,if somebody goes over and they want to fight for ISIS, they wouldn’t be coming back.”

Trump responded to a question about Democratic proposals for paid family leave with, “Well, it’s something that’s being discussed. I think we have to keep our country very competitive, so, you have to be careful of it, but certainly there are a lot of people discussing it.” Regarding a $15 an hour minimum wage, he said, “We have to keep our similar answer. You have to keep our country competitive. One of the reasons companies are leaving is because salaries are too high.”

When asked if he would pledge to have no new taxes, Trump said he could, but wouldn’t on the show, and “could certainly think about doing that. Because my taxes, and under my plan, as you know, I’m reducing taxes, I think more than any other candidate, by far.” He continued that this was no new taxes is “where my mindset is.”

He also added that he wasn’t a “big fan” of the minimum wage proposal, and expressed disagreement with free universal pre-K. He further expressed support for repealing Dodd-Frank and building the Keystone XL Pipeline while stating he opposes breaking up big banks.

86  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: October 21, 2015, 09:54:00 AM
Again - GM is on point.

The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims - including those in this country - support, either tacitly or explicitly - the imposition of Sharia law - which is antithetical to our Constitution.
There are NO programs in any mosque in America to teach that the violent, totalitarian aspects of Islam are incorrect doctrine.

When we see evidence of these programs, we can re-evaluate whether or not Islam deserves protected status as a religion in this nation.  Until then - the burden is upon MUSLIMS to provide this evidence.  Exactly ZERO evidence to this effect has been produced.

The fact that there are a very few "good" Muslims willing to work against this understanding of Islam does not change this fact, any more than the fact that there were some (very few) Nazis in name only who spied and provided intel to the Allies in WWII.

87  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam as a "religion"... on: October 20, 2015, 03:43:54 PM
Precisely, GM.

Sooner or later, western civilization is going to be forced into acknowledging that Islam is not simply a religion - certainly NOT in the sense that our Founding Fathers intended when they conceived of the concept of "freedom of religion."  Islam is much MORE than a religion - it in fact could be said to be a totalitarian, repressive ideology of world domination with a "god" tacked-on explicitly for the purpose of using "freedom of religion" as subterfuge.  Islam is nothing more nor less than Naziism with a supreme being added to the ideology.  As such, it is antagonistic and antithetical to our western values.  It explicitly denies our foundational concept of human rights.

Such a belief system does not deserve, in fact - MUST NOT BE GIVEN - protected status as a "religion" if our civilization is to be preserved.
88  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Mosque blocked in MI... on: October 20, 2015, 12:29:25 PM
Difficult?  Really?  Seems to me this is an overwhelmingly positive development - to the extent it demonstrates Americans are educating themselves about Islam.
This nation is committing suicide by continuing to allow virtually unlimited Muslim immigration, and the constant anti-American preaching that takes place in 95% of all mosques in this country - if not more.  It's about time someone stood up and shouted "NO MORE."  The alternative is the conquest of our Western civilization and 1,000 years of darkness.
89  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GOP Establishment Readies War Against Trump... on: October 20, 2015, 07:49:56 AM
Panicked establishment gets ready for war against Trump

By BYRON YORK (@BYRONYORK) • 10/19/15 6:02 PM

This weekend was an inflection point in the Republican presidential race — a moment in which some significant part of the GOP establishment came out of denial and realized Donald Trump might well become their party's nominee.
"The Republican establishment, for the first time, is saying, off the record, this guy can win," noted Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Monday morning. "I've heard that from everybody. I don't hear anybody saying he can't win the nomination anymore."

That doesn't mean Republicans have made their peace with a Trump victory. On the contrary — some are preparing to do whatever it takes to bring him down. Which could lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party's likely nominee

"Massive resistance," was the answer. "He's not a conservative."

Insiders have watched as Trump defied what many believed were immutable laws of the political universe. First they thought Trump wouldn't run. Then they thought voters wouldn't take a reality-TV star seriously. Then they thought gaffes would kill Trump as they had other candidates. None of that turned out as expected.

But there is one belief Trump has not yet tested, and that is the political insiders' unshakeable faith that negative ads work.

"I don't think Trump can withstand 10,000 points of smart negative in Iowa and New Hampshire," says one veteran Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. "It would force him to spend money. That's when this starts to get real for him." ("Points" refers to gross ratings points, a way of measuring TV ad buys; 10,000 points would be a really big buy, meaning the average viewer would see an anti-Trump ad many, many times.)

There is no central anti-Trump conspiracy. But one group that would like to play a leading role in taking him down is the Club for Growth. In September, the Club ran two ads against Trump in Iowa — 2,000 points — with one arguing that Trump is not a true conservative and the other hitting Trump for his support of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision on eminent domain.

McIntosh is looking for donors to fund an anti-Trump campaign that would hit hard in the month before voting begins. It might be a Club for Growth production, or it might be a combination of efforts. "There is no other group that has decided to do it," says McIntosh. "There are a large number of donors and political activists who want to do it."

The triggers for the anti-Trump onslaught would likely be: 1) if next month arrives with Trump still in the lead, and 2) if Trump begins airing his own ads. "Once that starts, you'll see a lot of people saying we've waited long enough," notes McIntosh.

While that is going on, officials at the Republican National Committee vow to stay out of things. Asked what role the RNC might play in any movement against Trump, strategist and spokesman Sean Spicer said, "None. None. Zero. It is up to Republican voters to decide who our nominee is, not the RNC." Indeed, other sources inside the RNC say chairman Reince Priebus has stressed to staff that they must stay out of candidate fights.

The anti-Trump campaign will face several challenges. The biggest is the voters who support Trump. Conservative groups like the Club believe they can convince those voters that Trump is not a true conservative. Perhaps they can. But what if a large number of his voters are not wed to conservative orthodoxy as defined by Washington-based organizations?

The other problem is Trump himself. If he decides to spend serious money on his campaign — and some GOP veterans still aren't convinced he will — he can launch a serious counterpunch to any anti-Trump campaign.

And then there is the fact that Trump is improving as a candidate. Just look at Sunday's interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he was sharp, focused, and forceful. A talented candidate who does something over and over again will get better at it. Trump is better than he was just a month ago, which is not good news for his opponents.

Some anti-Trump Republicans still harbor hope Trump will begin to fade all by himself. Yes, Trump, who has been atop the RealClearPolitics average of national polls for three months straight, has outlasted the various flavor-of-the-months from the 2012 GOP race. But opponents point out that Rudy Giuliani led the poll average for an incredibly long time four years earlier — from February 2007 to January 2008 — before sinking when voting actually began. Their hope is the same will happen to Trump.

It could. But a closer look at the 2007-2008 polls shows that Giuliani was almost always trailing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And of course, ignoring the early states killed his candidacy. Trump, on the other hand, is on top in those three states, plus Nevada — all the states that will vote first in February. His organization is growing. He is hiring smart operatives. The Giuliani analogy doesn't apply.

Which makes it more likely that the anti-Trump forces will ultimately have to take it on themselves to go on the attack. Their core belief is that Trump cannot withstand a long and withering bombardment of negative ads. But core beliefs have been cast aside repeatedly in this race. That might happen again.

90  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Van Susteren Lets Huma Abedin Off the Hook... on: October 19, 2015, 02:18:46 PM

Abedin's longstanding Muslim Brotherhood ties go untouched.

October 19, 2015  Matthew Vadum

A Fox News Channel report last week examining Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin's role in the deadly Benghazi affair curiously ignored the troubling, well-documented ties that Abedin and her family have to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Instead, the Friday broadcast of "On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren" centered on the legal and ethical issues surrounding Abedin and the extremely unusual working arrangement she enjoyed while serving as a top aide to Clinton during her tenure as U.S. secretary of state.

Certainly the mountain of allegations of corruption against Clinton and her longtime hatchet woman, Abedin, and employment best practices in the U.S. government merit scrutiny, but so does the fact that Abedin was an editor for 12 years at an al-Qaeda-funded Muslim Brotherhood magazine.

The FBI is investigating whether classified information was mishandled on the so-called home-brew Internet server that Clinton and Abedin both used to send emails concerning official government business. But Van Susteren's show did not pay much attention to exactly what Abedin did for Clinton out of public view while serving in a sensitive, senior government post. Abedin was depicted somewhat sympathetically as a controversial, though possibly corrupt, public figure who aggressively pursued personal revenue streams separate from government employment. She was shown to have been wronged by her man but to have faithfully stood by him.

Van Susteren, a renowned, down-to-earth legal commentator who rose to prominence for her CNN commentaries during the 1994-5 murder trial of O.J. Simpson, failed to go anywhere near the Abedin family's inter-generational ties to Muslim organizations hostile to the United States and Israel. A two and a half minute clip detailing Huma's background and relationship to the Clintons omits all mention of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates that Abedins young and old have devoted their lives to supporting. Viewers learned that Abedin got her start interning for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton inside Bill Clinton's White House. Things went swimmingly and Huma and Hillary became inseparable. The young go-getter emerged as Hillary's most visible, trusted confidant. Huma was a top Hillary aide in Mrs. Clinton's successful 2000 campaign for the U.S. Senate and during her unsuccessful presidential run in 2008. Huma came under fire for conflict of interest for being on the payroll of multiple private sector concerns --one run by a Clinton ally-- at the same time as she served Hillary as a top advisor and strategist at the Department of State. Huma went through troubled times, it was reported, during her husband's run for mayor of New York City when Americans learned he tweeted photos of his body parts and then lied about doing so. Her husband, well known to FrontPage readers, is the rabidly left-wing serial pervert former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).

Van Susteren showed footage of the 2013 presser during the mayoral campaign at which poor Huma does her best Tammy Wynette impression by standing by her man. "It was not an easy choice in any way but I made the decision that it was worth staying in this marriage," Huma is shown saying as she glances reassuringly at Weiner, a smile twisting on her lips.

In a voiceover, Van Susteren opines:

But as questions and controversies surround Secretary Clinton's use of a personal server to store government emails, there is one thing the emails do make clear: There are few people as close to Hillary Clinton as Huma Abedin.

In a more newsy related four and a half minute segment on the Friday show, Van Susteren interviews Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), a member of the House Benghazi Select Committee which had just questioned Abedin behind closed doors for six hours.

Westmoreland noted that Abedin was deputy chief of operations for Clinton's State Department and thought it strange that she remembered so little of what happened on Sept. 11, 2012, when jihadists were in the process of slaughtering four Americans, including a sitting U.S. ambassador. Abedin, the congressman explained, said she was in New York at the time and didn't know much about what went on during the eleventh anniversary of the fateful 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Westmoreland said Abedin acknowledged she knew about Clinton's private email server, which congressional investigators say processed numerous sensitive government documents, but that panelists didn't ask her about the propriety of having the hacker-friendly system. "She answered every question," he said. Westmoreland said separately Abedin often responded to questions by saying "'I don't remember' and 'I don't recollect.'"

But the wrong questions are being asked. None are focusing on Abedin's background that makes her uniquely unqualified for service in the U.S. government. Born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abedin's frightening connections to the Muslim Brotherhood run deep. Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin, widow of the late Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Saudi Arabia's prestigious King Abdulaziz University in the early 1970s. The year after Huma was born, Mrs. Abedin received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1978, the Abedins moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Abdullah Omar Naseef, then-vice president of Abdulaziz University, hired Mr. Abedin, a former colleague of his at the university, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank Naseef was then in the process of establishing. Mr. and Mrs. Abedin became members of the editorial board of IMMA's publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

According to FrontPage contributor and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, IMMA's "Muslim Minority Affairs" agenda is "to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West." Naseef himself was a Muslim extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Abedin became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA's director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal.

Mrs. Abedin is also a member of the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR), which has long been banned in Israel because it has ties to Hamas. (In Arabic, dawah, or dawa, means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.) She also runs the Amman, Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), a Muslim World League affiliate that self-identifies as part of the IICDR.

The Muslim World League, according to McCarthy, "has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology." IICWC promotes strict Sharia Law and advocates the rescission of Egyptian laws that forbid female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape.

Mrs. Abedin is a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a pro-Sharia organization consisting of the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood. Egyptian opposition newspaper Al-Liwa Al-Arabi has reported that Muslim Sisterhood members: “smuggle secret documents”; “spread the Brotherhood’s ideology by infiltrating universities, schools and homes”; “fulfill the interests of the Brotherhood”; and “organiz[e] projects which will penetrate [the Brotherhood's] prohibited ideology into the decision-making in the West ... under the guise of 'general needs of women.'” Nagla Ali Mahmoud, wife of Mohammed Morsi, the Islamist who was elected president of Egypt in June 2012 and subsequently overthrown by anti-Islamists, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood.

When Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. and was an intern in the Clinton White House between 1997 and some time in 1999, she was a member of the executive board of George Washington University's radical Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA had extensive ties to al-Qaeda.

From 1996 to 2008, Abedin was employed by IMMA as assistant editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Her brother, Hassan Abedin, an associate editor at the journal, was at one time a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies. During his fellowship, the Center's board included such Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef. Huma's sister, Heba Abedin, is an assistant editor with the journal.

Someone with Abedin's background shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington. Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then erased their electronic correspondence. But even now as evidence continues to accumulate that Clinton's cavalier approach to classified information put U.S. national security in jeopardy, the shady background of Abedin is barely acknowledged on Capitol Hill.

The media's lack of interest in Abedin's extracurricular activities has been mirrored by the ineffectual Republican leadership in Congress. Abedin has been aided by the anti-so-called Islamophobia lobby which accuses lawmakers and media outlets of racism and religious bigotry whenever her name is mentioned in the same breath as anything remotely connected to Islamofascism.

Benghazi Select Committee member Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, predictably piled on Republicans. He told reporters that having Abedin, who is now vice chairwoman of Clinton's presidential campaign, testify raised more questions about whether the committee is "a taxpayer-funded effort to derail the candidacy of Hillary Clinton."

The indignant barking of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who took to the Senate floor in 2012 to defend Abedin, has no doubt helped to make it more difficult to vet her.

Statements House Republicans made about Abedin are “an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant,” McCain said, stating that Abedin should be judged by "her substantial personal merit and her abiding commitment to the American ideals that she embodies so fully.” To put the finishing touch on his position, McCain affirmed: “I am proud to know Huma and to call her my friend.” The Washington Post, meanwhile, has dismissed claims about Abedin as mere "unsubstantiated allegations that her family has ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood."

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has been demanding information from the foot-dragging Obama administration about a multitude of irregularities including why Abedin was allowed to work at the Department of State under a special, part-time status arrangement while simultaneously working at Teneo, a politically-connected consulting firm. Grassley also has done little if anything to probe the ties that yet another Abedin employer, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has to Muslim terrorism.

Americans have learned the philanthropy is a free-wheeling international cash-for-future-presidential-favors clearinghouse and that it has received hefty donations from unlikely sources such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. Professional jihadi propagandist Gehad el-Haddad, who worked for the Clinton Foundation for five years, was sentenced to life imprisonment in Egypt earlier this year for terrorism-related activities. The name Gehad happens to be the Egyptian version of the Arabic word jihad.

So, when are the right and urgent questions going to be asked about Huma Abedin? To what extent did she use her high office to advance the cause of her family? Does she reject her mother's views? Why was she employed for twelve years by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and why is she never asked about it? Did she play any role in developing or promoting the dishonest cover story that painted an unknown anti-Islam movie director's obscure trailer on YouTube as the real cause of the terrorist assault in Benghazi? What, if any, role did she play as an advisor to Secretary of State Clinton regarding the catastrophic Arab Spring that plunged the already volatile Middle East and North Africa into an Islamist Winter?

These are some of the many questions that need to be asked. High-profile media figures like Greta Van Susteren should be asking them.

91  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Correct About Immigration and 9-11 Hijackers... on: October 19, 2015, 12:54:29 PM

92  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Disaster That Is Obamacare... on: October 19, 2015, 10:41:21 AM
The Republican candidates need to talk about this in the upcoming debate:

Anybody Checked on Obamacare Lately?

October 19, 2015 

Obamacare, That Big Issue Barely Mentioned in the Debates… Hey, remember You know, the $2 billion web site that didn’t work at first and now works “for the most part”? The construction of involved 60 companies, supervised by employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services instead of a lead contractor, according to the inspector general at the Health and Human Services Department. The project was marked by infighting among the contractors, CMS officials and top officials at HHS, the Cabinet-level department that oversees CMS, according to e-mails released Sept. 17 by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Or maybe it costs $2.5 billion by now. It’s hard for the federal government to keep track of the money it spends, apparently: The Medicare agency and independent auditors have had trouble tracking the costs of Affordable Care Act programs. The Government Accountability Office, a congressional agency, said in a Sept. 22 report that it was “difficult and time consuming” to obtain financial information for the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, the CMS office that manages many ACA programs, and that it “could not determine the reliability of most of the amounts” CMS provided.

A mere three years after the launch, the web site is now including the ability to search for a doctor and what plans they accept.

President Obama keeps going around the country, insisting everything’s working fine; the numbers indicate the administration and the Democratic Congress had no idea how difficult this would be when they passed the law: The effort to ease the consumer experience is driven by the administration’s push to reach the 10.5 million people who Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of Health and Human Services, says are still uninsured but eligible for marketplace coverage. While 9.9 million people have received health insurance through the exchanges as of June 30, the law has far to go to reach the 21 million people the Congressional Budget Office estimated in March would be enrolled next year.

Federal health officials say that target is too optimistic, but they have yet to announce their own numerical goal.

Meanwhile, out in Oregon: Health Republic Insurance, one of two nonprofit insurers created in Oregon under President Obama’s health care law, announced Friday that it is shutting down. Health Republic will continue to pay claims through the rest of the year but won’t sell policies for 2016, the company said. The 15,000 individuals and 800 small businesses that get insurance through Health Republic will have to turn to another insurer. The company blamed a reduction in federal payments that are supposed to help insurers smooth out the risk of taking on newly insured patients under the Affordable Care Act. CEO Dawn Bonder said the company assumed it would get those payments when it set premiums, but due to a change made last year by Congress, insurers are receiving less than 13 percent of the money they’d expected. For Health Republic, that represented a hit of $20 million for 2014 and 2015. Co-ops like Health Republic were created as part of a compromise in the Affordable Care Act to compete with for-profit insurance companies.

But that’s just Oregon. Surely things are better in New York… Regulators will shut down Health Republic Insurance of New York, the largest of the nonprofit cooperatives created under the Affordable Care Act, in the latest sign of the financial pressures facing many insurers that participated in the law’s new marketplaces. The insurer lost about $52.7 million in the first six months of this year, on top of a $77.5 million loss in 2014, according to regulatory filings.

…or Kentucky! Democrats are always pointing to the success in Kentucky… Kentucky Health Cooperative, a nonprofit insurer known as a co-op, explained that it could not stay financially afloat after learning of a low payment from an ObamaCare program called “risk corridors.” That program was intended to protect insurers from heavy losses in the early years of the health law by taking money from better-performing insurers and giving it to worse-performing ones.  However, the Obama administration announced on Oct. 1 that the program would pay out far less than requested, because the payments coming in were not enough to match what insurers requested to be paid. Therefore, insurers only will receive 12.6 percent of the $2.87 billion they requested. 

Okay, how about Colorado? Colorado’s biggest nonprofit health insurer announced its closure Friday, forcing nearly 83,000 Coloradans to find a new insurer for 2016. Colorado HealthOP announced Friday that the state Division of Insurance has said it can’t keep selling health insurance. That’s because the cooperative relied on federal support, and federal authorities announced last month they wouldn’t be able to pay most of what they owed to a program designed to help health insurance co-ops get established.

Okay, but in Tennessee, things are bet-oh, wait, never mind. Community Health Alliance will no longer offer insurance coverage next year, forcing about 27,000 enrollees to find new health insurance plans. The Knoxville-based health insurance cooperative, created under the Affordable Care Act, will continue to pay out existing claims but will wind down its coverage by not taking on new customers.

You would think a sentence like this one would be spurring a national discussion: “Nearly a third of the innovative health insurance plans created under the Affordable Care Act will be out of business at the end of 2015.”

Read more at:
93  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: October 19, 2015, 10:30:17 AM
I think a Trump-Carson ticket would be excellent.  Witness the fact that multiple black pastors in Atlanta of all places - have come out strongly in support of Trump.  This simply doesn't normally happen.  Trump IS reaching into traditionally non-Republican groups and garnering support.  Carson I think, understands the Islamic threat and ideology better than Trump, and this is important.  Trump needs to educate himself on Islam and sharia law.  He appears to be ignorant of the fact that both are diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution.
94  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Establishment Finally Accepts Trump Could Win Nomination... on: October 19, 2015, 09:33:20 AM
The Establishment Thinks the Unthinkable: Trump Could Win the Nomination

 ELIANA JOHNSON - National Review Online    October 19, 2015

It began as whispers in hushed corners: Could it ever happen? And now, just three months from the Iowa caucuses, members of the Republican establishment are starting to give voice to an increasingly common belief that Donald Trump, once dismissed as joke, a carnival barker, and a circus freak, might very well win the nomination.

“Trump is a serious player for the nomination at this time,” says Ed Rollins, who served as the national campaign director for Reagan’s 1984 reelection and as campaign chairman for Mike Huckabee in  2008. Rollins is not alone in his views.

“Trump has sustained a lead for longer than there are days left” before voting begins in Iowa, says Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “For a long time,” Schmidt says, “you were talking to people in Washington, and there was a belief that there was an expiration date to this, as if there’s some secret group of people who have the ability to control the process.” But for Trump, a dip in the polls after the second debate that many predicted was the beginning of the end has arrested; and for nearly four months, he has remained at the top of the polls.

Now, long-time GOP strategists who were expecting Trump’s act to wear thin a couple of months ago worry that he can’t be stopped, or at least that he has a significant chance of winning the nomination.

It’s a drastic departure from the near-universal sentiment of the Republican establishment voiced when Trump announced his candidacy in June. In the weeks following his campaign launch, many Republicans fretted not that Trump would win the nomination, but that his incendiary remarks about illegal immigrants would irreparably harm the GOP brand. (The former Bush-administration press secretary Ari Fleischer compared Trump to a roadside accident. “Everybody pulls over to see the mess,” he told Politico in late June. “And the risk for the party is he tarnishes everybody.”) Now, many members of the GOP establishment are concerned less that Trump will hurt the brand than that he’ll become its standard-bearer.

“I know all of us dismissed Trump, early on, all of the so-called experts,” Fox News’s Chris Wallace said Sunday. “‘Summer fling,’ ‘momentary amusement.’” But Wallace, who interviewed Trump late last week and aired portions of the interview on his show Sunday, said he finds himself feeling differently now. “As I watched that interview and I heard what he had to say . . . I am beginning to believe he could be elected president of the United States,” he said.

Wallace was struck by the sheer force of Trump’s personality, but there are other reasons to think he has a real shot at the nomination. Poll after poll this election cycle has registered the distaste of Republican voters for political experience; they prefer an outsider with a fresh approach to a battle-tested veteran. For instance, the latest survey from the Pew Research Center, published in early October, shows that by more than a two-to-one margin, Republican and Republican-leaning voters prefer a candidate with new ideas to one with a proven record. That’s a change: Republicans have traditionally preferred governors to senators, for example, because they prized their executive experience. And Pew notes that this is a shift in attitude that coincided with Trump’s ascension. “Just five months ago,” the polling company writes, “GOP voters valued experience and a proven record over new ideas, 57 percent to 36 percent.”

Trump is not the only candidate who lacks political experience, and Pew’s findings help to explain why the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson is surging in the polls as well. But Trump has done something they haven’t, something that now-former presidential candidate Scott Walker demonstrated is difficult to do — sustain the momentum he developed in the weeks after he launched his campaign.

Republican strategists say that momentum is key to notching wins in the early primary states, which themselves are essential to securing victories later on. “He has the potential to win Iowa and New Hampshire and more,” says Rollins. “No one seems to be developing to challenge him at this time.” “Momentum matters a great deal,” says Schmidt. “You have to win in the early states to win in the larger mega-state primaries that fold out over the balance of March and April.”

Skeptics remain. Stuart Stevens, who served as a senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, notes that Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire haven’t elected renegade candidates when they’ve had an opportunity to do so, as recently as last year. “I think a reasonable way to look at this is to look at who gets nominated for governor or Senate in these states,” Stevens says. In Iowa, the mustachioed Terry Branstad, whose political network is largely supportive of New Jersey governor Chris Christie, is the longest-serving governor in state history. In the 2014 Senate primary, Joni Ernst, then a state senator, beat back challenges from both the right and the left. New Hampshire elected the moderate Kelly Ayotte to the Senate in 2010. “So,” Stevens asks, “could Donald Trump win a nomination for the Senate or governor in Iowa or New Hampshire?” “Not in a million years.”

Then again, the early states have surprised before.

As Trump has become a more permanent fixture on the political scene, other questions linger. Can he vary his routine? Is he serious about building a ground game? Over the past few weeks, the Trump campaign has begun at least to hint that it is interested in rounding out the picture of its candidate. Trump’s four children opened up to People magazine about their father for an article published earlier this month; on the cover, Trump shared the spotlight with his wife and his youngest son, Barron. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and his son, Eric, have begun making television appearances on behalf of their father. (Showing that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, the younger Trump told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren last week: “Everything he touches turns to gold.”) Profiles of Trump’s wife, the former Melania Knauss, and of Ivanka, published in the New York Times and Politico magazine, respectively, have also provided glimpses of Trump the family man.

And while Trump is beginning to make traditional campaign expenditures and build a ground game in the early-voting states, he is spending less on these measures and undertaking them later than other campaigns, which have been putting the gears in motion for the past year or longer. Typically, in caucus states such as Iowa and Nevada, these sorts of political fundamentals matter. But Trump has already defied supposedly immutable laws of politics. Trump’s supporters will surely cheer the emerging consensus, but, as Trump would be the first to point out, the establishment has been wrong before. Right now, it might find consolation in that fact.

— Eliana Johnson is Washington bureau chief of National Review.

Read more at:
95  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: October 16, 2015, 01:18:23 PM
The U.S. dollar is going to lose its status as the world's reserve currency within 12 months.  A wise person is transferring his cash-based assets into physical gold and silver NOW.
96  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Left's Class Envy Strategy... on: October 16, 2015, 12:41:44 PM
This is what the Left does.  It is constantly pitting factions against one another to create social unrest - race, class, sexual orientation.  Whatever works to push the narrative that society is not "fair," and the government needs to step in and "level the playing field," which is code for authoritarian central control over people's lives.
97  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coulter: Hispanics Won't Vote Republican... on: October 15, 2015, 12:54:15 PM

Why pandering to Latinos is a losing proposition for Republicans.

October 15, 2015  Ann Coulter

At the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders bragged about getting a "D-minus" from the National Rifle Association (which was also Lincoln Chafee's GPA in high school).

Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton attacked Sanders for having voted against an insane bill that would have held gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable for the behavior of anyone who uses one of their guns in a crime.

I would be open to such a law -- but only after we pass a law holding psychiatrists liable for crimes committed by their patients; lawyers for crimes committed by their clients; and sanctuary cities for crimes committed by the illegal immigrants they released in violation of federal law.

Gun dealers are a lot more careful about whom they sell guns to than psychiatrists, lawyers and sanctuary cities are about the criminals they loose on the public.

In several recent mass shootings, the psycho was at least temporarily delayed when gun shops refused to sell him guns -- such as the Colorado gun range owner who put his whole staff on red alert in case James Holmes ever wandered in, simply on the basis of having heard Holmes' strange voicemail message.

As Sanders himself once said, holding gun sellers liable for the crimes of their customers would be like holding "a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer." (As happened to Lincoln Chafee.)

To cheers from the Democratic audience, Hillary denounced Sanders for his vote against imposing unprecedented liability on gun makers, saying, "It's time the entire country stood up against the NRA."

Sanders bowed and scraped, finally saying he'd "take another look" at the gun bill.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley bragged about passing the strictest gun-control laws in the country (which explains why Baltimore is such a safe city). Asked which "enemy" he was proudest of, O'Malley said: "The NRA." (Loud applause -- especially from the radical Muslims in the audience!)

I gather Democrats have written off the gun vote.

Plenty of Democrats own firearms -- or at least have armed bodyguards, such as Rosie O'Donnell, Jim Carrey, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg.

But Democrats have made a calculated decision that they are not going to win a majority of gun owners, so they denounce them with abandon, making no concessions at all.

Why don't Republicans do that with the Hispanic vote? Somehow, the left has convinced the GOP to obsess over winning people who will never give us a majority of their votes, which is the exact opposite of the Democrats' strategy for themselves.

I would wager that Democrats get more votes from NRA members than Republicans do from La Raza members (0). But try to imagine a Republican answering the "enemies" question: "La Raza."

Republicans don't need to treat Hispanics with the contempt that Democrats treat gun-owners. We do not dislike Hispanics. We do not dislike any group.

We just have to protect Americans first -- American jobs, American taxes and American social programs being bankrupted by immigrants . Most voters don't think it's an outrageous imposition to ask people to obey our laws.

Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals -- and has soared to the top of the polls.

The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.

I have no doubt that the 73 percent of Hispanics who will be voting against Trump are prepared to be much angrier about it than the 73 percent who voted against Romney. But the result won't look any different on election night. Voting machines don't register angry glints in people's eyes.

On the other hand, by driving up the white vote -- to say nothing of the black vote -- we will see a difference in the Republicans' box score on election night.

The Holy Grail year for Republicans is supposed to be 2004, when President Bush won a record-breaking 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. He had to turn his entire White House into a Hispandering operation to do that -- and he still lost the Hispanic vote.

It's crazy to deform our whole platform in pursuit of some group that won't give us at least 51 percent of its vote, anyway. The Democrats ignore white voters and they were 73.7 percent of the electorate in 2012. Hispanics were only 8.4 percent that year.

I haven't seen an estimate of the electoral percentage of gun-owners, but with one-third to half of all Americans owning guns, it's a lot more than 8.4 percent.

Democrats know not to fritter time on constituencies they can't win, but have buffaloed Republicans into wasting resources on a quixotic bid to win a slightly larger -- but still losing -- percentage of the 8.4 percent of the electorate that is the Hispanic vote.

You've been conned, GOP. You are never going to beat the Democrats at sucking up to foreigners. And your conservative base will flee.

The GOP should expend precisely as much effort fawning over the Hispanic vote as Democrats do over the gun vote, the pro-life vote and the white vote.

Republicans have got to stop believing The New York Times line that the only honorable votes are from minorities. It's honorable to get votes from taxpayers, too.

98  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: I wasn't expecting this... on: October 15, 2015, 09:39:51 AM
Crafty - here is what is VERY important to understand:

While there are no doubt some Muslims who sincerely believe what this woman is expressing, her sentiments are directly in conflict with Islamic teaching and law.  If she were living in any other country than Israel, she would face death for such comments.  Secondly, I am not convinced, nor should anyone necessarily be - that she is sincere.  Taqiyya - "deception" is an integral, accepted concept of Islam.  It holds that it is not only permissible, but a duty for Muslims to lie to unbelievers to accomplish infiltration and subterfuge.  It is vitally important that one NOT be easily fooled by this tactic.

I repeat - EVERY school of Islamic jurisprudence holds that Jews are subhuman descendants of apes and pigs, and Christians are not much better.  Both deserve death if they refuse to convert to Islam.  This is simply a fact - any Muslims who deviate from this face the death penalty in Islamic countries.  Those who dare to express opinions such as this woman are a very tiny minority of the total Muslim population, and there is NO organized program in any mosque to teach these values that she expresses.  Islam is most definitely NOT a religion of peace.  It is a totalitarian political/ideological system with a god grafted onto it to lend it an air of legitimacy.  It differs from every other religion on the planet in this regard.
99  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Israeli Disgraces Dead Terrorist with Pork... on: October 14, 2015, 10:55:02 AM

If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. "

October 13, 2015  Daniel Greenfield

Muslims murder non-Muslims confident that if they die, they'll get access to "paradise" and 72 virgins to rape in the hereafter. Muslim clerics make even more extravagant promises, claiming that dead killers will receive all sorts of added benefits. Muslims who have killed (other Muslims) or committed adultery will still get an express ticket to paradise if they die while killing non-Muslims.

As long as he doesn't come into contact with a pig.

There's a long history of people fighting Muslim Jihadis by wrapping their Jihadis in pigskin or shooting them with lard bullets. US soldiers did it not all that long ago in the Philippines. While the belief that pork on a corpse can stop someone from going to heaven is nonsense... so is the underlying belief that killing non-Muslims atones for all sins. And if it deters Muslims, it's a plus. And if it doesn't, it still shows them that people aren't as helpless in the face of their racist violence as their governments often appear to be.

This latest video takes place in Israel where, after a series of bloody terrorist attacks, a dead terrorist had pork dumped on his face by a local.

Kiryat Arba resident has lit the internet on fire over the weekend, after footage surfaced of him placing what he says is a piece of pork on the body of a dead terrorist killed by Israel Police during an attack on Israeli civiilians Friday.

In the video, Magen David Adom (MDA) medics can be seen performing resuscitation on the terrorist. In the interim, the resident succeeds in getting close to the body and placing the piece of meat upon it, sarcastically telling the terrorist to "enjoy" it.

Even the acting mayor of Kiryat Arba, Yisrael Bramson, backed the radical act.

"I was there when it happened," he said. "I think this is a very basic and legitimate response."

"I do not condemn what happened," he added. "They do not need to get their bodies back, you have to throw them into the sea at best."

"The terrorist came to slaughter the Jews and we had to treat him like he meant to treat us."

Bramson added. "The day before I was in the area and saw the intestines of the Jewish boy in a tent of Hazon David, I prefer this to that."

This had been previously done a decade ago.

Residents at Gush Katif, in the Gaza Strip, were the first to claim to have defiled the body of a dead Palestinian with "pigskin and lard". Residents of Efrat, a Jewish settlement near Bethlehem, said they did the same to a Palestinian building worker who tried to blow up their supermarket on Friday, but was shot dead before most of the explosives detonated.

Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, defended the practice: "If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. We should do anything to save life."

Indeed. Here's a clip from a movie about the US fight against the Moro Jihadists in the Philippines and the effect of pigskin on morale.
100  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Some Cultures ARE Superior to Others... on: October 06, 2015, 01:53:08 PM

The profound impact of culture.

October 6, 2015  Thomas Sowell   

The prevailing social dogma of our time — that economic and other disparities among groups are strange, if not sinister — has set off bitter disputes between those who blame genetic differences and those who blame discrimination.

Both sides ignore the possibility that groups themselves may differ in their orientations, their priorities and in what they are prepared to sacrifice for the sake of other things.

Back in the early 19th century, an official of the Russian Empire reported that even the poorest Jews saw to it that their daughters could read, and their homes had at least ten books. This was at a time when the vast majority of the population of the Russian Empire were illiterate.

During that same era, Thomas Jefferson complained that there was not a single bookstore where he lived. In Frederick Law Olmsted's travels through the antebellum South, he noted that even plantation owners seldom had many books.

But in mid-18th century Scotland, even people of modest means had books, and those too poor to buy them could rent books from lending libraries, which were common throughout Scottish towns.

There is no economic determinism. People choose what to spend their money on, and what to spend their time on. Cultures differ.

On a personal note, as a child nearly nine years old, I was one of the many blacks who migrated from the South to Harlem in the 1930s.

Although New York had public libraries, elite public high schools and free colleges of high quality, I had no idea what a public library was, or what an elite high school was, and the thought of going to college never crossed my mind.

Jewish immigrants who arrived in New York, generations before me, seized upon the opportunities provided by public libraries and later their children flooded into the elite public high schools and free city colleges. This was consistent with the values of their centuries-old culture.

For most of the black kids of my generation, those things might as well not have existed, because nothing in their culture would have pointed them toward such things.

There was no reason to believe that I would have been any different from the rest, except for the fact that members of my family, who had very little education themselves, wanted me to get the education that they never had a chance to get.

They had no more idea of the role of public libraries and elite quality high schools and colleges than I did.

But they knew a boy a little older than I was, who came from a better educated family, and they decided that he was somebody I should meet and who could serve as a guide to me on things they knew nothing about.

His name was Eddie Mapp, and I can still recall how he took me to a public library, and how patiently he tried to explain to me what a public library was, and why I should get a library card. He opened a door for me into a wider world. But most other black kids in Harlem at that time had no one to do that for them.

Nor did kids from various other ethnic groups in New York have someone to open doors to a wider world for them. It didn't matter how smart they were or whether opportunities were available for them, if they knew nothing about them.

An internationally renowned scholar of Irish American ancestry once said in a social gathering that, when he was a young man of college age, he had no plans to go to college, until someone else who recognized his ability urged him to do so. There was no reason to expect all groups to follow in the footsteps of the Jews.

In my later years, two middle-class couples I knew took it upon themselves to each take a young relative from the ghetto into their home and, at considerable cost in time and money, try to provide them with a good education.

One of these youngsters had an IQ two standard deviations above the mean. But both of them eventually returned to the ghetto life from which they came. It wasn't genetics and it wasn't discrimination.

The youngster with an IQ two standard deviations above the mean will probably never achieve what a Jewish or Asian youngster with an IQ only one standard deviation above the mean achieves.

Those who are celebrating the ghetto culture might consider what the cost is to those being raised in that culture. And they might reconsider what they are hearing from charlatans parading statistical disparities.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!