Dead Cats: PotDNA, 05/25/16, (21)27: James Brody


Blue Lives Matter, Independence Day Parade

POT: MedicalXPress – Your DNA.

GOP: MURRAY – Hillary worse?; PRAGER – Response to NeverTrump; RUSHBO – Donald the new media.

LEADS: GOLDBERG – 4-way race?; HANSON – Hillary sputters; McCARTHY – Freddie Gray; DINAN – Facebook sez “sometimes.”

END NOTES: NIMMO – Mexican assassins.

Citizens for Liberty/Valley Forge Patriots: Upper Merion Police Appreciation Day:#BlueLivesMatter

Please join us and bring your family. This is definitely a family-friendly event!

Saturday, June 18, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

U.S. Route 202 and Mall Blvd., King of Prussia, PA, 19406.

We will be outside on the sidewalk and grass at this intersection which is loated in between the Plaza and the Court at The King of Prussia Mall.

Please park in the larger lot adjacent to the Wells Fargo Bank on this corner.


This event is being held to show our support for the men and women in blue that put their lives on the line for us every day. Theirs is a thankless job and they need to be shown that people do appreciate them.

We are looking for volunteers and donations. We hope to serve the following: coffee, cake, fresh made sandwiches, and water, to all Upper Merion Police Officers and PA State Troopers that stop by.

Bring your American flags, your LARGE pro-police posters, banners, balloons, and your family. Join us. Tables and chairs will be on site. Please feel free to brings chairs.

The Upper Merion Police were informed of this event and are looking forward to it.

All monetary donations can be sent to “Citizens for Liberty” P.O. Box 782, Oaks PA. 19456, no later than June 15th. This event will be co-hosted by “Valley Forge Patriots” and “Bucks/MontCo Overpasses.”

Our mailing address is:

PO Box 782

Oaks, PA, 19456; Our telephone: 484-424-3619


Janet: Independence Day March, July 4th

Our secession from Great Britain will be honored this year with George Washington crossing the Delaware River in a boat, in tow, while our professional singer is aboard entertaining with Patriotic songs. We plan to have Revolutionary soldiers in costume, and the original 13 colony flags. Events that have happened over the recent years will be memorialized to raise awareness to the crowd. Feel free to uphold your God-given and 2nd Amendment right.

Bring your different American flags. Dress in Colonial garb. Wear your red, white, and blue.

Bring large and easily read posters. Bring banners (we need attendees to hold quite a few that we have). Bring your family. We need proud Americans to throw out 50 pounds of candy, and literature pertaining to our organization.

Afterwards, for whoever cares to gather on the outside patio in the center of the village at Basta Pasta, 4052 Skippack Pike, will have themselves a lot of fun with the dozens who join

us for great food, drink, and conversation!

Plan to join us at 10a.m. at the Skippack Fire Company, 1230 Bridge Road

(right off of Rt 73/Skippack Pike) to plan our lineup. The parade begins at 11,

and lasts approximately one hour, which includes stopping and starting.

Jane Taylor Toal, CEO Citizens for Liberty

Citizens for Liberty, PO Box 782, Oaks, PA, 194546; Telephone: 484-424-3619


POT . . .

MedicalXpress: “Cannabis use linked to gene mutation”

“. . . Although the association between cannabis use and severe illnesses such as cancer has previously been documented, how this occurs and the implications for future generations was not previously understood.

“Associate Professor Stuart Reece and Professor Gary Hulse from UWA’s School of Psychiatry and Clinical Sciences completed an extensive analysis of literary and research material to understand the likely causes and uncovered alarming information.

“‘Through our research we found that cancers and illnesses were likely caused by cell mutations resulting from cannabis properties having a chemical interaction with a person’s DNA,’ Associate Professor Reece said.

“‘With cannabis use increasing globally in recent years, this has a concerning impact for the population.’

“Although a person may appear to be healthy and lead a normal life, the unseen damage to their DNA could also be passed on to their children and cause illnesses for several generations to come.

“‘Even if a mother has never used cannabis in her life, the mutations passed on by a father’s sperm can cause serious and fatal illnesses in their children,’ he said.

“‘The parents may not realise that they are carrying these mutations, which can lie dormant and may only affect generations down the track, which is the most alarming aspect.’

“Associate Professor Reece said that when the chemicals in cannabis changed a person’s DNA structure it could lead to slow cell growth and have serious implications for the foetal development of babies that may cause limbs or vital organs not to develop properly or cause cancers. . .”


From Matt Drudge, 5/25/16

ILLEGALS COMMIT MURDER MINUTES FROM ICE HQ… Landlord sued for requesting valid documents… ‘Thousands’ May Have Arrived in USA With Zika… Border Patrol Locked out of Indian Reservation… SYRIAN REFUGEES FLOOD IN; HUNDREDS ON MONDAY… FLASHBACK: Paul Ryan rejects cap on Muslim migrants…

GOP . . .

Charles Murray, NRO: “Why Hillary Is Even Worse Doesn’t Cut It”

“If we’re going to presume to lecture others about public policy and good governance — as all of us have made a career of doing in one way or another — we need to put our views about Donald Trump on the table now, before the nomination and election. That’s especially true of the False Priests and the Closet #NeverTrumpers — labels that I owe to Jonah Goldberg.

“The False Priests are the columnists, media pundits, public intellectuals, and politicians who have presented themselves as principled conservatives or libertarians but now have announced they will vote for a man who, by multiple measures, represents the opposite of the beliefs they have been espousing throughout their careers. We’ve already heard you say “Hillary is even worse.” Tell us, please, without using the words ‘Hillary Clinton’ even once, your assessment of Donald Trump, using as a template your published or broadcast positions about right policy and requisite character for a president of the United States. Put yourself on the record: Are you voting for a man whom your principles require you to despise, or have you modified your principles? In what ways were you wrong before? We require explanation beyond ‘Hillary is even worse.’. . .”

Dennis Prager, RCP: “A Response to My Conservative #NeverTrump Friends”

“When you differ from people you admire, you have to question yourself. After all, what is the purpose of admiring people if they aren’t capable of influencing you?

“So, I have had to challenge my position — stated since the outset of the Republican presidential debates — that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter.

“I devoted many hours of radio and many columns to criticizing Trump. His virtually assured nomination has therefore caused me grief as an American, a Republican and a conservative. That his character defects, gaps in knowledge on some important issues, and lack of identifiably conservative principles came to mean little to so many Republican voters is quite troubling. (Though, I might add, it is even more troubling that virtually all Democrats ignore the even worse character of Hillary Clinton, as well as the idiotic socialist ideas of Sen. Bernie Sanders.)

“#NeverTrump conservatives, such as (in alphabetical order) Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Bret Stephens and George Will are not merely people I admire — they are friends and colleagues. Goldberg, Stephens and Will have made multiple videos for Prager University, which receive millions of views. Shapiro and I have spent Shabbat together. I have had the privilege of writing for Kristol’s The Weekly Standard and having him on my show many times. And I have enthusiastically promoted their books. These individuals are special to me not only as thinkers, but as people.

“However, in the final analysis, I do not find their arguments compelling. . .”

Rushbo: “Trump Starts Doing the Job the Media Won’t Do on the Clintons’ Tawdry Past”

“. . . there are all kinds of ways to criticize the substantive policy initiatives that have come from this administration that have given us this rancid economy.  I mean, just the things happening with open borders that continue to happen.  Do you know now that arriving illegals are being separated into three different categories?  Adults, children, and trans.  I’m not kidding you.  There are separate facilities for transgendered illegal aliens now.  One-tenth of one-tenth of 1% of the illegal population and we’re making special accommodations for ’em.  I’m not saying to zero in on that, but I mean the point is, there’s no end to this.  There hasn’t been any slowdown.  The invasion is continuing.

“Trump talks about it, of course, in the generic sense.  But nobody goes directly to the source.  Nobody, when talking about our rancid economy, equates it to Obama.  It’s the most amazing thing, the fear is palpable, don’t go there because of Obama’s race.  It’s pure and simple.  And I’ll tell you this. I think the Democrats wanted to gain the same kind of advantage with Hillary.  First female president, therefore make her immune to any criticism because it would be sexist.  But there doesn’t seem to be any fear whatsoever on the part of the anybody to go after her.  The fact that she might become the first female president is irrelevant.  It’s not stopping anybody.

“But there’s a gold mine of things out there. You people upset with Trump for going after this Vince Foster type stuff that the Clintons are known for in their past, and you want Trump stick to the issues, I’m telling, there’s plenty of stuff Trump could hit on, and he probably will. We’re still early. . .”

LEADS . . .

Jonah Goldberg, NRO: “A Four-Way Race for President Is Possible”

“. . . After spending decades as a gadfly on the periphery of national politics, suddenly he’s the belle of the ball. Millions of people are hanging on his every word rather than trying to escape the conversation. That has to be a heady thing for someone so in love with his own voice. It’s like he spent all his life hanging around minor-league baseball and, in his golden years, somehow become a sensation in the majors. Why quit? To preserve his viability to run when he’s 78 or 84? “More important, he really believes in his “political revolution.” “As a result, it looks like Sanders is creating a liberal tea-party movement within the Democratic party. He’s endorsed the primary opponent of the hapless, pro-Clinton chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He’s sharing some of his dragon’s hoard of campaign cash with handpicked progressive candidates. And he’s encouraging his supporters to harden their animosity toward Clinton. “What if Sanders does neither? What if he concludes that the party rigged the game against him and bolts to run as the independent he is? Would the Green Party — which ran Ralph Nader to disastrous effect for Democrats in 2000 — nominate him at their August convention? “One might assume that the obvious effect of a Sanders independent bid would be a Trump victory in November. Indeed, Trump, with his trademark subtlety, has encouraged Sanders to run as an independent for the obvious reason that doing so would doom Clinton’s candidacy. “But in this season where the standard playbook is as outdated as the instruction manual for a Commodore 64 computer, Sanders’s third-party bid could well encourage a fourth-party bid from an authentic conservative, such as Romney or Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse. And in a four-way race (or five-way, if you include the Libertarian party), all bets are off. Theoretically, a winning share of the popular vote in a four-way race could be 26 percent. In a five-way race, 21 percent (which is where Romney is polling right now). States that haven’t been competitive in decades would suddenly become battlegrounds. Of course, if no one gets a majority in the Electoral College, the decision goes to the House, for even more exciting postseason drama. . .”

Victor Davis Hanson, NRO:” Hillary’s Sputtering Campaign”

“. . .1) The E-Mail Scandal Although the FBI has not finished its investigation and sent its results and recommendations to the Obama Justice Department, most of the media and public have learned enough about the e-mail/server scandal to conclude that had any mid-level State Department or intelligence-agency employee emulated Hillary Clinton’s use of a private unsecured server — along with serial denials and lying about such use — he would have been fired and prosecuted. Hillary’s exemption so far hinges entirely on the fact that she is the Democratic party’s only viable presidential candidate; her indictment would send the party into crisis, given that the committed socialist Bernie Sanders would be the most deserving to inherit the nomination. So her Sword of Damocles swings with public opinion. What keeps Hillary out of jail, or at least a plea-bargain, is her political viability, first as the likely Democratic nominee, and second as a presumable winner over Trump. But take either likelihood away, and she de facto loses exemption and becomes expendable — a fact that is well known to her and which cannot be an easy reality to face each morning. She is beginning to resemble a Third World caudilla who knows that the minute she loses power, so too she loses her head.

2) The Clinton Cash Shakedowns The Clintons left the White House broke, by their own admission, in 2001 and are now worth well over $100 million — lucre apparently predicated on the degree to which corporations and foreign governments believed that the phoenix-like couple would once again return to power, and would remain true to character as punishers of non-contributors and abettors of donors.

“The couple founded the Clinton Foundation as a quid-pro-quo money-laundering enterprise designed to sell influence for cash and to keep Clinton, Inc., hangers-on and employees viable in between Clinton presidential runs. The key to the Ponzi scheme was that unlike Carter, Reagan, or the Bushes, the Clinton couple could dangle the idea that Bill was not term-limited by his eight years but could become reincarnated for another two terms under Hillary’s aegis — thus transforming what should have been an emeritus president into a retread with regenerative power to use the office to help or hurt the rich. It would require a suspension of disbelief to assume that companies or foreign governments gave millions of dollars to the Clinton initiative because they wished to help the poor and the sick. All benefactors knew that they were investing in influence, and the Clintons were selling it to the highest bidder in a way never true of any other presidential foundation. Never mind that such coziness with Big Money was antithetical to the progressive pretensions of the Democratic party and the Clintons’ own populist veneer. Each day over the next six months that there is a disclosure about yet another duplicitous donor or yet another pay-to-play scheme, so each day confidence in Hillary’s honesty and integrity erodes further.

“3) Our First Female President Hillary Clinton envisioned her candidacy as a trailblazing presidential precedent in the same way that Obama parlayed his racial ancestry into broad support in 2008. Clinton’s candidacy was to be in antithesis to Trump’s “war on women” crudity. But 2016 is not 1999, and Hillary is being hoist on her own petard by pandering to the new campus ethos that to accuse a man of sexual assault is to convict him — and that to stand by without vocal support for the accuser is an even worse sin. By her own new standards, then, her husband’s goatishness and her enabling of his sometimes coercive sexual behavior prove both guilty in the court of 21st-century gender jurisprudence. In short, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey have all dulled the blade of Trump as crude sexist — and have nearly made Hillary’s own trailblazing gender card irrelevant. Unlike Trump’s ego-driven womanizing, which he crassly bragged about, Bill Clinton’s was covered up. And the Clintons reduced women who claimed that they were assaulted to the status of “bimbo,” “floozy,” and “stalker” — or, in the never-retracted words of media darling James Carville, “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”

“4) Dorian Gray Bill Clinton is as undisciplined as Trump, and seems intent on replaying his disastrous Freudian role from the 2008 campaign, when his reckless lecturing made it sometimes unclear whether he was not deliberately trying to sabotage his wife’s candidacy. This time around, he reappears on the campaign trail as a wraith-like Dorian Gray figure, as if all his sins are written on his face and audible in his raspy voice, rather than being confined to a portrait in the attic. One day he can gratuitously trash the Czechs and the Poles, the next Obama himself by references to the good old days of his own administration in comparison to “the last eight years.” He seems at times not so much out to help his wife, as baying at the moon that no one remembers all the great things he once did.

“When Hillary channels Bill’s narcissism, she ends up ridiculously promising to turn over the economy to her husband — thereby achieving a threefer gaffe: suggesting that, even as president, she will still need a strong male to run the most important aspect of her administration; that Bill can do what Obama could not the last two presidential terms (why not instead promise to give us more of the supposedly great eight years of Obama economic stewardship?); and that she is not so estranged, after all, from her sexually exploitative husband. (Does she wish to reclaim ¼, ½, or ¾ of Bill Clinton as husband and partner?)

“5) Obama No candidate of the same party as the incumbent president quite knows how to run. The result is often mush, like the 1988 sloganeering of a “kinder, gentler nation” by George H. W. Bush, who yet alone, after Truman, in the postwar era pulled off a twelve-year continuum. In Hillary’s case, she does not seem to want to run on Ben Rhodes’s foreign policy, Jonathan Gruber’s Obamacare, Lois Lerner’s IRS, Lisa Jackson’s EPA, Eric Holder’s Justice Department, or Barack Obama’s racial healing. And yet she needs Obama’s hard-left base. So far she has rejected her 2008 Annie Oakley, Reagan-Democrat schtick, gambling that her Black Lives (alone) Matter and transgenderism pandering can ensure that she will match Obama’s historic share of the minority vote. But so far it seems just as likely that she will lose more voters among the white working class than she can lease from Obama’s core. And, of course, for a while longer, her obsequiousness to the Obama record is not just political calculation but, given her server problem, self-interested legal prudence as well. Finally, Obama nears 50 percent approval in the polls only to the degree to which he withdraws into his accustomed levity and is rarely seen or heard. The ecumenical idea of Obama is tolerable, the reality not so much. When he returns to sermonizing, his polls drop. His help to Hillary is found in being neither seen nor heard.

6) Sanders Clinton thought Sanders would be a good warm-up fighter, in the fashion that Muhammad Ali used to fight chumps in between his landmark matches. But the 74-year-old Vermont socialist has eroded both Clinton’s youth vote and the proverbial rock-solid upscale single-woman vote. Had Sanders, in self-righteous fashion, not foolishly renounced early on using the legitimate e-mail scandal against Clinton, he might well have achieved a brokered convention.

Bernie Sanders — older, farther to the left, and with less money and insider leverage — remains a constant reminder of just how poor Hillary Clinton is on the stump and just how anti-democratic the Democrats’ superdelegate system has proven. There is a real chance of a street-circus implosion reminiscent of the 1968 Democratic Chicago convention. The feeble way in which the Clintons and ossified figures like Ed Rendell and Barbara Boxer deal with progressive insurrectionists reminds us just how far left Obama has taken the Democratic party and why he will leave office with it largely in shambles, at least in terms of lost senators, representatives, governors, and state legislators over his eight-year tenure. The Sanders candidacy and its focus on the superdelegates can only remind the public once again that Hillary is untrustworthy and fundamentally dishonest — even as he has drawn her further leftward, and with little time to bounce back to the center for the general election.

7) Trump Trump is many things. But he is not the fascist that neo-cons now rail against (their warnings of constitutional usurpation ironically far better apply to the concrete record of the last eight years, in which Obama has simply suspended enforcement of federal law whenever he found it politically convenient to do so, and either has turned government agencies — IRS, ICE, EPA, NSA, VA, NASA, the Secret Service — into rogue extensions of the White House or staffed them with partisan incompetents). In truth, Trump has no delineated agenda, nor is he doctrinaire in the fashion of a 20th-century European demagogue. Instead, his message is unscripted bombast, and it runs on emotion, not ideology, geared not to some grand autocratic vision but to how to stay ahead of the 24-hour news cycle and channel and exploit the venom Americans feel for Washington elites. Trump has tossed a ball and chain into the wide screen of the political establishment and shattered the glass. No one — not his 16 former Republican rivals nor Hillary Clinton — knows quite how to handle him, since he can say or do anything on any given day that no other candidate would even contemplate. It is difficult to imagine quite how the former secretary of state could use the war on terror, Russian reset, Syria, or Benghazi to reassure the public. Older than Clinton, Trump comes across as far more vigorous and vital; he’s a loudmouth, but his voice is not shrill and screeching as is Clinton’s; his political incorrectness both offends and attracts, while her political correctness merely bores and has rendered her a caricature of an opportunistic toady. A wheeler-dealer roguish businessman, Trump is not yet facing criminal indictment; a lifelong government apparatchik, Clinton is courting a rendezvous with the law. Clinton still fakes regional accents; oddly, the orange-haired, combed-over Trump never does. When Trump is caught lying he often just shrugs and says without shame that he has changed his opinions; when Clinton is caught lying, she denies the lying and usually attacks the questioner. In the end, Trump makes it appear that hosting The Apprentice leads to far better political instincts than Yale Law School and the subsequent establishment CV.

8) The Record Clinton plans to run on having a record of government service, while Trump has none. But this year the government dossier can be a liability as much as an advantage. It is difficult to imagine quite how the former secretary of state could use the war on terror, Russian reset, Syria, or Benghazi to reassure the public. Clinton will not campaign on her strategy against ISIS or the disastrous pullout from Iraq. Nor was she a stellar senator. With Trump we fear what he might do; with Clinton we know all too well what she has done. It is always worse to be sick than to fear becoming sick.

Clinton is waging wars on all fronts. Pundits for nearly a year have assured us that the polls prove Trump cannot win, and that the Republicans blew a historic opportunity to capture all three branches of government. Perhaps. But what is left unsaid is that Hillary Clinton is not only the sole viable Democratic candidate, but perhaps the weakest Democratic nominee in memory, lacking the energy of Hubert Humphrey, the sincerity of George McGovern, the affability of Walter Mondale, the decency of Michael Dukakis, and the emotion of vein-busting Al Gore — losing presidential candidates all.

Andrew McCarthy, PJM: “Freddy Gray and Jihad: Narrative v. Fact”

“. . . No matter what “religion of peace” blather was coming out of Main Justice in Washington or the White House press apparatus, in our New York City federal courtroom a short distance from the Twin Towers, we were not only permitted but obliged as government attorneys to prove the truth:

(a) There are mainstream interpretations of Islam that endorse war against non-Muslims to establish Allah’s law (sharia);

(b) these are literalist interpretations that draw directly on Islamic scripture;

(c) the interpretations (Salafism, Wahhabism, Islamic supremacism — collectively, what we hopefully refer to as “radical” Islam) are urged on young Muslims (mostly men) by influential sharia scholars like the Blind Sheikh, whose powerful influence owes solely and only to their mastery of the doctrine;

(d) based on those incitements, these young men are radicalized into jihadism, plotting and committing acts of terrorism.

“Those were the facts. Our evidence proved them incontestably. That is the only way we were able to convict jihadists — not only in my prosecution, but in case after terrorism case.

“While the government’s skewed media narrative continued undeterred, those prosecutions, based on real facts, became the national-security part of government’s best source of intelligence on how jihadist organizations actually function.

“I recall all this today because it explains what we are now seeing in the travesty that is Baltimore’s prosecution of six police officers in the death of Freddy Gray. . .”

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times: “Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives”

“Social media giant denies ‘systematic’ discrimination

“Facebook announced Monday it was sending employees out for retraining and would discontinue some of its practices as it sought to defend itself against charges of political bias against conservatives.

The online giant denied that it’s shown “systematic political bias,” but admitted employees played a bigger role than previously acknowledged in determining what news is highlighted in the trending topics section.

Facebook also acknowledged that rogue employees may have unintentionally discriminated against conservative stories or even acted with malice in “isolated improper actions.”


Kurt Nimmo, InfoWars: “Mexican Drug Cartel Assassins Poised to Murder Americans in Arizona”

“Hikers and campers are taking heed after the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona issued a warning about Mexican drug cartel assassins operating in the county.

“Sheriff Paul Babeu suggested people using back roads, trails and campsites in wilderness areas be armed and vigilant over the Memorial Day weekend. His office says Mexican “sicarios”—assassination crews—are operating in the area. The assassins regularly target rival “rip crews” ferrying drugs over the border and steal their money and drugs.

“Police have reported numerous instances of armed confrontations in southern Arizona between rival drug runners. Since March, gun battles have taken place on I-8 near Casa Grande, outside of Arizona City, and on the Tohono O’Odham reservation. . .”


About jamesbrody

Psychologist, photographer, biker, and writer posing as a political activist.
This entry was posted in Conservative, Impeachment, Loubris, Pennsylvania, TEA Party and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s