Love in the Muslim world

Love in the Muslim world

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders says the billionaire Koch brothers are 'greedy' and contribute to the 'corrupted' political system

Really now?overlook

Talk about hypocrisy!

Are the Koch brothers rich? Damn right they are. The left likes to chastise them, but looks the other way when it comes to one of their own... 'whale donors' George Soros.

 Talk about greed. Check him out on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

 Note the [Currency speculation] and the [Insider trading conviction].

In July 2014 Forbes listed Soros as the 19th richest person in the world, the world’s richest hedge-fund manager, and number 7 on its list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, with a net worth estimated at $23 billion.

Then scroll down to [Political donations and activism]. Where does this billionaire's money go? The most corrupt party on the planet Earth...Democrats.

------------------------------------------------

Presidential hopeful slammed businessmen during South Carolina speech

Delighted crowd by saying the pair are destroying American democracy

Claimed it was because they are piling cash into election campaigns

Called for publicly financed elections where 'anyone' could run

He also picked up an endorsement from third-party candidate Deez Nuts 

By Associated Press 

Published: 22:47 EST, 22 August 2015 | Updated: 03:08 EST, 23 August 2015 

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders is making the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch the face of a 'corrupted' political and economic system that the Vermont senator wants to upend.

Sanders delighted a South Carolina rally of more than 3,000 people Saturday with his assertions that the Kochs and other 'greedy' billionaires are destroying American democracy by infusing huge sums of cash into campaigns and election.

The Vermont senator, who is pushing former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton from the left, called for publicly financed elections that would allow 'anyone' to seek public office without 'begging from billionaires.'

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders slammed billionaire businessmen the Koch brothers for being 'greedy' and destroying American democracy by piling money into campaigns. He is pictured at an event in Clear Lake, Iowa, last week 

And he pledged that his nominees to the Supreme Court would have to promise themselves that they would try to overturn the Citizens United decision that allows corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited sums in campaigns.

'We live in a nation in which a handful of very, very wealthy people have extraordinary power over our economy and our political life and the media,' Sanders told the boisterous crowd at a convention center near Charleston.

'They are very, very powerful and many of them are extremely greedy,' he continued. 'For the life of me, I will never understand how a family like the Koch brothers, worth $85 billion, apparently think that's not enough money.'

Sanders' remarks came on the same day that Americans for Prosperity, a conservative activists organization backed heavily by the Kochs, heard from several Republican White House hopefuls.

Sanders typically does not mention Clinton or any Republican candidates by name, but relishes telling his audiences that he stands out for refusing any support from Super PACs, the political committees that can accept the unlimited sums as long as they don't coordinate directly with candidates' principal campaign committees.

Sanders delighted a crowd in South Carolina by saying Charles (left) and David Koch (right) were contributing to a corrupted political and economic system 

He says he has more than 400,000 individual contributors who have chipped in an average of $31.20. 'This is a people's campaign,' he said in North Charleston.

The rally Saturday night concluded a two-day swing in South Carolina, which hosts the South's first primary, weeks after Iowa and New Hampshire start the nominating contest.

South Carolina is the first of the early voting states to feature a large number of African-American voters. Sanders and his aides have acknowledged that he must increase his support among African-Americans, here and nationally, if he hopes to turn his surprising momentum into a serious challenge against Clinton.

In each of his South Carolina stops, Sanders attempted to link his progressive agenda to concerns and challenges prevalent in the black community. He called for restoring sections of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court overturned and pledged to fight 'institutional racism,' with a particular focus on the criminal justice system.

He called special attention to the June massacre during which a white gunman killed nine members of a historic black church in Charleston, and he mentioned the killing of Walter Scott, a 50-year-old black man who was shot and killed this spring by a white police officer in North Charleston. That officer has since been fired and charged with murder. 

...AND HE GETS BACKING FROM AN UNLIKELY RIVAL 

As Bernie Sanders attracted another huge crowd to his rally on Saturday night. He received an unlikely endorsement from someone who, technically, is a rival.

Deez Nuts, a 15-year-old boy from Iowa who entered the presidential race (even though he cannot be President because of the constitution) backed him for the Democratic nomination.

The youngster considers himself an independent, and has been causing a stir with his surging poll results. 

He wrote on Facebook: 'Just gonna throw this out there now. This is not for the general election. My endorsement for the Democratic nomination goes to Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.

'This is not for the general election, I endorse myself for the GE. For the Republican nomination, my endorsement goes to Ohio governor John Kasich.'

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders says the billionaire Koch brothers are 'greedy' and contribute to the 'corrupted' political system

Things I trust more than Hillary Clinton

· Mexican tap water

· A rattlesnake with a "pet me" sign

· OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection

· A fart when I have diarrhea

· An elevator ride with Ray Rice

· Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby

· Michael Jackson's Doctor

· An Obama Nuclear deal with Iran

· A Palestinian on a motorcycle

· Gas station Sushi

· A Jimmy Carter economic plan

· Brian Williams news reports

· Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton

· Playing Russian Roulette with a semi-auto pistol

· E-mails from Nigerian princes

· The Heimlich Maneuver from Barney Frank

· A condom made in China

· A prostate exam from Captain Hook

· And finally - Bill Clinton at a Girl Scout convention.

Things I trust more than Hillary Clinton

"We Need to Reward our Friends and Punish our Enemies"

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

American Jewry's Fateful Hour

8/16/2015 8:30:00 AM - Caroline Glick 

American Jewry is being tested today as never before. The future of the community is tied up in the results of the test.

If the Jews of America are able to mount a successful, forceful and sustained opposition to President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, which allows the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism to become a nuclear-armed state and provides it with $150 billion up front, then the community will survive politically to fight another day.

If the communal leadership and its members fail to fight, American Jews will find themselves communally disenfranchised.

On the face of it, there is no reason this fight should have been anything more than a hopeless – but relatively insignificant – ordeal. Given that all Obama needs to do to secure the implementation of his nuclear pact with the mullahs is secure the support of a one-third minority in one house of Congress, he might have been expected to go easy on his opponents since they have so little chance of defeating him.

Instead, Obama has decided to demolish them. He has presented them with two options – capitulate or be destroyed. 

Barry's been doing this to the Jews since day one of his administration.

 In May 2011 he called for Israel to go back to pre-1967 borders, which makes about as much sense as giving Texas back to Mexico.

Consider Hillary Clinton's behavior.

On Tuesday the Democratic presidential front-runner and former secretary of state ratcheted up her statements of support for Obama's nuclear pact with the ayatollahs. Speaking to supporters in New Hampshire, Clinton said, "I'm hoping that the agreement is finally approved and I'm telling you if it's not, all bets are off."

On its face, Clinton's mounting support for the deal makes little sense. True, her principal rival for the Democratic nomination, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, announced his support. But this deal will probably not be an issue by the time Democrats begin voting in their primaries.

On the other hand, the deal is not popular among either the general public or key Democratic donors. According to a poll taken this week by Monmouth University, only 27 percent of the general population and only 43 percent of Democrats want Congress to support the deal.

Then there is the funding issue.

Clinton hopes to raise $2.5 billion to fund her campaign. Her chance of securing that support – particularly from Jewish Democrats – is harmed, not helped by openly supporting the deal. So why is she speaking out in favor of it? The same day Clinton escalated her support for the deal, the FBI seized Clinton's private email server and her thumb drive amid reports that the inspector-general of the US intelligence community concluded that there were top secret communications on her email server.

Simply storing top secret communications, let alone disseminating them, is a felony offense.

Clinton submitted more than 32,000 emails from her server to the State Department. A random sample of 40 emails showed up four classified documents, two of which were top secret.

If the same ratios hold for the rest of the emails she submitted, then she may have illegally held some 3,200 classified documents, 1,600 of which were top secret. While Clinton is presenting the investigation as a simple security issue, she may very well find herself quickly under criminal investigation. At that point, her dwindling White House prospects will be the least of her worries.

But there is one person who can protect her.

If Obama wishes to close or expand a criminal probe of Clinton's suspected criminal activities, he can. As Roger Simon from Pjmedia.com wrote this week, "Hillary Clinton is in such deep legal trouble over her emails that she needs the backing of Obama to survive. He controls the attorney-general's office and therefore he controls Hillary (and her freedom) as long as he is president."

The prejudicial indictment of Sen. Robert Menendez – the most outspoken critic of Obama's deal with the ayatollahs in the Democratic Party – on dubious corruption charges in April shows that Obama isn't above using his control over the Justice Department to persecute political opponents.

Then there is Obama's treatment of Sen. Charles Schumer. Last Thursday night, the senior senator from New York and the next in line to lead the Democratic minority in the Senate informed Obama that he will oppose his nuclear deal. Schumer asked Obama to keep Schumer's position to himself in order to enable Schumer to announce it on Friday morning.

Rather than respect Schumer's wishes, the White House set its leftist attack dogs on Schumer.

By the time Schumer announced his plan to oppose the deal he had been called a traitor, a warmonger and an Israeli agent by leftist activist groups who pledged to withhold campaign contributions.

Schumer was compared to former Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman was forced to face a primary challenge in his 2006 reelection bid. His opponent, Ned Lamont, was generously supported by leftist activists led by George Soros.

Lamont's campaign was laced with anti-Semitic overtones, and Lieberman lost. He was forced to run in the general election as an Independent and won by virtue of the support he received from Republican voters and donors.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest threatened that Schumer could expect to be challenged in his bid to replace outgoing Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid when Reid retires next year.

Responding to the onslaught against him, while maintaining his opposition to the deal, Schumer reportedly told his Democratic Senate colleagues that while he was opposing the deal, he would not lobby then to join him in opposition.

The White House led- and instigated-assault on Schumer is interesting because of what it tells us about how Obama is using anti-Semitism.

In all likelihood, Schumer would have demurred from lobbying his Senate colleagues from joining him in opposing the deal even if Obama hadn't fomented an openly bigoted campaign to discredit him as a Jew. The mere threat of denying him his long-sought goal of heading the Democratic Senate faction, not to mention the possibility of mounting a primary challenge against him, probably would have sufficed to convince him not to take any further steps to oppose the deal.

So what purpose is served by calling a senior Democratic senator with a perfect leftist record on domestic issues a traitor, a warmonger and an agent of Israel? In all likelihood, the decision to attack Schumer as a disloyal Jew does not owe to some uncontrollable anti-Semitic passion on Obama's part.

Even if Obama is in fact an anti-Jewish bigot, he is more than capable of concealing his prejudice.

After all, as we learned over the weekend from Iranian media reports translated by MEMRI, Obama told the Iranians four years ago that they could have the bomb.

According to MEMRI's findings, Iranian negotiators said that Obama sent then-Senate Foreign Affairs Committee chairman John Kerry to Oman in 2011, while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still Iran's president, to begin nuclear negotiations. During the course of those early contacts, Obama agreed that Iran could continue enriching uranium in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a host of binding UN Security Council resolutions. He also agreed that Iran would not be required in the framework of a nuclear deal to reveal all of the possible military dimensions of its past nuclear work. In other words, he told the Iranians that he would not stand in their way to the bomb.

Obama managed to hide his concessions from the American people. He orchestrated a spectacle of "serious" negotiations with the P5+1 and Iran, where he pretended that the concessions he had made four years earlier were made at the very last moment of the nuclear talks in Vienna.

Given his obvious skill, it is clear that he would only play the anti-Semitism card if he believed he had something to gain from it.

So what is he planning to do that anti-Semitism can help him to accomplish? Over the past month, Obama has demonized and criminalized opponents of his nuclear deal.

Last week at American University Obama said that his Republican opponents are the moral equivalent of "Death to America"-chanting jihadists. Obama presented deal opponents in general as warmongers who would force the US into an unnecessary war that his deal would otherwise prevent.

And, since he said that among all the nations of the world, only Israel opposes the deal, it easily follows that the Jews who oppose the deal are traitors who care more about Israel than America.

And then this week his troops let it be known that Schumer is a warmonger and a traitor. And a Jew.

In his meeting with American Jewish leaders last Tuesday, Obama said that if the community dares to criticize him personally, it will weaken the American Jewish community and as a result, the strength of the US-Israel relationship.

If Jews – like Republicans – are warmongering traitors, obviously they should be made to pay a price.

By singling out and demonizing Jewish American opponents of the deal as corrupt, treacherous warmongers, Obama is setting the conditions for treating them as disloyal citizens can expected to be treated.

In other words, at best, Jewish opponents can expect to find themselves treated like other Obama opponents – such as Tea Party groups that were hounded and harassed by the IRS and other governmental organs.

AIPAC can expect to be subjected to humiliating, public and prejudicial probes. Jewish institutions and groups can expect to be picketed, vandalized and sued. Jewish activist can expect to be audited by the IRS.

In that meeting with American Jewish leaders, Obama seemed to present them with a choice. He reportedly told AIPAC's representatives, "If you guys would back down [from their opposition to the deal], I would back down from some of the things I'm doing."

Actually, he gave them no real options. Obama effectively told the leaders of the American Jewish community that as far as he is concerned, Jews have no right to advance their collective concerns as Jews. If they do, he will attack them. If they give up that right under duress, then he will leave them alone. So remain free and be hounded, or give up your rights and be left alone.

Some commentators have characterized the fight over the deal as a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. This may be the case. But first and foremost, it is a fight over whether or not Jews in America have the same rights as all other Americans.

To be sure, Israel will be harmed greatly if Congress fails to vote down this deal. But Israel has other means of defending itself. If this deal goes through, the greatest loser will be American Jewry.

"We Need to Reward our Friends and Punish our Enemies"

So the Clintons weren't so bad, eh?

If you're under 50 you really need to read this, if you are over 50, share it with those under fifty. 

Amazing to me how much I have forgotten! 

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a Democratic controlled Congress.

 This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children. 

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovered of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration. 

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well:Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. 

Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours. 

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents. 

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle was: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones. 

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. 

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath. 

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess? 

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to her loyal fans - “what difference does it make.”

So the Clintons weren't so bad, eh?