Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

What Clinton’s Mental Health Plan Won’t Do for Seriously Mentally Ill: D.J. Jaffe

By on August 30th, 2016

DJ Jaffe is Executive Director of Mental Illness Policy Org., and the author of Insane Consequences: How the Mental Health Industry Fails the Mentally Ill (Prometheus Books, April 2017, 340pp.)

There are two problems with Hillary Clinton’s mental health plan: What’s in it and what’s not. The plan mainly continues the practice of moving mental health funds away from helping the most seriously mentally ill, and instead allocates the funds to helping people without serious mental illness and programs that lack any independent evidence they work.
We need an all-hands-on-deck approach aimed at helping reduce homelessness, arrest, incarceration, suicide and violence among the seriously mentally ill. While there are bills in Congress that do that, this plan doesn’t. It focuses on where serious mental illness isn’t, rather than where it is.
What’s in the Hillary Clinton mental health plan.

The plan for early diagnosis and intervention, focuses spending on kids younger than eighteen in spite of the fact that serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder begin in late teens and early twenties, not grade school. While some serious mental illness strikes early, most of the illness that affects kids, like ADHD, is mild and transient.
The plan diverts resources to fund programs that are proven not to work including Positive Parenting and Mental Health First Aid.
The national initiative for suicide prevention, will focus on spending dollars on high-school and college students the two groups least likely to commit suicide. In 2014, there were 43,000 completed suicides of which 5,500 involved people under the age of twenty-four. Congressional mandates already target $54 million in suicide prevention funds to that age group and only $2 million to address the 37,500 completed suicides by people over twenty-four. The plan proposes to make the disparity worse.
The plan focuses on requiring private insurers to provide parity coverage for mental illness, but is silent on the federal government’s own discrimination within Medicaid (IMD Exclusion) that prevents the most seriously ill from getting treatment.
The plan does nothing to increase hospital beds and instead trains police on how to handle those who will become their responsibility as a result of the lack of beds.
The initiative funds peer support, in spite of the fact there is no independent evidence it works and plenty that it doesn’t.
It provides additional funding to the Protection and Advocacy Program. These are federally funded lawyers who go to court to oppose parents who want to help seriously ill children get care, oppose states that want to provide hospital care, and oppose localities that want to fund Assisted Outpatient Treatment as an alternative to incarceration or involuntary commitment.

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

The Enigmatic Donald Trump by Paul R. Hollrah

By on August 29th, 2016

Would I bet serious money that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton will continue to be presidential candidates on Election Day 2016? No, I might bet $10 or $20 they won’t, but bet the family farm? No, that would be too much of a gamble because, while I may be reading the political tea leaves correctly, I could also be terribly wrong.

Donald Trump was never cut out to be a presidential candidate. In fact, to watch him campaign on a day-to-day basis one wonders if he might be actually trying to elect Hillary Clinton. No man or woman with serious ambitions for the presidency would ever say or do the things that Trump says and does on almost a daily basis. I don’t agree with Hillary Clinton on much of anything, but when she claims that Donald Trump does not have the temperament to be president of the United States I have to concede the point… and Trump tries every day to prove her right.In fact, if the American people had hired an executive search firm to prepare a list of the top 1,000 Democrats and the top 1,000 Republicans, those most capable of serving as president of the United States, it’s almost a dead certainty that the names Obama, Clinton, and Trump would not appear on that list.

Not only is Trump unattractive, physically, he has a most unattractive personality. If he were an average man with a modest net worth he would never have had women named Ivana, Marla, and Melania in his life. Nor would he have many male friends. Most men are very much aware of the shortcomings of other men and tend to recognize the “warts” that other men possess. To put it bluntly, men find boorishness, boastfulness, and misplaced egocentricity to be most unattractive in other men and they generally avoid others with those characteristics. From the time he first entered the presidential primaries on June 15, 2015, Trump has been a perfect example of how not to attract supporters. His speaking style can best be described as “underwhelming.” Instead of making his political points firmly and objectively, in a forceful but modulated tone, he has a tendency to scream and shout at his audiences… his face beet red and his eyes bulging. However, sometime during the week of August 8, 2016, someone in his organization must have coached him a bit on his delivery. As a result, when he spoke before the National Association of Home Builders on August 11, his delivery was so low-key that he appeared to be falling asleep at the podium. If he has any hope of winning in November he will have to find a middle ground.

There are men such as Dr. Myles Martel who could work wonders with Trump if allowed to do so. As the nation’s premier leadership communications advisor, Martel has coached countless political leaders, including presidential candidates, governors, senators, ambassadors and cabinet members, as well as heads of major corporations and professional organizations. But the question arises, is Donald Trump coachable? Is he capable of taking good advice? His actions to date would seem to indicate that it would be easier to turn a supertanker around in a backyard swimming pool than to convince Trump that “being himself” is a certain prescription for defeat. Trump clearly adores himself just as he is. It matters little to him that more than 300 million people who have a major stake in his political success or failure might feel otherwise.

However, in his August 8 speech before the Detroit Economic Club, Trump appeared to be falling in line with longstanding Republican principles. He reminded his audience that, “When we abandoned the policy of America First, we started rebuilding other countries instead of our own. The skyscrapers went up in Beijing, and in many other cities around the world, while the factories and neighborhoods crumbled in Detroit. Our roads and bridges fell into disrepair, yet we found the money to resettle millions of refugees at taxpayer expense.”

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Miami Primary Opponents Courted by Radical Muslim Group Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo get big bucks from Emerge USA. August 29, 2016 Joe Kaufman

By on August 29th, 2016

Emerge USA is a radical Muslim group which works to further its Islamist agenda via political advocacy. Like most political advocates, the group attempts to infiltrate political circles by sponsoring candidate forums and by raising funds for politicians, from whom it thinks it can buy influence. Unlike most advocates, the forums Emerge puts on are many times held at extremist mosques associated with terrorism. Two of the politicians Emerge has targeted with support, Democrats Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo, are now running in a primary against each other for US Congress. Regardless of the victor, Emerge will have its candidate for the general election.

The main individual behind Emerge is Khurrum Wahid, a South Florida attorney who has built his name on representing high profile terrorists. His past clients include: Rafiq Sabir, who received a 25-year prison sentence for conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda operative Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who received a life sentence for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush; Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) co-founder Sami al-Arian; and Miami imam Hafiz Khan, who sent $50,000 to the Taliban to kill American troops overseas. According to the Miami New Times, Wahid himself was placed on a federal terrorist watch list in 2011.

Prior to creating Emerge, Wahid served as a legal advisor for the national office of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a director of CAIR’s Florida chapter. Emerge USA’s Florida Executive Director, Ghazala Salam, was also a representative of CAIR, previously holding the position of CAIR-Florida Community & Government Relations Director. CAIR was founded, in June 1994, as part of a terrorist umbrella group run by then-global leader of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. The US Justice Department has named CAIR a co-conspirator in the financing of Hamas. Leaders of CAIR have been imprisoned for terrorist-related activities.

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary’s Hacked Emails and Blackmail Her rogue conduct as Secretary of State could compromise U.S. national security for years to come. Michael Cutler

By on August 29th, 2016

The ability to compromise can be a virtue when reasonable people of differing perspectives are able to set aside their differences and come to an agreement that, while not perfect, is fair and equitable and provides a common ground for all concerned. This enables the participants in such a negotiation to satisfy enough of their core requirements and adequately address the concerns of those involved that such an agreement is sensible and indeed, desirable.

Politicians frequently work out compromises in order the achieve a consensus among politicians from both sides of the aisle so that legislation can go forward.

However, there is another meaning to that term “compromise.” This “compromise” is hardly virtuous but treacherous. In this regard, “to compromise” means to weaken or undermine.

When an undercover agent’s identity and mission is divulged to his/her adversaries, it can be properly said that the agent has been “compromised.”

When a nation’s secrets are provided to it enemies it may be said that the nation’s security has been compromised.

Finally, people may also be compromised also when they act in a nefarious way and others become aware of their conduct. This sort of compromise creates a vulnerability for that person and can leave such an individual open to blackmail or other covert coercion.

This is the world in which Hillary Clinton now resides as a direct result of her conduct- indeed, misconduct.

While there have been numerous reports about Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server that she used to send tens of thousands of e-mails, including e-mails that contained ultra-sensitive national security information, one of the key problems that this outrageous situation has created has not been addressed in the media.

We will consider how her “extremely careless” actions with respect to national security materials may continue to have a profound impact on Hillary Clinton for years to come, leaving her vulnerable to blackmail, especially if she was to become the next President of the United States.

When I was an INS special agent and was about to interview or question an individual I often began by reminding that person that “There is only one version of the truth.”

Someone certainly needs to remind Hillary Clinton of that fundamental fact.

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary’s Long, Cozy Love Affairs With Racists Promoting racial animosity has been the mainstay of her political strategy for years. John Perazzo

By on August 29th, 2016

There is something otherworldly about Hillary Clinton accusing her Republican rival of running a presidential campaign steeped in “racial resentment,” “divisive rhetoric,” and “racist comments.” Otherworldly, because these are precisely the elements that have been Hillary’s stock-in-trade since the dawn of her political career.

During her first presidential campaign eight years ago, Mrs. Clinton spoke at an event held by Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, where she crowed about the “long and positive relationship” she had enjoyed with Sharpton and his organization. Noting that “I don’t ever remember saying ‘no’ to them,” Clinton vowed “to remain their partner in civil rights” for as long as there was breath in her body. Sharpton, you may recall, is the vile, foul-mouthed black socialist who has done more to poison race relations in America than virtually anyone other than Barack Obama.

And nothing whatsoever has changed in Mrs. Clinton’s estimation of Sharpton in the years since then. This past April, for instance, Madame Hillary again spoke at a National Action Network event where she lauded Sharpton and his group for steadfastly working “on the frontlines of our nation’s continuing struggle for civil rights,” and “in a million ways lift[ing] up voices that too often go unheard.”

To what voices was Hillary referring, you may ask? Perhaps she meant the voices of people like the family of Yankel Rosenbaum, a Hasidic Jew who was killed in a Brooklyn race riot that Sharpton helped foment; or the voice of a young assistant district attorney in New York whose life Sharpton ruined with what he knew were false accusations of interracial rape and sodomy; or the voices of the white “crackers” whom Sharpton has identified as descendants of early American settlers from Europe; or the voices of the seven people who died in a 1995 Harlem fire set by a lunatic whose rage had been stoked by Sharpton’s relentless anti-Semitic rhetoric; or the voices of the three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team whom Sharpton falsely accused of having raped a black woman in 2006.

Yes, Hillary is deeply moved by all the things Al Sharpton has done to “lift up” so many people in need.

It’s also noteworthy that Mrs. Clinton has never denounced Black Lives Matter (BLM), a racist movement that openly and proudly reveres the former Black Panther, convicted cop-killer, longtime fugitive, and lifelong Marxist, Assata Shakur; a movement that likewise venerates yet another cop-killer, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, the Sixties radical renowned for urging blacks to murder “honkies” and “burn America down”; a movement whose supporters and foot soldiers have vocally and repeatedly called for the murder of white police officers.

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

How the Clintons Gave American Foreign Policy its Muslim Tilt By G. Murphy Donovan

By on August 29th, 2016

The Clinton role in the rise of Islamic irredentism has now come full circle. Bill Clinton might get the credit for the original Muslim tilt. Bosnia (1992-95) set the table for a series of interventions that gave birth to the so-called Arab Spring and any subsequent triumphs of Islamofascism. Ironically, Bill Clinton could be both righteous about civil wars in the Balkans and oblivious to genocide in Rwanda simultaneously.

Muslim lives matter, Black Africans, not so much.

In the past decade, with an assist from an uncritical media, a “long war” chimera has emerged to rationalize indecision and serial failure abroad. After being told that al Qaeda was on the run and the Islamic State was the “junior varsity,” Americans are now told that Muslim wars are so “complicated” that solutions to religious fascism and terror must be deferred to the indefinite future. The “long war” scenarios now being spun by the Pentagon and the Obama/Clinton camp are excuses for inaction, the political equivalent of kick-the-can.

Such apologetics, if not appeasement, is nothing new. America has been risk averse since World War II. Ironically, while eschewing formal war declarations, the cloak and dagger faction of national security community is still populated by the same Cold War cowboys that flourished during the containment years. Anti-Communist rationale has now morphed into a pernicious, if not indiscriminate democratic imperialism, a series of hair-brained regime change operations with no regard for consequence — or the day after.

The instability and chaos that plague the 21st Century are created problems. Policies such as regime change, counter insurgency, nation building, and “humanitarian” intervention are probative. Withal, the US State Department, and the various US national security apparati, has facilitated the spread of terror, the immigrant tsunami, the rise of the Islamic State, the resurgence of jihad (nee Crusades), and the spread of Islamism worldwide.

When Donald Trump claims that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton created ISIS, his rhetoric might be figurative, but the underlying truth is literal. The political vacuums created by toppling secular authoritarian Muslim states have been filled by our worst political nightmare, religious fascism.

Bosnia, like much of the Balkans, is just one of the sectarian fault lines of civilization. Indeed, it was Muslim unrest that precipitated Serb pushback, civil war, and the eventual collapse of Yugoslavia. The so-called “ethnic” cleansing that followed had more to do with religion than race. Bosnians are, for the most part, Muslims with a bloody fascist pedigree.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Comey’s Corrupt and Shameful Conduct Revealed By Jonathan F. Keiler

By on August 29th, 2016

James Comey’s rationale for not referring Hillary Clinton’s email crimes to the Justice Department rested almost entirely on a single, quite thin, legal and ethical plank, which was that she did not act intentionally when she sent and received classified emails over her home-brew server. Though his argument for deferring prosecution was mostly specious, it did contain at least a shred of credibility in that as Comey described the situation to the American public and Congress, Hillary had no motive to intentionally put American national security at risk. However, the recent evidentiary revelation (many would say confirmation) that Hillary established the server with the deliberate intent of shielding her illicit influence-peddling for her family “Foundation” while secretary of state shows that the issue of her motivation could not be seen by any “reasonable” prosecutor as exculpatory. Comey’s refusal to recommend prosecution, while knowing these facts at the time, proves he was not reasonable, and also that he is incompetent and culpable for not doing so.

At Comey’s July 5 briefing to the nation, he attempted to justify his actions. His first claim in this regard was that the FBI, having uncovered through laborious effort many work-related emails that Clinton did not turn over to State, “found no evidence that any of the work related emails were deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Then Comey noted that Hillary’s attorneys were deliberately overbroad in determining which emails were work-related and “relied on header information” and “search terms” rather than reading them, and that when they finished, the lawyers “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” Despite this, Comey then said he had “reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.” Then, before launching into a description of all the ways Hillary and her minions were “extremely careless,” Comey said, “[W]e did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate the laws governing the handling of classified information[.]”

Comey concluded his statement with several more references to intent, and the lack thereof. He famously said:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.

Less famously but just as importantly:

[W]e cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

The first of these to statements is a specious rationalization. The second is a bald-faced lie in support of that rationalization.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

WHO DOES SHE THINK SHE IS….MARGARET SANGER? DANIEL FLYNN

By on August 28th, 2016

The Standard Bearer of Bull Connor’s Party Calls Trump Racist

A Hillary Clinton campaign video featuring Confederate flags and goobers in white sheets ominously informs, “If Trump wins, they could be running the country.”

Mike Tyson didn’t bite Evander Holyfield’s ears because the knockout artist felt he was winning.

Such flouting of the Marquess of Queensberry rules of politics (a much rougher sport than boxing) coming in late summer rather than mid fall demonstrates either desperation, deviousness, or both. Though Clinton holds a lead — sometimes slight, sometimes sizable — in recent polls, she suffered through one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

The Associated Press proved that donating money to her “charity” served as the best way to secure a meeting with her as secretary of state. Eighty-five of the 154 people outside of government successful in gaining face time with the secretary did so after donating to the Clinton Foundation.

Rather than answer questions, Clinton attempted to change the subject by going below the belt. “Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia,” Mrs. Clinton maintained Thursday in a Reno speech. “He’s taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over one of America’s two major political parties.”

The depiction of a Queens Kleagle strikes as far-fetched. The world of mullets, meth, and monster trucks seems as far removed from Trump Tower as one can imagine. But Clinton-Kaine seeks to strangely make it all stick. And hey, he fired Omarosa, didn’t he?

The chutzpah of the negative campaigning appears especially audacious when considering the history of the Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, its standard bearer.

Hillary Clinton called Senator Robert Byrd not a racist but her “mentor.” From the beginning of the Carter presidency until the end of the Reagan administration, Hillary’s party looked to the former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops as its exalted leader in the United States Senate.

Hillary Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award in 2009. “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously,” she told Planned Parenthood, “her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” But this vision included blaming Jews and Italians for causing “the multiplication of the unfit in this country,” judging “the Aboriginal Australian” the “lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development,” and using the n-word in private correspondence. If she sounds like an ideal speaker for a KKK rally in some barn, that’s because Sanger really once spoke at a KKK rally in some barn.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

There is no moral basis to oppose Trump By J. Marsolo

By on August 28th, 2016

On August 19, 2016, Douglas Ernst, of The Washington Times, reported that William Bennett, former secretary of education and author of the Virtues books, declared that holier-than-thou so-called Republicans and conservatives should put the interests of our country above their “vanity” and “moral superiority.” Bennett said: “Donald Trumpdoes not need to speak to the ‘Never Trumpers,’ some of my friends – or maybe former friends – who suffer from a terrible case of moral superiority and put their own vanity and taste above the interest of the country,”

There are many articles and comments here at American Thinker and other websites setting forth the reasons why we should vote for Trump to defeat Hillary. A brief summary of the reasons is that Hillary is a lying crook who will be the third term of Obama. Obamacare will be here to stay, and a Hillary Supreme Court will weaken the Second Amendment by upholding state and local laws on owning and carrying firearms. The nanny state will grow with more regulations. There will be no wall on the southern border, and illegal immigration will continue. Further, Hillary will allow immigration of Syrian and other Middle Eastern “refugees” without proper vetting, which will increase terrorist attacks in our country.

Hillary’s past misdeeds are too much to recount, such as Whitewater and covering up Bill’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick and other sexual misconduct. Worse are the current email scandal, where she destroyed emails relating to her work as secretary of state, and her activities on behalf of the Clinton Foundation. But the absolute worst is her failure to provide the requested security at Benghazi and then compounding it by lying that the cause was a video. She lied to help Obama win the 2012 election and to maintain her political viability. And now she runs an ad attacking Trump for saying that Mrs. Khan had nothing to say while Mr. Khan attacked Trump at the Democrat convention. Hillary has no shame and no conscience, and she will do and say anything to make money and get power.

The NeverTrumpers act, as Bennett said, from “moral superiority.” They say it is only a choice of the lesser evil, and they cannot vote for evil. This is complete nonsense. There is nothing evil about Trump. You may not like some of his words and statements, but there is nothing evil about his conduct. Covering up a rape, using the office of secretary of state to make money, destroying the email evidence and lying about it, and lying to the mother of Sean Smith are evil. There is no moral equivalence between the conduct of Hillary and the words of Trump.

The NeverTrumpers do not act from “moral superiority” because there are not legitimate facts to support a claim that the choice between Hillary and Trump is a choice between two evils.

As Bennett says, if you care about the best interests and welfare of our country, then you have to vote for Trump to defeat Hillary. It is common sense based on the facts.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary Clinton’s for-profit university problem by Drew Griffin, Curt Devine and Scott Zamost

By on August 28th, 2016

Note from Dr. John A…..”Bill gets a cool $17.6 million (!!) merely for being an ‘inspiration’ (!!) to students at a for-profit university; university gets favourable treatment from the Administration while Hillary is Secretary of State..”
It’s got all the makings of a conspiracy theory.

After Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton received $17.6 million in payments from a for-profit university. Since that time, another organization with a connection to that university received almost $90 million in grants from an agency that’s part of the State Department.

Critics of the Clintons have cried foul. But is there really something shady going on?

There is no shortage of connections between the Clintons and Laureate International Universities. Laureate is a for-profit university — the same kind Hillary Clinton has railed against for saddling students with huge debts.

“[Students] find little support once they actually enroll, or they graduate and discover that, when it comes to finding a job, their degree isn’t worth what they thought,” she told an audience last year.

Laureate has about one million students worldwide, mostly in Latin America, with five schools in the United States.

Laureate has faced investigations in Brazil over whether students were getting what they paid for, and in Chile concerning its for-profit status. U.S. students have complained the school failed to deliver on its promised degree programs.

In addition, three of the five schools Laureate operates in the United States are under what the U.S. Department of Education calls “heightened cash monitoring” because of potential problems with its “financial responsibility.” The school told CNN it disagrees with the government’s methodology.

The Clinton campaign told CNN that the candidate intends to hold for-profit colleges accountable.

“Hillary Clinton has made it clear that all for-profit institutions should be held to the same standards and she will crack down on law-breaking for-profits by expanding support for federal regulators to enforce laws against deceptive marketing, fraud, and other illegal practices.”

Continue reading →