Monthly Archives: February 2016




It is inarguable that In the coming historic* political contest between the Republican and Democrat nominees it would be best for the former if the latter were radical social democrat Bernie Sanders than the more seemingly centrist Hillary Clinton-a social democrat to a lesser degree. There is no way in hell that with 80% of voters having a high level of concern about the federal government's runaway spending and $19 trillion debt that they'd elect as president a man who wants to hugely expand the size, scope and expense of  government by at least 40% (see).

*Historic because for the first time a presidential nominee of either major party will be a woman or a Jew.

Most Americans would be frightened to have as president this decent but foolhardy man with his utopian faith in big government and contempt for free market capitalism-which to him is a completely corrupt and rigged system that keeps the poor in poverty and is shrinking the middle class as if upward mobility were a thing of the past, and rich Americans a fixed plutocratic caste. Though Sanders would be unelectable as his party's nominee nonetheless after Super Tuesday if he can win more support from the black community then it may be possible that he could pull a Bill Clinton* on frontrunner Hillary thus ensuring a Republican victory in November. It's a big if I know after South Carolina. But as you will see below it is a real possibility.  
*In 1992 Bill Clinton went into Super Tuesday with no wins. And it wasn't until then that he won his first primary which was in Georgia (see).
Indeed, according to the Real Clear Politics average poll Clinton is beating Sanders nationally 47% to 42%; and what is mostly giving Hillary that 5 point edge are blacks who carried her to a landslide victory in South Carolina Saturday. According to Gallup Hillary among blacks is crushing Sanders by a 57 point margin 80% to 23%. And unless Sanders can significantly close that gap he stands no chance of beating her. As is well known Sanders' problem with blacks is not ideology but name recognition. Blacks know Hillary way better than Sanders: she was married to the 42nd president who was popular with blacks, was the senator from New York (a state with a large black population), and was the first black president's first secretary of state.
But in the time remaining in this primary season there is a way I believe for Sanders to take a big chunk out of Hillary's black support. How? It hinges on a crucial issue where Hillary is most vulnerable with blacks: welfare reform. Indeed, in 1996 husband Bill signed into law his signature piece of legislation: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The purpose of this bill, in Clinton's words, was to "end welfare as we know it;" and it did just that. This was achieved by giving welfare recipients who were able to work, called "the undeserving poor," the incentive to find employment and get off the dole; called "workfare" it was a worthy program backed by Newt Gingrich and the Republican led House which gave Clinton the victory.
But in 1996 then Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders (with most House Democrats) opposed Clinton's workfare bill as an ill conceived, neo-liberal, right leaning program that would end up doing more harm than good to the poor-especially to poor blacks. Indeed, Sanders (and most Dems) refused to acknowledge the distinction made in the bill between the "deserving" and "undeserving poor." For Sanders (and most Dems) every poor person is a victim of a rigged economy that unfairly favors the rich over the poor and enriches the former at the latter's expense. For Sanders (and most Dems) it was immoral, unjust and criminally wrong to take any poor family or individual (whether able to work or not) off of the welfare rolls; and 20 years later this cradle to grave nanny state socialist hasn't changed his radical leftist tune.

Senator Bernie Sanders, flanked by the state legislators Joseph H. Neal, left, and Justin T. Bamberg, at a news conference in Columbia, S.C., on Wednesday.Senator Bernie Sanders, flanked by the state legislators Joseph H. Neal, left, and Justin T. Bamberg, at a news conference in Columbia, S.C., on Wednesday, telling reporters that Bill Clinton's workfare program "punished the poor and didn't help them."

 Indeed, Sanders is campaigning on the platform that Bill Clinton's workfare program has "hurt the helpless and the very, very vulnerable (see) ," which for Sanders is anyone who is poor. And he's been blasting Hillary for having been pro-active on this "terrible law" as she worked on her husband's behalf to round up the votes for its passage. And Sanders isn't alone; agreeing with him are the vast majority of liberals in the Democrat Party, media and blogosphere: from the Nation and Daily Kos to the Huffington Post and all regard Clinton's workfare program as a neo-liberal disaster-especially for blacks who have suffered "disproportionately" from it. Liberal analysts claim that though workfare succeeded in reducing the welfare rolls there's been no corresponding decline in poverty. They point out that in 1996 68% of families with children living in poverty received welfare benefits; but by 2013 that figure had fallen to just 26%.
 Barack Obama gutting Bill Clinton's workfare law.
But in the short time ahead workfare is where Sanders can score big with blacks (and many of Hillary's latino and white lib redistributionaist supporters) and triumph in the end. What many blacks and non-black liberal voters don't know and need to know is that at the time of its passage Barack Obama like Sanders opposed Clinton's workfare law, and like Sanders pledged to work on reversing it; and since then he's made good on his pledge. For in July 2012 (in the middle of his reelection campaign) Obama's Health and Human Services Department issued a policy directive literally gutting workfare (see);  indeed, turning back the clock and restoring the status quo ante this anti-workfare measure made welfare (and generational poverty) a way of life again (like it was in the pre-Clinton era). Of course, Bernie Sanders and the left praised Obama for ending workfareand now to score points with blacks Bernie is attacking the Clintons (but not as fiercely as he should) for having instituted it. 
Bill Clinton campaigned for his wife Thursday in Rock Hill, S.C.
The Clintons however (without criticizing Obama) are fighting back and defending workfare against Sanders' attack. Indeed, pointing out its benefits to low income Americans Bill Clinton recently said at a campaign rally that it was "a necessary and successful step toward making poor families self sufficient (see) ." In other words, and this is crucially important, the Clintons are showing signs that if Hillary wins the presidency she will shred Obama's anti-workfare directive (which any Republican president will do) and restore her husband's law. And perhaps it is this issue more than any other that Sanders could do the most damage to the Clintons with the black vote.
What Sanders must do is this: mount an all out effort to educate black voters on Obama's destruction of Clinton's workfare law and hammer it home that he not Hillary is Obama's true, trusted and worthy successor; that he not she is the more credible and trustworthy of the two to continue Obama's welfare legacy and build upon it; that he not she will maintain and defend Obama's directive ending workfare, and expand not shrink the welfare state showering benefits galore on America's poor.
Indeed, black votes crucially matter in this Democrat race; and for Sanders to triumph over Hillary he needs to steal from her a sufficient number of them; and the most effective way to do this is by convincing black Americans that president Obama's anti-workfare, free stuff, redistributionist policies would be safer with him than with the treacherous Hillary; that he not she would be a far better and more generous progressive friend; that he not she will be the true white Barack Hussein Obama. 


As of last night the Republican Party has had ten presidential debates; and as of last night front-runner Donald Trump hasn't won any of them; nor for that matter has Trump lost any of them, until last night. Last night belonged to establishment favorite Marco Rubio who next to bull-dog, strong man Donald Trump looks like a weak, boyish, happy-go-lucky puppy dog; and last night the puppy was boyishly gleeful as his cute little barks on healthcare, Israel, immigrants and Trump University bested the roaring and slightly rattled Donald who (after the disaster of the Bush and Obama years) wants to be the next Ronald Reagan reversing the decline of America and making us great again.
It was the most powerful moment Rubio had in all ten debates as he tried to reverse the shellacking he took from Chris Christie in New Hampshire. But It was too little too late not amounting to much. The debating points Rubio scored against Trump didn't compensate for what he's lacking in character for the presidency at this perilous time in American history: the strength, stamina and energy needed to be a Ronald Reagan-like Commander-in-Chief. Trump is the only candidate in the race with that solid, rock-like Reaganesque quality; Rubio, Kasich and Carson have none of it; neither does tired old Hillary nor crazy uncle Bernie; Ted Cruz (who ganged up with Rubio on Trump) has some of that quality-but too little to bear comparison to Reagan.
All in all, Trump withstood the Rubio-Cruz Latino attack practically unshaken. The two matadors teaming up couldn't bring down Donald  the Bull. Trump who (unlike Rubio and Cruz) isn't a policy wonk continues to run on the strength of his personality, and his great success as a billionaire builder and real estate magnate. He's a larger than life, Napoleon-like, indefatigable force of nature. And now after seven months of turning American politics on its head Trumps within striking range of becoming the GOP nominee. It's truly, truly amazing.


"For many years, it's been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security -- it undermines it. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of experts, this is the opinion of many in our military. It's counterproductive to our fight against terrorists, because they use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit."

Indeed, Mr. President, since Gitmo opened in the wake of 9/11 in January 2002 (to detain the most dangerous and highly valued Islamic terrorists, radicals and jihadists) how many Americans have died in terrorist attacks stateside and abroad that were motivated and inspired by Gitmo? Can you or any of your "experts" name just one single American victim of such an attack? And since 2002 of the dozens and dozens of foiled jihadist plots aimed at Americans how many, Mr. President, were planned specifically to avenge Gitmo? Can you or your "experts" point to just one such plot? Moreover, Mr. President, is there any evidence of a single America-hating Moslem joining a terrorist group specifically because of Gitmo? Indeed, can either you  or your "experts" provide the name of just one al Qaida or ISIS recruit since 2002 for whom Gitmo was the decisive factor in radicalizing and turning him/her into a terrorist? 



Take for instance the following examples, Mr. President, which are emblematic of the jihadist mindset. In the Ft. Hood Massacre (as you and your "experts" must know) where 13 died (and an unborn child) jihadist Nidal Hassan (radicalized by US born al Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki) cited his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan where he'd be forced to "kill fellow Moslems" as the spark that triggered his rampage (see). In the Boston Marathon Bombing where three were killed and 264 injured Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cited  "the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" and the "US war against Islam" as the cause (see). Umar Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day (underwear) Bomber (also recruited by Awlaki) cited the "killing of his brothers and sisters [by the US] on the battle field and in drone strikes" as the motive behind his foiled plot to blow up an airliner (see). And Taliban trained Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square Bomber who could have killed and injured hundreds, said that he planned his attack "in revenge for the war in Afghanistan (see)."

Idiots in orange prison jump suits protesting Gitmo outside the White House.

And it goes on and on, Mr. President, as you and your "experts" must surely know that in the 14 years of Gitmo's existence it hasn't been a key factor for either recruiting jihadists or motivating them to strike us. In fact, in these 14 years there hasn't been so much as one VIOLENT Moslem rally any place on earth protesting Gitmo's existence. There were violent protests over the desecration of Korans, Mohammed cartoons, an anti-Mohammed video, US soldiers urinating on the corpses of terrorists, bin Ladin's death, and in Egypt the incarceration of Blind Sheihk Omar Abdel Rahman-who's rotting in a US jail for plotting to kill Americans. But you are at a loss Mr. President to find one single violent protest over Gitmo in general, or for any one of its highly valued (Rahman-like) inmates in particular-such as 9/11 mastermind and legend Khalid Sheihk Mohammed.


Then what is your beef with Gitmo Mr. President? What is your urgent concern? Is it that you fear a future domestic terror attack if Gitmo isn't closed? But that's absurd. If at its height in 2006 with 779 inmates no terror attacks were launched to avenge Gitmo's existence then why should you fear one now or in the future when less than 100 inmates are left (see)? Which is more offensive to jihadists 779 inmates or substantially less ? The probability of such an attack today or tomorrow is far less than it was years ago; in truth it's down to under zero.


The facts are these Mr. President:
1. To date Gitmo has inspired no terrorist attacks against the US.
2. To date no captured terrorists since Gitmo opened have cited it as a cause for their annihilating hatred of our country.
3. Gitmo is not now nor ever was a key component in anti-US jihadist propaganda and tirades. Those who say otherwise are liars.
4. The truth is Gitmo is innocuously low on the list of "grievances" that motivate jihadists against us.
5. High on that list (overshadowing all else, as you well know) is our democratic way of life, Iraq and Afghanistan, drone strikes, and the false perception that the US is at war with Islam. Delist Gitmo and it wouldn't make a dot of difference in keeping America safe.
6. There is no evidence that Gitmo causes any more terrorism than the hundreds of jihadists in prison in North America; and the tens and thousands in prison in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, China, the Far East and Australia. From the radical, rigid, fanatical viewpoint of jihadist theology, morality and logic all jailed jihadists (without exception) are innocent of wrong doing and unjustly incarcerated; this is because their atrocities and crimes were committed to advance the cause of political Islam and were sanctioned by God as lawful and divine. In other words, Gitmo essentially is no more offensive to al Qaida or ISIS than any other prison housing jihadists. All of them are equally unjust condemned by Allah and under his wrath.
So much for your blathering bull Mr. President-reflecting over 14 years of leftist Bush derangement lies-that Gitmo enrages Moslems, creates terrorists and weakens and undermines our security. What undermines our security and makes us weak is your war causing, enemy enabling appeasement mentality, feckless soft on terror leadership, and letting these monsters go free so they can kill again and again and again. You, Mr. President, not Gitmo, are a key recruiting tool for our radical Moslem enemies who interpret your presidency as a sign that America is in irreversible decline and finished as a world power.


Expand Gitmo and load them up with bad guys and make America great, strong and powerful again. 





Photo by: Reuters

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, US Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura (L-R) arrive for a news conference after the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) meeting in Munich, Germany, February 12, 20.

On February 11th, the 37th anniversary of the radical jihadist Khomeini revolution in Islamo-Nazi Iran, 17 nations headed by the United States and Russia (including Iran) met in Munich, Germany (city of war causing deception, weakness and appeasement) to discuss the need for truce in war-torn Syria as a first step to ending the five-year long horrific conflict (see). And on that ominous date in that ominous city an agreement was reached by all parties for a ceasefire between the murderous US-EU-Saudi backed rebel forces and the deadly Russian-Iran-Iraq backed Assad regime which was to begin on the 18th.
But like the Munich Accord of 1938 which emboldened Nazi aggression in Europe this truce was just a piece of paper. Indeed, between the Munich meeting and today February 23rd the bloodletting has intensified to include the bombing of schools, hospitals and civilian homes as Russia's "Vlad the Impaler" and his partner in war crimes, the "Butcher of Damascus," seem more hell-bent than ever in reconquering every last bit of Syrian territory lost to the rebels. And now it looks like this proxy war (euphemistically called a "civil war") is about to blow up into a major conflict engulfing the region.
Indeed, on February 12th (the day Kerry and his Russian counterpart Lavrov held a press conference announcing the ceasefire) Saudi Arabia, over the warnings of Russia, Iran and Iraq announced as "final and irreversible" a decision made several days before to intervene militarily with bombers and possibly ground forces to allegedly fight the Islamic State (ISIS) in Northern Syria. And now on the very day the ceasefire was to start, and over the warnings of French President Hollande of a possible Turkish-Russian War (that could draw in NATO) Turkey said it too will be sending planes and possibly troops into Northern Syria to join forces with the Saudis to defeat ISIS. But as every one knows the real objective of this plan (if it materializes) is to save what's left of anti-Assad rebels from extinction.  
Now four days after the ceasefire failed to take effect Kerry and Lavrov announced a new agreement on a truce that is supposed to begin on the portentous date of February 27th. Why is it portentous? Because it's the 25th Anniversary of GHW Bush announcing the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War-which prematurely ended the following day. This was the victory that stupidly let a head strong, defiant, noncompliant Saddam (who would arrogantly flout 17 UN resolutions) remain in power with the terrible consequences to the region that would follow years later.
Indeed, just as Iraq's brutal Baathist dictator defiantly stayed in power until he was forcibly removed so will it be with Syria's bloodthirsty Baathist dictator who is just as determined to stay put whatever the price. Indeed, Assad will only honor a truce once the rebels are so badly crippled they'd no longer pose a threat to him. And with help from Putin and Iran that day is fast approaching.
But the important question now is this: with over 350,000 troops, 20,000 tanks and thousands of warplanes from more than thirteen nations gathered in Saudi Arabia  for military exercises will Turkey and Saudi Arabia defy Putin, Assad and Iran and intervene militarily with a multinational force in Syria with or without the US (see)? I hope not. For it could ignite World War III.


When Pope Francis said of Donald Trump that his tough stance on immigration and border security (building a wall on the U.S. Mexican border) disqualified him from being a true Christian he finally revealed what many of us have suspected  for years now: that left-wing politics for the pontiff trumps theology and faith; and that he unChristianly and nonGospelly applies a partisan and ideological litmus test in determining who is and is not a true Christian.
Does this leftist pope "Feel the Bern"?  How could he not?
Now ironically when applying the pope's criteria to the U.S. presidential race it turns out that of the eight candidates (seven Christians and one Jew) Bernie Sanders the secular socialist Jew (who doesn't have a religious bone in his body) is more truly Christian (Christ-like) than the other seven Christian candidates. 
That's what it absurdly comes down to. Why? Because the other five GOP hopefuls (including Catholics Bush and Rubeo) are very much with Trump on building a high, strong, secure wall, robustly enforcing existing deportation laws and closing sanctuary cities across the land. In other words, all six GOP candidates are "unChristian" dividers of peoples and nations, not Christian uniters and "bridge builders"-as if by "bridge" the pope meant an open border policy letting anyone in who wants to come here.
Now on the Democrat side while Hillary and Bernie both oppose Trump and the GOP policy of building a multi-billion dollar wall Hillary the hypocrite (who now says she never lies) blasted the Bush administration back 2005 for its lax border security policies. Indeed, calling for "the addition of more border security" to keep illegal immigrants and terrorists out Clinton charged Bush with
"failing to provide the necessary resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep tract of entrants to this country (see)."
Indeed, as a result of such badgering (from Republicans and Dems) Bush in 2006 signed the "Secure Fence Act" which both Hillary and Obama voted for (see). Bernie Sanders, however, voted against this bill (see). Moreover, in his current debate with Hillary over immigration Sanders has outdone her on child immigration by flatly advocating open borders for all children from anywhere south of the border who want to come here, which is insane (see)-but not to the pope.
But apart from immigration Francis (the most radically left pope in Roman Catholic history) is a free stuff, anti-capitalist socialist like Sanders as both men believe that "economic inequality [caused or perpetuated by "capitalist greed"] is the root of all evil," and that the remedy is the massive redistribution of wealth. Surely if the pope heard Hillary criticize Sanders' socialist schemes that it would "increase the size of the federal government by 40% [when we're $19 trillion in debt]" he wouldn't think it was very Christian of her.  
As Sanders has effusively praised the pope for his left-wing views it is certain that he in turn must be praying mightily for Sanders electoral success as he progressively "out-Christians" in his compassion for the poor and middle class victims of the super rich every other presidential candidate.








Writing on Disqus blogger Redxabi said to me,


"Well I do believe Jesus Christ was a 'Jewish Socialist'...."

Undoubtedly Pope Francis also believes this; and that it reinforces the view which I'm certain he has that Bernie Sanders is the most truly Christian of all the presidential hopefuls: a Jewish socialist like he wrongly believes Jesus was.
Hell, when Bernie lashes out at greedy capitalist banksters, and 1% Wall Street billionaire "crooks and fraudsters," as having caused the 08 housing crash and continuing to gut the poor and middle class; and as he pledges that as president to put them in jail or tax them to death it must warm Francis's heart and remind him of Jesus lashing out (with whip in hand) at the greedy, corrupt money changers in the Temple.
But as I said in my reply to Redxabi, "Jesus was no socialist":

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar....." Not that Caesar should render unto the poor what belongs to the rich. Without government redistribution of wealth from have to have nots there is no socialism. In short, a Christian can be a socialist, but there is no such thing as "Christian Socialism." Jesus was no socialist. Socialism isn't Gospel.


Separation between church and state is essential @
Does the Pope also think that America cannot be a truly Christian nation unless it tears down the Constitutional wall separating church and state? Does he think that Islamic countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State where there's no such wall are more Christian than we are?
Separation of Church and State


 This poor, senseless, self-contradictory fool is the first US President to have filibustered a Supreme Court nominee; and he has the audacity to say it was based on "substance" not politics. Sure, like Benghazi was caused by a video.
(interpreting the Constitution strictly according to the original  meaning of Madison and the Framers), and who in 2006 filibustered and then voted against George Bush's nomination of originalist Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (because of his originalism) laughably lectured Senate Republicans yesterday saying this: If they truly believe in original intent (which he opposes) then they will uphold the Constitution and abide by its original meaning and confirm his liberal anti-originalist nominee (whoever that may be) to replace originalist Antonin Scalia-and not wait for his successor to fill the seat. Now before I go stark raving mad can someone after reading this make sense of it for me? 
Supreme Court Justice Alito
Then adding to Obama's illogical, crazy, confusing subdued rant Hillary Clinton weighed in and tweeted that "racism" was behind the GOP's intent to block Scalia's replacement. That it's because Obama's a black man that pro-originalist Republicans are threatening to obstruct him-(among these "racists" are black GOP Senator Tim Scott and Hispanics like Cruz and Rubio). Well then was anti-Italian racism behind Hillary's decision to join Obama in 2006 and vote against Samuel Alito (see and see)? Or was it his conservative judicial philosophy of constitutional originalism and restraint, which progressive liberals bitterly hate? For it's an obstacle to creating an impossible (unsustainable) cradle to grave nanny state where everyone through redistribution will be given the good life.
After all wasn't it Obama who said in the 2001 interview above that the Constitution was a deeply flawed charter of negative liberties that says what the federal government and states can't do for you (like give you the good life), when it should state what the government should do for you (mainly give you the good life). In other words, the original meaning and words of the Constitution (the spirit and letter of the law) are useless for creating a transformational utopian paradise of prosperity, equality and peace for all-such as Obama promised in 2008 but which, according to the lunatic ravings of Bernie Sanders, he hasn't come within light years of achieving.
Classical liberalism (the underlying political philosophy of the Constitution) puts limits and restraints on government to keep the individual free from economic coercion and tyranny. Modern liberalism seeks to free or liberate the state from those limits and restraints to ruinously serve and realize an impossible ideal of economic and social redistributive justice which attempts to equalize wealth by punishing the most productive members of society to enrich the least productive or nonproductive with the unintended result of destroying productivity and making everyone poorer-which is happening to our hugely indebted country with its declining productivity and vanishing middle class. Good work progressives.
for real time debt action
Now I wonder, if the Brooklyn born socialist Jew Bernie Sanders (SanderClaus) manages to become his party's nominee will Hillary, the Democrats and MSM accuse the GOP, Religious Right and Tea Party of anti-Semitism for opposing him? Of not wanting America's first non-Christian family occupying the White House? I wouldn't put it past them.
Apollo "[paraphrasing Obama] If they truly believe in original intent (which he opposes) then they will uphold the Constitution and abide by its original meaning and confirm his liberal anti-originalist nominee (whoever that may be"
No he didn't.He referenced the plain language of the Constitution, and said it was historically unambiguous.
And that the sudden anomaly of "strict interpreters" inventing interpretation is amusing.


Since when is filibustering and voting against a president's nominee (which Obama did twice) reading a nonexistent meaning into the Constitution? Obama said that he will make sure that whoever he nominates to replace Scalia will be well qualified to serve as a supremo; and consequently he/she should be confirmed by McConnell and the GOP Senate if the Constitution means anything to them. Are you laughing your head off at this shameless display of rank hypocrisy? Obama voted against Roberts because of ideology and partisan politics, i.e. he had a different judicial philosophy. And now we see Obama telling the GOP to put partisanship and ideology aside and treat his nominee according to the "strict interpretation of the Constitution" as if he had a sudden conversion to originalism. This is called "do as I say not as I do liberalism." How anyone can take this man seriously anymore is beyond me.



"Republicans are indicating they will refuse to even engage in the nomination process at all, an abdication of their basic constitutional responsibilities that is unprecedented."


If this be true then it's time to set a new precedent. Win one for Scalia.



As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try. Of those 29:

* 12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate.

* 7 (including a nomination of an Associate Justice for Chief Justice) were withdrawn by the President before a formal consideration could be taken by the Senate.

One of these nominations was withdrawn because of the Ineligibility Clause, but was confirmed after its applicability was no longer an issue.

* 5 had no action taken on them.

One of these was because of a change in the Presidency, but the nomination was resubmitted by the incoming President and confirmed.

* 3 had formal votes on the nominations that were postponed.

One of these nominations was reconsidered after a change in Senate composition and confirmed.

* 2 had nominations nullified by other circumstances without being formally considered.


George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 




IN 1992


When brash, battling, bulldozing Donald Trump unloaded on George W. Bush over 9/11 and the Iraq War during the debate last week I said to myself 'There he goes again.' I don't agree with Trump on this. He's got it all wrong. From 1996 when al Qaida terror master Khalid Sheikh Muhammad dreamed up the deadly plan of flying hijacked planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon to its horrific execution in 2001 was approximately 60 months: 53 under Clinton and 7 under Bush. On the day Bush's inaugural the plan was set and there was no stopping it. If Clinton had a third term or Gore were president 3000 Americans would have died all the same.
And to say the least we would have certainly invaded Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. For Bill Clinton, who signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act making regime change in Iraq (the toppling of Saddam) official US policy (by any and every means short of war), and who with Hillary backed the Iraq War Resolution authorizing George Bush to invade Iraq and destroy Saddam, might have done no different had he still been president. Gore is more problematic. He was for invading Iraq and ousting Saddam but only as a multinational UN action like George H W Bush organized to liberate Kuwait from Saddam in 1991. A persuasive case has been made from the left that with neo-con Senator Joe Lieberman as his VP Gore would have likely invaded Iraq UN or no UN (see).
As for me I am persuaded that had Bush not ordered Operation Iraqi Freedom that Saddam who never gave up his nuclear ambitions would likely have built the bomb-with help from "Axis of Evil" ally nuclear North Korea  (see). But don't waste your time trying to persuade Donald Trump of this. He has made up his mind that the Bush presidency was an unmitigated disaster that set the stage for the catastrophe of Barack Obama. Indeed, Trump holds Bush responsible for 9/11, and  faults him for not  keeping us safe that day-despite the absence of another al-Qaida mass murder attack till the end of his presidency. And Trump doesn't just simply fault Bush for Iraq-against the evidence he accuses him of using nonexistent WMDs to "lie" us into that war; but the truth is, like Clinton before him, Bush had bad intelligence stealthily provided by Saddam who wanted the world to believe he still had WMDs for strategic reasons-as he told FBI investigators (see).
Indeed, Trump sounding like a leftist with a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome was at his anti-Bush worst at the debate. And the audience reflecting the feelings of most Republicans who are pro-Bush booed him, and cheered Jeb who defended his good brother.
Bushwhacked GOP presidential candidates McCain and Romney.
But crazy as he sounded and seemed perhaps Donald Trump is being crazy like a fox and doing what is politically necessary to seize the presidency if he's the GOP nominee. By casting himself as radically and unmistakably anti-Bush the Democratic nominee (Hillary or Bernie) can't use Bush against him and discredit his candidacy. They can't do to Trump what Barack Obama and the Dems did first to John McCain and then to Mitt Romney: turn him into another George Bush. 
Indeed, with Bush's job approval rating in the low 30s (where Harry Truman's was in 1952), and the economy a mess, team Obama and the Dems cast John McCain as "John McBush" warning that a vote for him was a vote for a third term of the president who gave us Iraq and the housing/financial crash (which would have happened if either Gore or Kerry were president). 
And then in 2012 (with Bush still very unpopular) Obama gave Romney the same treatment saying, "This election presents a choice of two fundamentally different visions of America of how to stimulate growth, pay down the debt and create jobs....If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, you should vote for Mitt Romney." Of course after seven failed years of Obama's disastrous presidency the economy is flat to failing and verging on another recession, the debt has dangerously doubled and the lousy, poor, low wage jobs being created hasn't reversed the decline of the middle class-as Clinton and Sanders both say. 
But because of crazy-like-a fox Donald Trump's hostility to George Bush Democrats can't get away with calling him Donald J. Bush. If the economy crashes again or there's a mass terror attack it is the Dems who will fear Trump calling their nominee either Barack Hussein Clinton, or Bernie Hussein Obama. George W. Bush has kept the Republicans from the White House for eight years. Now maybe that will change.


It's payback time. Time for Senate Republicans to destroy Obama's nominee(s) to replace Justice Scalia (like Dems destroyed the great Bob Bork) if he/she is anything less than a Constitutional Originalist.
Chris Christie
Click HERE to read my very peculiar and unconventional prediction about Christie not making it to the presidency.
will have a fringe right-wing nativist administration composed of the following: fringe right-wing native-born Whites, fringe right-wing native-born Blacks, fringe right-wing native-born Hispanics and Asians-and maybe, just maybe, a fringe, native-born, right-wing Moslem or two.
Women. Women. Listen up. Do you see my face?  My poor, wretched, worn, ravaged, sad, ugly face? It's no laughing matter is it? Well then keep this face in mind if you dare not vote for Hillary in South Carolina and beyond. Mark my words femmes: there's a special place in hell for betraying our sex. A hell more punishing, agonizing and horrific than this old, repulsive liberal face. /sarc




Now it turns out that he's a Jew from Brooklyn;

and his real name is Bernie Social Justice Free Stuff



Franklin D Roosevelt: The man who conquered fear - US Presidents ...


and his transformation of the US economy into one vast arms production factory, put millions of jobless poor people to work; and was, in a certain respect, an effective anti-poverty program that ended the Great Depression after the failure of the New Deal.

Moreover, how many young men and women today have escaped poverty and rootlessness by enlisting in the armed forces to serve their country? How many great careers have started there?

Yet how many poor Americans have been trapped in generational poverty and moral degradation by the trillions spent on the War on Poverty and the failed liberal social welfare state? Millions.

Political Pistachio: "War On Poverty" Waged War On Marriage


Larry "Supply-Side Reaganite" Kudlow could be his Treasury Sec. Which would be a good thing. In fact, Kudlow would model himself on Harding's and Coolidge's Treasury Sec. Andrew Mellon-the man who ended the Wilson Depression of the early 1920s and unleashed the Roaring (soaring, prosperous) Twenties, one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in US history.






The Forgotten Depression


Interrogation waterboarding seems to not only meet the definition of ...


in violation of international law, then why after seven years of the Obama administration (after Eric Holder's Justice Dept. conducted an extensive investigation) has no one been indicted, prosecuted and put in jail? Why is it that no one in the Bush administration has been indicted and prosecuted for the "illegal and criminal" War in Iraq? Or for the 2008 housing/credit crash which cost the American people trillions?  Why is it that Obama can't find one single crime committed by his predecessor and underlings? What's going on here?


Reagan in ’80 / Let’s Make America Great Again’ Facing Left 3 ½ ...
So far it would seem that Donald Trump in his nationalistic, America  First campaign to reverse the decline our country
   and make it great again is following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign to renew American greatness after the decline of the Ford and Carter years. In 1980 the healthy, vigorous,  robust 69-year-old larger than life Reagan, like the indefatigable,    
69-year-old, force of nature Donald Trump missed the Iowa Republican debate and went on to finish a strong second behind former Congressman from Texas George H. W. Bush in the Iowa caucus just like Trump finished a strong second behind Texas Senator Ted Cruz.
Then in the New Hampshire primary the Gipper took the election with a landslide double-digit 22 point victory just like the Donald did Tuesday night with one point shy of a 20 point triumph. Now it's on to South Carolina where front-runner Trump is crushing Ted Cruz in the polls by a 17 point margin of 36 to 19%. How did Reagan do in that state back in 1980? He devastated Bush in a 40 point defeat 55 to 15%. There is no way that Trump could pull off that kind of victory next week. But it looks like South Carolina like New Hampshire is Donald Trump land like it was Reagan Land.
Pink Tilted Tiara And Number 45 Clip Art at - vector clip ...
Donald Trump who, as I stated above, seems to be following in Ronald Reagan's footsteps to the presidency is striving to succeed the 44th president and become number 45. Now when Trump was born on June 14, 1946 Ronald Reagan was 35 years, 4 months and 9 days old. When translated into weeks that factors out to 1844 and 5 days-which rounds off to 1845 weeks (see). An interesting coincidence for a man wanting to be the new, restoring America Ronald Reagan by replacing the 44th president and becoming 45.
But there's more, and this is truly 
   amazing: Trump launched his campaign on June 16, 2015. On Election Day November 8, 2016 Trump will be 70 years, 4 months and 26 days old. When translated into months that totals to 844 giving us the exact last three digits of Reagan's 1844 weeks mentioned above. But just as the 1844 weeks rounds off to 1845, so does 844 months and 26 days round off to 845 months (see).
This is an  incredibly strange coincidence for a very strange presidential candidate who's defying every rule in the book in his unique quest for the White House. Whether this coincidence is a providential sign of Donald Trump's political fate is to be seen.  
when 44 (Barack Obama's president's number) is multiplied by 45 (the next president's number) it generates the number 1980, the year Ronald Reagan won the presidency.
Reagan Trump Revolution 


In the Republican debate Saturday night Marco Rubeo repeated not once, not twice, not three but four times that Barack Obama was deliberately trying to change this country (whether he knows it or not) for the worse with the words: 
"Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world." 
 However awkward and robotic the Senator seemed in repeating himself as he did he was nevertheless absolutely spot on about Obama's hidden agenda (which is rooted in the left's anti-Americanism of the 1960s) to end American exceptionalism and turn us into a pathetic, miserable, mediocre power no better or worse than other nations as part of some great governing multilateral international consensus-which is a fiction. 
Obama at United Nations_Sep 2010_Feature
 Indeed, in 2009 on three separate occasions (from Cairo, Moscow and again at the UN) Barack Obama (who said during the 08 campaign that he intended to "fundamentally transform America") uttered the following words alluding to his revolutionary vision for transforming the international system and America's place in it:
“Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.” 
Of course the "failed world order" Obama refers to is the existing international system. And the "one nation" that the "failed world system elevates over other nations and group of peoples" is a veiled reference to the United States which sits on top of the world system as the sole, dominant, exalted (but now declining) superpower. And for Barack Obama who thinks (like most radical leftists) that America is too powerful for its own good, and has been mostly a force for injustice, war and evil in the post-World War II world, this America dominated system must be ended. 
Indeed, for Obama and the left America has been an arrogant, reckless, self-appointed, unilateral, world policeman going at it alone, and has failed in achieving what they see is or should be its ultimate mission and goal: to build a utopian dream world of justice, prosperity, equality and peace; a world of roughly equal nations neither superior nor inferior, high nor low, powerful nor weak sharing wealth, power and all good things in brotherhood and peace-and making decisions in concert as a unified community.
In short, Obama and the left dream of an egalitarian world order, a kind of United States of Humanity (as I wrote about HERE) to replace the "failed" Pax Americana that arose after World War II to fight radical egalitarian international communism. And for Obama the way to start the transition to this brave new egalitarian world is to end as quickly as possible the failed, unjust US dominated system of unequal states. How? By systematically weakening America economically, militarily and geopolitically-bringing it down and diminishing its great power, influence and wealth until it becomes a relatively weak, unexceptional, mediocre nation like any other (as part of a nonexistent, impossible, world governing consensus), as Marco Rubeo said.
And now after more than seven years as president how is Obama faring with his plan to dismantle this inherently unjust US dominated  system?  According to former president Jimmy Carter (who presided over a period of American decline) it's working out brilliantly. Indeed, last July (seven days shy of the "historic" nuclear deal with Iran) Jimmy Carter on Morning Joe was asked by Willie Geist about the state of our nation under Obama, and where are we right now, to which he replied:
"We are in a state of inevitable [irreversible] relative decline in world-wide influence..... And that the economic and cultural influence of other nations will replace a lot of the power and preeminence that the US has enjoyed in the past."
 Barack Obama arrived in Bozeman, Mont., for a campaign rally in May 2008 carrying Fareed Zakaria’s “The Post-American World.” 
CredDoug Mills/The New York Times
Carter then laughably assured his host that this decline wasn't due to Barack Obama; that it was "historical, evolutionary and unavoidable"  as if some iron law of history was at work having nothing to do with Obama's declinist policies of weakness, appeasement and retreat-which is what led America into temporary decline when Carter was president.
Yet this wasn't the first time Carter spoke out candidly about our  decline. 14 days earlier on June 23rd during an interview at the Aspen Institute Carter said to a happy, applauding liberal audience:
"This may not be the best thing to say to a group of Americans, but I think the historical trend is for the U.S. to relinquish its unquestioned domination of the world's politics and economy and cultural influence." 
And why should we "relinquish our domination," no matter how it's done? Because America, says the radically left worthless Carter, "is the most warlike country on earth, we are a laggard in addressing the problem of global warming and we are now violating about ten of the thirty paragraphs in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
There it is as plain as day (spoken by Carter with blunt honesty) the underlying reason for the leftist agenda (embraced by the president) to bring down America: we're not worthy, just or good enough to have such great power, global influence and wealth. Why? Because as so many on the left wrongly, perversely and insanely believe we use it more for ill than good in the world, and it's time that we give it up-which is what Obama has been incrementally doing while in office.
But the results (unintended consequences) of Obama's radically left declinist post-American agenda have so far been devastating. For the relatively peaceful and stable world that he inherited from George Bush is predictably unraveling and collapsing into chaos and war-with the worst yet to come.
The Reaction: The end of American hegemony

As America is a declining superpower losing its power, prestige and credibility in the world (as Carter frankly admits and Obama lyingly denies), and as it is going broke from massive, bankrupting unsustainable debt, with good reason roughly 65% of Americans believe that this country is on the wrong track:


With good reason 57% are pessimistic about the future believing our best days are past:


With good reason 73% of Americans do not want another Barack Obama in the White House as he has been an utter disaster:

NBC/WSJ Poll: Terror Fears Reshape 2016 Landscape - NBC News-see paragraph 17 for this terribly embarrassing poll. 
With good reason the US military has ranked this weak, pathetic, demoralizing president as the worst commander-in-chief in US history-with three secretaries of defense resigning on him: 

With good reason millions of Americans are rallying around Donald Trump's patriotic nationalism and his promise to reverse the decline of the Obama years and make America great again. 

The question however is this: Is Jimmy Carter right? Is our decline inevitable, irreversible and a good thing for ourselves and the world? Or is Trump right: that our decline is a domestic and global disaster that must and can be reversed-as happened during the Reagan years after the decline of the Carter era? I agree with Trump, and any candidate who says:










 Senator Rubeo during the debate said that Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing in bringing down America. But Chris Christie insisted that the opposite was true: that Obama is an incompetent fool who is clueless about what he is doing.


Actually both men are right. Though Obama is deliberately weakening this country and succeeding he foolishly and stupidly believes that it's for the best, and that good will come out of it for America and the world. In this way Christie is right: Obama is delusional and doesn't know what he's doing-he's a tragic leftist fool making the world unintentionally worse not better, as it blows up in his clueless face.









(the very worst actors in the Middle East) also say like radical ISIS that they too are "holy warriors who speak for Islam (see below). " Yet Obama, with his worthless, dangerous Munich-like nuke deal, has not only practically given Iran the legitimacy of a normal moderate regional state but he has lovingly lavished on it 150 billion butt kisses to expand its revolutionary reach and global power. And after seven months of repeated violations and humiliations what does Obama have to show for it? Mullah sh*t all over his dumb, clueless face. It's a tragic disgrace as Obama leads decling America and an increasing strife torn world deeper and deeper and deeper into peril. 

Founding jihadist of radical Islamic Iran (the al Baghdadi of his country) Supreme Leader Ayatollah "Death to America" Khomeini said:
"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world ... But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad, PBUH&HF] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim." —Ruhollah Khomeini*
I've written on this subject before (and believe I was the first to point out) that Obama's ISIS-Iran contradiction. While Obama denies that the Sunni, terrorist Islamic State isn't Islamic (he always calls it "ISIL" never "Islamic State") he and Kerry on many occasions have inconsistently called radical, terrorist, Shiite Iran by its proper name: The Islamic Republic of Iran-as if true, authentic Koranic Islam (the religion of Mohammed) is being practiced there.
Not only is this emblematic of a foreign policy in complete disarray, but it causes confusion in the minds of  millions of Sunni Moslems who might otherwise agree with Obama that ISIS isn't truly Islamic, but who believe Shiite Islam is heretical and that Iran is no less evil than lSIS.  Truth is if ISIS isn't Islamic then neither is Iran; and contrawise, if Iran is Islamic than so is ISIS. The only logical explanation for Obama showing such undeserved respect for Iran was to get a nuke deal for his legacy no matter how bad for peace or embarrassing to our nation. May a 1000 curses be upon him.






At a Baltimore Jihad Indoctrination Center, Obama slams Americans for loathing Muslims | BARE NAKED ISLAM




 Was it in his capacity as self-appointed Defender of Islam in Chief outreaching to poor, despised, oppressed Moslems and defending their "misunderstood" "religion of world peace" from "bigots" like Donald Trump, "Islamophobic" Republicans, nasty Bill Maher and the terror of Moslems the world over counter-jihadists like Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and BNI Bonnie? Don't believe it for a second folks. What Obama did was completely, politically and narcissistically self-serving. I warned of this last month with Obama's unconstitutional executive order on gun control (see). I warned that as the 2016 campaign season roars on grabbing all the headlines-as Trump wrestles with Cruz and Clinton battles Bernie-the shrinking Man-Child till the end of his term would resort to antic after antic to steal attention from those vying for his job. In other words, Obama's visit to a mosque that was bound to stir up controversy was done from desperation to be heard and to stay in the national limelight. There is no other logical explanation.





If Islam, as Obama says, is such a great religion of Wisdom, Holiness, Morality and Peace, and has done so much good for America and humanity, then why is he an apostate from the faith? Why did he convert from Islam to Christianity using Reverend Wright to baptize him into Christ? Could it be that Donald Trump is on to something when he says that maybe the Baltimore mosque is where Obama belongs? That it's his proper home? Could it be that in his heart of hearts Obama is still a Moslem as many believe? Or is it as I believe that his true religion is Secular Progressivism, but that he favors Islam over Christianity and other faiths? We don't know what's in Obama's heart. But his constant appeasement, hugging, lies and revisionism of Islam has done nothing to stop the advance of jihad, and is insane.



  Moreover, if Obama is so concerned about Islam and its worsening worldwide public relations problems-it's the most feared and hated religion in human history going back to its warmongering founder-then why doesn't he join forces with Egypt's liberal Moslem President El-Sisi in calling for a reformation of the faith? Is Obama so blind and foolish as not to see how backward, medieval and anti-progressive Islam is? That it's the most regressive, savage, inhumane religion on Earth? Obama's exceedingly high regard for Islam-as if it were a flawless religion free of evil that is misunderstood-is clearly rooted in his naive idealism (seeing the world as it should be) and serious truth and reality problems-that has made a terrible mess of America, the Middle East and much of the world.






Egypt's President El- Sisi rightly believes that Islam is in need of a major reformation, and that Moslems have to change their thinking and behavior in order to make their faith a true religion of peace. But see-no-evil-in-Islam Obama wrongly believes the opposite: that Islam is inherently a religion of peace; and that it's non-Moslems who have to change their thinking about Islam and their behavior toward Moslems-i.e. it is unbelievers who have to make peace with Islam not Islam with unbelievers.
Obama has an extremely benign and radical view of Islam that has little to do with its dark, concrete, historical reality going back centuries to its power mad, warmongering, mass murdering, terrorist founder. Obama's idea of Islam is left-wing, politically correct, utopian nonsense-an idealistic, abstract, other worldly notion of the faith-Islam as it ought to be, not as it is. Though well meaning, Obama's "Islam of Peace" is dangerously naive, misleading, stupid and false. As the directing principle of his Moslem outreach efforts to reconcile America and Islam Obama's idea of Islam has been a disaster of historic proportions.

Love what Better Dead Than A Raghead just posted in the comment section: 

"So right you are Apollo. Obama lives in an idealistic dream world where Islam is a religion of angels. And anyone less than an angel is not a true Muslim. It’s nuts."

And so it is. There is no room for Islamic terrorists or murdering jihadists in Obama's heavenly Islam of Angels (except if they're radical Iranian Shiites).





 It is an amazing and perhaps meaningful coincidence that on November 8th, the day that voters will decide who will be the 45th President, that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will be 45 years old; and Donald Trump will be in the 845th month of his life.
Does last night's massive, unprecedented, historic turnout for the Republican Party in Iowa foreshadow a national trend continuing its landslide, nationwide, record-breaking victory of 2014 on the sixth anniversary of Obama's election? Was it just the beginning of the Party of Lincoln (our 16th President) taking back 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in 2016 from the regressive, tax and spend, anything goes, impoverishing Dems which has put this country on a course that 65% of us want changed? After last night it's difficult not to be wildly optimistic of a Republican victory in November crushing tired, old, scandal plagued Hillary Clinton, or socialist revolutionary ass clown Bernie (free stuff) Sanders (SanderClaus) who promise to build upon Obama's ruinous, middle class destroying transformational agenda.
Yesterday in my piece "Trump, Iowa and Lucky Republican Number 16" I cautioned my readers about being overconfident of a Trump victory last night saying:
 Like George Bush Ted Cruz (trailing Trump in second place) is from Texas. Moreover, the candidate that finished 2nd place in the 2000 Iowa caucus was businessman Steve Forbes who, like Trump [never held elective office] hails from the great state of New York."
This morning I learned to my surprise that the Cruz campaign used the same playbook deployed by team Bush in Iowa in 2000, when Cruz was part of that team (see). And it worked brilliantly for Cruz as it did for Bush. But like Ronald Reagan in 1980, who missed the Iowa debate and finished second behind GHW Bush in the caucus (see), Donald Trump didn't need a victory yesterday to win the GOP nomination. Like Texas politician Bush in 1980 Texas Ted needed yesterday's stunning win to stay alive.
But Cruz's win reinforces my belief (rightly or wrongly) that the number "16" is a Providential Sign of coming victory for Republicans in November. Why? Because "16" is written all over Cruz's conservative campaign as it is Donald Trump's nationalist populism. Both Trump and Cruz seem to be assuring that a non-establishment politician like Ronald Reagan in 1980 is going to be the GOP nominee and take back the White House. My money is still on Trump. But if I'm wrong and Ted Cruz (or Rubio) goes on to beat him and win the prize that's fine with me. Cruz has always been my second choice. Just look at Cruz and the auspicious Republican number "16." It's astounding! Here's what I mean:
Cruz symbolically kicked off his presidential campaign on 3-23-2015-the fifth anniversary of Obama signing Obamacare into law (see). The sum of these seven digits is 16: 3+2+3+2+0+1+5 = 16.
From Cruz's birth on 12-22-1970 to 3-23-2015 is exactly, amazingly and perhaps meaningfully 16,162 days (see). This five digit number wherein 16 appears not once but TWICE is itself a variant of that number: 1+6+1+6+2 = 16
 From 3-23-2015 to 2-1-2016 (the Iowa caucus) is exactly 316 days     -the 16th number of the 300 series (see).
From the start of Cruz's career in the US Senate on 1-3-2013 to yesterday's caucus was exactly 160 weeks-160 is a multiple of 16 10x (see).
Also very peculiar is that while Cruz like every candidate of either party is striving to succeed the 44th president as the 45th, when Cruz started his campaign last year he was 44 years old; and then he turned 45 in December just in time for the Iowa caucus which, by the way, fell on the 45th week of his campaign (see). If Cruz should become the GOP nominee he will be 10 months into his 45th year on Election Day.
Not only is the number 16 significant to Trump and Cruz (as it is overarchingly for the Republican Party this 2016 election year*) but it's meaningful to Marco Rubio too-who finished 3rd in last night's contest just behind Donald Trump. 
*Abe Lincoln, the first Republican Party President, was our 16th pres.
Now like Ted Cruz the date Marco Rubio began his presidential campaign, 4-13-2015 (see), adds up to the number 16: 4+1+3+2+0+1+5 = 16.
Moreover, from the date of Rubio's birth on 5-28-1971 to the start of his presidential campaign was 16,027* days (see). Not only is this the 27th number of the 16, 000 series but it is a variant of the number 16: 1+6+0+2+7 = 16  
*An interesting coincidence: when Abe Lincoln, the 16th President, was sworn into office on March 4, 1861 he was in the 2716th week of his life (see).
And while Iowa landed on the 316th day of Cruz's campaign it fell on Rubio's 295th (see)-295 too is a variant of the number 16: 2+9+5 = 16.
Furthermore,  just as Cruz will be ten months into his 45th year on Election Day when the 45th president is decided Rubio, who is now 44, will be five months into his 45th year on Election Day. In fact, Rubio will be a total of 545 months old (see). But look at Donald Trump (see). On Election Day 2016 he will be 25,716 days old-which translates into 70 years,  4 months and 26 days-that equals 844 months and 26 days, or 845 months when rounded off to the nearest month.
Given the weakness of the Democrat field and the continued decline of our nation as we approach Election Day it's exceedingly difficult to imagine Hillary, Bernie or whoever defeating any one of the top three Republican candidates of yesterday's historic vote.
 The Most Depressing Thing I Ever Saw": I. Missouri Voters



In my piece Donald Trumpoleon (see) I pointed out the uncanny fact that from June 16th-the day Donald Trump kicked off his unpredictably so-far successful presidential run-the number 16 and its multiples (especially 32) have been strangely and consistently auspicious for him. And in this highly unusual election year of 2016, where Trump has defied the laws of political gravity and broken all the rules, he could very well become the next presidential candidate from New York after FDR (the 32nd President) to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
And now on this hugely important day of the Iowa caucuses (the first major electoral event of the nominating process for the President of the United States) things are looking brilliantly good for the GOP frontrunner-not just poll-wise, but in the oracular sense as well. For today the number 16 (and its multiples) is strongly in play as it has been throughout Trump's campaign. This is what I mean.
Today, February 1, 2016, the 32nd day of the year, is the last day of Trump's 32nd week running for office (see and see). Indeed, counting from June 16th to today is exactly 32 weeks and 6 days, or exactly 7 months and 16 days. Moreover, the precise number of days from June 16th to today is 230. What appears to be propitious for Trump about this number is that when multiplied by 84 it produces 19320-a five digit number encoded with the year 1932 when New York's governor FDR was elected 32nd President.
But there is more. FDR was elected on November 8th, the date of the 2016 election; and just as the number 230 yields 19320 when multiplied by 84, 84 when added to the year 1932 (when FDR crushed the hapless Herbert Hoover) brings us to this election year of 2016.
But I'm not done: the last time a Republican President when running in the primaries won the Iowa caucus was George W. Bush in 2000-that was exactly 16 years ago. It is also worth noting that like Bush, Trump was born in the year 1946 (22 days apart from Bush).
And while I'm on the subjects of George W. Bush and 1946 it is, I think, fascinating to note that 1. Bush's dad George H.W. was the last President to win office on a November 8th election date; and 2. Terry Branstad, Iowa's popular Republican governor who has held that position for 21 years (a national record), was also born in 1946     .
 Like George Bush Ted Cruz (trailing Trump in second place) is from Texas. Moreover, the candidate that finished 2nd place in the 2000 Iowa caucus was businessman Steve Forbes who, like Trump, hails from the great state of New York. But as Cruz has been working Iowa for over two years (see) giving him an advantage a strong second place showing by Trump would be a victory given how little time he's spent there.   
16x111 = 1776
The year of American Revolution.
16x120 = 1920
After two terms of Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson Republican Warren Harding is elected 29th President.
16x122 = 1952
32 years after Harding's election Republican Dwight Eisenhower was elected 34th President after two terms of Democrat President Harry Truman.
16x123 = 1968
After eight years of two Democrat Presidents (JFK and LBJ) Richard Nixon is elected 37th President.
16x125 = 2000
After two terms of Democrat Bill Clinton Republican George Bush is elected 43rd President.
So we see that four times in US history a Republican President succeeded eight years of Democrat administrations. The question now is will Donald Trump (or some other Republican candidate) be the 5th?
16x126 = 2016
The signs are looking very good.
let's not forget, 16 was the number of the first Republican President, Abe Lincoln.


< p style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: center; margin: 0px 0px 24px;">