Before anyone says that the real life Oskar Schindler was a Nazi war profiteer and has no comparison to Trump, or that the situation in Schindler’s List is not even remotely the same as the current state of America—I would argue both points. Oskar Schindler was a businessman who worked the Nazi Party into making himself huge profits. But during his experiences he realized how evil the party under Hitler truly was and he had a change of heart, so he decided to save some lives and work the system from his position of strength to do it. Without talking to Trump personally about the situation I think a few really big things happened to him over the last couple of years where he has had his own Oskar Schindler moments. First and foremost I think the smart money of New York sees the writing on the wall. 19-20 trillion in national debt will crush America and likely Trump knows George Soros personally, and everyone on the financial end of the country’s business knows that the left leaning billionaire is trying to topple the American economy. Trump and his financial friends will lose a lot of money when that happens, so now is the time to fight to preserve America as a safe haven of financial independence. Second I think the birther issues involving Trump’s push to get the Obama administration to release the president’s birth certificate, which was done in April of 2011, was an extreme revelation to just how corrupt the political machine truly was—at all levels. Trump won that hard fight but immediately Sheriff Joe Arpaio went on CBS and proved that the birth certificate was a fake. There was something very fishy with the whole deal and since Trump was one of the only people not to back down on the birther issue, he felt vindicated from the shower of criticism and decided to do something about it. There was obviously a shadow party at work within the federal government and there wasn’t a single Republican in the field who was poised to fight it, so Trump out of self-interest, and a since of righting a wrong decided to step forward to fight it.
I can say those things with some level of certainty. If I were in Trump’s situation, I would spend a billion dollars of my own money to fight it. Heck, I write a blog every day for free to fight these things staying up late at night, getting up early in the morning with nothing in it for me at all, but the sense of righting wrongs. Speaking from personal experience, I would say that Trump’s wife Melina probably has something to do with his sudden rush of conservative value. A good woman does put lead in the pencil of A type personalities, and a new son gives a man something to fight for. I’m sure if you peel back Donald Trump that those are some of the core motivations. There are a lot of things that Donald Trump does and says that I completely understand. If he were president, I could convince him to stay off my guns. He’s a New York guy so his policies are largely shaped around the gun laws of that crowded city. But it’s my hope that a Trump presidency will take the fight to the enemies of America making it so that I won’t have to use the Second Amendment to defend my property from an out-of-control nation in debt to a world looking to collect. Once that debt gets over $20 trillion, the lights start to go out and a collapse is inevitable. But listening to Trump, he is conducting his campaign the way I would if I had the resources and time—so I trust him. I know a lot of people in business who put on a metaphorical mask when they do their work, but once the mask comes off they are normal people. I think Trump put on his mask to do his deals over the years, sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat, but he discovered that some of the people behind the masks of people he was dealing with were really bad people, and he is in a unique position to do something about it, so he is. I would too.
After all the controversy I watched Trump closely, particularly after the Megan Kelly situation. Trump has been playing the situation of president in the classic deal maker fashion, just like playing a simple game of Poker. He has baited pundits to discover their positions, and then he takes control of the situation after they show their cards. He is a lot smarter than he has let on, and he’s in far more control than many believed. His ego maniac position is not part of his true character, but a device he uses to discover the kind of cards people are holding. By insulting people directly and indirectly, you provoke them into showing their hands. It’s a classic trick that has obviously made Trump a lot of money over the years, and he’s now performing it on a world stage. He’s not just playing this game to win the presidency; he’s setting the stage for global negotiations when he becomes president. I’d bet everything I have on the matter. He’s playing the game that far ahead.
Watching his speeches in Michigan, then New Hampshire, then flying out in his helicopter to Iowa—no teleprompters, no handlers, just straight talk speaking with extreme confidence knowing that every word he says will be analyzed and cut-up any way possible—he gave three of the best speeches I’ve ever heard from him. He is a master at the top of his game and there are hints that he has a lot more in the tank. And that is scaring the crap out of establishment types. Standing in front of his personal helicopter in Iowa he was asked if he’d be willing to spend a billion dollars of his own money to become president, and he said without pause—yes. It’s over for the other Republican candidates. This race is over. The 2016 election will be between Trump and whoever the Democrats can put up. And Trump will not run to lose, he’ll do anything and everything in his power to win and the money men know it.
I say that because soon there won’t be any donors to the other candidates. Now that word is out that Trump is serious, the funding for them will dry to a trickle. It won’t take but a few months from now. Trump has another advantage over them that nobody has yet picked up on. Donald Trump is a hard worker. He is willing to work harder than any person running for office. After listening to his recent speeches I am convinced that he read voluminous amounts of information and he was quite comfortable in reciting what he had been learning. He is a smart guy, and I doubt he sleeps much. I understand that because I’m the same way as is in evidence by the voluminous amount of work I produce. Trump will out work and out spend anybody running against him Republican or Democrat. That’s why he’s already shaping global opinions about him in a way that gives him negotiation power once he holds office as president. He is speaking a language that Putin understands, the Saudi’s are terrified of, and Mexico is silently stunned about. The “shadow parties” of world governments are really scared of Donald Trump and his unstoppable campaign during this mythical 2015 “Summer of Trump.”
There really isn’t a policy issue in the 2016 race that is bigger than the economy. Only someone like Trump can wrestle the economy back from this staggering debt. If he can’t than it’s over, and many people like me see it from the front-of-the-train. Those in the back will discover it soon enough. Glenn Beck is not a back of the train person, but he is when it comes to faith and religion. He has had to turn too much toward religion to hold his life together as a person and his opinions about Trump are largely shaped in the context of faith. I don’t have those handicaps when thinking about Trump, and Trump doesn’t live by those limits. I understand his religious position. Donald Trump is an Ayn Rand president. Many Objectivists that I know have taken issue with my assessment of Trump comparing him to Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. They countered to me that Trump was not like Roark, but more like Gail Wynand—the newspaper tycoon who married the hot wife and traveled the world in his boat once he realized the futility of the fight against him. I can see that, which plays into the whole Oskar Schindler comparison. But Roark loved building things, and so does Trump. I think Donald Trump is a lot deeper person than he shows most people and deep down inside, he is more a figure out of an Ayn Rand novel than out of The Bible, which is the heart of Glenn Beck’s issue, and one that Christian conservatives will have to come to terms with.
To say it’s unfair, or not an apples to apples comparison to say that Oskar Schindler saved Jewish lives and Donald Trump is just a selfish businessman who wants attention, is to miss the real tragedy of the present moment. If the economy fails, more people will die than they did in the German/Jewish holocaust—that is for sure. But think of the evils going on presently from the aborted fetuses at Planned Parenthood to the obvious shadow government conspiracies happening at every level of political endeavor. Trump is wonderfully free of any control mechanisms within that system, and I think his crusade is more out of moral obligation than self fulfillment. His life already is like that of a president. It would be a step down for him to reside in the White House. His ability to make decisions without the temptation of making money off the deal is an ability that I would put my money on over any potential candidate. With the current problems facing the nation, I don’t see any other way out of it, but through someone like Trump.
If Trump comes after our guns, I will happily fight him on it. I am happy to argue and throw mud at him over issues involving the Constitution. As I’ve said, I know for certain he’s not as conservative as I am—but few people are—if any are. But I see in him a man who will work harder than anybody, who can finance himself and owe nothing to anybody, and who can actually stop America from being a debtor nation. I’m even open to his health care options because Obamacare will further bankrupt America, and without that insurance still raises 7-15% each year. That is unsustainable as well. America doesn’t need a church pastor in the White House. It needs a cut-throat Ayn Ran type of money man who is self-sustaining and seeks his own advice 100% of the time. Watching how Trump handled the “birther” issue convinced me that he’s the only one who can be president in this current climate. Everyone backed off that issue except for him. Without Trump, Obama would have never produced the birth certificate, and what they did produce was obviously tampered with. The story died, because nobody in the media had the will to take the next step for fear of being called names by the administration. But somewhere in there Trump made his decision to become a modern Oskar Schindler. Critics might say Trump is running for president to satisfy his own ego, that he used to be a progressive—Democrat—a liberal who is working with Bill Clinton to sabotage the political system for the aims of the Clinton Foundation. But I think Trump’s 2005 marriage to Melania Knauss is the real secret to his behavior. I think deep down inside, behind all the bolster and theatrics is a man in love with his wife—and I think he wants to make the world better for his family—so there is something of it left for them. His new son Barron is likely the primary motivation. I say that because it would be for me, and I see a lot of myself in Donald Trump—particularly in his will, and ability to fight for what he thinks is right. That is why this is the Summer of Trump with an administration to follow.
I write sometimes about the occult, comparative religion, and the hidden history of the human race. There are a lot of people out there who believe a lot of strange stuff, and if you peel back the layers of just about any organization—fraternity, secret society, or even political party you will find some reference to a group of people called “The Brotherhood of the Snake.” Because of that “Brotherhood” I have no faith that any presidential candidate no matter how well-intentioned would be able to break the cycle of that “Brotherhood” which believes in various forms of human sacrifice for divine sanctity. Any president who expects to have success in a culture essentially run by “The Brotherhood of the Snake” would need to be completely independent of it. Donald Trump appears to be and the evidence of just how independent he is can be seen in the wonderful interview done on Meet the Press conducted on Sunday August 16, 2015. Trump is a free man built by capitalism and he loves himself in a way that the American way of life intended to construct. He is an Ayn Rand man—a unique creation built exclusively by the philosophy of America shaped by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith. That makes him a uniquely independent human being and wonderfully free person economically and spiritually. Put Trump in the White House and things will happen on Capitol Hill. Without Trump, the cult of sacrifice will continue while K-Street lobbyists, prostitutes, and scum bags of all shapes and sizes will continue to ruin the management of the United States. That is why I am so excited about Donald Trump. We are on a philosophic precipice and I want Trump and his guys in charge so that they can rip America away from “The Brotherhood of the Snake.” Here is the Meet the Press interview”
The Secret Societies have been present in the history of man for a very long time. It all started thousands of years ago with the “Brotherhood of the Snake”, a secret society set up by an alien named Ea or Enki. This story is very carefully told in the Sumerian scriptures, which go back at least 6000 years. There it says man was created by draconian aliens, who came to this planet to exploit its resources – especially gold. But the work was heavy, so the alien race wanted someone else to do the hard work. Thus Ea, who was a brilliant scientist, created Homo sapiens as a hybrid between a primitive earth life-form and the alien race.
First Homo sapiens was only meant for slave labor and couldn’t breed. Later on this was changed. Ea didn’t like, though, how his created race was treated and wanted to enlighten them by telling them who they were and where they came from. He also wanted to tell them the well hidden truth that each individual is a spirit inhabiting a body and that after body death the spirit lives on and reincarnates on Earth.
Ea’s superiors didn’t agree to this, as they were afraid of chaos and turmoil, but Ea told them anyway. The early Homo sapiens revolted against their Masters, but were forced to retire. Ea then started this secret society, the Brotherhood of the Snake, to enlighten people in secret. But he was discovered and judged by the alien laws, which meant that Ea was deported to Earth for eternity – to die here and be reborn here in endless cycles, using fragile, short living human bodies. If this is right, he might still be here …
In the meantime, as time passed by, the “Brotherhood of the Snake” was infiltrated by the Draconian Master aliens and the knowledge was distorted to trap man instead of enlighten him. The Egyptian Era was in fact real “space opera”, with aliens walking around among us, even taking the throne as pharaohs on mostly. By that time the Brotherhood was very infiltrated and its purpose to manipulate the masses, making them believe in false gods and masters.
In the background through all history there are the secret societies. The original Brotherhood soon split up in cults, when certain people on top were in disagreement with each other and different powers of control developed, with them even fighting each other (which still is the case today) totally above an ignorant population.
They invented the different religions and sects and cults so man would be busy doing something else instead of looking into what the Brotherhood was doing. It was also a way to control people by not telling the truth about God and Jesus, so that people would miss the point and never be able to be set free. Religion has always been connected with guilt and punishment, which is NOT the way it is supposed to be. They put themselves in charge of the churches to entrap people and to spread conflicts between different belief systems. Most wars throughout history have been religious wars.
Out of the original Brotherhood came Freemasonry, the Rosicrucians, The Knight Templars, Ordo Templi Orientis, Knights of Malta and more. They all knew, on the highest grades, the truth about the origin of man and that we all are spiritual beings and thus immortal. They know God is the REAL and only source, but they distorted that power as we let them deceive us and used the power of God that we have inside of us for their evil purposes. This knowledge is a very well kept secret and they have done everything in their power to hide the truth from people, and one must say they succeeded quite well. People who for some reason or another have stumbled upon the road to truth has either been ridiculed, slandered or even killed.
Now you might say that the Freemasons, for example, is a charity organization and even Christian to its belief. Yes, that’s what we’re told and that is what most members of the secret society believe. Most people involved are good people, who are ignorant of what’s going on upon the highest grades. Because up there is Satanism and worship of the dark forces. They don’t serve God, they serve Satanor Lucifer and that is the key to what is happening in the world of today.
Adam Weishaupt (1748-1811) basically a Jew, converted to become a Catholic Priest and ended up starting a “new” secret society called the Illuminati. Actually it was not new at the time; it’s been there long before then, but during Weishaupt’s lifetime this organization was revealed publicly. It’s unclear if he was the master-mind behind it, but most researchers, including me, are more or less certain that Weishaupt was just a puppet for the Elite of the Freemasons.
The Freemasons had recently started a new branch of Freemasonry – Freemasonry of the Scottish Rite with its 33 degrees of initiation. It’s still today one of the most powerful secret societies, including members within high politics, religious leaders, businessmen and other “useful” persons. Things point in the direction that Weishaupt was sponsored by the Rothschilds, who then were (and are) the heads of Freemasonry.
The Illuminati had its own grades ABOVE (or rather beside) the 33 degrees of Freemasonry. Even persons who were initiated to the higher degrees of Freemasonry had no knowledge of the Illuminati grades – it was that secret. Up there Weishaupt planned the take-over of the planet, and he made up distinct targets for a One World Government and a New World Order. All this was written down in something called the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion“, with an evil purpose to put the blame on the Jews(!) if something would leak.
And it did leak! A courier for the Illuminati was struck by lightning when he rode over a field and the Protocols were found, where the takeover was carefully written down. This was in The 1770’s.Weishaupt and his Illuminati “Brothers” had to flee and work underground, as their organization was banned. It was decided that the name Illuminati should never be used officially again, but front groupsshould be used to fulfill the purpose of world domination, with the rest of the population made into slaves. One of the front groups were the Freemasons, who had a better reputation …
It is believed that Weishaupt was killed by his Freemason Brothers, as he was unable to keep his mouth and still continued to use the name Illuminati. There could also have been other reasons.
The secret goal, however, survived Weishaupt and the Rothschilds were now heads of the Illuminati (and still are today, together with David Rockefeller). A good help to reach the goal came from the Freemason Cecil Rhodes, who in the 19th Century tried to build a One World Government with the British Empire on the top. This was of course sponsored by the Rothschilds and it was also Rhodes who created the Round Table, a secret society in itself, named after King Arthur’s Round Table, where the Brotherhood Elite are gathering up to this day.
World War I and II were both attempts to take over. After the Second World War people were so tired of all this killing that they welcomed the United Nations, when it was founded. The official policy of theUN was to safeguard the peace, so nothing like WW II would ever happen again. But indeed the UN was another important front organization for the Illuminati, to unite the countries of the world into one. This led to the EU project, which anyone, with his eyes open, can see goes right into the direction of the biggest fascist state known to man, where each country gets less and less power and sovereignty.
By galloping inflation the International Bankers (read the Illuminati) have succeeded in making us believe that the only solution is a One Currency – the EMU. When that project is safeguarded, the Central European Bank (Illuminati) has all the power over the economy in Europe and can lead us in whatever direction they want. Some politicians are just stupid and ignorant, others are aware of facts and work for and with the Illuminati. The innocent people, being deceived, are the ones who will suffer the most. This is a betrayal beyond comprehension.
The EU then will expand into the United Nations of Africa, Asia and South America and the end phenomenon will be that all those United States will be united into one big fascist state, which will last in a thousand years, regarding to their occult belief. It’s the Golden Age – the Age of AntiChrist.
The secret societies and the Illuminati believe in the power of symbols. The world is full of their magical and black magic symbols. The problem is, we are so used to seeing them all over the place, that we don’t even think about it. The Illuminati believe that the more symbols around, the more magical power to them. The insignia of the Illuminati and the New World Order is the “Pyramid with the All-Seeing- Eye”, which you can study on the back of the US One Dollar Bill(!)
A few years ago this symbol was also on a series of stamps coming from the Vatican(!) The All-Seeing-Eye is the Eye of Horus, which is the Eye of Lucifer, and goes back to the Egyptian era. Other common symbols are the pentagram (five-pointed star), the hexagram (six-pointed star – The Star of David), the Swastika reversed (the way Hitler used it) and the pyramid in general.
Trump is the closest man to a successful self-made man that we have in America, and his presidency will set a new standard that counters centuries of this “Brotherhood of the Snake” mentality that currently has handcuffed our political system to bizarre religious belief from multiple denominations all centering on a premise of sacrifice. Trump is a self-made creator and that is a basic, primal reason for my emphatic support. He handled the Meet the Press interview incredibly well as he shattered many of the questions which have been formed around a basic premise of political orthodox shaped by ritualistic belief passed down to people through quantum entanglement to adhere to “The Brotherhood of the Snake” and their nutty beliefs. It’s time for America and its people to grow up and away from this ancient notion of sacrifice, and a Trump presidency is a first big step in that direction.
Since I’m a pretty controversial character, by choice, I am reluctant to stir the waters of conformity with my endorsements. But there are some nice things going on in my community that are worth talking about in the face of a lot of political unrest in the world outside the borders of Liberty Township, Ohio—where I live. One of the great things coming is the opening of the new Cabela’s in West Chester which is just across the street from the Liberty Township border at Liberty Center. I am excited for all the new developments and unusual dining options that often come with these new constructs. However another fine little discovery that has emerged of late is the Silver Tee Kitchen and Craft Bar at the Elk Run Country Club at the western diagonal edge of Liberty Township that was quite a surprise—and worth a mention regarding quality.
I live along the Elk Run golf course. My wife and I have always loved the place; it is certainly a wonderful course, very scenic with a lot of risk & reward holes. With it being in such close proximity to RT 4, yet having such a spectacular view of the Trenton valley, it’s a unique place. It reminds me often of the fine golf courses in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, or the scenic establishments at Hilton Head Island. Yet it’s right in Southern Ohio in the heart of Butler County and is to me a real treasure. Additionally, it has sentimental value because it’s been there for a long time—back when Chuck Nuxhall was still playing as a pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds, The Elk’s Club was the place to be. This was of course before the Becket Ridge Country Club came about—which is where my wife and I were married many years ago—back when that was one of the most premier establishments in Cincinnati as far as country clubs go. The Elk’s Club in its heyday was open and thriving when LeSourdsville Lake just down the road was competing directly with Kings Island as two amusement parks of nearly the same quality. I was a kid when all these things were happening, and I remember them—so there is a sentimental loyalty that I have for their preservation.
Other golf courses and country clubs offering the latest and greatest appeal to a much younger demographic is the Shaker Run course in Monroe, Wetherington in West Chester, and Four Bridges just down the road from the new Cabela’s—which represent the upper crust of social hierarchy. These are great places after a hard day of work to take a few hours to live in absolute luxury—associate with people who are economically affluent—and step away from the world’s problems. And yes, I put an emphasis on “economically affluent” because it matters. People who make money tend to be smarter than people who don’t, and their company is more enjoyable. They don’t laugh so much at fart jokes and they care about the quality of their golf equipment. Affluence means generally that people have been productive, and I prefer the company of affluent people because of it. But for a country club complete with a round of golf to work correctly not just for its resort qualities, it needs to be the kind of place you’d take business associates to conduct business—away from the office on ground that is elevated in its presentation. It is much better to discuss hard topics on a golf course instead of a conference room, just because the energy surrounding such places promotes business association—which is extremely important to the furtherance of capitalism within America. As much as people from outside of country clubs refute the country club culture—it is on golf courses and fine dinners where most of the best deals are made promoting economic growth. It is a form of communication among productive people that is generally understood within business.
In Liberty Township with all the great golf surrounding the region, the newer more affluent golf courses get most of the attention. This has left Elk Run to mainly appeal to the silver haired crowd who remember when it was “the” place around town—back in the day. However, the course is still just as wonderful as it’s ever been. It’s not surrounded by million dollar homes and has a few trailer parks near it, which hurts its appeal. And there is a Tractor Supply right across the street which I think takes people away from the appeal of a golf course and the luxury that is expected. But I like these colorful infusions of demographic mobility—I enjoy the dynamic quality of a car losing its muffler driving up RT 4 in front of the golf course while players haul around thousands of dollars worth of golf clubs, dressed well and conducting their lives responsibility. I like the theater of life, and the Elk Run Country Club provides an oasis in the middle of this dynamism that is extraordinary.
The trouble with the club is not the course which is every bit as great as it was 50 years ago. It’s the buildings, they are a bit dated reflecting the power and prestige of a generation that is currently old, but has seen its greatest generation leave for Heaven’s gates. This is quite the opposite effect that you get at Wetherington, where the clubhouse is immaculate and modern, but the course itself is flat and featureless—relatively speaking. Wetherington will impress business clients because of its reputation. Elk Run has been a good memory but won’t impress with its clubhouse—which is a shame, because it’s really quite good, with a banquet area that overlooks the beauty of its marvelous view. My first daughter was married in that banquet hall because of its beauty, and we will never forget it. But with great golf and productive business meetings comes great food, and at the Elks, this is where they have struggled over the last decade. Several restaurants have tried to make a go at the classic club house and failed leaving the country club appeal of the Elks missing an important ingredient. At the Elks this is even more important, because they have a very nice kitchen that is oversized—built during a time when such things were important, so they can handle a lot of good food for a tremendous number of people. The equipment and furnishings are dated lacking the luxurious appeal of modern décor, but everything back then was built to last, and it still does the job. So the Elks have been missing a nice restaurant experience to go along with the golf. No longer, a Jordanian gentleman came to the rescue and opened up the Silver Tee Kitchen and Craft Bar and it is quite good. My wife and I recently visited it for the first time and came away extremely impressed.
My measuring stick for fine food is Jags in West Chester. There are some great restaurants in downtown Cincinnati and in other cities, but I personally respect Jags as far as fine food. I’ve never had a meal there that wasn’t great or the service enthusiastic, which you expect when paying the kind of money it costs to go to Jags. Silver Tee Kitchen and Craft Bar is a legitimate substitute for Jags and it’s open to the public—you don’t have to be a member of the club to dine there either. You can just pull up and park to get some fine food prepared by a staff that obviously cares a great deal about the food they put on the plate. It was a dining experience that the chain establishments just can’t or don’t provide and it had an energy to it that was very enthusiastic. The food was great, the service robust, worthy of a 25% tip, and the menu wasn’t so crowded that there were too many option, but just enough to cover nearly every pallet preference of most customers. More importantly, it was a great family environment. For families in Liberty Township, Fairfield, and Trenton– Silver Tee Kitchen and Craft Bar is the place to go for diner offering an experience worthy of a night out. The food was fresh and certainly better than most customers could make for themselves in their own kitchens.
The good news for the Elks Club is that finally they have a restaurant worthy of the country club experience, which hopefully will attract a new generation. I wouldn’t hesitate to take business associates there for a round of golf and dinner. I mean the place literally has everything, a great driving range which is completely hidden from the outside world. A 27 hole facility surrounded by rolling hills and large mature trees—not the kind that were planted 15 years ago like what is seen on the newer courses, and now it has a first class restaurant which deserves community support. You could literally spend the day at the Elks Club in Liberty Township playing golf and associating with clients escaping from the pressures of the outside world in a way that just isn’t possible anywhere else. And with that support, the Elks Club can modernize things a bit and get up to speed with some refurbishment. Because what they have now is actually better than the new stuff offered with fresh paint and processed wood. The Silver Tee Kitchen and Craft Bar captures that history with a respectful tip of the hat to a generation long gone, but one that laid the foundations for everything that came after. The entire facility is family friendly and non pretentious, but that doesn’t affect its quality one bit. Don’t feel intimidated to visit the Silver Tee Kitchen and Craft Bar by thinking that you have to be a member of the country club. Just pull right in and park next to the giant Elk statue. Then step inside to a restaurant owned by a guy who really cares about his food. And enjoy an establishment rooted in history that has something unique to offer Liberty Township from a fairly remote location which is literally in the backyard of so many people. The food at Silver Tee Kitchen and Craft Bar is good enough to compete with the kind of dining you get downtown—but you don’t have to travel 45 minutes south to get there. All you have to do is just step out your back door and enjoy something that is truly special.
Again, I’ve said it before—but because the news is just now catching up to things I’ve said years ago, I have to address them, particularly in regard to the destroyed Lois Lerner emails at the IRS, and the same involving Hillary Clinton on her private server destroying classified information hoping to prevent a modern version of Watergate for her presidency which is occurring before she has even been elected. Both women should be in prison for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They are notoriously criminal, both of them and it is disgraceful that they are both free to roam about unmolested currently without prosecution. They clearly committed crimes and are showing the world that criminals are in charge within the federal government. And you know what they have in common dear reader? Barack Obama was at the center of both their lives directly and if the evidence had not been destroyed it would likely point directly to the President’s office.
“High” in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of “high crimes” signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.
The Judiciary Committee’s 1974 report “The Historical Origins of Impeachment” stated: “‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art‘, like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’ The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase:
It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.”[2]
The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
As can be found in[3] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as “for whatever reason whatsoever”. High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive “rendered himself obnoxious,” and the Constitution should provide for the “regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” James Madison said, “…impeachment… was indispensable” to defend the community against “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, “loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”[4]
According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, “Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials — one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges.”[5]
The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It was George Mason who offered up the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as “high misdemeanor”, “maladministration”, or “other crime”. Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who “misbehave”. Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved “…for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust.” As can be seen from all these references to the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”, there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.
Proof if it can ever be retrieved will show that Lois Lerner received marching orders from the IRS union rep who met directly with President Obama, to use the IRS to derail the Tea Party movement through audits and other legal harassment. Lerner has showed horrendous behavior toward conservatives in the emails that had been scanned through and released to authorities. Imagine what they destroyed! What’s most troubling is the communication between Lerner and her husband who advocated that he wanted to vote for a “socialist-labor candidate.” Out of all the bad things I have said about these people in the past, I hate being so right about them.
But Hillary, she used a former President in her husband to gain access to secret service and a plausible reason to have a private server to begin with, then used that security to hide acts she committed as Secretary of State under another sitting president in Obama. If that’s not high crimes and misdemeanors, nothing is. Obama is guilty and so are both Clintons, the one who used to be President and the one who wants to be. They are all inconceivably bad, so bad that people can’t even fathom the treachery on display, because we are not accustomed to comprehending it. That is why there are terms for such things so that those trusted with such delicate information can be prosecuted if they violate that trust. And until that happens, our legal system is a joke not worthy of a single tax dollar for further substantiation.
I remember what it was like in the 80s. Actually I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a 7th grade student. In my history class I was the leader of the debate team defending Reagan from supporters of Jimmy Carter, which was hosted by three of the most popular girls in the school at the time. The two people I had to help me with the debate were not comfortable speaking in public, so I ended up doing the whole presentation and I had the class on Reagan’s side by the end of the discussion. At the time I didn’t know that Reagan had been a labor union leader, a Democrat, and had tendencies toward bleeding heart liberalism. I just liked his confidence, and what he created during his presidency was enthusiasm for capitalism that America has been missing since. In many ways Donald Trump does remind me of the early days of Ronald Reagan. He’s not conservative enough for me, but I think he can sell what conservatism he does have better than anyone running—and could at a minimum create in America a resurgence of enthusiasm similar to the 1980s. Somehow Republicans will have to break loose the current split that the country finds itself in and create new demographics favorable to those who call themselves conservative. And the first hint of that potential enthusiasm I can see clearly in the two wonderful women rising in popularity of late who are unapologetic Donald Trump supporters, Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson. Check them out! I featured them in yesterday’s article, but they have continued to impress now making the television rounds.
I first heard that interview with Lynnette and Rochelle on Doc Thompson’s The Blaze Radio Show from 6 AM to 9 AM and it had me laughing out loud. Each morning I have been riding a bicycle 24 miles and during that time I catch Doc’s show, and it’s often that he says funny things. But it’s pretty rare where laughter cannot be held back, and I was in traffic, and I’m sure people were wondering what in the world I was laughing so hard at. The Viewer’s View girls were funny and passionate—their enthusiasm was intense–so I really couldn’t help but laugh out loud as people in the car next to me looked on in bewilderment. It instantly reminded me of the type of hope and enthusiasm I remembered from the 1980s where artists like Michael Jackson would do appearances at the White House with Ronald Reagan, and social and economic barriers weren’t as pronounced as they were in the 60s and 70s. Hope was alive and it was exciting.
Communists, socialists, progressives and Democrats—which are all the same thing in my book, didn’t like Reagan because he put a stop on the Soviet plans to spread communism to every corner of the globe. I never thought of Reagan as a bastion of conservative value. Much to my dislike, he was a little too socially liberal in regards to Nancy Reagan, and other aspects of this life. Reagan believed in astrology and strange superstitions, which is clearly not something I believe in. But, wow, did Reagan get Americans feeling good about themselves again, and the byproduct of that enthusiasm was undeniably present in our music, movies, products and global presence.
In the early stage of the Trump run for president I identified the power of his celebrity and fighting ability to pull people into the party who would otherwise reject Republicans. Lynnette and Rochelle are clearly the types of women who would not get excited about Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. Even though Walker, Cruz, or Rand Paul might be better candidates as far as people go—they do not have the power of celebrity and charisma to win people over who would otherwise stand against them. Trump in just a very short time has elicited a passion from demographic groups who would not otherwise call themselves Republican, and that is a very powerful thing. It is interesting that Lynnette and Rochelle have so directly connected Trump to job creation. That was the type of environment that Reagan was able to create. If a person wanted to make money in the 1980s, they could—there were jobs and barriers to entry that were being removed. There were hopes and dreams of wealth that Americans had which led to much critical appraisal of excess—particularly from the political left and generally lazy. But the option was there and it was a generally very positive time. I knew it would be that way as a 7th grade student and I felt passionately enough about it to actually work on behalf of the Reagan campaign as a young person.
But Reagan then and now was not conservative enough for me, even though just about every Republican refers to him as a way to tie themselves to former president. Reagan to me was not “Republican” enough. However I saw the strategic opportunities of his presidency early on, and turned out to be glaringly correct. Even older people who were skeptical about my enthusiasm for Reagan as such a young person doubted that my passion was anything less than youthful hope. It wasn’t. I saw in Reagan an ability to unleash opportunity that had been suppressed for a long time within the United States. I was able to pretty much dominate any social situation, overcome most legal hurdles, meet people of any demographic, and make all the money I wanted before Reagan was in his seventh year as president. I was making as much money as an 18-year-old as my dad was making after 25 years at a regular company. The only limits to my life were in the things I needed to learn—which I worked very hard at. The music was great, the money was excellent, and the direction of the country was very promising. Then came George H Bush. Within four years of his presidency, the establishment Republican had me leaning toward Ross Perot. Clinton won the election of 1992, and everything went downhill from there. Literally.
If a true conservative had been available to take the reigns of Ronald Reagan after he left office, things might have gone very different for America. We might in fact look like the film Back to the Future II and have flying cars, and hover boards. Instead we have iPhones and Facebook. If there had been a Ted Cruz in 1992, we might have to this day a shopping mall on the Moon complete with hotels and night clubs. Ronald Reagan was a paid spokesman for GE and learned to speak the benefits of capitalism from them before becoming a governor or president. His liberalism evolved the older he became into a more conservative personality. I was however born extremely conservative, so everyone falls short in my book. Reagan did a good job of making America feel good about itself, and I think Donald Trump has that same quality. It will be up to some good candidates in 2024 to be ready to take that enthusiasm so evident in women like Lynnette and Rochelle and apply it more toward a laissez-faire capitalist system instead of the socialism of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and of course Bernie Sanders.
There is a reason that Bernie is packing stadiums, socialism is very real and is the policy of Democrats. If you want to beat them in elections and pull spirited Democrats who are questioning that system back to the Republican side of the political spectrum, you need someone who can sell capitalism to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. If they are on board with Trump, it is only a matter of time before a whole lot of other people will be on board as well. And what they are boarding is unapologetic capitalism blasting against a world slipping into socialism. This is the most important election of our lives, and if I were still in the 7th grade, I’d be supporting Trump just as I did Reagan. And that youthful ambition would not be derived from naiveté. It would come from scientific plausibility and deductive reasoning. It’s a numbers game, and Republicans have been too weak in the past to appeal to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. And we’ve lost them to the Democrats and along with them, a hunger by them for the opportunities of capitalism.
The 1980s weren’t perfect. But they were a whole lot better than what has happened since and before. I should know, I experienced it first hand. I think that explosive enthusiasm could in fact be much greater than what we saw in the 80s. For me in the next election it’s not the border, the Iran deal, ISIS, or Planned Parenthood, it’s the $18 trillion dollars in debt that is facing the United States. I think only someone with the ego of Donald Trump has the fortitude to take that on with the gusto it will take to pull off the task. And solving that problem gives me hope that wasn’t there before he announced himself for President of the United States. In that hope I share in common a lot with Lynnette and Rochelle. It is in the purity of their passion that I found myself laughing as sweat poured off my face in the early morning sun and motorists looked at me wondering why I was laughing so hard. It wasn’t them that was funny, it was that they unlocked within me the enthusiasm I have been yearning for in America really since the 1980s to come again, and it has in the wake of Donald Trump.
Many times I have pointed out the burgeoning issue of how weak establishment Republicans are. They are holding the party down creating an insurrection within the GOP that has directly led to the present circumstances. Here in Butler County, Ohio, considered by many to be one of the strongest bastions of Republicanism in the country, I have been extremely displeased with the GOP. Judy Shelton and her kind on the Central Committee have purposely attempted to push Tea Party elements out while dragging donors to the political middle of the debate—away from capitalism more toward socialism. So long as area Republicans receive their invite to the socialite Patti Alderson’s latest charity event, most have been willing to play along—except for 25-30% of the party. For them, they get left behind, and people like Judy will declare publicly, that it was her goal all along. Those dissidents can either go along to get along—or they won’t have a seat at the table. What those short-sighted thinkers have always missed is not that they needed to move to the political left to cater to voters—the Bernie Sanders socialists—but to pick up voters in that 25-30% range who often just refuse to vote for Republican losers. Case in point is the two women below who emphatically are showing their support for Donald Trump. These are voter demographics that are untapped by current Republican strategies.
After the GOP Debate on Fox News and the fallout thereafter toward Donald Trump by establishment types, mystification engulfed the party in a similar way that has been evident in Butler County by Shelton and Alderson. Pundits loyal to Republicans just don’t understand what all the hype toward Trump is. Even Glenn Beck—who just recently attacked Grover Norquist and declared that he was done with the Republican Party has been extremely critical of Trump. Apparently Beck wants a Jesus Christ type figure who will soft talk the nation from the brink—which is about as realistic as hoping that Peter Pan will teach us all to fly. There is no basis in reality for such a hope. It makes a fine fantasy, but is not very practical in the realm of strategy.
I am certainly part of that 25-30% who will vote against Republicans if they are not conservative enough. As Beck has pointed out before, during the American Revolution, less than 30% of the population advocated in favor of the elements of the War of Independence. Yet America earned its way on the backs of that minority, and the same holds true today. The masses do not know the best answers. It usually comes from the minority—the clear thinking, and passionate. Republicans do not need so much a big tent pandered to every special interest group—blacks, women, Hispanics, gays, etc., it needs to reach within those groups those 30% who just want to win. Clearly by the evidence of the two Trump advocates in the above video, there are two demographics present that are very passionate about Donald Trump. Republicans could have those voters if only they’d embrace the possibility of being a winner.
This should be easy. What happens to the local NFL team when they have several seasons of losing efforts? That team usually has a hard time selling-out tickets—because people in America have a hard time supporting losing efforts. They will be loyal to a certain point, but clearly want to see a winner on the football field. The moment that an NFL team turns it all around and becomes a winner again, fans go crazy. Fans will do just about anything to be near a winner—and they will spend their money emphatically on winning efforts. When an NFL team is winning, ticket sales are up, beer and hotdogs concessions are through the roof, and memorabilia jumps off the racks in retail outlets. Winning is very good for an NFL team’s achievement of financial success.
Republicans have not been winners. They make promises but are weak to follow through. They have a reputation of being like Yosemite Sam in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons continually outmaneuvered by a Democratic rascally rabbit. They have been made fools of since the days of Ronald Reagan, and they wonder why they don’t have more supporters. You have to win something to maintain enthusiasm in the Party. Elections aren’t enough. Currently Republicans have the House and Senate and what have they done with it? Nothing. Republican leaders on Capital Hill are still being outmaneuvered by Barack Obama—and that doesn’t sit well with the elements of the Republican Party who want to support a winner.
Judy Shelton in my home town has manipulated the Central Committee with manipulation by busing in voters for hard votes and worked against that hard-line 30% with open harassment and extortion to protect John Boehner from internal challenges within the GOP. That is as stupid as telling a football player on an NFL team that their job is secure, all they have to do is show up on Sunday and collect a pay check, win, lose or draw. That is not how things work in reality. Performance is expected, and the Republicans for two decades have done little else but talk.
Donald Trump may be a lot of things. He may be all over the map politically. He may have liberal views and some Alex Jones level conspiracy beliefs. As I’ve said, he’s not a conservative in the way that I am, that is for sure. But—who is? I like Carly Fiorina, I like Ted Cruz, I like Scott Walker. I’d vote for Ben Carson in less than a second, as he best represents my own political philosophy. I love that guy. But in this aggressive global environment with all the political theater going on, who of that bunch has a chance of withstanding the onslaught of harassment so evident throughout the world encapsulated by Socialist International. Bernie Sanders is filling stadiums and pushing for open socialism. Who among the Republicans can take that on but an unapologetic capitalist who is driven by a self-centered desire for narcissism? Narcissism and vanity are considered faults by the Republican Party, particularly local apologists like Judy Shelton. But winners tend to embody some elements of narcissism—because it is that which often propels them toward perfection—or at least an attempt to be better day after day.
Republicans like Judy Shelton work so hard behind the scenes with the assumption that the Party is bigger than the individual, which actually goes against the premise of conservative values. No wonder there are splinter groups erupting behind the establishment—she should have known better. Instead of acknowledging that trend, she has fought against it doubling down within the party ranks and insisting on unyielding support of John Boehner who has done nothing in his time as Speaker of the House but lose to Obama. It’s an insane premise that could only be constructed by establishment politicians who are way too comfortable with their social role within that system. Because of people like Shelton, and there are many like her all across America, particularly within the Beltway, voters often just stay at home unwilling to cast a vote for a loser—whether they are Republicans or Democrats (socialists). CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW and clarification. Judy Shelton’s support for Boehner with a track record of failure, and also of John Kasich who has turned toward big government and declared that St. Peter will welcome good Republicans in heaven because they have pandered to the poor as a party will not win anything but elections in the future. Republicans are do nothing losers who have been beaten in policy by Democrats over and over again, and are defeated people—politically.
Americans love winners and they will support a winner even if the circumstances around the victor are shady. Of course a clean winner is always best, but look at the apologists for Tom Brady. Nobody wants to believe he or the Patriots cheated their way to so many Superbowl victories because people love a winner—however they win. Nobody wants to wait until they die to have victory—which is the public policy essentially of John Kasich. People want a winner now or sooner, especially Americans. So it should not be a mystery to the political pundits that Trump is doing so well even with all the usual tricks used to knock him off his pedestal. He’s a winner and people are willing to overlook his faults because of it. What Republicans would discover if they stopped listening to loyalists like Judy Shelton from Butler County, Ohio is that new voters, perhaps even some from the other side would vote for Trump as a Republican just because he has a reputation as a winner. New demographics would be created in the wake of such a move, many of them very passionate about their representative, such as the two women above. Nobody is doing videos like that for John Boehner, or John Kasich. Judy Shelton is only able to keep support for those two by twisting people’s arms behind their backs and busing in degenerates with the promise of a free meal during Central Committee meetings. For those who accuse Trump of smoke and mirrors tapped off with dishonest diatribes against the establishment, it is the suspicion that worse is occurring behind the scenes, and they’d be correct. Those 25-30% of Republican voters have not been passionate about the Republican Party for years. They are passionate now, because they sense a winner in Trump, and they want to see victory for a change—not just in elections won, but in action taken day-to-day. Trump represents victory and for a large percentage of the Republican voter base, a sleeping giant is erupting that people like Judy Shelton didn’t even know about. Because those Republicans want victory more than a free meal to buy their vote in Butler County.
I liked Carly Fiorina before the Fox News debates, but often thought she was too soft and repetitive on her position against Hillary Clinton. She did predictably well in the debates, which I was impressed with. She’s definitely a woman I could get behind for president. I like her a lot. But I wasn’t sure she was aggressive enough to be president until I saw her handle Chris Mathews after the debate, in an interview where he tried to peg her down with specifics. She not only provided specifics, she actually did it so well that Mathews conceded to her as time ran out. It was a very impressive exchange respectfully done, but most importantly, effectively implemented.
Cara Carleton “Carly” Fiorina (née Sneed; September 6, 1954) is a former business executive, and current Chair of the non-profit philanthropic organization Good360.[2] Starting in 1980, Fiorina rose through the ranks to become an executive at AT&T and its equipment and technology spinoff, Lucent. As chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 1999 to 2005, she was the first woman to lead one of the top twenty U.S. companies.[3]
In 2002, Fiorina undertook the biggest high-tech merger in history, with rival computer company Compaq, which made HP the world’s largest personal computer manufacturer.[4][5] Following HP’s gain in market share as a result of the merger, Fiorina laid off thousands of US employees. However, [6][7] by the end of 2005, the merged company had more employees worldwide than both companies together had before the merger.[8] As of February 9, 2005 HP stock had lost more than half its value, while the overall NASDAQ index had fallen 26 percent owing to turbulence in the tech sector.[9][10][11] On that date, the HP board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman.[12][13]
In 1980, Fiorina joined AT&T as a management trainee and rose to become a senior vice president overseeing the company’s hardware and systems division.[25]
In 1995, Fiorina led corporate operations for the spinoff from AT&T of Lucent, reporting to Lucent chief executive Henry B. Schacht.[26] She played a key role in planning and implementing the 1996 initial public offering of stock and company launch strategy.[27][28] Later in 1996, Fiorina was appointed president of Lucent’s consumer products business, reporting to Rich McGinn, president and chief operating officer.[28] In 1997, she was appointed chair of Lucent’s consumer communications joint venture with Philips, Philips Consumer Communications.[29] It was dissolved a year later after garnering only a 2% market share in mobile phones and losing $500 million on a revenue of $2.5 billion.[30] Also in 1997, she was named group president for the global service provider business at Lucent, overseeing marketing and sales for the company’s largest customer segment.[31]
During her time at AT&T, Lucent, and afterward, Fiorina was regarded by many as being the first woman to head up a Fortune 20 company, and to have overcome the metaphorical “glass ceiling“.[32][33][34]
Hewlett-Packard (HP)
In July 1999, Hewlett-Packard Company named Fiorina chief executive officer, succeeding Lewis Platt and prevailing over the internal candidate Ann Livermore.[35] Fiorina received a larger signing offer than any of her predecessors, including: $65 million in stock, a $3 million signing bonus, a $1 million annual salary (plus a $1.25–3.75 million annual bonus), $36,000 in mortgage assistance, a relocation allowance, and permission (and encouragement) to use company planes for personal affairs.[36] She became the first woman to lead a Fortune 20 company.[3] Fiorina immediately became a highly visible chief executive and remained so throughout her tenure at the company.[37]
Fiorina proceeded to reorganize HP and merge the part she kept with PC maker Compaq.[37] Although the decision to spin off the company’s technical equipment division predated her arrival, one of her first major responsibilities as chief executive was overseeing the separation of the unit into the standalone Agilent Technologies.[38] Fiorina proposed the acquisition of the technology services arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers for almost $14 billion, but withdrew the bid after a lackluster reception from Wall Street.[39] Following the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the PwC consulting arm was acquired by IBM for less than $4 billion.[40] Fiorina instituted three major changes to HP’s culture shortly after her arrival: a shift from nurturing employees to demanding financial performance, replacing profit sharing with bonuses awarded if the company met financial expectations, and a reduction in operating units from 83 to 4.[36]
In early September 2001, in the wake of the bursting of the Tech Bubble, Fiorina announced the merger with Compaq, a leading competitor in the industry. Fiorina fought for the merger, and it was implemented despite strong opposition from board member Walter Hewlett (the son of company co-founder William Hewlett) and 49% opposition among HP’s shareholders.[41][42] Hewlett launched a proxy fight against Fiorina’s efforts, which failed.[43] The Compaq merger[44] created the world’s largest personal computer manufacturer by units shipped.[45][46]
Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization. She was a strong proponent, along with other technology executives, of the expansion of the H-1B visa program.[47][48][49][50] Fiorina responded against protectionism in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, writing that while “America is the most innovative country,” it would not remain so if the country were to “run away from the reality of the global economy.”[51] Fiorina said to Congress in 2004: “There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs as a nation.”[48] While Fiorina argued that the only way to “protect U.S. high-tech jobs over the long haul was to become more competitive [in the United States],” her comments prompted “strong reactions” from some technology workers who argued that lower wages outside the United States encouraged the offshoring of American jobs.[52] In the US, 30,000 HP employees were laid off during Fiorina’s tenure.[6][53] In 2004, HP fell dramatically short of its predicted third-quarter earnings, and Fiorina fired three executives during a 5 AM telephone call.[36]
Fiorina frequently clashed with HP’s board of directors,[36][42] and she faced backlash among HP employees and the tech community for her leading role in the demise of HP’s egalitarian “The HP Way” work culture and guiding philosophy,[36][42][54] which she felt hindered innovation.[36][55] Because of changes to HP’s culture, and requests for voluntary pay cuts to prevent layoffs (subsequently followed by the largest layoffs in HP’s history), employee satisfaction surveys at HP—previously among the highest in America—revealed “widespread unhappiness” and distrust,[36][56] and Fiorina was sometimes booed at company meetings and attacked on HP’s electronic bulletin board.[36]
During Fiorina’s time as CEO, HP’s revenue doubled due to mergers with Compaq and other companies,[57][58] and the rate of patent filings increased.[58] According to reports, however, the company underperformed by a number of metrics: there were no gains in HP’s net income despite a 70% gain in net income of the S&P 500 over this period;[57] the company’s debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD;[57] and stock price fell by 50%, exceeding declines in the S&P 500 Information Technology Sector index and the NASDAQ.[57][59] In contrast, stock prices for IBM and Dell fell 27.5% and 3% respectively, during this time period.[59]
Resignation from Hewlett-Packard
In early January 2005, the Hewlett-Packard board of directors discussed with Fiorina a list of issues that the board had regarding the company’s performance.[60] The board proposed a plan to shift her authority to HP division heads, which Fiorina resisted.[61] A week after the meeting, the confidential plan was leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[62] Less than a month later, the board brought back Tom Perkins and forced Fiorina to resign as chair and chief executive officer of the company.[63] The company’s stock jumped on news of her departure, adding almost three billion dollars to the value of HP in a single day.[64][65] Many employees celebrated her resignation.[36] Under the company’s agreement with Fiorina, which was characterized as a golden parachute by TIME magazine,[66] and Yahoo!,[67] it was reported she had been paid slightly more than $20 million in severance.[68]
I noticed that Donald Trump did not go after her in the way he might otherwise—before the whole Megan Kelly thing erupted. I’d guess that is because he is looking at her as a running mate, which would be the best of both worlds. Trump understands the showbiz side of politics, which shouldn’t be the case, but is a brutal reality of any campaign. The left doesn’t play by the rules, and Republicans continue to lose because they don’t understand the theatrics well enough about how the left beats them. Trump is destroying that political model as we speak—which I am very happy about. Carly is a more traditional manager, and ultimately is more of what we’d all like to expect out of a President in the White House. But I really think she, and all the other candidates as well, need Donald Trump to reset the political field on both sides with his bombastic behavior. The political process needs Donald Trump, but I am very happy to see candidates in the field like Carly Fiorina emerging so strongly. She is a wonderful breath of fresh air.
To answer the question Jaun Williams brought up in that short video clip, labor unions do attack management and ownership to advocate collective possession of a property. In public schools, it is clear that the tax payers or management does not run the schools, it’s the labor unions. They literally run the asylum and that is the reason for the cost escalations that cause tax increases. The teacher unions preach against private property ownership, management control of their pay checks, their insurance premiums, and their behavior and they openly seek to liberalize their students with progressive philosophy. They are functioning socialist, and have been for a very long time.
But Wasserman Schultz should have been savvy enough to give a shit shot answer—but she couldn’t—that’s because until recently nobody even asked questions like that. To hide the socialist tendencies of the Democratic Party, they just called people like me, “hateful” “fringe” types and hoped that nobody would do any further investigations. Well, that method has worked OK for them until they came across one in their rank who had been calling themselves an “independent” on Capitol Hill—who was in fact an unabashed socialist preaching Scandinavian socialism as an answer to American economic policy.
Sanders has been doing well behind Hillary Clinton, even challenging her polling numbers, and largely the reason is that many of today’s youth were raised by socialists within the public education system and find in Bernie a familiar concept. Many millennials today would openly support socialism because it would give them more video game playing time, and more opportunities to play on their phones at the expense of the productive. Like members of a dysfunctional family, they don’t know the difference between a healthy relationship and a bad one, because their only experience has been negative. Without the opportunities for competition in their educations from private schools, or home school, their public educations have ruined their minds. They don’t know the good from the bad because free market options have been taken from them—which is a common socialist tactic of population control. If you talk to Democrats seriously about free market ideas, they despise them. That is because they are functionally socialists.
Many have asked me how education should be, and I have responded that they should be like the wonderful amusement parks in Florida, where within 5 to 10 miles of each other are the Universal Parks, the Sea World facilities, and of course the four Disney parks. All those developments are in competition with one another for validity. For instance Sea World had to up their game with roller coasters because they needed thrill rides to compete with Universal, just down the road. Disney needs to build a Star Wars land to compete with Universal’s Harry Potter displays, etc. The result of that activity floods over into the many restaurants and hotels that populate the area. Without that competition from those few parks, Orlando would be just another second-hand city toppling under socialist pressure from all their community obligations funded by the tax payer. But because of the thriving entertainment options in Orlando, because of the parks, the airport is wonderful, the roads are in good shape, the convention center is immaculate and there is plenty of tax revenue to sustain the city. That is the beauty of free market capitalism. The same mentality should be applied to education. There should be a school that strives to be better than all the others. Other schools should have to compete with the best schools for students and dollars. But that’s not the system we have. Public education is a monopoly completely dependent on tax dollars. The only competition they endorse are useless Friday night football games. There isn’t any intellectual competition between Lakota and Fairfield or Mason and Monroe. If a home is in those districts, then that’s where students go to school, and the unions love those lack of options, because they are functioning socialists.
Democrats have built their party as a wealth redistribution organization that trades votes in exchange for the results of confiscated wealth. They don’t believe in the free market, not even a little bit. They believe in state-run institutions funded by tax payer dollars and overpaid jobs given to unqualified people in exchange for a vote to keep politicians in power. That is socialism. That is why Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn’t answer the Chris Mathews question about what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist was. She didn’t know because there isn’t any—except in name.
The lesson here is that just because people call you names for pointing it out, it doesn’t mean that there is validity to their defense. When I called the local public school a socialist institution, I was applying the correct name to the behavior. It may not sound good in a country that has a history of fighting communism just because it’s the opposite of capitalism, so Democrats changed their name to hide philosophy of collectivism which is as the center of their party. But the terminology is historically accurate. Millennials may not remember the fights America had conducted against socialism and communism over the years, because they were purposely not taught those kinds of things in public school. Millennials thus support socialist efforts like those of Bernie Sanders for their own selfish reasons, they are products of socialist instruction, so they don’t think in ways that have expectations of productivity attached to their behavior. That is why Wasserman Schultz could not give a difference. Because there isn’t one. When you look at children grown today struggling to exhibit their individuality with nose rings and tattoos, thank a Democrat for putting poison in the mind of the youth in public education by teaching them to grow up loving socialism. The problems of our age can most be attributed to socialism and the Democrat’s need to hide it from the public with name changes. It has left an entire generation lost and confused, and without the tools of acknowledged capitalism to build a proper life with. Democrats are guilty of a grand deception, and guess what—I’m not going to let them forget it. They made this bed, and they can sleep in it all on their own. I never played along, and I’m not going to start now that they are obviously in trouble. I have no problem telling them that “I told them so.” Because they didn’t listen when they should have.
I’m not talking about a politician like the ones the world has become used to. Rather Trump is much more reminiscent of the type of office seeker that we would have had stepping purely off the pages of Ayn Rand’s two great American novels, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged—both personal favorites of mine. As I read carefully the statements about the exit of Donald Trump’s campaign adviser Roger Stone in the wake of the Megan Kelly feud, I noticed something distinctly different about this round of controversy. Trump is moving into uncharted political waters which Stone was clearly not comfortable with—and Trump recognizing it, is pressing to move on with the methods that have given him success.
The system is set up to protect itself from individual merit. Stone, Kelly, Bill O’Reilly even Roger Ailes of Fox News are members of the system. Glenn Beck years ago tried to press against that system, and he is currently doing a good job with his own little network, The Blaze, which I listen to every day. But Beck never really survived his run-ins with George Soros or his expulsion from Fox News. When individuals push back against the system, they tend to be destroyed in the process. Along comes Donald Trump who has made his living by underlining the pronoun I. His 1987 book The Art of the Deal is a great book about a very passionate man who comes across larger than life because as he says, if you’re going to think, you might as well think big. But before you can do that you have to truly know who you are as an individual, not as a member of the collective and Donald Trump clearly knows who he is.
I have never seen or read anything from Trump that points to Ayn Rand as a source of inspiration—which doesn’t surprise me. The characters from her novels—people like Howard Roark and John Galt were just who they were. They didn’t point to a philosopher on the horizon as the origin of their thoughts; they just were who they were. Yet Trump clearly is a hero from those pages whether by default, or through inspiration. He reminds me of the kind of man Howard Roark was in The Fountainhead. I have a lot of favorite books. One is The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Another is The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musahi. Another is The Hero with a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell. Way of the Fighter is another treasure of mine written by General Claire Lee Chennault. Most of my favorite books have something to do with combat and fighting—strategy. Like Trump nobody out thinks me. It would likely be a stalemate if he and I would ever come into contact with each other because I wouldn’t yield an inch to him, and neither would he. He would likely chose to fight with verbal insults to shake me off my position whereas I tend to use many more subtle means built off many years of reading voluminous books providing me with a robust vocabulary and strategic options. That is why out of all my books one of my favorites is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand because it is about these types of people, those who clearly understand themselves and know that they are the source of all material from which all things pour forth.
The Fountainhead is a uniquely American concept and was inspired by the bright-eyed young woman Ayn Rand who escaped communist Russia to work as a screenwriter in Hollywood. Her first impressions of America were the New York skyline and the buildings which made it up erected because of capitalism. Nowhere else in the world had such sights, and she built her philosophy of Objectivism off that vision. One of her strongest and most explosive characters was the architect Howard Roark from that first big hit by her written in 1943. He built buildings for that skyline and was directly inspired by the real life Frank Lloyd Wright. Throughout the novel Roark refuses to collaborate with others on projects so to maintain his individuality, even when it costs him dearly. Donald Trump is the closest personification of Roark that I’ve ever seen which most adequately allows for the philosophy of individuality to finally see the light of day which it deserves—which seemed to be at the center of Roger Stone’s issues. The American presidency has been accepted by default to be a sacrifice to the collective, and Donald Trump is changing that perception rapidly much to the anxiety of those who have molded their lives to the system and are unsure of how to conduct themselves in that vacancy.
I don’t want the system of politics that we inherited by default from Europe. I want something uniquely American. I want a real life Howard Roark as president—which is precisely what Donald Trump is. Now that I’ve gotten to know Trump better through all these media escapades and watched his behavior more accurately, I think I would get along well with him. Even after all the years that he did The Apprentice, I had never watched a single show until recently, because I don’t waste time on network television. I’m just too busy. So outside of his book The Art of the Deal, I didn’t know much about Trump or his empire. I don’t like casinos, so I lumped Trump into that parasitic category of human being—a crony capitalist who was part of the problem. But I see now something else, a long-held strategy centered on evoking pride in the pronoun I to the extent of saving America from the collectivist parasites which have embedded themselves in our political culture. They are scared of Trump, and he is relishing in aggravating their anxiety. Because he truly wants to save America, not just to provide an ego boost to himself. For all of the reasons that Howard Roark refused the World’s Fair commission, to maintain his integrity and love for a country that has made him extremely wealthy, Trump is trying to save America not through more rules and regulations, or even executive order. He’s trying to save it by invoking in the people of the nation, the spirit and power of the pronoun I. Because he knows that through individuality and values invoked from within, America can only survive the systems which currently encumber it. Committees never have worked, Howard Roark said so in a 1943 novel about individualism and the power of a philosophy built from it. Now Donald Trump is in forbidden territory, and he appears ready to thrive in that task. And for that he has my full support!
Even I am amazed at the political left’s extreme denial of the evils of Planned Parenthood. When I heard the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest deny watching the released videos from the Center for Medical Progress, I knew without question that we were not only dealing with a corrupt administration, but a vile, and evil political party. And that evil deserves a level of ruthlessness indicative of war. There is no way that Earnest—who is in the business of knowing everything related to the media did not see clips from the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. His desire to lie openly is a strategy commonly used within Obama’s administration, and the Clinton connections over the years, which were formulated around the basic concepts of progressivism. Those basic thoughts about the world were formulated by some founding members of the progressive view of the world of which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger personally shaped. To progressives and the feminist outlook, Margaret Sanger is a hero. To people like me she is a vile villain that has destroyed human integrity and is steering humanity over a cliff of despair. To understand the extent of that evil read an article by The Blaze shown below interviewing David Daleiden, the project leader behind the Planned Parenthood videos. Then read the 13 things you probably didn’t know about Margaret Sanger—then you’ll understand what the typical progressive stands for and measure to what extent you’ll choose to listen to them in the future. At the end of the article is a brief history of Sanger who Hillary Clinton has described as her personal hero.
The head of the group responsible for releasing a recent series of videos which purport to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts discussed the most difficult parts of the investigation Tuesday.
Speaking to TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch, David Daleiden spoke after the Center for Medical Progress released its fifth undercover video earlier in the day.
“I would say definitely the hardest moment, the hardest moments were reviewing the footage of the body parts of the unborn children themselves. Especially the second trimester case that you see in the video released today,” Daleiden said on “Dana.”
“That was absolutely brutal. It is absolutely brutal,” he continued. “It’s truly a little slice of hell. That place, that was easily the hardest part of this entire investigation.”
13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger
Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.
On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.
Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”
In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.
Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.
1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”
“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.
According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B
7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.
She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B
8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.
“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.
9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18:The Goal
10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”
“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3:The Materials of the New Race
11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.
“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.
12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939
13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”
“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.
Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US. Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. Though she has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics she remains a recognizable figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]
In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[3]
In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.
In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters“.[18][note 2][19] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term “birth control” as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as “family limitation”[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22][23] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias “Bertha Watson”, sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[24]
Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience. Early in 1915, Margaret Sanger’s estranged husband, William Sanger, was entrapped into giving a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. William Sanger was tried and convicted, he spent thirty days in jail, while also escalating interest in birth control as a civil liberties issue.[25][26][27]
This page from Sanger’s Family Limitation, 1917 edition, describes a cervical cap.
Some countries in northwestern Europe had more liberal policies towards contraception than the United States at the time, and when Sanger visited a Dutch birth control clinic in 1915, she learned about diaphragms and became convinced that they were a more effective means of contraception than the suppositories and douches that she had been distributing back in the United States. Diaphragms were generally unavailable in the United States, so Sanger and others began importing them from Europe, in defiance of United States law.[9]
On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[28] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger’s bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance.[29] Sanger and Ethel went to trial in January 1917.[30] Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on hunger strike. She was the first woman in the US to be force fed.[31] Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law, she was pardoned after ten days.[32] Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”[33] Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: “I cannot respect the law as it exists today.”[34] For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.[34] An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.[35] The publicity surrounding Sanger’s arrest, trial, and appeal sparked birth control activism across the United States, and earned the support of numerous donors, who would provide her with funding and support for future endeavors.[36]
Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1921.[37] Sanger’s second husband was Noah Slee. He followed Sanger around the world and provided much of Sanger’s financial assistance. The couple got married in September 1922, but the public did not know about it until February 1924. They supported each other with their pre-commitments.[38]
While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[76] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[77] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[78] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[79] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[78]
However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[80][81] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[82] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[83] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[84] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[85] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[85]
