Category Archives: Conservatives

Ted Cruz endorses Trump; Glenn Beck ‘sad’; Heidi goes back to Goldman Sachs

What a commentary on the peculiar times in which we live that a Republican endorsing a fellow Republican is big news.

Yesterday, Ted Cruz, who was a bitter rival of Donald Trump during the GOP primaries, announced his endorsement of Trump in a post on his Facebook page:

This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election. […]

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary. […]

Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

Cruz then gave additional reasons for why he will vote for Trump, foremost of which are these two:

  1. The Supreme Court: “For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance…. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices ‘in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia.’ […]today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.”
  2. Obamacare: “The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.”

Cruz concluded with these words:

“If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country. My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.”

By Cruz’s own yardstick, his No. 1 fan Glenn Beck is without conscience.

After Cruz announced his endorsement of Trump, Beck wrote in a rambling post on Facebook:

“Profoundly sad day for me. Disappointment does not begin to describe my feelings. Maybe it is time to go to the mountains for a while.”

glenn-beck-reacts-to-ted-cruz-endorsing-trumpDuring the GOP primaries, Beck had touted Ted Cruz as the fulfillment of Mormon end-days prophecy, and told evangelical Christians that if they don’t vote for Cruz, they’re not listening to God.

After Cruz lost the primaries, Beck went off the deep end: He was on suicide watch and hinted at assassinating Trump.

Honestly, I’m surprised Glenn Beck still has listeners.

Wall Street donations to 2016 presidential candidates

Meanwhile, now that Ted Cruz is out of the presidential race, he doesn’t have to pretend to be one of the little people any longer. His wife is back at Goldman Sachs.

Dakin Campbell reports for Bloomberg, Sept. 23, 2016, that “Heidi Cruz, who left Goldman Sachs Group Inc. last year to help her husband Ted Cruz in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, is returning to the bank in a newly created role in the Houston office.

According to a memo to staff Friday from Tucker York, Goldman Sach’s global head of private-wealth management, Heidi Cruz will concentrate on helping to win new clients, focusing on “strategic relationships,” whatever that means.

See also:


BETRAYAL: Republican former Pres. George H.W. Bush will vote for Hillary Clinton

Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend is the former Lt. Governor of Maryland and the daughter of the late Robert “Bobby” Kennedy.

On Monday, Sept. 19, 2016, Townsend posted on her Facebook page a picture of herself shaking the hand of former Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush, with this caption: “The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!”


Townsend told Politico in a telephone interview that she had met with Bush in Maine earlier that day, where he made his preference known that he was voting for Hillary. Townsend said, “That’s what he said.”

A spokesman for Bush did not deny it. He told ABC News:

“The vote President Bush will cast as a private citizen in some 50 days will be just that: a private vote. He is not commenting on the presidential race in the interim.”

Remember my post 7 months ago on whether Bush had made a throat-slashing gesture at Trump at the GOP debate in Houston, Texas on Feb. 25, 2016?

At the time, I gave Bush the benefit of doubt.

I no longer do.

See also “Barbara Bush says she loves Bill Clinton“.

By the way, there’s a rumor that Barbara Bush is the (unacknowledged) daughter of British occultist satanist Aleister Crowley, which would make George W. Bush Crowley’s grandson.



Friday Funnies: Map of USA according to Trump & Hillary

There is a cool website called Judgmental Maps, which publishes made-up maps of cities submitted by ordinary people.

Instead of geographical maps that show a city’s streets and landmarks, judgmental maps are completely subjective, arbitrary, decidedly opinionated and therefore, very funny.

Here’s Judgmental Maps‘ “The United States According to Hillary Clinton“:


And here’s “The United States According to Donald Trump“:



Reuters polls show huge electoral shift to Trump despite Hillary outspending Trump on campaign ads by a whopping 3300%

As reported by ZeroHedge, whereas on August 26, 2016 Reuters had predicted a landslide victory for Hillary:


18 days later, Reuters’ polls of September 13 show a big surge in Electoral College votes for Trump, from 171 to 243, and a drop in Hillary’s votes from 295 to 242, so that the two are now virtually tied.


The map below shows Reuters‘ latest prediction of what the 2016 Electoral College map will look like once all the votes are counted. Notice that the entire central portion of the U.S. has turned red (including Colorado and New Mexico) along with Florida and South Carolina in the Southeast. Reuters even moved Pennsylvania out of the Democrat column and into the “Too Close To Call” column.


Most importantly, in the 20 days between August 26 and Sept. 15, the battleground states are shifting to Trump:

  1. Colorado: Support for Trump increased from 40% to 43%; Hillary’s decreased from 43% to 40%.
  2. Florida: Support for Trump increased from 42% to 50%; Hillary’s decreased 49% to 46%.
  3. Iowa: Support for Trump increased from 40% to 49%; Hillary’s decreased from 43% to 41%.
  4. Nevada: Support for Trump increased from 39% to 41%; Hillary’s decreased from 41% to 39%.
  5. Pennsylvania: Support for Trump increased from 43% to 44%; Hillary’s decreased from 50% to 46%.
  6. South Carolina: Support for Trump increased from 46% to 51%; Hillary’s stayed at 46%.


To top it off, Hillary’s losing although she’s spending 3,300% more on campaign ads than Trump.

Below is a diagram from Ad Age (via ZeroHedge) of money spent on campaign ads by Trump and Hillary:

trump-vs-hillary-campaign-ad-spendingTrump has spent a total of $4,420,819, which is only 3% of the $145,299,717 that Hillary has spent. Put another way, Hillary’s campaign has spent nearly 3,300% on ads compared to what the Trump campaign has spent.

According to Advertising Age, between now and Election Day, the Clinton campaign and its allied super PACs have booked $145.3 million in ad time — more than 33 times the $4.4 million for Trump and his groups.


Democrats want Bernie Sanders to replace Hillary

If, for health reasons, Hillary Clinton drops out (or drops dead) from the presidential race, Bernie Sanders is the choice of most Democrats and most voters to replace her, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey conducted 3 days after Hillary’s collapse at a 9/11 memorial ceremony.

The national survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted on September 14-15, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Those polled were asked this question:

If Hillary Clinton were forced to step down because of her health, who should take her place as the Democratic presidential nominee—Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Tim Kaine, or someone else?

Here are the survey’s findings:

  • 48% of Likely Democratic Voters believe Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Hillary’s primary rival, should be their party’s nominee if health issues forced Hillary out of the race.
  • 22% pick Vice President Joe Biden.
  • Only 14% opt for Hillary’s VP running-mate,Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.
  • 9% of Democrats think it shouldn’t be Sanders, Biden or Kaine, but someone else.

Some other findings of the Rasmussen Reports survey:

  • 36% of all likely voters (i.e., not just Democrats) choose Sanders; 20% Biden; 14% Kaine; 21% someone else.
  • Incredibly, 46% of all voters believe the media is giving too much coverage to Clinton’s health issues; 28% say there’s not enough coverage; 21% say the level of coverage is about right.
  • Not surprisingly, 63% of Democrats think there is too much coverage of Clinton’s health problems, compared with 35% (that many!) of Republicans and 39% of independents or unaffiliated.
  • While most Republicans and unaffiliated voters think a candidate’s health is an important voting issue, the majority of Democrats disagree (unless, of course, if it’s Donald Trump who’s displaying signs of ill health).

So most Democrats want millionaire Bernie Sanders — the self-described socialist who claims to speak for the 99% and rants against the super rich one-percent — to replace Hillary?

Jane and Bernie Sanders, faux socialists

Jane and Bernie Sanders, faux socialists

You mean the socialist Bernie who, 5 days after the Democratic National Convention in which he sold out his supporters by enthusiastically endorsing Hillary, bought a third homea $600,000 Lake Champlain beachfront estate?

As reported by Sacha Goldstein for Seven Days: Vermont’s Independent Voice, on August 2, 2016, Bernie closed the purchase for a $600,000 lakefront summer home in North Hero, Vermont. The home has four bedrooms and 500 feet of Lake Champlain beachfront on the east side of the island.

Bernie intends to use his new lakefront home “seasonally” as he and his wife Jane also own a row house on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and a house in Burlington, VT.

When she was president, Jane Sanders saddled Burlington College with $10 million in debt from an ill-advised real estate purchase of 32 acres of prime lakefront land, which eventually led to the closure of the college last May.

Bernie and his supporters really should look up the definition of “hypocrite”:

A person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

See also:


New poll: 50% say Hillary lied about her health; 30% believe she’ll die in office

Hillary Clinton’s abrupt departure from a 9/11 memorial ceremony last Sunday, Sept. 11, followed by video footage of her fainting and collapsing into her van, have vindicated the Alternative Media’s soundings of alarm about her health.

No longer can the MSM, who’ve refused to investigate the mounting signs of her ill health, call us loony “conspiracy theorists”.

And now, a new Politico/Morning Consult poll of registered voters shows that the American people finally are awakened to this issue.

Here are the findings of the poll, taken on September 12 through September 13, as reported today by Eli Yokley and Kyle Dropp for Morning Consult:

  • A big majority of 79% (or 8 in 10) said they have heard a lot or some about Hillary’s health concerns.
  • 50% of respondents said Hillary has given false information about her health to the public; just 37% said the same for Trump.
  • 41% said Hillary’s health is below average or very poor (compared to 26% who said that a late August national survey.) 28% ranked her health as average (compared with 30% last month); only 22% (2 in 10) now say Hillary’s health is above average or excellent (down from 29% in August).
  • 30% (3 in 10) said Hillary is not likely to survive her first term, compared with only 20% who think so of Trump.
  • And yet, as many as 50% said Hillary’s health will not affect their vote, whereas 25% said it will make them less likely to vote for her.
  • 71% (7 in 10 voters) – up 10% since August – said presidential candidates should be required to release a letter from their physician saying they are physically fit to serve; 78% said they should be required to take similar action about their mental health; 66% (nearly 7 in 10 voters) said candidates should be required to release previous medical records.
  • In the event that neither Hillary nor Trump would be able to complete their terms, Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence is viewed as more capable than Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine: 43% say Pence is prepared to serve as president, while 38% said the same of Kaine.

As expected, there are large partisan differences:

  • 68% (7 in 10) Republicans say Hillary’s health is below average or very poor, compared with only 16% of Democrats.
  • While 44% of those polled say Hillary’s health will negatively impact her ability to serve, only 23% of Democrats believe that, compared to 44% of independents and 69% of Republicans.

The national Morning Consult survey polled 1,501 registered voters from Sept. 12-13 for a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. See the toplines and crosstabs.

See also:


Massive Obamacare fraud: Fictitious enrollees all got $60K government subsidies

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently conducted an “undercover enrollment testing” of Obamacare, aka the (Un)Affordable Care Act, by submitting applications for fictitious, i.e., fake people.

The GAO discovered that EVERY ONE of its fictitious enrollees not only was accepted to Obamacare but received government, i.e., taxpayer, subsidies totaling $60,000 a year.

The reason is because, as shown by the GAO’s undercover test of the Obamacare system, anyone can sign up for Obamacare — and have it paid for by taxpayers — without having to prove their identity or citizenship or demonstrate that they qualify for government subsidies based on income.


From the GAO’s September 2016 report to Congress, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Results of Undercover Enrollment Testing for the Federal Marketplace and a Selected State Market for the 2016 Coverage Year:

Our undercover testing for the 2016 coverage year found that the eligibility determination and enrollment processes of the federal and state marketplaces we reviewed remain vulnerable to fraud, as we previously reported for the 2014 and 2015 coverage years. For each of our 15 fictitious applications, the marketplaces approved coverage, including for 6 fictitious applicants who had previously obtained subsidized coverage but did not file the required federal income-tax returns. Although IRS provides information to marketplaces on whether health-care applicants have filed required returns, the federal Marketplace and our selected state marketplace allowed applicants to instead attest that they had filed returns, saying the IRS information was not sufficiently current. The marketplaces we reviewed also relaxed documentation standards or extended deadlines for filing required documentation. After initial approval, all but one of our fictitious enrollees maintained subsidized coverage, even though we sent fictitious documents, or no documents, to resolve application inconsistencies.

For each of our 15 fictitious applications, the federal or state-based marketplaces approved coverage at time of application—specifically, 14 applications for qualified health plans, and 1 application for Medicaid. Each of the 14 applications for qualified health plans was also approved for APTC subsidies. These subsidies totaled about $5,000 on a monthly basis, or about $60,000 annually. These 14 qualified-health-plan applications also each obtained CSR [cost-sharing reduction] subsidies, putting the applicants in a position to further benefit if they used medical services.

In the case of 8 of the fictitious applicants, the GAO submitted fake citizenship and/or social security documentation, but every one of these applications was also approved and received subsidies.

According to the GAO, in 2015, about 1.4 million people received $4 billion in Obamacare subsidies even though they had failed to submit required tax information. 

ZeroHedge reports that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services responded to the GAO’s report, insisting they have a “robust verification process” aimed at “protecting taxpayer dollars”:

“The [Obamacare] marketplace takes seriously the responsibility to protect taxpayer funds, while making coverage available to eligible people. We have a robust verification process to make sure people get benefits they are eligible for while protecting taxpayer dollars.

Within we have multiple checks to verify that applicants provide correct eligibility information on their applications, and GAO deliberately circumvented those checks by giving false information, which is against the law for actual applicants.

We appreciate the work the GAO and HHS Office of Inspector General to improve marketplace operations and take action when provided with recommendations or other information. That’s why we have repeatedly requested, and remain disappointed, that we still have not received specific details or recommendations from the GAO relating to their fraudulent applications. Specific and actionable information will enable us to analyze and understand what occurred and whether we can make improvements to our processes or procedures. […] We are also working closely with issuers through the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership to identify trends, schemes and specific bad actors.”

Blah, blah, blah, blah . . . .

So my question to the useless GOP who are a majority in both houses of Congress is:

Why haven’t you still not repealed Obamacare? What more evidence do you need that it’s not working and an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars? What are you waiting for?

See also: