Stinkin’ Dinkadoodles! Gupta Patel Slams New Bill Passed To Teach Your Kids Anal Sex In Public School And He’s Fired Up Like A Samosa Fresh Out The Pan! Want to advertise with Turtleboy? Email us at [email protected] for more information. Everyone knows and loves Gupta Patel – Turtleboy’s crazy Indian Tech Guy and proud convenience store proprietor. He’s never blogged for us before but something caught his eye in the news that sent him reeling. Let’s give him a warm welcome as he has a meltdown about the statehouse deciding to teach kids as young as 12 how to safely take it in the back door! Your uncle Gupta read this one news article last night and choke on his Vodka Slushee! Last Thursday, the Massachusetts Senate passed new sex education package by a 31-6 vote in favor. Look like the usual chutiyas in the statehouse been drinking the same strange flavor KoolAid again. Take a look at this nutty-ass booshit: From New Boston Post— As it did in 2015, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill nearly entirely along party lines on Thursday dictating how school districts teach sex education; and just like two years ago, the biggest sticking point for the bill’s opponents was the lack of an opt-in stipulation for parents and guardians. Unlike in 2015, however, it is likely this version of the bill will reach the House floor for a vote, but it remains to be seen if lawmakers on the other side of the State House attach the failed parental opt-in amendment touted Thursday by House Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester). Following the 31-6 vote in favor that saw the only Democratic opposition come from state Senator Michael Rush of West Roxbury, Tarr praised the “robust and healthy debate” that transpired Thursday afternoon but expressed “hope that as it makes its way through the legislative process” that lawmakers outside the Senate will wind up adopting proposals like a parental consent stipulation. The bill’s lead sponsor, state Senator Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett) took issue with Tarr’s opt-in proposal. “This amendment would gut the bill,” DiDomenico claimed, noting that the legislation already features an opt-out amendment for both parents and school districts. “This amendment would effectively take all the work we put together and throw it out the window. “We do not have opt-in for science, math, English — we don’t have any opt-in initiative for any other subjects in our schools — this subject in particular could save lives.” Other Democrats who spoke out in opposition to Tarr’s amendment included state Senator John Keenan of Quincy, Worcester’s Harriet Chandler, and Boston’s Sonia Chang-Diaz. Keenan and Chang-Diaz added that a parental consent requirement would add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, with Keenan claiming that it “would require school districts to chase down the parents of every single student” while Chang-Diaz noting that “many of my colleagues in the chamber in the minority are avid proponents of small streamlined government.” Chandler claimed that an opt-in provision would result in a “very limited number of people who would be taking advantage of it.” “The alternative of what we’re talking about is our children learning about these behaviors from what they hear on the school bus or read on the Internet,” she added. State Senator Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth), responding to Keenan’s point, used student field trips as an example of opt-in protocol. “I don’t think that’s an impossible hurdle to overcome,” he said. “The reality is that asking parents if they’re comfortable with this or not is not a stretch by any means.” Tarr appeared to take issue with the claim linking parental approval to an added layer of bureaucracy. “Well well well, it is interesting that some of these folks have stood at this microphone and suggested somehow that obtaining parental consent is so burdensome that we shouldn’t follow through with this,” Tarr quipped. “Suggesting that the role of a parent should be subordinate to the role of bureaucracy, now that’s a deeply concerning thought.” Tarr also challenged DiDomenico’s claim that an opt-in provision would “gut the bill.” “That somehow this bill is jeopardized by the fact that we might want to involve parents in the decision making — what does that suggest about the priorities of the bill?” Tarr questioned. “It suggests that somehow we ought to subordinate the role of the parent to the role of the state. “It’s also been suggested that we don’t have opt-in provisions for math, science, and other things, well that is true, but we also don’t have opt-out provisions for those things, because they don’t fit the same matter as the subject matter that we’re discussing here.” Conservative organizations, including the Massachusetts Family Institute, are vehemently opposed to the bill over the proposed curriculum’s subject matter, which suggests that instruction regarding sexual aspects such as anal intercourse is age-appropriate for children as young as 12.Some of the instructional material approved by state education officials was created by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. “If you have to have an affirmative act from a parent in order to go on a school trip, should you not have to have the affirmative act of a parent to be involved in education that involves morality, subjective judgment, and important health matters?” Tarr said. “I think the matter speaks for itself.” DiDomenico responded to Tarr’s argument by noting he is not looking to subvert the role of parents and countered that he “would put this in the same category as English, math, and science.” “In some respects I’d put it ahead of those subjects,” DiDomenico added. “There are life-ending, life-long consequences, and a critical mistake can change their lives forever.” State Senator Barbara L’Italien (D-Andover) also spoke, mentioning an incident in which her older sister became pregnant during high school. “Getting married at age 17 locked her into a life of virtual poverty,” L’Italien said. “I wish there had been accurate health information when she was a student back in the ’70s, I think her life might have changed dramatically. “There are times when government needs to be proactive, and protective, and this is one of those situations.” Sweet Baby Vishnu! The anal sex education is age appropriate for 12 year old? What fucking version of goddamn Kama Sutra they been reading? The Paul Georgio translation? This Hindu had the very very bad nightmares after reading this news! In my dream, my daughter, Gupta Jr, was back in the grade school. I was watching my favorite American movie “Mansion of Blood” and Mindy Robinson was just about to show all the peoples her hot hot Samosas when my daughter come running through the door, She say “Papa! Papa! I have the question about the sex!” And I say “Yes my little one, I have been preparing for this conversation long time. Ask your papa your questions”. She say “Papa, when will it stop hurting my ass so much?” Your old Uncle Gupta almost had the bad heart attacks! “As it did in 2015, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill nearly entirely along party lines on Thursday dictating how school districts teach sex education; and just like two years ago, the biggest sticking point for the bill’s opponents was the lack of an opt-in stipulation for parents and guardians.” Really? Uncle Gupta think the biggest sticking point probably gonna be the anal sex. Seriously though. You can opt out of goddamn Pledge of Allegiance in school in Massachusetts without facing the punishments, but you can’t opt out of learning how to send your pork soldier to the battle in Brownsville? “The bill’s lead sponsor, state Senator Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett) took issue with Tarr’s opt-in proposal. “This amendment would gut the bill,” DiDomenico claimed, noting that the legislation already features an opt-out amendment for both parents and school districts. “This amendment would effectively take all the work we put together and throw it out the window. “We do not have opt-in for science, math, English — we don’t have any opt-in initiative for any other subjects in our schools — this subject in particular could save lives.” Ganesha, please take me now, These chutiyas gonna drive this humble Hindu to carnivorism. “Johnny, study the maths and the science good so you can be great physicist someday!” “Susie! finish your English homeworks so you can be excellent writer someday.” Mary! Make sure you don’t miss any of the Massachusetts mandated sex education class so you can be great wide receiver some day!” In the name of heavenly teacher Guru Deva please reincarnate these people as pimples on Kim Kardashian’s face at bukake session after Black Lives Matter rally. State Senator Barbara L’Italien (D-Andover) also spoke, mentioning an incident in which her older sister became pregnant during high school. “Getting married at age 17 locked her into a life of virtual poverty,” L’Italien said. “I wish there had been accurate health information when she was a student back in the ’70s, I think her life might have changed dramatically. Ms. Barbarabhen! Did you really just say “Damn, my sister’s life would be so much better now if only she had taken the rusty trombone in her swamp starfish that one time instead of in her hoo-ha.”?? It Take one real classy lady to say she wishes her niece or nephew had taken a wrong turn down Willy Wonka’s garbage chute. Uncle Gupta don’t think it’s too strange that Barbara L’Italien advocating for taking it from the behind. Nobody gonna want to be looking at this in the face during the hot nookie-nookie session.. Holy mother of Kali! Blowjob from this one probably count as anal anyways. No surprise here really . Both L’Italien and Chandler recently vote to give themselves fat pay hike, so they have lot of experience stuffing the pepperonis in the peoples hot pockets. This one Hindu here don’t know about you, but when I see Hariette Chandler’s face, the first thing that come to mind not going to be anal sex: Sweet baby Hannuman! Her ass probably look like dying Yoda’s forehead. Going to work up her Lincoln Log Factory probably sound like punching a fist into the open jar of Miracle Whip! (Miracle Whip! Two jars for five dollar at my Main South Happy Hindu Mart Convenience Store in Worcester. Next five minute only.) She so old her dunghole probably look like the hopper on a meat grinder after Porketta night. This one Sonia Chang-Diaz though? Would. This Hindu just saying. “There are times when government needs to be proactive, and protective, and this is one of those situations.” I agreeing that government should be protective and proactive. Maybe if they had voted to give the Police the Kevlar Vests instead of giving their fat samosa asses big raise it would have been good start. Educating the 12 years old child about anal sex? Not so much. You know what going to happen in the class full of 12 years old kids when teacher start talking about the anal and oral sex? Gonna be like comedy scene in bad Hindi movie. Maybe not during class, but afterwards they gonna make the fun. “Rectum? Damn near killed him!” joke gonna get old real quick in the cafeteria. State Legislators are calling this bill the “Healthy Youth Act”. That really nice way of putting it. As usual with these “Dheela Lund Ni Olaad” (That my Gujarati language for “Sons of the broken penis”), the devil is in the details…and Uncle Gupta all about the details! One of the textbooks approved in the bill is called “Get Real: Comprehensive Sex Education That Works,” put out by the Planned Parenthood. Book is only available in bundles of 50, and this thrifty Indian man not buying if he can’t find the coupon or get the good deal. I ferret couple passages out on the internets for you. You’re welcome. One lesson teaches the childrens that A dental dam is “placed over the vulva or anus during oral sex”. Then it goes on to say the people can also use the “Non-Microwaveable Saran Wrap”. Papa Gupta spend most of his daughter’s pre-teen years yelling at her to do the healthy things. “Don’t touch that! Do not step in the dog mess! Don’t put the statue of Baby Krishna in your mouth! Wash Your hands before eating! Use the Purell after shaking Senator McGovern’s hand!”. Now, she would have to go to school next day and learn how to toss the big salad?? It’s ok though…. Happy Hindu Mart sell plenty of non-microwaveable Saran Wrap. This handsome Indian TurtleBoy don’t think Saran Wrap company be too happy knowing sex education class teaching the children to use their product to cover the chocolate cannoli. Another lesson talk about using the “ internal condom that is inserted into the anus.” They say it acts as a barrier but warns that “it may slip out of place during vaginal or anal intercourse and may be difficult to insert.” Wait…what you say? I had to call my cousin the Gastroenterologist about this one. Dr. Dharmendra Tubupyeresh. I say “Hey, Dharmendra, you ever hear of such thing?” He say to me “Gupta, you been lighting up the porn hub again? Yes there is such the thing.” He send me over this picture. “Insert two fingers inside the condom and gently push it into the anal cavity. The inner ring can be removed after inserted if desired.” Lovely. 12 year old gonna learn how to shove the ziplock bag up the friend’s wazoo before doing the zoom-zoom in the boom-boom. When Uncle Gupta first read this news, he knew something smell funny…and not just the anal sex! Then this bald prick rears his ugly head and everything make sense… Senator Jamie Eldridge. You might remember him from such blogs as these. This bhenchod one real professional turtle poking man! In my former country he would not have been problem because we would have already kill him already. Notice how he don’t tweet about the content of the bill…only that the Mass Senate GOP (all six of them) oppose it. Let me tell you something, Senator Jamie…nobody going to oppose young adults learning the safe ways to make the sweet nookie-nookie, but not letting parents opt them out? What kind of glass dinka-doodle you been smoking from? This Hindu gets it. Too many kids having the sex at young age… Definitely should be options available to teach healthy sexual practices to children, but if any citizen ever texted the contents of some of these lessons to a child, they would go to the prison. And we all know what happen in prison. Dunghole come out looking like Saarlac sand monster from the Return of the Jedi. Anyway, this Hindu try hard to reach these senators on Twitter but they not responding. Wonder why. Namaste TurtleBoy Nations! May the supple trunk of Ganesha goose your buttocks!


On Thursday, President Trump signed an executive order that will begin to deplete the Affordable Care Act, and allow companies to offer cheaper healthcare plans with fewer benefits. Or, as he put it, he is “saving the American people from the nightmare of Obamacare.” Just a few hours later, the Trump administration announced it's ending federal subsidies for health insurance companies that help millions of low-income people pay deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. These subsidies were projected to cost about $9 billion this year, according to the New York Times, and nearly $100 billion in the coming decade. The new decision will go into effect immediately, the Health and Human Services Department announced on Thursday. According to the Times, without the subsidies, "insurance markets could quickly unravel." Insurers have already threatened to pull out of the insurance exchanges created under Obamacare if subsidies are cut off, because they said they will need much higher premiums. “The government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments,” the White House said in a statement. “Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.” In a joint statement, Senate and House Minority Leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi said Trump has “apparently decided to punish the American people for his inability to improve our health care system.” They consider Trump's decision "a spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage leveled at working families and the middle class in every corner of America."


(GMG) - The question is going to be asked many times, by many people: Did global warming cause or have any impact on Hurricane Irma? What about Harvey? While there is tremendous agreement among scientists about the basic science of climate change, politics and social media have created an atmosphere where a lot of incorrect information is being bantered about. Here's the truth about the relationship between global warming and hurricanes Irma and Harvey. Scientists are uncertain about whether global warming will cause more hurricanes. In fact, some scientists say that a warmer planet will actually result in fewer hurricanes. However, that is not the entire story. A warming world means that ocean temperatures increase, too. And we all know that warm ocean water is the fuel that power hurricanes. So, even if the coming decades show a decrease in overall hurricanes, those hurricanes that do develop in otherwise favorable conditions will likely be stronger. The bottom line is that our future may be one of fewer but stronger hurricanes. Is that good or bad news? Fewer hurricanes mean a lower chance that one hits Florida. But a hurricane that does form and heads our way will likely be stronger, with a more severe storm surge and higher winds. Something else to consider is that, as the world warms, more ocean water evaporates into the atmosphere (which has been documented...it's happening). This water vapor is what hurricanes turn into rainfall. Our warmer world with higher atmospheric humidity means that tropical weather systems have more moisture to tap into, which means greater potential for increased rainfall. Statistics show that extreme precipitation events nationwide are increasing, and this also applies to tropical systems. What most people don't realize is that, as summer wanes and we transition into fall, hurricanes are the atmosphere's natural mechanism to return the summertime water vapor back into the ocean. So, hurricanes are necessary to balance the planet's water budget. The only problem is that people get in the way, and hurricanes of the future likely will have higher rainfall and increased potential for catastrophic flooding events -- also due to higher storm surges, resulting from higher sea levels from the warming climate. Now, let's apply all of this information to hurricanes Irma and Harvey: --------- Did global warming cause Irma or Harvey? No. Both hurricanes could have developed, regardless of the warming climate. Could global warming have affected Irma’s record strength, or Harvey's rapid intensification, just before landfall? Harvey strengthened rapidly from a Category 1 to a Category 4 storm in just over a day, undoubtedly due to very warm Gulf of Mexico waters it traveled over in otherwise favorable conditions. It was the first Category 4 storm to make landfall in Texas since Hurricane Carla in 1961. Irma became the strongest Atlantic basin hurricane when its winds increased to 185 mph, also due to very warm ocean temperatures and otherwise favorable conditions. There is no question that the warmer ocean temperatures we’re experiencing now have been impacted by the warming climate. So, global warming may have been part of the reason that Harvey rapidly intensified just before landfall, and Irma became a record-breaking hurricane. Did global warming cause the incredible rain amounts that Harvey produced? As we discussed above, increased atmospheric humidity due to global warming is making storms such as Harvey more predisposed to heavier rainfall. However, this is not the only reason Texas saw such extraordinary rain totals. Remember that most hurricanes (such as Irma) come and go: they make landfall and keep on moving. Hurricane Harvey became a tourist. It hung around for a while and meandered due to weak steering currents. While most people focus on wind, the true destructive power of that storm was water. Bands of torrential rain plagued southeast Texas for more than five straight days. Think about that for a moment: Hurricane and tropical storm-induced heavy rain bands, day after day. The bottom line is that, while global warming may have provided Harvey with extra water vapor to generate increased rainfall, the bigger reason for the catastrophic rain amounts was the storm's unusually slow movement. And by the way, there is no way to know, based upon our current knowledge, whether global warming had any impact on Harvey's slow movement. Hopefully, future research will answer that question. By Meteorologist Paul Gross Graham Media Group 2017


President Donald Trump took a new swipe at U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday, referring to him in a tweet as "beleaguered" and wondering why he isn't digging into Hillary Clinton's alleged contacts with Russia. (REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein) President Trump took his criticism of Jeff Sessions to a... good grief, you're going to always have squabbles of course the president wasn't happy that Sessions recluse himself from the Russian investigation from the Russian investigation... it's one of those situations damned if you do and damned if you don't... User from CA 2017.7.25 You will not get another ine because the democrats will not put another attorney general through Get down to business now and let all this other junk go by the way side repeal obama care and put another health care in but if you guys do not get together and quit going against each other because you want more medical Vicky Walters 2017.7.25


© 2016 Bloomberg Finance LP A chat with the host of the trashiest talk show in television history about Trump, Hillary, and the State of the Union. You can see it, almost: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton sitting just a few steps from each other onstage, going at each other’s throats. “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Clinton levels. Trump cuts in with a threat: “Because you’d be in jail.” The audience goes wild, collectively gasping, then cheering, either for their audacious, say-it-like-it-is savior, or because they’re just thrilled with the entertainment. Maybe a chair gets thrown. It’s not hard for Jerry Springer to picture some of the crazier moments from the 2016 presidential election on the set of his eponymous talk show. After all, the Jerry Springer Show traffics in drama and dysfunction, and that ugly scene—minus the chair throwing—played out live at the second presidential debate last week, one of the most brutal in recent history. “I've never had a guest on my show who I thought should be president,” says Springer, laughing. “Ever. Except the guy who married his horse.” Faced with the prospect of a Trump presidency, Springer, a former Democratic mayor of Cincinnati who once ran for governor of Ohio, has thrown his hat back in the political ring to make the case for Clinton. Last month, he tweeted his assessment of the options facing the American people: “Hillary Clinton belongs in the White House. Donald Trump belongs on my show.” We’ll let him explain. GQ: The second debate was one of the most savage—and personal—we’ve ever seen. How much did it remind you of your show? Jerry Springer: I mean, good God. Other than his money, how in the world is he different than people that are on my show? And that's not trying to be cute. That's the truth. I mean, I think about the issues of the people that come on our show, the language they use, the relationship dysfunctions. You know, other than your net worth, what is the difference, and why do people wind up calling people on my show trash? I've always said that wealthy people haven't cornered the market on propriety or morality or decency. We keep thinking, just because people are poor and maybe didn't go to college or something that all of the sudden they're trash, and then we see this running for president? The behavior's the same. After the first debate, you tweeted that Trump belongs on your show. In the style of segments like “My Girlfriend is a Man” and “I Married a Horse,” what would you call the episode starring him? [laughs] Great question. Oh gosh, I’ve gotta think…"I’ll Beat That Blank To The White House." A hallmark of your show is when people start throwing chairs at each other. Be honest: Do you ever feel like thwacking Trump with a folding chair? [laughs] Well, I’m nonviolent. I think he wouldn’t come on my show—nothing to do with chairs—he wouldn’t come on my show because he wouldn't want his hair pulled. You know, they're always pulling off the wig? That's why he wouldn't come on the show. There’s been speculation that Trump is planning a new media empire to capitalize on his momentum after the election. Are you worried he’s going to take your job? "I'm sorry. I've ruined the culture." Well he’s far better on television than I am, so I'm not worried, because I'm 73 years old. [phone rings in the background] Some other person calling for money. [laughs] It's funny because, on a side note, and then I'll answer your question, once you're identified as being a Democrat and Hillary supporter, etc., then every Democrat running in the country starts calling you for money. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The problem with him doing my show is you've got to be able to tell the difference between a host and the guests. So they would have to run a graphic, they would have to keep saying, "He's the host, he's the host, he's the host." But other than that, yeah, he's phenomenal on television. You’re an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter. Aside from “she’s not a demagogue,” what’s your case for her? Certainly in my lifetime, there’s never been a human being more prepared, and more knowledgeable and more balanced to be president of the United States who hasn't already been one. In other words, when you run for reelection for president, you already know all of the world issues. But for someone who hasn't yet been president, I don't think there's another human being that could sit down with her and would know as much about what's going on in the world, has thought more about all these issues for her whole lifetime, than she has. She really is the most qualified person ever to run for president who hasn't been president before. And there's no particular benefit for me other than I love my country. I mean, I'm not looking for a political job. I'm literally just a citizen. And I do take it seriously. I'm [from] an immigrant family. So I take the State of Liberty very seriously. I mean, my family was lost in the Holocaust. We believe in the State of Liberty. This was the place we were going to come. And then you have someone running for president who is opposed to the idea [of] America? Religious, ethnic and all that kind of freedom? And wants to replace the State of Liberty with a wall? So I compare that to the qualifications of a Hillary. You’ve talked about how the election is personal for you. How does it hit home? Someone comes to me and says, "Well, if you knew Trump, he isn’t personally bigoted." It doesn't matter—that's irrelevant. He’s smart enough to know that he is giving cover, he is giving voice to a very ugly notion that you will be judged in this country based on where you're from and what your religion is, what your ethnicity is, and in some instances, even what your color is. And gender. And your disabilities, if you have any. Well, we all have some disabilities. But it’s, like, oh my god, this is so un-American. It's, like, a cruel irony to say we're going to make America great again. Hey! First understand what America is. That is personal. You’re the former mayor of Cincinnati. What have you learned about politics in the two decades you’ve been doing your show that you didn't know during your political career? I always knew we were all alike and the only thing that separated us [is] some of us were luckier in the gene pool of parents, and some of us had more money, and stuff like that. And I saw that in politics, and I see it in the people on my show. ... 99 percent of what we are, we had nothing to do with. Not one person you will ever meet had anything to do with the decision to be born, to whom you'd be born, what kind of health, what kind of brain, what era, what country. None of this stuff. The last one percent of what we become is maybe due to our own efforts. But even that is based on what we were born with. If you understand that, then you will never ever judge people based on what they are. You will only judge people based on what they do. I guess I kind of knew that all along, and every job I’ve ever had just confirmed what I've always believed, is that human beings are alike. Some are just luckier. Your show is in its 26th season— I apologize. [laughs] I'm sorry. I've ruined the culture. I'm so sorry. Oh, please, Rebecca, forgive me. I forgive you! What’s one moment from this election that would have been way better on your stage? Well, any of the debates, clearly. And obviously the video. I mean, really. You can’t even make a parody of it anymore. I can't—it's almost, they’re throwing softballs at me. It's, like, "Hey! Here's a show topic, here's a show topic." I mean, I could have done a whole season of shows just on this campaign. But again, it’s one thing to have a television [show] about that, which is the purpose of the show, to have it about dysfunctional behavior, and another thing to say, "Gee, why doesn't the person on this show run for president?" What? Who thought that was a good idea? You’ve said Trump’s blurring of politics and entertainment helped propel him to the GOP nomination. Are shows like yours to blame for Trump’s rise? No, no one show. Lots of people watch the show and behave properly.


Remember back in August of 2015, when Donald Trump's women problem was contained to calling Rosie O'Donnell a "pig" at the first Republican debate and saying Megyn Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever" for asking legitimate questions about his sexist treatment of women? Fast forward to present day (or, more accurately, last night), and we now have former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (and current Trump surrogate) literally daring Kelly to call Bill Clinton a "sexual predator" on live television after trying to denounce the coverage of Trump's numerous sexual misconduct allegations as unfair and biased. Thank goodness there are only 13 more days till the election because, honestly, how much more of this can the American people take? What began as a conversation between the Fox News anchor and former speaker of the house about Donald Trump's dwindling poll numbers soon turned into a hostile exchange about sexism, media bias, and the election. Recent reports, including one conducted by Fox News, show Clinton's numbers growing in several key states, making Trump's chances of becoming president all the more slim. Gingrich quickly interjected that all these polls are biased—"Fox News? I don't think so," Kelly countered—before he launched into an attack on the media as a whole for focusing on the Access Hollywood tape and the numerous women who have come forward to corroborate the things Trump articulated on the leaked footage, rather than the leaked transcripts of Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches or her plans to allow "600 million people" to migrate to the country. "The three major networks spent 23 minutes attacking Donald Trump [after the third presidential debate] and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton's secret speeches," Gingrich said. "You don't think this is a scale of bias worthy of Pravada and Izvestia?" (Quick history aside: Pravada and Izvestia were two newspapers published in Soviet Russia.) Kelly articulated that "if Trump is a sexual predator"—which Gingrich quickly denied—and was revealed to have a lengthy history of sexual misconduct, Americans—especially American women—have the right to know this about a presidential nominee and the media should be required to cover it. Or so she tried to articulate before Gingrich once again interrupted her for using "inflammatory" language "that is not true." "You are fascinated by sex and you don't care about public policy," said a man who spent his tenure as speaker of the house obstructing the president and twenty-plus years dwelling on Bill Clinton's sexual history. "Me? Really?" Kelly countered, before Gingrich doubled down, saying, "That's what I get out of watching you tonight." Kelly responded to this, saying, "You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office and I think the American voters would like to know." "Therefore we're going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing because, after all, you're worried about sexual predators?" Gingrich interjected. "Listen, it's not about me. It's about the women and men of America. The poll numbers show us that the women of America, in particular, are very concerned about these allegations, and, in large part, believe they are a real issue and don't want to dismiss the women." Kelly barely made her point before Gingrich once again interrupted, saying, "You want a comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?" "We, on The Kelly File, have covered that story as well," she countered. "I want to hear you use the words 'Bill Clinton, sexual predator.' I dare you. Say 'Bill Clinton, sexual predator," Gingrich said, smirking all the while. Kelly, as expected, kept her cool, explained that she had, in fact, covered Clinton's past behavior on her show, before making the most sound counter-argument to Gingrich's challenge. "He's not on the ticket,” Kelly said. “The polls also show the American public is less interested in the deeds of Hillary Clinton’s husband than they are in the deeds of the man who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump.” As the segment drew to an end, Kelly bid farewell to her contentious guest, saying, "We’re going to have to leave it at that and you can take your anger issues and spend some time working on them, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for being here.” To which Gingrich replied, "And you too." Watch the full segment below.


Prior to Sunday's presidential debate, four women who have accused the Clintons of wrongdoing, including allegations of sexual deviancy, spoke at a press availability with Republican Donald Trump. Observers said Trump meant to contrast his vulgar leaked 2005 audiotape with the allegations from the women about their mistreatment at the hands of the Clintons. "It's so important...when people are talking about... the words that Donald Trump uttered--he's very embarrassed...he's apologetic for those words," Juanita Broaddrick, 73, told Sean Hannity. Broaddrick has accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1978, and has said that Hillary Clinton attacked her character after she came forward with the original accusations. "I've never heard one apology for what Hillary Clinton did to me after she threatened me after her husband raped me. I did have an apology from Bill Clinton, although he'll never admit it--I'd like to see him do it in-person," she said. Broaddrick added that she "feared" a Clinton presidency because she suspected that Hillary Clinton would seek retribution against her for speaking out once more. Watch the full clip above and let us know what you think in the comments. Krauthammer: Trump Threat to Prosecute Hillary Sounds Like a 'Banana Republic'


Hillary Clinton called Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony tune.” She called Gennifer Flowers “some failed cabaret singer.” She said Republicans in Congress had organized “a vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband, President Bill Clinton. And now the former secretary of state and defeated Democratic presidential candidate says those of us still interested in the investigating of her conduct are engaging in an “abuse of power.” Hillary Clinton expects special treatment. She always has. The real question is: why did the FBI give it to her? The FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton was referred to as “special” in an email sent by current FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He was the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office before his promotion to the second-ranking spot in the bureau. Despite a deep web of connections to Clinton, McCabe formally recused himself from the email investigation only a week before the 2016 election. McCabe’s admissions are telling, but not inaccurate. Four months have passed since 20 members of the House Judiciary Committee demanded a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton. No action from the Department of Justice has been taken. Only a special person could have her spouse meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a tarmac in Phoenix during an ongoing criminal investigation. Recently released emails show that Bill Clinton purposely altered his departure to get time alone with Lynch. While the FBI was very concerned with punishing the agent who disclosed the Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting, the impropriety of the gathering garnered far less attention. When Lynch told then-FBI Director James Comey to refer to the Hillary Clinton investigation as a “matter” rather than an “investigation,” language had a special meaning. According to McCabe, “the decision was made to investigate (Hillary Clinton) at HQ with a small team.” The double standard is glaring. More prosecutors are currently investigating President Trump than were assigned to the Oklahoma City bombing, but Hillary Clinton got the small team at HQ. And how did the “small team at HQ” handle the investigation? In a word – special. Somewhere between the first and the final draft, Comey’s statement changed. He first wrote that Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server was “grossly negligent.” The final draft said she was “extremely careless.” Comey’s exoneration was drafted before the FBI interviewed key witnesses – including Clinton herself. When Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough confronted officials about the depth of Clinton’s crimes, he faced threats and “personal blowback” against him and his family. McCullough’s reports were delivered to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Clapper spoke of the “heartburn” that exposure would create for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In every instance, being special has redounded to Hillary Clinton’s political and legal benefit. Not so for President Trump. Some at the Department of Justice and the FBI seem to have a special bias against the president. FBI Agent Peter Strzok sent biased anti-Trump text messages. He worked on both the Clinton email scandal and the Mueller probe. It remains unclear what evidence he reviewed, generated or damaged in either investigation. Four months have passed since 20 members of the House Judiciary Committee demanded a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton. No action from the Department of Justice has been taken. As members of the Judiciary Committee, we have demanded an investigation into the FBI’s procedures, practices, oversight and reporting. If biased agents have tainted evidence, we need to see it. If politically-interested prosecutors have an agenda, we need to know it. If our government institutions are being undermined by the deep state, we must expose it. After all, equal treatment under the law is just one thing that makes America so special. Republican Matt Gaetz represents Florida's 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.


As seen on Justice With Judge Jeanine Issa: Comey Reopening FBI Clinton Email Probe 'Matter of His Integrity' In her Opening Statement last night, Judge Jeanine Pirro said FBI Director James Comey owes it to the American people to reveal what new information made him decide to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation. "He's got to tell us what was discovered what was so big that he violated Justice Department and FBI guidelines and alerted the nation. He cannot hide behind protocol," Judge Jeanine said. She also called for a "thorough, unbiased investigation," with search warrants, empaneling a grand jury and a deal with Huma Abedin to get the top Clinton aide to talk. "Jim, go back to your roots," Judge Jeanine said. "You were once a great prosecutor. Don’t let Washington ruin you, too. You need to send these Clintons back to where they came from." Read the full transcript below, and let us know what you think in the comments. Liberals Bash FBI Director Comey Over Clinton Probe After Praising Him in July Mother of Jailed Sailor: 'Hold Hillary to Same Standards' as My Son on Classified Info The FBI’s ability to get Huma Abedin- Hillary Clinton's closest advisor, confidante and State Department deputy chief of staff - to sing will make or break this election. Right now, reports are the FBI is negotiating with Huma's lawyers, stemming from her joint computer with pervert husband, disgraced ex -congressman Anthony Weiner. Here we go again: We are nine days from an election that will redefine this nation. And as I said last night, we're on the precipice of yet another constitutional crisis because of the Clintons. This time, involving an alleged pedophile, our nation's top secrets and a couple of grifters from Arkansas. You already know how I feel about all this from my open last night. The American people are entitled to know before we go to the voting booth what it was that caused FBI Director Comey to reopen the case. He's got to tell us what was discovered what was so big that he violated Justice Department and FBI guidelines and alerted the nation. He cannot hide behind protocol. The Justice guidelines 'don't let me talk' rule doesn't work anymore. The 'we don't comment on pending cases' doesn't work anymore. There are no ethical prohibitions. You have been invited by the target and her surrogates to release the information that caused you to reopen a closed case. If there is an indictment, Hillary is now foreclosed from objecting to such disclosure. My bet is, she knows you wont - but thinks that she’s calling your bluff. If she really wanted to know, all she has to do is sit down with Huma and ask her. The investigation is then not compromised, since documentary evidence - here emails - do not change. So it's time to do what you didn't do last year- a thorough unbiased investigation, using all the tools available search warrants and empaneling a grand jury. No more mother may I routine. You’re the one who got yourself in this mess. And now the American people are in a bigger mess. In 2013 Huma signed a document under penalty of perjury when she left the state department that she had turned over all classified materials and that she was not retaining copies. It seems that metadata on 650 thousand emails suggest otherwise. Huma swore under oath that she searched thru all her devices for anything state related. She had a chance to turn things over and she didn’t. Start your negotiation there, Mr. Director. You've got her in a corner. It's time to throw some punches. Make your deal with Huma now. If you don't and Hillary gets elected, no one will care. Hillary will do what she’s always done. She'll be appalled at Huma. She’ll say she didn't know. She didn't remember. She short-circuited. She had a brain clot. She had no idea. Look, the American people are already traumatized by the Clinton scandals and we just can’t take 4 more years of them. Word is that although Justice told your FBI guys to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation, it’s still ongoing. The justice dept. is dirty and you know it. Our attorney general actually pleaded the fifth on the Iran ransom probe. Loretta Lynch meeting with the spouse of a target and then the target herself days later saying I will keep Loretta Lynch as my attorney general is bribery pure and simple. Jim, go back to your roots. You were once a great prosecutor. Don’t let Washington ruin you too. You need to send these Clintons back to where they came from. It’s time for you to buck up put on your big boy pants and make a deal with Huma for the sake of this nation. You've got till Tuesday.


The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called out former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon just days after he accused the Catholic Church of having ulterior motives in helping undocumented immigrants. James Rogers, the USCCB's chief spokesman, called Bannon's comments "preposterous" in a interview on Sirius Radio. Rogers was referring to Steve Bannon's interview with Charlie Rose on "60 Minutes" where he claimed the Catholic Church only needs "illegal aliens" as worshipers. Rogers says Bannon's statements are untrue. "Our pro-immigration stance is based on fidelity to God's word and honors the American dream. For anyone to suggest that it is out of sordid motives of statistics or financial gain is outrageous and insulting," he added. "And the Bible is so clear, so clear, that to treat the immigrant with dignity and respect, to make sure that society is just in its treatment of the immigrant is Biblical mandate," Dolan said. "It's clear in the Old Testament -- my Jewish neighbors remind me of that all the time -- and it's clear from the lips of Jesus when he said, 'Whatever you do to the least of my brothers you do to me. When I was a stranger -- meaning an immigrant or a refugee -- you welcomed me.'" Bannon's comments have drawn widespread criticism. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, said in an interview on the Catholic Channel on Sirius XM, "I don't really care to go into what I think is a preposterous and rather insulting statement that the only reason we bishops care for immigrants is for the economic because we want to fill our churches and get more money." The full interview of Steve Bannon on "60 Minutes" will air this Sunday. Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is accusing the Catholic Church of needing "illegal aliens" as worshipers. “The Catholic Church has been terrible about this,” he said while discussing immigration policy in a new interview Thursday. “The bishops have been terrible about this.” “[It’s] because [they’re] unable to really to – to – to come to grips with the problems in the church,” Bannon continued on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” “They need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches.” “They have an economic interest. They have an economic interest in unlimited immigration, unlimited illegal immigration.” Bannon was discussing President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA temporarily blocks undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and lets them get renewable work permits. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday announced that Trump’s administration would eliminate the program in six months. Nearly 800,000 “Dreamers,” or DACA recipients, have benefited from the program since former President Barack Obama’s administration implemented it in 2012.


Briefly: In our opinion, full (150% of the regular full position) speculative short positions in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective at the moment of publishing this alert. Gold moved back and forth on Friday and the accompanying volume was high, but that’s not the only important thing that we can discuss today. The week is over and we have weekly changes and weekly volume levels to analyze and we saw major moves in the important ratios. Additionally, we discovered a self-similar pattern in gold that has critical and volatile implications going forward. Let’s start with Friday’s session and the changes in the gold market (chart courtesy of http://stockcharts.com). Gold moved sharply back and forth as both positive and negative data was released and ultimately it ended the session a few dollars higher (based on kitco’s prices, the closing price was $1,279.60). Why was the reaction so significant? The reason could be technical – the apex of the triangle was likely to be accompanied by a turnaround and since we just saw a more visible top a couple of days ago and apparently gold doesn’t want to form a bottom here, then the only remaining outcome is a local daily top that doesn’t change much – which is what we saw. Why do we think that gold doesn’t want to bottom here? Because if it did, it would have ended Friday’s session much higher. If gold doesn’t want to move higher, then silver must really hate that “thought”. The white metal declined once again and even though gold closed a bit higher, it managed to close lower. The move lower by itself is already bearish as it took place on visible volume, but it’s very bearish once we take into account Thursday’s breakdown. We previously commented on it in the following way: Silver declined and it reversed before the end of the session, which appears to be a reversal. But does this reversal really have bullish implications? It doesn’t seem to be the case. The volume wasn’t huge enough to confirm the reversal and it was not low enough to invalidate the bearish implications of the decline either. The key thing to the proper analysis of the silver price swing is the awareness of what the USD and S&P 500 did. The former declined a bit, while stocks truly soared, which created perfect circumstances for a silver rally. Yet, instead of a rally, we saw a decline and a move below the rising support line based on the August and October lows. Consequently, silver’s action was very bearish as it showed great weakness in this market. Moreover, the mentioned support line could be viewed as a neck level of a head and shoulders pattern (with a rather long right shoulder, similar to the one that we saw in the euro), which serves as an additional bearish indication (it’s only a small addition to the bearish implications of the breakdown as such, as its implications are bearish regardless of the H&S formation being in place or not). On Friday, the general stock market declined significantly but almost the entire decline was reversed before the end of the session. If we consider Thursday and Friday together, the S&P 500 index still rallied considerably, but silver declined and was unable to invalidate its breakdown. The implications are strongly bearish. Let’s move back to gold for a few minutes. In terms of the euro, the bearish signals are much more profound. Gold has just broken below the rising, medium-term support line and the most recent local top was formed approximately at the apex of the triangle pattern (in terms of time). The latter makes it considerably more likely that an important top was just formed and thus that the breakdown that we just saw will be confirmed. As far as the apex of the triangle is concerned, it’s actually a combination of two such patterns – they are based on the same tops and bottoms, but in one case (red lines) they are based on the intraday extremes and in the other case (black lines) they are based on the daily closing prices. The most recent top took place right between the apexes created based on both patterns. The mentioned breakdown is almost confirmed. Almost, because we would prefer to see three consecutive closing prices below the support line to see it as strong resistance, but we have already seen two of them, a weekly close and also a failed attempt to move back above the line. The breakdown is very close to being fully confirmed and the bearishness of the implications increased significantly based on Friday’s session. Speaking of breakdowns, we saw one in the gold to S&P 500 ratio, which… is nothing new, but still quite exciting and important. Why? Because due to several failed attempts to break below this level, we had to be skeptical toward the breakdown this time. The question was: ”Would this time be any different?” It turned out that this time was different as the ratio moved back to the previously broken level, verified it as support and then continued to move lower on huge volume (precisely, the ratio itself doesn’t have volume, so what we mean is the ratio of volumes). Why would the above be a big deal? Because this ratio moves in tune with gold when it comes to major price moves and – more importantly – there was only one similar case in the past 15 years when we saw a similar breakdown and it was in the early stages of the 2012 – 2013 decline. Back then, it was a warning sign that practically nobody noticed. You’ll probably not see it anywhere (except for this publication) this time either. Naturally, the implications are strongly bearish as the breakdown now appears believable. From the weekly point of view, we see that mining stocks declined and broke below the rising support lines based on the 2016 and 2017 lows and that the breakdown took place on big volume. All that happened after two weeks of low-volume upswings that we commented on in last Monday’s alert: Finally, the weekly volume levels in the GDX ETF paint a very bearish picture for the following weeks. The GDX ETF is after 2 small, weekly rallies that were accompanied by very low volume when compared with the previous weeks. The last week had less trading days, but that doesn’t explain the previous week’s low volume reading. Moreover, we didn’t see similarly low volume readings in the past Novembers, which suggests that we are correct to view the low volume levels as something important and meaningful. The only comparable situation from the recent past took place in mid-2014 (marked with a black arrow). In the following weeks, the GDX price was cut by a third. The bearish implications of the above just became more bearish as back in 2014, the first big-volume weekly decline meant that the big slide had just begun. The breakdown can also be seen in the case of the HUI to S&P 500 index ratio. In other words, by looking at gold stocks’ performance relative to other stocks. The breakdown is clear and confirmed by both weekly and monthly closing prices. The implications are bearish. All in all, the medium-term outlook is clearly bearish based on the above and based on the factors that we discussed previously and it seems that we’ve been correct to be holding the short positions in metals and miners (especially in silver and miners). Still, it seems that the vast majority of the potential that these positions have is still to be realized. This is particularly the case given the similarities between what we’re seeing now and what we saw before the previous slides. We already discussed some of those similarities above, but there’s also something else that is likely in play right now. In early October, we described the analogy in performance between 2008 and the current period (at the moment) in gold stocks. It was almost two months ago, so even if you read it at that time, it might be worth reading it once again today (by the way, we are making that alert available publicly, so if you know someone who’s interested in precious metals, but has doubts about using technical analysis to analyze it, please send them the link to that alert – they might change their minds - https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/) – it’s truly amazing how the similarity continued almost to the letter even though the two cases are almost a decade apart. Even the initial retracement of the HUI Index (38.2%) was identical. However, today we are not going to repeat the October analysis – we are going to discuss something alike… in gold. That’s right, the gold market features similarities to its performance back in 2008. Before moving to details, let’s state that the analogy is far from perfect. That’s probably why we didn’t discover it earlier. However, it’s not the point to be picky about a technique, but rather to see if there is anything that it can give us and make us particularly aware of things that could come. With regard to the latter goal in mind, it seems that we have something very valuable. In both cases, we have a sharp rally that preceded a top, then we saw some kind of consolidation and another attempt to move higher, which failed (mid-2008 and second half of 2012) and started a decline. The decline was more or less twice the size of the decline from the key (March 2008 and late 2011) top. In 2008, we saw a corrective upswing that was followed by a move to almost the final bottom and from mid-2013 to early 2015 we saw several such corrective upswings. After the initial bottom (September 2008 and the final part of 2015) gold soared sharply. The sizes of the upswings differ on a relative basis, but it’s understandable as back in 2008 the moves took place in a very short time, so the levels of emotionality among market participants were much higher. After the sharp rally, gold consolidated a bit (late September 2008 and mid-2016), then declined and moved close to the previous highs once again (October 2008 and September 2017). The decline that started thereafter in 2008 was the biggest and sharpest decline in many years. Naturally, this does not bode well for the near-term gold outlook. Conversely, it seems that we can expect the most important part of the decline to be just around the corner. The above implication is not the only interesting thing about the analogy, though. The detail that could be important going forward is the moment when the decline took a breather. At this time, the moves take more time, so the pauses could be longer and more visible as well and if we get enough bullish confirmations once gold moves to certain price levels, we might even adjust the trading position temporarily. In 2008, the first interim pause was at the most recent important low and the second pause was approximately the level from which the sharpest part of the previous huge rally started, which was strengthened by another support level (the previous low). We don’t have price levels that would be 100% analogous, but we can see which levels are most similar. In our view, the most recent important lows would be close to the $1,200 level (March, May, and July 2017 bottoms) and the next strong support will be provided by the $1,120 - $1,130 area. That’s approximately from where gold soared most sharply in early 2016 and this level is strengthened by the December 2016 low. These levels are most likely to generate support strong enough to trigger at least corrective rallies based on the analogy to what we saw in 2008 and based on their own strength as support. Naturally, that’s what appears likely based on the data that we have today and the likely scenario could change as new developments unfold. There’s one more thing that we left for the analytical dessert. Namely, back in 2008 the previous key low (September 2008 low, which is analogous to the late 2015 bottom) didn’t trigger even a small rally. Consequently, even though a bottom or at least a correction will be widely expected once gold moves below $1,100, gold may continue to move lower and slide through $1,050 like a hot knife through butter. Finally, there’s one more thing that makes the current situation in gold similar to 2008 – the overall increase in the volume levels. We already discussed, why the yearly volume levels at record highs should not be viewed as bullish (final part of the November 14 alert that we’re linking to) and today we would like to add the observation that back in 2008 the volume levels also broke to new highs and stayed there for a long time. Yes, the volume has been growing almost constantly, but the 2008 and 2017 buildups in volume still stand out. The growth is much sharper than in other years and no other period is comparable to those years. Since the 2008 volume buildup was followed by a sharp decline in the precious metals sector, it seems that we might see something similar also this and/or the next year. Summing up, there are multiple bearish signals in the gold market and in the rest of the precious metals sector and the analogies to previous major declines further support the bearish outlook. The big decline in PMs appears to be underway as the previously discussed long-term signals remain in place: gold’s huge monthly volume, the analogy in the HUI Index, the analogy between the two most recent series of interest rate hikes, and the RSI signal from gold priced in the Japanese yen. To summarize: Trading capital (supplementary part of the portfolio; our opinion): Short positions (150% of the full position) in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective with the following stop-loss orders and exit price levels / profit-take orders: In case one wants to bet on junior mining stocks' prices (we do not suggest doing so – we think senior mining stocks are more predictable in the case of short-term trades – if one wants to do it anyway, we provide the details), here are the stop-loss details and exit prices: Long-term capital (core part of the portfolio; our opinion): No positions (in other words: cash) Insurance capital (core part of the portfolio; our opinion): Full position Whether you already subscribed or not, we encourage you to find out how to make the most of our alerts and read our replies to the most common alert-and-gold-trading-related-questions. Please note that the in the trading section we describe the situation for the day that the alert is posted. In other words, it we are writing about a speculative position, it means that it is up-to-date on the day it was posted. We are also featuring the initial target prices, so that you can decide whether keeping a position on a given day is something that is in tune with your approach (some moves are too small for medium-term traders and some might appear too big for day-traders). Plus, you might want to read why our stop-loss orders are usually relatively far from the current price. Please note that a full position doesn’t mean using all of the capital for a given trade. You will find details on our thoughts on gold portfolio structuring in the Key Insights section on our website. As a reminder – “initial target price” means exactly that – an “initial” one, it’s not a price level at which we suggest closing positions. If this becomes the case (like it did in the previous trade) we will refer to these levels as levels of exit orders (exactly as we’ve done previously). Stop-loss levels, however, are naturally not “initial”, but something that, in our opinion, might be entered as an order. Since it is impossible to synchronize target prices and stop-loss levels for all the ETFs and ETNs with the main markets that we provide these levels for (gold, silver and mining stocks – the GDX ETF), the stop-loss levels and target prices for other ETNs and ETF (among other: UGLD, DGLD, USLV, DSLV, NUGT, DUST, JNUG, JDST) are provided as supplementary, and not as “final”. This means that if a stop-loss or a target level is reached for any of the “additional instruments” (DGLD for instance), but not for the “main instrument” (gold in this case), we will view positions in both gold and DGLD as still open and the stop-loss for DGLD would have to be moved lower. On the other hand, if gold moves to a stop-loss level but DGLD doesn’t, then we will view both positions (in gold and DGLD) as closed. In other words, since it’s not possible to be 100% certain that each related instrument moves to a given level when the underlying instrument does, we can’t provide levels that would be binding. The levels that we do provide are our best estimate of the levels that will correspond to the levels in the underlying assets, but it will be the underlying assets that one will need to focus on regarding the signs pointing to closing a given position or keeping it open. We might adjust the levels in the “additional instruments” without adjusting the levels in the “main instruments”, which will simply mean that we have improved our estimation of these levels, not that we changed our outlook on the markets. We are already working on a tool that would update these levels on a daily basis for the most popular ETFs, ETNs and individual mining stocks. Our preferred ways to invest in and to trade gold along with the reasoning can be found in the how to buy gold section. Additionally, our preferred ETFs and ETNs can be found in our Gold & Silver ETF Ranking. As a reminder, Gold & Silver Trading Alerts are posted before or on each trading day (we usually post them before the opening bell, but we don't promise doing that each day). If there's anything urgent, we will send you an additional small alert before posting the main one. ===== Latest Free Trading Alerts: On Wednesday, Trump nominated Goodfriend to the Fed’s Board of Governors. What does it mean for the gold market? S&P 500 index lost 0.2% on Friday, following volatile trading session and a bounce off support level at 2,600 mark. Is this a topping pattern or just another consolidation within medium-term uptrend? ===== Hand-picked precious-metals-related links: ===== In other news: ===== Thank you.


Here’s some good advice. Please don’t place valuables likes money and passports in a planes overhead compartment! A couple was flying from Chicago back to Munich last week when they forgot some very precious and valuable cargo onboard. The couple left a bag containing $166,000 in the planes overhead compartment! Lucky for them, the story has a happy ending… The couple was able to go through customs using ID cards, not realizing that the bag they left behind contained their passports and “American cashier’s checks – worth a total of $166,000,” according to T+L. The man had just inherited the large sum of money from his mother. A cleaner saw the bag on the plane and turned it over to the airline. The airline then gave it to the local police who found the cashier’s checks inside. When the police figured out who the owners of the bag were, they had already left the airport. According to T+L the “police tracked them down to their home about two hours away“. Once the man was told what he had left on the plane he headed right back to the airport to claim the valuable bag! Lucky for them this story ended well!


Postpartum depression has become more visible as celebrity moms including Brooke Shields, Drew Barrymore and Chrissy Teigen have publicly shared their struggles with feeling sad and hopeless after birth. But when a father – Adam Busby, from reality TV show “OutDaughtered” – recently opened up about his own postpartum depression, he received instant backlash, including comments telling him to “man up.” Despite the skepticism, postpartum depression in fathers is very real, with estimates that around 10 percent of men report symptoms of depression following the birth of a child, about double the typical rate of depression in males. Postpartum depression in women has been linked with hormonal shifts, but the role of hormones in men’s postpartum depression has been unknown. In an attempt to solve this mystery, my colleagues and I recently tested whether men’s levels of the hormone testosterone are related to their postpartum depression risk during early parenthood. We found that men’s testosterone levels might predict not only their own postpartum depression risk, but their partner’s depression risk as well. Testosterone levels in flux through life changes Testosterone is an androgen hormone, responsible for the development and maintenance of male secondary sex characteristics. It promotes muscle mass and body hair growth, and motivates sexual arousal and competitive behavior. Many studies have found that testosterone dips in new fathers across the animal kingdom. Among animals that engage in the biparental care of offspring – Mongolian gerbils, Djungarian hamsters, California mice and cotton-top tamarins – males show lower testosterone levels following the birth of pups. Human males also often show declines in testosterone around the birth of their infants. In one of the largest studies of testosterone and fatherhood, anthropologist Lee Gettler and his colleagues followed over 600 single men in the Philippines for about five years. If men became partnered fathers during that time, their testosterone levels decreased more than the men who stayed single. Gettler also found that fathers who spent more time with their children showed lower testosterone, suggesting that testosterone may be suppressed by paternal caregiving. Along similar lines, psychologist Robin Edelstein and I found that men assessed repeatedly over their partner’s pregnancy showed declining testosterone levels from early to late pregnancy. Men whose testosterone dropped more dramatically were more likely to report postpartum commitment and investment in their romantic relationships with their partners. Researchers still haven’t identified exactly what causes men’s testosterone to change over the transition to parenthood. Possible suspects include proximity to the partner or infant, increased stress or disrupted sleep and exercise routines. Lower testosterone, higher depression Previous research has linked testosterone with men’s depression levels in general. Low testosterone may contribute to the feelings of lethargy and disinterest in normally pleasurable activities that characterize depression. In fact, some psychiatrists have even suggested prescribing testosterone supplements to treat depression in men. However, no studies had specifically looked at the potential role of testosterone in fathers’ postpartum depression. My colleagues and I analyzed data from the Community Child Health Research Network, a National Institutes of Health-funded study of new parents’ health and well-being. The study recruited moms after the birth of an infant and followed them for several years, along with their partners. At one of the study sites, in Lake County, Illinois, men also provided saliva samples for testosterone analysis when their infants were around nine months old. Both moms and dads reported on their symptoms of depression several times across the first few years of parenthood. We found that dads with lower testosterone reported feeling more depressed. This fits with other research into how testosterone and depression work together. But ours is the first study to observe this relationship specifically in fathers of infants. Given that many men show drops in testosterone over the transition to parenthood, this finding may help explain why the postpartum period is such a high-risk time for depression in men. An unexpected side effect – for the moms We were surprised when we examined links between men’s testosterone and their partners’ depression. Yes, low testosterone seemed to put men at higher risk for depressive symptoms. But men’s levels had the opposite effect for their partners: Women with lower-testosterone partners actually reported fewer symptoms of depression. Why would that be? We tested one possible explanation by looking at how women rated their relationships. It turned out that moms paired with low-testosterone men reported higher relationship satisfaction, and their higher relationship satisfaction predicted lower rates of depressive symptoms. In other words, having a low-testosterone mate might make for a better-quality relationship, in turn reducing the likelihood that women will become depressed. We know social support from a partner can protect women against developing postpartum depression, so our finding fits with that research. Lower-testosterone men may be more dedicated to their relationships or spend more time with children, helping to relieve some of the pressure on moms. At around 15 months postpartum, we also checked moms’ ratings of whether their partners hurt, threatened, yelled at or insulted them. If men had higher testosterone, moms reported higher levels of intimate partner aggression about six months later. Testosterone is associated with more aggressive and competitive behavior. Our finding shows a potential dark side to high testosterone in the postpartum period. Dads also told us about their parenting stress at 15 months postpartum, reporting on emotions such as feeling trapped by parenting responsibilities, believing their children made too many demands on them and lacking warm feelings toward their children. At first, we didn’t find a link between men’s testosterone levels and their parenting stress. But after we statistically controlled for the relationship between low testosterone and depression, we saw that higher testosterone put men at greater risk of experiencing problems in the parenting relationship. This result suggests that, once you adjust for their potentially lower risk of depression, high-testosterone men may find parenting to be more stressful. A happy medium for testosterone? Our results suggest that fathers of infants might be at risk at both sides of the postpartum testosterone spectrum. At low levels, they might be more vulnerable to depression. But at high levels, they might have less satisfying and more aggressive relationships, less happy partners and more parenting stress. In terms of resilience to depression and stress, men with average levels of postpartum testosterone seemed to fare best. Our findings reveal that men’s postpartum testosterone has a complex relationship with family health. From an evolutionary perspective, lower testosterone during the transition to parenthood may help motivate men to invest in their family. In the animal kingdom, lower-testosterone males spend more time with infant pups and show less aggression toward them. So it makes sense that human males would show shifts in testosterone as they adapt to parenthood. But these shifts may make men more vulnerable to mood disorder symptoms. Perhaps this is because lower-testosterone men are taking a more hands-on role in the family and helping more with infant care. Their contributions are great news from the family’s perspective, but may put men at heightened risk of some of the same depressive symptoms that many new mothers face. After all, caring for infants is hard, draining work. In modern industrialized societies like the United States, many new parents lack the extended family support networks that can help lighten the burden of childcare. And in the U.S., paternity leave is a rarity, and many dads struggle with family-unfriendly work arrangements that drain time and energy. Just as new moms can feel overwhelmed and isolated after spending long hours tending to their babies, so too can dads. If new dads (or moms) are experiencing depressed moods after the birth of their infants, they can take some comfort in the fact that these feelings are normal – and may even be rooted in our evolutionary biology. There’s no shame in seeking help, whether it’s talking to a friend, prioritizing sleep and exercise, or visiting a therapist. Postpartum depression affects the whole family and should be taken seriously. Darby Saxbe, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Southern California – Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


Days after Steven Bannon’s blustery, accusatory interview on “60 Minutes,” in which he warned the apostates blocking President Trump’s agenda that he’s coming after them, Trump confirmed it -- there is no such thing as Trumpism. In recent weeks he’s assured Democrats he backs legalizing the Dreamers, affirmed a commitment to foreign aid in front of the United Nations, and said he’s adding troops in Afghanistan. Will Trump now accept “better” terms he wants in the Paris climate accord? Too bad for Bannon, because none of this is remotely the fault of his favorite punching bags, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, just Trump himself. Bannon’s new self-described role as “wingman” growling from outside instead of inside the White House -- where as chief strategist he fought openly against the “globalist” forces he believed included Trump’s family members -- isn’t going very well. Trump keeps screwing things up for the Breitbart News commander. After getting fired last month he lamented to the Weekly Standard that “the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over.” But upon reflection, Bannon realized that lame duck talk diminishes his own power, so he’s in overdrive fighting for scraps of a policy vision the president embraces spasmodically. Bannon says he’s enjoying having “my hands back on my weapons,” but he’s outside looking in at a West Wing filled with elites from Goldman Sachs -- the very definition of “the swamp” that Bannon is always frothing about. There, a president is spending political donations on legal fees while his staffers go deep in debt with mounting lawyer bills, visitor logs are kept secret so voters have no idea who is permitted into the Oval Office to influence the president, and a kleptocracy thrives where Trump and his children continue to be enriched by business connected to foreign governments, including the Chinese. Cabinet secretaries are using government planes for private use and private planes for government work -- violations that would have sparked endless Breitbart bonfires under President Obama. In reality, however, there was little left of Trumpism to trumpet even before Bannon was fired. He’s got the travel ban (or at least a modified version of it), and maybe the promised withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement; Bannon will claim credit if Trump pulls out of the Iran nuclear deal -- but that’s about it. On trade and immigration, the president has retreated from Bannon’s barricade-crashing proposals and has not withdrawn from NAFTA, not imposed tariffs on Chinese steel imports, has three times backed off threats over funding for a border wall and now come out in favor of what Bannon calls “amnesty.” Yet Bannon has declared war, promising to take out incumbent Republican senators who aren’t sufficiently loyal to the president. Targets are guilty of insufficient fealty to Trump himself, not to an agenda once thought of as Trumpism. With the backing of loyal mega-donor Robert Mercer, the Bannon forces are targeting Sen. Jeff Flake, and potentially Sens. Bob Corker and Roger Wicker as well. GOP leaders are incensed over the millions more they will spend protecting those lawmakers, money that could be spent trying to knock off Democrats. Currently Bannon is working to elect Roy Moore to replace sitting Sen. Luther Strange in the Alabama Senate race. Trump has endorsed Strange, also backed by McConnell. Bannon is backing the more Trumpian candidate and, well, Trump is not. Bannon, ironically, purports to be interested in protecting GOP majorities in Congress. Before he could imagine Trump giving away the store on DACA to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Bannon declared in his “60 Minutes” interview that preserving President Obama’s executive order would cause a GOP civil war. He expects Dreamers to run out their permits and “self-deport,” because “amnesty is non-negotiable.” He also said, “I’m worried about losing the House now because of this,” adding that his fear is “in February and March it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party.” But if civil war in the GOP isn’t Bannon’s aim, it's hard to know what is. He blames everything on Ryan and McConnell. “They do not want Donald Trump’s populist economic agenda to be implemented. It’s very obvious. It’s obvious as night follows day,” he told Charlie Rose. In the name of Trumpism, Bannon swallows heavy doses of denial. After all, when Trump threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, the president’s kids and other aides made calls to the Canadian government and arranged for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to call Trump and talk him off the ledge. It wasn’t Ryan or McConnell. Trump’s approval ratings remain low, Bannon said, “because he hasn’t -- we haven’t gotten the wall built.” Earth to Steve: Trump has signaled to Congress the wall is a joke. In the wake of the DACA debacle, Breitbart called the president “Amnesty Don,” yet Bannon himself has stayed sheepishly silent. Ann Coulter, author of “In Trump We Trust,” tweeted: “Looks like Bannon got it wrong. That shadowy force trying to nullify the 2016 election ... is @realDonaldTrump.” Rep. Steve King told the Associated Press the president was destroying his support by betraying his campaign promise, and that his base is “irreparable, disillusioned beyond repair.” King added, “No promise is credible.” Sam Nunberg, a close Bannonite, conceded: “The reality is sinking in that the Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency.” But Bannon isn’t just breaking plates at Breitbart, he’s building his own brand. Last week, like any other dime-a-dozen elitist, Bannon attended an investor conference in Hong Kong. He told the exclusive gathering he speaks to Trump every two-to-three days, despite White House denials that the president has spoken more than once with Bannon since he left. Before Trump disappointed him on DACA, Nunberg had hailed Bannon’s increased influence with Trump. “I think Steve leaves and a week later he [Trump] pardons Arpaio and they suspend DACA. I don’t think there was any coincidence there,” Nunberg told BuzzFeed. Bannon remains fixated on the threat China poses to the United States, has grimly predicted we will be at war with that nation within five-to-10 years over its buildup of military installations in the South China Sea, and said we’re already “at economic war” with China. Yet his domestic bark in this regard doesn’t seem to be the same as his overseas-investor-conference bite. Once there, the New York Times described Bannon as “more subdued about the purported Chinese threat.” The Wall Street Journal reported he described Trump’s great respect for President Xi and prospects for trade, but that “the U.S. needs to play a stronger role in changing the system in China, an attendee recalled.” It’s a far cry from a trade war on steel. Perhaps over time, Bannonism will go the way of Trumpism. A.B. Stoddard is associate editor of RealClearPolitics and a columnist. She is also host of "No Labels Radio" on Sirius XM's POTUS Channel.


Hillary Clinton’s campaign is refocusing on Donald Trump and turning away from the latest investigation of her emails, reminding voters of all the reasons why she believes Trump is unqualified to be president. At three Florida rallies Tuesday, CBS News’ Nancy Cordes reports that Clinton ticked through her opponent’s most notorious comments about the opposite sex. “I want all the girls in America to know: you are valuable,” Clinton said at a rally in Fort Lauderdale. “Don’t let somebody like this bully tell you otherwise!” To another crowd in Dade City, Florida, she added: “He calls women ugly, disgusting, nasty, all the time... He doesn’t see us as full human beings.” For proof of her closing argument, Clinton turned to former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, who Trump publicly shamed in 1997 for gaining a little weight. “He said to me, Miss Piggy, Miss Housekeeping, Miss Eating Machine,” Machado said, joining Clinton in Dade City. It’s a closing argument aimed not just at female voters but also the men who love them. The Clinton campaign released a series of ads Tuesday -- all of them with the same message. “I wouldn’t feel good as a father voting for somebody like that,” one man says in an ad. In Columbus, Ohio, President Obama warned that Trump is unlikely to change. “If you disrespected women before you were elected, you will disrespect women once you’re president,” he said. But in Fort Lauderdale, a protester interrupted Clinton with a sign that said her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is a rapist -- a common sight at Clinton rallies that set her off last night. “I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous divisions and behaviors of people who support Donald Trump,” Clinton said. Aides to the Democratic nominee insist the race is not as tight as new polls suggest. And yet they’ve begun airing ads in four states that supposedly tilt their way: Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico. The campaign says that is not a sign of nervousness -- it’s a sign that they still have a startling $150 million in the bank so why not put it to good use, especially if it helps Democrats down the ballot. But that doesn’t explain why Clinton has added a stop in one of those states -- Michigan -- to an already packed schedule.


CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Rolling Stone’s deputy managing editor admitted on the stand Thursday that mistakes were made with the magazine’s since-discredited campus rape story, testifying that it “broke a lot of us.” “Everyone was yelling at us and rightfully so,” Sean Woods said of the reaction to the story after gang rape claims made by a University of Virginia student, identified only as Jackie, were called into question. “We needed people to know that we were addressing it as our story was falling apart.” The editor testified at the defamation trial against Rolling Stone, which is being sued for $7.85 million by former UVA associate dean Nicole Eramo, who claims the magazine’s “A Rape on Campus” story painted her as being indifferent to Jackie’s allegations that she was gang raped at a fraternity. “I’m sorry if I hurt you,” Woods told Eramo in court. “If? Did you hurt her or not? …Do you think Ms. Eramo was hurt by this story?!” the former dean’s lawyer, Libby Locke, asked him angrily. “I do. I think she is a public figure and subject to criticism,” Woods explained. Earlier, he’d said that none of the journalists involved with the piece ever fully “recovered.” “You pick up the pieces and you move on,” he said. “I think all of our reputations were trashed. It was a terrible blow.” Woods said he offered to resign after they decided to retract the story in Dec. 2014, but Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner wouldn’t let him. He testified that he was in denial when he left a voicemail for Jackie after the story was retracted saying, “We are standing behind the story. We want to stand by the story.’” “It’s like the stages of grief,” he told jurors.


WASHINGTON Newly leaked emails show consternation among those closest to Hillary Clinton about how Bill Clinton’s business dealings might damage his reputation and potentially affect her presidential hopes. The emails, posted Monday by the WikiLeaks organization, also give insight into tension and turmoil within the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was serving as secretary of state. The chief operating officer of the family charity was reported to be threatening to commit suicide over the stress. WikiLeaks began releasing on Friday what it says are years of messages from the accounts of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. Podesta has acknowledged his emails were hacked, but warned the messages may have been altered or edited to do political damage to Clinton. It wasn’t immediately clear who hacked Podesta’s emails, though U.S. intelligence officials last week blamed the Russian government for a series of breaches and leaks intended to influence the presidential election. The emails that circulated among Podesta, Chelsea Clinton and former Bill Clinton aide Doug Band detail internal tensions that simmered inside the Clinton Foundation and appear to have played a role in Band’s departure from the family charity. Internal concerns among Clinton family intimates about Band and the private corporate advisory firm he co-founded, Teneo Holdings, have been previously detailed in several media accounts. But the new emails provide raw glimpses of an apparent power struggle between the Clintons’ daughter and Band, who worked closely for Bill Clinton for more than a decade after the end of the Clinton administration. In an email exchange from December 2011, Chelsea Clinton tells Podesta and others - including Clinton adviser and current Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe - that she’s increasingly concerned about Teneo. The email includes a forwarded news article that alleges that Bill Clinton had collected $50,000 a month through Teneo from MF Global, the commodities brokerage formerly run by former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, while MF Global was preparing to file for bankruptcy. Chelsea Clinton told Podesta and others that two people separately came up to her at a London event for the Clinton Foundation to raise concerns that someone representing Teneo clients had been calling members of the British Parliament “on behalf of President Clinton” without her father’s knowledge. Chelsea Clinton said the calls had people in London “making comparisons” between the “profit motivations” of the former president and former Prime Minister Tony Blair. “Which would horrify my father,” Chelsea Clinton wrote. Band wrote in an email that Chelsea Clinton seemed more concerned about critical news coverage about MF Global, a derivatives broker, and Band’s advisory firm, Teneo, than published reports about Bill Clinton’s infidelity. “I realize it is difficult to confront and reason with her but this could go (too) far and then we all will have a real serious set of other problems,” Band vented in an exchange sent to Podesta. “I don’t deserve this from her and deserve a tad more respect. ... She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she’s doing because she, as she has said, hasn’t found her way and has a lack of focus in her life.” The emails reflect the ascendance of Chelsea Clinton - as early as 2011 - inside the family charity. The younger Clinton was recently was anointed as the Clinton Foundation’s future leader if her mother wins the presidency next month. Bill Clinton announced in August that he planned to step down from the charity’s board if his wife becomes president. Chelsea Clinton will remain on the organization’s board. Bill Clinton explained in a letter to supporters in August that he would resign and stop raising funds for the charity to eliminate “legitimate concerns about potential conflicts of interest.” Calls seeking comment from the Clinton Foundation and from Teneo, where Band works, received no response Monday. Also in December 2011, Clinton Foundation chief operating officer Laura Graham contacted Band to complain that stress she blamed on the former president and Chelsea Clinton was causing her to consider suicide. Band wrote that when Graham called him, she was in her car parked near the water with her foot on the gas pedal. He said he dissuaded her from hurting herself. “She called me to tell me the stress of all of this office crap with wjc and cvc as well as that of her family had driven her to the edge and she couldn’t take it anymore,” Band wrote in an email to Podesta and Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff. Graham later departed the Clinton Foundation, taking a new job with the Empire State Development Corporation. Phone messages left for Graham on Monday received no response. © 2016 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


As we are writing this, Donald Trump is clothed in his war regalia as he prepares for a battle with the judiciary, the press, the CIA and probably innocent Americans. The good news is that we have a powerful and high-ranking military officer is not going to let Trump oppress the world. Air Force Chief of Staff Dave Goldfein may not have called Trump out directly, but his words are pointed at the president. In his interview with the press, Goldfein didn’t spare words of wisdom that Trump should better listen to. Earlier this week, President Trump aka ‘Orange Tyrant’ was at the MacDill Air Force Base to give his ridiculous and meaningless speeches. Imagine what he told the military officers who left what they should be doing to listen to him if they don’t like him, he is not going to like them. Barely a day after the president made this comment; Goldfein apparently seemed to implicitly attack what the president said. He said that “This is a great opportunity to step back and remind ourselves and the American people of the oath we take as members of the military.” Goldfein said that the oath they too and they always retake every time they were promoted was to defend and support the American Constitution against any enemy both in the domestic and foreign arena. By design, these military officers do not pledge to defend or support any leader or party because they are apolitical. The military is not too friendly with the president according to Goldfein, one day; the military may be protecting the people from Trump. Goldfein indirectly criticized the disastrous raid in Yemen authorized by Trump, the assurance of Trump that the SEAL was going to have a field only pointed out that he was a local fish without the experience of swimming in the international waters. One of the things that Goldfein is proud of is the fact that the military cannot lose sight that they go to war with their values. People who are critical of the efforts that the military undertakes each day to stop causalities are not aware of who the military are. Indeed, Goldfein is a true patriot who defends the real values of American. We are happy with the service that he is offering passionately to our country to ensure that our ideals are maintained. It doesn’t look like the upper class of the military really like Trump. They have rejected the requested Trump made for the military to go for the fascist-style military parade for his Inauguration Day. Americans need patriots like Goldfein. It is time for each one of us to stand up.


(ThyBlackMan.com) Even though I am black, I was raised on Superman’s; truth, justice and the American way. I always believed Americans were the world’s good guys. As a kid, I watched my mom cry over “I Love Lucy” TV stars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz getting a divorce. I remember our entire family, mom, dad and five kids gathered around our single television; nail-biting tension in the air as we nervously awaited the final out for our Baltimore Orioles to win the World’s Series over the Pittsburgh Pirates. Despite our country’s racial issues, we patriotically embraced the distinct American culture. We were Americans. When President JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country“, I believe a majority of Americans agreed with him. For years, I sang my song, “Celebrate America” http://bit.ly/2h0Swyv at Naturalization Oath of Allegiance Ceremonies. I thought it was pretty cool that mine was the first song new Americans heard after taking their oath of allegiance. I witnessed thousands of immigrants who jumped through all the hoops, learned our language and history and tearfully pledged their allegiance. I still remember a gentleman who appeared to be in his 90s, raised to his feet from a wheelchair by a grandchild on each arm. Their entire family wept as he took his oath. Clearly, it meant something extremely special to become an American. It pained me deeply watching Obama lower the bar, redefining and dumbing down what it means to be an American. Obama rolled out the red carpet welcoming tens of thousands of illegals to invade our country for welfare benefits; even benefits unavailable to American citizens. http://washex.am/2eL6TGl For immigrants legally becoming new citizens, Obama made pledging to defend our county optional. http://bit.ly/1MkmOmR Assuming Hillary would win the WH, Obama figured his illegal invaders would eventually be gifted voting rights. It did not matter to Obama that they had no desire to embrace our culture, respect our flag or learn to speak English. In essence, Barack Obama took the majestic shine off of becoming an American. The late queen of cosmetics, Mary Kay Ash said the speed of the leader is the speed of the gang. Unarguably, Obama’s disdain and disrespect for Americanism trickled down infecting our country. Public schools banned the singing of “God Bless the USA/Proud to be an America“. http://bit.ly/2mFeyFG Students were barred from wearing t-shirts to school featuring the U.S. flag on Cinco De Mayo http://fxn.ws/2ojaNGY, claiming it was hateful and insensitive to illegal Mexican students. Multimillionaire pro athletes refused to stand for our national anthem, proclaiming themselves victims of America. Their example of dissing our flag trickled down to high and middle school athletes across America. http://bbc.in/2uuuyAu Under Barack Obama, JFK’s words inspiring Americans to strive for excellence for the good of their country were thrown on the junk-heap of forgotten history. Obama’s new Americanism was about demonizing and punishing self-reliant achievers, pandering to lazy parasites and addicting as many Americans as possible to big government dependency. Due to decades of our Leftist controlled public schools abandoning teaching U.S. history, far too many Americans quickly surrendered their precious God-given and fought for freedom and liberty for a free Obama phone and his promise to Robin Hood the rich. Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Barack Obama actually launched an ad campaign begging illegals to apply for food stamps. http://dailym.ai/1PPPdR1 Using a Hispanic soap opera , Barack Obama told illegals that applying for as many U.S. government freebie programs as possible was the honorable thing to do for their families. http://bit.ly/2tH14AA It was also painful watching Barack Obama insidiously divide Americans into supposed victimized voting blocs; blacks, Hispanics, women, transgenders and so on. Suddenly, we became an entitlement-minded gimme-society; everyone running around claiming America abused them and therefore owed them a living. I kept thinking what the heck is going on. We are better than this. I wanted to scream from the roof tops, “This is not who we are. Darn it, we are AMERICANS!!!” In my song, “We Are Americans” http://bit.ly/1AIVqp6 , I ask my fellow Americans to repent and return to our founding principles. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Mark Levin recently penned a book in which he brilliantly articulated the source of my heartache for my country; the well-orchestrated cultural and moral decline of America. Levin’s book is titled, “Rediscovering Americanism And The Tyranny of Progressivism” http://amzn.to/2udTux9 The good news is Donald Trump winning the WH in an electoral landslide proves that despite decades of Leftists trying to convince Americans that we are the greatest source of evil in the world, the masses still love our country and long to see her made great again. And for that, I am extremely hopeful and grateful. Prayerfully, Trump will usher in us becoming Americans again. Staff Writer; Lloyd Marcus Chairman of The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama. Please help me spread my message by joining my Liberty Network. Lloyd is singer/songwriter of the American Tea Party Anthem and author of Confessions of a Black Conservative, foreword by Michele Malkin.