Since late May crony, crooked, incompetent Hillary (left) and Princess Lizzie Ticklefeather (right) have been blasting Donald Trump as a heartless cut throat businessman for saying in 2006 that if the housing market should crash he'd make a fortune. Though Trump won't disclose how much a profited he nevertheless owes every cent of it to Bill Clinton whose reckless affordable housing program for the poor underlied the crash.  A great controversy stirring campaign tactic would be for Trump to publicly thank Bill for the crash that added to his wealth.
The credit/housing crash of 2008 that wiped out trillions in wealth for millions of Americans and nearly collapsed our financial system and caused a depression had many moving parts. But the prime mover of the crisis (the fountainhead and ultimate source) who set it in motion was Bill Clinton and his Government/Wall Street Housing Partnership to revitalize the flat housing market he inherited from George H. W. Bush.
Behold the great bubble maker who made Trump richer from the housing crash.
Called the National Homeownership Strategy (see) Clinton sort to quickly and dramatically boost the national home ownership rate from 63% to an astonishing historic 70% in just a few short years. Hoping to reach his ambitious goal by the end of his second term (and go down in history as the Great Home Ownership President) Clinton targeted millions of low-income families who dreamed of being home owners  but couldn't qualify or afford mortgages for lack of good credit or income and savings. So compassionate, big-hearted Bill feeling their pain of wanting the American dream of home ownership but couldn't afford it decided to launch a new economic and financial social justice revolution: to instantaneously lift millions of low-income families out of poverty and into the middle class. It was Clinton's version of the War on Poverty by other means; instead of government handouts and growing the welfare state (which he reformed) costing tax payers billions banks and mortgage firms would issue millions of risky loans to poor folks giving them a short cut to the middle class and American dream; and for many years it worked like a dream, until it predictably became a national    nightmare.
Indeed, Clinton with help from government sponsored mortgage firms (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made mortgages affordable to the poor on a massive scale by democratizing credit and treating them as if they were creditworthy 700 FICA score borrowers: with little or nothing down and a small fee to the lender and wallah, a subprime mortgage for $100,000 plus homes would be theirs (see and see). It was only fair thought progressive compassionate Bill that they should be treated like richer folks; for  
 like most liberals believe all human beings (rich, poor, in between)   have an equal right to home ownership. Now with Fannie and Freddie (headed by compassionate, caring, bleeding heart libs like Bill) massively buying and backing these loans from banks and mortgage firms (removing the risk and hazard of issuing them) Bill Clinton nearly reached his goal making him the greatest HOUSING BUBBLE KING of all. Indeed, when his presidency ended in 2001 the gigantic doomed to burst housing bubble (the homeownership rate) was at 68%-up 5 points when he took office in 93. No wonder the economy was surging during the Clinton years; and despite Monicagate and all the lies Bill left office flying high with a 66% approval rating-just beating Ronald Reagan.
From 1993 to 2006 the home ownership bubble grew from 63% to 69%-5% under Clinton 1% under Bush. This means that Clinton owned 5/6ths of the bubble-the majority of it. 
Indeed, as Bill Clinton brags and boasts today (and Hillary is always reminding us) the country greatly prospered during the 90s, and especially the nation's poor as 7.7 million of them were lifted out of poverty-a historic achievement by any measure. But Clinton avoids like death mentioning his secret on how he achieved such astounding  success: his Affordable Housing Program where recklessly discarding decades of safe, traditional, time-tested lending practices he subprime loaned his way to a housing boom that continued under a desperate, struggling George Bush (he saw a possible crash ahead and tried to prevent it, see) reaching 69% in 2006. Then the tide in home sales declined and two years later disaster struck as the Clinton/Bush bubble went bust with millions losing trillions in wealth and sinking into poverty reversing all the gains of the Clinton/Bush years. Indeed, millions of  people defaulted on their loans and many of the 7.7 million lost their homes along with their middle class rank.
That part of the story the Clintons don't want you to know because Bill's blind, reckless, stupid liberal ambition (his feel your pain compassion to end poverty, share wealth and leave office with a booming economy using risky subprime loans) nearly wrecked the economy for all.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Bill Clinton was one of its most foolish travelers. Let the truth be known.
Hillary who tried and failed to reset US foreign policy (making it worse with her weak and feckless leadership and bad decisions) now promises to reset America after the disaster of the Obama years by continuing his failed policies.
And now with an anemic economy almost flat on its back of under 2% growth, and a disappearing middle class (which accelerated under Obama) Bill Clinton and the Mrs. want to return to the White House using him as her economic czar in charge of revitalizing the economy. God help us all if she beats out Trump this fall. For who knows what crazy reckless screwball schemes Clinton will dream up again.


It looks like my theory about gay Moslem mass murderer Omar Mateen (which I wrote about  HERE) might very well be factually true. An alleged gay lover of Mateen's who calls himelf Miguel has anonymously come forward telling the FBI and Univision that the derranged jihadist was out for revenge against gays when he murdered 49 people and injured 53 at a gay bar in Orlando. I had surmised, and rightly it seems, that Omar's experience with gay sex had turned very ugly deeply wounding him emotionally; and this I believed is what triggered his murderous rampage fueled and reinforced by his Islamic faith.
Omar Mateem killed gays for revenge and his personal salvation.
And sure enough the mysterious Miguel told Univision that after Omar foolishly and recklessly had unprotected sex with two Hispanic men one of them freaked him out and made him unhinged  by telling him he was HIV positive. And everything went down hill from there. After many years of  trying and failing to find true love and happiness in gay relationships it had all come to naught. Believing after so many disappointments that he might be infected with deadly AIDS by an irresponsible and dangerous gay who treated him like worthless dirt (a mere sexual receptical for his sinful lusts) a dehumanized Omar "felt rejected and used by them,"  Miguel told Univision. That was it. That one last bad experience (perhaps the worst as there were surely others) was the last straw for Omar; he had had it with homosexuals and gay bars. Not only did this depravity prove a dead-end for finding happiness in life, it was now like deadly poison to him and something to be expunged. Indeed, when Miguel asked his depressed, disillusioned and angry friend what he was going to do Omar ominously replied, "I'm going to make them pay for what they did to me." Omar was out for blood and wanted revenge; and thus was born the anti-gay jihadist driven by rage and the need for redemption to kill and hurt as many gays possible.
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot [sodomites], kill the doer who does it and the receiver to whom it is done.”
 As being gay turned into a punishing experience and living hell for him Omar's upbringing in the Moslem faith came into play. Recalling what he'd heard and learned from his radical Moslem gay-hating dad, and from anti-gay imams in his schools and mosques, he must have become deeply guilty and aggrieved that he ignored what he'd heard as they were warnings of what he'd suffer. For he heard from the Prophet Mohammed (God's ultimate messenger of truth) that homosexuality was a cardinal sin and major offense against Allah (a heterosexual god who in Arab lore had fathered three daughters with a goddess); he also heard that gays were barred from heaven being exclusively a place for heterosexual men and women; and that Allah's reward for virtuous Moslem men was an eternity of bliss with dozens of radiant voluptuous never aging virgins giving them pleasure. Recalling these things Omar the miserable depraved sick sinning gay (this is what Islam told him he was) understood that heaven was closed to him upon death.
Islamic heaven is heterosexual.
Indeed, it meant that the hell he was suffering from his sexually deviant life was prelude to infinitely worse in the after life. Omar had defiled himself with ungodly sex; and if he failed to make amends and do what's right his immortal soul would be lost in hell forever in unendurable torment.
and "martyrs.... Enter heaven.." - Surah 3:140-43
Indeed, wanting to save himself from a terrible fate Omar desired to become what Islam demanded that he be: a good, straight Moslem man and atone for his sins earning Allah's love, forgiveness and grace; and redeeming oneself in the faith could be done one of two ways: Omar could stop being gay and simply go straight and live a righteous life devoting himself to his wife and child leaving his sins in the past. But overcoming such sins requires great will power, courage and moral strength which Omar unfortunately seems to have lacked. As he couldn't control his sexual urges no matter how hard he tried (going to mosque three or four times a week, praying to Allah for guidance and strength) Omar came to believe that the conventional Islam of ritual worship wasn't the answer or path; and the only alternative left to him-the only way out to make peace with God and conquer his sins-was violent murderous HOLY JIHAD. Going the way of  ISIS, al Qaida, the Taliban and others (who were killing infidel sinners the world over) Omar would became a warrior for Allah killing gays for his salvation.
As homosexuality in Islam is a grievous, soul-damning sin punishable by death (in all 57 Moslem states gays are oppressed) Omar would redeem and fix his damaged soul by becoming Allah's sword in slaying homosexuals. By killing gays en masse and martyring himself he'd kill forever the gay sinner inside him. Indeed, freeing his soul from sin and  purging it clean of the past Omar would rise from the ashes of his death reborn a pure, good, holy heterosexual Moslem man. And Allah proud of what he'd done in his name and for his fame Omar would enter paradise rewarded with the gift of endless carnal bliss as promised in the Koran.
My prediction that the Baltimore Six would be aquitted like George Zimmerman





An angry John McCain running for reelection in Arizona accused President Obama's premature, reckless, unnecessary withdrawal of US troops from Iraq of midwifing (giving birth to) the radical terrorist Islamic State that gay Moslem killer Omar Mateen swore allegiance to before he martyred himself to death. McCain's exact words were:
"Barack Obama is directly responsible for it [Orlando shooting], because when he pulled everybody out of Iraq, al-Qaida went to Syria, became ISIS, and ISIS is what it is today thanks to Barack Obama's failures, utter failures, by pulling everybody out of Iraq... 

So the responsibility for it lies with President Obama and his failed policies."

Though McCain was to later clarify his statement saying that "Obama's security policies and not him personality was responsible for Orlando (see)" nevertheless McCain on both occasions was disingenuously and self-servingly speaking a half truth. Indeed, the full inconvenient truth which he doesn't want you to know and could hurt is reelection to a fifth term in the Senate is summed up in the following precise demonstrable equation:


Indeed (as I explain HERE and HERE), remove from the equation the disastrous Obama/Clinton decision to intervene militarily in Libya (with a NO FLY ZONE and bombings to assist Libyan rebels in defeating Kaddafy) and the Syrian rebels certain that Obama and NATO would intervene on their behalf wouldn't have risen up against Assad with such destructive and murderous ferocity. In other words, if Obama's Libyan (and Egyptian*) policies hadn't turned relatively peaceful protests for democratic reform into an armed insurrection to topple Assad Syria would be very much at peace today with no massive displacement of Syrians creating a refugee crisis-and very real and deadly threats of refugee terrorism in America and the West.

*Obama's desertion of long time friend and US ally Hosni Mubarak for the radical Moslem Brotherhood then desertion of US ally Kaddafy for Libyan rebels emboldened anti-Baathist forces in Syria to arm and rise up against the anti-US Assad regime


But what hypocritical John McCain doesn't want you to know, or hopes you've forgotten, is that he (and`Lindsey Graham) was gung-ho for regime change in Libya and deposing Kaddafy. As Rand Paul said in his blistering critique McCain (and Graham) supported the Obama/Clinton Libyan War to the hilt; and then representing the anti-Assad rebels, which included al-Qaida (later to become ISIS), he and Graham urged Obama to replicate in Syria what he did in Libya: set up a NO FLY ZONE and bomb Assad to weaken his regime in his war against the rebels. But Obama disappointing the rebels who were certain of US intervention because of Assad's atrocities (which they provoked and committed themselves) would do no such thing*. They were deceived. With Obama wanting a nuke deal with Assad's allies in Iran there was no way he was going to chance jeopardizing that by bringing down Assad; or worse still risk getting into a military conflict with pro-Assad Putin in Russia.

*It was shortly after Obama ominously announced on March 19, 2011 (the eighth anniversary of the Iraq War) that the US and NATO would intervene in Libya  and set up a No Fly Zone that anti-Assad violence broke out in Syria with the burning down of Baath Party headquarters in the city of Daraa  (see and see). 

The sad truth is this: when Obama and Clinton took office there was no ISIS caliphate; and it would have stayed that way had they not gone to war against Kaddafy in Libya; and Obama had used the tremendous leverage he had of $60 billion in Iraq Reconstruction Funds to keep US troops in Iraq on US terms (as Leon Panetta said he could have done if he had the will, see). The terrible truth is this: Obama and Clinton were the unwitting parents (father and mother) of evil, murdering, terrorist ISIS; and John McCain to a lesser degree was complicit in its horrible birth (on the Syrian side). And in this way,  by the law of unintended consequences, Obama, Hillary and McCain were indirectly (not directly or personally) responsible for the 49 dead victims of the ISIS inspired Orlando gay nightclub massacre-the worst Islamic terrorist attack since 9/11-almost certainly anticipating worse horrors to come. I think most of you would agree with me when I say that with Obama retiring in January it's time for John McCain to call it quits and join him.










  In a video posted on Facebook early this morning, Seddique Mateen (pictured) said his 29-year-old son, Omar Mateen, shouldn¿t have gone on the killing spree because ¿God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality¿

The lying pro-Taliban father of gay mass murderer Omar Mateen tried to hide his son's radicalization and homosexuality.

Shortly after mass murdering gay jihadist Omar Mateen martyred himself while killing 49 mostly gay Americans at Pulse nightclub in Orlando his father Seddique (a radical pro-Taliban Islamist) told NBC News that his son wasn't a radical Moslem; and that contrary to reports that he was gay he actually hated gays to the point of being enraged by them; and that his murderous anti-gay rampage was triggered by the sight of two gay men kissing (see). 
But subsequently we learned that this wasn't true. For not only did Omar swear allegiance to ISIS, but he was no stranger to seeing gay men hug and kiss as he'd been a patron at the Pulse for many years where that's normally done. In other words, the father blatantly lied obviously to cover up the truth about his son's homosexuality. Why? The most likely reason is that being a devote Moslem who lived by the Koran Seddique was ashamed that Omar was gay-a grievous sin in Islam punishable by death.
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot [sodomites], kill the doer who does it and the receiver to whom it is done.”
Indeed, Seddique didn't want the truth be known that like weak permissive infidel parents he failed in his duty as a Moslem dad and tolerated Omar's damning, Allah-hating      soul destroying sins; for Islamic law gave him the right and obligation to severely punish him: to beat the homosexuality out of him if reason failed, or even kill him if necessary (allowed by Islamic law) as he was   dishonoring and disgracing his family and Islam. In short, by making his son seem violently anti-gay Seddique was trying to save face with his pro-Taliban family, friends, peers and contacts abroad; and with the vast majority of Moslems worldwide who are strongly anti-gay*. That is the most likely explanation for the lie. But there could be something deeper and more sinister that Seddique was trying to hide: that he or a relative or family friend had a hand in corrupting his son and making him gay.
*Gays are oppressed and discriminated against in all 57 Moslem states (see).
Afghan boy with child abusing pederast.
This theory is not far-fetched. For the Mateens came here in the 1980s as refugees from Afghanistan to escape the brutal war there. But they didn't come alone. They arrived with a group of relatives, friends and acquaintances bringing with them their Afghan values, customs and ideas. But one of those customs (perhaps the worst) was the cultural practice of "bacha bazi" Persian for "boy play," or what we call pederasty: the sexual abuse of young boys (see). Given that this ancient perverse practice is widespread in Afghanistan it is probable that Omar was its victim as a child here in the States; that abused by his father or an uncle or a family friend he was used as a boy toy (sexual play thing) and suffered deep psychological scars. Indeed, Omar's conflicting homosexuality and horrific jihad strike against gays could have ultimately been rooted in bacha bazi, his sexual abuse as a kid.
According to Islamic law (the words of the Prophet Mohammed) for the purification of the soul from the damning sin of homosexuality Mateen in mass slaughtering gays as a blood sacrifice to Allah did exactly the right thing.
What is perfectly clear however is that Omar failed to find happiness in his gay relations (as he failed to find it in his marriage) and quite possibly was deeply and emotionally wounded by the experience. Perhaps his last gay relationship was so painful and horribly bad that it sent him over the edge into an anti-gay rage that drove him to his evil deed.
 The Islamic Center of Fort Pierce in Fort Pierce Florida
 Omar Mateen's mosque in Ft. Pierce where he prayed up to four times a week.
What is also clear is that before he turned violent Omar was trying to peacefully find redemption on the ritual side of Islam. Becoming more religious than he'd ever been Omar's imam said that he was attending mosque three to four times a week praying ardently trying to be a good Moslem and get right with God (see). But apparently it didn't work. Hard as he prayed and humbled himself before Allah, begging him for a sign of forgiveness and grace, nothing happened, nothing came-Allah seemed unresponsive ignoring his pleas and Omar grew frustrated, desperate and enraged.
Indeed, the happiness he missed in gay sex he couldn't find in normative, conventional, mainstream Islam either. Try as he may he couldn't remove the sense of guilt and shame he incurred from defiling himself with sexual acts that brought him grief and were forbidden by his faith. Omar must have come to believe that Allah was profoundly unhappy with him; and finding the way to change that and earn his saving love and grace became a spiritual obsession driving him to dangerous extremes. And thus was born the deadliest American Moslem jihadist in history.
Indeed, unable to find redemption in his mosque Omar turned to unconventional means: to savage bloody murderous jihad (as taught by ISIS, al Awlaki, al-Qaida and    the Taliban) as a last resort and hope to save his hell bound soul. With prefect fanatical faith he believed that jihad was the answer and only path for him; that martyring himself for the faith while killing dozens of sexual sinners like himself (as a blood sacrifice to Allah) would kill the sin inside him, atone for his past and purify his soul making it acceptable to God-and earning him the gift and blessing of paradise. And the more gays he killed the greater the reward, as each life taken would please God the more.  And when his bloody deed was done 49 innocents lie dead making it the deadliest jihadist attack since 9/11. And Omar's soul where is it now? In torment for his horrific crime more lost, wretched and damned than ever.


al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot [sodomites], kill the doer who does it and the receiver to whom it is done.”



In most of the world's 57 Moslem states homosexuality is officially regarded as a crime against God and nature and is legally punishable by imprisonment, torture, mutilation or death. The one big exception though is Turkey where same sex sexual activity has been legally protected and tolerated for more than a 150 years (see postscript below). Turkish gays, lesbians and bisexuals, however, can be legally discriminated against and denied housing, employment and any goods and services based on their sexual orientation. Moreover, harassment and violence against LGBT folks is growing in Turkey as the country becomes increasingly re-Islamized under Islamist President Erdogen (see). In other words, in Turkey if you're gay and want to survive it's best to be very discreet and hide your shame.



  Indeed, repression, violence and economic discrimination against homosexuals in Moslem countries is not radical extremist fundamentalist Islam (a distortion, perversion or hijacking of the faith) like Obama, Clinton and liberals want us to believe; far from it, the "Religion of Peace" and its war against gays is normative, moderate, traditional, common, mainstream everyday Islam based on the words and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed as cited in the above Hadith where he condemns them to death. And practically every Moslem immigrant in this country (like Omar Mateen's homosexual hating dad) comes here with an anti-homosexual mindset: a deep pitiless ingrained cultural hatred and loathing of homosexuals that, inspired by the Prophet's words, could become horribly violent and deadly. Indeed, everyone of Omar Mateen's 49 mostly gay victims (killed for the glory of Allah and Islam) would have suffered death or imprisonment (where few return alive) in war-torn Afghanistan where his pro-Taliban parents came from (see).


 Gay teen stoned to death in Somalia.

 Indeed, moderate Islam = the repression and punishment of homosexuals by either imprisonment (long jail terms), death (by the state or unprosecuted vigilantes) or social and economic discrimination (housing, employment, military service etc). How then is opening the floodgates of Moslem immigration like Obama, Clinton and Dems want to do (especially from Syria one of the world's worst anti-gay states, see) good for the safety, security and well-being of the LGBT community.....as Donald Trump says? 



If libs and LGBT people think it's bad enough that there are tens and millions of anti-homosexual Americans (Christians, Jews and social conservatives like myself) who want to roll back gay marriage and other LGTB gains why would they want to increase their numbers with more homo hating Moslems from abroad? How does that serve their interests and advance their cause? What happened in Orlando should be a rousing wake up call to the LGBT community.  What would serve them (and every unbeliever in this country) is Donald Trump in the White House preëmptively keeping out Moslems like the Mateens.




(especially from Syria)(





Ripped off from BareNakedIslam





Since posting this piece it has come to my attention that consensual same sex love is legally protected in two other Moslem countries: Indonesia and the Palestinian territories (not really a country). However, unlike Turkey where unnatural sexual acts are protected for all Turks everywhere this is not the case in Indonesia and the Pali territories; in the later legal protection only applies to gays living in the West Bank, not in Hamas controlled Islamist Gaza. In Indonesia gay and lesbian sex is criminalized in the provinces of Aceh and South Sumatra but nowhere else. But as in Turkey economic and housing discrimination against gays is perfectly legal throughout Indonesia and the Pali territories.






Gay Muslim: Islam is no religion of peace-JIhad Watch



Parvez Sharma

As Islam is at war with gays like no religion on earth today why does this gay man stay in the faith knowing how evil it is for his kind with no hope of a reformation for some time to come?







Orlando Gunman’s Father Says Son Got Angry After Seeing Men Kissing | Mediaite 


Like Moslem Gay-hating father like Moslem Gay-hating son. The father fantasized about punishing and killing Gays. The son turned those fantasies into reality.

Homosexuals hanging out at a Gay nightclub in downtown Tehran./sarc.



Religion of Peace Moslems in Raqqa, Syria wanting to see if this  
sharia court condemned homosexual was a fairy who'd sprout wings and fly (this is why they  throw them from roof tops). Of course he remained wingless as he fell screaming to his horrible undeserved  death.


Do they not understand that unlike Judaism and Christianity Islam hasn't undergone an evolutionary liberal reformation? And that increasing the number of Moslems in this country puts Gays and LGBT people at greater risk of being killed or injured in other homophobic/anti-LGBT mass murder terrorist attacks?



This murderous Gay hating Religion of Peace Sufi Moslem cleric (revered throughout the Sunni Middle East) is a popular TV personality with a show on Al-Jazeera watched by millions. Qaradawi who dreams of martyring himself while shooting Jews to death in Jerusalem was chosen by the Obama administration to mediate peace talks between the US and Gay killing Taliban (see and see). 



 Genocidal anti-Gay jihad (the purging and eradication of homosexuality from society) is practiced in most of the world's 57 Moslem states. 



Gee, it is the Christian Right that has blocked civil rights and protections for LGBT folks. Are you unaware of American Christian Churches promoting LGBT Death in other countries? For example, Rick Warren and Uganda, Scott Lively and Uganda, etc. Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on gays amongst others. Pat Robertson blames pretty much anything he doesn't like on LGBTs. And lets not forget the wonderful bathroom laws being passed by Christian family values politicians. Let's not forget all the hate crimes committed right here in the U.S. by Christians against LGBTs, a simple search will show you an extensive list. So I would theorize that American Christianity is Profoundly Anti-homosexual.






Gay pride parade in Jewish Liberal Democratic Israel. One of many reasons why Palestinian Religion of Peace Moslems want to destroy Israel and kill or oppress every single Jew, Gay and Straight.


ApolloSpeaks   samsid


Name for me the predominately Moslem countries where LGBT people can live openly in safety and in peace without fear of violence and persecution. Now name for me the predominately Christian and Jewish countries where they can live that way. Then explain to me why the latter numbers in the dozens while the former numbers in the







That's 57 ZEROS

(including the Palestinian territories).


Why? Why are the vast majority of the world's 1.6 billion Moslems, living in these 57 Moslem states, violently and mercilessly anti-LGBT? Why do they support and tolerate the legal killing, mutilation and incarceration of LGBT people for their sexual behavior and mental obsessions? Then explain to me why it's good for the safety and security of the American LGBT community for the Federal Government to increase the size of the American Moslem community with a steady influx of immigrants originating from these 57 anti-LGBT states? Should the vetting process include screening out Moslems who say in the name of Allah, the Prophet and Islam they are anti-LGBT, and that LGBT people should be legally repressed like they are in Moslem lands? I'm for that! Are you?





Weak lying low energy crooked Hillary (do you notice how fatigued she looks and sounds lately?) faced with possible defeat in November from unpredictable, indefatigable, gravity defying GOP nominee Donald Trump warned  yesterday that Trump's campaign slogan "Make America Great Again" are, and get this, "code words for taking America backwards." This is truly amusing. For at this time last year when Trump launched his campaign and pledged to renew America's greatness this country (with no little help from Hillary at state) was regressing: moving backwards economically, militarily and geopolitically-retreating from the world and throwing it into turmoil.
Interestingly however during the 2008 campaign Hillary while in New Hampshire with tears in her eyes rightly predicted that decline would be America's fate with Barack Obama as head of state. Indeed, an emotional Hillary admitting that she was fatigued from the stress and strain of vying with Obama (she's eight years older and tires more easily now) choked up and said:
"We have so many opportunities in this country and I don't want to see us fall backwards....I see what's happening and we have to reverse it."
Then alluding to Obama as being unqualified to reverse our decline and make it worse Hillary said:
"Some of us are right and some of us are wrong; some of us are ready and some are not; some of us know  what we'll do on day one, and some of us haven't thought that through enough."
In other words, Barack Obama wasn't right for the job, ready for the job, prepared to do the job. He didn't have the knowledge and experience to reverse our decline and renew America's wealth, strength and greatness. And she was right about him but wrong about herself as being the one to turn us around or prevent us from getting worse. For Clinton, as Obama's weak, feckless, incompetent secretary of state didn't know what to do from day one and was partners with him in our continued decline showing herself unfit for command-not only lacking the judgement for the presidency (Russia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, China, North Korea, ISIS and the refugee crisis) but also lacking as Trump says "the strength, stamina and energy for the job"-not being up to its trying demands.
Just watch Hillary in the coming weeks and months ahead as the pressures of campaigning and need to exert herself take its toll on her health and strength-while her tireless opponent out runs her looking more fit to be president; and more credible as a patriotic force for restoring this country and making it great again.

After five months of strenuous campaigning against Trump and wearing herself out Hillary could find herself in one of these by Election Day.



Fox Host Doubts "The Historical Value" Of Clinton Becoming First Female Presidential Nominee


Greg Gutfeld: "It Comes Off To Me As Really Drab ... It's Like You Won A Trip On Wheel Of Fortune And It's To Venezuela" 


to be the presidential nominee of a major US political party is historic like Obama eight years earlier becoming the first black to achieve that. Hillary has made the history books and no one can take that away from her.

But as the Obama presidency has had zero or negative value in making America a better, stronger and more prosperous country, and the world a more stable, peaceful and less dangerous place-as both are worse off today than when Obama took office-then Hillary vowing to continue Obama's policies and legacy of failure can only mean she'll have zero or negative value in reversing the decline of the Obama years.

The place where historical value really counts is not in being the first black, woman, Hispanic or Jew to be president but how you use the power of the office. Obama has used his power to make things worse for America and the world and Hillary (as she says at every turn) wants to stay the course. Her historic election as the first woman US  president will mean that the DEVALUATION of America will continue.


To say our country is no better, stronger or more prosperous and that the world is no more stable or peaceful after President Obama is simply wrong. To make that statement is to express either utter ignorance or shameless lies. Say what you will about Obama, but don't make stuff up just because you're still pissed he won twice.

Exactly no one with any common sense or objectivity believes the nonsense of your post.

Was Jimmy Carter lying when he said (differing with Obama and agreeing with Trump) that America is in "decline? That we are steadily losing our economic and geopolitical greatness and growing less powerful and influential on the world stage?


Or was Bill Clinton lying when he recently said (disagreeing with Obama) that "unlike when I was president many things are coming apart in the world.. and the economy could be dragged back [into a recession] ...."


Or is Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton lying when (disagreeing with Obama) that the "crisis of the disappearing middle class" has gotten worse these last eight years? That under Obama the rich are getting richer and the middle class and poor are getting poorer? And that more Americans are living in poverty today than in 2009 when Obama became president?


If Obama's presidency has been a success then how do you account for the rise of Donald Trump on the Right and Bernie Sanders on the Left and the tens and millions of angry and frightened Americans who support them? Are all these millions lying when they say that they're financially worse off today than when Obama took office? Are they lying when they say in poll after poll in huge numbers that the country is on the wrong track? And that they fear that things will go from bad to worse unless there's a radical change of direction? In short, if Obama has done so well as president how do you explain the massive angst, fear, discontent and pessimism? Was there anything like this at the end of the successful Reagan and Clinton presidencies? No. Why? because we're a nation in decline.



In Interview With Fox’s Bret Baier, Clinton Delivers Rambling Non-Answer on Economy | Mediaite








Billions spent by Hoover and FDR on public works projects added to the national debt but couldn't trigger a robust recovery and end the Great Depression.

Trillions spent by Japan over 20 years on infrastructure projects adding hugely to its national debt (230% of GDP) and it's economy remains flat moving in and out of recessions.


Our economy needs long-term high paying jobs. Not short-term infrastructure projects that have never worked in any country to end an economic crisis or revive a weak economy. In short, we must repair our roads and bridges, but for fixing a bad economy its useless.

What other brilliant ideas does Hillary have to save us from the worst recovery since the Great Depression? As president she vowed to put husband Bill in charge of achieving what Obama has failed to do: creating robust growth like we had in the 1990s. Now that would be great. But there are two small problems. Driving the Clinton economic boom was the hi-tech revolution which started under George H.W. Bush, and the Gov't/Wall Street Affordable Housing Partnership that started the subprime housing/credit bubble that burst in 2008-nearly causing another depression.


In other words, Hillary is completely clueless and bankrupt of ideas on fixing the economy.




"You missed one thing, Apollo: She's going to create renewable energy jobs - just like Obama. Solyndra Redux?"

ApolloSpeaks   Lori Hollywood 

Yeah. She's going to solarize America with one billion newly installed solar panels. But every renewable energy job replaces a job in the fossil fuel industry adding nothing to the economy.

You are correct. However, my point is that this was an Obama idea that failed, not something different.


Yes! Absolutely! Let's continue what doesn't work hoping to get a better result. Einstein's definition of INSANITY.



Hillary Clinton Calls Donald Trump a ‘Fraud,' Accuses Him of ‘Scam’ in Trump University - ABC News

Imagine being accused of fraud and scamming people (before there's a trial) by crooked, lying, hypocritical Hillary who's under a multi-phased criminal investigation by 147 FBI agents for the alleged criminal use of her email server while Secretary of State, and possible criminal corruption at the Clinton Foundation? The two class action suits against Trump University accusing it of fraud-of deceiving "students" who paid big bucks to learn Donald Trump's "secrets of business and real estate success" and failed to succeed losing money instead was hardly a scam.
God damn!  This is not why I went to college!
It was no more a scam, in fact, than college and university students who pay thousands in tuition fees, graduate with degrees but end up flipping burgers at McDonalds or waiting tables at Red Lobster or finding no work at all. As with all such schools Trump U had graduates who succeeded in varying degrees and are thankful for what they learned; and others who failed because of their shortcomings or bad luck and angrily believe that they were cheated-that they wasted their time and money learning things, passing tests and getting degrees that proved useless to them.
Is it possible that nothing in all this Trump U material is useful for making a fortune?
"Fraud" will be tough to prove given the Trump U students who did succeed; who having rigorously applied the principles and things that they learned made a good life for themselves and their families. Fact is there is a class of students who succeeded because of Trump U and are gratful for the experience; and perhaps there is another class that failed and think they got burned and angrily blame Trump when their shortcomings were to blame. Truth is, going to the best and most prestigious schools on earth (Hartford, Oxford, Yale, Princeton) can't make you rich. Without great ambition and a winning attitude that never quits learning is useless.
is by sealing our borders, enforcing the law and deporting illegals. This could create up to one million jobs for black Americans.
On March 14, 2001 white supremacist, anti-Moslem bigot Donald Trump presented Muhammad Ali with the Humanitarian Award of United Cerebral Palsy at its annual dinner in New York City.  Was Trump color blind that day?. 
in his past was a thousand times more of a hate filled racist in his life than Donald Trump. Fortunately Ali in time redeemed himself of his bigotries. But Trump is said to be a white supremacist racist because David Duke, the Klu Klux Klan and neo-Nazis support his candidacy. However, by the same token Trump then is a black supremacist racist because Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (Ali's old group) supports his candidacy and temporary ban on Moslems (see).
(as he did of Nelson Mandela) that he was "a powerful force for reconciliation and peace in the world." But unfortunately for Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner) when he dies no one will  praise him thus as he has been a powerful force for division and turmoil in the world reconciling no one and bringing peace nowhere.




On January 15, 2009 several hours before George W. Bush delivered his farewell speech to the nation (with its focus on national security and the War on Terror) the nation was in awe as an unmistakable, God sent miracle occured in New York City where 3000 Americans died seven years before: US Airways Flight 1549 with 155 people aboard fell from the sky due to mechanical problems and crash or splashed landed in the freezing cold Hudson River.
Amazingly and miraculously there were no fatalities and only minor injuries as every passenger and crew member aboard was safely rescued. One of the passengers, John Howell of North Carolina, was the brother of a 9/11 first responder-one of 343 fireman who died at Ground Zero. Incredibly, after the plane was evacuated (as if directed by God's hand) it drifted down river and came to rest just above Battery Park within earshot of Ground Zero where Howell's brother died. Occuring just hours before George Bush's last speech I saw in this incredible event-of 1549's Captain Sullenberger (a Texan) landing the distressed plane safely-a Providential Tribute to the leadership and policies of Texan George Bush, who in the dangerous post-9/11 era (with al Qaida planning new attacks) steered our country to safety with his counter-terrorism leadership and policies   (see).
But what was certainly a divine tribute to the presidency of George Bush was an ominous warning to his successor Barack Obama-a warning to stay Bush's course and continue his policies at home and abroad in fighting al Qaida and radical Islam.
Then as if to reinforce this warning and make it crystal clear Providence just 28 days later seemed to speak again-but this time through an awful heartrending tragedy. For on February 12th a commercial jetliner, Continental Air Flight 3407, crash landed in upstate New York killing everyone aboard. And incredibly just as Flight 1549 had the brother of a 9/11 victim aboard, among Flight 3407's 45 dead passengers was 9/11 widow and activist Beverly Eckert-who just six days before (on the 98th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth*) met with Obama at a White House (see). 
*Reagan was born February 6, 1911.
Barack Obama meets 9/11 widow and activist Beverly Eckert six days before her death on February 6, 2009, the 98th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth . 
There can be little doubt about it: this disaster which killed a famous 9/11 widow who had recently met with Obama on Ronald Reagan's birthday was a warning to him in the strongest possible terms to adopt Reagan's Peace Through Strength foreign policy and his predecessor's successful counter-terrorism model for keeping this country safe from mass murdering jihadists. But this Obama hasn't done, and the consequences globally so far have been horrendous. For ISIS (nonexistent when Obama took office), a reenergized al-Qaida (despite Osama bin Ladin's death) and other jihdist groups are on the march like never before in a world that's growing more chaotic, dangerous and deadly.
And as if coming full circle in reverse to the miracle of Flight 1549 it appears Obama has been warned again for one last time about the possible devastating consequences to our homeland from his perilous weak-on-terror policies and poor feckless incompetent leadership. For on May 27th, just hours after dishonoring our World War II troops (living and dead) by tacitly apologizing at Hiroshima for the war shortening nuking of two Japanese cities, a vintage World War II warplane (a PT-47 Thunderbolt which flew in the Pacific war) crash landed in the Hudson River close to where Flight 1549 went down* (see).  
*Flight 1549 went down roughly abeam West 50th St. PT-47 went down a little over a mile up river abeam West 79th St.
But this time there were no miracles, no survivors, no sign of divine tribute to the president. For its pilot went down with the plane to his death drowning when it hit the river and sank. The pilot, Bill Gordon of Key West, Florida (the state Bush was visting on 9/11) was a world class acrobatic flyer who miraculously survived a similar terrifying crash in 2009 in up state New York. But he would not survive this crash as if Providence portentously timed it for Obama's trip to Japan as a warning sign of coming tragedy if he doesn't reverse his badly flawed approach to foreign policy and national security. There's no sense in speculating about what
 havoc our enemies could be planning; but with the deadly crash of P-47 coinciding with Obama's trip to Hiroshima where a nuclear bomb was dropped it might (God forbid) be massive and horrific perhaps involving WMDs.  
That the tragedy of PT-47 is providentially linked to Obama and his policies is also suggested by the number 44 (Obama's presidency number) which twice appears on the plane. For if you take a magnifying glass and read the plane's Air Force Serial Number just below the cockpit you will see that it says 44-90447. Are you listening, Mr. President? Just as flights 1549 and 3407 appear to be warnings about massive terrorist strikes during your presidency so it seems is PT-47.


When he crashes into icebergs they shatter to bits as he sails ahead at breakneck speed smashing every obstacle in his way to the 45th presidency.
When Obama in Japan said that Trump is "rattling world leaders" he included himself among the rattled. For we amusingly saw the other day a rattled Obama in Indiana, when bashing Trump for Hillary, losing his cool when the teleprompter failed, stammering and stuttering like a bumbling fool. Oddly, Indiana was the state where Trump virtually won the GOP race.
 "If we turn against each other...based on divisions of race....or religion...if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if ....if if if if if if if if we fall for...ya know..a bunch a.....okie doke....just because it uh eh uh ya know eh it uh.....ya know it it it it uh sounds funny er....the tweets are....provocative......then we're not going to build on the progress that we started."
Trump is deeply inside Obama's worried head as the obsessive nightmare daily grows that Hillary is too weak, flawed and old to stop him. Indeed, from now till election day Obama will be desperately campaigning against Trump as if he were running for reelection and keep intact his tragic legacy of ashes, dust and tears.
The question then is this: if Obama fails and Inaugural Day is a "Make America Great Again" patriotic extravaganza will he and his family boycott the event saying that they reject the decision of the [white racist] electorate, and in good conscience can't attend? I wouldn't put it past him.
And, by the way, isn't  
a great nickname for him?


Forgive us your majesty for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Obama's historic but misguided visit to Hiroshima last week was in reality a continuation and completion of what he tacitly started on November 13, 2009:  his "I'm sorry we nuked Japan" apology tour which began with his very low near 90 degree bow to Emperor Akihito (as embarrassingly seen above) which grossly violated presidential protocol and so puzzled the world while nauseating many Americans. There is no other logical explanation for why the most powerful man on earth (who heads the nation that defeated Japan in World War II) bowed with such humility and deference to a powerless figurehead monarch whose role in Japan is merely ceremonial.
An unbowing Obama with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama before he met with Akihito.
Indeed, why did Obama intentionally look so subservient to the powerless Akihito as if he were his subject and not so much as lowered his head in respect to Japan's then Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama (or later to PM Abe) when they met?  If Obama's reason for bowing so humbly to Akihito was to simply show respect (as the White House said) then where was his respect for Hatoyama whose position in Japan as head of state and commander-in-chief overshadows the powerless monarch? Indeed, as Japan's most powerful man Hatoyama deserved at least the same respectful bow if not something more profound-like dropping to his hands and knees and kissing his feet. But at their first meeting Obama simply smiled at Hatoyama and shook his hand (as seen above) while standing perfectly erect-which he did when he first met with Prime Minister Abe.
An unbowing Obama shaking hands with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at their fist meeting.
Ronald Reagan greeting Emperor Hirohito with a handshake.
The reason for Obama's odd, uncalled for behavior toward Akihito (which certainly surprised him) is no mystery: he was the son of Hirohito the Japanese emperor that Truman brought to his knees forcing him to unconditionally surrender Japan and end the war by nuking two Japanese cities. Indeed, because of their horrific and frightful capacity for destruction Obama and the Left want to abolish nuclear weapons from the earth believing that their creation was a tragic mistake and shouldn't have happened. In other words, Franklin Roosevelt should never have developed the bomb; and Harry Truman should not have dropped it. As the existence of nuclear weapons for leftists like Obama is a great evil (now superseded by human CO2 emissions) that potentially threatens the existence of mankind, in bowing to Akihito he was expiating his feelings of guilt, shame and remorse for Hiroshima and Nagasaki-which he likely believes (as many leftists do) were unforgivable crimes against humanity.
And when Obama last week became the first US president to visit Hiroshima-meeting with and hugging survivors of relatives who died there (many of whom want an apology from the US)-he was bringing to completion what he pathetically started with Akihito seven years before.
But, contrary to what Obama and the Left stupidly believe, the birth of nuclear warfare at Hiroshima was anything but a dark and evil day for humanity. Nuclear weapons in fact (as you'll see below) have on balance been a providential blessing to mankind benefiting the cause of world peace like nothing else in modern history.
 Obama apologizing for Hiroshima with a hug to the relative of an A-bomb victim.
"Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning," said Obama at Hiroshima, "death fell from the sky and the world was changed."
 Indeed, the world was changed that day but not for the worse as Obama mindlessly believes. For what fell from the sky was the beginning of peace as Hiroshima with its 100,000 dead was the beginning of the end of the worst, deadliest and costliest war in human history. Indeed, what began with Hiroshima was concluded by the nuking of Nagasaki after which a devastated Hirohito fearing millions would die from repeat attacks (threatened by a bluffing Truman) surrendered unconditionally to the US putting the fate of his country completely in our hands. And rising from the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was born a new and far better Japan transformed by America's command and helping hand into a peace-loving, highly industrious, prosperous liberal democracy-a great friend to America and asset to the world.
Totally oblivious to Obama and the Left is that these 71 years of the  Nuclear Age compared to the 71 years before have been immensely more peaceful. Not only did nuclear weapons end World War II but they prevented a third world war between the US led democratic capitalist west and the Soviet led totalitarian socialist east (the conflict was ended without firing a single shot).  In fact, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have been no Great Power Wars (not a single one!) as if they've become a thing of the past. Just look at the facts:
The 71 years prior to the nuking of Japan saw the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878), the Serbio-Bulgarian War (1885), the Greco-Turkish War (1897), the Russo-Japanese War (1901), the two Balkan Wars (1912-1913); and, of course, World Wars I and II the most horrific wars in human history where up to 100 million people (mostly civilians) died.
But since the "terrible" dawn of the Nuclear Age only small wars not great ones have been fought: the wars in Korea and Vietnam, several Arab-Israeli wars, the Iran-Iraq War, two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan, etc.  
At Hiroshima Obama ignorantly said, 
"We may not realize this goal [abolishing nuclear weapons] in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe."
 Abolishing nuclear weapons and rolling back history to the status quo ante of the pre-Nuclear Age would return mankind to the catastrophic period of Great Power Wars where great nations unbridled and unchecked by the mutually assured destruction of nuclear war would likely start terrifying world wars all over again.  Who wants that?
In short, the Nuclear Age has meant more peace and less war; the pre-Nuclear Age less peace and far greater and worse war. Those like Obama who want to abolish nuclear weapons, fault this country for their creation and use, and want to return mankind to the terrible era before Hiroshima and Nagasaki are well meaning but muddle-headed, morally confused unAmerican fools. THE BOMB was invented by the United States to end the worst war in history, and to make sure that such wars never happen again. And so far it has worked.

President Eisenhower: regret or apology:

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had
been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my
grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was
already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely
unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should
avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment
was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American
lives. . . ."


Our war policy toward Japan set by Franklin Roosevelt, supported by both Houses of Congress (with few dissenting voices) and continued by President Truman was "UNCONDITIONAL VICTORY." This meant UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER of the Japanese: surrender without conditions upon our terms alone (a non-negotiated peace) where the Japanese completely put themselves and their entire empire (which was still largely intact in China) in our power and under our control.

It wasn't until after Nagasaki, and the fear of more Nagasakis, that our policy of "unconditional surrender" was accepted by Hirohito and the political and military leadership of Japan. It was then and only then that the Empire of Imperial Japan ceased to exist and we achieved "Unconditional Victory."




 We are a rudderless nation
Without purpose and aim
Adrift on a sea of growing crises.
Recklessly steered
By a mad drunken sailor
Into icebergs and storms.
Staying the course
To disaster.
(Ripped off from John Hawkins)
If these quotes don't terrify the pants off of you then it means
you're a drunken, heedless, delusional fool like the president believing that America is a nation of inexhaustible wealth that can spend baby spend without consequence to infinity. 
1) What would you think of a person who earned $24,000 a year but spent $35,000? Suppose on top of that, he was already $170,000 in debt. You'd tell him to get his act together -- stop spending so much or he'd destroy his family, impoverish his kids and wreck their future. Of course, no individual could live so irresponsibly for long. But tack on eight more zeroes to that budget and you have the checkbook for our out-of-control, big-spending federal government. -- John Stossel
2) John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin published a study in 2010 entitled:Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money in the World -- and At What Cost? The fact that sane men are even asking this question ought to be deeply disturbing. As to the answer, foreign official holdings of U.S. Treasury securities have usually been less than 5 percent of the rest of the world's GDP. By 2009, they were up to 7 percent. By 2020, Kitchen and Chinn project them to rise to 19 percent of the rest of the world's GDP, which they say is....do-able. Whether the rest of the world will want to do it is another matter. A future that presumes the rest of the planet will sink a fifth of its GDP into U.S. Treasuries is no future at all. But on Big Government's streetcar named Desire we have come to depend on the kindness of strangers. --Mark Steyn

3) The Federal Reserve is propping up the entire U.S. economy by buying 61 percent of the government debt issued by the Treasury Department, a trend that cannot last, Lawrence Goodman, a former Treasury official and current president of the Center for Financial Stability, writes in a Wall Street Journal opinion article published Wednesday. -- Newsmax
4) In fact, in 2006, the Census Bureau found only 2.2 million households earning more than $250,000. And most of those are closer to the Lubbock city manager than to Carlos Slim, income-wise. To jump from the 50th to the 51st percentile isn’t that tough; jumping from the 96th to the 97th takes a lot of schmundo. It’s lonely at the top.

But say we wanted to balance the budget by jacking up taxes on Club 250K. That’s a problem: The 2012 deficit is forecast to hit $1.1 trillion under Obama’s budget. (Thanks, Mr. President!) Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000 -- which you simply can’t do, since a lot of them don’t have $500,000 in income to seize. Most of them are making $250,000 to $450,000 and paying about half in taxes already. You can squeeze that goose all day, but that’s not going to make it push out a golden egg. ....Every time you raise the threshold for eating the rich, you get a much, much smaller serving of meat on the plate — but the deficit stays the same. The long division gets pretty ugly. You end up chasing a revenue will-o’-the-wisp. -- Kevin Williamson

5) Within a decade, the United States will be spending more of the federal budget on its interest payments than on its military. You read that right: more on debt service than on the armed services. According to the CBO's 2010 long-term budget outlook, by 2020 the government will be paying between 15 and 20 percent of its revenues in debt interest. Whereas defense spending will be down between 14 and 16 percent. -- Mark Steyn
6) (In Pennsylvania, a) single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045." -- From Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
7) For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance. For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government. ...The punchline: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly. -- Tyler Durden
8) My name’s Ronnie Bryant, and I’m a mine operator…. I’ve been issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water] discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to the comments being made by the people…. [pause] Nearly every day without fail — I have a different perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just … you know … what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you. -- Ronnie Bryant
9) Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.
10) The typical husband and wife who reach age 66 and qualify for Social Security -- Starting next year, this typical couple, receiving the average benefit, will begin collecting a combination of cash and health-care entitlement benefits that will total $1 million over their remaining expected lifetime.

According to my calculations based on government data, such married couples will begin receiving monthly Social Security checks that will, on average, total about $550,000 after inflation. They will receive health-care services paid for by Medicare that, on average, will total another $450,000 after inflation. The benefactors will be a generation of younger workers who are trying to support themselves and their families while paying taxes to finance the rest of government spending.

...Medicare premiums paid by senior citizens once covered half of the cost of physician and related services. They now cover one-fourth. Copayments once covered nearly 40% of these services’ costs. They now cover only 20%. -- Joe Cogan

11) The CBO numbers foresee net interest payments rising from 9 percent of revenue to 36 percent in 2030, then to 58 percent in 2040, and up to 85 percent in 2050. If that trajectory holds, we'll be spending more than the planet's entire military budget on debt interest. But forget mid-century because, unless something changes, whatever goes by the name of "America" under those conditions isn't worth talking about. -- Mark Steyn
12) The total present value of payments expected under Social Security and Medicare beyond what is expected to be collected under current tax laws is about $100 trillion. One way to put that amount of money in context is to note that it is about twice the amount of all the net private assets that exist in America today. To answer cw’s question directly, the best back-of-envelope estimate is that meeting this unfunded portion of our Social Security and Medicare commitments would require roughly an immediate 80 percent increase in federal income taxes, sustained forever. — Jim Manzi
13) The total fiscal overhang of our federal, state, and local governments — their combined debt and unfunded liabilities — is around $140 trillion, and growing. That is about twice the annual economic output of human civilization, and nearly the value of all the financial assets in the world. It is something close to a mathematical certainty that those debts and obligations will not be made good on at their present value. -- Kevin Williamson
 Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Bush and Obama, said, "Our unsustainable long term national debt [which is growing faster than the economy] is the greatest threat to our national security (see) ." And he is absolutely right.




Congress Must Censure President Obama over Hiroshima Speech - Breitbart


"Let's do away with nuclear weapons which ended World War II and prevented a third world war between Capitalism and Socialism (where the later was the evil aggressor). Let's return human history to the pre-nuclear age of Great Powers Wars when the earth was turned into an ocean of blood and death ." This sums up Obama's utterly mindless message at Hiroshima, and jihad against nuclear bombs which so far have done great good in terms of international peace and no real harm to mankind.


Obama is a man of staggering stupidity, blindness and naivety showing a stunning lack of reality unseen before in a Commander-in-Chief in our 240 year history. From reset with Russia to ignoring his generals and prematurely pulling out of Iraq (when he had the leverage to keep our troops there on US terms) American foreign policy is in a shambles as the world descends into chaos and hell. And still trusting in his judgment which has failed this country and world so badly he goes off to Japan to embarrass our country again by tacitly apologizing to the Japanese (which he symbolically did by bowing to its emperor in 2009*) for winning a war we didn't begin by nuking Japan into peace. "Death rained down from the skies and the world was changed" says this lame brain fool about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What changed was ending the deadliest, costliest, most devastating war in human history and in a way that saved perhaps millions of lives (2 million Japanese soldiers, 1 million militia) from a horrific ground invasion.

*The only way to make sense of Obama bowing to the powerless son of mass murderer Japanese supremacist emperor Hiroito  is to apologize for ending the war with nuclear bombs-as if it were a worse atrocity and crime than the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor and the butchering and slaughter of 11 million Asians (mostly civilians) during the war. 

But if Obama had been our 33rd President rest assured he'd not have dropped the bomb and changed the world for the better-from a condition of war with Japan to one of unconditional surrender, peace and friendship. No. This idiot would have continued the war possibly for years against a people preferring death to the humiliation and shame of defeat-willing to sacrifice themselves massively for their emperor, ancestors, racial gods and national pride. Unless faced with nuclear annihilation Japan would not have surrendered unconditionally until defeated in a devastating land war. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki crushed Japan's will to fight which saved countless lives.


 Dresden after firebombing

Imagine a sitting president visiting Dresden, Germany, which was fire bombed into burning rubble killing tens and thousands, honoring the monstrous Nazi war machine and war dead*? Was the savage, brutal, fanatic army of mass murdering Imperial Japan, with its horrific racist record of atrocities and war crimes second only to the Nazis, worthy of honor? Imagine Lincoln going to a Civil War battlefield to honor dead Confederate soldiers who killed tens and thousands of Union troops in defense of the evil institution of slavery.

*I know about Ronald Reagan's controversial visit to Bitburg military cemetery.
But he did that as a favor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl a loyal anti-Communist ally of America's in the Cold War who Reagan paid  back for agreeing to the deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles in Germany against massive opposition from the peace movement.
Of the 140,000 nuked to death in Hiroshima how many were thrilled to learn about their sneak attack victory at Pearl Harbor? And how many wanted more and greater Pearl Harbors and supported their country's war of aggression up until the bomb dropped on them? Only weak minded fools believe that they didn't deserve Hiroshima and Nagasaki and more A-bomb attacks if they didn't surrender, and we should feel guilt, shame and sorrow for doing it.

Only the honorable are worthy of honor. Who but an imbecile or evil man honors depraved and wicked soldiers fighting to the death for an evil cause who justly died? What difference does it make if they're  killed with bullets or incinerated by nukes (as a last resort when all else fails). Who but an imbecile and fool does this just before a Memorial Day weekend when we honor our war dead? It is inarguably insane! No wonder Obama is so loathed by our service men and women (and had three Defense Secretaries quit on him) with only 15% approving of his leadership and job. What Obama did in bowing to emperor Hirohito's son in 2009, and said at Hiroshima yesterday was disgraceful in the extreme and should be censured by Congress immediately so that no future president does it again! 


In the comment section this morning danceringgrandma posted this criticism:

"Apollo, stop lying about Obama at Hiroshima. He wasn't honoring fallen Japanese soldiers.. He was honoring all those who perished and were injured in that criminally immoral bombing which was unnecessary and shouldn't have happened."


As Truman said in nuking Hiroshima we destroyed its usefulness to the enemy in their unjustified war against us. In feeling remorse over the bombing because it gave birth to the nuclear age (where there's been more world peace than before Hiroshima) Obama was implying (typical of anti-American leftists) that the US made a bad mistake that we should feel guilty for; and those killed in the blast (everyone including soldiers and militarized civilians-the  citizen militia trained to kill our invading troops) deserve to be honored as innocent victims as if one and all were as blameless as children despite their backing of the war. In other words, Obama was honoring the monsters together with the innocent making no distinction between them treating all equally as the criminally wronged victims of the evil US bomb. Pathetic.



The Progressive Liberal FDR created the nuclear bomb. The Progressive Liberal Harry Truman detonated the first nuke then dropped it twice on Japan vaporizing tens and thousands.

Were it not for Progressive Liberalism they'd be no nuclear bombs or Nuclear Age; and our country wouldn't be in danger of Moslem jihadists getting the bomb and killing us by the millions.


and must be destroyed before it creates deadlier weapons of mass destruction to kill millions and obliterate mankind. /sarc



First he's spurned and berned by Hillary; then he's spurned and berned by Trump. No one wants to debate The Bern as his socialist revolution to save America from greedy industrial polluting capitalism is reaching its end and berning out. All that promised free stuff going up in flames with millions feeling cheated and berned. Bern's only hope is Hillary being indicted and berning down her campaign. But then Bern will be berned by Joe Biden who Obama will back to the hilt throwing the Democrat Party into complete turmoil.

Socialism is a big bad lie. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Therefore, Bernie is a big bad liar.  


Socialists like Bernie believe that human society is PERFECTIBLE; but it's not self-perfectible and needs government (run by people like him) to perfect it.

But how can imperfect human government, run by flawed politicians and bureaucrats PERFECT imperfect human society peopled by flawed human beings?










It is certain that stubborn, unbending, free stuff socialist loon Bernie "last ballot" Sanders, who's in the race for the Democratic nomination to the bitter end (till the last ballot is counted at the  convention) is damaging front-runner Hillary Clinton's chances of beating Donald Trump in November. Sanders, who is virtually unelectable because of his radical socialist views (35% of Americans stupidly believe in socialism while the wiser 50% do not), weather he knows it or not and likes it or not, is an unwilling and unwitting ally of the 1% real estate capitalist tycoon against Hillary. Indeed, key polls show Trump significantly catching up to Hillary and in some instances surpassing her with voters. And this in part is due to Bernie's relentless campaign against her (that grows in intensity by the day) as a business-as-usual establishment Democrat and puppet of Wall Street and corporate greed-while the country cries out for reform and change. Indeed, ignoring the reality that he's trailing far behind in delegates free stuff, utopian Bernie boldly presses on convinced from the polls that he's the one to beat Trump not his Democratic foe; and that by some miracle (possibly Hillary's indictment which he's certainly praying for) he'll become his party's nominee and first Jewish president completing the disastrous job of national transformation begun by Obama.
Meanwhile, crooked, untrustworthy, low energy Hillary pounded daily by Trump and Sanders (and in fear of the FBI investigation despite appearances) is not holding up well. Visibly frustrated and physically weakening she looks more weary, tired and aged by the day as she slips in the polls against the supremely confident and tireless Trump. What shape will Hillary be in 60 days when the convention begins? Perhaps it's best that she uses these two months to rest up like she did for five days before her Benghazi hearing.
But could it be that Donald Trump unexpectedly clinching the Republican nomination yesterday is an auspicious sign on just how much and effective an ally Sanders is? And that he might be irreparably hurting Hillary and killing her bid for the presidency? For by providence or chance yesterday, the 26th of May, was Bernie's anniversary of launching his candidacy with his rousing speech in Burlington where he was mayor (see). And by providence or chance when Sanders' kicked off his candidacy it was 45 days from April 12th (see) when Hillary (on the 70th anniversary of FDR's death) began her run for the 45th presidency. Could it be that yesterday Trump (on Bernie's campaign anniversary) becoming the de facto GOP nominee is a sign that the socialist is advancing his path to the 45th presidency-thus making him the first New Yorker by birth and residence since FDR to be President? FDR, by the way, won the presidency on a November 8th election date, the date of this year's election.
It is also worth noting, and very odd indeed, that yesterday May 26th was the 147th day of the year (see). Odd because (as I wrote about HERE) 47 appears to be a terribly unlucky number for the 1947 born Hillary. As I wrote there's been two presidents (Clinton and Bush) who like Trump were born in 1946, and two presidents (JFK and Nixon) who started their careers in politics that year-making 1946 a propitious year to be born for a presidential candidate. But 1947 has proved not to be such a lucky year for such candidates. For Hillary and Romney (also born in 47) failed three times to reach the White House: Romney and Hillary in 2008, and Romney again in 2012. Is Hillary destined to be the Democratic Mitt Romney this year? It's looking more and more that way as Sanders and Trump wear her down.
But what is truly astonishing is that yesterday, the 147th day of the year, when Trump became the GOP nominee, strangely coincides with the exact number of FBI agents (147) Comey has investigating Hillary. Could this be an omninous sign of things to come for her? If it is, if she's indicted for crimes, then Joe Biden could be the  Democratic candidate as socialist Bernie despite the polls (as I said above) is unelectable against Donald Trump. Biden, by the way, is the 47th VP.
On the day that Trump became the GOP's 19th presidential  nominee, one year from the start of Sanders campaign, both men agreed in principle to have a cross party debate, unprecedented in American political history. You can't make this stuff up. If it happens the event will be billed Capitalism vs Socialism. And as a preview of what to expect Trump, unlike Hillary, will use the utter failure of Single Payer Socialist Healthcare in Bernie's home state in Vermont (its costs were prohibitive and never got off the ground, see) to completely discredit him as he insanely wants this failure for the nation.
And as the issue of our staggering fiscal debt of $19 trillion was never raised during the Democrat debates (Dems think that America is inexhaustibly rich) Trump will use it to crush Sanders who wants to expand the size of our runaway spendthrift government another 40% to create his utopian nanny super state. When brash politically incorrect Trump confidently predicts that he'll win the debate he's 1000% correct.  Sanders doesn't have a fighting chance as socialism is regressive and impoverishing and capitalism progressive and enriching  having lifted billions out of poverty in 200 years. If this great political event occurs Trump will score big with independents as radical extremist crazy Sanders will make him look ultra sane and reasonable by comparison.
Also Trump insists that the debate be used to raise $10 million for charity; and smartly the big mean ungentlemanly misogynist (he hates men too except for himself) wants it for " women's issues."  Perhaps the funds should go to breast cancer research. Both candidates could certainly agree on that.
Meanwhile, if the debate goes forward Hillary will be eating her heart out that she didn't keep her word and debate Sanders as the event will make her look irrelevant going into the June 7th primaries; and with her leading Bernie by just 2 percentage points in California a loss there would be a huge last minute blow to her campaign. As I said above Bernie is Trump's best political ally for beating Hillary in the fall.




Increased violence against women

because of Trump's

misogyny and


The situation is getting desperate and everyone is looking away. The murder, rape and domestic violence rates of the American female community have soared since Donald Trump began his repugnant campaign of building walls, kicking balls and every unspeakable evil. How could his popularity with women be inching up and Hillary's falling when their safety and security in our streets, homes and workplaces, due to Trump, is steadily eroding-as recent studies and news stories show? Have the women of America gone nuts? Don't they know that Trump is now Commander-in-Chief of the GOP's Nuclear War on Women? Apparently not. Apparently there's been a media black out on the rising number of women dying from Trump inspired hatred and violence. For whatever reason (sexist or not) the media's coverage of growing violence across the land (since Trump started running) focuses on Blacks, Moslems and Latinos only. And as Trump is at war with China and Japan (over the trade deficit) Asian Americans will soon be under attack-with Toyotas and Hondas smashed and trashed a is the 80s. But how do we explain the media's silence about women as the topmost of Trump's battered and terrorized victims?



Where is Hillary and her army of feminist warriors on this issue? Why aren't they castigating the press for this blackout? Are they afraid to piss them off and lose support? I guess I'm just a lone voice in the wilderness. But do hear me out about the catastrophic impact of Trumpism on women as it could save the life of a dear one. For since Trump announced his candidacy not only is anti-women violence rising but so is female unemployment, poverty and suicides. When Trump's powerful voice speaks ill of a woman many feel so devalued and demeaned that some have killed themselves to escape the shame. Amazing is Trump's power over them. Moreover, the two million women who slipped into poverty from the start of Obama's presidency has jumped another mill in the last ten months since the start of Trump's victorious run.  Don't be fooled. There's no coincidence here. The Trump Effect is real and dangerously growing. More than any other minority Trump is lethal to the ladies-a lady killer physically. Indeed, as a sign of things to come Trump's mother nearly died when she gave birth to him as he punched his way out of her womb a year after WW II.



And what if, God forbid, the unthinkable happens and Trump beats the indispensable Hillary (the last best hope for womankind) and becomes President? It will internationalize the Trump Effect spilling across our open borders putting billions of women in peril. Why reverse the little gains made in women's rights in third world states? Why make the suffering of women Islamically worse in Moslem lands where they're treated like dirt? If Hillary loses to Trump male chauvinism and patriarchy will return to the West with a vengeance, and aggravate it where it's still the rule hurting the chance of reform. 




Stop Trump's Nuclear War on Women and make American history, vote Hillary Clinton for Femident. She will end the disastrous Trump Effect and reset American women like she fixed US/Russian relations by winning over Putin. And after 16 years of two faithful boring presidents there will be the excitement of turning the White House into an Open Fly Zone again-if you know what I mean.


Ain't she sweet!







‘They Didn’t Raise Their Son Right’: George Zimmerman Goes After Trayvon Martin’s Parents · Mediaite · Disqus

As I've said  HERE, HERE and  HERE  it was Karmic Justice, the moral law of cause and effect, that brought George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin together on the night of February 26, 2012 getting the latter killed as he was trying to beat a frantic Z to death with his furious racist, homophobic fists. The underlying cause of the conflict was not Z doing his job as a community watchman and reporting to police the very suspicious T (who was't walking straight home that fateful night like Z haters want you to believe); nor was it Z following T at a safe distance for police (expected of a watchman) then looking for him when he bolted and disappeared (but didn't run home where he was to watch the NBA all star game). No. The underlying cause was a good, innocent black kid gone bad corrupted by a collapsing black culture into utter cruelty, barbarism, savagery and sin that glorifies murder and violence. Unfortunately T, who was so charming and sweet at age 12, came to emulate and idealize the worst kind of black filth and trash: lawless anti-social gangstas and gang bangers-young and older black men who disrespect and hate authority (family, school, church, police and government) believing that they're laws unto themselves. These lawless anarchists and criminals believe that anything they want to do is right and good; and that no one has the right to stand in their way and put limits and restraints on them; and those who do are the enemy; hence, Trayvon's twitter account name:
Trayvon's transformation from a good little kid into a violent aggressor that got him killed like thousands of morally corrupt black kids each year-in the epidemic of violent black teen deaths sweeping over our inner cities.
"NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" means that T was defiantly opposed to any outside force or authority directing his life and limiting his desires, passions and appetites. Such kids are full of anger and rage and could fly off the handle into murderous violence just by looking at them badly. But Z was doing worse that fatal day; beyond merely looking at T he was following him and being intrusively offensive in the extreme; and add to that that Z might be a gay predator out to rape him (as friend Rachel Jeantel told Piers Morgan) and that made him deserving of the severest punishment: crippling injuries or death for his terrible disrespect.
 And this mad obsession with Z-the "creepy ass [homo] cracka [rapist] who was "stalking" him-is what most likely got Trayvon  killed that night-and yes, his upbringing in a broken single parent home certainly contributed to his moral ruination, as Z says. Bottom line, if Trayvon was a good, decent, law-abiding, authority respecting, normal kid he wouldn't have been in Sanford that night suspended from school and karmically fated to die-suspiciously walking about just as the gun carrying, off duty Z drove by. Indeed, a well behaved Trayvon would be alive today and we wouldn't know his name and that of George Zimmerman (which would have been the case if Z had been black). As Trayvon was a ticking time bomb with a combustible heart one wonders whose life providence may have saved because of his early death.

But Z is back in the news making headlines again; and this time it's for the sale of the life saving gun he used to kill Trayvon-which the Justice Department returned to him after a failed 33 month investigation to find racial bigotry and hate in what Z truly and rightly believed was a deadly but necessary deed.
Reuters reported Friday the good news that Z hit the jackpot and sold his life saving gun for $250,000. This sale was well beyond the gun's market value making it one of the greatest sale for a single gun in history. And the anti-Zimmerman haters are fuming with some imagining that the buyer is a white supremacist, confederate flag waving nazi who'd like to shove black people into ovens or put them in chains again. Z says that part of the sale proceeds will go to helping policemen who fall victim to Black Lives Matter inspired violence; and stopping Hillary Clinton from bringing her war on guns to the White House-if Z had no gun he'd likely be dead or crippled for life.
If God came down from Heaven and made a deal with the Martins telling them that he would return Trayvon to them if they give up the millions that they made from his death, but that he'd return just as he left with all his flaws and sins (i.e. the same bad, troubled kid) what do you think they would do?  Keep their wealth and tell God to bug off? Or would they gladly sacrifice their riches and welcome back Trayvon flaws and all?
I also love it that Z used the spotlight to criticize his arch enemies Tracy Martin and Sabrina Fulton (Trayvon's divorced parents) who head the deranged, racist "Justice for Trayvon" lynch mob that demonized Z lying that he killed their son in cold blood and was the racist killer of the century. In an interview Z said that Trayvon would be alive today if  his folks did a better job raising him-and he is right. But there are way too many black parents like the Martins who are responsible for the tidal wave of death and destruction that's engulfing young black men-as they're killed by the thousands every year shot to death mostly by blacks. Z killing Trayvon was emblematic of that.
  If George Zimmerman had Trayvon's skin color his death would have been an  unimportant ten second news story on the local news with no murder charges brought against him and no trial. And there would not have been a national "Justice For Trayvon" movement making his parents rich; nor would there be 
Black Lives Matter which rose from Zimmerman's acquittal claiming that it was racist and devalued black lives.
Below are two debates from a dozen or so I recently had on  with George Zimmerman haters. The first debate is wide-ranging and covers many aspects of the case and ends with a new approach to the 911 call where Zimmerman is heard screaming for his life. The second debate (the briefer of the two) disputes the widely held leftist view that Z is a text book sociopath and violence prone psycho-a dangerous man and ticking time bomb who should be behind bars.


it was Trayvon Martin's violent, homophobic, gangsta masculinity that likely got him killed. 

For the story click http://www.apollospeaks.com/?p=850


According to Rachel, Trayvon also told Zimmerman to get off of him, so Zimmerman grabbed him. What do you have to say about that?



Rachel Jeantel on balance wasn't credible. She lied and repeatedly contradicted herself which is why the jury ignored her (muddled) testimony and the prosecution lost the case. Besides, eye-witness John Good saw Trayvon pinning Z to the ground and beating him as Z was fighting for his life and crying for help. Z had six injuries and T his gunshot wound (shot from under him as experts testified). Z's injuries were consistent with the defense's position that T was the violent aggressor in the conflict maliciously intending harm to Z.
 Except that Rachel Jeantel WAS a credible witness when she said that Trayvon called Zimmerman a "creepy asscracker."
It's called.... the prosecution sent all of their witnesses out to the stand with no preparation....
There was no proof whatsoever that Trayvon had been shot from the bottom. Don't even try to bring up Vincent Di Maio's testimony when Di Maio admitted he ran no experiments.
" Z's injuries were consistent with the defense's position" And that's why the defense tried multiple times to change Zimmerman's story at the trial..
And the experiments that showed Trayvon was shot from a different angle and that Z's six wounds were self-inflicted were......?
Wasn't it Jeantel who told defense attorney West that Trayvon made it home that night to his father's house, and it was there that the conflict took place? When it was 90-100 yards up the walk path in front of eyewitness John Good's house?
The bottom of the following map of Twin Lakes shows how utterly absurd and incredulous the prosecution's star witness was and why she failed so badly.
Anthony ApolloSpeaks  
"And the experiments that showed Trayvon was shot from a different angle and that Z's six wounds were self-inflicted were?" Did the prosecution even try, since they DIDN'T EVEN PREPARE, AND THEY NEGLECTED AND EVEN INSULTED THEIR OWN WITNESSES?
"Wasn't it Jeantel who told West that Trayvon made it home that night to his father's house" She said that Trayvon was "by his daddy's house" which doesn't literally mean that he was right there at the door. Surely, Chad Joseph never said he was back at the house, and Trayvon didn't leave his snacks there and bring a weapon back with him.


The "prosecution not preparing their own witnesses" is the excuse used by Z haters for the lack of any evidence proving malicious intent. Like the Sanford PD neither the local prosecutor nor the FBI nor the State prosecutor had any evidence proving malice to confute Z's claim that he acted legally and morally in self-defense. The trial was driven by politics not evidence-it was a political trial which Governor Scott was forced into by a race obsessed liberal media and political elite convinced that Z was a racist killer getting away with the murder of an innocent unarmed black kid. 
And when the trial was over and the DOJ continued the FBI's investigation into civil rights violations, after a 33 months and finding zilch they returned to Z the gun he used to legally and morally kill T.
Really, Anthony, what do you know that everyone else missed?
"And the DOJ, after a 33 month long investigation, returned Z's gun because Holder and Lynn could find no evidence that it was used in a crime." Because civil rights violations are a much higher bar, so what?
"Like the Sanford PD, the local prosecutor and FBI the State Prosecutor didn't have a single piece of evidence to confute Z's claim that he acted in self-defense. "
Oh, yeah, the police sure did a decent investigation. They found that Trayvon and Zimmerman had arms and a neck like Plastic Man, when Zimmerman shot Trayvon on the grass lawn ten feet away from the concrete sidewalk... OH WAIT
They sure found it strange when Zimmerman adamantly refused to see a doctor for his scratches...OH WAIT.
They actually waited for the autopsy results to come out on Trayvon after a few hours.... OH WAIT.
They actually gave Zimmerman a polygraph, and asked him several specific questions about the scuffle and shooting...they so didn't just give him a "voice stress analysis" and only as two very vague questions... OH WAIT..
They drug tested Zimmerman... OH WAIT
They didn't coach Zimmerman when Zimmerman said that the screams "doesn't even sound like me" ....OH WAIT..
They had Zimmerman lie down on the floor to demonstrate how he was able to bend his arm and aim the gun with one hand while lying on his back, without the recoil breaking his arm on the ground...OH WAIT
They asked Zimmerman about what happened to the bushes that he said Trayvon tackled him from... OH WAIT...
What else did they NOT miss? *SARCASM*
LOL!!! How many wounds did Z have? Where were they located and how did he get them? Were they self-inflicted? Did they miraculously materialize from the thin air like a stigmata? Was John Good lying or hallucinating when he saw the stronger, superior, athletic Trayvon in a commanding position on top of the much weaker Z beating away at him with Z crying for help? John Good saw no gun in Z's hands. Trayvon never cried that Z had a gun as he was whacking him. Luckily Z managed to get to his weapon and stop the assault before it turned really deadly.
The Sanford PD investigation was superseded by the FBI investigation and a parallel Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation. When neither could find evidence incriminating Z the Justice Dept stepped in and the FBI opened a parallel civil rights investigation. They turned up nothing.
Then came the indictment by Angela Corey's office with her lead investigator Dale Gilbreath questioned by O'Mara during the April 12th bond hearing. Though the affidavit said that "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued," Gilbreath contradicting that admitted to O'Mara that his office had no evidence of who confronted who or threw the first punch. In other words, the charge of second degree murder was bogus from the start and eventually collapsed in court for lack of evidence as it should have.
Most any armed person in Z's place would have used his/her gun to equalize the difference in animal power and strength between themselves and a superior and pitiless assailant. The evidence was overwhelming that Z acted in self-defense and escaped severe injuries or possible death and that it was T who had malicious intent and was the CRIMINAL in the conflict.  And six jurors hearing testimonies and reviewing the evidence for 19 days agreed finding Z's killing of Trayvon morally and legally justified.
The Feds did not look for evidence to try Zimmerman for the case. They looked for civil rights violations which are a higher bar than manslaughter.
"Gilbreath contradicting that admitted to O'Mara that his office had no evidence who confronted who or threw the first punch. "
Mark O'Mara also mentioned the "who threw the first punch" at the trial, to raise reasonable doubt in order to help get Zimmerman off.
Who threw the first punch, and there weren't many punches thrown because neither Zimmerman and *MORE IMPORTANTLY, NOR TRAYVON* had bruises, swelling, cuts, breaks, or other injuries to their knuckles, wrists, nor hands (they wrestled around) *DOESN'T MATTER* even though there was the testimony that Trayvon told Zimmerman to get off of him (and even Juror B37 admitted that she believed Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
*WHAT MATTERS* is the law of self defense, which says you must be in *reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death*
Claiming that you had to shoot someone to keep your head, bald like ZImmerman's was or not, from being grabbed in a vice grip hands and repeatedly smashed dozens of times onto a concrete sidewalk...
does *NOT* meet the requirements for self-defense. Period
The defense is *NOT* going to tell the jury that, because they're trying to get their defendant off. And Zimmerman's defense lawyers were *DEFINITELY NOT* going to mention the evidence that Zimmerman was *NOT* having his head bashed on concrete when he shot Martin, because he shot Martin on the grass lawn a significant distance away from the concrete, to the jury.
It's up to the prosecution to mention the evidence that Zimmerman did not have his head bashed on the concrete when he shot Trayvon and the law of self-defense.
The biggest reasons for why Zimmerman was found "not guilty" was because the prosecution mentioned NEITHER to the jury...
Z's trial was about "Self-Defense vs Second Degree Murder." And six juriors came down on the side of self-defense acquitting Z of murder. Each of those jurors putting themselves vicariously in Z's place would have acted no differently.They concluded from the evidence that Z's life was in danger as he was pinned down by a young man of superior energy and strength pounding away at him as eyewitness John Good said-who, btw saw the altercation move to the concrete sidewalk. As Z (the weak, slow, fat, unathletic martial arts failure) felt his life was threatened by the stronger man on top of him he cried out for help repeatedly (as John Good said). Those were authentic cries of desperation by a man frightened for his life. Who under such terrtible duress carrying a gun wouldn't have  used it in self-defense?
Though Juror B37 thought that Z might have been the initial aggressor (she could not know for sure) she nevertheless gathered from the evidence that Z's life was in peril during the fight, and agreed with the other five jurors that shooting T was justified.
There is nothing the prosecution could have done differently that would have changed the outcome in their favor. The evidence was so overwhelmingly compelling, conclusive and clear that Z felt imperiled (fearing for his life) throughout the ordeal; and that Z shot T without malice strictly in self-defense.
BTW in March 2012 the DOJ started its own criminal investigation of Z. After Z's acquittal it started the 33 month civil rights investigation.
"There is nothing the prosecution could have done differently that would have caused a different outcome. The evidence was overwhelming, conclusive and clear that Z felt imperiled (fearing for his life) throughout the ordeal; and that there was no malicious intent in shooting T, that it was strictly in self-defense." 
That Zimmerman shot Trayvon on the lawn yards away from the concrete sidewalk. That Trayvon had no injuries to his hands, knuckles or wrists. That Zimmerman himself plus the voice analysis plus the autopsy concluded that it was NOT Zimmerman screaming on the tape. Some evidence supporting Zimmerman.
The voice analysts you refer to (whoever they are) were wrong . Eye witness John Good heard no cries from T. An FBI voice-recognition scientist testifying at the pre-trial hearing said that "he didn't believe it was possible to identify who was screaming in the background of a 911 call." He said "because the screaming voice was affected by distress or emotion, there was no way to compare it to reasonable, natural speech and come up with correct answers." But John Good heard the 18 seconds of screams and it was coming exclusively from Z-battling to free himself from T. PERIOD!
"he voice analysts were wrong ." *ROLFMAO*
at 21:35 You can hear Zimmerman HIMSELF "screaming" *ROLFMAO*
LOL!!! Now you've really stepped in it. The voice analysis expert that I quoted, Hirotaka Nakasone, was an expert witness for the prosecution in the Z trial. During his testimony he said, and I quote, that the 18 seconds of screams on the tape (eye and ear witnessed by John Good) were made by someone "under extreme duress and in a life threatening situation." When Z gave his weak reenactment he was not in the same highly stressful psychological state pumped up with adrenaline and fearing for his life. An extreme, heart pounding, situation like that could put any voice through a radical transformation. In fact, Z's screams were so remote from his normal speaking voice that (as you say) he couldn't recognize that they were his.
With John Good physically present at the scene witnessing a violent T on top of Z and hearing up close his frantic screams for help; and Nakasone asserting that the screams were coming from someone in a life threatening situation, with good reason Z was acquitted of murder. For the jury was rightly persuaded that Z's psychological state was one of stark raving terror; and while in that state he managed to get his gun and end what was terrifying him: T's vicious life threatening assault. No way given Good's and Nakasone's accounts (and add to this Vincent DiMaios expertise on gunshot wounds) that the prosecution could have elicited a guilty verdict out of the jury. Hell, no jury in the world would have convicted Z with witnesses like these. NONE!
"An extreme, heart pounding, situation like that could put any voice through a radical transformation. In fact, Z's screams were so remote from his normal speaking voice he couldn't recognize that they were his." ..... Because they weren't his, genius.
Here's a question for you. Did Zimmerman appear to be shaken up whatsoever after the "harrowing life threatening encounter?" 
Of Jonathan Manalo "He testified that Zimmerman did not appear in shock shortly after the shooting and was very calm." 
Does that sound like someone who had just been screaming for their life a second earlier, despite the fact that 1) no one would scream when they have a gun and are trying to use it 2) the screams ended immediately at the exact instant the shot was fired 3)since Zimmerman had no significant injuries and Trayvon had in injuries to his hands AND Zimmerman shot Trayvon on the grass lawn yards away from the concrete, Trayvon was doing nothing to Zimmerman (while the ex-bouncer, MMA trained and multiple weight classes heavier Zimmerman likely had scrawny ass Trayvon in a restraining hold when he shot him)? 4) The voice analysis proved it WASN'T ZImmerman 5) Zimmerman HIMSELF said IT WASN"T ZIMMERMAN SCREAMING 6) Trayvon's autopsy showed he had pneumothorax which means that if anyone would stop at the EXACT INSTANT IT WOULD BE TRAYVON 7) Zimmerman claimed that he didn't even know he had shot him?
First off I was playing with you when I seemed to buy your lie about Zimmerman not recognizing his voice on the 911 call-as you know he said no such thing. It was Tracy Martin who told Officer Chris Serano (overheard by Officer Singleton) that it wasn't his son screaming; on the stand he contradicted them claiming he said that he wasn't sure at the time that the screams were T's but after hearing the tape 20 times was certain they were his. Of course, the defense produced a string of witnesses identifying the screaming voice as Z's.





Secondly, there are certain personality types that can quickly return to a state of near calm after a traumatic experience. Once it's over it's as if it never happened and you can't tell they were in distress. It's been noted how consistently calm and emotionless Zimmerman was throughout the trial. When the verdict was read he smiled a bit, but it didn't seem to phase him. Z is a cold fish who on rare occasions has angry outbursts. But for the most part he's "MR COOL" as friends and relations say.





Nationally renowned forensic expert Vincent DaMaio reviewing all the evidence and drawing on decades of gunshot experience said that T's gunshot wound was consistent with Z's testimony; that he shot Z while being straddled by him. John Good saw T straddling Z and hitting him while Z was crying for help. Good testified that he yelled "what's going on" and told Trayvon to "stop it."


Prosecution witness neighbor Jennifer Laura testified that she and her husband heard Good from her house yell " What's going on." This confirms that Good was there an eye and ear witness to an overpowering athletic (former football player) Trayvon beating on Z who feared for his life and screamed .




That Z was a weight lifter and skilled in Mixed Martial Arts is a blatant lie. That Z might have had the very athletic T in a head lock or restraint hold when he shot him" is laughable.  Z's MMA instructor Adam Pollock (owner of the kickboxing gym where Z worked out) testified that the "grossly obese," "unathletic" Z had flunked his martial arts classes and had no aptitude for fighting. On a scale of 1 to 10 Pollock gave Z a next to zero "1" for athletic ability. Pollock also testified that


"He [Z] was an overweight, large man when he came to us, a very pleasant, very nice man, but physically soft and predominantly fat, not a lot of muscle, not a lot of strength." He also testified that Z came to the gym to lose weight and get in shape [not develop fighting skills]."



What other lies are you going to uselessly dish up about Z? Bring it on so I can knock them down one by one!


Anthony  ApolloSpeaks 


Okay, little buddy, I understand that the shooting happened 4 years ago, Zimmerman's trial was almost three years ago and he was found "not guilty," as was Casey and OJ before him, and double jeopardy laws say that none of them can be retried.


Stop trying to legitimize Zimmerman's acquittal. The facts were that it had far, *FAR* less to do with "there was no evidence against Zimmerman," or "Zimmerman was really innocent," and far, *FAR* more to do with the incompetence of the prosecutors who only took the case for political reasons (the initial prosecutor and the eventual prosecutor, the late Norm Wolfinger and Angela Corey, were both conservative Republicans, by the way




, then overcharged and underprosecuted Zimmerman.

As Lisa Bloom, who's one of the, and probably only legal experts to have actually interviewed the witnesses and jurors after the trial (hell, she spent more time talking to the prosecution's witnesses than the PROSECUTION DID! The prosecution didn't even prepare their own God damned witnesses) mentioned that the prosecution had Zimmerman's interviews with the detective for over a year and didn't once take notice of the fact that Zimmerman had his gun not in his front waistband, but his back hip. Of course the detectives not only didn't notice it either but also never once told Zimmerman to lay down and reenact it, you people like you will maintain that the detectives and the prosecution did such a great job.



The boring, empty, leftist refrain that "the prosecution didn't prepare their witnesses" is the excuse of racially obsessed Zimmerman haters who can't accept the reality of Trayvon Martin's and what a bad little out of control morally corrupt kid he was-corrupted by a decaying black culture of gangsta rappers and gang bangers into lawlessness, drug abuse, anarchy and deadly violence with a body count of young black men piled to the sky; a type of badly corrupted kid who'd fly into a rage if you looked at him the wrong way. Hell, Z was doing "worse" that fatal day: he (a possible gay predator) was following T an offense deserving T's fists punching and punishing Z's body and face.


LOL!!! How should the prosecution have prepared John Good who saw the conflict move on to the concrete sidewalk with Z screaming more frantically for his life? Was Good a lying racist? Was he hallucinating? You avoid Good for good reason: he's a reality check on your idiotic theory that Z acted with hatred and malice; a theory which is totally laughable within the context of Z's history as a responsible and conscientious community watchman-which is why Twin Lakes made him the coordinator with police for creating the watch program. It's only fools and idiots who believe that Z was so reckless and insane that after calling police who were on their way to apprehend and question the suspicious T that he was willing to sacrifice his life and liberty, and everything good he was working for, by killing a worthless nothing of a kid.


Do yourself a favor friend and get an education on the Trayvon Martins and Michael Browns of the world and see the award-winning HBO crime show "The Wire." It's about the sickening reality of black inner city life and the Martins and Browns who are killed every deadly day. The Wire is so painfully authentic and real that it's taught in college sociology classes. And that's all I have to say to you.



What's BEYOND boring is you wingnuts and your fantasies that have NO basis in reality. It was said DURING THE DAMN TRIAL that it was OBVIOUS the prosecution didn't spend ANY time with their witnesses before the trial began...in other words... THEY DID NOT PREPARE THEIR OWN WITNESSES.


"ad little out of control morally corrupt kid he was-corrupted by a decaying black culture of gang bangers into lawlessness" NOW your showing your racism even more explicitly, wingnut. No proof whatsoever that Martin had anything to do with "gang bangers" because he certainly would have been armed and wouldn't have hesitated to shoot Zimmerman the second Zimmerman grabbed him. Smoking some pot, taking sophomoric pictures flipping the bird, and having some mischief at school while trying to straighten up for his mechanics classes are things that MANY PEOPLE HAVE DONE AS TEENAGERS. So I guess, according to you, We're ALL "corrupted gang bangers." You cons are full of crap.


Yet, you not only don't find ANYTHING wrong with Zimmerman's LONG history of assaulting and threatening people, you also don't find anything wrong with the fact that HIS OWN FAMILY accused him of sexual molestation (guess it's because YOU'VE done the same thing yourself, huh? Yeah, admit it, you wingnut deviant)


As for John Good, I have no idea why they prosecution chose to have him as a witness when he admitted to not seeing all what he claimed to have seen. Again that's your idea of the prosecutors being the best around, which is as big of a joke as you are.


"Do yourself a favor friend and get an education on the Trayvon Martins and Michael Browns " Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin are two totally different cases. Brown's case was in broad daylight with multiple witnesses and DNA evidence along with an officer who kept his same story.


Martin's was at night with no witnesses who saw the whole thing, and a REAL THUG NAME ZIMMERMAN who CHANGED HIS STORY THEN REFUSED TO SPEAK who had a LONG HISTORY of assaulting and threatening people, INCLUDING A POLICE OFFICER...


And that's all I have to say about you, little wingnut.








ApolloSpeaks  Anthony 




Trayvon screaming: Help! Help! He's got a gun! Help! Help! He wants to kill me! Help! Somebody, help! AHHHHHHHHH! Bang. Silence.


Stupid little Trayvon forgot to mention Z's gun in his 18 + seconds of screams. What was he smoking? Must have been memory impairing weed. LOL!!!!  




 Because Anthony had no answer or theory to explain why Trayvon Martin failed to mention the gun that was causing him to scream for his life (or why it took 18* seconds for Z to shoot him) his reply was very nasty, too unsavory to post here.  


*One expert says that the screaming which started before the 911 call was for approximately 40 seconds with the recording capturing 18 seconds of it. So if it was T that was screaming fearing he'd be shot then it took Z 40 seconds to shoot him which is absurd-unless T was struggling with Z for the gun. But eyewitness John Good saw no gun or struggle for it.








Note to reader:


Franklin claims to be a retired police officer.


The Zimmerman family raised a sociopath and a murderer. But you don't hear the Martin family complaining about how George was raised.  

Define the term "sociopath" then let's see if Zimmerman fits it.



Personality disorder resulting in antisocial behavior, i.e. Killing somebody because you are losing a fistfight, you started, getting violent fights with family members and others, and demonstrating a complete lack of empathy which is the subject of the original article. He is as close to the definition of s sociopath as you can find.  

LOL!!! Is being the captain of a community watch program-concerned about the safety and security of your neighbors from criminals and predators-an example of antisocial behavior? Is defending the rights of a homeless black man from a beating he took from the son of a policeman an example of anti-social behavior? Is participating in the mentoring program for poor black kids-making them part of your household at your expense-an example of anti-social behavior? What is anti-social or sociopathic about these things?

George Zimmerman Racism Charges False, He Helped Blacks

Franklin  ApolloSpeaks   

First if you recall he failed his psychological exam to become a police officer, and just what is the standard it takes to be a member even Captain of the community watch besides oh yeah, nothing! Other the willingness to do the job and oh by the way, he was told by dispatch to leave Trayvon Martin alone. But of course, he didn't. If you think sociopaths run around all day frothing at the mouth, then you are sadly misinformed. It is precisely the reason local law enforcement officers said he would have problems and he has. Multiple claims of violence against two girl friends. An arrest for assault on a peace officer. Arrests in other matters related to anger, the inability to hold a steady job...this moron is a textbook case.

Because Z had years of experience as a community watchman before moving to Twin Lakes, and was working on an associates degree in criminal justice, he was chosen by the Twin Lakes association to coordinate with Sanford PD the creation of the watch program-I believe it was his idea. The training he received from police allowed for watchmen to trail suspects at a safe distance so they could pinpoint their location when police arrived. Z had done this dozens of times in the past (calling in suspects trailing them) without incident. The dispatcher who told Z that he didn't need him to follow T wasn't a cop. He said at the trial what he said to Z was only a "suggestion not an order" which he lacked the authority to give.

Trial turns to Zimmerman's neighborhood-watch role-USA Today

ApolloSpeaks    The Franklin 

Z's record as a watchman and good neighbor were exemplary as neighbors testified. No one testified that Z was a sociopath or violent man. Neighbors (black and white) spoke highly of him. Rare outbursts of anger, passion or violence does not make one a sociopath or a violent man. A violent person is habitually violent. That wasn't the peaceful, cool-headed George Zimmerman.

Z's run in with the law and arrests were brought up by prosecutors at his bond hearing. The judge dismissed them as "run of the mill." This included pushing an undercover cop in a bar.

At the time of the incident Z was steadily employed as an insurance underwriter for All State (?) making at least $40k a year. On balance Z is a good, decent, authority respecting, law-abiding man trying to do the right thing as relatives, friends and neighbors testified. Calling him a textbook sociopath is a laughable, unwarranted smear born from blind hate not facts.

Ah so you confirmed my point. It was HIS idea to be community liaison. In short he got the job because he was the one who wanted to do it. (Good lord even Barney Fife got hired). As for the judge saying this not unusual behavior, in an arraignment court, it probably isn't. But at trial and outside in the real world, it's highly unusual. I noticed you ignored the point about him failing his psyche test (whatcha want to bet he failed more then one? I used to be a cop and you usually test with multiple agencies.). Finally as to him disregarding the dispatchers instructions, you ignore the fact that suggestion or not, the suggestion was correct. Had he followed that suggestion, we would not be here now and it tells you a great deal about his decision making and I will bet why he failed his psychs. He has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of empathy by posting pictures of Trayvon Martins dead body and succeeded in getting himself banned from Twitter. He could have kept his job and returned to his job, but instead he tried to go on a victory tour. Also he lied about getting a job as a security guard. If this is normal to you trust me, it's not normal to the rest of us including the investigating officers at Martins murder who testified that they thought Zimmerman lied. If you recall Zimmerman claimed that Martin was peeping in Windows and no such evidence was found on the dew soaked ground by the windows 
Supposing Zimmerman was the most miserable low life bastard ever to walk this earth. It makes absolutely no difference to the fact that he was the victim of a vicious eye witnessed criminal attack where he was provably in extreme duress genuinely fearing for his life. Even the lowest form of human pond scum has the inalienable right of self-defense which the weak, slow, flabby, unathletic Z (he earned a grade of "1" for MMA) was exercising when he stopped with lethal force the physically stronger, fleet footed, athletic Trayvon from possibly killing him. If only Trayvon had kept running when he easily lost the tortoise that was following him and went home (there was nothing stopping him but himself) he'd be alive today, right?
Excuse me but the that is pathetic. Martin wasn't doing anything wrong. All he knew was that some nutcase was following him. He had every right to defend himself and be where he was. It was Zimmerman playing Barney Fife that caused the problem. The neighborhood watch is supposed to observe and report. Not to confront anybody. He was told to stay away. He consciously disregarded the instructions and was legitimately Martin perceived him as a threat and responded. But for Zimmerman's behavior none of this would have happened .

And excuse me, but Martin was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing exactly the wrong things to make him look suspicious: not walking home, but wandering around aimlessly for 40 minutes in the rain moving between buildings-some of which might have been burglarized as Twin Lakes had been recently plagued by a string of break ins. Hell when Z phoned police about T it was 7:09 PM 45 minutes after he left 7-11.

Any watchman would have found T suspicious and did everything that Z did: trail him at a distance to observe and report for police, then go look for him when he bolted and disappeared (he could have easily stayed that way if he chose to) thinking he was headed toward the back exit of Twin Lakes. BTW, There's zero evidence that Z wanted to confront T. Indeed, he could have done so at the get go when he first spotted him at 7:09. But instead of leaving his car for a confrontation he waits till T walks away then follows him at a safe distance according to the rules. And when T bolted and disappeared how could Z confront him when he didn't know where he was?

The police dispatcher at the trial said he had zero authority to tell Z what to do; and when he said "we don't need you following T" he testified that it was only a suggestion.

Up until T's sneak attack of Z (the only thing that makes sense as six jurors believed from the evidence) he was doing what any watchman would have done. And when T attacked Z overpowering him knocking him to the ground then beating him Z, genuinely fearing for his life (proved by the extreme duress of his screams) took out his gun to equalize things and shot T to stop him.

Why did T stop running and decide to confront Z? Rachel Jeantel told Piers Morgan that she and T thought that Z the "creepy ass cracka" might be a homosexual predator out to rape him. T's extreme gangsta mentality and machismo couldn't tolerate that. As gangstas and gang bangers stereotype gays as unmanly feminine sissies T thought that kicking Z's butt would be a cinch.



Again you are incorrect. Martin had every right to o be where he was. Constitutional rights work two ways not one. And now the defense changes fr OK k he was peeping into windows to "he was wandering aimlessly". We which I might remind you was Martin's right to do, noting that he fact that he was on the phone at the time. That the suggestion was a suggestion is irrelevant. The advice was correct and Zimmerman should have followed it. Again it goes to the absolutely atrocious decision making skills of this sociopath that shows why he was rejected for police work more than once and why he's at fault here. The bottom line is this. Martin didn't have to be anywhere except where he wanted to be. Martin didnt have to flee because he wasn't doing anything wrong. In the recitations of the facts, you have listed inconsistnt motivations one of which waa likely a clumsy lie by Zimmerman to cover his bad behavior. I.e. Martin was looking into windows and now he was just wandering. It shows completely why Zimmerman couldn't even get a job as a rent a cop which by the way he also lied about.

And Z had every right to suspect T might be up to no good and report him to police; and had every right to follow him and then look for him when he bolted. And what is absolutely indisputably clear from Z's 911 call is his overarching concern for the safety and security of Twin Lakes as he mentioned to the dispatcher the recent break ins by young black men as being the motive for his call-this is at variance with your laughable, irrational, unfactual, hate driven characterization of Z as a "sociopath."

The first violation of rights was T's criminally attacking Z and quickly overpowering him as eyewitness John Good saw and heard with his own eyes and ears (after the scuffle began). Z using his gun was the last resort when his cries for help (recorded on tape and heard by many) went unanswered.

Z's "lies" are nothing compared to the Martins stirring up a national lynch mob of crazed bloodthirsty leftists based on the complete fabrication that Z was a sociopathic racist killer who hunted down Trayvon and killed him in cold blood. If the Martins had one iota of integrity they would have refrained from rushing to judgment and said "we will not judge Z until the trial and all the facts are known." That is the American way of justice. Not stirring up an angry lynch mob on lies.

And as it turned out no one (the Sanford PD, FBI, DOJ and local and state prosecutors) could discover a single racist bone in Z's "sociopathic" body. After 33 months without finding a hint of racism Obama's DOJ returned the life saving gun that Z used in self-defense against Trayvon. And after the millions made by the Martins on their son's death (stirring up all that racial hatred on a lie) Z is right to sell the gun and stick it to his lying, sick, divisive, race obsessed, moronic leftist enemies.







< p style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; font-family: inherit; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; margin: 0px; line-height: 21px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;"> 


If I were Donald Trump I'd be jumping all over the opportunity to stir up one hell of a controversy and the rage of the crazy race deranged left by buying the gun that saved George Zimmerman's life from Trayvon Martin for a million bucks. In fact, from what Zimmerman has horribly suffered since he escaped being killed or severely crippled by "Saint Trayvon," one of several brutal holy martyrs of the fascist Black Lives Matter mob, he deserves far more; and I wish I had it to give him.
The good news is as of yesterday morning the life saving gun (whose single fatal justified shot four years ago was heard across the nation and world) has returned to the auction block at United Gun Group for sale after the listing was suspended due to sabotage. An army of anti-Zimmerman trolls with fake bids from phony accounts stormed the site and skyrocketed the price to $65 million. How I wish that it was real as the anti-Zimmerman hate industry over the years probably earned ten times that sum.
 Indeed, exploiting the death of Trayvon and using the race card against Z (demonizing him as a racist killer of an innocent unarmed black teen) the liberal news and opinion media (TV mags, newspapers and on line blogs) rushing to judgment soon after the shooting made tens and millions boosting ratings, subscriptions and hits. Also cashing in big time were the NAACP, race pimps and hustlers like Jessie Jackson and Reverend Al (who got multiple invites to the White House), and the New Black Panthers which put a $10k bounty (see) on Z's bashed in head (surely boosting its racist membership by thousands). 
Not letting the controversy go to waste the great "post-racial" liar and divider-in-chief got into the act pandering to the anti-Zimmerman mob during 2012 race by posthumously adopting Trayvon as the son that could have been. And let's not forget Sabrina and Tracy Martin, Trayvon's divorced, grieving parents, weeping all the way to the bank profiting hugely from his death by winning a $1 million wrongful death suit against the homeowners association where their boy (not wrongfully) was killed (see). And not content with the million they made the Martins trademarked Trayvon's name to earn cash on Trayvon merchandise: CDs, DVDs, t-shirts and bumper stickers (see).
Calling for action: Supporters have made a plethora of different t-shirts, all with the same essential message
 Indeed, from the media to the President to Trayvon's mom and dad one and all enriched themselves immensely by vilifying Z as the racist killer of the century-until Darren Wilson took his place and the cycle of leftist insanity started all over again....but this time more violently.
Trayvon's parents cashing in on his death.
But the racially mixed partly black Z who was deprived of a normal life, lost his wife and took a huge financial hit* (because of the crime that his skin was too white)
 is excoriated as a cruel, heartless sociopath deserving of death for selling his gun on the internet. And the irony is it was returned to him after the Justice Dept. concluded a 33 month investigation that predictably couldn't find a hint of racism in the evil Z.  It's mind-boggling.
*At the time of the Martin shooting Z was as an insurance underwriter  (making between $35,000 to $77,000 a year), while working  on an associate degree in criminal justice in Seminole State College. That would make his loses to date substantial.
If I were Donald Trump I'd buy Z's gun for a big enough sum to give him the financial security he deserves and needs; and I'd carry it on me throughout the campaign proudly showing it off at rallies to remind Americans what the Left is about and that they tried to destroy an innocent man who was doing his job protecting his community from a potential predator. Black lives only matter when non-blacks kill blacks. When that happens it's "Kill Cops Burn Down Shops" like they did in Ferguson, Baltimore, New York and elsewhere.
Over the weekend as I was debating Zimmerman's innocence with lefties on disqus I'd get comment after comment faulting Z with the familiar refrain that in following Trayvon he was disobeying police who ordered him to stand down, as he was told on the so-called 911 tape. But the voice he heard was that of a dispatcher not a cop who had no authority to order him to do squat.
But as I researched this I learned something important that I never knew and that will be new to most of you. Sure if Z had stayed in his car and not followed T that night there would have been no shooting; and T would possibly be alive today-but only if some other potential victim like Z hadn't killed him in self-defense as T had a violent heart and was on a bad path. But what I learned is that Z exiting his vehicle and trailing T at a safe distance (he had no desire to confront him) was perfectly acceptable to the Sanford police and was encouraged by them-to assist them in keeping track of suspects until they arrived.  You can read about it HERE.


George Zimmerman is making news again and the mad, crazed, race obsessed ("Kill Cops Burn Down Shops") Zimmy-hating lynch mob Left is going ballistic. This time it's over the gun that the luckily armed neighborhood watchman used to save his life when Trayvon Martin (thinking Z might be a gay predator out to rape him) viciously tried to ground and pound him into utter unconsciousness and death.
Last week Z put the gun (a 9-millimeter Kel-Tec PF-9 pistol) on the auction block for sale to the highest bidder, and leftist heads exploded across the net with moral outrage. Calling Z an unconscionable sociopath cynically exploiting TM's death for personal profit and gain the Left conveniently forget that Obama did practically the same thing in 2012-when during the election he ignorantly said (pandering for the anti-Zimmerman vote) that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon. (Does anyone think Obama would let his eldest daughter date such a thug?)
But that's not the worst or best of it. Pouring gas on the new outrage he's sparked, Z said that a portion of the proceeds would go to "fighting violence by the Black Lives Matter movement against police officers, combating the anti-gun rhetoric of Hillary Clinton and ending the career of state attorney Angela Corey," who led Zimmerman's politicized prosecution (which should never have been).
Yes it's true that  Z is exploiting Martin's death for money. But who can justly blame him? Z can't get a job or live a normal life and go out in the public as he's too big a target for leftist black violence. Truth is if Z were black he'd be unknown to us and be living like he did prior to killing Martin. The media not Z is to blame for his seemingly desperate financial state. From the start because Z wasn't black the media chose to demonize him and sensationalize Martin's death as a racist killing of an unarmed angelic black kid shot in cold blood, as if it were a KKK execution.
But amazingly and ironically Z loved black people. His mother's granddad was a Peruvian black man; he dated a black girl in high school and took her to the prom; he went into business with a black friend, and compassionately took two underprivileged black girls into his home and mentored them at his expense-as the program had run out of funds. Furthermore, Z rallied to the cause of a black homeless man who was beaten with impunity by the son of a Sanford policeman. At his own expense Z printed and handed out fliers trying to raise public awareness about the crime. He even went to the local NAACP to enlist its help, but to no avail-they sympathized with the victim but lacked the funds to help him (see and see). What kind of mentally ill sociopath is this? It wasn't this responsible but flawed captain of the Twin Lakes community watchmen who was the sociopath; it was Trayvon Martin who came within inches of murdering him.
And that brings me to a fascinating topic-the big story that's going unreported mentioned in the title: the failure of Obama's Justice Department to nail the so-called "racist" Z with a hate crime. It was recently in late April or earlier this month that Z took possession of his life saving gun that equalized the difference between TM's superior strength and his weakness (Z's martial arts guru said he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag). For over two and a half years the DOJ kept the gun as a crucial piece of evidence in their investigation of Z for possibly violating TM's civil rights. Indeed, five days after Z was acquitted of second degree murder and manslaughter the DOJ ordered Sanford police to turn over every last bit of the 250 pieces of evidence that were used in the trial-the most important being Z's life saving gun (see).
And after a 33 month investigation that turned up squat the DOJ returned Z's gun, thus tacitly admitting that Z's gun wasn't used in a hate crime against Martin. In other words, the DOJ joined Sanford police and the Florida State prosecutor in failing to find a scintilla of evidence nailing Z to any crime. And yet the compassionate, empathetic, social justice Left still wants to see Z burn in hell flat broke and ruined for killing Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Black lives only matter when non-blacks kill blacks.   



Idiot president bowing to Japanese emperor beacuse he couldn't humiliate America by apologizing for nuking Japan in Hiroshima.

Let there be no illusions why Obama is planning to visit Hiroshima during his up coming trip to Japan in two weeks: it's to tacitly and symbolically with unspoken words do what he wanted to do during his first trip to Japan in 2009: humiliate America by apologizing for winning the war with the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki-as if that were an evil, immoral and criminal way to win, and there was a better and less destructive alternative at the time.
In a secret September 3, 2009 cable (revealed in a WikiLeaks dump) and sent to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it reported that Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka told U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II was a nonstarter [unacceptable] (see)." And because the Japanese government was sternly opposed to it (no Japanese government since the end of WWII ever demanded an apology for the bombings as most Japanese blame themselves for it) Obama did what he saw was the next best thing to humiliate us, and publicly bowed to the Japanese emperor (a mere figurehead with no political power) like he did to the Saudi King earlier that year. Now it appears he wants to take this bow a step further and visit Hiroshima itself: Harry Truman is rolling in his grave.
What right-minded President knowing what he knows today would have refrained from giving the same order Truman gave to decimate Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The aim of war is victory over the enemy; and that means crushing his will to defeat you. But Japan's will and determination to continue the war (which it started at Pearl Harbor) wasn't broken and crushed until Nagasaki. And thank God for that. For we had run out of nukes and didn't have a third and fourth for Kyoto and Osaka or some other Japanese cities. For the Japanese had four million men under arms and a militia force of a million or more citizens ready to defend Japan to the death from invasion (see).
An unbowed General MacArthur with defeated Japanese emperor.
After the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo where tens and thousands died the Japanese Emperor and his military chiefs held firm willing to endure more Tokyos hoping for an eventual invasion where they'd be victorious in repelling the enemy with a massive suicidal army if he dared such a thing. After the nuking of Hiroshima they were still unbowed and committed to war believing that an invasion was coming. But Nagasaki changed all that: it broke the emperor's will and brought him to his senses fearing the nuclear devastation of his country with nothing left but radioactive ashes and dust. And the weak, appeasing leftist nutjob in the White House wants to apologize for this? Apologizing for winning the war and saving millions of lives (including 300,000 POWs) from a land invasion? If Obama were President in 1945 the war would have dragged on for years at a staggering cost in lives and treasure.
Again I say, as I did the other day, with good reason Obama's the most despised Commander-in-Chief by our military and Defense Department in US history. With good reason a mere 15% of our service men and women respect him while 55% utterly loath him. With good reason not one, not two, but three secretaries of defense quit on him finding his incompetence, weakness, ignorance and stupidity intolerable (see and see).
Too bad President Truman didn't listen to General MacArthur and nuked the Norks to end the Korean War. If he had done that the Korean Peninsula would be united today into a one, prosperous, peaceful democratic state; and hundreds and millions of North Koreans wouldn't have perished from socialist poverty and starvation; and millions of children wouldn't now be suffering from malnutrition and stunted growth. If only Truman had listened to MacArthur and didn't go wobbly on the use of nukes-it was Eisenhower who ended the war by threatening to use them.



This regressive blundering jackass has gone from stupidly and needlessly pulling our troops from Iraq to pledging that they'd never return under his watch to returning them only in a "non-combat advisory capacity" to them engaging in combat with ISIS-which he denies. This is just one piece of an overall pattern of incompetency and lies not seen before in a US president. 

No President in American history has commanded so little respect and been more despised by the US military and Defense Department  than Barack Hussein Obama: the weak, pathetic, apologizing appeaser who disgraces the White House with his dithering indecisiveness, serial lies and gutless leadership from behind. So loathed is Obama by our service men and women that only a mere, abysmally low 15% think well of him; while a disgusted, demoralized 55% are wretchedly sick to their stomachs at the mention of his name (see). And who can blame them? Just look at Obama's dismal record on the world stage and the harm that he's done to our soldiers, this country, the Middle East and the world and tell if you don't want to puke. 

In 2009 Obama stupidly trying to reset relations with Russia, which were damaged by the Russo-Georgian War, butt kissed committed neo-imperialist Vladimir Putin and rewarded him for Georgia by canceling a missile defense system for Poland and Eastern Europe. And how did Putin repay Obama and show his thanks? By giving traitor Edward Snowden refuge in Russia, invading the Ukraine, annexing Crimea and then militarily intervening in Syria to defend Bashir Assad (the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century) from US backed rebels who are now being crushed. 
... counter terrorism head: FBI never called Ft.Hood 'Workplace Violence
Offending the common sense of our soldiers and troops Obama called the jihadist massacre at Ft. Hood an act of "workplace violence" as if the Moslem killer of 13 soldiers (and an unborn child) differed little from a disgruntled employee working in the private sector seeking revenge on workers and management. And compounding this politically correct lunacy Obama called terrorist acts in general "man caused disasters" as if in essence they were no different from deadly auto accidents, train wrecks and the like.  
Bergdahl prisoner swap
But even more outrageous was Obama lauding the traitorous deserter Bowe Bergdahl as a hero who served his country with "honor and distinction" (who caused the death of soldiers trying to find him) and was swapped for five Taliban commanders hell-bent on returning to the battlefield to kill more Americans. 
Moreover, as Robert Gates tells us (see), Obama surged our troops in Afghanistan and sent them into battle without believing in or supporting the mission-while giving them restrictive Rules of Engagement that favoring the enemy over our troops has tragically killed dozens of them.
Worse still he pulled our troops from Iraq (handing the country over to Iran) when he had the overwhelming leverage (as Leon Panetta says) of $60 billion in Iraq Reconstruction Funds to keep them there on US terms. And now we're back fighting in Iraq for a third time in 25 years (see).
Wanting to look tough Obama threatened to punish Syria's Bashir Assad if he dared cross the red line of chemical weapon attacks against his people; upon crossing the line Obama did nothing except sign a worthless disarmament treaty with Assad to dismantle his chemical weapons. Not only has Assad refused to honor this deal but showing his contempt for Obama and daring him to act he has since, it appears, used chemical weapons again (see and see).
After this fiasco Obama then blindly trusting the radical, terrorist, "death to America" mullahs (who have killed hundreds of US troops in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan with their support of the Taliban) he rewards them with billions for signing a provably worthless nuke deal which they are violating at every turn while humiliating the US when they can (see).  
Obama deserted Egyptian President and ally Hosni Mubarak favoring the radical anti-Western Moslem Brotherhood to replace him. And   laughably he said that the war to depose Kaddafi in Libya (an ally like Mubarak) was a "kinetic military action" not a real war- because it was illegal and violated the War Powers Act (see).  And now Libya is a failed state overrun by ISIS, al Qaida and other extremists plotting to bring death and destruction to America and Europe.
In 2012 Obama declared victory in the Global War On Terror and that al Qaida was completely decimated when (as he knew from military intelligence) they were metastasizing and growing in power and influence across the world.
Obama dismissed ISIS as a rag tag army of jay vee jihadists when they were defeating US trained Iraqi troops and expanding their caliphate deep inside Iraq. 
As reported by Fox News Obama insanely turned the US military into a personal laboratory for politically correct social experiments..... going so far as having ROTC cadets wear high-heeled women's shoes for sensitivity training (see).
Obama regards the alarmist, doomsday, pseudo-science of catastrophic, man-made global warming as a greater threat to our national security than global terrorism or nuclear proliferation-and he forces the military to give it the same absurd priority (see).
Obama has drastically downsized the US military to pre-World War II levels (see) and has been deliberately diminishing US power while claiming America is stronger than ever in its history-when we're no longer respected, feared or trusted around the world like we used to be, ought to be and need to be. 
As Obama dismantles the Pax America and the world grows more unstable, strife-torn and dangerous (with the Middle East on the verge of a sectarian cataclysm) Obama claims that he's been a superb foreign policy and military president-and points to our improved image in the world as proof. You can't get anymore delusional than this.
  • Ash Carter

    Ash Carter









    33128 B


  • Charles Keating’s Death Part of Iraq Tragedy: Losing Victory Bush ...
     600 x 600 - nationalreview.com 

    Charles Keating’s Death Part of Iraq Tragedy: Losing Victory Bush ...









    66402 B


 And the great blundering amateur goes on and on leading this nation deeper and deeper into peril. What we've seen from this president is fecklessness and reckless incompetence on a level and scale unmatched in US history that has so disgusted the Defense Department that three of its secretaries quit on him-and the fourth refuses to join him in advancing the lie that we're not at war in Iraq again. Indeed, when Aston Carter contradicting his worthless boss that the death of Navy Seal Charles Keating was a combat death from a fire fight with ISIS he was defiantly raising his middle finger to him (like his frustrated predecessors sometimes did) and dared him to fire him for insubordination. Carter has too much self-respect to make himself look foolish for an ass clown president who's leading America into economic, military and geopolitical decline and the world into chaos and war. And Hillary Clinton, an architect of Obama's foreign policy, praises him as a great commander-in-chief, and pledges to continue his dangerous policies of peace through weakness, appeasement and retreat. 






Let me answer my question with a question: Will the New York born Donald Trump be to HIllary Clinton in November what the New York born Bernie Sanders was to Hillary in the historic Indiana primary?  Indeed, Bernie Sanders who is the populist Donald Trump of the left-running an analogous mad- as-hell campaign reflecting the anger and fear of millions of discontent Americans worried about the direction of the country and what they're suffering economically-went into the Indiana primary as the certain to lose underdog. Every poll showed Sanders losing Indiana to Hillary by as much as 13%. But Sanders surprisingly defeated Hillary by just under five points-an amazing upset victory that rattled Clinton who had hoped that a big defeat would finally bring Sanders to his senses and he'd quit the race like Cruz and Kasich were to do. But Sanders won stiffening his resolve to continue his Occupy Wall Street crusade against the "greedy capitalist Wall Street banksters" and their "rigged criminal bloodsucking economy" to the bitter socialist end. That means low energy, visibly tiring, lying Hillary having to battle both Sanders and Trump right up until the Democratic convention in late July. Given her poor stamina and intestinal strength she could be totally exhausted by then worn down by the constant attacks of both men. 
But the big question is this: is Indiana what providence has in store for Hillary on November 8th? Does populist Bernie's surprising Indiana victory foreshadow an unlikely Trump victory with the billionaire triumphing over everything?  Will Trump who is the near absolute underdog right now losing to Hillary in most every poll (Rasmussen the exception) come from behind surmounting his negatives to beat her with Indiana as the providential sign?
Trump amassed an impressive 588,000 votes in Indiana outdoing Sanders by 253,000 and Hillary by 284,000 votes. In fact, Trump had 51,000 voted less than Sander's and Hillary combined. Is Indiana a sign of things to come for Trump? To put it another way, if Trump were Bernie Sanders running against Hillary in the Democratic race would he be the front runner right now? I believe that he would. Add Trump's charisma and forceful personality to Bernie Sanders and Hillary would be trailing him, as Sanders is now.
Aside from Hillary lacking the energy and strength to keep pace with the tireless, indefatigable, unpredictable, non-ideological Trump-who'll run to her left when necessary (appealing to Hillary hating anti-globalist Sanders supporters) as easily as he'll run to her right (to satisfy conservatives)-she has to be worrying, as her husband is, about the state of the fragile, weakening U.S. economy. She has to be worrying that the worst recovery since the Great Depression could devolve into another Great Recession. With good reason Bill Clinton is very nervous about the collapsing world order, and Europe's worsening economic and refugee woes, "dragging" our economy into another crisis before Election Day. Indeed, the last three-quarters ominously saw GDP growth decline with the last quarter dropping to just under a full point to a mere, sickly, pathetic .5%. That is troubling.
Quarter-to-Quarter Growth in Real GDP
Declining US productivity and a global economic slowdown points to a coming recession for our mismanaged high debt, stagnant wage, inflationary economy. 
Complicating things for the Clintons is the rise in the cost of living (aka "invisible inflation" see) aggravating the crisis of the disappearing middle class with more working Americans unable to make ends meet and running out of credit sinking into poverty. Indeed, the cost of food, gasoline, clothing, car insurance, healthcare costs, cable TV, cell phone and internet service and more are rising while wages remain stagnant and the economy produces millions of lousy, low paying and part-time jobs. It is a fact that Americans are making less and having to spend more-and the drive to increase the minimum wage means raising the cost of labor and consequently the cost of living even more. An idiotic idea as Trump understands.
Even if there's no official recession before November if the present economic downturn continues anger, fear and discontent will swell with millions more Americans calling for a radical change of direction. Hillary vowing to stay the course and continue Obama's failed policies and legacy will badly hurt her credibility with independent voters wanting change. Her only defense will be to blame the economy on Republican obstructionism and pre-Obama (Bush's) policies trying to frighten voters that Trump spells a return to the past.  But Trump the anti-elite Washington outsider who has relentlessly attacked the Bush presidency and GOP on everything from the economy to foreign policy will blame both Democrats and Republicans for the mess. This will give him credibility with the Indies as a post-partisan candidate independent of both parties who'll be focused as President on serving the interests of the people. While Hillary blaming Republicans for the mess (when her husband was the fountainhead of the 2008 housing crash) will look  petty, divisive and partisan-too Democratic to be president of all the people.
Hillary warns voters that Trump is a "loose cannon" who fires indiscriminately in all directions not caring who he hits. But he is more like a nuclear bomb who could make the Clinton campaign look like Hiroshima before election day, and Hillary like the walking dead sapped of all her energy and strength. That would be terrific.


The new face of the GOP

On the 16th day of June 2015 (16 days from the publication of Ann Coulter's book on illegal immigration and 16 days before an illegal killed Kate Steinle) Donald Trump (16 months to election day 2016) announced his run for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, making illegal immigration the focus of his campaign.
Trump was half way there. For on April 26th (the 316th day of Trump's campaign and the 16th week of 2016, see and   see). Donald Trump swept five northeastern primary states virtually making him the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee (which he boldly declared he was on the following day* with most Republican voters subsequently agreeing with him, see). Indeed, as Trump is striving to be the 45th President his landslide victory on April 26th fell on the 45th week of his candidacy-an auspicious sign.
*April 27 was 196 days to election day. 196 is a variant of 16: 1+9+6 = 16 (see).
But it wasn't until last night's victory in Indiana that Trump actually and effectively secured the nomination as GOP Chairman Reinice Priebus conceded that he was indeed the presumptive nominee. As the number 16 from the start has been propitious for Trump it was nowhere to seen last night except in two small places: Indiana, the 19th state to join the Union did so in the 16th year of the 19th century*; and with a population of 6.6 million people Indiana ranks 16th in population (see).
*December 11, 1816.
Moreover, on his way to seizing the GOP nomination Trump defeated 16 party candidates with Ted Cruz, the last obstacle to victory, conceding defeat yesterday and suspending his campaign. When Cruz, age 45, called it quits it was the 16,570th day of his earthly existence (see). An amazing coincidence for the night Trump triumphed and won 57 delegates .



A new Gallup survey showed a sharp rise in the percentage of Americans convinced that humans are the main driver of global warming.

The catastrophic, "deindustrialize or die,"  fascistic, warmunist left was jubilant recently when it learned from a new Gallup poll that its extremist belief that human activity is the main driver in global warming (AGW) is at a 15 year high. The poll shows that in 2001 61% of the public believed in AGW; that in 2010 it fell to its lowest point of 51%; and that now it's at all time high at 61% and expected to grow. And while belief in AGW is the highest it's been in some time the contrary view of skeptics (called "denialists" by warmunists), that global warming has little or nothing to do with human activity, has fallen from its 2001 low of 33% to 31%. 
The warminists seem to be winning over the public while anti-AGW skeptics are losing. And the warmunist left is jubilant. They believe that Barack Obama's leadership on climate change has been effective and is paying off. That his "the science is settled" sci-fi fanaticism and lies have been good for the movement; and that this is all the more reason to keep skeptic Donald Trump from the White House and elect either pro-AGW Hillary or Bernie to continue Obama's radical green, clean, anti-fossil fuel legacy.
But appearances are deceiving. The real important question is the level of concern. How many of the 61% think that AGW is a crisis that is personally impacting their lives for the worse? And that the world is headed for "thermageddon": a hellish hot-house planet of man caused rising temperatures that will be so intense as to be uninhabitable in the future wiping out mankind and every living thing.
 For example how many of the 61% are driving gas guzzling, fossil fuel burning cars verses plug-ins like the Chevy Volt to save the environment and Earth? Not many according to stats. There are 255 million vehicles in this country and only 400,000 are plugins (600,000 short of the 1 million in sales Obama predicted by the end of his presidency). In fact, due to the drop in oil and gas prices sale of plug-ins has been plummeting as more Americans are buying traditional carbon spewing cars, and filling up at the pump while putting more "earth heating" greenhouse gases into the CO2 polluted air (see).
And how many of the 61% own homes installed with clean, green solar energy panels? Solar energy has been around for decades, is plagued by scandal (see), and to date only 0.6% of the nation's total energy comes from the Sun (see). While the solar industry is growing (prices are dropping) it's not exactly galloping ahead leading America into a green energy future as you'd think given the Gallup poll and Obama's crony capitalist subsidizing of solar companies; and besides, how many homeowners with solar panels have plugin cars in their garages? Not many as we saw above. This shows that most solar panel owners are interested in saving money on electric bills not saving planet Earth.
No. Things are not as rosy as they seem for the go green or die fascist left who now want to criminalize skeptics because their movement in reality is in serious decline-due to 18 years of virtually flat global temperatures despite accelerated human CO2 emissions; and the catastrophic failure of apocalyptic predictions about famines, coastal flooding, snowless winters, iceless arctics, extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes in ever greater frequency, acidification of seas killing fish and coral reefs, etc. As none of these things have materialized most of that 61% don't feel alarmed that there's a growing climate crisis threatening their lives or that of their children and posterity; most don't see or feel an urgent need to radically rearrange our economy and replace the burning of fossil fuels (still the cheapest, most efficient and wealth creating form of energy) with more costly and less efficient renewables.
pew report climate change
Indeed, while 61% say that climate change is mainly man made or anthropogenic, which it certainly is not, the issue of global warming has a very low priority with the public and is not a problem which they will bring to the voting booth this November. For according to Pew Research of the 23 most vitally important national issues global warming is almost at the bottom in 22nd place just ahead of global trade. In other words, very few Americans are worried to death like the Obama administration, Al Gore and De Caprio that global warming is a top national security priority and poses an existential threat to the country and mankind. That is outright crackpot over the top left-wing alarmism that worries only mad men and fools who see themselves as great world citizens, servers and saviors in a global messianic  cause to save mankind, which isn't in peril of destroying itself.
In the long history of man industrial, fossil fuel burning capitalism has been his greatest economic blessing lifting billions out of poverty in 200 years, and lifting millions more in third world countries as I write. The crackpot, bankrupt, warmunist left (it has run out of doomsday scare tactics) offers nothing better and is in decline unable to end man's wealth creating love affair with  "dirty" combustible energy.


Charles Koch said the political network he helps lead is "seeking to right injustices that are holding our country back." (Bo Rader/The Wichita Eagle via AP, File)
Has free market conservative billionaire Charles Koch lost his mind? Has he forgotten or does he even know that it was Bill Clinton's ill fated affordable housing program that set in motion the train of events that caused the recession of late 2007 (because of a growing housing crisis), and which progressively worsened until the market crash of September 2008 when the economy nearly collapsed into a depression? Does Koch know that Hillary fully supported her husband's reckless housing policies and defends them to this day? Does he really think that if Donald Trump, Cruz or Kasich were president in the 1990s that they would have embarked on such a destructive course? NO WAY! Let's take a walk down memory lane and see just what Clinton did:
 Bubba the great bubble blower who wanted to be known by history as the Homeownership President.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1992 the home ownership market had been stagnant for years stuck at a rate of 62.5%. Clinton found it intolerable that so many Americans would give up on the dream of owning a home, and he decided to do something about it. In 1995 after working on a plan with cabinet members, advisors and wall Street financial firms Clinton went public with his audacious plan: the National Homeownership Strategy (NHS). The gist of his plan was this: the administration would move heaven and earth to revive the US housing market with the goal of boosting homeownership to a national record of "67.5%" by 2000 (see and see) .
Outlining NHS at a White House speech Clinton said that central to his plan was making home buying easier for low and moderate income families who lacked the income, savings and credit to qualify for traditional mortgages (whose likelihood of default was high). Clinton's plan was to break with traditional mortgage lending and lower credit barriers and standards to accommodate the millions of uncreditworthy (risky) borrowers who couldn't afford homes. Thus was born Clinton's totally reckless and insane subprime loan revolution where the US government, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (see and see) and the financial community (aka "Wall Street") would collude in putting millions of uncreditworthy families into expensive homes they couldn't normally afford by drastically deregulating the mortgage business: lowering credit, down payment and interest requirements (i.e. making loans "affordable").
The program was a smashing success that boosted an already prospering economy (from the hi-tech revolution) and won Clinton reelection despite his scandals. In fact, so successful was the program that when Clinton left office the homeownership rate was at an astonishing 68% (exceeding his goal of 67.5%) with approximately 8 million new homeowners added to the economy. In short, Clinton was the first president to use subprime lending as a tool ("creative financing" he called it) to gigantically and artificially increase homeownership in this country; and by doing so he created the greatest housing and credit bubble in US history.
Indeed, at the time of the crash Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, Chase, Goldman, Lehmans, etc. owned a staggering 27 million subprime mortgages valued at $6.2 trillion-with Fannie and Freddie backing/owning $5 trillion and "Wall Street" owning the rest    (see and see). This proves as many have said that it was mostly the US gov't (Fannie, Freddie etc.) that crashed the Main Street economy (nearly plunging it into a depression) with "Wall Street banksters" playing a junior or subordinate role. But the fountainhead of the crisis was indisputably Bill Clinton and his crash, affordable (crony capitalist) housing program-which eliminated sound government regulatory and financing barriers to homeownership, and initiated the "Mortgages For Everyone Era" that we've yet to recover from.
When Bernie Sanders accuses the corrupt crooked Clintons of being too cozily in bed with Wall Street banksters and blames Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall for the housing crash he's only scratching the surface. 
Truth is if Trump, Cruz or Kasich were president in the 90s instead of Bill Clinton the housing/credit crash would not have happened, Barack Obama would not be president and this nation and the world would be far better off. But don't take my word for it. Read Gretchen Morgenson's book on the subject and see for yourself what a disaster his presidency was and why Koch is dead wrong.


Today on this very sad 46th anniversary of Earth Day as the doomsday clock on climate change ticks away irrevocably Science Guy and climate prophet Bill Nye speaks about what could have been if America and the world had heeded men like him.  This is what he said:
'If only you had listened to science guys like me and deindustrialized the world when I warned, you wouldn't be headed toward catastropheThere would be no snowless northern winters and iceless Arctic summers; glaciers, icebergs and polar bears wouldn't now be extinct; gondolas instead of taxis wouldn't be picking up fares on flooded New York streets; mass migration from coastal areas caused by rising seas, typhoons and storms wouldn't be plaguing the world; billions of dead fish wouldn't horrifically be floating on the seas from acidification poisoning; deserts wouldn't be growing in the heart of Western Europe with Moslem migrants living there in Bedouin tents; they'd be no droughts and famine  causing cannibalization in China and India because of mass starvation; and Taiwan, New Zealand, the Fiji Islands and Japan wouldn't have vanished from the map swimming with the fishes and Luca Brasi .
 If only you had listened to science guys like me soaring temperatures wouldn't be baking the earth like a vast Nazi oven dooming mankind to irreversible, apocalyptic, green house extinction. If only you had listened and achieved zero carbon emissions instead of doubling down on using fossil fuels this planet wouldn't be turning into a lifeless, burning, deadly hell like desolate, uninhabitable volcanic Venus. If only you had listened.'
When young 14-year-old Bill (science fiction guy) Nye rode his white "green friendly" bike to the first Earth Day event at Washington's National Mall he heard many hysterical left-wing speakers making doomsday predictions such as these, and learned absolutely nothing from their folly:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” 
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” 
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

and this classic:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

 The above is but a fraction of the catastrophic nonsense young mush brained, impressionable nerdie Nye heard that history making day (Vladimir Lenin's 100th birthday). And despite the absolute failure of all these predictions Nye wants to criminalize skepticism and throw all deniers in jail as menaces to humanity (something Lenin would do). Like all leftist loons what Nye desperately needs is a padded cell and never be allowed near the minds of children again.



 DISGRACEFUL: Pope Francis could have chosen Syrian Christian refugees to take into the Vatican, but he only chose Muslim-Bare Naked Islam  


All very touching, all very moving and all very useless for saving Christians and defeating Jihad. If I were a Jihadist I'd be delighted by the Pope's gesture as it could mean more jihadists infiltrating Europe.
suddenly undergo a moral transformation and be any less inclined to hate, persecute and kill Christians because the Pope showed Moslem refugees fleeing Syria kindness over Christians giving them refuge in the Vatican and then washing their feet? Jihadists expect extraordinary kindness and kowtowing from Christians believing that Moslems deserve it-not because of their humanity but due to the superiority of their faith, understanding of God and triumphant destiny. Christian charity toward Moslems is a waste. As long as a Christians remains Christian they're hateful sinners deserving of cruelty, subjugation and death (Koran 9:29); for in defiance of God Christians practice a corrupt and obsolete form of monotheism condemned by the Koran as "cursed" (9:30), and by providence to eventual extinction. Jihadists see themselves as agents of God's wrath carrying out His divine will in His universal holy war against Christians and unbelievers.
"Believe in me or die! Believe in me or die! And if it pleases me to let you live I'll crush you with oppression!" was Mohammed's message to Christians and Jews as he raised his blood stained sword to heaven. This is the gospel Jihadists live by.
If Bill Clinton siding with Moslem militants against Christians in the Kosovo War (and his bombing of Yugoslavia and killing hundreds of Christian Serbs) miserably failed to placate bin Laden and prevent 9/11 what does the Pope think he'll achieve by this feeble, butt kissing gesture at the Vatican? The Pope is Christian and leader of Christians practicing a corrupt faith and that is an unforgivable sin in Islam. If al Qaida or ISIS had an infallible terrorist plan for destroying the Vatican only the Pope's conversion to Islam would stop them. Jihadists are cruel, implacable, inhuman fanatics hell-bent on conquest and death (who only respect power and strength) and have to be killed. Victory in this war means crushing the will of Jihadists to defeat us. There is no other way to stop them.


"Broadcast And Cable News Fail To Inform Viewers About Major Obamacare Success Story. That in the first quarter of 2016 that uninsured rate among adults 18 years and older is at a historic low of 11%."
 Wow! Why all the media silence when history is being made? Compared to where we were six years ago this is one truly amazing statistic. Just look at the numbers and give Barack Obama the credit he deserves. When on March 23, 2010 Obama-defying the stupid, misinformed will of the American people (CNN had six out of ten voters opposing the Affordable Care Act, see)-signed Obamacare into law approximately 37 million low-income adult Americans (16%) lacked health insurance; but last week, as Media Matters euphorically reported, that has since dwindled down to 11% or 24 million. That is an impressive gain of 13 million Americans that were previously uninsured.
So where's the predicted disaster and train wreck? With statistics like these how can right-wing critics of Obamacare (Trump, Cruz, Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and the Republican Party) say that's it's a failure and continue calling for its repeal? Indeed, these 13 million represent an astounding 35% increase in the number of low-income Americans now receiving insurance. How is that a disaster?
For God's sake, instead of wanting to kill Obamacare all Americans should be celebrating it as a great success and moral victory for human rights in this country. For our social justice driven progressive president has won for millions the "basic, fundamental human right to health insurance" as more Americans than ever in US history now have access to affordable quality healthcare.
In other words, Obamacare is on its way to achieving its ultimate goal of national, universal, coast to coast health insurance. Indeed, leaving no citizen behind (down to the smelliest bum) Obamacare is on its way to insuring everyone. Just think of it: in just six short years with 13 million Americans joining the ranks of the insured it will take another nine years (growing at a rate of 2.6 million per year) to cover the remaining 24 million. In other words, if Obamacare stays the course and isn't repealed (like Republicans want to do) then by 2025 America will have achieved Barack Obama's progressive dream of a "More Perfect Healthcare Union" with all 320 million Americans living in healthcare security and heaven.
But unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are moaning not rejoicing at Obama's achievemnet. Six years later and 13 million more insured and the public opposes Obamacare by a huge, whopping 12.6% landslide (see). And this opposition is going to grow exponentially in the years ahead. Why? Because nothing is free. Because the rest of America (middle and upper income folks) are paying for these millions to get insured. Indeed, a majority of them are in revolt because, as Chelsea Clinton recently said, it's proving to be an economic and financially "crushing" burden for them (see). Millions of hard working middle class Americans are paying through the nose in rising premiums, deductibles, hidden taxes and fees where huge savings and affordability were promised; and the crushing burden on these folks is going to grow as Obamacare strives to insure the remaining 24 million in its quest for universal coverage. That means a worsening of the crisis of the disappearing middle class as insurance costs drive more working families into poverty.
As I wrote here and here, Obamacare is progressive, impoverishing, unjustified class warfare by health insurance means; it's a transfer of wealth from have to have-nots led by a radical left-wing community organizer who's central domestic purpose as president (as it was in Chicago) is to benefit the poor at everyone else's expense no matter the cost (especially to the struggling middle class).
After six disastrous years the slow motion train wreck of Obamacare rolls on hurting the many to help the few (doing way more harm to America than good)-making it more politically unsustainable with each passing day as the burden to the middle class crushingly grows and more fall into poverty and distress. Where's the social justice in this? You can't find it with a microscope.


Donald Trump

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Florida  asks his supporters to pledge that they vote for him in what appeared to be a Nazi like salute.

Is politically tumultuous America of 2016 like democratic Weimar Germany of the early 1930s with a new racist authoritarian Adolf Hitler in the person of billionaire Donald Trump attempting to use the democratic process to seize power, kill freedom and set up an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship? There are many very frightened people from across the political spectrum who seem to think so. From Glen Beck on the right to leftist comedian Louis CK Trump is the new power mad ultra nationalist Adolf Hitler aspiring to become the American Furher-in-Chief to restore our nation's greatness and glory like Hitler vowed to restore Germany's.  
Even Serena Kutchinsky, the stepsister of Nazi Jewish victim Ann Frank (herself an Auschwitz survivor) jumped into the anti-Trump campaign. In an essay written to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Kutchinsky accused Trump of "acting like another Hitler" because he wants a temporary ban on Moslem immigrants, and wants to build a wall to keep out illegals.
And of course Trump didn't help his cause when at one campaign rally he had members of the audience pledge their support by holding up their right hands in a loyalty oath. Trump haters seized on this as proof that Trump had an authoritarian personality like Hitler that demanded a blind, unquestioning, religious obedience to him as if he were a god.
But this is absurd. Trump is a populist reflecting the rage against the Washington establishment and political elites who are destroying America's wealth, jobs and greatness and rigging the system in their favor. How anyone can see in Trump the American reincarnation of the mass murdering, tyrannical, militant Adolf Hitler is beyond me.
 On the contrary, if this were Nazi Germany Trump would have run afoul of the regime and been a victim of persecution. Indeed, by now the Gestapo would have arrested Trump, stripped him of his vast wealth and sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka or some other death camp in a crowded boxcar with family members. Why? For committing racial crimes against he Nazi state and German Master Race. What crimes? Of being a "Jew lover:" of allowing his daughter Ivanka to marry Orthodox Jewish businessman Jared Kushner, convert to Judaism and raise their kids in the Jewish faith. For that unforgivable "crime" Trump would have earned a death sentence from Hitler, or life in a slave labor camp. Indeed, from the Nazi viewpoint the Star of David not the Swastika best suits Donald Trump. So much for him being the new Adolf Hitler.
 Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner


In his interview with Fox New's Chris Wallace Barack Obama was asked what was the happiest day of his presidency, and what was his greatest achievement. To the first question Obama answered that it was Congress passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But unfortunately for Obama however it was not the happiest day for the vast majority Americans. On the day he signed ACA into law six out of ten Americans (according to a CNN poll) opposed it (see). And now six years latter (according to the RCP average) it's hugely unpopular by double digits (see) because the skyrocketing costs of premiums and deductibles (see) are putting financial strains on an eroding middle class that is struggling with a low growth bad jobs economy of declining wages and work hours-among other problems.
Now to the question (the more interesting of the two) of what was his greatest achievement Obama proudly answered, "Saving the US economy from a second Great Depression." But this wasn't the first time Obama made this lofty claim; that was six years ago on February 16, 2010 when Obama celebrating the first anniversary of his massive $850 billion fiscal stimulus (that he promised would trigger a robust Reagan like recovery) said that it "prevented another Great Depression and kept millions of people working (see)." And later that year Obama addressing the UN alluded to his policies preventing the global economy from crashing into a depression. For as the US economy goes so goes the world. As the global depression of the 1930s began with the US Obama believing that his stimulus prevented a second Great Depression domestically also saved the world economy from that fate (see).
But is this true? Did the stimulus prevent the US economy from collapsing into a severe depression (with the world economy to follow) to rival the economic crisis of the 1930s when unemployment hit a historic high of 25% and there were bread lines across America feeding starving people?
The facts are these: over the last eight years the US economy was on the brink of a real depression only once. That was in September 2008 when in the midst of a nine month old recession the housing and credit markets crashed. This was due to the US government (going back to the Clinton administration) creating the largest and most dangerous housing and credit bubble in US history using sub prime mortgages (27 million issued) to massively and artificially boost the rate of home ownership. When the market tanked in 2008 the US government either guaranteed or purchased 76% of these risky loans from banks and mortgage firms (see). It wasn't Wall Street that sank Main Street (as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want us to believe); the US government was the principal villain which is why no one has been prosecuted and jailed (see and see) .

To save the US financial system from collapse and the economy from depression George Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP, a $700 billion package to rescue our banks and lending institutions. And it worked (at least in the short term).


And this is where Obama's grandiose claim to have saved the US and world economy is exposed for self-serving lie that it is. When Obama took office in January 2009 he inherited a financial system that had been stabilized by TARP averting a likely depression. But he inherited more than that. By December 2008 (see the Bureau of Economic Analysis graph below) the US economy began a V-shaped GDP recovery. This marked the beginning of the end of the Great Recession when the economy stopped contracting, bottomed out and started to grow and become productive again.
Moreover, at precisely the same time (December 2008) the US manufacturing sector also made a V-shaped recovery and started to become profitable again after many months of steep decline.
Now though the GDP and manufacturing recoveries began before Obama took office the economy nevertheless (as a lagging indicator) was still losing massive numbers of jobs. But this started to change in March-April 2009 (see graph below) when the V-shaped jobs recovery began just before the end of the Great Recession in June. This is when job loss bottomed out and the growing economy started creating more jobs than it was losing. 
Now with the financial system stabilized by TARP and the V-shaped GDP, manufacturing and jobs recovery underway, and the 18 month long Great Recession over in June 2009, Obama's claim that his stimulus (which became law in February 09) prevented the loss of millions of jobs and saved the economy from a "second Great Depression" is total, self-serving, make believe poppycock. It's Obama desperately clinging to the fiction that his presidency has served some grand positive world saving messianic purpose in the scheme of things. Indeed,  by the time Obama entered the White House the worst was clearly over, the likelihood of a depression (domestic and globally) was past and the economy was on the rebound (weak though it was and remains) having nothing to do with the change in leadership or his stimulus. Indeed, if McCain had been president or Bush had a third term these three V-shaped recoveries would have happened all the same and the Great Recession would have been over by June 2009.
Now while Obama wrongly takes credit for all of these pre-inaugural developments contradicting this his administration has said repeatedly that the 14 million new jobs (mostly low paying and part-time) that his "stimulus has created" begins not from February 2009 (when the stimulus was signed into law) but from a year later in February 2010. For it was then says the administration that the stimulus started to impact the economy and grow jobs (see). This delay, of course, is normal for a new economic program. Reagan's Economic Recovery (Supply-Side) Tax Act of August 1981, for example, didn't start showing results until 1983 (see).
However, because the stimulus worked poorly and the recovery remained weak throughout 2010 Obama taking the advice of Christine Romer and Larry Summers extended all (100%) of the (hated) Bush tax rates another two years (see). For Romer and Summers frightened Obama into believing (and rightly so) that raising taxes on his poor, pathetic, trickle growth recovery (typical for a Keynesian fiscal stimulus) would likely make it worse possibly causing a double dip recession and jeopardizing his reelection.
When FDR took office in 1933 he inherited a worsening economy from GOP liberal progressive Herbert Hoover who tried and failed to tax, spend and regulate his way out of the depression; FDR then amplified and added to Hoover's failed programs and failed all the same. For the economy in 1939 was not much better than in 1933 having suffered a "recession within the depression" along the way-in 1937 the bottom fell out of the New Deal wiping out most of the growth and jobs that had been gained in the preceding years. And Obama (hailed by MSM as the "new FDR" with a "new New Deal") having learned nothing from Hoover's and FDR's failures (or more recently from the Japanese and 23 years of failed stimulus spending and public works projects) went boldly ahead and repeated their mistakes thinking he'd defy the laws of economic gravity and achieve a different result because the size of his stimulus was so great (the largest ever). And after seven years in office the result is the worst recovery since the Great Depression that is losing productivity and growing weaker by the day.
As for Obama's claims to have saved the US and world economy from a severe 1930s type depression, and that it was the greatest accomplishment of his administration, that distinction belongs to George W. Bush who left Obama with a stabilized banking system and an economy that was unmistakably on the mend. In short, the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 was Bush's recovery not Obama's. And I defy anyone to show me differently!
BL4L writes in the comment section:
"Apollo, you’re forgetting about Obama’s auto bailouts of GM and Chrysler and the one million jobs that it saved from the hundreds of suppliers in the auto industry: stereo manufacturers to steel and rubber producers, etc. If Obama had let those two companies fold the recession might not have been over in June of 2009, but continued for a long time afterwards"
In December 2008 while the V-shaped GDP and manufacturing  recoveries were starting George W. Bush began the bailout of GM and Chrysler with a $17 billion loan taken from TARP funds. This was Bush's last economic decision as President. Obama simply continued what Bush began, and then took all the credit for saving both companies when he was running for reelection in 2012.
So much of economics is irrational emotion, and crashes and recoveries can be spurred by what people are betting on, or "EXPECT" to happen next. So such turnarounds are often not based on events, but on anticipation.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the V-shaped recovery happened at a time that optimism was high that a terrible GOP president would soon be replaced by a good Democratic President.
Don't bother to connect those events, just tell us the DATE you credit with being the centerpoint of the recession, the time when things started to improve. We'll be able to compare that to what was happening politically, and then try to find out what your point is in all this ...
After Ronald Reagan crushed Jimmy Carter in a 44 state electoral sweep and at his inaugural there was a surge of national optimism and jubilation (which was greatly amplified when the hostages were freed) it did nothing to arrest and reverse the deterioration of the economy and massive loss of jobs. This was because Jimmy Carter, unlike George Bush, put nothing in place that could stop the carnage.


God only knows who the 45th President of the United States will be. Following conventional wisdom if the election were held today between front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Clinton who leads Trump in every major poll (by as much as 18 points) would probably win (see). But much can happen between now and November as it did in 1980 when Jimmy Carter in early April was crushing Ronald Reagan by 25% and was ahead 8 points a week before his catastrophic defeat. For between March and November Carter's political fortunes went from bad to worse: the US economy steadily deteriorated (as our anemic, low growth, high debt, multiple bubble economy is doing now), the unresolved Iran Hostage Crisis deepened America's sense of frustration and humiliation (after signing the nuke deal radical Islamic Iran has been constantly humiliating us), and the Soviet Union continued to rise in power and prestige on the world stage as America's geo-strategic position weakened (under neo-imperialist Vladimir Putin Russia's power is again on the rise globally at our expense). And by Election Day the American people who saw the greatness of their country in perilous decline and wanted it reversed swept Ronald Reagan into office in a 44 state landslide. Only a fool would deny that such a thing could happen again.
And that brings me to the deaths of Ronald Reagan and his faithful wife Nancy (who recently passed away) as possible signs of things to come in November. For Reagan died on June 5, 2004 in the midst of a presidential race where incumbent George W. Bush was running against then US Senator and future Secretary of State John Kerry. Likewise Nancy Reagan's recent death was in the midst of a presidential race where the clear front-runners are Donald Trump (vowing like Reagan to reverse our declining greatness) and Hillary Clinton who (like Carter in 1980) denies our decline fearing it would reflect on her tenure at State which lacked any real accomplishments. Now here is where it gets fascinating. Like George W. Bush who won reelection in 2004 when Reagan died Donald Trump was born in 1946. And like John Kerry who was defeated in a close election Hillary Clinton was Kerry's predecessor at State.
Even more fascinating, and perhaps an auspicious sign for Donald Trump and the GOP, is the extraordinary place held by the year 1946 in US presidential history. For not only was George Bush born in that year but so was his predecessor Bill Clinton. And not only were two of our 44 presidents born in 1946 but two other presidents started their political careers then.  For on Election Day 1946 two future presidents were elected to the US Congress: John Kennedy and Richard Nixon (see and see). 
In other words, the year of Donald Trump's birth and the death of Nancy Reagan a month ago look terrifically propitious for Trump. For like Bush and Bill Clinton Trump was born in 1946; like Kennedy and Nixon he is first starting out in politics; and Nancy Reagan died as did her husband in an election year where a Republican candidate (Bush) born in 1946 was in the race and won; and where he was reelected in a contest with Hillary Clinton's successor at State-which seems ominous for her*.
*It was Ohio that cost Kerry the 2004 election, a state currently governed by the popular GOP governor John Kasich 
As for Hillary, she was born in the year 1947 which to date has proved unlucky for presidential candidates. For so far two candidates born in 1947 have unsuccessfully tried three times to reach the White House:  Mitt "Mr. 47%*" Romney (born March 12, 1947) failed twice (2008 and 2012); and, of course, Hillary lost to Barack Obama in 2008.  Will Hillary's 2016 run be Mitt Romney's 2012 run all over again? It is fascinating to note that Romney's infamous 47% video damaged his campaign and was a factor in his loss; and that Hillary is under criminal investigation by 147 FBI agents for possible national security crimes on her email account.
But there's more. FBI chief James Comey (who assigned the 147 agents to Clinton's case) was born on a day when Hillary was exactly 4799 days old (12-14-1960, see).  A remarkable and possibly meaningful set of coincidences that may signify email-gate greatly hurting or ruining altogether her presidential run.
JULY 24, 2015
Moreover, when on July 24th of last year two inspectors general asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation on Hillary (see) it strangely and perhaps ominously fell on the 24,744th day of her life (see)-a five digit number encoded with the number 47.
 22, 44, 66
Also fascinating is the following mathematical pattern and progression  between Trump, Bush and Clinton. For Trump was born 22 days before George Bush (b. 7-6-46 see), and Bush was born 44 days before Bill Clinton (b. 8-19-46 see); which means that Trump was born 66 days before Clinton (see). Oddly all three men were born during the presidency of Harry Truman-our 33rd president. And of course the 44th president (the first doublet number president since Truman) is now in office. A strange and remarkable numerical pattern. But whether it's a sign of coming success for Trump is anyone's guess. 
It is also interesting to note that Truman became President upon the death of Franklin Roosevelt in 1945. This is interesting because if Trump (or some other GOP nominee) should become the next   president he'd be the 19th Republican to win that office and the 45th president. 
Like Ronald Reagan Donald Trump is a patriotic nationalist alarmed at the declining power and fortunes of our country and wants to reverse it and make this country greater than ever by succeeding the 44th president and becoming number 45. Now either by chance or providence on the day Donald Trump was born Ronald Reagan (b. 2-6-1911) was 35 years, 4 months and 9 days old. Translated into days that's 12, 913 days. And when divided by 7 to give us the number of weeks that's a total of 1844 weeks and 5 days-which rounds out to 1845 weeks (see). Strangely this gives us the relevent presidential numbers 44 and 45. 
But I'm not done. Just as strange is that on the day Trump launched his presidential campaign (June 16, 2015) Ronald Reagan would have been 105 years, 4 months and 11 days old. When translated into weeks it totals 5445 weeks and two days (see) . Encoded remarkably in this four digit number are the numbers 44 and 45.
In 2008 when Barack Obama defeated Hillary for his party's nomination he won 47% of the popular vote to her 48%-Obama   won more delegates than Hillary (see). Moreover, Obama who was 46 and 10 months old at the time was two months shy of his 47th birthday.
Just days before I learned about these polls I was saying that if the November election were held today that Hillary Clinton would likely win. Quinnipiac released this survey on May 10th, the 47th week of the Trump campaign (see). Moreover, it was the 3647th week of Donald Trump's life (see).



 Tavis Smiley attacks Trump as a “racial arsonist” right to Bill O’Reilly’s face - Salon.com

Bill O'Reilly Has "Never Seen" Trump "Cast Aspersions At Any Group At All" | Video | Media Matters for America

Watch Tavis Smiley attack "racial arsonist" Donald Trump right to Bill O'Reilly's face

O'Reilly: "I've Known The Man For A Long Time. I've Never Seen The Man Do Anything Racial"

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): When you use a word racial arsonist, okay, that conjures up to me David Duke and these kinds of people who their sole reason for being is to run down blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or whatever.


TAVIS SMILEY: And it took Mr. Trump too long -- it took Mr. Trump too long to come around to denouncing one David Duke and others when they came out to support him.

O'REILLY: You make mistakes and so do I. That doesn't mean --

SMILEY: Bill, that's not a mistake. That's not a mistake. Listen, you live your life --

O'REILLY: I've known the man for a long time. I've never seen the man do anything racial.

SMILEY: You live your life by a certain set of immutable principles. I live by life by a certain set of immutable principles. And when you live your life by a certain set of principles there are some mistakes that you just don't make. It's fundamentally who you are --

O'REILLY: I don't know about that.

SMILEY: And this election is fundamentally immutable what kind of nation who the nation we are going to be.

O'REILLY: All I can tell you is I have known the man a long time and I have never seen him cast aspersions at any group at all.

SMILEY: You might not have seen it but the rest of the country has all during this campaign.

O'REILLY: But I've been around him much more than the rest of the country.



A racist is a person who shows a pattern of prejudice or hatred against people of other races over a period of time; or who believes that a particular race is superior to other races.

Trump may be vulgar and crude and made offensive remarks about Mexicans, Moslems, women and men. But does he fit the definition of a hate filled racist bigot? Not in the least. As long time friend Bill O'Reilly points out there is no evidence or racism in the man; there's no pattern of prejudice or bigotry in his past toward any racial, ethnic or religious group. And in the so-called new Donald Trump that Hillary Clinton says she doesn't recognize, no real racism or bigotry is found there either. What there is is outrage over the flood of illegal aliens coming across our porous borders (all of whom are criminals in various degrees), and concern about millions of Moslems abroad who hate this country with a passion, and the infiltration of jihadists with Islamic immigrants and refugees.



Trumps hatred here is for those who break our laws and intend us harm whether they be Latino rapists, murderers or drug dealers, or Islamic radicals (violent terrorists or not). And yes Trump has made unflattering remarks about certain women (as he has about particular men) but not about women as a whole. Showing disrespect for certain women (whether deserved or not) does not equate to misogyny or sexism: a hatred of women or belief in their moral and intellectual inferiority to men.


The Klan + Farrakhan = Donald Trump? Is that who he is?


But  race obsessed leftists like Tavis Smiley who insist that Trump is racist because his candidacy is favored by David Duke and the Klan (who he was slow to denounce) probably don't know (because it's been underreported) that he's also favored by Jew hating, black supremacist  Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam-whose support Trump has never disavowed (see). Does that mean that Trump must hate his daughter Ivanka for marrying a Jew and converting to Judaism and having Jewish kids? If the Klan supports Trump because they rightly see in him a fellow white supremacist then the Nation of Islam must support him because he's a Jew hater and believes in the racial superiority of blacks. Do you see how absurd this is?


What Bill O'Reilly says about his old billionaire friend is completely believable; and charges of racism and bigotry are political smears and totally false.






< p style="box-sizing: border-box; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #3f4549; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; widows: 1; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;"> 





Because they believe (but dare not say) that the best way to eliminate the debt is to go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. Both absurdly believe that we need to put the pedal to the metal and spend baby spend like never before to get the economy moving, growing and producing again. Both believe that Obama's $825 billion stimulus (the largest in history) was undersized; that it was too small to trigger the promised robust, rip-roaring, Reagan-like recovery that would make the nation prosperous again-and significantly lower the deficit and debt making both at least manageable. And if that larger stimulus proves ineffective and fails to spark stratospheric growth then a bigger one will be needed; and that failing a still bigger one after that.

Bernie and Hillary I'm sure admire the Japanese and believe we need to follow their example of 25 years: implementing one stimulus after the next (and running up a massive 230% of GDP debt) trying to get out of economic distress, but without success. Bernie and Hillary seem to share the blind Keynesian faith of the Japanese that if we keep on spending beyond our means sooner or later it will do the trick and things will click and revive our flat and fragile economy. Though Japan hasn't gotten to the promised land of restoring the great prosperity they once had in the past yet they're confident they're on the right track and will eventually get there-as we will by plodding the same bold course.

Atheist Paul Krugman praying to God for an economic miracle to prove Keynes right.

In other words, the cure for cancer is more and worse cancer. To cure the growing disease of public debt we need to make it worse. Before we can restore our fiscal, financial and economic health we must get sicker and sicker with massive deficits and debt regardless of the consequences.  It's like Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman says (an economist that Sanders, Clinton and the Japanese greatly respect):


 How much money can the government actually spend in rescuing the economy? The answer is a lot. It’s not unlimited. A trillion here, a trillion there and soon you’re talking about real money. Vast countries with stable governments, which is us, can borrow up to 100 percent, more than that of GDP, and you work that out — we probably have $10 trillion of running room if we have to use it. I don’t want to get there, but uh, we’ve got a long ways to go."

The problem, according to Krugman  (and Clinton and Sanders agree) is that government isn't big enough, doesn't borrow, tax and spend enough, doesn't regulate and intervene in the economy enough. Enough is never enough! If a $1 trillion stimulus is tried and fails go for $2 trillion or three, or, if need be, go all the ways to a perfect ten. The solution to run away bankrupting debt is more runaway, out of control deficit spending. "Spend now save later." It's that simple.

If this sounds insane it is.



Bernie vs. Hillary = the more insane vs. the less. Bernie following Krugman will spend $10 trillion if he can, Hillary might limit that to half. Both belong in the nut house not the White House wearing inescapable straight jackets. 

Donald Trump proposing to eliminate (not vastly grow) the debt to restore strong growth and prosperity tells us which of these three candidates is the sane one, and would make the wiser and better president-whether eight years is feasible or not.


Ha ha ha ha ha. That's funny. You actually think that just because he says he can reduce the debt with hair brained schemes that makes him a better candidate? You sound like a graduate of Drumpf U. No one person including the President can erase the debt. It takes ALL of Congress to make real change.



Actually I'm graduate from the Swedish School of Supply-Side Austerity Economics.



Saving the nation from national bankruptcy would require (as a starting point) strong, relentless, energetic leadership from the White House. And Trump has the capability to be such a leader.


< p style="text-align: center;"> 


Fox Report: Rising Threats - Shrinking Military


With good reason three secretaries of defense quit the Obama administration in disgust, and only 15% of our active service men and women (an all time record low, see) think that he's fit to be Commander-in-Chief. Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel simply gave up trying to reason with Obama and steer him in the right direction in keeping America strong and the world stable and at peace. After suffering through Obama's ignorance, arrogance and gross incompetence on military, strategic and defense matters, and seeing he was beyond reform (you can't fix stupid)) Gates, Panetta and Hagel refused to continue as agents of "hope and change" and "fundamental transformation;" for change and transformation meant the end of the Pax Americana and a world spinning out of control. In good conscience these three men couldn't be party to Obama's decimation and demoralization of our military: drastically downsizing it as the world gets more chaotic and dangerous (due mostly to Obama's appeasement of foes and retreat of US power and leadership from the world); and his turning the military into a laboratory for politically correct social experiments-giving this priority over the necessary improvement of its fighting capabilities in a new era of warfare with Islamic jihadists.
Barack Obama Addresses the Troops
As Obama (the great world citizen) has no real love for this country, whenever he addresses our troops he exudes weakness and demoralizes them failing to communicate the confidence, strength, patriotism and passion of a real Commander-in-Chief.
Gates, Panetta and Hagel are patriots who love this country and watched with anxiety as a radically left anti-American president (who thinks we're too powerful for our own good) led us deliberately into economic, military and geostrategic decline out doing the disaster of Jimmy Carter-who gave us radical theonazi Iran, and under whom the US overcame its "inordinate fear of communism" and Soviet Russia reached the height of its influence and power. And now Iran is more powerful and dangerous than ever, Putin's neo-imperialist Russia is on the rise and Islamic extremism is spreading across the world like never before. And the irony is as Obama is outdoing Jimmy Carter in the Carterization of US foreign and defense policies, he chose to finish up his disastrous presidency by making a man with the name "Carter" his last Secretary of Defense.  Unbelievable, isn't it?
 Ash Carter


Obama says efforts to grow domestic economy have worked - UPI.com

An economic illiterate
totally clueless on the economy, and practically everything else.

Obama praises 6 years of job creation, revived economy

"Our businesses have created jobs every single month since I signed that job-killing [Affordable Care Act]," President Obama quipped.

While Obama never tires of congratulating himself on the progress that he's made in fixing the economy (that he falsely claims to have rescued from a near depression) both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are running on campaign platforms that say otherwise-that the economy is far from fixed and getting measurably worse. In debate after debate and speech after speech both bemoan the worsening  tragedy and crisis of the "disappearing middle class" but without tying it to Obama's failed policies and leadership. Indeed, the combination of a poor, pathetic, trickle growth recovery (inhibited by high debt, new taxes, massive spending, regulations and uncertainty), Obamacare's rising insurance costs (premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing), the Fed's quantitative-easing policies (driving money into a rigged bull market benefiting the rich and killing savings rates), an anti-business climate (created by Obama's class warfare agenda) and a flood of illegal aliens (driving down wages and adding to the burden of the welfare state) are throwing an increasing number of middle class Americans into poverty, government dependency and despair...as the American Dream slips away from them.


Moreover, because Obama's promise of a rip roaring, robust, Reagan-like recovery hasn't materialized (despite the borrowing, spending and printing of $trillions) and the economy is doing worse  than expected (it's the worst recovery since the Great Depression) the Federal Reserve fearing another recession is refusing to raise its near zero interest rates. Indeed, since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 we've had a fragile, low growth, underperforming economy verging on another recession that higher interest rates could plunge into distress.

The Fed's Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) is for economic emergencies like recessions.  If the recession is over and the economy is doing fine why then after seven years is  ZIRP still in place? ANSWER: The economy is a lot worse
than Obama and the Fed are telling us (see).

Indeed, despite Obama's happy talk about the longest economic expansion in US history (growing anemically at less than 2% per year), a 4.9% jobless rate (that excludes millions of long term unemployed workers), low inflation (that doesn't count energy, food and clothing costs, see and see), an artificial fake housing boom (caused by Wall Street bulk buying distressed homes, see) and the creation of 14 million new jobs (8 million are low paying part time) disillusionment with the Washington establishment and the rise of economic nationalism (with millions of angry, frightened, frustrated voters revolting against globalism and turning to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump over wage, trade, inequality, jobs and debt issues) is sobering evidence of how truly false and disastrous Obama's recovery has been.

9 ominous charts showing Obama's disastrous economy and where it's headed.

The bottom line (as the graphs above show) is that America is in a state of slow, tragic, precipitous economic decline; and while Hillary and Sanders deny this (so as not to offend Obama fans) the disappearance of the middle class (the backbone of the nation) is sad proof that this decline is real-as is America's geopolitical collapse and loss of greatness and power in world affairs admitted by Jimmy Carter (see) and exploited by Donald Trump.

"Trump and Sanders are out to implode the global trade order (see)."

Millions of Americans in the growing economic nationalist/anti-establishment movement fear that America's best days are past and worse times lie ahead; and they are right to be pessimistic as all the indicators and trends point to coming calamity and woe. For if radical changes aren't made, not in soaking the rich and redistribution of wealth (which Sanders and Clinton want to do) but in cutting taxes, downsizing government, boosting productivity and creating new wealth (as Trump, Cruz and Kasich want to do) we are headed irreversibly toward national bankruptcy and blood in the streets like broken, busted socialist Greece. That is an economic certainty.


The greatest threat to our national security is the debt bomb.



This Theory Explains Why the U.S. Economy Might Never Get Better | TIME 

Is the World Economy Moving Towards Stagnation? 

Obama's underperforming economy is so wretchedly bad that many liberal economists such as Larry Summers have become economic fatalists believing that a stagnant no growth or low growth economy is the new normal, and that there's no way out of it. In other words, because liberals can't reinvigorate the economy with Keynesian stimulus spending, quantitative easing. increasing the minimum wage, amnestying illegal aliens (creating millions of new taxpayers) and redistributionism no one and nothing can. Americans, says the article, have to accept the new no growth or low growth reality and adapt to it. This, of course, is utter nonsense. "The new normal" is a term invented by panicking liberals to explain why Obama's $825 billion stimulus (the largest in history) failed.  Government, which liberals blindly love and worship like God, is the problem. This Time article is a sign that big government liberalism is exhausted and out of ideas and in its end time.



Yesterday Hillary Clinton, looking toward the November election and ahead of the April 19th primary in New York, released her first campaign ad targeting Donald Trump. The 30 second spot narrated by Hillary doesn't mention Trump by name but dumps all over him. Hillary who has come out in favor of open borders and in bringing thousands of poorly vetted (trojan horse?) Syrian refugees into this country makes reference in the video to the great wall Trump wants to build on our southern border and temporarily barring Moslem immigrants from this country. Hillary seems to think that Trump's proposals are anti-American and against the values that New Yorkers hold dear.
In response this is what Trump should do. He should put out a video that begins with the 9/11 attack on New York and the collapse of the Twin Towers amidst panic and screams as people are seen jumping to their deaths. The ad should say that the 9/11 attack (masterminded by Gitmo inmate Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) was 60 months in the planning-53 under Bill Clinton and 7 under George Bush-and how Bill Clinton failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden on several occasions.  The ad should end with the Twin Towers smoking in the background with a chaos of sirens blaring and screams and a voice asking:
Surely it's appropriate to turn Hillary's campaign logo into the devastating 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers-not only because she's the wife of the president whose weak on terror policies were largely responsible for the catastrophe; but because as secretary of state she turned the US consulate in Benghazi into a 9/11 death trap.
 (thanx Nanna)
In 2002 Bill Clinton in his own words said that in 1996 the government of Sudan offered him to take custody of Osama bin Laden. Clinton refused the offer knowing that OBL was a "financier" of anti-US terrorism.
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
In 1996 the State Department warned Clinton that bin Laden's move from Sudan (who offered him OBL) to Afghanistan could have serious consequences for US security. Clinton did nothing to stop it.
Hours before the deadly 9/11 attack Bill Clinton admitted to a group of businessmen in Australia that he had the chance to kill bin Laden in Afghanistan but did nothing fearing he'd kill the innocent Afghans around him.





BERLIN (Reuters) – German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said he is planning a new law that will require refugees to learn German and integrate into society, or else lose their permanent right of residence.


then why do Moslems immigrants have to learn German and be Germanized and assimilate into German society? What’s going on here? What's wrong with having a strong Moslem identity and preferring regressive Middle Eastern medieval values over modern progressive Western values? What’s become of multiculturalism and political correctness and the respect and appreciation of cultural differences in Germany? If Islam is "a religion of peace" so what if Moslems don't integrate? The vast majority of them are peace-loving and no more of a threat to Germany than the unmeltable Amish and Orthodox Jews are to this country. Why are Germans doing this to "religion of peace" Moslems then? What are they afraid of? Has the whole country gone crazy? They’re acting like bigoted, right-wing, paranoid Islamophobes and should stop it lest Germany look like the Third Reich again./sarc


The community organizer's Moslem Outreach Initiative (and appeasement model for winning the hearts and minds of the Moslem world) has been such a smashing success in moderating hate filled radicals that if Bill Clinton and George Bush had done it they would have turned Bin Laden and al-Qaida into true, religion of peace Moslems (like Islam's founding prophet); and there'd have been no 9/11 and 3000 dead, or invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's truly amazing what this Nobel Prize winning president has accomplished in seven years. How can we afford to lose him when there's still so much work to be done? If we make Obama president for life then before he dies the Islamic world will be jihad free and totally transformed with the West and Islam living in peace and harmony.
All the more reason to elect Hillary or Bernie who vow to continue Obama's good work of deradicalizing jihadists and bringing out their humanity by not calling them Moslem, hugging them and citing their contributions to America's founding. If Trump wins election he'll reverse all these gains and we'll regress to the Dark Ages of the anti-Moslem Crusades where Islam was corrupted by Christians defending Christendom and violent jihad was born. /sarc


We have it on the good authority of Barack Obama. He grew up in Moslem Indonesia and knows true Islam when he sees it.

Click HERE and HERE and see for yourself if he's wrong.







When Mohammed first, at heaven's command,
Arose from burning desert sands
This was a sign to every land
That Islam is their Fate.
And the holy jinn ecstatically 
Sang this triumphant strain:

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever 
Be his slaves.

Britons not so blest as He
Must in their turn
Fall on their knees.
To Allah and his Prophet fall
While Islam triumphs eternally
The dread and envy of them all.

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.

Still mightier shall Mohammed rise
More dreadful from each enemy blow
More deadly, deadly than before.
His sword shall tear apart the sky
And reign down hell upon his foes,
His victory assured. 

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.  

Haughty infidels shall never tame,
And fail to bring the Prophet down,
And will but rouse God's wrathful flame
As they work their woe to His renown.

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves. 

Our jihadis with perfect freedom found, 
Shall to God's happy realm repair.
Blest with 72 pure virgins crowned,
Now that Islam's conquered the world down here.

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All men shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.




When I was a radical, twisted, teenage, anti-American, drug abusing  leftist back in the late 1960s I came to believe that men like Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh and Cuba's Fidel Castro were the George Washingtions of their countries. My reasoning was simple: George Washington led a revolutionary army in a struggle for independence against an oppressive despotic British monarchy; and Ho and Castro led revolutionaries in a war of liberation from French colonial rule in Vietnam and a corrupt, unpopular, tyrannical dictatorship in Cuba; and because of that I esteemed them both as noble, heroic, virtuous George Washingtons. And for America to fight against Ho and oppose Castro (and punish his regime with sanctions and embargoes) was, I believed, a betrayal and inversion of the American Revolution and its ideals of justice, peace and liberty. In other words, I believed that a corrupted, fallen America had strayed from its founding principles, values and revolutionary ideals while Vietnam and Cuba were reviving and advancing them anew. Indeed, in opposing the US government and wanting to bring it down we radicals thought we were reviving the Spirit of 1776 just like Ho, Castro and all revolutionary leaders and movements across the world were doing.
The alliance made in hell that nearly turned the Cold War into a thermonuclear inferno.
Of course I was insane. For when did George Washington commit the psychopathic atrocities and crimes of a Ho and a Castro? When did Washington order his men to chop off the hands of young boys, or cut out the tongues of village chiefs then stick their bloody sliced off genitals in their mouths, as Ho ordered his soldiers to do as a warning to South Vietnam villages not to vote in democratic elections? And when Washington defeated the British and became the first US President when did he jail thousands of political opponents, rape and torture them (cutting off fingers and gouging out eyes) then shot them to death by firing squads and dump their bodies in mass graves?  When did George Washington ever do such monstrous things?
Our 1960s Radical-in-Chief in Havana urging the US Congress to lift the embargo on the Cuban people saying it was an "outdated burden on them." Actually the "outdated burden" is the evil despotic communist military regime of the Castro family which Obama stupidly thinks he can change by being good to them. What a fool.
And when did Washington set up a totalitarian, military, one party, oppressive, communist dictatorship like Ho and Castro did where people had no rights, no due process of law and were no better than slaves and property of the state given the choice of serving those in power or facing jail or death? Castro and Ho and the evil governments they formed had nothing in common with Washington and our constitutional republic. Washington believed in "ordered liberty," Ho and Castro in order without liberty. But as a crazy crackpot leftist kid engaged in a mindless war against Amerika (sic) I didn't see it that way. And apparently neither does Obama. Our first 1960s born president has much of the same deranged mentality and immature world view that I had when an idiotic, regressive, stuck on stupid teenager-which he proved as much when he said before the world, with Raul Castro at his side, "
  “Here’s my message to the Cuban government and the Cuban people. The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”
There you have it, Obama's radical 1960s self showing itself in the speech: the American and Cuban revolutions were equivalent in their beginnings, starting off in the same place (as I believed 48 years ago); when in reality they were radically different by a 100 degrees of separation. For Castro was never a liberal democrat at heart who US policies forced into communism as Obama wants to believe. In his rebel days Castro had no intention of replacing Batista's tyranny with electoral, rule of law democracy. From the start Castro's evil plan was turning Cuba into a miserable communist prison state and satellite of the Soviet Union-which brought us to the brink of nuclear war.
Obama said that "America and Cuba share a common history in that both started out in slavery." Truth is Cuba today is more of a slave state than it's been at any time in its history.
After 57 years Fidel and his ruling family haven't changed their Marxist-Leninst-Stalinist ways; and they're not going to change because Obama is going soft and being nice to them, as many are naively hoping. What we saw in Cuba was typical Obama kindergarten diplomacy where he showers benefits on a hardened implacable foe and gets nothing in return. Obama does this to show our foes how selflessly benevolent and giving he is-that he's a different kind of US leader-hoping that if he does them good without conditions it will win their hearts, minds and trust and miraculously transform them into liberal Democrats. This kind of diplomacy failed with Abbas, Putin and the mullahs of Iran; and having learned nothing from those failures Obama is at it again butt kissing the Castros hoping against hope to get a better result.  
Indeed, taking Obama's gifts while giving nothing in return communist Cuba remains unchanged (the North Korea of the Caribbean) just as hardened in their anti-Americanism and dangerous to our free way of life (which poses an existential threat to them) as it was five decades ago. Together with their authoritarian partners in Russia, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea and Venezuela the commies of Cuba will continue to work 24/7 hell-bent on hurting us whenever and wherever they can; and no amount of appeasement will alter that.
Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who's made peace nowhere and sown strife and discord with his policies practically everywhere, has cemented his legacy as the US president who opened relations with and benefited the Castro regime but did nothing for the people it's been repressing for years. 
It is certain that Obama's trip to Cuba (the first for a US president in 90 years) was nothing more than a worthless, self-serving "I'm making history" charade to stay in the limelight during a  presidential campaign, and burnish his foreign policy legacy of ashes, disasters and dust. It is very bad history that will live on in infamy along with his 09 apology tour, repeated butt kissing of Putin,  desertion of Mubarak, withdrawal from Iraq, war in Libya, chaos in Syria, rise of ISIS, stabbing Israel in the back and the Iran nuke deal. It is laughable that the president who promised and failed to heal race relations in this country (worsening conflict by his bad leadership and policies) believes he's begun a historic healing  process with Cuba-a completely incompatible political system headed by the ruthless, implacable, power mad, anti-capitalist Castros.
Image of Obama in terrorist Cuba (see) while Brussels burns from terrorism. Two Americans were among the dead .
Obama said that the purpose of last week's trip was to "extend the hand of friendship to the Cuban people." But by prematurely normalizing relations with this abnormal, oppressive, freedom-hating regime (rewarding decades of extreme terror, evil and death) he's extended their oppression and economic misery achieving the opposite of success.
Barack Obama Leaves the White House
 On the day Obama leaves the White House he will make history for being the first US president with a job approval rating higher with our enemies than with the American people.
Obama In Cuba
President Obama on Wednesday joked that Republicans believe he would have turned the United States into communist Cuba if constitutional limits on power didn’t exist. 
Truth be told. If Obama were a dictator like Castro and president for life America like Cuba would become a poor third world country before he died looking like broken, bankrupt, liberal Democrat Detriot which went bankrupt during his administration.
The slums of Detroit, aka Obamaville.
 Castro, grateful for nothing, giving Obama the mullah treatment humiliating him at every turn.

Fidel Castro rebuked President Obama in a lengthy diatribe Monday just days after his historic visit to Cuba.

The former Cuban revolutionary leader published a letter in state-controlled media titled “Brother Obama,” in which he recalled the U.S.’ past efforts to overthrow his government. 

“We do not need the empire to give us anything,” Castro wrote. 



that his three days of ass kissing were too few and too feeble. That he'll need  to double and triple down on them if his "historic" normalizing of relations is to work.

Why did Emperor Obama have no cloths? Because he gave them to our enemies to show them he didn't mind being naked.


< p style="box-sizing: border-box; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #3f4549; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 15px; widows: 1; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">Related


At a campaign rally at Portland, Oregon socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders received what appeared to be a supernatural sign from the gods about him and his campaign as he was addressing his astonished supporters: a small bird swooped down out of nowhere landed on the ground beside his lectern, then flew up and stood on it looking him in the face. As the crowd wildly erupted in cheers a smiling Bernie said this:
"I think that there may be some symbolism here. I know it doesn't look like it, but that bird is really a dove asking us for world peace. No more war."
But socialist Bernie, who suffers from serious political reality problems like the failure of socialism worldwide, was wrong about the bird's species. According to a spokesman from the Audubon Society the tiny thing was a Mountain Chickadee, a bird indigenous to Northern Mexico. But what in heavens was it doing thousands of miles from its home when it landed on Bernie's lectern? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the poor little thing was hungry and lost and looking for a hand out. In other words, the bird like many illegal Mexican aliens needed shelter, food and caring to survive.  And who better to provide these things than big-hearted, free stuff, soak the rich Bernie?
Looking at omens from birds dates back to Greco-Roman times.
But kidding aside. Many of Bernie's followers believe that the bird was a miraculous sign from on high signifying that the gods favor his campaign over Hillary's; and that from here on in he's going to fly away with the nomination and wing his way to the White House, making history as America's first Jewish president.
 A confident rider, surrounded by birds of good omen is approached by  Nike (goddess of victory) bearing victors wreaths.
But they are dead wrong. Though Sanders was right to say that the incident was symbolic it did not as he believes symbolize or signify "world peace" or anything auspicious and positive for his campaign. Given who Bernie is and what he represents-a socialist with a radical left-wing agenda that's failed miserably wherever it's been tried (and would make America's bankruptcy triply painful)-the tiny bird most likely signified that Bernie Sanders (like all socialists) is a

You're confusing Sanders with Donald Trump, Apollo. Trump certainly acts and sounds like a bird brain. At least Bernie is talking policy, unlike Trump who basically promotes steak and tweets insults.

Bernie's socialist policy positions are for the birds. Take "single payer healthcare" for example. Only a bird brain presidential candidate would suggest repealing "you can keep your doctor" Obamacare and replacing it with single payer universal "Medicare-For-All" when it crashed and berned (sic) in his home state of Vermont because of its staggering, middle class destroying costs.

When MSNBC's Andrea Mitchel questioned Sander's during one of the debates about the reason for Governor Shumlin's single payer program failing in Vermont Bernie brushed her off saying, "I'm the senator from Vermont not the governor. You'll have to ask him."

 Now tell me that Bernie isn't a bird brain.
View image on Twitter
The bird's brief stay on Sanders' lectern is perhaps a sign of his small brief moment in the national spotlight (that his candidacy doesn't have a wing and a prayer) as he heads toward defeat and back to the Senate never to be seen or heard from again in a presidential race.



I've written about this before, but it bears repeating. When Syrian rebels saw Obama and NATO set up a "no fly zone" over Libya "to prevent Kaddafy from mass slaughtering Libyans" it emboldened them to violently rise up against and attack the Assad regime. The plan was to provoke Assad into mass slaughtering his people (like Obama and Clinton said Kaddafy was planning to do) and create a horrific humanitarian crisis so that Obama and NATO would assist them (as they did the Libyans) in deposing Assad and seizing power. In this way Obama and Clinton (who urged Obama to take down Kaddafy) are greatly responsible for the murderous chaos in Syria- out of which both the deadly ISIS caliphate arose and the refugee crisis overwhelming and threatening Europe.

Indeed, because Libya and Syria are causally linked (by the law of unintended consequences) Clinton, by claiming that deposing Kaddafy was the right thing to do (which it absolutely wasn't) has stupidly placed herself between a political rock and hard place, and Giuliani knows it. Giuliani is correct to accuse Clinton of playing a key role in the creation of ISIS. If Clinton should become the Democrat nominee her GOP opponent will be hammering her to death on this issue-showing the public how incompetent and blundering a secretary of state she was; and how feckless and dangerous a president she will make.





and false BS.
ISIS generals came from the Iraqi army, they didn't need to be emboldened.
what BS.



If you had studied this subject in depth you'd know that It wasn't until the US left Iraq and PM Maliki turned against and alienated the Sunnis that Sunni soldiers crossed into Syria and joined ISIS. By then the violent anti-Assad insurrection (of which ISIS participated) was well under way.











Texas Imam Agrees with Trump: Halt Syrian Refugees into America-Breitbart 


Belgian Muslims fear growing anti-Islam backlash in wake of terror attacks-USA TODAY   

Texas Imam

Imam Alsayyed said, “I certainly see it to be wise to stop temporarily accepting any new Muslim immigrants [refugees and non-refugees] into the United States....and the halt should apply to refugees of any religion."

Monday I posted a piece on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan coming out in support of Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban refugees from Syria and other Moslem lands because of the very real and growing security risk to our country and especially to American Moslems like Farrakhan's 50,000 member organization. Domestic terror attacks by Moslems killing and injuring Americans can only turn more of the public against Islam which has since 9/11 grown steadily despite a radically pro-Moslem president in the White House. Indeed, an increasing number of Americans are coming to see Islam as a subversive anti-American, anti-Western faith incompatible with our cultural values, political traditions and free (rule of law) way of life.  Truth is ill-will toward Islam in the Western World is perhaps greater today than at any time since the Middle Ages when hordes of Moslem jihadis swept over Christian, Persian, Hindu and Buddhist lands sacking, pillaging, raping and killing millions who wouldn't submit to the faith.

So as with Farrakhan it comes as no surprise that Nidal Alsayyad, an Imam from Beaumont, Texas, speaking on behalf of his congregation of hundreds, should support Trump's ban fearing a backlash against the US Moslem community just as Moslems are fearing today in Belgium, France and other parts of Europe where "Islamophobia" is becoming pandemic. It also comes as no surprise (according to a poll conducted by CAIR) that this Imam, his group and the Nation of Islam are not alone in their pro-Trump stance. For approximately 231,000* Moslem American voters (excluding the Nation of Islam?**) share his views that Trump would be the best president for them.
*According to Wikipedia  the Moslem population of the US is 3.3 million (see).
**NOI is considered an Islamic heresy by mainstream Islam.

Question Three Based on your party support which candidate do you plan to vote for in the upcoming state primary election

  This poll taken last January has a total of 15% or 495,000 Moslem voters supporting the GOP.
But this Texas Imam has a more practical approach to Syrian immigration which Trump, Cruz and others would be wise to heed and adopt: instead of limiting the freeze to Moslem refugees it should include Christians, Druze, Bahais and peoples of other faiths. Though real Syrian Christians, for example, would pose no threat to this country some jihadists might be trained to convincingly lie about their faith and claim to be Christian. Indeed, to counter the smear that they're anti-Moslem bigots Trump and Cruz should follow the Imam's advice and include Christians in their ban. If Trump and Cruz were to do that it could grow Moslem support for them and the GOP.
Question Two Which political party do you plan to support in your upcoming state primary election
According the above CAIR  chart roughly 15% of 3.3 million American Moslems, or 490,000, are Republican. But the number could be as high as 820,000. For 11% of those surveyed (representing 333,000 voters) refused to disclose their party affiliation. Is it far-fetched to assume that most if not all of the 11% are Republican, and that they refused to answer the survey because they're afraid to admit it?
Tens and thousands of patriotic nationalist Poles chanting "Today refugees, tomorrow terrorists!" took to the streets of Warsaw this week opposing Moslem immigrants coming into their country.
Beata Szydlo, the new Prime Minister of Poland said, "I will not allow events in Western Europe to happen in Poland" as she shreded an agreement made by her predecessor's government to let in 7,000 Moslem migrants. Critics of her policy say that Poland has a demographics problem and needs more immigrants. I say okay. Let's send them some of our illegal peaceloving Mexican aliens of which we have way too many.

Awesome raucus anti-Moslem immigrant stadium demonstrations in Poland.  



< p style="text-align: center;">There really are Muslims who support Trump | New York Post