Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Articles: Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession

Articles: Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession

Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession

On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since 2008.
“We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s,” said Hillary. “That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”
In fact, tax policies had almost nothing to do with the recession of 2008. What caused the market crash was the collapse of the subprime market. If that collapse had an architect-in-chief, his name was Bill Clinton. This is not a speculation. It is an easily documented fact.
When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, the homeownership rate was lower than it had been when Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969. Despite increasing prosperity, despite the growth in the condominium market, the numbers were declining.
The Clintons wanted to push those numbers up. If they had been inclined to look, the explanation for the decline was simple enough: the collapse of the two-parent family. From 1970 to 2000, single-parent households, disproportionately black, increased 60 percent. In that same period, married couples with their own children fell from 40 percent of all households to just 24 percent.
The Clintons and their media allies refused to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem -- remember “Murphy Brown” -- let alone as an explanation for the disparity in home-ownership rates. Their preferred explanation for just about everything unpleasant, then as now, was the inevitable racism. This they could and would freely impute to less enlightened Americans, “the deplorables” as they would come to be known.
The Clintons found the confirmation they were looking for in a 1991 study by the Federal Reserve. According to the study, 61 percent of blacks had been approved in their quest for government-backed home loans as compared to 77 percent for whites. Bingo!
To make the racism story line work, the Clintons had to ignore another significant set of data, namely, default rates. A comprehensive HUD study of FHA loans for the years 1992-1999 found that blacks were defaulting more than twice as frequently as whites, and Hispanics were defaulting three times more frequently. If minorities had been held to a higher standard, their default rates should have been lower than whites, not higher. This was obvious.
No matter. As early as 1993, HUD began to bring legal action against those mortgage bankers who declined a higher percentage of minorities than whites. In 1995, the Clinton administration put teeth in Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had merely “encouraged” financial institutions to “help meet the credit needs of local communities.” Under Clinton, regulators moved from encouraging to strong-arming.
The regulators were backed by the street-level bullyboy tactics of the late and unlamented ACORN, shorthand for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Historically, banks had been reluctant to offer home loans to people who might not pay them back, and so ACORN set out to embarrass bankers into overcoming that reluctance.
A sympathetic media romanticized ACORN and turned what might have been a nuisance for the banks into a public-relations nightmare. As the New York Times reported approvingly, “The nation’s largest banks have come to the negotiating table just to silence objections that could derail or create costly delays to a merger.”
To make ACORN’s task easier, the Clinton administration demanded that banks quantify the progress they were making in giving loans to LMIs -- people of “low and moderate income.” The administration encouraged banks to use “innovative or flexible” lending practices to reach their LMI numbers.
Meanwhile HUD, which Congress had made the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992, began to pressure these agencies to set numerical goals for affordable housing, even if that meant buying subprime mortgages. The media cheered the agencies on. A September 1999 Times article commended Fannie Mae for prodding banks to provide mortgages to those whose credit was “not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.”
With a gun to their head, the lenders turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relieve them of the imprudent loans they were now being forced to make. Before the 1990s, Fannie and Freddie had sufficiently tough lending standards that default was not much of an issue. That would change.
In 1999, the Clintons’ newly appointed CEO, Franklin Delano Raines, was boasting of the changes Fannie Mae had already made and the changes to come. As he told the Times, Fannie Mae had lowered the down payment requirements for a home and now planned to extend credit to borrowers a “notch below its traditional standards.” That notch was spelled subprime.
Given the greater risk, subprime prospects typically have had to pay more interest to secure a loan. For investors, high interest translated into high yield. In October 1997, the investment banks Bear Stearns and First Union Capital Markets underwrote the first securitization of subprime loans for a total of $385 million.
The back-patting press release announcing the launch hit all the bubble-era hot buttons: these “affordable” and “flexible” mortgages offered the possibility of credit for “low and moderate income families” in “traditionally underserved markets.”
These securities proved enormously popular. They promised a 7.5 percent yield in a low-interest environment and, if that were not enough, a chance to cleanse one’s venal Wall Street soul by doing what appeared to be a social good.
To rally the base a week before the 2000 election, the Clinton administration announced historic new regulations that would put a further squeeze on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “These new regulations will greatly enhance access to affordable housing for minorities, urban residents, new immigrants and others left behind, giving millions of families the opportunity to buy homes,” said HUD Secretary, now New York State governor, Andrew Cuomo.
The regs upped Fannie and Freddie’s “affordable housing” quota from 42 to 50 percent. “We have not been a major presence in the subprime market,” boasted CEO Raines, “but you can bet that under these goals, we will be.”
Raines deflected criticism by focusing on Fannie Mae’s success at social engineering. “We have met or exceeded our affordable housing goals, even as they have increased,” he told the Congressional Finance Committee in late 2003. He also shared the company’s “voluntary goal,” namely, to “lead the market in serving minority families.”
When President Bush expressed concern about the precarious state of Fannie and Freddie in June 2004, he triggered seventy-six Democrats in Congress to sign a letter warning that “an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.”
Despite early signs of impending disaster, Congress kept the pressure on. On June 27, 2005, Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on House Financial Services Committee, took to the House floor to chide those who worried about a housing bubble.
“You are not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble,” he lectured his colleagues. “So those on our committee in particular are going to continue to push for homeownership.”
And push they did. Subprime credit had become, what one wag called, “the mad cow disease of structured finance.” With a clean bill of health from the media and the Democrats, and a shockingly ignorant assist from Wall Street, the infected product was allowed to poison the entire economy.
No sweat for Hillary. The final convulsion -- Phew! -- occurred on George Bush’s watch.

Articles: Trump's Taxes? Audit the Clinton Foundation!

Articles: Trump's Taxes? Audit the Clinton Foundation!

Trump's Taxes? Audit the Clinton Foundation!

Perhaps Sen. Harry Reid should sue Hillary Clinton for copyright infringement. The former Secretary of State went after Donald Trump for failing to release his tax returns, suggesting that it could be because he is not as charitable as he claims or maybe he didn’t pay any taxes on his fortune. it was eerily reminiscent of the lie Harry Reid admitted telling in 2012 about Mitt Romney:
One of the strangest incidents of the 2012 presidential campaign was when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid accused then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of having not paid any taxes over the past decade. That Reid made that allegation from the floor of the Senate made it even odder.
The problem with Reid's allegation? It's just not true. We know that, at least in 2011 and 2010, Romney did pay taxes. How do we know that? Because Romney released his tax returns for those years. In 2011, Romney paid $1.9 million in taxes; in 2010, he paid slightly more than $3 million in taxes.
Our own Fact Checker gave Reid Four Pinocchios for his "no taxes" claim. PolitiFact gave the claim a "Pants on Fire" rating.
Yet Reid (D-Nev.) not only refuses to retract the allegation but also seems to take great pride in it. When pressed by CNN's Dana Bash last year about continuing to defend a statement that is not true, Reid responded, "Romney didn't win, did he?"
Hillary Clinton is hoping her innuendo about Trump’s tax returns will have the same effect. Trump’s response that he’ll release them against the wishes of his lawyers if she releases her 33,000 deleted emails was weak. If he paid no taxes and did so legally, he should release his returns. But the challenge to Hillary should have been that he’ll release his returns if she explains how the Clintons amassed a not-so-small fortune while engaged in “public service” and agree to an audit of the Clinton Foundation.
How is it, Madam Secretary, that your husband’s speaking fees doubled after you became Secretary of State? Did your husband suddenly become more articulate and experienced? Or did they know that the way to your heart might be through your husband’s wallet? Was the reason you deleted those 33,000 emails that they contained evidence of why you really set up your own unsecured private server – the “pay-for play” contributions by donors to the Clinton Foundation seeking favors and access?
How is it, Secretary Clinton, that the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from countries and individuals that support the execution of homosexuals, throwing them off buildings and who support Sharia Law and state-sponsored suppression and abuse of women and their rights?
As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized, donations to the Clinton Foundation even played a factor in the refusal of Hillary Clinton’s State Department to designate Nigeria’s Boko Haram as a terrorist organization for two years:
Hillary's emails may be only the tip of an iceberg that could include Clinton Foundation donations to shield Boko Haram from being designated a terrorist group and her brother's involvement in a Haitian gold mine…
Last month, the Washington Post reported on another deal involving Rodham that could prove politically embarrassing and damaging for his sister. It seems that he sits on the board of a company that got a coveted gold-mining contract from the government of Haiti after the Clinton Foundation sponsored relief work in Haiti.
In interviews with the Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which seems more and more to be an unseemly mix of charitable work with the political and business interests of Clinton Foundation donors.
And then there's Hillary's strange dealings regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, which just recently pledged its allegiance to the ever-expanding Islamic State -- dubbed the "JV team" by President Obama, who has yet to make good on his pledge to degrade and destroy them.
Last May, we wondered why for two years on Hillary Clinton's watch the State Department refused to designate a Nigerian Islamist group as a terrorist organization. This group has murdered thousands as it wages a real war on women. As Josh Rogin at the Daily Beast reports, the Clinton State Department "refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011" after the group bombed the United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry last week asking for all of Hillary's records relating to Boko Haram and her reluctance to designate it a foreign terrorist organization.
Vitter also requested all of Hillary's communications with Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian construction tycoon who has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Vitter noted that Chagoury had a financial interest in the potential impact of designating Boko Haram a terrorist group
How many of the more than 30,000 "personal" emails that Hillary deleted from her private account relate to these matters? Is that why she needed a private email server? We need to see that server. It might provide, er, a veritable gold mine of information.
Yet, for some reason, the slush fund that is the Clinton Foundation never came up in the debate nor did Donald Trump bring it up. Corruption has been a Clinton hallmark. The Clintons have made a career of making a fortune on the dime of a public they intentionally deceive and defraud, using their positions of power to enrich themselves at the public’s expense. Before there was “pay for play” at the Clinton Foundation, perhaps the real reason for the private server and the deletion of 30,000 emails, William Safire wrote of Hillary’s amazing 10,000 percent profit in commodities trading which Hillary credited ro astute reading of the Wall Street Journal:
We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor's wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.
The Clinton Foundation scandal does indeed remind one of the days when the Clintons were renting out the Lincoln Bedroom and Johnny Chung famously observed that the White House was like a subway turnstile, saying you had to put money in to gain access.
Trump should release his tax returns, Hillary, when you agree to an audit of the Clinton Foundation.



Adopted September 23, 2016 in Williamsburg, VA
Statement of Convention
“The Convention respectfully submits these proposals to the American people with the
conviction that they are a sound
beginning to a critically
needed national discussion about
restoring the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Further, it is the
conviction of this body that the states must deliberate and adopt appropriate proposals for a
ed budget amendment and an amendment to provide the states a means to serve as a check
on judicial overreach by the federal judiciary of the United States.”
[Amendment proposals are listed in the order in which they were adopted]
Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1:
SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a rec
orded vote of two
thirds of
each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.
SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or
the President to appropriate money.
SECTION 3. The provisions of t
he first section of this amendment shall take effect 3 years after
45 Support
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Ma
ine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennesse
e, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming
3 Opposed
Connecticut, Ohio, Oregon
2 Absent/
West Virginia, Wisconsin
Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1:
SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be
limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods,
articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it a
ffects commerce among
the several states.
SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate
commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the
power to regulate or p
rohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its
effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation
or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress sha
ll have power to
define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection
against the United States.
SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging
violation of this article.
Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may
otherwise exist for a person.
SECTION 4. This article shall become effective five years from the date of its ratification.
44 Support
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Californi
a, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklaho
ma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
6 Opposed
Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New York, Virginia, Wyoming
0 Absent/
Federal Term Limits & J
udicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1:
No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person
shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time
served prior to
the enactment of this Article.
35 Support
Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin,
12 Opposed
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland,
New Hampshire, Ohio, Washington, West Virginia
3 Absent/
Hawaii, Iowa, Oregon
Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2:
SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of
federal law issued
by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States,
whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form.
SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three
ifths of the
States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be
abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at
the time this amendment is ratified.
SECTION 3. No go
vernment entity or official may take any action to enforce a provision of
federal law after it is abrogated according to this Amendment. Any action to enforce a provision
of abrogated federal law may be enjoined by a federal or state court of general juris
diction in the
state where the enforcement action occurs, and costs and attorney fees of such injunction shall be
awarded against the entity or official attempting to enforce the abrogated provision.
SECTION 4. No provision of federal law abrogated pursuan
t to this amendment may be
reenacted or reissued for six years from the date of the abrogation.
43 Support
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
ichigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virgini
a, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
5 Opposed
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Montana
2 Absent/Abstain
Louisiana, Ohio
Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2:
SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or es
SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the
approval of three
fifths of the House of Representatives and three
fifths of the Senate, and shall
separately present such to the President.
s Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which
time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.
33 Support
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa
, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin
14 Op
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine,
New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
3 Absent/Abstain
Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi
Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3:
Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the
United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any
proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in p
art, it shall require a
majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation.
Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation
shall be vacated. No proposed regulatio
n challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into
effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or
regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Sect
ion 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
42 Support
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jerse
y, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
5 Opposed
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New York
3 Ab
Louisiana, Oregon, Rhode Island

Hillary Told America To Fact Check Her, So We Did…Here’s 5 Massive Lies

Hillary Told America To Fact Check Her, So We Did…Here’s 5 Massive Lies

Hillary Told America To Fact Check Her, So We Did…Here’s 5 Massive Lies

Hillary took to the stage last night and told lie after lie, but 5 lies stand out the most during the debate. She was so sure of herself that she encouraged people to fact check the claims made during the debate, so with the help of we know she lied, several times.


Clinton: “When I Became Secretary Of State, Iran Was Weeks Away From Having Enough Nuclear Material To Form A Bomb.” 

If You Owe Less Than $300k, Use Obama's Once-In-A-Lifetime ...

Millions of smart homeowners have taken advantage of this brilliant government program called the Home Affordable Refinance Plan (HARP) ...
THE FACTS – Foreign Correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin: “Clinton claims Iran was ‘weeks away’ from a nuclear bomb. No intelligence estimate from any country supports that. Wrong #debatenight” (Ayman Mohyeldin, Twitter, 9/26/16)


Clinton: Claims Her Plan To Make “College Debt Free So More People Can Get Their Education” Will Grow The Economy. 

THE FACTS Clinton’s Tuition Plan Would Make Tuition Free For Some Students, But That Does Not Mean Debt Free

Clinton’s Tuition Free College Plan For In-State Students Who Go To Public Universities Or Colleges “Doesn’t Equate Debt Free” As Students Would Still Have To Pay For Room And Board, Half Of Current College Costs For Students. “Clinton has proposed making college tuition free for in-state students who go to a public college or university. But tuition free doesn’t equate to debt free. Under her plan, the government would pay for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities for students from families earning less than $125,000 a year. That would leave students still bearing the cost of room and board, which makes up more than half of the average $18,943 sticker price at a four-year public university, according to the College Board.” (“AP FACT CHECK: Clinton On Debt-Free College,” Associated Press, 9/26/16)
There Are Longer Term Impacts That Could Result From Clinton’s Plan, Including Colleges Raising Costs And More Students Going To Public School, Raising Costs. “Experts worry about other effects: Will colleges raise tuition once the government starts paying, increasing the cost to taxpayers? Will more students flock to public colleges because of the subsidy, also raising costs?” (“AP FACT CHECK: Clinton On Debt-Free College,” Associated Press, 9/26/16)


Clinton: “I Was Against [TPP] Once It Was Finally Negotiated.”
Clinton: “I Hoped It Would Be A Good Deal.”

THE FACTS – An AP Fact Check Found That Trump Was Correct That Clinton “Championed The Agreement,” And “Did Not Merely Express The Hope That It Would Turn Out Well”

“Trump is correct. As secretary of state, Clinton called the deal that was taking shape the ‘gold standard’ of trade agreements, in a 2012 trip to Australia, and championed the agreement in other venues around the world. She did not merely express the hope that it would turn out well.” (“AP FACT CHECK: Clinton Misrepresetns Stance On Pacific Trade,” Associated Press, 9/26/16)


Clinton Has Asserted That Trump “Pays No Federal Income Tax” While On The Campaign Trail.

THE FACTS – Clinton’s Claim “Ignores Critical Facts” And Thus Is Rated “Mostly False” By Politifact

Politifact Rated This Claim By Clinton “Mostly False” Since It “Ignores Critical Facts.” “Clinton’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.” (C. Eugene Emery Jr., “Hillary Clinton Claim About Donald Trump Paying No Federal Taxes Ignores The Years When He Did,” Politifact , 5/24/16)


Clinton: “That Means Jobs In Infrastructure, In Advanced Manufacturing … And Small Business Because Most Of The New Jobs Will Come From Small Business.”

THE FACTS – Clinton Has Used This Line On Small Business Job Creation Before, And It Is Incorrect

Politico Headline: “Clinton Gets It Wrong On ‘Small Business’ Job Creation.”(Danny Vinik, “Clinton Gets It Wrong On ‘Small Business’ Job Creation,” Politico , 9/26/16)
New Businesses, Not Small Businesses, Are The Job Creators Despite Clinton’s Claim. “It’s a favorite line of almost all politicians, and Hillary Clinton has used it before. But small businesses are not in fact the job creators. That role belongs to new businesses.” (Danny Vinik, “Clinton Gets It Wrong On ‘Small Business’ Job Creation,”Politico , 9/26/16)
Startups Created 3.5 Million Net New Jobs In 2005, One Million More Than Created In The Private Sector. “One recent study used Census data to look at job creation in 2005. It found that startups created 3.5 million net new jobs-a million more than were created in the entire private sector. In other words, non-startup businesses were responsible that year for a 1 million job decline in employment.” (Danny Vinik, “Clinton Gets It Wrong On ‘Small Business’ Job Creation,” Politico , 9/26/16)
So there you have it, folks. Hillary lied several times during the debate and you can bet there is more where that came from in the debates to come.
We have to do our part as voters to make sure the truth is told!

A 'Convention of States' happened this weekend: "A turning point in history"

A 'Convention of States' happened this weekend: "A turning point in history"

A ‘Convention of States’ happened this weekend: “A turning point in history”

Last week, one of the most significant events in our constitutional republic since 1787 occurred: Delegations of primarily state legislators from all 50 states gathered in Colonial Williamsburg with the intent to reign in the federal government’s abuse of power.
While the talking heads in Washington repeated the Trump vs. Clinton debates we’ve heard since this time last year, 137 delegates representing each and every state in America quietly convened in a simulation that would effectively strip Washington of its power overnight. Legally.
How is this happening?
Article V of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and we’re all familiar with that process. Its happened 27 times in our nation’s history and it’s how we’ve done some important things like guaranteed women’s right to vote. But Article V also grants the same power to the states to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and that power just hasn’t been exercised in American history — yet.
The U.S. Constitution is simply a grant of specific, limited powers to the federal government to operate to preserve and protect individual rights and act to promote the “general welfare.” But the Founders brilliantly recognized that the federal government might overstep and abuse those powers, and that it is highly unlikely Congress would then act to restrain itself. So, the Founders also gave the states the power to convene together and propose amendments to the Constitution to restrain federal abuses, in what Article V calls a “convention” of the states.
Article V reads:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states…”
In other words, two-thirds (34) of the states pass an application through each state legislature calling for a convention to propose amendments, then the states convene their delegates, and whatever amendments are passed out of that convention by the states must be ratified by the same process as any congressional amendments.
It’s a simple and effective legal mechanism to check federal power hidden in plain sight in the U.S. Constitution.
This “Convention of States” was given a trial-run simulation last week in Colonial Williamsburg, Sept. 21-23, and every single state sent delegates. The simulated Convention passed significant amendment proposals on the following six ideas:
1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt
2. Term limits on Congress (effective retroactively)
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override
5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
6. Give the states (by a three-fifths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation, or executive order.
Other amendment proposals were discussed and debated, including term limits on the Supreme Court and the ability of the states to vacate a Supreme Court opinion. The simulation only lasted two days, but the real Convention of States would have sufficient time to consider amendments and carefully craft the text.
Importantly, the Convention does not have power (just like Congress does not have power) under Article V to rewrite or completely overhaul the U.S. Constitution, or propose amendments beyond the scope of the application passed through each state legislature. Two of the nation’s foremost constitutional attorneys have written extensively on the procedural safeguards of a Convention of States and this simulation showed exactly how and why it will work as the check on federal government exactly as intended.
Michael Farris, co-founder of the Convention of States Project said of the simulation, ”The events at Williamsburg will be remembered as a turning point in history. The spirit of liberty and self government has been reignited.”
This is the Founders’ solution to Washington’s corruption, and the states are rallying. Going in to the 2017 legislative sessions, eight states have passed the Convention of States application and another 30 states considered it.
Millennials need to pay attention to the states and the Convention of States Project. We may feel horribly frustrated at the national-level politics and parties for one of dozens of reasons. But we have one incredibly important reason to still be hopeful for preservation of liberty—at the state level, the Convention of States can and will happen. We can and should get involved in our states and help lobby our legislators to pass the application for a convention.
The future of our country isn’t resting solely on the results in November. There is a much bigger and better solution that is found in the U.S. Constitution itself — in Article V.


RIGGED: Damning Video Busts Hillary Using Hand Signals To Trigger Lester Holt | True Pundit

RIGGED: Damning Video Busts Hillary Using Hand Signals To Trigger Lester Holt

RIGGED: Damning Video Busts Hillary Using Hand Signals To Trigger Lester Holt

A comprehensive video has surfaced that rather convincingly shows Hillary Clinton using hand signals like a third base baseball coach to prompt moderator Lester Holt to quickly call on her to counter comments by opponent Donald Trump during Monday’s first Presidential Debate.
The video breaks down each one Clinton’s movements which are followed by either Holt calling on her to comment and retort with what she believes is a zinger or Holt attacking Trump’s dialogue. Apparently in a move lifted right out of a high school cheating for dummies book, Clinton is seen scratching her nose and face to signal Holt several times.
Before critics view this video and scream Conspiracy, True Pundit cross referenced Clinton’s speeches, campaign appearances and her 2008 debate performances against President Obama. According to that analysis, Clinton never previously used these hand motions to supposedly scratch her face. In fact, she rarely touches her face at all. (So, you haters can save the trouble of instructing people to remove their tin-foil hats.)
The new revelation comes on the heels of a viral True Pundit’s story Tuesday echoing that it had published leaked plans to rig the debate 28 days before the two presidential candidates faced off in New York on Monday.

We can talk about debate performance for a week

We can talk about debate performance for a week into the future or more but the one thing we cannot forget or allow is for people to dismiss the Clinton Foundation and the email server setup to protect it. We now know directly from Ms Abedin's testimony that the President used a pseudonym email address to communicate to Hillary while she was Secretary of State even though he denied having knowledge of her private email setup until reporters revealed it in 2015. That is absolutely a lie.
Now this story from Joy Overbeck, who is a very serious researcher and journalist who tells us:
"Of course accusations of hypocrisy and corruption bounce right off Hillary supporters’ wall of denial. But anybody with two brain cells to rub together doesn’t need any more proof of quid pro quo than the fact, also reported by IBT, that in the same time period when the Clinton-headed State Department approved an 80 percent increase in arms sales to all countries, the nations that donated to the Clinton Foundation reaped a hefty 143 percent increase from Hillary’s benevolence.
She likes to accuse Donald Trump of recklessness – just what Director Comey called her, though it didn’t stick. But what could be more reckless than showering the world’s most dangerous, volatile region with billions worth of the world’s most lethal weapons? Is ‘foreign affairs expert” Hillary totally unaware of how the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims have slaughtered each through the centuries, continuing today? And what of Israel – why would we equip our ally’s powerful enemies with the American-made muscle to make good their threats to smash the tiny democracy into dust?"
You can read the whole story below, which is well worth it, but how do you justify that you have "worked your entire life for oppressed peoples" and then sell arms to donors who have human rights records as bad as any world dictator. Donald Trump can be a bit inarticulate but I know two things from my interactions with him; 1. He would never sell arms to nations who oppose us or our allies just for money. 2. He will put America first and not endanger us while we have direct evidence that Mrs. Clinton already has in favor of he own bank account.

Kraut Bierok (Cabbage Pockets) | Tasty Kitchen: A Happy Recipe Community!

Kraut Bierok (Cabbage Pockets) | Tasty Kitchen: A Happy Recipe Community!

Kraut Bierok (Cabbage Pockets)

4.67 Mitt(s) 3 Rating(s)3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 53 votes, average: 4.67 out of 53 votes, average: 4.67 out of 53 votes, average: 4.67 out of 53 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5
Level: Easy


A German recipe. I actually love these so much, I’ve been known to eat them for breakfast. And if you’ve got cabbage haters in the family, just substitute rice!


  • 2 packages (7g Packet) Yeast
  • ½ cups Sugar
  • 1-½ Tablespoon Salt
  • 3-½ cups Warm Water
  • ½ cups Oil
  • 1 Tablespoon Vinegar
  • 8 cups Flour
  • 2 cloves Garlic, Minced
  • 1 whole Onion, Chopped
  • 1 pound Ground Beef
  • 1 whole Cabbage, Shredded
  • Salt And Pepper, to taste


Mix the yeast, sugar, sat, warm water, oil, vinegar, and flour together. Let rise 1 hour. Punch down. Let rise 45 minutes. Roll out to about 1/16″ thick.
Saute garlic and onions; add ground beef and fry until browned. Add cabbage and fry until tender (tastes better if cabbage is browned well). Salt and pepper to taste.
Cut the dough into 5×5″ squares and put a generous portion of the beef mixture on the middle of each square. Gather all 4 corners together and pinch shut each diagonal seam toward the center. Turn upside down on a baking sheet.
Bake for 20 minutes at 400 degrees. Brush with butter when they come out of the oven.