+menu-


  • Category Archives Can You Hear Me Now?
  • UK Independence Day June 23, 2016

    Image for the news result

    ​Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership | Donald J Trump for President

    Donald Trump8 hours ago – June 24, 2016 –
     The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

    Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.

    ———————————————————

    UK Independence Day June 23, 2016

    The populist vote is the ONLY reason the UK got out of the EU

    What was the Silent Majority thinking?

    UK out of the EU 7 Good Reasons

    Brexit: the 7 most important arguments for Britain to leave the EU

    Vox2 hours ago Updated by on June 24, 2016, 9:10 a.m. ET

    Yesterday, Britain voted to leave the European Union— an option dubbed “Brexit. … the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. … and many economists believe the euro was the primary culprit.

    Argument 1: The EU threatens British sovereignty

    Argument 2: The EU is strangling the UK in burdensome regulations

    Argument 3: The EU entrenches corporate interests and prevents radical reforms

    Argument 4: The EU was a good idea, but the euro is a disaster

    Argument 5: The EU allows too many immigrants

    Argument 6: The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU

    Argument 7: The UK could keep the money it currently sends to the EU

    ———————————————————-

    Argument 1: The EU threatens British sovereignty

    This is probably the most common argument among intellectual-minded people on the British right, expressed by Conservative politicians such as former London Mayor Boris Johnson and Justice Minister Michael Gove.

    Over the past few decades, a series of EU treaties have shifted a growing amount of power from individual member states to the central EU bureaucracy in Brussels. On subjects where the EU has been granted authority — like competition policy, agriculture, and copyright and patent law — EU rules override national laws.

    Euroskeptics emphasize that the EU’s executive branch, called the European Commission, isn’t directly accountable to voters in Britain or anyone else. British leaders have some influence on the selection of the European Commission’s members every five years. But once the body has been chosen, none of its members are accountable to the British government or to Britons’ elected representatives in the European Parliament.

    Argument 2: The EU is strangling the UK in burdensome regulations

    Critics like Johnson say the EU’s regulations have become increasingly onerous:

    Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating – like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.

    Many British conservatives look at the European bureaucracy in Brussels the same way American conservatives view the Washington bureaucracy. Gove has argued that EU regulations cost the British economy “£600 million every week” ($880 million). (Though this figure is disputed.)

    Argument 3: The EU entrenches corporate interests and prevents radical reforms

    Labour In Rally For The Last Time In The EU Referendum Campaign Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images
    Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has been a reluctant supporter of the “remain” campaign.

    This is the mirror image of the previous two arguments. Whereas many British conservatives see the EU as imposing left-wing, big-government policies on Britain, some on the British left see things the other way around: that the EU’s antidemocratic structure gives too much power to corporate elites and prevents the British left from making significant gains.

    “The EU is anti-democratic and beyond reform,” said Enrico Tortolano, campaign director for Trade Unionists against the EU, in an interview with Quartz. The EU “provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organized crime,” writes British journalist Paul Mason.

    This left-wing critique of the EU is part of a broader critique of elite institutions more generally, including the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Brexit supporters on the left would have a lot in common with Americans who are against trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    Argument 4: The EU was a good idea, but the euro is a disaster

    The United Kingdom has had a significant faction of euroskeptics ever since it joined the EU in 1973. But until recently, this was a minority position.

    “There are nearly 130 Conservative MPs who have declared for leaving the EU,” economist Andrew Lilico told me last week. “If you went back 10 years, you would have struggled to find more than 20 who even in private would have supported leaving the EU.”

    So what changed their minds? The global recession that began in 2008 was bad around the world, but it was much worse in countries that had adopted Europe’s common currency, the euro. The unemployment rate shot up above 20 percent in countries like Greece and Spain, triggering a massive debt crisis. Seven years after the recession began, Spain and Greece are still suffering from unemployment rates above 20 percent, and many economists believe the euro was the primary culprit.

    Luckily, the UK chose not to join the common currency, so there’s little danger of the euro directly cratering the British economy. But the euro’s dismal performance still provides extra ammunition to Brexit supporters.

    Many economists believe that deeper fiscal and political integration will be needed for the eurozone to work properly. Europe needs a common welfare and tax system so that countries facing particularly severe downturns — like Greece and Spain — can get extra help from the center.

    But that makes Britain’s continued inclusion in the EU awkward. Britain is unlikely to go along with deeper fiscal integration, but it would also be unwieldy to create a set of new, parallel eurozone-specific institutions that excluded the UK.

    So, the argument goes, it might be better for everyone if the UK got out of the EU, clearing the path for the rest of the EU to evolve more quickly into a unified European state.

    Argument 5: The EU allows too many immigrants

    Nigel Farage Gives His Final Speech Of The EU Referendum Campaign Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
    Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party, has focused his campaign for Brexit on limiting immigration.

    The intellectual case for Brexit is mostly focused on economics, but the emotional case for Brexit is heavily influenced by immigration. EU law guarantees that citizens of one EU country have the right to travel, live, and take jobs in other EU countries.

    British people have increasingly felt the impact of this rule since the 2008 financial crisis. The eurozone has struggled economically, and workers from eurozone countries such as Ireland, Italy, and Lithuania (as well as EU countries like Poland and Romania that have not yet joined the common currency) have flocked to the UK in search of work.

    “In recent years, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans have come to Britain to do a job,” British journalist and Brexit supporter Douglas Murray told me last week. This, he argues, has “undercut the native working population.”

    The UK absorbed 333,000 new people, on net, in 2015. That’s a significant number for a country Britain’s size, though according to the CIA the UK still received slightly fewer net migrants, relative to population, than the United States in 2015.

    Immigration has become a highly politicized issue in Britain, as it has in the United States and many other places over the past few years. Anti-immigration campaigners like Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right UK Independence Party, have argued that the flood of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe has depressed the wages of native-born British workers. Some voters are also concerned about immigrants using scarce public services.

    “One of the causes for the great public disgruntlement,” Murray argues, is that Labour governments at the turn of the century “massively understated the numbers [of immigrants] to be expected,” creating public distrust of current pledges to keep migration under control.

    Argument 6: The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU

    While many Brexit supporters simply want to reduce the amount of immigration overall, others argue that the UK could have a more sensible immigration system if it didn’t have the straitjacket of the EU.

    EU rules require the UK to admit all EU citizens who wants to move to Britain, whether or not they have good job prospects or English skills.

    “Leave” advocates argue that the UK should be focused on admitting immigrants who will bring valuable skills to the country and integrate well into British culture. They mention the point-based immigration systems of Canada and Australia, which award potential migrants points based on factors like their language and job skills, education, and age. That, “leave” advocates argue, would allow the UK to admit more doctors and engineers who speak fluent English, and fewer unskilled laborers with limited English skills.

    Argument 7: The UK could keep the money it currently sends to the EU

    The EU doesn’t have the power to directly collect taxes, but it requires member states to make an annual contribution to the central EU budget. Currently, the UK’s contribution is worth about £13 billion ($19 billion) per year, which is about $300 per person in the UK. (“Leave” supporters have been citing a larger figure, but that figure ignores a rebate that’s automatically subtracted from the UK’s contribution.)

    While much of this money is spent on services in the UK, Brexit supporters still argue that it would be better for the UK to simply keep the money and have Parliament decide how to spend it.

    —————————————————-

    The bottom line

    WHAT IS THE SILENT MAJORITY THINKING IN THE USA?

    I stand with TRUMP!

    Image for the news result

    The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

    Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.


  • RNC BROKERED CONVENTIONS 1912-2016

    RNC BROKERED CONVENTIONS 1912-2016

    Presidents are Selected, Not Elected

    2016 THE GOP POLITICO ESTABLISHMENT IS HELL BENT ON SELECTING THE NEXT PRESIDENT NOMINATED  WITH A BROKERED REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION (RNC).

    SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD NOTED THAT

    “WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE DO NOT KNOW.

    BUT THERE ARE ALSO UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS

    THE ONES WE DON’T KNOW WE DON’T KNOW.”

    ————————————————————————-

    INDEED, WHAT IS A (RCN) BROKERED CONVENTION?

    2016 IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION GOVERNED BY ITS OWN RULES AND BYLAWS,

    2016  ALL WHICH CAN BE CHANGED ACCORDING TO MECHANISMS PRESCRIBED IN THE PARTY’S RULES.

    2016 A BROKERED CONVENTION IS WHEN PARTY OFFICIALS BROKER OR NEGOTIATE BACKROOM CONSENSUS WITH DELEGATES, OR CHANGE THE NOMINATION RULES TO FACILITATE THE SELECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES.

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL BROKERED CONVENTION

    AMERICA’S ENTIRE PATCHWORK OF ARCANE PRIMARY RULES SHALL BE BROKERED IN BACKROOM DEALS BY 112-MEMBER RULES ON A COMMITTEES FROM A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION GOVERNED BY CHANGING ITS OWN RULES AND BYLAWS?

    WHITTLE DOWN TRUMP’S  DELEGATES

    AND,  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION’S  112-MEMBER RULES PANEL, WHICH COMPRISES TWO OFFICIALS FROM EACH STATE AND TERRITORY SHALL MAKE UP THEIR OWN RULES AS THEY GO ALONG AND SELECT THE NEXT PRIMARY CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN BACKROOM DEALS

    ————————————————————————————

    THE ONES WE DON’T KNOW WE DON’T KNOW

    WHAT HAPPENED AT THE 1912 BROKERED REPUBLICAN CONVENTION?

    “THE RESULTING FLOOR FIGHT IN THE APTLY NAMED CHICAGO COLISEUM LIVED UP TO THE PREDICTION OF THE IRISH-AMERICAN HUMORIST FINLEY PETER DUNNE

    THAT THE 1912 CONTESTED CONVENTION WOULD BE “A COMBYNATION IV TH’ CHICAGO FIRE, SAINT BARTHOLOMEW’S MASSACREE, THE BATTLE IV TH’ BOYNE, TH’ LIFE IV JESSE JAMES, AN’ TH’ NIGHT IV TH’ BIG WIND.”

    THE NOMINATION BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO MEN WAS BRUTAL, PERSONAL

    AND ULTIMATELY FATAL TO THE PARTY’S CHANCES FOR VICTORY IN NOVEMBER.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WHAT HAPPENED AT THE 1912 BROKERED REPUBLICAN CONVENTION?

    1912 ROOSEVELT HANDILY DEFEATED TAFT IN THE PRIMARIES, WINNING NINE STATES TO TAFT’S TWO, ACQUIRING 278 DELEGATES TO HIS OPPONENT’S 48 DELEGATES ALONG WAY.

    1912 ROOSEVELT DISCOVERED THAT HIS 571 DELEGATES, HIGHER THAN THE REQUIRED 540 TO SECURE THE NOMINATION, HAD MYSTERIOUSLY GONE DOWN BY 72 DELEGATES

     1912 AFTER THE STATE PARTY CHAIRMEN FOR ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON WITHDREW THEIR SUPPORT AND DIRECTED THEIR DELEGATES TO SIT IN THE TAFT ‘SECTION’ OF THE COLISEUM.

    1912 WHAT FOLLOWED NEXT IN THE CHICAGO COLISEUM HAS BEEN COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL NATIONAL CONVENTIONAL IN U.S. HISTORY.

    PARTY OFFICIALS, WHO WERE ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY ALIGNED WITH ESTABLISHMENT CHOICE TAFT,

    BROKERED BACKROOM DEALS WITH DELEGATES FROM 36 NON-PRIMARY STATES TO WHITTLE DOWN ROOSEVELT’S DELEGATES.

    AS A REPUBLICAN OBSERVED DURING THE CAMPAIGN: “WE CAN’T ELECT TAFT & WE MUST DO ANYTHING TO ELECT WILSON SO AS TO DEFEAT ROOSEVELT.”

    ——————————————————————————

    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN CLEVELAND DURING AND AFTER A  CONTESTED REPUBLICAN PRIMARY (RNC) 2016?

    Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that his supporters would respond with “riots” if he fails to secure the nomination at July’s convention in Cleveland.

    “I think you’d have riots,” Trump told CNN on Wednesday. “I think you’d have riots. I’m representing a tremendous many, many millions of people.”

    Far from idle chatter, Trump’s words come as escalating protests from left-wing activists, heated responses from his supporters, and increasing tensions within the GOP over his candidacy are raising fears that the convention could devolve into chaos.

    Cleveland is reportedly working to procure 2,000 sets of riot gear equipment for its officers.

    ————————————————————

    Behind My Back | Trump is an Informed Prognosticator

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/03/…/trump-is-an-informed-prognosticat

    Mar 23, 2016 – Trump opined that the Paris and Brussels attacks are “just the beginning.” Trump … “I’m a pretty good prognosticator. …. thinkprogress.org/…

    ————————————————————————-

    PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE SELECTED BY AN ELITE PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (RCN)

    AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE NOT ELECTED BY MILLIONS OF WE THE PEOPLE.

    NOW YOU KNOW WHY PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT SAID

    “PRESIDENTS ARE SELECTED,  NOT ELECTED”
    ————————————————————————-

    1912 Republican Convention | History | Smithsonian

    www.smithsonianmag.com/…/1912-republican-convention-…

    SmithsonianWilliam

    Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt had once been friends. But when the … (Barry Goldwater supporters at the 1964 Republican National Convention.) Truman …. Otherwise, he said, the contested delegates should not vote. BOTH HE AND TAFT LOST TO THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, WOODROW WILSON, THAT NOVEMBER.

    1912 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

    Return of the Rough Rider

    William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt had once been friends.

     BUT WHEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MET IN CHICAGO TO CHOOSE ITS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN JUNE 1912,

     THE NOMINATION BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO MEN WAS BRUTAL, PERSONAL

    AND ULTIMATELY FATAL TO THE PARTY’S CHANCES FOR VICTORY IN NOVEMBER.

    TAFT DECLARED ROOSEVELT TO BE “THE GREATEST MENACE TO OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN A LONG TIME.”

    ROOSEVELT SAW TAFT AS THE AGENT OF “THE FORCES OF REACTION AND OF POLITICAL CROOKEDNESS.

    ” THE RESULTING FLOOR FIGHT IN THE APTLY NAMED CHICAGO COLISEUM LIVED UP TO THE PREDICTION OF THE IRISH-AMERICAN HUMORIST FINLEY PETER DUNNE

     THAT THE 1912 CONVENTION WOULD BE “A COMBYNATION IV TH’ CHICAGO FIRE, SAINT BARTHOLOMEW’S MASSACREE, THE BATTLE IV TH’ BOYNE, TH’ LIFE IV JESSE JAMES, AN’ TH’ NIGHT IV TH’ BIG WIND.”

    THE CONVENTION WAS NOT ARMAGEDDON, BUT TO OBSERVERS IT SEEMED A CLOSE SECOND. SHOUTS OF “LIAR” AND CRIES OF “STEAMROLLER” PUNCTUATED THE PROCEEDINGS.

    ———————————————————————————-

    TO THIS DAY, MANY REMAIN SHOCKED AT THE AUDACIOUS MACHINATIONS OF PARTY OFFICIALS TO SECURE THE NOMINATION FOR TAFT

    —————————————————————————————-


    For years, the tensions within the GRAND OLD PARTY had been building over the issue of government regulation. During his presidency, Roosevelt had advocated a “Square Deal” between capital and labor in American society. By the time he left the White House in March 1909, Roosevelt believed that the federal government must do more to supervise large corporations, improve the lot of women and children who worked long hours for low wages in industry, and conserve natural resources. “When I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service,” he said in August 1910. Roosevelt was especially critical of the state and federal courts for overturning reform legislation as unconstitutional, and he said that such decisions were “fundamentally hostile to every species of real popular government.”

    Roosevelt’s burgeoning crusade for more active government reflected his loss of faith in William Howard Taft, whom the former Rough Rider had chosen as his successor. As president, Taft had sided with the conservative wing of the party, which had opposed Roosevelt’s reforms at every turn. For his part, Taft believed Roosevelt had stretched the power of the executive branch too far. As a lawyer and former federal judge, Taft had nothing but disdain for his predecessor’s jaundiced view of the judiciary. “The regret which he certainly expressed that the courts had the power to set aside statutes,” wrote the president, “was an attack upon our system at the very point where I think it is the strongest.”

    Tensions deepened in 1912, when Roosevelt began ADVOCATING THE RECALL OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS THROUGH POPULAR VOTE. With the courts tamed as an enemy to reform, ROOSEVELT THEN WOULD PRESS FORWARD “TO SEE THAT THE WAGE-WORKER, THE SMALL PRODUCER, THE ORDINARY CONSUMER, SHALL GET THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE BENEFIT OF BUSINESS PROSPERITY.” To enact his program, Roosevelt signaled that he would accept another term as president and seek the nomination of the Republican Party.

    THESE AMBITIONS REVEALED, TAFT AND HIS FELLOW CONSERVATIVES DEEMED ROOSEVELT A DANGEROUS RADICAL. ONCE IN POWER FOR A THIRD TERM, THEY SAID, ROOSEVELT WOULD BE A PERPETUAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE. ROOSEVELT HAD BECOME THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY, SAID TAFT, “BECAUSE OF HIS HOLD UPON THE LESS INTELLIGENT VOTERS AND THE DISCONTENTED.” THE SOCIAL JUSTICE THAT ROOSEVELT SOUGHT INVOLVED, IN TAFT’S OPINION, “A FORCED DIVISION OF PROPERTY, AND THAT MEANS SOCIALISM.”

    Taft dominated the Republican Party machinery in many states, but a few state primaries gave the voters a chance to express themselves. The president and his former friend took to the hustings, and across the country in the spring of 1912 the campaign rhetoric escalated.

    Roosevelt described Taft as a “puzzlewit,”

    while the president labeled Roosevelt a “honeyfugler.”

     Driven to distraction under Roosevelt’s attacks, Taft said in Massachusetts, “I was a man of straw; but I have been a man of straw long enough; every man who has blood in his body and who has been misrepresented as I have is forced to fight.”

     A delighted Roosevelt supporter commented that “Taft certainly made a great mistake when he began to ‘fight back.’ He has too big a paunch to have much of a punch, while a free-for-all, slap-bang, kick-him-in-the-belly, is just nuts for the chief.”

    ROOSEVELT WON ALL THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES AGAINST TAFT EXCEPT IN MASSACHUSETTS.

    TAFT DOMINATED THE CAUCUSES THAT SENT DELEGATES TO THE STATE CONVENTIONS.

    WHEN THE VOTING WAS DONE, NEITHER MAN HAD THE 540 DELEGATES NEEDED TO WIN.

    ROOSEVELT HAD 411,

     TAFT HAD 367 AND MINOR CANDIDATES HAD 46,

     LEAVING 254 UP FOR GRABS. THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DOMINATED BY THE TAFT FORCES,

     AWARDED 235 DELEGATES TO THE PRESIDENT AND 19 TO ROOSEVELT, THEREBY ENSURING TAFT’S RENOMINATION.

     ROOSEVELT BELIEVED HIMSELF ENTITLED TO 72 DELEGATES FROM ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO TAFT.

    Firm in his conviction that the nomination was being stolen from him,

    Roosevelt decided to break the precedent that kept the candidates away from the national convention and lead his forces to CHICAGO in person.

     The night before the proceedings Roosevelt told cheering supporters that there was “a great moral issue” at stake and he should have “sixty to eighty lawfully elected delegates” added to his total.

     Otherwise, he said, the contested delegates should not vote.

    Roosevelt ended his speech declaring: “FEARLESS OF THE FUTURE; UNHEEDING OF OUR INDIVIDUAL FATES; WITH UNFLINCHING HEARTS AND UNDIMMED EYES; WE STAND AT ARMAGEDDON, AND WE BATTLE FOR THE LORD!”

    One pro-Taft observer said that “a tension pervaded the Coliseum breathing the general feeling that a parting of the ways was imminent.”

     William Allen White, the famous Kansas editor, looked down from the press tables “INTO THE HUMAN CALDRON THAT WAS BOILING ALL AROUND ME.”

    On the first day, the Roosevelt forces lost a test vote on the temporary chairman. Taft’s man, Elihu Root, prevailed.

     ROOSEVELT’S SUPPORTERS TRIED TO HAVE 72 OF THEIR DELEGATES SUBSTITUTED FOR TAFT PARTISANS ON THE LIST OF THOSE OFFICIALLY ALLOWED TO TAKE PART IN THE CONVENTION.

    WHEN THAT INITIATIVE FAILED, ROOSEVELT KNEW THAT HE COULD NOT WIN, AND HAD EARLIER REJECTED THE IDEA OF A COMPROMISE THIRD CANDIDATE.

    “I’LL NAME THE COMPROMISE CANDIDATE. HE’LL BE ME. I’LL NAME THE COMPROMISE PLATFORM. IT WILL BE OUR PLATFORM.

    “WITH THAT, HE BOLTED FROM THE PARTY AND INSTRUCTED HIS DELEGATES NOT TO TAKE PART IN THE VOTING;

     

    1912 Republican Convention

    Return of the Rough Rider

    image: http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/convention_aug08_2_631.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpgRoosevelt Campaign Speech
    Theodore Roosevelt giving a campaign speech. (Bettmann/Corbis)

    TAFT EASILY WON ON THE FIRST BALLOT.

     ROOSEVELT, MEANWHILE, SAID HE WAS GOING “TO NOMINATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY A PROGRESSIVE ON A PROGRESSIVE PLATFORM.”

    IN AUGUST, ROOSEVELT DID JUST THAT, RUNNING AS THE CANDIDATE OF THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY.

    BOTH HE AND TAFT LOST TO THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, WOODROW WILSON, THAT NOVEMBER.

    YET, FOR REPUBLICANS WHO SUPPORTED TAFT, THE ELECTORAL DEFEAT WAS WORTH THE IDEOLOGICAL VICTORY.

     AS A REPUBLICAN OBSERVED DURING THE CAMPAIGN: “WE CAN’T ELECT TAFT & WE MUST DO ANYTHING TO ELECT WILSON SO AS TO DEFEAT ROOSEVELT.”

    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1912-republican-convention-855607/#uzV1GJQpW4pfCASe.99

    —————————————————————–
    TODAY, I AM  SHOCKED AT THE DOCUMENTED ABUSE AND THE AUDACIOUS ARCANE MACHINATIONS THAT THE  RNC PARTY OFFICIALS USED TO SELECT AND SECURE THE NOMINATION OF A PUPPET PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1912.

    “RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IF IT MEANS IT’S BECAUSE IT’S SITTING THERE AND FIGHTING THE FACT THAT OUR ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS GONE CORRUPT AND DECIDED TO IGNORE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE,” TRUMP SUPPORTER SCOTTIE NEIL HUGHES TOLD CNN WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.

    ———————————————————————–

    “we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns-the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

    INDEED, RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IN 2016 CONSIDERING

    NOW WE KNOW  IN FACT THAT OUR ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN CORRUPT  SINCE 1912 AND DECIDED  100 YEARS AGO TO IGNORE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE”

    ——————————————————————

    The press,  the News media , is therefore of the utmost importance in a representative democracy. EXCEPT WHEN THE MAJORITY (CNN AND FOX NEWS)  ARE IN COLLUSION WITH ANTI-TRUMP ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY

    Carlyle saw the press as instrumental to the birth and growth of democracy, spreading facts and opinions and sparking revolution against tyranny.

    INDEED,  ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IN 2016


  • U.S.A. Becoming a Police State?

    Who’s to keep AMERICA  from becoming a police state?

    Angry American Voters

    WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WERE ANGRY LONG BEFORE DONALD TRUMP DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

    Everybody in the U.S.A. IS ANGRY OR OFFENDED  BY SOMETHING AND/OR SOMEBODY.

    WHO’S ANGRY AND WHO’S VIOLENT?

    MANY ANGRY, OFFENDED PEOPLE  RESORTED TO VIOLENCE, KILLING COPS, ARSON  LOOTING, AND DISRUPTING.

    ————————————————————-

    WHO’S ANGRY? AND WHO’S VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP?

    GO FIGURE….

    DONALD TRUMPS 2015-2016 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM THE  CORRUPTING  INFLUENCE OF POLITICO ESTABLISHMENTS SUPER PACTS POLITICAL $$$$$ CONTRIBUTIONS .

    DONALD TRUMP CAN NOT BE BOUGHT AND HE WILL NOT SELL  AMERICAN CITIZENS OUT TO ANY COUNTRY OR ESTABLISHMENT.

    What’s to STOP AMERICA  from becoming a police state?

    WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND DONALD TRUMP, SHALL  ACT AND VOTE FOR THE RESTORATION OF  THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

    WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…

    ———————————————–

    AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    DONALD TRUMP HAS PLEDGED   …

    RESTORATION OF JUSTICE

    ———————————————-

    Just asking? Just saying…. Would that pledged include?

    NO MORE AG LYNCHING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

    ———————————————————

    ALL LIVES MATTER

    APPOINTING CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
    —————-

    RESTORATION OF DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY,

    —————————————

    RESTORATION OF LAW AND ORDER

    ——————————————-
    RESTORATION OF THE COMMON DEFENSE,  PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM THEIR OWN U.S. GOVERNMENT, TERRORISTS  AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

    ———————–
    RESTORATION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE, STATE SOVEREIGNTY, ALL LIVES MATTER, BRINGING JOBS BACK TO AMERICA, VETS LIVES MATTER, STATE CONTROLLED EDUCATION FOR OUR CHILDREN.

    ———————————
    RESTORATION TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES, THE BLESSING OF ONE NATION UNDER GOD, REBUILDING THE MILITARY

    ——————————
    RESTORATION OF OUR POSTERITY, ECONOMIC, BUILDING A FENCE, CLOSING DOWN THE BOARDERS,  STOP THE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND GIVING PUBLIC LAND BACK TO THE PEOPLE
    —————————————————————————————

    WHO’S ANGRY AND WHO’S VIOLENT?

    As an informed citizen, I consider the following case to be one of the biggest domestic (homeland security) threats to American liberty.

    The Guardian1 day ago
    County Sheriff Nelson said Finicum was struck in the back by three of the bullets, which were fired by state troopers who were behind him as he appeared to reach for a weapon.
    Shooting death of LaVoy Finicum justified, necessary, prosecutor says
    shows that the three fatal shots , fired by Oregon State Police were justified “and, in fact, necessary”
     To see and hear what it was like to have been in the vehicle, watch this video:
    It has created a new American awakening from both the Left and the Right. It “shocks our conscience.”

    Dramatic video from inside Finicum’s vehicle – The Westerner

    thewesterner.blogspot.com/…/dramaticvideo-from-insidefinicums.html

    12 hours ago – Dramatic video from inside Finicum’s vehicle. Footage released by Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Tuesday shows the moment that Robert …

    The American people are outraged at this inhumanity, this brutality and barbarism by the courts and law enforcement.

    ————————————————————–

    APPOINTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

    Utah v Strieff Oral Argument | Video | C-SPAN.org

    www.c-span.org/video/?404140-1/utahvstriefforalargument

     0:345 on the video.

    Feb 2, 2016 oral statement that Justice Sotomayor

    Reasonable cause? Probable cause in the course of a police stop?

    What’s to keep us from becoming a police state?

    ————————————————————-
    WHO’S TO KEEP AMERICA FROM BECOMING A POLICE STATE?
    VOTING AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE ANGRY LONG BEFORE DONALD TRUMP DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
    ——————————————————————–

    JEANETTE FINICUM RESPONDS TO OREGON STATE AND FBI INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

    According to the news story from Portland Oregon: “Officials investigating the death of Robert [LaVoy] Finicum are ready to release results” of the fatal shooting “during a Jan. 26 traffic stop while trying to arrest the rancher and others involved in the takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge.”

    ———————————————————————————–

    NEWS RELEASE
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Cherilyn Bacon Eagar
    for the LaVoy Finicum family
    Cell: 801-592-4245
    Email: Cherilyn@CherilynEagar.com

    March 8, 2016, St. George, UT.
    — LaVoy Finicum’s wife Jeanette Finicum released this statement at a news conference in St. George, Utah:
    The news conference held earlier today in Bend, Oregon to release the report of the investigation regarding my husband’s death was to be expected. No surprises. The purpose of that announcement was for state and federal agencies to continue to lay the foundation of their legal case.
    However, they also continue to bring forward selective evidence. As in all such situations there is another side to this story. We will provide a more thorough analysis at a follow up news conference tomorrow and will be taking questions at that time. Meanwhile, we continue to maintain my husband’s innocence.
    According to the news story from Portland Oregon: “Officials investigating the death of Robert [LaVoy] Finicum are ready to release results” of the fatal shooting “during a Jan. 26 traffic stop while trying to arrest the rancher and others involved in the takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge.”
    As a family, along with our lawyers, we deny this statement. This was not a traffic stop. It was an ambush with a roadblock placed on a blind curve along a lonely stretch of highway. I am told that in law enforcement and prosecuting circles this is called a “Deadman’s blockade,” and is designed to allow a “kill stop” which is illegal.
    The news story continues: “The FBI said Finicum was shot after reaching for a gun…”. We reject that statement. The FBI’s aerial video was of poor quality, edited and provided no audio. Our family asserts that he was shot with both hands up, he was not reaching for anything at the time of the first shot. He was walking with his hands in the air, a symbol of surrender. When he reached down to his left hip he was reacting to the pain of having been shot.
    I can hardly believe that a team of qualified law officers could look at the facts in this case and say that no criminal laws were violated.
    How could they have reached this decision in the face of evidence that clearly shows intent to kill my husband?
    We have talked with an independent investigator who has stated that the “video proves a set up assassination.”
    Many people, including my lawyers, have tried to prepare me for this—-“be strong”, “accept this with peace” —–but I don’t think anything could prepare me to accept what is so clearly a finding that challenges the Constitution that my husband died defending.
    I know that under the Constitution the men who shot my husband to death, while he was surrendering, are entitled to due process of law—-but they are not entitled to walk free and not have to face the same legal process that is a barrier to you or to me.
    They shot my husband, they left him lying in the snowbank—no medical assistance, no charges, no arraignment, no preliminary hearing, no indictment, and no trial by a jury, — and should they just walk free? It just is not right.
    The consolation I have is that hundreds of thousands of Americans have seen and know the truth and believe as I do that my husband was murdered “intentionally, deliberately and with malice.”
    My lawyer has assured me that we will seek justice in a different court, under different circumstances—and I look forward to the day when these men do face a jury that is unbiased enough to return a fair verdict.
    After the Finicum funeral, rallies spontaneously began to organize in many states. The organizers counted, possibly as many as 300 rallies took place throughout the country, in every state but Rhode Island.
    It has been asked how this movement got such momentum so quickly. When Americans heard the details of this story and how these American patriots who have no criminal record and who have stood on the same interpretation of the US Constitution as Justice Scalia have been treated, the actions of law enforcement and the FBI have “shock [ed] the conscience.” Our Supreme Court has set as the standard guideline for practices of law enforcement that are unacceptable to our society, as those that “shock the conscience”.
    A Deadman’s blockade with the intent to kill “shocks the conscience.” Shooting to kill with both hand up “shocks the conscience.”
    Violating the 8th Amendment – cruel and unusual punishment – by placing Americans with no criminal records, who are apparently guilty of defending the US Constitution and the overreach of federal authorities, into solitary confinement and then removing their constitutional right to bear arms are two examples of how elected and appointed officials in the court system, legislative bodies and in law enforcement are violating the Constitution they swear to uphold.
    The Supreme Court has referred to solitary confinement as being “violently insane.” The court has recognized that solitary confinement tortures our human brain and diminishes our God given strength to overcome obstacles.
    Solitary confinement is a form of torture that often drives prisoners mad.
    Last year a Supreme Court Justice wrote a concurring opinion that described the history of solitary confinement and said the practice bears a “peculiar mark of infamy” in its ability to shatter the minds and spirits of prisoners.
    Who are we? We are outraged that men and women who have no criminal records and who posed no threat during the protest in Oregon are being treated as mere animals.
    The American people are outraged at this inhumanity, this brutality and barbarism by the courts and law enforcement. It has created a new American awakening from both the Left and the Right. It “shocks our conscience.” And that is why around 300 rallies spontaneously organized in support of my husband’s assassination and these patriots who are being held as political prisoners.
    Again, my lawyer has assured me that we will seek justice in a different court, under different circumstances—
    We will be commenting on the FBI’s and Deschutes County press release tomorrow after we review their findings fully.
    Thank you.

    Bottom line

    ARE YOU ANGRY NOW? ARE YOU VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP?