If the establishment (of either party) wins do we lose?

The following endorses Trump.
 Not necessarily a Tea Party endorsement.
BUT:
 It is Excellent read!

We're witnessing a phenomenon

Politics turned upside down.

All of the candidates have baggage.

 

The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg and wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected and he did it with facts and more facts.

"Who is Donald Trump?"  The better question may be, "What is Donald Trump?" The answer: A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment. Some Trump supporters are like the 60’s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents. But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demo-socialists and the "Republicans in Name Only." They know there isn't a dime's worth of difference

between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates.  Ben Carson is not an "establishment"

candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson, and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio). The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse. Besides, lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things. Stranger things have happened. (The nation elected a Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner

now wears designer dresses.

Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014 and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the

GOP in 2016? Why? Trump did not come from out of nowhere. His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.

No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve,

cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education,

Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.). Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education.

(Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.) No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation's

major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and

pancakes in New Hampshire.

Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with: Anyone named Bush, Anyone named Clinton

Anyone who's held political office, Political correctness,

Illegal immigration, Massive unemployment, Phony "official" unemployment and inflation figures, Welfare waste and fraud, People faking disabilities to go on the dole, VA waiting lists,TSA airport groping, Obama Care,

The Federal Reserve's money-printing schemes, Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine, Michelle Obamo's vacations, Michelle Obamo's food police, Barack Obamo's golf, Barack Obamo's arrogant and condescending lectures, Barack Obamo's criticism / hatred of America, Valerie Jarrett, "Holiday trees", 

Hollywood hypocrites, Global warming nonsense,Cop killers, Gun confiscation threats, Stagnant wages, Boys in girls' bathrooms, Whiny, spoiled college students who can't even place the Civil War in the correct century . . .and that's just the short list.

Trump supporters believe that no shit for brains Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues. They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them,

and Trump is their way of saying, "Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!" The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains. (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier. All the others argue that the voters will eventually "come to their senses" and support

an establishment candidate.)

But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage. It needs a new engine installed by experts--and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it.  Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned. Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage. Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where

to find the best ones to work in his garage. He won't hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.

"How dare they revolt!" the "elites" are bellowing. Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it.

"But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!" That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved "Maverick" McCain down GOP throats in 2008--knowing he would lose to Obama. But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins,

she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates. They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America's greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation.

A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system. But no nation can survive both--and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that. The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on.

At some point we will be destroyed by debt.

Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wanders through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators

or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world's glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O'Donnell is a fat pig.

Is Trump the perfect candidate? Of course not. Neither was Ronald Reagan. But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant. One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands. One jihadist poisoning a city's water supply could kill  tens of thousands. One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions.

Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don't care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

While Attorney General Loretta Lynch's greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about

being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins  are waiting for him in paradise.

The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation.

They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts. While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much. You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016,

his or her cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we've seen before. The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge. The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots. Whether it is Bush's Karl Rove or Clinton's John Podesta who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little.

If the establishment wins, America loses.

Do you agree with "Conservative Review" about our remaining GOP candidates?

This is the scorecard.The Conservative Review about our remaining GOP candidates.  Do you agree?

Social Security the Ponzi Scheme

 Today with only 63% of the work force employed SS is facing a near certain collapse. Like Gore pledged "We are going to put it in a locked box".
Was that so we could not have it. With the escalating cost of health care we continually receive less cash in our SS monthly payments, unless you like the lie that SS has been protected.

 

Subject: History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

  

Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it.  Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.^[9]

An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security 

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary, 

No longer Voluntary 

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program, 

Now 7.65% On the first $90,000 
  
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
Into the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year, 

No longer tax deductible 

4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and, 

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent 

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. 

Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed 
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
Away -- you may be interested in the following: 

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it? 
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat
Controlled House and Senate. 

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? 
A: The Democrat Party. 

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities? 
A: The Democrat Party, with  Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the  US 

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
Giving annuity payments to immigrants? 
AND MY FAVORITE: 

A: That's right! 

Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democrat Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it! 

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), 
The Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans

want to take your Social Security away! 

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! 

 maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so. 

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!  

Why, or what, the Federal Governmnet's numbers tell abot our country's economic staus.

IBD (Investors Business Daily) explains how to make the numbers tell you the economy is not in a problem; its the numbers that lie, or is our administration telling us stories?

Reprints

Economy: They must be getting pretty desperate in the White House economic shop these days. When the revised GDP numbers showed a first-quarter decline of 0.7%, they started blaming the estimates themselves.

On the list of excuses for President Obama’s ongoing failure to produce decent economic growth, we hadn’t heard this one: A “seasonal adjustment” problem at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which compiles the GDP estimates.

White House chief economist Jason Furman says that, despite its seasonal adjustments, the BEA might not be accurately accounting for the effect of winter weather on growth.

But as the chart below shows, there’s not much of a difference over the long term between economic growth from January through March and growth for the same year as a whole. Some years it’s higher, some lower.

It’s true that in recent years, growth in Q1 has tended to be subpar. But the problem isn’t a lack of proper seasonal adjustment; it’s that growth under Obama has been so tepid that even the slightest bump can knock it off stride. Just look at the numbers.

Since the Obama recovery started in June 2009, there have been four quarters where GDP was either flat or negative (compared with only three where growth exceeded 4%).

The overall growth in the 23 quarters of the Obama recovery has been 13.3%. That’s less than half the average 26.7% growth rate achieved at this point in the previous 10 recoveries since World War II. Looked at another way, had Obama’s recovery been merely average, GDP would be $1.9 trillion bigger today. That translates into $16,000 per household.

And over the years, Obama has blamed everything but his own no-growth policies.

In 2011 he pointed to the “Japanese tsunami, the Arab Spring” and “problems … in Spain, Italy and Greece.” In 2012, it was “high gas prices” and “a crisis in Europe’s economy.” Then it was House Republicans’ budget cuts, the government shutdown and the sequester.

Before all that, Obama said that recoveries from a financial crisis are always more sluggish, even though several studies dispute this. And, of course, Obama would reliably try to pin the blame on President Bush.

At least he appears to have given up on that excuse.