“They trust me” said Zuckerberg. “Dumb f*cks.” Zuckerberg, TURD

Glenn Beck has been a TURD for years.  He is always trying to change his public persona into the flavor of the month.  Cruz, IF he is “conservative”, made a huge mistake letting this TURD try and reflect his views.  Beck attaches himself to the power person of the month.  Now he’s Zuckerberg’s butt buddy.  Enjoy the ride, Beck, TURD!

Glenn Beck Lavishes Praise on Mark Zuckerberg, Attacks Fellow Conservatives

By Allum Bokhari dated 5/19/016  from Breitbart.com.


Glenn Beck 2

Surprising no-one, Glenn Beck, after joining the recent conservative delegation to Facebook, has defended the social network and its progressive CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, while attacking fellow conservatives for being too demanding of the company.

It’s unclear if he’s gunning for a role in their PR department in the wake of The Blaze’s financial difficulties, but even if he isn’t, it’s hard to tell the difference. He’s written a post on Medium as well as his own personal website, given an interview to TIME, and appeared on his own syndicated talk radio show to defend the social network.

In his post on Medium, whose CEO he met before flying down to Facebook’s sprawling headquarters in his private jet, Beck attacked conservatives who suggested more political diversity in Facebook’s staff. Astonishingly, he accused fellow conservatives who attended the meeting of staging a “Salem Witch Trial” against the company. If that wasn’t enough, Beck also appears to have swallowed Mark Zuckerberg’s argument that the company never discriminated against conservatives.

“I was convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing” wrote Beck. “They were humble, open, and listened intently to everyone in the room.”

He didn’t stop with one Medium article either. Beck is now talking to the media on behalf of Facebook, giving an interview to TIME in which he again defended the company’s trustworthiness.

“Not one time did I get a sense that they were saying these things to get this off their back. I think they’re sincere” said Beck “Mark [Zuckerberg] looks a man in the eye the entire time. I watched him carefully.”

In addition to maintaining good eye contact, Zuckerberg has also promised the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, that he would tackle allegedly “hateful” criticism of immigration on his platform. His company is openly working with the German government – who hired an ex-Stasi agent to monitor Facebook for anti-immigration rhetoric – to quash dissidents to Merkel’s disastrous immigration policies.

In other words, the man who just convinced Glenn Beck that Facebook won’t suppress conservatives, is already suppressing conservatives. But what do you expect? This is the same man who once called his early users “dumb f*cks” for trusting him with their personal data.

But still, at least he maintains eye contact!

But anyway, enough analysis of Zuck. We all know his history by now. Instead, let’s focus on what his new conservative puppy has to say:

I know I will be blasted by people for my position on this.I will be called a sellout. I will be accused of taking money or cowering for fear of retribution.

Not necessarily. Glenn’s critics might just consider him superhumanly gullible. That’s certainly the impression he gave off on his The Blaze TV show, where he appeared to be awestruck both by being in the presence of Mark Zuckerberg, and by the impressiveness of Facebook’s headquarters.

Mark Zuckerberg walks in and the first thing that you’ll think about when you’re sitting … I was right across the table from Mark.

He’s a very small man and … he honestly looks like he’s 12. That’s one thing, I looked across the table and I’m like “you look so young and so healthy and like you just got off your skateboard” and you’re like “yeah but I have more money than probably everybody in your state.”

Everyone was there – Dana Perino was up on the roof of the Facebook building which is just an incredible building, this is their executive offices and it was… it was… it’s an amazing building!

Perhaps he was too busy getting Zuck’s autograph and looking through the HQ’s big glass windows to notice Facebook lacked transparency where it actually mattered – at the meeting itself. When he did find out, he wasn’t that bothered by it.

Now, no one can make direct quotes, that was deal going into the room, Facebook’s deal. You can’t quote us directly and nobody can quote us in the room. You can talk about what you felt and what you heard, but it’s your opinion; let’s not throw everybody under the bus. So – I think that’s good and I think that’s fair. So let’s do that.
Once again, Beck is being much nicer to Facebook than he is to his fellow conservatives. In fact, in his TIME interview, he was happy to give Facebook a favourable comparison to Republican voters — who he is apparently still angry with over their decision to nominate Donald Trump despite his tireless fasting and Cheeto-bowl stunts. 
That was what was so impressive yesterday at Facebook. They said to us the exact opposite of what it feels like to a conservative that the media and even the Republican Party have said. The Republican Party has said: “Conservatives, you don’t belong here. And we’re not really listening.” 
Unlike the Republicans – who, of course, committed the moral sin of nominating Donald Trump – Beck is a huge fan of Mark Zuckerberg. Speaking on his show on The Blaze, he said: 
You’re a little shocked at how young he looks, but the most important thing is he makes eye contact with everyone. If you’re talking, he’s staring dead into your eyes. If he’s talking to you, dead into your eyes. And it’s a little disconcerting at times because he’s not flamboyant so he has very few movements as he’s speaking and you can almost tell he’s using all of his energy for the gears in his head. As he’s listening to you know he’s making a thousand judgements on what you’re saying. He’s really listening…  REALLY impressive guy. 
I was impressed that he actually listened. And I though he was extraordinarily genuine, as was everybody on the board that he picked
This is, of course, the same Mark Zuckerberg who wants German-style immigration policies in the U.S, and reprimanded employees for supporting “All Lives matter.” Still better than Trump-supporting Republicans in Beck’s eyes!
And even non-Trump supporting conservatives, it would seem. Beck also turned his fire on fellow members of the conservative delegation to Facebook who suggested that the company seek out a broader range of political perspectives in its staff. 
It was like affirmative action for conservatives. When did conservatives start demanding quotas AND diversity training?. 

What happened to us? When did we become them? When did we become the people who demand the Oscars add black actors based on race?

In other words, Beck is a “conservative” who’s fine with the dominant social network on the planet being staffer entirely by hyper-progressives. Beck argues that it’s their right as a private entity — and he is, of course, correct. But just because they have the right to do it doesn’t imply that they should — or that they shouldn’t face a backlash from users, stakeholders, and investors.

Without knowing what was said at the meeting, it’s impossible to know what was promised to Beck and other conservatives in order to make them so docile. Facebook has promised nothing other than an internal investigation, and granted conservatives nothing but a PR-focused, behind-closed-doors meeting.

The attendees seem to have focused entirely on the trending news controversy, and ignored Facebook’s year-long track record of open censorship in Europe. They’ve also ignored Zuckerberg’s overtures to the Chinese government, which doesn’t bode well for free speech on the platform. And they’ve ignored the reports of critics of immigration in the U.S, who report widespread difficulties on Facebook.

Once again, it’s worth returning to Mark Zuckerberg’s famous comments about his original social media users, at Harvard:

“They trust me” said Zuckerberg. “Dumb f*cks.”

Bob Bennett did not speak for the majority of Americans

I hope you will understand that if, this close to Sen. Bob Bennett’s demise, that I do not use the term upon which this blog is based.  Suffice it to say that Bennett is wrong and thank our lucky stars that Mike Lee was elected (now if we can just rid ourselves of Hatch, TURD).  Obviously the number of Muslims which wish non-Muslims dead are the majority.  The trouble is that Muslims, in aggregate, do not and cannot as Muslims support our Constitution.  The teachings of their religion do not allow it.  Also too many of these people are violent and thousands are killed yearly in the name of Allah.  Why do we have to put up with that crap just so some misguided Senator can feel good on his death bed.  I call BS!  Obviously Bob, as an individual, could apologize to whomever he wishes, but he did not speak for me and the majority of Americans!  We MUST get a handle on our immigration problems immediately!


Bob Bennett, a former Republican senator from Utah who died earlier this month, spent his final days of life reaching out to Muslims at his hospital and apologizing for Donald Trump.

He reportedly asked his wife from his deathbed, the Daily Beast found: “Are there any Muslims in the hospital?”

His intent, according to his wife and son, was to soothe any ruffled feathers they may have had over Trump’s comments from the campaign trail about Muslims. Trump, at one point, issued a campaign promise to ban all Muslims from entering the country for a temporary period in order to allow border and security officials to better address terrorism risks facing the nation, and control the threats crossing into America.

Bennett, apparently, found such views and statements abhorrent.

“I’d love to go up to every single one of [the Muslims] to thank them for being in this country and apologize to them on behalf of the Republican Party for Donald Trump,” he reportedly said, according to his wife and son.

His wife said he also spent time apologizing to Muslims on behalf of the GOP.

“He would go to people with the hijab and tell them he was glad they were in America and they were welcome here,” she said, the Daily Beast reported. “He wanted to apologize on behalf of the Republican Party.”

The tea party’s choice, Mike Lee, beat Bennett in the 2010 primary race for Senate. Bennett died from cancer of the pancreas and suffered paralysis from a stroke in his final days.

If he is elected, Trumps list of 11 possible Supreme Court justices with short bio


Releases names of 11 potential justices to replace Scalia

Trump’s list included a brief biography of the potential nominees:

  • Steven Colloton of Iowa is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a position he has held since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2003. Judge Colloton has a résumé that also includes distinguished service as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a lecturer of law at the University of Iowa. He received his law degree from Yale, and he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Colloton is an Iowa native.
  • Allison Eid of Colorado is an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters (with 75% of voters favoring retention). Prior to her judicial service, Justice Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Justice Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
  • Raymond Gruender of Missouri has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since his 2004 appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gruender, who sits in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensive prosecutorial experience, culminating with his time as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Gruender received a law degree and an M.B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis.
  • Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 2007. Prior to serving as a circuit judge, he served as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2003. Before his judicial service, Judge Hardiman worked in private practice in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh. Judge Hardiman was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Notre Dame.
  • Raymond Kethledge of Michigan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit since 2008. Before his judicial service, Judge Kethledge served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, worked as a partner in two law firms, and worked as an in-house counsel for the Ford Motor Company. Judge Kethledge obtained his law degree from the University of Michigan and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.
  • Joan Larsen of Michigan is an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law from 1998 until her appointment to the bench. In 2002, she temporarily left academia to work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Justice Larsen received her law degree from Northwestern and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.
  • Thomas Lee of Utah has been an Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court since 2010. Beginning in 1997, he served on the faculty of Brigham Young University Law School, where he still teaches in an adjunct capacity. Justice Lee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division from 2004 to 2005. Justice Lee attended the University of Chicago Law School, and he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Lee is also the son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee and the brother of current U.S. Senator Mike Lee.
  • William Pryor Jr. of Alabama is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has served on the court since 2004. Judge Pryor became the Alabama Attorney General in 1997 upon Jeff Sessions’s election to the U.S. Senate. Judge Pryor was then elected in his own right in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In 2013, Judge Pryor was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Judge Pryor received his law degree from Tulane, and he clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • David Stras of Minnesota has been an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court since 2010. After his initial appointment, he was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Stras worked as a legal academic at the University of Minnesota Law School. In his time there, he wrote extensively about the function and structure of the judiciary. Justice Stras received his law degree and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
  • Diane Sykes of Wisconsin has served as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004. Prior to her federal appointment, Judge Sykes had been a Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 1999 and a Wisconsin trial court judge of both civil and criminal matters before that. Judge Sykes received her law degree from Marquette.
  • Don Willett of Texas has been a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 2005. He was initially appointed by Governor Rick Perry and has been reelected by the voters twice. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Willett worked as a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as an advisor in George W. Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and as a Deputy Attorney General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Justice Willett received his law degree and a master’s degree from Duke.

Socialists, TURDs

Socialism Is An Immoral System

This article was written by Bob Livingston and originally published at Personal Liberty Digest

The American economic system, and in fact the world’s economic system is failing, and that failure is being attributed by many on the left (and some on the right) as a failure of capitalism.

This false notion has given rise to Bernie Sanders and his preaching of social democracy. How has this happened?

Every writer and every commentator and every politician in America refers to the U.S. as a democracy of free enterprise capitalism with individual privacy and property rights. This is a big laugh to any sober person.

The system and its paid politicians still repeat high-sounding terms like “freedom of the individual” and “free enterprise,” which sedates the madding crowd. The terms “private” and “freedom” no longer mean what they once meant. They are cruel deceptions that fool the mind yearning for human freedom.

The fact is that in America we have massive regulation and regimentation. This is necessary, we are told, because it is “in the public interest.” It all spews forth out of “democracy” as if a Biblical word and a holy sanction. Terms like “public interest” and “common good” are code words that mean police state and reduced liberty.

We live in a fiction of freedom perpetuated with semantic corruption that has evolved us into economic fascism. Language and words that support a free society have been turned inside out.

With this propaganda reverse, opposition has been neutralized. True words, true meanings of patriotism and freedom have become the farce and illusion that cover fascism.

So Sanders has attracted the millennials in droves based on the lie that capitalism is immoral but his brand of socialism is moral because it guarantees “equality.” These millennials tweet or blog their discontent with the present system on their Iphones and Androids and computers created by capitalists who got rich and then became crony capitalist socialists or fascists.

But Sanders doesn’t distinguish between monopoly or crony capitalism and true free-market capitalism. Free market capitalism hasn’t existed in the U.S., or much of anywhere else for that matter, in more than 100 years. So capitalism hasn’t failed and isn’t failing.

There is a silent marriage between big government and big business. It exists around the world. It’s called fascism, or was in Italy, though we have the same thing.

All governments are fronts for monopoly capitalism, and monopoly capitalism has many names: fascism, socialism, communism and democracy. Big business has and will promote every ideology and philosophy known to man to disguise its madness for profits. But one equals the other. They are all immoral systems that use the power of government to exist and to suppress human freedom.

The only moral system is laissez-faire capitalism; the system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference. It was American free market capitalism that fueled the growth of the U.S. economic engine beginning in the 1800s and raised the standard of living around the globe, before monopoly capitalism began to exert greater and greater control over the U.S. economic system beginning in the mid-1800s and accelerated after the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Sadly, it’s not just the progressive left and ignorant millennials that oppose free market capitalism. In any discussion forum where laissez-faire capitalism is discussed, “conservatives” are quick to make the disclaimer that “we must have some regulation” or, “we can’t haveunfettered capitalism.” In truth, most so-called conservatives are really closet socialists. This is a testament to the powerful propaganda we are subjected to.

In 1993, C. Bradley Thompson, then assistant professor of political science at Ashland University, described the immorality of socialism and the morality of capitalism as well as anyone I’ve read. This should be shared with anyone you know – particularly young people who are victims of the public (non)education system — who has bought the lie that capitalism is a failed system and has embraced conventional wisdom and Sanders’ false paradigm:

Socialism vs. capitalism: Which is the moral system?

Throughout history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the twentieth-century collectivism has taken many forms: socialism, fascism, Nazism, welfare-statism and communism are its more notable variations. The only social system commensurate with individualism is laissez-faire capitalism.

The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two-hundred years is a matter of historical record. But very few people are willing to defend capitalism as morally uplifting.

It is fashionable among college professors, journalists, and politicians these days to sneer at the free-enterprise system. They tell us that capitalism is base, callous, exploitative, dehumanizing, alienating, and ultimately enslaving.

The intellectuals’ mantra runs something like this: In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world. Capitalism, by contrast, is a morally bankrupt system despite the extraordinary prosperity it has created. In other words, capitalism at best, can only be defended on pragmatic grounds. We tolerate it because it works.

Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.

The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another’s wealth but also the desire to see another’s wealth lowered to the level of one’s own. Socialism’s teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Benito Mussolini. The highest principle of Nazism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: “Common good comes before private good.” Fascism, said Mussolini, is “a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interests… realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies.”

Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class.

Despite the intellectuals’ psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system.

Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders — that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent.

Capitalism is the only just system because the sole criterion that determines the value of a thing exchanged is the free, voluntary, universal judgment of the consumer. Coercion and fraud are anathema to the free-market system.

It is both moral and just because the degree to which man rises or falls in society is determined by the degree to which he uses his mind. Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one’s birth or station in life.

Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism. The winners are those who are honest, industrious, thoughtful, prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined, and efficient. The losers are those who are shiftless, lazy, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical, and inefficient.

Capitalism is the only social system that rewards virtue and punishes vice. This applies to both the business executive and the carpenter, the lawyer and the factory worker.

But how does the entrepreneurial mind work? Have you ever wondered about the mental processes of the men and women who invented penicillin, the internal combustion engine, the airplane, the radio, the electric light, canned food, air conditioning, washing machines, dishwashers, computers, etc.?

What are the characteristics of the entrepreneur? The entrepreneur is that man or woman with unlimited drive, initiative, insight, energy, daring creativity, optimism and ingenuity. The entrepreneur is the man who sees in every field a potential garden, in every seed an apple. Wealth starts with ideas in people’s heads.

The entrepreneur is therefore above all else a man of the mind. The entrepreneur is the man who is constantly thinking of new ways to improve the material or spiritual lives of the greatest number of people.

And what are the social and political conditions which encourage or inhibit the entrepreneurial mind? The free-enterprise system is not possible without the sanctity of private property, the freedom of contract, free trade and the rule of law.

But the one thing that the entrepreneur values over all others is freedom — the freedom to experiment, invent and produce. The one thing that the entrepreneur dreads is government intervention. Government taxation and regulation are the means by which social planners punish and restrict the man or woman of ideas.

Welfare, regulations, taxes, tariffs, minimum-wage laws are all immoral because they use the coercive power of the state to organize human choice and action; they’re immoral because they inhibit or deny the freedom to choose how we live our lives; they’re immoral because they deny our right to live as autonomous moral agents; and they’re immoral because they deny our essential humanity. If you think this is hyperbole, stop paying your taxes for a year or two and see what happens.

The requirements for success in a free society demand that ordinary citizens order their lives in accordance with certain virtues — namely, rationality, independence, industriousness, prudence, frugality, etc. In a free capitalist society individuals must choose for themselves how they will order their lives and the values they will pursue. Under socialism, most of life’s decisions are made for you.

Both socialism and capitalism have incentive programs. Under socialism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility. There is no reason to work harder than anyone else because the rewards are shared and therefore minimal to the hard-working individual; indeed, the incentive is to work less than others because the immediate loss is shared and therefore minimal to the slacker.

Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production — the rewards are not shared. Simply put: socialism rewards sloth and penalizes hard work while capitalism rewards hard work and penalizes sloth.

According to socialist doctrine, there is a limited amount of wealth in the world that must be divided equally between all citizens. One person’s gain under such a system is another’s loss.

According to the capitalist teaching, wealth has an unlimited growth potential and the fruits of one’s labor should be retained in whole by the producer. But unlike socialism, one person’s gain is everybody’s gain in the capitalist system. Wealth is distributed unequally but the ship of wealth rises for everyone.

Sadly, America is no longer a capitalist nation. We live under what is more properly called a mixed economy — that is, an economic system that permits private property, but only at the discretion of government planners. A little bit of capitalism and a little bit of socialism.

When government redistributes wealth through taxation, when it attempts to control and regulate business production and trade, who are the winners and losers? Under this kind of economy the winners and losers are reversed: the winners are those who scream the loudest for a handout and the losers are those quiet citizens who work hard and pay their taxes.

As a consequence of our sixty-year experiment with a mixed economy and the welfare state, America has created two new classes of citizens. The first is a debased class of dependents whose means of survival is contingent upon the forced expropriation of wealth from working citizens by a professional class of government social planners. The forgotten man and woman in all of this is the quiet, hardworking, law-abiding, taxpaying citizen who minds his or her own business but is forced to work for the government and their serfs.

The return of capitalism will not happen until there is a moral revolution in this country. We must rediscover and then teach our young the virtues associated with being free and independent citizens. Then and only then, will there be social justice in America.

Newt Gingrich, TURD

Remember the Contract with America written by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey?  After all the BS, practically NOTHING from that ‘contract’ was ever implemented.  A November 13, 2000, article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, “…the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.”  It was primarily a political document to get Republicans elected and for the most part, smoke and mirrors, just like Newt Gingrich, TURD!



By Kelleigh Nelson
May 11, 2016

Some of the most poisonous people come disguised as friends and family.

The saddest thing about betrayal is that it never comes from your enemies.

Newt Stumping for Trump

Although Gingrich has not endorsed a candidate in 2016, the former speaker is leading the campaign for Trump. Gingrich has been stumping for Trumpbehind the scenes, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Last week, in a closed-door meeting, before more than 100 Republican chiefs of staff from the House and Senate in Baltimore, Gingrich raved about the Republican frontrunner, calling him a “blue-collar bar room brawler.”

I’ve found it interesting as to who has decided to back Mr. Trump. Most of them I wouldn’t want anywhere near the White House, much less in Trump’s administration. I would gather that many of the politicians simply want a spot in the Trump administration. What is even more interesting is thelist of so-called “conservatives” who will not vote for Trump, but that’s another article. They’re not conservatives. The very word has been destroyed by the likes of Irving Kristol and William F. Buckley…. they are instead, traitors, leftists masquerading as Republicans. Newt Gingrich fits this bill.

Newt Masquerades as a Conservative

Newt masquerades as a rightwing conservative, but is one of the most dangerous enemies of freedom.

Gingrich is a college professor, historian, and author, and he twice ran unsuccessfully for the House before winning a seat in the election of November 1978. He was re-elected ten times, and his activism as a member of the House’s Republican minority eventually enabled him to succeed Dick Cheney as House Minority Whip in 1989. As a co-author of the 1994 Contract with America, Gingrich was in the forefront of the Republican Party’s dramatic success in that year’s Congressional elections and subsequently was elected Speaker of the House.

Newt received his PhD in modern European history from Tulane University in New Orleans in 1971. At Tulane University he accepted student deferments rather than being drafted to Viet Nam. He experimented with marijuana. He led a campus demonstration defending the school paper’s right to print a photo of a nude faculty member. And in 1968 he campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller.

In 1990, he became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. If you’ve never read Richard N. Gardner’s April 1974 article in CFR’s World Affairs, Gardner called for an end run around national sovereignty eroding it piece by piece. The CFR was founded in 1921 for world government and eliminating national independence. Henry Kissinger is also a CFR member and actually schooled Newt, and both claim they’re conservatives. Newt is also a fellow at phony conservative think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute(AEI) and Hoover Institution, focusing on U.S. politics, world history, national security policy, and environmental policy issues. Trotskyite Irving Kristol was a senior fellow at AEI, and Richard Allen, author of NAFTA while at Heritage Foundation, is a Hoover fellow.

Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, he married his first wife, Jackie Battley, who was 6 years his senior and his high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.

According to Battley, Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital recovering from uterine cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther in 1981. In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer, Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal, when Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton for perjury in connection with his alleged affairs with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. In 1999, over the Mother’s Day weekend and on the same day his second wife had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Gingrich informed her he had found someone else.

In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife Ginther. He and Callista currently live in McLean, Virginia. If I were Callista, I’d take extremely good care of my health.

Gingrich’s Voting Record

Newt was elected Congressman from Georgia in 1978. In 1979 he voted:

1. YEA to the creation of the Department of Education, which is unconstitutional (William Z. Foster called for a federal Department of Education in his book, “Towards Soviet America.”) Studies were to be cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the ‘bourgeois’ ideology. Students were to be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, inter-nationalism and general ethics of the new Socialist Society. [Link], [Link]

Donald J. Trump wants to eliminate the Department of Education.

2. YEA to designating 68 million acres as Federal protected wilderness. Our constitution doesn’t call for any land “control,” but the communist manifesto calls for all abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Federal Land grabs today are huge percentages of the 13 western states that are now federally owned.

Donald J. Trump believes in property rights, not the confiscation of properties by the Bureau of Land Management, the EPA, and the Federal Government.

In 1994 Newt voted:

1. YEA to the National Endowment for the Arts
2. YEA for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping
3. YEA for the presidential line item veto
4. YEA for 13 billion in foreign aid
5. YEA for 166 million more for the IRS
6. Led Congress into GATT with fellow CFR member Bill Clinton and then stated that it was a very big transfer of power. It was, because it overrode Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. As well, GATT reduces the amount of money we can save for pensions. He jawed with President Clinton in NH, that he was a huge fan of FDR and Woodrow Wilson, two of the most despised early communist leaning presidents. Remember Wilson gave us both the federal reserve and the 16th amendment, income tax.

Donald J. Trump would never approve of this type of spending. And he certainly is against these trade deals which destroy American jobs

Newt also voted:

1. China as Most Favored Nation for trade.
2. Voted to supply funds to subsidize trade with the Soviets.
3. Voted to transfer 2.2 million acres in Idaho to Wilderness status.
4. Voted for federal funding loan guarantees for greater trade with Red China.
5. Voted for taxpayer funds being available to foreign governments through export/import banks.
6. Is pro amnesty – Joe Galloway wrote in December 2010 that both Newt and Jeb Bush were pro-amnesty. Gingrich stated, “We are not going to deport 11 million immigrants.” How about 40 million Newt…send them home, they’re an invasion! [Link]
7. Is pro foreign aid. In 1995 he voted for 31.8 billion in foreign aid, but wouldn’t vote to cut foreign aid by a measly 1%.

Donald J. Trump is strongly against amnesty and wants to protect our borders and build that wall.

Newt also backed a strong central government, strong environmental laws, national service programs, the United Nations Goals 2000 (which many Republicans voted for), federal financing of local police, and UN peacekeeping missions for our military.

8. Gingrich is pro-Obamacare and even advocated it in the 90s on Meet the Press, and recently. [Link]

Donald Trump says Obamacare should be repealed and replaced.

9. Newt did a Global Warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that is coming back to haunt him, and in reality, he is a big environmentalist.

10. Newt is pro-gun control.

If you check on the voting list of those who voted “yea” on Public Law 101-216 in 1989 (an update to the General and Complete Disarmament Law, Public Law 87-297) you will find that Newt Gingrich voted in favor of section 2 of this disarmament bill which reads:

“(2) as defined in this Act, the terms ‘arms control’ and ‘disarmament’ mean ‘the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement to establish an effective system of international control.”

Should we trust a man who professes to be so concerned with our security and right to have armed forces, who also votes to give them away to the United Nations for a world army? The last thing we need is someone who professes to protect us, while at the same time, is planning to sell us out! See Bernadine Smith’s website for countless documents.

Donald J. Trump is strongly pro-Second Amendment.

Newt Gingrich is a Third Waver

We’ve gone over some of what Newt has done in the past, and part of what he stands for, but we haven’t touched at all on his belief in Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s THE THIRD WAVE. To make it quite clear, Toffler’s beliefs are rooted solidly in communism, but dressed up thoroughly in neo-con speak and sprinkled with the tiniest bit of capitalism. Speaker Gingrich has been a Third Waver since the 1970s.

Newt, who swore an oath 10 times to uphold and defend the Constitution urges with his mentor, Toffler, the very death of the American Constitutional system, and this includes private property rights. He wrote the forward to Toffler’s book, “Creating a New Civilization.” As New Age authority Constance Cumbey wrote in her article about Gingrich, the very best information on The Third Wave and Newt Gingrich was written by Steve Farrell. Print out Farrell’s 8-part series, and read it carefully. It is a picture of what is happening to America. In aprevious article about Newt Gingrich and the Third Wave, I quoted extensively from Steve Farrell’s excellent article.

“The Third Way/Wave may sound new and innocuous to many, but its founders include such earlier notables as Plato (The Republic), Karl Marx (The Communist Manifesto), and Adolf Hitler (National Socialism), certainly not the best crew for men and women sworn to defend our Constitution and to turn to for inspiration.”


Recent primary voting has shown Republicans that the chosen nominee is Donald J. Trump. Now, many of these Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon to endorse Trump, and the endorsements are appreciated. However, not all of them would line up with Mr. Trump’s positions on the issues, and neither will Trump line up with theirs. Newt Gingrich is hailed as a strong conservative, but his voting record and beliefs belie the label.

[P.S. In order to help Mr. Trump we need to increase the hits to reach more people. Please use this material, and call into talk radio programs (like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, etc.) and mention NewsWithViews.com on the air while discussing the content of this article, write letters to newspaper editors, and speak to your friends. Spread the word, and in doing so, we have a chance to save America.]

Target Management, TURDs

I read somewhere that maybe .3% of the U.S. population is transgender.  So some 700,000 are unsure or undergoing some gender transition, whether real or imaginary.  Further there is some 170,000,000 females in the U.S. population.  Would it not make more sense to give the trannies a restroom where they could go individually (like a unisex, family restroom with one commode) rather than subject 170 million females to the relatively few perverts that will use a female dressing room or bathroom as an opportunity to ply their trade?  Target Management, TURDs!


Target 1

What’s Next for Target Dressing Rooms – Attacks – Abductions?

On April 19, Target announced that anyone can now use their restrooms or dressing rooms, regardless of gender.

With its announcement, Target has made the statement that they are a company run by enlightened progressives who care more about equal rights than you and I.

Their statement, so chock-full of feel-good liberal buzzwords, it could have (and may have) been written by the Obama administration. On its corporate website they posted that, “We believe that everyone – every team member, every guest, and every community – deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally. We welcome transgendered team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”

So we deserve to be protected from discrimination, just not from predators. They also mentioned that they “welcome transgendered team members” (store employees) yet strangely, I haven’t seen anywhere the number of transgender “team members” they have. And even odder is that the mainstream media has not bothered to ask. I wonder why that is, he asked rhetorically.

Instead, all we hear is the constant refrain of how anyone who doesn’t agree with the Target policy is a Bible-thumping myopic Neanderthal. When we with common sense dare to question the sanity of the Target policy, the left claims that we are unnecessarily whipping up opposition and just being absurd.

Yet we warned from day one what will happen. I don’t mean to imply that Target, as a private company, can’t institute any policy it wishes. They have every right to and once initiated, all who enter their stores must comply. If someone disagrees with a store policy they can turn around and walk away. Evidently, many have.

But still, we warned them. We warned that their policy would be abused, not by transgenders, but by sick twisted perverts and son
of a gun, we were right again.

Not four days after the Target announcement, one of these sick pervs was arrested for secretly filming girls and women in a Target dressing room in Brentwood, Missouri. He was arrested after holding a camera phone under a dressing room door while a female shopper tried on a swimsuit. Upon arrest it was discovered that he was also in possession of a loaded gun – but I’m sure the gun was to be used for self-defense and not for potential abduction. And as it turns out the pervert was not a first timer. He was also arrested in 2013 for being a pervert.

A few days later it happened at an Oklahoma Target, where a man was caught looking under a door while a woman was trying on clothes. The perv admitted to police that he’s done this at other Target stores.

The most recent incident happened at a Texas target where a man used his phone to video a young girl in a dressing room. Unfortunately he is still at large.

Just a few weeks into this wonderful freedom policy and already there’ve been several documented incidents. But these perverts are like cockroaches. You may only see one, but if there is one in plain sight, rest assured there are thousands in the shadows which have not been discovered.

So what do we think, no – what do we know this will lead to? Of course. Mere peeping toms will give rise to those who wish to act on those impulses. It will give rise to stalking and eventually to attacks either in dressing rooms or elsewhere, but due to the unlimited access. This will happen – Mark my words!

And when it does will the enlightened left hold Target responsible as they insist gun manufacturers be for shootings? No chance!

Nothing can derail the agenda – not voyeurism, assault or even rape. The barriers of normal civilized societies must be smashed at any and all cost. Hundreds or thousands of girls and women being violated in some form is a small price to pay for radical leftists to upend normality. That’s what it’s really all about.

You are guilty whether you do or you don’t

 The court can tell you what you have to state that you believe in  order to be released?!  Regardless of your actual belief’s.  Are we going back to the middle ages where you tie a rock to a ‘witch’, throw her in the river and if she survives she’s a ‘witch’?!  Otherwise, not?  The Constitution trashing judicial system.  Better wake up America!


In a case with major implications for free speech and due process, an appeal by Doreen Hendrickson, a mother jailed last year on “contempt of court” charges for refusing a federal court order to perjure herself, was officially denied.

The court claimed that it did not have to rule on the illegality or unconstitutionality of the court order that was supposedly violated, or on whether it was appropriate for the trial court to instruct the jury not to consider the legality of the demands.

If the ruling is allowed to stand, observers and legal experts warned of potentially devastating consequences to the rule of law, due process of law, judicial integrity, freedom of speech, and all of Americans’ constitutionally protected rights.

Basically, the government could force anyone to say anything, under oath, critics of the ruling observed.

The attorney representing Hendrickson, Mark Cedrone, even compared the government’s efforts to force his client to say what the government wants to Islamic Shariah law demanding the affirmation of Allah.

The panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that upheld the lower-court ruling did not cite Islamic law.

Instead, it relied on an obscure legal theory to justify its decision to avoid ruling on what experts say are the key issues.

Developed by the courts themselves to justify judicial power, the rarely used doctrine is known as “collateral bar.”

In essence, the doctrine purports to allow court orders to stand and is aimed at ensuring that courts’ effective authority is upheld.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that transparently invalid orders are not shielded from review by the collateral bar doctrine, something the family and its supporters say the appellate court refused to recognize.

Nonetheless, reliance on that doctrine is how the three-judge panel, in ruling to uphold Hendrickson’s conviction for contempt, was able to side-step the real issue in the case: whether violating a court order to commit perjury, or any other crime, in defiance of the most well-established constitutional protections, is a valid reason to jail somebody.

The lower court claimed that, “it is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order that the defendant is accused of violating was unlawful or unconstitutional.”

The defense was hoping to see that order overturned.

Indeed, critics of the ruling have been quick to point out that the actual U.S. statute defining criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 401(3), makes clear that it only applies to lawful orders. It refers to “disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” (emphasis added)

With its controversial ruling, though, the appellate court panel upheld the unprecedented doctrine that courts can essentially issue any lawless or even unconstitutional order, and expect it to be obeyed without question, regardless of its validity.

Experts and observers warned of potentially far-reaching consequences for all Americans if the new doctrine is allowed to stand.

Hendrickson speaks from prison

In an exclusive statement provided to WND from federal prison, Hendrickson, a mother of two, slammed the justice system and highlighted the implications of allowing the rulings to stand.

“Not only I, but the Founders as well, have been betrayed by both the Department of Justice and the courts,” she said. “Natural rights, such as those of free thoughts and words, are sacred and inviolable, but these two branches of our government have trampled on my natural rights in nefarious pursuit of financial and political goals.”

While Hendrickson is scheduled for release in less than six months, if she continues refusing to commit perjury as demanded by the court order, she will be ordered back to prison.

But she has not lost hope. “While the worst of the punishment imposed on me for having the audacity to exercise my rights is nearing its end, it’s important to me to continue efforts to have this conviction overturned,” she explained.

“Honestly, at this point in my life, I couldn’t care less about having the tag ‘felon’,” she added. “But I’m frightened for my kids and, by extension, the rest of America.”

“When I was surrounded by assault rifles, arrested and taken away in June 2013, I never in a million years would have thought a federal judge would allow a trial to proceed on a contempt charge that was brought simply as a result of me exercising my First Amendment right to free speech,” Hendrickson continued. “But that’s just what happened.

“First, me,” she said. “Next, who?” Possibly you, she warned.

“Thus far, the DoJ attorneys, the District Court and the 6th Circuit appeal panel have defied innumerable Supreme Court rulings that the right to free speech shall not be abridged,” Hendrickson continued, referring to the countless times the Supreme Court has upheld the First Amendment-protected right to speak, or not speak, freely.

“The en banc 6th Circuit has the opportunity to correct the lower courts,” she concluded. “For all our sakes, I hope they don’t fail to take it.”

Commit perjury, or go to jail

As WND reported in February, the Hendrickson case surrounds the 2002 and 2003 tax returns filed by Hendrickson and her husband.

Five years later, a federal court and the federal government ordered Hendrickson to sign a revised form under penalty of perjury — a form that she believed to be inaccurate.

Because signing something one believes to be false under oath is a serious crime, the mother initially refused to comply.

Eventually, she obeyed the order to avoid punishment, but noted that the sworn statement was being compelled by authorities and was made under duress.

Because of that decision, she has been sitting behind bars for “contempt of court” for over a year.

Hendrickson was never even accused by the government of tax evasion or filing false tax returns, much less convicted of such crimes by a jury.

Her sole “crime” was to refuse to sign, under penalty of perjury, a declaration that she believed to be untrue, which would have itself been a serious criminal act punishable by law.

Both Hendrickson and her husband, Peter, however, along with their supporters across America, believe that the real reason the courts and the federal government have gone to such lengths in this case is a book he wrote.

Basically, they argue that the government hopes to suppress arguments made by Mr. Hendrickson in his book “Cracking the Code – The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America.”

WND has not read the book or independently verified its arguments, but it reportedly argues that the federal government has been overcharging most Americans on their taxes using deceptive practices.

The federal government sought to suppress the book, unsuccessfully, in court.

When that failed, the Hendrickson family and its supporters argue, authorities decided to go after the family and attempt to force Mrs. Hendrickson to swear falsely under oath that she believes what the government says.

Critics have slammed the proceedings as a sham.

Some observers have even called for criminal charges against those involved in the legal assault.

Brian Wright, a longtime liberty activist who attended Hendrickson’s original trial, was so moved by the “travesty” he observed in the trial that he decided to write a book, “The Motor City Witchcraft Trial(s),” outlining alleged abuses behind the case.

He told WND that all of the officials involved in the “crime of suborning Doreen’s perjury” should be indicted, convicted and imprisoned for their “heinous act of violence.”

Implications for free speech and due process

The family and its growing numbers of supporters across America, more than a dozen of whom have contacted WND about the case, warned that if the government can compel speech and perjury in the Hendrickson case, it can do it in any case.

The rule of law, as well as key constitutionally protected rights enshrined in the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, are all under threat.

That should terrify everyone, observers said.

Journalist and documentary maker Shane Trejo was so moved by what he perceived as the injustice in the case that he created a video to showcase it and spread awareness.

“Seeing the Soviet-style show trial first hand was a real eye opener for me,” Trejo told WND. “It showed that these judges and prosecutors will do anything to protect their federal gravy train — even if it means destroying the life of an innocent woman.”

“The rule of law is officially dead in what was formerly the land of the free,” he added.

Pete Hendrickson’s “Lost Horizons” newsletter, which has kept supporters of the family updated on the case, also outlined some of the implications.

“If the state gets away with dictating Doreen’s testimony in this case, it will soon be dictating the testimony and ‘admissions’ of anyone it chooses to target for property-seizure, compelled waiver of rights or simple punishment,” the report said, urging people to take action.

“If the damning ‘testimony’ is not made, trial for ‘contempt’ follows, and the unlawfulness of the order will be off the table for the jury, just as in Doreen’s trials,” it continued. “The only thing that will matter is that the false testimony was not made as commanded.”

“This ploy will be used to control testimony about others, or concerning matters of public policy, also,” the newsletter argued. “And the public will never know.”

The report also noted that authorities wanted to cover up even the fact that they had compelled Doreen Hendrickson to perjure herself, by refusing to allow her to note that the statements were made under duress.

“One feature of Doreen’s case was that she was ordered not only to swear she believes what she does not, but to conceal the fact that what she said was not her own testimony, and that she was forced to say it,” the newsletter added.

It concluded: “The potential for evil here is unprecedented.”

Husband speaks out on targeting

In a recent interview with WND, Pete Hendrickson, Doreen’s husband, outlined what he said were some of the implications of allowing the rulings to stand.

Among other key concerns, Pete Hendrickson said the legal foundation has now been established for the government to compel anyone and everyone to say under oath what the government wants them to say in court – even in contests with the government.

“No tyrant could hope for a better tool than what is being made judicial precedent in Cincinnati in the case of United States v. Doreen Hendrickson,” he told WND. “The case should be re-titled United States v. America.”

The decision by the appellate panel “pretends that some arcane judicial doctrine [collateral bar] legitimizes its turning a blind eye to the fact that what’s being done to my wife by the lower courts and the DOJ is illegal,” he continued.

“The panel pretends that this doctrine somehow works to allow enforcement of court orders which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution,” Pete Hendrickson said. “This is a transparently false.”

Not only are the orders given to Doreen Hendrickson simply “not authorized.” “They are specifically prohibited,” he said, noting that the government cannot command people to say and swear to believe what it wishes.

Such orders “cannot be lawfully made, not even by some ‘interpretation’ or ‘construction’ of the Constitution,” Hendrickson said, citing the First Amendment and countless Supreme Court rulings.

In short, he argued that the “corrupt” appellate panel started with the knowledge that the orders are illegal, and it does not even try to excuse them or argue that they could be anything but illegal.

“But rather than do its duty in light of that knowledge, and declare the orders void and have Doreen instantly released, the panel struggles to construct a rationale for its refusal to do so,” he said, arguing that the goal was to preserve his wife’s conviction “at all costs.”

Pete Hendrickson said the reasons for the illegal orders and the effort to let the conviction stand are obvious.

The government hopes, he argued, that the “abuse” of his wife will deter others from investigating what he called the “misapplication of the income tax over the past 75 years” by the a “swollen and arrogant Leviathan state.”

He also said that the “vile crime” was committed by the government even while it admits the accuracy of his arguments by routinely approving tax refunds to those who have studied his work. Countless people have posted pictures of their successful filings and refunds on the Internet, he and his supporters point out.

“But even the tax issue and the effort to hide information from the American people that motivates this judicial corruption pales in the face of the limitless mischief to which this panel decision opens the door,” Pete Hendrickson said. “While the tax issue is huge, the proposition that people can be forced to make testimonial declarations dictated by the government –and even in legal contests with the government itself – should be scaring the pants off every person in the country.”

Pointing to the Founders, he highlighted the fact that they enshrined the prohibition on infringements against freedom of speech in the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution — something required before the states even agreed to ratify it.

“Anyone with even a rudimentary imagination can readily grasp how this power will be used to circumvent every right and utterly destroy all remaining limits on state power,” he said.

“And this will be accomplished without dissent,” Pete Hendrickson concluded. “Dissenters will be ordered to declare the opposite of what they really believe, just as was Doreen, or thrown into prison for refusing to do so, just as was Doreen.”

The implications for freedom are enormous.

Shariah-style forced speech?

Doreen Hendrickson’s attorney was surprised that the appeals court panel upheld the lower court’s decision to punish a person for refusing to commit perjury in the face of a judicial order.

“I can’t help but believe that Doreen Hendrickson is being penalized for the content of her speech,” Cedrone, the defense lawyer, told WND.

“The matter here is simple,” he said. “Mrs. Hendrickson has been punished simply for refusing to say that which she indisputably disbelieves.”

“The court of appeals has affirmed her conviction for politely disobeying an order requiring her to state under oath that her earnings are subject to the income tax, a proposition with which she disagrees,” Cedrone continued.

“In certain countries where Shariah law controls, if one disavows Allah as god, they are subject to death,” he said. “In the United States if one refuses to agree and declare under oath that all earnings are subject to the income tax, they go to jail.”

“One might suggest the comparison is melodramatic, but is it really?”

The entire case, he said, “represents a shameful abuse of public authority.”

Options going forward

While Doreen Hendrickson is set to be released on September 4 if all goes according to plan, that is not the end of the story.

As a condition of her supervised post-incarceration release, authorities are still purporting to require that she commit perjury by claiming under oath to believe something she does not in fact believe.

The alternative, though, is being locked up again. For how long remains unclear, though it would be at least another 10 months.

With the March 11 decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to deny Hendrickson’s appeal, she is running out of options on the case.

One avenue being pursued is to have the full appeals court agree to rehear the case, en banc, and overrule the panel and the lower court.

A motion has already been filed requesting a re-hearing by the entire appellate court.

So far, it is not clear whether the full court will take on the case and overrule a panel of its own judges, but it is extremely rare for that to happen.

Another option, if that fails, could be the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the high court only agrees to hear a tiny fraction of the appeals that reach it, making it an exceedingly difficult and expensive alternative.

The family and its supporters, meanwhile, are working to raise public awareness about what they say is a grave injustice, in hopes of eventually securing justice somehow.

The ‘Box of Rocks’ Party: Bill Kristol, TURD and Mitt Romney, TURD

LOL … Bill Kristol, TURD is apparently trying to enlist Mitt Romney, TURD’s help in forming a … well, on most ballots it would be at least an 8th party.  That is a party after Constitution, Libertarian, some out right Socialist/Communists, Greens, Republican, Democrats (socialists), and Independents under some name.  Go for it Mittens, TURD, I’d love to see the results.  You people make a box of rocks look like geniuses.

‘Weekly Standard’ Editor Bill Kristol Meeting Mitt Romney to Float Third Party Run

As the #NeverTrump forces continue to cast about for ways to knock Donald Trump from his frontrunner status in the race for the White House, the editor of the Weekly Standard magazine has admitted to meeting in D.C. with Mitt Romney in order to convince him to run a third party campaign against Trump.

Despite repeatedly saying he isn’t interested in running for president, Mitt Romney nonetheless met last week with William Kristol. The meeting was called at the editor’s behest for a talk about an independent run for the White House this year.

Romney, a former Massachusetts Governor and the 2012 GOP nominee for President, has said several times this cycle that he is not interested in running for president again. In March, for instance, the past GOP nominee told NBC Today Host Matt Lauer that “there are no circumstances I can foresee where it would possibly happen.”

Regardless of his pledge, Romney met with Kristol to discuss the conservative commentator’s ideas about putting together a last minute alternative to Donald Trump.

“He came pretty close to being elected president, so I thought he may consider doing it, especially since he has been very forthright in explaining why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States,” Kristol told the Washington Post.

Kristol, though, said he did recognize the many times Romney has said he isn’t interested in running in 2016 and added that if Romney turned him down he hoped he could get the Massachusetts Gov. to line up behind whatever candidate the magazine editor might eventually find.

“Obviously, if there were to be an independent candidacy, Romney’s support would be very important,” Kristol told the paper. “I wanted to get his wisdom on whether it was more or less doable than I thought.”

Still, even if he won’t consider yet another run for the White House himself, Romney has been a vocal critic of the 2016 campaign in general and Donald Trump in particular.

In fact, Last Thursday Romney told the Washington Examiner that he was “dismayed” by the choices for 2016 and insisted he won’t support either of the candidates representing the nation’s two major parties.

“I’m certainly going to be hoping that we find someone who I have my confidence in who becomes nominee. I don’t intend on supporting either of the major party candidates at this point,” Romney said.

For his part, Bill Kristol has been calling for someone he feels is better than Trump for months and has been trying to find a way to make some other candidate the “face of American conservatism” for 2016.

On a recent appearance on MSNBC, for instance, Kristol said, “We can do better” than Trump and Hillary. He added that Trump doesn’t have the “character” to be our commander in chief.

“I would like to have a conservative to vote for,” Kristol told Andrea Mitchell. “I think an awful lot of people in the country would, including a lot of moderates and conservatives … We have two candidates who are viewed by considerable majorities in an unfavorable way, not a favorable way, as the major party nominees.”

Another person Kristol tried to convince to face off against Hillary and Trump was retired Marine Corps General James Mattis. The General, though, delivered a firm “no” to Kristol’s idea.

Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley, Constitution Party candidates for President and Vice President of the United States

I do not know Darrell Castle personally but I do know Scott Bradley personally.  There is no one who knows the U.S. Constitution better than Mr. Bradley.  If you are looking for a team to vote for which will stand for liberty and the U.S. Constitution, vote for the Constitution Party nominees of Castle and Bradley.

Here is a little political history of Darrell Castle, J.D. from Wikipedia:

At the 2008 Constitution Party National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, Baptist pastor Chuck Baldwin defeated former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Alan Keyes to win the party’s nomination. The Party then nominated Castle to the ticket as its vice presidential candidate. Baldwin had himself been the Constitution Party nominee for Vice President in 2004.

At the 2012 Constitution Party National Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, Castle declared his candidacy for the party’s presidential nomination one day prior to the nomination vote, citing requests from several delegates that he seek the nomination. He finished as runner-up to former U.S. Congressman Virgil Goode, who won the nomination on the first ballot.

Castle is the former National Vice-Chairman of the Constitution Party.

Castle was a candidate for the Constitution Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, but withdrew his candidacy in January 2016 because of unspecified health concerns. However, on the eve of the 2016 nominating convention, Richard Winger of Ballot Access News reported that Castle had re-entered the nomination process.

On April 16, 2016, Castle secured the presidential nomination for the Constitution Party.  He has vowed, if elected, to get the United States out of the United Nations and NATO. “Our borders are worth defending. If we can secure the borders of Korea and Germany, then we can secure the borders of the United States,” said Castle. He made no reference to previous health concerns.

Constitution Party Nominee Acceptance Speech Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley, the 2016 presidential and vice presidential Constitution Party nominees, gave their acceptance speeches at the party’s convention at the City Center Hilton in Salt Lake City.