Citizens Have Had Enough?! : Living History In The Making

Here in a nut shell is the state of the union. We are living history nearly as much as those that decided they had had enough with the British in 1776. Of course it didn't begin in 1776 but the final installment that began the beginning of the end for foreign rule of our United States. We are now at similar cross roads as the founding father were, in that the bloated centralized government elites that run the system are corrupt and are putting our country at risk of financially collapse and attack from those that want us dead, and for no other reason then to get and keep power for themselves. Truly this election will be a turning point in our history no matter who wins in November. Business as usual is just about over.

 When Citizens Threaten the Establishment
NCPA Senior Fellow David Grantham writes for Townhall:

The outcome of this presidential election will not change the fact that the United States is experiencing an internal Thucydides Trap – a reference to how the emerging power of Athens struck fear in the heart of the established power in Sparta, sparking the ancient Peloponnesian War.
According to Gallup polling, trust in government to do the right thing “all or most of the time” has reached its lowest point in more than 50 years. The increasingly informed American public is an emerging power that threatens the establishment.


This is not a tax inspired, tea-in-the-harbor routine. No, this situation is a result of political elites -- a mosaic of Republican and Democrat bureaucrats, media clingers and financiers -- taking for granted the security of the United States, and then trying to hide it from the governed.

Elites and their hangers-on have worked tirelessly to insulate themselves from the consequences of the big government they champion. Meanwhile, they tell average Americans that exorbitant spending, unabashed federal overreach and legislative manipulation, while frustrating, were acceptable shortcomings of a modern bureaucracy. Cultural overlords excused it all as competing visions of America’s future.
Somewhere along the lines, emboldened elitists have shifted to actions that undermine national security. And they haven’t tried to explain it away as with taxes, education or healthcare. They’ve tried to hide it.

Political elites admitted, for instance, that governments cannot effectively vet thousands upon thousands of Syrian refugees. No matter, they simply try to insulate themselves from the impact. The Daily Caller confirmed that 112 of the 121 Syrian refugees resettled in Virginia ended up in the state’s poorest communities. The counties of the highest means received nine. Peggy Noonan calls this the “top detaching itself from the bottom.”

Ben Rhodes privately confessed that the Iran nuclear deal was a bad one. John Podesta agreed that it condemned “the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf.” Naturally, they went on to congratulate fellow elitists for their expert pageantry in selling such a terrible idea. In other words, they measured success by the creativity it took to approve a horrible something, rather than scuttling the horrible something. Yes, the same could be said for the Omnibus Bill and Obamacare. But the difference here is that officials privately acknowledged a solution posed a long-term threat to national security and still fought for it.

The administration used the cover of darkness to deliver $1.7 billion in foreign currency (an illegal technique known as money laundering) to pay the greatest state sponsor of terror for the release of U.S. prisoners. They told the American public it had to do with an outstanding debt from decades ago, but only after the deed was uncovered. Now Loretta Lynch, the country’s chief law enforcement official, has chosen to “effectively plead the Fifth” when faced with questions from congress.

Hillary Clinton’s email scandal epitomizes the establishment’s complete disregard for the security of the country. The pattern of contempt for protocol is alarming; even more so when one considers that she was fourth in the presidential line of succession as Secretary of State. Those actions prove her instinct for choosing personal priorities over national ones.
Those are just the highlights. The establishment went from an entrenched power that fought to guard the American system so it could selfishly benefit from it to a group that acts unconcerned with the system’s survival. The American public went from suspecting the political elite of corruption to knowing it.

Ayn Rand declared a society doomed “when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors…when your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you.” The establishment will fight. It might even offer token remedies. But those will amount to very little as the political class continues to undermine the country’s safety. The American public should begin by demanding innovative security solutions all purposed at yanking power back from the establishment:

Restructure centralized classification systems so as to limit federal power and allow for intelligence to flow directly to state and local law enforcement officials. 

• Position military assets at choke points of national interest rather than spread haphazardly throughout the globe. This would decrease defense costs, focus U.S. efforts on real threats and limit the establishment’s ability to manipulate the armed forces for its own agenda. 
• Make continental defense a priority by encouraging states to protect critical infrastructure like the electric grid. This action would proactively guard the nation and encourage greater state authority.  

The conflict inherent in the Thucydides Trap can be avoided but it requires major change.

 

 

Democrat Voters Arriving in Mass : Panic Run-A-Muck

The democrats are in panic mode - they are now arriving in mass at the voting stations, being trucked in to make sure the progressives win this election.

Remember, the progressive motto of ''by any means necessary'' is how they always win elections. Media deception, outright lies and criminal fraud are how it's done.

They have always done it this way and they always get away with. No one stands up against them.

But maybe this time it will be different with Hillary's illegal email server and her criminal activities with foreign donors to the Hillary and Bill Crime Family Foundation.

It would stand to reason that after more then 30 years of crime and manipulation of the voting public, they would not continue to vote for them.

But if history is any indication of the future, the general public is still ready and willing to make sure the Clintons continue to rob and steal them blind of their financial worth and their freedom to chose.

It's in the DNA. Nothing can or will change them. Progressive democrats will always be progressive democrats, and this is what the do.

 

The Power of The Smart Phone : A Weakness of Spirit

Is this what we have become? I wonder if there isn't some truth to the feeling that machines are beginning to rule our lives.

Have you watched the Matrix movie series?

Whether it's the microwave or the automobile or our incredible attachment to the smart phone, it has become a realty that we cannot survive without first asking a machine what we have to do next.

Transgender Bathroom Jihad : Ogbjma - Divide for Chaos

The question that remains is how does the president of the United States have the power to transform civil society simply because he wants to? Of curse the issue is larger then that as he admits he wants ''fundamental change'' to the way this country has lived and caused so much destruction to the world populations with belief that everyone should be free.

Can even the Supreme Court stop an entire collective of millions of people that are willing to do the bidding of one person no matter how insane?

Mr Ogbjma has indeed, for the last 8 years brought chaos where ever he can in his
religious ideological jihad pushing for transformation, and what way to divide and conquer then to order all of us to deny the most basic human nature of privacy that defines personal identity as male and female to the majority to accommodate the minority.

Even a federal judge seemed to have had enough of this insanity telling Mr Ogbjma he can't use federal funds as a club for his jihad. Who knew?

Transgender Bathroom Cases the Supreme Court Won’t Hear, and Why They Matter
Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / November 01, 2016

A mother who is part of a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s transgender restroom mandate for schools says she is encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision to review a similar case.
That case, arising from a Virginia school system, could set a national precedent in the debate over transgender individuals using public facilities according to what they say is their gender identity. It may determine the fate of more than a dozen lawsuits involving the same issue across the country.

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it would hear issues in the case involving Gavin Grimm, 17, a transgender student who was born female but identifies as a male. Grimm wants to use the boys’ restroom at Virginia’s Gloucester High School.

An Illinois parent involved in a similar suit told The Daily Signal she is “encouraged” by the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case of G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board and hopes the high court will honor the rights of parents and minor children by “reinstating basic privacy and dignity in our public schools.”

The mother, who has a child at Fremd High School in Palatine, Illinois, asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitive nature of the lawsuit there. She is part of a group of 51 families who sued the Obama administration over its interpretation of federal law known as Title IX. “Girls should never be forced to undress in the presence of young men,” she said in an email to The Daily Signal, adding:

There are sensitive solutions for students who are struggling with these issues that don’t violate the privacy of many other students at the school. Schools will always have a duty to protect the privacy and preserve the dignity of all children because every child matters. We hope the [Supreme] Court remembers this.

While the Illinois case won’t be heard before the Supreme Court this term, legal experts say that lawsuit—and others like it—had an important influence on the court’s decision to take up the transgender bathroom issue. “[These cases] have shown that there’s a split on this issue and there is likely to continue to be one,” said Matt Sharp, a lawyer at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the 51 families in Palatine. “I think if every one of these cases had gone the wrong way, I don’t know that the court would have taken the Gloucester case.”

The Gloucester County School Board, located in Virginia, says it’s pushing back on Grimm’s request to use the boys’ restrooms at Gloucester High School due to privacy concerns of other students. Instead, the school board offered private facilities for Grimm to use. Lawyers for the school board argue that the Obama administration overstepped its legal authority when it threatened to withhold federal funding if the school does not comply with the administration’s interpretation of Title IX.
Title IX is the federal law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program. Whether Title IX applies to transgender students is at the heart of the transgender bathroom debate in schools.

In May, the Obama administration issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to schools nationwide arguing that it does, and that schools must allow transgender students to use restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-specific facilities based on their gender identity.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Grimm in the Gloucester County case, but a representative did not reply before deadline. Parents and school boards across the nation objected to the Obama administration’s mandate, arguing that Title IX wasn’t intended to apply to a person’s gender identity. They argued that allowing students to use the restrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity rather than biological sex would violate the constitutional privacy rights of other students.

Nationwide, at least 13 other lawsuits address the same issue. So far, courts have been divided in their rulings. Those cases include:

• Board of Education of Highland Local School District v. U.S. (Southern District of Ohio; on appeal to 6th Circuit).
• Privacy Matters v. U.S. (Minnesota District Court).
• Students and Parents for Privacy v. U.S. (Northern District of Illinois).
• Nebraska, et al v. U.S. (Nebraska District Court).
• Texas, et al v. U.S. (Northern District of Texas; on appeal to 5th Circuit).
• W. v. Kenosha Unified School District (Eastern District of Wisconsin; on appeal to 7th Circuit).
• Evancho v. Pine-Richland School District (Western District of Pennsylvania).
• Tooley v. Van Buren Public Schools (Eastern District of Michigan).
• A.B. v. Board of Education of Talbot County (Maryland District Court).
• Women’s Liberation Front v. U.S. (New Mexico District Court).
• Carcano v. McCrory (Middle District of North Carolina).
• McCrory v. U.S. / Berger v. U.S. (Eastern District of North Carolina).
• U.S. v. North Carolina (Middle District of North Carolina; on appeal to 4th Circuit).

Most likely, legal experts say, these cases will be put on hold until the Supreme Court issues its decision in the Gloucester County School Board case. Pointing to the stay the Supreme Court issued in August, which allowed the Gloucester school district to keep restrooms and locker rooms separated by biological sex, they predicted that other school districts would follow suit. “Because the Supreme Court ordered that male and female bathrooms be preserved until it addresses the question on the merits, only an ideologically driven lower court would impose new gender identity policies in schools ahead of the decision,” said Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center at The Heritage Foundation.

“Additionally, a federal court has ordered the [Obama] administration to stop threatening schools with funding cuts for not adopting radical new shower, bathroom, and locker policies, so the mischief should be contained until the Supreme Court decides,” Severino told The Daily Signal.
This means the situation will not change in North Carolina, where a new law known as House Bill 2 sparked a national controversy during which the NCAA decided to relocate some of its national championship games from the state.

The North Carolina law mandates that people use bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, public universities, and other government buildings based on the gender listed on their birth certificates.
A federal judge recently issued an injunction blocking the University of North Carolina from enforcing HB 2 and requiring the school to open its restrooms and locker rooms to students based on their gender identity. “If the [Supreme] Court rejects the administration’s radical gender theory in the Gloucester case, it will be a death blow to the government’s suit against North Carolina because it is based on the identical legal theory,” Severino said.

A federal judge in Texas reached the opposite conclusion in a similar case brought by a Texas school district, issuing a nationwide injunction against the Obama administration’s transgender bathroom mandate and blocking enforcement. The Supreme Court decided to review issues in the Grimm case in Gloucester County, Virginia, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled in the transgender student’s favor.

Looking at Supreme Court statistics, Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom said, he is cautiously optimistic about the outcome. “If they take a case, the odds are they’re going to reverse the decision below,” Sharp said, adding:

It’s not 100 percent, obviously, but generally the court’s not going to take a case and say the lower court got it right. That’s part of my cautious optimism with the Gloucester case—the odds are they’re going to say the 4th Circuit got it wrong in some regard because otherwise they would have just let that decision stand and waited until some other cases came up.

However the Supreme Court decides, the ruling could be irrelevant if Congress votes to add gender identity to Title IX. That “would be incredible hard,” Sharp said, adding:

Yes, there’s always a possibility that a Democrat Congress can turn around and do that—that’s always been a risk—but I think it becomes harder and harder every year for them to do. I think one of the reasons is, there’s not discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity going on. There’s not a widespread problem … there’s no allegation that Gavin Grimm is being denied an education opportunity.

But if Congress did act to add gender identity to Title IX, Sharp said, “at least it went through the Democratic process and not through an agency sending a letter to every school and mandating it.”
“I wouldn’t like it,” the lawyer said, “but at least it’s democracy in action.”

Illegal Immigrants And Visa Jumpers : Chaos By Design

As a result of Barack Ogbjma's religious jihad for total world chaos, our country, as nearly the last bastion of freedom and security from tyranny, is being invaded and overrun. Barack know this and welcomes the invading horde of immigrants and refugees even though he knows many coming here wish us harm, to kill us.

Barack and Hillary are on the same page with the immigrants pouring across our boarders and doing nothing or worse, ordering our agencies to stand down to stop flow of illegal immigrants, but also about finding ways to stem the tide illegal immigration 'Visa jumpers'.

It's just that the Barack wants the horde to crush our civil system of life by bringing chaos and ruin to our communities as a means for building his 'new world order' jihad of and for centralized obedience, and Hillary finds the chaos to her advantage as she looks for new ways to get ultimate power as a means to build her financial fortune.

The saying fits for Hillary and Barack, 'Where there is chaos, there is profit'. One is about destroying the American way of life and the other is about stealing it blind.

The ‘Untold Threat’ Responsible for 40% of Illegal Immigrants
Josh Siegel / @SiegelScribe / October 31, 2016    

While the debate over illegal immigration tends to focus on how to control and treat those who make it across our nation’s borders, a more enduring challenge for the U.S. government has been what to do to stop legal entrants from overstaying their allotted time here. The problem of so-called visa “overstays”—which make up about 40 percent of the 11 million people living illegally in the U.S.—will continue on past the Obama administration and follow the next president.

That’s partially because the government has not yet delivered on its long-promised—and congressionally mandated—plan to create a better checkout system to track who has left the country on time, and who hasn’t. “It [visa overstays] is the most overlooked issue when it comes to immigration,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

“It’s an untold threat,” McCaul added. “We are allowing millions of people to overstay visas and remain in this country who could potentially pose a threat to homeland security.” The uncertainty around the scope of the problem comes at a time when a growing percentage of the illegal immigrant population is made up of visa overstays as opposed to people being apprehended at the border.

For more than 20 years, the U.S. government had struggled to quantify just how many people entered the country legally with a visa and stayed too long, making it impossible to prescribe policy fixes.
That finally changed in January, when the Department of Homeland Security released a first-of-its-kind study reporting that 527,127 people who traveled legally to the U.S. for business or leisure and were supposed to leave the country in fiscal year 2015 in fact overstayed their visas.

 Nearly 500,000 Foreigners Overstayed Their Visas Last Year. What That Means.
This figure is larger than the 337,117 people caught crossing the border illegally last year.
The long-awaited data from 2015 was not all-encompassing. It counted only visa holders who entered the U.S. by air and sea, not by land, and it did not include those who came as students or temporary workers.

Still, immigration and security experts as well as policymakers welcomed the new information because they thought it would force the government to move faster on methods to improve, most importantly in trying to assemble a system to obtain biometric data—such as fingerprints, facial recognition images, and eye scans—on those leaving the country.

‘A Top Issue’
The 9/11 Commission recommended the Department of Homeland Security complete an entry and exit system “as soon as possible,” viewing it as an important national security tool because two of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, had overstayed their visas.
Plagued by financial and logistical challenges, the government has introduced various pilot projects at some airports and land borders, but is still a few years off from implementing a biometric exit system on a large scale.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has pledged to have biometric checks at major airports in 2018, and Congress in last year’s omnibus spending bill authorized $1 billion in visa fee increases over 10 years to pay for an exit system.
The struggle to install a biometric exit tracking system is well known.

Foreigners who apply to enter the U.S. on a visa are interviewed and photographed and have their fingerprints taken at a consulate overseas before arriving here. But collecting biometric data on those exiting the country is not as easy.
That’s because U.S. airports do not have exclusive terminals for domestic and international flights, which makes it hard for officers from Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Patrol to screen overseas travelers and get their information.
“Most countries have a designated checkout system built in airports,” Stewart Verdery, a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. Verdery added:

We just didn’t build our airports this way. So the question is where do you collect the information in a way that doesn’t inconvenience travelers and is actually effective in making sure someone has left? None of the options are particularly great. And though the biometric equipment is very mature, there is also a manpower issue over who maintains the machines.

To satisfy these limitations, Verdery expects the government to pursue a facial recognition exit system that automatically would snap a traveler’s photograph—likely at the gate.
‘It Doesn’t Matter’
Even if the U.S. were to settle on a workable exit tracking method, some national security experts doubt that such a system would be an effective counterterrorism tool, especially when considering its cost.
David Inserra, a homeland security expert at The Heritage Foundation, says the government could just as well use already collected biographical information, such as a traveler’s name and date of birth, to track exits and collect overstay data. But other experts say bad actors could use fake passports and aliases to bypass a system that did not require biometrics such as fingerprints and facial recognition.

No matter the method used, Inserra and other experts note that an exit system simply reveals who has departed—and remained—in the country. It would not help discover where those that stayed are living, and whether they present a security risk.
“Even if you have the greatest biometric exit system, if someone doesn’t leave, it doesn’t matter,” Inserra said, adding:

You are now left with the problem of every other police officer looking for someone. They are a missing person who doesn’t want to be found. If you want to stop visa overstays, the solution isn’t to spend money on an exit system.

Inserra argues that policymakers instead should give more money to intelligence agencies such as Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement so they can go into communities and try to locate—and deport—people who overstayed their visas.

Yet other experts are doubtful that would happen. They say the government does not prioritize enforcing immigration law against those who’ve stayed past their visa expiration date because those travelers were screened before coming here.
“In terms of removing a garden variety illegal migrant, you aren’t going to search for somebody on that basis,” Edward Alden, an immigration and visa policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The notion we will have some special dedicated effort to go find overstays I find completely implausible.”

Alden says the government can take simpler steps to deter visa overstays, by emailing reminders to foreigners of their expected departure date, specifying the consequences of not leaving on time.
Many who overstay their visas don’t intend to settle in America, Alden contends. The Homeland Security report from earlier this year found that as of Jan. 4, a total of 416,500 of the 527,127 overstays in 2015 remained in the U.S. More have left the country since then, the government says.

The government also has taken diplomatic steps to better track foreign visitors, especially by improving information sharing with Canada, the country that had the most overstays in the U.S. The U.S. and Canada exchange names and biographical information of those from third countries who enter on their shared border. Mexico, the second-largest source of visa overstays in the U.S., generally does not yet have the capacity to exchange information like that, Alden says.

‘Serious About Enforcement’
Despite these improvements, Congress is not backing off its demand for a biometric exit system.
McCaul, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, says he hopes for a vote next year on a broad border security bill he sponsored last year. It includes a provision requiring the government to establish an exit system at the 15 largest airports, seaports, and land ports within two years. The legislation, which President Barack Obama promised to veto, would impose financial and other penalties on Department of Homeland Security political appointees if the government fails to meet the timeline.

Having the best data possible, supporters of the exit system say, will give the government incentive to more aggressively enforce the law against those who’ve overstayed visas. “I think once the government gets an exit system up and running, they’ll be serious about enforcement,” Verdery said, adding:

We will never have a system where we will go out and find someone who overstays and just wants to do nothing on their buddy’s couch. But we will go out and find them when they try to get a job, draw the attention of law enforcement, or illegally try to claim benefits.

NBC 'Open Forum' Sept 7 Hillary Rant : Fact or Fiction?

After reading this one has to think maybe it is a story instead of an actually event. But given a number of other first hand reports of Hillary when she was in the White House attack aids and others that had some responsibilities in the White House that effected her directly.

If we believe the saying, if there is smoke there must be fire, then this below might be more then a rumor like Snoops says it is. But then Snoops has proven record of having their collective thumbs on the scales investigation when it comes to treating all questions of whether something is true or rumor, especially when that proof is most weighed to disprove bad news of progressives. Just the fact that Snoops didn't elaborate on the subject, I believe is significant.

Notice as well that there are no names of who the players are in this toxic exchange between Hillary and her supporters.

Still, this is interesting. So, this could be someone have a good time at the expense of Hillary, or maybe her history is becoming clearer. You can decide one way or the other.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT THE NBC PRESIDENTIAL FORUM WITH MATT LAUER

DEMOCRAT HILLARY CLINTON’S BEHIND THE SCENES TIRADE AFTER NBC’s
MATT LAUER ASKED CLINTON  THE ONE QUESTION SHE HAD NOT PRE-APPROVED.
VETERAN NBC CAMERAMAN:   ‘YOU REALLY HAD TO SEE THIS TO BELIEVE
IT...SHE CAME APART – LITERALLY UNGLUED; SHE IS THE MOST FOUL-MOUTHED
WOMAN I’VE EVER HEARD...AND THAT  VOICE AT SCREECH LEVEL...AWFUL’.

”SHE LOOKED SO ENRAGED THAT WE ALL THOUGHT HER HEAD WOULD
EXPLODE...IT WAS A FULL-ON MELT-DOWN AND THEN SHE SCREAMED SHE’D GET
THAT F - - - ING LAUER FIRED FOR THIS. IT WENT ON FOR AT LEAST A HALF
HOUR; WE ALL THOUGHT THE EMS  WOULD BE THE NEXT CALL”
      NBC Associate Producer of Forum

Behind the scenes, NBC technicians and cameramen at the
Wednesday night, Commander-in-Chief Forum (Sept 7) report that Hillary
Clinton was so angry and incensed that she had been  ‘blind-sided’ by
one question she was not prepared for and had not approved in advance.

 “When her time in front of the cameras ended, Clinton shook the
hand Lauer extended to her and smiled once more for the wide camera
shot and then Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and
threw it at the face of her assistant and the screaming started. She
was in a full meltdown and no one on her staff dared speak with her –
she went kind of manic and didn't have any control over herself at
that point. How   these people work with this woman is amazing to me.
Most of the small military audience were cordoned off, their seating
not close to Mrs. Clinton, but certainly they heard her screaming
because it was loud...and she really didn't seem to care who heard any
of  it.”

 Republican Donald Trump also appeared, in a separate telecast
from Hillary Clinton’s and arrived with his two sons but no entourage
or assistants in tow. The NBC cameramen involved in his segment said
he was a ‘true gentleman’ and Trump and his sons spoke to everyone and
thanked them for inviting him to speak: “It was a pleasure to answer
your questions Matt.”

 Hillary Clinton’s segment was much different. According to
people working on the sidelines, “When Matt posed the one legitimate
question about the FBI investigation concerning her homemade server
and the unsecured emails, we could see she was beginning to boil and
her eyes looked to pop.”

 “It was toward the end of her interview so she was becoming
unglued by the time Lauer finished with questioning.  Hillary went
ballistic, throwing a huge tantrum and screaming at her staff, “you f
- - - ing idiots, you were supposed to have this thing set up for me
and you’ve screwed it up!  If that f - - - ing bastard wins we all
hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished...and if I lose it’s all on you ass
- - - - s for screwing this up.”

 Clinton finally stormed off the military ‘set’ and the
assistant producer said she was screaming that she wanted to talk to
“the idiot who set this mess up...you do not blindside me - ever!” and
continued to demand to speak with executives at Comcast, parent
company to NBC Universal.

 Her dozen or more aides were visibly disturbed and tried to
calm her down when she started shaking uncontrollably.  That did not
stop her from demanding an executive “on the phone, now!”  She was
told the executive-in-charge of the forum was ready to talk with her
and she was led away by two rather large aides who appeared to help
her walk.

The TV executives got the message with all of the censuring
headlines that followed over the next couple of days when it seemed
the entire media turned on Matt Lauer for behaving in a “partisan”
manner and “being grossly unfair and critical of the former secretary
of state.”

Matt Lauer was heavily criticized on air by the Clinton campaign
the rest of the week with most of the mainstream media joining in. The
media appeared to frame Matt’s one serious question as the Clinton
campaign was doing...”an unfair and partisan attack on Mrs. Clinton.”

Matt Lauer is still facing major backlash following his 23
minutes with Hillary Clinton. Privately, many reporters said Matt
handed the Democrat nominee the expected softball questions, but made
the decision to ask about the emails because, “the American people
deserve an answer from the former secretary of state.”

Calls were made to New York Times, Washington Post and
Huffington Post and Twitter executives with orders to “Crush Matt
Lauer”. As you can easily see with all the headlines from these MSM
sources, they did as they were told by the Clinton campaign.

Hillary also screamed that she would be “treated with respect at
the debates or heads will roll.”  Staffers at the Clinton campaign
report that they fear her wrath and uncontrollable outbursts, and one
described Hillary as  “an egotistical psychopath”.

Since Hillary does not allow any staff to have cell phones when
she is in their presence, no footage is available, but Hillary will
never let this rest.  She has made it clear that she wants Matt Lauer
to be “persona non grata - for putting her on the spot.”

Interim DNC chairman Donna Brazile, the first black woman to
hold the position, was singled out by Hillary during the rant.   She
screamed at Donna, “I’m so sick of your face.   You stare at the wall
like a brain dead buffalo, while letting that f - - - ing Lauer get
away with this.   What are you good for, really?   Get the f - - - to
work  janitoring this mess - do I make myself clear?”

 A female NBC executive said that Donna Brazile looked at Mrs.
Clinton and never flinched, which seemed to enrage Hillary all the
more.  The executive continued, “It was the most awful and
terrible...and racist display – such a profane meltdown I have ever
witnessed from anyone,  and I will never forget it.  That woman should
never see the inside of the oval office I can tell you that.  She was
unhinged and just continued to verbally abuse everyone – she was out
of control.”

Democrat VP States He Will Change Senate Rules to Seat SC Justice

Senator Tim Kaine will lead the charge as leader in the new liberal Senate as president Pro Tempore  to ''fundamentally change'' America if Hillary wins in November and the democrats take back the control of the Senate . He has admitted the progressive liberal democrats will change the Senate rules to get their nominee appointed to the Supreme Court and therefore have the power to rule the country from the bench.

As we all know, the progressives will be opposed to any law proposed by Republicans and demand a court hearing to oppose it, but with a progressive court that is dominated by socially progressive liberals, they can and will determine how the country is run.

And the scariest thing of all, the Republicans will vote to seat the next court justice without a problem. They will fold under the pressure as they always do.

Democrat VP Candidate Predicts Senate Will Change Rules to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee
Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / October 31, 2016

Vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine says Democrats would “change the Senate rules” to confirm a ninth Supreme Court justice if they win control of the upper chamber in November. “I have a prediction,” Kaine said in an interview last week with The Huffington Post. “This is not a guarantee and I’m not revealing inside intel. I was in the Senate when the Republicans’ stonewalling around appointments caused Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51, and we did it on everything but a Supreme Court justice.”

Kaine is a U.S. senator from Virginia who in 2013 supported the then-Democrat majority’s “nuclear option” that ended the Senate filibuster on most judicial nominees.

Republicans, who currently control the Senate, have refused to hold hearings for President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, who serves as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Garland was nominated by Obama in March to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.

In the interview with The Huffington Post, Kaine referenced remarks from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, where Cruz told reporters at a rally in Loveland, Colorado, that there is a “precedent” for an evenly divided, eight-member court. “Ted Cruz, I think is being slightly disingenuous,” Kaine said. “The Constitution doesn’t set the size of the court. It sets a maximum I think of 15. But since the Judiciary Act of 1869, it’s been a nine-member court. That’s what the statute says. We take an oath to uphold the law, that’s what we’re upholding.”

Why Ted Cruz Would Leave Supreme Court Seat Vacant
Cruz isn’t the only Republican senator to raise the prospect of an elongated fight over Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has also raised concerns, stating that he believes there’s little difference between a Supreme Court nominee from Clinton and Obama’s choice of Garland. In addition, according to CNN, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a radio interview that Republicans would be united against Clinton nominees.

Senators Promise to Block Potential Clinton Supreme Court Nominees
“Congress could change it, if Congress wanted to and had the votes, but Congress won’t,” Kaine said. “So until Congress does, that’s the size of the court. And the battle is, do we want a lawfully constituted full court or will we let the Republicans have a hobbled, limited, and weakened court?”
Kaine said that he believes the stalemate to be occurring so that senators will not be held accountable by their constituents.

“[The] Senate has to advise and consent,” Kaine said. “That doesn’t mean you have to vote yes. You can vote no. It’s not a rubber stamp. But what these guys are doing is, ‘Wait a minute. We don’t have to vote yes or no. And maybe we can trick our voters into not holding us accountable for not voting yes or no.”

Kaine is confident that if the stalemate continues, Democrat senators will take action. “If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies,” Kaine said, “then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ‘We’re not going to let you thwart the law.’ And so we will change the Senate rules to uphold the law that the court will be nine members. … I am predicting that if the Republicans continue to stonewall, then I think that will happen.”

Technology Pushs Against Entrenchment : Eye Exams On Line

It's the traditional push back against the advancement of technology by entrenched groups that believe they have a 'right' to their particular business success even it means standing in the way of others that want some of that success with laws and regulations.

The dam has been breeched - go with the flow or be ground under by the rushing water of new ideas.

After This State Blocked Online Eye Exams, a Health Care Startup Is Fighting Back
Fighting Back

Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / October 31, 2016

A Chicago-based health care startup that allows customers to conduct eye exams from their homes and obtain a prescription is fighting back against a South Carolina law that prohibits the company from operating in the state.

Opternative, an online eye exam company, and the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, filed a lawsuit in South Carolina civil court last week arguing that a law passed in May violates the state constitution. “Opternative wasn’t banned in South Carolina because there was anything wrong with their technology or because there was any public health or safety problem with their technology,” Robert McNamara, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, told The Daily Signal. “They were banned because their technology interferes with the business model of established optometrists.”

Opternative, which was founded in 2012 and launched to the public in 2015, developed technology that allows customers to obtain a prescription for glasses and contacts without ever stepping foot in a doctor’s office.

Using Opternative’s technology, customers self-perform their own vision test for $40 using a smartphone and computer. The results of the exam, along with answers to a list of questions about the patient’s medical history, are then compiled and sent through Opternative’s platform to a state-licensed ophthalmologist, who reviews the information and writes a prescription. Opternative currently operates in 39 states, but the company has been effectively banned in South Carolina.

There, state lawmakers passed the Eye Care Consumer Protection Law this year, which states that vision assessments “must not be based solely on objective refractive data or information generated by an automated testing device, including an autorefractor or other electronic refractive-only testing device, to provide a medical diagnosis or to establish a refractive error for a patient as part of an eye examination.”

The American Optometric Association pushed for the legislation, but Gov. Nikki Haley, a Republican, ultimately vetoed the bill and criticized it for using “health practice mandates to stifle competition for the benefit of a single industry.” “If [the bill were] allowed to become law, South Carolina would become the eighth state to impose such a ban, putting us on the leading edge of protectionism, not innovation,” Haley continued. The Republican-led state Legislature ultimately voted to override Haley’s veto, with the Senate voting 39-3 and the House voting 98-1.

“This bill is protectionist legislation at its worst,” Aaron Dallek, Opternative’s CEO, told The Daily Signal. “It protected the economic interest of one group of people over the interest of the citizens of the great state of South Carolina.”

According to a complaint filed with the state court, the lawsuit argues that the law keeps Opternative
from exercising its right to “pursue an honest living free from arbitrary, irrational, and protectionist regulation.” “The South Carolina Constitution protects people’s right to be free from arbitrary and unreasonable economic regulations, and it’s part of an ongoing trend we’ve seen in state courts of announcing that their state constitutions are going to give people stronger protections against this kind of arbitrary or protectionist economic regulation than you might see under the federal constitution,” McNamara said.

In response to the lawsuit, Barbara Horn, secretary-treasurer of the American Optometric Association and an optometrist in Conway, South Carolina, said  Opternative and the Institute for Justice “are not concerned about the health care needs” of South Carolinians.

The American Optometric Association also filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration in April urging the agency to take action against Opternative. “Having lost decisively in our state capital and still lacking any credible research or federal medical device approvals, they’ve come back to try to impose their profit-driven approach to health care on South Carolina,” Horn said on behalf of the organization regarding the lawsuit. “Their questionable legal tactics will cost the citizens of our state time and money—resources better invested in protecting the health of our patients.”

McNamara, meanwhile, said the South Carolina Legislature has carved out specific regulations and restrictions for eye care and optometrists, specifically. In June—one month after the Legislature voted to override Haley’s veto of the Eye Care Consumer Protection Law—state lawmakers passed the South Carolina Telemedicine Act, which legalized telemedicine across the state. The two laws, McNamara said, conflict with each other.

“That’s part of what makes the ban on Opternative’s technology unconstitutional,” he said. “What the state has essentially said is, ‘We don’t have a problem with telemedicine, and we trust doctors, as long as they’re meeting the standard of care, to choose what technology they want to use and choose how they want to incorporate the internet into their practice, except for ophthalmologists.’”
In addition to South Carolina, lawmakers in Georgia and Indiana passed bills this year prohibiting Opternative from operating in those states. Dallek said the company “doesn’t make threats” regarding the potential for legal challenges to laws in those two states. However, he didn’t rule it out completely.

“We do believe that we have the right to defend our doctors’ right to offer affordable and convenient eye care services to their patients, and we’ll work with those states to try to correct any legislative restrictions on our services,” Dallek said. “If we have to, we’ll use the judicial system to defend our doctors’ constitutional right to their economic freedom.”

Challenges to Opternative’s technology underscore debates taking place in state legislatures nationwide and in the courts following the rise of technology companies like Uber and Airbnb.
In response to these new technologies, government officials at the local and state level have passed ordinances and laws regulating companies like Opternative.  McNamara said that no matter what the company or service is—be it eye care, ride-sharing, or mobile vending—the core issue remains the same.

“When you look at these fights, it’s always the same underlying phenomenon. Whatever the specific facts of the case are, it is always a legislature kowtowing to a powerful, private interest group at the expense of some new entrant, some entrepreneur, some innovator,” he said. “I think a big solution to the problem is to persuade the courts to continue the growing trend of taking a serious look at regulations like this and standing up to the protectionists for protectionists sake,” McNamara continued. 

Voter Fraud Doesn't Exist? : Progressives Find ID Restrictive

This doesn't require a degree rocket science to understand why progressive activist judges like the one in Wisconsin that struck down the voter ID law just a few weeks ago but allowing the photo requirement to remain, begs his reason he struck down all other parts of the law and the early voting restrictions.

Little wonder then why now early voting seem the best way to cheat as the cost to the communities to staff the voting places for weeks advance of an election and to check the ballots for fraud is cost prohibitive to taxpayers. 

But never mind, anything that might stand in the way of progressives winning election must be cast aside. Demanding that a voter actually be alive and who they say they are is just to much to ask the population before they vote.

According to a recent study by the FEC, voter fraud is found in all 50 states.

Elizabeth Warren Has It Wrong on Voter Fraud
Jason Snead / @jasonwsnead / October 28, 2016    

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., penned an op-ed for The Washington Post equating loose rhetoric by a political opponent with legitimate concerns expressed by many about inadequate safeguards in our electoral system. The op-ed is a classic sleight of hand, reducing a discussion about a topic as serious as election integrity to an ad hominem attack.

For the senator, such antics are necessary because the facts simply do not bear out the progressive position. The simple fact is that election fraud often goes undetected. Overburdened prosecutors frequently assign vote fraud cases a low priority, particularly after an election is over. Moreover, many states lack the procedural tools necessary to detect fraud before or after it occurs.

Nonetheless, contrary to Warren’s fervent assertion that “there is literally no evidence—none, zip, zero—that widespread voter fraud is a factor in modern American elections,” Heritage Foundation research has documented literally hundreds of convictions in voter fraud cases. And while many progressives, including the senator, quote a study purporting to indicate that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, that analysis is constricted to a single type of fraud, in-person impersonation fraud.

Many Forms of Fraud
Left out of that report are the countless other forms electoral fraud can take, from the casting of fraudulent absentee ballots, to illegal efforts by partisans to “assist” voters in filling out their ballots, to voters who habitually vote in multiple states.

The Heritage Foundation’s voter fraud database also documents massive conspiracies to buy votes, felons and noncitizens convicted of voting despite their ineligibility, and multiple elections overturned because of the sheer number of fraudulent ballots cast.
 Here Are 3 New Cases of Voter Fraud. Governments Must Ensure Vote Integrity as Election Day Looms.

Indeed, the senator need look no further than her own state for proof that voter fraud exists. In 2012, former state Rep. Stephen “Stat” Smith pleaded guilty to two counts of voter fraud. Smith ran a scheme in which he obtained absentee ballots for people he knew to be ineligible to vote, even going so far as mailing in ballots on behalf of voters without their knowledge. Smith received a four-month prison sentence.

Warren denounces voter ID laws and other electoral integrity measures as being designed to “disproportionately suppress turnout by Democratic voters” or otherwise “delegitimize Democratic voters.” Yet, it is often those very voters who are the victims of election fraud.

Again looking to Massachusetts, in 2013, Enrico “Jack” Villamaino, former Republican selectman and candidate for the state House of Representatives, illegally modified the party affiliations of 280 voters, changing them from registered Democrats to “unenrolled” voters. He schemed to request absentee ballots in their names to guarantee himself additional votes in the 2012 Republican primary while denying them the right to participate in the Democratic primary. Villamaino pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges and served four months in prison.

A few months ago, the results of a Democratic primary for Missouri’s 78th House District were thrown out because of widespread absentee ballot fraud. The incumbent, Penny Hubbard, lost the in-person vote in the first election, but won based on the lopsided support she seemingly enjoyed among absentee voters. However, upon closer examination, it turned out that many of the absentee ballots were improperly recorded. A judge ordered a redo, and Hubbard’s Democratic challenger defeated her by a whopping 1,533 votes.

Election Integrity 
At the end of the day, this is what the issue of electoral integrity is all about—ensuring that every legitimate vote cast is counted, and that elections accurately reflect the will of those voters. After all, every illegitimate ballot negates a legitimately cast vote. To that end, states must put in place reasonable safeguards to ensure that only legitimate voters are able to cast ballots, while not unreasonably burdening eligible citizens seeking to exercise their rights.

In 2008, in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s voter identification law, concluding that requiring photo identification to vote is not an unreasonably burdensome requirement. The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. Although long recognized as one of the more liberal members of the Court, Stevens spent many years practicing law in Chicago, a city with a rich tradition of voter fraud.
 Voter Fraud Far From ‘Myth,’ Panel Asserts

But one does not need to read Supreme Court opinions to see that voter ID laws are hardly as burdensome as many activists claim. Common sense will do.

Our society requires the presentation of photo identification to buy alcohol, board a plane, get a prescription, drive a car, enter a bar during evening hours, and obtain a meeting with some of the very same politicians who today denounce photo ID laws as unduly burdensome or racially discriminatory.

Commonsense Solutions
Common sense will not stop activists, however. Adverse opinions in cases out of Texas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin overturned photo ID laws and other election measures, denouncing them as racially motivated. Yet, as Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky points out, in the Texas and North Carolina cases, the challengers could not identify a single disenfranchised minority voter.

In the Texas case, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith Jones penned a powerful dissent, noting that the “multi-thousand-page record yields not a trace, much less a legitimate inference, of racial bias by the Texas Legislature.” The majority opinion, according to Jones, “misconstrues the law, misapplies the facts, and raises serious constitutional questions.”

Progressives smell blood in the water, and will continue their legal barrage anywhere that reasonable efforts to secure the vote have been enacted. The future integrity of our elections—the very core of our democracy—may hinge on who fills the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia.
It’s long past time to acknowledge that voter fraud is a real, nonpartisan issue, and take sensible measures to secure the ballot box.

Believing You Can Is Success : Never Quit Trying

The road to success is a belief that no matter what happens, you are capable of doing what is necessary to achieve success.

Failing is not an option or a road block to success. Never quit, never give the fight.