You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Bernie Sanders’ tag.

Last week, I posted a summary of President Donald Trump’s 2019 State of the Union (SOTU) address.

In case you missed the event, CBS has a video and full transcript.

It created such a buzz that I have more bookmarks than would fit into one post.

What follows are America’s views of the SOTU as seen online.

Polling

Trump got high marks from viewers at home:

The CBS reporter seemed shocked that Americans side with Trump on immigration. He can barely get the words out:

Trump’s much vaunted ‘wall’ is gaining traction. This was the issue that the media said would lose him votes in 2016. In the end, he won the election, and now a clear majority of voters agree with him on this most controversial issue.

Here is a breakdown by political party:

Note that nearly one-third of Democrats approve and — just as importantly for 2020 — 82% of Independents do, too.

CNN also conducted a poll. The results must have upset them greatly:

Adding both positive percentages together gives Trump’s SOTU a 76% approval rating — the same as CBS’s. There appears to be a rounding error in CNN’s:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) calls it ‘Spirit of 76%’ (an association with 1776):

Television ratings

Trump’s speech was a huge televisual draw.

On February 6, The Hollywood Reporter provided the ratings (emphases mine below):

The State of the Union was a slightly bigger draw than it was in 2018.

Just under 46.8 million people — 46.79 million, to be precise — watched President Trump’s address to Congress across 12 networks, about 3 percent more than watched a year ago.  

The 2018 address drew 45.55 million viewers. Trump’s first address to Congress in 2017 — not technically a State of the Union, as he had only been in office a few weeks — drew the largest audience of his term to date with 47.74 million

Fox News led the field 11.27 million viewers from 9-10:30 p.m. ET, off slightly from the 11.5 million who watched the 2018 SOTU. NBC topped broadcast networks with 7.14 million viewers, followed by CBS (6.68 million) and ABC (5.91 million). The Fox broadcast network’s 4.2 million viewers beat out both MSNBC (3.79 million) and CNN (3.47 million).

The four broadcast networks and big three cable news outlets combined for 42.46 million viewers. PBS, Telemundo, Univision, Fox Business and CNNe combined to averaged 4.33 million.

Tuesday’s address drew more viewers than the comparable ones in the first terms of Barack Obama (42.79 million in 2011) and Bill Clinton (42.2 million in 1995) but fell well short of George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union, which drew 62 million as Bush made a case for invading Iraq. That address is the most-watched State of the Union in this century.

In earlier metered-market ratings, the State of the Union averaged a 16.3 household rating across ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC, up about 10 percent from a 14.8 last year. The SOTU was also slightly higher in metered markets than Trump’s 2017 address, which is not technically considered a State of the Union speech as he’d only been in office a few weeks.

Two anti-Trumpers’ positive verdicts

At least two anti-Trump pundits praised him for a great speech.

Here is Bret Baier from Fox News:

And the Wall Street Journal‘s Peggy Noonan, who wrote Bush I’s ‘Thousand Points of Light’ acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 1988:

As for those who watched at home:

Favourite SOTU themes

Many of the tweets I saw were supportive of Trump’s views on socialism, abortion and human trafficking.

Socialism

Trump firmly denounced socialism. If you think that is unfair, look at how Venezuela, once South America’s jewel in the crown, has deteriorated:

A number of people picked up on Bernie Sanders’s reaction:

Here’s a graphic — meme — to circulate:

The Dems have a plan of attack, though. In fact, they already previewed a new lie of theirs on a Sunday news show:

Abortion

Stephen Miller did a marvellous job writing the speech, but the part on abortion was especially moving:

The following day, House Republicans re-introduced the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Ann Wagner (R-Missouri) and Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana). Unfortunately, the measure failed to pass for consideration, as the vote had to be unanimous.

Ann Wagner had this to say:

Behind the scenes

According to The Daily Caller‘s Benny Johnson, someone fainted during the speech:

Benny also liked Trump’s speech:

Democrats

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her freshmen Representatives received rightful criticism.

However, all the Democrats deserve the public’s censure for booing Trump when he introduced the critical subject of border security by mentioning the migrant ‘caravans’. The Daily Caller reported conservative commentator Michelle Malkin’s reaction:

When you have the Democrats booing because President Trump was exposing and continuing to hammer the fact that these caravans are endangering the country and posing enormous costs to people at the border, let alone in the interior, this is a message I think is going to resonate all the way through 2020, and it’s going to pose a huge optics problem for the Democrat party,” Malkin said …

“I think it underscores an important point that President Trump himself has made in the face of this debate and the intransigence of the open borders Democrats — and that it’s not just about a wall. As long as you have these magnets drawing people here and everybody’s aware of it around the world, it’s not going to stop,” she said earlier in the interview.

And that is a point that President Trump made during the address last night. … President Trump delivered very defining moments that contrast the differences between the parties.”

I hope she is right.

Joe Manchin

There was only one Democrat who stood with the president, at least on energy and abortion: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. He’s delighted to see the revival of coal mines in his state. On abortion, he had this to say:

Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi, a notional Catholic, invited the president of Planned Parenthood as a special guest:

Then, there was Pelosi’s jewellery.

She wore a long gold brooch, a tiny version of the Mace of the United States House of Representatives. The Mace is modelled on the Roman-era fasces, which has always represented authority:

AlterNet has a photo of Pelosi and a bit of history on how the Mace has been used in the House of Representatives. It is on regular display when the House is in session (emphases mine):

At each daily session, the Sergeant at Arms carries the mace in procession, ahead of the speaker in to the rostrum. While the House is in session, the mace stands on a pedestal at the speaker’s right handThe mace is almost four feet in length and made of silver and 13 ebony rods (representing the original states in the union).

It’s the people’s house, and the people have entrusted it to Speaker Pelosi for this term. Along with it comes the power to maintain order in the House.

The Roman authorities used fasces on criminals and people disturbing the peace. Lictors — officials similar to law enforcement officers — could beat miscreants and criminals with the whole fasces or untie the bundled rods and go after several at a time. They also had the authority to use the axe inside the fasces to put them to death, when necessary.

Later in history, fasces became a symbol representing national unity and indivisibility: many rods bundled together make a single entity.

This American Intelligence Media video purports that Pelosi wore the mace pin to signal that she is the equal to President Trump. That’s a very real possibility.

Whatever the case, there were times when it was clear she does not want Americans to succeed:

Democrat women

The only time Democrat women rose was to cheer Trump’s stats on women in the workforce and in Congress.

That’s right, gals, applaud yourselves:

As TurningPoint USA’s Candace Owens pointed out:

The Daily Wire‘s Ryan Saavedra tweeted this in response to AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from Queens):

Senator Kamala Harris (D-California) seemed to deny the crime going on at the southern border:

Prescription drug prices

There is one important SOTU topic that has not received much coverage — the cost of prescription drugs:

I found this response to the tweet interesting:

Democrat rebuttal

Since President Reagan’s tenure, Democrats believe it is their duty to provide a short SOTU rebuttal to Republican administrations.

Before I return to and conclude on the SOTU, it is worth mentioning the 2019 rebuttal.

The Democrats who give these short speeches are not exactly la crème de la crème. Last year’s was a young member of the Kennedy clan who did not do well at all, either visually or rhetorically.

This year, it was the turn of Stacy Abrams, who unsuccessfully ran for governor of Georgia last year and indirectly complained about her loss:

According to the Gateway Pundit (emphases in the original):

Stacey Abrams opened the Democrat Party response to President Trump’s State of the Union Address by wishing everyone a happy Lunar New Year.

Stacey Abrams: “Good evening my fellow Americans and Happy Lunar New Year.”

And it went down hill from there.

And they wonder how they lost the working class and Middle America?

The chairwoman of the Republican Party — Mitt Romney’s niece — tweeted:

I’m not sure what universe Abrams is living in, but what she said is patently untrue:

The Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberley Strassel put it this way:

SOTU fact checking

Some readers might wonder how wrong Stacy Abrams was.

The Daily Signal posted a well sourced article supporting Trump’s speech content: ’13 Fact Checks on the State of the Union Address’, which three of their journalists compiled.

The Q Tree has more facts backing up Trump’s speech: ‘The State Of Our Union’.

Unity

The SOTU theme of ‘Choosing Greatness’ points to Trump’s call for national — and political — unity.

Recall that the motto for the United States is E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One.

Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager tweeted:

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee — father of Trump’s press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders — made a political observation:

And, socially, the Trumps’ ingenious choice of special guests showed national unity, with young and old from so many different backgrounds and personal experience. I won’t show this year’s White House tweet in full, because the photo included was from 2018, however, the text reads as follows:

President and guests all come from different walks of life. No matter their story, each has something important in common: They represent the very best of America.

They are an impressive group of people.

Matthew Charles exemplifies the good results that come when politicians put party differences aside and work together, as Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s victorious 2016 campaign manager explains:

Matthew Charles deserved his release, as BreakPoint.org explains in ‘Restoring All Things — One Person At A Time’, a moving account of Charles’s personal transformation.

Conclusion

I am very much looking forward to seeing what the next year brings for the Trump Administration — and for the United States, as well as the world.

With Donald Trump, we are witnessing history in the making. This era will be written about for generations to come. Enjoy it and embrace it while it lasts.

Advertisements

This is an important example of left-wing hypocrisy:

Is everyone in the United States aware that the FBI is investigating Bernie Sanders for fraud?

NBC’s Chuck Todd didn’t mention it in his interview with Sanders about last week’s special elections in Georgia and South Carolina. I can appreciate that the network is proud that Meet the Press is in its 70th year, but, please, give people the full story:

In May 2016, Burlington College in Vermont had to close. It went broke. Sanders’s wife Jane had been a recent Burlington College president.

On June 22, 2017, Politico published Harry Jaffe’s article, ‘Jane Sanders Lawyers Up’, which recaps the background. Jaffe, who has been following Sanders’s career since the 1970s, is the editor-at-large for Washingtonian magazine and the author of Why Bernie Sanders Matters. Excerpts and a summary follow.

In short:

Investigative reporters had been breaking stories about a federal investigation into allegations that the senator’s wife, Jane Sanders, had committed fraud in obtaining bank loans for the now defunct Burlington College, and that Sanders’s Senate office had weighed in.

In May 2017, Sanders blamed the story on President Donald Trump’s campaign manager in Vermont:

Sanders had never responded to questions about the case, but he took the bait this time. Briefly.

“Well, as you know,” he said, “it would be improp— this implication came from Donald Trump’s campaign manager in Vermont. Let me leave it at that, because it would be improper at this point for me to say anything more.”

Sanders repeated the accusation:

“Yes,” Sanders responded, “it is nonsense. But now that there is a process going on, which was initiated by Trump’s campaign manager, somebody who does this all of the time, has gone after a number of Democrats and progressives in this state. It would be improper at this point for me to add any more to that.”

Investigators are looking into whether Senator Sanders’s office used his influence to obtain a loan from People’s United Bank to help bail out the college.

Sanders is correct in saying that Brady Toensing, an attorney who chaired Trump’s Vermont campaign, notified authorities. Politico reports that Toensing sent a letter in January 2016:

Toensing, in an email to Politico Magazine, notes, “The investigation was started more than a year ago under President Obama, his Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and his United States Attorney, all of whom are Democrats.”

Politico says that Mr and Mrs Sanders are now seeking top lawyers:

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ longtime top political adviser who heads Sanders’ political organization, Our Revolution, confirms to Politico Magazine that Bernie and Jane Sanders have lawyered up. The couple has retained Rich Cassidy, a well-connected Burlington attorney and Sanders devotee, and Larry Robbins, the renowned Washington-based defense attorney who has represented I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and disgraced former Rep. Bill Jefferson, to represent Jane Sanders in the matter.

It’s now Trump’s Department of Justice that is handling the investigation which could proceed via a US Attorney for Vermont, not yet appointed.

Politico says:

The facts of the case are complicated. They are steeped in Vermont’s peculiar educational culture and the incestuous financial system in Burlington, Sanders’ hometown and political base, where some Sanders backers worry that with Trump’s Justice Department calling the shots, the facts—intricate as they are—may not determine the outcome.

Reporters knew about it a year and a half ago:

On January 10, 2016, in the midst of Sanders’ sudden stardom—just weeks before the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire—the U.S. attorney for Vermont was sent a “Request for an Investigation into Apparent Federal Bank Fraud.”

Backed by six exhibits and a dozen documents, the four-page letter described how Jane Sanders had “orchestrated” the purchase of 33 acres along Lake Champlain in Burlington, Vermont’s largest city, where her husband had minted his populist political brand as mayor. The deal closed in 2010, when the senator’s wife was president of Burlington College, a tiny, obscure, nontraditional school that always seemed to be struggling for students and funds. The letter alleged that to secure a $10 million loan and execute her grand plan to expand the college, Jane Sanders had falsified and inflated nearly $2 million that she’d claimed donors had pledged to repay the loans.

Sanders had “successfully and intentionally engaged in a fraudulent scheme to actively conceal and misrepresent material facts from a federal financial institution,” the letter alleged. It pressed for a federal investigation into potential bank fraud.

However, Politico says that reporters did not ask the Sanders about the letter or exhibits, because they were too intrigued by his popularity with voters.

Meanwhile:

Beyond the glare, federal investigators and FBI agents started to pull apart the $10 million financial arrangement. They showed up at Burlington College to sift through hard drives, audit reports and spreadsheets. They began to interview donors, board members and past president Carol Moore. “I was contacted and spoke with an FBI agent numerous times last spring, again last summer,” Moore told Vermont Public Radio in May 2017, “and recently, maybe a month ago.”

A second letter followed, alleging Senator Sanders’s office was involved:

A second letter to federal prosecutors in early 2016 alleged that Senator Sanders’ office had pressured the bank to approve the loan application submitted by Jane Sanders. “Improper pressure by a United States Senator is a serious ethical violation,” the letter asserted.

It is surprising how far back this story goes.

Before discussing that, however, let’s look at a bit of history. Burlington College was founded in 1972 by a literature professor, Steward LaCasce, who had envisaged an institution of higher learning without walls and with a high degree of autonomy. He started Burlington in his living room with 14 students. Anyone reading this who was not alive then should know that the early 1970s was still a time of flower power and experimental lifestyles which held a lot of appeal for a niche group.

Although LaCasce’s fledgling institution was not known as Burlington College initially, it got its name once classes moved to a former grocery store in Burlington.

When Jane Sanders was appointed president in 2004, Burlington College had 200 students. She had big plans for the college’s expansion. However, those did not materialise immediately. In the meantime, she was proving unpopular with other faculty and even students:

In the four years since she had taken over, two dozen faculty and staff had left the tiny college. The Student Government Association in late 2008 described a “toxic and disruptive environment on campus.” Nearly half of the students and faculty members signed a petition demanding a meeting about the “crisis in leadership.” Even so, Sanders’ salary rose to $150,000 in 2009, according to college records, as tuition increased by $5,000, to $22,407 in 2011, and enrollment dropped to 156 students.

Despite this, she carried on with the support of college trustees.

In 2010, she decided to act on expansion. She planned to move the college to larger grounds, on the desirable Lake Champlain, no less. The local Roman Catholic diocese needed to sell a magnificent building — a former orphanage and rectory — because they needed to fund settlements from child abuse lawsuits:

The property went on the market for $12.5 million. The Diocese took Burlington College’s offer of $10 million, which seemed to be a bargain.

There was only one problem. Burlington College could not afford it:

… the college was nearly broke. Its annual budget hovered just below $4 million. Even at a discounted rate, the land would be an extravagant purchase. Yet Sanders was able to craft a complex set of deals to finance the acquisition.

So:

The state’s Educational and Health Buildings Finance Agency voted to issue $6.5 million in tax exempt bonds. People’s United Bank loaned Burlington College $6.5 million to buy the bonds. The Catholic church loaned the school $3.65 million in a second mortgage. To secure the loans, Sanders assured the bank and the church that the college had $5 million in likely pledges and $2.4 million in confirmed pledges, which she would be able to use to pay off the debt. And finally, the college received a $500,000 bridge loan from Anthony Pomerleau, a wealthy Burlington developer close with Bernie and Jane Sanders.

Yet, landscaping the campus required an additional $6 million:

To many locals, it didn’t add up.

In September 2011, Sanders took reporters on a tour of the new campus, overlooking Lake Champlain.

However, one month later, the board of trustees persuaded her to resign. Financial problems — repayments and unfulfilled pledges — as well as her continuing conflicts with faculty were the principal reasons.

Regardless, it was too late for the college to recover:

Burlington’s free fall accelerated after the board forced out Sanders. The school had moved into the old buildings on its new campus, and though Sanders had budgeted for more than $3 million in renovations, the structures were in need of rehabilitation that would cost substantially more. Unable to increase enrollment to pay for the added costs, the school lost students.

Even selling off parcels of prime lakefront property to developers did not suffice. The college still could not pay off the loans sufficiently.

The bank called in the loan in April 2016. In May, Burlington College closed its doors — for good.

In a 2015 interview on Vermont Public Radio, Jane Sanders insisted she left the college in good financial condition in 2011.

Trump’s campaign manager, Brady Toensing, became interested in Burlington College’s financial difficulties in July 2014, after an alternative newspaper, Seven Days, carried an in-depth piece on it:

The New England Association of Schools and Colleges had put it on probation because of the school’s shaky finances. The college was about to sell off land to defray its mounting debt.

Toensing:

requested loan documents from the Vermont Educational and Health Buildings Finance Agency that had issued the $6.5 million bonds for the land. The August 1 response from the bonding agency produced a trove of documents that detailed how Jane Sanders convinced the bank and the church that Burlington College could pay back its millions of dollars in loans.

Politico says he shared the documents with Seven Days and a non-profit Vermont website, VTDigger.

Interestingly, it was The Daily Caller — based in Washington DC — that first broke the story on March 26, 2015:

under the headline: “Exclusive: Bernie Sanders’ Wife May Have Defrauded State Agency, Bank.”

VTDigger took it from there (emphases mine below):

Morgan True, reporting for VTDigger, went deeper. Examining the pledges Sanders had listed on documents she signed for the loan, True and other reporters found discrepancies and overstatements.

The records showed that Sanders had assured People’s United Bank and the state bonding agency that the college had $2.6 million in pledges to secure the loan. Internal college audits showed that only $676,000 in actual donations came in from 2010 to 2014. Sanders listed two people as having confirmed pledges for more money than they had offered; neither knew their pledges had been used to support the loan. A third donor had offered a $1 million bequest, to be paid upon her death. Instead, the college’s loan application counted it in funds to be paid out over the next few years.

When media contacted her at the time, Jane Sanders gave no comment.

Brady Toensing had what he needed. He:

wrapped these figures and facts into the January 2016 letter to the U.S. attorney and the FDIC, requesting an investigation into what he termed “apparent federal bank fraud.” In March 2016, Toensing doubled down in another letter to federal officials. This time, he made an allegation that struck to the core of Bernie Sanders’ clean-government image. “As a result of my [initial] complaint,” Toensing wrote, “I was recently approached and informed that Senator Bernard Sanders’s office improperly pressured People’s United Bank to approve the loan application submitted by the Senator’s wife, Ms. Sanders.”

Politico says that proving that Bernie Sanders’s office was involved would be difficult at best, adding that proving bank fraud is also challenging:

Charges of bank fraud, say legal experts, are not easy to prove. “It requires that the act be performed knowingly,” says William Lawler, a former federal prosecutor now with the law firm Vinson & Elkins. “Not every mistake is going to rise to the level of a crime.”

As I write, investigators have not yet finished their work. Once they have done so, they will present their findings to federal prosecutors and the relevant lawyers will:

have discretion on whether or not to bring charges.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the DoJ would then decide whether to prosecute. Remember that Jeff Sessions and Bernie Sanders were both in the Senate together for many years. Sessions will also know what Mr and Mrs Sanders said about Trump on the campaign trail and this year.

The story is on hold for now but is trending on Twitter. However, it will be interesting to see how this materialises, especially, if, as Politico suggests, Brady Toensing is a successful nominee for the post of US Attorney for Vermont.

Last week, I posted ‘A new generation renounces the Left’.

A Reddit poster on The_Donald — a Millennial who comments with the user ID CorruptionISTreason — has created a website called MAGA1776, devoted to the president’s progress.

This person has also provided a lengthy and helpful autobiography telling us how his or her worldview has developed over the past three decades. I highly recommend you read ‘My Story’ in full. It is in the lower centre of the page.

Excerpts and a summary follow. Emphases and subheads are mine.

This Millennial is:

an educator in California who grew up to divorced parents and who has mixed race children.

I have family and friends from all walks of life – race, sexuality, religion, and political leanings. I’ve personally held many spiritual, religious, and political view points throughout my life.

I am above all, a thinker. I love investigating topics, learning, and questioning my assumptions and ideas …

This person has found that challenging one’s assumptions may even result in changing one’s outlook on life. Regardless, they say that one becomes more knowledgeable in the process, which can only help.

Early memories

Going back to the Reagan administration — the latter days of the Cold War in the 1980s — what follows are this Millennial’s earliest geopolitical memories:

My earliest childhood memories are of the imposing power of the Soviet Union, the threat of global nuclear war, the subsequent collapse of the USSR, and the following Gulf War. I am an early Millennial. I vividly remember the role the media played in bringing these images into our home. I remember nightly scud missile attacks on Israel, endless reporting on biological and chemical weapons, and the babies being killed in incubators.

Above all, I remember Fear. I was weaned on it.

In the following years I grew to revere my country, for we were not only the saviors of western civilization for defeating the Soviets, but we were liberators. We saved Kuwait and made Saddam end his aggression. We brought peace to Bosnia, Serbia, and the other former nations of Yugoslavia through NATO. Top Gun was my family’s favorite movie.

Fear was replaced by Love.

As this Millennial matured, the political views of family members and other adults began to cloud this patriotism.

The Millennial’s father was born in the earlier half of the Baby Boom years (just after the Second World War ended) and came of age during the Vietnam War and the counter-culture of the late 1960s, which caused him to distrust government. Once he started working, he began to see how government affected his life personally:

my father, above all, hated the Democratic Party and Bill Clinton. He was a Ross Perot supporter and while I was too young to fully grasp what happened to his campaign, and was too naive to fully grasp the nature of the two-party political system, my young mind was waking up.

My father was a rancher and the regulations under Clinton’s presidency were taking away my father’s ability to maintain his livelihood

While my father’s distrust grew, and his ability to support his family failed, my own feelings toward my country changed also.

Education

What this Millennial learned in school further aided scepticism:

California education had instilled a lot of negative feelings in my heart for the past transgressions of our nation against peoples of the world. As I learned of The United States’ involvement in the Philippines, Vietnam, Chile, and elsewhere, I became troubled. I learned of the Military Industrial Complex, began listening to Rage Against The Machine, and I became a Netizen. The impeachment of Bill Clinton and the events of the 2000 presidential election further hardened my heart to our political system.

9/11

Things changed further on September 11, 2001.

The media’s focus altered:

I watched as our leadership and media used the attacks on our soil as a pretext for war.

A vial of anthrax was held up: Fear.

The same media which had brought the Gulf War and the Fake News of babies dying in incubators, now sold the American people a second Gulf War; this time with a side helping of Afghanistan.

As a result, people’s minds did, too:

Friends and family I had known my entire life became pro war. The media sold the initial bombardment as a fireworks show. The People lined up to buy front row tickets. I wasn’t educated enough to understand what was happening, but I sensed the deception and I was deeply disturbed.

Ultimately this remains the most troubled period of my entire life. I became obsessed with learning and I ventured far on the web in pursuit of truth. The Media shouted the words Conspiracy Theory. I didn’t care. I was a Conspiracy Theorist. I was an outsider and I wasn’t afraid to speak my mind about the Rothschilds and the puppet presidents and the assassination of Kennedy.

Adulthood and the Obama years

This Millennial reached adulthood at the end of the previous decade. They got a job, took out a mortgage and raised a family.

In 2008, this person was hopeful of Obama’s candidacy for president. Finally, things would change for the better.

A few years into Obama’s first term:

Something wasn’t right in America.

The promises of 2008 were not materializing like Jon Stewart had assured me they would under the gentle and benevolent leadership of the Left. Banks were not held to account for raiding the coffers of the people. We were still at war. Worse, we were at war with more countries than I could count …

I continued to watch the Media justify the failures of our leader on the opposition party. I knew that Stephen Colbert was right, the Republicans were evil warmongering obstructionist fundamentalists. And like a good citizen, I remained hopeful that their backs could be broken. We could withdraw ourselves from endless conflict, right our financial overrun, and fix the exploding education and health care costs while granting universal access.

Real Communism had never been tried!

Bernie Sanders

In 2016, our Millennial thought that Bernie Sanders would be the ideal president: the man who could not be bought.

However, the enthusiasm was short-lived:

Something wasn’t right in America.

The Media refused to grant Sanders airtime, Super Delegates were falsely included in the vote total, and the DNC refused to hold debates between Sanders and Clinton, or when they did, they were held during other highly televised events to mitigate viewership.

The Millennial signed up to the Reddit forum for Bernie’s supporters. That, too, increased the level of disillusionment, especially with one powerful online arm of Hillary Clinton’s campaign:

This was when I would first learn of CTR – Correct the Record

Suddenly the Internet was filled with Shills

These shills were new and they were obviously well fundedthey attacked Reddit in force. They almost simultaneously attacked Twitter, Facebook, 4chan, and the remaining comment sections that still existed in media outlets across the globe. The common theme was their support for Hillary Clinton.

It was this attack on my access to accurate information that triggered that old nagging feeling.

Each morning I’d see six televisions blaring the same message at me at the gym:

Trump is Racist
Hillary is Winning
Sanders is Losing

Over and over they repeated the narratives. Online, they spammed, harassed, slandered, and down voted.

Now for a personal note, because I was an avid follower online of both of Obama’s campaigns. Because this Millennial was in the Obama camp, they probably did not notice the online harrassment of McCain and Romney supporters in 2008 and 2012, respectively. That, too, was highly organised. It provided the model for Correct The Record.

The way David Axelrod and David Plouffe’s nasty keyboard warriors took down Sarah Palin in 2008, making fun of intelligence by quoting not the vice presidential candidate but Saturday Night Live‘s Tina Fey’s jokes and saying the most vile things about her mentally handicapped baby son was breathtaking in its evil.

They way they called anyone who questioned Obama’s identity or policies racist, sexist, ‘too stupid to live’ or ‘oxygen stealer’ was equally as bad. They really did hound a lot of Independents and Republicans offline. Obama voters never paid the slightest attention to any of this.

It was only to be expected that, because the DNC gave this tactic its blessing in 2008 and 2012, it would be redeployed in 2016.

Media distortions

Our Millennial began studying the media that more closely and could see the control of the narrative whether offline or online.

The Correct The Record army was present online to make sure no one could express any opposition.

But what was real news? Were stories being withheld from American voters on purpose?

All of those instances in my life suddenly came back to me. Shock and awe, the vial, and the babies. Fake News wasn’t the conspiracy theories. Fake News was the Mainstream Media!

Perhaps this seems too obvious, but this was a life shattering event. I realized that there was information that wasn’t being given to me. I wasn’t being allowed to see it.

Democratic National Convention

By the time July 2016 rolled around and the Democratic National Convention took place in Philadelphia, our Millennial knew Sanders could not win the nomination.

Too much had happened during primary season:

Each blow was confirmation to the Truth I had discovered. Virginia voter fraud, Arizona closing over half of its polling stations, wild swings in early and late voting, vote results not corresponding with exit polls. Boom. Boom. Boom.

At the convention, the Democratic National Committee replaced unhappy, angry Sanders supporters in the convention hall with people they had paid to come in and masquerade as Hillary supporters:

I saw as the DNC advertised for, bussed in, and paid people to fill the audience. I watched this on live streams and I watched as the Mainstream Media purposely did not air it.

My generation was stabbed in the back.

Donald Trump

The Millennial then wondered what was going on in the Republican camp with Donald Trump’s campaign.

(We know — and my posts from last autumn documented this in detail — how the media manipulated voters’ perceptions of Trump.)

The Millennial discovered that what the media did to Sanders and was doing to Trump.

What now?

Something really wasn’t right in America.

It seemed clear that I had only two options remaining: disengagement from Politics completely or support for Trump. I was anti-Establishment through and through. I was bred for it – it was in my DNA. Born of a hippy. Once a conspiracy theorist, always a conspiracy theorist. So the choice seemed reasonable at face value.

But was I willing, able, to get behind a racist? A misogynist?

Somebody who had mocked a disabled reporter?

I took several weeks to reflect.

Afterwards:

Cautiously, I returned to Reddit.

I entered the Lion’s Den – www.reddit.com/r/the_donald.

I gorged upon the memes and the Pepes [unofficial frog mascot], and I quickly discovered more. There was Truth.

I had been blind to it before, because I was ideologically driven by a hatred of Republicans to not see their message.

The Millennial discovered the media’s lies about Trump — fully explained — and saw how the media were covering for Hillary.

Ideological Subversion

The Millennial explored the Ideological Subversion that Yuri Bezmenov discussed in his lectures from the 1980s.

By the way, I covered Bezmenov in 2011. Readers might be interested in the following posts:

On protests, defection and the KGB

How Soviet propaganda worked on the US

Four stages of ideological subversion – videos and commentary

Leftists then and now‘there are no grassroots revolutions’

Returning to the Millennial, that person saw that what Bezmenov described is coming true in the United States: ideological subversion. Bezmenov said there are six ideological pillars to be attacked in the Demoralisation phase:

Religion
Economy
Social Life
Power Structure
Labor Relations
Law and Order

You can read the Millennial’s autobiography to gain their understanding of the attacks on those pillars. They added a seventh, which is brilliant:

Gender Identity. The architects of Soviet Ideological Subversion probably couldn’t have dreamed of the place we are at today with Gender Identity. A person unable to reconcile their biology certainly is unfit to maintain a defense against you any longer.

Our Millennial warns that the United States is well into the phase after Demoralisation — Destabilisation:

During this period all conflicts become irreconcilable between individuals and organizations. We are certainly well past this stage. Any union member, HOA member, parent, teacher, employee, or employer can understand where things are at right now. There is no capacity for reason, empathy, or reconciliation between parties anymore.

Individuals would rather terminate a friendship than accept that somebody has an alternate point of view. Facebook has made this entirely too easy.

Discourse is impossible. We are on the edge of Crisis.

Crisis would have led to Normalization which is the suspension of our Rights and the rise of a Totalitarian State.

This playbook has been seen again and again and again – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and more.

Had Hillary won, our Millennial reasons, Crisis surely would have happened because of the machinations not only of the Left, including Democrats, but also the globalist elite:

When I first heard Yuri’s words, it all became so clear.

This isn’t Republican versus Democrat or Capitalist versus
Communist.

This is Ideological Subversion.

This is about Freedom versus Totalitarianism.

However, things changed on Tuesday, November 8, 2016:

We have not had a free election in my lifetime.

Until now.

It is abundantly clear that President Trump stands against these forces. Every move he has made through this process has been to right each of the pillars. Love of Country, Love of God, Unity, Law and Order, Jobs, and returning the power of Government to the People. Every time he gives a speech or interview he reinforces this message. Each of these moments he is consciously unravelling years of damage that has been done to the fabric of our society.

Conclusion

This Millennial has taken the red pill and rightly concludes:

It is time to right the pillars, take back our government, and Drain the Swamp.

President Trump is doing exactly that.

The Establishment stands against our President.

But I, and the People of These United States of America, We stand with Him.

This person has some interesting sections to their website. Tomorrow, we look at one of them.

Tomorrow: Combined infographic with special concentration on Fast and Furious

Many thanks to one of my readers — Sackerson of Broad Oak Magazine and Martin Scriblerus — who sent me an interesting perspective from a historian on why he switched from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump.

Eric Zuesse is an investigative historian and author. His lengthy and well researched article, ‘I’m a Bernie Sanders Voter: Here’s Why I’ll Vote Trump’ appeared on Washington’s Blog and on RINF (Real Independent News & Film).

Excerpts follow. There is much more at the aforementioned links. The content is weighty and complex, making it difficult to read at times, but it is very well argued.

Zuesse gives his ten reasons for supporting Trump. Note that all of these show the similarity between Sanders and Trump:

Here are the ten key issues:

1:  Sanders favors “breaking up the big banks.” Hillary Clinton opposes that.

2:  Sanders has fought consistently against Obama’s mega-‘trade’ deals. Hillary consistently favored them.

3:  Sanders favors working with Russia against jihadists in Syria. Hillary opposes that.

4:  Sanders says jihadists are America’s top foe. Hillary says both jihadists and Russia are equally anti-American, equally dangerous to America. Hillary is simply a neoconservative; Sanders isn’t. Her having voted to invade Iraq was no mistake on her part; it was consistent with her entire international outlook, all of which is neoconservative, like invading Libya, Syria, etcetera. Bernie’s vote against invading Iraq was likewise consistent with his international outlook.

5:  Sanders has been consistently opposed to fossil fuels. Hillary has aggressively supported them.

6:  Sanders says that the system is rigged. Hillary says that it’s not.

7:  Sanders says the system is rigged specifically against the poor. Hillary says the problem that keeps people poor is instead individual bigots — against Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, etc. Not the system itself. She is proud to represent the system. She’s not against it. She’s for it.

8:  Sanders’s political career has been financed by small-dollar donations. Hillary’s has been financed by mega-donations.

9:  Sanders favors every possible means of reducing the influence big-money donations to politicians has over politics. Hillary opposes that idea.

10:  Sanders favors socialized health insurance, like exists in the European nations that spend per-capita half what America does but have higher life-expectancy than America does. Hillary opposes that — she favors the existing profit-based system of health-care, and opposes the European system where basic healthcare is a right, no privilege (that’s based only on ability-to-pay).

As for the Green Party’s Jill Stein, who is attracting Sanders supporters (emphases mine):

By voting for Trump, you add 1 vote to him, and 0 vote to Hillary, and so that’s a real action in the real world of electoral politics: it puts Trump up 1. By voting for Hillary, you add 1 vote to her, and 0 vote to Trump, and so that too is a real action in the real world of electoral politics: it puts Hillary up 1. Either vote is a real vote.

The real world of electoral politics is the foundation of democracy, without which it can’t function at all. Fantasy votes are not votes that can even possibly participate in democracy. For example: by voting instead for Jill Stein, you add 0 vote to each of the two real-world contestants, just the same as you would be doing by staying home on Election Day.

Regarding the question of whether voting for Jill Stein is at all rational:

The U.S. Presidency is determined in the Electoral College, in which each state’s entire delegation votes the given state’s Election-Day choice, winner-take-all for all of that state’s electors.

Neither Nader [2000] nor Perot [1992] won even one state, neither of them came even close to winning even a single state.

Jill Stein definitely won’t win even one state.

Voting for her is nothing but a sucker-punch on the ballot there.

Therefore:

My vote for Trump will be the first Republican vote in my life, and I hope that this will be the only time in my life when the Democratic candidate is so abysmal that I’ll have to do this. It’s not because I like Trump; it’s because he’s vastly better than the Democratic nominee, whom I consider to be by far the worst Democrat ever. To me, choosing between Trump, who has no political record, and Hillary, who has the worst record in public office of any Democrat ever, is easy. On all other ballot lines, I shall, as always, vote Democratic

Trump could be a political unifier, especially on a new health care plan:

Perhaps a President Trump would get so many congressional Democrats and Republicans to vote for a single-payer health insurance proposal, that such a piece of legislation could be signed into law much likelier than if a President Sanders (who would be voted against in Congress by virtually every Republican member) were to be pushing for exactly the same type of legislation and getting only some congressional Democrats (and no Republicans then) to vote for it. Indeed, we all might even turn out to be surprised to find that a President Trump will be the most effective progressive President since FDR. If Democrats control Congress, then he might turn out that way, and become widely revered

In conclusion:

Trump is the clear, and the only reasonable, choice for progressives in this election.

Our choice, Bernie, didn’t make it to the finals. (Hillary and her big-money people beat him — sometimes cheated him.) We are stunningly fortunate that the voters in the other Party’s primaries ended up giving us (for once) a realistic chance to have, as the next U.S. President, a person who is at least no worse than, and is on many of the most important issues far better than, the atrocity (Hillary) that is being offered to us by the Democratic Party. How often does the Republican Party provide the better candidate? In the opinion of this Bernie-supporter, such a thing has never happened since the time of Abraham Lincoln. Donald Trump might not be another Abraham Lincoln, but he might be another Franklin Delano Roosevelt — the greatest progressive of them all. Thank you, Donald Trump, for having given us this opportunity — the realistic possibility to salvage, for America, a progressive future. It couldn’t have happened without you — if it does happen, at all

Trump is rapidly moving America’s political center in the opposite direction from the direction that Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, did, which was toward conservatism, away from progressivism: those conservative Democratic Presidents and (now) would-be President, have moved America’s political center considerably toward the right (the international-corporate agenda). A President Trump would reverse the political direction that this country has been heading in ever since 1993.

If we progressives don’t help Trump to do that, we shall be throwing away the only such opportunity that the U.S. oligarchy (slipped-up and) allowed us to have. A President Hillary Clinton would have the support of almost all congressional Democrats no matter how right-wing her proposals are, and her big-money financial backers will buy enough congressional Republicans to make her the most effective most conservative Democratic President in decades if not centuries. The prospect is chilling.

It’s a fascinating perspective for Democrats from a Democrat.

The first US election cycle I remember was 1964’s.

Since then, I have kept track of the rest, but, like many other political animals, only from the Republican and Democratic conventions through to November.

This year, however, primary season has got me hooked. It has millions of Americans paying attention. Even better, the rest of the world is watching with rapt interest.

A case in point is a warning from Kim Beazley, the former Australian ambassador to the US who is pro-TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), against Donald Trump who opposes it. The Guardian published the report on April 20. The comments from anti-globalists were illuminating: maybe a Trump presidency wouldn’t be such a bad thing, after all.

Bernie Sanders has also attracted much interest. Guardian readers ask why Hillary Clinton gets more coverage than the Vermont senator.

Normally, no one would care.

However, 2016’s primary season will go down in history, not only because of the candidates but also for the awareness it has sparked. The US will never be the same. The rest of the world will also understand arcane aspects, e.g. delegate selection, they never thought they’d be interested in.

The US is fortunate that, this year, they have two anti-establishment candidates: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Although they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, they share some commonalities — delegate problems, for one — and attract anti-globalists. Both are disturbing the elites. Anti-globalists watching and reading on the sidelines hope both win their party nominations this summer.

We’re learning how complicated the delegate process is in both the Republican and Democratic parties. We see how jealously party panjandrums are guarding their corrupt Uniparty system. A Sanders supporter will agree with Trump when he says the system is ‘rigged’ and works against Bernie as well as himself.

We’re watching every primary result and assessing state delegate procedures. We understand that superdelegates can work against Sanders and that Trump’s victories do not lock in his delegates. We wonder to what extent the popular primary vote counts if party elites ultimately go against it.

We think it’s great that people like Trump and Sanders are shining light on the electoral process. We’re cheering as party leaders, comfortable in their corruption, are unsettled to find out that the average citizen is cottoning on to how the game is played.

Can we do anything about it? Probably not immediately. However, one thing is sure: the US presidential election has set off a strong demand for true transparency, a notion politicians often speak of but rarely deliver.

The words of Justice Louis D Brandeis are just as relevant today as when he wrote them in 1914 (emphasis in the original):

Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

Those words appeared in his article entitled Other People’s Money—and How Bankers Use It. (The more things change, the more they stay the same.) Thanks to the election, perhaps 2016 will result in a leader of the free world who can affect real change instead of using it as a mere campaign slogan.

The 2016 presidential primary season in the United States is unprecedented. We’ve never seen anything like it in living memory.

Every day brings intrigue and drama, especially on the Republican side. You could not make it up.

A few years from now, someone should make a television series of it in documentary form with news clips and objective narration.

What follows are viewpoints on two candidates and one upcoming concern.

Ted Cruz

City dwellers and suburbanites in southern Wisconsin chose Ted Cruz over Donald Trump in their primary on April 5, 2016. This demographic handed the win to Cruz. (Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton.)

They voted for the GOPe(stablishment) man ‘showing America the face of God’, as his wife Heidi puts it.

Nearly one month ago I wrote a piece on Cruz and Donald Trump. It discussed Cruz’s dominionist religiosity and the globalist connections through his wife. I concluded:

I’ll take an honest sinner any day.

One of my readers, chrystalia99 of Fortune’s Thoughts, recently posted several more reasons not to vote for Cruz. Everyone who thinks he is a true outsider and upstanding man should read her post. I was particularly intrigued by the reasoning behind his desire to possibly abolish the IRS. It’s not necessarily an altruistic one.

Here’s Cruz trying to kiss his elder daughter in February:

This video shows Cruz coaching his family on doing campaign ads for him:

Some might find that convincing or heartwarming. Others will cringe.

GOP Convention

We’re still a few months away from the Republican convention in Cleveland.

Trump supporters are rightly worried that their man will be deprived of the Republican nomination. The GOPe are doing nothing to dispel that concern. In fact, they are stoking it.

Some people want to go and protest. Riots are rumoured. However, Fortune’s Thoughts explains the narrative of notional ‘delegate stealing’ and advises caution to those wanting to protest at the convention in July (highlights and caps in the original):

THE DELEGATES ARE NOT BEING STOLEN. Delegates aren’t magic beings–they are ordinary people from Main street. Anyone who is a republican can be elected a state delegate, and get to the National convention as well. What is happening is very simple. Cruz is playing the game, making sure that those who vote for HIM go the extra step and go for a delegate slot. And the GOPers are busily helping him, by making sure that their PRECINCT PEOPLE, OR THOSE WHO VOTE ON DELEGATES, ARE EITHER CRUZ SUPPORTERS OR ARE VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE. This is how the delegate system works. It is NOT the GOP’s “job” to make sure a candidate’s delegates actually support them.

Also:

I really shouldn’t have to spell this out, but I will anyway. THE GOPers KNOW CRUZ IS NEARLY COOKED. They also know that Trump IS our choice, which scares the Bejeevers out of them, for good reason. If Trump gets 1237+ the ONLY thing they can do to stop him is change the rules at the convention (which they do have the right to do BTW, yet ANOTHER reason we need to take back the GOP). They also know if they do that, we’ll likely go write in, or revolt. To prevent Trump REACHING 1237+, they have to demoralize the voting base. They have to convince people Trump is losing (look at the news and nonsense over WI, for instance), or that Trump HAS ALREADY LOST PLEDGED DELEGATES WHEN HE HASN’T.

As for the MSM:

  • The media is deliberately trying to create panic and civil unrest, by allowing people to think we’re “doomed”, WHEN THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
  • The media is also making sure that they don’t tell you the whole story, because if they told you what I wrote above, you’d do 2 things–you’d say “oh, OK, so I’ll LEARN HOW TO PLAY THE GAME SO MY VOTE COUNTS”, and you’d stop worrying about delegates in states where they have already been chosen, and start worrying about states going forward, and lock in THOSE delegates.
  • They are NOT telling you the whole story, or telling what they ARE telling you accurately, because they are hoping either Trump or the voters do something stupid that violates some arcane RNC by-law, so they can nullify the binding pledge, making ALL THE DELEGATES UNBOUND AT THE CONVENTION. They are doing this at the behest of the GOPers.

Here are excellent reasons not to march on Cleveland during the convention (purple highlights mine):

But, and this is far more important at this point: The media and the uniparty, both GOPers, AND Dems, are trying to get the people angry enough to fall for idiocy like Roger Stone’s “Days of Rage”, and march on Cleveland “just to be sure the people are listened to”. 

AND IF WE DO THAT–WE LOSE. EVERYTHING. THE NOMINATION, TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND PERHAPS WORSE. WHY???   THINK, AND THINK HARD, ABOUT THIS–

Under the RNC rules, if the convention isn’t “safe”, they can suspend it. Technically, as the rules expire THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CONVENTION, They can just change them anyway.

The RNC also has rules in place that allow them to nominate who they choose, if the binding of delegates is nullified by some action on the part of the candidate. Do you think they couldn’t make a case that Roger Stone is employed by Trump? Or that Roger Stone is trying to create civil unrest because Trump told him to? THINK AGAIN.

Chrystalia99 goes on to explain that the Left are bringing out their own people to protest Trump’s nomination. Cleveland Police are gearing up for riots. The National Guard will be on alert. As this concerns the presidency, anyone arrested for disrupting proceedings or protesting could be charged with a felony. With things being as they are today, charges of terrorism could also apply.

Cleveland has a population of only half a million people. The city will find the convention challenging enough without the added chaos from protesters, left-wing or conservative.

Roger Stone, who, as chrystalia99 says, does talk about this a lot with Alex Jones, really should stop. Although he is no longer working directly for the Trump campaign, he is investigating cases of alleged voting fraud for them.

Trump supporters should stay at home and let him do the ‘art of the deal’ with the GOPe at the convention. The media would be only happy to portray any peaceful protests from the his supporters as ‘angry’, ‘unhinged’ displays that they told us we could expect from them. This is a no-win proposition.

Bernie Sanders

Wouldn’t it be great if it were Donald Trump v Bernie Sanders in the general election?

Two renegades from New York battling it out for the presidency!

Every day of the campaign would engage the American public and the world, just as the primary season has.

Sanders has a one-minute campaign ad called ‘Bringing People Together’:

It hasn’t gone down well with everyone. Veteran blogger Dave Hitt is one of them. In his post on the advert, he says:

… it’s a reason so many of us are deeply afraid of a Bernie presidency.

I don’t want the government to bring me together with anyone. I, and I alone, should get to pick who I get together with. They, and they alone, get to decide if they want to get together with me. Choosing your own associations is one of the most basic of all human rights.

You want to get us together, Bernie? Then get out of the damn way. Let us peacefully decide what we want to do and who we want to do it with. Let us start a business doing whatever we want, without thousands of dollars worth of permits and three-inch-thick books of regulations. Let us decide for ourselves how we want to live our lives, and keep the resources we need to do it.

Hitt then reminisces about the brilliant cigar evenings he used to enjoy in a brew pub, where he and his friends were a microcosm of what Sanders wants to see:

There were about twenty of us. It would be hard to imagine a more diverse group. We were different races, had different educational backgrounds and were on different rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. Our politics and religious beliefs were all over the place. We had different jobs and different interests. The only thing we all had in common was the love of fine cigars …

Everything was good, but the conversations – the conversations were great. We’d joke and discuss and debate and explain and argue and be charming and offensive and everything in between, and never once, in all the years we did it, was a voice ever raised in anger. Nothing brings out good conversation better than fine cigars.

Then the smoking ban in his state took effect, which broke the group up. Hitt rightly observes:

Your tribes took that from us, Bernie. Your Government Tribe and your Nanny Tribe reached in with their diseased claws and ripped it from our lives. They intentionally destroyed something wonderful that brought people together.

Just so!

But, is Sanders himself an anti-smoker? The incomparable Frank Davis did some investigating and found that, indeed, he is. From ‘Tearing People Apart’:

This may clarify:

The Senate health committee took up anti-smoking legislation that would authorize the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the marketing, advertising and product standards of cigarettes and other tobacco products. “I support this long-overdue legislation. If anything, I don’t think this bill goes far enough,” Sanders said. He suggested doubling the current level of resources for programs to help smokers quit. He also compared tobacco company executives to heroin dealers. “The only difference is they wear three-piece suits and hang out at country clubs.”

I think it’s pretty clear where Bernie Sanders is coming from.

Me, too. Thanks, Frank. No different to Hillary Clinton, then — at least on that score.

Conclusion

2016 will see the beginning of ‘yuge’, as Trump would say, change in the United States. It will be real change, too, starting at the ballot box in early November.

We will not see another election cycle like this for at least a generation, probably longer. It will go down in history as being one of the most memorable, especially during the primaries. Millions of us have never paid any attention to them. Millions of Americans who have never voted in their lives have registered to vote in the primaries!

The votes Americans cast this year will, as Trump says, be the most important ones of their lives, regardless of whom they vote for.

America may never be the same again. Let us pray that the Great Republic is transformed rather than destroyed.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,273 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

April 2019
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,474,383 hits
Advertisements