all the issues favor Trump–of course he doesn’t like to talk issues:

all the issues favor Trump–of course he doesn’t like to talk issues:58h.,b58

Clinton and the media avoid the issues because they know she’s hurt by them. Trump avoids the  issues for reasons that are harder to ascertain—perhaps because he doesn’t fully realize how much they benefit him  or perhaps just because he finds it easier  and more enjoyable to talk about something else. But if he were to start  talking policy, his electoral fortunes might turn around.

According to the U.S. the Census Bureau, the percentage of the population that is foreign-born has already surpassed the percentage during the great waves of immigration in 1880 or 1920-That percent age, 13.6 percent, has almost tripled since 1970 (from 4.7 percent) and is on course to exceed 15 percent within a decade.

‘Compare those numbers with the two candidates’ stances. Trump talks of building a border wall, taking deportation seriously, and ending President Obama’s lawless executive actions on immigration. Prior to taking those unilateral actions, which effectively declared millions of illegal immigrants to be “legal,” Obama said, “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.” Then he did it anyway.  “Hillary Clinton, in marked contrast with Trump, has said that she would expand Obama’s executive actions and she would surely appoint Supreme  Court justices who  (along with the 4  Bill Clinton and Obama appointees) would rule that she could. She has said, “I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members either.”                 Apparently believing the Obama administration has been too aggressive in dealing with illegal immigration, she says that she will ‘stop the raids, stop the round-ups. “stop the raids, stop the round-ups,                 stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives.” She ‘will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office” and will “demand that there be a in the house.

She has “proposed an Office of immigration affairs for the white house. And she wants to give illegal immigrants access to Obamacare: “We should let families—regardless of immigrating of status—buy into the Affordable Care act exchanges.

The average premium increases that insurers  are requesting for Obamacare plans in 2017 is a whopping 23 percent. Many insurers are bailing out. The slow-motion death spiral is proceeding. Real Clear Politics lists 206 polls taken on Obamacare so far during Obama’s second term—3 found it to be popular, 202 found it to be  unpopular, 1 has found a tie.

Clinton says she will “defend and expand the Affordable Care Act.” In a clear step toward a true government monopoly, she says that she would add a “public option”—a government-run plan to obamacare.

According to the Commerce Departments bureau of economic analysis, , after adjusting for inflation, average yearly GDP growth under obama has been an anemic  1.5 percent—last among the 12 postwar presidents and less than  half of President Jimmy Carter’s tally 3.3 percent). Even Obama’s best year of growth (2.6 percent, in 2015) was below average across the past 70 years. Median household income, moreover  has fared worse under Obama  than the GDP has.

Corporate tax rate to 15 % (down from  35 percent today), reducing personall taxes, introducing a temporary moratorium on federal regulations, the and lifting restrictions on all sources of  American energy. In marked contrast, Clinton wants to increase taxes, government spending, and regulation. She was for the TPP a central part of Obama’s economic agenda, before she was against it. (Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe , a close friend of clinton , has said she’s still for it).

Trump is focused on restoring law and order, while Clinton is focused  on increasing leniency in criminal sentencing. At a time when new terrorist  attacks are occurring every few days or weeks.. Trump  isn’t skittish about saving “Islamic terrorism” and can’t be held responsible for ISIS ascendancy while Clinton is and can. At a time when we are approaching $20 trillion in national debt—nearly double  what the tally was when Obama took office—Clinton is calling for “free” college. At a time when the vast majority of Americans oppose providing taxpayer funding for abortion, Clinton is calling for killing off the Hyde amendment, the long standing protection against such practices that for decades enjoyed bipartisan support. (What’s more. then-senator Clinton repeatedly voted  against what is now the federal ban on — partial-birth abortions.

source–weekly std, jefferey anderson, gallup, charles gaba, real clear politics,

ignoring entitlements-

ignoring entitlements–58.4h.,b58.12-1

There was absolutely nothing about America’s most pressing fiscal issue: runaway spending on Medicare and  Social Security. And even if Trump had mentioned the issue of entitlements in his economic speech, chances are he would have—as he has elsewhere on the campaign  trail—ruled out changes to the programs. More than two-thirds of the federal budget is spent automatically on Medicare, Social  Security, and other entitlement programs, such as Medicaid and unemployment insurance. Some 17 percent of the budget goes to defense, while interest on the federal debt eats up another 6.5 percent. The little that is left for discretionary spending—the 6.5 percent of the budget Congress uses to pay for disaster relief, research, education, and less salutary items such pork—could easily be crowded out.

Absent reforms, mandatory spending on entitlements will swallow 98.3 percent of the budget a decade from now, leaving just 1.7 percent for all discretionary spending—and hat 1.7 percent includes defense.

In 2008, there were 3.2 people in the workforce paying into entitlement programs for every retiree collecting benefits. That figure will drop to 2.2 in le next couple of decades, even with America’s population swelling as a result of largely unchecked immigration.

“Four years later we know this much for sure: The Democrats are glib and unserious about saving the social safety net. Social Security’s long-term funding shortfall has grown from $5.3 trillion to $10.7 trillion on Obama’s  watch.  Obamacare siphoned $716 billion from Medicare, and Medicare premiums are poised (again”) to rise precipitously. And now, facing a funding debacle, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wants to increase social security   benefits and expand government-funded health rare.

source-wwekly std, mark hemingway

 

Obama’s latest fraud: ‘Economic recovery’ disproven in just 9 areas

WND MONEY  Jerome R. Corsi—15F.,B26

Obama’s latest fraud: ‘Economic recovery’ disproven in just 9 charts

Numbers demonstrate failure of administration’s policies

Published: 03/21/2016

NEW YORK – The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis updates quarterly a set of nine easy-to-understand charts that demonstrate how Obamanomics, the economic policies of the Obama administration, have failed to produce real economic benefits for the American people.

The nine charts illustrate that Obamanomics has dramatically increased both consumer and government debt; driven U.S. workers out of the labor force in a manipulation of statistics designed to allow the Bureau of Labor Services to report an unemployment rate that is artificially low; increased health-care costs despite the passage of the Affordable Care Act; and produced a questionable economic recovery, with U.S. growth rates still hovering at near-recession levels of economic stagnation.

This article is an update of a report published by Rachel Stoltzfoos, “Obama’s Economy in 9 Charts,” in the Daily Caller on Oct. 30, 2015. In September 2015, ZeroHedge.com introduced the concept of selecting nine charts to describe the Obama economy from the dozens of charts produced and updated by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Student loans

The first chart tracks student loans, making it clear that as of the third quarter 1990, there were no outstanding student loans. At the beginning of the Obama administration, in the first quarter of 2009, student loans stood at $146.6 billion. From there, the graph rises steeply. By the fourth quarter 2015, the last quarter for which the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis charted the data, student loans had risen to $945.6 billion.

The origin of the student loan program can be traced to Bill Clinton signing the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, which set up a phase-in of a direct government lending for student loans that replaced the program of government guarantees of private student loans arranged largely through banks, beginning with the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Federal Family Education Loan Program in 1965.

In signing the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, President Obama engineered a government takeover of the student loan program, so that today all student loans are direct government loans.

 

Food stamps

Under President Obama, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, commonly known as the “Food Stamps” program, has grown from $54.8 billion in 2009 to $69.4 billion in 2014.

In January 2015, the number of beneficiaries receiving food stamps topped 46 million for 38 straight months, with 14.6 percent of the population and 19.7 percent of all households receiving food stamps. This represents an increase of 1516.96 percent over the 2.9 million Americans participating in the food stamp program in 1969.

Federal debt

The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015.

At the end of the George W. Bush presidency in January 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It is projected to exceed $20 trillion by the end of Obama’s presidency in January 2017.
Money printing

While Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve policy of printing money to buy U.S. Treasury Department-issued government debt, known among economists as QE, began under President George W. Bush, it took off under President Obama.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the adjusted monetary base of the United States rose from $1.772 trillion on Jan. 14, 2009, to $3.996 trillion as of March 16, 2016.
As WND reported in April 2014, the Federal Reserve in the Obama administration pumped the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet with more than $4 trillion of purchases of U.S. Treasuries and other federal government bonds. QE grew to a level of $85 billion a month under the previous Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke.

Health insurance costs

Despite Obama’s promises that the implementation of Obamacare would lower health-care costs, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the Consumer Price Index, CPI, for medical care services has continued a straight-line increase since the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

The CPI for medical care services has increased from 149.952 in January 2009 to 186.961 in February 2016, rising from a base of 100 in December 1999.

Labor-force participation

The labor-force participation rate has fallen consistently under the Obama administration as an increasing percentage of those out of work and looking for work simply give up and quit looking. The labor-force participation rate has dropped from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.9 percent in February 2016.

In May 2014, WND reported that the Bureau of Labor Administration in the Obama administration had implemented a policy of making unemployment percentages look artificially low by increasing the number of workers considered no longer in the work force.

In April 2014, nearly 93 million Americans were considered out of the labor force. According to John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulate “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, drops in the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS have become virtually meaningless.

“The broad economic outlook has not changed, despite the heavily-distorted numbers that continue to be published by the BLS,” Williams writes in his subscription newsletter on ShadowStats.com. “The unemployment rates have not dropped from peak levels due to a surge in hiring; instead, they generally have dropped because of discouraged workers being eliminated from headline labor-force accounting.”

Business workforce share of income

The Bureau of Labor statistics measures labor’s share of the income produced by nonfarm employment, roughly described as employment in the business sector of the economy. The measure is often used to interpret “the worker’s share of the economy,” with a declining index interpreted as a measure of growing economic discontent among middle class employees.

The index has dropped from a peak of 103.605 in the first quarter 2007, under President George W. Bush, to 99.350 in the fourth quarter 2015, under President Obama.

Median family income

Real median household income in the United States has declined from a height of $57,357 in 2007 under President George W. Bush to $53,657 in 2014 under President Obama.

The calculation takes into consideration the “Obama economic recovery,” in that real median household income in the United States by 2013 rose to $54,426 in 2013, from a low of $52,605 in 2012, only to fall back again in 2014.

Home-ownership rate

Home ownership under Obamanomics has continued a straight-line decline that began with the collapse of the substandard real estate market during George W. Bush’s second term in office.

The home-ownership rate has declined from 67.4 percent in 2009 to 63.7 in the second quarter 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the rate of home ownership in the second quarter 2015 hit a 48-year low, reflecting the reality that fewer middle class Americans can afford to buy a home. Under Obama, an increasing number of Americans are living in rented homes, with the American dream of owning a home no longer an economic reality.
STUDENT LOANS-2009-146.6B TO 2015-945.6B

FOOD STAMPS–2009-54.8B TO 2014-69.4B–46M PEOPLE FOR 38 STRAIGHT MONTHS–146.% OF POPULATION OR 19.7% OF HOUSEHOLDS

FEDERAL DEBT–2009-11.1T TO 18.9T IN 2015—2016 AT 19.4T–PROJECTED TO BE 20T BY 2017–IT WS 2.9M IN 1969 OR AN INCREASE OF 1516.96%

MONEY PRINTING-1.772T IN 2009 TO 4T IN 2016

H.C. COTS-149.952 IN 2009 TO 186.961 IN 2016

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION–67.3M IN 2010 TO 93M IN 2014

WORKERS SHARE OF ECO-103.605 IN 2007 TO 99.350 IN 2015

MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME-$57,357 IN 2007, $52,605 IN 2012, $54,426 IN 2013 TO $53,657 IN 2014

HOME OWNERSHIP–67.4% IN 2009 TO 63.7% IN 2015 A 48 YEAR LOW

SOURCE-wnd, jerome corsi, rachael stolzfoos, daily caller, zerohedge.com, omnibus reconciliation act of 1993, john williams,wsj.

A dose of reality .

A dose of reality . . .58gh.,b58

“Trump is not a Liberal or Conservative, He’s a Pragmatist. (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn’t let emotion distract him or her.)

.  At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative, nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative.

It was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn’t see the problem as liberal or conservative; he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn’t a Republican problem – it isn’t a liberal problem – it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America.  It demands a pragmatic  approach, not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy isn’t a liberal or conservative problem; it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work; they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again, successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn’t work, you don’t continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 per hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl’s Hamburgers.

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: (1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; (2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who owe them vis-a-vis donations; (3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and (4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don’t give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us?  Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now.

People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it’s better to still have an “issue(s) to be solved,” so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success.

Donald Trump has his total financial empire at risk in running for president; that says it all. “Success for the U.S.A.!”

 

source-mychal massie, racial policy center,

Conway slams Clinton as a serial liar: ‘She lied about Donald Trump’-

Conway slams Clinton as a serial liar: ‘She lied about Donald Trump’–58fh.,b58

By Gabby Morrongiello

Hillary Clinton has proved through her latest criticism of Donald Trump that she has “no hope, no vision and no ideas” for the U.S., the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign manager said Thursday.

Clinton delivered a blistering speech during a campaign stop in Reno, Nev., charging Trump with building his campaign “on prejudice and paranoia” and attracting supporters who subscribe to wild conspiracy theories and exercise racism.

Trump campaign chief Kellyanne Conway fired back shortly after Clinton concluded her remarks, suggesting the only thing the former secretary of state ever talks about is her Republican opponent.

“Clinton lied about her emails, she lied about Colin Powell, and today she lied about Donald Trump,” Conway said in a statement issued by the campaign. “Donald Trump is talking about issues; Hillary Clinton is talking about Donald Trump.”

She continued, “Today, as [Clinton] took a break from her Hillary-in-Hiding Tour, she missed another opportunity to talk about education, infrastructure, terrorism, healthcare, the economy and energy.”

“We’re living in her head rent-free, and that must terrify the political insiders who want to keep things exactly the way they are,” Conway suggested.

The veteran Republican pollster, who was promoted to the role of campaign manager last week, has been encouraging Trump to keep his focus on Clinton and avoid veering off-script.

Trump did just that during his own rally on Thursday, where he issued a preemptive rebuttal of Clinton’s “disgusting” attacks and shamed her for trying to “smear” him and his supporters as racist.

“When Democratic policies fail, they’re left with one argument: ‘You’re racist. You’re racist. You’re racist,'” Trump told a crowd in Manchester, N.H. “It’s the same old disgusting argument and it’s so totally predictable

source-gabby morrongiello, headline.com, kristie mcdonald, wash exam

Obama’s Iraqi Fast and Furious? – Over Half a Million Guns Lost by Pentagon in Iraq & Afghanistan-

Obama’s Iraqi Fast and Furious? – Over Half a Million Guns Lost by Pentagon in Iraq & Afghanistan–80fg.,b63

In a new analysis report by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), a UK-based watchdog group, the Pentagon has been unable to account for over half a million guns that were shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11/ 2001.  Over 1.4 million weapons were shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan since the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon more than a decade ago.  The report was released on Wednesday and documented the Defense Departments contracts. However, when the DoD was questioned about accounting for the weapons that were shipped to the two countries, the reports states, “the DoD data shows that over 700,000 small arms were sent from the U.S. to Iraq and Afghanistan within these periods. However, this amount only accounts for 48 percent of the total small arms supplied by the U.S. government that can be found in open source government reports.”

“This failure shows the lack of accountability, transparency and joined up data that exists at the very heart of the U.S. government’s weapon procurement and distribution systems,” AOAV wrote in their report.  Additionally AOAV stated, that their researchfound many discrepancies between the contracts published on the DoD’s website and those found on the Federal Procurement Database System.”

If that was not bad enough, the report also noted that it is likely that more weapons than the Pentagon is willing to cite were actually shipped due to the fact that the Pentagon either kept bad records of the numbers of weapons they shipped or kept very little records of their shipments.  C.J. Chivers wrote in the New York Times Magazine, “Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the United States has handed out a vast but persistently uncountable quantity of military firearms to its many battlefield partners in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today the Pentagon has only a partial idea of how many weapons it issued, much less where these weapons are. Meanwhile, the effectively bottomless abundance of black-market weapons from American sources is one reason Iraq will not recover from its post-invasion woes anytime soon.”

Any one of these efforts would be difficult on its own. But the United States was trying all these things at once while buying and flying into both countries a prodigious quantity of light military weapons and handing them out to local people and outfits it barely knew. The recipients were often manifestly corrupt and sometimes had close ties to the same militias and insurgents who were trying to drive out the United States and make sure its entire nation-building project did not stand. It should not have been a surprise that American units in disaffected provinces and neighborhoods, and their partners, could encounter gunfire at every turn.

Chivers then added, “No one knows where many of the weapons are, until they turn up on social media or announce themselves in combat or crime with the crack of incoming fire, a reminder of tens of billions of dollars gone into nations where violence and terrorism continue apace.” So, what are we to do about this? Again, if Congress would have acted lawfully, they would never have allowed troops to be sent into war without a constitutional declaration of war, something that has not taken place since World War II. Additionally, if they would have impeached the usurper-in-chief with his first violation of the Constitution, this may not have occurred either.

Nevertheless, Chivers believes there will be more gun running that will take place in the future.  “If past is precedent, given enough time one of the United States’ solutions will be, once again, to ship in more guns,” he concluded.

source- action on armed violence, aoav, cj chivers, nyt, freedom outpost

Trey Gowdy Reveals Stunning Reason Why Clinton Wasn’t Indicted By FBI-

Trey Gowdy Reveals Stunning Reason Why Clinton Wasn’t Indicted By FBI—Gowdy: Hillary Wasn’t Indicted Over Email Scandal Because FBI Didn’t Bother Asking Her About Intent 80FG.,B60

When FBI Director James Comey announced in July criminal charges would not be brought against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for storing and transmitting top secret, classified information on a number of different private servers, this is the argument he made regarding intent (bolding is mine):

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

But according to former prosecutor and House Oversight Committee member Trey Gowdy, who has seen the notes taken during an interview conducted by the FBI with Clinton about her private email servers, agents didn’t ask the former Secretary and current Democrat presidential nominee about intent at all.

“Remember James Comey said she was not indicted because he didn’t have sufficient evidence on the issue of intent? I didn’t see any questions on the issue of intent. There’s no question she handled them [classified emails] negligently or extremely carelessly, he said he didn’t go forward with charges specifically because he didn’t have criminal intent. I didn’t see any questions on that,” Gowdy said on Fox News Thursday morning.

How can the FBI prove or disprove intent if they never asked about it?

Gowdy also argued the FBI interview notes should be released to the public. At this point the FBI is refusing to do so.

It should also be noted the mishandling of classified information doesn’t require intent for prosecution.

source-krisitie mcdonald, headlines.com, tpwnhall, katie pavlich