Tag Archive for: hillary clinton

Could Hillary Really “Restore” the Middle Class? by Donald J. Boudreaux

Eduardo Porter opens his column today by asking “Could President Hillary Clinton restore the American middle class?” (“Sizing Up Hillary Clinton’s Plans to Help the Middle Class”).

Mr. Porter illegitimately presents as an established fact a proposition that is anything but. It’s true that between 1967 and 2009 the percent of American families with annual incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 (in 2009 dollars) fell from 62 to 39 – a fact that, standing alone, might be interpreted as evidence that the middle class is disappearing.

Yet this fact does not stand alone, for it’s also true that the percent of families with annual incomes lower than $25,000 also fell (from 22 to 18) while the percent of families with annual incomes of $75,000 and higher rose significantly – from 16 to 43.*

So given these Census Bureau data – which are strong evidence that America’s middle class, if disappearing, is doing so by moving into the upper classes – to ask if President Hillary Clinton could restore the American middle class is to ask if she will make the bulk of today’s prosperous families poorer rather than richer.

This post first appeared at CafeHayek.

Donald Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Hypocrites and Half-Wits.

Obama: The Most Pro-Abortion President in America’s 239 years — Hillary Clinton will be worse!

Hope all is well on this “Feast Day of St. Bonaventure” as we are still trying to recuperate from the appalling video we all witnessed yesterday showing the disgusting Planned Parenthood executive speak about abortion and selling the babies’ body parts. Now, we are talking about extreme outrage and going way over the top…and something needs to be done immediately. I know the good & bold Pro-Life folks from Created Equal are at the steps of the White House as I write this piece. Thank you, Mark Harrington. Thank you, Seth Drayer. You guys make a difference – and our gutless, Pro-abortion President in the White House (who regards Planned Parenthood as “the best thing that ever happened to women”) – needs to be called out on this more than ever. He has a lot at stake here. But, like always – The Emperor will put on his clothes, over-ride this controversy, put out another Executive Order…and literally “get away with murder” once again…

After all, how can the President of the Free World punish an evil organization that he promotes, funds and has great stock in?

Well, we are about 17 months from the Presidential Elections of 2016 and we all really need to digest everything that has occurred in “our” White House during these past 6 plus years that the liberal, Constitution-defying Obama has been occupying it. Just in terms of the atrocities of abortion, I can write volumes. For starters, just last month, he funded Planned Parenthood another 5.6 million dollars! That’s money from tax-payer pockets that he is using to fund PP so that they can kill innocent babies – going against the 5th Commandment, while throwing the Constitution of the United States & the Declaration of Independence out the trash along with these aborted babies as if human rights never existed. And, unborn babies have the same human rights as you and I do…

But, what exactly is an “unborn baby”? How do you define an unborn baby? What is a fetus? What is this “blob of cells” that the Pro-abortion liberals refer to? When does a baby become a human being? When does that baby have a heartbeat? When does an unborn baby begin to have those human rights that I just spoke about? What does “conception to natural death” really mean?

If the experts at Planned Parenthood continue to tell these women that “there is no baby – it is just a blob of cells” – why in GOD’s name are they selling these “body parts” for serious money when it is just a blob of cells? When did a blob of cells ever contain a fully-formed liver or kidney that these degenerates are getting up to $100.00 for? Let that sink in for a moment…

Are these Pro-abortion liberals finally owning up to the fact that this is a real baby – with real living body parts – as opposed to that “blob of cells” that they tell these young ladies about who come in for a desperate abortion? Are they now agreeing with Pro-Lifers that it is “from conception…”?

This argument may just be the one that we Pro-Lifers have been looking for for the past 42 years to maybe reverse the infamous Roe v. Wade decision…

If we Pro-Lifers do not call Planned Parenthood out on this atrocity and take this all the way up to the Supreme Court to bust them outright, then, we are missing a golden opportunity to put a STOP to the killings at these “baby killing chambers”? This particular video on Planned Parenthood that I am referring to was actually taken about a year ago and it shows clear evidence that PP has been committing all types of criminal infractions and this is just as bad as what former Philadelphia baby killer, Kermit Gosnell, did in his heyday to countless babies, who were at least 22 weeks old…Ironically, Killer Kermit is doing “life”, after taking so many…

But, it all begins at the top…And, when the Land of the Free has a radical leader running the country like Obama, who has been embracing, supporting, promoting and funding abortion for decades – where he puts Planned Parenthood up on a pedestal as the solution to this so-called “War on Women” – what can the 317 million Americans in this country do? What can the wholesome, Pro-Life citizens in this country do with this terrific opportunity that came out yesterday with this controversial “selling of baby body parts” by PP in order to take advantage of it? Now, it is time to put pressure on Obama & Planned Parenthood while the iron is hot? Now is the time for us Pro-Lifers to really put the heat on PP and just like we did with Kermit Gosnell (who even the liberal Pro-abortion folks were appalled by) – take this criminal activity to another level and pursue this atrocity like we did with Gosnell and try to put an end to these “killing fields” in locations that are inappropriately called Planned Parenthood…

Friends: We all have to VOTE PRO-LIFE in this up-coming 2016 Presidential Elections to make sure that the even-more, Pro-Abortion Hillary Clinton does not even have a chance in being elected to run our country. That will be a total disaster!! Like I have said many times before – “If we think Obama is evil, liberal and very Pro-abortion – just wait to see what happens to our beloved country if this ‘Witch from Mad-as-Hell County’ gets elected”.

Pastor Rick Warren, author of A Purpose Driven Life, interviews Barack Obama and Senator John McCain in 2008, before the Presidential Elections of 2009. Listen for John McCain’s immediate and to-the-point, answer – “At the moment of conception”. A three second correct answer. What all of us Pro-Lifers would answer with. Then, listen to Obama’s answer…It actually hurts to see this “nobody without credentials” struggle for a gutless answer. And, this is who 53 % of Catholics in this country voted for in our last two elections:

Barack Obama at it again – forcing Religious non-profits to provide abortifacients. The HHS Mandate of 2012 truly destroyed the Religious Freedom that our beloved country enjoyed for so many decades and it’s Obama, himself, who is the main culprit behind it.

Please read this column: Obama administration forces religious nonprofits to provide contraceptives.

Hillary Clinton, also in bed with Planned Parenthood, gets help from a Planned Parenthood CEO to open up an office in Iowa…conflict of interest or what? When there are no rules & regulations for the liberals like Obama & Clinton – how can a “conflict of interest” ever exist? It’s the Outlaws who are running this country – therefore “all laws are out”.

Please read this column: Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz CEO Helps Hillary Clinton Open Iowa Office.

Finally please watch this appalling video of a Planned Parenthood Official Taped Discussing Sale of Aborted Baby Body Parts:

Film ‘Crying Wolf’: An Exposé on How Illegal Wolf Reintroduction has Harmed Nature and Mankind

crying wolf film cover“Crying Wolf: Exposing the Wolf Reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park” is an eye-opening exposé of the illegal introduction of non-native Gray Wolves to Yellowstone and beyond during the Clinton administration.

Film maker Jeff King grew up in the thick of the wolf controversy. This is the real true story from the people who lived it. The wolf on King’s film cover photo [right] was one caught less than a mile from the King family home when Jeff was a teenager.

Crying Wolf is available for purchase on Amazon.com. The first release of Crying Wolf was on Vimeo where it received close to 100,000 hits.

The “Crying Wolf” exposé has been credited with helping to bring the ‘wolf versus mankind’ issue back to the political table in Montana.

EDITORS NOTE: Jeff King’s new film, Blue Beats Green is a critique of the Green Movement with a vision to replace it with a better alternative. You may support Jeff on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/bluebeatsgreen, Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bluebeatsgreen and by purchasing Blue Beats Green on Amazon.com.

7 Things the Left Should Apologize For

While attending a gathering of conservatives a few years ago in Washington, D.C., I was confronted by a far Left group conducting an amateur “ambush interview.” They demanded I opine on the comments of a number of 2012 Republican U.S. Senate candidates whom they found objectionable, and it was clear that they were seeking some sort of apology.

The Left loves to demand apologies from conservatives for grievances both real and imagined and, sadly, sometimes we play along with this ridiculous game.

The Left loves to demand apologies from conservatives for grievances both real and imagined and, sadly, sometimes we play along with this ridiculous game. I frequently wonder why conservatives don’t pay back the favor and demand apologies from the Left.

At the macro level, the Left should apologize to America for their continued allegiance to European-style welfare statism. At the micro level, they should apologize for their ongoing use of hateful division politics.

These two guiding ideologies of the Left have caused immeasurable poverty, misery and grief. Their intent to divide us is leading to concertina-wire-reinforced borders among the individual race, gender, and religious silos that they have chosen for us.

With the continued focus on the 2016 presidential elections we should start demanding apologies from the Left. Here are seven things the Left is largely responsible for which I’m demanding apologies before Election Day.

The death of four American patriots in Benghazi and the disgusting lies told to the families of the deceased…

  1. Sanctuary cities and the murder of Kate Steinle, by an illegal immigrant deported, an unforgivable five times.
  2. The ruthless political targeting of conservatives by the IRS to silence conservatives and advance the Left’s political agenda.
  3. The Obama economic “recovery,” where a tragic 1 in 5 Americans are now on some form of government welfare and over 90 million Americans are not working.
  4. The continuing destruction of the economies and education infrastructures of America’s once great inner cities by liberal governance.
  5. The massive health insurance premium hikes, outrageously high deductibles, and doctor and hospital restrictions imposed on middle class Americans by the disastrous Obamacare legislation.
  6. The death of four American patriots in Benghazi and the disgusting lies told to the families of the deceased, and to concerned American citizens, by the Obama administration afterwards.
  7. And, most importantly, the continued shredding of our Constitutional Republic, and what little faith we had left in our government.

Demand an apology from the Left for this, America deserves it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifying before Congress on Benghazi is courtesy by Bill Clark Roll Call CQ | AP Photo.

The Clintons’ Achilles Heel?

For most of the 20th century, until 1989, the major public accounting firms in the U.S. and the U.K. were known as the Big Eight.  Listed alphabetically, they were Arthur Anderson, Arthur Young & Company, Coopers & Lybrand, Ernst & Whinney, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Peat Marwick Mitchell, Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross.

However, in 1987, Peat Marwick Mitchell merged with Klynveld Main Goerdeler, a mid-sized European firm, to become KPMG.  Then, in 1989, Ernst & Whinney merged with Arthur Young to form Ernst & Young, and Deloitte Haskins & Sells merged with Touche Ross to become Deloitte & Touche.  Finally, in 1998, Price Waterhouse merged with Coopers & Lybrand to become Pricewaterhouse Coopers.  Along with Arthur Anderson, they made up the Big Five.

Arthur Anderson was founded in 1913.  Its namesake founder, Arthur Anderson, was a man who held closely to the highest standards of the accounting profession, insisting that the accountant’s first responsibility was to his client’s investors, not to his client’s management.  However, by the 1980s, because of intense competition between the top accounting firms for non-accounting consulting services, that standard was beginning to show signs of erosion.  Within each firm, the commitment to audit independence was slowly eroded as they strove to win more-lucrative non-accounting consultancy contracts with their major clients.

One of Arthur Anderson’s principal clients was the Houston-based energy company, Enron.  And as the firm’s revenues from their non-accounting consultancy at Enron far exceeded their audit and accounting revenues, those involved in the audit and accounting end of their business were increasingly pressured to do what was necessary to keep Enron’s top management happy.  In other words, Arthur Anderson experienced an ongoing internal struggle, attempting to balance the need to maintain the highest of accounting standards, while contributing to the client’s desire to produce the most attractive quarterly and annual earnings reports.

Finally, in 2001, it was learned that Enron had maintained its position as an attractive investment opportunity in large part through systematic accounting fraud… none of which could have been accomplished without the active complicity of their accounting firm, Arthur Anderson.

When accounting irregularities involving some $100 billion were alleged, the members of Enron’s board of directors appointed a committee, the Powers Committee, to look into the matter.  The committee’s final report stated that, “The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions.”

On December 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and six months later, on June 15, 2002, Arthur Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice, having been found guilty of shredding documents related to its auditing of Enron.  And while the conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the negative publicity resulting from the high profile scandal, combined with the findings of criminal complicity, ultimately destroyed the firm.  On August 31, 2002, Arthur Anderson agreed to surrender its CPA license and its right to practice before the SEC… and then there were four.

Of the remaining top four accounting firms, Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) has been seen, until now, as the “cream of the crop.”  In fact, among the Big Four, PwC has been ranked by Vault Accounting as the best accounting employer for two consecutive years, 2014 and 2015.  But now, because of their association with the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, PwC is about to learn, first hand, the meaning of the old adage, “Lie down with dogs; get up with fleas.”

In a June 17, 2015, posting on WorldNetDaily (WND), bestselling author Dr. Jerome Corsi, reports that, according to respected Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel, “The Big Four accounting firm, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, failed to detect and report the Clinton Foundation’s ‘apparent massive diversions of funds’ from a global charity that fights HIV/AIDS.”

Although the methodology is a bit difficult for non-accountants to grasp, Ortel charges that the Clintons siphoned off tens of millions of dollars annually from pass-through funds received by the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) from UNITAID, a Geneva-based global health organization which negotiates low prices for drugs and diagnostic equipment and supplies, working through groups such as CHAI to deliver drugs and health services where needed.

The pool of funds used to finance UNITAID’s activities is derived from a US$1 surcharge on coach-class airline tickets (up to US$40 on business and first class tickets) in nine countries: Cameroon, Chile, Congo, France, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Niger and the Republic of Korea.  According to records of the French Civil Aviation Authority, the tax imposed on airline tickets by the French government alone has produced more than $1 billion in a six year period.

According to the WND article,

Ortel contends that PwC “allowed the Clintons to continue diverting millions of dollars donated for charitable purposes to the personal enrichment and benefit of themselves and their close associates, perpetrating a crime called inurement.  (The “inurement” prohibition of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the use of the income or the assets of a tax-exempt organization, such as the Clinton Foundation, to directly or indirectly benefit any person with a close relationship with the organization, or one who is in a position to exercise significant control over the organization.)

In order to reach that conclusion, Ortel used financial information drawn directly from UNITAID sources, comparing it to financial reports of the Clinton Foundation contained in their PwC audit for 2013.  Ortel contends that “PwC failed to conduct the basic due diligence required of auditors, neglecting to discover and report the diversion of funds.”  He found that, as has been reported in recent stories of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, the Clintons purportedly used their international prestige and political power to “leverage” international manufacturers of prescription quality drugs and various health care products and sell them to Third-World countries at a discount to combat AIDS/HIV.

WND quotes Ortel as saying that, if any of the 50 state attorneys general should present the available evidence to a federal judge, he believes “an injunction would be ordered, shutting down the Clinton Foundation and placing the organization in receivership.”

He is quoted as saying, “Ironically, the Clinton Family holds itself out for praise when Clinton Foundation financial statements are inaccurate and riddled with material, uncorrected errors.”  He concludes. “Those who take requisite time to study public financial filings should see what I see – that the Clintons are playing ‘Robin Hood,’ but in reverse, now with a major accounting firm of PwC’s magnitude participating in the cover-up.”  In other words, what Ortel suggests is that the Clintons, instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, are profiting from the poor to give to the rich… i.e. the Clintons and their toadies.

What is surprising… perhaps not so surprising where the Clintons are concerned… is the fact that neither PwC, nor any other Clinton Foundation auditor since 2006, has bothered to reconcile Clinton Foundation receipts from UNITAID, as reported on their IRS Form 990, with audited annual financial statements published by UNITAID.  In other words, in examining the financial dealings of the most corrupt political family in America, none of the most highly paid accounting professionals in the country thought to look for corruption in any of the most logical places.

So where did the Clintons get off on the wrong track?  Upon leaving the White House in disgrace in January 2001, Bill Clinton, a disbarred lawyer who narrowly avoided criminal prosecution for perjuring himself before a federal judge, was desperate to find some way to salvage a positive legacy for the history books.

Like modern era Republican presidents… Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush (41) and Bush (43)… he could have retired gracefully into relative obscurity.  He could have retired to a posh hilltop mansion near Hot Springs where he could spend all of his free time patronizing the spas and nudie bars of that famed Arkansas gambling mecca.  But that’s not what he chose to do.  Like his Democrat predecessor, Jimmy Carter, Clinton could not find happiness and contentment outside the political spotlight.  Instead, he decided to establish a path to respectability by creating a foundation dedicated to helping the poor and downtrodden of the Third World.  That was the genesis of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.  And while the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative may have washed a bit of the seediness off the Clinton image, it is the excesses of the Clinton Foundation that may ultimately destroy Hillary Clinton’s dream of ever becoming the first female president of the United States.

But more than that, the Clintons’ unbridled greed and their unquenchable thirst for power could easily reduce the Big Four of the accounting profession to the Big Three… taking thousands of accounting executives and their families down with them.  If Ortel’s findings are ultimately confirmed, the Clinton era of American politics may finally be at an end.  More than Benghazi, the missing emails, the private email server, the outlandish speaking fees, and the suspected  pay-to-play quid pro quo’s of Hillary’s state department tenure, the alleged fraudulent accounting provided by PwC, the country’s top accounting firm, may yet be the Clintons’ Achilles heel.

Now all we have to do is to get one of our fine conservative state attorneys general to get off their backsides and take the available evidence before a federal judge.  Bill and Hillary will soon learn that attempting to hoodwink the IRS and the SEC is almost certain to meet with disaster.

The Ghosts of Spying Past by Gary McGath

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration fought furiously against privacy and security in communication, and we’re still hurting from it today. Yet people in powerful positions are trying to commit the same mistakes all over again.

In the early days, the Internet was thoroughly insecure; its governmental and academic users trusted each other, and the occasional student prank couldn’t cause much damage. As it started becoming available to everyone in the early ‘90s, people saw the huge opportunities it offered for commerce.

But doing business safely requires data security: If unauthorized parties can grab credit card numbers or issue fake orders, nobody is safe. However, the Clinton administration considered communication security a threat to national security.

Attorney General Janet Reno said, “Without encryption safeguards, all Americans will be endangered.” She didn’t mean that we needed the safeguard of encryption, but that we had to be protected from encryption.

In a 1996 executive order, President Clinton stated:

I have determined that the export of encryption products described in this section could harm national security and foreign policy interests even where comparable products are or appear to be available from sources outside the United States, and that facts and questions concerning the foreign availability of such encryption products cannot be made subject to public disclosure or judicial review without revealing or implicating classified information that could harm United States national security and foreign policy interests.

The government prohibited the export of strongly secure encryption technology by calling it a “munition.” Putting code on the Internet makes it available around the world, so the restriction crippled secure communication. The Department of Justice investigated Phil Zimmerman for three years for making a free email encryption program, PGP, available.

The administration also tried to mandate government access to all strong encryption keys. In 1993 it proposed making the Clipper Chip, with a built-in “back door” for government spying, the standard for serious encryption. Any message it sent included a 128-bit field that would let government agencies (and hopefully no one else) decrypt it.

But the algorithm for the Clipper was classified, making independent assessments impossible. However strong it was, it would have offered a single point to attack, with the opportunity to intercept virtually unlimited amounts of data as an incentive to find weaknesses. Security experts pointed out the inherent risks inherent in the key recovery process.

By the end of the ‘90s, the government had apparently yielded to public pressure and common sense and lifted the worst of the restrictions. It didn’t give up, though — it just got sneakier.

Documents revealed by Edward Snowden show that the NSA embarked on a program to install back doors through secret collaboration with businesses. It sought, in its own words, to “insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks, and endpoint communications devices” and “shape the worldwide cryptography marketplace to make it more tractable to advanced cryptanalytic capabilities being developed by NSA/CSS.”

The NSA isn’t just a spy agency; it’s one of the leading centers of expertise in encryption, perhaps the best in the world. Businesses and other organizations trying to maximize their data security trust its technical recommendations — or at least they used to. If it can’t get the willing collaboration of tech companies, it can deceive them with broken standards.

Old software with government-required weaknesses from the nineties is still around, along with newer software that may have NSA-inspired weaknesses. There are still restrictions on the exporting of cryptography in many cases, depending on a complicated set of criteria related to the software’s purpose. Even harmless file identification software, used mostly by librarians, may have to carry a warning that it contains decryption code and might be subject to use restrictions.

With today’s vastly more powerful computers, encryption that was strong two decades ago can be easily broken today. Some websites, especially ones outside the United States that were denied access to strong encryption, still use the methods which they were stuck with then, and so do some old browsers.

To deal with this, many browsers support the old protocols when a site offers nothing stronger, and many sites fall back to the weak protocols if a browser is limited to them. Code breakers have found ways to make browsers think only weak security is available and force even the stronger sites to fall back on it. Some sites have disabled weak encryption, only to be forced to restore it because so many users have old browsers.

You’d think that by now people would understand that secure transactions are essential, but politicians in the US and other countries still want to weaken encryption so they can spy on people’s communications.

The FBI’s assistant director of counter-terrorism claims that strong encryption gives terrorists “a free zone by which to radicalize, plot, and plan.” NSA Director Michael S. Rogers has said, “I don’t want a back door. I want a front door.” UK Prime Minister Cameron says,

In extremis, it has been possible to read someone’s letter, to listen to someone’s call, to mobile communications. The question remains: are we going to allow a means of communications where it simply is not possible to do that? My answer to that question is: no, we must not.

In 2015 over eighty civil society organizations, companies, and trade associations, including Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Adobe, sent a public letter to President Obama expressing concern about such actions. The letter states:

Strong encryption is the cornerstone of the modern information economy’s security. Encryption protects billions of people every day against countless threats — be they street criminals trying to steal our phones and laptops, computer criminals trying to defraud us, corporate spies trying to obtain our companies’ most valuable trade secrets, repressive governments trying to stifle dissent, or foreign intelligence agencies trying to compromise our and our allies’ most sensitive national security secrets.

In the United States, we have a tradition of free speech, but in many countries, even mild criticism of the authorities needs to travel in secret.

A country can pass laws to weaken its law-abiding citizens’ access to cryptography, but criminals and terrorists exchanging secret messages would have no reason to pay attention to them. They can keep using the strong encryption methods that are currently available and get new software from countries that don’t have those restrictions.

Governments would gain increased ability to spy on people who follow the law, and so would free-lance data thieves, while competent criminals would still be able to communicate in secret. To crib David Cameron, we must not let that happen — again.

Gary McGath

Gary McGath is a freelance software engineer living in Nashua, New Hampshire.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Encryption stalemate: A never-ending saga?

Why Cameron’s encryption limitations will go nowhere

The dynamic Internet marketplace at work: Consumer demand is driving Google and Yahoo encryption efforts

Busted: Hillary emails Expose Vast International Crime Ring

Though months have passed since the Congressional Committee on Benghazi has subpoenaed Hillary Clinton’s personal email servers, only to discover that they had been wiped clean, a team of national top experts in retrieving deleted digital information has now been able to restore much of the lost data, which, in addition to the evidence on Benghazi, resulted in other unexpected discoveries.

One gruesome find was an extremely disturbing email exchange between Mrs. Clinton and one Doctor Klopek, which prompted an independent criminal investigation leading to a discovery of a vast international crime ring.

According to the correspondence which she thought had been erased, Mrs. Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to bypass the ban on embryonic stem cell procedures and conspired with black market operators to undergo secret bi-annual facelifts using illegal injections of embryonic stem cells extracted from human fetuses in the nation’s abortion clinics.

Described as “Pluripotential Botox,” the cosmetic procedure of injecting embryonic stem cells directly into sagging and wrinkling skin of aging adults was believed to be a theoretical concept, but the recovered emails indicate that Mrs. Clinton has already been receiving it in an underground clinic for the past 19 years.

An embryo’s regenerative ability gives the stem cells remarkable anti-aging properties, producing a tighter and thicker skin within a week after injection. This gives the recipients a more natural -looking face than what can be achieved with traditional Botox treatments. The ethical aspects of using human embryos for medical purposes, however, remain a heavily debated subject, let alone dissecting human fetuses for vanity cosmetic projects.

The resulting federal ban on the use of embryonic stem cells has pushed the procedure into the black markets, driving the price of an injection to astronomical numbers. Mrs. Clinton’s correspondence indicates that she initially contacted Dr. Klopek through a high-end black market dealer with ties to some of the world’s most dangerous criminal organizations.

According to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, about a year ago her prospects of running for President required a change of protocol and visits to the underground clinic were no longer an option. For an additional fee, which raised the price tag for a visit to $160,000, Dr. Klopek would come to the Clinton’s Chappaquiddick compound and inject her forehead, lips, cheeks, eyes, and neck with the embryonic stem cells he had extracted from human fetuses in certain New York City abortion clinics. With every visit he would also resupply Mrs. Clinton with a 9 oz. jar of lotion made of fetus matter and laced with embryonic stem cells, which she would smear on her face twice daily at a cost of $80,000 per jar.

The resulting criminal investigation has led to an arrest warrant for Dr. Klopek. A source familiar with the investigation confirmed that Klopek has fled the country after receiving an email from Mrs. Clinton, warning him about the possibility that their arrangement of nearly two decades might be discovered.

Confronted with new information recovered from the Clinton’s email servers, House Speaker and member of the Benghazi Committee, John Boehner (R-OH), called the findings “nightmarish” and “blood-curdling,” adding that “this sounds like something straight out of Grimm’s fairy tales.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column is political satire. It originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

One America News Network Releases National Presidential Polling Results

SAN DIEGO /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential Polling Results.   The results show that GOP Presidential candidate Jeb Bush leads the Republicans with 22 percent, a 7 percent margin over Donald Trump, and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads with 55 percent, a 41 percent lead over Joe Biden’s 14 percent, with Bernie Sanders closely trailing Biden at 13 percent.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

The recently conducted One America News national polling also shows a heavily divided country when it comes to the job approval performance of President Obama.   Eighty-nine percent of Republican voters disapprove of the President’s performance whereas 74 percent of Democrats approve of the President’s performance.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “It’s still very early in the campaign process and there’s strong support for a number of candidates on both sides.   We clearly have a divided country that is very engaged in the upcoming election.  One America News Network, utilizing Gravis Marketing, will perform and release national polling results for both parties as we get closer to the first GOP debate.”

The national polling, which took place on July 1st and 2nd, was performed exclusively for One America News by third party research firm Gravis Marketing.  Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 519 Democratic voters and 473 registered Republican voters across the United States using interactive voice response, IVR, technology.  Republican voters polled were able to choose from 15 GOP candidates while Democratic registered voters were able to choose from 5 Democratic potential candidates. Undecided was not an available option, thus results sum to 100 percent and may show higher percentages than polls allowing for “undecided” vote counts.  The margin of error is 4.3% for the Democratic polling and 4.5% for the Republican polling results.  For full national presidential polling results, visit www.oann.com/poll

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.

About One America News Network (“OAN”)

One America News Network offers 21 hours of live news coverage plus two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and On Point with Tomi Lahren.  While other emerging and established cable news networks offer multiple hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage every weekday.   Third party viewership data for Q2 2015 from Rentrak, namely accumulated viewer hours, shows that OAN surpasses other news channels such as Al Jazeera America, Fusion, Fox Business News, and Bloomberg TV as measured on AT&T U-verse TV, across 65 markets.

Since its debut on July 4, 2013, One America News Network has grown its distribution to over 12 million households with carriage by AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC and numerous additional video providers.  One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC.   For more information on One America News Network, please visitwww.OANN.com.

Bernie Sanders U.S. Presidential Democratic Hopeful is Rapidly Gaining Popularity

I just read on The Hill an article entitled, “Team Clinton ‘Worried’ about Bernie Sanders Campaign.” Sanders is quickly becoming serious competition for Clinton in the Democratic nomination:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is “worried” about Bernie Sanders, whom a top Clinton aide described as a “serious force” in the 2016 battle.

“We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish,” Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said Monday in an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“It’s to be expected that Sanders would do well in a Democratic primary, and he’s going to do well in Iowa in the Democratic caucus.”

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, has emerged as Clinton’s main foil in the Democratic primary.

While he’s still more than 40 percentage points behind Clinton in virtually all national polls, he’s greatly improved his stock in the early primary states. 

A new Quinnipiac University poll released last week found he doubled his share of Democratic supporters in Iowa in just seven weeks. Some polls in New Hampshire show Sanders less than 10 points behind Clinton.

Indeed, in the last several hours, Huffington Post columnist H.A. Goodman posted a piece entitled, “‘Bernie Sanders Can Become President’ Has Replaced ‘I Like Him, But He Can’t Win’”:

How many time have you heard the phrase, “I like Bernie Sanders, but he can’t win,” uttered by people who identify themselves as progressives? The facts, however, illustrate that “Bernie Sanders can win” and nobody in politics foreshadowed the Vermont Senator’s latest surge in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He recently raised $15 million in just two months, and his campaign reports that “Nearly 87 percent of the total amount raised during the quarter came from the donors who contributed $250 or less.” While Clinton’s team isn’t worried, they should be, primarily because Hillary Clinton already lost a presidential race (spending $229.4 million in the losing effort) and finished behind both Obama and John Edwards in the 2008 Iowa Caucus.

While Clinton is expected to amass $2.5 billion, Bernie Sanders has cut the former Secretary of State’s lead in New Hampshire from 38 percentage points down to just 8.

Goodman continues by noting that Sanders “snagged a key ally” in New Hampshire: Democratic activist Dudley Dudley. Why the rise in Sanders’ popularity? Well, a key reason seems to rest in the fact that the public can get a clear answer from him– on some issues. As Goodman notes:

…Sanders didn’t need billions of dollars to earn the trust of voters in New Hampshire, or cut Hillary’s lead to only 8 points. Since he voted against the Iraq War and has spent a lifetime championing progressive issues while others waivered (Hillary was against gay marriage until 2013, voted for the Iraq War, pushed for the TPP on 45 separate occasions, and supported Keystone XL), Bernie Sanders doesn’t need to prove he’s a progressive. Voters know what they’re getting with Vermont’s Senator. In contrast, Hillary Clinton rarely offers a direct answer on why she failed to champion certain causes when they weren’t popular.

Clinton might avoid the direct answer, but when it comes to hot-button education issues, such as Common Core, Sanders has not spoken publicly. (More to come on Sanders and education.)

Still, Sanders appears to have what money cannot fabricate– grassroots support:

What polls can’t measure, however, is the numbers Sanders is drawing in overflowing crowds. A Washington Post article titled Sanders draws more than 2,500 to Iowa stop — tops for this presidential cycle so far, explains how an energized base of voters is making what was once improbable a very real possibility. …

Money can’t buy enthusiasm or “eye popping crowds,” and while Clinton has the financial backing (she’s been referred to by POLITICO as Wall Street Republicans Dark secret), Bernie has the hearts and minds of Democrats. The Washington Post writes that he’s gaining larger crowds than anyone in the 2016 presidential race, so while Clinton has the top Democratic strategists on her team, Bernie Sanders owns the grass roots support among voters. …

While Sanders “drew both traditional Democrats and conservatives” in Iowa, it would be unthinkable to see conservatives in any state supporting Hillary Clinton. The ability of Sanders to address issues that both right and left find important (even Ted Cruz is talking about wealth inequality) is one of the many advantages Sanders has over any Democratic rival. This advantage could also catapult him to victory over any GOP challenger. …

Bernie Sanders is drawing record crowds and surging in the polls because his value system is worth infinitely more than his opponent’s ability to generate billions of dollars.

As concerns his views on education, an April 2015 Forbes article notes that Sanders wants to “end the practice of the government making billions in profits from student loans taken out by low and moderate income families.” Also, according to Forbes, Sanders posted the following on Facebook regarding teacher pay:

The great moral, economic and political issue of our time is the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing. Something is very wrong when, last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned more than the combined income of 425,000 public school teachers. We have got to get our priorities right.

Sanders is a member of the Senate Ed committee that produced the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, which will go before the Senate on July 7, 2015. (I have written extensively on the Senate ESEA draft and approved amendments.) Yet is seems that Sanders views this revision of what was originally the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and commonly called by the name of its last revision, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), as a piece of legislation that needs to go. As noted in the June 2015 US News and World Report:

Sanders is the only candidate so far to focus on problems with No Child Left Behind in his remarks to the unions, according to excerpts provided by the NEA and AFT.

Sanders, who serves on the Senate education committee, said there are few others as opposed as he is to the sweeping education law – which Congress is attempting to update – and to “this absurd effort to force teachers to spend half of their lives teaching kids how to take tests.”

“If I have anything to say in the coming months, we would end [No Child Left Behind],” Sanders told Eskelsen Garcia.

However, Sanders has yet to publicly take a position on issues of Common Core, teacher tenure/evaluation, and school choice. The Senate ESEA draft defers to states on teacher evaluation issues and prohibits the US Secretary of Education from exercising decision making power over state standards and assessments, prohibiting the federal promotion of Common Core by name. But the Senate ESEA draft also preserves annual testing and is incredibly generous to establishing and expanding America’s under-regulated and over-scandaled charter schools.

Hillary Staffers Can’t Afford New York’s Government-Controlled Housing Market by David Boaz

The New York Times reports:

For decades, idealistic twenty-somethings have shunned higher-paying and more permanent jobs for the altruism and adrenaline rush of working to get a candidate to the White House. But the staffers who have signed up for the Clinton campaign face a daunting obstacle: the New York City real estate market….

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign prides itself on living on the cheap and keeping salaries low, which is good for its own bottom line, but difficult for those who need to pay New York City rents….

When the campaign’s finance director, Dennis Cheng, reached out to New York donors [to put up staffers in their apartments], some of them seemed concerned with the prospective maze of campaign finance laws and with how providing upscale housing in New York City might be interpreted.

Here are some words that don’t appear in the article: rent control, regulation, zoning.

But those are among the reasons that housing is expensive in New York. As a Manhattan Institute report noted in 2002:

New York City and State have instituted policies that severely distort the dynamics of housing supply and demand. Only 30 percent of the city’s rental units, for instance, are subject to market prices.

These distortions — coupled with Rube-Goldbergian environmental and zoning regulations — have denied New York the kind of healthy housing market enjoyed by most other major cities.

And a report by Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko for the Federal Reserve Board of New York Economic Policy Review suggests that “homes are expensive in high-cost areas primarily because of government regulation” that imposes “artificial limits on construction.”

As I’ve said in other contexts: This is the business you have chosen. If you want the government to control rents and impose regulatory costs on the building of housing, then you can expect to see less housing and thus more expensive housing. Welcome to your world, Hillary Clinton staffers.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Related: Jim Epstein notes that fully one third of Manhattan, and 33,000 buildings and 114 entire districts across the city, are “encased in a life-sized historical diorama,” unable to be modified or demolished thanks to the city’s “landmark preservation” law.


David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute. He is the editor of The Libertarian Reader, editor of The Cato Handbook for Policymakers, and author of The Politics of Freedom.

VIDEO: Apocalyptic Iran — 9 Minimum Requirements!

Today is part 3 of a 5 part series on the absolute BAD deal that the United States of America is negotiating with the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the nuclear weapon capability of Iran. Our big idea is that the U.S. must get at least 9 minimum requirements from Iran in order to agree to this critical deal that determines the stability of the Middle East and indeed the complete world.

We feature a video from the Clarion Project that presents the “Neville Brothers,” (Chamberlain, Clinton and Obama) as “successful” world negotiators who got duped by Germany, North Korea and Iran.

In addition we feature retired Admiral “Ace” Lyons as he implicates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Benghazi disgrace, which furthered the growth of the Islamic State in the Middle East. Finally, we introduce a frightening survey conducted by the Center for Security Policy which reveals the level of violence that American Muslims are willing to advance in order to advance Islam in America.

You will not believe this survey!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Administration says Iran’s chants of “Death to America” are “not helpful,” but won’t have impact on nuke talks

Uganda: Muslim in-laws poison mother of 11, who converted from Islam to Christianity

Obama laments “distorted impression” many Americans have of Muslims

Islamic State mints its own ‘Islamic Dinar’ coins

ISIS BLOWS UP ANCIENT Shrines in Palmyra, Syria

Those Clinton Women

Listening to the reports of obscene speaking fees earned by Bill and Hillary Clinton… Bill commanding fees of from $500,000-750,000 a speech and Hillary demanding $200,000-300,000, along with private jets and presidential suites… I turned to my wife and said, jokingly, “What do you suppose Chelsea gets for a thirty or forty minute speech?”

In her lifetime, Chelsea Clinton has had a front row seat to more corruption and more sexual excess than an aging mob-connected porn star, so it might be interesting to hear what she has to say… if she could be totally candid.  And while we enjoyed a brief chuckle over the silly notion that a young woman of her age and inexperience would have anything interesting to say, I couldn’t help but wonder what it would be like to hear her drone on and on for thirty or forty minutes about her recent domestic battles with colic and diaper rash while suffering through a $500 plate of cold string beans, soggy au gratin potatoes, and “rubber chicken.”

But then it occurred to me that she is only slightly less experienced than her mother’s former boss, Barack Obama, and he’s sitting in the Oval Office making big decisions on my behalf.  So if people would be dumb enough to vote for her mother or for Barack Obama as president of the United States, and if there are those who would actually pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear one of the elder Clintons speak, well, who knows…?

Chelsea Clinton was born on February 27, 1980, early in her father’s first term as governor of Arkansas and almost five years after her mother was fired from the staff of the House committee that impeached Richard Nixon.  She was fired when the chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee described her as “an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” who “conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”

During her undergraduate years at Wellesley College, near Boston, Hillary became an admirer and a protégé of the evil mastermind of the Democratic Party playbook, Saul Alinsky.  In fact, Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, was not only the subject matter of Hillary’s senior thesis at Wellesley, it has been the “bible” that has informed Barack Obama’s ideological evolution since his college years at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard, and perhaps before.  To understand Alinsky’s utter disdain for American culture and the U.S. Constitution we need look no further than his ideological offspring, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom view the  U.S. Constitution as a document that means whatever they would like it to mean on any given day.

Chelsea was born just two years before her mother turned a modest $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit in just one year… taking her trading advice from a lawyer for the largest corporation in Arkansas while her husband served as the state’s attorney general.  Then, in 1993, when Chelsea was twelve, her parents uprooted their criminal franchise in Arkansas and moved it from the governor’s mansion in Little Rock to the White House in Washington.

In November 1998, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) announced that he would not seek reelection to his senate seat in 2000.  It was Hillary’s signal that, after six years as first lady of the United States, and after washing her husband’s “dirty laundry” for nearly twenty-five years, it might be fun to represent the State of New York in the U.S. Senate.  However, as a lifelong resident of Chicago, Little Rock, and Washington, DC, her New York credentials were slightly “underwhelming.”  To solve that problem the Clintons purchased a 5,200 sq. ft. colonial mansion in Chappaqua, New York, for $1.33 million and Hillary embarked on an extensive “listening tour” to learn what was on the minds of people in upstate New York.

After winning the Democratic nomination, Hillary knew that white liberals and blacks would be with her, but she was less than popular in the Jewish community and totally unknown in New York’s large Puerto Rican community, so she concentrated on solidifying her support within those constituencies.

In the years between 1975 and 1985, a Puerto Rican terror group, the FALN, exploded some 120 bombs in public places, mostly in New York and Chicago.  In those bombings, six people were killed and dozens more, including police officers, were permanently maimed.  Sixteen FALN members were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 35 to 105 years.

But with Hillary combating charges of being one of the most shameless carpetbaggers of all time, the Clintons knew they’d have to “pull out all the stops” to win the New York senate seat.  Accordingly, on August 11, 1999, Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of all sixteen members of the FALN.  However, the commutations were not universally popular.  They were strongly opposed by the U.S. Attorney, the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, the families of FALN victims, and members of Congress (a resolution opposing the commutations passed the Senate by a vote of 95-2 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 311-41).  Nevertheless, Clinton proceeded with the commutations and the Puerto Rican community fell in line behind Hillary.

With the Puerto Rican vote in the bag, there was still work to be done in the New York Jewish community.  Late in her campaign, on August 8, 2000, Hillary visited the small Rockland County village of New Square, New York, a community of orthodox Hasidic Jews, where members of the local community had their tzitzits in a knot over the 1999 conviction of four Hasidic men charged with swindling the federal government out of some $40 million in education grants, small-business loans, and housing subsidies.

Although Hillary is said to have been warmly received by local residents, it is not known what was discussed during her stopover.  However, what is known is that on Election Day, November 7, Hillary won New Square by a vote of 1,359 to10, and that, six weeks later, on December 22, 2000, Grand Rabbi David Twersky of the New Square congregation, participated in a closed door meeting with Bill Clinton in the White House Map Room.  And although it is quite possible that the two men discussed nothing more than Clinton’s preference in cigars, the meeting had a positive outcome for the Jews of New Square.  On his last day in office, Bill Clinton reduced the

prison sentences of the New Square Four from as much as 6½ years to no more than 2½ years.

From the outset, not everyone in the Rockland County Jewish community was optimistic that a pardon for the New Square Four could be arranged.  What they failed to understand is that, when Bill and Hillary Clinton “pull out all the stops” to win an election, they don’t worry much about legal or political repercussions.

And now comes 34-year-old Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky (Mrs. Marc Mezvinsky), the daughter of former president Bill Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the daughter-in-law of former congressman Ed Mezvinsky (D-IA) who pled guilty in 2001 to thirty-one counts of obtaining nearly $10 million through bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.

When most of us sit down to dinner with our extended families we might be able to discuss the few traffic tickets we’ve received over the years.  But when Chelsea and her husband sit down to dinner with their parents they are sitting down with people who have first-hand experience with bank fraud, bribery, concealing evidence, conspiracy, contempt of court, evidence tampering, extortion, influence peddling, lying to federal investigators, mail fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, official secrets act violations, Pendleton Act violations, perjury, rape, sexual assault, subornation of perjury, theft of government property, vote fraud, wire fraud, witness tampering… and more.

After leaving her $600,000 per year job as a special correspondent for NBC News in August 2014, Chelsea was taken into the family business as vice-chairman of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.  However, according to a July 10, 2014 Associated Press story by Ken Thomas, she is represented, along with her father and mother, by the Harry Walker Agency, in New York, which arranges speaking engagements for notable such as former vice president Dick Cheney, former senator Rick Santorum, and former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  And while the Washington Speakers Bureau reports that speakers such as former senators Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), earn $25,000 to $40,000 per speech, the AP reports that Chelsea Clinton commands speaking fees as high as $75,000.

But it appears that all is not roses at the Clinton Foundation.  It is reported that Foundation staff find Chelsea as difficult and unpleasant to work with as Arkansas State Patrolmen, the Secret Service, and White House staff did with her mother… resulting in an unusually high turnover of Foundation staff.

According to a May 19 report by James Dunn, of Mailonline, “A lot of people left because she was there.  A lot of people left because she didn’t want them there.”  Dunn reports that among those “displaced” since she arrived are former CEO Bruce Lindsey (former White House chief of staff who lied so frequently and so convincingly that he was able to keep Bill Clinton out of jail); Chelsea’s former spokesman, Matt McKenna; and Ginny Ehrlich, the founding CEO of the Clinton Health Matters Initiative.

First indications are that the apple does not fall far from the tree.  But with a charming, affable philanderer for a father and a cold, calculating shrew for a mother, what are we to expect?  If there is such a thing as “genetic disposition,” the long term prospects for Chelsea Clinton are not good.  Let’s hope that is not the case and that, for Marc Mezvinsky’s sake, the Clinton women turn out to be polar opposites.

New Concerned American Voters Super PAC Launched to Support Rand Paul for President

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire/ — Concerned American Voters, a political action committee supporting Sen. Rand Paul’s campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, launched today with millions of dollars committed and 40 full-time field staff in the key primary state of Iowa, President Jeff Frazeeand Senior Advisor Matt Kibbe announced.

“Once in a while, you discover a presidential candidate who has the potential to change the political conversation, to elevate key issues in voters’ minds, and disrupt and transform a tired Republican brand,” said Kibbe. “Once in a lifetime, maybe, you will have an opportunity to support a transformative candidate who can do all of these things, and win. Rand Paul is that candidate.”

Kibbe is the former president and founder of FreedomWorks, a national community-building and grassroots advocacy organization of more than 6 million Americans who are passionate about promoting free markets and individual liberty. Frazee is executive director of Young Americans for Liberty and previously served as the national youth coordinator for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign committee.

Concerned American Voters launches with millions of dollars in funding pledged so far.

Concerned American Voters is building campaign infrastructure by organizing Rand Paul supporters nationwide and in key primary states, including Iowa, where it has 40 full-time field staffers and has already knocked on the doors of more than 60,000 voters. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Rand Paul tied for the lead among Republican voters nationwide. Polls consistently show he is the Republican most competitive against Hillary Clinton, with independents breaking 45 percent to 37 percent for Rand in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

“Our strategy to elect Rand Paul will maximize the potential of the new rules of politics, which are shifting power away from political insiders and establishment favorites, towards more authentic candidates willing to reach directly to voters,” said Frazee, Concerned American Voters campaign director. “By focusing on grassroots organization, e-marketing and proven Get Out The Vote tactics, Concerned American Voters will give Rand the edge he needs to win the Republican nomination and the general election.”

Frazee added, “The Internet cuts out middlemen, party bosses, lobbyists and bundlers looking for a quid pro quo. This is the dynamic that allowed then-Senate candidate Rand Paul to beat Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked successor in Kentucky in 2010. It’s why Senator Mike Lee was able to defeat 18-year incumbent Republican Senator Robert Bennett in Utah that same year. And it’s how Rand Paul will win the White House in 2016.”

Concerned American Voters has recruited a proven team of professionals who have successfully organized grassroots activists for both the ideas of, and the candidates for, liberty – on the ground and through sophisticated social media targeting online – for years. In addition to Frazee and Kibbe, Concerned American Voters’ leadership group includes Senior Development Advisor Terry Kibbe, who brings 18 years of experiences as a fundraiser for various nonprofit and political causes; Chief Operating Officer Edward King, the former national youth director for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign; Senior Tech Advisor Steve Oskoui, the founder of Austin-based Internet advertising network Smiley Media; Senior Data Architect Mike Topalovich, the founder of cloud-focused technical and business process expert collective Delivered Innovation; and Senior Tech Strategist Martin Avila, the co-founder of political technology firm Terra Eclipse.

For more information on Concerned American Voters, visit ConcernedAmericanVoters.com.

Hillary to Stand Trial!

Hillary Clinton has been ordered to stand trial for racketeering. A great day for America.

New Poll of Registered Voters Age 65+ Reveals Surprising Views

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A Bring The Vote Home survey of nearly 4,000 registered voters age 65 and older found that senior citizens are a politically aware group with strong feelings on a variety of policy and political issues.  The Bring The Vote Home survey is noteworthy in that it specifically seeks to determine the political viewpoints and concerns of American seniors who are registered voters.

The results revealed that senior voters lean towards the GOP especially when Hillary Clinton is the nominee. When asked about potential Presidential candidates, respondents favored Scott Walker (45%) over Hillary Clinton (36%), and Jeb Bush (44%) over Hillary Clinton (41%).  In addition, the survey found that 44 percent of senior voters would support a Republican candidate if the 2016 Congressional elections were held today, while only 35 percent of seniors would vote for a Democratic candidate.

The survey also asked seniors about a variety of policy areas and found that foreign affairs is a topline issue for senior voters.  When asked about the Islamic state known as ISIS, immigration reform, health care, federal deficit, jobs and unemployment, and climate change, thirty-one percent of senior voters chose ISIS as the most important issue facing the country right now, followed by jobs and unemployment (18%). Senior voters were least concerned with climate change, with only five percent of voters citing this as the most pressing issue in America.

Other key findings from the survey include:

  • A majority of seniors on both sides of the aisle (53% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and 71% of Republicans) are in favor of Congress voting on any agreement that President Obama makes with Iranconcerning its nuclear program.
  • Thirty-six percent of women and one-in-four men chose ISIS as the most important issue facing the country.
  • Urban seniors are more likely to vote for a Democratic Congressional candidate (DEM: 50%, GOP: 46%), while suburban (DEM: 31%, GOP: 46%) and rural seniors (DEM: 28%, GOP: 52%) are more likely to vote Republican.

“This Bring The Vote Home survey provides an important measure of senior Americans’ views as we approach the upcoming election,” stated Eric Berger, CEO of the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare. “Bring the Vote Home is also making important strides in empowering seniors across the country to register and, if needed, obtain absentee ballots so that their voices will be heard on Election Day.”

The survey questions were conducted as part of a Morning Consult Poll from April 27 to May 5 and June 5 to June 8, 2015. The poll surveyed 3,904 registered voters, age 65 and older, and has a margin error of two percentage points.

To view the National Seniors Poll Charts, click here.

To read the National Seniors Poll Results Memo, click here.

ABOUT BRING THE VOTE HOME

Bring The Vote Home was launched to help senior citizens, disabled Americans, their family members, and their home healthcare clinicians participate in the electoral process. Home healthcare beneficiaries make up a rapidly growing portion of the population, but the homebound status of many of them makes it difficult for them to travel to polling places. Through its voter and absentee ballot registration process, Bring The Vote Home is dedicated to helping all members of the home healthcare community participate fully in our nation’s democratic process. To learn more, visit http://bringthevotehome.org.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Bloomberg Business photograph by Ralf-Finn Hestoft/Corbis.