3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Politico on Trump

It turns out the GOP wasn’t simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn’t appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good.

Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn’t said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals — these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the “ghost of George Wallace” that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven’t assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What’s our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino—attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

I'm surprised to see Trump leading in polls in this state, by between 11 and 20 points. My state's primary is Tuesday April 26, 2016,not that it matters to the candidates, because this state is so blue. I won't vote for Trump in that. Not sure still who I do think is best. But I guess all I can say is, in the general election, if it came down to a choice between Hillary or Bernie, and Trump, I'd vote for ABHOB. You can figure it out, I'm sure.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Was Trump Predicted 20 Years Ago?

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Monday, February 01, 2016

Early (and Later) Iowa Caucus Results

Found here.

I was just about to post a graphic of the chart there at 8:47pm, but in the time it took me to printscreen and edit the PNG file, the early "lead" switched from Cruz up over Trump with 35% to 30% of those tallied so far, to Trump being up ever so slightly, 32.7% to 32.4%.

Rubio's the clear third place steadily, now at 13.4%, but Carson isn't that far behind in fourth place at 9.4%.

From Carson on down, there's about 23% of the votes split among those nine. Bush is sixth, with a measly 2.3% of votes so far.

Now at almost 9pm ET, Cruz is slightly ahead, by about 1%. Kasich is doing much worse than even I think he would've: 8th, below Fiorina.

Clinton's ahead by 6%, but Sanders has a whopping 46.5% of the Democrats so far there.

After this, I'm hoping a few GOP candidates stop running. Which ones? Carson, Paul, Bush, Huckabee, Fiorina, Kasich, Christie, Santorum, "Other" (?), Gilmore.

Christie is doing very poorly, as I expected a Jersey Boy to do in corn country.

The Dems caucus process is taking forever. Only 221 votes tallied? To the GOP's about 6,000? On the radio tonight I heard a summary of how both go about this. Do go read up on it yourselves. It's no wonder the Dems take so long. They have to stand around, in little "herds" of voters, and if one "herd" doesn't seem to be gaining enough members, they then can decide to a) go home and not vote or b) migrate to another candidate's "herd" and there is lots of cajoling, wooing, persuading, recruiting, even arm-twisting, going on among the voters and the party machine people.

Whereas the Republicans have one vote, they put it on a piece of paper, they hand it in, and they're counted in front of the caucuses.

Why am I not surprised? Kind of reminds you why there's more things wrong with Democrat-controlled cities and states than the other party's.

At 9:06 pm ET, Cruz now leads by 2 whole percentage points. Sanders is now within about 4 points of Clinton. The Dems still only have 294 votes tallied? I'm very curious now, to see how many caucusers really come out for their side, period, by the end of the night. Could the disparity be that bad, in Iowa? At 9:18pm ET, the RCP website, I think, says that 44% of Democrat precincts and only 22% of Republican precincts have tallied their votes. If that's accurate, that could mean there are only 1,140 total Democratic caucusers? To the Republicans total 135,486 caucusers?

The Sun Sentinel and US News & World Report both referred--before the caucus began--to the total numbers, including both parties, being "a couple hundred thousand people." So that would have to mean the Dems actually had somewhere between 15,000 (if "a couple hundred thousand total") and maybe 174,000 (if they turned out in record numbers like in 2008, which sounds highly unlikely, from all reports).

Quoted the website Bustle:

"According to PBS, Iowa's voter turnout represented just 0.1 percent of the entire population of the United States in 2008 (and that was an election that attracted more voters than usual)."
PBS' article gives more details:
In 2012, 121,503 Republicans — or 19.7 percent of the state’s 614,913 registered GOP voters — participated in the caucus. The low turnout rate applies to both parties: In 2004, 23.3 percent of registered Democrats in the state cast a ballot.

The one recent exception was 2008, when there was unusual excitement on the left surrounding Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s barrier-breaking campaigns. That year, 239,872 Iowa Democrats — or 39.5 percent of the state’s registered Democratic voters — participated in the party’s caucus.

However, the record turnout in 2008 also included independents who registered as Democrats to vote in the party’s caucus.

It also has a graphic that says the 2008 total Iowa Caucus turnout, actual voters, was 359,000 people. So 359,000 total minus 239,872 Democrats that year equals 119,128 Republican caucus voters. Almost the same as in 2012.

Business Insider reported at "7:45 p.m. ET -- The Des Moines Register's Jennifer Jacobs reported that she's seeing "crazy amounts of new registrations" at GOP caucuses..."

On January 3, 2012, Obama got 8,064 "votes" in Iowa, out of a total 8,152. The 2008 data above was hard to find, because the Iowa Dems don't release the actual voter counts, they only like to talk about "delegate Equivalents" and "superdelegate count." Gee, I wonder why. Maybe the American public would actually learn how the two parties really do stack up every four years in each primary. How deceptive can you get? Hiding the actual vote totals means you, um, have something to hide.

At 10pm ET, 59% of GOP voters and 69% of Dem voters are counted, with 93,645 votes, and "854," respectively.

That means the Republicans might be on track to total 158,720 voters now?

Don't take my word for these Dem vote counts. Here's the 10pm ET screenshot:

Cruz leads by about 3.3 points with 62% of votes reported. Rubio is now nipping at Trump's second-place heels, with 21.9% to Trump's 25%.

Sanders has now, 10:18pm ET, closed within 1.3% of Hillary, a difference of only 13 votes. 527 for Clinton, 514 for Bernie. Imagine the arm-twisting going on there right now on the donkey side of the house.

38% of GOPers and 21% of Dems are yet to be counted, at 10:20 ET. I hadn't planned to live-blog this, but I'm very tempted to stay up till the end, to get a screenshot of those final vote counts then.

81% of GOP and 82% of Dem votes in now. If true, then there could be as many as 183,000 GOP caucusers voting tonight, as about 154,00 are already counted. This would utterly shatter the number I read about a day ago, here's the link:

"Four years ago, a record-breaking number of Iowans — 121,503 — participated in the Republican caucuses. If turnout exceeds 135,000 this year, GOP insiders agree, it will be an indication that Donald Trump has attracted a significant number of new voters to the caucuses. And if the increase is even more drastic — say, upwards of 150,000, which some Republicans believe is possible — then Trump will likely win. But if turnout is below 135,000, Iowa will be Ted Cruz’s to lose..."
National Review published that. Kind of ironic given their anti-Trump issue. Yet, with 84% of the GOP votes in at 10:31pm ET, Cruz is still up by 3.3% over Trump. Unless Trump has a late may not be Cruz's to lose.

At 10:36 pm ET, Sanders has now closed to within nine votes of Hillary. She must be freaking out, because their process allows people to switch as they see fit, so if anyone hasn't been "persuaded" yet, I'm guessing the Clinton strong-arm is in full-swing. Oh, make that EIGHT votes, Sanders gained one on her. And there are roughly "190" left to vote/and/or be counted on the Dems side. Make that SEVEN votes away, for Bernie to tie her up, at 10:43pm ET.

It appears that there's a Checkmark now next to Cruz's name at 10:44pm ET:

Cruz is still 3.3% ahead, with 89% reporting, and he's been that distance ahead for a lot of votes.

And Bernie just got within 6 votes of Hillary.


Rubio is now 1.4% points under Trump, at 10:51pm ET, with 23% of the total so far. Probably won't overtake him, but that's damn close. Bush? 2.8%. About one-tenth of Rubio's numbers. Bye-bye, Jeb.

Three votes separate Sanders from Clinton, at 10:54pm ET. This could take all night, at this rate. Typical Democrat-government-run results. And both parties have 89% of votes counted.

About 166,000 Republicans have had their votes counted as of 11:03pm ET. That could mean, with 89% reported, that a total of 186,000 will be the finale.

Why are the Dems so secretive about the actual number of voters? The level of mind-boggling complexity in their twisted machinations over these numbers is beyond the pale. Even if those are the "equivalent" numbers they fudge to hide the real ones, where did the rest of those 8,152 "voters" from 2012 go? Did they stay home? Did they vote for Trump? Can't wait to see the spin the mainstream media will put on this: I GUARANTEE you they will not tell you of the actual poorer numbers for the Dems.

At 10:45pm ET: CNN announces Ted Cruz the winner on the GOP side. And see? Not one peep about the real turnout for the Dems or the single-digit-vote-difference between Hillary and Sanders, at all, tonight. So no one outside of that caucus tonight will know that truth. They'll only see percentages.

The New York Times.

The LA Times. They have a teaser "The caucuses get huge attention, but the number of people involved? Fewer than at a Dodgers game" but it links directly to "Article not found" then right to their front page which doesn't have the teased story.

The Washington Post decides to deride Cruz immediately, instead of reporting on the Dem actuals: "The remarkable declines of the last two Iowa caucus winners." Yeah, that's the ticket! Get us thinking about anything except the Dems' real numbers as compared to the GOP's in the caucus.

Slate chooses to focus on the "incredibly tight" Dem caucus results. And not a whisper about anything but "percentages."

The New York Times confirms pretty much what I surmised: "Turnout at tonight’s Republican caucuses in Iowa was about 185,000, a new record, according to Edison Research, which conducted entrance polls at precincts across the state." Funny. No mention of the Dem "turnout numbers." Shouldn't they get applause too, for besting a record themselves, but on the underperformance side?

Amazing too, how slow the rest of the liberal press is at posting a news summary about all this. At 11:30 pm ET, a google search doesn't yield more than those four.

O'Malley (who?) and Huckabee drop out of the race. Santorum, inexplicably, moves on to South Carolina?

Sanders is 10 votes down now from Hillary, with 93% of them counted, and those few newspapers putting anything out only say "It's too close to call." Really? You got a journalism degree to tell us that?

At 11:41pm ET, Sanders is again only 3 votes down, "652", to "655" Hillary votes. Even if those numbers are really the "State Delegate Equivalents" that only "represent the estimated number of state convention delegates that the candidates would have, based on the caucus results," even in 2008, there were 2,501 Democrat State Delegate Equivalents, not 1,400 like tonight.

I know this is Iowa, not Manhattan or Chicago or Beverly Hills, but some perspective here: Cruz got 50,874 actual, headcount votes so far, with 97% reported. Trump got 44,654. Rubio got 42,322. And 10 other candidates split another 45,000 among them.

And if the Democrats had such great turnout numbers, wouldn't they be trumpeting them, the way the NYT had to admit that the GOP broke record for turnout tonight? You bet your sweet bippy they would. If they had even close to those huge numbers, you can be damn sure they'd be crowing about it so you wouldn't think that this was going to be a landslide election for a Republican President-to-be.

Politico finally chimes in calling it "Too close to call" and says it's a "tiny lead over Sanders." Yeah, as in "three votes," for most of the past hour or so. And this is telling: they used one of the scariest photos of a deranged-looking, shouting Hillary that I've ever seen.

But they wrote that Clinton gave some kind of speech, that "the race was called", and that she "breathed a sigh of relief." More Clinton spin! News flash, Hillary, you haven't won yet, you're a mere 3 or 4 "votes" ahead most recently and still, at 12:10am ET. And even if you win, any smart person will know it was by less than ten "votes." But you're sighing in relief? I don't believe that for a nanosecond.

TheHill reported later that "Earlier in the evening, the [Clinton] campaign told MSNBC that it is declaring victory, but no media organization had followed suit by late Monday night."

And what did Sanders' supporters chant when listening to Hillary's speech on TV, before turning off that TV? "She's a liar!"

C-SPAN has a video story about "Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus."

From The Associated Press:

That ASTERISK, defined way at the very bottom of the page, allows the Democrats in Iowa to tell you whatever they want to tell you, as far as the numbers go, and you'll never know if it's the truth:

*"The Iowa Democratic Party doesn't report vote totals. Figures are state delegate equivalents, which are the estimated number of state convention delegates the candidates would receive based on caucus results. National convention delegates for Democratic candidates are estimates and may change at later stages of the selection process."
It's 12:38am ET, and Sanders is still only 4 votes behind Hillary, however you count them.

Last screenshot of the night (for me anyway):

Links to check in the morning here and here.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Video of Grown-up Obama Partying With Convicted Terrorists and the Mouthpiece for Terrorist Group PLO

Got your attention, didn't I? Bet you'd like me to prove that by showing you that video?

You have the LA Times to thank for never, ever, no not once, airing it for the American public. God forbid they tell you the truth about your President, while they whip you into a frothing frenzy over a teenage Ted Cruz or juvenile delinquient Ben Carson or beer-guzzling Marco Rubio:

The same journalism industry that hyped the light-hearted antics of a teenage Ted Cruz -- and investigated the juvenile delinquencies of Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney with CSI-level fervor -- actively suppressed video of an adult Barack Obama partying with convicted domestic terrorists and an international terrorist mouthpiece.

In 2003, when Obama was a 42-year-old state senator and rising Democratic star in Illinois, he delivered a gushing address at a farewell gala for Rashid Khalidi.
In the 1970s, Palestinian-American Khalidi was quoted extensively as a de facto mouthpiece for Yasser Arafat and his State Department-designated terrorist outfit, the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Khalidi denies any official PLO role, but veteran journalist Martin Kramer compiled an extensive laundry list of articles and attributions describing Khalidi as "a PLO spokesman," "a director of the Palestinian press agency [Wafa]" (where his wife, Mona, also worked), and "an American-educated Palestinian who teaches political science at the American University of Beirut and also works for the P.L.O."

Khalidi and his wife founded the Arab American Action Network, which as David Horowitz's reported, was "noted for its view that Israel's creation in 1948 was a 'catastrophe' for Arab people." The group received money from the left-wing Woods Foundation, whose board included Obama and Weather Underground convicted domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

The Khalidis, Obamas, and Ayers and Dohrn were a cozy little circle of soft-on-terror apologists in Chicago, dining frequently at each other's homes and funding each other's pet causes. All were in attendance at the confab for Khalidi in 2003, a tape of which was obtained by the Los Angeles Times in 2008.

Despite a clamor from conservative bloggers and independent scholars and anti-jihad analysts, the paper refused to release the videotape.

"Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi -- former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?" former New York antiterrorism prosecutor Andrew McCarthy asked. "Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?"

Blogger Jim Hoft summed up the double standards on disclosure and vetting succinctly in 2011: "LA Times Won't Release Obama-Khalidi Tape But Posts 24,000 Sarah Palin Emails."

Michelle Malkin's piece at that link is well worth the full read.

It's got be embarrassing for anyone who buys what the LA Times, the Washington Post and their ilk think is the news you're supposed to know. Honestly, don't you have a little more pride in yourself and in your brains than to fall for their now-decades long B.S.?

Haven't any of you Millennials out there read Fahrenheit 451?

"Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year [JEOPARDY, comes to mind]. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking... Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy... So bring on your clubs and parties, your acrobats and magicians, your daredevils, jet cars, motorcycle helicopters, your sex and heroin, more of everything to do with automatic reflex. If the drama is bad, if the film says nothing, if the play is hollow, sting me with theremin, loudly. I'll think I'm responding to the play. when it's only a tactile reaction to vibration. But I don't care. I just like solid entertainment."
Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. Snapchat. Jon Stewart. Stephen Colbert. Glozell. Youtube. "57 [thousand] channels and nothing on."

Oh, yeah, we're there already. We're in Fahrenehit 451, in far too many ways: "parlor walls"...caring more about personal, immediate gratification and entertainment than even noticing impending annihilation...“It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God.”..."'Go home.' Montag fixed his eyes upon her, quietly. 'Go home and think of your first husband divorced and your second husband killed in a jet and your third husband blowing his brains out, go home and think of the dozen abortions you've had, go home and think of that and your damn Caesarian sections, too, and your children who hate your guts! Go home and think how it all happened and what did you ever do to stop it? Go home, go home!' he yelled."

It may not be atomic bombs dropped on us, but then again, it might, in a decade or two.

And if you're too young to know who the PLO is, surely you can google and find a boatload of all kinds of historical details.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"The Clintons Are Amazing"

The Clintons are amazing. They have somehow grown very, very rich through public service. Other politicians have done well by doing badly, but the Clintons are in a league of their own. As the second most disliked politician running for President, according to polls, one wonders why Clinton needs to keep on keeping on.

The answer is: that is what grifters do. A grifter swindles you, but a good grifter can get you to thank them for taking your money. Grifters are not just thieves, but parasites. They generally hijack another person’s accomplishments and use them for personal enrichment. Clinton was married to a President and parlayed this role into a lackluster Senate career, a failed bid for President, a disastrous term as Secretary of State, and now another run where despite having the field cleared for her, is still struggling.
Clinton has lived the Way of the Grifter on such a large scale we can recognize the signs from her life...The grifter rides the ideas or accomplishments of someone else to power. The really good grifter (like HRC) can somehow manage to turn the “Clinton administration” into a joint presidency, even though she was not . . . President.
The grifter will attack others for the very things she is doing. HRC has amassed great wealth in public service. She starts attacking the “rich” and though she takes money from the most established players in American, she attacks the establishment. She accuses Sanders of being too “unsteady” to be left in charge of foreign policy, because the policy she supervised in places like Libya went . . .badly. You can know what a grifter is doing by what she attacks.
The grifter will break the rules, but go through four techniques if confronted: denial, attack, minimization, move on. A terrible thing happens to women who are sexually harassed. The harasser and his enablers accuse her of being “a slut or a nut.” HRC used the “slut and nut” defense for her husband. This was wrong. When confronted with the harm Bill was doing women, HRC denied it (despite his pattern of behavior in the past). When she could no longer deny it, she attacked those bringing it up. “We may be bad,” she would say, “but you are the same or worse.” When that failed, HRC would point out that nobody was murdered...Finally, if a few months (or a year) pass, she can say: “Why not move on? Why are you so harsh and judgmental?”

"The Way of the Grifter: What Hillary Clinton can Teach Us", January 22, 2016, by John Mark N. Reynolds

To further prove that last point, just let me add:

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Hillary's "Belief in Jesus Christ" Iowa Speech She'd Never Give in NY or CA

My study of the Bible, my many conversations with people of faith, has led me to believe the most important commandment is to love the Lord with all your might and to love your neighbor as yourself, and that is what I think we are commanded by Christ to do, and there is so much more in the Bible about taking care of the poor, visiting the prisoners, taking in the stranger, creating opportunities for others to be lifted up, to find faith themselves that I think there are many different ways of exercising your faith.
The famous discussion on the Sermon on the Mount should be something that you really pay attention to. There’s a lot of great Bible studies: What does the Sermon on the Mount really mean? What is it calling us to do and to understand? Because it sure does seem to favor the poor and the merciful and those who in worldly terms don’t have a lot but who have the spirit that God recognizes as being at the core of love and salvation.
So, I think you have to keep asking yourself, if you are a person of faith, what is expected of me and am I actually acting the way that I should? And that starts in small ways and goes out in very large ones, but it’s something that I take very seriously.
You do, Hillary? Do you really know what we are commanded by Christ to do? Do you really know who is your neighbor?

"Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the land."

"Blessed are you who are poor,
for the kingdom of God is yours."

Who is meeker than an unborn child?

Who is literally poorer and more defenseless, when one has nothing but life and even one's very life is taken away?

Hillary, you don't love that "neighbor as yourself." You never have. You do not "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Just like I used to pick and choose which "Christian values" I wanted to listen to, you have done so, all your life. Both of us were wrong, in that. You remain so, when you claim to live "Christian values."

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Sunday, January 31, 2016

How Democrats Do Voter Fraud: "We Don't ID."

From this article in Esquire, "Hillary Clinton and Gabby Giffords Politicized the Hell Out of Gun Violence in Iowa":
[At] the Steamfitters Local 33 in Des Moines... some extremely patient officials of the state Democratic Party were explaining to the assembled how the Democratic side of Monday night's caucuses will work. This did not go entirely well.

"First time volunteer, so I guess I got a question," one gentleman asked. "If we have 30 people who come to the caucuses who are illegal aliens, how is their influence taken out of the totals?"

"Again, people have to fill out the form to register to vote to participate," replied Josie Bradley, the caucus director of the Iowa Democratic Party. "We don't ask for that ID. If people ask for the form and they're not who they say they are, then that's voter fraud, so that's how we guarantee that."

"If their influence on the caucus is not removed, they just get in trouble later, but their influence is still there on who the candidate will be," the gentleman said.

"Again," said Bradley. "We don't ID." Whereupon, unsatisfied that his vote might not be diluted by 30 Hondurans smuggled into the country, the gentleman left.

Did you get that? We just trust everyone that they're who they say they are, and if they're lying, they might get in trouble...maybe...later...someday...(but not really because we don't care)...because, meanwhile, we got their vote, didn't we?

There you have it, folks. Explained by the Democrats themselves.

How can anyone not see that this is the reason why Democrats are against requiring ID's at voting booths, not because it "discriminates against the minorities and the poor"? You'd have to be blind.

Not once in my life have I ever voted and not been asked to show my government ID. And I'm white, so why the boo-hoo-and-cry over having to have one to vote?

ANYONE can get a simple non-driver government/state ID, if they're legal citizens. In my state, the non-driver photo ID costs $22.50. Once. Please, don't tell me anyone can't afford that, when they all have better cellphones than my flip-phone for which I pay about the same per month as that fee. Even if they have the same dinky phone and plan as I do, that's about $300 a year they shell out. Or they can afford about $120 each year for their Walmart or Target birth control since 2007. They can afford a measly $22.50 to get that ID.

And that fee is waived if you are one of the following:

  1. Applicants of a homeless shelter who provide proof of residency from an authorized shelter or transitional housing location.
  2. Blind veterans who provide a Certificate of Blindness form from the Board of Education and Services for the Blind or a letter from a doctor/optometrist that they meet the definition of blind as defined in Connecticut General Statutes 1-1f(a) and provide a DD214 indicating they have been honorably discharged.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Even Bernie Walks Back His "Damn Emails" Comment

"I think this is a very serious issue."

Transcript and full CNN interview here.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"Hillary's Queen Cersei moment" by The Chicago Tribune

Read, then, below that, watch it for yourselves:
...For it was Mr. Gipple, Iowa millennial and passionate supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who gave us the single most important nationally televised moment of Clinton's presidential campaign so far.

Think of it as Hillary's Queen Cersei moment.
The Queen Cersei moment wasn't inspired by the vast right-wing conspiracy, or a cast of enemies real or imagined, or even by the FBI investigating Clinton's email scandal. Instead it was inspired by Gipple, a Democrat young enough to believe virtue has a place in our politics.

"It feels like there's a lot of young people out there, like myself, who are very passionate supporters of Bernie Sanders. And I just don't see the same enthusiasm among younger people for you," Gipple said in a nervous voice at an Iowa town hall on CNN. "In fact," Gipple said,

"I've heard quite a few people my age that think you're dishonest

, but I'd like to hear from you, why you feel the enthusiasm isn't there."

She paused, then blinked and her face began to move toward him on the end of her neck. There was that Queen Cersei smile. Not with her eyes but with teeth, before she fixed on him with her squint.

If she was standing not in Iowa but in HBO, Cersei's guards would have already ripped out young Gipple's tongue or lopped off his thumbs.

Happily, Hillary took neither tongue nor thumbs. Instead, she tried to take Gipple's pride. And that will cost her more...

"But if you're new to politics and this is the first time you've really paid attention, you go, 'Oh, my gosh, look at all of this.' And you have to say to yourself, 'Why are they throwing all of that?' " Clinton said. "I'll tell you why: I've been on the front lines of change and progress since I was your age."

Since I was your age, sonny! And what have you done except clap your hands for Bernie, you punk kid!

What she ignored, obviously, is the FBI investigating how top-secret government emails showed up on her private email server in her basement. Instead, it was, "Why are they throwing all of that?" as if "they" are angry conservative talk show hosts, not the Obama administration.
Gipple didn't know [about the latest Hillary email release news] as he stood, rather nervously, before Hillary the Great as she dressed him down on national TV.

"When I worked on health care back in '93 and '94, and I don't know if you were born then, I can't quite tell, but, if you'd been around, and had been able to pay attention, I was trying to get us to universal health care coverage," she said.

If you'd been around. If you were born then. If you'd been able to pay attention.

At least she didn't mention that some Democrats voting in 2016 may have been toddlers chewing frozen bagels for teething pain when her husband was impeached.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

“I would crucify her.” - Hillary Clinton, About Gennifer Flowers

Sitting knee to knee with [Hillary Clinton] on the tiny plane out of South Dakota, I heard her swear that if she had Ms. Flowers on the stand, “I would crucify her.”
Just lovely.

From The (liberal) New York Times article "The Women Who Should Love Hillary Clinton" [impied, "And Don't"].

I'm a "boomer woman," and I have never been fooled by her lies.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"A Congenital Liar" For Over Twenty Years

Yup, that's just what we need in the White House!

"22 Clinton Emails Deemed Too Classified to Be Made Public", The New York Times, well known for its liberal editorial slant.

More from the Washington Post:

Questions about Hillary Clinton’s honesty did not start with Benghazi or with emails and a private server, but began ages ago with any number of fabricated — or at least exaggerated — stories. Many may remember what New York Times columnist William Safire wrote about Clinton in 1996:

“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar,” he said. “Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

Safire’s concerns at the time — Whitewater, Travelgate, “lost” records — may seem remote and trivial to some, but the drip-drip he identified didn’t stop with the White House years. Subsequent to the various “-gates” were, for example, the story of coming under fire on a tarmac in Bosnia or about her having been named for the explorer Edmund Hillary, the first person to reach the summit of Mount Everest, despite her having been born about six years before his history-making climb.

From The Observer website:

To take just the Russians: their plus-sized embassy in Washington, D.C. is conveniently located on a hill overlooking the city, with an impressive antenna field on its roof aimed downtown. That is where Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails went. The Russians care so much about State Department information they’ve been caught planting bugs inside a conference room just down the hall from the Secretary of State’s office. “Of course the SVR got it all,” explained a high-ranking former KGB officer to me about EmailGate (the SVR is the post-Soviet successor to the KGB’s foreign intelligence arm). “I don’t know if we’re as good as we were in my time,” he added, “but even half-drunk the SVR could get those emails, they probably couldn’t believe how easy Hillary made it for them.”

Any foreign intelligence service reading Ms. Clinton’s emails would know a great deal they’re not supposed to about American diplomacy, including classified information: readouts from sensitive meetings, secret U.S. positions on high-stakes negotiations, details of interaction between the State Department and other U.S. agencies including the White House. This would be a veritable intelligence goldmine to our enemies. Worse, access to Ms. Clinton’s personal email likely gave foreign spy agencies hints on how to crack into more sensitive information systems. Not to mention that if Clinton Inc. was engaged in any sort of illegal pay-for-play schemes, our adversaries know all about that, as well as anything else shady that Ms. Clinton and her staff were putting in those unencrypted emails. [my emphases]

Oh, yeah, it's a Republican smear campaign, all right. It's gonna all blow over, anytiiiime now.

Do you honestly really feel that much safer, now?

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy Thinks We're All Stupid

Either that, or Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy is the stupidest man himself: He's quoted as saying this, just as he was departing the state to go a-stumping for Hillary in New Hampshire over the weekend:
"[Hillary Clinton] kept her emails exactly the same way as her two predecessors, but she's released 30,000 of them", the governor told reporters in Hartford shortly before departing for New Hampshire. "You have not seen 30,000 emails from either of her predecessors. In fact, you have not seen 5,000 emails from her predecessors."
"Fact" 1 is not true. "Fact" 2, about the number of emails she released, isn't even accurate. "Fact" 3, about why her predecessors didn't release as many emails, is more nuanced than Malloy misleads you to believe, and it's already been fact-checked a full 10 months ago by the Washington Post, not known for being a conservative-leaning paper (check their editorials) in spite of having George Will as a columnist:


Multiple news outlets [including the liberal-leaning Politico] have reported that Condoleezza Rice, Clinton’s immediate predecessor as secretary of state, did not use her personal e-mail for official communication — and did not use e-mail much in general. The State Department also confirmed that this was the case. So it would not be fair to compare Clinton’s e-mail usage to Rice’s e-mail usage.

When Colin L. Powell served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005, he did use his personal e-mail address for official business, as Schumer noted. He is known as the first secretary to modernize the agency’s computer system and use of technology. But Powell said during a March 8 interview on ABC News’ “This Week” that he “retained none of those e-mails.” His e-mail account from 10-plus years ago has been closed for years.

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Powell said on the show. “In fact, a lot of the e-mails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and the domain. But I don’t know if the servers at the State Department captured those or not. And most — they were all unclassified and most of them, I think, are pretty benign, so I’m not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them.”

NARA confirmed to The Fact Checker that it opened an inquiry into locating Powell’s e-mail records. Given that he is unable to immediately provide the records, it is not an accurate comparison to Clinton’s situation. Her e-mails were accessible enough to turn over to the State Department soon after the agency requested them. (Indeed, according to the Times, Clinton’s staff had been negotiating about the return of the e-mails since August, two months before the letter was sent.)

In addition, electronic record archiving regulations were clearer and more modernized by the time Clinton took office than when Powell did. In 2005, after Powell left office, the State Department updated the Foreign Affairs manual to say that day-to-day operations should be conducted on the authorized system.
In 2009, the year Clinton became secretary, federal regulations codified what experts say was a long-held assumption that a contemporary transfer to archives is required of personal e-mails used for official business. (A November 2014 law created new federal definitions for electronic records and set a 20-day limit for producing them.)
[my emphases]

"The New York Times reported that after the [State Department letter requesting former secretaries of state to provide records for archiving purposes] was sent, Clinton in December provided 55,000 pages of personal e-mail records."
Not Malloy's "30,000."

Governor Malloy: wrong on counts one, two and three. Don't you keep up with the real news? Neither of Hillary's predecessors "kept [their] emails exactly the same way." I suppose you could be faulted for buying this lie that Senator Chuck Schumer foisted on the stupid American public on CBS' Face The Nation in March 2015, except that, in addition to the WashPo, PolitiFact also deemed Schumer’s subsequent Hillary-defending statements "Mostly False" that same month.

But to perpetuate a lie, Governor, a long 10 months after it's been proven false by not one but two fact-checking entities? Wow. I guess you really do want to follow in Hillary's footsteps someday. Because this makes you either ignorant, not smart enough to be Governor, or ... a liar yourself.

As The WashPo concluded, waaaayyyy back in March last year:

"...this common defense among her supporters is used to deflect the central issue: that Clinton exclusively used a personal account, and did not provide records until she was requested to, after she left office. That is the most relevant point, so the Democrats earn Three Pinocchios [out of a possible Four]."
God help this country if you ever give Dannel P. Malloy (who only wants to be chummily called "Dan" when he's running for office; after he wins, it's back to the stiff-armed "Dannell") the national attention/offices he's been avidly/surreptitiously seeking. (Why do you really think he's in New Hampshire carrying Hillary's befouled water for her?)

Why do I warn America about Malloy? Here's why. He's almost single-handedly responsible (along with his buddy, the career leftist politician Senator Richard Blumenthal and his Democrat-ruled legislature) for having "actively brought [Connecticut's] economy close to complete collapse."

Go on. Read all about it. If you dare.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

VOX Disses Obama's Legacy and Says Hillary Might Not Win After All

The reassessment of Hillary Clinton was driven in part by the disillusionments of the Obama years. "Watching the system not change really made an impact on these people," Scheiber told me. "I don't think they want to get burned again."

In 2008, Obama promised to transform American politics. By 2014, it was clear he had failed...No member of the Obama team shows how far "hope and change" has fallen than Obama himself.
[With Bernie Sanders' rise in the polls] What Clinton is relearning in the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire is that there's nothing audacious about hope. Hope is the one commodity every voter wants to buy...
"It may be that coming out of this period [Obama's Presidency] ... that people are looking for someone whose central skill is how to work the power structure," Larry Grisolano, a top Obama pollster, told Scheiber.

Or maybe not.

With less than a week to go before Iowa, Bernie Sanders has pulled even with Clinton in the polls. He has done so without the money, institutional backing, and deep intraparty divisions over Iraq that powered Obama's 2008 win. It is, by any measure, an extraordinary political achievement. But it also clarifies the challenge Clinton faced in 2008, and faces this year.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave

"After Abortion, by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice

COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
E-mail                Joy

Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

4,800 confidential groups helping now.

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 ,

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or

...more help below...

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Option Line
Books that help
(includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
In Our Midst
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2015 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2015 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2015 **

Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion
Welcome! Our sidebar continues at great length, just below the "MORE HILLARY BACKPEDALS" section, with many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Just text-search or browse. But grab a cup of Joe first.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by


Why NOT Hillary?

  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Chicago Tribune: "Our hero: Hillary Clinton, the last truth bender"
  3. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  4. Criminal "fugitive", media-ignored Hsu
  5. $5K per Kid
  6. Criminal Berger
  7. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."...
  8. ...and other false claims on her Foreign Policy "chops"

The sidebar continues...

(Below, 320-Links Sidebar Reorg In Progress: Thank You For Your Patience)



Obama On Abortion: A Summary 1990-2009

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)


Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

1) The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."

2) Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

3) Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 - 2016 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2016. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."

Since 6/13/2005