———Obama years in 9 charts, and the Democrats want to put Hillary Clinton in the White House who will follow in his footsteps with the same polices that got us where we are today, at the bottom of the charts.
Obama Recovery in 9 charts
Here is the real story of America 's decline right from the Fed web sites.
This one is making the rounds. Farfetched conspiracy theory, but interesting nonetheless.
I actually fear Obama more as Secretary General of the United Nations, or as a justice on the SCOTUS.
The damage he could unleash on his hated America from the UN on behalf of the rest of the world would be devastating. My only hope is that his laziness and love of golf will reign in any future ambitions. But I think the temptation to be the worst James Bond villain imaginable will be too great at some point. Redistribution of wealth, reparations payments, climate change penalties, one world advocacy, partnering with Val's Iran, bringing us to our knees in every respect.
Or appointed to SCOTUS, dear God. This supposed Constitutional expert will continue to shred this, in his view, "working document," until there's nothing left of it.
He truly is the most dangerous man on the planet. George Soros is a close 2nd. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a nightmare for ya'.
Obama’s plan for a THIRD TERM.
Obama’s third TERM.
Quite interesting, knowing how mischievous Obama is.
He already has every base covered and there will be nobody to stop him.
What we are watching on TV today is just a show to keep us from focusing on Obama.
On top of everything else he loathes Hillary and he won’t do her any favors.
Get ready.
Here’s a very scary thought…………..
An elderly and very knowledgeable friend told me his theory about the upcoming election and the next four years of U.S. government. At first I thought it a bit far-fetched. But as I listened to him it began to make sense, scary sense…
'I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the election in November. Then, sometime between November and January, Hillary will be indicted. The IRS and the FBI are now investigating the Clinton Foundation and the whole e-mail thing isn’t over yet.'
'Once under indictment she won’t be able to assume the Office of the President in January. Tim Kaine, who will not actually be the Vice President because neither he nor Hillary have been inaugurated, cannot assume the Presidency.'
'The Speaker of the House can’t move up to it because there is already a sitting President and Vice President. So President Obama, in an Executive Order citing “emergency situation,” gives himself another four years in office. He'll declare it's the only way possible.'
My friend believes Obama has been planning this for a while now, knowing he has enough on Hillary to indict her. Had the Attorney General indicted her earlier based on evidence from the FBI this plan wouldn’t have worked because the DNC would have quickly come up with another candidate.
If you think about it, it’s not that outrageous. Many people on the left, including the President, want Obama to stay another four years. The law prohibits him from being re-elected so the only two ways he can do it is by declaring martial law and suspending the election (which would be a very negative thing for the country with great backlash) or to declare himself still President because the elected candidate cannot assume her duties. The Attorney General will concur that it is legal and constitutional.
The latter makes more sense and is actually more feasible. And since it’s never been done before, it would set a precedent that would be difficult to challenge."
Nearly 100 people have been shot in Chicago in less than a week, pushing the number of shooting victims so far this year to more than 2,500 — about 800 more than this time last year, according to data kept by the Tribune.
Between last Friday afternoon and early Thursday, at least 99 people were shot in the city, 24 of them fatally. At least nine people were killed on Monday alone, the deadliest day in Chicago in 13 years, according to Tribune data. Among the wounded that day was a 10-year-old boy shot in the back as he played on his front porch in Lawndale.
The number of shooting victims in Chicago stood at 2,514 Thursday morning. At this time last year, 1,725 people had been shot. The city has not seen this level of gun violence since the 1990s, a trend the Police Department has blamed on lax gun laws and feuding gang factions.
Over eight hours from Wednesday evening through early Thursday, three people were killed and at least 10 others were wounded in the city.
A 45-year-old man was killed and two others were wounded when someone walked up to their van in the Gresham neighborhood around 1:55 a.m. Thursday, yelled "Hey" and started shooting, police said.
The three — two men and a woman — had been stopped at a stop sign in the 8000 block of South Marshfield Avenue when the gunman opened fire, police said. The van took off, made a left turn on 78th Street and stopped, police said.
The 45-year-old man was shot in the back and forearm. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn and was pronounced dead, police said.
The other man was shot in the right forearm and was taken to Stroger Hospital, where his condition was stabilized. The woman was struck in the hip and back. She was also taken to Stroger, where her condition was stabilized, police said.
About 10:20 p.m. Wednesday, a 22-year-old man died after being shot in the head in the West Pullman neighborhood on the Far South Side, police said.
Officers responded to a call of shots fired and found Stephan Triplett lying on the parkway in the 12400 block of South Lowe Avenue, police said. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 11:13 p.m., according to the Cook County medical examiner's office.
Triplett, who also spelled his Stephon in some public records, lived two blocks away in the 12400 block of South Emerald Avenue, the office said.
The third fatal shooting occurred around the same time, at 10 p.m., in the Near West Side neighborhood, police said.
A 22-year-old woman was in a car traveling west on Adams Street near Oakley Avenue when a black Hyundai sedan pulled up and someone got out and fired shots, police said. The gunman ran away as the Hyundai sped away, police said.
The woman was hit twice in the chest. She was driven to Mount Sinai Hospital, where she was pronounced dead, police said.
She was identified as Jamie Williams, of the 10600 block of South LaSalle Street, according to the Cook County medical examiner's office. She was pronounced dead at 10:19 p.m. after suffering a gunshot wound to the chest, the office determined following an autopsy Thursday.
Other shootings:
• Around 4 a.m. Thursday, a 31-year-old man was wounded in the 5200 block of West Quincy Street in the Austin neighborhood, police said. The man was shot in the lower back, and he was taken in fair condition to Mount Sinai Hospital, police said.
• Around 12:20 a.m., a 34-year-old man was critically wounded in the Lawndale neighborhood on the West Side, police said. The man was shot five times in the 4200 block of West Grenshaw Street. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was listed in critical condition, police said.
• About 11 p.m. Wednesday, a 27-year-old man was wounded in the Marquette Park neighborhood on the Southwest Side, police said. The man was in the 7200 block of South Artesian Avenue when he was shot in the right foot. He was taken to a hospital but his condition was not known.
• About 10 p.m., a 20-year-old woman was wounded in the Longwood Manor neighborhood on the Far South Side, police said. The woman was in the 9600 block of South Wentworth Avenue when she was shot in the right foot. She was taken to Roseland Community Hospital, where she was listed in good condition, police said. Police said the woman was being uncooperative.
• About 9:20 p.m., a 24-year-old man was grazed in the South Chicago neighborhood on the South Side, police said. The man was walking in the 2400 block of East 82nd Street when someone sitting on a park bench took out a gun and fired, police said. The man was grazed and was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in good condition, police said.
• Paramedics were called to the 5600 block of South Wolcott Avenue about 8:55 p.m. and found two shooting victims, said Chicago Fire Department spokesman Jeff Lyle. One person was shot in the arm, the other was shot in the leg, Lyle said.
One of them was taken to Holy Cross Hospital, and an ambulance remained to treat the other person, Lyle said.
• About 8:25 p.m. on the Far South Side, a 32-year-old man was shot in the back in the 700 block of East 105th Place in the Roseland neighborhood, said Officer Thomas Sweeney, a police spokesman.
The man went to Roseland Community Hospital, Sweeney said.
Despite his “endorsement” on April Fools Day of Donald Trump (hehe), Jimmy Buffett will host a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton later this month in the Hamptons.
The Democratic nominee, whose campaign is currently focused on recruiting Republicans disgusted with Donald Trump into the fold, is packing in up to nine big-dollar events during a Hamptons fundraising sprint beginning Aug. 28 and ending Aug. 30, according to three sources familiar with the campaign’s fundraising strategy. Story Continued Below
Singer Jimmy Buffett, a Montauk resident, is expected to host a Clinton fundraiser at his home, the sources said.
And Loews CEO Jonathan Tisch and Rudin Management bigwig Bill Rudin have sent out invitations to a $33,400-a-head dinner they are co-hosting.
Clinton is also planning to attend fundraising dinners in Sagaponack, Quogue and East Hampton, hosted by donors like hedge fund manager and art collector Adam Sender; philanthropist Barbara Lee Diamonstein-Spielvogel and Carl Spielvogel, former U.S. ambassador to the Slovak Republic; and Infor CEO Charles Phillips and longtime Clinton donor Alan Patricof.
Jimmy has hosted and performed at many political fundraisers and rallies over the years for Democratic candidates and environmental causes.
This article (link below) is not really about the millions in state-funded handouts to their laid off administrators, which is criminal enough.
Here's the real math:
Excerpts from Article:
The state university has let go of nearly 400 employees since the beginning of the year, or about 40 percent of its staff.
The 150-year-old public university served about 4,500 students last year.
WRD:
So if they laid off 400 people, and that's 40%, that means they had 1,000 people there. They served 4,500 students. They had 1,000 people for 4,500 students? Are you freaking kidding? That's a ratio of 1 to 4.5. How in anyone's world could this be justified? These colleges and universities have become jobs programs for the elite, the eggheads who can't do anything else. And of course they're 90+% lefties, and with that comes the usual bitching, moaning, and complaining of how large their class load is, how little office time they get, how much they are underfunded, blah, blah, blah.
Talk about insanity, this is it.
And by the way, this is one of the worst colleges in the country. Feel free to check.
We needed this to be part of our archives. I realize you've all seen this entitled little brat by this point, but certainly want it to be part of our record here. You can't teach stupid. You can only try to contain it. She got into college. That in itself should be a crime. I wouldn't pay a penny toward her college debt because obviously, she didn't get an education. She got an indoctrination, as demonstrated in this telling segment, but not an education. Therefore, like the movie said, "your incoherent ramblings have all made us dumber. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.
Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person
And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.
June 5, 1984, Washington, DC, USA: President Ronald Reagan with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (Photo: Darryl Heikes/Polaris/Newscom)
Few people are aware that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, one of the foremost politicians of the 20th century, was a lay Methodist preacher before she entered politics.
There has been very little examination into the role that her Christian faith played in her politics.
“Economics is the method; the object is to change the soul,” Thatcher once declared, revealing that the way she conceived her free-market ideology was as much about transforming values as about improving Britain’s ailing GDP.
More profoundly, there was a strong religious basis to Thatcher’s politics—one that stemmed from her strict Methodist upbringing and, more specifically, the chief influence in her life, her father, who was a greengrocer, councilor, and Wesleyan lay preacher.
Thank you!
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
In sourcing the origins of her free-market ideology, it is not in the pages of Frederick von Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” or Milton Friedman’s monetarist theory where we find the answer, but in the sermon notes of her father, Alf Roberts.
Contained within his sermons, one finds the theological basis of what would later become the cornerstones of Thatcherism: an individualistic interpretation of the Bible, a nod to the spiritual dangers of avarice, praise of the Protestant work ethic, virtues of thrift and self-reliance, and finally, a divine justification for individual liberty and the free market.
In short, Thatcherism always owed more to Methodism than to Monetarism.
Thatcher herself was a preacher before she formally entered politics while a student at Oxford University. Even though she later transferred this missionary energy from the pulpit to the podium, her religious values remained an underlying core.
Indeed, on becoming leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, Thatcher (much like Ronald Reagan) saw it as her chief mission to completely undermine the moral credibility of socialism and communism and reconnect the broken link between Protestant and capitalist values in Britain.
Preaching from the pulpit on several occasions, Thatcher unashamedly asserted the Biblical case for the sovereignty of individual liberty and the “invisible hand.”
“Do not be tempted to identify virtue with collectivism,” she preached from the pulpit of St. Lawrence Jewry Church in London in 1978. “I wonder whether the State services would have done as much for the man who fell among the thieves as the Good Samaritan did for him.” According to Thatcher, “[i]t was to individuals that the Ten Commandments were addressed.” She continued, “We are called on to repent our own sins, not each others’.”
“What mattered,” in her words, “was Man’s relationship to God.”
Thatcher’s interpretation was that as Christianity was a call to men individually, so it should follow that political choices reside with the citizen rather than the state.
While such sentiments may have been standard and uncontroversial among Republican politicians in the U.S., in the more secular culture of British politics, Thatcher’s sermons incited moral outrage.
Many Christians, especially the established Church of England, would spend a large part of the 1980s repudiating the “Gospel of Thatcherism,” denigrating Thatcher’s policies as “unchristian,” and unmasking the social ramifications of her so-called values.
This would lead to a fractious conflict between Church and State that would irrevocably break the historic alliance between the Conservative Party and the Church of England, which had been in existence for over two centuries.
Unlike America, which has a secular state but a devout public, Britain has an established state Church but a largely agnostic public.
British politicians invariably avoid mixing religion with politics, conscious of the voters’ distaste for preaching and moralism.
In the 1980s, while America saw the revival of a moral conservative movement, no such parallel development took place in Britain. In Parliament, legislation pertaining to personal morality such as abortion, homosexuality, and divorce were (and still are) deemed “conscience matters,” in which Members of Parliament were given a free vote and not subject to the party whip.
Thatcher may have been a Christian, but her faith was never moralistic. She certainly took an old-fashioned view toward sexual morality but ultimately saw such issues as a matter of personal conscience rather than subject to regulatory control.
One area where Thatcher’s faith did profoundly shape her outlook was in her approach to the great cause of the age: the Cold War.
Like Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher would play a crucial part in the propaganda offensive against the Eastern Bloc. “Men have forgotten God; that’s why this has all happened,” wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It was a position with which Thatcher readily concurred.
More than any other British leader since Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher was willing to elevate the Cold War into one about ideas and values and to wage a crusade against atheistic communism—a position she demonstrated most openly in her unwavering support for Solidarity in Poland.
In 1983, Thatcher used the occasion of her acceptance speech for the Winston Churchill Foundation Award in Washington to assert the Cold War as one chiefly of ideas, not weapons:
‘You in the West,’ said an Hungarian poet, ‘have a special duty because you are free. That freedom is both a blessing and a burden. For it makes you spiritually responsible for the whole of humanity.’ He was right. For if we do not keep alive the flame of freedom that flame will go out, and every noble ideal will die with it. It is not by force of weapons but by force of ideas that we seek to spread liberty to the worlds oppressed.
For Thatcher, the fight against socialism at home and communism abroad was a fight for the sovereignty of liberty and individual free will.
This was an understanding that, from her earliest childhood, she had always understood as the central tenet of the Christian faith. Dr. Eliza Filby will be speaking on Sept. 16 at the Heritage Foundation on her new book “God and Mrs. Thatcher: The Battle for Britain’s Soul” For more information on attending please click here.
Pro-Choice! Pro-Amnesty! Pro-Oprah! All the reasons you should NOT vote for Donald Trump
by Glenn Beck Program
Thursday, Jul 9, 2015
It’s no secret that Stu isn’t a big fan of Donald Trump, but some listeners seem to think he’d be a great candidate. In fact, many polls have shown him near the top. People seem to love his “straight talk” and “hard stand” on illegal immigration. But what are his real policies? Stu dedicated the opening of last night’s show to explain — using facts and quotes from Trump himself – to show why there is NOTHING remotely conservative about Donald Trump and his candidacy.
Latest polls are out, and Jeb Bush is leading the field of 10,687 GOP presidential hopefuls with 19% of the vote. If that doesn’t make you suicidal, this will. In second place at 12% is Donald Trump, Donald freaking Trump. It’s so absolutely ridiculous. It kind of feels like we’re at the beginning of Back to the Future 2. If we had a DeLorean and fast-forwarded a couple years to life under President Trump, the country would look like Hill Valley when it was run by Biff Tannen. That’s kind of a terrible analogy actually because Trump would never, ever win, never. He’s not going to win, but yet for some reason, people think he’s going to win. We do this every election, we say we’re going to stick to principle, and then we panic and go running to the first shiny thing that walks by. When I say we, I’m not really referring to this audience. I’m referring to America as a whole. We have our own poll going on at GlennBeck.com, and Donald Trump does not perform very well with this audience. I’m so proud of you guys. Really, I am. How Trump gets anyone, let alone conservatives, to support him is the eighth wonder of the world or the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse, depending on your level of fatalism, I guess that is. Not only is he the most obnoxious guy in the world, he’s arrogant, he’s one of the most annoying celebrities of all time, his views are as insane as his love for gaudy brass decor. Enough is enough. Someone has to stand up and be the adult in the room, so today I offer America a public service. That’s right, it’s time. I present to you the ultimate takedown of Donald Trump, GOP candidate. We start with the Mexico stuff. Watch.
VIDEO
Donald Trump: They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. Some I assume are good people. I love Mexico. I love the Mexican people. Two waiters came up to me tonight, “Mr. Trump, we love you.” I said, “Where you from?” “Mexico.” I said, “That’s great. I love you too.” These countries aren’t sending their finest. They’re sending people that are like got a lot of problems. Doesn’t that make sense? I basically said this, we need to strengthen our borders, and they said I’m a racist. To get the cars and trucks and everything over here, let the illegals drive them in. They’re coming in anyway. I do great with Latino voters. I employ so many Latinos. I have so many people working for me. I’ve taken a lot of heat, and it’s unnecessary, very unfair heat, because first of all, I love the Mexican people. How can I not love people that give me tens of millions of dollars for apartments? You have to love them. But I love them for a lot of reasons. I love them for their spirit. And then I talk about Mexico, and I love Mexico, but every time I talk about it, they accuse me of being a racist. You have illegals that are just pouring across the borders. I was really criticized for the border, but the truth is it’s true. They think it’s like Mother Teresa is coming across the border. Well, I said drug dealers, I said killers, and I said rapists. They made the word rapists, they really picked that up. I tell you, I love the folks from South America. They’re friends of mine. Many work for me. Many are friends. Many buy apartments from me. I have great love for the Mexican people, and I always have, and they like me. No apology because everything I said is 100% correct. All you have to do is read the newspapers. So, there you go. He’s obviously riding the populist wave there. He’s trying to give voice to people’s frustration with illegal immigration, and he’s done it, of course, with the eloquence of a baboon. Yes, I am not a fan of spineless companies like NBC Universal, Macy’s, the PGA, and others who are disassociating themselves with Trump. Let’s be honest, the progressive mob is trying to add another scalp, and some conservatives are having an understandable response. They can’t stand the media, they see a Republican getting attacked by the media for being outspoken, and they rush to his defense. I get it, but please, please, let’s take off our reactionary caps for a minute and put on our thinking caps. But Stu, he’s right on the money. These darn illegals are sinking the ship. At least Trump is saying something. Okay, great. I will give him his fair shake. Let’s see where he stands on immigration policy.
Watch.
VIDEO
Donald Trump: The biggest problem is that you have some great, wonderful people coming in from Mexico that are working the crops, they’re working cutting lawns, they’re doing a lot of jobs that I’m not sure that a lot of Americans are going to take those jobs. And that’s the dichotomy. That’s the big problem because you have a lot of great people coming in doing a lot of work, and I’m not so sure that a lot of other people are going to be doing that work. So, it is a very tough problem, but I do say this, you have a law, or at least you have to establish a law, and I guess we’re sort of a country and other people aren’t supposed to be coming into our country illegally. Bill O’Reilly: Now, the 15 million illegal aliens already in the United States, what do you do with them? Donald Trump: I think right now you’re going to have to do something. It’s hard to generalize, but you’re going to have to look at the individual people, see how they’ve done, see how productive they’ve been, see what their references are, and then make a decision. Bill O’Reilly: All right, on a case-by-case—going to take a long time and a lot of people. Donald Trump: A long time, but you know, you have some great, productive people that came. You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that. You have to give them a path, a path to citizenship. Where have I heard that one before? I know, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham and of course every Democrat as well. He’s zero for one there. There could be negatives of talking tough, but I’m willing to accept that if you’re going to get the truth and the policy that I want, but I don’t want someone making stupid mistakes that the media can easily exploit. With Trump, you’re getting all of the negatives of someone who says tough, dangerous, stupid things along with the policy of Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham. Let’s try some other issues though. How about taxes? When Trump ran for president in 1999, he proposed a gigantic wealth tax on the American people, a 14.25% levy that he calculated would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt forever in one fell swoop—a wealth tax, going into your bank account and pulling out money from bank accounts. Obama is into his second term, and he hasn’t even suggested that. On the plan, Trump said, “By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country would be affected by my plan.” Is this the guy in the second place of the GOP primary or a guy second in line to get into a rape tent at Occupy Wall Street? The only place that’s conservative is in Sean Penn’s wildest economic fantasies. But Trump has never been a conservative. He’s got some serious political identity issues. Since the 80s, he struggled so much with his identity, he has switched parties five times. Remember, a few months ago when people wanted George Stephanopoulos fired because he gave to the Clinton Foundation, remember that? Well, Donald Trump has given even more to the Clinton Foundation than Stephanopoulos did. He’s given over $100,000 to the Clintons. So, we want to fire a media member for donating to the Clintons but want to hire a GOP candidate that’s done the same? Is that what you want in a candidate who is likely to face, I don’t know, a Clinton? Really? It doesn’t stop there though. Since 1990, he’s given at least $541,650 to Democrats, far more than he gave to Republicans. The guy gave money to Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, Harry freaking Reid. So, that’s zero for two, okay? Now let’s go to an easy one. Everyone gets this one right, right? Abortion—1999, Trump said, “I’m totally pro-choice. I hate it and I hate saying it. And I’m almost ashamed to say that I’m pro-choice but I am pro-choice because I think we have no choice.” What? And “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors.” Here’s what he says now. VIDEO Donald Trump: So, it’s pro-life, right, but it’s life of the mother, very important, incest and rape. Mark: Okay. So, say a woman is pregnant, and it’s not in any of those exception categories, but she chooses to have an abortion. Donald Trump: It depends when. The answer is—excuse me, if it’s not in those, I’m pro-life. Mark, very simple, pro-life. Very simple. I mean, that was seriously one of the single worst explanations of being pro-life I’ve ever heard someone give. Now, remember how suspicious we all were of Mitt Romney’s conversion to pro-life? You’re going to let Trump get away with that? I’d say he’s zero for three. Okay, well, at least he’s got to have a good take on who the worst president of all time is. You know, he’s a businessman. Maybe it’s FDR for price controls and confiscating gold, right? VIDEO Donald Trump: I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States. Bush has been so bad, maybe the worst president in the history of this country. He has been so incompetent, so bad, so evil that I don’t think any Republican could’ve won. Bush, worst president. I mean, he wasn’t perfect, really, but Bush, over helicopters burning in the desert Jimmy Carter, over creator of the welfare society LBJ, over racist Woodrow Wilson? And sure, he doesn’t say he likes Obama now. Of course, he’s not going to say that now, but when he was running the first time, Trump said Obama had a chance of going down as a great president.
VIDEO
Donald Trump: I think he has a chance to go down as a great president. Now, if he’s not, if he’s not a great president, this country is in serious trouble. I think he’s going to lead through a consensus. It’s not going to be just a bull run like Bush did. He just did whatever the hell he wanted. He’d go into a country, attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center, and just do it because he wanted to do it. Just from a judgment perspective, he thought Obama was going to rule by consensus? Really? He also went on to call him—he said he was one of Obama’s biggest cheerleaders. It’s not a surprise because in the past Trump wrote, “We must have universal healthcare.” He indicated his ideal vice president would be diehard Obama supporter Oprah Winfrey, and he was a registered Democrat until 2009—not 1979, 2009.
Surely there’s got to be something he’s good on, some issue that we can see a shred of conservatism present. He is a business guy, of course. How about eminent domain? Years ago, Trump was looking to add a few more parking spots to one of his casinos in Atlantic City. To do so, he needed to acquire the property of Vera Coking, a senior citizen who had lived there for over three decades. So, did he make her an offer she couldn’t refuse? No, he decided to use eminent domain. Yes, this conservative argued that the government needed to take a wrecking ball to this sweet old woman’s home, her private property, because it was an eyesore.
VIDEO
Donald Trump: Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees that property, and it’s not fair to Atlantic City and the people. They’re staring at this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good. John Stossel: Basic to freedom is that if you own something, it’s yours, that the government doesn’t just come and take it away from you. Donald Trump: Do you want to live in the city where you can’t build schools? Do you want to live in the city where you can’t build roads or highways or have access to hospitals? Condemnation is a necessary evil. John Stossel: But you’re not talking about a hospital. You’re talking about a building a rich guy finds ugly. Thank God for John Stossel. He publicly humiliated her, demeaned the place she called a home, all so he could have a few extra parking spaces and have more people gamble a few more dollars at his crappy casinos. That’s not all on eminent domain, of course, because the big one is when the government destroyed people’s homes in Connecticut so an office building could be built in the Kelo decision which might be the worst Supreme Court ruling of my lifetime. Trump said he backed the government 100%. Eminent domain is more than something he supports. It’s his business plan. In fact, a nice chunk of Trump’s wealth has come from using the force of government to take property from private individuals to line his pockets. Beyond the sheer lack of basic humanity, it definitely takes a liberal progressive to do something like that. There is nothing remotely close to conservative about Donald Trump, and thus there is no reason he should garner your support, zero, nada, zip.
If you want a pro-amnesty, pro-wealth tax, pro-donating to Rahm Emanuel and Harry freaking Reid and his likely opponent Hillary Clinton, pro-choice but pro-life during election season, thinks Bush is the worst president in history, wants Oprah to be the VP, self-described Obama cheerleader, believe we must have universal healthcare, pro-using the government to steal homes from elderly people, pro-a losing candidate that has zero chance of winning, and a progressive, then Donald Trump is totally your guy.
There you have it, America. The science is settled. Let’s just once and for all stop with the Donald. Let’s just stop. As Glenn would say, never again is now.
The next time a Leftist tells you they want the kind of socialism they do in the Scandinavian countries (where 98% of the population are white, educated, employed, same religion), remind them of the 48 reasons that can never work here. My bolding/underlining.
Excellent analysis from National Review.
WRD
The Whitest Privilege
by Kevin D. Williamson
July 8, 2015
The American’s Left’s blond-haired, blue-eyed fantasyland
The curious task of the American Left is to eliminate “white privilege” by forcing people to adopt Nordic social arrangements at gunpoint. Progressives have a longstanding love affair with the nations of northern Europe, which are, or in some cases were until the day before yesterday, ethnically homogeneous, overwhelmingly white, hostile to immigration, nationalistic, and frankly racist in much of their domestic policy. In this the so-called progressives are joined, as they traditionally have been, by brutish white supremacists and knuckle-dragging anti-Semites, who believe that they discern within the Nordic peoples the last remnant of white European purity and who frequently adopt Nordic icons and myths, incorporating them into an oddball cult of whiteness. American progressivism is a cult of whiteness, too: It imagines re-creating Danish society in Los Angeles, which is not full of Danish people, ascribing to Scandinavian social policies certain mystical tendencies that render them universal in their applicability. Call it “Nordic Exceptionalism.”
The Left occasionally indulges in bouts of romantic exoticism — its pin-ups have included Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Mao Zedong; we might even count Benito Mussolini, “that admirable Italian gentleman” who would not have been counted sufficiently white to join Franklin Roosevelt’s country club — but the welfare states that progressives dream about are the whitest ones: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc.The significance of this never quite seems to occur to progressives. When it is suggested that the central-planning, welfare-statist policies that they favor are bound to produce results familiar to the unhappy residents of, e.g., Cuba, Venezuela, or Bolivia — privation, chaos, repression, political violence — American progressives reliably reply: “No, no, we don’t want that kind of socialism. We want socialism like they have it in Finland.”
Translation: “We want white socialism, not brown socialism!”
The real differences between relatively homogeneous northern European societies and the sort of society we have here in the United States is rarely if ever seriously addressed by our democratic socialist friends. The unspoken assumption — that all of us will either learn to behave like good little Scandinavians or be enemies of the state in this new metaphysically blond utopia — is, as our feminist friends like to say, problematic.
Set aside for a moment the conflation of socialism with high-tax welfare-statism — Sweden, with its entrepreneurial, trade-driven economy and very little in the way of state-owned enterprises constitutes anything but centrally planned socialism — Nordic practice is what self-described socialists such as Senator Bernie Sanders generally have in mind when they talk about socialism. (We can ignore, for the moment, the old Castroite holdouts and youthful Chavistas writing for Rolling Stone; everybody else does.) The racial aspects of Nordic welfare-statism are studiously not talked about, even when Stockholm burns while members of its unassimilated Muslim minority riot. Sweden is the most diverse of the Nordic countries, and its immigration history has been a start-and-stop affair. The most dramatic immigration episode in Swedish history is, of course, the dramatic emigration of Swedes to North America in the early 20th century, when grinding poverty and famine sent one in four Swedes packing to the United States and Canada. It is estimated that there are today more people of Swedish ancestry living in the United States and Canada than in Sweden. Political and economic realities encouraged Sweden to recruit labor immigrants for many years, and its formal and informal relationships with other Scandinavian countries — as well as the veto power over immigration policy held by its trade-union confederation, which made familiar Buchananite noises about the peril of cheap foreign labor — ensured that the vast majority of Swedish immigrants were other Nordic people. When Jews fleeing National Socialism sought refuge in Sweden in the 1930s and 1940s, “the majority were rejected due to anti-semitism and discriminatory racial ideology prevalent in Sweden at that time,” as Charles Westin puts it.
Sweden had virtually no non-European immigrants, and few non-Nordic immigrants, until the 1970s. In popular usage, the modern Swedish word for “immigrant” does not mean “foreign-born person,” but “non-Nordic person in Sweden.” Socialism and welfare-statism, like nationalism and racism, are based on appeals to solidarity — solidarity that is enforced at gunpoint, if necessary. That appeal is more than a decent-hearted concern for the downtrodden or the broad public good. It is, rather, an exclusionary solidarity, a superstitious notion that understands “body politic” not as a mere figure of speech but as a substantive description of the state and the people as a unitary organism, the health of which is of such paramount importance that individual rights — property, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of association — must be curtailed or eliminated when they are perceived to be insalubrious. If the nation is an organism, it’s no surprise to find Donald Trump describing foreigners as an infection. Thus the by-now-familiar xenophobia prevalent in Democratic rhetoric (and the Trumpkin anti-capitalist Right’s rhetoric) about Asians and Latin Americans “stealing our jobs.” The Swedes, the Swiss, and the Germans often are in direct competition with key American industries, but there is never any talk about the Swedes “stealing our jobs.”
Funny thing, that. As is the curious fact that the socialism you might read about in The Nation is cosmopolitan and liberal, whereas the socialism presented to the voters by Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump, etc., is nationalistic and xenophobic, us-and-them stuff that would have warmed the heart of Father Coughlin or Henry Ford. Socialism and welfare-statism, like nationalism and racism, are based on appeals to solidarity — solidarity that is enforced at gunpoint, if necessary. Solidarity, as it turns out, is not evenly distributed, nor is it color-blind. None of those denunciations of wicked “foreign oil” ever end with an accusatory finger pointed north toward Canada, our largest foreign supplier. When Barack Obama wants some solar-energy subsidies to pay off his crony-capitalist backers, he doesn’t rebuke the Canadians, but those damned dirty brown people in the Middle East. (Middle Eastern people seem destined to take the eternal brunt of American economic stupidity: It used to be the scheming Jewish bankers, now it’s the nefarious awful Arabs who want to sell us crude oil that we need at market prices.) You’d need a microscope to find a substantial philosophical difference between the economic views of Democrat Ted Strickland, the boobish former Ohio governor who likes to go around denouncing “economic traitors,” and those of, say, Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front, who fears “wild and anarchic globalization.” Even “liberal” is becoming a term of abuse for the Left, with denunciations of “neo-liberalism” becoming almost intense as those of “neo-conservatism.” The anti-trade rhetoric prevalent in the recent TPA/TPP debate assumes, without ever quite saying so, that economic interactions with foreigners — especially dusky, poor foreigners — is inherently destructive.
In reality, economic xenophobia and ordinary xenophobia always end up colliding. The nastier of Europe’s anti-immigrant and ethno-nationalist movements argue that ethnic solidarity is necessary to preserve the welfare state. Among ordinary Swedes, the topic of immigrants’ — non-Nordic people’s — relatively high rates of unemployment and welfare dependency is politically charged. The same is true in the other Nordic countries; see Jørgen Goul Andersen and Tor Bjørklund on “welfare chauvinism.” Nordic welfare chauvinists often point to Finland as enjoying the ideal social situation: 99.6 percent of the population is either ethnically Finnish (93.5 percent) or Swedish (5.9 percent), and 80 percent of them are nominal members of the same church (Lutheran). The largest single non-European immigrant community in Norway is composed of Somalis; there are 35,000 of them, approximately the population of Bettendorf, Iowa.
“We’d like to make America more like Norway or Finland” is, among other things, a way of saying, “We’d like to make America more like a virtually all-white society.” It’s not like they don’t have public health care in Singapore or income redistribution in Ghana. Think about that the next time a progressive tells you that Chicago ought to do things the way Helsinki does.
— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review. Read more at:
WRD began in January 2010 at the height of the Obamacare debacle. Since then, WRD banded with a group of like-minded individuals to form the Gadsden Group, influencing thought by challenging bias at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, volunteering for Republican candidates, participating in numerous campaign events, networking with other groups of concerned citizens, and gaining a foothold in social media on Twitter. Our "Letter to to the Left" after Governor Walker's convincing win in the June 2012 recall election went viral, and we decided to officially expand this site to include the Gadsden Group name.
We hope this site will be a one-stop shop for great websites, articles, polls, conservative commentary, and more. 2010 was the year of the Republican comeback, and 2012 was off to a great start with the convincing win of Scott Walker, but we have much work to do after the Romney and Thompson defeats, and it's up to all of us to make it happen. Share with friends, convince your kids, do your part to get our great country back! Thanks for visiting our site! Wisconsin Republican Dad and everyone in the Gadsden Group
WRD: I'm just a dad and husband who's very worried about the direction this country is going, and decided it was time I got involved. I believe in fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, a much smaller goverment, fewer government programs, agencies, and entitlements, strong national defense, and justice for criminals. I want our borders strengthened, tort reform, a balanced budget, and deficit reduction. I believe in Constructionist judges, not liberals who legislate from the bench. I'm pro gun, I'm for expanding nuclear power and offshore drilling. By default, that makes me a conservative Republican. The liberals are killing this country, and worse, they know it. Their desire to be liked, to be seen as champions of the poor, while they continue to grow the welfare state, bothers me greatly. Because arrogance is the worst of human traits, their condescension (that means you Russ Feingold) towards middle America makes me want to scream. So I am...
Gadsden Group: We are a group of like-minded individuals based in Waukesha and Milwaukee counties (WI). We're sick of liberals running our state into the ground, so we decided to make a stand. So far, so good...
Commentary By
There has been very little examination into the role that her Christian faith played in her politics.
“Economics is the method; the object is to change the soul,” Thatcher once declared, revealing that the way she conceived her free-market ideology was as much about transforming values as about improving Britain’s ailing GDP.
More profoundly, there was a strong religious basis to Thatcher’s politics—one that stemmed from her strict Methodist upbringing and, more specifically, the chief influence in her life, her father, who was a greengrocer, councilor, and Wesleyan lay preacher.
Contained within his sermons, one finds the theological basis of what would later become the cornerstones of Thatcherism: an individualistic interpretation of the Bible, a nod to the spiritual dangers of avarice, praise of the Protestant work ethic, virtues of thrift and self-reliance, and finally, a divine justification for individual liberty and the free market.
In short, Thatcherism always owed more to Methodism than to Monetarism.
Thatcher herself was a preacher before she formally entered politics while a student at Oxford University. Even though she later transferred this missionary energy from the pulpit to the podium, her religious values remained an underlying core.
Indeed, on becoming leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, Thatcher (much like Ronald Reagan) saw it as her chief mission to completely undermine the moral credibility of socialism and communism and reconnect the broken link between Protestant and capitalist values in Britain.
Preaching from the pulpit on several occasions, Thatcher unashamedly asserted the Biblical case for the sovereignty of individual liberty and the “invisible hand.”
“Do not be tempted to identify virtue with collectivism,” she preached from the pulpit of St. Lawrence Jewry Church in London in 1978. “I wonder whether the State services would have done as much for the man who fell among the thieves as the Good Samaritan did for him.” According to Thatcher, “[i]t was to individuals that the Ten Commandments were addressed.” She continued, “We are called on to repent our own sins, not each others’.”
“What mattered,” in her words, “was Man’s relationship to God.”
Thatcher’s interpretation was that as Christianity was a call to men individually, so it should follow that political choices reside with the citizen rather than the state.
While such sentiments may have been standard and uncontroversial among Republican politicians in the U.S., in the more secular culture of British politics, Thatcher’s sermons incited moral outrage.
Many Christians, especially the established Church of England, would spend a large part of the 1980s repudiating the “Gospel of Thatcherism,” denigrating Thatcher’s policies as “unchristian,” and unmasking the social ramifications of her so-called values.
This would lead to a fractious conflict between Church and State that would irrevocably break the historic alliance between the Conservative Party and the Church of England, which had been in existence for over two centuries.
Unlike America, which has a secular state but a devout public, Britain has an established state Church but a largely agnostic public.
British politicians invariably avoid mixing religion with politics, conscious of the voters’ distaste for preaching and moralism.
In the 1980s, while America saw the revival of a moral conservative movement, no such parallel development took place in Britain. In Parliament, legislation pertaining to personal morality such as abortion, homosexuality, and divorce were (and still are) deemed “conscience matters,” in which Members of Parliament were given a free vote and not subject to the party whip.
Thatcher may have been a Christian, but her faith was never moralistic. She certainly took an old-fashioned view toward sexual morality but ultimately saw such issues as a matter of personal conscience rather than subject to regulatory control.
One area where Thatcher’s faith did profoundly shape her outlook was in her approach to the great cause of the age: the Cold War.
Like Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher would play a crucial part in the propaganda offensive against the Eastern Bloc. “Men have forgotten God; that’s why this has all happened,” wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It was a position with which Thatcher readily concurred.
More than any other British leader since Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher was willing to elevate the Cold War into one about ideas and values and to wage a crusade against atheistic communism—a position she demonstrated most openly in her unwavering support for Solidarity in Poland.
In 1983, Thatcher used the occasion of her acceptance speech for the Winston Churchill Foundation Award in Washington to assert the Cold War as one chiefly of ideas, not weapons:
For Thatcher, the fight against socialism at home and communism abroad was a fight for the sovereignty of liberty and individual free will.
This was an understanding that, from her earliest childhood, she had always understood as the central tenet of the Christian faith.
Dr. Eliza Filby will be speaking on Sept. 16 at the Heritage Foundation on her new book “God and Mrs. Thatcher: The Battle for Britain’s Soul” For more information on attending please click here.