Help American Vets, VF/CFL Meeting.
RUSHBO – Cruz at the bridge.
THE DONALD: KRAUSHAAR – Estab. targets Ted; THIESSEN – Don’s first error; ERICKSON – Estab backs Don; KIMBALL – Media myths.
LEADS: ADAMS – Cruz best for Justice; WESTWOOD – FBI ready to indict; WSJ – Deficit soars.
PA: FIELD – House to impeach Kane.
END NOTES: Mark Levin (01/26/16); WEIMAR ?
Help for Veterans
Valley Forge Park has 5.4 empty miles and money to build huts for guys who suffered 200+ years ago. Room for vets??????
VALLEY FORGE PATRIOTS & CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY
REACHING OUT TO HELP HOMELESS VETERANS
In the winter of 1777-78, George Washington’s battered Revolutionary Army endured bitter cold and snow, sickness, exhaustion and hunger in their camp at Valley Forge, PA.
In Bucks County today, not far from Valley Forge, scores of desperate American veterans endure similar hardships. In small patches of woods, out of sight and out of mind of most county residents, homeless former soldiers have banded together to help one another in the daily struggle for food, water and shelter.
We at Valley Forge Patriots & Citizens for Liberty are trying to help. We are asking for donations of food, gently used warm clothing and blankets.
If you have anything you would like to donate and you are going to our Feb. 3 event at King Of Prussia Vol. Fire House , please bring it with you.
If unable to attend that event (but, you really, really should!), feel free to contact Janet Warnsdorfer at email@example.com or (610) 469-3268.
February 3rd, VFTP, CFL:WHEN: Wednesday, February 3, 2016, 7-9 PM. WHERE: King of Prussia Volunteer Fire Company, 170 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA, 19406. Mark your calendars and plan on joining us for this informative session on a very important and timely subject! SPREAD THE WORD – ALL ARE WELCOME – FREE! We will also have a free potluck dinner buffet (Feel free to bring something to share or just enjoy!)
CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY/VALLEY FORGE PATRIOTS IS PROUD TO PRESENT
David P. Ward is a Director with the National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, an organization of former Border Patrol Supervisors and Managers, which advocates secure borders and interior immigration enforcement. David has over 33 years field experience with the US Department of Homeland Security and US Border Patrol, as an agent and field manager of enforcement operations. His experience is unique in that it covers both Border Security issues and Interior Enforcement.
David is considered a Subject Matter Expert and has been featured on local and national media broadcasts, in addition to live audience conferences and seminars regarding Border Security and Immigration Enforcement.
Not Megyn Kelly
“Trump was asked this morning who on the Democrat side of the aisle he can work with to cut deals. Here are some pull quotes:
“I think I’m going to be able to get along with Pelosi. I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve never had a problem.
“I’ve always had a great relationship with Harry Reid.
“Frankly if I weren’t running for office I’d be able to deal with [Pelosi], I’d be able to deal with Reid, I’d be able to deal with anybody.
“Hey look, I think I’ll be able to get along with well with Chuck Schumer. I was always very good with Schumer. I was close to Schumer in many ways. http://therightscoop.com/trump-i-can-cut-deals-with-nancy-pelosi-and-chuck-schumer/#ixzz3ySpDYzTS
Rushbo . . . “Cruz: Only I Can Stop Trump in Iowa”
“CRUZ: If Donald wins Iowa… He right now has a substantial lead in New Hampshire. If he went on to win New Hampshire as well, there’s a very good chance he could be unstoppable and be our nominee. Even if you’re thinking about another candidate, the simple reality is there is only one campaign that can beat Trump in this state. And if conservatives simply stand up and unite, that’s everything.
“RUSH: Now, this is important because Cruz is right. Now, I know that there are many of you out there that are on the Trump bandwagon. I know a bunch of you aren’t. I know a lot of you are angry that people are on the Trump bandwagon, and you don’t understand it, and you’re ticked off about it. But if you are in Iowa and if you are one of those people, I don’t care what you think of Ted Cruz: He’s right about this. . .”
THE DONALD . . .
Josh Kraushaar, National Journal: “Playing with Fire, Republican Bigwigs Want to Take Out Cruz “
“Party officials and strategists believe that if Trump wins Iowa, Rubio’s path to the nomination is clearer.
“. . . The thinking goes as follows: If Cruz loses Iowa, he peters out in New Hampshire and doesn’t pose a risk of finishing in a respectable second place. That allows the establishment winner out of the Granite State to build momentum as the anti-Trump alternative. A decent number of Cruz’s supporters, when asked to choose a second candidate, gravitate to Rubio. Polls show many more of Trump supporters, by contrast, would support Cruz. And even with Trump’s improving favorability numbers within the GOP, there are more Republican voters who wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances than say the same about the senator from Texas.
“These strategists are looking at Trump’s increasingly bellicose attacks against Cruz with glee. In their view, only Trump can successfully put a dent in Cruz’s sky-high favorability among Republicans, which is a precondition to blocking him from the nomination. . .”
Mark Thiessen, WaPo: “Skipping Fox debate is Trump’s first major misstep”
“First, skipping the debate makes Trump look weak. Trump’s campaign is centered on his image as the toughest candidate out there, Republican or Democrat — the man who can face down China, Iran and the Islamic State. He takes pride in throwing hecklers out of his campaign events. In October, a few months after Black Lives Matter protesters took the microphone from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a campaign rally, Trump mocked Sanders mercilessly and said it ‘showed such weakness.’ He even put up a Web ad that asked how Sanders could fight the Islamic State if he could not handle Black Lives Matter protesters.
“Well, how can Trump fight the Islamic State if he can’t handle a few tough questions from Megyn Kelly? If Trump does not show up, he won’t look tough — he’ll look like a big baby. He’ll look as though he is running from a fight. And running from a fight is not a New York value.
“Second, he’s handing the stage to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). If Trump was the front-runner with a wide lead over Cruz, that might not be a big deal. But Trump only recently regained the lead over Cruz in Iowa and is ahead by just two points, which means the two candidates are statistically tied. Giving your opponent free airtime in which to attack you without response is dumb in any circumstance — but in a neck-and-neck race like this it is political malpractice. . . “
Erick Erickson, Resurgent: “The Republicans Who Helped Obama Ruin the Country Support Donald Trump”
“Let us not be naive or willfully ignorant about what is happening. Donald Trump has a far longer history of affiliation with Democrats and Democrat causes than he does conservative, populist, or Republican causes. See him and hear him for yourself in his own words. Even in the first debate of Campaign 2016, Trump supported government run, Canadian style universal healthcare. There is no difference between his position on that and Bernie Sanders’ position.
“Trump has long supported abortion rights. He has called for higher taxes and gun control. He has defended Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Donald Trump funded the Democrats against the tea party in 2012 and the establishment Republicans against the conservatives in 2014.
“Now in 2016, the Republican consultant class and RINOs in Washington are lining up behind Donald Trump. They are doing so to stop the only guy who has put points on the board against them — Senator Ted Cruz. But it is not just Cruz. These Republican consultants and elected officials are lining up behind Trump over Senator Marco Rubio. In fact, the Republicans who most aggressively support expansive immigration and open borders are rallying to Trump, not Rubio.
“Trump supporters are deluding themselves through blind rage and emotion. The guys in Washington know that Trump, who just last year supported universal healthcare and two years ago supported Mitch McConnell against conservatives, can be reasoned with in a way Cruz cannot.
“This should be a damning indictment against Donald Trump in Campaign 2016. . .”
Roger Kimball, PJM: “Inside the Media’s Myth-Making Machine”
“. . . To a large extent, that temporary status, that “Queen for a Day” tiara, has been passed on to Donald Trump. As Trump himself put it, with only slight exaggeration, he could stroll down Fifth Avenue, guns blazing, and “shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” It is important to understand that this undiplomatic immunity, though reinforced by the acclamation of his fans, is a creation and ultimately a creature of the media. It’s the media dispensation that provides the cover, the nurturing environment, in which the magic spell works. Remove the media sanction and the cold light of day floods in.
“Yet of course the fans are an essential element in the process. They form the gallery to which the media plays. There are two things to bear in mind about the fans. One is their virulence. Take a look at the comments to any negative piece about Donald Trump. Hysteria and anger are the hallmarks of his fans. In this respect Trump fans are a bit like Obama fans back in the it-was-dawn-to-be-alive-then days of 2008 when Obama was promising to heal the earth and slow the rise of the seas. That all seems queasy-making now, like the scent of whiskey the morning after. But I suspect that the coterie that Trump fans most closely resemble are the acolytes of Ayn Rand, who tend to respond to criticism of their patron saint with an intemperateness that is partly alarming, partly amusing. . .”
LEADS . . .
J. Christian Adams, PJM: “Ted Cruz Best Choice to End Lawlessness at Justice Department”
“. . . No matter what issue you care about most, all policy roads lead through the Justice Department bureaucracy. If you care about energy, national security, religious liberty, immigration or the power of government, it is the Justice Department lawyers that develop the intricate legal policies that support the agency decisions. They are the lawyers that make the litigation decisions. That’s precisely why Obama installed a radical ideological crony like Eric Holder to lead the place.
“When Obama radicalized the Justice Department, he radicalized the government.
“Donald Trump doesn’t talk much about this radicalization at Obama’s Justice Department. When Trump touches on Obama’s radicalization of the ministerial state, Trump’s understanding is a mile wide and an inch deep. Ted Cruz has an understanding of Justice Department radicalization that is a mile wide and miles deep.
“I know this because Senator Cruz is one of the few senators who display any comprehension of the radical transformation taking place inside Justice. When Holder or other administration officials go before the Judiciary Committee, Cruz is one of the senators who can be counted on to conduct real oversight.
“Cruz conducts oversight of Eric Holder and his gang of radicals the same way I would. . . “
Sarah Westwood, Washington Examiner: “DeLay: FBI sources say they’re ‘ready to indict’ Hillary”
What are the chances that Barry and Val are doing the same things that Hillary did? And for similar reasons – stealing material to use in their next job?
“Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday his FBI sources had informed him they are ready to bring charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information.
“‘I have friends in the FBI, and they tell me they’re ready to indict,’ DeLay said during an appearance on Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg Show.
“‘They also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public,’ the Texas Republican added.
“Clinton has denied ever sending or receiving anything marked classified since the FBI opened an investigation into her private email network in August. . .”
Also – Jim Geraghty, NRO: “How the FBI Could Force DOJ to Prosecute Hillary Clinton” ‘. . .Ken Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of Virginia, knows the laws regarding classified information firsthand. In his private practice, Cuccinelli defended a Marine lieutenant colonel court martialed on charges of possessing such information outside a secure facility. He says Clinton’s actions in the e-mail scandal clearly satisfy all five requirements necessary to sustain charges of mishandling classified material, and constitute a breach perhaps even more glaring than the one for which General David Petraeus was convicted.
“Like Petraeus, Clinton was clearly ‘an employee of the United States government.’ Like Petraeus, Clinton obtained and created “documents and materials containing classified information” through her work at the State Department. In response to a Congressional inquiry earlier this month, I. Charles McCullough, III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, declared that an intelligence official examined ‘several dozen e-mails containing classified information determined . . . to be . . . CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP information’ residing on Clinton’s server. (SAP is an acronym for ‘special access programs,’ a level of classification above top secret.)
“Like Petraeus, Clinton ‘knowingly removed such documents or materials.’ Cuccinelli points out that she actually committed this crime on a significant scale three separate times: First, by setting up her e-mail system to route messages to and through her unsecured server, then by moving the server to Platte River Networks, a private company, in June of 2013, and then by transferring the server’s contents to her private lawyers in 2014.
Like Petraeus, Clinton did not have the authority to remove classified information from secure locations. ‘Simply being secretary of state does not allow Hillary Clinton to ‘authorize herself’ to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials, and information,’ Cuccinelli says. ‘There is no known evidence, and Clinton has not asserted, that her arrangement to use the private e-mail server in her home was undertaken with proper authority as it relates to classified documents, materials, or information.’
“‘And like Petraeus, Clinton demonstrated the “intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.’ A private residence can be an ‘authorized’ location, and non-government servers and networks can be ‘authorized’ to house and transfer classified materials, but there are specific and stringent requirements for such authorization, and there is no indication that Clinton undertook the steps necessary to obtain it for her house, her private server, Platte River Networks, or her lawyers. . .”
WSJ: “The Deficit Rises Again”
“Obama has set up deficits and debt to soar after he leaves office.
“Perhaps you’ve heard President Obama’s talking point that the federal budget deficit has fallen by two-thirds on his watch. That overlooks that the deficit first soared on his watch, and then fell thanks largely to the GOP House and modest economic recovery, and that as he leaves office he is going to need one more asterisk: The deficit in 2016 has begun to rise again, in dollars and as a share of the economy. And after he leaves office, it takes off.
“That was the news Monday in the Congressional Budget Office’s largely ignored annual budget and economic outlook. CBO’s gnomes estimate that the annual federal deficit will increase this year after six years of decline—to $544 billion from $439 billion in 2015. It will also rise as a share of the economy to 2.9% from 2.5%. The nearby table tracks the numbers across the Obama post-recession era.
“This deficit increase by itself shouldn’t cause great alarm, but the reasons to care are the explanation and the trend. The deficit is rising again largely because spending is climbing rapidly again, an estimated 6% this year, or triple the rate of inflation. As a share of GDP spending will climb by 0.5-percentage points to 21.2%.
“December’s budget deal explains the $32 billion increase in 2016 in discretionary spending (the kind Congress approves each year). Defense spending will “edge up slightly,” CBO says, while domestic discretionary climbs by 4%. That leaves the big money to the usual suspects—entitlements. Outlays for Medicare (net of premiums), Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program and ObamaCare subsidies will increase no less than 11%, or $104 billion, this year.
Even an estimated federal revenue increase of 4% for the year can’t keep pace with this kind of spending blowout . . .”
PA. . .
Nick Field, PoliticsPA: “House Initiates Impeachment Proceedings Against Kane”
“The State House moved towards an investigation into whether they should impeach Attorney General Kathleen Kane.
“According to Kevin Zwick of Capitolwire, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to give the Subcommittee on the Courts power to conduct their own investigation and to recommend possible impeachment proceedings.
“The Chair of the subcommittee is actually State Rep. Todd Stephens, who briefly ran for Attorney General last year. The makeup of the body is four Republican members and two Democrats.
“The full House still needs to approve the resolution before the committee can begin its work, which would include subpoena power.
“Unsurprisingly, Kathleen Kane gave an indignant response when asked about the prospect of impeachment. . .”
END NOTES . . .
Mark Levin (01/26/16)
“On Tuesday’s Mark Levin show, Sen. Ted Cruz calls in and challenged Donald Trump to come and debate him, one on one, on Mark’s show. The challenge comes after Trump said he would not participate in the Fox News debate on Thursday. Cruz said if Trump is afraid of Mark Levin or Megyn Kelly hosting a debate that he is willing to do an hour long head to head debate with no moderator.
“Also, Trump is polling high but when it comes to his favorability rating with Gallup it is the worst among the Republican contenders. The negative attacks from Trump have turned off a significant number of people. True believers are not enough to get Trump elected.
“In addition, Dr. Ben Carson calls in to talk about his candidacy and his views on CAIR and immigration policy.
Best interview I’ve ever heard with Ben Carson . . .
Weimar . . .
“The period in German history from 1919 to 1933 is commonly referred to as the Weimar Republic, as the Republic’s constitution was drafted here. Berlin as the capital was considered too dangerous for the National Assembly to use as a meeting place, because of its street rioting after the 1918 German Revolution. The calm and centrally located Weimar had a suitable place of assembly (the theatre), hotels and infrastructure, so it was chosen as the capital. . .
“The Weimar Republic era was marked by a constant conflict between progressive forces and reactionary right wing forces, the former represented by Harry Graf Kessler and the latter Adolf Bartels in Weimar. After 1929, the right wing forces prevailed and Weimar became an early centre of Nazism. . .”
See also: Weitz, Eric D (2007) Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.