Bernie Sanders has tapped into a potent mix of skepticism and hopefulness, especially among young voters, in his run for the White House. Credit PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN MINCHILLO / AP
By John Cassidy February 3, 2016
From up close, election campaigns appear to be messy and contingent affairs that pivot around individual characters and tactics. Did Donald Trump make an error, after all, in skipping last week’s Fox News debate? Can Marco Rubio handle the spotlight? Will Hillary Clinton shift further left to counter Bernie Sanders?
If you step back a bit, though, all of the players look more like pieces in a board game, whose rules and layout are predetermined. As Karl Marx famously remarked, in “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon,” “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”
Going into the 2016 Presidential election, our economic inheritance is forty years of income stagnation and rising inequality, which culminated, in 2007 and 2008, in a global financial crisis and a government rescue of bankers and other financial interests. Yes, this bailout has been followed by half a decade of modest G.D.P. growth and strong job growth, but the narrative of inequity, unfairness, and frustrated expectations remains fixed in the public consciousness.
As the Financial Times commentator Martin Wolf pointed out on Wednesday [ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/94176826-c8fc-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html ], Latin American-style income distribution leads to Latin American-style politics—populism of the left and the right. Over the past few years, in Europe, we have seen new anti-establishment parties on the left, such as Syriza, in Greece, and Podemos, in Spain, enjoy great success, particularly among young voters. Older leftist groups, such as the Left Bloc, in Portugal, and the Bennite wing of the British Labour Party, have also made big gains. On the right, traditional conservative politicians have been outflanked by more extreme voices, such as Austria’s Freedom Party, Greece’s Golden Dawn, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and France’s National Front.
On this side of the Atlantic, in the years immediately following the crash and the bailout, Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party emerged. Both movements reflected a growing alienation from regular politicians, who were widely seen as too tight with corporate interests. Neither group was powerful enough to create a new political party or to seize full control of an old one, but they both left their mark. Now we have Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who are tapping into many of the same popular sentiments.
This new populism, as it might be termed, connotes a deep suspicion of political, corporate, and media élites; an eagerness to mobilize people who are new to politics; and a willingness to embrace policies that have long seemed verboten. On the right, this has meant proposals to crack down on immigrants, Muslims, and outsiders of all kinds. On the left, it has meant demands to downsize big banks, crack down on tax-dodging multinationals, shift to a much more progressive tax system, and get serious about curbing carbon emissions.
Sanders says that he would take all of the latter steps. But what really sets him apart isn’t his policy platform, which can be fairly described as shifting the United States toward the Scandinavian model of social democracy more rapidly than Clinton and other Democrats would; it’s his fiery rhetoric. In calling for a “political revolution,” attacking the “billionaire class,” and embracing the label “democratic socialist,” Sanders is using language that has never been heard before in a Democratic Presidential primary. (Socialists such as Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas have run for President in the past, but on the ticket of the Socialist Party.)
Some political analysts seem taken aback that Sanders’s leftist language is resonating broadly among Democrats, particularly young ones, but they shouldn’t be surprised. A recent O.E.C.D. study showed that, between 1975 and 2012, nearly half of all the pre-tax income growth in the United States went to the richest one per cent of households. Another study [ http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/income-inequality_9789264246010-en;jsessionid=9rh791jfptfg2.x-oecd-live-02 ], by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, showed that the richest 0.1 per cent of households own almost a quarter of the country’s wealth, which is more than the bottom ninety per cent of households.
Thanks to the efforts of Sanders and others, such as the French economist Thomas Piketty [ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/31/forces-of-divergence ], disturbing facts like these form part of the mental picture that voters, and particularly young voters, now have of the world. Partly for this reason, some old political labels are being reassessed. In a January poll [ http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rgsikEKtNf30 ] of likely voters in the Iowa Democratic primary, forty-three per cent of respondents described themselves as “socialist.” And it isn’t just Iowa. A 2011 study [ http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/ ] by the Pew Research Center found that forty-nine per cent of millennials—defined as Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine—view socialism favorably, compared to forty-three per cent who view it unfavorably. Asked about capitalism, forty-six per cent of the respondents said that they viewed it favorably, and forty-seven per cent said that they viewed it unfavorably.
This changing ideological environment is another of the “circumstances” shaping the Democratic contest. It reflects not merely the problems that global capitalism has encountered over the past few decades but the passage of time. The stigmatization of left-wing politicians and left-wing ideas dates back to the Cold War, which ended twenty-five years ago. That was before many Sanders supporters were born. In the absence of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, the world “socialist” doesn’t have the same connotations that it once did.
So what does it mean, these days, to say that you view socialism positively? In voting for Syriza and Podemos, the Greeks and Spanish weren’t indicating that they wanted to nationalize the means of production or bring back the Comintern. They were rejecting austerity policies [ http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-austerity-looks-like-inside-greece ] imposed by a political system that seemed beholden to bureaucrats in Brussels and bankers in Frankfurt, and they were calling for a return to the Enlightenment ideals of popular sovereignty and popular participation. Something similar is true of Sanders’s supporters. When they attend his rallies and cheer his exhortations to “take back our government from a handful of billionaires,” they aren’t merely endorsing his class-based analysis: they are expressing hope—hope that, even now, at this late stage in the ossification of the American system, political mobilization can change things for the good.
To my mind, the most striking thing about the Iowa poll wasn’t that virtually half of likely Democratic voters embraced the designation “socialist.” It was that eighty-eight per cent agreed that the word “optimist” described them. Among younger Democratic voters, I would guess that the percentage of optimists is even higher. A 2014 Pew Research study [ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2014/03/2014-03-07_generations-report-version-for-web.pdf ] of millennials found them “burdened by debt, distrustful of people,” and “in no rush to marry.” But, despite all that, they were “optimistic about the future.”
For all his crankiness, Sanders is tapping into this optimism and providing an outlet for it. Other populist movements do the same thing. The English translation of the word “podemos” is “We can.” Clinton, although she retains a great deal of support in the Democratic Party, has so far failed to inspire the young. As I noted following the Iowa caucus, her response to the Sanders phenomenon [ http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/bernie-sanders-just-changed-the-democratic-party ] sometimes seems to be “No, we can’t.”
Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Tuesday night, the former Secretary of State briefly tried to strike a more upbeat note. She said that it was a positive development that so many young people are getting involved in the political process. But then she altered course, warning about the danger of allowing the Republicans to regain the White House. Meanwhile, the host, Chris Matthews, bemoaned the failure of the “kids” to understand the realities of American politics.
If you look at the rise of populism in other countries, you will find that urging people to be realistic is a common reaction from establishment politicians and their supporters. It is a risky response, though. Trotted out too often, or too vehemently, it can make those who rely on it sound suspiciously like one of the “mothers and fathers” that Bob Dylan addressed back in 1964—those people whose “order is rapidly fadin’,” whose “old road is rapidly agin’,” and who, finally, are bid, “Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand.” That, of course, is something no politician wants to hear, especially one who came of age in the sixties.
Revolutions cost more than money. Photographer: Justin Sullivan/Gettiy Images
By Francis Wilkinson time iconFeb 5, 2016 12:53 PM EST
Senator Bernie Sanders is a decent human being and a passionate politician. He is also a grave threat to the Democratic Party. Because the Democratic Party is currently the only major U.S. party devoted to moderation and rational empiricism, Sanders's robust campaign for president is consequently a threat [ http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-19/republican-operatives-are-trying-to-help-bernie-sanders (second item below)] to the U.S. as well.
The Republican Party has been debilitated, as a source of policies and as a governing party, by the ever more stringent ideological demands that the party's powerful and adamant fringe imposes on its diminished and enfeebled center. It has succumbed so thoroughly to the paranoid style of politics that the leading Republican presidential candidate from the so-called establishment wing routinely suggests [ http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264627-rubio-obama-has-deliberately-weakened-america ] that President Barack Obama is a nefarious agent of the nation's doom. Delusional, rancid talk has become so commonplace on the right that it rarely merits notice anymore.
Sanders lacks the talent for sneering contempt that animates the candidacies of Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Donald Trump and, often enough, Marco Rubio. But he shares other unwelcome attributes.
The American economy, a sprawling, $18 trillion behemoth stretching and contracting in more directions at once than anyone can possibly comprehend, much less control, is "rigged," Sanders says. This claim, too, owes much to a paranoid style. Who has rigged this giganotosaurus of disparate goods and endlessly varied services? Perhaps "Wall Street." Or maybe "corporations."
In politics, any force too spectral to wear a proper name is too elusive to be contained by government or law. Sanders all but admits as much. He posits that his election to the White House, where he would command the vast levers of the executive branch, would be insufficient to unrig things. A majority of electoral votes might suffice for a "moderate" like Hillary Clinton; Sanders, however, requires a "revolution [ http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/watch/sanders-we-need-a-political-revolution-616588867705 ]."
More surprising, Sanders exhibited a lazy contempt for the rigors of the job he seeks. Confronted with actual policy questions, Ben Carson and Donald Trump stumble in the darkness, knocking over lamps and bumping into unfamiliar furniture. They want to be president but can't be bothered to learn information essential to the job.
A president is the nation's commander in chief and lead diplomat. Sanders's failure to wrap his head around those responsibilities, nine months after he announced his bid for president, is inexcusable. "ISIS" is not the answer to every question about the Middle East. And there is more to foreign policy acumen than a vote against the Iraq War 14 years ago.
None of these problems is a hindrance to Sanders in the Senate, where he is one of 100. But Sanders is no longer content there. He is trying to build a movement to dominate the Democratic Party and go on to win the White House. Democrats can ill afford either outcome.
Sanders threatens that. Should he wrench a sizable part of the party in his direction, and keep it, Democrats risk resembling Republicans in all their sorry ideological fixations, infighting and incompetence. If a large, radicalized faction emerges on the Democratic side, as it has within the GOP, the nation could truly become ungovernable, paralyzed by two fractured parties equally incapable of reconciling themselves to complex realities.
This is not the promise of Sanders's vision. But it is a potential consequence of it. Like others, Democrats have a lot of pent-up frustration. Many, no doubt, are eager to stick it to the man. But the man, and even the stick, are metaphors, and pretty shallow ones at that. The Democratic Party's hard-won successes -- on health care, climate, financial regulation and more -- are, by contrast, both real and profound. Which is the sturdier political foundation for a just future?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders participates in a debate on Jan. 17, 2016, in Charleston, South Carolina. Photographer: Andrew Burton/Getty Images
“Picking your opponent” is an age-old political manipulation tactic.
By Sahil Kapur January 18, 2016 — 6:03 PM CST Updated on January 18, 2016 — 10:38 PM CST
Republican operatives are having a [not at all] strange crush on Bernie Sanders.
During Sunday night’s Democratic debate, the Republican National Committee made the unusual move of sending no fewer than four real-time e-mails to reporters defending the self-described democratic socialist from attacks by Hillary Clinton or echoing his message against her. Based on their content, one could be forgiven for thinking the RNC communiques came from the Sanders campaign.
One RNC e-mail, which was titled “Clinton’s Misleading Health Care Attack,” defended the Vermont senator from what it described as “the Clinton campaign’s inaccurate remarks on Sanders’ single-payer plan,” and quoted news articles that featured rebuttals of her arguments. A second message countered Clinton’s attacks on Sanders over gun control by pointing out her gun-friendly statements in the past. Two other e-mails sought to bolster Sanders’ case that Clinton is too close to Wall Street and the drug industry.
Sean Spicer, the chief strategist and spokesman for the RNC, spent much of the evening tweeting Sanders-friendly commentary on the debate, often with the pro-Sanders hashtag #FeelTheBern. At one point, Spicer gently chided Sanders for what he deemed a poor response to a question and added [ https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/688923373464895488 ], “come on we are trying to help u.”
After the debate, the Republican political action committee America Rising promoted the narrative that Sanders won the debate. “Clinton needed a win last night. Instead, everyone is talking about how well Bernie Sanders, her chief rival, did,” spokesman Jeff Bechdel wrote to reporters.
Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanders’s case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore can't be trusted to crack down on big banks. “Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire,” a narrator in the ad [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5j6EQ1DJcg (below, as embedded; with comments)] says. “Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”
These Republican operatives are attempting to pick their Democratic opponent in the general election, and they’re making clear they’d rather face Sanders than Clinton. It is age-old political manipulation tactic, typically used with some subtlety. It comes as recent polls show Sanders as competitive in Iowa and leading in New Hampshire, where back-to-back Sanders victories could endanger Clinton's national lead.
“My guess is that Republican operatives know that Clinton is likely to win the nomination even if Sanders upsets her in Iowa and New Hampshire. But an extended challenge will force her to use up money too early, and nudge her farther to the left,” Pitney said in an e-mail. Whether it will work remains to be seen, he said. “But at this stage, campaigns will grab for every advantage they can get.”
Priorities USA, a group backing Clinton, said the ad was designed by Republicans to “interfere with our primary process” in an “attempt to clear their path to the White House.”
At Sunday night's debate, Clinton made a note of the ad, too. “I’m the one they don’t want to be up against,” she said, referring to the financial sector.
The efforts indicate that Republicans aren't buying recent polls that show Sanders out-performing Clinton in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups against GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump. One reason may be that, unlike Sanders, Clinton has been through the wringer of Republican attacks. While a spokesman for Sanders didn't immediately return a request for comment on the Republican attempts to boost him, the senator went out of his way in Sunday's debate to invoke recent surveys to make the case that he's electable.
“In terms of polling, guess what? We are running ahead of Secretary Clinton in terms of taking on my taking on my good friend, Donald Trump,” Sanders said. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds him leading Trump nationally by 15 points, while Clinton leads Trump by 10 points.
Republican candidate John Kasich indicated in a debate last week that he'd love to face Sanders. “We're going to win every state,” he said, “if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.”
Bernie Sanders Fires Back at Bill Clinton After Tea Party Comparison
Video [embedded]: Sanders: I Am Telling People What They Want to Hear
The Vermont senator said the former president should not be "making silly remarks" to try and help his wife win the Democratic nomination.
By Ben Brody February 16, 2016 — 1:48 PM CST
Bill Clinton's latest comments [e.g. "Bill Clinton Says Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Like The Left-Wing Tea Party, Warns Not To "Reward" Them", http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/bill_clinton_says_bernie_sanders_supporters_are_the_left-wing_tea_party_warns_not_to_reward_them.html (with embedded video, and comments): "BILL CLINTON: It's not altogether mysterious that there are a lot of people that say, well, the Republican party rewarded the Tea Party. Just tell people what they want to hear, move them to the right, and we'll be rewarded, except they didn't get anything done. Then that's going on now in our party. If you don't deal with the fact that we are too politically polarized and we keep rewarding people who tell us things we know they can't do because it pushes our hot button, we can't go forward together."] on the race for the Democratic nomination were widely interpreted as a criticism directly aimed at Bernie Sanders, who minced few words when given a chance to respond.
"I do understand—obviously—he’s trying to do his best to get his wife to win the nomination," Sanders told Bloomberg's With All Due Respect. "But we should not be making silly remarks."
At a rally for Hillary Clinton in Palm Beach on Monday, Bill Clinton never mentioned the Vermont senator by name. But he said the Tea Party succeeded at the ballot box by deciding to "just tell people what they want to hear," before quickly adding that Democrats have also began "rewarding people who tell us things we know they can't do because it pushes our hot button."
Sanders, who won the New Hampshire primary by a large margin and is gaining on Hillary Clinton in early polling of the next contest in Nevada, rejected the comparison between the Tea Party and the rise of his candidacy during an exchange with Mark Halperin, the co-managing editor of Bloomberg Politics.
"Is there a comparison?" Halperin asked.
"No," Sanders shot back. "There’s no comparison."
Halperin followed up: "Just on the question, and we've discussed this with you before this, on the skepticism that you are telling people things that they want to hear."
Sanders' voice intensified. "Yeah, I am telling people what they want to hear! People want jobs. They want health care. They want educational opportunities for their kids. They want to deal with climate change. They want the wealthiest people to pay their fair share of taxes. Yeah, that’s what I’m telling people. And on every one of those issues, that is exactly what the American people want."
To watch the full interview, watch With All Due Respect at 5 p.m. Eastern time on Bloomberg Television and 6 p.m. on MSNBC.
On this Sunday, February 14, 2016 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we examine the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the decision by his family and a Texas judge to decline an autopsy and his possible replacement by drone killing architect David Barron. We'll discuss several reports regarding both the pope's hypocrisy as well as humanity's quickening descent toward global ruin. The rise of Donald Trump and this weekend's GOP debate will also be analyzed.
Full Show - Special Report: Was Scalia Murdered - 02/15/2016
Published on Feb 15, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Monday, February 15 edition of the Alex Jones show we cover the apparent assassination of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia over the weekend. Scalia was found dead at a remote ranch in Texas with a pillow over his head. We look into the highly irregular and premature conclusion that Scalia died of “natural causes” that have prompted calls for an autopsy and toxicological reports and a report that Obama learned about the death hours before it was publicly announced. We also revisit a decades old revelation presented by Senators Frank Church and John Tower that the CIA had developed a poison dart gun that causes cancer and heart attacks. We also cover the push for war in Syria and the wider Middle East as Saudi Arabia amasses 350,000 soldiers for a planned invasion.
Full Show - Conspiracy Theories Swirl Around the Death of Scalia - 02/16/2016
Published on Feb 16, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On the Tuesday, February 16 broadcast of the Alex Jones Show, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Obama are floated as possible replacements for Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, as we continue delving into the mysterious circumstances behind his death. And Britain First activists are threatened with a police raid and arrested after publishing a viral video showing members confronted by Muslims. On today's show, Clinton insider Larry Nichols gives his take on why there was no autopsy performed on Scalia, despite evidence of foul play. Reporter Richard Reeves also checks in from the campaign trail in South Carolina for an election update.
Published on Feb 18, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Wednesday, February 17 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we continue our investigation into the murder of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as the Infowars team covers the circumstances surrounding the suspicious death from Marfa, Texas, the Presidio County courthouse and the Cibolo Creek ranch where Scalia died. We also look into the health of Hillary Clinton and her eligibility to run for president as she experiences another coughing fit in Harlem. Other stories include the slow motion implosion of the world economy and the war on cash. On today’s broadcast we talk with former United States Department of State official, author, and publisher Steve Pieczenik and broadcaster and film maker Max Keiser.
Full Show - Why Donald Trump Is An American Hero - 02/18/2016
Published on Feb 18, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Thursday, February 18 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we continue looking into the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia with the Infowars team and investigative journalist Wayne Madsen on the ground in Marfa, Texas. And, presidential candidate Donald Trump vows, "elect me and you'll find out who really knocked down the twin towers." On today's jam-packed broadcast, we welcome back to the show William Gheen, the leader of Americans for Legal Immigration, ALIPAC. Also, international law professor Francis A. Boyle goes in depth on the government's biowarfare and terrorism programs. And Richard Reeves gives election updates from the campaign trail in Charleston, South Carolina.
The Infowars Nightly News - The Pope Just Wants To Keep His Walls - 02/18/2016
Published on Feb 18, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
Pope Francis vs Donald Trump
The Pope says Trump is not a Christian because he calls for building a wall, meanwhile lives behind a massive wall that surrounds the entire Vatican City. It's not just Trump who's sick of the hypocrisy
Police Capt's Brutal Message to Gang Members Goes Viral
Capt. Clay Higgins directed his warning at the Gremlins gang, explaining that ten suspected members have been arrested, but seven remain at-large.
"If you raise your weapon to a man like me, we'll return fire with superior fire. ... I'll meet you on solid ground anytime, anywhere, light or heavy, makes no difference to me. You won't walk away," he said.
And he urged the community and Patriots "from sea to shining sea" not to live in fear of the gang and to come together to take back the streets.
TRUMP VS. THE POPE
The time is now. The Age of the Patriot is rising. America wouldn’t even exist if not for the sacrifice of millions of unknown soldiers. George Washington, battling severe dysentery crawled on his hands and knees in the dark to defend this great experiment known as the United States of America. Now there is an open battle waging between the New World Order’s Pope Francis and the awakening realization of complete tyranny with a bullseye sighted on millions of Americans. Caught in the cross hairs, Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. And Trump isn’t backing down.
Fresh on the heels of legitimizing contraception as a lesser evil in the face of the World Health Organization’s nefarious Zika Virus roll out. Pope Francis is weighing into the US Presidential Election saying Donald Trump is not Christian. ABC News reports :"When asked by a reporter, Pope Francis said “Can a good Catholic vote for this man?” Francis responded by saying, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.
The Pope is the spokesman for the decimation of the world’s cultures by what in Europe is clearly either a horrendous mistake or a deliberate action. Pope Francis broke new ground when he unleashed his temper on adoring Catholics after stumbling from giving a hug to a disabled person in a wheelchair. The Pope is losing his temper on his followers for a reason. Because the New World Order is right around the corner and Pope Francis doesn’t need those followers anymore.
Full Show - Get Ready For The Real Rise of the Resistance - 02/19/2016
Published on Feb 19, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Friday, February 19 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we look into the record voter turnout in S.C. as absentee ballots hit an all-time high. Trump insider Roger Stone also pointed out that Trump doesn't button his suit jacket because he's wearing a bullet proof vest. Richard Reeves and Roger Stone reveal the latest news on the election. Also, financial expert Peter Schiff break down recent economic news and Dr. Edward Group talks about the latest developments in health news you and your family will want to hear. We also talk to the Infowars investigative journalists who were out at the Cibolo Creek Ranch where Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead.
Published on Feb 19, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
Donald Trump joins the fight to release the secret 28 Pages of the 9/11 Report. Meanwhile Jeb Bush continues to dodge questions about the 28 Pages. Plus what really happened to Justice Scalia? Veteran homicide detectives all across the country want answers.
Published on Feb 20, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
In this special message to Donald Trump from Alex Jones, Alex breaks down the facts surrounding the Apple security controversy. Alex disagrees with Trump's call to boycott Apple products until Apple complies with the FBI's request and he explains why.
This GOP-Backed Voter ID Law Could Be A Big Problem For South Carolina A poster distributed to South Carolina polling places [falsely more than] implies that photo ID is necessary to vote. South Carolina State Election Commission "They feel like it's a conspiracy to get people not to go to the polls." 02/19/2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/south-carolina-voter-id-law_us_56c7669fe4b041136f16d9d8 [with comments]
*
Supreme Court Won’t Intervene in North Carolina Election Fight FEB. 19, 2016 RALEIGH, N.C. — The United States Supreme Court declined late Friday to stay a lower court ruling that has forced North Carolina’s Republican-dominated legislature to redraw its congressional electoral maps on the grounds that the original maps amounted to racial gerrymandering. As a result, the state must now follow a contingency plan, also devised by Republican lawmakers, that tries to comply with the lower court’s ruling by making significant changes to the boundaries of the some of the state’s 13 congressional districts. The changes take effect less than one month before the originally scheduled March 15 primary, which has forced the legislature to set up a second election dedicated exclusively to the congressional primaries, which will now take place June 7. The contingency plan was approved by the state legislature on Friday, hours before the Supreme Court announced that it had rejected North Carolina Republicans’ application for a stay. But the approval of the contingency plan came over the strenuous objection of Democrats, who claimed that the new congressional maps were hyperpartisan — giving Republicans 10 safe districts to the Democrats’ three — and still failed to protect black voters’ interests. Such resistance was to be expected in this deeply divided swing state, where other battles over election laws can potentially affect presidential elections. Since Republicans took control of the legislature five years ago, Democrats and their allies have complained that Republicans have been illegally changing the rules of the voting game and effectively suppressing minority voting power. They have mounted numerous legal challenges, which Republicans have largely dismissed as desperate attempts by Democrats to regain their faltering political strength. [...] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/us/north-carolina-fights-over-its-election-rules.html
Republicans See How Long They Can Hold Their Breath
By Gail Collins FEB. 18, 2016
Maybe we’d better refrain from having any new opinions until after the election.
Follow the leader. Mitch McConnell says the Senate shouldn’t do anything about the Supreme Court’s vacancy as long as Barack Obama is president. Not even go through the motions of pretending to think about it. We’ve hit a whole new level in the politics of obstruction.
Why stop there? For the next 11 months it’s probably better if we let everything go except for the purchase of food staples.
Don’t even bother to fake it. Virtually every Republican with a job more elevated than zoning commissioner thinks the best thing to do with any Supreme Court nomination is to act as if it isn’t there, like a wad of gum on the sidewalk.
“Delay, delay, delay!” cried Donald Trump at the last debate. Some listeners might have presumed he was calling for the return of the former House majority leader who resigned during a campaign finance scandal and later rehabilitated himself by doing the cha-cha on “Dancing With the Stars.” Exactly the kind of guy Donald Trump would like. But in this case he was talking about stonewalling any Supreme Court nomination.
“If I were president … I guess I’d put in a name,” Trump admitted in a phone call to Stephen Colbert. This is extremely mild language for the leading Republican presidential candidate. Normally you’d expect Trump to say something like: “If I were president I’d nominate somebody who would scare the hell out of them. Putin! I’d nominate Putin. And then they’d be so nervous that they’d let me have anybody I wanted, which of course would be Sarah Palin.”
People, do you remember what Mitch McConnell used to say when he was the powerless Senate minority leader? Of course you don’t. There’s just so much stuff that fits into a human brain and no reason whatsoever that McConnell should be taking up space.
He used to say that when Republicans got control, democracy and venerable tradition would rule. No more of those sneaky tricks that his predecessor Harry Reid used to keep the other side’s ideas from coming up for a vote: “The answer is to let folks debate, to let the Senate work its will.” He had a vision of a deliberative body that argued so long and hard that eventually all the Democrats would collapse from exhaustion and he, Majority Leader Mitch, would walk over their prostrate bodies to principled victory.
That was the good old days. We remember them with nostalgia, like the golden era when members of both parties drank in the same bars. Now apparently the Senate can’t even be trusted to hold a committee hearing.
“We’re not moving forward on it, period,” said Senator Marco Rubio. He used to be regarded as the most rational person in the Republican presidential field. That was just because we hadn’t had time to get acquainted yet.
If you want to understand why the Republicans are broadcasting their commitment to obstructionism, it’s useful to take a look at Rubio’s campaign. Given the tenor of our times, it’s natural that all the candidates would depict Barack Obama as the worst thing that’s happened to America since … oh, I don’t know. Pearl Harbor? The Panic of 1837? But Rubio also insists that the president has been ruining the country on purpose: “All this damage that he’s done to America is deliberate.”
This is a theory, much loved on talk radio, that involves an insidious presidential plot to make America just a run-of-the-mill country — smaller and weaker and burdened with universal health care. When things go wrong it isn’t because of ineptitude. It’s a careful Obama scenario aimed at bringing the country down. A man that sinister can’t be allowed to even put a nomination into play. God knows what would happen. Close your eyes and pretend he isn’t there.
Ben Carson made the same point in his traditional way — that is, in language that made no sense whatsoever: “It is imperative that the Senate not allow President Obama to diminish his legacy by trying to nominate an individual who would carry on his wishes to subvert the will of the people.”
Ted Cruz vowed to filibuster any attempt by the Senate to vote on a nominee. Because filibuster is, you know, what Ted Cruz does. Just put your hands over your ears and hum very loudly until you get your way.
And Jeb Bush … O.K., we don’t need to talk about Jeb Bush. This is the man who recently tweeted a picture of a handgun with his name engraved on it, over the title “America.” The only good thing you can say for his campaign is that he did not send out a video called “It’s Morning Again in America” that opens with footage of Vancouver. That was Marco Rubio.
Full Show - Populous [sic - Populist] Revolt In Iowa - 02/01/2016
Published on Feb 1, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Monday, February 1, 2016 edition of the Alex Jones Show we follow the caucus results in Iowa as the 2016 election process gets underway. News stories covered on today’s worldwide broadcast include: the laughable claim by candidate Hillary Clinton that she is “not in the pocket of anyone” after receiving millions of dollars from George Soros and bankers, Ron Paul’s prediction that the DNC may dump Clinton in favor of John Kerry or Joe Biden, Microsoft’s tinkering with poll results in Iowa, and the political tide turning in Germany as the people boo and jeer Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Full Show - The Secret Origins Of The Zika Virus Exposed - 02/03/2016
Published on Feb 3, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Wednesday, February 3 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we cover Rand Paul’s decision to drop out of the 2016 presidential race, why Hillary Clinton will never be held accountable for the scandal of her private email account, dirty tricks by the Cruz campaign against Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders’ plan to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his socialist programs. On today’s worldwide broadcast we talk with Austin Police chief Art Acevedo in-studio [from c. the 48:05 mark to c. the 1:39:15 mark] as well as Dr. Edward Group, who will cover the characteristics of the Zika virus and its recent arrival in the United States.
Full Show - Exclusive: Insider Politics on Election 2016 - 02/04/2016
Published on Feb 4, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Thursday, February 4 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we dissect the DoJ's move to clamp down on what it sees as the rise of domestic anti-government extremists. And the Zika virus continues its expansion into North America, with several prominent experts claiming the disease could be genetically modified. On today's show, GOP strategist Roger Stone stops by to give his take on the Iowa caucus and where he sees the election heading. Clinton insider Larry Nichols also breaks down Hillary's scandals, including her ongoing email debacle. Louisiana state Senator Elbert Guillory also discusses what urged him to switch parties from Democrat to Republican [from c. the 1:33:10 mark to c. the 2:33:35 mark].
Why have so many intelligent people believed in God?
Allow me to count the ways.
As someone who never believed in God, people who had to deconvert really impress me. You overcame so many odds. The deck has always been stacked against you, yet you prevailed. You were honest with yourself. Don't buy into the idea that figuring out God doesn't exist is no big deal. It is a big deal. You found your way out of an intricate maze that was brilliantly designed to contain you for a lifetime. There are geniuses who couldn't do what you did.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
