At Least They’re KKKonsistent

These people.

From slavery to today, Democrats have a very low opinion of our black brothers & sisters. Then they paid their own money to keep those dumb n__ros on the plantation. Now they use taxpayer money. And in-between they founded the KKK as their domestic terrorist arm. And still, today, they continue to think blacks are somehow, as a group, too stupid to get Voter ID or any number of other “white” things “privilege” brings.

You have to hand it to them. They’re survivors. They’ve mutated well. But they still suck. They still think of pigmentation as destiny, and that by dint of their own fair skin, their destiny is to “help” those po’ blacks.

Lord, it’s hard not to hate them. I try every day to remember “hate only corrodes the can it’s carried in” but daaaaaamnskippy they make it hard.

American Thinker took a nice little walk through the remarkably consistent racism of the Democrat Party this morning. It won’t take long to read, and it’s worth it. Enjoy.


The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Senate Democrats

Senate Democrats are trying to assume the high ground against President Trump by rubbishing his nominees. Consider the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. The sum total of arguments against Senator Sessions are that at one time, many decades ago, he may have made a flippant offhand comment about the Ku Klux Klan and that he has suggested that the radically leftist NAACP and ACLU may be radically leftist.

His record of prosecuting Klansmen, desegregating Alabama schools, and generally upholding the law is, of course, totally ignored. So are Senate Democrats concerned about placing the former Klansmen to the highest levels of our legal system? No, not at all! The record of Senate Democrats and the brutal suppression of blacks in the South is stunning – and largely ignored by the leftist establishment media and educational systems.

In 1937, leftist icon Franklin Roosevelt appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States Attorney General Hugo Black, a man who had actually been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and never denied that fact. Senate Democrats, from the North as well as the South, voted overwhelmingly to confirm Hugo Black to the Supreme Court.

Harry Truman, the Democrat president who himself had briefly joined the Ku Klux Klan, appointed as his attorney general Tom Clark, widely believed to have been a Klansman and whose racism was so well known that black leader Paul Robeson described it as “a gratuitous and outrageous insult to my people.” Truman later nominated Clark also to the Supreme Court.

So clearly Senate Democrats have no problem with men who had actually belonged to the Ku Klux Klan being put in charge of the Department of Justice or placed on the United States Supreme Court. But, of course, Senate Democrats could not control whom a president nominated, but only whether they voted to confirm a presidential nomination or not.

House Democrats chose for majority whip a man who openly and clearly advocated “white supremacy,” John Sparkman. Senate Democrats chose Sparkman to be chairman of three important Senate committees. His overt racism and links to the Ku Klux Klan were publicly called out by Republicans, but Democrats simply ignored these.

How openly did Democrats accept this Senate Democrat who was overtly opposed to civil rights for blacks? Senator John Sparkman was selected by Adlai Stevenson to be his running mate on the 1952 Democrat presidential ticket, and not one single Senate Democrat opposed this ticket. So much for Senate Democrats’ concern about the Ku Klux Klan.

Klansmen Harry Truman, John Sparkman, and Hugo Black were all Senate Democrats who rose to higher posts by their party with no concern at all about their open sympathy for white supremacy and their membership in that most notorious association of white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan. But Senate Democrats, of course, could not pick Truman and Sparkman as their party’s vice presidential nominees, nor could Senate Democrat nominate justices to the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats do, however, choose their own leadership. The Democrat floor leader in the Senate is picked only by Senate Democrats, the very same politicians who are trying to smear Jeff Sessions, a man who no one has suggested ever had anything to do with the Ku Klux Klan. These Senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd, a high-ranking official in the Ku Klux Klan, to successively higher posts in the Senate Democrat leadership.

In 1971, Senate Democrats ousted Teddy Kennedy as Democrat whip and elected Klansman Robert Byrd in his place. Ten years later, when President Reagan was elected, Senate Democrats promoted Robert Byrd to Democrat floor leader in the Senate, the highest office they could give him in the Democrat leadership. Then in 1989, Senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd for the highest constitutional office the Senate can elect anyone to be, president pro tempore of the Senate, third in line for presidential succession, and Senate Democrats also made this Klansman into chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, giving him extraordinary power over federal spending.

The record of Senate Democrats toward the Klan is extraordinary, considering the attacks this gaggle has been making against a man who actually fought the Klan. Perhaps if Senate Democrats passed a resolution apologizing to America for producing out of their number Klansmen who became president, vice presidential nominee, attorney general, Supreme Court justice, Democrat floor leader and president pro tempore of the Senate, then the rest of America would pay a bit more attention to their silly attacks on Senator Jeff Sessions.

### end ###

Who’s Zoomin’ Who, Donny?

I have long contended that if the GOPe (GOP Establishment) were forced to choose between the two, Cruz or Trump, they’d choose Trump in a heart beat. Why? Here’s why (You can click the image on the right to enlarge it):


Gravy train. “Trump train” my ass . It’s the gravy train that’s now a’rollin’. Of the two, Trump will deal. Cash. Cruz will always choose the Constitution.

And cash is more fun, isn’t it?

Add in this excellent article below from American Thinker by Daren Jonescu, and it appears my thinking is now being actively validated.


 

Is Trump a McConnell-Rove Establishment Tool?

On January 19, Donald Trump, the loudest Republican claimant to the anti-establishment label, filled out his recent attacks on Ted Cruz in a very telling way, as revealed on Mark Levin’s radio program (click here, select the 1/19/16 podcast, go to the 23 minute mark):

We've been contacted by the establishment types.  They all want to know, how do they get involved with the campaign?  They're giving up on their candidates…and I mean these are real establishment people, that I've known when I was a member of the establishment -- meaning a giver, a big donor.  But they are contacting us -- Corey [Trump's campaign manager], I think we can say that very honestly, they're contacting us left and right about joining the campaign, and these are serious establishment types.

Who might these “real,” “serious” establishment types be?  Perhaps there is a hint in this subsequent comment, a follow-up to his recent pro-establishment assault against Ted Cruz:

So when you talk about temperament, Ted has got a rough temperament, I don't know.  You know, you can't call people liars on the Senate floor, when they're your leader.

This, of course, is a direct reference to Cruz’s criticism of Mitch McConnell regarding the GOP establishment leader’s secret deal with Barack Obama prior to a trade vote.

Donald Trump defending Mitch McConnell, you ask?  The answer is yes, and the explanation may be found by examining Trump’s recent history as a political donor.

Back in early 2013, Tea Party conservatives, fed up with McConnell’s feckless (to be generous) Senate leadership, his semi-tough talk that never seems to match his legislative decisions and results, and his relentless suppression of the conservative minority in the Senate, sought to supplant this establishmentarian’s establishmentarian by supporting a conservative rival in the 2014 Kentucky primary.

In response to this challenge, a super PAC called “Kentuckians for Strong Leadership” was formed to raise funds for McConnell’s scorched earth campaign against not only his own Tea Party rival, but the whole Tea Party movement.  I put the group’s name in scare quotes because, of its fifty-eight major donors — those who had given $1000 or more as of May 15, 2014 — the Louisville Courier-Journal identified only five with Kentucky addresses.  “Kentuckians for Strong Leadership” was in fact, as Tony Lee reported at Breitbart at the time, a re-branding of Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, an organization expressly dedicated to destroying the constitutionalist movement in favor of the old guard GOP establishment.

The big donors to Mitch McConnell’s anti-Tea Party defense fund gave amounts ranging from $1000 to $250,000.  In the upper half of this donor list appears one Donald J. Trump, who gave $50,000 to the group.  Five days earlier, he had already donated a few thousand dollars to McConnell’s campaign directly.  This total donation is far and away the largest contribution Trump has ever made to any individual Washington politician’s campaign — at least ten times larger than any other contribution he has made to a national Republican candidate.  Indeed, one has to cross over to the Democrat side of his donor history to find anything comparable to this contribution at any level of government.  That would be his $50,000 donation to Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral campaign in December 2010.

Mitch McConnell has been perhaps the single most prominent leader — certainly the most powerful — in the Republican Party’s long-standing effort to “crush” (McConnell’s word) the grassroots constitutional conservative movement that threatens the privileged status of the Washington Brahmin caste, aka the American political establishment.

In 2014, the Tea Party had the temerity to challenge McConnell directly on his own home turf.  He did indeed crush them there, as he would happily crush them in the Senate.  His effort to annihilate the constitutionalist resistance was funded heavily by a nationwide group of donors affiliated with Karl Rove, who presumably shared McConnell’s and Rove’s desire to defend the establishment against the belligerent serfs who were daring to assert their liberty against its permanent privilege.

Donald Trump was a major donor to that effort.  He even threw another $10,000 into the pot in October 2014, to bring his total contribution to McConnell to more than $60,000.

Now he is attacking his primary rival, Ted Cruz, on the grounds that “Nobody in Congress likes him,” and, more specifically, that “you can’t call people liars on the Senate floor, when they’re your leader.”

Donald Trump is no longer making a generic accusation against Cruz’s demeanor or reputation.  He is slapping him on behalf of the Republican he has supported most generously, Mitch McConnell.  I have previously argued that Trump’s reputation as anti-establishment is all hot air, corresponding to nothing he has ever really done.  Here we have just one more clear example of that.

A conservative blogger friend recently suggested to me privately that he is not ready to reject outright the possibility that Trump is actually the establishment’s clever creation — that, after years of deepening threats from an increasingly serious constitutionalist faction within the GOP, the progressive Republicans may have surmised that the best path to victory is, as my friend puts it, to “run against themselves.”

Whether strategic or merely fortuitous, the alliance between Donald Trump and the GOP establishment, which has lurked verifiably behind Trump’s brash mask for years, has now become an open feature of his primary campaign.  And the chief target, Enemy Number One, of both parties in this alliance is Ted Cruz.  Cruz is “nasty” and “nobody likes him,” as Trump says, because he is brazenly defiant toward the GOP establishment’s leaders.

And you thought the whole point of being anti-establishment was to be brazenly defiant toward the establishment’s leaders.  Silly you.  Apparently, a real anti-establishment candidate would not donate $60,000 to Mitch McConnell’s “crush the Tea Party” campaign.

###end###

UPDATED: Organized Hit Job on Hillary

***Second Update below, January 12th
**First Update below, same day, January 7th

January 7, 2016
Monday, January 4th, everyone returned from vacation. During this vacation, the finishing touches on a plan had i’s dotted & t’s crossed. Think I’m being cynical? Consider the following:

Tuesday, January 5th

  • A former DOJ attorney says that sometime “in the next 60 days” Hillary Clinton will be recommended for indictment by FBI Director Comey and if Attorney General Lynch doesn’t bring it, there will be a massive, loud, and public insurrection among the agents, prominently featuring “leaks” of incriminating evidence.

Wednesday, January 6th

  • Biden gives an interview saying he “regrets everyday” he’s not running for President.
  • Mainstream media confirms that “@atensnut” is, indeed, Juanita Broderick’s Twitter account.  She retweets the following:

  • And – last but certainly not least for January 6th – more than one of the cable &  network evening news demonstrated conspicuously unusual vigor by digging up 1994 footage of then-President Clinton declaring peace in our time thanks to his* nuclear non-proliferation agreement with North Korea. Why are we talking about 1994 North Korea nukes? Because the Pudgepot dictator of the Hermit Kingdom couldn’t hide a 5.4 earthquake caused by his test of an “H-bomb.”

Thursday, January 7:

  • The money is drying up and The Los Angeles Times (where all those evergreen-Democrat Hollywood checkbooks are) is reporting it. And finally, from the Hollywood-for-Ugly-People paper, The Washington Post, more evidence of the consumption of Journalism-Viagra, a respectable showing of column-inches on “Bill’s Women.”Clintons Going Down2

I thought back in October 2015 when Vice President Biden stood in the Rose Garden with President Obama at his side to announce he would decline to run, that this was not the original plan and we were seeing something weird. Here’s how I imagined the conversation between Barack and Joe: “I’m not ready. I want to run, Barack, but I’m still just too broken-hearted over losing my son Beau. I will run. I just need more time.” At that point, they scrambled. The speech Joe gave, which everyone – to a man – agreed sounded more like a launch speech than a not-launch speech – was quickly edited and the plan re-jiggered. What was the plan? Let Hillary twist for a while longer. Let grandma bust her considerable ass campaigning, doing all the hard work securing those Democrat votes, and then, on indictment or “sudden illness” Hillary is out, Joe is in.  They presume, correctly, that Hillary votes will transfer to Joe without a hiccup. The last minute no-go? Eh. Not exactly the plan, but still a win.  Joe’s gets more time to heal and gain his strength, the Democrat votes have still been nurtured and secured, and Hillary’s investment in what she’s about to lose is even deeper – thus making the pain all the more acute. It’s like a little Machiavellian bonus. Everybody wins. Except Hillary. Which was the plan all along.

Now – here’s sub-plot nobody is talking about but I think is most definitely at work: this is a death-cage match between Hillary and Barack who hate, loathe, and detest each other. She’s got the goods on him and he knows it. (And he, clearly, has a nice, fat dossier on her.) Valerie Jarrett, Barack’s handler-consigliere-enforcer-brain, will take Hillary aside and tell her, “You want to avoid prison? You twist. You suffer until January 20, 2017 at 11:59am and Barack will give you a get-out-of-jail-free card. If you expose Barack you will die in prison. Got me, toots?”

Hillary Clinton: always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

*Wendy Sherman was at the negotiating table in 1994 for North Korea. You know where she was recently?  At the negotiating table for the Iran deal. Sleep tight!

**UPDATE 1 – January 7 – 7:23am
Heeeere we go! Now we’ve got LAW ENFORCEMENT sources, who, given the volume & specificity of the clues given in the article below, should be easy to track down, telling multiple reporters they have witnessed multiple occasions when Hillary’s HEALTH was disabling. If Hillary herself isn’t laying this groundwork as an eventual escape hatch, somebody sure is. Breitbart ain’t lefty, but people plant things in places without obvious fingerprints all the time.

The entire article is below.


 

Via January 6, 2016 Breitbart:

Law Enforcement Officials, Medical Professionals: There’s Something Seriously Wrong With Hillary Clinton’s Health

Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s disappearance from the debate stage last month left people speculating that the former First Lady took a long bathroom break, but now a law-enforcement source with inside connections is alleging that Clinton was missing from the stage due to health issues stemming from a previous brain injury.

These long-lasting symptoms stemming from a concussion and blood clot, according to a neurologist, suggest Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome, which can severely impact her cognitive abilities.

All that said, however, Clinton’s campaign maintained to Breitbart News that she is in good health and can serve as President of the United States.

“Strong source just told me something I suspected. Hillary’s debate ‘bathroom break’ wasn’t that, but flare up of problems from brain injury,” wrote John Cardillo on Twitter.

Cardillo, who previously worked as an officer who provided VIP security details for the New York Police Department (NYPD), told Breitbart News that he knows of two additional sources who have commented about Clinton’s health problems, which have even impacted her ability to walk to her car after delivering a speech.

“I got this from both a [federal agent] … and I also got it from a New York [NYPD] guy who worked security at a Hillary event in New York City,” Cardillo told Breitbart News, adding:

These are two people that aren’t just personal friends. I worked with one and then post law-enforcement worked with another on some related things. So, these aren’t anonymous people. These are good friends. Both of them told me the same thing, that after her speeches, whether she did a talk or a policy speech, she had to sit behind – she would come off the podium backstage – and have to sit and rest before making it back to the car because she was so fatigued, dizzy and disoriented.

Cardillo said these two security officials don’t know each other and do not live in the same state, but “their stories were almost identical.”

One of the men told him that Clinton was “very pale, kind of disoriented. He said she looked like she was about to faint. She was very pale, almost sweaty.”

Cardillo said one of the incidents occurred while she was Secretary of State. The event worked by the NYPD official was roughly a year ago.

Veteran Republican strategist Roger Stone, who previously worked with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, told Breitbart News that he has also heard about Clinton’s long-term health problems.

“A number of New York Democrats, very prominent, well-known, wealthy New York Democrats, told me last year that Hillary had very significant health issues and that they were surprised that she was running in view of her health problems and her lack of stamina,” Stone told Breitbart News. “So far, she’s run a very controlled campaign,”

“I don’t think she has the physical stamina to be president,” he stated. “I have no doubt that won’t call her on it, but Trump certainly would.”

“We also know that in the emails, of course, Huma Abedin… says that she is easily confused,” Stone added, referencing Clinton’s close confidant Abedin comment in an email, “She’s often confused,” referring to Clinton.

Trump, Stone’s former boss, certainly hasn’t been shy in questioning whether Clinton has the “stamina” to be president.

“She goes out and she sees you guys for about 10 minutes, she sees you for a little while, it’s all rehearsed and staged,” Trump said in a recent interview on Fox News’ Media Buzz.

“They’ll pick a couple of people out of the audience that are like, you know, 100 percent. She’ll sit around a little plastic table, they’ll talk to the people for a while. It’s ridiculous,” Trump added. “And then she goes away for five or six days and you don’t see her. She goes to sleep.”

Neurologist Dr. Daniel Kassicieh, D.O., reviewed news reports of Clinton’s head injury in light of the recent information revealed from the security sources that are raising questions about her current health status.

Kassicieh, who has run his own Sarasota, Florida, practice for 20 years, is a board-certified neurologist and the medical director of the Florida Headache and Movement Disorder Center. He is a doctor of osteopathic medicine, which is similar to a medical doctor but can involve at a minimum of 100 more classroom hours of specific training. That additional training is focused on the osteopathic—or the musculoskeletal system—aspects of medicine. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology (FAAN) and a Fellow of the American College of Neuro-psychiatrists (FACN). Kassicieh is a registered Republican in Sarasota, but his purely medical analysis is troubling for Clinton.

“They were trying to poo-poo this off as a minor concussion, but I would just say that reading it and trying to take all the politics out of it, and just read it purely from a medical standpoint,” Kassicieh explained:

Considering the point of what happened with Hillary over this time period… the timeline… and then what has happened here more recently… the break at the debate, I saw that and even the commentators that were sitting there made a comment that, ‘Gee, that seems awful long for a break.’ Just looking at it from a neurological standpoint, the risk factors for developing post-concussion syndrome, one of them is age, and she was 65 when this happened… just from a physiologic standpoint that’s an older individual. Being female is a risk factor for post-concussion syndrome as well.

“For someone who has treated many post-concussion syndrome patients and that’s what I really believe she’s suffering from based on reading these reports and reading what’s happened,” Kassicieh said. “I think she has latent post-concussion syndrome, and I can understand that as a politician they would want to be covering that up.” He stated:

I would say as a neurologist having seen many post-concussion syndrome patients that I would not want a president who I knew had post-concussion syndrome being president because their super high-level cognitive abilities are clearly impaired and even their routine multitasking high-stress abilities are affected because post-concussion syndrome patients in general don’t tolerate even moderate work, stress-related environments.

Kassicieh added that if suffering from post concussion syndrome, Clinton’s symptoms could appear “well beyond a year” after her concussion.

“A transverse sinus thrombosis [blood clot] is a rare condition of a clot forming in the venous sinus cavities surrounding the brain,” Kassicieh told Breitbart News, referencing an ABC News report from 2012 that detailed Clinton’s head injury and blood clot following a fall. He explained:

These venous sinuses drain blood out of the brain. The [injury] incidence is only about 3 per 1,000,000 adults. The transverse sinus is less commonly affected than the main sagittal venous sinus. The cause of transverse sinus clots is not well understood although trauma and dehydration have been described as risk factors. Mrs. Clinton suffered from both.

Dr. Nicholas C. Bambakidis also analyzed the facts for Breitbart News. He is he director of cerebrovascular and skull base surgery, and the program director of neurological surgery at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and a professor of neurosurgery and radiology at the CWRU School of Medicine in Cleveland,

“These types of clots are usually formed spontaneously without an obvious cause,” Bambakidis said in an email:

They can be associated with dehydration, a predisposition to blood clotting disorders, are more common in women and may be associated with oral contraceptive medication, severe head trauma, brain surgery, or infection. If untreated, they can progress and lead to bleeding in the brain or swelling, and a stroke or even death. The treatment is generally anticoagulation and treatment of any underlying cause.

Bambakidis said that if treated early and quickly, there are no longstanding issues with a person’s health.

“Typically, if caught early and treated adequately (as seems to have been done in this incident) there is a full recovery without any consequences (normal cognition, memory, etc),” he said.

Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of the politically conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons also reviewed the 2012 ABC News report about Clinton’s concussion and blood clot. She said she thought the ABC report appeared medically accurate.

“Factors predisposing to clots include air travel, dehydration, hormones, immobilization as during surgery, blood abnormalities, cancer,” Orient said. “Concussions can cause long-term damage including cognitive problems, even when standard studies including CT or MRI look normal.”

“Not saying Mrs. Clinton has any of the above–just speaking generally and hypothetically,” she clarified.

One former member of Orient’s group is , an ophthalmologist. He was a member of AAPS for more than 20 years before his election to the U.S. Senate. He is now also running for president on the Republican side in 2016.

Neurologist Kassicieh agreed with Orient about the possibility of Clinton suffering from long-term cognitive symptoms.

“Concussions in older adults can be more serious, resulting in a condition known as post-concussion syndrome. This condition can be characterized by symptoms of persistent dizziness, complaints of memory difficulties, forgetfulness, loss of ability to focus on complex tasks or concepts and indecisiveness,” Kassicieh explained. He added, “Latent depression and overt anxiety are also common in this condition.”

Kassicieh noted that although a Clinton spokesperson told the press that Clinton “got over this quickly,” another ABC report quotes former President Bill Clinton saying that his wife’s injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”

“Other reports in the same article show an interesting timeline for Hillary over the next several months, showing that she was not fully functional in her capacity as [Secretary of State],” Kassicieh added:

As a neurologist, I would interpret these and more recent events involving Hillary as possibly showing signs of post-concussion syndrome. This condition could have serious impact on the cognitive and intellectual functioning of an individual, particularly a high level job as [President of the United States].

Dr. Drew Pinsky, a nationally syndicated talk show host and internal medical physician, also spoke to Breitbart News about Clinton’s health and explained that experiencing symptoms for more than a year after a head injury is very serious.

“In my clinical experience, it’s very common for them to have six months and even up to a year of exercise intolerance, and sort of [needing] frequent rest, and can easily get overwhelmed,” he said of head injury patients. “But after a year, that’s something else.”

He said symptoms like Clinton’s, as an elderly person in her 60s, “are very serious.”

“Those are not trivial symptoms,” Pinsky stressed:

If my patient came in with that, the first thing I would do is put them on a treadmill. I would get a sleep study, make sure they don’t have sleep apnea. I would do all sorts of metabolic studies and make sure there wasn’t something metabolic. I would actually do some extensive cancer screenings. Why is this person suddenly having exercise intolerance?

Pinsky added that if Clinton is overworking herself, “I hope she has a medical team attending to her.”

Breitbart News sent a detailed set of questions regarding these questions raised by law enforcement and medical professionals to Clinton’s campaign.

The specific questions sent to Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, include:

1.) Does Secretary Clinton have difficulty with fatigue, dizziness and being disoriented? Does she have difficulty after speeches and during debates continuing for lengthy periods of time–or for instance walking back to her car after events?

2.) Is she suffering from latent post concussion syndrome?

3.) Is she being completely honest with the public about her health? Does she have a clean bill of health?

4.) Is she able to conduct high level cognitive abilities on the same level she has been able to throughout her life? Is she able to conduct routine multitasking high stress abilities on the same level she has been able to throughout her life?

5.) Does she have or did she have a transverse sinus thrombosis, or blood clot?

6.) Is she capable of serving as President of the United States with these conditions and symptoms?

7.) Has she done tests with a doctor on a treadmill? Has she gotten a doctor-supervised sleep study? Has she worked with a doctor on metabolic studies? Has she gotten cancer screenings?

8.) Does she have a medical team attending to her? What are the details of that?

In response, Merrill told Breitbart News that Clinton’s doctors have already answered the questions in Clinton’s health statement.

“These questions are all addressed in her health statement,” Merrill told Breitbart News, referring to a letter from Clinton’s doctor, Dr. Lisa Bardack—the chair of internal medicine at the Mount Kisco Medical Group in New York.

The letter, labeled a “healthcare statement” and dated on July 28, 2015—which was released along with Clinton’s tax filings—is two full pages long and includes a complete description from Dr. Bardack clearing Clinton as fit to serve as president.

“This letter summarizes the health history and current medical evaluation of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Dr. Bardack wrote. “I am an internist and the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Mount Kisco Medical Group in Mount Kisco, New York. I have served as Mrs. Clinton’s personal physician since 2001, during which time I have been involved in all aspects of her healthcare.”

The letter states that Clinton is a “healthy 67-year-old female whose current medical conditions include hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen allergies.”

“Her past medical history is notable for a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and in 2009, an elbow fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012,” Dr. Bardack continues.

“In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated, fainted and sustained a concussion,” the doctor wrote:

During follow-up evaluations, Mrs. Clinton was found to have a transverse sinus venous thrombosis and began anti-coagulation therapy to dissolve the clot. As a result of the concussion, Mrs. Clinton also experienced double vision for a period of time and benefitted from wearing glasses with a Fresnel Prism. Her concussion symptoms, including the double vision, resolved within two months and she discontinued the use of the prism. She had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs. Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders. As a precaution however, it was decided to continue her on daily anticoagulation.

The letter continues by detailing her current medication list, which includes Armour Thyroid—a hormone used to treat an under-active thyroid– plus various antihistamines, Vitamin B12 and the blood-thinner Coumadin.

“She was also advised in 1998 to take Lovenox, a short-acting blood thinner, when she took extended flights; this medication was discontinued when she began Coumadin,” Dr. Bardack continued:

Her Coumadin dose is monitored regularly and she has experienced no side effects from her medications. She takes no other medications on a regular basis and has no known drug allergies. She does not smoke and drinks alcohol occasionally. She does not use illicit drugs or tobacco products. She eats a diet rich in lean protein, vegetables and fruits. She exercises regularly, including yoga, swimming, walking and weight training.

Dr. Bardack noted that Clinton’s family history also complicates matters: her father “lived into his 80s and died after having a stroke” while her mother “lived into her 90s and passed away after having congestive heart failure.” One of her brothers—it’s not clear whether it’s Tony or Hugh Rodham, according to this letter—“had premature heart disease,” Dr. Bardack wrote.

“Due to her family history, she underwent a full cardiac evaluation, which was negative,” the doctor wrote. “She had a coronary calcium score of zero and a normal carotid ultrasound.”

She’s also had cancer screenings: “Her routine health maintenance is up to date, and has included a normal colonoscopy, gynecologic exam, mammogram, and breast ultrasound.”

She had a physical on March 21, 2015, which revealed, according to Dr. Bardack, that Clinton was in top-notch health.

“In summary, Mrs. Clinton is a healthy female with hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies, on long-term anticoagulation,” Dr. Bardack wrote. “She participates in a healthy lifestyle and has had a full medical evaluation, which reveals no evidence of additional medical issues or cardiovascular disease. Her cancer screening evaluations are all negative. She is in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as President of the United States.”

Clinton’s own campaign manager Robby Mook wouldn’t commit during a mid-June 2015 interview on CBS’s Face The Nation to release Clinton’s full health records.

“I will let Hillary decide that,” Mook replied when John Dickerson asked him if Clinton would release her full healthcare records. “But I can tell you she has been hitting the campaign trail hard.”

The letter from Clinton’s doctor—not her full healthcare records, but just a mere statement—came after that Mook interview.

### end ###


***UPDATE 2 – January 12 – 3:10am (I know, I know… But I was up!)

Well, well, well… Looky here. Look what’s splashed nice and big across The Drudge Report.

Drudge Hillary 1 When you click it, it only gets worse.

Drudge Hillary 2

Grandma’s not going to like this. Better hide the ashtrays.

###end###

A Time for Choosing, Indeed

So, I’m up in the middle of the night, listening to talk radio, this time, Red State Studio B, and whoever is on decides Thanksgiving weekend is a good time to play Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech (“the last stand on earth” & “rendezvous with destiny” speech). I’d never heard or read the whole thing, just portions of it, so I decide to listen. Soon I realize why it’s such a landmark speech and decide to find the text. I see the date. It was given before I was born.  But it was given, almost exactly 9 months before I was born. And when I was born, my birth-mother had her own time for choosing. She chose,  heroically, to give me to my parents, who chose to give me as good a life as any human being could ever ask for.  Thanksgiving, indeed.

Reagan Time for Choosing

And here we are. I’m 50 now. Both my mothers are dead.  And quite apart from the more profound peculiarities of this stage of life, I find myself having now fully matured into the same political awakening Mr. Reagan had; having moved from Democrat to Republican, but really toward The Constitution.  The speech “A Time for Choosing” was not so much about faction as it was about Liberty – capital “L” Liberty. People are always shocked when I tell them I voted twice for Bill Clinton. I voted twice for George W. Bush, too.  And then Obama happened. And oh…. LORDY! Haven’t we all had a crash course in progressivism!

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing… after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

“Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing… after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

Lots of people “on my side” are unforgiving to people who voted for Obama the first time (We are all unforgiving to people who voted for him the second time!).  I’m not. I get it. I mean… I knew who he was, and I emailed my Democratic buddies back in ’08, imploring them to please rethink their vote (to no avail), but I understood. A lot of people “on my side” don’t understand it. Lament that it’s not Obama so much as it is a people who could elect him. And that’s a right and proper thing to be concerned with, but I think it misses something. Something really, really important:

We are a good people. An optimistic people. A deeply, profoundly fair people. We’re willing to give someone a chance. That’s how people like Obama get elected (the first time – the second time is a whole different matter, for another time…).

Anyway… Here’s the speech. Enjoy:

 A TIME FOR CHOOSING, given by Ronald Reagan at the nominating convention for Republican Barry Goldwater,  October 27, 1964

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

###

Ben Carson and The Party of Slavery

American Thinker has yet another brilliant piece.  This time it was inspired by the schadenfreude arising from The Left’s Ugly Hatred of Ben Carson as observed by a writer new to me, one Peter Heck.

You see, from a Tea Party perspective, the Democrats have never changed.  They’re exactly the same party as they were 200+ years ago.  They still believe the black man can’t survive without the white man.  Then, it was a place to live, some food to eat, and a job to do in the form of slavery.  Now, it’s government housing, food stamps, and a jobs program in the form of the government plantation.  In exchange then, as now, they expect absolute fealty. Then in the form of forced labor until you drop dead, now in the form of a vote for your sustenance until you drop dead.

What the hell’s the difference?  Just because it’s been made more palatable doesn’t make it any less evil or paternalistic.  The Democrat impulse to control people’s lives burns just as brightly now as it did then, only now it’s even better: they get to spend other people’s money to do it.  No crop failures for Nancy Pelosi to worry about, oh no…

So herewith are some excerpts from Mr. Heck’s excellent piece, though I heartily recommend you read it in its entirety.


It’s a small man who delights in the misfortune of others, but I can’t help myself. As much as I regret that he is being forced to deal with (it)… I am having a blast watching the left try to deal with Dr. Ben Carson… Liberals are having to come to grips with the reality that Carson is a legitimate contender. And it isn’t going over well.

Why? First, it proves that the annoying habit liberals have exhibited the last seven years of shoving their fingers in their ears and screaming “racist” at any person who opposed the presidency of Barack Obama… (Republicans don’t) mind electing a black president at all -– they just haven’t enjoyed a socialist one.

But the rise of Carson stirs a more primal reaction on the left that shouldn’t be ignored… As the party of big government social welfare spending, liberals have enacted policies that have locked blacks in (all manner of) failing (civic institutions)… Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are disciples of leftist icon Saul Alinsky. It was Alinsky who articulated the strategy that in order to control a group of people they, “must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.” While gutting the black community with their policies, Democrats have managed to successfully portray themselves as that group’s only hope. …

The only thing that upends such a diabolical electoral scheme is the emergence of a self-made member of the oppressed group… Ben Carson, a man born into the crucible of inner-city strife, but who escaped the cycle of poverty intended for him to become a brilliant neurosurgeon.  Carson’s message of a smaller government, self-reliance and Christian faith offer a stark contrast to the grievance mongering, victim mentality that’s been force fed to blacks for decades by Democrats…

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has decided they don’t really want all “colored people” to advance –- just the ones with liberal politics. They’ve even declined to condemn racist slurs hurled at Carson. … When you come to believe that a person must think a certain way simply because of their skin color, and you despise them when they don’t, you are the one with the race problem. That is the uncomfortable truth Ben Carson’s candidacy is revealing, and it’s why the left will stop at nothing to destroy him.


Amen!