What’s the difference between Hillary Clinton and neocons like Marco Rubio?
by Horatio Bunce
Your votes, your donations, your campaigning, following the delegate rules, signing the petitions – MEANS NOTHING. You have no “right” to vote in the private political club elections called “primaries” (just pay for them), and that is exactly why the Big Two “leadership” toss your votes in the trash and declare a winner by fiat.
A sample from the article linked above:
“Here’s what happened in precinct 2-4 in Ames as recounted by David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University who participated in the caucus (from The Des Moines Register):
A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).
Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.
Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.
Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.
A Clinton supporter correctly called “heads” on a quarter flipped in the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate.
Similar situations were reported elsewhere, including at a precinct in Des Moines, at another precinct in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch and in Davenport. In all five situations, Clinton won the toss.
When all was said and done, Clinton won six consecutive coin tosses which shouldn’t come as a surprise. Clinton’s pretty lucky when it comes to beating the odds as her cattle futures trading record makes abundantly clear.”
Don’t do it Charlie Brown. Lucy is telling you she IS going to pull away the football again.
Have you noticed the change in the big show this week? The conservative “news” is currently prepping you on a few fronts:
1. The “news” knows a secret. They tell you to expect a “surprise” on Monday. They won’t tell you what the secret is. I warned you there would be hijinks. They even trotted out Santorum and asked “remember how you won Iowa in 2012, we were so surprised!”. They barely remembered that they had dutifully reported that Romney “won” for a few weeks as the GOP lied about the results long enough for the tide to change into the New Hampshire primary. So, something “unexpected” has been pre-announced for you. How do you think they know that?
2. As of this week you are now being sold that Iowa Caucus goers are so unstable that many of them change their minds at the last second right there in the voting booth. This is to prep you to believe the “surprise” coming Monday that the “news” already seems to know about. Now, I am going to ask you to apply a little logic to this scenario. If the Iowa folks are so wishy-washy, can’t make up their mind, last second kneejerk voters, would the Iowa results have any real meaning to them? Are they even statistically valid? Wait and see what the “news” tells you about the “message” sent by Monday’s results from these same voters. It will “mean something” and you will be informed of who are now “losers” and you should jump ship soon.
3. Donald Trump is being called “childish”, “petulant”, “afraid of the voters”, “doing a disservice to the voters” etc. for not being willing to appear in the varsity debate tonight on Fox and for not taking up Cruz on his hair vs. hair (oh, wait that was a different Trump episode) $1.5M-for-the-veterans-one-on-one debate. For my Single Digit Jeb theory to prove true, Trump must crash. This tit-for-tat with “I’m an attorney” Kelly was set up months ago with their earlier spat – knowing the debate schedule – knowing she would be moderator just before Iowa – and give another nail in the Trump coffin. As CNN put it, you couldn’t ask for a better SET-UP *ding*ding*ding*ding*ding*. Laying out of this debate is just terrible and will surely affect the Iowa voters we are told……but at the same time the “news” seems to ignore that laying out of the last j.v. debate seemed to promote Rand Paul to prime time for this one didn’t it? Remember back to Lamar Alexander’s last primary campaign? Remember how he was too chicken to debate Joe Carr, acted like it was a waste of his time, beneath him or whatever? Where was all this “candidates owe it to the voters”, “don’t shy away from robust debate” talk from the “news” back then? Sorry, I’m not buying it.
4. You also have the recent endorsement of Trump by Sarah Palin. I believe this was done to hurt his general election polling numbers. This is also an indicator to me that Trump’s campaign is ultimately contrived. Palin was selling you her “Going Rogue” book, playing the anti-establishment game while simultaneously campaigning for John McCain – allegedly her arch enemy she was “going rogue” against… then later traveling to TN to go all Pay-triot for a $100k speaking fee to the Tea Party ™. So if Palin = Tea Party, shouldn’t she be endorsing Cruz? After all, the “news” informed us months ago he is the “darling of the tea party”.
5. Single Digit Jeb is now touted as moving into 2nd place in New Hampshire polling (ok one poll)….and his ads have changed from attacking Rubio to praising his own leadership qualities (but consistently neglect to mention his whole-hearted support of Common Core for some reason). This poll also purports to confirm the effect of Palin endorsing Trump.
“It’s difficult to pinpoint a reason for the former Florida governor’s sudden surge…”
Boy, it sure is! I mean, “nobody” could see that coming…
6. Glenn Beck endorses Ted Cruz and claims he (Glenn) is a “constitutionalist” now and we need to be wary of “anger” and “angry men” because that is not going to bring us success and isn’t very Christlike (because Glenn’s whole anti-establishment GOP Blaze thingy is supposed to appeal to the anti-establishment GOP/evangelical crowd – but never actually suggest any alternative to the GOP). I guess Glenn forgot all about endorsing Pre-Emptive Nuke Iran Santorum last time around. Now Glenn is a “constitutionalist” and we have to vote for the dual-citizenship Canadian for the sake of our children. I wonder why Glenn doesn’t know about the Constitution Party…
by Horatio Bunce
Jeb Bush gains some ground in GOP polls (of course he is…..)
“A recent Reuters poll shows him in third place, behind Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz. Two South Carolina polls support that, showing the one-time frontrunner gaining ground, even edging out Florida’s other favorite son, Sen. Marco Rubio. Just a month ago, Bush was in single digits. Some even began to count him out.”
Uh, I think you meant just yesterday he was in single digits. Remember that Gallup poll 10 whole days ago where Single Digit Jeb took honors for “least favorable candidate”?
But Justin Clark of Fort Myers has a theory. “People are looking toward more conventional candidates.“
Oh yeah…gimme that establishment GOP. No need for that double-speak “conventional” stuff.
“It probably has to do with he does have a lot of money backing him,” said Victoria Blaine.
No doubt, because you probably can’t find any actual voters backing him. Where ARE those JEB! stickers?
Have you noticed the game shift in the “news” this week? Trump constantly pitted vs. Cruz while Single Digit Jeb’s ads attack Rubio? Rubio? You mean third place Rubio? Yep. Not Cruz. Not Trump. Normally, I would have said fourth place Rubio, but since the last debate Ben Carson has officially been killed by the “news” and their new poll numbers.
“Bush will need to perform strong in the next GOP debate to continue his rise.”
Oh? Well, thanks for pre-announcing that Single Digit Jeb, while currently “least favorable” among Republican voters is automatically ACTUALLY IN the next debate already.
So Single Digit Jeb from seventh to third….just like that.
by Horatio Bunce
I have been telling friends and family for some time now that I expect the GOP to force Jeb Bush on the Republican faithful whether they want him or not. Most folks don’t believe it and point to Jeb’s perennially low, single-digit position in any poll of likely Republican voters and contrast that with the ongoing poll performance of Donald Trump/Ben Carson/Ted Cruz/Marco Rubio. Here’s my theory:
The “new” primary debate rules
I was expecting the GOP to field their usual, requisite array of primary candidates designed to appeal to various voter factions and people groups/single issue voters. The wash-rinse-repeat scenario goes like this:
1) The GOP consistently provides certain stereotype primary candidates for you to “identify” with, hoping you will warm up to the GOP brand (and donate!). These play certain specific roles, such as: war-hawk, the black guy, the female, the pro-amnesty, Hispanic-sympathizer, the fiscal money manager, the “evangelical candidate” with the new addition this cycle of “tea party darling” to head off you pesky constitutionalists that are not happy with business as usual but still believe in “reforming” your wife-beating husband called the GOP. Each of these candidates (except one) is fatally flawed by design so they will not run the distance, but you are supposed to stay loyal to the party brand despite this. Because after all, nobody is perfect, and the GOP nominee you are eventually to be force-fed sure isn’t your first, second or third choice.
2) Eventually your candidate is eliminated (by GOP hook or crook). Eventually, the GOP pre-selected nominee will emerge even though you don’t seem to know any supporters. They will have big donors from the beginning despite this. This is typically about the time your “conservative” news outlets begin to inform you that a vote for your favorite “wrong” Republican candidate equals a vote for the Democrat nominee (?). Or that your favorite “wrong” candidate isn’t polling high enough, doesn’t have a chance in the general election (while they also pre-announce the other side’s establishment candidate), etc. Or in more serious cases, they will begin name-calling them something other than Republican, such as a “libertarian isolationist” or “tea party candidate”. In this current cycle for example, if you are Bernie Sanders you are called a “socialist” instead of a Democrat. It may even be necessary to sabotage the Iowa Caucus to report a fraudulent “win” to kill momentum for the “wrong” candidates, as was done in 2012. This is all so you are mentally prepped to think the GOP really tried to give you a choice, but you need to be thinking about the “big picture” – which means keeping the GOP in power – and thus voting AGAINST the Democrat (because see, there are no alternatives to the Big Two – just ask them).
3) Eventually you are to resign your principles and be disgusted with their establishment nominee, yet remain loyal to the brand and then hold your nose and vote “so the Democrats don’t win” or “so they don’t get to pick the Supreme Court judges”. After months of hearing what a horrible candidate the Democrats support (or vice-versa) you Big Two supporters will be told despite this stupid nomination by the other side, it is now a neck-and-neck race, so “Friend, donate now to defeat Candidate X!” Suddenly “everyone” supports the emergent, stinking, establishment candidate – and you do too so you can “win”.
4) Nothing substantive changes. Banksters run roughshod with virtual printing of FRNs, foreign policy of undeclared war continues unabated, socialist security is still a ponzi scheme, budget deficits and can-kicking bailouts continue. More new boogie-men to be afraid of, liberties sacrificed for safety, etc. Globalist-R or Globalist-D makes no difference.
I found it really interesting that the GOP trotted out such a huge field of retread losers (Perry, Graham, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie) – while simultaneously announcing new “rules” for the primary debates, effectively giving you the illusion of choice, yet immediately telling you that your choice is varsity or j.v. by where they fall in the debate lineup – or whether you even see them on television. These debate lineups are to be based on polling data (those are always reliable right?). The large number made me suspicious of two things: first, that the establishment nominee was very unappealing to the average Republican voter – who is more tired than ever of establishment Republicans and second, that there may be a real, honest-to-goodness threat to the establishment in the field that has to be drowned out and marginalized with establishment-shill noise. Split the primary vote, split the donors, split those debate minutes into seconds. The legacy, big money and the die-hard minority establishment vote isn’t going anywhere. They are lifers. But you have to bust up the rest. The weak candidates will fall out and the establishment will be sustained by the legacy money. Jeb is easily recognized as nothing but establishment. The family tie, big Common Core promoter, CFR Independent Task Force co-chair. He is your globalist-R candidate (just like Hillary is the globalist-D candidate).
This extra attention to polling has made it even more interesting that Jeb continues to garner attention from the “news” when no one else seems interested in him. He has consistently placed in single digits in all polls. The only poll I have seen Jeb at the top of is the recent Iowa Caucus poll that asked “which candidate do you like the least?” I find this VERY interesting after Ron Paul’s previous campaigns where he consistently polled 12-14%, but was lambasted as having “no chance” and the name-calling was used by the “conservative news”. How in the world can these same “news” stooges keep talking up Single Digit Jeb? They tell us his primary campaign is broke…and then the next station break runs a PAC-funded ad for Single Digit Jeb. The current topics of “news” will seem to search out the opinion of Single Digit Jeb – despite his 7th place ranking in the polls. Interesting. The “news” has NEVER paid attention to anyone in the single digits like this. Don’t you wonder why? Hasn’t this always been an excuse in the past to stifle debate and eliminate the back-markers? I mean if less than 1% of Republicans want Lindsey Graham and he is in the debate, why not an actual different party candidate for once? Why are we limited to the Big Two and crap candidates that only single-digits of likely loyal party voters are interested in?
I ran across an interesting scorecard this week called the 2016 Endorsement Primary. It lists the current presidential candidates and gives points based on that candidate’s endorsements by incumbent Governors (10 points), U.S. Senators (5 points) and U.S. Representatives (1 point). Guess who is leading all Republicans in endorsements by the established Republicans? That’s right, Single Digit Jeb. He’s the establishment man. However, the number of endorsements is terribly low historically for this point in the campaign. Comparably, Hillary Clinton already has ten times the endorsements. Comparisons can also be made to previous presidential campaigns which is pretty interesting. Another notable: Neither Donald Trump nor Ben Carson have any Republican endorsements. I believe this is very telling – either for a shill or real-deal candidate. Don’t you find it strange that these “front-runner” men in the polls for months now have ZERO endorsements by incumbent Republicans?
The Iowa Deadline
Well, as you know, the cuts have been made in the debate lineup, narrowing the field – based on polling data we are told. We are less than thirty days away from the Iowa Caucus, and despite Single Digit Jeb being named the least liked Republican candidate in the polls, there he is on the varsity squad again – and of course there must be seven of them, since he is in seventh place. I am expecting some really interesting hi-jinks in the next 30 days. Certain “front-runners” are going to fall out suddenly. Watch for whom they endorse. This will be telling also. The design is for you to transfer your support with their endorsement – eventually backing the pre-selected nominee.
So Charlie Brown, do you want to try to kick the football again?
Just say no to neocons.
By Jay Polk
From the article: “This one involves Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who’s running on his tough-as-nails budget-cutting credentials. Come tomorrow, Walker will commit no less than $400 million of taxpayer money to a stadium deal to keep the NBA Bucks in Milwaukee:
The state would put $250 million toward the arena, with interest adding up over decades. The subsidy, approved last month with bipartisan support in Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature, wasn’t addressed in the first presidential debate Thursday. That might change in future forums—or attack ads.
That’s bad enough, of course. But what makes the situation even worse is that Walker is actually trying to sell it as something other [than] politically motivated corporate welfare of the basest sort:
Walker, 47, argues that the subsidy is a “good deal,” partly because Wisconsin would lose revenue if the Bucks leave, as they had threatened. The owners of the Bucks, a team whose value Forbes pegged at $600 million, will pick up half the cost of the $500 million arena.
You got that? A business worth $600 million doesn’t have the cash or the credit to build its own…palace (despite covering just half of costs, the Bucks will get virtually all revenue generated by venue forever and ever amen).”
And so it goes that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats on wasting your hard-earned money. Why do fiscal conservatives support Republicans again?
There are some in the community who think that everything on this website is written by me (Tona Monroe). That is not the case. This site was never intended to be a website solely with material written by me. I own domains with my name and could just as easily write the material there.
There are some in the community who think that I agree with everything written on this website. That is not the case either. My intention in creating this website was never to have complete and total agreement with every word posted here.
The litmus test for content on this website was never complete and total agreement with my views and is not the case now. My goals are to promote freedom and transparency in government. Those are the reasons why I started this website and why I continue publishing on this website. Those are also the reasons that I ran for office and what I hope to achieve while in office.
The content here is intended to be thought provoking while promoting freedom and openness in government. Everything that is posted here should no more be viewed as my opinions than letters to the editors are viewed as being the opinions of the editors at newspapers.
As I’ve said many times before and will continue saying, let freedom ring!
by Ron Paul
Last week, Retired General Wesley Clark, who was NATO commander during the US bombing of Serbia, proposed that “disloyal Americans” be sent to internment camps for the “duration of the conflict.” Discussing the recent military base shootings in Chattanooga, TN, in which five US service members were killed, Clark recalled the internment of American citizens during World War II who were suspected of having Nazi sympathies. He said: “back then we didn’t say ‘that was freedom of speech,’ we put him in a camp.”
He called for the government to identify people most likely to be radicalized so we can “cut this off at the beginning.” That sounds like “pre-crime”!
Gen. Clark ran for president in 2004 and it’s probably a good thing he didn’t win considering what seems to be his disregard for the Constitution. Unfortunately in the current presidential race Donald Trump even one-upped Clark, stating recently that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is a traitor and should be treated like one, implying that the government should kill him.
These statements and others like them most likely reflect the frustration felt in Washington over a 15 year war on terror where there has been no victory and where we actually seem worse off than when we started. The real problem is they will argue and bicker over changing tactics but their interventionist strategy remains the same.
Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, who was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, told al-Jazeera this week that US drones create more terrorists than they kill. He said: “The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just … fuels the conflict.”
Still Washington pursues the same strategy while expecting different results.
It is probably almost inevitable that the warhawks will turn their anger inward, toward Americans who are sick of the endless and costly wars. The US loss of the Vietnam war is still blamed by many on the protesters at home rather than on the foolishness of the war based on a lie in the first place.
Let’s hope these threats from Clark and Trump are not a trial balloon leading to a clampdown on our liberties. There are a few reasons we should be concerned. Last week the US House passed a bill that would allow the Secretary of State to unilaterally cancel an American citizen’s passport if he determines that person has “aided” or “abetted” a terrorist organization. And as of this writing, the Senate is debating a highway funding bill that would allow the Secretary of State to cancel the passport of any American who owes too much money to the IRS.
Canceling a passport means removing the right to travel, which is a kind of virtual interment camp. The person would find his movements restricted, either being prevented from leaving or entering the United States. Neither of these measures involves any due process or possibility of appeal, and the government’s evidence supporting the action can be kept secret.
We should demand an end to these foolish wars that even the experts admit are making matters worse. Of course we need a strong defense, but we should not provoke the hatred of others through drones, bombs, or pushing regime change overseas. And we must protect our civil liberties here at home from government elites who increasingly view us as the enemy.
Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Read online: http://bit.ly/1fyJgMe
” …the GOP-led Congress is now funding Obamacare just as much as the divided Congress did before, and now debt-ceiling deadlines are occasions not for the meaningful possibility of restraining Leviathan, but for quick rubber stamps. It will be fascinating to see what kind of federal budget the party plops on President Barack Obama’s desk.”
1. The Libertarian Party supports all of your freedoms, all of the time
2. The Libertarian Party is consistent and principled
3. Voting for old party politicians tells them that you want to keep government big
4. Voting Libertarian is the only clear message you can send
5. Voting Libertarian forces the old parties to take the libertarian positions
6. Because the old parties don’t want you to
7. Voting Libertarian helps your favorite “libertarian-leaning“ old party politician
For great explanations to each of these reasons, click the link above or here.