KATHLEEN RICE vs NANCY PELOSI - CONYERS & DEMS' FUTURE (CIVIL WAR)

KATHLEEN RICE vs NANCY PELOSI - CONYERS & DEMS' FUTURE (CIVIL WAR):

RICE REPRESENTS DEMOCRATS' FUTURE (2018, 2020).

PELOSI REPRESENTS DEMOCRATS' PAST (2008, 2012, 1990s).

JOHN CONYERS SHOULD RESIGN BUT PELOSI & OTHER OLDER LEADERS APPEAR TO BE PROTECTING HIM.

IS PELOSI AFRAID OF TERM LIMITS ON THE HORIZON??


Sources: CNN, Daily Beast, Politico, Business Insider, The Hill, Youtube


****** Dem lawmaker: Pelosi harassment response set women back 'decades'


Her defense of John Conyers as 'an icon' squandered the party's moral authority, Rep. Kathleen Rice says.

A Democratic congresswoman laced into Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday, suggesting the top House Democrat “set women back and — quite frankly, our party back — decades” by failing to more forcefully confront allegations of sexual harassment by veteran Democratic Rep. John Conyers.

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York said Pelosi’s appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday — when she raised questions about the accounts of Conyers’ accusers and described the Michigan Democrat as an “icon” — ceded the party’s moral high ground on sexual harassment issues, especially because one of Conyers’ accusers is bound by a nondisclosure agreement.

“I think that her comments on Sunday set women back and — quite frankly, our party back — decades,” said Rice, who is advocating for legislation that would expose a slew of hidden, taxpayer-funded settlements for sexual harassment by lawmakers and aides.

Rice said Pelosi’s comments were particularly egregious in light of President Donald Trump’s tacit embrace of Roy Moore, the Alabama GOP Senate candidate accused of molesting a minor.

“I think that we ceded the moral high ground on Sunday when our leader said on ‘Meet the Press’ that John Conyers was an icon and we don’t even know who these women are, when she was fully aware that the woman in question was bound by a nondisclosure agreement,” Rice said. “I think we had an opportunity to stake that moral high ground when you have a president who is supporting a man for Senate who — all credible allegations that have not been refuted — showed him to be a predator of teenage girls.”

A Pelosi spokesman said Rice’s comments were not an accurate portrayal of the minority leader’s sentiment.

“The leader was very clear on Sunday that no matter how great an individual’s legacy, it’s not a license for harassment,” said the spokesman, Drew Hammill.

Hammill also noted that Pelosi, in her “Meet the Press” interview, said she favored eliminating nondisclosure agreements that silenced victims from speaking out.

“[A]ll of these nondisclosure agreements have to go,” she told NBC’s Chuck Todd in the interview. Since that interview, Hammill added, Pelosi has said she believes Conyers’ accusers and subsequently spoke to one of them about her story. She also has signaled support for legislation from Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) that would reform the system of harassment reporting in Congress to protect victims.

Rice was among of a group of Democrats who vocally opposed Pelosi’s reelection as Democratic leader when the caucus voted after the November election to give Pelosi another term.

Rice’s comments escalate her already pointed criticism of Pelosi’s leadership — and of her Democratic colleagues, who she said earlier Wednesday were not confronting sexual harassment issues within their own ranks seriously enough. She’s one of three Democratic lawmakers, along with Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who have called for Conyers to resign immediately.

Rice left early Wednesday from a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting and told reporters she bailed because she didn't think her colleagues were approaching the harassment issue seriously. A Democratic aide said Rice exited after Pelosi spoke about the issue and also missed at least a portion of the comments from eight Democratic lawmakers who addressed harassment issues.

"There was a lengthy discussion of sexual harassment policies and reforms needed," the aide said.

BLACK MEN IN AMERICA CAN'T WIN IF THEY HATE BLACK WOMEN (CIVIL WAR)

BLACK MEN IN AMERICA CAN'T WIN IF THEY HATE BLACK WOMEN (CIVIL WAR)

Sources:  CentricTV, Essence, The Root, Youtube

Video Highlights:

Debating the destructive, self-imposed civil war within the Black American community between Black men and women.

United We Stand; Divided We Fall!

**** WHAT IS BLACK MEN'S BEEF WITH BLACK WOMEN?

The myth of the 'angry Black woman' is driving a wedge between the sexes

Black men have seemingly declared war on Black women, and it's getting real. 

It's no secret that the battle of the sexes is something that's existed since Adam blamed Eve for biting that godforsaken forbidden fruit. For centuries,  men and women have been at odds over their biological and psychological differences, both legitimate and naught.

For men and women of color, however, the stakes seem to be at an all-time high. Whether it's baby mama vs. baby daddy drama or the delicate topic of dating outside one's race, Black men and Black women just can't seem to see to eye to eye.

Just look at the way critics (mostly men) came to the defense of rapper Future and assailed a social media attack against Ciara for bringing their young son around her new boyfriend, NFL star Russell Wilson.

 Ciara was publically shamed for something that (1) is no one's business and (2) an absolute double standard, as the singer pointed out during an interview on CBS "This Morning."

"It's been very interesting to hear what a lot of guys have had to say," Ciara said. "I feel like in a sense it's a bit of a double standard, because at one point in time when we were together, I took care of his kids as well."

"I was involved very early in the stage of us getting to know each other, and that's been a big conversation. It's kind of like, 'Well, what's the difference here?'" she added. "I think that even for the men that were outspoken, it's like, wouldn't you want someone to love on your child, or love on the child that you are speaking about?"

But of course Black male critics of Ciara don't see the double standard. When do they ever recognize the unfair standards and expectations they place on Black women? 

While women of color continue to be the backbones for their male counterparts and their families, they continue to bad mouth Black women as if it was not a Black woman who pushed them out of their vagina. 

In their eyes, Black women are “angry,” “crazy” and just about any other not-so-flattering adjective you can think of.

Writer Niki McGloster touched on this very topic in a Facebook post bemoaning a text conversation she had with a Black man stemming from a comment she made about a nude picture of Kim Kardashian. 

After saying Kardashian was fishing for attention the unidentified male accused her, and Black women, of being angry "mean girls." 

That debate turned into an exchange about how Black women hate white women for being white and liking "Black" things, whether it's a Black man, Black music or Black hairstyles.

"What i can't pinpoint is when some (i'd never say all) black men started hating black women? i'd like a date or a reference point," McGloster wrote on Facebook. "it's clear that black men are jaded about who we are, what we stand for and why we speak up about certain things."

Quite honestly if Black women are at the very least irritated they have every reason to be. Look at the way they are misunderstood, misrepresented and ridiculed. 

What's most heartbreaking is that a lot of that pushback comes from Black men themselves. 

And for any man of color that wants to perpetuate the notion that Black women are "angry," just imagine if white America said that very same thing about Blacks (and they do) when objecting to the racial injustice presently on display within the Black Lives Matter movement.

It's truly a sad day in Black America that (some) Black men can't seem to stand in solidarity with Black women. 

Because if they won't stand up, who will?

  

HILLARY CLINTON ON PAR TO DEFEAT TRUMP; GOP IMPLODES

HILLARY CLINTON ON PAR TO DEFEAT TRUMP;  THE GOP IMPLODES

A POLITICAL PARTY DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CAN'T WIN GENERAL ELECTIONS.

Sources:  Salon.com, YouTube

Now that it's crystal clear most GOP establishment leaders have refused to embrace DONALD J TRUMP as their party nominee,  there is no way short of a miracle HILLARY CLINTON will lose in November.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

The GOP top brass is intentionally choosing to FAIL for Money and Power.

***** Letting Trump and the GOP self-destruct: Hillary and Democrats have the right strategy by laying low

Two weeks ago, I wrote that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats could not afford to take anything for granted this year. Clinton, I argued, is too conventional, too focus-grouped. 

Her fear of unscripted moments has hindered her ability to connect emotionally with voters.

 She’s an unnatural politician whose penchant for moderation is a vulnerability in this political climate.

To be fair, Clinton has been on the ugly end of Republican attacks for decades – a little guardedness is pardonable.

 But a play-it-safe approach seemed unnecessarily risky against an omnipresent juggernaut like Trump.

 The Republican nominee’s campaign depends upon free media. In many ways, what Trump says or does with his airtime is irrelevant – the point is to be seen and heard. 

He can lie and distort with impunity; his supporters don’t care and he dominates headlines all the same.

TRUMP'S SHOWDOWN MEETING WITH ELITE GOP BRASS ON CAPITOL HILL (WE THE PEOPLE)

TRUMP'S SHOWDOWN MEETING WITH GOP BRASS ON CAPITOL HILL (WE THE PEOPLE)

TRUMP'S FAMILY RECEIVES DEATH THREATS.

IS OBAMA LEADING THE UNITED STATES INTO ANOTHER NORTH v SOUTH TYPE CIVIL WAR FOR 2016 POLITICS?

IT IS TIME TO PRAY.

Sources:  Fox News, CBS News, USA Today,  Daily Caller, YouTube 

On Monday, March 21, 2016 GOP Presidential front runner Donald J Trump will meet with several GOP establishment top brass members. 

He will probably also meet with some Democrat party too brass, however I doubt the mainstream media (CNN) will report it.

During Trump's meeting today with Political top brass, discussions regarding recent DEATH THREATS made against his family and Trump conceding the race 2016 race so Hillary's Coronation can proceed will be the main topics of conversation.

Our country's Elite, Bilderberg sponsored political top brass have thus far been unsuccessful in their efforts to halt Trump's Winning Political Movement.

Despite mainstream media propaganda and lies, there has been very little Voter Enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton's second presidential bid.

This explains why key Democrat leaders are using Bernie Sanders as a Voting gimmick.

A vote for Sanders, is actually a vote for Hillary.

So it's not really Hillary winning all those caucuses and primaries. It's Sanders!

Sanders fires up the voters!

Sanders draws voters to the polls.

Sanders gets the votes and wins the Delegates.

Sanders Delegates are then given to Hillary.

Thus Hillary's Coronation proceeds as per Deals made months ago between Political elite top brass, Obama, the Clintons & the Bilderberg group.

Donald J Trump is the only 2016 Presidential candidate with Authentic, genuine voter support at his back.

American voters are tired of being treated by Political elite top brass as if we were not granted a Free Will by GOD.

American voters are tired of being treated by Political elite top brass as if we don't have a mind to make our own decisions.

American voters are tired of being treated by Political elite top brass as if the U.S. Constitution is a mere joke.

Whatever happened to "For the people, By the people, We the people" as it states in the U.S. Constitution??

If GOP party top brass, Democrat party top brass and Bilderberg group member Kills Donald J Trump or steals the Nomination from him, it could possibly lead to riots or Split the United States forever, as another North v South type Civil War.

If the United States splits BARACK OBAMA remains President and will be the first Politician in more than 100 years to lead this nation into another self-destructing Civil War.

By the way..........

There are Political rumours floating that TED CRUZ is not really a Conservative but that he is really an elite GLOBALIST, fully in bed with the Bilderberg group.

It is time to PRAY like never before.

***** Trump reportedly to meet with top Republicans in Washington

Donald Trump will reportedly meet Monday in Washington with nearly two dozen influential Republicans, with the apparent hope of improving relations with the GOP establishment.

The Republican presidential front-runner will be in the nation’s capital to speak at the annual policy conference for AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israel group.

Trump’s meeting with Republican lawmakers and other party leaders, as first reported by The Washington Post, will be his first major discussion with them since last fall, when he was on Capitol Hill to protest President Obama’s Iranian nuclear agreement.

The off-the-record meeting was reportedly organized in part by Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has endorsed Trump.

The names of the attendees have not been released, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told “Fox News Sunday” that he’ll be in his home state of Kentucky on Monday, while Congress is on a two-week recess.

At least some factions of the so-called Republican establishment have tried to stop Trump from winning the nomination, in part by supporting other candidates, purportedly backing negative-advertising campaigns and speaking out against the billionaire businessman’s agenda, which includes a vow to dismantle the establishment’s grip on politics, government and wealth.

Meanwhile, Trump has continued to call for party unity to help defeat the Democratic presidential nominee, which increasingly appears to be Hillary Clinton, as he continues to win primaries, add delegates and eliminate primary challengers.

CONSERVATIVES ARE DESTROYING GOP'S CHANCES OF REGAINING WHITE HOUSE IN 2016 (NATIONAL REVIEW)

@NationalReview

CONSERVATIVES ARE DESTROYING GOP'S CHANCES OF REGAINING WHITE HOUSE (NATIONAL REVIEW):

CONSERVATIVES WANT TO DETER BLACK VOTERS FROM SUPPORTING TRUMP.

ATTACKING TRUMP IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE & FOOLISH.

WHO IS PAYING OFF CONSERVATIVE LEADERS TO SABOTAGE GOP?


Conservatism or the Conservative movement originated in the 15th century.

Traditional values are the bedrock and foundation of the Conservative movement.

Some founding fathers of the Conservative movement are Edmund Burke, Qutin Hogg, Richard Hook and François-René de Chateaubriand.

Conservatism is a far right-wing faction of the Republican Party, just as Liberalism & Progressives are the far left-wing of Democrats.

During the elections of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush we didn't hear much about Conservative, Liberal or Progressive voters in the Mainstream Media.
Only Democrat and Republican Party voters.

However during the 2008 and 2012 elections when OBAMA was campaigning to become U.S. President suddenly Liberals, Progressives and Conservatives were introduced in American politics.

Following the 2008 election, Conservative leaders now require all GOP Presidential and Congressional candidates to pass a "Conservative litmus test".

It's clear such divisive factions of both major political parties do more harm than good during general elections because these factions create Political Civil Wars.

As we approach the 2016 general election, Conservative leaders and a popular Conservative publication (National Review) threatens to destroy the GOP's real chances of regaining victory.

Conservative leaders and the National Review are attacking presumptive GOP Presidential nominee DONALD J. TRUMP.

Without invoking any Conspiracy Theory rumors, there appear to be some possible Dirty Politics at play.

For example: Promises or deals discussed behind closed doors to help Hillary Clinton win by default.

So is it more important for GOP leaders and GOP Supporters to actually WIN in Nov 2016?

Or is it more important for a small group of GOP leaders and GOP voters to have their own way and risk losing EVERYTHING in Nov 2016??


*** Conservatives Against Trump

As the election of 2008 approached, America was in crisis.
And as we would soon learn, that crisis would not go to waste.

Years after Bill Clinton disingenuously claimed that the era of big government was over, Obama won his party’s nomination by promising its furious revenge.

For constitutional conservatives, the Republican contest functioned less like a primary and more like an abandonment.
Politically orphaned by their party, conservatives were forced to either stay home or hold their noses and vote for a progressive Republican.

There was a silver lining, however. Rising out of the ashes of that electoral defeat came the Tea Party.
The media struggled to explain it away as racist, xenophobic, and jingoistic. But the truth is, the Tea Party did not arise because Barack Obama defeated his opposition. It arose because there was no opposition.

Over the years, there have been endless fractures in the façade of individual freedom, but three policies provided the fuel that lit the tea-party fire: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, and the bank bailouts. Barack Obama supported all three.

So did Donald Trump. While conservatives fought against the stimulus, Donald Trump said it was “what we need,” praising Obama’s schemes of “building infrastructure, building great projects, putting people to work in that sense.”

While conservatives fought against the auto bailouts, Donald Trump claimed “the government should stand behind [the auto companies] 100 percent” because “they make wonderful products.”

While conservatives fought against the bank bailouts, Donald Trump called them “something that has to get done.” Let his reasoning sink in for a second:

“[The government] can take over companies, and, frankly, take big chunks of companies.” When conservatives desperately needed allies in the fight against big government, Donald Trump didn’t stand on the sidelines.

He consistently advocated that your money be spent, that your government grow, and that your Constitution be ignored. Sure, Trump’s potential primary victory would provide Hillary Clinton with the easiest imaginable path to the White House.

But it’s far worse than that. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government.

This is a crisis for conservatism. And, once again, this crisis will not go to waste.



Sources: National Review, Newsmax, Youtube

2016 GOP CIVIL WAR MAY COST THEM THE WHITE HOUSE - HATING TRUMP (HILLARY WINS)

2016 GOP CIVIL WAR MAY COST THEM THE WHITE HOUSE - HATING TRUMP:

GOP CIVIL WAR MEANS HILLARY CLINTON WINS BY DEFAULT.

As the Nov 2016 Presidential election approaches, it's quite obvious to the naked voter eye that a Civil War is brewing among GOP Establishment leaders.

Voters want DONALD TRUMP but GOP Establishment leaders want JEB BUSH or MARCO RUBIO.

There are rumors floating of a possible Coup at the RNC Convention in CLEVELAND if TRUMP is the party Nominee.

This divisive Civil War may indeed cost the GOP to lose the White House again.

Due to this brewing GOP Civil War HILLARY CLINTON Won't have to campaign as hard and she just might capture the White House by default.

Without UNITY no organization will stand successfully.

Without UNITY no Family or Marriage will survive.

Without UNITY no Political party will Win general Elections.

Will GOP Establishment leaders wake up before it's too late??

~ The GOP Establishment’s Civil War

A free-for-all between Christie, Rubio, Cruz and others, while Trump hovers above it all.

What everyone’s waiting for is the winnowing. New Hampshire and Iowa will force some Republican candidates out. When we know who’s still in we’ll have a surer sense of the contours of the race.

It is still true that the party has never had a year like this, with the ground shifting beneath its feet. It’s hard to see this clearly because on the surface the things you expect to see happening are happening.

The candidates are starting to throw hard punches. They’re all trying to show they can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee—a necessary talent if you make it to the general election. No point in hand-wringing or telling them to stop on the grounds that what they’re doing will produce, for the Democrats, a badly bloodied GOP nominee.

Best and worst have come from Chris Christie, who has a way of keeping things lively. 

Earlier he counseled his fellow contenders not to savage each other—don’t waste your ammo, keep your eyes on the prize. Good advice. This week Marco Rubio’s PAC unloaded a spot slamming Mr. Christie on the old charge he embraced President Obama during Hurricane Sandy.

The governor answered Wednesday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. He called Mr. Rubio “a first-term United States senator who has never had a tough race.” He continued: “This guy’s been spoon-fed every victory he’s ever had in his life. That’s the kind of person that we want to put on stage against Hillary Clinton?

I don’t think so. She’ll pat him on the head and then cut his heart out.” It was wonderfully colorful and malicious and reminded me of Sen. Bob Kerrey, who said of Bill Clinton in 1992 that he wouldn’t win in November because he hadn’t served in Vietnam: “He’s going to get opened up like a soft peanut.”

Democratic presidential primaries in those days were fierce. They’re not anymore, because the new Democratic Party, the one of the progressive left, has only a single unifying principle: winning. Hillary Clinton’s opponents haven’t laid a glove on her, and won’t.

Mr. Rubio has turned stern and indignant, as if he’s decided the base is angry so he’ll enact anger too. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, he darkly alleges, are “isolationist candidates” whose intent is “weakening our military and intelligence capabilities.” Mr. Paul responded by comparing Mr. Rubio to Rahm Emanuel.

More touchingly, Jeb Bush again warned the base about Donald Trump. “It’s very fun to talk about the theatrics,” he said on “Morning Joe.” Mr. Trump has tapped into “angst and anger,” but “his views are not the views of a conservative.”

Mr. Trump’s supporters don’t care if he’s classically conservative. Doctrinal purity is not the story this year. The GOP base is a big jumble.

Democrats are likely less unified than they think. On the rightward and leftward edges of both parties they hate political correctness, illegal immigration, Wall Street.

A new playbook is emerging while some contenders seem to be reading from the old playbook and wondering why the plays they’re calling aren’t working.

And the GOP is struggling. In Virginia the state Republican Party wants a so-called loyalty oath in the March 1 presidential primary.

Virginia is an open-primary state—any registered voter can vote in either primary—but the GOP apparently wants to discourage independents and Democrats from voting for Mr. Trump. So they’ve decided voters should sign a statement of affiliation with the GOP before they get to cast a ballot. 

This is so idiotic it’s almost unbelievable.

When Democrats and independents want to vote in your primary you should be happy.

 Politics is a game of addition! You want headlines that say “Massive GOP Turnout.” You don’t greet first-time voters with an oath but with cookies, ginger ale and balloons. Ronald Reagan reached out to Democrats in 1984: “Come too, come walk with me.” We still speak of Reagan Democrats.

I do not understand the inability or refusal of Republican leaders to take Mr. Trump seriously.

 They take his numbers seriously—they can read a poll—but they think, as Mr. Bush said, that his support is all about anger, angst and theatrics. That’s part of the story, but the other, more consequential part has to do with real policy issues.

The establishment refuses to see that, because to admit it is to implicate themselves and their leadership. Political consultants can’t see it because they don’t think issues matter—not to them and certainly not to the dumb voters.

But issues do matter, and Mr. Trump has functioned this year not as a great communicator or great compromiser but as the great disrupter. He brags that he has brought up great questions and forced other candidates to face them and sometimes change their stands—and he has.

He changed the debate on illegal immigration. He said he’d build a wall and close the border and as the months passed and his competitors saw his surge, they too were suddenly, clearly, aggressively for ending illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump touched an important nerve in opposing the political correctness that has angered the American people for a quarter century. He changed the debate when he asked for a pause in Muslim immigration until America “can figure out what’s going on.” In the age of terror, that looked suspiciously like common sense.

Americans do not want America to become what Europe is becoming.

You only have to look at what is reported to have happened in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve to get a sense that Europe’s establishment, with its politically correct thinking, is losing control.

Angela Merkel is a great lady and most of her leadership has been sound as a drum, but she will probably lose her job eventually because of her epic miscalculation in accepting more than a million Middle Eastern refugees.

Her decision was no doubt driven by heart and sympathy, but it reminds me of the fall of Margaret Thatcher. In 1989 Thatcher moved to impose a change in the British tax system. This caused resentment and then unrest. She wouldn’t back down, and the next year she fell. Years later she told me what she’d learned.

People are afraid, she said; they live closer to the margins than we understand. When you propose a big change you can leave people feeling as if the rug is being pulled from under them. That’s a big thing to learn, and she spoke of it with humility.

She lost her job by being too tough. Ms. Merkel has imperiled hers by being too soft. But the lesson is the same: know how close to the edge people feel, how powerless, and respect their anxiety. Don’t look down on it, and them.

Back to the Republicans. It reflects badly on the party that Donald Trump—whom one journalist this week characterized as a guy running around with his hair on fire—had to become the party’s 2016 thought leader.

Bernie Sanders has, in a way, had the wit to see this, which is why he said he is reaching out to Trump supporters.

Reaching out. What a concept.

Sources: Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Youtube