Democratic U.S. Rep. Convicted Of Racketeering, After Son Was Sentenced To Five Years For Bank and Tax Fraud

Longtime Democratic representative Chaka Fattah was convicted Tuesday to charges stemming from his efforts to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan.

[From article]
A veteran Pennsylvania congressman was convicted Tuesday in a racketeering case that largely centered on various efforts to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan related to his unsuccessful 2007 mayoral bid.
U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah was found guilty of all counts against him, including racketeering, fraud and money laundering. His lawyers had argued that the schemes were engineered without Fattah's knowledge by two political consultants who pleaded guilty in the case.
The 59-year-old Democrat had been in Congress since 1995 and served on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. But he lost the April primary and his bid for his 12th term. His current term ends Jan. 2.
Fattah had little reaction to the verdict, but he kept a smile on his face as he conferred with his lawyers afterward.
He will remain free on bail. A judge set sentencing for Oct. 4.
Fattah told reporters as he was leaving the courtroom: "Well, it's a tough day, but I do want to thank the jurors for their service." He said he will confer with his lawyers on the next step.
Prosecutors said Fattah routed federal grant money and nonprofit funds through his consultants to pay back the illegal loan.
His wife, Philadelphia TV news anchor Renee Chenault-Fattah, took a leave after her husband's indictment and then quit in February. She was cited in the case over the sham sale of her Porsche, which prosecutors said was a bribe. But she was never charged with any wronging, and she said the sale was legitimate.
In a related case, his son, Chaka "Chip" Fattah Jr., was convicted on charges of bank and tax fraud and sentenced in February to five years in prison. A jury found he took part in a scheme as a subcontractor to defraud the Philadelphia school district.
Justice Department lawyer Jonathan Kravis said in his closing argument that Chaka Fattah Sr. used federal grants and nonprofit funds to enrich his family and friends.
Defense lawyers acknowledged Fattah might have gotten himself in financial trouble after a costly mayoral bid, but they said any help from friends amounted to gifts, not bribes.
Many of them came from co-defendant Herbert Vederman, a wealthy friend who had dreams of scoring an ambassadorship. U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, testified that he never took the pitch from Fattah too seriously, even though Fattah once bent the president's ear about it. Democrat Ed Rendell, a former mayor and governor, was called to defend Vederman, his former deputy mayor. He said Vederman was qualified for the job and accused prosecutors of cynically misreading the help he lent Fattah.
Vederman helped support Fattah's South African nanny and paid $18,000 for a Porsche owned by Fattah's TV anchor wife.
"The nanny, the Porsche and the Poconos, they weren't part of a bribery scheme," Fattah lawyer Samuel Silver argued in closings. "Those were all overreaches by the prosecution."
The campaign loan was just one of several schemes prosecutors outlined during the trial. They say Fattah was aided in his endeavors by current and former staffers who ran his district office or the nonprofits; by Vederman, who now lives in Palm Beach, Florida; and by political consultants Greg Naylor and Thomas Lindenfeld, who pleaded guilty.
The other co-defendants are Bonnie Bowser, of Philadelphia, who ran his district office; Karen Nicholas, of Williamstown, New Jersey, who ran the education nonprofit Fattah started; and Robert Brand, of Philadelphia, a businessman married to a former Fattah staffer. The jury on Tuesday came back with a mixed verdict for them.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3652804/Verdict-reached-Pennsylvania-congressmans-bribery-case.html

Democratic congressman Chaka Fattah convicted on racketeering, fraud and money laundering charges for using federal grant money to pay back an illegal campaign loan
Fatah was elected in 1995
He was put on the powerful House Appropriations Committee
'The nanny, the Porsche and the Poconos'
Lawmaker ran into financial trouble after failed bid for mayor of Philadelphia
Defense claims Fattah accepted help from a friend, but not bribes
His son also was convicted in a related case
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Daily Mail (UK)
PUBLISHED: 12:12 EST, 21 June 2016 | UPDATED: 13:09 EST, 21 June 2016

Is It Time To Replace Political Parties?

[From article]
The 2016 presidential season may foretell the end of the two major political parties. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not really members of the two parties whose nomination they have run so effectively to win. Indeed, both reflect as much as anything else frustration and anger against the parties whose nominations they seek. The two major political parties are seen by most Americans not as a path to the solution of those difficult issues we face, but rather as a major sickness in our system of government.
Do we need these parties? Not really. Party labels allow politicians to mask the reality of policies behind the fog of partisan rhetoric. This is compounded by the ugly fact that instead of having two national political parties, we really have the Party of Washington (A) and the Party of Washington (B), with all the goodies that come from controlling the White House and Congress providing the real motivation to win national elections.
[. . .]



State governments could make all elections nonpartisan: all candidates for congressional and state offices, perhaps even including presidential electors, would run on their own good names and arguments, and no candidate would have a "Republican" or "Democrat" by his name. Nebraska already has a nonpartisan state legislature, and a number of cities have nonpartisan city councils.
If enough states did that, then the number of nonpartisan members of Congress would be a majority in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and the whole rotten system of party control of committees, with endless opportunities for mischief, would end. The Speaker of the House would actually represent the House and not the majority party in the House, and such drab offices as "Minority Floor Leader" and "Majority Whip" would vanish.
This reform would also make it simpler to require runoff elections for all state and federal offices so that every senator, congressman, and governor won with a majority of the vote and not simply a plurality. This change in elections further dilutes the political party system by compelling the two runoff candidates to present themselves not as candidates of a particular party to voters.
If we keep political parties, then there is nothing that requires that these parties should be national. Regional parties are common in Europe, and these parties serve a vital purpose in providing a natural counterweight for regions that would otherwise feel subject to an unsympathetic national party leadership.
Britain, Belgium, Germany, France, and Spain all have significant regional parties whose purpose is largely to protect those regions from overbearing behavior by a national government. In fact, our nearest neighbor, Canada, has a major party dedicated entirely to the regional cultural interests of Quebec.
America is really a land of many regions with divergent cultural values and economic interests. The Constitution was intended to protect those regions through the sovereignty of states, but the crushing of states under the heel of Washington has destroyed that balance. Regional political parties could do much to restore regional and state power.
[. . .]



The effect of regional parties that actually represented regional interests would force attention to be continually focused away from Washington and back toward the fifty states. These parties could exercise a veto on federal judicial appointments within the region as well, which would provide another practical check on rogue federal power.
We ought to view the chaos in this nominating cycle as an opportunity to replace the old, vested national political parties with political institutions and processes that serve us better. Washington Party (A) and Washington Party (B) are broken beyond repair.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/replacing_national_political_parties.html

June 3, 2016
Replacing National Political Parties
By Bruce Walker

Pat Buchanan Reveals Why Romney's Stop Trump Effort is Misguided

Mitt Romney (right), leads the stop Donald Trump (left) Campaign

[From article]
Reince Priebus was commenting on a Washington Post story about Mitt Romney and William Kristol’s plot to recruit a third-party conservative candidate to sink Donald Trump.
Several big-name Republican “consultants” and “strategists” are said to be on board. Understandably so, given the bucks involved.
With the kind of cash that sloshes around in a presidential campaign, there should be no shortage of super PAC parasites at the enlistment office.
[. . .]
If Romney believes that Trump is an unacceptable nominee and would be an intolerable president, and that Republicans have a moral obligation to prevent this, why does Romney not man up and take on the assignment himself?
[. . .]
His father shared Romney’s mindset: If the voters have made a mistake, you are not obligated to support it. Just days after Sen. Barry Goldwater locked up the Republican nomination in the California primary, Gov. George Romney was at the Cleveland governors conference plotting to stop him.
Richard Nixon arrived to encourage Romney to step out onto the tracks in front of the Goldwater express. Romney thought better of taking Nixon’s counsel. But he did join Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in denouncing his own party for coddling extremists, and refused to endorse Goldwater, as son Mitt is refusing to endorse Trump.
It was after that Cleveland Convention that Nixon ruefully told me, “Buchanan, whenever you hear of a group forming up to stop X, be sure to put your money on X.”
[. . .]
But whatever you say about the political savvy of George Romney, he was stubborn as a bull in his convictions, and he had the courage to go down to defeat fighting for them.
[. . .]
The Romney-Kristol collusion thus overlaps nicely with the interests of the Clinton campaign and the agenda of the Beltway media elite.
By scheming to divide the Republican base, they are colluding to bring about the defeat of the Republican Party. And that means Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House.
[. . .]
Either Trump or Clinton is going to be the next president. [. . .] The Romney-Kristol cabal is Hillary Clinton’s fifth column inside the Republican Party.

http://buchanan.org/blog/mitt-suicide-mission-125247

Is Mitt on a Suicide Mission?
Monday - May 16, 2016 at 10:08 pm
Patrick J. Buchanan

Do Democrats Benefit in Non Voter ID States? Is The Pope Argentinian?

[From article]
If the Democrat voter turnout trend continues through the general election to be significantly lower only in those states where voter ID laws have been recently enacted, you can bet the farm the Democrat leadership will be tap-dancing all over the place to find whatever other possible explanation they can. That may be easier for them if their presidential candidate loses, for they can then blame lack of voter interest due to poor candidate performance. However, that still won't explain away the differential in voter turnout between states with no voter ID laws, where turnout remains relatively unchanged, and those states where voter ID was recently enacted and the vote declined significantly.
What will then become evident is that the Democratic Party has been engaged in voter fraud on a broad, nationwide scale. An even more disturbing revelation that is sure to arise from all this is that the Democratic Party has most likely encouraged voter fraud in minority communities, where criminal evidence of such fraud is most commonly found. While I'm not about to contend that all voter fraud takes place in minority precincts, news stories of criminal voter fraud and the results will almost always be in those communities.
Not only do I believe that Democrats are engaged in widespread voter fraud, but I believe they are playing the minority communities, black and Hispanic, to do the heavy lifting for them in this criminal enterprise. And to my way of thinking, that constitutes a vast criminal conspiracy on the part of the Democratic Party to undermine the electoral process with millions of fraudulent votes through a callous manipulation of their controlled minorities.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/is_democrat_voting_a_vast_criminal_conspiracy.html

March 9, 2016
Is Democrat voting a vast criminal conspiracy?
By Russ Vaughn

Cook Report On Effect Of Trump Nomination On Congressional Races

[From article]
The Cook Political Report, a respected political newsletter, has issued its latest overview of US House races and it's not good news for Republicans.
[. . .]
In this political season when conventional wisdom has been turned on its head. the assumption that the GOP majority in the House was safe can no longer be taken for granted. The Democrats need 30 seats to take control, and as the newsletter points out, that may be doable if candidates as polarizing as Trump or Ted Cruz end up the nominee.
[. . .]
Aside from Speaker Paul Ryan's condemnations, Trump's behavior and statements have been met with deafening and puzzling silence from many House Republicans, including many in swing districts.
This week, GOP Rep. Tom Reed became the first House Republican from a swing seat to endorse Trump, noting "As the people vote, it has become clear more Republicans favor Donald Trump than any other candidate" and urging his supporters to unite behind the front-runner.
[. . .]
Cook is one of the few pundits who caught the GOP waves of 2010 and 2014, so despite all the hedging, his belieif that Democratic tsunami is becoming more likely should be worrisome to Republicans.
Should be, but won't be to many. In fact, many Trump supporters don't care about the Republican party and aren't concerned with its future. They're too intent on giving the middle finger to the "establishment" to worry about such mundane things as victory or slaughter.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/the_trump_effect_impacting_down_ballot_races.html

March 19, 2016
The 'Trump effect' impacting down ballot races
By Rick Moran

Are Elections Under Control of Establishment

[From article]
(1) Don't you get the strange feeling that this has all been suspiciously easy?
[. . .]
(2) Don't you find it odd that Trump, who habitually says the harshest, crudest, vilest things he can think of about anyone he perceives as an opponent or threat, never substantively criticizes the key players in the establishment at all?
[. . .]



So everyone, from mainstream "liberals" Robert Reich and Bill Maher to mainstream Republicans Orrin Hatch, Bob Dole, and Trump himself, acknowledges that Cruz is the only candidate so anti-establishment as to cause real hatred and fear among the bipartisan progressive zeitgeist.
[. . .]
(3) If you were Rove, McConnell, and the rest of the GOP elite, and you wanted to end the growing grassroots threat to your power and influence once and for all, how would you go about it?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/three_simple_questions_for_trump_supporters.html

February 26, 2016
Three Simple Questions for Trump Supporters
By Daren Jonescu

If Party Bosses Thwart Will of The People

[From article]
The political establishments have a long tradition of picking their party’s candidates, the only notable exception being Ronald Reagan in 1980. This year is shaping up to be another break with tradition, for both parties.
After South Carolina, the Republican establishment is marshaling support behind Marco Rubio, as the most electable candidate. Just as John McCain and Mitt Romney were the most electable candidates in the last two election cycles.
The Democrat establishment is using superdelegates to secure the nomination for their chosen one, someone they also believe is most electable in the general election.
In our two party system, the political establishments wield tremendous power and money. Jeb Bush started his campaign with $130 million and Hillary Clinton more than $170 million. Although this is small change in the big picture of dollars spent in a presidential election, and exponentially less than what will be delivered to donors and cronies by the eventual winner, 9-figure amounts of money are nothing to sneeze at.
Will the establishments sit back and allow outsiders, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, to waltz in and grab the nomination? Will they permit we the people to override we the donors in choosing our next president? That’s not how the post-modern political system works. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think the Republican establishment will allow this to happen and he wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the party elders are scheming and plotting in their now smoke-free rooms over how to pull the rug out from Trump and hand the nomination to Rubio or Kasich.
The Democrat establishment has superdelegates doing their dirty work. Despite barely winning two contests and getting shellacked in New Hampshire, Clinton now has 502 delegates compared to Sanders’s 70. That’s like giving Hillary a 20-yard head start in a 100-yard dash.
As this campaign cycle is from The Twilight Zone, let me throw out a scenario that, while far fetched, is not implausible.
Suppose both establishments rig the nominating process, pushing Trump and Sanders to the side, deliberately ignoring their respective voter bases. Imagine the outrage, or better yet revolution, among a large swath of voters, fed up with business-as-usual establishment shenanigans.
Grab the pitchforks and torches. Burn the house down. Out of the smoke emerges a Trump/Sanders ticket. Crazy? Probably. Impossible? Hardly.
How different are the two candidates? Policy wise, quite different. But this isn’t an election respecting the usual political boundaries of political philosophy and policy. Instead it’s contest between establishment and anti-establishment. The establishment candidates are, or were, Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Clinton. The anti-establishment candidates are Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Sanders.
How similar are Donald and Bernie? Consider this exchange with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski last week.
“I wanted to describe a candidate to you,” she began. “The candidate is considered a political outsider by all the pundits. He’s tapping into the anger of the voters, delivers a populist message. He believes everyone in the country should have healthcare, he advocates for hedge fund managers to pay higher taxes, he’s drawing thousands of people at his rallies and bringing in a lot of new voters to the political process, and he’s not beholden to any super PAC. Who am I describing?” she asked.
Trump took the bait and answered, “You’re describing Donald Trump.” Wrong answer – you’re fired! She was describing Bernie Sanders.
“I’ll tell you, there’s one thing that we’re very similar in,” Trump admitted. “He knows that our country is being ripped off big league, big league on trade. The problem is he can’t do anything about it.”
Twin sons of different mothers? Both pariahs of their establishments. Why not join forces? In broad strokes, they are more alike than different. The policy differences can be negotiated between the two candidates in the ultimate sequel to “The Art of the Deal.”
As Newt Gingrich recently observed, “If you think Washington is so sick you want someone to kick over the kitchen table, then you like Donald Trump and you frankly don't care about the details." Do those ‘Feelin the Bern’ share the same sentiments?
If both party establishments gave their respective voters the big middle finger, the voters just might give both middle fingers back to the establishments, supporting a Trump/Sanders ticket.
Improbable? Absolutely. So was the idea, a year or two ago, of Donald Trump leading the Republican field and an avowed socialist beating the anointed one in almost every key demographic.
If anything, it’s something to ponder. And the fact that I would even put forth such a scenario is a sign of the desperation of the establishments. In their minds, desperate times call for desperate measures. Thwarting the will of their voters in the pursuit of continued power and money would not be a surprise. And neither would be a third party response.
Could such a ticket win? Who knows? If half of each party’s voters are fed up enough to vote for such a ticket, the plurality might be enough to win.
In a normal election cycle, Jeb and Hillary would be on their way to the prom. But this is an election season unlike any other so fasten your seatbelts.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/what_if_both_establishments_give_their_voters_the_finger.html

February 24, 2016
What if both establishments give their voters the finger?
By Brian C. Joondeph

Recent History of Democratic Party Supreme Court Appointment Hate Campaigns

[From article]
However, if the Democrats stick to principles they would honor their own Senate Resolution 334 which urges no SCOTUS recess appointments. The likelihood of that occurrence is about on par with Bill Clinton honoring his marriage vows.
With decades of practice, the Democrats have mastered the art using the judiciary for agenda advancement and they play to win, no holds barred. Republicans still believe their Senatorial opponents are gentlemen who play by Robert’s Rules of Order. They do so without supporting evidence.
Past hearings have been fraught with difficulties, false charges, racist allegations, hypocrisy and despicable politics. As the battle looms it is worth recalling the advice of Sun Tzu: “If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.”
In order to move forward successfully, a refresher on the past is in order:
Robert Bork (1987) Kevin Gutzman, then an intern for Congressman Dick Armey, described the hearing as having “all the makings of a circus.” Gutzman also described the men aligned against Judge Bork as being: “the Democratic majority on the Judiciary Committee, includ(ed) a chairman (Sen. Joe Biden) in the midst of a scandal over his having delivered a speech plagiarized from a British politician, one member (Patrick Leahy) who had been tossed off the Intelligence Committee by its Democratic chairman for leaking documents, another senator (Robert Byrd) who had been a Ku Klux Klansman, and Kennedy, infamous for being tossed out of Harvard for cheating”
Indeed the men who sat in judgement of Robert Bork had issues of their own, but as we know Democrats are as forgiving of themselves as they are unforgiving of the opposition.
Senator Kennedy fired a slanderous broadside against Bork:
“Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”
The well prepared speech had been on hold as the Democrats had been lying in wait for Bork’s expected nomination. The Republicans were stunned, and Bork, was ‘Borked’ and ultimately rejected 42-58. Judge Bork became the fourth Republican nominee rejected in the past 100 years. A Democratic president has not had a nominee rejected since 1894 when Wheeler Hazard Peckham was voted down by the Senate.
Clarence Thomas (1991) As ugly and as hard fought as the Bork hearing was, things got worse. Thomas, nominated to replace civil rights icon Thurgood Marshal, was seen as being too conservative and thus not ‘black enough’ for such an honor. In reality, Thomas was a person worthy of emulation: born dirt poor, a direct descendent of slaves, he fought discrimination while young including desegregating the high school he attended. Hard work, as well as dedication to his studies, allowed him to rise above lesser individuals who lacked his will, character, and intellect. None of that mattered to Democrats or their backers in the NAACP; Clarence Thomas was seen as a Tom, pure and simple, thus the knives came out to stab him in the back.
Having learned from the decimation Bork, Thomas treaded lightly with circumventive responses to loaded questions. The Baltimore Sun in its piece; “The Real Clarence Thomas?”described the testimony:
“Too often… he chose to retreat into such safe responses as, "I have to wait to read the briefs and hear the oral arguments." Too often he obfuscated when asked about prior writings.
[. . .]
As the hearing progressed the Democrats saw that they were losing this battle. Committee Chairmen Joe Biden’s questioning had failed to reveal a chink in the defensive armor of Thomas. The Democrats were reduced to bringing in a ringer; an unknown women named Anita Hill. Her testimony elicited the intended, feigned outrage, fueled by coordinated efforts. However, Thomas, now justifiably outraged, struck back:
“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”
Thomas fought back and was confirmed by the narrowest of margins.
Miguel Estrada (2003) George Bush’s nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, was widely regarded as a prospect for a future appointment to the Supreme Court. If Clarence Thomas was not black enough for the left, Estrada was not brown enough. There are few things the left hates more than a person of color becoming, strong, well educated, successful, and Republican. People who rise above and desert them must be destroyed, least others get the same ideas that achievement is possible without the governmental largess of the Democrats. Best to nip this Estrada fellow in the bud as soon as possible.
The day before the committee vote the New York Times editorialized:
“Mr. Estrada, now a lawyer in Washington, also had an opportunity to elaborate on his views, and assuage senators' concerns, at his confirmation hearing, but he failed to do so. When asked his opinion about important legal questions, he dodged.”
Let’s be clear regarding the hearings of Bork versus that of Estrada: Bork was rejected, because he was honest in his wholly defendable legal views, while Estrada was rejected for evasiveness and lack of clarity regarding his views.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Keep the above point in mind also as pertains to the future testimony of President Obama’s nominee: Sotomayor.
Regarding the ‘wise Latina’s’ testimony the NY Times stated:
“She strove to be as circumspect about her views as possible, while the Senate Judiciary Committee members played their preset roles as defenders and interrogators.”
[. . .]
Sotomayor was confirmed, as well as Elena Kagan, who when combined with Ginsberg form a solid, unabashed trio of extreme left ideologues. All three were accepted by Senate Republicans with a minimum level of resistance.
Obama will take the rare opportunity to nominate someone as a replacement for Scalia. Democrats will fight hard for the candidate. However, the rules need to be applied fairly and equally to both sides, but they never are. The real problem is the Republicans have yet to come to that realization.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/before_the_fireworks_a_refresher_on_supreme_court_nominations.html

February 19, 2016
Before the Fireworks: A Refresher on Supreme Court Nominations
By Dennis Lund

Democratic Senators Opposed Recess Appointments To Supreme Court

Antonin Scalia

[From article]
David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:
Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

February 14, 2016
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson

Bernie and Donald, From The Outerboroughs

[From article]
Elites, right and left, are not pleased with the wisdom of crowds. And if we are totally honest, Donald and Bernie are not the real worry for the establishment. The real threat to traditional elites comes from the people -- the voter folks with real jobs who pay taxes. Cooking the media books along with primary poll picks, the jackass class and media brass see their sinecures and monopolies at risk in 2016.
[. . .]
if polls are omens, the true opponents in 2016 primary race feature the usual suspects against the usual chumps. Only this time out, the American lumpen proletariat seems to have had it with media spinners and party puppet masters.
In this, Trump and Sanders are brothers by other mothers, two outsiders bucking the same system, a bull and a bear squaring off in a cage match of their own making. Wow! Who would have thought that American politics might be transformative, interesting -- and entertaining?
[. . .]



Both are outsider animals. Both are calling for revolution. Both are running against the Beltway bandits. Both are New Yorkers, Queens and Brooklyn boys. Turns out those New York values, whatever they are, are an asset not a liability. [. . .] Trump nor Sanders are breeding lawyers. Indeed, both frontrunners are normal family men of a sort.
Both attract large enthusiastic crowds. Neither has much of a following among the media, party hacks, feminists, special pleaders, Islamists, cold warriors, moneyed interests, the legal profession, or race hustlers. Both seem to be inclined to fix things on the home front before they try to mend the dysfunctional world. Both also agree that Hillary shouldn’t get a third term in the White House. And neither Trump nor Sanders, quite frankly, seems to give a damn about what George Will, Rich Lowry, Nina Totenberg, or Chris Matthews thinks America should be.
Nonetheless, we are led to believe that both Trump and Sanders would be disasters. Really? Compared to whom? Surely not a Bush, an Obama, or another Clinton. America has had three doses of Bush, two draughts of Clinton, and now two too much of Obama. At home, the country is still burdened with debt, deficit, and flirts annually with default.
[. . .]
After seven seasons of inertia, fiscal incontinence, and yes, serial foreign policy disasters, a lottery might have picked better presidential timber than either of the two American political parties. So why not have the people pick a commander-in-chief 2016? Almost anyone should do better than the usual suspects.
Hillary Clinton might be the perfect example of all that’s wrong with American politics in both major parties. Primarily, Ms. Clinton wouldn’t know the truth if it bit her [. . .] Whatever the subject -- Arkansas shenanigans, bimbo eruptions, human rights for women, wall street donors, speaking fees, Benghazi, Islamists, immigrants, and now “private” email servers -- Hillary provides no candor or adult explanations save happy talk.
The Clintons are royalty in an American shyster cult where truth and justice are a function what you can get away with. America needs another pair of lawyers in the Oval Office like Brazil needs more mosquitoes before the Olympics.
Indeed, Mrs. Clinton believes that America is stupid enough to put another empty symbol in the White House. She is a passenger on Bill’s and now Barack’s coattails. Hillary is coasting too, for the most part, on her vagina, just as Barack Obama ran primarily on melanin and Jeb Bush now runs for dynasty.
[. . .]
Believe what you will about Bernie Sanders. He’s not Bill Clinton’s wife. Say what you will about Donald Trump too. He’s nobody’s bitch either.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/donald_and_bernie_the_outer_borough_brothers.html

February 2, 2016
Donald and Bernie: The Outer Borough Brothers
By G. Murphy Donovan

Propaganda By Muslim Apologists, Ignore Terror, Focus on Anti Muslim Sentiment

This is pure propaganda. Little of it is true. Mostly fantasy to provide cover for the intolerance, hatred and anti American culture and laws that Islam promotes. A major population of the world 1.6 billion Muslims plead minority status in the United States. They do not mention the outrageous abuses of Muslim dominant countries which are really un-American. Jews, Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists are harassed, and killed in Muslim dominant nations. Like Africans who come to the United States from black dominant nations plead minority status in the United States, and ignore majority abuses in their own countries. 

Typical is this comment. "Not only is Trump’s interest­ in a burqa ban virtually unenforceable, hateful, uncultured and unpresidential, it typifies exactly the type of casual, unapologetic exclusionism that has led otherwise righteous countries down the path of violent colonialism, ethnic cleansing and ultimate self-destruction." But in Muslim dominant nations run by Sharia Law they ban the practice of other religions no less dress.

They add, "Hateful leaders can abso­lutely destroy nations and can even more easily destroy­ their own political parties." How many religious leaders in Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu churches openly express hatred and urge the murder of members of other religions? But many Muslim religious leaders repeatedly call for the murder of Jews, Christians and Americans. They demand the destruction of Israel. Is that what these authors object to?

Here's more illogical propaganda. "The Republican Party risks its own destruction as a result of this decade’s episodes of 'blame the minority,' especially when it comes time to court a new generation of minority voters,­ down the road." Surveys find 75 percent or more of illegal aliens, and up to 80 percent of Muslims identify as Democrats. Republicans have no interest to cater to Muslims or illegal aliens. The Democratic Party leads these thoughtless voters by their noses.



[From article]
We believe­ that our religious practice is not merely compatible with being Ameri­can; the social­ justice tenets we’re committed to, informed in our case by our Islam, are essential elements of American patriotism.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/2016/02/robbins_and_mazen_prejudice_hate_are_un_american

Robbins and Mazen: Prejudice, hate are un-American
John Robbins, Nadeem Mazen

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Is Democratic Party Taking Lessons From Joseph Stalin?

“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” – Stalin

Incompetent Politicians Brought World To Edge Of World War, Domestic Chaos

[From article]
The same weekend the History Channel reran its series on World War I and II, where many leaders hoped for world peace, but instead guaranteed thirty years of war and 100 million deaths. Sadly, it is not in the nature of many maniacal leaders who prefer dictatorial powers to accept a world at peace. They reject a representative republic which is American-inspired. Some of our people think that we are the cause of so much destruction, but we have only been a nation for over two hundred years. We were late to the two World Wars and ended the conflagration.
[. . .]
The controlled and restrained approach to war-fare that President Obama has chosen in battling Islamic terrorists, whether they are ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, the Islamic mullahs of Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood has not contained the ideology. This appeasement reminds one of Britain’s Neville Chamberlain and his hope to avoid war. It was utterly futile then and will be so now.
[. . .]



This country is like a large ship. It cannot be swiftly turned around. The act itself renders us vulnerable as we are out of defensive position. No one president can reverse the many ills affecting America. It is time to remove the party bureaucracy and established bosses who have given us the present mess. Our economy is weak; our treasury is depleted through deficit spending, and we cannot manage our foreign policy objectives. The election in 2016 will give the nation the opportunity to end dependency and reverse the destruction of our manufacturing base. Yet, 45% of the nation is prepared at the outset to continue with similar policies (and elect a Democrat).
[. . .]
most Republican candidates cannot fix what ails our country. They have never created any business assets, personal wealth, maneuvered political obstacles, built anything, created significant numbers of jobs, managed destructive governmental rules, nor provided a national consensus for a new direction.
The election of 2008 was a wave election in which Obama was able to move the nation toward socialism. We must halt this movement to safeguard our Constitution and restore our national purpose.
[. . .]



Three remaining candidates do have experience as governors. This is a helpful background, but does not guarantee success. There is too much ego and too little statesmanship among our politicians; a far cry from our founding fathers. Ronald Reagan would not recognize this Republican Party
[. . .]
The effort to restore federalism is far from completed; under this concept, federal government has three competing branches and the states have sovereignty. The national politicians have usurped power over the past 100 years, but the greatness of America lies in its people and ability to renew its institutions as the need arises.
The rise of Trump is not a fluke, but it reflects anger with the establishment. His vocabulary is inflammatory; he is braggadocio to a fault. The establishment opponents do not understand the frustrations of the citizenry. Our conservative leaders have not redeemed their promise to halt Obama’s Executive Orders, his damage to our military, the bleeding of our treasury, the division among the races, illegal immigration at the expense of citizens and states, and loss of national pride and exceptionalism. Our nation is resilient, but our politicians have created this mess.
[. . .]



A president would be successful if a few of these issues could be corrected. The trajectory could be fixed, which would allow American ingenuity to repair the damage caused by politicians. The Federalist Papers were written to provide the intellectual basis for the Constitution after the failure of the Articles of Confederation was recognized. Our founders understood the desire for ever-increasing power and attempted to mitigate this risk. At various times the Congress and the Supreme Court have exerted their power, but they are overwhelmed by the president in our modern world. The system is subject to the mediocrity of our politicians.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_entrenched_parties_have_weakened_america_.html

January 13, 2016
The Entrenched Parties Have Weakened America
By Howard J. Warner

Thomas Paine Needed To Counter Misguided Democratic Party Policies

[From article]
In his masterpiece, Common Sense, Thomas Paine observed:
Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
[. . .]
after seven years of Obama leading the Democratic Party in insane notions of transforming the country, it is clear that rational thought and common sense are skill sets greatly lacking among liberal elites.
Whether blinded by ideology, motivated by egocentrism and nihilism, or solely focused on their goals of destroying America’s exceptionalism (while ensuring that Democrats rule forever), liberals are incapable of scientific inquiry, common sense analyses, and reason.
[. . .]
“Let them eat cake” is the unspoken mantra whispered at White House dinners. While Obama, Kerry, and Gore fly around the globe in their private jets, the rest of us are forced to use inefficient energy-saving appliances, ridiculously expensive light bulbs, and toilets with no water pressure. Our elitist-in-chief lectured Americans, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times," and proceeded to heat the Oval Office to a temperature appropriate for growing orchids.
[. . .]
By his own estimation, Obama himself is an existential threat to mankind.
[. . .]
Anyone questioning the liberal mantra that Islam is a religion of peace, despite data to the contrary, is labeled an Islamophobe with the aim of shutting down honest debate. Islamists declared war on the U.S. well before 9/11 and yet liberals still refuse to name the enemy. To liberals, political correctness trumps common sense.
[. . .]
Refusing to recognize that terrorists will not only obtain guns whenever they want but that their weapon of choice is more often a bomb, liberals’ inability to reason has and will continue to lead to loss of life and limb. Only a change in commander-in-chief will save Americans from living through decades of terrorist attacks on our shores.
[. . .]
Iran has been at war with America since the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis in 1979.
Liberals ignore chants of “Death to America,” the murder of our soldiers on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-sponsored terrorism across the world
[. . .]
Democrats are so ignorantly enamored by European-style socialism, despite its complete collapse, that the U.S. economy has not grown during Obama’s reign and the divide among economic classes has widened.
[. . .]
Affirmative action and other forms of social manipulation will not produce more productive members of society but rather, more resentful minorities. And bringing in untold numbers of indigent immigrants, whether Hispanic, Muslim, or otherwise, will only create more of a burden on government-run social welfare programs.
[. . .]
Obama, Holder, Jarrett and the gang would have us believe that we are a country of racists. [. . .] this gang of angry black folks is fueling the flames of hate -- at the expense of African-Americans. Obama’s divisiveness has set the civil rights movement back decades
[. . .]
Whether sic’ing the IRS on those with whom he disagrees or ordering the NSA to spy on Congress and the Israelis, Obama has enlisted all troops to fight his perceived domestic enemies. His DOJ nonsensically fails to prosecute criminals (Black Panthers and CAIR) while fabricating cases against individuals who disagree with his policies, including Bob Menendez who voted against his Iran deal. [and Dinesh D'Souza]
[. . .]
In liberal la-la-land, our historic friends are now our enemies on whom we spy and our decades-long enemies are friends who get $150 billion and nuclear weapons for doing nothing other than threatening our national security.
[. . .]
History will look back at an America that won the Cold War under Reagan only to reignite it under Obama. Our descendants will ponder how their ancestors abandoned American supremacy, ingenuity, and civility due to ignorance, idealism, and an irrational obsession with politically correct progressivism that led to the transformation -– and decline -- of this once great nation.
[. . .]
Obama took an oath to defend the Constitution. He has been at war with its constraints since day one, usurping power from the other branches of government and ignoring the laws that he swore to uphold and the security of the country he vowed to defend.
[. . .]
Safe spaces, coed locker rooms and unisex bathrooms in elementary schools and government-funded harvesting of fetal tissue at Planned Parenthoods are all the rage these days.
[. . .]
Obama does not believe in the Constitutional limits of office. His hope is that if his actions are on the books long enough, they will become impossible to reverse.
[. . .]
under the dictatorial, insanely irrational policies of the liberals dominating the Democratic Party, the country is destined to fall into the same abyss as the Roman Empire.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/obama_and_the_insanity_of_the_liberal_mind.html

January 6, 2016
Obama and the Insanity of the Liberal Mind
By Lauri B. Regan

Clueless Elite of Both Political Parties Perplexed at Trump Success

[From article]
To hear the patronizing wise men of the Republican Party tell it, anyone who would vote for Donald Trump for president must be deranged. “Trumpkins,” they call them, mental midgets and xenophobic troglodytes who’ve crawled out from their survivalist caves in order to destroy the Beltway Establishment.
How their resentful attitude galls the crack cadres of campaign consultants who brought conservatives halfhearted standard-bearers like John McCain and Mitt Romney to do sham battle against Barack Obama in 2008 and ’12, then return to the safety of the US Senate and a beachfront mansion in La Jolla.
The peasants are revolting!
[. . .]
And all on behalf of a bloviating billionaire whose conservatism and party loyalty are suspect.
[. . .]
Can the GOP really be so out of touch with the legions of out-of-work Americans — many of whom don’t show up in the “official” unemployment rate because they’ve given up looking for work in the Obama economy? With the returning military vets frustrated with lawyer-driven, politically correct rules of engagement that have tied their hands in a fight against a mortal enemy? With those who, in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino massacres by Muslims, reasonably fear an influx of culturally alien “refugees” and “migrants” from the Middle East?
[. . .]
has the junior wing of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party, ably embodied by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, forsaken even token opposition to the “progressive” ethos?
[. . .]
Even lame-duck Obama has waded in, cheekily blaming “economic stresses” and flatlining wages for Trump’s groundswell. “Particularly, blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck . . . Somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that.”
Remember when Obama apologized for saying that voters who disagreed with him “cling to guns or religion”? Yeah, guess he wasn’t really sorry.
[. . .]
The Trumpkins are sick of winning and having nothing to show for it, and their vengeance will be terrible. Maybe the Establishment should stop belittling them and listen instead.
http://nypost.com/2015/12/26/elites-and-media-really-hate-donald-trumps-voters/

Elites and media really hate Donald Trump’s voters
By Michael Walsh
New York Post
December 26, 2015 | 2:55pm

New US House Speaker Fails To Stand Up To Democratic Party Abuses, Breaks Promises, Supports Extreme Budget Spending

[From article]
The Republican Party might as well close up shop and merge with the Democrats. Not as a merger of equals, but more of a capitulation, a surrender, a sellout. There is no need for two parties in Washington DC as only one party is relevant in terms of advancing an agenda. The irony is that the agenda driving party is in the minority and despite losing badly in two midterm elections, the Democrats are still running Congress.
[. . .]



The deal suspends the debt limit until 2017, well after the presidential election, effectively taking unsustainable debt off the table as a campaign issue. Obama doubled the national debt? So what? Republicans are helping him. Don’t worry though, the spending cuts will take place in 2025, when most of the current Congress voting for this spending spree will either be retired or working as K Street lobbyists.
[. . .]
After voting in solid majorities in both the House and Senate, it’s business as usual, as if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were still in charge. Perhaps they are.
What has this latest budget deal done to thwart the Obama agenda? Very little.
[. . .]



Republican establishment types wonder why Donald Trump is leading in the polls. Trump is filling the leadership vacuum left by Ryan, Boehner, and McConnell. “We the people” see the GOP morphing into the DNC, despite promises to the contrary over the past four years. The smart set at Fox News can’t understand why “we the people” aren’t flocking to Jeb or Marco, and instead supporting racist/fascist Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
These two may be the last and only hope of maintaining a two-party system. If the establishment manages to destroy Trump and Cruz, then it’s lights out for the Republican party. The base will stay home and the Founding Fathers will roll over in their graves. As for any future support for the GOP, my answer be a Mrs. Clinton refrain, “What difference does it make?” The Republican Party will be six feet under and we will have one-party rule in Washington, DC.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/rip_republican_party_.html

December 19, 2015
RIP Republican Party
By Brian Joondeph

Explanation for Misguided White House Actions, Priorities of Democrats and Republicans

This essay is extremely helpful explaining the actions of the White House over the past seven years but also a well funded political effort of more than 50 years in American history. The goal is a one world government, globalism. There are conflicting narratives raised by the many politicians and useful idiots funded by George Soros and others who promote the destruction of national boundaries.

Global warming, climate change is the venue through which the basis for one world government is being promoted. The appearance that the White House supports Islam over Judeo-Christian values is related. Islam is a supremacist religions with the goal of dominating the world and eliminating other religions.



Stirring up racial divisions through funding of black nationalist organizations helps keep Americans divided. George Soros and his foundations support the creation of one world government. A few years ago the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. It advocated the elimination of the borders between the United States and Mexico and between the United States and Canada. The authors alleged the goal was security. Similarly the creation of the European Union destroyed barriers between free travel between European countries.

Globalism explains the remarkable policy of Angela Merkel in Germany to allow up to one million migrants from the Middle East. There are many actions of governments and corporations alike which appeared curious until scrutinized through the prism of globalism.

The transfer of millions of jobs by moving factories to China, India, Mexico, and other countries after Bill Clinton supported NAFTA shows that business interests, drive the move toward globalism. Weak elected officials act on behalf of corporate interests to break down national boundaries.



Destroying stable autocratic governments assisted this effort toward globalism. Ridding the Middle East of Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Anwar Sadat, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashir al-Assad makes it easier to eliminate national boundaries. This essay may not provide solutions to this problem. But it does illuminate the problem and make it clear what is going on without any open discussions. The last trillion dollar Congressional Budget passed contrary to numerous promises by Republicans shows that even the new US House Speaker is also a globalist.

The many Republican candidates who attack Donald Trump also show their fear of being exposed at promoting the destruction of the national sovereignty of the nation. It is a long essay (these are only excerpts) but well worth the time.



[From article]
The regulatory bureaucracy depersonalizes tyranny, diluting its real meaning with legalistic paperwork and soporific incrementalism. The bureaucratic labyrinth, with its officious, abstract, uncommunicative language, is the perfect guardian for the craven greed and power lust that occupy the offices on the top floor but dare not show their true faces in a "democratic" society.
[. . .]
The Paris Agreement is repetitive, dull, and full of provisos and addenda tacked on to appease various factions.
[. . .]



The entire Agreement is predicated on the assumptions that (a) the global mean temperature definitely will rise by more than 2 °C over the next century, despite the awkward absence of recent warming commensurate with rapidly increasing GHG levels, and (b) that the only means of preventing this calamity is fascistic economic intervention. Almost two hundred national governments, including those of the entire developed world, signed on to this wildly speculative but politically transformative proposition.
[. . .]
But the true heart of the Agreement, and its clearest concrete achievement, appears in Article 2, paragraph 2:
2. This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.
This statement, parsed carefully, is just a clunky, bureaucratic rendition of the principle Karl Marx borrowed from French socialist Louis Blanc: "From each ['common but differentiated responsibilities'] according to his ability ['respective capabilities'], to each according to his needs ['different national circumstances']." This sentence, in nearly identical phrasing, is repeated throughout the document to reinforce the point that this Marxist collectivist ideal, applied at the global level, is the guiding principle of the entire Agreement.



[. . .]
In other words, the commitment to economic control is total, though the implementation of that control will of necessity be gradual.
[. . .]
Establishing ever-greater bureaucratic regulation of private citizens' lives, and an ever-tighter interweaving of industry and government, is the point. In other words, the real problem the globalists are trying to solve is not excessive CO2, but excessive freedom, which is an intrinsic threat to the only kind of sustainability a ruling establishment cares about, namely the sustainability of its privilege.
[. . .]
we are talking about the development "beyond previous efforts" of crony capitalist industry, along with increased taxation to be used, not for the benefit of the overtaxed citizenry and unfairly restricted private businesses, but rather "taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties" -- in short, redistributive justice.
[. . .]



It does, however, firmly entrench man-made global warming as a scientific truth with the official endorsement of all the world's governments, now including the U.S., Russia and China. Furthermore, it gives official approval on behalf of all the world's governments to the principles of Marxist interdependency and redistribution, government-corporate alliances aimed at restricting private action and free markets, and the aggressive use of state propaganda to promote a tyrannical agenda.
[. . .]
The globalists are elated because they know they have taken their greatest leap forward, with the world's most powerful government, having access to the world's biggest cookie jar, now officially on board and fully committed to the goals of supra-national government and global redistribution. This really is historic. It symbolically ends progressivism's long struggle against all national resistance to its twin goals of global rule by an unelected elite and the gradual dissolution of national sovereignty. This is the breakthrough progressives of every stripe have been yearning for. Climate change may finally fulfill its promise as the vehicle whereby traditional nationhood -- the ultimate bulwark against the universalist dreams of tyrannical souls -- is weakened beyond repair.
[. . .]



They will use fear tactics and the machinations of an administrative apparatus answerable to no one to weaken national sovereignty worldwide, with the aim of establishing unlimited global politico-economic authority.
When progressives say they desire equality, they mean power and wealth. When they say they want to save the planet, they mean they want to protect their power and wealth. When they say "people over profits," they mean all people other than themselves should live without profits. When they talk of peace, they mean universal submission. When they speak of sustainability, they mean coercively restricted growth and development for "the masses." And when they speak of "global governance," well, they mean global governance

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/global_tyranny_just_getting_warmed_up.html

December 18, 2015
Global Tyranny Just Getting Warmed Up
By Daren Jonescu

Threat From Islam Different Than Other Religions

[From article]
Americans are having a hard time discussing the problem of Muslim immigration and assimilation because Islam is not just a religion; it's a whole way of life, civil and spiritual.
[. . .]
Islam, according to many Muslims, rejects that principle and declares that all authority belongs to Islam.
[. . .]
it's possible to reject Muslim immigrants not because of their faith, but because it's not irrational to assume that the first civil loyalty of at least some Muslims, especially those from Muslim-majority countries, is to Islam, not the Constitution.
[. . .]
The current Muslim situation is not the first time America has been concerned with immigrants because of their faith. Historically, America discriminated against Catholics and Catholic immigration because many Protestants erroneously believed that Catholics wanted to establish a theocracy in America. Many laws with a religious test resulted from that concern.
But unlike the baseless scare over something the Catholic Church did not teach – namely, that the pope should be running America – Islam does teach, at the very least in the minds of many Muslims, that all countries should be theocracies. If anyone doubts that a large fraction of Muslims believe that Islam calls for sharia law, one only has to look at how things are run in most Muslim-majority countries.
[. . .]
With nearly 3,000,000 Muslims in America and a major terror attack requiring the support of only a handful of people, it doesn't take a large percentage of radicals to create serious problems.
[. . .]
Most Americans support the commonsense solution of differentiating between radical Muslims and those Muslims who can accept the Constitution instead of sharia law.
[. . .]
Liberals have a strong incentive to ignore Islamic extremists because Muslims in America tend to be Democrats (70%)
[. . .]
We can't be safe if we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the root cause of Islamic terrorism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/islam_not_just_a_religion.html

December 12, 2015
Islam: Not Just a Religion
By Tom Trinko

Democratic Policies Harmful To Loyal Black Voters

[From article]
Bedtime for my four younger siblings and me was 9pm. Much later one night, there was a knock at our front door. It was a relative, 9 year old Barbara who had been roaming Baltimore streets searching for her drunkard welfare mother. Dad grabbed Barbara and forced her to spend the night. Dad recently told me that he remembers Barbara's mother saying, “I don't have to do anything and my white man (government) brings my check every month.”
Barbara's mom passed decades ago. Barbara is now in her sixties. I recently learned that Barbara has 52 kids and grand-kids raised on welfare without fathers. At one time, I would have criticized Barbara. But for some reason, my heart goes out to her. Barbara's life could have been so much more. Barbara's life is the legacy of loyalty to Democrats.
For fifty years Democrats have been promising blacks better lives from government dependency and voting Democrat. And yet, today rather than fewer Barbaras, in Baltimore and other cities controlled by Democrats, there are more Barbaras than ever. Over 70 percent of black kids grow up in fatherless, government dependent households which breeds poverty, incarceration, black on black crime, epidemic school dropouts and substance abuse.[. . .]
Meanwhile, rich Hollywood liberal white boys like Quentin Tarantino think they are doing blacks a favor by furthering the Democrats' blacks-are-victims-of-racist-America myth. Many rich successful blacks are just as guilty, nurturing the victim mindset that is stifling black success, creating unnecessary anger and igniting racial violence.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/welfare_mom_has_52_kidsgrandkids_a_victim_of_leftist_deceptions_promises_and_betrayals.html

November 1, 2015
Welfare Mom Has 52 Kids/Grand-kids: A victim of Leftist Deceptions, Promises and Betrayals
By Lloyd Marcus

Cambridge, MA City Council Candidate Forum, October 6, 2015

City Wide Senior Center

Ward Six Democratic Committee sponsored a city council candidate forum on Tuesday October 6, 2015, at the City Wide Senior Center. Not all candidates attended. Councilor Simmons left early and it was a good thing. Candidate Jan Devereaux arrived late. There was no place for her to sit otherwise. One gentle lady took her place and spoke for her before she appeared. Two other not present candidates were spoken for by two candidates who did attend [see below]. There were about 45 voters and other types of people present. 



Here are some images I captured. Two of my images are unfit to publish without editing. I replaced flattering images of those candidates in place of mine. If the candidates can speak for other candidates, I can use other images. Hehehe. The time keeper for this event was Elechi Kadete.


Candidate Gregg Moree holds the microphone and speaks to voters. At his right, is Councilor Dennis Carlone and then former Councilor Minka vanBeuzekon. Councilor Denise Simmons' right hand and part of her head, appears partially in this image at the far right.


Candidate Paul F. Mahoney, retired Cambridge firefighter, is hidden behind Gregg Moree in above photo. (this image is not mine)


This is the mens section. Left to right, candidates John Sanzone, Plinio Degoes, Illan Levy, and Councilor Craig Kelley. Moderator Lesley Phillips' white jacket makes an appearance at the far right. 


More of the mens section. Left to right, candidates James Williamson, Plinio Degoes, Gary Mello, John Sanzone. 


Ward Six Democratic Party forum moderator, Lesley Phillips. 


Councilor Dennis Carlone speaks to voters. To his right, former Councilor Minka van Beuzekon, looks on. To her right Councilor Nadeem Mazen takes notes.


Left to right, candidates Mariko Davidson, Jan Devereaux's doppelganger, Romaine Waite. At first I thought Ms. Devereaux had taken a hair cut, and grew older quickly. This was the spokesperson for Devereaux who was tardy. 


Cambridge Community Television (CCTV) videotaped this event. Look for it soon on your local station. It may even be streamed online. Some of the voters who came to meet and greet the council wannabes. The gaffer tape was sporadic and I was able to kick the XLR cable connection, disconnecting it, to interrupt the taping without even looking or trying. I re-connected the XLR male and female, and the taping resumed with a short interruption. 


Here's some more of the crowd at the senior center. The gentle lady in the red and white hat (center right) was able to use the chair in front of her for her jacket. When I went to sit there in order to capture some images, she began an angry rant asking me if I saw her jacket there. Well, yes I did, but I sat on the front part of the chair only because the jacket was there. If that was the New York City subway she could be fined $50 for taking up two seats. Did she think I was trying to steal the jacket? At a forum for politicians? Not my style at all. The jacket that is.


Candidate Gary Mello speaks for Kim Courtney. To his right, is John Sanzone, then Mike Connolly. 


This sign at the Senior center explains there are many out of shape people in Cambridge. They are so weak, only staff can adjust the shades. This country is in extraordinary trouble.


Candidate Illan Levy speaks for Xavier Dietrich. To his right is Councilor and U.S. Marine Craig Kelley. To his right moderator Lesley Phillips enjoys the performance. 


Councilor Dennis Benzan (not my photo)


Councilor Denise Simmons (not my photo)


Jan Devereaux, the late candidate (not my photo)


Former School Committee member Sara Mae Berman was receptionist at the candidate forum, shown here with her husband Larry, who  did not attend the forum. (not my photo)

Linda Sophia Pinti coordinated questions from the audience. No recent picture was available. Mine was not presentable.