In an interview with CNN, former First Lady Barbara Bush, mother to presidential candidate “Jeb” Bush, reveals she doesn’t think much of her son’s opponent, billionaire Donald Trump.
“Mrs. Bush, what do you think about Donald Trump?,” a CNN reporter asks. “You are known for being blunt and plain spoken.”
“I don’t think about him at all,” replies Mrs. Bush.
In classic fashion, Trump shot back this morning quipping Jeb brought in “mommy” to slap him.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account@realDonaldTrump6h6 hours ago
Wow, Jeb Bush, whose campaign is a total disaster, had to bring in mommy to take a slap at me. Not nice!
In this exclusive interview, world-renowned libertarian Lew Rockwell, the co-founder of the Mises Institute and Ron Paul’s former congressional chief of staff, speaks about Donald Trump and the rise of populism, the economic collapse, the cashless society, martial law and his late friend Murray Rothbard, the founder of anarcho-capitalism.
00:00 – Trump and Murray Rothbard 03:05 – Why authoritarians hate Trump 05:15 – Trump, Bernie Sanders and the populist revolt 07:22 – Obama’s push for martial law 11:55 – Bernie Sanders 13:20 – Global economic collapse 15:09 – The cashless society 18:58 – The Mises Institute
You know, I just figured out who BHO keeps reminding me of… The Joker in The Dark Knight Rises. I don’t think I will ever see that frozen smile again without seeing that image.
________________________________
White House: GOP Congress Must Approve TPP “Obamatrade” Soon
Following a signing ceremony on February 4 in New Zealand, the Obama administration is calling on the GOP-controlled Congress to hurry up and approve the massive “free-trade” regime known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Despite fierce opposition and the ongoing presidential primaries, Obama’s Trade Representative, Michael Froman, said he was confident that Republican lawmakers would comply with the White House’s demand in the months ahead, warning of “economic consequences” if Congress did not make haste. At this point, though, approval appears to be far from certain.
Dubbed “Obamatrade” by critics, the deeply controversial treaty has opponents up in arms all across the political spectrum, despite support from the establishment wing of both parties. Conservatives have blasted, among other elements, the agreement’s full-blown assaults on national sovereignty and self-government. Liberals, meanwhile, are decrying what they view as a lack of serious protections for labor, the environment, and more. On both sides of the political spectrum, opponents also worry that the scheme could facilitate a stepped-up exodus of U.S. jobs, businesses, and manufacturing.
In the United States, the TPP has become a potential mine-field amid the presidential primaries as candidates rush to distance themselves from the scheme. Obamatrade chief Froman, though, demanded swift ratification, claiming there would be “costs” if lawmakers did not submit promptly. “After five years of negotiation, signing the TPP is an important milestone in our efforts to set high-standard rules of the road in the Asia Pacific region and more generally, and to deliver an agreement that will benefit American workers, farmers and businesses,” claimed Froman, a member of the global-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. “There are costs to delay, real economic costs. It’s imperative to move forward.”
Froman claimed, almost certainly falsely, according to experts and critics, that the deal would add $100 billion per year in growth to the U.S. economy. He also argued that ratifying the scheme would position the U.S. government as a “leader” in establishing what he described as “21st century standards” at the global level for everything from trade and intellectual property to the Internet, labor, and the environment. Why global standards are needed was not explained, nor was the definition of “21st century” standards. “It also has important geopolitical benefits,” Froman claimed. “The U.S. is and has long been a Pacific power. TPP is a concrete manifestation of our re-balancing strategy towards Asia.”
In trying to build support for congressional approval, Obama claimed, falsely, that TPP was a “new” type of trade regime that “puts American workers first.” According to a recent forecast of TPP’s imagined future effects by the globalist World Bank, though, the communist dictatorship enslaving Vietnam will actually be the biggest winner, with an expected GDP increase of about 10 percent. After that, the Islamic governments of Malaysia and Brunei are the next biggest winners, with expected boosts to GDP of between five and eight percent.
The United States economy, by contrast, is at the very bottom of the list, with the World Bank forecasting TPP-related GDP growth at a fraction of one percent — slightly more than Russia’s economy is expected to grow due to TPP. Of course, the World Bank is hardly a reliable source for accurate information — much less for predictions about the future when a globalist trade deal is involved. But it would not be surprising or unusual to learn that Americans would come dead last and a communist dictatorship would emerge as the largest beneficiary of the U.S. government’s “foreign policy.”
In the United States, the apparently desperate claims of Obama and Froman appear to be falling on deaf ears, at least as far as the public and the presidential candidates are concerned. According to media reports, Obama has been meeting with congressional leaders of the supposed opposition party in a bid to secure support. Yet these same Republican leaders, after being elected on a platform of stopping Obama, promptly handed the White House Trade Promotion Authority (aka “Fast Track”) to ram through the schemes.
In public, at least, the GOP leadership is pretending to have concerns about the Obamatrade regime. “I have some problems with the agreement,” claimed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, citing “a number of flaws” in the deal. “With both the Democratic candidates for president opposed to the deal and a number of presidential candidates in our party opposed to the deal, it is my advice that we not pursue that, certainly before the election. And some would argue that it’s not fair to the voters for them not to consider what you might do after the election.” But he did not rule out approving the scheme, vowing to “keep talking about it and see if there’s a way forward.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan, who outraged conservatives for betraying voters and the Constitution shortly after taking over, also cited “a number of concerns” on TPP raised by lawmakers that he said “must still be addressed.” After Congress approved Fast Track, it surrendered its ability to modify trade agreements. Either way, though, Ryan has been a leading cheerleader for Obamatrade. He was also an instrumental accomplice in imposing Obama’s broader agenda, ramming through the administration’s radical education agenda and a $1.1 trillion budget funding everything from Planned Parenthood and amnesty to global-warming alarmism and executive orders on gun control.
At this point, the Republican base has seemingly lost confidence in GOP congressional leaders. However, a large and growing number of non-establishment Republican lawmakers have vowed to stand firm against TPP. On the Democrat side, numerous members of Congress have also lambasted the deal and urged their colleagues to shoot it down. On the presidential campaign trail, virtually all candidates have tried to distance themselves from TPP. Leading GOP contender Donald Trump, though, has offered the most forceful vow to block TPP. At the grassroots level, conservative organizations, labor unions, liberal groups, and more are all lining up to oppose TPP as well.
Negotiations on the TPP scheme were formally concluded last October at a meeting in Atlanta. It is one of several globalist “free trade” regimes pushed by Obama, including the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), that would crush national sovereignty and accelerate the quest for what internationalists refer to as “global governance.” However, with opposition to TPP surging all across America and the political spectrum, the globalists and crony capitalists supporting Obamatrade may have a tougher time getting it rubber-stamped in Congress than they expected. For more on the dangers of TPP and Obamatrade, check out the articles linked below.
Photo of President Obama with Speaker of the House Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell: AP Images
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter@ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at[email protected].
“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.” — James Freeman Clarke
“Our leaders know we’re turning into a giant ghetto and they are taking every last hubcap they can get their hands on before the rest of us wake up and realize what’s happened.” — Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone (Goldman Sachs)
Those who hate Donald Trump, and we all know who they are, have told plenty of lies about him. The latest lie is that Trump has never cared about veterans until now, and that he’ll keep the monies garnered for the vets at his rally for himself. (C’mon people, he gave $1 million of his own monies!) This statement is in certain conservative circles, (those who signed onto National Reviews’ ‘Against Trump’) that Donald Trump does next to nothing to help veterans. It turns out Trump has been generous with veterans over the past decades–all it takes is a little more research than those with an ax to grind seem willing to do.
UPI reported in 1995 how Trump was credited with ‘saving’ the New York Veterans Day Parade. The parade that year was marking the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II. A 1995 video report archived by Getty Images features Trump speaking about the parade.
Donald Trump with wife Melania and sons Eric and Donald, Jr. Trump holds the Phelps Award as 2008 Honoree of the Year by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza.
Trump said, “The fact is you have a group of people that has been so tremendous for this country and they’ve been forgotten. And I think that tomorrow they’re going to be remembered.”
This was not Trump’s first time supporting the New York Veterans Day Parade. In 1987 Trump gave $1 million to help the parade when it was in transition, according to a history of the parade reported by Business Insider in 2013. [Link]
Trump had just finished a speech and was in the audience talking especially to veterans. He came across this wounded warrior who had lost his arms, and so he instead touched his face. It is a picture you wouldn’t see with any othercandidate. I found it extremely touching. Look at the smile on that veteran’s face!
I watched in Knoxville, TN, when Mr. Trump got down from the dais and went into the crowd, of over 10,000, straight to the veterans. He spent another hour just signing autographs, talking to them, and answering questions. Anyone who says Mr. Trump doesn’t love our soldiers is a liar. And that’s the name of the game, lies are told daily about Mr. Trump in an effort to destroy his reputation with the American people. How can they possibly get away with this? They can because the Supreme Court made it legal.
Why They Can Lie
Thanks to my dear friend and retired attorney, who told me about a 1964 Supreme Court decision…this decision perfectly describes what is happening in the political realm today and has happened since 1964. Prior to ’64, people could not and did not lie about others for fear of retribution, (i.e., being sued for libel or slander) but with this SCOTUS decision, all that has changed.
We can thank the liberal 1964 Warren Supreme Court for a unanimous decision in New York Times Company v. Sullivan. It was argued on January 6-7, 1964, and decided on March 9, 1964. (In a 1962 case, this Court was the one who ruled that religious prayer in public schools was unconstitutional according to the First Amendment principle of church and state.)
The Warren Court
This landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964), extended the First Amendment‘s guarantee of free speech to LIBEL cases brought by public officials. The Supreme Court sought to encourage public debate by changing the rules involving libel that had previously been the province of state law and state courts.
Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerned a full-page ad in the NYT’s which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King’s efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery City police commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, (one being Abernathy) claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment. [Link]
The oral arguments on the case before the US Supreme Court took place in January 1964.
Mr. M. Roland Nachman was the lawyer for the plaintiff, Mr. Sullivan. His daughter, Linda Connelly said, “Daddy said to his colleagues and family, ‘Either I will win the case or they will change the law of the land.’” The law of the land was changed.
The following few paragraphs tell the story:
The rule of law applied by the Alabama courts was found ‘constitutionally deficient’ (What does that mean?) for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First andFourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official (Sullivan) against critics (NYT’s) of his official conduct. The decision further held that under the proper safeguards the evidence presented in this case is constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for Sullivan.
Supreme Court Justice Brennan then set out the rule that reshaped libel law with his majority opinion. A public official could recover in a libel action only if and when a court found that the libelous statement about the official was made with ” ‘actual malice‘—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” As long as the press has an“absence of malice,” public officials are barred from recovering damages for the publication of false statements about them.
And just how does one now prove ACTUAL MALICE?
In separate concurring opinions, Justices Hugo l. black and William O. Douglas differed with Justice Brennan over whether the press should ever be held liable in defamation of public officials. They concluded that the First Amendment provided an absolute immunity for criticism of the way public officials do their public duty. Anything less than absolute immunity encourages “deadly danger” to a free press by state libel laws that harass, punish, and ultimately destroy critics.
The Decision:
The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper. The Court said the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment. The Court also said in order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice – “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.”
Isn’t that just grand? Now the media can say anything they want about a public figure whether true or false, and get away with it. So with a stroke of the pen, or an email send, a public figure’s reputation can be utterly destroyed….with lies or twisted truths.
So, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials, except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan’s original case collapsed, and this is why today, lies are told by media and public officials with impunity.
The press now has the freedom to destroy anyone they personally dislike! No matter what the GOP, Fox News, Glenn Beck, CNN and others say about Mr. Trump, and no matter how distorted the truth, or how many outright lies they tell, they cannot be held libelous because of this 1964 case, because proving malice, even when we believe that’s what it is…is very difficult to do.
Here is Trump’s last venue before the Iowa caucus, a question and answer forum. Note that he speaks about the lying by other candidates…it is pervasive.
Remember Glenn Beck getting on O’Reilly’s program and stating that Mr. Trump voted for Obama? How many people saw that and thought it was true? How many people missed seeing Beck’s apology on O’Reilly’s show the next week, stating he was totally wrong about Mr. Trump? Even with an apology, damage was done that should have never happened. Beck stated a falsehood he found on some obscure website, and damaged the character of a presidential candidate. Because of Warren’s liberal Supreme Court, there is no recourse.
The ruling was revolutionary, because the court for the first time rejected virtually any attempt to squelch criticism of public officials—even if false—as antithetical to “the central meaning of the First Amendment.”
It appears as though the Supremes have made it their life work to eviscerate the Constitution. Laws were removed from the province of state law and state courts, and are now federal laws, eliminating the states’ rights to rule. The same thing happened with Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. the City of New London, Obergefell v. Hodges, King v. Burwell, and dozens of others.
Thanks to the decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, we now know why they can lie and get away with it.
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy (Republic) impairs the security of all. —John F. Kennedy
Voting is a right best exercised by people who have taken time to learn about the issues. —Tony Snow
Oh yes, all of us who support businessman Donald Trump would have liked to see a big blowout for him in the Iowa caucus, and then sweep the nation, but let’s step back and look at this from the historical view.
As I mentioned in an earlier article, in 1980, Reagan did not attend the last debate before the Iowa Caucus and he lost to George H.W. Bush. This really shocked the nation. When it came to winning the election, he only lost a few states.
In 1996, Bob Dole won the Iowa Caucus. He won the nomination, but lost the election to Bill Clinton. Remember that was the year of Ross Perot as well.
In 2000, George W. Bush won the Republican Iowa Caucus, and went on to be elected president.
John Kerry won the Iowa Caucus in 2004, and was defeated by George W. Bush.
Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008, but didn’t win the nomination for president. John McCain won the nomination, and lost to Obama.
And of course, in 2012, Rick Santorum won the Iowa Caucus, but again, did not make it to the nomination for Republican President. Instead, Willard Mitt Romney won the nomination and then lost to Obama.
Iowa and New Hampshire
Iowa and New Hampshire get a lot of attention, and well they should, but their records in picking presidents, let alone nominees, is spotty (as you can see from the chart above). But that doesn’t mean the states don’t matter. These two states help to eliminate the weaker candidates and usually they drop out.
Former Presidents
In the last 40 years, just one person has gone on to win the presidency after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire — Bill Clinton.
Eric Draper/AP
Then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush spoke in front of a painting of Jesus Christ during a campaign stop in Colfax, Iowa in 2000. Bush is the only Republican to win Iowa since 1976 and become president.
Republican Nominees
New Hampshire has been better at picking nominees for Republicans. Since 1976 (Gerald Ford won the nomination but lost to Jimmy Carter):
— Five eventual nominees won the Granite State … — Two became president: Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Iowa, on the other hand, has picked: — Three eventual GOP nominees, but … — Just one president: George W. Bush
Some Facts
— Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan all lost Iowa but went on to win the presidency. — Bill Clinton didn’t win either Iowa or New Hampshire in 1992, but was still declared “The Comeback Kid” after his second-place finish in the New Hampshire. — The person who led the longest in Iowa in the crowded Republican field in 2015, according to theRealClearPolitics average of polls, was … Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. He led for sixmonths, from February to August, before dropping out because of falling support. Remember when he dropped out, he made the statement that Trump must be defeated.
Praise Jesus then lie like hell
CNN apparently messed with the voting for the 2016 Iowa Caucus by sayingthat Ben Carson had dropped out of the race, when he had not. Ben Carson accused Cruz of dirty tricks by spreading the false rumor on Carson. [Link] Of course one must remember that Cruz is full of dirty tricks and the Secretary of State from Iowa as well as CNN, called his “mailers” fraudulent. [Link] “To have campaigns come out and send emails to their caucus speakers suggesting that Dr. Carson was doing anything but moving forward after tonight is the lowest of low in American politics,” said Carson campaign manager Ed Brookover. [Link]
Win at any cost, ‘End Justifies the Means’. It worked on Iowa Christians
Check out these cards that were being distributed at caucus locations in Iowa. I think there should be an investigation conducted and the results of the Iowa caucuses declared invalid. Appearances of these cards equates to distribution of campaign materials, since it is clearly an attempt to discredit Trump by showing him associating with the Clintons at his wedding. Not sure who is behind it, Cruz or Rubio, but it is called electioneering to distribute campaign materials at polling places on election day, and it is a major violation of federal election laws.
Globalist Game Plan
That’s the bottom line plan…defeat Trump, and the powers that be are allowing Cruz to pull every dirty trick in the book. Why not? The RNC, MSM, DNC all hate Trump because he’s not part of their globalist cabal.
American Christians are so lacking in discernment today, that they listen to someone like Cruz and think he’s a great Christian. They did the same thing with Jimmy Carter, one of the worst presidents we’ve had, of course before Obama was elected.
Mike Huckabee has criticized Cruz for being all talk and no action on his tithing. That’s because Cruz doesn’t tithe. He and his wife donated less than 1 percent of their income to charity and nothing to churches, including their own in Houston, according to tax returns from 2006 to 2010, the most recent Cruz has released. I wonder if they charge $1.00 in charity donations when they donate their old undergarments…like the Clinton’s did?!
Many preachers teach that one must tithe 10% to the church, but this is not true. This is what happens when people pull certain verses out of context and then misapply what they have pulled out of context. [Link] Cruz also did his interpretation of a preacher and prayed with the people in Iowa. Iowans claimed they liked Cruz because he’s a Christian. None of them seem to realize that Cruz is a Dominionist like his father, and that his form of faith is unorthodox and considered heretical.
Conclusion
From my wise friend Suzy, “I get a strong “Red Flag” regarding the fact that Bill Gates designed and supplied the Microsoft equipment for the counting of caucus votes for BOTH parties. We both know he is a globalist and he supports population reduction via whatever means is necessary — as does Hillary! The GOP and mainstream media HATE Ted Cruz but their first goal is to eliminate Trump. If they manage to get him out of the way, it appears to me they will then go after Cruz to eliminate him. They are indeed already playing it up that Rubio is handling his campaign in a kinder gentler manner - and Rubio is just another globalist anchor baby in my opinion.”
I believe with the obvious poll numbers prior to the Iowa Caucus that there is absolutely no way Cruz could have won, nor could Rubio receive the votes he garnered. Many strongly believe that votes were siphoned from Trump and given to Rubio. It has been done before and no one has stopped them.
Neither Cruz nor Rubio are actually eligible. All candidates for president or Vice President need to have been born of two American parents. It’s not where you’re born, but to whom you’re born…two American citizen parents is what is necessary. See these articles:
Pray for our nation, and pray that we do not end up with another globalist in our White House. We need an outsider to try to straighten out this huge myriad of filth that has pervaded our country for dozens of decades.
Donald Trump with wife Melania and sons Eric and Donald, Jr. Trump holds the Phelps Award as 2008 Honoree of the Year by the 
candidate. I found it extremely touching. Look at the smile on that veteran’s face!
ruled that religious prayer in public schools was unconstitutional according to the First Amendment principle of church and state.)
DianeMarie
Cathy
chulai1968
Truth Prevailing
Publius Huldah
radioroger2015
revaustinmiles
Steve