The Federal Reserve and describe visually
Obama's pitiful accomplishments.
===================================
Expenditures Were Unconstitutional!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Allah Be Praised" and when you go to London do not forget that! (See 1 below.)
Iran and Obama (See 1a and 1b)
Meanwhile Israel is not perfect. Name me a nation that is. (See 1c below.)
===
Kerry and Iran - Siamese Twin Secretary. (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
As the Obama Monarchy ends his legacy is starting to come apart at the seams. (See 3 below.)
===
This is what 2016 is all about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
More reports of Clinton Foundation corruption are surfacing.
And then: This from Kim regarding Trump. (See 4 below.)
===
Once state tax money is transferred to the Government and then re-laundered back , after using a significant portion to create a government bureaucracy, states have lost control and increasingly come under the power of the federal bureaucracy.
Various Administration have consistently disregarded The 10th Amendment and I would suggest the Obama, progressives and liberals have been the most egregious. Why? Because control by a bigger, and thus a more inefficient government, is best able to deny and crush freedom which is the ultimate goal of socialists like Bernie and now Hillarious.
Now, Obama has purposely stretched the interpretation of the law to intrude into citizen's privacy in the restroom. Why? Because wedge issues are divisive and a divided United State has been the change Obama sought when he became president.
First Obama took over health care and now he has set his sights on public education. Both control by government of health and education are threats to freedom and will result in making citizens totally beholden to government dictates. (See 5 and 5a below.)
===
More on Atlas Development. (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Pamela Geller: Immediately After Muslim Mayor Elected, London's Iconic Buses Proclaim 'Glory To Allah'
The Islamization of Britain made an immense advance this week, as a Muslim with extensive ties to jihadis and Islamic supremacists, Sadiq Khan, was elected mayor of London, just as London buses are set to carry ads proclaiming the “glory of Allah.”
It’s a sign of the times – and a sign of things to come. Is anyone really surprised? That a man such as Sadiq Khan, who has shared a platform with open Jew-haters, could still be elected mayor of London, is an indication of how far gone Britain already is. In Sadiq Khan’s campaign, his opponents brought up his close ties to jihadis, Islamic supremacists and Islamic Jew-haters as a blot on his record. Soon enough in Britain, however, that sort of thing will be a selling point for candidates appealing to an increasingly Muslim electorate.
It’s a sign of the times – and a sign of things to come. Is anyone really surprised? That a man such as Sadiq Khan, who has shared a platform with open Jew-haters, could still be elected mayor of London, is an indication of how far gone Britain already is. In Sadiq Khan’s campaign, his opponents brought up his close ties to jihadis, Islamic supremacists and Islamic Jew-haters as a blot on his record. Soon enough in Britain, however, that sort of thing will be a selling point for candidates appealing to an increasingly Muslim electorate.
The UK banned me from the country. It is already acting like a de facto Islamic state. Did anyone really think that the notoriously anti-Semitic UK would vote for Khan’s opponent, Zac Goldsmith — a Jew? London has already been overrun – voter fraud in Muslim precincts is rampant. Not that they will really need it soon. London’s Muslim population is 1.3 million and growing.
The Muslims who voted for Sadiq Khan did not reject his extremist ties and supremacist rhetoric, dispelling the notion that most Muslims are moderates and do not adhere to the Sharia, or support extremism. Apparently, they are not “Uncle Toms,” as Sadiq likes to call moderate Muslims.
At the same time, many Jews were prohibited from voting. Even the Chief Rabbi of London was turned away – leading to the Chief Executive of one London borough having to resign. Innumerable voters throughout the London Borough of Barnet – where much of the British Jewish community lives today – were prevented from voting by a suspicious and never-explained “error” at the area’s polling stations.
This is no surprise. Sadiq Khan has shared platforms with Muslim Jew-haters who want to “drown every Israeli Jew in the sea.” According to investigative journalist Soeren Kern: “In 2008, Khan gave a speech at the Global Peace and Unity Conference, an event organized by the Islam Channel, which has been censured repeatedly by British media regulators for extremism. Members of the audience were filmed flying the black flag of jihad while Khan was speaking.”
The election of Sadiq Khan is a cautionary tale for any nation that is importing a large Muslim population. The media and political elites have been scrubbing and whitewashing Islam since 9/11, and so people not just in London, but all over the West, are generally woefully ignorant as to the supremacist nature of this ideology. And so we have tried to run bus campaigns increasing awareness of the dangers of sharia and Islamic supremacism, and always we are met with resistance — sharia enforcement in the West.
Even now, an Islamic supremacist group is running an Allah Is Greater campaign in London, just two days after the election of Khan. The slogan “Subhan Allah” – Glory be to Allah” is acceptable, yet an ad that Christian groups tried to run featuring the Lord’s Prayer was banned. And what is missing from all the reportage about the new ad campaign is the supremacist nature of the phrase “Glory to Allah” – often mistranslated as “Glory to God” by Western media outlets. This phrase is derived from the same tradition as “Allahu akbar,” which rather than meaning “God is Great” as the mainstream media claims, actually means “Our god – Allah — is greater” – greater, that is, than yours.
And now fresh on the heels of jihad election, a notorious Islamic group is plastering the sides of London buses, the same buses that were bombed in the July 7, 2005 Islamic attacks, with posters blaring “Glory to Allah.” Indeed. These days are days of triumph for Islamic imperialists and sharia enforcers across the UK. Mind you, I contacted the London bus outdoor advertising agency, asking them to run ads that my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), has prepared containing actual Muhammad quotes.
I have not, however, heard back from them. No surprise. To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you cannot criticize. This is essentially soft sharia enforcement: the prohibition of any criticism of Islam and of anything offensive to Islam and Muslim sensibilities.
The same thing is happening in the United States today as well. While America sleeps, the Left and its Islamic supremacist allies are working hard to render the First Amendment a dead letter. The stakes couldn’t be higher. You can’t criticize Muhammad, even by quoting him directly. You can’t criticize Islam. You can’t criticize prominent Muslims. You can’t draw cartoons of Muhammad.
This is the situation in Britain today, and in the United States also. It is all so utterly absurd, but not so much as the non-believers who submit and adhere to this oppression and supremacism – how many non-Muslims in London, heedless of the consequences and besotted by political correctness and multiculturalism, voted for Sadiq Khan?.
This is the islamization of London and the United Kingdom. Soon will follow the criminalization of free speech. The election of Sadiq Khan and the “Glory to Allah” ads on London buses herald the beginning of a very scary, dark period in British history. It may indeed be the last period of Britain as the home of free people. Free people who willingly chose their own destruction.
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on Americaand Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance
1a) Ted Cruz: The Mullahs and Their Missiles
1a) Ted Cruz: The Mullahs and Their Missiles
Washington — ON Monday, the Iranian military’s deputy chief of staff announced that the Islamic Republic had successfully tested yet another ballistic missile — this time, a high-precision midrange weapon with a reported reach of 2,000 kilometers, or 1,250 miles, and with a degree of accuracy that he claimed to be “without any error.” If these statements are true, the entire Middle East, including Israel, is within the reach of the mullahs’ missiles.
It was not revealed if this missile had its genocidal intent actually inscribed on it, as other missiles recently tested by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps have — with the inscription in Hebrew “Israel should be erased from the map.” But it hardly matters. The mullahs’ objectives are plain enough for anyone with eyes to see: The Iranian regime is continuing its determined march toward not only a nuclear weapon, but also the means to launch it, first against Israel and then against the United States.
This reality makes all the more inexplicable President Obama’s steadfast faith that, since the election of President Hassan Rouhani in 2013, Iran has been charting a “more moderate course” to the detriment of the old-time hard-liners, and that Mr. Rouhani and his administration would be reliable partners in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
To give credit where credit is due, the regime in Tehran has been frank and open about its continued hostility toward America and Israel. In the months since the Obama administration and the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany (the group commonly referred to as the “P5 + 1”) concluded the deal with Iran called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Revolutionary Guards have tested at least four ballistic missiles. Flush with the $100 billion they claim to be getting in assets unfrozen under the deal, the mullahs have gone on a spending spree, finally purchasing, among other things, the Russian S-300 missile system, which is now being delivered to them.
Who can forget the searing images of American sailors on their knees with guns pointed at their heads by our “moderate” partners this past January? Just last week, in the course of receiving an official delegation from the Gaza-based militant movement Palestinian Islamic Jihad — which the State Department designated a terrorist group in 1997, for its efforts to destroy Israel — the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reiterated that the prime directive of the Islamic Republic remains, as it has been since 1979, to wage war against the United States and Israel.
On Saturday, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, that trusted counterpart to Secretary of State John Kerry, publicly affirmed to the Iranian Parliament that the same supreme leader who had just said doing harm to America and Israel was his key objective remains the ultimate arbiter of Iranian foreign policy. And as a final reminder of how the Islamic Republic conducts itself toward America, on Monday Amir Hekmati, a former United States Marine, sued the government of Iran for the brutal torture inflicted on him over the course of more than four years of arbitrary detention by Tehran.
Enough. The mullahs’ policy is, by their own admission, unchanged. It is the same one that inspired the so-called revolutionaries of 1979 to take 52 Americans as hostages for 444 days, and motivated murderous attacks on Israelis and Americans from Buenos Aires to Beirut to Baghdad over the subsequent decades. The only thing that is changing now is the potential scale of this violence, as they seek to replace truck bombs and roadside explosive devices with the most destructive weapons on the planet and the means to deliver them.
The sensible thing to do now is to face this reality, however unpleasant it may be, and do what we can to bolster our defenses and those of our allies.
As a first step, I look forward to working with my congressional colleagues this week and in coming months to make sure that President Obama’s failure to sufficiently fund Israel’s missile defense programs in his latest budget request is reversed. Shockingly, even after admitting that the nuclear deal with Iran places Israel in greater danger and making assurances that support for the Jewish state would be increased, the president could not find a single dollar to put toward procurement for the David’s Sling or Arrow-3 missile defense systems, which are being jointly developed by the United States and Israel.
We have all been impressed by the success of Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system, which targets short-range rockets and was implemented with the generous assistance of American taxpayers. But as the recent Iranian medium-range missile test proves, rockets fired from Gaza are not the only threat Israel faces.
Providentially, David’s Sling, which guards against such ballistic missiles, is ready to go online this year; it will be followed by the Arrow-3 system to protect the Jewish state from longer-range weapons. Rather than starving these programs, Congress should seize this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to Israel’s security and so to our own. That would send the leaders of the Islamic Republic an unmistakable signal that there are at least some in Washington who still take them at their word, and will act accordingly.
Can Assad keep crossing the ‘red line’?
The Obama administration has another chance to enforce its botched “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, given new reports that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has used nerve gas against extremist fighters and may be planning more such attacks.
President Obama’s decision not to retaliate against Assad’s use of chemical weapons in 2013 has become an emblem of his larger foreign policy, which critics say hasn’t been forceful enough in Syria and other places. Obama justified his restraint by citing the diplomatic agreement that was brokered by the United States and Russia to destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal. But new Israeli reports question whether Assad has complied.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, apparently relying on a government source, reported May 2 that Assad’s forces used sarin gas last month against Islamic State fighters after they attacked two Syrian air force bases east of Damascus. Stockpiles of this deadly gas were supposed to have been removed from Syria in 2014.
Given the international silence, Israeli officials are said to fear that Assad will keep striking with the banned weapons. “With the continuation of fighting in Syria, it is reasonable to assume that the regime won’t hesitate to use these weapons again, especially after already having done so . . . without any reaction,” an Israeli source told me.
The alleged use of sarin is another sign that Assad appears ready to breach any diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the war. In recent weeks, his forces, backed by Russia, have struck a pediatric hospital in Aleppo run by Doctors Without Borders and a U.S.-backed humanitarian group in Idlib called Syria Civil Defense.
Chemical weapons have become part of “the new normal” in Syria, according to a report in February by the Syrian American Medical Society. The group said that in 2015, there were 69 chemical weapons attacks in Syria, mostly chlorine bombs dropped by Assad’s air force.
The Assad regime often justifies such attacks by saying that it is bombing the Islamic State or Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. But these jihadists are intermingled with civilians and moderate opposition groups in ways that make the non-extremists targets, too. As Assad has pressed his campaign in Aleppo and elsewhere, the “cessation of hostilities” negotiated by the United States and Russia in February has frayed badly.
The possibility that Syria retains chemical weapons was noted recently by Ahmet Uzumcu, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. “There are still questions. I am not able to say whether Syria has declared everything or whether Syria continues to possess some chemical weapons or some munitions,” he cautioned. Uzumcu also noted “extremely worrying” signs that the Islamic State has used mustard gas in Syria and Iraq.
Obama administration officials are concerned about Syria’s continued use of chemical weapons, but they see significant differences between the recent reported incidents and the size and scope of the 2013 attacks using sarin and VX, which are believed to have killed more than 1,400 Syrian civilians.
Diplomacy remains the administration’s focus in Syria — and the partnership with Russia seems to be expanding, rather than shrinking, despite its setbacks. To bolster the cease-fire, U.S. and Russian officials have been discussing the location of “protected” Syrian opposition groups. Officials from the two countries are said to talk daily in Geneva and by telephone to Syria, arguing over which areas are legitimate extremist targets and which should be avoided. This shared “domain awareness,” as one official describes it, illustrates the extent of quiet Russian-American cooperation.
But Syria shows the limits of this great-power diplomacy. Russia can’t seem to control Assad, even when it attempts to do so. And the United States has been unable to force opposition fighters to disentangle themselves from Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State. Assad, once seen as a mild-mannered ophthalmologist, has proved a headstrong, brutal leader who has spawned the equivalently vicious Islamic State.
Finally, there remains a gaping hole in the U.S. strategy for capturing the Islamic State’s strongholds in Raqqa and Manbij in eastern Syria. Washington wants this fight to be led by Sunni Arabs, but the only reliable fighters that the United States has found are Syrian Kurds from the YPG militia — which, to complicate matters further, is viewed by Turkey (a NATO ally) as a terrorist group.
Who will bell this cat? Are Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin really ready to tolerate a situation in which the use of chemical weapons is seen as “normal,” despite a Russian-American agreement that they should be banned?
1c)
Israel is Not Perfect. So What?
By JONATHAN S. TOBIN
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Secretary of State John Kerry is Ben Rhodes’ useful idiot. That is the most generous conclusion one can come to after news broke of the Secretary’s frustration with Europe’s reluctance to do business with the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Sec. Kerry believes that European businesses are refusing to trade with the Iranians for (feigned) fear that they might run afoul of U.S. sanctions against the “moderate” mullahocracy were they to engage in commerce.
Let Sec. Kerry be clear: Iran is “open for business.” “If they [the Europeans] don’t see a good business deal, they shouldn’t say, ‘Oh, we can’t do it because of the United States.’ That’s just not fair. That’s not accurate,”says the Boston Brahmin with a heart of gold.
But Sec. Kerry’s rhetoric, meant to insulate America against such criticism, is not about defending America’s interests. It is actually about defending Iran’s.
Sec. Kerry today is aiding, abetting and enabling Iran through encouraging economic activity the proceeds of which will be used to underwrite jihad.
For Sec. Kerry is speaking out because he is feeling the heat from our friends in Tehran. As the Washington Post details:
The top U.S. diplomat’s comments came as the U.S. works to address Iran’s complaints that it hasn’t received the sanctions relief it was promised in exchange for rolling back its nuclear program. Under the deal, broad U.S. sanctions on Iran’s economy were removed, clearing the way for foreign companies to do business with most Iranian companies.
Yet some specific Iranian entities, including companies associated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, are still off-limits under sanctions punishing Iran for other behavior. And the U.S. maintains a prohibition on Iran accessing the American financial system or directly conducting transactions in U.S. dollars, fueling confusion and practical impediments given that international transactions routinely cross through the U.S. banking system.
Sec. Kerry trembles at the thought that the Iranians might not think the Americans are honest brokers. Leave aside Iran’s violations of international ballistic missile restrictions, or its near daily anti-American proclamations and threats. Sec. Kerry’s greatest fear of all is that if the Iran Deal unravels, it will be America’s fault.
In a perverse way this fear is rational: Sec. Kerry was responsible for bending beyond even where the French were willing to bend in order to get a deal done with the Iranians. This deal is his legacy, his labor of love, and of course President Obama’s too.
But as we know, the legacy of the deal will not be in its consummation but in its consequences. Sec. Kerry today is aiding, abetting and enabling Iran through encouraging economic activity the proceeds of which will be used to underwrite jihad. Combine the over $100 billion in financial benefits we have already provided the mullahs with our promise to protect Iran’s infrastructure, and it becomes clear that we are in league with the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.
The true legacy of the deal will be the expansion of the Shiite crescent in the Middle East that will make Iran the hegemon in the region. The true legacy of the deal will be the nuclearization of the Muslim world. The true legacy of the deal will be the blood on Iranian hands of Israelis and Americans surely to come. Sec. Kerry’s hands, along with those of others in the Obama administration who fraudulently foisted this deal upon us, will be bloodied too.
The worse-than-Chamberlainian appeasement of Sec. Kerry is a disgrace and it is dangerous. Not only that, but our acquiescence to an Islamic regime that has been at war with us since 1979 is a reflection ofdhimmitude. We are acting in fear and weakness lest we offend our Iranian counterparts, when fear and weakness are exactly the things they least respect and are most apt to prey on.
In the Islamic world, the strong horse wins. The weak horse ends up like the one in The Godfather.
It is a sad commentary when cowardly dhimmitude is the official policy of the American government. We risk ending up like that beheaded horse too the further we go down this perilous path.
Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of Change Up Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics.
2a)”Kerry Tries to Drum Up Some Business in Europe for Iran.”
By Elliot Abrams
2a)”Kerry Tries to Drum Up Some Business in Europe for Iran.”
By Elliot Abrams
Mr. Kerry, traveling in Europe, was urging Europe an firms to do business with Iran in the aftermath of last year’s nuclear deal. The story continues:
“If they don ’t see a good business deal, they shouldn’t say, 'Oh, we can’t do it because of the United States.’ That ’s just not fair. That’s not accurate,” Mr. Kerry s aid. The secretary is here through Thursday for an anti-corruption summit and diplomatic meetings. He will meet with European banking leaders to “address their concerns about conducting business with Iran ” after the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, a U.S. official said. In N ew York last month, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif pressed Mr. Kerry and other U.S. officials to do more to reassure other countries that they could do business with Iran without penalty. “Iran has a right to the benefits of the agreement they signed up to and if people, by confusion or misinterpretation or in some cases disinformation, are being misled, it’s appropriate for us to try to clarify that….”
Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It continues to rally its population with shouts of “Death to America.” It supports Hezbollah, a murderous terrorist group with the blood of hundreds of Americans on its hands. It has a nuclear weapons prog ram that has been delayed, one hopes, by the nuclear deal–but continues its ballistic missile program, whose only logical purpose is to deliver nuclear weapons. It is an enemy of American allies such as Saudi Arabia, th e UAE, and Israel.
Why, then, is our Secretary of State trying to assist its economy? The so-called “spirit” of the nuclear agreement? There is no such thing, or Iran would not have captured and abused American sailors in the Gulf in January. Iran’rights” to benefits from the agreement? That is nonsense. Iran h as the “right” to an end to nuclear sanctions, but has no right” to additional business. There are many reasons companies may hold back, ranging from American terrorism and human rights sanctions, to uncertainty about future American policy, to fear that entities in Iran wit h which they may undertake business are also involved in illegal or terrorist activities. Moreover, Iran is not a democracy with a reliable legal system, but a dictatorship run by the ayatollahs and the
Revolutionary Guard where legal rights cannot possibly be guaranteed. There is simply no
defensible reason for an American official, much less our top diplomat, to concern himself with how much investment and profit Iran can eke out of the nuclear deal. The effort to do so betrays America’s real interests in the Middle East, which are challenged by a richer and better resourced Iran.
One can only hope that business men and women realize that Kerry's speeches notwithstanding, they face considerable business risks when go ing into Iran. Quoting his speeches won’t help them when they face un fair treatment in an Iranian tribunal, or when the U.S. Treasury prosecutes then in future years for dealing with entities engaged in illegal acts. In any event, talking up business with Iran is no part of Mr. Kerry’s brief.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++33) Obamacare Suffers Major Blow With Subsidy Payment Strikedown
At issue was a $175 million program authorizing payments to insurers that Republicans claimed were not appropriated by Congress. On
the question of whether the money could be distributed anyway
under another program, Collyer wrote in her opinion: “It cannot.”
“None of the Secretaries’ extra-textual arguments – whether based on economics, 'unintended' results, or legislative history – is
persuasive,” she wrote. “The Court will enter judgment in favor of
the House of Representatives and enjoin the use of unappropriated monies to fund reimbursements due to insurers” under that section.
Collyer said the law is "clear," and money was not allocated for that program.
She then said she would stay the injunction, giving the
administration a chance to appeal.
The controversial payments to insurers were meant to reimburse
them over a decade to reduce co-payments for lower-income
people.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++4)Trump’s Money Games
First he was going to self-fund. Now he isn’t. Meanwhile, Clinton raises
$213 million.
By
The candidate in his Trump Tower office in New York, May 10. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Donald Trump the Businessman is fond of noting that the “best investments” are sometimes “the ones
you don’t make.” Donald Trump the Presumptive Nominee may be discovering that the rules of
politics aren’t always the rules of business—at least when it comes to money.
Mr. Trump is taking hits for his switcheroo last week on self-funding his campaign. The man who
pummeled his primary competitors as “puppets” of large donors now will actively court those same
donors, to underwrite what could be a $1.5 billion general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton.
He is promising to erect a “world-class finance operation.”
He’ll have to, if he wants to overcome a stunning financial handicap against the Democratic money
juggernaut. The handicap is one of Mr. Trump’s own making. He chose not to “invest” in his primary
run by laying the groundwork necessary for the general election. That decision may now prove his
biggest hurdle to the White House.
Mr. Trump is brilliant at identifying issues that resonate with voters, and he early-on sniffed the
benefit of claiming that he was “self-funding” his primary campaign.
In hindsight, it was a foolish move. It also wasn’t true. Of the $47 million Mr. Trump spent through
March, $11 million came through outside donations. Small donations or not, this was other people’s
money.
The other $36 million came in the form of a “loan” by Mr. Trump to his campaign. That’s key. People
who lend money do so in the expectation of getting it back. And with his announcement that he will
now openly solicit donations, we can expect that the fundraising will pay back the loan. The self-
funding candidate was a mirage.
The bigger liability of the self-funding pose was its shortsightedness. Mr. Trump has presumably long
known that even bargain-basement general-election presidential campaigns these days run at least $1
billion. It was ludicrous to think he ever intended to cover such a phenomenal number—even if he
could have afforded it.
Yes, Mr. Trump is rich. But there is clearly a reason he is refusing to release his tax returns. (His
explanation, that some of them are being audited by the IRS, is laughable.) One guess is that his
returns show tax-lowering deductions and accounting vehicles that aren’t available to the average Joe
and risk making Mr. Trump look tax-dodgerish.
A likelier possibility: Mr. Trump may be rich, he isn’t liquid-rich. His wealth could be tied up in real
estate or investments. Mr. Trump in 2006 sued Timothy O’Brien for defamation, claiming that the
book author had understated his personal wealth. In the course of a deposition, Mr. Trump admitted
that his “net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with
feelings, even my own feelings.”
Before the suit was dismissed in 2009, Mr. Trump had to turn over his tax returns. They are under seal,
and the reporter hasn’t provided details, but in a recent interview he speculated that Mr. Trump isn’t
releasing his IRS documents because “you see what his income actually is in those returns.” Mr.
Trump might never have had enough cash to fund a White House run.
If that’s the case, and yet he stuck to his self-funding line, it was sheer political malpractice.
Candidates spend years building donor networks, collecting names and numbers of prospective
supporters. Their national parties depend on the information to hone their databases for fundraising
and get-out-the-vote efforts. An essential role of primary races is identifying best-prospect voters.
Mr. Trump’s indifference to harvesting the information or dollars of his supporters is all the more
extraordinary because many of them are first-time or occasional voters who wouldn’t otherwise exist
in the Republican National Committee data. The other day, Mr. Trump said he thinks voter data is
“overrated.”
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has raised more than $213 million. Her super PAC has banked another $67
million. She started a joint campaign fund with the Democratic National Committee more than eight
months ago, which has already raised $60 million. Mr. Trump is just starting, and he still hasn’t fully
blessed a super PAC effort. Many major GOP donors remain on the sidelines. And it’s nine weeks to
the Republican convention.
Yet Mr. Trump needs that cash, like, yesterday. The Clinton campaign is already lambasting him. One
of Mitt Romney’s biggest mistakes was sitting silent early in the 2012 general election, partly for lack
of money, while the Obama campaign pounded him as a craven capitalist. By the time the Romney
campaign engaged in the fall, it was too late.
Mr. Trump coasted through the primaries on an estimated $2 billion in free media, but he shouldn’t
count on such helpful coverage now. With a Democratic presidency at stake, reporters will feel a duty
to finally start digging into his past.
A pity that Mr. Trump didn’t stand on principle from the start. His wealth alone would have allowed
him to proclaim his independence, even as he harvested the data and dollars of the many. He wouldn’t
be scrabbling for excuses now, and he might be beating Hillary in the only other race he needs to win
between now and Election Day.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Obama's Late Night Transgendered
Bathroom Decision
Bathroom Decision
The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every
public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the
bathrooms that match their gender identity.
A letter to school districts will go out Friday, fueling a highly charged debate over
A letter to school districts will go out Friday, fueling a highly charged debate over
transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North
Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education Department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do
not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face
lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.
-transgendered-bathroom-decision#sthash.qInPuMGB.dpuf
Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/breaking-obama-s-late-night
Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/breaking-obama-s-late-night
-transgendered-bathroom-decision#rlcq8OI2BfP61o5G.99
5a)WATCH: Obama Cronies Laugh About
- See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/watch-obama-cronies
5a)WATCH: Obama Cronies Laugh About
His Greatest Failure
Charlie Rose had a conversation with the young mandarins who write his cliche ridden, pseudo intellectual, straw man bashing speeches. Here's what happened next:
Three of President Obama’s former speechwriters, David Litt, Jon Lovett, and Jon Favreau, sat down with journalist Charlie Rose on his PBS show, where the three men cracked some jokes about one of the biggest lies that emanated from this administration: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it (via NewsBusters):
CHARLIE ROSE: My point is do you have equal impact on serious speeches? Because it’s about style, use of language, etcetera?
JON LOVETT, FORMER OBAMA SPEECH WRITER: I really like, I was very — the joke speeches is the most fun part of this. But the things I’m the most proud of were the most serious speeches, I think. Health care, economic speeches.
JON FAVREAU, FORMER OBAMA SPEECH WRITER: Lovett wrote the line about “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”
LOVETT: How dare you!
[laughter]
LOVETT: And you know what? It’s still true! No.
These young schmucks might find this incredibly funny, but the American people
aren't laughing.
-laugh about-his-greatest-failure#sthash.GEf3SbSi.dpuf
Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/watch-obama-cronies
-laugh-about-his-greatest-failure#q99dQyrZi6x0zLol.99
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How Dan Berkowitz and his crew found their secret weapon
|
Pittsburgh called. Dan answered. Instead of flying solo (like so many entrepreneurs do), he assembled a team of the city's finest. Together, as the mighty real estate company Atlas Development, they're able to revitalize large buildings in a single-bound. Hear how laser focus and super strategy grew Dan's business and transformed Pittsburgh.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
No comments:
Post a Comment