Being fat does NOT kill you

An absolutely fascinating study just out in JAMA. Those authoritarian Swedes with their detailed tracking of their population have made possible what would normally be an almost inconceivable study of obesity.  They have done a study which controls for genetic factors.  There are lots of twin registers around but Sweden has such a big one that the researchers were able to look for a needle in a haystack and find it.

They wanted to find not only identical twins with obesity but twins where one was much fatter than the other. As soon as I saw that design, I scoffed mentally and said they would be lucky to find half a dozen of those -- a completely useless sample size.  But because the researchers were looking at a nationwide database, they found, not half a dozen suitable pairs but 4046:  A brilliant sample size that allows great confidence in the results.  Most unusual in medical research.

The full results are below and they are striking.  Decades of medical wisdom have been knocked into a cocked hat.  With twins you have the perfect controls.  Whatever you find is NOT genetic.  It is due to lifestyle and environment.  So this data is miles more conclusive than all previous studies of the question.  And there was NO difference in lifespan or heart attacks according to how fat you were.  Even if you ate your head off all your life, you lived just as long as if you had adopted a so-called "healthy" diet.  I have been saying for a long time that there is no such thing as a "healthy" diet and this is strong reinforcement of that view.

The fatties in the study WERE slightly more likely to get diabetes but there has long been an association between over-eating and diabetes so that is not too surprising.  You can mostly control diabetes just by eating less. The important thing is that the diabetes did NOT kill them.

So this stuy is a body-blow to the obesity "war".  We have the strongest evidence possible that obesity does not kill you.  So what will be the outcome?  Will articles about diet vanish from our newspapers?

Thay should vanish.  But they won't.  The study will be tucked into the back of the minds of a lot of obesity researchers but nothing will change overnight.  The obesity "war" will go on as before.  Eventually, however, some notice will be taken of the study.  Researchers will mention it and GPs will learn of it and patients with weight concerns will be quietly assured that they don't have to be too bothered about their weight.  There will always be social reasons to stay slim -- fat is unattractive -- but medical reasons will be downplayed.


Risks of Myocardial Infarction, Death, and Diabetes in Identical Twin Pairs With Different Body Mass Indexes

Peter Nordström et al.

ABSTRACT

Importance:  Observational studies have shown that obesity is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death. The extent of genetic confounding in these associations is unclear.

Objective:  To compare the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), type 2 diabetes, and death in monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs discordant for body mass index (BMI).

Design, Setting, and Participants:  A cohort of 4046 MZ twin pairs with discordant BMIs (difference >0.01) was identified using the nationwide Swedish twin registry. The study was conducted from March 17, 1998, to January 16, 2003, with follow-up regarding incident outcomes until December 31, 2013.

Main Outcomes and Measures:  The combined primary end point of death or MI and the secondary end point of incident diabetes were evaluated in heavier compared with leaner twins in a co-twin control analysis using multivariable conditional logistic regression.

Results:  Mean (SD) baseline age for both cohorts was 57.6 (9.5) years (range, 41.9-91.8 years). During a mean follow-up period of 12.4 (2.5) years, 203 MIs (5.0%) and 550 deaths (13.6%) occurred among heavier twins (mean [SD] BMI, 25.9 [3.6] [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]) compared with 209 MIs (5.2%) and 633 deaths (15.6%) among leaner twins (mean [SD] BMI, 23.9 [3.1]; combined multivariable adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91). Even in twin pairs with BMI discordance of 7.0 or more (mean [SE], 9.3 [0.7]), where the heavier twin had a BMI of 30.0 or more (n = 65 pairs), the risk of MI or death was not greater in heavier twins (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.18). In contrast, in the total cohort of twins, the risk of incident diabetes was greater in heavier twins (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.61-2.84). Finally, increases in BMI since 30 years before baseline were not associated with the later risk of MI or death (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05) but were associated with the risk of incident diabetes (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26).

Conclusions and Relevance:  In MZ twin pairs, higher BMI was not associated with an increased risk of MI or death but was associated with the onset of diabetes. These results may suggest that lifestyle interventions to reduce obesity are more effective in decreasing the risk of diabetes than the risk of cardiovascular disease or death.

JAMA Intern Med. Published online August 01, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4104

******************************

Vegetarians live longer but what does that tell us?

Nothing basically.  It has long been known that Seventh Day Adventists, who are mostly vegetarians, live longer. But why?  It could be that a strong religious commitment has a destressing effect or it could be that they also deplore smoking. Or it could be that they spend time in church instead of doing dangerous sports.  Church is a pretty safe place. So you just can't disentangle cause and effect in the case of the Adventists.

So it is no surprise that a new study just out --  Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality by Song et al. -- also tells us that vegetarians live longer.  Their data was from two high quality U.S. databases but they appear not to have bothered at all with controls.

And you can understand why.  Vegetarians will mostly be health conscious people with strong will-power and such people will undoubtedly engage in a range of safer behaviors -- smoking less, avoiding dangerous drugs, exercising more, driving more slowly, climbing fewer mountains etc, etc.  And all those things could contribute to a longer lifespan.  Vegetarianism may be only the indicator, not the cause -- JR.

*****************************

Dick Morris Corrects the Record on Hillary Clinton

Dick Morris is a nationally recognized political campaign adviser, analyst and author. He was the senior political adviser to Bill Clinton before and after his occupation of the White House. He was campaign manager of Clinton's 1996 re-election, and the architect of his successful "triangulation" rhetorical ruse. Clinton's communications director George Stephanopoulos said of Morris, "No single person had more power over [Bill Clinton]."

This week, in a message entitled "What Bill Left Out, Morris corrected the record regarding Clinton's glowing remarks about Hillary Clinton, her personal attributes and professional achievements. Morris's insights into the Clintons are priceless.

What follows is a transcript of Morris's comments:

"Bill Clinton talked at length about Hillary's idealistic work in college and law school, but he omits that she was defending the Black Panthers who killed security guards; they were on trial in New Haven. She monitored the trial while she was in law school to find evidence that could be grounds for reversal in the event they were convicted.

"That summer she went to work for the True-Haft (SP) law firm in CA, headed by True Haft who is the head of the CA Communist Party and that's when she got involved with Saul Alinsky, who became something of a mentor for the rest of her life.

"Then Bill says that she went off to Massachusetts and he went to Arkansas, and eventually Hillary followed her heart to join him in Arkansas. He omits that she went to work for the Watergate Committee and was fired from that job for taking home evidence and hiding documents that they needed in the impeachment inquiry. Then she took the DC Bar exam and flunked it, she went to Arkansas because that is the only bar exam she could pass.

"He talked about how in the 1970's she took all kinds of pro-bono cases to defend women and children. In her memoirs, she cites one which was a custody case and that's it. In fact, in 1975 she represented a guy accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and got him off by claiming the girl had had fantasies of sex with an older man. In 1980 she gave an interview about it and she joked that she knew the guy was guilty but got him off anyway.

"Then Bill discusses Hillary's legal career at the Rose Law firm. He doesn't mention that she made partner when he was elected governor and was only hired when he got elected as attorney general.

"He makes as if it was a public service job — it wasn't. Her main job was to get state business, and she got tens-of-millions of dollars of state business, then hid her participation and the fees by taking an extra share of non-state business to compensate for the fees on state business that she brought in. Her other job was to call the state banking commissioner any time one of her banks got into trouble to get them off.

"Bill speaks at length how Hillary was a mother, juggling career and family, taking Chelsea to soccer games and stuff — that's non-sense. Hillary was a mother but Chelsea in the Arkansas governor's mansion had a staff of nannies and agents to drive her around and people to be with her, and Hillary didn't have to bother with any of that. All of that was paid for by the state.

"He says she became the warrior in chief over the family finances and that was true, and the result is she learned how to steal.

"She accepted a $100,000 bribe from the poultry industry in return for Bill going easy on regulating them, despite new standards. Jim Blair, the poultry lobbyist, gave her $1,000 to invest in the Futures Market and lined up seven to eight other investors and their winnings were all deposited into Hillary's account. She made $100,000 in a year and she was out. That essentially was a bribe.

"[She did] a phony real-estate deal for Jim McDougal and the Madison Bank to deceive the federal regulators by pretending someone else was buying the property. She was called before a grand jury in 1995 about that but, conveniently, the billing records were lost, couldn't be found and there wasn't proof that she worked on it.

"Bill talks about her work on the health care task force but doesn't say the reason it didn't pass was the task force was discredited because the meetings were all held in secret. A federal judge forced them open and fined the task force several hundred thousand dollars because of their secrecy.

"He says that after the health care bill failed in 1994, Hillary went to work on adopting each piece of it piecemeal — mainly health insurance for children.

"That is completely the opposite of the truth. The fact is when that bill failed, I called Hillary and I suggested that she support a proposal by Republican Bob Dole that we cover children, and she said, 'We can't just cover one part of this. You have to change everything or change nothing.' Then in 1997 when I repeated that advice to Bill Clinton, we worked together to pass the Children's Health Insurance Program. I found a lot of the money for that in the tobacco settlement that my friend Dick Scruggs was negotiating.

"Then Bill extols her record in the U.S. Senate. In fact, she did practically nothing. There were seven or eight bills that she introduced that passed; almost all of were symbolic — renaming a courthouse, congratulating a high school team on winning the championship. There was only one vaguely substantive bill, and that had a lot of co-sponsors of whom Hillary was just one.

"Then he goes to her record in the State Department and manages to tell that story without mentioning the word Benghazi, without mentioning her secret emails, without mentioning he was getting tens of millions — $220 million in speaking fees in return for favorable actions by the State Department.

"Also totally lacking in the speech was anything about the war on terror — terror is a word you don't hear at the Democratic Convention.

"Bill says that Hillary passed tough sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program. The opposite is true.

"Every time a tough sanction bill was introduced by Senators Menendez or Kirk, Hillary would send Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman to Capital Hill to testify against it and urge it not to pass, and it was over Hillary's objections that those sanctions were put into place.

"[Liberal columnist] Maureen Dowd called the speech by Bill Clinton "air brushed."

"It was a hell of a lot more than that — it was fiction".

SOURCE

****************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice

A Message For Christians About Donald Trump

Wayne Grudem

Some of my Christian friends tell me they can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump because, when faced with a choice between “the lesser of two evils,” the morally right thing is to choose neither one. They recommend voting for a third-party or write-in candidate.

As a professor who has taught Christian ethics for 39 years, I think their analysis is incorrect. Now that Trump has won the GOP nomination, I think voting for Trump is a morally good choice.

American citizens need patience with each other in this difficult political season. Close friends are inevitably going to make different decisions about the election. We still need to respect each other and thank God that we live in a democracy with freedom to differ about politics. And we need to keep talking with each other – because democracies function best when thoughtful citizens can calmly and patiently dialog about the reasons for their differences. This is my contribution to that discussion.

A good candidate with flaws

I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.

I did not support Trump in the primary season. I even spoke against him at a pastors’ conference in February. But now I plan to vote for him. I do not think it is right to call him an “evil candidate.” I think rather he is a good candidate with flaws.

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made. I think he is deeply patriotic and sincerely wants the best for the country. He has been an unusually successful problem solver in business. He has raised remarkable children. Many who have known him personally speak highly of his kindness, thoughtfulness, and generosity. But the main reason I call him “a good candidate with flaws” is that I think most of the policies he supports are those that will do the most good for the nation.

Seek the good of the nation

Should Christians even try to influence elections at all? Yes, definitely. The apostle Peter says Christians are “exiles” on this earth (1 Peter 1:1). Therefore I take seriously the prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation to the Jewish people living in exile in Babylon:

“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).

By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will “seek the welfare” of the United States. Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?

If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?

Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more control over our lives. But this can change. This year we have an unusual opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism that she champions. I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action. Therefore I feel the force of the words of James: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).

Some may feel it is easier just to stay away from this messy Trump-Clinton election, and perhaps not even vote. But the teachings of Scripture do not allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do nothing. The prophet Obadiah rebuked the people of the Edom for standing by and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem: “On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that . . . foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them.” (Obadiah 1:11).

I am writing this article because I doubt that many “I can’t vote for Trump” Christians have understood what an entirely different nation would result from Hillary Clinton as president, or have analyzed in detail how different a Trump presidency would be.

Freedom for Christian influence in politics

Significantly, Trump has pledged to work to repeal the 1954 Johnson Amendment to the IRS code, which has been used for 62 years as a threat to silence pastors from speaking about political issues, for fear of losing their tax-exempt status. This would be a great victory for freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

In short, a Trump-appointed Supreme Court, together with dozens of lower court judges appointed by him, would probably result in significant advances in many of the policy areas important to Christians. It would also open the door to huge expansion of influence for the many Christian lobbying groups known as “family policy councils” in various states, especially enabling them to work for further legal protections for life, for marriage and family, and for religious liberty.

How can we know that Trump won’t change his mind?

“But Trump has changed his mind in the past,” a politically-minded friend said to me. “How do you know that he will do what he has promised? Maybe he’ll betray you and appoint a liberal Supreme Court justice.”

My reply is that we can never know the future conduct of any human being with 100% certainty, but in making an ethical decision like this one, we should base the decision on the most likely results. In this case, the most likely result is that Trump will do most or all of what he has said.

In the history of American politics, candidates who have been elected president have occasionally changed their minds on one or another issue while in office, but no president has ever gone back on most of what he has promised to do, especially on issues that are crucially important in the election. In this election, it is reasonable to think that the most likely result is that both Trump and Clinton will do what they have promised to do. That is the basis on which we should decide how to vote.

And notice how Trump has changed his mind. He continues to move in a more conservative direction, as evidenced by his list of judges and his choice for vice president. Just as he succeeded in business by listening to the best experts to solve each problem, I suspect that he has been learning from the best experts in conservative political thought and has increasingly found that conservative solutions really work. We should applaud these changes.

His choice of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his vice presidential running mate is an especially significant indication that he will govern as a conservative. Trump could have picked a moderate but instead picked a lifelong solid conservative who is a thoughtful, gracious policy wizard. Pence is a lawyer and former talk radio host who served 12 years in Congress and had significant congressional leadership positions, so he will be immensely helpful in working with Congress. He is a committed evangelical Christian. He is a former board member of the Indiana Family Institute, a conservative Christian lobbying group in Indiana.

Does character matter?

“But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.

In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.

To my friends who tell me they won’t vote for Trump because there is a chance he won’t govern at all like he promises, I reply that all of American presidential history shows that that result is unlikely, and it is ethically fallacious reasoning to base a decision on assuming a result that is unlikely to happen.

Consider instead the most likely results. The most likely result of voting for Trump is that he will govern the way he promises to do, bringing much good to the nation.

But the most likely result of not voting for Trump is that you will be abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death under Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court, thousands of Christians who will be excluded from their lifelong occupations, thousands of the poor who will never again be able to find high-paying jobs in an economy crushed by government hostility toward business, thousands of inner-city children who will never be able to get a good education, thousands of the sick and elderly who will never get adequate medical treatment when the government is the nation’s only healthcare provider, thousands of people who will be killed by an unchecked ISIS, and millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies. And you will be contributing to a permanent loss of the American system of government due to a final victory of unaccountable judicial tyranny.

When I look at it this way, my conscience, and my considered moral judgment tell me that I must vote for Donald Trump as the candidate who is most likely to do the most good for the United States of America.

More HERE

**********************************

Hungary's PM On Hillary's Foreign Policy: 'Bad For Europe, And Deadly For Hungary'

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban voiced support Saturday for Trump's stances on foreign policy and migration. He said Clinton and the Democrats' policies would hurt Europe.

Orban is the first leader in the European Union to show preference for either candidate in the 2016 U.S. election. A conservative known for his position on immigration, Orban did not support the EU's plans to resettle thousands of refugees.

The Guardian quoted Orban explaining his position on the American political parties and their policies:

“The Democrats’ foreign policy is bad for Europe, and deadly for Hungary,” he said. “The migration and foreign policy advocated by the Republican candidate, Mr Trump, is good for Europe and vital for Hungary.”

Clinton and the Democrats have praised illegal immigrants and avoided mentioning ISIS during the DNC this week. Orban stated that Trump's stance against terrorism was also good for Europe.

Orban cited the Democrats' support for immigration and "export of democracy," and Trump's stance against such policies, as reasons for Hungary's interests aligning with the Republican presidential nominee's.

Orban explained in a Budapest radio interview in June that the export of democracy is using a country's "own democracy to bring happiness to people from different cultural backgrounds." According to Orban this foreign policy practiced by Europe has led to "catastrophe" in Iraq, Syria, and Lybia.

Like Trump, Orban strongly opposes illegal immigration, and has built a fence to defend the southern border of Hungary.

SOURCE

****************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Welcome to the Communist Party, U.S.A.

Wearing a white pantsuit, Hillary Clinton plodded out on stage to accept the nomination that she had schemed, plotted, lied, cheated, rigged and eventually fixed a series of elections to obtain.

Then she claimed that she was accepting the nomination of a race she had rigged with "humility”.

Humility is not the first word that comes to mind when thinking of Hillary Clinton. It is not even the last word. It is not in the Hillary dictionary at all. But this convention was a desperate effort to humanize Hillary. Everyone, including her philandering husband and dilettante daughter, down to assorted people she had met at one point, were brought up on stage to testify that she really is a very nice person.

This wasn't a convention. It was a series of character witnesses for a woman with no character. It was an extensive apology for the Left's radical agenda cloaked in fake patriotism and celebrity adulation.

Sinclair Lewis famously said, "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross". More accurately, when Communism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. That's what the Democratic National Convention was.

This night presented Hillary Clinton as all things to all people. She was a passionate fighter who found plenty of time to spend with her family. She is for cops and for cop-killers. She likes the Founding Fathers and political correctness. She wants Democrats to be the party of working people and of elitist government technocrats. And, most especially, she cares about people like you.

The convention, like everything about Hillary, was awkward and insincere.

There was Bernie glaring into the camera just as Hillary was thanking him for rallying a bunch of young voters whom she hoped to exploit. There was Chelsea Clinton reminding everyone that the Clintons are a dynasty and that everyone in it gets a job because of their last name, right before introducing her mother whose only real qualification for her belated entry into politics was her last name. And there was Jennifer Granholm who got an opportunity to have an incoherent public meltdown at the convention.

There's the mandatory video explaining how Hillary Clinton personally hunted down Osama bin Laden while sitting in a chair. "She's carrying the hope and the rage of an entire nation,” Morgan Freeman intones. Coming in November 2016. And Hillary Clinton will be played by Meryl Streep. Donald Trump is compared to Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It's rather obvious even to the handful of Hillary supporters that their candidate fits the Ratched role much better than Trump does.

The audience was told incessantly that Hillary Clinton loves small children. Once would have been enough. Twice would have been enough. By the millionth repetition, it seems more like Hillary is the witch trying to lure children into her gingerbread house.

Helping out with that task were a continuing parade of young female celebrities. If you thought that Elizabeth Banks and Lena Dunham were awkward, just wait for Katy Perry and Chloe Moretz urging their cohort to go out there and vote for Hillary right after a bunch of ex-military people claim that the woman who helped ISIS take over two countries and the Muslim Brotherhood even more countries than that will be good for national security.

General John Allen, formerly of the Marine Corps, currently employed by Qatar's pet Brookings think tank, insisted that only Hillary Clinton could defeat ISIS. That's like saying that only Mrs. O'Leary's cow could put out the Great Chicago Fire which she started. Furthermore Qatar played a major role in the expansion of Islamic terrorism that helped culminate in the current crisis.

There were treasonous Republicans, confused celebrities and a weirdly lifelike Nancy Pelosi. There was yet another New York politician likely to be indicted, Andy Cuomo, trying much too hard. But topping them all was Hillary Clinton who was in her manic mode, trying too hard to be human, and failing.

Eyes wide, looking suspiciously from side to side, shrilly barking lines into the microphone that stripped them of their emotional context, Hillary delivered both sides of her personality in one speech.

And both sides of her agenda.

The radical agenda of the Left was clumsily cloaked in references to the Founding Fathers. The same group of people whose names the Left want to see ground into the dirt. Hillary's call for collectivism, the insistence that none of us can do anything as individuals, was dressed up in E Pluribus Unum and the Founding Fathers.

Sinclair Lewis was almost right. When Communism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag.

The old Elizabeth Warren-Barack Obama theme of "You didn't build that” had become Hillary's theme once again. No one does anything on their own. It takes a village of bloated bureaucrats to do anything. And Hillary has to be appointed to run this village of bloated bureaucrats who, like her, never actually do anything but sing their own praises and then give themselves pay raises and more power to abuse.

Donald Trump, we are told, is a terrible person who actually believes in individualism. While good progressives like Hillary know that individualism is a pernicious lie told by running dog capitalists.

And Hillary will be a "a President for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents”. She'll be such a good president that we won't even need elections anymore. Just like the Democrats dispensed with them. There will just be one "village” under Hillary and Huma and the rest of their ridiculous neo-Reds.

Then Hillary will fix the economy by banning people from giving money to Republicans and promoting voter fraud. She will legalize illegal aliens to "grow our economy” by destroying still more American jobs. And she will see to it that companies "share profits” to working people. And by working people, she means the Clintons. College will be free. And the "super-rich” will pay for it all.

The "super-rich” are the really rich. Not flat broke paupers like the Clintons.

Half of Hillary's new positions were things that she had rejected as too radical when Bernie proposed them. Now they're not too radical anymore. Because the Democrats always keep turning Left.

Yesterday's crazy radical idea is tomorrow's Democratic slogan. Yesterday's Alinsky disciple is tomorrow's moderate Democrat. Yesterday's Communist notion is tomorrow's DNC speech.

And so Hillary Clinton embraced wealth redistribution and re-appropriation from people who aren't her. She embraced it with verve and gusto. She pushed Communism dressed up in references to the Founding Fathers. It takes a village to take away all our political and economic freedoms.

Bernie Sanders lost, but he won. Or rather it didn't matter which of them won since they both shared the same radical agenda. The only difference was that Bernie was willing to be honest about it.

Hillary wasn't. Until now.

This was a speech that could have been given in Moscow during the Cold War. Instead it was delivered to an enthusiastic audience of Democrats who love the idea of taking away someone else's money. Beneath all the distractions, the celebrities and family stories, is the fundamental idea that Hillary has more of a right to your money than you do because she is "humbly” more enlightened than you are.

There's a name for that ideology. It comes with a hammer and sickle, with the color red, with gulags and firing squads, with little red books and big black prisons, and the death of the human soul.

Hillary made a mistake by wearing a white pants suit to her coronation. She should have worn red.

SOURCE

*******************************

Democrat dreams

Very close to Communism

The Republicans spent their week in Cleveland talking about terrorism and the lack of jobs around the country. Democrats spent much more energy in Philadelphia talking about confiscating gun rights and letting men in my daughter’s bathroom. Curiously, the Democrats did spend a lot more time talking about God than the GOP did.

On Wednesday night, President Obama gave a stirring address that, in part, was the Republican response to Donald Trump. In part it was a stirring defense of progressivism. But like Bill Clinton totally skipping the year 1998 in his speech, Barack Obama totally skipped over the lack of economic growth during his entire tenure in office. Yes, unemployment is down. But that has more to do with people giving up looking for jobs than with new jobs being created.

Along the way, when Democrats were not talking about taking away guns or trying to justify the murder of police or ignoring the growing terrorist threats at home and abroad, they stuck to a common theme. The Democrats have discovered a new right. It is the right of people to live a certain lifestyle at a certain income if people work forty hours a week.

It sounds like a wonderful idea. Why shouldn’t Americans be guaranteed a certain level of income for hard work? If you disagree with the idea, you might just be a cruel and heartless person. Well, put me in the cruel and heartless camp. The bumper sticker idea will have long range and terrible consequences.

First, life is not fair. The Democrats are championing this idea to gloss over the fact that their ideas have caused economic stagnation. Instead of allowing the private sector to thrive, they just want to raise taxes from the successful and give to those who are not successful. But life is inherently not fair. Some people will always have better jobs and some people will make better life choices.

Second, this is welfare disguised. By the 1990s — when Bill Clinton was president — we learned that some people could get comfortable living on a welfare check and checked out of work. Their children spiraled into a cycle of dependency and poverty. In Genesis, God put Adam and Eve to work in the garden. There is something soul nourishing about work. When we all get to Heaven we will all have jobs. Getting people comfortable not working sucks their souls away and destroys their families.

But putting people to work and guaranteeing them a lifestyle does much the same. It encourages complacency and saps the desire to get ahead for many people. The reality is that many people can be given incentive to smother their ambitions. Guarantee a roof over their heads, enough money for cable television, and watch as they never strive to do better. Then watch as their children, likewise, accept complacency.

Frankly, it is more immoral to set a floor of income and lifestyle below which someone cannot fall because it provides too many disincentives for too many people to never even try to get off the floor. Democrats claim we should do this for moral and compassionate reasons. The reality is that we should avoid doing it for moral and compassionate reasons.

The well-worn saying about teaching a man to fish versus giving him fish plays directly into why this new idea is terrible. In addition to it being completely outside the history of the world and terrible economics, it will create a new culture of dependency.

Third, we do not have the money. When Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty the national debt was less than $360 billion. By the time President Obama leaves office it will be $22 trillion. Taking from the successful to redistribute to those at the bottom of the economic ladder sounds compassionate and caring. But it will break the bank and take away any incentive for the top to keep generating tax revenue and the bottom to ever get off the floor.

SOURCE

***************************

Trump joke about Russia sends the DNC convention into a spin

Trump plotting with Vladimir Putin? International intrigue. Hacked servers. And perfect timing for releasing the DNC emails onto Wikileaks — changing the focus of the convention and breeding disunity among Democrats.

For months, Democrats and the media have been telling Americans Trump doesn't have the contacts or expertise to operate a robust foreign policy.

Now, with the biggest stage they've had, they've reversed course and turned Trump into a Machiavellian mastermind on the world stage — who deftly manipulates events with the craftiness of Iago.

It is impossible that Democrats wanted to spend their convention talking about nutty conspiracy theories making their opponent look like an evil genius all to explain their devastating email security issues — and why they're suddenly losing in the polls.

Yet here we are. Apparently, the D in DNC is for desperation. The next you know they'll be questioning Trump's birth certificate.

In the meantime, once again the focus is on Trump — and Clinton's emails. This helps Clinton how?

SOURCE

**********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Condemning Republicans, Cheering Democrats: The Media’s Biased 2016 Convention Coverage

With both the Republican and Democratic conventions now concluded, it’s time to judge the news media on how fairly they covered the two parties. Media Research Center analysts looked at various aspects of coverage, all of which demonstrate that journalists obviously favored the Democratic gathering.

By a 12-to-1 margin, journalists spent far more time deriding the Republican convention for its negativity, even as their reactions to Democratic speakers were consistently positive and often enthusiastic. Cable news had its own unique biases: MSNBC carved out time on each night of the GOP convention for interviews with top Democratic officials, but — despite promises to the contrary — aired no such interviews with Republicans during the Democratic convention. Meanwhile, CNN devoted more than an hour of airtime during the Democratic convention to airing 18 party-produced videos, but only included three such videos during the GOP convention.

Here are details of our research evaluating the convention coverage, with special thanks to MRC analysts Matthew Balan, Mike Ciandella, Nicholas Fondacaro, Curtis Houck and Scott Whitlock.

 *  Double standard on convention videos: During the Republican convention, CNN’s primetime (8pm to midnight, ET) coverage included just three RNC-produced videos totalling a bit more than 14 minutes of airtime: a non-partisan tribute to the Apollo 11 mission; a video narrated by Lynne Patton telling how she was helped by the Trump family; and the six-minute Thursday night biography of Donald Trump shown in advance of his acceptance speech. CNN skipped videos on important topics such as the Benghazi attack and the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious scandal, instead airing journalist panel discussions.

But during the Democratic convention, CNN chose to air 18 of the Democrats’ videos, six times more party videos than they aired during the GOP convention. Included in those that made the cut on CNN: two “Funny or Die” videos mocking Donald Trump’s policies, and several “Trump In His Own Words” videos criticizing the GOP candidate’s controversial statements. In addition, CNN showed the party-produced videos introducing speakers including Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, President Obama, and the nearly 12-minute video for Hillary Clinton that aired on the final night of the convention.

The total airtime for Democratic videos shown during CNN’s primetime coverage: 62 minutes, or more than four times the 14 minutes of airtime given to Republican videos during the same time slot the prior week.

 *  Double standard on giving free airtime to the opposition: During the first night of the Republican convention, CBS’s 10pm ET primetime coverage included a four-minute long segment of an interview of Hillary Clinton, during which Rose invited Clinton to bash her Republican opponent, asking if Donald Trump was “the most dangerous man ever to run for President of the United States?”

But during their primetime coverage of the Democratic convention, CBS included no interviews with Republicans so they could bash Hillary Clinton.

Similarly, MSNBC’s primetime coverage (8pm to midnight ET) of the GOP convention included five interviews with elected Democrats: Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Tim Ryan (D-OH) on Monday, July 18; Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on Tuesday, July 19; Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on Wednesday, July 20; and Senator Al Franken (D-MN) on Thursday, July 21.

None of the Democratic interlopers missed a chance to take shots at the GOP. Schiff was brought on board a few minutes after Pat Smith spoke about the loss of her son in Benghazi. “We’ve never politicized a tragedy like this,” Schiff claimed, “and I just think it really is unfortunate to bring a grieving woman before the convention this way.”

Later in the week, Senator McCaskill condemned the GOP program as “very dark and angry, and mostly fact-free,” points echoed the next day by Senator Franken, who blasted the convention as “very ugly.”

Setting up his interview with Representative Ryan, anchor Brian Williams explained that “we like to bring in the other side, as in fairness we’ll be doing when it’s the Democrats’ turn.” But that wasn’t true: during all four nights of the Democratic convention, MSNBC’s 8pm to midnight coverage included absolutely no interviews with any Republicans.

 *  Double standard on complaining about negative rhetoric: During the first two days of the Democratic convention, various speakers called Donald Trump a con man, a fraud, a bigot, and a racist; someone who “cheats students, cheats investors, cheats workers,” who “rejects science” and would take America “back to the dark days when women died in back alleys.” Trump’s policies and rhetoric was described as “cruel,” “frightening,” “deceitful,” “deeply disturbing” and “ugly.” He was someone who promoted “racial hatred,” who had “hate in their heart,” and was “making America hate again.”

But while the media routinely attacked the Republicans during the GOP convention for negative attacks on Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ attacks on Trump were given a pass. MRC studied ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC’s coverage from 9pm to midnight during the first two nights of each convention. During the GOP convention, journalists scolded the Republicans for negativity 63 times; for the same time period during the Democratic convention, viewers heard only five such comments from reporters, a more than 12-to-1 disparity.

A few examples: CBS’s Bob Schieffer on July 19 said Clinton had been “accused of everything from a ‘who’d a thought it’ to the diphtheria epidemic.” On NBC, Tom Brokaw said the convention was trying to “work up a big hate for Hillary.” On MSNBC, Chris Matthews called the convention a “festival of hating Hillary tonight, this brewing up of almost a witch-like ritual tonight,” adding the words “bloodthirsty” and “blood curdling” to describe the delegates’ reaction to Chris Christie’s speech.

During the Democratic convention, the references to negativity were far fewer and much milder. CNN’s Gloria Borger on July 25 pointed out that speakers were “belittling and making fun of Donald Trump a lot tonight.” On MSNBC the next night, regular panelist Steve Schmidt, a former GOP campaign consultant, said there had been “real tough blows tonight on Donald Trump,” for the purpose of “the destruction of Donald Trump’s character.”

 *  Gushing over Democratic speeches while panning the GOP: In addition to the supposed negativity of the overall program, journalists scorned the individual speeches delivered at the GOP convention, especially nominee Donald Trump. CBS’s Scott Pelley said Trump was “more vengeful than hopeful,” while ABC’s Terry Moran called it “more of a harangue than a speech.” NBC’s Tom Brokaw thought some viewers “are going to see someone they will only think of as a demagogue of some kind.”

Thursday’s reactions to Hillary Clinton’s address, while unenthusiastic, included none of the criticism aimed at Trump. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie said Clinton’s was “a do-no harm speech,” while her colleague Chuck Todd thought it “was a grinder” of an address. CNN’s Gloria Borger admitted “it was not an oratorical masterpiece” but called Clinton’s speech “sturdy” and “steely.” Over on CBS, co-anchor Norah O’Donnell touted Clinton for “stressing her steadiness, her readiness, her experience and her empathy.”

Up until Clinton’s speech, the media had been positively swooning over the Democratic speakers. On Monday, CNN’s Jake Tapper was excited by New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, calling his speech “a crowd pleaser like no speech I’ve seen at a convention since a young state senator Barack Obama in 2004.”

Minutes later on ABC, anchor George Stephanopoulos gushed over First Lady Michelle Obama: “Polished, passionate and personal,” while on MSNBC, Joy Reid called the First Lady’s speech “magnificent, exquisite...[and] splendid.”

Hardball host Chris Matthews loved all of it: “I just thought the whole night was a slugger’s row of wonderful sentiments.”

As the week wore on, none of the major Democrats earned a bad review. On Tuesday night, CBS’s Gayle King found Bill Clinton’s speech on behalf of Hillary “heartwarming.” The next night, correspondents for NBC, CBS and ABC praised vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine for his “suburban dad” personality, whose “extraordinary” Spanish-speaking skills made for “a Spanish lesson down here.”

And, of course, President Obama sent thrills up journalists’ legs. “I don’t think we’ve ever had a President, save Lincoln, who is as great a speechwriter as this man,” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell oozed. “It was magnificent,” MSNBC’s Matthews tingled, “a wonderful farewell address.”

Every four years, the party conventions give the establishment news media a chance to provide even-handed coverage of the two parties. Once again, unfortunately, the networks have shown their obvious bias in favor of the liberals that rule the Democratic Party.

SOURCE

*****************************

Time For Post-Convention Clarity



The major party infomercials have folded up their tents. Just over 100 days now unfold to an election where we will plot the course that will determine American history for decades if not more.

That’s how sharp the differences are between a Donald Trump win and a Hillary Clinton win. Republican Trump-haters will say otherwise, but the week-long assault of the Democrat convention should convince even them that their myths of equivalency are born of a perceptual disorder.

I no longer have the time to diagnose and coddle these people. They are grownups. I will leave it to them to examine the ideas from the DNC that threaten our national future, and snap back to reason about the necessity of preventing Hillary from achieving the presidency.

But as some Never-Trumpers shake awake, I want to offer only grace and gratitude. I will spend a lifetime wondering what bug climbed into their bonnets to lead them to the insanity of ambivalence if not outright support of a Hillary presidency, but my bafflement is irrelevant now.

As much as I disagreed with that crowd and lose patience with those still dwelling among it, no call for unity is aided by an accompanying boot to the head. Let’s save “What were you thinking?” for convivial reminiscences after an inauguration that does not feature another Clinton (and thus another Obama) presidency.

I pray, and actually believe, that the months of August and September will see more skeptics shrug into recognition of what we must do. I also pray that our nominee does not hinder that process with any unforced errors. (This week’s absurd Russian hack story does not apply. Trump sarcasm about the Russians sharing what Hillary never will was a stroke of genius, eating into a day of foul DNC oxygen with free media that forced attention back to the e-mail scandal. For the left to jump at this was predictable; for Republicans to join them was just depressing.)

But to the now indelible list of reasons why anyone with a shred of conservatism must join the fight: We can talk ourselves into multiple dithers about our various concerns about a Trump era. But the truth is that no one knows how those years will go. They could range from a disconcerting mixed bag to a surprisingly successful inspiration. But no point on that spectrum comes remotely close to the damaged America that was dangled before us from that stage in Philadelphia.

A Hillary presidency promises generations of constitutional ruin with the appointment of young, vigorous Supreme Court tyrants who will sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of their collective whims.

That assault will begin with the evisceration of the Second Amendment, the one that gives the rest of the Bill of Rights its shield of required protection.

She will lead a charge of economically ruinous policies based on the fraud of man-made climate change.

She will continue the assault on traditional values, leaning toward a European model featuring the stigmatization and even criminalization of some Biblical beliefs and practices.

She will perpetuate the noxious political correctness that strangles religious freedoms.

She will continue to welcome insufficiently vetted waves of Middle Eastern immigrants, containing within their ranks jihadis sure to wind up in tragic headlines on our own soil.

She will continue to coddle race-baiters like Black Lives Matter, the carriers of the most toxic poison in today’s race relations.

She will spur the growth of an already bloated government, fighting against any trends toward reining in the Nanny State.

She will pay for this expansionist, collectivist nightmare by maintaining confiscatory tax levels that brutalize Americans for their success.

She will saddle American businesses with high taxes and overregulation, stifling the job creation we need for any chance at rediscovered prosperity.

She will expand a culture of dependency that has drained our national work ethic and fostered an idle underclass insufficiently driven to succeed on the fuel of actual effort.

She will obstruct our efforts to escape the shackles of Obamacare, damning us to additional years of its exploding costs and strangled services.

Now, conservatives, please share with me again your jitters about the Trump presidency.

From trade policies to the minimum wage and a few intermittent issues beyond, Trump himself telegraphs that this will not be a down-the-line conservative White House. But if he delivers on Scalia-like Supreme Court justices and thwarts only half of the Hillary sins listed above, we will be grateful every day that we stopped her.

And enough hand-wringing about what is happening to Republicanism or conservatism. The party will be what it wishes to be moving forward, based on voter approval or disapproval of what a Trump presidency brings. And as for conservatism, those of us who bleed its wise tenets will be there every day, making clear what we like and don’t like about his leadership. I’m guessing there may even be congenial differences among conservatives featuring varying reviews. Imagine that.

The fact is that those conversations will be a joy, because they will be conducted in an America that we saved from the clutches of Hillary Clinton.

SOURCE

**********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Islamic Who?

As day two of DNC convention came and went, what became increasingly apparent is just how lost Democrat leaders are in their own culture of political correctness. Speech after speech highlighted and celebrated the fact that Hillary Clinton is the first woman of any major American political party to be nominated for president. “Yay! She’s a woman!” was seemingly the most significant issue facing America. Oh, there was a passing reference to Hillary fighting terrorism listed among a litany of other “qualifications,” but no speeches mentioned the very real threat of radical Islamic terrorism facing America and the West. No speeches ringing the alarm even as news broke of yet another terrorist attack in France that left one Catholic priest murdered and another injured.

No, Democrats seem content to stick their collective heads in the sand over terrorism and instead focus on fighting “threats” to the planet such as fossil fuels, or calling for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment so Americans' tax dollars can be used to fund abortions, or expanding ObamaCare, or promoting the transgendered crusade to fundamentally “transform” America, or pushing for stricter “gun-control” laws, ad nauseum.

Don’t be surprised if the convention comes and goes with virtually no mention of the very real threat of Islamic terrorism. Why? Well, one need not look too hard to see what a dismal record Hillary has on the issue. In today’s politically correct climate, the idea that Islam promotes violence is just a bridge too far for Clinton and the Democrats to even consider crossing.

SOURCE

**************************

Hillary wriggling again

If one lives by the vulnerable server, one dies by the vulnerable server. As the week unfolds, America is witnessing the ultimate unmasking of the Democrat Party, an entity whose self-aggrandizing claims of unity, fairness and intellectual honesty have been revealed as utterly fraudulent by a flood of DNC emails released by WikiLeaks. Moreover, a stunning level of hypocrisy attends the entire exposure, as DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is sent packing for this breach of confidential party information, while Hillary Clinton, whose equally accessible private server contained far more critical top-secret information, officially became the party's standard-bearer.

But not to worry, assured FBI Director James Comey, who insisted there was no direct evidence that Clinton's server had been hacked by hostile actors — before adding it was possible that hostile actors "gained access" to Clinton's accounts.

Clinton was equally adept at making semantical distinctions. "If you go by the evidence, there is no evidence that the system was breached or hacked successfully," Clinton said. "And I think that what's important here is follow the evidence. And there is no evidence. And that can't be said about a lot of other systems, including government systems."

New York Post columnist John Crudele obliterates the despicable word-parsing. "Clinton was so careless when using her BlackBerry that the Russians stole her password," he writes. "All Russian President Vladimir Putin's gang had to do was log into Clinton's account and read whatever they wanted."

When it comes to the DNC hack, "The Russians did it" is the theme-du-jour. Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook stated Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." The campaign itself echoed that assertion. "This is further evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election."

The reliably leftist Politico — so far left that reporter Ken Vogel remains employed there despite sending a story to the DNC before he sent it to his own editor — is quite comfortable advancing that agenda, using it as a vehicle to buff up Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. "Former U.S. officials who worked on Russia policy with Clinton say that Putin was personally stung by Clinton's December 2011 condemnation of Russia's parliamentary elections, and had his anger communicated directly to President Barack Obama," Politico reports. "They say Putin and his advisers are also keenly aware that, even as she executed Obama's 'reset' policy with Russia, Clinton took a harder line toward Moscow than others in the administration. And they say Putin sees Clinton as a forceful proponent of 'regime change' policies that the Russian leader considers a grave threat to his own survival."

Yet even Politico is forced to admit the payback angle is "speculation," and that some experts remain "unconvinced that Putin's government engineered the DNC email hack or that it was meant to influence the election in Trump's favor as opposed to embarrassing DNC officials for any number of reasons."

Americans would also be wise to remain highly skeptical of this claim for any number of reasons. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asserts there is "there is no proof whatsoever" Russia is behind the hack and that "this is a diversion that's being pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign." To be fair, Assange is a Russian sympathizer, and leftists aren't the only ones attributing the hack to the Russians. The same FBI that gave Clinton a pass will be investigating the DNC hack, and at some point the bureau will reach a conclusion.

In the meantime, it might be worth considering that this smacks of a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign similar to the one Clinton and several other Obama administration officials engineered with regard to Benghazi. While Clinton was never held personally or legally accountable for the deaths of four Americans, it is beyond dispute that she lied unabashedly about a video causing the attack, while sending her daughter a damning email at 11:12 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012, admitting the administration knew "the attack had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

The theme of this coordinated narrative? Clinton campaign chair John Podesta referred Monday night to "a kind of bromance going on" between Putin and Trump. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook echoed that assertion, insisting the email dump comes on the heels of "changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian."

The Leftmedia were equally obliging. "The theory that Moscow orchestrated the leaks to help Trump ... is fast gaining currency within the Obama administration because of the timing of the leaks and Trump's own connections to the Russian government," reports the Daily Beast.

Other Leftmedia examples abound.

Ultimately, here's the question: If the Russians could access the DNC server, they could certainly access Clinton's unsecure server. And if they could access Clinton's server, including the 33,000 emails she deleted (maybe some were about how the Clintons profited from selling Russia American uranium), ask yourself who they'd rather have in the Oval Office: Donald Trump, who professed admiration for Putin but remains a highly unpredictable individual — or Hillary Clinton, who could be subjected to blackmail for as long as eight years?

Russia's clear objective would be to have the weakest American leadership they can get. Blackmail aside, what would be weaker than an extension of Obama's presidency?

Moreover, it is just as likely a number of the so-called "experts" as well as Clinton's useful idiot media apparatchiks have considered the blackmail possibility and are trying to divert attention from it with a phony Trump connection story.

Democrats can theorize, complain and blame to their hearts' content, but none of it obscures the reality that the DNC — and by extension Hillary Clinton and the entire Democrat Party — are a conglomeration of morally bereft, utterly incompetent individuals wholly ill-equipped to handle internal security, much less national security. And they are aided and abetted by an equally corrupt media, more than willing to abide that potentially catastrophic reality as long as it gets a Democrat in the Oval Office.

WikiLeaks has promised additional dumps with be forthcoming. How much deeper Democrats sink is anyone's guess.

SOURCE

****************************

Democrats show how little they are interested in America's armed forces, the armed forces that have kept the peace since 1945

A warship is a just a warship to them.  No interest in details

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America's best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

"The ships are definitely Russian," said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. "There's no question of that in my mind."

Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what's believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee was not able to immediately comment Tuesday, saying he had to track down personnel to find out what had happened.

The veteran who spotted the error and notified Navy Times said he was immediately taken aback.

"I was kind of in shock," said Rob Barker, 38, a former electronics warfare technician who left the Navy in 2006. Having learned to visually identify foreign ships by their radars, Barker recognized the closest ship as the Kara-class cruiser Kerch.

SOURCE

*****************************

As a Teen Cashier Seeing Food Stamp Use, I Changed My Mind About the Democrat Party

Mamaw encouraged me to get a job—she told me that it would be good for me and that I needed to learn the value of a dollar. When her encouragement fell on deaf ears, she then demanded that I get a job, and so I did, as a cashier at Dillman’s, a local grocery store.

Working as a cashier turned me into an amateur sociologist. A frenetic stress animated so many of our customers. One of our neighbors would walk in and yell at me for the smallest of transgressions—not smiling at her, or bagging the groceries too heavy one day or too light the next. Some came into the store in a hurry, pacing between aisles, looking frantically for a particular item. But others waded through the aisles deliberately, carefully marking each item off of their list.

Some folks purchased a lot of canned and frozen food, while others consistently arrived at the checkout counter with carts piled high with fresh produce.

The more harried a customer, the more they purchased precooked or frozen food, the more likely they were to be poor. And I knew they were poor because of the clothes they wore or because they purchased their food with food stamps. After a few months, I came home and asked Mamaw why only poor people bought baby formula. “Don’t rich people have babies, too?” Mamaw had no answers, and it would be many years before I learned that rich folks are considerably more likely to breast-feed their children.

As my job taught me a little more about America’s class divide, it also imbued me with a bit of resentment, directed toward both the wealthy and my own kind.

The owners of Dillman’s were old-fashioned, so they allowed people with good credit to run grocery tabs, some of which surpassed a thousand dollars. I knew that if any of my [working class] relatives walked in and ran up a bill of over a thousand dollars, they’d be asked to pay immediately. I hated the feeling that my boss counted my people as less trustworthy than those who took their groceries home in a Cadillac. But I got over it: One day, I told myself, I’ll have my own d–ned tab.

I also learned how people gamed the welfare system. They’d buy two dozen packs of soda with food stamps and then sell them at a discount for cash. They’d ring up their orders separately, buying food with food stamps, and beer, wine, and cigarettes with cash. They’d regularly go through the checkout line speaking on their cell phones. I could never understand why our lives felt like a struggle while those living off of government largesse enjoyed trinkets that I only dreamed about.

Mamaw listened intently to my experiences at Dillman’s. We began to view much of our fellow working class with mistrust. Most of us were struggling to get by, but we made do, worked hard, and hoped for a better life. But a large minority was content to live off the dole.

Every two weeks, I’d get a small paycheck and notice the line where federal and state income taxes were deducted from my wages. At least as often, our drug-addict neighbor would buy T-bone steaks, which I was too poor to buy for myself but was forced by Uncle Sam to buy for someone else. This was my mindset when I was seventeen, and though I’m far less angry today than I was then, it was my first indication that the policies of Mamaw’s “party of the working man”—the Democrats—weren’t all they were cracked up to be.

Political scientists have spent millions of words trying to explain how Appalachia and the South went from staunchly Democratic to staunchly Republican in less than a generation.

Some blame race relations and the Democratic Party’s embrace of the civil rights movement. Others cite religious faith and the hold that social conservatism has on evangelicals in that region.

A big part of the explanation lies in the fact that many in the white working class saw precisely what I did, working at Dillman’s. As far back as the 1970s, the white working class began to turn to Richard Nixon because of a perception that, as one man put it, government was “payin’ people who are on welfare today doin’ nothin’! They’re laughin’ at our society! And we’re all hardworkin’ people and we’re gettin’ laughed at for workin’ every day!”

SOURCE

**********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

New study warns Russia could invade Poland ‘overnight’

Russia has long been the lurking giant in the East for Europe and the Soviet era made Russia into a real existential threat.  So when Yeltsin largely destroyed Russia's armed forces and abandoned any ideological claims it was a great relief.

But now that Vladimir Vladimirovich has slowly reconstructed Russia's forces to something commensurate with Russia being the worlds's largest country, hackles are rising again. But Russia is still weak.  And it is primarily weak because of its small manufacturing base and small economy generally.  It would lose any prolonged war with the West.  It won in WWII because   the West supplied the machines (trucks, tanks, planes etc) its own industry could not.  So even the Soviets did not attempt expansion after WWII (Except for the abortive adventure in Afghanistan).

So Russia is just a convenient whipping boy.  Being nasty to Russia is a way for small Western politicians to make themselves look big

Vladimir Vladimirovich has in fact been very cautious.  He could easily have invaded Eastern Ukraine and thus finalized  matters there but has not done so. He too knows Russia is weak.  Even in manpower Russia is weak.  There are twice as many Americans as Russians.  Generations of slaughter by Communists have left their mark


A NEW study has warned Russia could invade Poland “overnight” at any time and NATO forces must be prepared to respond.

The aggressive foreign policy of a resurgent Russia under president Vladimir Putin has countries in the region on high alert after they annexed Crimea from Ukraine, according to The Sun.

The think tank Atlantic Council warns: “Even if Moscow currently has no immediate intent to challenge NATO directly, this may unexpectedly change overnight.”

It talked up the rapid speed of Russia’s military operations and warned Poland and its allies that they must be prepared and arm up as a deterrent.

The report even suggests potential targets to hit in Russia if required, including the Kaliningrad and the Metro infrastructure in Moscow.

It recommends more US missiles be shipped to the region, and urges Poland to find a way to stop ‘fighting age men’ quitting the country to find work abroad, and join their military instead.

Earlier this month, US president Barack Obama announced plans to deploy 1,000 troops to the east of Poland.

It is the biggest escalation of hostilities in the region between Russia and NATO states since the Cold War.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy US national security adviser, denied that the US was escalating tensions in the region.

He said: “What we are demonstrating is that if Russia continues this pattern of aggressive behaviour, there will be a response and there will be a greater presence in eastern Europe.”

Britain is one of the 28 NATO members and also decided to make deployments this month to the region.

500 troops will be stationed in Estonia and 150 in Poland, and a further 3,000 will be put on notice for immediate action in the region if activity increases.

SOURCE

********************************

No U.S.flags at the Democrat convention

Initially, the only actual flag to be seen was a Palestinian flag.  After being called out over it, however, they did find a few flags and put them up.

It really tells you all you need to know about what they stand for -- and it isn't America.  It's their own foolish dream of a new Eden, where people are FORCED to behave as Leftists think they should.  Lovely people!

***************************

Obama as a Fascist

Thomas Sowell

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.

SOURCE

*****************************

What Can Discrimination Explain?

Walter E. Williams

A guiding principle for physicians is primum non nocere, the Latin expression for "first, do no harm." In order not to do harm, whether it's with medicine or with public policy, the first order of business is accurate diagnostics.
Racial discrimination is seen as the cause of many problems of black Americans. No one argues that racial discrimination does not exist or does not have effects. The relevant question, as far as policy and resource allocation are concerned, is: How much of what we see is caused by current racial discrimination?

From the late 1940s to the mid-1950s, black youth unemployment was slightly less than or equal to white youth unemployment. Today black youth unemployment is at least double that of white youth unemployment. Would anyone try to explain the difference with the argument that there was less racial discrimination during the '40s and '50s than today?

Some argue that it is the "legacy of slavery" and societal racism that now explain the social pathology in many black neighborhoods. Today's black illegitimacy rate is about 73 percent. When I was a youngster, during the 1940s, illegitimacy was around 15 percent. In the same period, about 80 percent of black children were born inside marriage. In fact, historian Herbert Gutman, in an article titled "Persistent Myths about the Afro-American Family" in the Journal of Interdisciplinary History (Autumn 1975), reported the percentage of black two-parent families, depending on the city, ranged from 75 to 90 percent. Today only a little over 30 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. The importance of these and other statistics showing greater stability and less pathology among blacks in earlier periods is that they put a lie to today's excuses. Namely, at a time when blacks were closer to slavery, faced far more discrimination, faced more poverty and had fewer opportunities, there was not the kind of social pathology and weak family structure we see today.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, sometimes referred to as The Nation's Report Card, nationally, the average black 12th-grader's test scores are either basic or below basic in reading, writing, math and science. "Below basic" is the score received when a student is unable to demonstrate even partial mastery of knowledge and skills fundamental for proficient work at his grade level. "Basic" indicates only partial mastery. Put another way, the average black 12th-grader has the academic achievement level of the average white seventh- or eighth-grader. In some cities, there's even a larger achievement gap.

Is this a result of racial discrimination? Hardly. The cities where black academic achievement is the lowest are the very cities where Democrats have been in charge for decades and where blacks have been mayors, city councilors, superintendents, school principals and teachers. Plus, these cities have large educational budgets. I am not arguing a causal relationship between black political control and poor performance. I am arguing that one would be hard put to blame the academic rot on racial discrimination. If the Ku Klux Klan wanted to destroy black academic achievement, it could not find a better means for doing so than encouraging the educational status quo in most cities.

Intellectuals and political hustlers who blame the plight of so many blacks on poverty, racial discrimination and the "legacy of slavery" are complicit in the socio-economic and moral decay. But one can earn money, prestige and power in the victimhood game. As Booker T. Washington long ago observed, "there is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

SOURCE

**********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************

Why Race Relations Have Gotten Worse under Barack Obama

There are three things you need to know about modern American politics: (1) the black vote is hugely important to the Democratic Party, but (2) less than half of black voters actually agree with the Democratic Party’s view of government, and among those who do agree a great many are routinely mistreated by the very politicians they vote for; therefore (3) the only practical way to ensure that the vast majority of black voters reliably and enthusiastically turn out for the Democrats is to avoid debating real issues and focus instead on racial politics.

Roughly one fourth of Democratic voters are black and in some states the majority of all Democrats are black. The implications of these facts are not lost on the Democratic establishment. If, say, one third or even one fourth of black voters voted for a Republican, or if they decided not to vote at all, the results for Democrats would be disastrous.

But why do black voters prefer Democrats? That’s not an easy question to answer. Less than half (47 percent) consider themselves “liberal,” not much different from the number who consider themselves “conservative” (45 percent). And even among the self-described “liberals” black voters seem to get a raw deal from the people they vote for. In our central cities, many black parents send their children to the worst schools, they receive the worst city services and they are exposed to the nation’s worst environmental hazards (think Flint, Michigan). In almost all cases, these cities are run by Democrats.

In a previous post, I reported on the remarkable history of my home town Waco, Texas. During the years of segregation and Jim Crow laws, black voters consistently voted for the very Democrats who enforced those awful practices.

Would they have voted for Republican candidates if the Republicans had campaigned for black votes more aggressively or approached them in a different way? I don’t know. I do think that Democrats today sense there is a danger of losing the relationship. After all, one of the three blacks in the US Senate is a Republican and more than one-fourth of black voters in Ohio voted to reelect Republican Governor John Kasich.

Roughly 90 percent of blacks identify as Democrats. But how can the party ensure that they will stay that way and continue to vote that way? The answer Democrats have chosen is what I call racial politics.

Racial politics is identity politics and that has been a mainstay in the Democratic Party for almost 100 years. People are treated as members of groups and they are encouraged to believe that they are victims of bad behavior by those outside the group. In voting for the Democrats they are encouraged to believe they are getting back at, or protecting themselves from, those who are oppressing them. Identity politics is the politics of division. It is the politics of pitting one group against another. All too often it is the politics of hate.

During the Franklin Roosevelt years, labor was pitted against management. The poor and the middle class were pitted against the rich. In the modern era, more groups have been added: blacks, Hispanics, gays, women. In each case the message is the same: “Vote for us because you are a woman; vote for us because you are gay; and vote for us because you are black ...”

According to a raft of liberal commentators, the Republican Party has been sending racist messages to white voters for years. Both conservative and liberal commentators have accused Donald Trump of the same thing. However, these charges require us to sift through all sorts of subtleties. On the Democratic side, subtlety has never been a problem. After all, if you are subtle some voters might miss the point.

I’ll bet every reader of this column has heard about the Willy Horton commercials that George Bush (41) ran against Michael Dukakis in 1988. They are supposed to be an example of Republicans playing on racial fears, even though the issue was first raised by Al Gore in the Democratic primary. But, have you ever heard about the James Byrd commercials?

On the eve of the 2000 election, the NAACP ran television and radio ads aimed at black voters implying that as governor, George W. Bush was indifferent to the death of James Byrd, a black man who was chained and dragged to death behind a pickup truck by three white racists.

To my knowledge, Al Gore never condemned these commercials and no member of the mainstream media ever pressed him to do so. Race baiting by Democrats was ignored then, just as it is today. (See here, here and here.)

In 2012, George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch coordinator for a Florida gated community, fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a young man with a checkered past, during an altercation. Ordinarily, no one who lived more than 50 miles away would have ever heard about the case. However, “watch coordinator” sounds sort of like “police officer” and it was initially reported that Martin was black and Zimmerman was white. The national news media pounced. Virtually every news report suggested that racism was a factor and that the incident was an example of a national problem.

After it was revealed that Zimmerman was Hispanic and from a multiracial family (that included blacks), the mainstream media didn’t back off. They doubled down. Several media outlets, such as CNN and The New York Times, began describing Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic.” NBC doctored an audio tape in a way that suggested Zimmerman’s wrong doing. Before long, nearly 90 percent of African Americans called the shooting “unjustified.” When Zimmerman was acquitted, that was even more fodder for the race baiting fire.

So how is Trayvon Martin different from the 13,000 other people who are murdered each year, including about 6,000 African Americans? Was he a talented artist? A musical prodigy? A budding entrepreneur? It’s better than that. In the middle of a tough re-election campaign, President Obama announced that “Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.”

So there you have it. The person George Zimmerman shot and killed could have been a future president of the United States! (Provided voters could overlook his criminal record, that is.)

Barack Obama is the most partisan president in our life time and he seems to understand almost instinctively that racial polarization is essential to the Democratic Party’s electoral strategy. In the aftermath of police shootings in St. Paul and Baton Rouge, the president said, “These are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.”

Did those comments cause Black Lives Matter marchers in Dallas to chant “Pigs in a blanket; fry ‘em like bacon”? It certainly didn’t discourage it.

And although the president’s speech in Dallas on Tuesday was supposed to be unifying and conciliatory, he again brought up the totally fraudulent case of Trayvon Martin and had nothing but praise for Black Lives Matter.

All this is being echoed by Hillary Clinton, whose campaign commercials shamelessly mention Trayvon Martin and who now decries “systematic” and “implicit bias” in police departments.

I believe there is a problem in the interaction of police and black males. Even black policemen seem to say there is a problem. But Hillary isn’t talking about solutions to a problem. She is stirring up a problem. There is no “Trayvon Martin Law” that she is proposing.

The national Democratic Party has a stake in the problem, not in its solution. The national news media is only too happy to help meet their needs.

PS. A new study by a team headed by an African American Harvard economist finds there is no bias against black civilians in police shootings.

SOURCE

*****************************

The DNC's Grand Illusion

Democrats kick off convention week with a huge and inconvenient email leak

What’s in store at the Democratic National Convention beginning today? Be ready for four days of illusions to hide the party’s dysfunction, as well as truly delusional rhetoric meant to secure a third term of Barack Obama despite almost eight years of American collapse.

Following the earthquake of the WikiLeaks publication of 20,000 emails from key Democrats, Bernie Sanders and his campaign were completely vindicated in accusations of unfair treatment. The Democratic National Committee unquestionably interfered with the voice of the voters throughout the entire DNC primary to assure Hillary Clinton’s ascension to become the nominee. More leaks will continue as details emerge throughout the week.

So clear was the trail that, on the eve of the convention, DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation. It’s more than ironic that the party led by the woman FBI Director James Comey called “extremely careless” in her handling of Top Secret communications is forcing out another woman who was extremely careless in DNC communications. It’s also ironic that Democrats blame Russia for the leaks after Clinton’s (ahem) successful “reset” there.

James Carville, a longtime Clinton friend and operative quipped, “In politics, you need to not only know when to draw your sword, but also when to fall on it.” It was also clear that Clinton was grateful. She named Wasserman Schultz “honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country.”

Still, this is not how Democrats wanted to kick things off in the “City of Brotherly Love.”

The topics and copy of these tens of thousands of electronic pieces of evidence ranged from a Politico writer sending his pre-published articles to the DNC for approval to actual sabotage of Sanders' campaign. There was evidently a mole working within the Sanders campaign, and emails were uncovered plotting an attack on Bernie’s Jewish religion so as to scare southern Democrats.

Bernie was right. If not for the clear orchestration by the Leftmedia, Sanders might very well have beaten Clinton to become the Democrats' nominee. Hillary’s winning formula for coronation, however, included a tag team of superdelegate status awarded to hundreds of Clinton machine political insiders and the inescapable power of the media. Presstitutes who masquerade as journalists created an echo chamber of supportive stories and press for Hillary during her Benghazi failures and her law-breaking personal email scandal.

So much for organizational bylaws, transparency and fairness from the partisans who screech about rights, civility, oppression and disenfranchisement.

This week’s partisan proceedings were meant to only be a formality and a huge pep rally to launch Hillary’s second presidential effort. It was supposed to show how unified Democrats are in contrast to the GOP. Now, the smoke, mirrors and every ounce of pixie dust they can sprinkle are needed to cover up the unindicted felon’s standard operating procedure: Winning through corruption.

More than 1,000 protesters mobilized Sunday evening chanting, “Hell, no, DNC, we won’t vote for Hillary” in the streets of Philadelphia as they waved a flag with the Democrats' donkey in distress — flying upside down. Without question, Wasserman Schultz’s resignation was aimed to stem any uprising by the energetic groupies of Sanders still feeling “the Bern.” But just as those who felt betrayed by elected Republicans ended up supporting Donald Trump, Sanders' supporters are likely fueled by the same treachery on display.

By the way, in sharp contrast to the low-key protests in Cleveland’s RNC convention, the City of Philadelphia expects 35,000 to 50,000 protesters a day, with marches supporting of Sanders daily that may even feature a mock trial of Hillary Clinton.

As part of the Democrats' stage props, every effort will be made to blame the Republicans in Congress for the slowest and weakest economic recovery in history. A pathological processional of lies and liars will be featured that say nothing about “black-on-black crime” as black unemployment is at 8.3% — almost double the rate of white unemployment. Instead, mothers of police shooting victims will be featured to continue the absolute untruth that blacks are disproportionately shot by law enforcement. Will there be any reference to the Washington Post’s data collected that of the 990 fatal police shootings in 2015, some 50% of those victims were white, while about 17% were Hispanic and 26% were black?

More irony to chew on is the response of the media to the Republicans' convention that featured the incredible stories of heroism offered by the family members' of the deceased who were abandoned in Benghazi. The collective harem of Presstitutes pitched a fit when Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith who died at the hands of terrorists, offered her emotional story of how then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood before her son’s flag-draped coffin and blamed a YouTube video.

Please don’t allow the historical backdrop of Philadelphia, America’s first capital and the seat of our Founding Government, to hide the blatant disregard for America’s Supreme Law of the Land by this political party. The blatant disregard for America’s laws involving the enforcement of legal immigration, the sale of unborn infant body parts, the socialization of our health care (a sixth of our economy) and the pure corruption on display — including the IRS’s political targeting of conservative groups and the weaponization of our government against its people — are the hallmarks of this Democratic National Party.

As these four evenings pass, stay fixed on this reality: America cannot withstand a third term of Barack Obama. Therefore, the defeat of Hillary Clinton and her less-than-centrist VP candidate Tim Kaine must be the top priority.

SOURCE

There is a  new  lot of postings by Chris Brand just up -- mainly about Muslims, murders etc

**********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************